The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes - 2018 - City Council - 05/08/2018 - RegularEAGLE CITY COUNCIL Meeting Minutes May 8, 2018 INNOVCATION 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ridgeway calls the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: BASTIAN, GOLD, PITTMAN, MITCHELL. All present. A quorum is present. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor leads the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT: NONE This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding concerns or comments they would like to provide to the City Council regarding subjects not on the agenda. At times, the City Council may seek comments/opinions regarding specific City matters during this allotted time. This is not the time slot to give formal testimony on a public hearing matter, or comment on a pending application or proposal. Out of courtesy for all who wish to speak, the City Council requests each speaker limit their comments to three (3) minutes. 5. PRESENTATIONS: A. INFORMATIONAL REPORT: Fire Chief Rusty Coffelt and Anne Wescott with Galena Consulting will provide City Council a report on the Eagle Fire Department's Impact Fee Study. Mayor introduces the issue. Fire Chief Coffelt introduces the Impact Fee Study and Anne Wescott. Anne Wescott display a power point on the Impact Fee Study and provides an overview for the Council. General discussion. B. ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR: Brad Smith, Chief Deputy with the Assessor's Office will provide the annual report. Mayor introduces the issue. Brad Smith, Chief Deputy with Assessor's Office, discusses the real estate market and interest rates. 14,000 notices will be sent out this month which includes a letter on the budget process and the increases. In Idaho properties are assessed 100% of market value. The numbers I'm going to be given to you are preliminary. Discusses the total market value, commercial, residential value and personal property. $4.1B market value for this year. Discusses the values in the Urban Renewal District, $86M. The New Construction Growth is $232M. Land values are increasing substantially about a 20-25% increase. General discussion. Page 1 .1: COUNCILUNINUTES Temporary Minutes Work Area CC-05-08-I8min.doc C. IDAHO OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION: Mick Thomas with Idaho Department of Lands and Secretary to the Idaho Oil and Gas Conservation Commission will present information to the City Council regarding State regulations pertaining to oil and gas operations (defined by I.C. 47-310) within the State of Idaho. Mayor introduces the issue. Mike Thomas, Idaho Department of Lands and Secretary to Idaho Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Kevin Dickey, Chairman to the Idaho Oil and Gas Conservation Commission may join us tonight. Mike displays a power pointe and provides Council an overview of Oil and Gas in Idaho. General discussion. 6. ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA: A. City Staff requests. None B. Mayor or City Council requests. None 7. 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 will be placed on the Regular Agenda in a sequence determined by the City Council. • 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. A. Claims against the City. B. Better Hearing Month Proclamation. (SR) C. Service & License Agreement Contract between the City of Eagle and CivicPlus: A request to formalize a service agreement for use of software and website design. (DG) D. Appointment to the Parks, Pathways and Recreation Commission: In accordance with Resolution 14-19, Mayor Ridgeway is requesting Council confirmation of the appointment of Daniel Crockett to the Commission. Mr. Crockett will be filling a vacated term that will expire March 2020. (SR) E. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law for A-05-17/RZ-09-17/CU-14- 17/PPUD-08-17/PP-09-17 — Creighton Woods Subdivision — Creighton Woods Development. Inc.: Creighton Woods Development, Inc., represented by Tamara Thompson with The Land Group, Inc., is requesting an annexation, rezone from RUT (Residential -Urban Transition — Ada County designation), R -E (Residential -Estates), and R-1 (Residential) to R -2 -DA -P (Residential with a development agreement — PUD), conditional use permit, preliminary development plan, and preliminary plat approvals for Creighton Woods Subdivision, a 64 -lot (58 residential, 6 common) residential planned unit development. The 50.92 -acre site, consisting of four (4) parcels, is located south of the South Channel of the Boise River between the terminus of West Oakhampton Drive on the east and the terminus of East Clear Creek Drive on the west. (WEV) F. DR -07-18 — Common Area Landscaping, Eight Four-plexes, and Two Duplexes within Enfield Commons Subdivision — Nine 4s. LLC: Nine 4s, Page 2 1: COUNCIL MINUTES Temporary Minutes Work Area CC-05-08-18min.doc LLC, represented by Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions, LLP, is requesting design review approval to construct the common area landscaping, eight (8) four-plexes, and two (2) duplexes within Enfield Commons Subdivision. The 4.15 -acre site is located on the southwest corner of West Escalante Drive and North Linder Road at 341 North Linder Road. (WEV) G. DR -08-18 — Restaurant with Drive -Through for Dutch Bros in Stillwater Business Park — Steve and Marry Ann Adamson: Steve and Many Ann Adamson, represented by Adam Garcia with Houston-Bugatsch Architects, CHTD, is requesting design review approval to construct an 846 -square foot restaurant with drive-through for Dutch Bros. The 0.53 -acre site is generally located on the southwest corner of West State Street and State Highway 44 at 2505 West State Street within Stillwater Subdivision No. 1 (Lot 3, Block 6). (WEV) H. DR -09-18 — Building Wall and Menu Board Signage for Dutch Bros Coffee — Steve and Marry Ann Adamson: Steve and Marry Ann Adamson, represented by Adam Garcia with Houston-Bugatsch Architects, CHTD, is requesting design review approval to construct building wall and menu board signage for Dutch Bros Coffee. The 0.53 -acre site is generally located on the southwest corner of West State Street and State Highway 44 at 2505 West State Street within Stillwater Subdivision No. 1 (Lot 3, Block 6). (WEV) I. Eagle Fun Days Noise Waiver: The City of Eagle Community Enhancement Coordinator is requesting a noise waiver from the Mayor and City Council to extend the time from 10:00 pm to Midnight on Saturday July 7th for Eagle Fun Days. (SR) J. Minutes of Joint Meeting April 30. 2018. (SKB) K. Minutes of Town Hall Meeting April 30. 2018. (SKB) L. Resolution No. 18-12 Destroy Transitory Records. (SKB) M. Resolution No. 18-13 Destroy Temporary Records. (SKB) N. Resolution No. 18-14 Destroy Semi -Permanent Records. (SKB) O. Professional Services Agreement — The Mercer Group for a Comp and Class Study. (SKB) Bastian moves to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Seconded by Pittman. Bastian: AYE; Gold: AYE; Pittman: AYE; Mitchell: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. Transportation Funding Status Update: Staff will provide the Council an update on the FY 2019-2023 applications for local and federal transportation funding. (NBS) Mayor introduces the issue. Planner Baird Spencer displays a power pointe and provides Council an overview of the transportation funding. Bastian moves to approve Item #3 as presented before us. Seconded by Pittman. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES 9. NEW BUSINESS: A. Request for Mediation for A-04-17/RZ-08-17/CU-13-17/PPUD-07-17/PP-08-17 — Park Lane Estates Subdivision — Yellowjacket Development. Inc.: Pursuant to Idaho Code 67-6510, Yellowjacket Development, represented by Deborah Nelson with Givens Page 3 J: COUNCIL\MINUTES Temporary Minutes Work Area CC-05-08-I8min.doc Pursley, LLP, is requesting mediation regarding the City Council's decision on the subject application. Project description: Yellowjacket Development, Inc., represented by Corinne Graham with Civil Site Works, LLC, is requesting an annexation, rezone from RUT (Residential -Urban Transition — Ada County designation) to R -2 -DA -P (Residential with a development agreement — PUD), conditional use permit, preliminary development plan and preliminary plat approvals for Park Lane Estates Subdivision, a 24 -lot (19 residential, 5 common) residential planned unit development. The 11.23 -acre site is located on the southeast corner of West Beacon Light Road and North Park Lane at 2686 North Park Lane. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Bastian. My daughter and son-in-law live right across the street and they will be benefited by the sewer and water line that goes up Park Lane and pass their property and I have a personal interest in that so I am recusing myself and will not participate in any discussion or action on this matter. Planner Williams discusses the request for mediation. City Attorney discusses the mediation process the City is required to do. General discussion on the mediation process. Council concur that the Mayor and Councilmember Gold will participate in the mediation. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public hearings will not begin prior to 6:00 p.m. Public Hearings are legally noticed hearings required by state law. The public may provide formal- testimony regarding the application or issue before the City Council. This testimony will become part of the hearing record for that application or matter. A. VAC -01-18 — Vacation to the Final Plat of Piccadilly Village Subdivision — Old Town I. LLC: Old Town I, LLC, represented by Mark Butler, is requesting a vacation of the 40 -foot wide setback line shown adjacent to the west property line of Lot 12, Block 1, Piccadilly Village Subdivision. The .60 -acre site is located on the south side of East Hill Road between South Wooddale Ave and East Piccadilly Lane. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Planner Williams displays a power point and provides an overview of the vacation for the Council. General discussion. Mark Butler, applicant, provides Council an overview of the project. General discussion. Mayor opens the Public Hearing Is there anyone who would like to testify on this issue who did not sign up? Seeing none. Mayor closes the Public Hearing Pittman: I would like to make a motion on VAC-01-18—Vacation to the Final Plat of Piccadilly Village Subdivision—Old Town I, LLC for approval. Seconded by Gold. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES Page 4 1: COUNCIL\MINUTES Temporary Minutes Work Area CC-05-08-I8min.doc B. A-02-18/RZ-02-18 — Annexation and Rezone from RUT (Rural -Urban Transition — Ada County Designation) to R -E (Residential -Estates) — Rov and Natasha Flook: Roy and Natasha Flook are requesting an annexation with rezone from RUT (Rural -Urban Transition — Ada County designation to R -E (Residential -Estates). The 5 -acre site is located on the north side of West Beacon Light Road at the northeast corner of the intersection of West Beacon Light Road and North Hartley Road at 6606 West Beacon Light Road. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Planner Williams displays a power point and provides Council an overview of the application. Mayor opens the Public Hearing Is there anyone who would like to testify on this issue who did not sign up? Seeing none. Mayor closes the Public Hearing Bastian moves to approve A-02-18/RZ-02-18—Annexation and Rezone from RUT (Rural -Urban Transition—Ada County Designation) to R -E (Residential -Estates). Seconded by Pittman. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES C. A-01-18/RZ-01-18 & PP -01-18 — Hazen Ranch Subdivision — Bristol Company: Bristol Company, represented by Shawn Nickel with SLN Planning, is requesting an annexation, rezone from RUT (Rural -Urban Transition — Ada County designation) to R- E -DA (Residential -Estates with a development agreement), and preliminary plat approvals for Hazen Ranch Subdivision, a 17 -lot (17 -buildable) residential subdivision. The 35.18 -acre site is located on the east side of North Meridian Road at the southeast corner of West Caliber Court and North Meridian Road at 2044 and 2400 North Meridian Road. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Planner Williams displays a power point and provides Council an overview of the application. General discussion. Shawn Nickel, representing the applicant, displays a power point presentation and provides Council an overview of the application. General discussion. Mayor opens the Public Hearing Mike Newell, 1616 N. Claredon Way, I am the HOA President. We have been working with the applicant on this project all along. We have a problem with the "No Parking" restriction. This will affect some of our homeowners. The Board oppose the parking plan that is being presented. Craig McClintock, 3054 W. Caliber Court, I am also representing the HOA Subdivision Catalpa to the North. We have participated in the public meetings and have opened a dialog with the Bristol Company, the applicant, and we full support this project. Anita Nikforuk, 3030 W. Champagne Court, discusses duplicating Canterbury. This proposed will add traffic, the need for more police and fire, and more children in our school. I would like the Council to reject this proposal as currently designed. Rick McGee, 3030 W Champagne Court, I live in the Canterbury Subdivision. Rick distributes handouts to the Council. Discusses the density, why this project doesn't comply with Eagle Code, and the power transmission lines. This proposal puts undue Page 5 J: COUNCI WNINUTES Temporary Minutes Work Area CC-05-08-I8mun doc liability on the homeowners. A big issue is the parking. Discusses the septic systems and the setbacks. There has been hazardous waste previously dumped on the property. Discusses the growth in Eagle. General discussion. Cheryl Bloom, 2153 N. Hollybrook Place, I have lived here 25 years. We live directly to the East of this project. We have worked out most of the details. A couple of issues are car light mitigation and the biggest issues is code enforcement for noise. We were under the impression that there would be no fencing on the back of the property. Another issue that we have is traffic. There is a lack of response from West Ada School District. General discussion. Shawn Nickel, discusses the ponds in Canterbury and the fencing. Discusses the pond which will be on a buildable lot and we will have fencing options, right now we don't know if it will be fenced. The lots in Hazen Ranch are compatible with the area. Discussion on the power poles, parking and the width of the roads, the code and the comp plan and the density. We are not required to put in sewer. We are compatible to the area. Discussion on fencing. General discussion. Planner Williams, it was not ACHD that required the "No Parking" signs, it was staff and staff saw it as a congestion issue. General discussion. Mayor closes the Public Hearing General discussion. Bastian moves to approve A-01-18/RZ-01-18 & PP -01-18 —Annexation and Rezone with a development agreement and preliminary plat for Hazen Ranch Subdivision with a change in Site Specific Condition #10 and remove the requirement for "No Parking" signs. General discussion. Bastian amends his motion to add "and remove the painted lines", so it is a street 30" wide street with no parking and no painted lines. General discussion. Bastian amends his motion: #3.4.b should state "solid privacy vinyl". Seconded by Pittman. General discussion. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES Mayor calls a recess at 8:20 p.m. Mayor reconvenes at 8:30 p.m. D. ZOA-01-18 — Zoning Ordinance Amendment — City of Eagle: An ordinance of the City of Eagle, Ada County Idaho, replacing Title 8, Chapter 3, Section 5, Paragraph J, with "Oil and Gas Extraction", Definition, Purpose, Zoning Classification, Permit Requirement, Permit Application, Issuance of Permit, Site Design and Installation, and Waiver; replacing Title 8, Section 5, Paragraph K, with "Oil and Gas Post -Extraction", Definition, Purpose, Zoning Classification, Permit Requirement, Permit Application, Issuance of Permit, Site Design and Installation, and Waiver; amending Title 8, Chapter 2, Section 3 "Official Schedule of District Regulations"; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. The City of Eagle is conducting public hearings to consider adopting regulations and permitting requirements for oil and gas extraction and post -extraction activities within City limits. This includes emergency preparedness requirements and plans, water quality monitoring, mitigation and remediation, and other matters related to the health and safety of the public. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. This is the fifth public hearing and we had several meetings before with input from people. We all live in Eagle and we are concerned about what has Page 6 J: COUNCIL\MINUTES Temporary Minutes Work Area CC-05-08-18min.doc been going on. The City attorney has done the research in State Law and has worked with other Cities and has drafted this Ordinance. We are trying to get all the information we need. City Attorney McLain, displays the draft ordinances, we are in our fifth draft of this Ordinance. Discusses the draft ordinances. Address the items from the Planning and Zoning recommendations. Provides Council an overview of the current draft ordinance. Mike Thomas, Idaho Department of Lands and Secretary to Idaho Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, discusses sections of the draft ordinance. Mayor opens the Public Hearing Robert Spencer, 755 E. State Street, Apt. 104, I don't understand the technical stuff. I am a believer in evolution and creation. We are the stewards of that creation. I would talk about triple up. City and Counties to start pushing upward on state and national issues. Discusses Pine Dale, Wyoming. The air quality was bad because of the oil and gas drilling. I would like to see use take care of land and people. We need to compare this ordinance with state and federal rules. Julie Fugate, 1861 N.W. 24th Street, Fruitland, I acknowledge all of you for work on this ordinance. Payette County did not do their diligence on doing their ordinance. Discusses the drilling on some of her neighbors. There are toxin permanently in the ground and will make the way to the water. This ordinance will be a model for other cities. Sue Bixby, 2133 Maple Court, Fruitland, Eagle has done a good job on their ordinance. I am not against oil and gas drilling as long as it is regulated properly. The oil and gas companies set the regulations for drilling. These ordinances need to protect our land and our water. Brett Smith, 1148 N. Watson Way, Eagle, I already distributed my suggestions to you, discusses his suggestions to changes in the ordinance. John Ponath, 26751 Harvey Road, Caldwell, we applaud the things that you are doing with your ordinance. Discusses setbacks. I like that are keeping the base line water testing, disclosure of what kind of fluids they are using, and comprehensive liability insurance, Robert Williams, 946 E. Rivers End Drive, Eagle, I haven't lived here very long but I moved here from Kansas where they have drilling. You have done a good job and it is very important. Discusses horizontal drilling, allowance for control of chemicals, perforation of the pipes after the well are on line, and injection wells. Lee Turner, 1399 W. Newfield, Eagle, discusses injection wells. There is hydraulic fracking in all of the leases. Discusses water issues, leaks and water contamination. Distributes some information to the Council. Julia Page, 2317 N. 19th, Boise, I am a member of the Idaho Organization of Resource Councils, I have never encounter a local entity that wanted to have an ordinance. It is up to you to protect your citizens. I support the comments I have heard here. Discusses a completeness review, the date the application is completed, salty water, flaring and your waiver. Thank you for your work. General discussion. Richard Boozes, 1157 N. Finsbury Avenue, Star, I am a candidate for the State Legislature. I grew up here, this is my home and I'm very concerned about protecting Page 7 J: COUNCILUNINUTES Temporary Minuses Work Area CC-05-08-I8min.doc this. Discusses CO2, regulations and protections. I'm in favor of the most restrictive ordinance. Shelly Brock, 8770 W. Chaparral Rd, long time Eagle resident and President of CAIA. Discusses the number of land leased in the area. Discusses the Bills passed by the Legislature, injection wells, the State Leases and the City's authority under LUPA. I want my information to be entered into the record. General discussion. Jane Rolling 582 Palmetto Drive, Eagle, I am invested in this community. I got involved in this issue 2 years ago. This industry is not safe. We need to have the strongest protections that we can. Gas and oil exploration does not belong close to residential communities. There are leases in the City Limits and in Ada County. Discusses the fire danger with drilling and flaring. Discussion on injection wells. This is the time to pass this ordinance. Thank you for all of your efforts on this. John Bollard, 9090 W. Edgeview Lane, I would like to call to your attention the number of people here tonight in support of your ordinance. In all of the meetings that I have attended I have not heard any support for oil and gas drilling. Discusses the underground aquifers and the water that is need for drilling. Liz Roberts, 1351 N. Mansfield Place, I want to thank you for your great ordinance. It would be better if you added Shelly's suggestion to the ordinance. Cortney Ditto, 2391 N. Edgewood Rd, my family moved to Eagle a year ago. I'm concerned my life style is being jeopardized. Discusses the permitting process, the waste water being put back in the ground and the waiver. Kevin Dickey, 29503 Honey Lane, Emmett, I am chairman of the Oil and Gas Board. Discusses flaring, testing and setbacks. James VanDermaas, 4722 West Saguaro Drive, I am a candidate running for the Senate. Discusses flaring. In our government we need to make sure our liberty is not inflicted on others. Discusses aquifers and drilling. My concerns are for the quality air and land. You do have the right to do this under LUPA. We are all behind you on this. Shelly O'Malley, 486 Stierman Way, Eagle, discusses explosions on drilling. We don't want this in Eagle. Marianne Spiegel, 4218 W. Sly Fox Street, Eagle, discusses water testing, the setbacks and the tracers. Laurie Dicarie, 9170 W. Hill Rd, Boise, I started blog discussing all of these issues in the area. I want to support the community in creating this ordinance. Frank Wright, 1396 W. Powder Court, Eagle, I have lived here 19 years and it is a beautiful place to live. What we are considering is an environmental disaster. I want to thank you for all that you do. We are hoping that you will hold the line and protect this population. Mark Spiegel, 4218 W. Sly Fox, Eagle, we are the stewards where we live. Your efforts are trying to make Eagle better. It is important to have a strong ordinance to protect our ordinance. Discusses flaring, injection wells. Thank you for all your efforts. Mike Paul, 1646 N. Moraine Place, Eagle, discusses preliminary drilling which should be contained in day light hours. Page 8 1: COUNCIL'MINUTES Temporary Minutes Work Area CC-05-08-I8min.doc Mick Thomas, 6268 W. French Glenn Court, Eagle, I've seen a trend for the past several hours, it seems like the Oil and Gas Division has been stereotyped to be in cahoots with the oil and gas industry. I'll tell you what, we are auditing them right now and they are not happy about it. I am a State Regulator. The reason I came tonight was to offer myself and our division as a resource for the City of Eagle to draft a solid Ordinance. I'm not big oil, I'm a regulator. We are trying to enforce the law. General discussion. Council general discussion on scheduling a work session meeting. The Mayor will look at dates for the work session meeting. Mayor closes the Public Hearing 11. PUBLIC COMMENT: This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding concerns or comments they would like to provide to the City Council regarding any matter, up to and including any subject on the agenda with the exception of Public Hearing items. Comments regarding Public Hearing items need to be made during the open public hearing for said item(s) in accordance with Idaho Code. At times, the City Council may seek comments/opinions regarding specific City matters (excluding Public Hearing items) during this allotted time. Out of courtesy for all who wish to speak, the City Council requests each speaker limit their comments to three (3) minutes. 12. REPORTS: A. Mayor and Council Reports: No Reports B. City Hall Department Supervisor Reports: No Reports C. City Attorney Report: No Report 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 74-206. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS — - (1) An executive session at which members of the public are excluded may be held, but only for the purposes and only in the manner set forth in this section. The motion to go into executive session shall identify the specific subsections of this section that authorize the executive session. There shall be a roll call vote on the motion and the vote shall be recorded in the minutes. An executive session shall be authorized by a two-thirds (23) vote of the governing body. An executive session may be held: 74-206(c) To acquire an interest in real property which is not owned by a public agency; 1. Possible purchase of infrastructure. 2. Possible purchase of municipal park land. Bastian pursuant to I.C. 74-206 I move to go into Executive Session per 74-206(c) to acquire an interest in real property which is not owned by a public agency: 1. Possible purchase of infrastructure. 2. Possible purchase of municipal park land. Seconded by Gold. Bastian: AYE; Gold: AYE; Pittman: AYE; Mitchell: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES Page 9 1: COUNCILMINUTES Temporary Minutes Work Area CC-05-08-18mm.doc Council goes into Executive Session at 10:40 p.m. Council discusses possible purchase of infrastructure and possible purchase of municipal park land. Council leaves Executive Session at 11:35 p.m. 14. ADJOURNMENT: Mitchell moves to adjourn. Seconded by Gold. Mayor: Seeing no opposition, we are adjourned. Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted: „.•.,,,,�� - •o Sic APP' • V D: •.; rr>kroW��.'. `�`.•• •.,� ................................. •••...•• PM.. §HARON K. BERGMANN CITY CLERK/TREASURER STAN RIDGEWAY MAYOR AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD AT WWW.CITYOFEAGLE.ORG. Page 10 1: COUNCIUMINUTES Temporary Minutes Work Area CC-05-08-18min.doc EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP A-01-18/RZ-01-18 & PP -01-18 — Hazen Ranch Subdivision — Bristol Company May 8, 2018 NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS TESTIFY PRO/ CON YES/NO NEUTRAL 1616 '✓ ,✓ (,--,y _305y 610'. cfq_L ►.o r_,z C T . /c dl4i� L.h��r" EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP VAC -01-18 — Vacation to the Final Plat of Piccadilly Village Subdivision — Old Town I, LLC May 8, 2018 NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS TESTIFY PRO/ CON YES/NO NEUTRAL yes �-C,1 EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP A-02-18/RZ-02-18 — Annexation and Rezone from RUT (Rural -Urban Transition — Ada County Designation) to R -E (Residential -Estates) May 8, 2018 NAME TESTIFY PRO/ CON PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL i EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP ZOA-01-18 — Zoning Ordinance Amendment — City of Eagle May 8, 2018 NAME TESTIFY PRO/ CON PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL I �I cl�izf' t k. - '- Al e- 33 Ir_ r c l N , L.In z_ ,j PCO Vo ICA ro�rs�v Ave e 5 %' 0 5le_ �v 5 I 10 _l/ FA V1, ml, EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING :AA PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP ZOA-01-18 — Zonin2 Ordinance Amendment — City of Eagle May 8, 2018 2111 � C-ld - ��:, t -c i 17� s c� F t,lJ 'pro Nj (o(lii to -J") At 23 q J)V Honorable Mayor and City Council re: Hazen Ranch request for denial 1) Not within the scope of the Comprehensive Plan There is a discrepancy in the size of the total project vs what Ada county and tax records show. The current proposed plat map shows an area of 35.18 acres. The county assessor and maps show a size of 34.95 acres. Assuming the county is correct the lot sizes are under 1.8 acres. The Comprehensive plan and P&Z state the following. Estate Residential: A single family residential area transitioning between agriculture and conventional residential uses. Density range from 1 unit per two acres to 1 unit per 5 acres. Small scale agriculture and horticulture uses is encouraged. Density may be limited due to the limited availability of infrastructure and roadway capacity. There is nothing in the wording that allows for less than 2 acres per home. The proposed sub division violates the comprehensive plan that Eagle city council approved. 