1981 04-06C~
•
AGENDA
Meridian City Council
April 6, 1981
ITEM:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Minutes of Special Meeting March 12, 1981 Approved
Minutes of Regular Meeting March 16, 1981 Approved
Settlers Village - Bill Blankinship
Motion carried that Commercial Lots 1, 2 &3, Block 1
be allowed ten (10) foot easement in the rear.
Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan Update
Planners with APA - Minter, Jarvis and Gerber
Pre-Termination Hearing - Water/Sewer/Trash Delinquencies
Motion Carried to Turn Off service 4.9.81
Bills Approved
Barton Construction Partial Payment Request
Motion Carried for Partial Payment $15,000
City Hall Remodel and Addition
Department Reports
Councilman Orton: Locust Grove Well
E. Carlton Water System Bid
• i
Pieridian Cit Hall A ril 6, 1481
Regular meeting called to order by h1ayor Joseph L. Glaisyer at 7:30 P.PO.
Councilmen Present: Richard billiams; Grant Kingsford; Bill brewer; Rick Orton Jr.
Others Present: Earl lJard; Vern Schoen; Bill Blankinship; Roger Welker;
Sheldon O. Gerber; Rick Jarvis; Bob Painter; Bruce Stuart; Ray Sotero;
Gerald Plattison (Valley News}; Gary Smith; Wayne Crookston
The minutes of Special h1eeting, P1arch 12, 1981 and Regular Fleeting, Plarch 16, 1981
were approved as read.
P.genda
1 Bill Blankinship was present representing Settlers Village
Blankinship: "Because of a change of ownership in part of Settlers Village Subdivision,
we did make some changes to accomodate the owner, Steve Hosac. hle acquired three (3)
lots in the Commercial section. lJe made a change on those lots, the back easement
from twenty (2) feet to ten (10) feet as it was originally. Steve has asked that the
Council acknowledge those changes and that they are aware of and accept all chances
of the Plat in formal action. The City Clerk wrote a letter accepting these changes
and essentially that is the letter we are asking to be placed in the minutes."
Richard Orton, Councilman: "41as it the ten or the twenty foot easement shown on the
map we have alread approved?"
Blankinship: "Twenty foot"
Orton: "Now you want it changed back?"
Blankinship: "Right. (Displaying map) The idea of the twenty foot easement is
because we did not know what these Commercial or Office units would be - we thought
twenty foot would be a good rear access to the units."
Williams: "An easement for access?"
Blankinship: "That's right"
Williams: "He want's a ten foot easement as it was originally"
Blankinship: "Ten foot was what it was way back when and it only affects these three
lots -you can see where we made the changes, Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. His intention
is to use these for office space rather than for some kind of a retail or something
that would require a rear access."
Kingsford: "Will you be able to have access to those next lots?"
Blankinship; "Yes we have the easement around - so we still have access."
Bill Brewer, Councilman: "How wide are those lots?"
Blankinship: "67 feet, roughly."
Brewer (to Fire Chief}: "What does that do to your Fire truck?"
Fire Chief Welker: "We just wont be able to get in there for fire protection"
The hiotion vacs made by Kingsford and seconded by Orton that Settlers Village
Commercial Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 be allowed to have a ten (10} foot easement in
the rear and as recorded in City Clerk's letter dated March 13, 1981."
Motion Carried: alilliams, yea; Kingsford, yea; Brewer, yea; Orton, yea
Agenda Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan Update - Planners with APA
2
Robert F. Minter, Rick Jarvis and Sheldon D. Gerber were present to discuss the
updated population projection figures and corresponding 20-year sewer service area.
The plan will update the initial 208 Plan.
Pointer: "We have submitted packets to you with a background summary of your
central sewer facility plan, that we will cover with you -and second we would like
to cover the procedure for amending your facility plan boundary population projections,
and third we would like to review and see if you have any coraments on the municipal
waste treatment and management planning policies."
"Basically, Ada Planning Association has developed an Areawide Wastewater Management Plan
in 1978 and adopted by the County Commissioners in 1978 and is in process of
developing a Wastewater Panagement Flan for Ada and Canyon Counties. Part of that
areawide wastewater plan involved a central sewer plan summary of all the facility
plans in Ada and Canyon Counties. '.le have recently completed a Wastewater Management
Plan that has been adopted by Central District Health Dept. and the Ada Planning
Association - the next step involves adoption by the P.da County Commissioners.
The Plan will involve the rural area, primarily of the County but also will apply
inside the central sewer planning area and deals directly with on-site waste disposal
systems, The primary element of that plan will spell out Southwest Boise community.
~~
Meridian Citv Hall .2. April 6, 1981
Robert F. Minter:
"This is currently before the Health District for implementation and briefly it is
a voluntary operation and maintenance plan. Presented to you in the past are some
options for the Southwest Community and there is a long history of what we were and
what we ended up with. The Central sewer was not found to be acceptable and we
ended up with a voluntary operation maintenance plan."
"Tonight what we would like to deal with is Meridian Central Sewer Plan. We have
currently in process three (3) Central sewer plans being updated in Ada County.
Star Sewer and Water District, Eagle Sewer and Water District and the City of Boise.
The rest of the Central Sewer Plans have been adopted in previous years and are
fairly current. 4Je would like to ask you tonight if we have summarized your facility
plan properly and if not, any corrections you give to us we will be happy to incorpor-
ate into the Plan Update."
"I would like to point out that sometimes this is referred to as Domestic Wastewater
Management Plan for Ada County, because it deals with the waste generated through
the sewage treatment plants or onsite waste disposal plants. It's not involving
Industrial wastes or Commercial wastes other than that directly falling out of
Central sewer plants, which in some cases have pretreatment requirements and so forth.
We hope to have this particular plan in draft form and presented at Public Flearing
later this Spring, preferably early June. Before we go to Public Flearing we will
be back in front of you, back with the plan which you will be able to see those
elements that apply to heridian as well as those summary elements on the other
Central facility Plans in the Rural area. We already have the Rural area pretty
well completed - adopted in two parts, the operation maintenance plan and
the rural element policies that went to hearing last summer and that primarily deals
with ordinances to be consistent with Health District rules and regulations and
State of Idaho regulations governing onsite waste disposal systems."
"Item 1, background information, Rick Jarvis has been coordinating with h1r.Ward and Mr.
Smith, your City Engineer, and I believe talked to Rick Orton as well, concerning
the interpretation - summary if you will - of the facility plan. What we are trying
to do is bring the central sewer plans up to date in a summary fashion so the
municipal plan can summarize all of the facility plans under one cover. We are not
trying to reinvent the wheel or reinterpretyuur plans to any significant degree,
just simply summarize them to make sure the input tonight is 'is the summary adequate?"
also get further clarification from you tonight on your sewer service boundaries."
"In reviewing some of your previous minutes from your meetings, we find that you are
struggling with expansion of your central sewers - where you can serve areas where
lift stations are concerned, capacity and so forth. So that's really what we are
trying to accomplish under item 1 -find out what you consider your 20-year sewer
service area. The municipal waste plan update will try to bring all the facility plans
in line to a projection for the .year 2000. Population projection for Meridian's
Facility Plan is 21,500, I believe for 1.993 projection... the demographic employment
report that APA has adopted and is using for making projections for various sewer
districts in other counties has a population of 20>562 for 1995. There is a little
bit of difference but not enough to be concerned about. We would like to have a
year 2000 projection. You .are about 4500 more than when you currently projected for
seven years.."
