Minutes - 2004 - City Council - 03/16/2004 - Regular
OR\G1NAL
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
Minutes
March 16,2004
THESE ITEMS WERE CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 9, 2004 MEETING.
PRE-COUNCIL AGENDA: 6:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.
1. Ada County Sheriff s Office: Under Sheriff Raney will present a proposal of an additional
Eagle Traffic Deputy. Under Sheriff Raney presents a Power Point presentation on a proposal
for an additional Eagle Traffic Deputy, and proposed funding for FY04/05 and FY05/06.
General discussion.
2. Jesse Henshaw wishes to address the Council. Jesse Henshaw is not present.
3. A representative from BFI will present their annual report and give an update on services in
Eagle. There will also be a brief discussion regarding an alternative solution to the future landfill
issue Ada County is facing. - Tanya Mericle. Distributes a report of residential rates and
participation and discusses the same. Discussion on adding a leaf project. Discussion on the
reimbursable amount to the City being used for the leaf project. Recycling has gone up a small
amount over last year. Discussion on transfer stations and the expansion of the Ada County
Landfill. Tanya provides the Council an overview of the annual report received in January.
General discussion.
4. Code Enforcement Officer, Tom Wilson, would like to discuss proposed changes to the
existing weed ordinance. Tom Wilson discusses a proposed weed ordinance amendment.
General discussion. Council concurs to proceed to bring these changes back to the Council in
ordinance form.
REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA: 7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Merrill calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL: BASTIAN, SEDLACEK, GUERBER, NORDSTROM. Nordstrom is absent.
A quorum is present.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT: Joe Glaisyer, I am the developer of Cavallo Estate Subdivision and
I am representing the Cavallo Estate Subdivision Homeowner's Association. I am addressing
you tonight in regards to the North Star Charter School and the traffic that is being generated
which is in violation of the Conditional Use Permit. The residents of the subdivision are very
concerned about the traffic through the subdivision and we are requesting the City to enforce the
City's Findings that traffic would be directed to Park Lane. General discussion. Council concurs
to have this item placed on a City Council Agenda and request that representatives from the
school are in attendance.
Larry Sale, ACHD liaison to the City, I'm afraid that we probably can not be of assistance to you
in this area. Enforcement should be through the Sheriff s Office as it is a public street.
Further Council discussion. School representatives should appear before the Council with a
proposal to alleviate the problem or how they have fixed the problem.
5. CONSENT AGENDA:
. Consent Agenda items are considered to be routine and are acted on with one
motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless the Mayor, a
Councilmember, member of City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be removed
from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Items removed from the Consent Agenda
Pagel
K:\COUNCILIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work Area\CC-03-16-04spag2.doc
will be placed on the Regular Agenda in a sequence determined by the Rules of
Order.
. Any item on the Consent Agenda which contains written Conditions of Approval
from the City of Eagle City Staff, Planning & Zoning Commission, or Design
Review Board shall be adopted as part of the City Council's Consent Agenda
approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise.
. All design review applications will be appealed by the Zoning Administrator to the
City Council for their review and approval.
A. Claims Against the City.
B. Minutes of February 24, 2004.
C. Minutes of March 2, 2004.
D. Re-appointment to the Park & Pathwav Development Committee: The
Mayor is requesting Council confirmation of the re-appointment of Charles
Fergusson to the above mentioned Committee. His new term will expire in 2007.
(NM)
E. Appointment to the Park & Pathwav Development Committee: The Mayor
is requesting Council confirmation of appointment of Jeff Schwers to the above
mentioned Committee. His term will expire in 2007. (NM)
F. DR-OI-04 - Two Buildin2 Wall Si2ns. Two Tree Graphics. and Two
Directional Monument Si2DS for Home Federal Bank Facilitv - Home
Federal: Home Federal, represented by Chuck Buckner with Idaho Electric
Signs Inc., is requesting design review approval to construct two halo
illuminated building wall signs, two non-illuminated tree graphics, and two
directional monument signs. The site is generally located on the northeast comer
of Eagle Road and East Riverside Drive on Lot 7, Block 1, Mixed Use
Subdivision No.5 at 100 East Riverside Drive (formally known as Eagle River
Development). (WEV)
G. DR-02-04 - Buildin2 Wall Si2n for Mon2olian of Ea2le - Mon2olian of
Ea2le: Mongolian of Eagle, represented by Neil Caldwell with Idaho Electric
Signs Inc., is requesting design review approval to construct a building wall sign
for the Mongolian of Eagle restaurant. The site is located north of State
Highway 44 and east of South Eagle Road within the Eagle Pavilion Shopping
Center at 362 South Eagle Road. (WEV)
H. DR-03-04 - BanklFinancial Institution with Drive UP Service within Ea2le
River Development - Home Federal: Home Federal, represented by Russ
Phillips with Insight Architects, is requesting design review approval to
construct a bank facility with three (3) drive up service lanes. The site is
generally located on the northeast comer of Eagle Road and East Riverside Drive
on Lot 7, Block 1, Mixed Use Subdivision No.5 at 100 East Riverside Drive
(formally known as Eagle River Development). (WEV)
I. DR-OS-04 - Parkin2 Lot and Bus Lanes for Ea2le Hills Elementarv School-
Meridian Joint School District: Meridian Joint School District, represented by
Doug Russell with The Land Group, is requesting design review approval to
construct a parking lot and bus lanes for Eagle Hills Elementary School. The
site is located on the north side of Ranch Drive adjacent to Friendship Park at
650 Ranch Drive. (WEV)
J. DR-06-04 - Two StOry Multi-tenant Buildin2 within Ea2le River
Development - Riverside Office II. LLC: Riverside Office II, LLC,
represented by Andrew Erstad with Erstad Thornton Architects, is requesting
Page 2
K:ICOUNCILIM1NUTESITemporary Minutes Work Area\CC-O3-I6-04spag2.doc
design review approval to construct a two story multi-tenant office building.
The site is located on the south side of East Shore Drive approximately 1,400-
feet east of Eagle Road on Lot 14, Block 4, Mixed Use Subdivision No.4
(formally known as Eagle River Development). (WEV)
K. DR-07-04 - Clubhouse and Pool Area for RiversEnd Planned Unit
Development - Howell-Kiser Development Group: Howell-Kiser
Development Group, represented by Lynn Brown with Lynn Brown Architect
Planner, is requesting design review approval to construct a clubhouse and pool
area for RiversEnd Planned Unit Development. The site is located on the north
side of Island Woods Drive approximately 2,665-feet east of Eagle Road. (WEV)
L. DR-OS-04 - Common Area Landscapin2 within Windin2 Creek Planned
Unit Development - Salmon Point Development Inc.: Salmon Point
Development Inc., represented by Phil Hull with The Land Group, is requesting
design review approval of the common area landscaping within Winding Creek
Planned Unit Development (formerly Trolley Square). The site is located on the
northwest comer of East State Street and the Hill Road extension. (WEV)
M. DR-09-04 - Master Si2n Plan for a Multi-tenant Office Buildin2 - Riverside
Office II. LLC: Riverside Office II, LLC, represented by Andrew Erstad with
Erstad Thornton Architects, is requesting design review approval of a master
sign plan for the two story multi-tenant office building. The site is located on
the south side of East Shore Drive approximately 1,400-feet east of Eagle Road
on Lot 14, Block 4, Mixed Use Subdivision No.4 (formally known as Eagle
River Development). (WEV)
N. Request for Funds ICDBG Pro2ram - Mercv Housin2: Approval of request
#007 of ICDBG funds in the amount of $1062.00 to reimburse Mercy Housing
for project administration costs and to authorize the Mayor to sign the Request
for Funds document. (SKM)
Guerber moves to remove Item #4N from the Consent Agenda. Seconded by Guerber.
ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.........................
Bastian moves to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Seconded by Guerber. ALL
AYES: MOTION CARRIES...................
4N. Request for Funds ICDBG Pro2ram - Mercv Housin2: Approval of request #007 of
ICDBG funds in the amount of $1062.00 to reimburse Mercy Housing for project administration
costs and to authorize the Mayor to sign the Request for Funds document. (SKM)
Guerber: I had a citizen ask me to pull this item so he could make comments.
Jason Gibson, my question is why is my tax money being used for funding on this project?
Jim Birdsall, Grant Administrator for Mercy Housing, provides an overview of the Mercy
Housing, Idaho project. These are Federal tax dollars not local tax dollars. General discussion.
Jason Gibson, I object that the government is taking my taxes to fund a project that would go
broke if it were privately undertaken. I would like to object to this item. General discussion.
Bastian moves to approve the Request for Funds ICDBG Program - Mercy Housing in the
amount of $1,062.00. Seconded by Sedlacek. ALL A YES: MOTION
CARRIES. ....... ......... ......
6. PROCLAMATIONS & RESOLUTIONS:
Page 3
K:\COUNcu..IMINUTES\Te~rary Minutes Work Area\CC-03-16-04spag2.doc
A. Arbor Dav Proclamation: Proclamation to declare April 1, 2004 as Arbor Day in Eagle.
(NM)
Mayor Merrill reads the Arbor Day Proclamation into the record.
Bastian moves to approve the Arbor Day Proclamation. Seconded by Guerber. ALL
AYES: MOTION CARRIES....................
Bastian moves to add Hill Road Park Acquisition to Unfinished Business as Item #10B.
Seconded by Sedlacek. ALL A YES: MOTION CARRIES..........................
7. FINAL PLATS:
A. FP-15-03 - Final Plat for Ancona Business Park Subdivision - Ancona Gruop LLC.:
Ancona Gruop LLC, represented by Colin Connell, is requesting final plat approval for Ancona
Business Park Subdivision, a 7-10t (6-buildable, l-common) commercial subdivision. The 5.09-
acre development is located on the southwest comer of the intersection of State Highway 44 and
McGrath Road. The site is within the Eagle City Limits. (WEV)
Mayor Merrill introduces the issue.
Colin Connell: I agree with Staff and I stand for questions.
General discussion on the Site Specific Conditions of Approval.
Sedlacek moves to approve FP-15-03 - Final Plat for Ancona Business Park Subdivision
with all Standard and Site Specific Conditions of Approval. Seconded by Guerber. ALL
AYES: MOTION CARRIES........................
B. FPUD-I0-03 & FP-13-03 - Final Development Plan and Final Plat for RiversEnd
Subdivision No.2 - Howell-Kiser Development Corp: Howell-Kiser Development Corp. is
requesting final development plan and final plat approval for a 74-10t (68-buildable, 6-common)
residential subdivision. This 49.74-acre phase of RiversEnd Subdivision PUD is located between
the North and South Channels of the Boise River approximately Y2 -mile east of Eagle Road on
East Island Woods Drive. (WEV)
Mayor Merrill introduces the issue.
James W. Kiser, applicant, provides Council an overview of the project. We are in agreement
with all of the Site Specific Conditions. I would like to request one change to be made on Page 3
of7 #7. which would read "lO-Foot Side Setback for single-story homes/15 Foot for the second
story of a two-story home."
General discussion.
Zoning Administrator Vaughan: Staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission have
recommended approval of the project.
Bastian moves to approve FPUD-I0-03 & FP-13-03 - Final Development Plan and Final
Plat for RiversEnd Subdivision No.2 - Howell-Kiser Development Corp. Seconded by
Guerber. Discussion. TWO A YES: ONE NAY: MOTION CARRIES...........................
8.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. RZ-9-03 - Rezone from R-4 to PS - Joint School District No.2 Joint School District No.2,
represented by Doug Russell with The Land Group, is requesting a rezone from R-4 (Residential
- up to four dwelling units per acre) to PS (Public/Semipublic). The site consists of three parcels
totaling .5-acres in area and is located on the west side of North Eagle Road approximately 800-
feet north of State Street at 323, 365 and 395 North Eagle Road. (WEV)
Page 4
K:\COUNCILIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work Area\CC-O3-16-04spag2.doc
Mayor Merrill introduces the issue.
Doug Russell, The Land Group, representing the applicant, displays an overhead of the site and
provides Council an overview of the request for a rezone. General discussion.
Zoning Administrator Vaughan: Displays an overhead of the site plan and provides Council an
overview of the project.
Mayor Opens the Public Hearing
Mayor swears in Marcie Cruser
Marcie Cruser, 378 Park Road, we don't have any sidewalks and the school has sent out flyers to
the parents about picking up their children on Park Road. I have asked the School to close the
opening in the fence. The parents are turning on my property and sometimes running into my
fence. These parents and children are continuously crossing private property. General
discussion.
Mayor swears in Mark Butler
Mark Butler, 52 N. 2nd Street, I think it is important to maintain the old house. In this particular
area I think it is alright to have these houses moved. I think this is a great positive change for the
downtown. I think you should offer an incentive for someone to remove these buildings to
another location.
Council discussion.
Doug Russell: I don't have a lot of knowledge on where parents are picking up their children. I
have a plan that shows a little more information than the overhead and I would like the lady that
testified to show me where the hole in the fence is. We don't have a problem plugging that hole.
As far as a sidewalk leading back to the area, I have not been asked to design such a sidewalk.
There are currently existing fences and we will maintain these fences. We will be back before
Design Review.
Mayor closes the Public Hearing
Bastian moves to approve RZ-9-03 - Rezone from R-4 to PS - Joint School District No.2.
Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES...........