1.8 is less than 2 acres. The rules apply to everyone do they not? 2) Does not comply with Eagle code Opposed to the easement common area vs being owned by the HOA. The current requirements under Eagle code says a common area is required on all new subdivisions. If we are not going to follow the code, then what is the purpose of have the code? The code is on the books and needs to be followed. Special treatment for a developer is wrong and sends the wrong message. The developer has proposed a 20 foot wide easement instead of the recommended 35 foot wide common area. Code specifically calls out a common area and not an easement. Further it does not match Canterbury subdivision and its common area owned by the HOA. The argument made by the developer is that at least one other sub division was approved with easements back before the crash of 2006-08. The City Council is reminded that this sub division referenced by the developer was approved under County not City Would you buy a house where someone is tracing through your back yard all the time? No common green space? Also with easements the insurance burden is placed on the home owner and not the HOA as it should be. 3) Without side walks which is also required per code, the developer has proposed stripping the street and posting no parking signs on the street. It is assumed that all vehicles can park in the driveway of the house being visited. This is a fantasy to say no more parking is required. In Canterbury alone we see regular events where the drive way and street is occupied by visitors. What this effectively does is push the traffic and parking into the Canterbury subdivision, Meridian Road or Henry North subdivision. Unnecessarily and a danger to the community. The developer should be made to match existing code. 4) Underground utilities required Eagle City wants the utilities underground, per code. Currently there is a power pole right in the middle of Locksley Way which is the proposed street through Canterbury. To the south of the proposed sub division, Canterbury's north boundary is an above ground power line and poles, single phase service for three properties. One is the proposed Hazen Ranch subdivision to the old farm house located there. The line continues east of Locksley to another old home/trailer and the recently rebuilt farm house that burned, near Tahoe Ridge. Checking transformer load there is sufficient power out the transform located south of the drive way of the two homes being serviced by the overhead line. This power line should be removed from Meridian to Tahoe Ridge and placed in under ground facilities. The second option is to remove the poles from Meridian to E of Locksley and tie power in from the new subdivision there. Without it, tree trimming access is removed from Idaho power which is through the proposed Hazen Ranch Subdivision and will be blocked. This expense should be bore by the developer to comply with the current code. 5) Undue liability to the homeowner There is currently no open space or actually property owned by the new Hazen Ranch HOA. No common areas, no walking paths as with Canterbury. Placing the pond under an easement in a home owners back yard is the developers cheap alternative. However that is a magnet for small children. This act places an undue burden on the home owner and his insurance he will have to provide. I am also assuming the depth of the pond will be sufficient that pool regulations such as fencing maybe required. 6) Central Health wants SEWER, not septic systems Septic: Currently Central Health has approved the subdivision for central sewer and not individual septic systems. The developer has cited the reason for requiring individual septic, "the city of Eagle sewer district does not want the homes on the sewer." If this is the case, then what is the sewer district for? There is a manhole cover to the sewer located on Meridian and the new Champagne Dr west of Meridian not more that 450 feet from the proposed Hazen Ranch sub division. Well within a reasonable distance to supply sewer. Since the average person uses 80- 100 gallons of water per day, a family of 4 uses 9600 gallons per month on the low side and 12000 on the high size. That means 204000 gallons of water per month is being deposited in the ground over the aquifer from 17 proposed homes. 7) Proposed density is too great and with no structure set -backs as written Set back: Currently the proposed design by the developer is such that two homes to every one of Canterbury's existing homes. Meaning if the development was keeping within the boundaries of the existing housing, this should be a one to one ratio. This places more light, noise and other privacy concerns by the higher density. The lots should line up with the existing lots . Further if the sub division was inverted, as the developer has claimed, this would be the case. SET back in keeping with the estate lot, currently the developer or builder could place a home right on the back set line. During the community meeting the developer stated he would write in a requirement off the back fence line in keeping with the current homes. This has not happened. That means permanent out building, garages or homes could be built 25 feet off the back fence. This is not aesthetically pleasing, prevents privacy, excessive noise and creates animosity between neighbors. 8) Dark skies I light trespass Headlights and related. Light trespass is a major problem these days. People are being turned in on the federal level for violating the rules and regulations. As headlights improve on vehicles, lamps are brighter and travel further. Because of the current configuration and placement of houses on the lots, light trespass will occur every time a car enters a road in the proposed Hazen ranch subdivision on other neighboring homes in other subdivisions, including mine. The developer should be required to place barriers or berms to block the light from entering peoples homes from the Hazen ranch subdivision. The same is true with street lights. If any need to be installed, then no more than two should be required to comply with dark skies. One at each entrance where it intersects at an intersection. Not every 300 feet as proposed. This is suppose to be a country area not a suburb of some large city. by the overhead line. This power line should be removed from Meridian to Tahoe Ridge and placed in under ground facilities. The second option is to remove the poles from Meridian to E of Locksley and tie power in from the new subdivision there. Without it, tree trimming access is removed from Idaho power which is through the proposed Hazen Ranch Subdivision and will be blocked. This expense should be bore by the developer to comply with the current code. 5) Undue liability to the homeowner There is currently no open space or actually property owned by the new Hazen Ranch HOA. No common areas, no walking paths as with Canterbury. Placing the pond under an easement in a home owners back yard is the developers cheap alternative. However that is a magnet for small children. This act places an undue burden on the home owner and his insurance he will have to provide. I am also assuming the depth of the pond will be sufficient that pool regulations such as fencing maybe required. 6) Central Health wants SEWER, not septic systems Septic: Currently Central Health has approved the subdivision for central sewer and not individual septic systems. The developer has cited the reason for requiring individual septic, "the city of Eagle sewer district does not want the homes on the sewer." If this is the case, then what is the sewer district for? There is a manhole cover to the sewer located on Meridian and the new Champagne Dr west of Meridian not more that 450 feet from the proposed Hazen Ranch sub division. Well within a reasonable distance to supply sewer. Since the average person uses 80- 100 gallons of water per day, a family of 4 uses 9600 gallons per month on the low side and 12000 on the high size. That means 204000 gallons of water per month is being deposited in the ground over the aquifer from 17 proposed homes. 7) Proposed density is too great and with no structure set -backs as written Set back: Currently the proposed design by the developer is such that two homes to every one of Canterbury's existing homes. Meaning if the development was keeping within the boundaries of the existing housing, this should be a one to one ratio. This places more light, noise and other privacy concerns by the higher density. The lots should line up with the existing lots . Further if the sub division was inverted, as the developer has claimed, this would be the case. SET back in keeping with the estate lot, currently the developer or builder could place a home right on the back set line. During the community meeting the developer stated he would write in a requirement off the back fence line in keeping with the current homes. This has not happened. That means permanent out building, garages or homes could be built 25 feet off the back fence. This is not aesthetically pleasing, prevents privacy, excessive noise and creates animosity between neighbors. 8) Dark skies / light trespass Headlights and related. Light trespass is a major problem these days. People are being turned in on the federal level for violating the rules and regulations. As headlights improve on vehicles, lamps are brighter and travel further. Because of the current configuration and placement of houses on the lots, light trespass will occur every time a car enters a road in the proposed Hazen ranch subdivision on other neighboring homes in other subdivisions, including mine. The developer should be required to place barriers or berms to block the light from entering peoples homes from the Hazen ranch subdivision. The same is true with street lights. If any need to be installed, then no more than two should be required to comply with dark skies. One at each entrance where it intersects at an intersection. Not every 300 feet as proposed. This is suppose to be a country area not a suburb of some large city. Honorable Mayor and City Council re: Hazen Ranch request for denial 1) Not within the scope of the Comprehensive Plan There is a discrepancy in the size of the total project vs what Ada county and tax records show. The current proposed plat map shows an area of 35.18 acres. The county assessor and maps show a size of 34.95 acres. Assuming the county is correct the lot sizes are under 1.8 acres. The Comprehensive plan and P&Z state the following. Estate Residential: A single family residential area transitioning between agriculture and conventional residential uses. Density range from 1 unit per two acres to 1 unit per 5 acres. Small scale agriculture and horticulture uses is encouraged. Density may be limited due to the limited availability of infrastructure and roadway capacity. There is nothing in the wording that allows for less than 2 acres per home. The proposed sub division violates the comprehensive plan that Eagle city council approved. 1.8 is less than 2 acres. The rules apply to everyone do they not? 2) Does not comply with Eagle code Opposed to the easement common area vs being owned by the HOA. The current requirements under Eagle code says a common area is required on all new subdivisions. If we are not going to follow the code, then what is the purpose of have the code? The code is on the books and needs to be followed. Special treatment for a developer is wrong and sends the wrong message. The developer has proposed a 20 foot wide easement instead of the recommended 35 foot wide common area. Code specifically calls out a common area and not an easement. Further it does not match Canterbury subdivision and its common area owned by the HOA. The argument made by the developer is that at least one other sub division was approved with easements back before the crash of 2006-08. The City Council is reminded that this sub division referenced by the developer was approved under County not City Would you buy a house where someone is tracing through your back yard all the time? No common green space? Also with easements the insurance burden is placed on the home owner and not the HOA as it should be. 3) Without side walks which is also required per code, the developer has proposed stripping the street and posting no parking signs on the street. It is assumed that all vehicles can park in the driveway of the house being visited. This is a fantasy to say no more parking is required. In Canterbury alone we see regular events where the drive way and street is occupied by visitors. What this effectively does is push the traffic and parking into the Canterbury subdivision, Meridian Road or Henry North subdivision. Unnecessarily and a danger to the community. The developer should be made to match existing code. 4) Underground utilities required Eagle City wants the utilities underground, per code. Currently there is a power pole right in the middle of Locksley Way which is the proposed street through Canterbury. To the south of the proposed sub division, Canterbury's north boundary is an above ground power line and poles, single phase service for three properties. One is the proposed Hazen Ranch subdivision to the old farm house located there. The line continues east of Locksley to another old home/trailer and the recently rebuilt farm house that burned, near Tahoe Ridge. Checking transformer load there is sufficient power out the transform located south of the drive way of the two homes being serviced 9) Hazardous material dumping Contamination. The previous renters of the property experienced health issue drinking the water. Personally, I have witnessed numerous illegal dumps of chemicals on the property and notified the owner. It is worth mentioning that since the renters have moved out, their health is returning. Their name and number is available, however since this is public record I will not expose their personal data in this document. We notified the EPA Back in March 2018 of this issue. At the very least an environmental impact assessment should be made. The Developer promised to do this at the P&Z meeting. To this date we are unaware of this having been accomplished. 10) Wildlife impact study needed Due to the number of predator birds living in the area, including two bald eagles, a wildlife impact study should be made as a requirement. This issue was brought up several times with the developer. 11) Eagle growth is too fast, too dense and undesirable The reality is the proposal needs to lose two or three lots to make it a good fit for the neighborhood. Eagle is no longer Eagle. Eagle is no longer home. Eagle is Meridian. What use to be special and desirable is not. Traffic is out of control. Both ACHD and IDT have given warnings to the effects of continuing to approve these subdivisions. This will put pressure on Beacon light. Already an overloaded Eagle Rd and schools. The budget for the Sheriffs office will not cover the continued growth and law enforcement is starting to feel the pinch. Crime is up in Boise, perhaps it is time to take a step back and let Eagle be Eagle. Not Meridian. It should also be noted due the previous actions of the City Council we have not had a day in two years (except holidays) that a backup beeper and banging has not occurred. Sometimes keeping something small and limiting access is better and provides higher value than over running it with growth. Ada County Assessor Land Recon lGI Main Menu Home Assessor Main Pace Help Index FA About Us Contact Us Disclaimer Property Search Search by Parcel Search by Address Search by Subdivision Online Documents Interactive Map'; 2018 Property Details for Parcel S0506233902 ............ 2018 Change Year' Need Help? Email the Appraiser Assigned to this Parcel (Print Viewl Details Valuation Tax Districts Taxes Characteristics Sketch Parcel: S0506233902 Year: 2018 Parcel Status: Active in 2018 Primary Owner: HAZYLANE PROPERTIES LLC Zone Code: RUT Total Acres: 29.95 Tax Code Area: 270 Instrument Number: 109000169 Property Description: PAR #3902 S'LY FOR OF GOVT LOT 5 SEC 6 4N 1E #233900-B View Interactive Map of this Parcel Address: 2044 N MERIDIAN RD EAGLE, ID 83616 Subdivision: 4N 1 E 06 Land Group Type: SECT Township/Range/Section: 4N 1 E06 Contact Us I Disclaimer Ada County Assessor This map is a user generated static output from an Intemet mapping site and is for general reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION OR LEGAL PURPOSES. .egend Railroad Roads (2,000 - 4,000 ----- -all other values> Interstate Ramp Principal Arterial Collector Minor Arterial Local Parks Alley Driveway Parks Address ❑ Townships Sections ❑ Condos ❑ Parcels 5/8/2018 Main Menu Home Assessor Main Pape Help thdex FA About Us Contact Us Disclaimer Property Search Search by Parcel Search by Address Search by Subdivision Online Documents Interactive Map I :.._....__._—..._........__._J 2017 Property Details for Parcel S0506233600 2017 Change Year Need Help? Email the Appraiser Assigned to this Parcel .................................... [Back to Parcel Searchl [Print Viewl Details Valuation Tax Districts Taxes Characteristics Sketch Parcel: S0506233600 Year: 2017 Parcel Status: Active in 2017 Primary Owner: HAZYLANE PROPERTIES LLC Zone Code: RUT Total Acres: 5 Tax Code Area: 270 Instrument Number: 109000169 Property Description: PAR #3600 @ N SIDE OF GOVT LOT 5 SEC 6 4N 1E #233900-S Ada County Assessor View Interpctive Map of this Parcel View 2017 Assessment Notice Address: 2400 N MERIDIAN RD EAGLE, ID 83616 Subdivision: 4N 1 E 06 Land Group Type: SECT Township/Range/Section: 4N 1 E06 Contact Us I Disclaimer Ada County Assessor This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION OR LEGAL PURPOSES. �ONE ®0 No l�1�® ■ NOR EMME® MEMO Legend + Railroad Roads (<2,000 scale) call other values> _.. Interstate _... Ramp Principal Arterial Collector Minor Arterial Local Parks Alley _"- Driveway Parks Address ❑ Townships Sections ❑ Condos ❑ Parcels 5/8/2018 SPCC PLAN vs PPC Plan — 2 options Replace PPC Plan with SPCC Plan — insert WITHIN 5(f) on page 5: As required by IDAPA 20.07.02 Section 310.15 (General Drilling Rules) prepare a comprehensive emergency an d spill response guidance document known as a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan, to address key State and Federal regulations such as 40CFRI12.1 through 40CFR112.10 (SPCC Regulation) and IDAPA 20.07.02 (Rules Governing Conservation of Oil and Natural Gas) and IDAPA 58.01.02 Sections 800 and 850-852 (Water Quality Standards). As needed, incorporate the unique elements of a Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency Plan and obtain approval by the applicable Fire District and the Eagle Police Department. The SPCC Plan will be prepared by a qualified registered Professional Engineer (State of Idaho) and kept at each drilling / production / workover facility. All oil -handling personnel must be trained to implement the SPCC Plan, with emphasis upon maintaining oil storage tanks /containers, secondary containment systems and promptly / safely handling emergency spills, leaks and accidental discharges of any oil-based fluids and oil -laden water at the facility. Provide the approved SPCC Plan (Plan) to the City of Eagle at least 30 days prior to drilling an oil or gas well and at least annually thereafter while drilling activities are taking place at the oil or gas well site. Drilling shall not commence until the City has approved the Plan. The Plan shall contain the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) or similar disclosure for all chemicals used on site, with no exemption for trade secrets. Such Plan shall also contain a provision that within 24 hours of the discovery of any oil and/or gas leak, spill and and/or emission release, the City and Emergency Responders shall be notified. During this time, all operations shall immediately cease until such equipment has been repaired and prior to operation, operator shall submit certification from a licensed and qualified professional verging that the equipment has been adequately repaired and is safe to return to service. Such certification will be reviewed by the City Engineer. Prior to any changes, the City shall be notified regarding any modifications to operations or a change in the use of chemicals. Modify first line of 5(g) to read Conduct an appropriate site orientation of the SPCC Plan for all applicable Emergency Responders, as determined by the City of Eagle. Augment PPC Plan with SPCC Plan — insert after 5(f) on page 5: As required by IDAPA 20.07.02 Section 310.15 (General Drilling Rules) and to expand upon the basic protective measures addressed in a Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency Plan (PPC Plan), prepare a comprehensive guidance document known as a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan, to address key State and Federal regulations such as 40CFR112.1 through 40CFRI12.10 (SPCC Regulation) and IDAPA 20.07.02 (Rules Governing Conservation of Oil and Natural Gas) and IDAPA 58.01.02 Sections 800 and 850-852 (Water Quality Standards). The SPCC Plan will be prepared by a qualified registered Professional Engineer (State of Idaho) and kept at each drilling /production / workover facility, along with the PPC Plan. All oil -handling personnel must be trained to implement the PPC Plan and SPCC Plan, with emphasis upon maintaining oil storage tanks / containers, secondary containment systems and promptly /safely handling emergency spills, leaks and accidental discharges of any oil-based fluids and oil -laden water at the facility. Modify first line of 5(g) to read Conduct an appropriate site orientation of the PPC Plan and the SPCC Plan for all applicable Emergency Responders, as determined by the City of Eagle. BACKGROUND INFORMATION — Key elements of an oil/gas SPCC Plan include the following: • Perform regular (daily or weekly) inspections of all drainage systems (ie, ditches) and oil -trapping systems (ie, skimmers, sumps and oil traps) for oil-based fluid accumulations and promptly remove said accumulations in accordance with legally approved methods. • Provide a properly -sized means of secondary containment for all oil storage (ie, tank battery) and facility oil-based fluid treating installations. After accounting for displacement losses, the secondary containment must hold the contents of the total rated capacity of the largest container (ie, tank) plus approximately 2.5 inches of stormwater-related freeboard OR be designed to hold 150 percent the capacity of the largest tank, as per IDAPA 20.07.02 Section 420.02. • All drainage from uncontained (undiked) areas must be directed into a properly -constructed catchment basin or holding pond. • Periodically (weekly or monthly) perform visual inspections of each empty, partially -full or full container of oil-based fluids for deterioration and maintenance needs, including the foundation and supports for each container. • To prevent discharges of any oil-based fluids, update new / old tank battery (or equivalent) installations, in accordance with good engineering practices, when existing systems and operations become outdated. • Periodically (daily or weekly) perform visual inspections of all aboveground fluid -transfer piping, valves and all associated flanges and other equipment / devices, to ensure that their condition is capable of holding / transferring oil-based fluids in a manner that prevents spillage of any sort. • To prevent flowline discharges, implement a Flowline Maintenance Program. • Position / locate mobile drilling or workover equipment so as to prevent a discharge of any type of oil- based fluid or oil -laden water. • Install a blowout prevention (BOP) assembly and well control system prior to drilling below any casing string or during workover operations. The BOP assembly and well control system must control the worst-case wellhead pressure that is anticipated for a particular well. WHY use an SPCC Plan, if we have a PPC Plan? - SPCC Plans better protect the quality of nearby surface waters, by requiring additional non -PPC safeguards such as 1) passive secondary containment systems and the maintenance thereof and 2) inspecting / maintaining oil -storage containers and tanks. As a result, an SPCC Plan expands upon a facility's Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency Plan by enhancingtperational safety of facility personnel. The anticipated cost to prepare a facility -specific SPCC Plan is approximately $3,500. As with a PPC Plan, the cost to implement the elements of an SPCC Plan is insignificant, when compared against the daily cost to operate a typical oil/gas drilling /production / workover facility. If a choice has to be made between an SPCC Plan and a PPC Plan, I suggest using an SPCC Plan, because of its more comprehensive content and because the State of Idaho requires it! As needed, simply incorporate the additional PPC Plan information into the more comprehensive SPCC Plan. Needless to say, it's the responsibility of the oil/gas permit holder to completely understand pertinent environmental compliance regulations such as those mentioned herein. Ignorance of pertinent health, safety and/or environmental regulations does not constitute exemption from or leniency regarding typical penalties for noncompliance with said regulations. SUBSURFACE BASELINE STUDY Insert after 5(i) on page 6: Prior to any drilling, a subsurface characterization regarding known and potential water - bearing zones must be performed, utilizing the noninvasive geophysical surveying method known as Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT), to establish a pre -drilling subsurface integrity baseline. To eliminate conflicts of interest, the ERT investigation will be performed in accordance with the current standard of care by a qualified third -party geophysicist who has no direct or indirect association with the oil/gas firm holding the drilling permit. All costs associated with the ERT baseline investigation will be incurred by the oil/gas permit holder. BACKGROUND INFORMATION - ERT is recommended over other geophysical methods such as seismic, because the latter may not detect small fractures that nonetheless allow the vertical movement of dangerous fracking fluids into nearby water -bearing zones. A minimum of two orthogonal (ie, N -S and E -W orientations) ERT surveys should be performed, to provide sufficient lateral coverage to properly image water -bearing horizons that might be degraded by subsequent oil/gas development (exploration through production) activities. A typical ERT investigation of the upper 500 feet of the subsurface requires two 2,220 ft linear ERT arrays. The anticipated cost (incl. set-up, data acquisition, interpretation and report) is approximately $15, 000. Submitted by Mr. Brett D. Smith, PE www.e-c-associates.com www.ecageophysi cs. coni 1148 N Watson Way Eagle, ID 83616 (208) 501-9984 (cell) April 5, 2018 Eagle Fire District Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvement Plan Prepared By Galena Consulting Anne Wescott A 1925 North Montclair Drive ONSULTING Boise, ID 83702 & \` Section I. Introduction This report regarding impact fees for the Eagle Fire District is organized into the following sections: An overview of the report's background and objectives; A definition of impact fees and a discussion of their appropriate use; An overview of land use and demographics; A step-by-step calculation of impact fees under the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) approach; A list of implementation recommendations; and A brief summary of conclusions. Background and Objectives The Eagle Fire District hired Galena Consulting to calculate impact fees. This document presents impact fees based on the District's demographic data and infrastructure costs before credit adjustment; calculates the District's monetary participation; examines the likely cash flow produced by the recommended fee amount; and outlines specific fee implementation recommendations. Credits can be granted on a case-by-case basis; these credits are assessed when each individual building permit is pulled. Definition of Impact Fees Impact fees are one-time assessments established by local governments to assist with the provision of Capital Improvements necessitated by new growth and development. Impact fees are governed by principles established in Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, known as the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (Impact Fee Act). The Idaho Code defines an impact fee as "... a payment of money imposed as a condition of development approval to pay for a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements needed to serve development."' Purpose of impact fees. The Impact Fee Act includes the legislative finding that "... an equitable program for planning and financing public facilities needed to serve new growth and development is necessary in order