Minter summarized the outline at this time, making a correction upon the last page,
Page 5, Section 7. Areawide Planning Agency Recommendations to "3.7 people per
acre". (Municipal Wastewater Segment outline is on file with these minutes)
Minter pointed out that if the 3.7 persons per acre is calculated over the 12 square-
mile area, the design capacity of the system should have been 28,400 people. The
City projection was 21,500.
Minter: "6de are open for any suggestions for adjustments on that boundary. We will
be going to hearing with the Municipal Waste Plan Update and if you choose to ammend
your boundaries we can probably use that hearing as the formal notification for input
on proposed change, so that you don't have to have another hearing - I don't see any
problem with EPA or the State at all."
Richard Williams: "So I would say if we don't make any significant change we don't
have to have a hearing at all. I went through this with EPA about a year and a half
ago."
Minter: "That may be true. I don't know what a significant change would be.
Things you might want to keep irr mind - one, your population projection - you
probably want to stay pretty close to what you have now> adjusted for the year
2000 if possible. Also, for the square mileage or the area that you have in the
adopted facility plan. As I recall in some of your minutes and from some of the
other people you do have an annexed area south outside of your sewer area
Merida Hall .3. April 6. 1981
hlinter (APA)
south of the Interstate or Overland and also one over here (indicating Locust Grove
Industrial Park} that you have taken action on. Those are outside of the 201 boundary.
Any adjustment you want to make inside your service area as you have projected here,
would be consistent with your Comp Plan and o-ae could pick up some deletions if you so
desire. Se when we have an adopted plan that APA acts on, and the County acts on,
and come back in front of you people for conurrence and adoption of that facility
plan - that's the entire County plau."
Mayor Glaisyer: "Bob, how often is this plan updated?"
Minter: "This is the first time it has been updated since the initial plan was
prepared in 1978. Actually the reason the municipal plan is being updated is because
in the initial plan no rural management plan was developed for the rural areas.
Secondly,the southwest community area really needed attention."
Mayor: "Are they going to let the City of Meridian make .any changes or change the
boundary any time we desire?"
Alinter: ""Jot unless you are consistent with the policies adopted in the areawide
plan. There is a policy in there that any modifications have to be incurring by the
areawide planning agency and by the adjacent entities that are affected by the change."
Mayor: "What happens if the City of Meridian doesn't agree with that?"
hlinter: "We are not making the change, you people are making the change. Then it's
reviewed by entities that might be affected incurring by the APA Board•~~
Mayor: "4Jhat happens if the APA Board outvotes Meridian again? I've never won there
yet."
Minter: "Well, what we intend here is to have an areawide plan which is adoptable and
implementable by a responsible jurisdictions. You people are the responsible
management agencies, the State in working with you are responsible for simple sewer
planning - we are simply responsible for areawide wastewater planning-- we are not doing
the 201 Plans. I think your projections in your service area are consistent and
compatable at this time without making any recommendations for any changes - we simply
here to ask if you would like to have anything different in the update."
Mayor: "I have some problem with the boundaries, as far as the projection of population
I don't have any problem with it. I'm more inclined to go with the Meridian Comp Plan
Urban Service Planning Area than what we devised in 1976."
Councilman Williams: "The thing about that Urban Service Planning Area is that we
outlined 3.5 units per acre, we come up with a population equivalency of 36,000 people."
Mayor Glaisyer: "Is that part in the Overland and Linder area gravity flow?"
Williams: "Someday will be - up to Ten P1ile, down Ten Mile. But the other point is
that easterly boundary along Eagle Road, there is a couple of square miles that we will
never get sewer to. For example Overland and Franklin, Eagle and Locust Grove is a
developed Subdivision area. I'm sure those people are not going to be thrilled about
putting interim sewer at this point of time."
Councilman Orton: "To back up just a couple of squares - in 1976 I was involved in
setting that first boundary, with the old Council, and initally we were dealing with
nine (9) square miles and we set the population projection at 21,500. Between the City,
P.da County and Environmental Protection Agency it vas decided to enlarge that three (3)
miles west. In reviewing our population projections there was a conscience decision on
the part of the Council and EPA at that point, to leave the 21,500 as the population
projection recognizing that all of twelve (12) square miles would not fill in by 1990.
That same logic can be carried forward whether it happens to be 12 sq. miles - 13 or
12 1/2 sq. miles, I think."
Williams: "But now we are up to 18"
Orton: "What does the red indicate in square miles?" (Indicating map displayed)
Sheldon Gerber: "Probably 17 or 18 sq. miles."
Orton: "That would be stretching it."
Williams: "There was some discussion when Meridian Greens came in whether they were
included in Urban Service Planning -.the definition said Overland Road but it was
nebulous how far south of Overland you can go. It's the same thins with Locust Grove
area - I think we could stretch to get it in, I think we should include those. Up
it up to 18 square miles and really materially affect some development around there.
You know full well that we will never serve them with sewer. It's the same with that
Southwest corner, that Black Cat, Ten Mile, Overland and Franklin - that's not going
to be on the sewer, and we are foolish to think that."
Orton: "5dhat is the time limit that we are working under - how quickly are you looking
for a recommendation on a change for our Urban Service Planning Area?"
..= z:~:a __ .
leridian City Hal l 4. April 6 1981
Flinter: "Well, the summary on the five facility plans are being issued to the
Advisory Committee for their meeting on the 14th. As far as you modifying your
boundary - probably within a month."
Mayor: "ode wouldn't have any problem with that would we?"
Orton: "PJo, I don't think we would."
4illiams: "We've talked about this for about three years anyway - about doing it."
Flinter: "I am not sure of the specific requirements of EPA are so in planning that
you have a twenty year service area specified.. As far as the boundary adjustments
we are going to be discussing with you shortly the process we would like to see
the Municipality Sevrer District adopt, and the County adopt. Particularly the
boundaries. At the same time the boundaries are amended you may be able to adjust
population. It can be a difficult thing in some cases because we are dealing with
traffic zones, allocations, air planning and transportation analysis. 6Jhat I
suggest you look at is -you are trying to provide sewer maybe to the south and east
where there is gravity flow and get away from lift stations. If you do amend this
black boundary which is in the adopted 201 Plan, and the 208 Plan as it stands now,
it would be best to have one that can be easily described, boundaries like roads, etc..
I think the easiest thing to do is to amend your sewer service area so we can reflect
that in the Flunicipal Plan Update. Within your red boundary, which is already in your
adopted Comprehensive Plan Urban Service Planning Area, pull it in to an area you can
serve."
Kingsford: "Bob, you mentioned that the boundaries should follow roads to be easily
defined. Some time ago we discussed the number of groups of economics of having
it be on a quarter section line since they are in the right-of-way."
t•Jilliams: "It's typical to have a major trunk line going down the road and you can't
serve the guy across the street,"
Minter; "If have that in every case anyway."
Flinter: "For your development review,and the people coming in before you, there is an
adopted plan that you are following, there is an amendment process and we are trying
to simplify that process. So on a annual basis you can take a look at any proposals
to amend your Comprehensive Plan, any issues that have to be dealt with, and then
follow through with amending the 201 boundary if it's needed."
Mayor Glaisyer: "So your proposal for amending -your going to ask that all agencies
amend only once a year?"
Minter: "We haven't made that recommendation. The County Comprehensive Plan can be
amended every six months."
Mayor: "Our Comprehensive Plan can be amended every six months so this would be the
same."
Minter: "For an example, let's say you have a proposal outside your Urban Service Area.