B. ZOA-8-03 - Zonin2 Ordinance Amendment - Citv Of Ea21e: Ordinance Of The City Of
Eagle, Ada County Idaho Amending Eagle City Code Title 8 "Zoning", Chapter 3 "Performance
Standards", Section 5 "Unique Land Uses"; Creating A New Subsection (T) With The
Prohibition Of Motorized Watercraft Within The City Of Eagle; Providing A Severability
Clause; And Providing An Effective Date. (WEV)
Mayor Merrill introduces the issue.
Zoning Administrator Vaughan: Provides Council an overview of the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment. General discussion.
Mayor opens the Public Hearing
Mayor swears in Jason Gibson.
Jason Gibson, 2217 W. Bums Street, my questions is why we are pursuing the prohibition of
motorized watercraft. It doesn't seem to be much of an issue since there are not many waterways
in the City of Eagle where watercraft can operate. I'm opposed to city government spending
their time on these issues.
Page S
K:\COUNCILIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work Area\CC-O3-16-04spag2.doc
Mayor swears in Bob VanAmem
Bob VanAmem, 3049 S. Whitepost Way, who would have thought that this would be an issue
that would be discussed in Eagle? I support the amendment that is being imposed. Discussion
on the noise level. I think that allowing any kind of watercraft in the City limits is opening up
things that are not possible at this time.
Mayor swears in Hal Turner
Hal Turner, 554 E. River Chase Way, I'm full in support of this amendment for the issue of
noise, the affect on the environment and enforcement. We had three evenings of public
testimony offered where the majority opposed the use of motorized watercraft in this area. It is
my opinion that this ordinance should be passed. Many people have spoken. General discussion.
Mayor swears in Dan McAllister
Dan McAllister, 588 E. River Quarry Court, I'm here on behalf ofIsland Wood's Homeowner's
Association, I am in agreement with the statement of Hal Turner. Discussion on the noise levels.
We totally agree with what is being proposed.
Mayor swears in Mark Butler
Mark Butler, 52 N. 2nd Street, representing Laguna Pointe, discusses the truth as what people
perceive. I would like to invite you to see the truth by coming out and listening to the noise of
the boats. Are we controlling a problem or a perceived problem. Discusses other items under
unique land uses that are not prohibited but regulated. I would hope that you would come out
and listen to the boats before you make a decision. General discussion.
Mayor swears in Guy Hendrickson
Guy Hendrickson, 1772 Lakemore, I would like to voice my support of this zoning ordinance. I
am concerned about the noise generated from the boats together with the whole activity.
Mayor swears in Shannon Cook
Shannon Cook, 222 S. Eagle Road, Mark pretty much said everything. I just wanted to go on
record that I oppose this ordinance amendment. I would truly like to be able to show everyone
the boats and the noise level and then you would get real first hand information.
Zoning Administrator Vaughan: (cites city code) Discussion on the unique land uses in the City
Code. I do believe that this section of the Code needs to be update and staff will be working on
this.
Mayor closes the Public Hearing
General Council discussion.
Sedlacek moves, pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 50-902, that the rule requiring
Ordinances to be read on three different days with one reading to be in full be dispensed
with, and that Ordinance #465 be considered after being read once by title only.
reads Ordinance #465 by title only. Seconded by Guerber.
There is an objection that Ordinance No. 465 is not on the Agenda.
Sedlacek withdraws her motion to approve Ordinance #465. Second concurs.
Guerber moves to amend the proposed Ordinance #465 to insert as Item #1: Upon the
waterways after the word prohibited to clarify that the motorized or jet compelled
watercraft are prohibited on the waterways within the City of Eagle and Item #3 would
Page 6
K:\COUNCILIMINUTESITetq>Orary Minutes Work Area\CC-03-16-04spag2.doc
say: That operation of emergency and training watercraft is exempt from this ordinance
and the proposed Ordinance be brought back to Council for consideration at the March 23,
2004 City Council meeting. Seconded by Bastian. Discussion. Guerber amends his motion
to say in Item #1: Upon the ponds, lakes, streams and other waterways. Second concurs.
ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................
Further Council discussion.
C. CPA-4-03/Z0A-6-03 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment / Zonin2 Ordinance
Amendment - Citv of Ea2le:The City of Eagle is proposing to amend Eagle City Code Title 8
"Zoning", Chapter 8 "Area of City Impact", to establish additional criteria for the development
of subdivisions and to prohibit cluster developments within the area of City impact. The City of
Eagle is also proposing to amend the comprehensive plan text to define "Density" and to explain
how "Density" is calculated; to remove the terms "gross" and "net" from the current land use
designation descriptions; and to disallow cluster developments outside of the City limits. As a
result of Ada County's approval of Senora Creek the City of Eagle has reviewed its
comprehensive plan and area of City impact agreement to remove unclear and undefined
language concerning the calculation of density and replace it with a clear definition of how
density should be calculated as well as clarification of the compatible zoning designations in
both the Eagle zoning ordinance and the Ada County zoning ordinance. Further, the City is
requesting that RUT Cluster not be allowed in the area of City impact because the dimensional
standards of the resulting cluster lots are not compatible with the goals, policies and objectives of
the Eagle Comprehensive Plan. (WEV)
Mayor Merrill introduces the issue.
Nichole Baird-Spencer, Planner: Provides Council an overview of the proposed amendment and
discusses the proposed changes. General discussion.
Mayor opens the Public Hearing
Mayor swears in Mark Butler
Mark Butler, 1640 Washam Road, this flyer that was sent to me in the mail is awesome. People
have been bugging me to testify against this. Discussion on the lot size issue. Schools should be
counted in the open space. Discussion on some of the proposed changes.
Mayor swears in Cheryl Bloom
Cheryl Bloom, 2153 N. Hollybrook, I live in the area of impact. I am also impressed with the
flyer that Nichole prepared. I was involved in Senora Creek. Discussion on the proposed
changes in the amendment. I am in favor of cleaning up the language.
Nichole Baird-Spencer: I'm glad everyone likes the flyer. It is hard to change a document and
get everyone to understand and agree on the changes. Discussion on her meeting with Wendell
Bingham in regards to schools sites in Eagle. He is not looking for any further school sites in the
City of Eagle. Clarification on proposed changes. General discussion.
Mark Butler, discussion on development in the County.
Mayor closes the Public Hearing
General Council discussion.
Sedlacek moves to approve CPA-4-03/Z0A-6-03 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment /
Zoning Ordinance Amendment - City of Eagle with the small modifications discussed with
staff tonight. Seconded by Guerber. ALL A YES: MOTION CARRIES...............
Page 7
K:\COUNCILIMINUTESITe1J1lOrary Minutes Work Area\CC-03-16-04spag2_doc
Mayor calls a recess at 10: 15 p.m.
Mayor reconvenes at 10:25 p.m.
9.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Discussion re2ardin2 the opportunity for a Jazz School in Ea2le - Mary Cenell: (NM)
Mayor Merrill introduces the issue.
Mark Butler: Provides Council a brief history of why Eagle has been the City picked to locate the
Jazz School. We have not found a place and we would like any kind of support that you can give
us. They have an 8 minute power point presentation.
Mark Butler: We are looking for 8 to 10 acres. We need a price range of approximately $40,000
per acre and all the parcels we found are much higher. We've talked to Dennis Baker and he said
he would cut us a deal but we still won't be able to afford the lot in Lakemoor. We have planned
3 acres of gardens. 8 acres would be small, 10 acres would be ideal. Maybe the park land to be
donated to the City could be used as some type of a trade for 10 acres. We want to put 10-11
cottages instead of a dormitory. General discussion.
B Ordinance No. 467: An ordinance of the City of Eagle, Ada County, Idaho, ordering a special
bond election to be held on the question of incurring an indebtedness and issuing general
obligation bonds of the City in the amount of $2,000,000 to provide funds for the purpose of
financing the costs of constructing and furnishing a new city hall building; establishing the date,
time, and places of the special bond election; approving a form of ballot and a form of notice of
election; providing for publication of notice of election; providing for registration of voters;
providing for related matters; and providing an effective date. (SKM)
Mayor Merrill introduces the issue.
Guerber moves, pursuant to Idaho Code, Section SO-902, that the rule requiring
Ordinances to be read on three different days with one reading to be in full be dispensed
with, and that Ordinance #467 be considered after being read once by title only. Guerber
reads Ordinance #467 by title only. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYE: MOTION
CARRIES.............. ...
Guerber moves that Ordinance #467 be adopted. Seconded by Bastian. Bastian: AYE;
Sedlacek: AYE; Guerber: AYE: ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES.............
C Resolution 04-04: A Resolution of the City of Eagle, Ada County, Idaho. Approving an
agreement for Bond Counsel services, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the same;
and providing an effective date. (SKM)
Mayor Merrill introduces the issue.
Bastian moves to approve Resolution 04-04 - A Resolution of the City of Eagle, Ada
County, Idaho approving an agreement for Bond Counsel services, authorizing the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute the same; and providing an effective date. Seconded by
Sedlacek. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES...................
D. Resolution No. O4-0S: Adoption of Eagle Architectural and Site Design Book. (WEV)
Mayor Merrill introduces the issue.
Sedlacek moves to approve Resolution No. O4-0S: Adoption of Eagle Architectural and Site
Design Book. Seconded by Guerber. ALL A YES: MOTION CARRIES..................
Page 8
K:\COUNCILIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work Area\CC-O3-16-04spag2.doc
E. Resolution No. 04-01: A resolution of the Eagle City Council, Eagle, Ada County, Idaho
repealing any and all existing comprehensive plans, and adopting the amended 2000
Comprehensive Plan; affirming that prescribed notice and hearing requirements were met in
accordance with Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code; and providing an effective date. (WEV)
Mayor Merrill introduces the issue.
Bastian moves to approve Resolution No. 04-01: A resolution of the Eagle City Council,
Eagle, Ada County, Idaho repealing any and all existing comprehensive plans, and
adopting the amended 2000 Comprehensive Plan; affirming that prescribed notice and
hearing requirements were met in accordance with Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code; and
providing an effective date. Seconded by Sedlacek. ALL A YES: MOTION CARRIES......
F. Ordinance No. 466: An ordinance of the City of Eagle, Ada County Idaho, amending Eagle
City Code Title 8 "Zoning", Chapter 8 "Eagle Area of City Impact", "Section 3 "Applicable Plan
Policies and Ordinances"; Providing a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date.
(WEV)
Mayor Merrill introduces the issue.
Guerber moves, pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 50-902, that the rule requiring
Ordinances to be read on three different days with one reading to be in full be dispensed
with, and that Ordinance #466 be considered after being read once by title only. Guerber
reads Ordinance #466 by title only. Seconded by Bastian. Discussion. ALL AYE:
MOTION CARRIES.................
Guerber moves that Ordinance #466 be adopted. Seconded by Sedlacek. Bastian: AYE;
Sedlacek: AYE; Guerber: AYE: ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES.............
10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. Review and action on the proposal submitted bv Mr. J.L. Snod2rass for the Thomas
Aikens sculpture.
Mayor Merrill introduces the issue.
General Council discussion.
Guerber moves to authorize the advancement of the initial $10,000.00 to J.L. Snodgrass for
the Thomas Aikens sculpture. Seconded by Bastian. Bastian: AYE; Sedlacek: AYE;
Guerber: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES....................
B. Hill Road- AcquisitionlLand Transfer Option and Grant Application.
Jim Birdsall: Discussion on the Hill Road property acquisition from ACHD. We have a
presentation to the Park Board next week and this transaction needs to be discussed.
Sedlacek moves to move forward to secure the Hill Road property using Option A or
Option B as is appropriate. Seconded by Bastian. ALL A YES: MOTION
CARRIES............
Further Council discussion.
11. REPORTS:
1. City Engineer Report: Vern Brewer: We still don't have adequate water for Hill Road Park.
We are about 9 shares short. We are on a waiting list with Boise Valley. We are going to send
out a letter soliciting shares from shareholders.
Page 9
K:\COUNCILlMlNUTESlTemporary Minutes Work Area\CC-O3-16-04spag2.doc
Tammy Zoken: Holladay is looking at wells in the area that could be sold to the City. General
discussion.
Lexington Hills well is on line.
We have looked at the repairs on the Island Wood Pathway. The cost of the repairs is very high
because the pathway has to be removed and the roots taken out and a new pathway installed.
Discussion on root barriers. The City does not have a budget for long term maintenance of the
pathways. General discussion.
2. Zoning Administrator Vaughan: County is going to require a variance on the LDS Church
steeple for the height exception. Do you want this to come back through the process for a
recommendation. Council concurs that this does not need to come back through the process.
3. City Attorney Report: Tammy Zoken distributes the changes to the Ada CountyÆagle
Skateboard Park lease. General discussion.
4. City Clerkffreasurer Report: I have distributed information to you on the purchase of the new
telephone system.
Report on the Eagle Community Foundation.
Discussion on outside vendor's in the City Parks. Council concurs that they do not want outside
vendors in the City Parks.
I have distributed copies of the financial reports for October and November, 2003.
Discussion on the upcoming budget process.
Discussion on adding new police officers.
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
A. Threatened or Pending Litigation I.c. §67-2345(f)
Bastian moves to go into Executive Session for the discussion of threatened or pending
litigation. Seconded by Guerber. Bastian: A YE; Sedlacek: AYE; Guerber: A YE: ALL
AYES: MOTION CARRIES......................
Council goes into Executive Session at 12:05 a.m.
Council discusses threatened or pending litigation.
Council leaves Executive Session at 12:55 p.m.
Sedlacek moves to authorize legal counsel to prepare and file a petition to reconsider the
Brookwood Well decision. Seconded by Bastian. ALL A YES: MOTION
CARRIES..... ......... .....