to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the state ofIdaho."Z Idaho fee restrictions and requirements. The Impact Fee Act places numerous restrictions onthe calculation and use of impact fees, all of which help ensure that local governments adopt impact fees that are consistent with federal law.3 Some of those restrictions include: GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 1 • Impact fees shall not be used for any purpose other than to defray system improvement costs incurred to provide additional public facilities to serve new growth;4 Impact fees must be expended within 8 years from the date they are collected. Fees may be held in certain circumstances beyond the 8 -year time limit if the governmental entity can provide reasonable cause;5 • Impact fees must not exceed the proportionate share of the cost of capital improvements needed to serve new growth and development;b • Impact fees must be maintained in one or more interest-bearing accounts within the capital projects fund.' In addition, the Impact Fee Act requires the following: • Establishment of and consultation with a development impact fee advisory committee (Advisory Committee);' • Identification of all existing public facilities; • Determination of a standardized measure (or service unit) of consumption of public facilities; • Identification of the current level of service that existing public facilities provide; • Identification of the deficiencies in the existing public facilities; • Forecast of residential and nonresidential growth;9 • Identification of the growth -related portion of the District's Capital Improvement Plan;10 • Analysis of cash flow stemming from impact fees and other capital improvement funding sources;" • Implementation of recommendations such as impact fee credits, how impact fee revenues should be accounted for, and how the impact fees should be updated over time; t2 • Preparation and adoption of a Capital Improvement Plan pursuant to state law and public hearings regarding the same;" and • Preparation and adoption of a resolution authorizing impact fees pursuant to state law and public hearings regarding the same. 14 GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 2 How should fees be calculated? State law requires the District to implement the Capital Improvement Plan methodology to calculate impact fees. The District can implement fees of any amount not to exceed the fees as calculated by the CIP approach. This methodology requires the District to describe its service areas, forecast the land uses, densities and population that are expected to occur in those service areas over the 10 -year CIP time horizon, and identify the capital improvements that will be needed to serve the forecasted growth at the planned levels of service, assuming the planned levels of service do not exceed the current levels of service.15 Only those items identified as growth -related on the CIP are eligible to be funded by impact fees. The governmental entity intending to adopt an impact fee must first prepare a capital improvements plan." Once the essential capital planning has taken place, impact fees can be calculated. The Impact Fee Act places many restrictions on the way impact fees are calculated and spent, particularly via the principal that local governments cannot charge new development more than a "proportionate share" of the cost of public facilities to serve that new growth. "Proportionate share" is defined as "... that portion of the cost of system improvements .. . which reasonably relates to the service demands and, needs of the project."19 Practically, this concept requires the District to carefully project future growth and estimate capital improvement costs so that it prepares reasonable and defensible impact fee schedules. The proportionate share concept is designed to ensure that impact fees are calculated by measuring the needs created for capital improvements by development being charged the impact fee; do not exceed the cost of such improvements; and are "earmarked" to fund growth -related capital improvementsto benefit those that pay the impact fees. There are various approaches to calculating impact fees and to crediting new development for past and future contributions made toward system improvements. The Impact Fee Act does not specify a single type of fee calculation, but it does specify that the formula be "reasonable and fair." Impact fees should take into account the following: • Any appropriate credit, offset or contribution of money, dedication of land, or construction of system improvements; • Payments reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of a new development in the form of user fees and debt service payments; • That portion of general tax and other revenues allocated by the District to growth - related system improvements; and • All other available sources of funding such system improvements .2" Through data analysis and interviews with the District and Galena Consulting identified the share of each capital improvement needed to serve growth. The total projected capital improvements needed to serve growth are then allocated to residential and nonresidential development with the resulting amounts divided by the appropriate growth projections from 2017 to 2027. This is consistent with the Impact Fee Act .2' Among the advantages of the CIP approach is its establishment of a spending plan to give developers and new residents more certainty about the use of the particular impact fee revenues. GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 3 Other fee calculation considerations. The basic CIP methodology used in the fee calculations is presented above. However, implementing this methodology requires a number of decisions. The considerations accounted for in the fee calculations include the following: Allocation of costs is made using a service unit which is "a standard measure of consumption, use, generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit22 of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvement."23 The service units chosen by the study team for every fee calculation in this study are linked directly to residential dwelling units and nonresidential development square feet 24 A second consideration involves refinement of cost allocations to different land uses. According to Idaho Code, the CIP must include a "conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial. ,25 In this analysis, the study team has chosen to use the highest level of detail supportable by available data and, as a result, in this study, the fee is allocated between aggregated residential (i.e., all forms of residential housing) and nonresidential development (all nonresidential uses including retail, office, agricultural and industrial). Current Assets and Capital Improvement Plans The CIP approach estimates future capital improvement investments required to serve growth over a fixed period of time. The Impact Fee Act calls for the CIP to "... project demand for system improvements required by new service units ... over a reasonable period of time not to exceed 20 years." 26 The impact fee study team recommends a l 0 -year time period based on the District's best available capital planning data. The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include any land purchases, construction of new facilities and expansion of existing facilities to serve growth over the next 10 years at planned and/or adopted service levels.27 Equipment and vehicles with a useful life of 10 years or more are also impact fee eligible under the Impact Fee Act. 2" The total cost of improvements over the 10 years is referred to as the "CIP Value" throughout this report. The cost of this impact fee study is also impact fee eligible for all impact fee categories. The forward-looking 10 -year CIP for the District includes some facilities that are only partially necessitated by growth (e.g., facility expansion). The study team met with the District to determine a defensible metric for including a portion of these facilities in the impact fee calculations. A general methodology used to determine this metric is discussed below. In some cases, a more specific metric was used to identify the growth -related portion of such improvements. In these cases, notations were made in the applicable section. GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 4 Fee Calculation In accordance with the CIP approach described above, we calculated fees for each department by answering the following seven questions: 1. Who is currently served by the District? This includes the number of residents as well as residential and nonresidential land uses. 2. What is the current level of service provided by the District? Since an important purpose of impact fees is to help the District achieve its planned level of service29, it is necessary to know the levels of service it is currently providing to the community. 3. What current assets allow the District to provide this level of service? This provides a current inventory of assets used by the District, such as facilities, land and equipment. In addition, each asset's replacennent value was calculated and summed to determine the total value of the District's current assets. 4. What is the current investment per residential and nonresidential land use? In other words, how much of the District's current assets' total value is needed to serve current residential households and nonresidential square feet? What future growth is expected in the District? How many new residential households and nonresidential square footage will the District serve over the CIP period? 6. What new infrastructure is required to serve future growth? For example, how many stations will be needed by the Eagle Fire District within the next ten years to achieve the planned level of service of the District?30 7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new infrastructure? We calculated an apportionment of new infrastructure costs to future residential and nonresidential land- uses for the District. Then, using this distribution, the impact fees were determined. Addressing these seven questions, in order, provides the most effective and logical way to calculate impact fees for the District. In addition, these seven steps satisfy and follow the regulations set forth earlier in this section. "GRUM" Analysis In the District, not all capital costs are associated with growth. Some capital costs are for repair and replacement of facilities e.g., standard periodic investment in existing facilities such as roofing. These costs are not impact fee eligible. Some capital costs are for betterment of facilities, or implementation of new services (e.g., development of an expanded training facility). These costs are generally not entirely impact fee eligible. Some costs are for expansion of facilities to accommodate new development at the current level of service (e.g., purchase of new fire station to accommodate expanding population). These costs are impact fee eligible. Because there are different reasons why the District invests in capital projects, the study team conducted a "GRUM" analysis on all projects listed in each CIP: GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PACE 5 Growth. The "G" in GRUM stands for growth. To determine if a project is solely related to growth, we ask "Is this project designed to maintain the current level of service as growth occurs?" and "Would the District still need this capital project if it weren't growing at all?" "G" projects are only necessary to maintain the District's current level of service as growth occurs. It is thus appropriate to include 100 percent of their cost in the impact fee calculations. Repair & Replacement The "R" in GRUM stands for repair and replacement. We ask, "Is this project related only to fixing existing infrastructure?" and "Would the District still need it if it weren't growing at all?" "R" projects have nothing to do with growth. It is thus not appropriate to include any of their cost in the impact fee calculations. Upgrade. The "U" in GRUM stands for upgrade. We ask, "Would this project improve the District's current level of service?" and "Would the District still do it even if it weren't growing at all?" "U" projects have nothing to do with growth. It is thus not appropriate to include any of their cost in the impact fee calculations. Mixed. The "M" in GRUM stands for mixed. It is reserved for capital projects that have some combination of G, R and U. "M" projects by their very definition are partially necessitated by growth, but also include an element of repair, replacement and/or upgrade. In this instance, a cost amount between 0 and 100 percent should be included in the fee calculations. Although the need for these projects is triggered by new development, they will also benefit existing residents. Projects that are 100 percent growth -related were determined by our study to be necessitated solely by growth. Alternatively, some projects can be determined to be "mixed," with some aspects of growth and others aspects of repair and replacement. In these situations, only a portion of the total costof each project is included in the final impact feecalculation. It should be understood that growth is expected to pay only the portion of the cost of capital improvements that are growth -related. The District will need to plan to fund the pro rata share of these partially growth -related capital improvements with revenue sources other than impact fees within the time frame that impact fees must be spent. These values will be calculated and discussed in Section VI of this report. Exhibits found in Section III of this report detail all capital improvements planned for purchase over the next ten years by the District. See Section 67-8203(9), Idaho Code. "System improvements" are capital improvements (i.e., improvements with a usefi l life of 10 years or more) that, in addition to a long life, increase the service capacity of a public facility. Public facilities include fire, emergency medical and rescue facilities. See Sections 67-8203(3), (24) and (28), Idaho Code. 2 See Section 67-8202, Idaho Code. 3 As explained further in this study, proportionality is the foundation of a defensible impact fee. To meet substantive due process requirements, an impact fee must provide a rational relationship (or nexus) between the impact fee assessed against new development and the actual need for additional capital improvements. An impact fee must substantially advance legitimate local government interests. This relationship must be of "rough proportionality." Adequate consideration ofthe factors outlined in Section 67-8207(2) ensure that rough proportionality is reached. See Banbury Development Corp. v. South Jordan, 631 P.2d 899 (1981); Dollan v. District of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). 4 GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 6 See Sections 67-8202(4) and 67-8203(29), Idaho Code. 5 See Section 67-8210(4), Idaho Code. 6 See Sections 67-8204(1) and 67-8207, Idaho Code. 7 See Section 67-8210(1), Idaho Code 8 See Section 67-8205, Idaho Code. 9 See Section 67-8206(2), Idaho Code. 10 See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. 11 See Section 67-8207, Idaho Code. 12 See Sections 67-8209 and 67-8210, Idaho Code. 13 See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. 14 See Sections 67-8204 and 67-8206, Idaho Code. 15 As a comparison and benchmark for the impact fees calculated under the Capital Improvement Plan approach, Galena Consulting also calculated the District's current level of service by quantifying the District's current investment in capital improvements, allocating a portion of these assets to residential and nonresidential development, and dividing the resulting amount by current housing units (residential fees) or current square footage (nonresidential fees). By using current assets to denote the current service standard, this methodology guards against using fees to correct existing deficiencies. 17 See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. 19 See Section 67-8203(23), Idaho Code. 20 See Section 67-8207, Idaho Code. 21 The impact fee that can be charged to each service unit (in this study, residential dwelling units and nonresidential square feet) cannot exceed the amount determined by dividing the cost of capital improvements attributable to new development (in order to provide an adopted service level) by the total number of service units attributable to new development. See Sections 67-8204(16),67-8208(1(f) and67-8208(l)(g), Idaho Code. 22 See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code. 23 See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code. 24 The construction of detached garages alongside residential units does not typically trigger the payment of additional impact fees unless that structure will be the site of a home-based business with significant outside employment. 25 See Section 67-8208(l)(e), Idaho Code. 26 See Section 67-8208(l)(h). 27 This assumes the planned levels of service do not exceed the current levels of service. 28 The Impact Fee Act allows a broad range of improvements to be considered as "capital" improvements, so long as the improvements have useful life of at least 10 years and also increase the service capacity of public facilities. See Sections 67- 8203(28) and 50-1703, Idaho Code. 29 This assumes that the planned level of service does not exceed the current level of service. 30 This assumes the planned level of service does not exceed the current level of service. GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 7 Section H. Land Uses As noted in Section I, it is necessary to allocate capital improvement plan (CIP) costs to both residential and nonresidential development when calculating impact fees. The study team performed this allocation based on the number of projected new households and nonresidential square footage projected to be added from 2017 through 2027 for the District. These projections were based on the most recent growth estimates from COMPASS, data provided by the City of Eagle, regional real estate market reports, interviews with developers and recommendations from District Staff and the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. Demographic and land -use projections are some of the most variable and potentially debatable components of an impact fee study, and in all likelihood the projections used in our study will not prove to be 100 percent correct. The purpose of the Advisory Committee's annual review is to account for these inconsistencies. As each CIP is tied to the District's land use growth, the CIPand resulting fees can be revised based on actual growth as itoccurs. The District serves the population of the City of Eagle, as well as portions of unincorporated Ada County. The following Exhibit II -1 presents the current and estimated future population for the District. Exhibit II -1. Currentand Future Population within the boundaries of the Eagle Fire District 2017 2027 Net Increase Percent Increase Population 34,000 58,420 24,420 72% The District currently has approximately 34,000 persons residing within its service boundary. Current and future population estimates were derived by isolating the population within each Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) within the District's boundaries according to current COMPASS data. This data was compared to current population estimates from the City of Eagle, which is within the Fire District boundaries, as well as 2017 permit activity and the number of permits recently approved for future residential and non-residential construction. More multi- family projects are being approved within the District than before, increasing the capacity for population growth in the future. Over the next ten years, COMPASS models indicate the District to grow by approximately 24,420 people, or at an annual growth rate of 7.2 percent. Based on this population, the following Exhibit II -2 presents the current and future number of residential units and nonresidential square feet for the District. GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 8 Exhibit ll-2. Current and Future Land Uses, Eagle Fire District As shown above, the Eagle Fire District is expected to grow by approximately 8,500 residential units and 2,235,030 nonresidential square feet over the next ten years. Ninety percent of this growth is attributable to residential land uses, while the remaining ten percent is attributable to nonresidential growth. These growth projections will be used in the following sections to calculate the appropriate impact fees for the District. GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 9 Net Net Increase in Percent of 2017 2027 Growth Square Feet Total Growth Population 34,000 58,420 24,420 Residential (in units) 12,143 20,643 8,500 21,250,357 90% Nonresidential (in square feet) 2,100,000 4,335,030 2,235,030 2,235,030 10% Total 23,485,387 100% As shown above, the Eagle Fire District is expected to grow by approximately 8,500 residential units and 2,235,030 nonresidential square feet over the next ten years. Ninety percent of this growth is attributable to residential land uses, while the remaining ten percent is attributable to nonresidential growth. These growth projections will be used in the following sections to calculate the appropriate impact fees for the District. GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 9 Section III. Impact Fee Calculation In this section, we calculate impact fees for the Eagle Fire District according to the seven -question method outlined in Section I of this report. 1. Who is currently served by the Eagle Fire District? As shown in Exhibit II -2, the District currently serves 12,143 residential units and approximately 2,100,000 square feet of nonresidential land use. 2. What is the current level of service provided by the Eagle Fire District? The Eagle Fire District provides a level of service of an 85 percent fractile response time of 4 minutes. As the population of the District grows, additional infrastructure and equipment will be needed to sustain this level of service. Based on conversations with District staff, it is our understanding that the planned level of service is equal to the current level ofservice. 3. What current assets allow the Eagle Fire District to provide this level of service? The following Exhibit III -1 displays the current assets of the Eagle Fire District. Exhibit III -1. Current Assets—Eagle Fire District GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 10 Square Replacement Type of Capital Asset Footage Value Facilities Station #1 21400 $ 8,560,000 Station #2 5256 $ 2,102,400 Station #3 8000 $ 3,200,000 Apparatus/Vehicles 3 Engines $ 1,950,000 1 Truck/Ladder $ 1,300,000 4 Brush Trucks $ 400,000 1 Tender $ 350,000 1 Heavy Rescue $ 500,000 8 Command Vehicles $ 520,000 1 Water Rescue vehicle $ 200,000 1 Safety Trailer $ 100,000 2 Command Trailer $ 100,000 Equipment 40 SCBAs $ 240,000 1 generator $ 13,000 42 Radios $ 294,000 Air Compressor $ 80,000 Total Assets $ 19,909,400 Plus Cost of Fee -Related Research Impact Fee Study $ 6,000 Plus Avimor Fund Balance $ 100,000 Grand Total $ 19,915,400 GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 10 As shown above, the District currently owns approximately $19.9 million of eligible current assets. These assets are used to provide the District's current level of service. 4. What is the current investment per residential unit and nonresidential square foot? The Eagle Fire District has already invested $1,534 per existing residential unit and $0.61 per existing nonresidential square foot in the capital necessary to provide the current level of service. This figure is derived by allocating the value of the District's current assets between the current number of residential units and nonresidential square feet. We will compare our final impact fee calculations with these figures to determine if the two results will be similar; this represents a "check" to see if future District residents will be paying for infrastructure at a level commensurate with what existing District residents have invested in infrastructure. 5. What future growth is expected in the Eagle Fire District? As shown in Exhibit II -2, the Eagle Fire District is expected to grow by approximately 8,500 residential units and 2.2 million square feet of nonresidential land use over the next ten years. 6. What new infrastructure is required to serve future growth? The following Exhibit lIl-2 displays the capital improvements planned for purchase by the Eagle Fire District over the next ten years. Exhibit III -2. Eagle Fire District CIP 2018 to 2027 GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 11 CIP Growth Amount In Amount from Type of Capital Infrastructure Value arras Portion equars Include in Fees Other Sources Facilities Station #4 - North $ 4,000,000 100% $ 4,000,000 $ - Add bay to Station #2 $ 900,000 50% $ 450,000 $ 450,000 Add bay to Station #3 $ 900,000 50% $ 450,000 $ 450,000 Vehicles Engine for Station #4 $ 650,000 100% $ 650,000 $ - 1 Heavy Brush Truck $ 600,000 100% $ 600,000 $ 2 TRV for BLM trails and paths $ 60,000 100% $ 60,000 $ Replacement of Existing Vehicles $ 4,552,125 0% $ - $ 4,552,125 Equipment 20 additional SCBAs $ 120,000 100% $ 120,000 $ - 9 handheld radios $ 63,000 100% $ 63,000 $ Air trailer $ 100,000 100% $ 100,000 $ Replacement of Existing Equipment $ 553,000 0% $ - $ 553,000 Total Infrastructure $12,498,125 $ 6,493,000 $ 6,005,125 Plus Cost of Fee -Related Research Impact Fee Study $ 6,000 100% $ 6,000 $ - Minus Avimor Fund Balance $ 100,000 100% $ 100,000 $ - Grand Total $12,404,125 $ 6,399,000 $ 6,005,125 GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 11 As shown above, the District plans to purchase approximately $12.4 million in capital improvements over the next ten years, $6.4 million of which is impact fee eligible. These new assets will allow the District to achieve its planned level of service in the future. The commencement and completion dates for the District's growth -related capital infrastructure depend on the timing and pace of the projected growth. The remaining approximately $6.0 million is the price for the District to replace existing apparatus, vehicles and other equipment. Replacement of existing capital is not eligible for inclusion in the impact fee calculations. The District will therefore have to use other sources of revenue including all of those listed in Idaho Code 67- 8207(iv)(2)(h). 