You would deal with that with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and at that time
then deal with the other services that have to come along with that development -
your schools, police protection etc. At that same time take a look at additional
hookups to your facility. After that's dealt with there is a hearing process that is
a simple matter of notification and we would simply process it with the APA Board
and EPA and required to amend your 201 boundary. If it's found you are going to do
that, if it's feasible, economical, etc."
Orton: "Who determines if it's feasible, economical and etc. - Whose mercy are we at?"
Minter: "The people that you deal with in amending the Comprehensive Plan, primarily
the jurisdiction provides special services in those areas. That's the way the County
operates it now and that is the way we would like everyone to follow the same type of
process."
Williams: "F1eridian provides all our own services so we don't have a situation like
Cagle does."
Councilman Brewer: "I know we have to play according to the rules but it upsets me
to know that we have to even go through. a thing like this - as clean as we are here
and now we have that dump out there to the southwest - I hope they are being watched
as close as we are."
4illiams: "This situation, Bill, concerns planning area and will give developers a
little better feel about what services are going to be available for them from the
City of Meridian in the next twenty years. And if they are outside of that area
I think it would be reasonable to assume that we are not going provide or have sewer
available for them, But people within that area can be 99/ certain that it will be
available to them - they may have to run a line 4 miles but it will be available if
they want it. I think most developers are going to apreciate that."
Flinter: "We will be happy to meet with you and work out some boundaries - give some
guidance to you anyway. The Advisory Committee hasn't gotten into this, we will be
explaining to them what the current plan reflects and what your intentions and input
is tonioht, at their next meeting."
idian City Hall .5.
Minter: "The other option is to leave as is, we reflect it in the plan we are about
to finalize within the next three months - then as you amend it you come through the
process."
Williams: "I would like to recommend that our Planning and Zoning people be involved
in this process."
Mayor Glaisyer: "We could have a joint session and work up the boundaries, send our
map to Bob and do it right the first time."
Sheldon Gerber: "I noticed in the write up in your facilities plan 3.7 people per
acre when usually we would be talking about 3 to ~ dwellings per acre in a sewered area.
You might want to take that into consideration when you are looking at the boundary
changes, what the holding capacity would be in the 12 square miles, or whatever you
finally decide upon."
Minter distributed Draft copies of lJrban Service Area Amendment Procedures
On file with these minutes
Sheldon Gerber: "Ada County right now has specified within a proper plan of process
amending the Comprehensive Plan and mainly this is because the County deals with
rural areas. There are a number of people that would like to develop a rural area
with higher intensive uses. It's one of the few Comprehensive Plans around that has
a specific process specified. When the Governor proposed amendments to the Local
Planning Act he indicated preference to each jurisdiction having their own process
specified in their Comprehensive Plan. You now have one so all we use is a general
guidelines that are in the Local Planning Act. First of all, establish concensus with
the various agencies that provide services in a certain area. In P1eridian's case you
would be talking to your various Department Fleads to find out if the services can be
provided. Then begin the process to amend your Comprehensive Plan, go through the
evaluation process, hearings by the Planning and Zoning Commission, eventually a
recommendation to the City Council, hearing by the City Council. During the evaluation
process and amendment hopefully you will be keeping APA Staff informed so we could be
informing the County Planning Commission and APA Board of your changes - this provides
input, if it is necessary, on certain pieces of information that might be useful to
you -and then feed that back into your process so you could take into consideration.
When you finally get an approved amendment then there would be a request for Ada County
to amend it's Comprehensive Plan in accordance with that. There would be an Area of
Impact Agreement hopefully in the future or the County Comprehensive Plan. Then with
the approval of the Amendment it would go to the APA Board, they would incur on the
change for the Sewer Service Planning Area Boundary which is a part of your Urban
Service Planning Area designation, that would be routed through EPA, the Idaho Dept.
of Itealth and Welfare for final approval. Basically what we are trying to do is
dovetail the sewer service planning area concept change into your existing process
for amending the Comprehensive Plan and make it as simple as possible. Your Facilities
Plan was prepared in 1977 and your Comprehensive Plan in 1478 and there were
discrepancies between the two."
Mayor Glaisyer: "When are you planning on acting upon this?"
Gerber: "This is going to be a recommended process -"
Minter; "It's going to be a process included in the Areawide Wastewater Update,
it basically has to start with the Comprehensive Plan. I haven't set a date as yet
for a Hearing on Municipal Plan."
Minter: "The last thing I want to discuss is the policies that are in the initial plan.
There are eight policies as before you and I will be happy to answer any questions or
interpret." "The County has adopted the initial 208 Plan and that's where APA is
providing direct planning services to the County after reviewing sewer plans of the
area to make sure they are consistent with the areawide plan. These policies are
being followed by the County (referring to outline but there are a couple that have
never been acted upon such as Policy 7, Policy 8 is proposed to be amended, and
a modification to Policy Number 3 -last line "requirement be retained as a NPDES permit
requirement to reduce treatment cost to other facility users and ensure adequate
treatment of such waste --" "Policy 2 may be modified to include the procedure"
Minter called for any questions and as there were none, thanked the Council and left
the Chamber at this time.
Agenda Termination Hearing - Water/Sewer/Trash Delinquencies
3
Mayor; "The hearing is now open and this is to inform you that you have a right to
a pre-termination hearing 7:30 P.M. April 6, 1981 before the Mayor and Council and to
appear in person to be judged on facts and defend the claim made by the City that your
water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. This service will
be discontinued Apirl 9, 1981 unless payment is received in full."
Meridian City Hall .6. April 6, 1981
Mayor Glaisyer: "Is there anybody from the public that wishes to appeal their
water service being turned off?" There were none. They are hereby informed
that they may appeal or have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial
District Court, Pursuant to Idaho Code. Even though they appeal the water will be
shut off."
The D1otion was made by Williams and seconded by Kingsford that the delinquent water,
sewer and trash users have their water turned off until the City bill is paid.
Motion Carried: Williams, yea; Kingsford, yea; Brewer, yea; Orton, yea
Agenda gills were read.
4
The Idotion was made by Kingsford and seconded by Williams that the bills be allowed.
Motion Carried: 4illiams, yea; Brewer, yea; Kingsford, yea; Orton, yea
Agenda Barton Construction Inc. Partial Pa
5 yment Request - City Hall Remodel and Addition
Mayor: "I have a bill from Barton Construction for $23,404.27 that takes it up to
now. Here is a list of change orders .totaling 1,267.27, our contract sum is
$25,404.27 so we would retain about $2,000.00"
Williams: "Would that cover what we need to finish up?"
Mayor: "All that is left is paint and carpet"
Orton: "If the work isn't done I would strongly recommend that we don't pay
everything, even though we have a bond - bonds are extremely hard, in my experience,
to get ahold of ."
Williams: "We would have a retainage of 10%"
Orton: "Is that enough to get it done?"
Mayor: "I would think it would be adequate"
4illiams: "I would move that we pay Barton Construction $23,404.27 and transfer
the funds from the Federal Revenue Account"
City Clerk: "How much?"
Mayor: "23,404.27"
City Clerk: "I have a question. In the original bid they were to relocate the
heat pump and they did not, some say it could amount to as much as $',000 -$3,000,
also they were to include in that bid the painting of the east wall, which they are
not going to do. They have moved a wall which is true, but wasn't finished -just
stubbed in, no wiring -moved it over five feet, and yet they haven't given us credit
on four (4) feet of cabinet. So where does all this credit come in - the original
bid was only $24,137.00 - they didn't relocate the furnace and they are not painting
the east wall,"
Mayor: "We agreed not to paint the east wall."
City Clerk: "That's true - but I understood that this had to be in that bid -
we told them all to go ahead and bid the whole building as in the specs"
~9ayor: "Vernon, any comments?"