Sedlacek moves that the Mayor be authorized to sign the Stipulation Agreement and Order
for Robert Deshazo, Jr. Seconded by Guerber. ALL A YES: MOTION
CARRIES..............
Guerber moves to authorize the city attorney to proceed with the pump test. Seconded by
Sedlacek. Discussion. ALL A YES: MOTION CARRIES................
Bastian moves to proceed with settlement negotiations in the Chase matter. Seconded by
Guerber. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES......................
Guerber: Thursday Weldon Fisher and I are going to see the Bureau of Reclamation in regards to
a turbine out of the dam. General discussion.
Page 10
K:\COUNCILIMINUTESITelJ1'Orary Minutes Work Area\CC-03-16-04spag2.doc
Bastian: The Library Board would like to go on record that they are supporting the City Hall
concept.
I met with Pine Ridge and Pine Creek and they are adamantly against the Power Line going down
State Street. General discussion.
13. ADJOURNMENT:
Guerber moves to adjourn. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYE: MOTION
CARRIES...
Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 1 :05 a.m.
Respectfully submitted:
J O--+-~ - ¥-- 2l¡ ~
SHARÓN K. MOORE
CITY CLERKffREAS URER
"..,11"',.,
.' ""
.", of EA. () .##~
"'..co.\. ....... 'l;.'~
.. .~ .. .. ~. "
I ç ... . \' ('" 1 ,... '\
= .. c:-'" ',:, .. "
: :( \.:
.. ,.- . :
: . . -: .
': \ (, '" L ó;-. :
" .-:i oJ -', ~ ...... 0 =
... ..~. i,':>. ,.0,.: =
'\ ..r':)....~~(f>ORf'.,\...';:" $
..~.,. ...... <'\ ~- ..
"." -1l'E Of \V ",0;
." ,I'
"........",
Page 11
K:ICOUNCILIM1NUTES\Te~rary Minutes Work Area\CC-03-16-04spag2,doc
BFI Landfill Proposal
To Ada County
Prepared for:
THE BOARD OF
ADA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
March 3, 2004
Prepared by:
BFI WASTE SERVICES OF IDAHO
BFI
All measurements were taken from the center of waste -generation - the intersection of
Emerald and Maple Grove.
Hidden Hollow Landfill Black Creek Site
9.5 Miles .:E T':' 19.2 Miles
Time 8:17 a.m. 9:30 a.m.
Drive Time 27 minutes 24 minutes
Fuel 7.5 gallons 8.8 gallons
Avg Speed 21.1 MPH 48.0 MPH
Time 12:05 p.m. 12:55 p.m.
Drive Time 25 minutes 25 minutes
Fuel 7.4 gallons 8.7 gallons
Avg Speed 22.8 MPH 46.1 MPH
Time 5:45 p.m. 4:29 p.m.
Ive Time 25 minutes 24 minutes
DriFuel 7.6 gallons 8.2 gallons
Avg Speed 22.8 MPH 48.0 MPH
meeting in January, and a follow-up meeting is tentatively scheduled for May to gather feedback on
potential alternatives on a corridor strategy.
The first chart below shows the average delay in seconds at the listed intersections as measured last
year and the projected delay in 2025 based on increased traffic volume.
Intersection Avg D el ayJL ea el -of -Service
Intersection !UO2 2025
#Hohoe Bend
MINIM
GithAvadiGary
Cobster
ast
3
6-
7147,7
75 •
70
• 80
46
m 4O
• 35
• 25
20 �
10
5
0
---- 52-�� --- --- 281F1____
-- -- 3 6-��----
--42263o1A--
Crashes Per Locat i on
Norma PimhoP i nog V** Cave/ lrroatlii ?Oh1ri
Irtersection L:cxatians Alcc g State Stred
{
D2[101
m 2000
t a 1149g
Joe Rosenlund, ACHD's assistant traffic manager, is heading up the study. For more information on
the study, call ACHD at 387-6100, or e-mail projects@achd.ada.id.us.
Improvements to be constructed:
No immediate improvements are anticipated to spring from the study, but the process will define the
strategy for State Street for the next 20 years. The effort is expected to guide any capacity
expansions, locations of traffic signals, future access controls for traffic and a number of other
strategies designed to ensure the road functions as well as it can within fiscal constraints and within
community interests.
Estimated Start Date: The study began with an information -gathering phase in September 2002.
Estimated Completion Date: August 2003
State Street Corridor Study
Project Main Page
March 03 1 September 031 November 031 December 03
Project Background
Project Background:
Traffic engineers predict a jump in vehicle volume of up to 60 percent on State Street over the next
20 years -- an increase that could snarl most intersections and triple commute times along the area's
vital east -west Zink. The ongoing study will yield strategies to maintain the road's usefulness for
vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians and transit riders along road from 23rd Street in Boise to Idaho
Highway 55 (Eagle Road) in Eagle.
80
70
60
150
g40
m30
i... 20
10
0
Travel Tirre Ca pennon
.'r
Eastbound Commute (Alt
o Free Flaw - Ideal
Cbndtions
■ Aerage Scenario
o tfLhrst Case
— Scenario
o Aerage Future
— Cbndtions
l)estb!a )d Camute (At
Drina E xr G
While State Street generally functions well today, the potential improvements needed by 2025 likely
will be complicated, expensive and require advance planning. Today, the westbound commute on
State Street from 23rd Street to Highway 55 takes about 15 minutes on average -- and nearly 30
minutes in the worst-case scenario when weather, unusually heavy traffic of roadway incidents
cause backups. By 2025, the same commute is anticipated to take 60 minutes on average if no
improvements are made.
75
70
65
5546
( 4D
em3 35
25
20
15 -
1D -
5-
0
Crashes Per Location
Iter ectian Locations Along State Street
The objective of the study is to development management strategies to improve safety and efficiency
and to prioritize transportation projects along the corridor. About 255 people participated in a public
BFI Landfill Proposal to Ada County
Option #1
BFI proposes to direct -haul 50% of the waste stream generated in Ada County to a
Subtitle D, lined landfill off of Blacks Creek Road. This option, located within 10 miles
of Boise, does not require transfer stations. The landfill will be located such that traffic to
the site will use I-84 for the majority of the trip, with drive times to the Blacks Creek site
comparable to the current Ada County site. The desert site would reduce traffic in the
Glenwood/State area by more than 100,000 vehicles per year. This option also includes
Ada County developing the new proposed North Ravine site identified as option C in the
public information packets. This option also allows for the continued use of the Ada
County Household Hazardous Waste facility and current office complex.
Airspace available on the property exceeds Ada County's needs for the next 75+ years
with the space for additional expansion. The new site will be operational by 2006,
allowing for immediate diversion of 50% of the waste stream, doubling the life of the
existing cell. Our rates would be equivalent to the County rate, estimated at $15 per ton.
The BFI site would include all services currently being offered at the County landfill,
including wood grinding, Household Hazardous Waste, and white goods recycling.
Advantages of Option #1
• Allows for the direct -haul of waste from Ada County to the proposed site, today
and in the future, without needing costly transfer stations.
• Reduce local traffic through cities, neighborhoods, and school zones by placing
the new landfill close to I-84.
• Preserve alternatives and protect potential future asset value of foothills lands for
recreation or other public benefit and continue Idaho's longtime practice of
putting the lower -value desert lands to work in a manner similar to the U.S. Air
Force, the National Guard and the Idaho Department of Corrections.
• Locate the site where the landfill life is well beyond 75 years.
• Access to Boise rail spur to allow for rail transport in Ada County if needed.
• County would still maintain control through a community host agreement.
• County could limit environmental or financial liability.
• Would continue to provide for all current programs, including wood grinding,
Household Hazardous Waste, and white goods recycling.
• Provides for long-term affordable rates through a host agreement.
• Infrastructure at Hidden Hollow landfill would continue to be utilized for
Household Hazardous Waste collection and processing.
• Ada County Solid Waste Management offices, scale houses, and road system
would continue to be used.
Blacks Creek Landfill Alternative — Option #1
Open new Blacks Creek site and maintain current Hidden Hollow Landfill.
No increase in current costs
• Direct -haul site; no transfer stations needed
• Inexpensive land
• Experience — Allied Waste currently operates 160 landfills across the country
Why add a landfill in the desert?
• Allows convenient access to two landfill locations without transfer station costs
• Better transportation options
o Use transportation arterials
o Access to rail spur
• Capacity
o Desert site provides more than 600 usable acres, equaling more than 75 years of
landfill space
o Surrounded by BLM land
• Private/public partnership
o County could maintain current landfill operations
• Reduce local traffic by moving waste to the closest landfill site
• Diverts traffic off of Boise City streets, away from school zones and residential
neighborhoods
• Redirects a portion of the more than 195,000 vehicles that travel to the landfill annually
BFI Landfill Proposal to Ada County
Option #2
BFI's second proposal is a direct -haul (no transfer station), lined, Subtitle D landfill
located within 10 miles of Boise off the Blacks Creek Road exit. The landfill would be
located such that traffic to the site would use 1-84 for the majority of the trip, with drive
times to the proposed site comparable to the current Ada County site.
Airspace available on the property exceeds Ada County's needs for the next 75+ years
with the space for additional expansion. The new site will be operational by 2006, which
will allow for the seamless transition from the existing County landfill site. Our rates
would be equivalent to the County rate, estimated at $15 per ton. The BFI site would
include all services currently being offered at the County landfill, including wood
grinding, Household Hazardous Waste, and white goods recycling.
Advantages of Option #2:
• Allows for the direct -haul of waste from Ada County to the proposed site, today
and in the future, without needing costly transfer stations.
• Allows the current landfill site to be used for the best and highest use, which may
include selling all or a portion of the property.
• County could avoid spending fund balances to pay for construction of a new cell.
• Reduce local traffic through the cities, neighborhoods and school zones by
placing a new landfill close to I-84.
• Move site out of view of local Ada County communities.
• Locate the site where the landfill life is well beyond 75 years.
• Access to Boise rail spur to allow for rail transport in Ada County, if needed.
• County would still maintain control through a community host agreement.
• County could minimize environmental or financial liability.
• Would continue to provide for all current programs, including wood grinding,
Household Hazardous Waste, and white goods recycling.
• Provides for long-term affordable rates through a host agreement.
• Portions of the Ada County property could be sold, thereby generating Ada
County property taxes.
Blacks Creek Landfill Alternative — Option #2
Open new Blacks Creek site.
No increase in current costs
Direct -haul site; no transfer stations needed
Inexpensive land
• Experience — Allied Waste currently operates 160 landfills across the country
Why Move Trash Out of the Foothills?
• Free up 2,000+ prime acres of foothills property for best and highest use
• Is a landfill the best and highest use for this property?
• Reduce local traffic
• Diverts traffic off of Boise City streets, away from school zones and residential
neighborhoods
• More than 195,000 vehicles travel to the landfill annually
Why move the landfill to the desert?
• Better transportation options
o Uses better transportation arterial
o Access to rail spur
• Capacity
o Desert site provides more than 600 usable acres, equaling more than 75 years of
landfill space
o Surrounded by BLM land
• Redirects more than 195,000 vehicles that travel to the landfill annually
• Private/public partnership
o County could maintain landfill operations
• Limit Liability
o Minimize financial and environmental liabilities and risks
• No out-of-pocket money from the County needed for start-up
o Could make $25 million available to the County General Fund
Blacks Creek Disposal Site
Description
Assumptions
Management
Direct haul landfill located within Ada County
Assumes no transfer stations
Public/private partnership operates landfill
Potential Blacks Creek area within Ada County
Locations
Capacity 75+ years
Timing 3 years
Increase in None
Cost
Waste management programs would be located at landfill
Miscellaneous
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS
DIRECT HAUL PRIVATE LANDFILL
PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMRNT
• IDEQ Permitted Subtitle D Lined Facility
• Financially Assured for County/Citizens Protection
• Favorable Environmental Setting —Reduced Risk
• Favorable Ecological Setting —Minimal Impact
• No Further Environmental Impact at County Landfill
COMMUNITY
• Minimizes Impacts to Residents and Commercial Areas
• Allows Beneficial Use of Existing County Landfill Property
• Avoids Heavy Traffic Areas
• Convenient Highway Access
• Continues Beneficial Community Programs
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
• Flexibility — County Maintains Control
• Long Tenn Solution (>75 Years of Capacity)
• Available by 2006; Allows Phased Closure of County Landfill
• Transfer Station not Required
• Potential Rail Access
FINANCIAL
No Additional Long Term Liability for County
• Private Owner Assumes All Responsibility
• Long Term Affordable Disposai{Rates
• Potential Income for County
• Supports Community Programs
X.25 0.5
Mies
t.
o
Edi
Blacks Creek Reservoir
North Indian Creek
Kuna Mora
B1ao`
Proposed Blacks Creek Site
1.pand
- pommy
�-
Load Read
Rlw
•\ WaWbody
\ Section Boundary
' •�. l 1 .tt proposed 8Re tamales)
Date: January 20, 2004
To: Ada County Commissioners
From: Dave Fisher
BFI Waste Systems
RE: Additional Alternative
The purpose of this communication is to request that the County consider adding an
alternative to the sites already under consideration.
BFI's proposal is a direct -haul (no transfer station), lined, Subtitle D landfill located
within 10 miles of Boise off the Blacks Creek Road exit. The landfill would be located
such that traffic to the site would use I-84 for the majority of the trip, with drive times to
the proposed site equal to the current Ada County site.