7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new capital improvements? The following Exhibit III -3 takes the projected future growth from Exhibits 11-2 and the growth - related CIP from Exhibit III -2 to calculate impact fees for the Eagle Fire District. Exhibit III -3. DRAFT Impact Fee Calculation, Eagle Fire District Amount to Include in Impact Fee Calculation $6,399,000 Percentage of Future Growth Residential 90% Non Residential 10% Amount Attributable to Future Growth Residential $ 5,759,100 Non Residential $ 639,900 Future Growth 2017-2026 Residential (per unit) 8,500 Non Residential (per square foot) 2,235,030 Impact Fee Residential (per unit) $ 677 Non Residential (per square foot) $ 0.29 As shown above, we have calculated impact fees for the Eagle Fire District at $677 per residential unit and $0.29 per nonresidential square foot. In comparison, as indicated in question #4 above, property taxpayers within the District have already invested $1,534 per residential unit and $0.61 per nonresidential square foot in the capital inventory necessary to provide today's level of service. The difference between the current investment and the impact fee per unit indicates current taxpayers have already built in some capacity for future development. The District cannot assess fees greater than the amounts shown above. The District may assess fees lower than these amounts, but would then experience a decline in service levels unless the District used other revenues to make up the difference. GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 12 Because not all the capital improvements listed in the CIP is 100 percent growth -related, the District would assume the responsibility of paying for those portions of the capital improvements that are not attributable to new growth. These payments would come from other sources of revenue including all of those listed in Idaho Code 67-8207(iv)(2)(h). To arrive at this participation amount, the expected impact fee revenue needs to be subtracted from the total CIP value. Exhibit IV -3 divides the District's participation amount into two categories: the portion of purely non -growth -related improvements, and the portion of growth - related improvements that are attributable to repair, replacement, or upgrade, but are not impact fee eligible. It should be noted that the participation amount associated with purely non -growth improvements is discretionary. The District can choose not to fund these capital improvements (although this could result in a decrease in the level of service if the deferred repairs or replacements were urgent). However, the non -growth -related portion of improvements that are impact fee eligible must be funded in order to maintain the integrity of the impact fee program. Exhibit III -4. Eagle Fire District Participation Summary, 2018-2027 Required Discretionary Total Fire $ 900,000 $ 5,105,125 $ 6,005,125 The total amount the District would be required to contribute over 10 years, should the District adopt fees at the calculated amount, is $900,000 for the non -growth portion of the additional bays at Station #2 and Station #3. The District could also choose to fund the discretionary infrastructure of $5.1 million for apparatus and equipment replacement. While District has the option to fund these capital improvements over the 10 -year period, these payments are not required. GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 13 Section IV. Fee Analysis and Administrative Recommendations A comparison of the calculated Fire impact fee to similar fees to that being assessed by the Kuna Rural Fire District, City of Meridian, City of Nampa, City of Caldwell and City of Boise, as well as being considered by the North Ada County Fire and Rescue District, the Star Fire District and the Middleton Fire District is provided in Exhibit IV -1: Exhibit IV -1. DRAFT Impact Fee Comparison - Fire FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Eagle Fire NACFR Kuna Fire Star Fire Middleton City of City of City of DRAFT DRAFT District DRAFT DRAFT Meridian Caldwell Boise City of Nampa Fire per Residential Unit $ 677 638 $ 701 $ 794 $ 873 $ 681 $ 517 $ 526 $ 185 per Non -Residential sf $ 0.29 0.32 $ 0.35 $ 0.38 $ 0.44 $ 0.35 $ 0.10 $ 0.27 $ 0.12 The calculated impact fee for the Eagle Fire District is very close in range to the North Ada County Fire and Rescue District, the Kuna Rural Fire District and the Meridian Fire Department's fees, which are similarly located to the along the west side of the Boise urban area. The calculated impact fee is higher than those fees currently being assessed by some municipal fire departments in the valley for several reasons. First, these fire departments have been in service decades longer than the Eagle Fire District and have created capacity in their capital facilities and other assets with which to provide service to new growth. Second, growth in these areas has begun to become more dense and urban, which does not necessitate new stations being built to serve new growth as there are stations already appropriately located to serve this growth. Each of the comparison cities also assesses parks impact fees. A comparison of the calculated Fire impact fee and the City of Eagle's parks fee to fire and parks fees of these other jurisdictions is provided in Exhibit IV -2: GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 14 Exhibit IV -2. DRAFT Impact Fee Comparison — Fire and Parks FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY Eagle Fire NACFR Kuna Fire Star Fire Middleton City of City of City of City of DRAFT DRAFT District DRAFT DRAFT Meridian Caldwell Boise Nampa Fire per Residential Unit $ 677 638 $ 701 $ 794 $ 873 $ 681 $ 517 $ 526 $ 185 per Non -Residential sf $ 0.29 0.32 $ 0.35 $ 0.38 $ 0.44 $ 0.35 $ 0.10 $ 0.27 $ 0.12 Parks (assessed by Cities) per residential unit $ 1,333 $ - $ 983 $ 2,050 $ 2,010 $ 1,081 $ 805 $ 1,390 $ 1,242 TOTAL per Residential Unit $ 2,010 $ 638 $ 1,684 $ 2,844 $ 2,883 $ 1,898 $ 1,419 $ 2,153 $ 1,426 per Non -Residential sf $ 0.29 A. ACHD fees $ 0.32 also ACHD fees $ 0.35 also ACRO lees $ 0.38 also ACHD fees $ 0.44 $ 0.35 also Police aM ACHD fees $ 0.10 also Polk' fees and street -t- $ and 0.27 alw Police ACHD fees $ 0.12 also Police and Streets — The cities of Meridian, Nampa, Caldwell and Boise also collect Police fees. All of the cities within Ada County collect streets impact fees for the Ada County Highway District. Nampa collects streets impact fees and Caldwell recovers the capital cost for new streets from developer exactions. The actual total impact fee a development will pay around the valley depends on the jurisdiction and the size of the development. Some communities express concern that impact fees will stifle growth. Empirical data indicates impact fees are not a primary reason for a decision to build or not build in a particular area. Factors including the price of land and construction, market demand, the availability of skilled workers, access to major transportation modes, amenities for quality of life, etc. all weigh more heavily in decisions to construct new homes or businesses, as well for business relocation. Ultimately the impact fee, which is paid at the time of building permit, is passed along to the buyer in the purchase price or wrapped into a lease rate. Therefore, in a market with a high demand for development, an impact fee higher than other jurisdictions is unlikely to slow growth. An impact fee program will enable the District to plan for growth without decreasing its service levels (response time), which can decrease buyer satisfaction and cause property insurance premiums to increase. It will also allow the District to collect a proportionate share of the cost of capital improvements from growth instead of funding all future capital through property taxes assessed to existing residents and businesses. As the District Commission evaluates whether or not to adopt the Capital Improvement Plan and impact fee presented in this report, we also offer the following information regarding District participation in funding, and implementation recommendations for your consideration. GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PACE 15 Implementation Recommendations The following implementation recommendations should be considered: Intergovernmental Agreements. The Eagle Fire District is enabled under Idaho Code as a governmental entity to adopt impact fees. However, because impact fees are paid upon building permit, and the District does not participate in this process, it needs another governmental entity to collect these fees on its behalf. Idaho Code 67-8204(a) authorizes the District to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with a city or county which can collect fire fees on their behalf. In the case of this District, which includes one municipality and one county, two intergovernmental agreements for the collection of Fire District impact fees would have to be developed and adopted by the corresponding bodies. Fire impact fees would be assessed on new developments by the appropriate building department and then distributed to the District on an agreed-upon schedule. It is customary for the District to pay a small administrative fee to the collecting entity for this service. Although Ada County collects parks impact fees for the City of Boise and streets fees for the Ada County Highway District, it does not currently collect fire fees for any jurisdiction within its boundaries. No cities in Ada County currently collect fire impact fees for any fire district. Pursuant to an ongoing effort to educate elected officials on the impacts of growth to various jurisdictions, fire chiefs around the valley have determined that the Ada County Commission and various municipalities may be prepared to consider collecting on the behalf of growth - related fire capital needs. If the Eagle Fire District choses to pursue fire impact fees, the Chief would join Galena Consulting and other fire agencies in a broad discussion about how to execute the required intergovernmental agreements. Capital Improvements Plan. Should the Advisory Committee recommend this study to the District Commission and should the Commission adopt the study, the District should also formally adopt this Capital Improvement Plan. While not subject to the procedures of the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA), the adoption of the Capital Improvement Plan would comply with the Act's requirements of other governmental entities to adopt capital improvement plans into a Comprehensive Plan as part of the adoption of impact fees. Impact Fee Ordinance. Following adoption of the Capital Improvement Plan, the Commission should review the proposed Impact Fee Ordinance for adoption via resolution as reviewed and recommended by the Advisory Committee and legal counsel. Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee is in a unique position to work with and advise Commission and District staff to ensure that the capital improvement plans and impact fees are routinely reviewed and modified as appropriate. Impact fee service area. Some municipalities have fee differentials for various zones under the assumption that some areas utilize more or less current and future capital improvements. The study team, however, does not recommend the District assess different fees by dividing the areas into zones. The capital improvements identified in this report inherently serve a system -wide function. GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 16 Specialized assessments. If permit applicants are concerned they would be paying more than their fair share of future infrastructure purchases, the applicant can request an individualized assessment to ensure they will only be paying their proportional share. The applicant would be required to prepare and pay for all costs related to such an assessment. Donations. If the District receives donations for capital improvements listed on the CIP, they must account for the donation in one of two ways. If the donation is for a non- or partially growth -related improvement, the donation can contribute to the District's General Fund participation along with more traditional forms, such as revenue transfers from the General Fund. If, however, the donation is fora growth -related project in the CIP, the donor's impact fees should be reduced dollar for dollar. This means that the District will either credit the donor or reimburse the donor for that portion of the impact fee. Credit/ reimbursement. If a developer constructs or contributes all or part of a growth -related project that would otherwise be financed with impact fees, that developer must receive a credit against the fees owed for this category or, at the developer's choice, be reimbursed from impact fees collected in the future.37 This prevents "double dipping" by the District. The presumption would be that builders/developers owe the entirety of the impact fee amount until they make the District aware of the construction or contribution. If credit or reimbursement is due, the governmental entity must enter into an agreement with the fee payer that specifies the amount of the credit or the amount, time and form of reimbursement.38 Impact fee accounting. The District should maintain Impact Fee Funds separate and apart from the General Fund. All current and future impact fee revenue should be immediately deposited into this account and withdrawn only to pay for growth -related capital improvements of the same category. General Funds should be reserved solely for the receipt of tax revenues, grants, user fees and associated interest earnings, and ongoing operational expenses including the repair and replacement of existing capital improvements not related to growth. Spending policy. The District should establish and adhere to a policy governing their expenditure ofmonies from the Impact Fee Fund. The Fund should be prohibited from paying for any operational expenses and the repair and replacement or upgrade of existing infrastructure not necessitatedby growth. In cases when growth -related capital improvements are constructed, impact fees are an allowable revenue source as long as only new growth is served. In cases when new capital improvements are expected to partially replace existing capacity and to partially serve new growth, cost sharing between the General Fund or other sources of revenue listed in Idaho Code 67-8207(I)(iv), (2)(h) and Impact Fee Fund should be allowed on a pro rata basis. Update procedures. The District is expected to grow rapidly over the 10 -year span of the CIPs. Therefore, the fees calculated in this study should be updated annually as the District invests in additional infrastructure beyond what is listed in this report, and/or as the District's projected development changes significantly. Fees can be updated on an annual basis using an inflation factor for building material from a reputable source such as McGraw Hill's Engineering News Record. As described in Idaho Code 67-8205(3)(c)(d)(e), the Advisory Committee will play an important role in these updates and reviews. 37 See Section 67-8209(3), Idaho Code. 38 See Section 67-8209(4), Idaho Code GALENA CONSULTING DRAFT REPORT -- PAGE 17 �C City of Eagle Check Register - Transparency Version Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 4/25/2018 - 5/7/2018 May 07, 2018 01:09PM Report Criteria: Report type: GL detail Bank.Bank account = '82007705" Check Check WATER DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE Issue Date Number Payee 25544 14-0217-07-00 04/30/2018 25544 Stephanie Gowans Total 25544: 3 ch 25570 CLERK DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 05/01/2018 25570 Aspen Apartments, LLC 05/01/2018 25570 Aspen Apartments, LLC Total 25570: 4,006.41 25571 5 ch 05/01/2018 25571 CenturyLink 05/01/2018 25571 CenturyLink Total 25571: 22-0217-07-00 25572 2,408.94 05/01/2018 25572 CTC Business Total 25572: HEALTH INSURANCE 25573 2,851.64 05/01/2018 25573 De Lage Landen Financial Svc Total 25573: 25574 05/01/2018 25574 Eagle Mini Storage Total 25574: 25575 05/01/2018 25575 Idaho Child Support Receipting 05/01/2018 25575 Idaho Child Support Receipting Total 25575: 25576 05/01/2018 25576 Key Bank - HSA 05/01/2018 25576 Key Bank - HSA 05/01/2018 25576 Key Bank - HSA Total 25576: 25577 05/01/2018 25577 Regence Blueshield of Idaho 05/01/2018 25577 Regence Blueshield of Idaho 05/01/2018 25577 Regence Blueshield of Idaho 05/01/2018 25577 Regence Blueshield of Idaho 05/01/2018 25577 Regence Blueshield of Idaho 05/01/2018 25577 Regence Blueshield of Idaho 05/01/2018 25577 Regence Blueshield of Idaho Invoice Invoice Invoice GL Invoice Check Sequence GL Account Account Title Amount Amount 1 ch 23-0418-01-00 TREE VOUCHER PROGRAM 100.00- 100.00- 1 uu.UU- 1 ch 23-0440-00-00 SHOP LEASE 1,777.94 1,777.94 2 ch 60-0416-07-00 SHOP LEASE 875.00 875.00 2,652.94 1 ch 23-0450-04-00 UTILTIES 262.18 262.18 1 ch 23-0452-04-00 UTILITIES 278.92 278.92 541.10 1 ch 18-0417-01-00 INTERNET & PHONE SERVICES 393.22 393.22 sas.« 1 ch 18-0416-01-00 CONTRACT AND AGREEMENTS 1,223.83 1,223.83 1 ,LL3.tf3 1 ch 07-0462-69-00 MISCELLANEOUS 76.00 76.00 76.00 1 ch 23-0217-08-00 GARNISHMENT 165.00 165.00 2 ch 23-0217-08-00 GARNISHMENT 150.00 150.00 J 1 b.UU 1 ch 06-0217-10-00 HSA CONTRIBUTION 275.00 275.00 2 ch 09-0217-10-00 HSA CONTRIBUTION 10.00 10.00 3 ch 20-0217-10-00 HSA CONTRIBUTION 50.00 50.00 ssb.UU 1 ch 60-0217-07-00 WATER DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 4,189.38 4,189.38 2 ch 14-0217-07-00 P8Z DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 4,965.47 4,965.47 3 ch 12-0217-07-00 CLERK DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 4,489.53 4,489.53 4 ch 06-0217-07-00 LIBRARY HEALTH INSURANCE 4,006.41 4,006.41 5 ch 13-0217-07-00 BLDG DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 2,977.81 2,977.81 6 ch 22-0217-07-00 HEALTH INSURANCE 2,408.94 2,408.94 7 ch 23-0217-07-00 HEALTH INSURANCE 2,851.64 2,851.64 City of Eagle Check Register - Transparency Version Check Issue Dates: 4/25/2018 - 5/7/2018 Page: 2 May 07, 2018 01:09PM Check Check 05/07/2018 25580 Invoice Invoice Invoice GL Invoice Check Issue Date Number Payee Sequence GL Account Account Title Amount Amount 05/01/2018 25577 Regence Blueshield of Idaho 8 ch 18-0217-07-00 HEALTH INSURANCE 1,242.71 1,242.71 05/01/2018 25577 Regence Blueshield of Idaho 9 ch 20-0217-07-00 HEALTH INSURANCE 976.99 976.99 05/01/2018 25577 Regence Blueshield of Idaho 10 ch 01-0217-07-00 GEN ADMIN HEALTH INSURANCE 474.64 474.64 Total 25577: 2R_5193.52 25578 05/07/2018 25580 05/01/2018 25578 United Heritage -Group Dept. 1 ch 60-0217-07-00 WATER DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 162.45 162.45 05/01/2018 25578 United Heritage -Group Dept. 2 ch 14-0217-07-00 P&Z DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 231.09 231.09 05/01/2018 25578 United Heritage -Group Dept. 3 ch 12-0217-07-00 CLERK DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 203.83 203.83 05/01/2018 25578 United Heritage -Group Dept. 4 ch 06-0217-07-00 LIBRARY HEALTH INSURANCE 211.80 211.80 05/01/2018 25578 United Heritage -Group Dept. 5 ch 13-0217-07-00 BLDG DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 124.38 124.38 05/01/2018 25578 United Heritage -Group Dept. 6 ch 22-0217-07-00 HEALTH INSURANCE 99.93 99.93 05/01/2018 25578 United Heritage -Group Dept. 7 ch 07-0217-07-00 MUSEUM HEALTH INSURANCE 16.20 16.20 05/01/2018 25578 United Heritage -Group Dept. 8 ch 18-0217-07-00 HEALTH INSURANCE 67.33 67.33 05/01/2018 25578 United Heritage -Group Dept. 9 ch 20-0217-07-00 HEALTH INSURANCE 55.82 55.82 05/01/2018 25578 United Heritage -Group Dept. 10 ch 11-0217-07-00 EXEC DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 37.39 37.39 05/01/2018 25578 United Heritage -Group Dept. 11 ch 01-0415-25-00 INSURANCE 7.39 7.39 05/01/2018 25578 United Heritage -Group Dept. 12 ch 23-0217-07-00 HEALTH INSURANCE 140.26 140.26 Total 25578: 1,357.87 25579 05/07/2018 25580 05/01/2018 25579 Willamette Dental Insurance 1 ch 14-0217-07-00 P8Z DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 363.74 363.74 05/01/2018 25579 Willamette Dental Insurance 2 ch 13-0217-07-00 BLDG DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 237.74 237.74 05/01/2018 25579 Willamette Dental Insurance 3 ch 20-0217-07-00 HEALTH INSURANCE 49.44 49.44 05/01/2018 25579 Willamette Dental Insurance 4 ch 12-0217-07-00 CLERK DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 49.44 49.44 05/01/2018 25579 Willamette Dental Insurance 5 ch 23-0217-07-00 HEALTH INSURANCE 98.88 98.88 05/01/2018 25579 Willamette Dental Insurance 6 ch 06-0217-07-00 LIBRARY HEALTH INSURANCE 118.87 118.87 Total 25579: A1R 11 25580 05/07/2018 25580 A Company, Inc. - BOI 1 ch 23-0448-04-00 UTILITIES 115.50 115.50 Total 25580: 115.50 25581 05/07/2018 25581 Ada County Assessor's Office 1 ch 14-0413-23-01 SOFTWARE PURCHASE-MTNC 100.00 100.00 Total 25581: 100.00 25582 05/07/2018 25582 Ada County Highway District 1 ch 01-0203-00-00 ACCTS PAYABLE-ACHD IMPACT FEE 190,542.00 190,542.00 Total 25582: 190,542.00 25583 05/07/2018 25583 Albertsons/Safeway 1 ch 01-0462-01-00 PUBLIC RELATIONS 98.18 98.18 05/07/2018 25583 Albertsons/Safeway 1 ch 01-0462-01-00 PUBLIC RELATIONS 41.81 41.81 05/07/2018 25583 Albertsons/Safeway 1 ch 06-0455-00-00 CLASSES & EVENTS 32.88 32.88 05/07/2018 25583 Albertsons/Safeway 1 ch 06-0455-00-00 CLASSES & EVENTS 22.18 22.18 05/07/2018 25583 Albertsons/Safeway 1 ch 06-0455-00-00 CLASSES & EVENTS 55.09 55.09 05/07/2018 25583 Albertsons/Safeway 1 ch 01-0413-41-00 PUBLIC RELATIONS 11.42 11.42 Total 25583: 261.56 City of Eagle Check Register - Transparency Version Check Issue Dates: 4/25/2018 - 5/7/2018 Page: 3 May 07, 2018 01:09PM Check Check Invoice Invoice Invoice GL Invoice Check Issue Date Number Payee Sequence GL Account Account Title Amount Amount 25584 05/07/2018 25584 Alsco 1 ch 23-0442-03-00 CUSTODIAL SERVICES 58.33 58.33 05/07/2018 25584 Alsco 1 ch 23-0442-03-00 CUSTODIAL SERVICES 58.33 58.33 Total 25584: 116.66 25585 05/07/2018 25585 Angela Creason 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS 41.92 41.92 Total 25585: 41.92 25586 05/07/2018 25586 Baird Oil 1 ch 60-0420-01-00 FUEL & LUBRICANTS 310.10 310.10 05/07/2018 25586 Baird Oil 2 ch 23-0417-02-00 GAS AND OIL 410.12 410.12 05/07/2018 25586 Baird Oil 3 ch 20-0426-00-00 GAS/OIL 100.37 100.37 Total 25586: 820.59 25587 05/07/2018 25587 Base Line Irrigation Solutions 1 ch 19-0469-04-00 BASELINE SPRINKLER CONTROLERS 793.00 793.00 Total 25587: 793.00 25588 05/07/2018 25588 Biltmore Company, LLC 1 ch 01-0203-01-01 BONDS DEPOSITS PAYABLE 13,059.00 13,059.00 Total 25588: 13,059.00 25589 05/07/2018 25589 Brendan Floyd 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS 75.00 75.00 Total 25589: 75.00 25590 05/07/2018 25590 Brushworks Signs & Graphics, LL 1 ch 19-0469-05-00 VEHICLE WRAPS 1,125.00 1,125.00 05/07/2018 25590 Brushworks Signs & Graphics, LL 1 ch 19-0469-05-00 VEHICLE WRAPS 1,195.95 1,195.95 05/07/2018 25590 Brushworks Signs & Graphics, LL 1 ch 19-0469-05-00 VEHICLE WRAPS 455.00 455.00 05/07/2018 25590 Brushworks Signs & Graphics, LL 1 ch 19-0469-05-00 VEHICLE WRAPS 1,195.95 1,195.95 Total 25590: 3,971.90 25591 05/07/2018 25591 Cable One 1 ch 23-0440-02-00 UTILTIES 84.53 84.53 Total 25591: 84.53 25592 05/07/2018 25592 Carl's Cycle Sales 1 ch 23-0420-00-00 MTNC/REPAIR EQUIPMENT 8.68 8.68 05/07/2018 25592 Carl's Cycle Sales 1 ch 23-0420-00-00 MTNC/REPAIR EQUIPMENT 50.24 50.24 Total 25592: 58.92 25593 05/07/2018 25593 Cathy Zhong 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS 65.84 65.84 Total 25593: 65.84 City of Eagle Check Register - Transparency Version Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 4/25/2018 - 5/7/2018 May 07, 2018 01:09PM Check Check Invoice Invoice Invoice GL Invoice Check Issue Date Number Payee Sequence GL Account Account Title Amount Amount 25594 05/07/2018 25594 CenturyLink 1 ch 01-0413-19-00 TELEPHONE & COMMUNICATIONS 105.33 105.33 05/07/2018 25594 Centuryl-ink 1 ch 07-0462-52-00 MUSEUM UTILITIES 222.95 222.95 Total 25594: 328.28 25595 05/07/2018 25595 Cheryl or Jeff Clare 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS 75.00 75.00 Total 25595: 75.00 25596 05/07/2018 25596 Chris Burnell 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATERISERVICE DEPOSITS 75.00 75.00 Total 25596: 75.00 25597 05/07/2018 25597 Chris or Jennifer Burks 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS 75.00 75.00 Total 25597: 75.00 25598 05/07/2018 25598 CIT 1 ch 18-0416-01-00 CONTRACT AND AGREEMENTS 98.03 98.03 Total 25598: 98.03 25599 05/07/2018 25599 City Of Eagle 1 ch 23-0454-04-00 UTILITIES 95.34 95.34 05/07/2018 25599 City Of Eagle 1 ch 23-0454-04-00 UTILITIES 194.47 194.47 Total 25599: 289.81 25600 05/07/2018 25600 Colleen Seay 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATERISERVICE DEPOSITS 38.66 38.66 Total 25600: 38.66 25601 05/07/2018 25601 Consolidated Supply 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 93.65 93.65 05/07/2018 25601 Consolidated Supply 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 1.52 1.52 05/07/2018 25601 Consolidated Supply 1 ch 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 62.47 62.47 Total 25601: 157.64 25602 05/07/2018 25602 Core & Main LP 1 ch 60-0438-11-00 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 19.44 19.44 05/07/2018 25602 Core & Main LP 1 ch 60-0438-11-00 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 29.00 29.00 05/07/2018 25602 Core & Main LP 1 ch 60-0434-58-00 RPR/MTNC-LINES-METERS-ETC 36.45 36.45 05/07/2018 25602 Core & Main LP 1 ch 60-0434-26-00 TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT 71.94 71.94 Total 25602: 156.83 25603 05/07/2018 25603 Craig Ezekiel Brasher 1 ch 01-0413-02-00 DESIGN REVIEW BIRD COMPENSATIO 100.00 100.00 Total 25603: 100.00 City of Eagle Check Register - Transparency Version Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 4/25/2018 - 5/7/2018 May 07, 2018 01:09PM Check Check Invoice Invoice Invoice GL Invoice Check Issue Date Number Payee Sequence GL Account Account Title Amount Amount 25604 05/07/2018 25604 D&B Supply 1 ch 60-0434-68-00 UNIFORMS - LAUNDRY 29.99 29.99 05/07/2018 25604 D&B Supply 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 10.86 10.86 Total 25604: 40.85 25605 05/07/2018 25605 Dan's Pump and Filter LLC 1 ch 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 85.71 85.71 Total 25605: 85.71 25606 05/07/2018 25606 David Baltz 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS 61.12 61.12 Total 25606: 61.12 25607 05/07/2018 25607 Delta Dental of Idaho 1 ch 60-0217-07-00 WATER DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 314.40 314.40 05/07/2018 25607 Delta Dental of Idaho 2 ch 06-0217-07-00 LIBRARY HEALTH INSURANCE 327.52 327.52 05/07/2018 25607 Delta Dental of Idaho 3 ch 09-0420-25-00 INSURANCE 40.94 40.94 05/07/2018 25607 Delta Dental of Idaho 4 ch 23-0217-07-00 HEALTH INSURANCE 230.40 230.40 05/07/2018 25607 Delta Dental of Idaho 5 ch 12-0217-07-00 CLERK DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 370.52 370.52 05/07/2018 25607 Delta Dental of Idaho 6 ch 22-0217-07-00 HEALTH INSURANCE 216.14 216.14 05/07/2018 25607 Delta Dental of Idaho 7 ch 14-0217-07-00 P&Z DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 233.22 233.22 05/07/2018 25607 Delta Dental of Idaho 8 ch 18-0217-07-00 HEALTH INSURANCE 134.26 134.26 05/07/2018 25607 Delta Dental of Idaho 9 ch 11-0217-07-00 EXEC DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 81.88 81.88 05/07/2018 25607 Delta Dental of Idaho 10 ch 01-0217-07-00 GEN ADMIN HEALTH INSURANCE 40.94 40.94 05/07/2018 25607 Delta Dental of Idaho 11 ch 20-0217-07-00 HEALTH INSURANCE 40.94 40.94 05/07/2018 25607 Delta Dental of Idaho 12 ch 13-0217-07-00 BLDG DEPT HEALTH INSURANCE 199.76 199.76 Total 25607: 2,230.92 25608 05/07/2018 25608 Dennis Holte 1 ch 13-0416-09-00 PLUMBING INSPECTIONS 24,391.95 24,391.95 Total 25608: 24,391.95 25609 05/07/2018 25609 Dillabaugh's Flooring America 1 ch 19-0469-07-00 CH CARPET-BREAKROOM FLOORING 16,169.00 16,169.00 Total 25609: 16,169.00 25610 05/07/2018 25610 Eagle Sewer District 1 ch 01-0413-16-00 UTILITIES CITY HALL 144.00 144.00 05/07/2018 25610 Eagle Sewer District 1 ch 23-0449-04-00 UTILITIES 36.00 36.00 05/07/2018 25610 Eagle Sewer District 1 ch 07-0462-52-00 MUSEUM UTILITIES 36.00 36.00 05/07/2018 25610 Eagle Sewer District 1 ch 23-0450-04-00 UTILTIES 18.00 18.00 05/07/2018 25610 Eagle Sewer District 2 ch 23-0452-04-00 UTILITIES 18.00 18.00 Total 25610: 252.00 25611 05/07/2018 25611 Elec Controls & Instrumentals, LL 1 ch 13-0416-25-00 ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR 14,310.79 14,310.79 Total 25611: 14,310.79 City of Eagle Check Register -Transparency Version Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 4/25/2018 - 5/7/2018 May 07, 2018 01:09PM Check Check 05/07/2018 Issue Date Number Payee 25612 25616 Flag Store of Idaho 1 ch 05/07/2018 25612 Erica Toffel Total 25612: 23-0414-03-00 25613 31.25 1 ch 05/07/2018 25613 ESRI, Inc. Total 25613: 23-0414-03-00 25614 21.39 1 ch 05/07/2018 25614 Evan's Building Center 05/07/2018 25614 Evan's Building Center 05/07/2018 25614 Evan's Building Center 05/07/2018 25614 Evan's Building Center 05/07/2018 25614 Evan's Building Center 05/07/2018 25614 Evan's Building Center 05/07/2018 25614 Evan's Building Center 05/07/2018 25614 Evan's Building Center 05/07/2018 25614 Evan's Building Center 05/07/2018 25614 Evan's Building Center 05/07/2018 25614 Evan's Building Center 05/07/2018 25614 Evan's Building Center 05/07/2018 25614 Evan's Building Center 05/07/2018 25614 Evan's Building Center 05/07/2018 25614 Evan's Building Center 05/07/2018 25614 Evan's Building Center 05/07/2018 25614 Evan's Building Center Total 25614 25615 05/07/2018 25615 Ferguson Enterprises #3007 05/07/2018 25615 Ferguson Enterprises #3007 Total 25615: 25616 23-0414-03-00 05/07/2018 25616 Flag Store of Idaho 05/07/2018 25616 Flag Store of Idaho 05/07/2018 25616 Flag Store of Idaho Total 25616 25617 05/07/2018 25617 Grainger -Dept. 868555954 05/07/2018 25617 Grainger -Dept. 868555954 Total 25617: 25618 05/07/2018 25618 Granicus, Inc. Total 25618 Invoice Invoice Invoice GL Sequence GL Account Account Title Invoice Check Amount Amount 1 ch 99-0101-00-00 CASH ALLOCATED TO OTHER FUNDS 12.14 1 ch 18-0416-01-00 CONTRACT AND AGREEMENTS 400.00 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 8.45 1 ch 60-0434-26-00 TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT 3.28 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 14.71 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 31.25 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 2.31 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 21.39 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 23.53 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 9.19 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 1.00 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 9.19 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 14.63 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 5.51 1 ch 60-0434-68-00 UNIFORMS - LAUNDRY 18.39 1 ch 60-0434-26-00 TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT 12.87 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 7.16 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 17.99 1 ch 60-0434-26-00 TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT 16.56 1 ch 60-0438-11-00 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 42.38 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 143.50 1 ch 23-0447-02-00 EQUIPMENT MTNC & REPAIR 1 ch 23-0447-02-00 