Schoen: "The furnace is supposed to be moved. I looked up there today and sets
way back so the pipes would be stretched out to the new addition"
City Clerk: "Ferdinand and Wheeler I-leating both felt it would be sufficient and not
have to be relocated but they still haven't put a thermostat in so we can't test our
heating in there - the way it feels in there now I don't think it is going to be
adequate. My point is I feel that this is too much money when they still haven't
relocated the heat pump - in my simple mind I don't understand how they can include
sandblasting, painting the east wall, relocating the furnace and we should have a
credit in there - and I question the charge on fixing the door, if they are contractors
they should have picked that up anyway. If they need to put in a new door why are
they charging us extra for knocking out some block in order to make it fit?"
Lilliams: "I withdraw my Motion"
Mayor Glaisyer: "Motion withdrawn"
City Clerk: "I will feel badly in this respect - they are going to need some money
but not that much"
Mayor: "I suggest we hold it and make a list -"
Clerk; "If they would put a thermostat so we could see what the furnace is doing"
Schoen: "I turned the heat way up in here to see what it would do in there - it
was 75° in here and it didn't feel that warm in there - you will have to shut these
registers in order to get that to heat in there."
Kingsford: "If the specifications calls for moving the furnace, what's the logic
in not moving it - just that the furnace people said it wasn't needed?"
Clerk: "He said it eras adequate, it wouldn't need to be relocated"
Orton: "We might reject this request for payment and pay him a lessor sum that has
11
1 6, 1981
adequate net left in it to cover the items and negotiate with him on the items left."
Clerk: "He (Contractor Jordon) had an Electrician that did a very good job and we
have no complaints, they have done their job and I hate to see them suffer - I think
he saw Joe today and said he needed to meet a payroll. It's not our fault, but -"
Orton.: "Just to keep things moving forward I would suggest we pay him $15,000 and
that would certainly pay his materials and would leave enough in there where we would
be certain not to have trouble on the furnace"
The Motion was made by Orton. and seconded by Williams to pay Barton Construction Inc.
$15,000 transferring the funds from the Federal Revenue Account and instruct the Mayor
to negotiate on these items of construction.
Motion Carried: Williams, yea; Kingsford, yea; Orton, yea; Brewer, yea.
Flgenda
6 Department Reports:
Councilman Orton: "Joe, I called you Friday and told you that the people of Locust
Grove Industrial Park had a well they wanted us to look at with the idea we might be
able to purchase or negotiate someway with them to incorporate that well into our
domestic system. They didn't make a direct monetary offer, they indicated they had
about $30,200 in the well and would like to recover 80% of that. After looking at
the well and talking to Gary and Bruce, there is a couple of natters. First of all
the Council should be aware that in our peak month last year we used about 34% of
our domestic well capacity of all 4 major wells - that's just considering the four
major wells, our primary source. If you were. to take one well out as standby so you
could say we had realiability all the time, we would be using about 52% of the
remaining wells. But none the less I think if we could pick this well up
and it does meet some conditions it would be a very good buy for the City, in that
price range. As you remember our last wells cost us about $132,000 - $140,000.
The conditions that I would recommend to the Council include in their negotiating,
if they select to negotiate on this well, are (1) a series of tests should be run
on the water quality - at least one full chemical test, six months of coliform or
bacterial tests, and (2) we should certainly have adequate easements into the site
and the 100 by 100 foot lot required by the State. (3) I believe we should make
them get State Health and llelfare approval of the well for domestic use, and after
they get approval the Council should be aware that there would be some expense
plugging that into our system. It is very hard to make an estimate of that expense but
in conjunction with Bruce and Gary I think our best estimate is in the range of low
about $15,000,and pending on what we do with a building, a high about $55,000."
Kingsford: "What is it's capacity, in comparison with the wells we have currently?"
Orton: "It will produce about 700 and some odd gallons per minute which puts it in
range with our other wells. The actual well itself could probably produce more, we
have to get the pump curved and look at how it works with our system - but I believe
around 750 gpm."
4illiams: "The developer will still put in the water lines?"
Orton: "Yes, this discussion only involved that well as it sits."
Williars: ""done of the lines that would ao into the Subdivision, or to it?"
Kingsford: "How it affect their Engineering if we were to think about doing it now
versus after he were to put those lines in?"
Orton: "Wouln't change it at all. Fle is putting in the oversized lines out to the
Subdivision and 8" in the Subdivision which is adequate to move that amount of water.
Eventually we will be looped out there, down Franklin - but even now it wouldn't be
a serious problem to incorporate the well."
Engineer Smith: "He started that today - his water extension."
Orton: "I would like to go over the water system bids and bring the Council up to date
on that. We have received six responsive bids on the small water project on E. Carlton,
The low responsive bidder was Dean Crane Construction at $7,618.50. After talking to
of the Council members I notified Mr. Crane that he was low responsive bidder
and asked him to produce his performance bond in a effort to get the contract awarded.
He had ten days to produce those bonds and it has been ten days, we wrote him a letter
today asking him to produce no later than Wednesday, 4:00 P.t~1. so we can get the
project going. If he does not produce our recourse would be on his bid security as
described in the advertisement - he did give us a cashiers check. The next low if
Mr. Crane does not produce his performance bond would be Traylor Construction here in
P1eridian at $8,897.23. My proposal would be to award him (Traylor) if this other
Construction doesn't produce by Wednesday."
There being no other business to come before the CouryCi the Motion was made by
Kingsferd and seconded by Brewer that the meeting adjo n. Ri i C ried: All yea
attest: rr,,~~,,.. ~ r ~'
Citv C1ero~E" %t` ~~il~s>~~.~~~ OR, osen L. Gla s------~~^=^y-
~-
Meridian City Nall • ~ April 6, 1981
Date
3-10-81
3-19-81
3-27-81
3-27-81
3-27-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-30-81
3-31-81
3-31-81
3-31-81
3-31-81
3-31-81
3-31-81
4-8-81
3-31-81
3-31-81
3-31-81
3-31-81
3-31-81
3-31-81
3-31-81
3-31-81
3-31-81
3-31-81
3-31-81
3-31-81
Idaho First National Bank
Idaho First National Bank
Terry L. Tipton
Ann M. Kiebert
Farmers and Merchants
Gary Smith
Joseph L. Glaisyer
Bill G. Brewer
Grant Paul Kiriysford
Rick Orton
Richard C. 4tilliams
LaWana L. Niemann
Mary Jane Harper
Tamera Perkins
Judy Ann Byers
Candy Fiall
Carol Ann Brown
Elaine Barbara Ward
John 0. Fitzgerald
Jean E. Moore
Rick L. Richardson
Norman W. 4Jilliams
Dennis James Estes
Kevin Dale kobertson
VOID
Mark Steven Shaver
Gene W. Trakel
Richard Doug Nichols
Alfred R. Thorusen
Richard P. Donahue
Roger L. 4lelke~°
Raymond L. Voss
Bruce D. Stuart
Dewey Richard Davis
Mark Louis Aguirre
Gregory Brent Walker
Carol Schultz
VOID
Lana Sue Peoples
Elaine Town
Judy M. Blessing
(John) Earl 4lard
Robert Keith Boyd
Fredrick Putzier
Dan D. ~Grogg
Kris I:. Jennison
Robert J. Parsons, Jr.
Idaho First fational bank
Ada County Sheriff's
Farmers and Merchants State
Social Security Trust Fund
City of Meridian
Jim Bentley, Jr.