Airspace available on the property exceeds Ada County needs for the next 50 years with
space for additional expansion. The site would be operational by 2006, which would
allow for the seamless transition from the existing County landfill. Our anticipated rate
would be $15 to $18 per ton in 2006. This range reflects the level of service available —
from landfilling -only to providing all services currently being offered (including wood
grinding, Household Hazardous Waste, white goods recycling) with the continuation of
existing County landfill personnel.
Benefits of BFI's direct -haul site:
• Allows for the direct -haul of waste from Ada County to the proposed site, today and
in the future, without needing costly transfer stations.
• Allows the current landfill site to be used for the best and highest use, which may
include selling all or a portion of the property.
• County could avoid spending fund balances to pay for construction of a new cell.
• Reduce local traffic through the cities, neighborhoods and school zones by placing a
new landfill close to I-84.
• Move site out of view of local Ada County communities.
• Locate the site where the landfill life is well beyond 50 years.
• Access to Boise rail spur to allow for rail transport in Ada County, if needed.
• County would still maintain control through a community host agreement.
• County would not have any environmental or financial liability.
Idaho Marketplace • 11101 West Executive Drive • Boise, Idaho 83713
Phone 208-345-1265 • Fax 208-375-9591
• Would continue to provide for all current programs, including wood grinding,
Household Hazardous Waste, and white goods recycling.
• Provides for long-term affordable rates through a host agreement.
We appreciate your consideration in this matter and look forward to working with you in
the future. If you have any questions please contact us at 345-1265.
cc: Dave Neal
Ada County Solid Waste
CH2M Hill
January 26, 2004
Ada County Board of Commissioners
200 W. Front Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Dear Ada County Commissioners:
Thank you for allowing us to present what we feel are valid landfill options. Although we believe
that our proposal has many positive points, we would like to briefly summarize three key issues:
1.) Moving the disposal site away from the current foothills location would allow the
County to use that unique piece of property for its best and highest use (such as
residential and/or business development, parks, paths or other recreational uses). This
property is also of very high value due to its location; some estimates could be as much
as 14 million dollars using the latest land acquisition as a valuation. Moving the landfill
to an area better suited and less valuable makes economic sense.
2.) The proposed partnership provides for comparable, stable, Tong -term rates (of $15-$18
per ton in 2006) where the County remains in control. Not only does it allow the County
to choose which services to provide to its citizens, but also the ability to fund those
programs. Along with funds earmarked for specific programs, BFI's proposal allows the
County to develop a revenue stream for the general fund, if desired. This type of
arrangement would easily produce in excess of one million dollars a year for use by the
County.
3.) BFI would assume all financial and environmental liability for the site. Not only would
we ensure that the County's need for disposal be fulfilled, but that the potential liabilities
associated with landfills would no longer be a burden of the County. Through the use of
bonding and other financial means, BFI would have funds available for closure, post -
closure and any other needs that could arise. Allowing BFI to finance and construct the
new cell for Ada County's waste would free up approximately 10 million dollars in the
landfill fund for cell construction.
In summary, moving the waste out of the Hidden Hollow Landfill would make available the value
of the land and the funds reserved for cell construction, which amounts to something over 24
million dollars. In addition, the County could secure an annual revenue stream of approximately
one million dollars on another on-going basis.
Within the next few days, we will have more information on our particular landfill sites that we
wish to discuss with you. Thank you again for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dave Fisher
General Manager
Idaho Marketplace • 11101 West Executive Drive • Boise, Idaho 83713
Phone 208-345-1265 • Fax 208-375-9591
REVIEW OF LIABILITY FOR LANDFILL
OWNED AND OPERATED BY ADA COUNTY
VERSUS LANDFILL OWNED AND OPERATED
BY BFI WASTE SERVICES OF IDAHO
Martin J. McTigue
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
W. Hugh O'Riordan
Givens Pursley LLP
March 3, 2004
ADA COUNTY RISK ANALYSIS FOR BFI'S BLACKS
CREEK LANDFILL OPTION
March 3, 2004
I. Ada County's Cleanup Exposure Is Reduced If It Chooses The BFI
Blacks Creek Landfill Option
A concern has been expressed regarding the risk of a landfill in Idaho owned by
Ada County versus a landfill not owned by Ada County. Any potential liability
will arise most likely from contamination of soil or groundwater. Generally
speaking, Superfund cleanup liability can attach to four categories of parties in the
context of landfills and municipal solid waste: (1) owners of landfill facilities; (2)
operators of landfill facilities; (3) generators of wastes; and (4) transporters of
wastes. Currently, the County is an "owner and operator", as well as a potential
"generator" for its Hidden Hollow landfill, and would fall in the same categories
for any new cells developed in the expansion alternative.
Owner and operator liability should be the primary concern for the County. If
Ada County entered into a contract with BFI, the County might have theoretical
generator liability for municipal solid waste at its own landfills and for BFI's
Blacks Creek landfill, but generator liability is often nominal as EPA has policies
in place that are designed to protect generators of municipal solid waste. The
EPA policies generally provide that EPA will not pursue generators of municipal
solid waste, and may settle with such parties to provide contribution protection if
those parties are sued by others.' Therefore, as the owner and operator of Hidden
Hollow Landfill, the County (and its tax/rate payers) will shoulder the burden of
funding any necessary cleanup of the existing landfill or of any new cells. Ada
County will have no obvious parties it could easily require to share the costs of
such remediation.
If Ada County chooses the BFI Blacks Creek landfill option, however, the County
could eliminate any owner or operator liability for all wastes sent to that site, and
thereby substantially eliminate any liability for future landfilling operations. And,
even if the County was somehow found to have generator liability at the Blacks
Creek site, BFI as the owner and operator of the landfill will have the primary
responsibility for any necessary remediation.
Clearly, the County's cleanup exposure for future landfill operations is vastly
reduced by having BFI own and operate the Blacks Creeks landfill in lieu of the
County opening a new cell on valuable land in the foothills.
I See Interim Guidance On Municipal Solid Waste Exemption Under CERCLA § 107(p), dated
August 20, 2003; Policy for Municipality and Municipal Solid Waste CERCLA Settlements at NPL
Co -Disposal Sites, dated February 5, 1998; and Interim Policy on CERCLA Settlements Involving
Municipalities and Municipal Wastes, dated December 12, 1989.
II. Sufficient Safeguards Are In Place To Ensure BFI Properly Operates
The Blacks Creek Landfill So As To Not Cause Environmental Harm
BFI is a leader in the solid waste management industry and will apply its expertise
to the design and operation of the Blacks Creek landfill to ensure it is properly
designed, constructed and managed. The BFI family of companies owns and
operates 169 active landfills across the country, and has more than 26,000
employees and 14,400 collection vehicles in approximately 250 operating
locations. BFI holds 1,300 municipal contracts in North America and services
more than 7 million residential accounts each week. Our professional landfill
experts employ state -of -the art methods to maintain our landfills and protect our
environment, while meeting or exceeding all federal, state and local regulations.
Operation of the Blacks Creek landfill will be subject to the IDEQ Municipal
Solid Waste Landfill Regulations, the same as for a county operated landfill.
These comprehensive regulations impose stringent requirements regarding the
location, design, operation, environmental monitoring, closure and post -closure
and financial assurance for the landfill, as summarized below.
Location: Certain restrictions apply to siting landfills near airports, floodplains,
critical habitat areas, wetlands, fault areas and seismic zones, and unstable areas.
These restrictions are aimed at deterring interference by birds with aircraft
operation, preventing waste from washing out or polluting a protected area, and
ensuring design integrity.
Design: Protection of ground water is the primary goal of various design
standards prescribed by law, including use of liners to prevent leachate from
seeping into the soil. Design standards also are designed to ensure that disposal
will not threaten endangered species, surface waters, and flood plains.
Operation: Landfills are required to develop programs to keep out regulated
hazardous wastes and liquid waste, control explosive gases and stormwater
runoff, and comply with federal and state clean air laws and rules. In addition, to
prevent the spread of disease by vectors, each day's waste must be covered.
Procedures to restrict unauthorized access and prevent illegal dumping also must
be in place.
Ground Water Monitoring: The law requires installation of monitoring systems
to detect ground water contamination. Sampling and analysis must be conducted
periodically as well. If ground water becomes contaminated, it must be cleaned
up to approved levels.
Closure and Post -Closure: When a landfill stops accepting waste, it must be
closed in a way that will prevent problems in the future. For example, the final
cover must be designed to keep liquid away from buried waste. In addition, the
1-LA/760852.1
landfill must continue to be monitored for 30 years after closure to assure that the
unit is not leaking.
III. BFI Offers Additional Financial Assurances
IDEQ also requires landfill operators to demonstrate that they have the financial
means to pay for closure, post -closure maintenance, cleanups and other possible
environmental problems in the future. BFI has substantial financial assurances,
including insurance and bonding not available to a county operated landfill.
BFI's financial assurance will stand between any cleanup liability and the County
taxpayers. This is a significant advantage!
IV. Other Counties Have Chosen Private Landfill Operators To Reduce
Risk of Liability
Attached is part of an Order of the Board of County Commissioners for Adams
County, Washington choosing a private disposal company as an operator of a
landfill. Paragraph 21 states:
"21. The proposed Contract will insulate Adams County from the liability
for operation of the transfer station and/or dropbox facility, and any
environmental contamination that may occur at the transfer station and/or
dropbox facility as a result of those operations."
Similarly, the Spokane Regional Solid Waste Disposal Project finds the private landfill as
"the preferred alternative" (May 6, 1991 letter attached).
What this means is that private operation of landfills has been found to greatly benefit
county government. This is the choice of counties throughout the United States.
V. Selecting The Blacks Creek Landfill Option Will Reduce The
County's Potential Exposure For Personal Injury and Property
Damage Tort Claims From Nearby Residents
As development continues around the existing landfill, the potential for tort
claims from nearby residents will increase dramatically under the expansion
alternative. History shows that residents near even well run landfills often bring
tort claims involving air quality, water quality, view impairment, traffic, health
and property damage and value issues. Many times these cases are brought
without any evidence of the landfill caused any of the alleged damages.
The Blacks Creek Landfill option not only reduces the potential for such tort
claims because its location is away from the developed and developing areas of
1-LA/760852.1
Ada County, but also shifts the burden of addressing such claims away from the
County and its taxpayers and to BFI.
VI. Conclusion
Selecting the Blacks Creek landfill option is a "win — win" situation for the County and its
taxpayers that will significantly reduce the County's risk exposure for future landfill
operations.. BFI is willing to meet and negotiate with County officials at their earliest
convenience.
1-LA/760852.1
03/02/2004 15:28 FAX 208 375 9591
tlar 02 04 12:18p RAC
SOLID
WASTE
DISPOSAL
May 6, 1991
Dear Reader:
BFI WASTE SYSTEMS
206 332 7600
X1012
P. 5
Spokane Regional Solid Waste Disposal Project
1`h+. tt. V' •anr,. t r:.' t t..r
W SOLI I.d b U1�iI
S %t .snt. \\;•\ ..1”420
{50'.)) 45L 4''
t5m'tf •)5l; 7.1'i) FAN
This Addendum to the June 1990 Landf .11 Siting and Development
.Final Environmental Impact Statement updates the description of the
City of Spokane's proposal for reliable, long-term disposal of ash
residue from the Citvts Waste -to --Energy facility and other solid
waste that cannot be recycled or incinerated.
As described in the 1990 Spokane County Coaprehensive Solid caste
Management pian and Final.ZIS, the City and the County of Spokane
are -pursuing various -waste management strategies. These include
waste reduction programs, recycling programs, yard waste
composting, waste--to-energy, recycling/transfer stations, landfill
closure and new landfill capacity for ash and nonrecylable,
nrrnp,ocessable waste. This Addendum is being issued to keep the
project,specific Landfill EIS documents current and to. provide
information to the public about minor changes to the proposal for
long-haul disposal of ash.
As described in the Landfill EIS, the preferred alternative for ash
disposal is long --haul to a private landfill in Klickitat County,
,Washington. In addition, existing capacity at the City's North
Landfill will be developed in accordance with the most current
environmental standards for disposal of wastes that cannot be
recycled or incinerated, such as construction and demolition
materials. Finally, the City purchased the Malloy Prairie site in
Spokane County to be developed as en in -County backup facility.
The Landfill EIS describes an intermodal transportation system for
hauling ash to Klickitat County. Ash would be short -hauled by
truck from Waste--to-Energy to Airway Heights and transferred to
train cars. The train would haul the ash to Roosevelt, Washington,
where it would be transferred to trucks for a short-haiul to the
landfill. The City and County have determined, however, that
hauling by'truck to the landfill in niekitat County should be the
primary means of transportation. This Addendum describes this
rinor change in the proposal.
Sincerely,
SPGY.ANE REGIONAL SOI.7D WASTE DISPOSAL ?i2O.7'T'CT
(cl?
Phil H. Wil) =.7m_
Executive t7: 'tor
03/02/2004 15:24 FAX 208 375 9591
Mar 02 04 12:1Op RDC
BFI 4YASTE SYSTEMS Q003
206 332 7600 p.2
RESOLUTION NO. R-74-95
ORDER OE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Adams County, Washington
IN THE MATTER 01' THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT FOR SOLID WASTE SERVICES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RCW 36.58. 090.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No.
R-143-34 directing notice be given that the County is requesting
qualifications and proposals for providing solid waste services to
Adams County ixi accordance with RCW 36.58.098; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners received proposals from
two proponents, Regional Disposal Company (RDC) and Waste Management
of Wasr.ington. Inc.; and.