EQUIPMENT MTNC & REPAIR 1 ch 23-0450-02-00 EQUIPMENT MTNC & REPAIR 1 ch 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 1 ch 23-0444-01-00 BLDG MAINTENANE & REPAIR 1 ch 18-0416-01-00 CONTRACT AND AGREEMENTS 260.70 215.90 164.20 46.30 34.30 12.14 400.00 8.45 3.28 14.71 31.25 2.31 21.39 23.53 9.19 1.00 9.19 14.63 5.51 18.39 12.87 7.16 17.99 217.41 42.38 143.50 185.88 260.70 215.90 164.20 640.80 46.30 34.30 6,888.00 6,888.00 6,888.00 25619 05/07/2018 25619 HECO Engineers 1 ch 01-0413-31-00 ENGINEERING FEE/DEVELOPER CHG 9,956.00 9,956.00 City of Eagle Check Register - Transparency Version Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 4/25/2018 - 5/7/2018 May 07, 2018 01:09PM Check Check Invoice Invoice Invoice GL Invoice Check Issue Date Number Payee Sequence GL Account Account Title Amount Amount 05/07/2018 25619 HECO Engineers 1 ch 01-0413-31-00 ENGINEERING FEE/DEVELOPER CHG 6,875.00 6,875.00 Total 25619: 16,831.00 25620 05/07/2018 25620 Henry Oldengarm 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS 75.00 75.00 Total 25620: 75.00 25621 05/07/2018 25621 Idaho Correctional Industries 1 ch 22-0413-06-00 PRINTING, DUPLICATION, PUBLISH 30.00 30.00 Total 25621: 30.00 25622 05/07/2018 25622 Idaho Department of Labor 1 ch 01-0415-28-00 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS 1,701.41 1,701.41 Total 25622: 1,701.41 25623 05/07/2018 25623 Idaho Humane Society, Inc. 1 ch 01-0416-06-00 IDAHO HUMANE SOCIETY 5,438.67 5,438.67 Total 25623: 5,438.67 25624 05/07/2018 25624 Idaho Tool and Equipment 1 ch 60-0434-26-00 TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT 8.16 8.16 Total 25624: 8.16 25625 05/07/2018 25625 IIMC 1 ch 12-0413-14-00 PROFESSIONAL DUES 125.00 125.00 Total 25625: 125.00 25626 05/07/2018 25626 iWorQ 1 ch 18-0416-01-00 CONTRACT AND AGREEMENTS 4,275.00 4,275.00 Total 25626: 4,275.00 25627 05/07/2018 25627 James or Karen Seminoff 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS 75.00 75.00 Total 25627: 75.00 25628 05/07/2018 25628 Jose Rodenas Navas 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS 75.00 75.00 Total 25628: 75.00 25629 05/07/2018 25629 K&T Maintenance 1 ch 07-0462-53-00 CUSTODIAL SERVICES 66.19 66.19 05/07/2018 25629 K&T Maintenance 1 ch 06-0464-05-00 CUSTODIAL 3,565.73 3,565.73 05/07/2018 25629 K&T Maintenance 1 ch 23-0443-03-00 CUSTODIAL SERVICES 789.54 789.54 05/07/2018 25629 K&T Maintenance 1 ch 23-0442-03-00 CUSTODIAL SERVICES 1,216.68 1,216.68 05/07/2018 25629 K&T Maintenance 2 ch 23-0440-03-00 CUSTODIAL SERVICES 102.66 102.66 05/07/2018 25629 K&T Maintenance 3 ch 60-0416-08-00 SHOP UTILITIES 51.34 51.34 City of Eagle Check Register - Transparency Version Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 4/25/2018 - 5/7/2018 May 07, 2018 01:09PM Check Check Invoice Invoice Invoice GL Invoice Check Issue Date Number Payee Sequence GL Account Account Title Amount Amount Total 25629: 5,792.14 25630 05/07/2018 25630 Kenneth or Rosa Harlan 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS 75.00 75.00 Total 25630: 75.00 25631 05/07/2018 25631 Kevin Atha 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS 75.00 75.00 Total 25631: 75.00 25632 05/07/2018 25632 Kevin Soria 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATERISERVICE DEPOSITS 32.07 32.07 Total 25632: 32.07 25633 05/07/2018 25633 Les or Susan Robinson 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS 39.92 39.92 Total 25633: 39.92 25634 05/07/2018 25634 Lisa Wiseman 1 ch 17-0416-00-00 CONTRACTS -PERMITS 72.00 72.00 Total 25634: 72.00 25635 05/07/2018 25635 Louis Germano 1 ch 01-0413-02-00 DESIGN REVIEW BRD COMPENSATIO 100.00 100.00 Total 25635: 100.00 25636 05/07/2018 25636 M2 Automation & Control Sery 1 ch 23-0414-03-00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 401.50 401.50 05/07/2018 25636 M2 Automation & Control Sery 1 ch 19-0469-04-00 BASELINE SPRINKLER CONTROLERS 401.50 401.50 05/07/2018 25636 M2 Automation & Control Sery 1 ch 23-0443-01-00 BLDG MAINTENANCE & REPAIR 200.75 200.75 Total 25636: 1,003.75 25637 05/07/2018 25637 Marc or Jill Walters 1 ch 99-0107-00-00 CASH CLEARING -UTILITY BILLING 26.28 26.28 Total 25637: 26.28 25638 05/07/2018 25638 Matt Eusterman 1 ch 01-0203-01-01 BONDS DEPOSITS PAYABLE 1,005.00 1,005.00 Total 25638: 1,005.00 25639 05/07/2018 25639 MetroQuip 1 ch 60-0434-26-00 TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT 23.09 23.09 Total 25639: 23.09 25640 05/07/2018 25640 Michael Foster 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATERISERVICE DEPOSITS 44.26 44.26 City of Eagle Check Register - Transparency Version Check Issue Dates: 4/25/2018 - 5/7/2018 Page: 9 May 07, 2018 01:09PM Check Check Invoice Invoice Invoice GL Invoice Check Issue Date Number Payee Sequence GL Account Account Title Amount Amount Total 25640: 44.26 25641 05/07/2018 25641 NAPA Auto Parts 1 ch 23-0417-01-00 VEHICLE MTNC & REPAIR 2.62 2.62 Total 25641: 2.62 25642 05/07/2018 25642 National Benefit Services, LLC 1 ch 01-0415-23-01 HRA ADMIN FEE 66.32 66.32 05/07/2018 25642 National Benefit Services, LLC 2 ch 06-0461-23-01 COBRA ADMIN FEE 66.33 66.33 Total 25642: 132.65 25643 05/07/2018 25643 Nichoel Baird Spencer 1 ch 14-0413-13-00 TRAVEL & PER DIEM 203.13 203.13 Total 25643: 203.13 25644 05/07/2018 25644 Orkin/Sawyer Inc. 1 ch 23-0442-01-00 BLDG MAINTENANE & REPAIR 270.00 270.00 05/07/2018 25644 Orkin/Sawyer Inc. 1 ch 23-0442-01-00 BLDG MAINTENANE & REPAIR 270.00 270.00 Total 25644: 540.00 25645 05/07/2018 25645 Rick G. Wenick 1 ch 13-0416-13-00 BLDG INSPECTOR - CONTRACT 5,860.00 5,860.00 Total 25645: 5,860.00 25646 05/07/2018 25646 Rimi, Inc.- Terry Medley 1 ch 13-0416-11-00 MECHANICAL INSPECTOR 13,384.31 13,384.31 05/07/2018 25646 Rim!, Inc.- Terry Medley 1 ch 13-0416-14-00 PLAN REVIEW - CONTRACT 5,654.00 5,654.00 Total 25646: 19,038.31 25647 05/07/2018 25647 Robert Grubb 1 ch 01-0413-02-00 DESIGN REVIEW BIRD COMPENSATIO 50.00 50.00 Total 25647: 50.00 25648 05/07/2018 25648 Robert or Connie McLeese 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS 75.00 75.00 Total 25648: 75.00 25649 05/07/2018 25649 Robert R. Schafer 1 ch 01-0413-02-00 DESIGN REVIEW BIRD COMPENSATIO 100.00 100.00 Total 25649: 100.00 25650 05/07/2018 25650 Rocky Mountain Electric 1 ch 01-0416-35-00 ADMINISTRATIVE RESERVE 311.44 311.44 Total 25650: 311.44 City of Eagle 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS Check Check MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS Issue Date Number Payee 25651 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 05/07/2018 25651 Roy or Natasha Flook Total 25651: 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 25652 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 05/07/2018 25652 Shadows Total 25652: 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 25653 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 05/07/2018 25653 Silver Creek Supply 05/07/2018 25653 Silver Creek Supply 05/07/2018 25653 Silver Creek Supply 05/07/2018 25653 Silver Creek Supply 05/07/2018 25653 Silver Creek Supply 05/07/2018 25653 Silver Creek Supply 05/07/2018 25653 Silver Creek Supply 05/07/2018 25653 Silver Creek Supply 05/07/2018 25653 Silver Creek Supply 05/07/2018 25653 Silver Creek Supply 05/07/2018 25653 Silver Creek Supply 05/07/2018 25653 Silver Creek Supply Total 25653: 25654 05/07/2018 25654 SPF -Specialty Plastics & Fab, Inc. Total 25654: 25655 05/07/2018 25655 Stephen Gowans Total 25655: 25656 05/07/2018 25656 Steve Noyes Total 25656: 25657 05/07/2018 25657 Steven Wiesner Total 25657: 25658 05/07/2018 25658 Talena Baer Total 25658: 25659 05/07/2018 25659 Terry L. Sayer Total 25659: Check Register - Transparency Version Check Issue Dates: 4/25/2018 - 5/7/2018 Invoice Invoice Invoice GL Sequence GL Account Account Title 1 ch 60-0220-00-00 WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS 1 ch 24-0401-04-00 ADVERTISEMENT 1 ch 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 1 ch 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 1 ch 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 1 ch 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 1 ch 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 1 ch 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 1 ch 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 1 ch 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 1 ch 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 1 ch 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 1 ch 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 1 ch 23-0414-02-00 MIS MTNC & REPAIR GROUNDS 1 ch 60-0434-59-00 CHEMICALS Page: 10 May 07, 2018 01:09PM Invoice Check Amount Amount 29.78 29.78 29.78 518.40 518.40 11.94 11.94 271.08 271.08 107.29 107.29 116.16 116.16 193.69 193.69 46.42 46.42 4.52 4.52 98.84 98.84 21.85 21.85 23.50 23.50 40.66 40.66 162.20 162.20 1,098.15 31.92 31.92 1 ch 23-0418-01-00 TREE VOUCHER PROGRAM 100.00 100.00 1 ch 20-0422-01-00 TRAVEL/PER DIEM 150.50 150.50 1 ch 13-0413-12-00 TRAINING & CERTIFICATION RENEW 209.00 209.00 209.00 1 ch 01-0413-02-00 DESIGN REVIEW BRD COMPENSATIO 100.00 100.00 100.00 1 ch 01-0413-02-00 DESIGN REVIEW BRD COMPENSATIO 100.00 100.00 100.00 City of Eagle Check Amount 450.00 Check Check Issue Date Number Payee 25660 1 ch 05/07/2018 25660 Timmy's Tree Service, LLC Total 25660: 2 ch 25661 COMMUNICATION 29.09 05/07/2018 25661 Tradewinds Building Co. Total 25661: 159.98 25662 4 ch 09-0463-24-00 05/07/2018 25662 Trautman Lawn & Landscape Total 25662: 20-0422-06-00 25663 105.34 105.34 05/07/2018 25663 Trent J. Koci Total 25663: 205.23 25664 23-0413-07-00 TELEPHONE & COMMUNICATIONS 05/07/2018 25664 Verizon Wireless 05/07/2018 25664 Verizon Wireless 05/07/2018 25664 Verizon Wireless 05/07/2018 25664 Verizon Wireless 05/07/2018 25664 Verizon Wireless 05/07/2018 25664 Verizon Wireless 05/07/2018 25664 Verizon Wireless 05/07/2018 25664 Verizon Wireless 05/07/2018 25664 Verizon Wireless 05/07/2018 25664 Verizon Wireless 05/07/2018 25664 Verizon Wireless Total 25664: 25665 05/07/2018 25665 ZZZ Sanitation Total 25665: Grand Totals: Check Register - Transparency Version Check Issue Dates: 4/25/2018 - 5/7/2018 Invoice Invoice Invoice GL Sequence GL Account Account Title 1 ch 23-0415-01-00 REPUBLIC SRVS -ADD PROGRAMS 1 ch 99-0108-00-00 CASH CLEARING -ACCOUNTS REC Page: 11 May 07, 2018 01:09PM Invoice Amount Check Amount 450.00 450.00 250.00 250.00 1 ch 23-0416-06-00 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEM 18,750.00 18,750.00 18,750.00 1 ch 01-0413-02-00 DESIGN REVIEW BIRD COMPENSATIO 100.00 100.00 100.00 1 ch 60-0434-19-00 TELEPHONE & COMMUNICATIONS 187.10 187.10 2 ch 17-0422-05-00 COMMUNICATION 29.09 29.09 3 ch 13-0413-19-00 TELEPHONE & COMMUNICATIONS 159.98 159.98 4 ch 09-0463-24-00 TELEPHONE -COMMUNICATION 81.76 81.76 5 ch 20-0422-06-00 CELL PHONE 105.34 105.34 6 ch 19-0469-04-00 BASELINE SPRINKLER CONTROLERS 205.23 205.23 7 ch 23-0413-07-00 TELEPHONE & COMMUNICATIONS 187.10 187.10 8 ch 06-0464-03-00 TELEPHONE 52.67 52.67 9 ch 18-0417-01-00 INTERNET & PHONE SERVICES 105.34 105.34 10 ch 01-0413-19-00 TELEPHONE & COMMUNICATIONS 27.32 27.32 11 ch 22-0413-19-00 TELEPHONE AND COMMUNICATIONS 79.99 79.99 1,220.92 1 ch 23-0454-01-00 BLDGS/STRUCTURES MTNC & REPAI 581.00 581.00 581.00 400,690.00 City of Eagle Dated: Mayor: City Council: Report Criteria: Report type: GL detail Bank.Bank account = "82007705' Check Register - Transparency Version Page: 12 Check Issue Dates: 4/25/2018 - 5/7/2018 May 07, 2018 01:09PM Sharon Bergmann From: s. brock <ushorsepoor@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2018 5:41 PM To: Stan Ridgeway; Stan Bastian; Jill Mitchell; Kenny Pittman; Miranda Gold Subject: Oil & Gas Ordinance hearing tomorrow night Dear Mayor Ridgeway and council, Thank you for making space on tomorrow's City Council agenda for this critically important oil and gas ordinance you and the P & Z commissioners have been working so hard on. We are expecting a big turnout from CAIA members and allies who are concerned about our health, safety, water, air and property values here in the Eagle community. Unfortunately, the updated draft ordinance, as well as notice of a presentation scheduled by IDL and IOGCC official Mick Thomas didn't show up on the city website until after the '5 day prior to council meeting' deadline to submit written testimony and supporting documents early last week. In light of that, and considering CAIA has been working on this issue for the past 2 and a half years, I would respectfully ask that as President of CAIA, I be given 10 minutes to testify rather than the standard 3 minutes normally allotted to members of the public. If I can finish earlier than that I will gladly do so. Please let me know if this is doable and thanks again for all your hard work. Warmly yours, Shelley Brock Board Member, C.A.I.A. Citizens Allied for Integrity and Accountability Eagle, Idaho (208) 559-6127 http://www.integrityandaccountability.org Shelley Brock May 8, 2018 8770 W. Chaparral Rd., Eagle President, Citizens Allied for Integrity and Accountability (CAIA) Good evening Mayor Ridgeway and Council, Thank you for all your hard work and deep conviction toward getting this protective oil and gas ordinance in place before seismic testing & drilling operations occur in Eagle. Roughly 3,600 acres of state-owned minerals have already been leased in Ada County by Alta Mesa - the vast majority of that in Eagle — under or adjacent to our homes, farms, schools, churches, rivers, highways. Thousands of acres of privately owned minerals have also been leased here. Evidence shows that at least 300,000 private, state and federally -owned mineral acres have already been leased across the Treasure Valley for future drilling, chemical treatments and potential fracking for oil and natural gas. Idaho Department of Lands - State owned Oil & Gas leasel Washington V About 50,000 acres have been leased Auction October 19, 2016 Additional 4,404 mineral acres (Mostly roadways) 7 Counties: Washington, Canyon, Payette, , Germs, Cassia, Bonneville 10 State/interstate Highways; 84,i1S 95, !D 14, ID 52, US 30, ID 72 Gem Idaho Counties Payette State -Owned Mineral Leases (Approximately 80,000 mineral acres leased so far) 3�4 Canyon �v Next iti.iiM is{.d `.> �ia,lL tli. Bonneville Ada '` Elmore .d anualr"y� Af,nl, J#A—V, Octobf-r - 201P s a Y C"St pipeline Owyhee Cassia e Bear Lake. a 3/'CPa?t .n"..! of La ::s a.o G' 0, vas ,erims � * IGS public record of well drilled in the Eagle foothills during the 1920's Historical Well Logs (Idaho Geological Survey) Ada County - Eagle Foothills Important Terms of State Leases Most are split estate - mineral rights always trump surface rights • Each lease up to 10 year term - can be extended indefinitely as long as Alta Mesa conduct$;I�� i ;+f'tL <: Fit it , Or reworks ti , otic -"n wells in order to restore or improve production. • All wells must be drilled, maintained and operated so as to produce the maximum amount of oil and/or gas possible. A penuity is assessed if drill'ing doesn't commence within the first 5 years of the lease. * Surface owners receive no royalties Idaho statute inden-inifles and holds harmless the state of Idaho for any liability stemming frorn oil and gas operations. h, e ai, he� a! d the d,rec t t h e J t� t a nalfrent and an state a -enc,,, that mai ria,e -I -j>tod,, C)r -onj(-i)j the ea -;,:I -i 'ands arid the i'%if 0'e nahts and n-iproverncn- if not the state of ldahn or, state :es,-:�ee of ace ric;hIts if thei-e be one (I ; the 01ftice, -1 aaents and en-irdot,lees of each and ever-, )ne , 1 ;CIF the fol!-c-gowc, shall be free fion-i an,i and all liabilities a!,d c1ai--n-,,S- fo!- damai-jes and or- for or bv reason - -1 -sc I �j -- ') if p I - - of death o, ir jw,, to an,, pei -on ,,I dannage ,- ropet!,, of ani,, kind ,, h at e,. atise e i o I) Lj' a,- t a r ons ;ss i ^t �-)t 1, e Ie`': e e Its d .a negligent or cAI,�er,.t, ; --, assign,:z, agent-, nlrei atos enVoilee-2; cir cor-iiractors and ie°,see rovenants an(! aai-ee, to in demn!f `, and to sa', !e nai-r-nle,�,,; the `,tate of jdaho the ;Board the directl-t, the Or other -;tate agenc,, the le',SeIE- -1-)f SL!la,-. ights ;f th,e,e he one 1 1 and they offii-- agents and emplo,,ee:-1 fnoni all Iiabil;tleS 1-harc-l-expense Q a*t rIn--, feechin-sLilt� or losse>- c i�ise-,-, bt� a iieglicient o!- othei-,-irise act of the Ifessee its assign's aaeflt -iperat,, cl,-ont,acto- T! -,p 'F -wee s :;1qnat-,ire t,-) a lease under Idaho Deparlment ot Lands 2016 PresentationtoGem County Commissioners Local jurisdictions - City and County E Xt f .1 tion may h(' %tib It t to I oxoflab It' I m a I o I (III mii( pf ( )Vi -,1( )11-. wh I< I) pt ( )tt t pijl)! If III �11 It I), pilb It( -%fi-r Y, I itihillc C) wt I I Ch pie -Vi', -)t farm to pl.hl;( it) Ity I%[ f I )c tt I I (- or (J( -Y I adar=on of 01I. V,11m% (I"(., Arid tirljoymolt of I)r svatc 17? F+(i t � �i r 1 4 1),! 1 1( :111 Y ot ( )f, ? At[,, i"t I 'Y 1! t )IT 00 1 1, IC ! It )d inft t- shall t)(,- sijbjciir_r rc) i'm 11 orris a nce t 1-(,golations and poi-micting (-equivemenr% ORDINANCE: Additional changes requested 8. Waiver In the case of an application for permit under this section, a waiver from an imposed condition(s) shall be granted if the provision is in operational conflict with Chapter 3, Title 47 of the Idaho Code or the Rules Governing Oil and Gas Conservation or if an imposed condition(s) would actually or operationally prohibit the extraction of oil and gas. *While leqisiation (HB301), passed in 2017 did amend some key regulations, it did not include any changes to LLUPA further restricting local authority. Please include these highlighted excerpts from statute. Idaho Statute: TITLE 47 — 314 (10) To implement the purpose of the oil and gas conservation act, and to advance the public interest in the orderly development of the state's oil and gas resources, while at the same time, recognizing the responsibility of local governments to protect the public health, safety and welfare, it is herein provided that: (b) No ordinance, resolution, requirement or standard of a city, county or political subdivision, except a state agency with authority, shall actually or operationally prohibit the extraction of oil and gas; provided however, that extraction may be subject to reasonable local ordinance Provisions, not repugnant to law, which protect public health, public safety, public order or which prevent harm to u€ nu fffltaStrutaure or Of silk Value, utie a!lu erijup-Wein W pnvaku (c) No ordinance, resolution, requirement or standard of a city, county or political subdivision, except a state agency with authority, shall actually or operationally prohibit construction or operation of facilities and infrastructure needed for the post- extraction processing and transport of gas and oil. However, such facilities and in shall be subject to local ordinances, regulations and permitting Code. Pg 6 j. Non-reactive and non -radioactive chemical tracers shall be used in all drilling fluids 'fhis is vague verbiage, it is critical thai we use very,specific language as below: Nora -radioactive tracing or tagging additives, unique for each permitted drill site nit.ist be added to all fluids used for drilling, as well as post -drilling well 'treatments' — including Pyftaolic fracturin (aka tracking). The city small f7e notified in writing of the formula identifying such additive(s), so that any negative irri,pacts on water sources (i.e. leaks, contamination of aquifers and surface waterways). can be most effectively traced directly to the source. The industry has been using tracers for years to track the efficacy of drilling and chemical treatments (including fracking), for production. It should be mandatory that they do it for the protection of our irreplaceable ground water, rivers and irrigation systems and to enable property owners to litigate when casings leak, and spills, or deliberatelaccidental dumping of chemical laden, radioactive fluids contaminate our water sources. file.-111C:/Users/sh el/e WDo wnloadslDrillin q- fluid- tra c ers-revie w -and -up da te- o f-indus trvex erience-and-issues-for-Ri4/lVlfl-site-characterisatit�rt-pr+�pranan�e-April-2Q17,pdf - The Idaho Statesman (March z4, 2017) iv) Operator shall control fugitive dust arising from operations and truck traffic. Operator shall dust proof the site by applying water, road mixture, or other means that reduce dust. Petroleum based and synthetic polymers, L_ ,,,er, sulfur water, water in mixture with any type of hydrocarbon, including used motor oil and electrochemical products are prohibited for dust suppression. *Should include verbiage from Fruitland Ordinance (inserted in red) to prevent spraying on roadways of radioactive, chemical laden flowback and produced water Pg 14 c. Setbacks/Location i) Post -extraction facilities shall not be constructed within: one-half of a mile from a highway one-affle from the property line of an occupied structure, a water well, ditches or canals, an occupied school, hospital/medical facility, or place of worship/assembly Otherwise comply with IDAPA 20.07.02.430.01, as may be amended. Is the 'I mile' distance a Typo? Setbacks of I mile would likely be considered extreme and could be construed as operationally prohibitive. Didn't the council originally ask for mile setbacks for post extraction facilities (?) Please clarify the last line regarding "complying with IDAPA rules, as may be amended" Does this mean we could be forced to default to the state minimums below if found in violation? If so, this needs to be struck, *Please see attached documents regarding directional drilling vs lenticular reservoirs like we have here. This method of drilling is reported by the industry to be the most cost effective for our geology (sand lenses encased in shale), and can extend for miles in order to avoid surface disturbances. Applications by Bridge Resources (Bought out by Alta Mesa in 2011) Za e t; From corporate presentation of 6rmige Energy. reb.20 u i Via IDL presentation April. 2018 Additional attached documents: Mick Thomas profile — info from Devon Energy SEC report detailing risks of oil and gas operations and operations being subject to local laws and regulations Industry documents verifying benefits and costs of directionally drilling Industry documents verifying benefits and costs of directional drilling with Alta Mesa applications & permits for directional gas wells in Idaho BIA Government documents verifying risks of all aspects of oil and gas operations on public health, safety, environment, etc. Document verifying risks of spraying toxic oil and gas waste water on roadways Loopholes for Polluters document Center for Biological Diversity public comment on behalf of CAIA and Idaho regarding implementation of Class II injection program here Terri Pickens Manweiler letter regarding LLUPA authority Pennsylvania DEP documentation of hundreds of cases of water contamination by both conventional and unconventional gas drilling Denver Post article regarding 13 fires/explosions in Colorado neighborhoods Documentation of Fruitland City attorney and Senator Abby Lee statements Mick Thomas profile: Thomas has worked as an operations geologist in the oil and gas industry for multiple companies including serving as a team geology lead over the mid-continent with Devon Energy in Oklahoma City (for 2 years, 2014 - 2016). Devon Energy SEC Report - 4th Quarter 2015 1\\t at, RETOR I I't Wit AM IO SH I I0\ 13 OR I5(d) (4 I I IL SIA I It I RIES I7_XCII.XN(;IL M, I OF I934 1 or the Fiscal 1Bear ended December 31. 201 ( omnu..ioU bile \Unlh 00 1 -323 IN DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION Exploration and Production Regulation (Pg 17) Our operations are subject to federal, tribal, state, provincial and local laws and regulations. These laws and regulations relate to matters that include: • acquisition of seismic data; • location, drilling and casing of wells; • well design; • hydraulic fracturing; • well production; • spill prevention plans; • emissions and discharge permitting; • use, transportation, storage and disposal of fluids and materials incidental to oil and gas operations; • surface usage and the restoration of properties UpOrl'which wells have been, drilled.; • calculation and disbursement of royalty payments and production taxes; • plugging and abandoning of wells; Item 1A. Risk Factors: Insurance Does Not Cover All Risks (Pg 25) Our business is hazardous and is subject to all of the operating risks normally associated with the exploration, development, production, processing and transportation of oil, natural gas and NGLs. Such risks include potential blowouts, cratering, fires, loss of well control, mishandling cd fluids and chemicals and possible underground migration of hydrocarbons and chemicals, The occurrence of any of these risks could result in environmental pollution, damage to or destruction of our property, equipment and natural resources, injury to people or loss of life. Additionally, for our non -operated properties, we generally depend on the operator for operational safety and regulatory compliance. To mitigate financial losses resulting from these operational hazards, we maintain comprehensive general liability insurance, as well as insurance coverage against certain losses resulting from physical damages,, loss of well control, business interruption and pollution events that are considered sudden and accidental. We also rntaintain workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance. However, our insurance coverage does not provide 100% reimbursement of potential losses resulting from these operational hazards. Additionally, insurance coverage is generally not available to us for pollution events that are considered gradual, and we have limited or no insurance coverage for certain risks such as political risk, war and terrorism. Our insurance does not cover penalties or fines assessed by governmental authorities. The occurrence of a significant event against which we are not fully insured could have a material adverse effect on our profitability, financial condition and liquidity. Li4,)df Directional drilling MMMMM Directional wells are drilled for several purposes: Increasing the exposed section length through the reservoir by drilling through the reservoir at an angle Drilling into the reservoir where vertical access is difficult or not possible. For instance an oilfield under a town, under a lake.. or underneath a difficult to drill formation Allowing more to be grouped together on one surface location can allow fewer rig moves. less surface area disturbance, and make it easier and cheaper to complete and produce the wells. For instance, on an or jacket offshore.. up to about 40 wells can be grouped together. The wells will fan out from the platform into the reservoir below. This concept is being applied to land wells, allowing multiple subsurface locations to be reached from one pad, reducing costs. Drilling far from the surface location still requires careful planning and design, The current record holders manage wells over 10 km (6 miles) away from the surface location at a depth of only 1,600-2,600 rn (5,200-6,500 ft). httP_//www.oilfieldwiki.com/wiki;Dirctional urilii��g N L NETUsnperg% Data e change Use of multi -drain wells to more effectively extract natural gas from lenticular sand reservoirs: a feasibility study The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of the multi -drain well method in tight, lenticular formations. Although directional drilling is more costly than conventional vertical drilling, this practice could triple well production. The proposed drilling plan may be more cost efficient than drilling three separate wells with less than 320 -acre spacing because it would save the costs of site surveys, rig setup, purchase of the surface lease area, and gas pipeline hookups for two additional well sites. This feasibility study was conducted on the Piceance Basin area, mainly because of the availability of geological information. The results of this study will generally apply to other regions with tight, lenticular sand, depending upon the similarity in the total percentage of sand lenses in the area and the lens dimensions and orientations. Appendix A discusses the geology of the eastern Uinta Basin in eastern Utah, and the applicability of this study to the area. Appendix B provides calculation of expected production increase due to angle of drilling. Reservoir Known: ?ilrt,+It rr�i' �� ;"?Il,� _ �i _ifs �� _�-°� „i! Unknown:.. Presentation by Dr. Breed lovestrout, IOGCC Directional drilling Directional drilling is a very valuable tool in oil/gas exploration and production. It not only increases reservoir recovery factor, but also minimizes drilling and operational footprint by reaching the whole reservoir from concentrated spots. Benefits Directional wells are drilled for several purposes: Increasing the exposed section length through the reservoir by drilling through the reservoir at an angle Drilling into the reservoir where vertical access is difficult or not possible. For instance an Oilfield under a town, under a lake, or underneath