Vern Schoen
U.S. Post Office
State of Idaho
Association of Idaho Cities
Colonial Insurance
Public Employee Retirement
Ace Hardware
Ada Planning Association
Allied Envelope
Bank
Purpose Amount
2,078.80
76,314.64
Police 944.18
Treasurer 1,012.06
150,000.00
Engineer 1.00
Mayor 526.08
Councilman 81.18
Councilman 88.68
Councilman 88.68
Councilman 88.68
City Clerk 936.05
Clerk Typist 617.80
Clerk Typist 446.69
Clerk Typist 413.15
Clerk Typist 272.11
Clerk Typist 353.45
Clerk Typist 51.81
Attorney 147.67
Clerk Typist 555.30
Police 865.97
Police 907.22
Police 749.56
Police 870.62
System of Idaho
Ambrose, Fitzgerald, Crookston & McLam
Amfac Electric Supply Co.
Big 0 Tires
Bodine Oil Co.
Robert Keith Boyd
Police 763.54
Police 700.48
Police 993.60
Police 692.27
Dog Catcher 542.45
Fire Chief 197.44
Fire Marshall 835.71
Works 7,030.61
Works 799.52
Works 684.05
Works 557.24
Clerk Typist 321.89
Clerk Typist
Clerk Typist
Clerk Typist
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Service
Janitor
Bldg. Insp
Postage
Income Tax
Supplies
Supplies
Attorney
Supplies
Supplies
Supplies
Training
525.12
470.06
272.85
1,188.35
814.68
780.10
657.69
731.87
694.94
8,932.54
124.95
3,707.10
4,461.41
87.06
200.00
487.65
273.00
977.45
2,578.49
829.45
4,817.18
27.36
725.00
33.78
3,423.75
53.72
26.50
2,795.45
20.00
idian City Hall April 6, 7981
cher Date Purpose Amount
28 3-31-81 :Brewer Pest Control Service 8.50
29 3-31-81 Cascade Fence Co., Inc. Supplies 1,500.00
30 3-31-81 Central Office Equipment Supplies 14.63
31 3-31-81 City of Boise - Communications Division Service 170.80
32 3-31-81 City of Meridian 115.60
33 3-31-81 Creed Laboratories Supplies 11.25
34 3-31-81 Culligan Water Conditioning Service 98.00
35 3-31-81 Datafax Business Equipment Supplies 69.00
36 3-31-81 Don's Shell Service Supplies 176.25
37 3-31-81 Du-rite Nursery Supplies 104.00
38 3-31-81 Evans Lumber Company Supplies 9.10
39 3-31-81 Farmer Brothers Coffee Supplies 107.30
?0 3-31-81 Foodtown Supplies 19.00
41 3-31-81 Frontier Tire Supplies 220.92
?2 3-31-81 Gem Electril Supply Supplies 44.44
?3 3-31-81 Giesler Auto Repair Supplies 11.10
?4 3-31-81 Hach Chemical Co. Supplies 37.48
?5 3-31-81 Hoff Building Center Supplies 13.65
?6 3-31-81 Idaho Business Forms Supplies 1,315.23
?7 3-31-81 Idaho Dept. of Helath and Welfare Service 30.00
?8 3-31-81 Idaho Medical Oxygen & Supply, Inc. Supplies 15.00
?9 3-31-81 Idaho Paging Service 99.90
50 3-31-81 Idaho Power Service 6,606.90
51 3-31-81 Idaho State Fire School Dues 25.00
52 3-31-81 Idaho Truck Tire Center, Inc. Supplies 133.26
53 3-31-81 Intermountain Gas Company Services 469.88
54 3-31-81 Intermountain Surgical Supply Supplies 69.43
55 3-31-81 J & D Printing Service 2.80
56 3-31-81 Kalbus Office Supply Supplies 272.02
57 3-31-81 Kimball Electronics Inc. Supplies 10.01
58 3-31-81 Lembke Heating Co. Service 32.50
59 3-31-81 Meridian Drug Supplies 6.90
60 3-31-81 Meridian Insurance Agency, Inc. Service 87.50
61 3-31-81 Meridian Ford Sales Service 981.96
62 3-31-81 Meridian Glass & Screen, Inc. Supplies 99.12
63 3-31-81 Meridian Lock & Key Supplies 12.80
64 3-31-81 f4orrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. Service 62.94
65 3-31-81 Mountain Bell Telephone Service 570.49
56 3-31-81 Mountain View Equipment Company, Inc. Supplies 3.00
57 3-31-81 Don C. tJielsen, Inc. Supplies 23.95
58 3-31-81 Paramount Supply Co. Supplies 3.05
69 3-31-81 VOID
70 3-31-81 Pay & Pack Supplies 70.06
71 3-31-81 Perma-Green Service 89.50
72 3-31-81 Quick Response Unit 324.00
73 3-31-81 Quick Response Unit Supplies 135.90
74 3-31-81 Roberts Construction, Inc. Supplies 3,350.00
75 3-31-81 S & E Auto Parts Supplies 66.18
76 3-31-81 Sassy Office Systems, Inc. Supplies 52.00
77 3-31-81 Sheehan's Supplies 5.50
78 3-31-81 Sprouse Reitz Stores Supplies 9.08
79 3-31-81 Starline Equipment Co. Supplies 24.61
30 3-31-81 Star Photo Service Supplies 5.91
31 3-31-81 State of Ida~~o Dept. of Labor & Ind. Services Service 926.60
32 3-31-81 Storey Feed & Seed Supplies 43.80
33 3-31-81 Sundance Dodge, Inc. Supplies 122.00
34 3-31-81 Tates Supplies 85.12
35 3-31-81 Technichem Corporation Supplies 98.40
36 3-31-81 Traffic Products & Service Co. Supplies 74.26
37 3-31-81 Valley flews Service 209.14
38 3-31-81 Van Gas Supplies 174.75
39 3-31-81 Water & Waste Water Equipment Co. Supplies 198.58
30 3-31-81 Zamzows Supplies 29.54
31 3-31-81 Zee Pledical Service Supplies 51.95
32 3-31-81 Zellerbach Paper Company Supplies 105.01
33 3-31-81 Boise Cascade Building Materials Center Supplies 55.94
34 3-31-81 G & B Ready Mixed Concrete Supplies 48.34
_ ~ • • MAR 2 3 1981
MEMORANDUM ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
650 Main Street
1 Boise, Idaho 83702
11 (208) 344-7600
~: Dick Williams, Ch.irman
Meridian City Council
FROM: Robert F. Minter, Fhvirorvnental Planning Director
RE: Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan Up3ate
DATE: March 19, 1981
Attached for your review and input is the Municipal Wastewater Segment outline
for your area, as summarized by us for incorporation into the Areawide Municipal
Waste Treatment Management Plan update for Ada County. We will be discussing
this material at your ne;;t meeting, scheduled for April 6. Tne major areas of
interest we have for updating your plan element will be related to the updated
population projection f~ures and corresporadirg 20-year sewer service area.
These surrrnaries are interxled to provide the basis for Chapter 6 of the final
Areawide Municipal Waste Management Plan report, to be presented to the Ada
Planning Association Board for concurrence later this spring. The plan will
update the initial 208 Plan, as it relates to projected central sewer planning
arad construction between now acrd the year 2000. The full report will include
any new recommendations or updates of the policies urxier the existing plan by
the Advisory Committee aryl, eventually, by the Ada Planning Association Board.
For your review and reference, we have also included a set of the existing poli-
cies under the adopted areawide plan. We will review with you these and any
modifications discussed by the Advisory Committee at the tune, of our meeting.