WHEREAS, a special Committee comprised of members of the Solid Haste
Advisory Committee (SWAC) of Adams County made an independent
evaluation of the proposals or the purpose of determining and making
a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding
negotiations with a proponent; and,
WHEREAS, the evaluation committee presented the recommendations to
the 5WAC who unanimously endorsed those recommendations; and,
WHEREAS. the proposal by RDC was responsive to the Adams County
Request for Qualifications and Proposals; and.
WHEREAS. the Hoard of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No.
R-5:2-95 identifying RITC as the preferred vendor pursuant to the SWAC,
establishing a Committee and authorizing negotiations for a Contract
between Adams County and RDC for solid waste services in accordance
with the Request for Qualifications and Proposals; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No.
R-69-95 directing that notice be given of a public hearing on the
proposal to enter into a Contract for the purpose of determining
whether the Contract was in the public interest; financially sound,
and advantageous for the County to use for awarding Contracts
compared t'o other methods; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners conducted public hearings
on June 12, 1995, in Ritzville, and June 14, 1995, in Othello; and,
WHEREAS. SWAC met on June 15, 1995, to consider the proposed Contract
and by consensus endorsed the proposed Contract; and,
03/02/2004 15:25 FAX 208 375 9591 BFI WASTE SYSTEMS
Mar 02 04 12_llp RDC
Resolution No. R-74-9.5
page 4
206 332 7600
!e1006
p.5
21. The proposed Contract will insulate Adams County from the
liability for operation of the transfer station and/or dropbox
facility, and any environmental contamination that may occur at the
transfer station and/or dropbox facility as a result of those
operations. The Contract also provides indemnification for Adams
County from liability for operation of the disposal site. Roosevelt
Landfill in Kiickitat County.
22. The Contract provides for the construdtion of a transfer
station. procurement of scales at the dropbox facility., and no
residual payment at the end of three years. The County was able to
obtain a residual payment price for the improvements if the County
terminated the Contract early so that the County could retain the
improvements.
23. The operation of the transfer station will be substantially
similar to the operation t.'at the County conducted for many years.
In addition, the operation will include a dropbox facility in the
vicinity of Ritzville to service the people in north Adams County.
24. RDC provided for final disposal at a site that meets or
exceeds federal and State regulations for municipal solid waste
landfills.
25. The RDC proposal makes use of businesses doing business in
Adams County.
26. FDC will utilize an in State disposal facility in
accordance with the preference of the County to minimize out of State
impacts during he Contract term.
BASED ON THE FOAEGOTNG FINDINGS, THE COUNTY MAKES THE FOLLOWING
CONCLUSIONS:
A. The Contract between Adams County and RAC is in the public
interest.
E. The Contract is financially sound.
c. The procedure used by the County is advantageous to the
County compared to other methods of rewarding contracts.
D. The Board of County 'Commissioners approve and authorize the
execution of the Contract for and on behalf of Adams County.
0
Relevant Project Experience: RDC
KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON:
SOLID WASTE TRANSFER, TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL
RDC was selected by Klamath County, Oregon, in March of 2001, to provide transfer,
transport and disposal services. RDC was responsible for the design, permitting, and
construction of a transfer station and intermodal facility in Klamath Falls, Oregon.
Services began in January of 2004. RDC operates the transfer station. The service
provided includes all transfer operations, including loading of trailers and daily
maintenance. Waste is delivered by commercial haulers and the general public to the
Klamath Regional Disposal Transfer Stations, and loaded into containers on chassis. The
full containers are then placed on rail cars and transported via rail to the to the Roosevelt
Regional Landfill for disposal. Klamath County generates about 35,000 tons of solid
waste per year.
CONTACT:
Todd O'Brien, Director
Adams County Public Works
210 West Alder Street
Ritzville, WA 99169
(509) 659-3276
Relevant Project Experience: RDC
RECOMP OF WASHINGTON—FERNDALE, WASHINGTON:
DISPOSAL
RDC began disposal service for Recomp of Washington in June 1992. Recomp is a
combined incineration, composting and transfer facility in Ferndale, Washington.
Recomp handles most of the solid waste generated in Whatcom County, Washington.
Recomp sends 150 to 300 tons per day of municipal solid waste to the Roosevelt
Regional Landfill. The material is transported by truck to an intermodal facility in
Ferndale, Washington operated by Recomp. The loaded containers are taken by rail by
the BNSF on a daily basis, and connected to RDC's Snohomish County train. Since
1994, Recomp has been shipping special incinerator ash generated at its facility and
another Whatcom County incinerator (Olivine, Corporation.)
CONTACT:
Grant Hill
Recomp of Washington
1524 Slater Road
Ferndale, WA 98248
(360) 384-1057
0
0
0
0
0
Relevant Project Experience: RDC
CITY OF WRANGELL, ALASKA:
SOLID WASTE TRANSFER, TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL
RDC began service in April 1998 for Wrangell, Alaska. Wrangell loads bales of solid
waste into closed 40' shipping containers. The containers are transported via barge by an
RDC subcontractor, Alaska Marine Lines, to Seattle, Washington, where they are then
trucked to RDC's Seattle Transfer and Recycling Facility. At the Seattle facility, the
containers are placed on rail cars and shipped by BNSF to Roosevelt, Washington. At
the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard, the containers are loaded onto truck -chassis combinations
and trucked to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill where the waste is disposed The
containers are trucked back to the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard for the return trip to
Wrangell, Alaska.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Prunella, City Manager
City of Wrangell
l3ox 531
Wrangell, AK 99929
(907) 874-2381
Relevant Project Experience: RDC
SPOKANE REGIONAL WASTE DISPOSAL PROJECT:
ASH AND MSW TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL
Within the footprint of the Roosevelt Regional Landfill, RDC has permitted and
constructed the only Special Incinerator Ash Monofill in the state of Washington. This
facility is designed and constructed similar to a hazardous waste landfill and is dedicated
to providing disposal services for Special Incinerator Ash (a class of material as defined
by the state of Washington which is basically ash from the incineration of municipal solid
waste [MSW]).
Since September 1991, RDC has been transporting about 200 to 350 tons per day of ash
from the Spokane Resource Recovery Facility. The material originally was loaded at the
facility into specially designed roll -off containers. When filled, the containers were
covered and loaded onto a truck by Western Refuse Company. Western hauled the
containerized ash by truck directly to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill, where the material
is deposited in the monofill.
In late summer 1992, RDC began providing rail containers for the ash. The loaded
containers are taken by truck to the Spokane Hub Center at Yardley Yard where they are
loaded onto railroad flatcars and taken by BNSF to RDC's Roosevelt Intermodal Facility.
From the Roosevelt Intermodal Facility, the containers of ash are transferred to trucks
and drayed to the monofill at the Roosevelt Regional Landfill for disposal. This
operation was implemented to increase the efficiency and reliability of the transportation
system.
In 1993, RDC expanded its agreement with the Spokane Regional Disposal Project to
include transport and disposal of MSW which by-passes the incinerator. This service
allows the City and County of Spokane to provide for waste disposal without the expense
of expanding the incinerator.
CONTACT:
Damon Taam, Director
Spokane Regional Solid Waste Disposal Project
W. 808 Spokane Falls Blvd.
Spokane, WA 99201
(509) 456-7403
0
0
•
0
0
0
Relevant Project Experience: RDC
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON:
SOLID WASTE LONGHA UL AND DISPOSAL
RDC has contracted with Snohomish County, Washington for Solid Waste Export
Services. The contract was signed in June 1990. Services began in March 1992, with 15
percent of Snohomish County's waste being shipped by rail to the Roosevelt Regional
Landfill. The system was "ramped -up" on an incremental basis, and as of June 28, 1992,
100 percent of the County's municipal solid waste (MSW) is being transported and
disposed through this system. This contract entails the transport and disposal of about
420,000 tons per year. In 1995, Snohomish County implemented the two option periods,
making this service guaranteed through the year 2013.
RDC is providing intermodal containers and chassis to Snohomish County. The County
loads the containers at their local transfer stations and delivers the containers to an
intermodal yard in Everett, Washington. At the intermodal facility, RDC transloads the
containers onto Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) cars, and BNSF
transports the containers to the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard in eastern Washington, where
the reverse transload occurs. RDC then drays the containers to its Roosevelt Regional
Landfill, disposes of the waste, and brings the containers back to the Roosevelt
Intermodal Yard for the return trip to Snohomish County. This operation involves the
movement of about 12,000 containers per year.
CONTACTS:
Gary Weikel, Deputy County Executive
Snohomish County Executive Division
3000 Rockefeller Avenue, M.S. 407
Everett, WA 98201
(206) 388-3460
Jeff Kelley -Clarke, Director
Solid Waste Management Division
Snohomish County Public Works
Wall Street Building
2930 Wetmore Avenue
Everett, WA 98201
(206) 388-6486
Relevant Project Experience: RDC
SKAGIT COUNTY, WASHINGTON:
SOLID WASTE TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL
RDC was selected by Skagit County, Washington, in 1993, to provide transport and
disposal services. Services began in late 1993. Full containers are trucked by an RDC
subcontractor, Rural Skagit Sanitation, to an intermodal yard in Everett, Washington. At
the intermodal facility, RDC transloads the containers onto Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railroad (BNSF) cars, and BNSF transports the containers to the Roosevelt Intermodal
Yard in eastern Washington, where the reverse transload occurs. RDC then drays the
containers to its Roosevelt Regional Landfill, disposes of the waste, and brings the
containers back to the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard for the return trip to Skagit County.
Skagit County generates about 78,000 tons of solid waste per year.
CONTACT:
Gary Sorensen, Manager
Solid Waste Division
Skagit County Public Works
1111 Cleveland Avenue
Mount Vernon, WA 98273-4215
(360) 336-9400
0
0
0
G
0
Relevant Project Experience: RDC
CITY AND BOROUGH OFSITKA, ALASKA:
SOLID WASTE TRANSFER, TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL
RDC began service in March 2000 for City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska (the "CBS").
When services began, the CBS sent Special Incinerator Ash from its municipal
incinerator; this service has since been discontinued, as the CBS closed down its
incinerator. The CBS constructed a transfer station that is operated by Stragier Sanitation
Services, Inc., RDC's subcontractor in Sitka. The CBS currently sends its municipal
solid waste (MSW) to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill. Stragier Sanitation Services loads
48' open -top containers with MSW delivered to the transfer station. The containers are
transported via barge by an RDC subcontractor, Alaska Marine Lines, to Seattle,
Washington, where they are then trucked to RDC's Seattle Transfer and Recycling
Facility. At the Seattle facility, the containers are placed on rail cars and shipped by
BNSF to Roosevelt, Washington. At the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard, the containers are
loaded onto truck -chassis combinations and trucked to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill
where MSW is disposed in the landfill. The containers are trucked back to the Roosevelt
Intermodal Yard for the return trip to Sitka, Alaska.
CONTACT:
Rich Reed, Director
Public Works Department
100 Lincoln Street
Sitka, AK 99835
(907) 747-1813
Relevant Project Experience: RDC
CITY OF PETERSBURG, ALASKA:
SOLID WASTE TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL
RDC began service in April 1998 for Petersburg, Alaska. Petersburg loads bales of solid
waste into closed 40' shipping containers. The containers are transported via barge by an
RDC subcontractor, Alaska Marine Lines, to Seattle, Washington, where they are then
trucked to RDC's Seattle Transfer and Recycling Facility. At the Seattle facility, the
containers are placed on rail cars and shipped by BNSF to Roosevelt, Washington. At
the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard, the containers are loaded onto truck -chassis combinations
and trucked to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill where the waste is disposed The
containers are trucked back to the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard for the return trip to
Petersburg, Alaska.
CONTACT:
Karl Hagerman, Director
Public Works Department
City of Petersburg
303 S 2nd Street
Petersburg, AK 99833
(907) 772-4430, Ext. 35
n
0
0
0
O
Relevant Project Experience: RDC
PEND OREILLE COUNTY, WASHINGTON:
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TRANSFER, LONGHA UL TRANSPORT AND
DISPOSAL
RDC was selected in fall of 1994 to provide transfer, transport and disposal services for
Pend Oreille County, Washington. RDC utilizes a subcontractor, Olson Sanitation, to
operate the three County transfer stations. The service includes all transfer operations,
including customer charges, loading of trailers, and daily maintenance.
Waste is delivered by commercial haulers and the general public, to the South Transfer
Station, and loaded into open -top 48' containers on chassis. A backhoe is used to
compact the waste inside the container. The full containers are then trucked to the
Spokane Hub Center at Yardley Yard where they are loaded onto railroad flatcars and
taken by BNSF to RDC's Roosevelt Intermodal Facility. At the Roosevelt Intermodal
Facility, the containers are transferred from railcars to trucks, and transported to the
Roosevelt Regional Landfill for disposal.
The Ione and Usk transfer facilities utilize 20' roll -off type containers. Customers load
waste directly into the containers. When the containers are full, they are trucked to the
South Transfer Station and consolidated into the 48' containers for transportation and
disposal at the Roosevelt Regional Landfill.
Pend Oreille County generates about 6,500 tons of solid waste per year.
CONTACT:
Charles Kress, Solid Waste Coordinator
Pend Oreille County Public Works Department
625 W. Fourth Street
Newport, WA 99156
(509) 447-4821
Relevant Project Experience: RDC
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON:
SOLID WASTE LONGHA UL AND DISPOSAL
RDC was selected by Mason County, Washington, through an option in its bid to Lewis
and Grays Harbor Counties, to provide long-term solid waste transport and disposal
services for the County. The County loads containers at its local transfer station. An
RDC subcontractor, LeMay Enterprises, a large Washington state solid waste handling
company, delivers the containers to an intermodal yard which LeMay operates for RDC
in Centralia, Washington. At the intermodal facility, LeMay transloads the containers
onto Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) cars, and BNSF transports the
containers to the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard, where the reverse transload occurs. RDC
then drays the containers to its Roosevelt Regional Landfill, disposes of the waste, and
brings the containers back to the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard for the return trip to Mason
County. The service began on September 1, 1993 when the County's landfill near
Shelton was closed. Mason County generates about 26,000 tons of solid waste per year.