a difficult to drill formation Allowing more to be grouped together on one surface location can allow fewer rig moves, less surface area disturbance, and make it easier and cheaper to complete and produce the wells. For instance. on an or jacket offshore, LIP to about 40 wells can be grouped together. The wells will fan out from the platform into the reservoir below, This concept is being applied to land wells, allowing multiple subsurface locations to be reached from one pad, reducing costs. Drilling far from the surface location still requires careful planning and design. The current record hoolders nnanage. ^efover 10 km 16 miles. away froin the surfr-e iiocatian at a depth of only 1,600-2,600 In (5,200-8,500 ft), http://www.o'jlfieldwik'l.com/'wiki,'D.i.rectional drilling * Also an option in Alta Mesa's contracts and Idaho statute: Horizontal drilling (record = 9,321 miles) Fallon 1-10 Gas Well drilled by Alta Mesa on the banks and in flood plain of Payette River (11013rch, 2018) City of Fruitland water intake plant Alta Mesa's Fallon 1-10 gas well drilled directionally with a 1,716 foot deviation between top and bottom hole, on the banks and in the flood plain of the Payette River (which has also been leased by Alta Mesa), threatening Fruitland City water supply. IDL Pani, Supplerlicni #: quo ,-dlon 1-10 %% ilitu" I Payetic Oxunt%, 11) httpsI/ogcc. idaho.gov/wp-content/Liploads/sites/50i2017i10i20171019—APPROVED—APD-f a I Ion - 1 -1 O-REDACTED-Itrs-resize.pdf Alta Mesa's Barlow 2-14 application to drill directionally with a 1,489 foot deviation between top and bottom hole, on the banks and in the flood plain of the Payette River (which has also been [eased by Alta Mesa), threatening Fruitland City water supply. httPsV/ogcc idaho.gov/wp-content/LiplOadslst'Les�'50r'Z-017i09/201 7091 'I-COMPLETE-APD- Barllow/2-14 REDA%rTED-Itrs-posttosite-optlic�-fh-downsample-'�100-200-40O.pdf L N EXPERT ATTESTATION TO ANTICIPATED DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF OIL & GAS DEVELOPMENT THAT UNDERLIE COMMUNITIES' NEEDS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDINANCES: Osage County Oil and Gas Draft Environmental Impact Statement (USDI BIA, Eastern Oklahoma Region, Osage Agency — Nov 2015) https:// .bia.gov/sites/bia.gov/files/assets/bia/eaokre /osagee/idcl-032081.pdf (More information - haps:// .indianaffairs.gov/regional-offices/eastern- oklahoma/osa eg�-agency/osape®ail-andas-eis) From 4.1, Introduction: "Impact analysis is a cause -and -effect inquiry. The detailed impact analyses and conclusions are based on the interdisciplinary team's knowledge of resources and the project area, on literature reviews, and on information provided by experts in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and other agencies." — "The impact analysis does not include a subjective qualifier (beneficial or adverse) to the impact." — "The evaluations in this section are confined to the actions that have more prominent, immediate, or direct effects." Sections/notes below extracted from Chapter 4: • "Impacts Common to All Alternatives" sections (see X.X.2) [3 alternatives for managing oil and gas development in this area with 24 communities totaling over 47,000 population in 2010] — [NOTE: Some cases would see more harmful impacts than these `baseline' effects] • "Cumulative Impacts" sections (see X.X.6) • "Unavoidable Adverse Impacts" section (see 4.18) • "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources" section (see 4.19) • "Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses and Long -Term Productivity" section (see 4.20) 4.2 — Topography, Geology, Paleontology, and Soils: 4.2.2: "Surface disturbing activities associated with oil and gas production, such as road and well pad construction, can lead to soil compaction and increased erosion. Surveys associated with surface disturbing activities could increase the potential for inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources. This, in turn, may result in damage during discovery..." "Oil and gas production creates a risk of releasing produced fluids or saline water into the ecosystem. This can result in the salinization of the surrounding soils, which may result in a salt scar, or it can make area on the landscape unable to support vegetation due to the high salt content of the soils. Toxic hydrogen sulfide gas (1-12S) is considered a geologic hazard that may be released as a result of well blowouts, incomplete combustion during flaring, or leakage from pipelines and abandoned wells. Injection of produced water into disposal wells can cause earthquakes (i.e., induced seismicity) due to increased pressure underground..." 4.2.6: Oil & gas development, road & bridge improvements, oil & gas pipelines (and other land uses) "have created or have the potential to create both short-term and long- term impacts on soils, topography, and paleontology. Impacts on topography and geology would be from altering the landscape during construction projects and additional understanding of the local geology through further oil and gas exploration. Destruction of paleontological resources may occur from additional incidental discoveries as a result of surface disturbance. Long-term soil compaction and erosion can also occur as a result of surface disturbance. Short-term impacts on soils generally are temporary disturbance during construction and road maintenance." 4.3 — Water Resources: 4.3.2: "Oil and gas development can impact water resources in several ways, as follows: • Surface disturbance (e.g., road, power line, pipeline, and well pad construction) can increase runoff or change the physical characteristics of water bodies. • Subsurface disturbance can change aquifer properties. • Leaks and spills can contaminate groundwater and surface water with naturally occurring pollutants or chemicals used for oil and gas extraction." "Oil and gas development also uses water. After use, this water may or may not go back into the natural system. "Surface -disturbing activities, such as road, power line, pipeline, and well pad construction, can remove or disturb essential soil -stabilizing agents, such as vegetation diversity, soil crusts, litter, and woody debris. These soil features function as living mulch by retaining moisture and discouraging annual weed growth... Loss of one or more of these agents increases potential erosion and sediment or pollutant transport to surface water bodies, leading to surface water quality degradation. "Surface -disturbing activities under certain circumstances can also lead to soil compaction, which decreases water infiltration rates. It also elevates the potential for overland flow, which can increase erosion and sediment or pollutant delivery potential to the surface water bodies in the area, leading to surface water quality degradation. "Surface -disturbing activities in areas of low reclamation potential, such as `fragile soils` and slopes greater than 40 percent, or fragile areas, such as stream channels, floodplains, and riparian habitats, are at higher risk for erosion. Disturbance in such areas creates greater potential for erosion and sediment delivery to surface waters, thereby degrading water quality. "Surface -disturbing activities in stream channels, floodplains, and riparian habitats are more likely to alter natural morphologic stability and floodplain function. Morphologic destabilization and loss of floodplain function accelerate stream channel and bank erosion, increase sediment supply, dewater near -stream alluvium, cause the loss of riparian and fish habitat, and deteriorate water quality..." "When surface -disturbing impacts are allowed to alter natural drainage patterns, the runoff critical to recharging and sustaining locally important aquifers, 2 springs/seeps/fens, wetlands, and associated riparian habitats is redirected elsewhere. As a result, these sensitive areas can be dewatered..." "Subsurface disturbances can alter natural aquifer properties; for example, they can enhance hydraulic conductivity of existing fractures, breach confining units, and change hydraulic pressure gradients. This can increase the potential for contaminating surface water and groundwater. Furthermore, altering natural aquifer properties can dewater locally important freshwater sources..." "Use, storage, and transportation of fluids, such as saline produced water, hydraulic fracturing fluids, and condensate, creates the possibility of spills that could migrate to surface water or groundwater. Spills of these fluids can impact water quality and human health." "Theoretically, improperly completed wells or perforations into zones of geological weakness—faults or fractures—could create conduits that allow fracturing fluids, produced water, and methane to migrate to groundwater. If groundwater is contaminated, there are few cost-effective ways to reclaim it; thus, the long-term impacts of groundwater contamination would be considerable." "If aquifers were to become contaminated from oil and gas development, changes in groundwater quality could impact downstream users who divert groundwater. Municipal and public wells, domestic wells, springs, and surface waters that are hydrologically connected to groundwater could be affected by changes in its quality." "Oil and gas development uses water for well stimulation (including hydraulic fracturing and enhanced oil recovery), well drilling with water-based drilling muds, and other minor uses, such as dust suppression and equipment cleaning. Well stimulation uses the most water during oil and gas development; an average hydraulic fracturing well uses 2.5 million gallons of water over the life of the well... Enhanced oil recovery (pumping water under ground to increase pressure in a well to boost lagging oil production) can require far larger volumes of water than the average well requirements for hydraulic fracturing... 4.3.6: The surface disturbances described in 4.3.2 "have created or have the potential to create new surface disturbance..., which would impact water resources..." 4.4 – Air Quality and Climate: 4.4.2: "...Vegetation removal and surface disturbance create loose soils, which can increase dust (particulate matter) levels." "Continuing to develop oil and gas resources would lead to increases in GHG emissions... and an increase in the emission of criteria pollutants, which could exceed the NAAQS and have impacts on public health and visibility." 4.4.6: "...Foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and will likely continue to affect air quality and climate are those surface disturbances and activities that produce GHG emissions, NAAQS 3 criteria pollutants, or affect air quality values. Examples are the Workover PEA [Programmatic Environmental Assessment], Leasing PEA, and surface disturbances, such as... road development. Air quality and climate can be indirectly impacted by transportation projects that result in additional vehicle traffic." 4.5 — Fish and Wildlife: 4.5.2: "Oil and gas development could impact fish and wildlife species or habitats through disturbance, direct habitat loss, reduced habitat effectiveness, habitat modification, degradation, and fragmentation, direct mortality, habitat avoidance, and interference with movement patterns. Surface disturbance and vegetation removal may remove or degrade habitat or certain wildlife species, depending on the size and location of the project. Birds and other wildlife species may be impacted by oil field waste pits because they are attracted to oil -covered ponds. Potential impacts are the following: • Entrapment in oil and drowning • Death or illness from ingestion of toxic quantities of oil • Cold stress if oil were to damage the insulation provided by feathers • Increased susceptibility to disease and predation..." 4.5.6: "Oil and gas leasing and development, in combination with tallgrass prairie conversion to agriculture, is likely to continue to affect birds, mammals, and other species that depend on prairie habitats for nesting, foraging, and cover. Approximately 95 percent of the county is in agricultural use..., and further conversion of native habitats to agriculture would result in long-term habitat loss or fragmentation for tallgrass prairie -dependent species. "Infrastructure developments (e.g., pipelines, transportation projects...) could cross multiple land jurisdictions and contribute to habitat fragmentation." "...Foreseeable actions could affect trends in water quality and quantity, which could subsequently affect fish and other aquatic communities. Surface -disturbing activities... could remove or disturb soil -stabilizing agents, such as vegetation, soils crusts, and wood debris. Loss of one or more of these agents could increase erosion and sediment transport to surface water bodies, which could degrade habitat for sediment tolerant fish species." 4.6 — Vegetation, Wetlands, and Noxious Weeds: 4.6.2: "Temporary and permanent vegetation removal associated with construction and workover operations directly impacts vegetation and wetland resources. Vegetation could be removed by surface -disturbing activities, such as constructing new or expanding existing access roads or well pads. Where access roads cross wetlands or riparian areas, vegetation could be removed to facilitate construction. Wetlands could be directly impacted by filling, draining, or otherwise altering surface or subsurface hydrology. ...If disturbed areas were not reclaimed and revegetated, for example where a permanent access road or monitoring well was installed, impacts would be permanent. 4 "Indirect impacts on vegetation and wetland resources could include a change in species composition due to invasive plant or noxious weed establishment or spread. Surface -disturbing activities and increased personnel and vehicle presence would facilitate noxious weed establishment or spread. In reclaimed areas, vegetation composition may shift from forest- or shrub -dominated to herbaceous -dominated communities. Indirect impacts on vegetation and wetland resources may also result from changes in watershed function and condition..." "Fugitive dust from roads or workover activities could cover existing vegetation, which could affect plant photosynthesis and respiration. Impairment of these functions could lower plant vigor and growth rate and increase a plant's susceptibility to disease. There is the potential for accidental grass or brush fire from unauthorized vehicle ingress into vegetated areas during certain seasons..." 4.6.6: "Generally, impacts on vegetation from the actions described above could occur due to loss or modification of vegetation communities, altered species composition and vegetation structure, establishment and spread of noxious weeds, and soil disturbance, including compaction, erosion, topsoil removal, and loss of native seed banks." "Invasive plants are generally spreading or increasing in density in some parts of the planning area, especially in oil and gas fields, along roadways, transmission lines, and other rights-of-way... Typically, as ground disturbance increases in areas of weed populations, the likelihood that invasive plants would move into this disturbance increases. Linear development, such as transmission lines, pipelines, roads, and fences, in particular can facilitate long-distance weed dispersal..." 4.7 — Special Status Species: 4.7.2: "Oil and gas development could impact special status species or habitats through disturbance, direct habitat loss, reduced habitat effectiveness, habitat modification, degradation, and fragmentation, direct mortality, habitat avoidance, and interference with movement patterns. These potential disturbances are directly linked to changes in vegetation conditions and water quality and quantity. ...Oil and gas development actions would require infrastructure, including well pads, access roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and others. Construction and operation of this infrastructure would result in direct habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, displacement, potential death of individuals, and nest abandonment. "Death may be caused by collision with vehicles on access roads, or contact with oil waste ponds, resulting in toxicity from oil ingestion, potential drowning, cold stress from loss of insulation, and susceptibility to disease. Indirect effects are behavioral changes, such as avoiding nesting habitat due to noise or traffic, ...invasive plant spread displacing native habitat, and water quality impairment and exposure to hazardous materials in the event of a spill." 4.7.6: "Oil and gas leasing and development, in combination with converting tallgrass prairie habitat to agricultural use, is likely to continue to affect ABB and special status bird species that use prairie habitat for nesting, foraging, and protection from predators." 4.8 - Agriculture: 4.8.2: "Typical oil and gas operations do not irreversibly convert farmland to other uses. However, surface -disturbing activities, such as construction of well pads, access roads, and reserve pits, can affect soil properties, increase erosion, and reduce water infiltration. Any of these could affect the characteristics unique to prime or unique farmlands." 4.8.6: "...Foreseeable future actions and conditions in the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and will likely continue to affect agriculture are projects that disturb farmland acres or soils." "Generally, farmlands are not considered when siting large facilities... Road improvements may temporarily affect the edge of farmlands during improvement construction, where roads cross through farmland acres." 4.9 — Historical, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources: 4.9.2: The BIA is responsible for overseeing any development activities that could compromise these resources [but such oversight tends to be far less present in most other jurisdictions]. "The infrastructure and access roads remaining in place for operations and maintenance could lead to indirect impacts on cultural resources from increased access, trespass, vandalism, erosion, and changes to setting." 4.9.6: Oil and gas/infrastructure development "...can impact historical, cultural, and archaeological resources through ground and physical disturbance, aural, atmospheric, or visual setting disturbance, natural processes, such as erosion and weathering, historic structure abandonment or alteration, and increased access, vandalism, and unauthorized collection." 4.10 — Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice: 4.10.2: "Reduction in oil and gas production has potential economic impacts, including direct and indirect impacts on the level of employment, labor income, and total value added by the oil and gas industry. In addition, changes in the production level could change the level of headright royalties paid and taxes collected and distributed." "Oil and gas development may conflict with other land uses, including agriculture, timber harvesting, and renewable wind development. The degree to which conflict may occur depends on the degree of surface disturbance..." "...The development of oil and gas may impact non -market values in the planning area. Non -market values are the benefits derived by society from the uses or experiences that are not dispensed through markets and do not require payment. ...The use value of non -market goods is the value to society from the direct use of the asset through recreation, such as hiking and camping. The use of non -market goods often includes associated market goods, such as lodging and gas. ...Non-use values of non -market goods reflect the value of an asset beyond its current use, due to willingness to preserve a resource for potential future use and for the benefit of preserving an asset for future generations to enjoy. This can include such values as scenic views and preservation of plant and animal habitat that are not currently providing economic I benefits. Non-use values are typically measured in terms of an individual's willingness to pay to preserve a resource. "Undeveloped land in the planning area provides non -market function in the use category through area recreation. Undeveloped open space may also play a role in the non-use category by preserving the visual landscape, sensitive resources, and important cultural sites for future generations' enjoyment. "Some of the value of undeveloped areas can also be determined by examining ecosystem services, including clean air and water. Ecosystem goods and services include a range of human benefits resulting from appropriate ecosystem structure and function, such as flood control from intact wetlands and carbon sequestration from healthy forests. ...Others, such as wetlands protection and carbon sequestration, do not commonly involve markets and thus reflect non -market values. 4.10.6: Some "current land uses in the area thatsupport employment could continue to conflict with oil and gas development. Agriculture may not be compatible with oil and gas development if water is limited or if land disturbance impacts agricultural land use. "Area tourism, including the heritage scenic byway, ...could also be impacted by oil and gas development if tourists are looking for rural undeveloped landscapes. In addition, ...oil and gas development has the potential to impact quality of life for area residents." 4.11 — Public Health and Safety: 4.11.2: "...Oil and gas production... would result in continued exposure to and risk associated with public health and safety issues..." [From 3.11.2 referenced: "Improper management and disposal of hazardous substances can lead to pollution of groundwater or other drinking water supplies and the contamination of surface water and soil. ...Health and safety concerns include hydrogen sulfide gas that could be released as a result of drilling, hazards introduced by heavy truck traffic, and hazardous materials used or generated during construction, drilling, and production. Hydrogen sulfide is extremely toxic in concentrations above 500 ppm and is known to occur in varying concentrations in Osage County..."] "...Lessees would be required to exercise due diligence in controlling and removing pollutants and extinguishing fires." 4.11.6: "...Foreseeable future actions and conditions in the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and will likely continue to affect public health and safety are those projects and activities that result in exposure to hazards or hazardous materials." 4.12 — Visual Resources: 4.12.2: "Temporary direct effects on visual resources would occur from construction and ground disturbance at well pads, access roads, and pipelines. The effects would occur for a short period, such as weeks or months. Construction would disturb the ground surface and remove vegetation. This would affect visual resources by denuding the land. Also, ground disturbances would affect visual resources by creating exposed soil with a different texture and color than undisturbed soil. Depending on growing 7 conditions, trees and shrubs may not regenerate quickly, which would affect the timeline for reclaiming disturbed areas. "Disturbing the ground would also generate dust from vehicles and excavation being blown across exposed soil. Fugitive dust would affect visual resources by diminishing atmospheric clarity. This effect would persist until the dust settles or is blown elsewhere. "Construction lighting would reduce nighttime darkness which would affect nighttime activities, such as star gazing. Reflective surfaces on construction equipment and vehicles create glare. The intensity and amount of glare would vary, depending on the intensity of sunlight and the time of day. This would affect visual resources by adding artificial points of illumination not found naturally in the landscape. "During construction, views of a project's area would be cluttered with construction equipment and materials and temporary support infrastructure, such as pipes, pits, fences, flagging, and stream crossings. The color and geometric, boxy forms of construction materials and equipment would contrast with the rolling form of the terrain and the vegetation. The rigid vertical elements would create various focal points on a mostly open landscape and would not mimic other landscape elements, which are mostly vegetation and rolling hills. The color of construction equipment and vehicles would not resemble the muted tans and greens of the terrain and vegetation." "Long-term direct effects on visual resources would occur from operating and maintaining sites and facilities. The effects on visual resources would remain through the life of the operations, until a site is abandoned and reclaimed." "New roads would add artificial elements to undeveloped areas. ...Roads lack vegetation and create an abrupt vegetation edge along the roadside." "New pipelines and electrical lines would add artificial elements to undeveloped areas. ...In particular, pipelines would divide the landscape with strips of land lacking vegetation, and electrical lines would introduce prominent vertical elements." "Well pads and facilities, such as flowback pits and compressor stations, would add artificial elements to undeveloped areas. These areas would be cleared of vegetation, thereby leaving a clearing that contrasts with the surrounding landscape. ...Also, the well pads and facilities would be sources of activity and commotion that are not typically found in undeveloped areas." "Lights may be installed for safety and to illuminate work areas, such as drilling rigs, at night. This would reduce nighttime darkness by adding light to areas lacking artificial light. As a result, this would diminish opportunities for viewing visual resources between dusk and dawn, particularly stargazing opportunities." 4.12.6: "...Foreseeable future actions and conditions within the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and will likely continue to affect visual resources are those that have caused, are now causing, or would later cause surface disturbance or create large human -made modifications on the landscape." "These actions, in addition to the continued oil and gas development proposed..., would cumulatively exaggerate impacts on visual resources in the planning area." 4.13 — Noise: 4.13.2: "Noise resulting from oil and gas production could affect sensitive receptors in the planning area, including residents, recreationists, and wildlife... The magnitude ofthe effect would depend on the distance between the receptor and the noise source, the duration and frequency of the noise, and the time of the noise (noise is viewed as more disruptive at night)." "Noise under all alternatives would occur from constructionand operations. Construction would increase short-term, localized, and intermittent ambient noise levels, while operations may increase long-term ambient noise levels over the life of the project. "Sources of noise are construction (earth -moving equipment for well drilling, roads, well pads, compressor stations, electrical lines, and pipelines), vehicle traffic, and operation (production); see Table 4-4. "Construction activities would require the use of earth -moving equipment (e.g., bulldozers, graders, and backhoes), heavy trucks (e.g., dump trucks and water trucks), generators, and air compressors at the construction site. Noise from construction is assumed to be short term but would be loud and constant. In addition, heavy truck and personal vehicle traffic would increase along area roadways to bring personnel and supplies to the staging and construction sites. Noise from these activities would be short term and intermittent. For access roads, electrical lines, and pipelines, the construction equipment would not remain in one location for a long period, given the linear nature of this type of development." "The primary noise sources associated with drilling are large diesel engines that power the rotary rig and pumps and the large diesel -driven air compressors. In addition, heavy truck and personal vehicle traffic would increase along area roadways to bring personnel and supplies to the well site. "The primary sources of noise during operation are natural gas or electric pumps at each well, natural gas-fired internal combustion engines to power the compressors at each compressor station, and intermittent traffic related to operations and maintenance. In addition, periodic workovers would be needed to correct problems with producing wells, and road maintenance would occur to replace surface materials and apply dust abatement. "Table 4-4 [next page] shows typical noise levels associated with oil and gas activities. Actual noise levels at a given location depend on the topography, atmospheric conditions (temperature, wind speed and direction, and humidity), and the vegetation in the vicinity (which can absorb sound) and any structures between a noise source and a noise receptor." E Table 4-4 Noise Levels for Oil and Gas Activities Noise Source Noise Level Typical compressor station 50 dBA (375 feet from property boundary Pumping units 50 dBA (325 feet from well pad) Fuel and water trucks 68 dBA (500 feet from source) Crane for hoisting rigs 68 dBA (500 feet from source) Concrete pump used during drilling 62 dBA (500 feet from source) Average well construction site 65 dBA (500 feet from source 14.13.6: "...Foreseeable future actions and conditions in the cumulative impact analysis area are those that have increased, are now increasing, or would later increase short- term noise from construction activities. This also includes increased long-term noise from infrastructure with noise -emitting sources. "The construction of proposed... transportation routes and buildings would have short- term but loud and constant noise impacts on the planning area. Proposed actions to create new transportation routes would have long-term impacts on the planning area by expanding the area for noise -emitting vehicles. These actions, in addition to the continued oil and gas development proposed under all alternatives, would cumulatively exaggerate noise impacts in the planning area." 4.14 — Land Use Plans, Utilities, and Timber Harvesting: 4.14.2: N/A 4.14.6: "Cumulative impacts are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that increase or decrease the demand for land use authorizations and timber harvesting or prompt the need for new or revised land use plans." Mentions "right-of- way applications for transmission lines, roads, and pipelines." 