Should you have ar>,y questions or comments on the attached material, please con-
tact the at 344-7600, extension 270.
cc: rile 308.12
Attachments
RJ:RM:eh/MFRIllIAN
EOl1AL OPPORI UNITY/AFFIRiv1ATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
~-
CITY OF MERIDIAN
BACKGROUND HISTORY
The City of Meridian is a rapidly growing community, located about four
miles west of the City of Boise, in Ada County, Idaho. The current (1980)
population is approximately 6,654. The Meridian wastewater collection
system dates back to 1925 and the existing plant was built in 1979. The
current facility replaced a sewage treatment plant that was constructed in
1956. Tne old facility was replaced because of area growth aryl new environ-
mental regulations. Basically, the old treatment system could riot handle
the peak summer infiltration levels and had to bypass the excess flows
directly into Five Mile Creek. The facility was also outdated( ).
The City of Meridian engaged in a 1976 study effort under the 201 Facility
Planning process, to correct their treatment problem. The study resulte3 in
recommendations as to a means of correcting the problem in a cost-effective
manner. The study also resulted in a Twenty-Year Sewer Service Planning
Area for Meridian as outlined in the final (1976) draft of their Wastewater
Facilities Plan (Figure ). The Planning or "Sewer Service" Area
included the lard within the boundaries of Ustick Road to the north, Locust
Grove to the east, Overland Road to the south and Black Cat Road to the
west.
B. CENTRAL SEWER PLAN UPDATE
Proposed Ch es in Service Area
The Twenty-Year Planning Area, as outlined in the 1976 Meridian
Wastewater Facilities Plan, does conform with the 1977 Municipal Waste
Treatment Mangement Plan. Tnis refers to the 201 planning boundaries.
F~owever, the more recently adoptEd 1978 Meridian Comprehensive Plan has
i~licated a change to the Urban Service Planning Area as shown on
Figure This area is only generally outlined and has not been
specifically defined enough to determine area size or population
projections.
The City of Meridian has generally concluded that they expect develop-
ment to occur in a northwest/southeast direction which follows local
drainage patterns. It is, therefore, the objective of the City to have
the Urban Service Planning Area follow this general configuration.
However, it is important to define and recognize the larr] area and
population protections for both sewer and other service needs.
If the City of Meridian changes the Planning or "Sewer Service" area as
recognized in their 1976 Wastewater Facilities Plan, the new boundaries
should recognize the original treatment plant design concepts. Fbn
example, the 20-Year population protections indicate that 21,500 people
will be living in Meridian by 1993. It is, therefore, important that
the adtusted lard area be relatively close to the 12 square miles indi-
cated in the original plan. In addition, the plant has the ability to
treat 2.8 million gallons a day which would be the design capacity of
serving 21,500 people. The proposed Urban Service Planning Area would
•s
2
• MERIDIAN PLA"JPdifJr AREA •
1977 f4unicipal Waste Treatment Management Plan
~ 1978 Meridian Comprehensive Plan
__ _ __
~~~~ 1976 Meridian Facilities Plan
3
include 18 square miles or 33~ more lard area than what the original
treatment system was designed for assuming the population would
increase proportionately. It would, therefore, be important to limit
the Urban Service Planning Area to the original 12 square miles,
outlined in the facilities plan or a similar sized area with similar
growth/density assumptions.
2. Population Projection Adjustments
The population projections for the Meridian Plannirg Area is expected
to be approximately 21,500 people by the Year 1993.. This Twenty-Year
design population, as outlined in the 1976 Wastewater Facilities Plan,
represents flzture land densities of approixmately 3.7 persons per acre,
over the Project Planning Area. Further, that figure has been adopted
as a design criteria for this study and other planning efforts under-
taken by the City( ).
If' the 3.7 persons per acre is calculated over the 12 square-mile area,
the design capacity of the system should have been 28,400 people. It
appears that the Facilities Plan only designed the system for the ori-
ginal 9 square miles, excluding the three western sections. The
Facilities Plan indicated that following the initial planning efforts
the planning boundary had to be exterr]ed to the west. The additional
effort was necessary to accommodate projected long-term supplemental
growth. However, the population projections were not made for this
additional area.
The expanded Urban Service Planning Area, as shown in the 1978 Meridian
Canprehensive Plan arrl in Figure , indicate an exparr]ed area of
approxinately 6 square miles. If the 3.7 persons per acre criteria was
usEd for the expanded service area, the treatment system would be
expected to serve 42,600 people. The treatment system would be serving
twice as many people than what the system was design~l for originally.
In addition, 3.7 persons per acre is low density development rich may
be rather costly to serve by central sewers aril other related services.
It should, therefore, be noted that any change to the Meridian Urban
Service Planning Area should try to adhere to the original land acreage
of 12 square miles.
3. New Treatment Method
A new treatment system was constructed in 1979 to replace the system
constructed in 1956. The old system was incapable of harxiling existing
peak flows and could not meet current treatment requirements. The new
system was designed to treat 2.82 million gallons a day.
The treatment system uses a redwood media trickling method followed by
an aerated cell and secondary clarifiers. The effluent is then
polished, using sarrl filters. Tne effluent discharge will primarily be
an outfall to Five Mile Creek, up to the allowable loadings based upon
instream flows with the excess flows going to the Boise River.
4
The existing sewage collection system of Meridian is varied, dating
from 1925. Some of the older system is open Joint clay aryl cement
pipe. High groundwater during the irrigation season has resulted in a
high infiltration inflow problem. Tne infiltration/inflow analysis in
the facilities plan did indicate infiltration reduction would be
cost-effective. Tnis evaluation led to a $200,000 rehabilitation
program which was included as part of the original 3.1 mililion dollar
wastewater protect. Tne City will continue with upgrading outdated
collection lines as money becomes available.
4. Facility Cost Needs
The original protect indicated a two-phase development program with an
ultimate treating capacity of 2.77 milion gallons a day (MGD). ?his
approach was eliminates and the treatment plant was designed to a capa-
city of 2.82 MGD. Tnerefore, the main emphasis of the present
upgrading program will be to reduce the amount of infiltration/inflow.
The City of Meridian is currently reexamining the problem in an effort
to upgrade the pipage with the highest rate of infiltratiorl/irrflow.
This program is expected to see a 50~ reduction in the problem within
the next three to four years if the funds are available. At this time
(February 19$1) no specific cost-estimate can be determined until there
is a better understanding of the problem.
5. Schedule for Upgrading
The protect was completed in 1979 so there is basically no schedule for
system upgrading in the near future. Tnis situation will deperrl upon
development within the Meridian area. The City does, however, have an
ongoing program to reduce the amount of infiltration inflow entering
the system. Tne City currently has a goal of reducing this problem by
50~ within four years.
6. Relationship to Area Plans
The Planning Area outlined in the 1977 Municipal Waste Treatment
Management Plan is consistent with 20-Year Sewer Service area as
defined in the 1976 Meridian Facilities Plan. However, the Urban
Service Planning Area was charged in 1978 when Meridian adopted their
Comprehensive Plan. Zhere is some question as to what the boundaries
are because they were not specifically defined in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
The completion of the protect in 1979 should meet the needs of Meridian
to about 1993• `Ihe protect is therefore, meeting the obtectives aryl
goals of the Areawide Wastewater 4'fanagement Plan, through improvements '"
related to wastewater treatment and disposal.
i •
5
7. Areawide Planning enc Recommendations
The Twenty-Year Sewer Service Area boundary should be specifically
defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Since the population pro-
jection and design concepts were or inally based upon a nine square-
mile area at 3.7 people per s~~e~~e, any changes should keep these
concepts in mired. The final 12 square-mile area as outlined by the
1976 Meridian Wastewater Facilities Plan failed to increase its popula-
tion projections when the western three sections were added to the
Sewer Service Area.