CONTACT:
Gary Yando, Director
Department of Community Development
410 N. 4th Street, Bldg. #2
Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670
0
0
r
0
0
Relevant Project Experience: RDC
LINCOLN COUNTY, WASHINGTON:
SOLID WASTE TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL
RDC was selected by Lincoln County, Washington, in May of 1995, to provide transfer,
transport and disposal services. RDC was responsible for the design, permitting, and
construction of the transfer station in Davenport; the transfer station is operated by the
County. Waste is delivered by commercial haulers and the general public, to the Lincoln
County Transfer Station, and loaded into containers on chassis. The full containers are
then trucked to the to the Yardley Yard Intermodal Facility in Spokane, where the
containers are transloaded onto Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) cars, and
BNSF transports the containers to the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard, where the reverse
transload occurs. RDC then drays the containers to its Roosevelt Regional Landfill,
disposes of the waste, and brings the containers back to the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard
for the return trip to Spokane by rail, then by truck to Lincoln County. Lincoln County
generates approximately 2,000 tons of solid waste per year.
CONTACT:
Robert Breshears, P.E.
Lincoln County Public Works Department
Box 368, Route 2
Davenport, WA 99122-0368
(509) 725-7041
Relevant Project Experience: RDC
LEWIS COUNTY, WASHINGTON:
SOLID WASTE LONGHA UL AND DISPOSAL
RDC was selected in 1992 by Lewis County, Washington to provide long-term solid
waste transport and disposal services for the County. The County loads containers at its
local transfer station. An RDC subcontractor, LeMay Enterprises, a large Washington
state solid waste handling company, delivers the containers to an intermodal yard which
LeMay operates for RDC in Centralia, Washington. At the intermodal facility, LeMay
transloads the containers onto Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) cars, and
BNSF transports the containers to the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard in eastern Washington,
where the reverse transload occurs. RDC then drays the containers to its Roosevelt
Regional Landfill, disposes of the waste, and brings the containers back to the Roosevelt
Intermodal Yard for the return trip to Lewis County. The service began on April 1, 1994.
Lewis County generates about 43,000 tons of solid waste per year.
CONTACT:
Pat Campbell, Manager
Lewis County Solid Waste
1411 S. Tower Avenue
Centralia, WA 98531
(360) 740-1403
0
0
v
0
U
0
Relevant Project Experience: RDC
KLICKITAT COUNTY, WASHINGTON:
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TRANSFER, TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL
RDC is providing transfer, transport and disposal services for Klickitat County, the host
jurisdiction of the Roosevelt Regional Landfill. As part of this service, RDC has
constructed transfer stations in Dallesport, Goldendale and BZ Corner, Washington. The
Dallesport and Goldendale stations each handle approximately 60 tons per day. The BZ
Corner station handles approximately 14 tons per week. Waste is loaded from vehicles
into open -top 48 -foot containers and compacted with a backhoe. An RDC subcontractor,
Tri -County Disposal/Ross Trucking, provides the operational services including transport
of the containers to the landfill.
CONTACT:
Tim 1lopkinson, Director
Klickitat County Solid Waste Department
127 W. Court Street, MSC1I27
Goldendale, WA 98620
(509) 773-4295
Relevant Project Experience: RDC
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON:
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE TRANSFER, LONGHAUL AND
DISPOSAL
RDC was selected to provide recycling, transfer, transport and disposal services for
Construction, Demolition and Landclearing Debris (CDL) generated in King County,
Washington. Under the contract, RDC handles 25,000 to 50,000 tons per month of CDL.
RDC utilizes its Seattle Recycling Center and an RDC -owned facility in Renton,
Washington, called the Black River CDL Transfer and Recycling Facility. RDC was
responsible for all design, permitting and construction of this facility.
RDC receives CDL at its transfer and recycling facilities, processes the material manually
and mechanically to remove recyclable material, consolidates the remaining material and
loads that material into specially designed, open -top, 48 -foot shipping containers. The
loaded containers are placed on railroad flatcars and taken by the BNSF to RDC's
Roosevelt Intermodal Facility. At Roosevelt, RDC operators transload the containers
from railcars onto road chassis. The chassis are drayed to the landfill where the contents
are unloaded and disposed. Empty containers are returned to the Roosevelt Intermodal
Yard for the trip back to King County, where the process is repeated.
CONTACTS:
Theresa Jennings, Director
King County Solid Waste Division
King Street Center
201 S. Jackson Street, Suite 701
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
(206) 296-4385
Kevin Kiernan, P.E.
Engineering Services Manager
King County Solid Waste Division
King Street Center
201 S. Jackson Street, Suite 701
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
(206) 296-6542
O
0
•
0
0
Relevant Project Experience: RDC
CITY OF KETCHIKAN, ALASKA:
SOLID WASTE TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL
RDC began service in February 1995 for Ketchikan, Alaska. Ketchikan loads bales of
solid waste into closed 40' shipping containers. The containers are transported via barge
by an RDC subcontractor, Alaska Marine Lines, to Seattle, Washington, where they are
then trucked to RDC's Seattle Transfer and Recycling Facility. At the Seattle facility, the
containers are placed on rail cars and shipped by BNSF to Roosevelt, Washington. At
the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard, the containers are loaded onto truck -chassis combinations
and trucked to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill where the waste is disposed The
containers are trucked back to the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard for the return trip to
Ketchikan, Alaska. Ketchikan generates about 10,000 tons of solid waste per year.
CONTACT:
Karl Amylon, City Manager
City of Ketchikan
334 Front Street
Ketchikan, AK 99901
(907) 225-3111
• M
Relevant Project Experience: RDC
JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON:
SOLID WASTE LONGHA UL AND DISPOSAL
RDC was selected by Jefferson County, Washington to provide long-term solid waste
transport and disposal services for the County. The County loads containers at its local
transfer station. An RDC subcontractor, LeMay Enterprises, a large Washington state
solid waste handling company, delivers the containers to an intermodal yard which
LeMay operates for RDC in Centralia, Washington. At the intermodal facility, LeMay
transloads the containers onto Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) cars, and
BNSF transports the containers to the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard, where the reverse
transload occurs. RDC then drays the containers to its Roosevelt Regional Landfill,
disposes of the waste, and brings the containers back to the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard
for the return trip to Jefferson County. The service began April 1999. Jefferson County
generates about 15,000 tons of solid waste year.
CONTACT:
Frank Gifford, Director
•Jefferson County Department of Public Works
1322 Washington Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 385-9160
0
O
0
0
Relevant Project Experience: RDC
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON:
SOLID WASTE LONGHAUL AND DISPOSAL
RDC was selected in 1992 by Grays Harbor County, Washington to provide long-term
solid waste transport and disposal services for the County. The County loads containers
at its local transfer station. An RDC subcontractor, LeMay Enterprises, a large
Washington state solid waste handling company, delivers the containers to an intermodal
yard which LeMay operates for RDC in Centralia, Washington. At the intermodal
facility, LeMay transloads the containers onto Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
(BNSF) cars, and BNSF transports the containers to the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard,
where the reverse transload occurs. RDC then drays the containers to its Roosevelt
Regional Landfill, disposes of the waste, and brings the containers back to the Roosevelt
Intermodal Yard for the return trip to Grays Harbor County. The service began on April
1, 1994. Grays Harbor County generates about 47,000 tons of solid waste per year.
CONTACT:
Kevin Varness
Director of Utility Services
100 W. Broadway
O Montesano, WA 98563
(360) 249-4222
0
Relevant Project Experience: RD["
FERRY COUNTY, WASHINGTON:
SOLID WASTE TRANSFER, TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL
RDC was selected by Ferry County, Washington, in July of 1997, to provide transfer,
transport and disposal services. RDC was responsible for the design, permitting, and
construction of the transfer station in Republic. RDC utilizes a subcontractor, Couse's
Sanitation and Recycle, Inc., to operate the transfer station. The service includes all
transfer operations, including customer charges, loading of trailers, and daily
maintenance. Waste is delivered by commercial haulers and the general public to the
Ferry County Transfer Station, and loaded into containers on chassis. The full containers
are then trucked to the to the Yardley Yard Intermodal Facility in Spokane, where the
containers are transloaded onto Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) cars, and
BNSF transports the containers to the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard, where the reverse
transload occurs. RDC then drays the containers to its Roosevelt Regional Landfill,
disposes of the waste, and brings the containers back to the Roosevelt Intermodal Yard
for the return trip to Spokane by rail, then by truck to Ferry County. Ferry County
generates about 2,000 tons of solid waste per year.
CONTACT:
Kristy Cromwell, Waste Management Coordinator
Ferry County Department of Public Works
350 Delaware Street
Republic, WA 99166
(509) 775-5217
0
0
E Floanna Feat rr Rd
BFI Proposed Landfill Sites
aunty Lanq/Bllnsetyt - -
ad County Landfill Inset r
a2F F Chnxkn Blvd
F McMidad Rd
-1 .
fL'a.rk lid
a
3
E Fairview Rd ,2
F Franklin Rd
Flake Ileal Rd
Bc .2thiRd
g _
Y
r:Fhb des\,
Blacks Creek Site Inset
State Land or„,
_-/LkksS nRO.
BLM Land
&eek. Creek
Resoanv
0
0
n
r
r 4'
d^
y�y.
Borst Air
Terminal
N ..
Union
PacdK RR
• PigpascdBlacks
Creek Sac
Legend
Interstate Highway Rover, Stream, or Canal
- Anerial Road Ditch or Intermittent R+trcam
Major Road lake or Pond
Local Road Seasonally Flooded
Rural Road E-1 Ada County Boundary
Tinil City Limit
- Railroad - Proposed Sites
1 0.5 0 1
Miles
N
w
S
''' POWER
''� ENGINEERS
W tk5Rven Dr
fumes Cnrk
_RJwu Mon Rd
eryrns Rae
BLM Land
arol
w Kwra MmeRd
See Blacks Creek Site Inset
Proposed
Blacks Creek Site
Approx 560 Acres
Pone City
RR Mate
Uaon
Pacific RR
lmaa.
fiend 2 ,
3r
Proposed Desert Site
Approx 2500+ Acres
it Orchard Rauch as
Eagle City Council
Public Hearing Sign-up Sheet
Subject: ZOA-8-03 - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - City Of Eaele:
March 16, 2004 7:30 p.m.
NAME
/1/
[R OA) 44)5/4
17 ),A -)!•C)
ADDRESS/
TELEPHONE SUBJECT
.:A)89its-109
36* s-.71,067-t-Aii---44,
,739- 0737
•,'So -r-)44 rtio, ),
taie416.
7)/ 4.49A/-
Page 1 f 1
HACOUNCIUAGENDA\CCSIGNUP WPD
TESTIFY
YES/NO? PRO/CON
CO4
Yb5 "IC
Eagle City Council
Public Hearing Sign-up Sheet
Subject: CPA-4-03/ZOA-6-03 - Comarehensive Plan Amendment / Zoning Ordinance Amendment
— City of Eagle:
March 16, 2004 7:30 p.m.
ADDRESS/
TELEPHONE
TESTIFY
SUBJECT YES/NO? PRO/CON
Page 1 f 1
H \COUNCIL\AGENDAICCSIGNUP.WPD
Eagle City Council
Public Hearing Sign-up Sheet
Subject: RZ-9-03 - Rezone from R-4 to PS - Joint School District No. 2
March 16, 2004 7:30 p.m.
ADDRESS/ TESTIFY
NAME TELEPHONE SUBJECT YES/NO? PRO/CON
DIAZ:Ax. CA taA --isg -r0,4 e4 -'601,4) tie -Z4EA.L. r
Page 1 f 1
H:ICOUNCILWGENDAICCSIGNUP.WPD
Ada County Sheriff's
Eagle Station Monthly Report
February 2004
Presented to: Eagle City Council
By: Sgt. Dana Borgquist
Sergeant Dana Borgquist
Met with a local business owner in regard to a drug free work
place and things that he can do to help us keep drugs out of his
business.
Met with the Mayor and other husiness people regarding the
Fagle Recreation Center.
I3egan meeting with Sheriff's Office administration regarding
budget issues for Eagle.
Attended Eagle Customer Appreciation Day.
Attended and facilitated a neighborhood meeting regarding Stadler Court.
Continued meeting with the Every 15 Minutes committee regarding the upcoming program
which will eventually take place in Eagle.
Met with Councilman Bastian regarding Eagle calls.
Red Team
Deputy Matt Buie
02-04-04
• I visited with an elderly widowed female on Eagle Hills
who had concerns with the safety of her home. I spent
about an hour going over a home security survey and
answered a lot of questions. We discussed several options
that would make her house more secure.
02-19-04
• I attended a greenbelt expansion meeting, at the Eagle Sewer
huilding.
• I met with some Cub Scouts at the Eagle Sub for about 1-1/2 hours. I gave them some tips on
how to he safer, how to help the police catch had guys by being a partner with us, and when
calling the police is appropriate. They also got to look at some police equipment and a patrol
car.
02-20-04
• A citizen complained about drivers running the school bus arm daily at Floating Feather and
Pinnacle. Sgt. I3orgquist and I set up on the intersection to watch it and did not see any
violations. I will continue to patrol this intersection in the mornings when I am able.
02-21-04
• Felony Probationer checks on South Young Ln, and Rooster Dr.. The probationer on Young
was very cooperative and was happy to allow me to look through the house and in the
2
refrigerator for alcohol. No violations of probation Were ohsen ed. The check on Rooster
was unsuccessful again. no one hone.
• When leaving the Rooster address. 1 had the opportunity to speak with a neighbor about
community policing and what his role as a partner in the community Was. Gave hint my
business card with appropriate phone numbers to contact police services.
• Check of Registered Sex Offender on South Parkinson. This was the last Registered Sex
Offender to be checked in Eagle for the time being, and he was at the address he had listed.
Throughout the month of February 1 conducted stationary and mobile radar patrols in the local
school zones and other high volume. speed problem areas. 1 spent a lot of the time practicing
with the new laser, and learning how to he proficient with it. The specific areas of concentration
were Floating, Feather near Park Ln; Eagle Elementary: Ballantyne and Mountain Creek: Eagle
Middle School: Floating Feather and Thunderbird; Highway 44 and W State St: ,°d and State St.:
Floating Feather and Pehhlebeach.
Deputy Kelly Adams
will be transferring to the Sheriff's Office civil department next
month. I have been spending time tying up things here.
:'Attended SWA-1' training twice during the month.
Deputy Luis Gutierrez
Luis is taking a couple months off using FMLA. I -ling and his wife want to
spend as much time as they can at home with liana before they both go
back to work.
�r4 , Attended SWAT training twice during the month.
Deputy Jeff Winegar
I attended SWAT training 2 days this month.
I have continued to do extra patrol at the schools. parks and business areas
in town. This has seemed to he successful. as we have not had very many
burglaries on our end of the week. 1lave continuously done security checks
throughout the city.
Gold 'Team
Deputy Jon I'flcDaniel
Met with owner, manager, and 13 employees of Smukey Mountain
Pizza concerning Eagle's drug free workplace initiative. Gave 30
minute talk and explained to employees how ownership and
management want to partner with the Sheriff's Office.
A resident of Stadler Court had mentioned that they are having a
reoccurring juvenile problem in their neighborhood and expressed
that she and her neighbors did not know how to resolve the problems. Sergeant Borgquist.
Deputy Dewey and myself met with approximately 90'7( of the neighborhood at a meeting at
the Library. We spent I-1., hours with the group and answered questions and gave pointers
on who to regain control. We are already seeing positive results since that meeting in the
beginning of the February. Residents are more comfortable about calling in illegal activity to
our dispatch.
Sergeant Borgquist and I stet with Ron Mayhew concerning preliminary plans to open a
juvenile recreation/computer Center in downtown Eagle.
1 met with "ferry Beck at Eagle High and Leeann Carlson at Eagle Middle School concerning
their interest in supporting the above mentioned youth center. Both pi inciples were in total
support and offered their services to advertise the youth center.
I was given descriptions of a group of Juvenile vandalism suspects. which were victimizing
the Eagle Hills Golf Course. Working with Deputy Jolliffe. Eagle Hills employees and a
concerned citizen, we were able to catch the suspects and get restitution for the damage.
Deputy John Dewey
Sgt. Borgquist. Deputy McDaniel and 1 put on a meeting at the Eagle
Library for the homeowners of Stadler Ct. The meeting was reference a
problem family in the neighborhood that is scaring everyone around them.
We told them that with their help we could solve the problem. The
meeting was well received.
I continued to work on my Safety and Awareness project with the local
businesses.
ran several directed radar patrols around the city and our schools. The community is seeing
their police a lot snore!
Commissioner Yzaguirrc came out with me on a ride -a -long. He said he hadn't been out for
awhile and needed to come out more. The Commissioner had a good time.
I had my monthly two SWAT training's and also was called out twice in February. Once on a
narcotics raid and on the Boise Police shooting.
4
Deputy Jeremiah ,Neumann
During the month of February 1 continued patrol on Highway 44
and Highway 55. I stopped numerous violators and cited a large
amount of those. This traffic enforcement led to DUI arrests,
warrant arrests and other criminal violations. Utilizing radar
and the new laser to make traffic stops.
Made routine bar checks at the Double Eagle. During those
contacts 1 checked the business liquor license and made sure no
iolations were occurring.
1 am still working with the prosecutor's office to simplify charges on underage consumption.
Also looking at any Nay to alleviate the manpower required at juvenile parties.
Attended Bomb Training once this month.
Also attended a 2 -1 -hr Narcotics Conspiracy training course.
Deputy Jake Vogt
Continuing my partnership with newspaper delivery people asking for their
help reporting suspicious people / vehicles etc. at the time they are seen
instead of hours later.
Conducted nightly patrol of the Skatepark.
Conducted nightly patrols of the various construction sites for burglary
suppression to include the new Ilome Depot site. Spoke to the night
cleaning crew about securing their vehicles, crime prevention education,
reference vehicle burglaries.
flexed oft several hours of my shift in the morning and came in on a Saturdays to do extra
patrol in the neighborhoods due to increased vandalism from juveniles_ I caught some kids in the
act of toilet papering.
Deputy Todd Jolliffe
Deputy Jolliffe took Kelly Adams position as he left for the Civil
Department. Deputy Jolliffe has spent the last couple years as the
School Resource Office at Eagle Academy, so he is familiar with lots of
kids and with the area. Deputy Jolliffe is also a member of the ACSO
SWAT team.
5
Deputy /hare Bown►u►►
Deputy Marc Bowman will be the new motor officer for the City of
Eagle. Marc will take the place of Deputy Jeff Winegar who will be
transferring to the STEP team at shift change (April 4). Deputy Bowman
will come from the Kuna contract.
6
Eagle Reported Cases
2/1/04 to 2/29/04
L ,\
.T�
1
Source: New Wart
3/8.104
ACSO/CAUIJm
Reported Cases
3--BATTERY
1--BURG ATTEMPTED
5--BURGLARY
2--BURGLARY VEHICLE
1--CHILD CUSTODY INTERFERENCE
1--CHILD MOLESTING/L & L
1--CONCEALED WEAPON
Q 2--CONTEMPT OF COURT
❑ 3--DOMESTIC BATTERY/PHYSICAL
• 4--DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE/ALCOHOL
2--DRIVING WHILE SUSPENDED/DWP
3--FAILURE TO OBEY CITATION
O 1--FORGERY
❑ 2--FRAUD
O 1--HOLD MENTAL 24 HOUR/INVOLUNTARY
• 2--INATTENTIVE DRIVING
1--INJURY TO CHILD
1--INTERNET FRAUD
C•� 1--INTIMIDATION OF WITNESS
Q 2--JUVENILE BEYOND CONTROL
Q 1--MISSING PERSON
0 1--PERSON NEEDING ASSISTANCE
▪ 1--POSSESSION DRUG WITHOUT RX
e 3--POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
C 2--PROBATION VIOLATION
C 1--RAPE BY FORCE
® 1--RECKLESS DRIVING
*"-r 2--RUNAWAY
1--SUICIDE ATTEMPTED
2--SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
1--THEFT OF MOTOR VEHICLE
6--THEFT PETIT
1--THEFT/LARCENY ATTEMPTED
• 1--TOBACCO USE BY MINOR
4--VANDALISM
1--VIOLATION OF PROTECTION ORDER
1--WINDOW PEEPING
Crashes in Eagle
2/1/04 to 2/29/04
L
BEACON LIG IHT
FLOATING F
N
(2) Non -Intersection
1 Injury ; 1 Non -Injury
Non Intersection
p Non -Injury
p Injury
Intersection
❑ Non -Injury
City Limits
I Ada County
Boise
Eagle
Garden City
n
CHINbEA
2000 4000 Feet
j
l
am ncm CAU a,uo.ae
Op%peoco0a .xe
ACSO/CAUllm
Ada County Accidents Eagle
4 -Feb
Accidents
Physical Injury
Property Damage
Grand Total
Day of the Week
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Time of Day
6:00 - 16:00
17:00 - 20:00
21:00 - 5:00
Major Thoroughfares
Floating Feather
Highway 44 (State St)
Highway 20-26 (Chinden Blvd)
Eagle Rd
Total I
3
9
12
PD PI Total I
1 1 2
2 1 3
2 0 2
2 0 2
0 0 0
1 0 1
1 1 2
12
PD PI Total
5 2 7
0 0 0
4 1 5
12
PD PI Total I
2 1 3
1 3 4
1 0 1
2 2 4
Causes PD PI Total I
Faild to Yield 0 1 1
Speeds to fast for conditions 1 1 2
Inattention 1 0 0
Following too close 1 1 2
Provided by CAU 3/9/2004
1
C apitol Securiities Corporation
3955 N. Cowboy Lane • Star, Idaho 83669 • (208) 286-7900
February 27, 2004
Mayor Merrill and Eagle City Council Members
City Of Eagle
310 E. State Street
Eagle, ID 83616
Re: North Star Charter School —Cavallo Estates Subdivision Homeowners
Dear Mayor Merrill and City Council
As the developer and property owner within Cavallo Estates Subdivision, I have been
attempting to work with our neighbor, the North Star Charter School, regarding negative
traffic impacts occurring within our subdivision. Specifically, there is an intense traffic
overflow for parking and for student drop offs that is occurring within our subdivision.
We are requesting the City of Eagle please put a stop to this nuisance.
It is important to understand that during the process of selling the lot to the school we
followed the City's review of process closely and were pleased to see that the Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that the city adopted for the
School protected us from such impacts. The City's Findings assure current and future
homeowners within Cavallo Estates that the traffic impact that is in the Findings under
section "C" bullet #4 the issue of traffic through Cavallo Estates is addressed. The
City's Findings clearly state "Traffic would be directed to Park Lane, thereby
alleviating an influx of vehicles through the subdivision."
Furthermore, the School representatives themselves assured the City that this traffic
impact would not occur. They provided the City with a written statement, dated July 17,
2002, as required by the City to assure compliance with Eagle code requirements for a
CUP (Eagle Code 8-7-3-2). In addressing item D of that code, "Will not be hazardous or
disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses" their letter expressly states "Access
will be from a collector road with no vehicle access through any residential areas."
Many other statements within the Findings support the protection of our neighborhood
also. We enjoy the school very much but ask for your help with the traffic issue.
The parking and students drop off problem is occurring because with the most schools
many children are bussed. In the case of the North Star Charter School through it turns
out that there is no bussing available. That means the entire student body, approximately
270 kids, are transported to and from the School by individual vehicles. That is a
problem. The City's parking and on-site student drop off requirements likely did not take
this into account. However, that is irrelevant with regard to Cavallo Estates because the
Findings and applicant's letter assures that the traffic will not be in and through our
subdivision_
• •J E' , r 1 f J . .
iJi1''J. �: fit�ll r i,:' f+�i'i: , '•1' i .: ! itjJ !• t 1/,li "i';rii;ci . 1:-r!: '1.•:
.?? • !iii•'IL"!
. •i;
�%1 }
;3 : t
-• J
J
1•,,
• Vii' t .. :L i;
•7C•
...;j��;..fti!'�:J1j •.'.�I•tS1 :t:il !._t71• ..J.
t 1.; :iti ''i
.
t 1
it
i,:1+i1i : �t. ,i:'1 1 ... _.1 i 11.r,•f1•'j• 'i v !ii: ..-. ii'{ ,..,•1_, "...::.;',i ' '1:i;
J v .i.jti y t1 _ , 1t; :':., •:: . ••;' • •. :f•+ .1 • , _ I.:iii1i_.' `
J
•'1
f1
Ca 3ito1 Securities Corporation
3955 N. Cowboy Lane • Star, Idaho 83669 • (208) 286-7900
2 February 27, 2004
We believe there are several options which the City can undertake to relieve Cavallo
Estates of the negative traffic impacts: (1) Issue an order to North Star Charter School to
discontinue use of our subdivision to access the school. (2) abandon the walk way
easement that borders the school or (3) Allow Cavallo Estates to build a temporary fence
bordering the walkway to prevent access to the school though our subdivision
We look forwarding to discussing this issue with you and the City Council during the
public comment portion of your next meeting.
(72
`ti JAvou
zu
t1',;•F'
I t • 10
_11 •
i i :: •=-:)1
f 1 ffii .
•
•, •
'•••• .
'• S.
,•1
•.,
rliull
.12; r £tl
t
-44
R.
,160
• .ss L
ANC
7
�z:>•r„ •�!DM
tE'•'1!
L
•
1 t.� floe
'«r
-21.11 c-7.
]-y
11
LAkILIJAJ
A
_ �R_.is t_w.1,/3f1
r;
A1!
C:
IR.,A t e11:LJss L 11�-,
r-rls SS
:ai
.001 - 11 3TIr9S
at.• e� t
„ it
11th c '
�i V a .rd' off/
*pasRiIILOR<m1 Vr✓ L s{ n 04
"$
tis
?T 1 ,tAt' 'Wx' A R 21.1,410 S4O... ,/. 1=
... .....� ..MO �-.� Ma w..e
1
1
1.+ 11
if It .
41
3Wfl
141
Sat
TIM 11
ql :I
1"
I
0
IIs
it>t
1�.
s:11.°1°..
MU fir' ..
t_
1
1
�
1 1 7/A�i•l// it Mt 1= 1 i
; , 7 0Q-4 D64.114 ;
r;
,
•waw t+II.
!