It is, therefore, recommended that arty changes to the Sewer Service
Area be evaluatc~i as to the treatment capabilities of the sewage
systgn. `This basically means that the Urban Service Planning Area as
outlined by the Meridian Comprehensive Plan should consider being
approximately no larger than 12 square miles.
h
RJ : eh/MEf2IDIAN
03-02-81
The Ada Planning Association Board took the following action in recommending
adoption of the municipal waste treatment and management planning policies for
Ada County to the Ada/Canyon Areawide Waste Management Committee prior to sub-
mitting the final plan to the State of Idaho for certification.
CONTINUING MUNICIPAL WASTE PLANNING/COORDINATION AGENCY
Po.P,i,c Numbers 1: The Ada/Canyon Muni.ai.paZ waatewaten Management P.fan
ea.cg ens e Idaho Department ab Hea.B.th and (ueCbane ae .the chi.e6 conti.nu-
.tng p.P.ann.i.ng agency boh .the mun,i.ci.paZ waatewater. portion o4 .the 208 (Uateh.
QuaCity Managemewt P.Qan for Ada and Canyon Coun,ti.ea. I.t .%a expected
.that .the State w,iCP wor.h as cPoae2y as poaa.ibQe w.i.th koccc2 ab~~,ciaXa and
the.uc agents -in coordinating muni,ci.paP wcw~ewaten treatment prnjecta
within Ada and Canyon Counti.ea .in asawu.ng that .the beat ava,i.2ab2e .in6an-
mati.on .ia used .i.n the mwtiicipak ~aci.P.i,Liea p.eann,ing process.
DESIGNATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AGENCIES
PoCic Number 2: The Ada/Canyon bluwicipa.C waistewater. Management PQan
ea.cgna,tea citi.ea cwucentey prnv.iding mun,icipa.2 aewen aenvicea and
ae.C exi.a.ti.ng aeweh dia.tiu.etb as .the management agenci.eb X02 mun,i.cipa.2
wastewater .t~ceatment .in Ada and Canyon Coun~i.ea. No new apeaiae puli.-
poae sewers di,a.thiata w.iCC be des.i.gnated to hece,i.ve a.tate on ~edena.e
cona~u~.cti.on grant Sunda uneeaa dw,ing .the 6onmation ob the new sewers
dia.thi.ct adjacent cities, sewers di.ax~u:cta and .the county a.ZZ agree to .the
6ormati.on ob .the new disxJU.c,t. S.imiekn approvaP o6 adjacent cities,
aewe~c di,s~eta and .the county w~i.Y.e a2ao be requ,viced be5ore an ex.ia.ting
sewers di.a.thict .is aE2owed to hec2ive state and bedeha.Y cona.t~ucction grant
funds .to accomodate .the expana.ion ob -its ex.i.a.ti.ng diatn.ict baundcthies.
PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
Po.P.i.c Numbeh 3: The Ada/Canyon Mun.ic,i.pak wastewaters Management PPnn
hecommen as a grant condition o6 any conb.tncccti.on grant -in Ada and/or.
Canyon County, that each deb.ignated management agency asawce .that any
.i.ndus.t/~.iae and cammenai.a.2 di,acha>tgeh..ta .the.uc Sac,ieity wiE2 prov.i.de
pretreatment where necessary. It -i.e bwrthen recommended that Chia
requ.ucemen.t be retained as a NPi1ES permit requirement where necessary.
CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
Po.Cic Numbers 4: The Ada/Canyon Munici.pa.8 wastewater Management PPun
recommen t at admin,id.tJUCtion o5 .the cona.tructi.on grant program continue
to be a reapons.ib.i.City ob .the State. In .the abaence o~ an cviceaw.ide waste
.treatment coordi.nati,ng agency, .the State wi.C.P certiby Saci.~it%eb p?anb
and di.echarge pe~unitb as being cons.i.atant uzith .the approved 208 manage-
ment pRan bebore proceeding on any reP.ated grant acti.an.
•
CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS
Po2.ic Number 5: The Ada/Canyon Muni.ci.pak (vaa.tewaten Mavutgement PQan
necommen ~t .the Idaho Department o4 HeaCth and we,C6ane neZai.n .i,ta
cuhn.ent neapona.ib.iP.ity .to peJc6orm .the 6o.EP.owing pCanni.ng ac.t%v.i.ti.ea ne-
Qa.ted .to muru.ai.pa.C waa.tewaten..tneaxinent:
i) Waa.teCoad pnojecti.on nev.i.a.iona;
21 Tnea#nen.t needy evaR.cuction;
31 FaaiCiti.ea p~ eva£ua#,i.on;
41 water quaR.i.ty monitoring programa;
51 Pnojeet pn.i.oni.ty .~ia~t devee.opment;
61 E~~Cuent .Cimltati.on and waa.te,Coad
a,22ocati.on deve.2opment.
Conau?.tation by .the S.ta.te with koca.Z and cviceaw.i.de agenai.ea .is a.t~congby
encouraged .i,n an attempt .to have a,22 avai.QabPe .in6ormation utiCized .to
.the maximum degree neaaonabCe .in .the mun.i.ci.pa,E waa.tewa.t~c .tneaiment pX.an-
wing.
TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION
PaCicy Number 6: The Ada/Canyon Munic.i.pa,C waa.teua.ten Management PP,an
necommenc~a mat a a.tate centi.~.ced opeha-ton w~i.Ce aupe~.v.i,ae each operating
ah,i6~t o6 .the .U~eaiment ~aci,eity.
SEPTIC TANKS -CENTRAL SEWER~RELATIONSHIPS
Po,E%cy NumbeJC 7: The Ada/Canyon Mucn,icipae waa.teuate~c Management PQan
necormnen~a=E each mun.i.aipaeity ~i.n Ada and Canyon County which has a
centn<c.f waa.tewate~c co.CCectian and #ne.atment ayazem, deb~ine and adopt
a po~%cy bon .the u,e e o 6 a ep~i.c .tanlza with.i.n. -the,i~c muru.c.i.pa,Q a eweh 6 e~c-
v.ice p~anvu.ng anew and a ubmit .it .to the neg~.ona2 0 4 .ice o b .the Idaho
Department ob HeaEth and wek6ane w.ith.i.n one yecvc o6 .the adoption ob
.thia management pPnn.
SEWAGE TREATMENT PACKAGE PLANTS
PoR.i.cy Num_ ber. 8: The Ada/Canyon Muni.c,%pa.C wae.tewater Management PQan
aupponta e poCicy a6 -the a.tate aP..Cowdng package .t~ceaiment peantb and
community aepti.c ayezema onRy where they can be cer,tib~.ed as meexi.ng
State voter nua,Q,ity S.tandcucdb cony-i.a.tant with .the S.tate'a anti.degrada-
.ti.on po.ei.cy and where a QegaXky cona,tituted governmenta.2 entity .i.a
ea.tab.Ci.~hed neapone.ib4e bon .the operation and maintenance ob .the aya.tem.
~ -~~
~~~: ~ • •
~. ~C~~
Urban Service Area Amendment Procedures r 3._,
'.ti.
..; A. .Rational for Amendment Procedure
~; ~r
Cities within Ada County plan for future expansion by designating "Urban
1~~ aJ.