I i ~' �f
I 1• 1 1'
1 !BIM 1
I,
••• � 1 1 ii
L iti
•
I I Zit 1
L
1
I11 1 1
soi
'��-- Hees----------•a•Iu 't
w.
•
0
•
1111' 1 .:
.I
I
;1
t
.v. •IRtljo
ar
a
1;
:•
11
e i
1 i I
a ^
QJ 4 ais ! V
vas ; ; Len
� VII�..� ���..�.. i • ` 11J-
-. •x 00
h •�
NfR
0
MR 011.1110000. Im
AI OW
zo/kelZi SaSifSSIV .0776'AK9
ONIPACL2fld
CZ
tsio 1
ly
(
C
c
c
' I
: •
•
• • -
• .%
•
• •;i
,' •
•
.c.,.
. • ;
"-:_ .t •
• .4 '
, •
•
• • •-•.'•;-•*
•
. •••••
• •
I :
. • /
• 7
▪ • . •
•••:, • -
•
• • •
• •
!. .;.
I
•
• ••
"• "'
ii•-:
••••••
r•-•'',
•
•
• •
• .
• •
•
! • •• •
• ••••
•- •
• • '
• •••••,, "
•t•••••;:-..;
• '
•
t •
t
•. •
•
i.
• i• r. I
•
Eagle City Council
Hidden Hollow Landfill
Decision Process &
Environmental information
Overview of Key Issues
Public Involvement Process
Risk Management
• Groundwater, Traffic, Air
• Costs
• Visual impact
• Waste Reduction
• Year 2100 plan
• Implementation Schedule
Presentation Team
• Ed Sloan, CH2M Hill - PM, Introduction
• Randy Peterson, PE, CH2M Hill - Key
Technical Issues
•Garrett Brown, PG, CH2M Hill- Groundwater
*Dennis Smith, PH, CH2M Hill - Groundwater
•Dave Neal, Ada County Landfill Operations
Director
Ada County Solid Waste Management
Numerous Additional
Team Members
• Ada County Commissioners •
& staff
• Operations- Dave Neal/
Ted Hutchinson
• Legal, Ada County Legal
staff
• Risk Management, Derek Voss
• Invirolssues staff
Groundwater, Dennis Smith/PH,
Chuck Feast/PG, Garrett Brown/PG
Geotechnical, Kimball Ohsiek, PE
Air Pollution, Rick McCormick, PE
Traffic, Scott Ellsworth, PE
Costs, Dan Pitzler, PE
Numerous others
Ada County Solid Waste Management
Introduction
• 1972 HHLF started operation
• 1985 Initial long-term planning
• 2002 Ada County, expand landfill facility
• May 2003, Board re-evaluate expansion
• Schedule
— 2007: New disposal site operational
— 2010: HHLF expected to reach capacity
— Accommodate solid waste through 2045, or longer
2
.fib MA.
■II a_A
1
n
i
WO 16
61.1 4•611
ILL
Ada County Public
Involvement Process
• Stage 1 — Sept -Dec 2003
Public education, refine goals and
criteria.
• Stage 2 — Jan -Feb 2004
Identify and evaluate solid waste
solutions.
• Stage 3 — March 2004
Final decision and approval.
3
Selecting a Proposed
Preferred Option
• Goals & Criteria Comparison
• Public Input
• Technical Information
• Liability and Cost Discussions
• IWS/BFI Proposal Presentations
Key Considerations
• Human Health & the
Environment
— Groundwater impacts
— Air impacts
• Community Impacts
— Quality of Life
— Traffic
• Management &
Operations
— Long-term planning
— Improving recycling
• Financial
— Comparative costs
— Liability concerns
4
Selected Option
1 Option C — New Cell at Hidden
Hollow Sanitary Landfill
2 Partnering with BFI,
Blacks Creek Site
3 Contract w/ Payette
County as backup
(contract w/ IWS now)
Liability
Increased Control
Rcduccd Liability
Rcduccd Cost
Risk Comparison: Control,
Liabilities, $
Ada County Landfill
Risk Analysis
D "
Risk Continuum
K1.Y A st,Mrnuhs
1 COSI m uhmtuloly a htixbon of liability ohrch is ultimately a hrns.h,m.sr.nnnol
2 Ada C many can not transfer all of its tisk mlaml to landfill op.?anonn
1 Ada County ta in the M. I Iwsdwn lu cot hal aelcyunl exlosta.a.
.1 U.cr the Ionic kith Fu0.minenul enhm„ ate more stable than pmsat..rttcrpny.s
5 the mum unk 1 the gre er the potential hahthty.
KI V f ONSII)1:RATIONS
I Multiple sacs Itksl) in.tca a lalnldy lohnhal
2 It dolieule if not tmpolslble to ptedlel all pnlshle oosome,' e,ettt,
1 Ncavy contrxa m.ot be m plxe and adequate to protect Ada foamy s mterc.l,
4 Future babthuea must l.e f tuhd regattllm of the plan chosen
1 ong ten. liabilmc. ate ditfcWa to a4+lyap nr.1 yunnnly
Reduced Control
Increased Liability
Increased Cost
5
Key Technical Issues
• Randy Peterson, PE, Design Manager
• Key Issues
— Groundwater
— Traffic
— Air quality
— Costs
— Waste Reduction
— Year 2100 plan
— Visual impacts
— Implementation schedule
Hidden Hollow Landfill, Well Locations
6
Hidden Hollow Landfill, Groundwater/Plume
Landfi�j ( "Identified, as
vrSource-oLGro ndwater Plume
East ,,aactron weal
Insib' Isdfi :1` 9
1=a
:xit n
Groundwater Pl
HASE I Landfill
Ga�sE at aon �Syys,
."Startup A`pri12004\
a.99,4;Ex nt
Gro nod at P.Jume
as Flare System,
n operation 4/26/04
Removing groundwater
contaminate source
Landfill groundwater not connected to Eagle wells
Typical Eagle
Municipal Well
North Ravine CeII Schematic Cross Section
West to East
rtt
.+.7 Irr I.2. a.N n.Nr —ww ....,
taMa� ' •�'_1 :: L _iT7.aHa•l +iru .l..e
--� _.. .
Yaaawarwnaia•FcnaiYtilileb•eaT ue1avu taussana •once
Wp•r uNw awyy w0`nawaa -
OnrstO. Non N1 ofIsu.ar r..
awnrNNwal awwN1n4,Ow, r�0
WHIN Inn .aM,nMa
HHLF and Community Traffic
a..c .. .aa
OP M3004N
TRAFFIC VOLUMES - Average number of vehkks/day
, Landfill Site =1,500
�\
(?)11.1 Seaman's Gulch = 3,940
Q
iv
Homo Depot = 11,650
Wal-Mart =14,690
■ Gary Lane = 15,200
State Street = Approx. 39,000
MAP LEGEND
las than 2,000.NtibfJOry
�.�.� 2.000.10.000 .a tcl aNay
"" 10.000 • 10102 aaMch.Cry
70000. 50000 .eMclesaay
O
Air Quality
• HHLF closest to population center, minimizing
vehicle emissions
• IWS, BFI and HHLF all are in the Boise airshed
• Landfills more distant will result in
increased impacts to air quality,:.
• Landfill gas system will flare
methane reduce odors
Cost Comparison- Collection &
Disposal
• Hidden Hollow Landfill (Tipping costs)
Gate Receipts -$6.4 M
Annual Expenditures budget - $6.4 M
(Includes budgeted costs for closure, future cell const.
and all recycling programs)
• County Wide Collection Costs $18M
• Privatization
Transfer Station costs
Transportation costs
Tipping costs
9
Cost Comparison
Hidden Hollow Sanitary Landfill
Public/Private Operations
Annual Gate Receipts and Expenditures Budget - FY 2003
S6.4 million total
About 514 50 per tan tipping costs
5648.000
Private wood waste/recycling contractor
Prlvote Intndaie on tractor
52.524.000
Capital improvements
(existing call closure and
now cell construction cost,)
8517,000
County staff
5433,000 *spans..
5100,000
Groundwater
monitoring
Hidden Hollow Sanitary Landfill
Public/Private Operations
Annual Gate Receipts and Expenditures Budget - FY 2003
13
c
0
c
o` La
•
N
M
• tr,
O 0
u
r0 13
> a
a
0
E
0
0
W
S6.4 million total
About S14.50 per ton tipping costs
5648,000
Private wood waste/recycling contractor
4431,000
Private hoz waste contractor
S1,717,000
Private landfill contractor
S2,524,000
Capital improvements
(existing cell closure and
new toll construction costs)
4547,000
County staff
4433,000 expenses
':100,000
Groundwater
monitoring
to Private Company
• Ada County pays no
Property Tax
■ Ada County pays no
Income Tax
• Ada County makes no
profit
• No cost required for
Ada County self -bonding
of closure/ post closure
costs
• Ada County management
costs are less than 10% of
gate receipts
10
Population Center Basad on
COMPASS 2010 Population Estimate
Transportation Cost
Comparison, EPA Data
Ada County Estimated Annual Transfer Station and Hauling Costs
(Figure 14001.0 !tom EM Wass tnnitrr 5snens A Iaa0al la Wnslon Mrl ng. hh 204=1
7.
O
a ■3
0 ■p
.0
143•1
Ir trio
soar on,
u.i
11
Cionlr or All Coulry •
Miles one-way trip distance from wart" source to dispnsol
Ana t.ounty tsttmatea Annual Iranster btatton ana rlauling costs
(Figure adapted horn EPA Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision Making, July 2002)
ns
Ir
3.4 mil
-411
17.5 miles
Break ...point
$4,3 mil
base transfer
station costs
11
S2 Ad
Carter of Ada Cranny population
w
w
O
0
co
n
ca S �S1.4 mil7. ti°A
c O r u y
,r3y
.c ...4;2,1 fail ty
ns maes
poen a
C 0 0 a Break even Point Z',..:'
� S6.� mil
C 0
o 3 "
wa
CO e§v
m 0 0
CO - ta. mit
g, v base transfer
w —
nation costs
c • cc
a.
v
2 y
Miles one-way trip distance from
waste source to disposal
Fina 1..uuliay car .11lla.Cu P111IISIa, 111:111. 01 `nlaesVll 1311Y • .O1a1111U vvaaa
(Figure adapted from EPA Waste Transfer Stations• A Manual for Decision Making, July 2002)
1;I0.� All
o S2 mil
1=
Center of Ada County population r,
i w
Miles one-way trip distance from wastesourceto disposal
12
Total
cost over
50 yrs.,
HHLF
data
Total cost
over 50 yrs.
HHLF/
EPA
P 1.{10
r
P MAU.
0
•
P Ma.
•
7 Psails
E
a
•
•
✓ reaw
0
✓
IMAMS
C
✓ furs.
C
0
r
0
rrAU"
MIMS*
C
4
0
1-
00000
P.SM
Transportation and Disposal Cost Comparison
FY 2003
ilfabort.sa.0.• !
01011101
Transportation and Disposal Cost Comparison
FY 2003
i1NRLert escalation Won'
13
eAro.ro
Total cost
over 50 yrs. '� a
HHLF/ • �L6
o PS .6
EPA ,rre
Total transportation
Transportation and Disposal Cost Comparison
FY 2003
Mitnom sua,non l+tto•11
0
Vnnr.
Waste Reduction & Diversion
Programs
• Maintain current efficient, cost-effective, and
financially self-sustaining programs
• Low-cost base provides revenue to promote
NEW diversion, reuse, and recycling
• Ada County will continue to work with cities
to facilitate waste reduction programs
benefiting residents and businesses
14
Hidden Hollow Landfill
North Ravine, Year 2100 Plan
Visual impact
• Landfill at North Ravine site not visible from
North, South, East or west over 100 year life
• Below the ridge tops, behind existing LF
• Maybe some visibility from NW up Goose
Creek road in 20-30 years
• Existing & new cell const. includes seeded
and irrigated slopes to blend w/ natural
foothills
15
Implementation Plan
Preferred Disposal Option --- late March 2004
The Board of Ada County Commissioners will announce their final preferred
option during a meeting open to the public
Site Characterization Report --- mid -Summer 2004
Provides site information about geology, groundwater and other key criteria
Submit to Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) and Central
District Health Department (CDHD) for approval
o Written public comment accepted For a 28 -day comment period
Conditional Use Permit — October - December 2004
Provides information about project compliance with land use and planning
requirements
Submit to Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission for approval
o Hold public hearing
•
District Health Department (CDHD) for approval
o Written public comment accepted for a 28 -day comment period
Conditional Use Permit --- October - December 2004
Provides information about project compliance with land use and planning
requirements
Submit to Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission for approval
o Hold public hearing
Pre -Design Permit — early 2005
Provides preliminary design for new cell
Submit to IDEQ and CDHD
o Written public comment acceped:for a 28«day comment period
Final Design Permit --- during 2005
Provides all engineering and construction plans and documents
Submit to IDEQ and CDHD
° Written public comment accepted`. for. a 28 -day comment period
Construction Activities — January - December 2006
Select contractors for construction activities
Complete construction activities
Begin transition from former cell to new cell
16
Community Concerns &
County Commitments
• Recycling and waste diversion program
improvements
• Traffic mitigation
• Visual and odor reduction
• Long-term capacity planning
• Buffer land recreational access, new
trails plan
Thank you!
• Questions and Comments
17
Groundwater (cont.)
• Depth to groundwater has various
impacts
— Deep groundwater = long period until
contamination detected (IWS/BFI)
— Shallow groundwater = easily
detected/treated (H H LF)
— New Salt Lake City landfill with liner is 5
feet above groundwater
• Site is well suited for use as a landfill
18