~ Service Areas" around their incorporated city limits as areas where the City
~y, interns to extend municipal services to accommodate future growth. Tnese
'`'~ "Urban Service Areas" are recognized within each city's comprehensive plan
: ~~~'
e r,. - and within the Ada County Comprehensive Plan where it is called an "Urban
,,~
Service Planning Area (USPA)." Tne "Urban Service Area" is therefore, a
defined boundary within which a city is expected to extend a variety of
,:
"°' municipal services to senve future development.
a'•
K Cities within Ada -County also plan for sewer service expansion by
~~a'"^ designating "Sewer Service Planning Area(s) (SSPA)" as areas where the city
,,.
intends to extend municipal sewer services to serve future development.
_~
These SSPA are adopted as part of the 208 Areawide Waste Treatment
Management Plan and respective 201 Facility Plans for each city. The SSPA
`,,,
is, therefore, a defined boundary within which a city "is anticipating
exterxling municipal sewer services to serve future development.
An "Urban Service Area" defined within the city's comprehensive plan, and a
SSPA, as defined within the 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan,
should coincide if the city is to be responsible for providing municipal
services to future development. Tne reasoning is as follows:
1. Section 67-6502(b) of the Idaho State Code states that the purpose of
planning is "to ensure that adequate public facilities aril services are
f,
~.~'`~;' provided to the people at reasonable cost." Planning for the expansion
^.A K '
~ f
of municipal services mnust be managed in a way to adequately provide
r,
,+
1
•
{y
.~i~,!F`
Aiyr
~
n Defined
az
ff
ti
t
s
ve m
~
ec
-e
rvices to the people in a cos
these sZ
r!1~, "Urban Service Areas" do achieve this purpose.
'a^;
y3
'~ '~ 2. A defined "Urban Service Area," which has been adopted as part of the
k.' ~.
,
'
r city's comprehensive plan, through public notification ar~d hearing
Y
~4-
procedures, protects a city from the accusations of capricious and
.*~~ arbitrary behavior, as it attempts to manage and provide for growth and
yti .
~~ development.
~
r
3. Federal 201 Sewer grazits for the construction of sewers require that
~rs'~'-.
` there be a defined 20-Year SSPA. It is the policy of the Idaho
4
1
Department of Health & Welfare that the 20-Year SSPA be in accord with
~~y:;
a community's comprehensive plan ~llrban Service Area arxi the Areawide
``
•
~~' 208 Waste Treatment Management Plan.
`": 4. A defined "Urban Service Area" enables developers, builders and the
yv YR
'S..rri~.
'
' community tobetter plan their investments for the commercial,
r:
~.
industrial and residential markets within the city's growth area.
<<
54'f;
~ ,
, `
;(j'
•
:~.~ T; .:
~'.
5•
A defined "Urban Service Area" is a planning tool which the planning
and zoning commission, city
` council and the mayor can utilize, along
,
with the comprehensive plan
and zoning
and subdivison
orriinances, to
;.~~ .
analyze and review growth and development projects as they are
submitted.
6. The public hearing process of adopting or revising an "Urban Service
Area" involves the public as part of the Comprehensive Planning Process
aryl demonstrates to the citizens that city officials are serious in
their intentions to implement their city's comprehensive plan.
2
~~1$4y~T~~'
'WW L4:".~ • ~ •
'~"' B. Guidelines/Criteria for Amendment Evah ation
,;,Y .
''"- It is expected that requests to change an "Urban Service Area" will be the
~`;
natural result of development pressures and continued population growth in
.~~, ..; ;
$' , +m'r°
`'' Ada County. If a city desires to charge its "Urban Service Area" it must
'~.
~* amend its comprehensive plan so that a public hearing process can be ini-
,: `,e.
~p+$~ ~ tiated to evaluate the effects of this change to the existing community.
~s;; Section 19.3 of Ada County's Comprehensive Plan addresses the criteria to be
w ~~~ used when analyzing a change in an Urban Service Area. Within each city s
,,,.
^'`:'* canprehensive plan are similar provisions that address this question. In
general, the following guidelines, which are listed in the Local Planning
a
~,',, Aet as elements of the Comprehensive Plan, should be examined when making an
,~~,t,,,, "Urban Service Area", change:
5~~ r
ac'r~. 1.
: ~: ,: Population -Will the change affect future population pro,)ections?
,
2. Deployment - Wlll the change affect fhture employment opportunities?
,_, ~;
s
3.
Land Use -How will the change affect existing land use?
4. Natural Resources - Will the change adversely affect the area's
resources?
,: 5. Hazardous Areas -Will the change promote development within designated
1'
. hazardous areas?
.~'
_~','"~ 6. Public services, facilities and utilities - Can the city adequately
i' `'.
-.
„:',
rovide services
o areas without eliminating or reducing
ervices to
other areas? Services to consider include:
sewers parks utilities (gas, electricity,
.rt .
.-:
water
law enforcement telephone)
y'' drainage fire protection libraries
3
school. emergency medical solid waste~sposal
services others
7. Transportation - How will the change affect existing facilities?
8. Housing -Can the city support the proposed additional housing stock?
9. Conmunity Design - Does the change improve commv~ity appearance and
preserve the existing architectural and historic integrity of the city?
C. Amendment Process (See flowchart on following page)
Parts of this process are outlined in Section 67-6509 of the Local Planning
Act. Additional steps are added to tie together the charging of a SSPA with
a comprehensive plan amendment into one process.
1. A consensus is established by the planning and zoning commissions, city
council, mayor, sewer district and other special service districts
whose services will be affected by the proposed change, to the revised
boundaries of the "Urban Service Area."
2. A city comprehensive plan amendment process is begun. The city would
evaluate amendment by using existing criteria in the city's comprehen-
sive plan. APA staff would advise the Ada County Planning Commission
of the city's proposed USPA change and the APA Board (in coordination
with IDHW and EPA) of a SSPA change and would provide the city with arty
comments from these bodies.
3. The city's planning commission would hold public hearings to receive
citizen input on the proposed "Urban Service Area" charge and make
recomnerr3ations to the city council.
4
`F
4f
a
•
4. The he planning
y councll would hold public hearings to revie
commission's recommendations and to receive further public input.
;~~;
~ 5. The city council approves amerrlment:
g:.',.
a. Change the city's comprehensive plan to show new "Urban Service
Area."
. b. Advise Ada County Planning Commission, through APA County staff,
w,
to begin County Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process.
c. Advise the APA Board, through APA 208 staff, of change in SSPA, to
begin 208 Areawide Municipal Waste Treatment Management Plan
Ametx9ment in coordination with IDHW and EPA.
6. The APA Board takes final action as the locally designated 208 planning
_;;c=
age
ncy to amend the 208 Plan.
s:"`'
7.
APA
Board, through the APA 208 staff, submits final action and recom~
mended changes in the SSPA to IDHW for notification of amerximent to the
208 Areawide Municipal Waste Treatment Management Plan.
cc: 308.12
DT:eh/MSPAAP
5
'_; .
?;::r;
s
i.
:~;.
";`
:f::,
.:»,
'F.
t':...
l)
2)
3)
Establish Consensus: for C arge in
Service Planni Area (USPA/SSPA)
City Comprehensive Plan Amendment
<-City Evaluatioi
City Planning and
Public Hearing Zoning Commission
& Recommendation
4) City
Public Council /
Hearing /
r
-> APA Staff
/
/
/
y
/ 5 b)
Begin Process to
Amend County
ment - / ---- Can rehensive Plan
<-~---APA Staff
APA Hoard
EPA
IDHW
6) ~ Approval of 208 Amendment ~ 7)