4.15 — Traffic and Transportation: 4.15.2: "Effects on traffic and transportation may occur from physical changes to roads (such as deterioration from overuse), leasing and development, additional traffic on local roads, or changes in traffic volumes. Changes in road condition and traffic can increase the risk of vehicle collisions." 4.15.6: "...Foreseeable future actions and conditions in the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and will likely continue to affect traffic and transportation are transportation plans and projects and other activities that introduce additional traffic on roads in the county." 4.16 — Mineral Extraction: 4.16.2: "...The BIA would apply RCMs [resource conservation measures] to oil and gas activities to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations, such as the ESA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and to prevent environmental degradation. These measures may be applied on a case-by-case basis or up front, or a combination of both, depending on the alternative selected. Applying these RCMs could limit the siting, design, or timing of oil and gas extraction in the planning area." 10 4.16.6: "...Foreseeable future actions and conditions in the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and will likely continue to affect oil and gas activities are other planned land use projects, such as wind farm or casino construction, that may conflict with oil and gas development." 4.17 — Recreation and Special Use Areas: 4.17.2: "Continued and increased oil and gas production would include increasing developments and infrastructure that could conflict with desired recreation activities and experiences, thereby reducing opportunities for recreation." 4.17.6: "The cumulative impact analysis area for recreation and special use areas is the planning area and all wildlife management areas that intersect it. The cumulative effects analysis area also extends along major roads, trails, and rivers where management inside the planning area could impact use outside the planning area boundary." "...Foreseeable future actions and conditions in the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and will likely continue to affect recreation and special use areas are construction of infrastructure for oil and gas and other energy development, such as transmission lines, pipelines... These activities have the potential to affect game populations, which in turn would impact potential recreation benefits (e.g., wildlife viewing and hunting) because of the loss or gain of the number of animals." 4.18 — Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: "Unavoidable adverse impacts are those that remain following the implementation of mitigation measures or impacts for which there are no mitigation measures." "Surface -disturbing activities would result in unavoidable adverse impacts. Although these impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible with the implementation of RCMs, unavoidable damage would be inevitable. Long-term conversion of areas to oil and gas development uses would increase erosion and change the relative abundance of species within plant communities, the relative distribution of plant communities, and the relative occurrence of seral stages of those communities. Oil and gas development would also introduce surface structures, which could affect the visual landscape in the long term. "Unavoidable damage to cultural and paleontological resources from permitted activities could occur if resources undetected during surveys were damaged or destroyed during ground -disturbing activities. ...Unavoidable loss of cultural and paleontological resources due to lack of knowledge, lack of information and documentation, erosion, casual collection, and inadvertent destruction or use would also occur. Unavoidable damage to buried cultural resources could occur, particularly during construction." 4.19 — Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources: "An irretrievable commitment of a resource is one in which the resource or its use is lost for a period of time, such as extraction of any locatable mineral ore or oil and gas. An irreversible commitment of a resource is one that cannot be reversed, such as the extinction of a species or disturbance to protected cultural resources. 11 "Oil and gas extraction eliminates a nonrenewable resource, thereby resulting in irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the resource. Surface disturbance associated with energy development is reclaimed after the resource is removed. However, surface disturbances from gas storage and road rights-of-way is a long-term encumbrance of the land. Although new soil can develop, it is a slow process in many parts of the planning area. "Soil erosion or the loss of productivity and soil structure may be considered irreversible commitments to resources. Surface -disturbing activities, therefore, would remove vegetation and accelerate erosion that would contribute to irreversible soil loss..." 4.20 — Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses and Long -Term Productivity: "...'Short-term' is defined as anticipated to occur within one to five years of the activity's implementation; `long-term' is defined as following the first five years of implementation but within the life of the EIS (projected to be 20 years). "Across all alternatives, oil and gas activities would result in various short-term effects, such as increased localized soil erosion, fugitive dust emission, vegetation loss or damage, wildlife disturbance, and decreased visual resource quality. Surface -disturbing activities, such as well pad, road, and pipeline development, would result in the greatest potential for impacts on long-term productivity." "Short-term use of an area to foster oil and gas activities would result in long-term loss of soil productivity and vegetation diversity. Impacts would persist as long as the surface disturbance and vegetation loss continue. In general, the loss of soil productivity would be directly at the point of disturbance, although long-term vegetation diversity and habitat value could be reduced due to fragmentation and the increased potential for invasive species to spread from the developments or disturbances." C.A.I.A. — PO Box 2622, Eagle, ID 83616 — 208/963-5707 — info@integrityandaccountability.org 12 Road De -Icing Fluids May Contain Unhealthy Chemicals Some of the salty liquid comes from oil and gas wells, and regulations controlling its contents and use vary Nlzdely bet Nreen states and localities Rebecca Harrington Many states use saltwater to pretreat roads before storms because it adheres to the pavement better than rock salt. Transportation departments mix their own brine and use naturally occurring saltwater extracted from the ground or wastewater brine from conventional natural gas and oil drilling. Credit: Credit: VaDOT vio 1=lic r During this seemingly endless winter road crews have been in a continual battle to keep streets and highways safe. Their chief weapon: saltwater. It adheres to the pavement better than bouncing rock salt and keeps ice from forming on top of it. But on some roads this salty solution may contain other potentially harmful substances. Most state transportation departments mix this brine themselves, using either simple salt and water or natural brine extracted from underground deposits. But in states with conventional natural gas and oil drilling wells, spreading the well wastewater on roads can be a cost-saving way to de-ice. This fluid is called produced brine. Because it circulates among deep rocks and contacts various forms of petroleum, the brine can contain radium, lead or other substances that can be harmful at certain levels of exposure. State regulations of produced brine for de-icing purposes vary greatly, and some experts are calling for more rigorous testing for long-term environmental and health effects. wells extract gas and oil vertically from the ground, unlike hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which uses vertical then horizontal drilling to inject fluid that forces oil and gas to the surface. Water, naturally salty from ancient seas buried deep beneath North America, comes out with the gas and oil in both processes. Almost all of the produced brine used for de-icing in the U.S. comes from conventional oil and gas wells or from naturally occurring deposits. Fracking water is rarely used because it simply is not very salty—the millions of injected gallons dilute the salt, making it impractical as a de-icer. Transportation departments from nine cold -weather states who were contacted because they all have shale oil deposits and most have fracking operations (Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio and Pennsylvania) said thev don't use fracking production brine for de-icing. (Despite this rare use, a number of municipalities, including N.Y., have banned the spread of fracking wastewater on roads.) A 2014 U.S. Geological Survey analyzed roadside sediment where produced brine from conventional wells had bee11 spread as a de-icer and found elevated levels of radium, strontium, calcium and sodium. Radium is radioactive and can thus be carcinogenic. At high concentrations, sodium can be unhealthy for humans and animals. In plants high sodium levels disrupt nutrient intake, leading to death. The lead author of the study, research hydrologist Katherine Skalak, says the chemical contents of produced brine vary from well to well. When it flows out of the well, these fluids can also contain carcinogens, hydrocarbons and solvents, says ?Marilyn Howarth, a physician at the University of Pennsylvania's But there is no way of knowing what is in each well's batch without testing every one before spreading the produced brine on roads. "If the practice is going to continue," Skalak says, "we need to be out there collecting those samples to make sure there's no environmental consequences ... so that in io years we're not realizing we've created a problem." The question is how often to test and what to examine. In New York State, for example, before approving a permit application for road spreading its Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) analyzes a representative brine sample for chloride, total dissolved solids, pH, calcium, sodium, magnesium, iron, barium, lead, sulfates, oil and grease content; it also tests for volatile organic compounds including benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene. Larger volume brine users may also have to report chemical contents annually. But generally, once the application is approved the DEC does not reanalyze every truckload of produced brine. An agency official, who declined to be named, says the existing process will "avoid any environmental impacts to groundwater or wetlands and surface water bodies adjacent to roadways." Ohio, in contrast, does not require gas and oil well tests for every application before the raw brine is used as a de-icer. State law does limit where, when and how much produced brine can be spread on roads but leaves it up to local authorities to approve individual applications. State universities have conducted a few research studies on the environmental impacts of the practice but the most recent studies cited by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources in its guiding document (pdf) were done the 198os and 199os. Another way to prevent possible problems is to filter certain chemicals out of produced brine before it is used. Nature's Own Source, LLC, based in Ohio, has developed a product called AquaSalina that comes from naturally occurring brine deposits and produced brine from conventional wells; Before the product is considered road - ready it is filtered to remove hazardous substances, such as lead and hydrocarbons. Owner David Mansbery says before going to market in 2004 the company had its products extensively tested by external labs for environmental effects to obtain the necessary permits from Ohio authorities. The company only uses the brine when the chemical content reaches safe drinking water levels, Mansbery says. They do allow a few chemicals to remain at a higher concentration: magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, bromine chloride and sodium chloride—all salts. AquaSalina, like most of its produced water counterparts, is naturally high in magnesium chloride, which makes it more effective at temperatures down to —26 degrees Celsius (rock salt is only effective to —6.5 degrees Q. The tricky aspect to regulating produced brine, Howarth says, is that there are no federal specifications for the standards it should meet before it is spread on roads. "It's a state -based process, and that's what concerns me because some states have taken the posture that they will not regulate [the oil] industry," she notes. "If unregulated, then we may be putting petroleum products, diesel fuel, solvents, known carcinogens on our roads and increasing the risk of cancer and really serious health effects to people." I . "l IIS "'aic I)ri:ti.; ;� V", Icr Act -- Sl)\\ \ The Safe Drinking Water Act' (SDWA) of 1974 was estab- lished to protect America's drinking water. It covers waters actually or potentially designated for drinking, whether from above ground or underground sources. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted hydraulic fractur- ing (fracking) from SDWAI oversight, leaving drinking water sources in the 34 oil and gas producing unprotected from the host of toxic chemicals used during fracking. Congress qualified this exemption to regulate diesel fuel additives used during fracking, which requires industry to apply for a SDWA permit if they are using diesel fuel to hydraulically fracture a well. lilt. ( Jetta \ir .Act -- i - A_A The Clean Air Acta (CAA), adopted in 1970, is the compre- hensive federal law that regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile pollution sources. The CAA estab- lished limits for major pollution sources called the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NEHAPS)4. NEHAPS must be met by installing the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for each source. Smaller sources of pollutants that are under common con- trol by a single operator, are located in close proximity to each other, and perform similar functions are considered as one source of emissions. This aggregation allows for the CAA oversight of smaller sources that, when concentrated, may actually be as harmful as larger sources. F X R1 11 VA C)IZKS Unfortunately, the CAA exempts oil and gas wells, and in some instances pipeline compressors and pump stations, from aggregation. This exemption to the aggregation requirement allows the oil and gas industry—which often operates many small facilities in one area—to pollute the air while being largely unregulated under the CAA. In addition, in 1991 hydrogen sulfide was removed from the list of Hazardous Air Pollutants under the CAA. This elimi- nation has remained despite a 1993 EPA study, Hydrogen Sulfide Air Emissions Associated with the Extraction of Oil and Natural Gas, which clearly concludes that accidental releases of hydrogen sulfide during oil and gas development are a serious air quality concern and pose a great risk to public health. Common symptoms of exposure to low levels of hydrogen sulfide can include headache, skin complications, respiratory problems and system damage, confusion, verbal impairment, and memory loss. '. Clcal1 \V atcr \Ct — ( AV \ Enacted in 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Acts, commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States In 1987, Congress amended the CWA to reauire EPA to develop _permitting program for storm- ` water runoff — but exempted oil and gas production'. The 2005 Energy Policy Act 8 amended the CWA to redefine sediment as a nonpollutant This redefinition broadened the The oil and gas industry is ( existing exemption for storm- exempt from key provisions water discharges to oil and gas of seven major federal envi- construction. These exemptions ronmental laws — allowing practices that would otherwise leave streams and rivers in high be illegal. oil and gas areas unprotected ► READ OUR COMPLETE from sediment run-off caused by EXEMPTIONS WHITE PAPER hup://oilgas-exemptions. the construction and operation earthworksaction.org of well pads, pipelines, drill rigs, ► MORE NEXT PAGE EARTHWORKS - 1612 K St., NW, Suite 808 Washington, D.C., USA 20006 www.earthworksaction.org • www.ogap.org • Ipagel@earthworksachon.org - 202.887.1872 - c. 1 3, I t l.: , ..r i .. s < i.' _ �..� �) I 4 _ i l,�i i .�. _ 4. Re,()L11_CC Consci-va ion and Rcco� civ _\ct— RCRA Adopted in 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act' (RCRA) is the principal federal law that governs the disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. The law takes a "cradle to grave" approach to ensure that wastes are handled properly from the point of creation to transport to disposal. In 1980, Congress exempted oil field wastes (which includes waste from natural gas production) from RCRA$ until EPA proved they were a danger to human health and the environ- ment. Rather than do so, EPA eventually ceded authority to regulate these wastes to the states. This exemption leaves produced water, drilling fluids, and hydraulic fracturing fluids from oil and gas production unregu- lated under the nation's premier hazardous waste law. This allows unsafe handling of toxic substances, including their con- ventional transport on roads and treatment in municipal rather than specialized facilities. _ T 5. ( FAIN ll'UiZnlCiita l�c�hi;n�e, ('011711)ernsainon, and L.labittry Act— (TRCI,A Commonly known as the "superfund" law, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act" (CERCLA) of 1980 makes liable those responsible for a spill or release of a hazardous substance into the environment. Included in the list of hazardous substances under CERCLA are benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (Btex)- chemicals found in crude oil and petroleum. Yet CERCLA exempts these substances from liability require- ments if they are found in crude oil and petroleum1' (which are used in natural gas production). Thus, hazardous chemicals that would otherwise be regulated under CERCLA are immune from the statute. The definition of hazardous substance also excludes natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, and synthetic gas usable for fuel. In addition, Superfund allows "Potentially Responsible Parties" to be held liable for clean-up costs for a release or threatened release of a "hazardous substance." But CERCLA defines this term to exclude oil and natural gas. Consequently, industry has little incentive to clean up its hazardous waste, or to minimize leaks and spills, in part because the exemption allows compa- nies to escape liability when these problems occur. S<urcc, 1 http://water.epa.gov/iawsregs/rutesregs/sdwa/index.cfm 2 http://halliburton.earthworksaction.org/ 3 http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/ 4 http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/Civil/caa/ details.cfm?CAT_I D=& SU B_I D=92&te m pl ate Page=7&title=Nati o nal %20 Em i ssions%2OStanda rds%20fo r%20 H azardous%2OAi r %20 Poll utants%20(N ESHAPs) 5 http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cwa.cfrn?program_id=45 6 http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/lOSep/97-290.pdf 7 http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/inforesources/online/index.htm 8 http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/oil/oil-gas.pdf 9 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cerc(a.htm 10 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/release/rq/index. htm#substance 11 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc. 6. 1.:,nvYronnicrltal P(Alcv Act — M `TA The National Environmental Policy Act" (NEPA) of 1970 establishes the broad national framework for protecting our environment. NEPA's ensures the federal government gives proper consideration to the environment before undertaking any major federal action (including involve- ment in industrial projects) that significantly affects the environment. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 stripped NEPA's strong requirements for public involvement and environmen- tal review when it comes to several oil and gas related activities". It stipulated that they should be analyzed and processed by the Interior and Agricultural Departments under a much narrower and weaker process known as a "categorical exclusion13" (CE), as opposed to the more comprehensive and stringent Environmental Assessment14 (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement" (EIS) required under NEPA. In addition, a CE does not allow for any public comment. In 2006 and 2007, the BLM granted this exemption to about 25 percent of all oil and gas wells approved on public land 16 in the West. i .:_ i _l sic Releal ,(. 1 � i ,. , i "1'CRA The Toxic Release Inventory'' (TRI) was created by section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right -to - Know Act18 (EPCRA) of 1986. It requires most industries to report significant of toxic substances to the EPA, which then aggregates and disseminates the information to the public. The information on chemical use and release includes point and fugitive onsite air releases, water releases, on and off-site land releases, underground injection, transfers to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) or waste management facility (including the name and address of the facility), and the use of specific on-site waste treatment and management practices. But despite their use of toxic chemicals throughout pro- duction, oil and cias facilities are not required to report to the TRI'". This exemption leaves communities in oil and gas producing areas in the dark about what chemicals are being released—making it difficult to attribute responsi- bility and seek remedy for resulting health and environ- mental problems. cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+42USC4321 F 12 http://www.fs.fed.us/geology/guidance_nov2ooS_pdf , 13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ Environmental_ Policy_ Act#CE_ 28Categorical_Exclusion.29 14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa[_Environmental_Policy_R-Ftatt0k,ks _ Act#EA_.28Environmental_Assessment.29 15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_ Act#EIS_ 28Environmental_lmpaet_Statement.29 16 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09872.pdf EARTHWORKS 17 http://epa.gov/tri 1612 K St., NW; Suite 808 Washington, 18 http://www.epa.gov/tri/guide docs/pdf/2001/lead_doc.pdf D.C., USA 20006 • 202.887.1872 19 http:JJwww.epa.gov/tri/lawsandregs/naic/ncodes.htm 1pagel@earthworksaction.org •www.ogap.org NOTE: this fact sheet is a synopsis of a more comprehensive white paper available at http:/Joilgas-exemptions earthworksaction.org r February 23, 2018 Colin Dyroff Drinking Water Protection Division Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4606M) U.S. EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20460 Email: d\ roff.col itl "I ClM.1-10\' Evan Osborne US EPA, Region 10 12006 1h Ave., OCE -101 Seattle, WA 98101 Email: osb vne.e. iipea. -o RE: Docket ID No. EPA—HQ—OW-2017-0584: State of Idaho Voluntary Transfer of Primacy of the Class II Underground Injection Control Program to the EPA The Center for Biological Diversity ("Center") submits these comments regarding the proposal to transfer primacy of Idaho's Class II Underground Injection Control Program ("UIC Program") to EPA and simultaneously remove the ban on Class II injection permits in Idaho the currently exists in the federal regulations. In particular, EPA's discretionary approval of this "transfer of authority for the UIC Class I1 program to EPA," which `'would allow EPA to issue Class II permits in Idaho," is a discretionary decision that requires environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). NEPA, America's "basic national charter for protection of the environment," 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(a), requires federal agencies to take a "hard look" at the environmental consequences of their actions before taking action. Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410, n. 21 (1976); 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(a). In this way, NEPA ensures that federal agencies "will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts" and that such information "will be made available to the larger [public] audience that may play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of the decision." Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989). To that end, NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an EIS for all "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). NEPA's Arizona CaVoroio Cofocaclo Floridc N. Crit dwo Nevocl P NVLV A4exico Ncvv Yo?A Oregon. Wq- ,,hin9ton, D,C. f.c Paz, Mexico implementing regulations define "major federal action" to include the "[a]pproval of specific projects, such as construction or management activities located in a defined geographic area" and specify that "[p]rojects include actions approved by permit or other regulatory decision." 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18. NEPA's implementing regulations also specify factors that must be considered in determining when a major federal action may significantly affect the environment warranting the preparation of an EIS. See id. § 1508.27(b). Specifically, in determining whether an action may have "significant" impacts on the environment, an agency must consider the "context" and "intensity" of the action. Id. § 1508.27. "Context" means the significance of the project "must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality." Id. § 1508.27(a). The intensity of the action is determined by considering the ten factors enumerated in the regulations, which include: (1) impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse; (2) the degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety; (3) unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to ecologically critical areas; (4) the degree to which the effects on the human environment are likely to be highly controversial; (5) the degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks; (6) the degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects; (7) whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts; (8) the degree to which the action may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources; (9) the degree to which the action may adversely affect a species listed under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") or its critical habitat; and (10) whether the action threatens a violation of federal, state or local environmental laws. Id. § 1508.27(b)(1)-(10). The presence of even just "one of these factors may be sufficient to require preparation of an EIS in appropriate circumstances." Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 402 F.3d 846, 865 (9th Cir. 2005). If "substantial questions as to whether a project ... may cause significant degradation of some human environmental factor," an EIS must be prepared. Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, in order for a court to find that an EIS is warranted, "a plaintiff need not show that significant effects will in fact occur" only that there are "substantial questions whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment." Nat. Resource Defense Council v. Winter, 502 F.3d 859, 867 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Here, the approval the transfer of the UIC Program to federal administration, which includes approving a proposed rule to amend EPA's UIC regulations to reflect the transfer, and which is specifically intended to allow Idaho oil and gas operators to begin injecting into Class II wells, is a federal "regulatory decision" that will "significantly affect the quality of the human environment." This approval would remove the ban on Class 11 well injection, and allow EPA to issue permits to dispose of waste water from oil and gas operations into Idaho's groundwater.1 1 The federal regulations authorize EPA to issue permits merely upon a determination that an application is "complete." 40 C.F.R. § 144.31. It is highly unlikely that EPA will conduct NEPA review for individual permit applications. 2 Wastewater can contain many harmful chemicals in the produced water (naturally occurring water drawn up along with oil), including heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; and even naturally occurring radioactive material.'` Benzene, an extremely toxic carcinogen, is a common constituent of oil and gas wastewater.3 All of these substances may adversely affect public health and safety and significantly degrade Idaho's groundwater. The change in regulation specifically to facilitate the deliberate introduction of harmful pollutants into groundwater resources ensures some level of environmental degradation and presents a clear risk of permanently contaminating drinking water sources. In addition to local environmental harm, the contamination of a drinking water source could have devastating and far-reaching impacts on distant communities. Further, hydrological connections between groundwater resources are complex and are not yet adequately documented. In addition to technological and logistical limitations, this complexity and uncertainty makes remediation of groundwater resource contamination extremely difficult and often impossible.4 Moreover, it is foreseeable that the goal of allowing Class 1I injection in Idaho is to expand oil and gas activity, including fracking and other well stimulation and extreme extraction, generally. Clearly, such an outcome will have numerous harmful impacts on Idaho's health and environment. These include, among others: harm to Idaho's water quality, air quality,s endangered species,6 traffic and noise. It will also increase available fossil fuels for combustion, which will contribute to climate change? and related environmental and health impacts. All of 2 See, e.g., Benko, K., Produced Water in the Western United States: Geographical Distribution, Occurrence, and Composition, 25 Environmental Engineering Science 2 (2008); Pampanin, Daniela & Magne Sydnes, M., Chapter S: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons a Constituent of Petroleum: Presence and Influence in the Aquatic Environment in HYDROCARBON (Vladimir Kutcherov and Anton Kolesnivikov eds. 2013), at 87. 3 Gamache, Mark T., DOGGR, Benzene in Water Produced from Kern County Oil Fields Containing Fresh Water (1993), available at: l poil� i lel l<t1.1 7+7s (_��,en�ilit2.E `4 f. 4 See e.g. USGS Circular 1139, Natural Processes Of Ground -Water and Surface -Water Interaction (1998), available at: hibn_ -� `atm and Dep't of Water Res., California Water Plan Update 2009, Volume 3, Resource Management Strategies, Chapter 16: Groundwater/Aquifer Remediation, available at: s See e.g., Fleming, John & Candice Kim, Center for Biological Diversity, Danger Next Door: The Top 12 Air Toxics Used for Neighborhood Oil Drilling in Los Angeles (2017), available at: Da mgerNextDow.,df, with references. 6 Idaho houses numerous endangered and threatened species. See, e.g., Idaho Species: Status (July 2017), available at: hiltp�,:%v,1�,�,� i ! �i,c �,�c 1,x;._1 t _�_�1a� ��5_ ��0_ i 8! ?_ham f; Species Conservation Status, available at: hit n a '„ i - P. SOd 1 ��.L}.`� IC,f.. �l ilit).�'.i)� ��t iL`+ t�11_i _I�i U�ttid_�� 1�t_ _�tcllc� t _c�ti�� } it)l �). 4i�t�t(ti��ii� -Call ll,c'�tt�, I hr ,tine itu et 1:ndal�t �1 �i; and ht ' See e.g., Erickson, P. & Lazarus, M., Would Constraining U.S. Fossil Fuel Production Affect Global CO2 Emissions? A Case Study of U.S. Leasing Policy, Climatic Change (2018), available at: these potential environmental impacts must be evaluated in an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") prior to EPA's approval of a program transfer. These impacts are all the more likely given EPA's poor history of UIC data collection, regulation, and enforcement. In the last few years, the U.S. Government Accountability Office ("GAO") has issued scathing reports on EPA's UIC oversight. In 2014, the GAO found that EPA's Class I1 regulations do not address seismic risks or surface expressions from high pressure injections.$ It also found EPA does not consistently conduct annual on-site state program evaluations as direct in guidance (which itself has not been updated since the 1980s), and that the data EPA collects on Class II programs is not reliable or complete.9 A 2016 GAO Report similarly found that the EPA was failing to collect reliable well -specific data on inspections, and was failing to collect data on, or enforce, most UIC-related violations. 10 It also failed to oversee and review UIC permitting. As one example, in California, the state regulator had for years issued thousands of Class II well permits allowing wastewater injection into aquifers protected under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA did not know this was occurring until a state audit in 2014, and even then has done little to enforce the violations." In both reports, EPA officials said they did not have enough resources to oversee the nation's UIC programs. As EPA's budget and workforce has decreased dramatically under the current Administration, it is even less likely that EPA has adequate resources for overseeing this program now. Given this reality, it is likely that transferring the program to EPA will result in violations of environmental laws, including but not limited to, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. As this is one of the factors for determining the significance of a federal action under NEPA, EPA must analyze the likely adverse environmental impacts of its discretionary decision in an EIS. The Idaho regulations that were incorporated into the federal regulations 12 state that Class II injection wells shall not be authorized "until such time as these wells are essential to the economic and environmental welfare of the State." 13 Neither the state nor EPA has made a finding that authorizing Class II injection is essential to the economic and environmental welfare of the State. Until EPA demonstrates this in a NEPA EIS—and until it provides assurance that it can effectively oversee Idaho's UTC program to ensure this decision is not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law—EPA cannot finalize this proposed regulatory change. 8 U.S. Government Accountability Office, EPA Program to Protect Underground Sources from Injection of Fluids Associated with Oil and Gas Production Needs Improvement (June 2014), GAO -14-1555, available at: htt�,�: r �_��btu y Ibid. -- – — --- – -- 10 U.S. Government Accountability Office, EPA Needs to Collect Information and Consistently Conduct Activities to Protect Underground Sources of Drinking Water (February 2016), GAO -I6-281, available at: } ttr ,ti �t �� . tv� , tti Lt;,'CSfit) 65430jxh. "Ibid. 12 40 CFR § 147.650(a). 13 Idaho, Construction and Use of Injection Wells, Rules and Regulations (1984), Rule 1, attached. 4 Sincerely, Maya Golden -Krasner Senior Attorney Climate Law Institute Center for Biological Diversity Ph: 213-785-54021 Pickens Terri Pickens Manweiler Attorney at Law, a .i l�i�i�:ll>�tl\\l'C�7Gc.i Olii www.pickens lawboise.com June 24, 2016 Gem County Commissioners Gem County Courthouse 405 E. Main Street Emmett, ID 83616 Re: Oil & Gas Ordinance Revisions Our File No.:548-1 Dear Commissioners: 398 S. 9" Street. Ste. 240 P.O. Box 915 Boise, Idaho 83701 208.954.5090 (t) 208.954.5099 (t) This office represents an Idaho property owner who will be impacted by the Oil and Gas Operations Ordinance that this Commission is preparing and implementing for Gem County. I have had an opportunity to review the proposed Ordinance, as well as Richard K. Linville, Gem County Prosecuting Attorney's letter to the Commission dated May 25, 2016, as well as various neighboring county ordinances on point. First, please let me point out that Linville's letter incorrectly overstated the limits of Idaho Code Section 47-317, when he stated that, "the legislature of the State of Idaho has decided that such extensive regulation at the local level in not permitted by Idaho law." The statute actually only states that the local ordinances shall not "prohibit" the extraction of oil and gas. To the contrary, the statute expressly acknowledges that local governments will have regulatory authority of oil and gas extraction. Idaho Code Section 47-319, as amended, states, "Without limiting its general authority, and without limiting the authority of other state agencies or local government as provided by law, the commission shall have the authority ...." (emphasis added). The Local Land Use Planning Act ("LLUPA") allows counties to impose additional, non -conflicting, regulations for oil and gas extraction. The premise of this letter is based largely in part on the Idaho Attorney General's Office Opinion 11-1, sent to the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney for Payette County when it was passing similar oil and gas zoning ordinances. For your convenience, I am attaching the Opinion hereto, and will try not to duplicate the legal basis for our position that Gem County has the power to pass similar restrictions on oil and gas extraction within the county. LLUPA generally encourages counties to take a hands-on approach to ensuring the public health, safety and general welfare of its constituents. The legislature may have recently made changes to the Oil and Gas Act, however, these recent changes do not impact the counties' right, if not duty, to protect the life, liberty and property of its constituents. To the contrary, LLUPA ensures that counties can (and frankly should) provide the following: a. Protect property rights of its constituents b. Protect local environmental features; c. Protect life and property in areas subject to natural hazards and disasters; d. Protect fish, wildlife and recreational resources; e. Avoid undue water and air pollution, just to name a few. I.C. § 67-6502. In order to achieve these things, counties have wide discretion when it comes to planning and development guidelines through zoning ordinances. LLUPA requires local planning and zoning commissions "to conduct a comprehensive planning process designed to prepare, implement, and review and update a comprehensive plan, hereafter referred to as the plan." I.C. § 67-6508. Perhaps most importantly related to the issue at hand (oil and gas extraction), LLUPA dictates that the comprehensive plan must consider the property rights of its constituents when creating passing and applying zoning ordinances. In this instance, the county must balance the needs and rights of its constituents against the interests related to oil and gas extraction. While the county is not at liberty to prohibit oil and gas extraction, this Commission has a duty to pass ordinances putting restrictions on the physical process of extraction of oil and gas within the county in an effort to protect the property rights, safety, health and the general wellbeing of its constituents. It is my understanding that the representative spokesperson for Alta Mesa has made comments on the proposed zoning ordinances, and has asked this Commission to ease the restrictions, setbacks, monitoring processes, etc., which quite frankly is putting profit before person. LLUPA was designed to protect person and property first, which is what this Commission should do instead. The Linville letter further encouraged this Commission to ease the restrictions on setbacks, monitoring processes, etc. Again, we adamantly disagree. At a minimum, this Commission should adopt ordinances more in line with Dallas, Texas' Oil and Gas Ordinances. A copy is attached hereto for your convenience. They require a permitting process, water monitoring, oversight on construction, to name a few. The setback requirements should be increased, but overall, the Dallas ordinance protects the health, safety, general welfare and property of its constituents. This Commission should be doing the same. If you have any questions concerning the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Terri Pickens Manweiler Enclosures r mnns Y vni 11 ........... .. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Water Supply Determination Letters The following list identifies cases where DEP determined that a private water supply was impacted by oil and gas activities. The oil and gas activities referenced in the list below include operations associated with both conventional and unconventional drilling activities that either resulted in a water diminution event or an increase in constituents above background conditions. This list is intended to identify historic water supply impacts and does not necessarily represent ongoing impacts. Many of the water supply complaints listed below have either returned to background conditions, have been mitigated through the installation of water treatment controls or have been addressed through the replacement of the original water supply. This list is dynamic in nature and will be updated to reflect new water supply impacts as they are reported to DEP and a determination is made; however, the list will retain cases of water supply impacts even after the impact has been resolved. A redacted copy of the water supply determination letter/order can be viewed by clicking on the "Complaint #" or "ORDER" cell in the table. Each row on the list represents a single water supply determination. A single water supply determination may be represented by multiple "Complaint #s" (i.e., when more than one Complaint # is included in the same row) and, conversely, separate water supplies may be identified using the same "Complaint #" (i.e., when multiple rows list the same Complaint #). The list also identifies the municipality and county where each water supply is located along with the date of the water supply determination letter or the date the order was issued. DOGO Complaint # County Twp/Boro Date Letter Sent 1 East Susquehanna Dimock Jan.2009 2 East n; Susquehanna Dimock 12/15/2010 3 East Susquehanna Dimock 12J15/2010 4 East ? t Susquehanna Dimock 12/15/2010 5 East Susquehanna Dimock 12/15/2010 6 East Susquehanna Dimock 12/15/2010 7 East t Susquehanna Dimock 12/15/2010 8 East -.t f < Susquehanna Dimock 12/15/2010 9 East ori Susquehanna Dimock 12/15/2010 10 East D" [ Susquehanna Dimock 12/15/2010 11 East Susquehanna Dimock 12/15/2010 12 East '' Susquehanna Dimock 12/15/2010 13 East�� Susquehanna Dimock 12/15/2010 14 East Susquehanna Dimock 12/15/2010 15 East Susquehanna Dimock 12/15/2010 16 East Susquehanna Dimock 12/15/2010 17 East Susquehanna Dimock 12/15/2010 18 East rs,, k Susquehanna Dimock 12/15/2010 19 East Susquehanna Dimock 12/15/2010 20 East Susquehanna Lenox 5/27/2009 21 East Susquehanna Lenox 5/27/2009 22 East;:,1/12/2008 Tioga Clymer 23 East 9 1 Tioga Clymer 4/28/2009 24 East Tioga Clymer 4/28/2009 25 East Tioga Clymer 4/28/2009 26 East 26' 33�3 Susquehanna Springville 9/9/2009 27 East <s >' Susquehanna Springville 9/9/2009 28 East Susquehanna Springville 9/9/2009 29 East Lycoming McNett 12/4/2009 30 East Lycoming McNett 12/4/2009 31 East Susquehanna Rush 4/23/2010 32 East Bradford Terry 2/7/2011 33 East 5 Bradford West Burlington 9/16/2010 34 East 3 Bradford Granville 9/2/2010 35 East Bradford Terry 10/1/2010 36 East Bradford Terry 10/1/2010 37 East Bradford Terry 10/1/2010 38 East Bradford Terry 11/15/2010 39 East Bradford Terry 11/15/2010 40 East Wyoming Washington 4/8/2011 41 East Bradford Orwell 8/22/2011 42 East Bradford Tuscarora 3/25/2011 43 East Bradford Tuscarora 3/7/2011 44 East Bradford Wilmot 11/10/2010 45 East Bradford Wilmot 11/10/2010 46 East 2.... 4 iE Bradford Wilmot 11/17/2010 47 East Bradford Wilmot 11/10/2010 48 East Bradford Wilmot 11/10/2010 49 East z A S Bradford Wilmot 11/10/2010 50 East 21.1Al .1 Bradford Wilmot 11/10/2010 51 jEast Bradford Alba Boro 12/6/2010 52 East Bradford Alba Boro 1/3/2011 53 East Bradford Alba Boro 1/3/2001 54 East Potter Bingham 4/20/2011 55 EastPotter Bingham 4/20/2011 56 East Bradford Monroe 12/3/2010 57 East Bradford Monroe 12/3/2010 58 East H12/3/2010 Bradford Monroe 59 East Bradford Alba Boro 12/6/2010 60 East Bradford Terry 12/7/2010 61 lEast Bradford Alba Boro 1/31/2011 62 East Bradford West Burlington 6/18/2012 63 East r2t, Bradford Troy 8/17/2011 64 East Bradford Wyalusing 10/24/2011, 65 East Bradford West Burlington 6/18/2012 66 lEast I Bradford Wyalusing 10/24/2011 67 East Tioga Charleston 5/4/2011 68 ]East Bradford Wilmot 5/16/2011 69 East Potter Allegheny 7/14/2011 70 East Wyoming Meshoppen 7/13/2011 71 East Lycoming Franklin 8/2/2011 72 East Lycoming Franklin 8/2/2011 73 East Lycoming Moreland 3/8/2012 74 East Bradford Smithfield 8/1/2011 75 East Bradford Stevens 2/20/2014 76 East Bradford Stevens 2/20/2014 77 East Lycoming Moreland 11/4/2011 78 East Bradford Orwell 11/7/2011 79 �East "7 Tioga Covington 11/1/2011 80 East Lycoming Moreland 11/4/2011 81 East Susquehanna Lenox 9/21/2011 82 East Clinton Grugan 1/17/2012 83 East Susquehanna Rush 11/7/2011 84 East Bradford Asylum 1/6/2012 85 East Lycoming Moreland 9/5/2012 86 East Wyoming Nicholson 3/2/2012 87 East Wyoming Nicholson 3/2/2012 88 jEast Lycoming Moreland 9/5/2012 89 East Lycoming Moreland 9/5/2012 90 East Bradford Wysox 8/28/2013 91 East Bradford West Burlington 6/18/2012 92 East Bradford West Burlington 6/18/2012 93 jEast Lycoming Moreland 4/22/2013 94 East Tioga Delmar 5/16/2012 95 East Sullivan Elkland 9/9/2013 96 East Tioga Shippen 11/26/2013 97 East Clearfield Gulich 8/24/2012 98 East Bradford Leroy 8/13/2012 99 East Bradford Leroy 8/13/2012 100 East Bradford Leroy 8/13/2012 101 East Susquehanna Lenox 9/11/2012 102 East Bradford Leroy 8/13/2012 103 jEast Sullivan Forks 9/11/2013 104 East Sullivan Forks 9/9/2013 105 East Tioga Union 1/14/2013 106 East Tioga Union 1/14/2013 107 East Susquehanna Bridgewater 5/22/2015 108 East Susquehanna Jessup 1/14/2013 109 East Sullivan Forks 9/9/2013 110 East Bradford Armenia 4/12/2013 111 East Bradford Burlington 2/21/2013 112 East Lycoming Moreland 4/22/2013 113 East Bradford Springfield 8/4/2014 114 East Bradford Springfield 8/4/2014 115 East Bradford Warren 5/6/201 Al 116 East i 5 Bradford Wilmot 5/22/2015 117 East . 1 01 0, Susquehanna Dimock 10/22/2013 118 East Sullivan Forks 9/9/2013 119 East Wyoming Washington 8/28/2013 120 East Bradford Franklin 3/3/2015 121 East Susquehanna Lenox 10/11/2011 122 East Susquehanna Lenox 11/7/2011 123 East Susquehanna Lenox 3/2/2012 124 East C, X) Susquehanna Dimock 9/21/2011 125 East 80,61", Bradford Springfield 8/4/2014 126 East Susquehanna Springville 5/14/2014 127 East Bradford Wysox 11/13/2014 128 East Susquehanna Dimock 10/28/2014 129 East Susquehanna Dimock 12/5/2014 130 East Susquehanna Bridgewater 12/29/2014 131 East Lycoming Eldred 12/12/2014 132 East Susquehanna Hartford 11/21/2014 133 East Bradford Herrick 2/11/2015 134 East Y Sullivan Cherry 2/11/2016 135 East Wyoming Windham 1/16/2015 136 East Lycoming Eldred 2/2/2015 137 East Susquehanna Springville 8/4/2015 138 East Susquehanna Hartford 5/19/2015 139 East Wyoming Washington 6/4/2015 140 East Lycoming Eldred 6/4/2015 141 East Suilivan Fox 7/10/2015 142 East Potter Sweden 10/27/2015 143 East Potter Eulalia 12/14/2015 144 East Potter Eulalia 12/14/2015 145 East Potter Sweden 10/27/2015 146 East Potter Eulalia 12/14/2015 147 East -22 Potter Sweden 12/14/2015 148 East S Sullivan Fox 11/13/2015 149 Northwest Ali Venango Oakland 12/24/2007 150 Northwest Crawford Woodcock 1/30/2008 151 Northwest Erie Millcreek 4/11/2008 152 Northwest Erie Millcreek 4/11/2008 153 Northwest r�:, S McKean Foster 4/4/2008 154 Northwest ZI Forest Hickory 4/29/2008 155 Northwest -j's, Crawford Hayfield 5/22/2008 156 Northwest 00 Forest Howe 7/24/2008 157 Northwest n .1 McKean Bradford 7/29/2008 158 Northwest 2, Erie Waterford 10/8/2013 159 Northwest McKean Hamilton 9/12/2008 160 Northwest Z:,1_8 McKean Hamilton 9/12/2008 161 Northwest 5 67 Jefferson Winslow 10/10/2008 162 Northwest Jefferson Clover 10/28/2008 163 Northwest McKean Hamilton 10/30/2008 164 Northwest McKean Hamilton 10/30/2008 165 Northwest McKean Foster 10/30/2008 166 Northwest Warren Sheffield 11/10/2008 167 Northwest Clarion Limestone 1/27/2009 168 Northwest Clarion Limestone 1/27/2009 169 Northwest Elk Jones 11/13/2008 170 Northwest Clarion Limestone 3/26/2009 171 Northwest Jefferson Knox 3/27/2009 172 Northwest Warren Sheffield 12/23/2008 173 Northwest McKean Corydon 2/17/2009 174 Northwest r Venango Cranberry 8/13/2009 175 Northwest McKean Foster 3/10/2009 176 Northwest Jefferson Oliver 4/2/2009 177 Northwest Warren Mead 8/3/2009 178 Northwest Jefferson Knox 5/27/2009 179 Northwest Jefferson Knox 5/27/2009 180 Northwest McKean Foster 6/1/2009 181 Northwest 1 Jefferson Knox 7/13/2009 182 Northwest Warren Glade 2/18/2010 183 NorthwestMcKean Bradford 7/21/2009 184 Northwest McKean Bradford 3/5/2010 185 Northwest Jefferson Knox 9/11/2009 186 Northwest Clarion Elk 9/10/2009 187 Northwest Jefferson Warsaw 10/19/2009 188 Northwest Crawford Oil Creek 6/24/2011 189 Northwest Clarion Elk 1/15/2010 190 Northwest McKean Bradford 12/11/2009 191 Northwest McKean Bradford 12/11/2009 192 Northwest 7 7� Clarion Elk 1/20/2010 193 Northwest z Clarion Elk 1/20/2010 194 Northwest Forest Kingsley 3/22/2010 195 Northwest Warren Glade 9/27/2010 196 Northwest McKean Bradford 10/19/2010 197 Northwest Warren Sheffield 6/17/2010 198 Northwest Forest Hickory 8/2/2010 199 Northwest McKean Bradford 12/17/2010 200 Northwest Clarion Madison 7/18/2014 201 Northwest Crawford Spring 1/28/2011 202 Northwest McKean Corydon Oct. 2010 203 Northwest e -A Elk Jones 12/23/2010 204 Northwest McKean Foster 2/9/2011 205 Northwest 7;; Forest Hickory 3/28/2012 206 Northwest Forest Hickory 10/20/2011 207 Northwest Forest Hickory 3/28/2012 208 Northwest Forest Hickory 3/28/2012 209 Northwest F I Hickory 3/28/2012 210 Northwest Forest Hickory 3/28/2012 211 Northwest Forest Hickory 3/28/2012 212 Northwest Forest Hickory 3/28/2012 213 Northwest 6 r Forest Hickory 3/28/2012 214 Northwest 2 7, Forest Hickory 3/28/2012 215 Northwest 1 E 776 Forest Hickory 3/28/2012 216 Northwest Forest Hickory 3/28/2012 217 Northwest - Forest Hickory 5/3/2011 218 Northwest 766"13 Forest Hickory 5/4/2011 219 Northwest r i McKean Bradford 7/13/2011 220 Northwest Warren Pleasant 5/4/2012 221 Northwest rW-11 Elk Jones 8/$/2011 222 Northwest ,i ? Butler Winfield 6/4/2013 223 Northwest ) ' Butler Jefferson 11/5/2012 224 Northwest Clarion Toby 11/29/2012 225 Northwest Lawrence Pulaski 11/13/2013 226 Northwest Lawrence Pulaski 11/19/2013 227 Northwest Lawrence Pulaski 11/20/2013 228 Northwest Lawrence Pulaski 10/7/2013 229 Northwest Butler Winfield 9/7/2012 230 Northwest Warren Sugar Grove Sept. 2012 231 Northwest Warren Pleasant 1/4/2013 232 Northwest Forest Kingsley 7/19/2013 233 Northwest Warren Pleasant 7/11/2013 234 Northwest 2 McKean Foster 8/28/2013 235 Northwest 6" Butler Forward 8/28/2013 236 Northwest Elk Bennezette 12/10/2015 237 Northwest'?7? 71 Clarion Porter 3/24/2014 238 Northwest Warren Glade 10/1/2013 239 Northwest Forest Kingsley 6/9%2016 240 Northwest McKean Lafayette Nov. 2013 241 Northwest J Butler Connoquenessing 12/12/2014 242 Northwest u Warren Mead 7/28/2014 243 Northwest ti. E,89 Warren Farmington 10/28/2014 244 Northwest "'-7(-),,i �,, ' Venango Cranberry 12/9/2014 245 NorthwestC;'F7u Jefferson Eldred 10/30/2014 246 Northwest 308 4,. Forest Kingsley 8/24/2016 247 Northwest ,a:41 Butler Oakland 12/10/2015 248 Northwest McKean Otto 3/9/2016 249 Northwest Lawrence Pulaski 2/2/2016 250 Northwest 1 't;-i Lawrence Pulaski 6/9/2016 251 Northwest 3'1.-t7 Butler Muddycreek 12/10/2015 252 Northwest McKean Bradford 2/23/2010 253 Northwest C)�R' McKean Bradford 2/23/2010 254 Northwest U��,!'i= McKean Bradford 2/23/2010 255 Northwest O "'"D) McKean Bradford 2/23/2010 256 Northwest OF, i:?ER McKean Bradford 2/23/2010 257 Northwest McKean Bradford 2/23/2010 258 Northwest McKean Bradford 2/23/2010 259 Northwest PD, McKean Bradford 2/23/2010 260 Northwest McKean Bradford 2/23/2010 261 Southwest i Indiana West Wheatfield 8/30/2013 262 Southwest Greene Morgan 3/2/2015 263 Southwest Westmoreland Donegal 6/4/2013 264 Southwest Washington Cross Creek 6/17/2013 265 Southwest Westmoreland Donegal 12/16/2013 266 Southwest Westmoreland Donegal 8/25/2014 267 Southwest Westmoreland Donegal 12/5/2014 268 Southwest Westmoreland Hempfield 1/6/2016 269 Southwest Westmoreland Donegal 3/20/2015 270 Southwest Greene Morgan 12/14/2015 271 Southwest Greene Cumberland 10/27/2015 272 ISouthwest Washington North Bethlehem 11/25/2015 273 ISouthwest --------- -- Indiana East Wheatfield 9/2/2008 274 Southwest Indiana East Wheatfield 9/2/2008 275 Southwest Indiana East Wheatfield 9/2/2008 276 Southwest Indiana East Wheatfield 9/2/2008 277 Southwest Indiana East Wheatfield 9/2/2008 278 Southwest Indiana West Mahoning 2/12/2008 279 Southwest Washington West Pike Run 3/27/2008 280 Southwest Fayette Jefferson 1/4/2008 281 Southwest Indiana Cherryhill 1/15/2008 282 Southwest9/11/2014 Greene Washington 9/7/2016 'EHEDi,-NVER POST A dozen flies and explosions at Colorado oil and gas facilities in 8 months since fatal blast in Firestone By BRUCE FINLEY I bfinley denverpost.com I The Denver Post PUBLISHED: December 6, 2017 at 7:51 pm I UPDATED: December 19, 2017 at 3:26 pm At least a dozen explosions and fires have occurred along Colorado oil and gas industry pipelines in the eight months since two men were killed when a home blew up in Firestone, a Denver Post review of state records found. Two of those explosions killed workers. The state has not taken any enforcement action in the April 17 Firestone deaths, saying there is no rule — and none is proposed — covering oil and gas industry accidents that lead to fatalities. Colorado oil and gas industry regulators have responded to the Firestone disaster by proposing modifications of existing rules — to be hashed out in meetings next month — for pipelines under well pads that they call "flowlines." But none of the changes deals with industrial accidents that result in deaths. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, set up by lawmakers to ensure orderly extraction of oil and gas consistent with environmental protection and public �� lacks the authority to punish companies for fatal explosions, agency spokesman Todd Hartman said. Any COGCC enforcement action for other reasons against Anadarko Petroleum would have to begin "within one year of discovery of a violation," Hartman said in a prepared response to Denver Post queries. Anadarko owned the leaking underground line blamed for the Firestone disaster. "The COGCC's focus is on the release of hydrocarbons into the environment, an issue that falls within the agency's jurisdiction," Hartman said. "COGCC continues to evaluate the underlying facts at issue, including facts that may be developed through the ongoing National Transportation Safety Board investigation in which COGCC is a participating party." State information officers did not respond to repeated requests to hear directly from COGCC director Matt Lepore on environmental and public health risks from fires and explosions. NTSB investigators still are c aat, ITir'ti, information on the Firestone blast and no conclusions have been reached, NTSB spokesman Keith Holloway said. But that agency, too, lacks enforcement authority and will not take action against Anadarko, Holloway said. "The NTSB's investigation is purely from a safety�erspective," he said. "NTSB is not a regulatory agency and does not have any enforcement authority and therefore will not levy penalties or look at the accident from a criminal perspective. I'm not exactly sure who would impose penalties in this case." Local prosecutors? No Weld County agency is considering enforcement action against Anadarko in relation to the Firestone explosion, county spokeswoman Jennifer Finch said. After the Firestone disaster, data that Colorado regulators obtained from oil and gas companies reveal 120,815 underground flowline segments within 1,000 feet of buildings. The data show 428 segments failed integrity tests. State regulators have not determined how many miles of underground lines this represents, Hartman said. Nor have maps been made to find the locations of underground lines in relation to Colorado's growing Front Range communities. Colorado's population boom has led to more people moving closer to oil and gas facilities. The oil and gas industry also iSexpanding, with the latest state records indicating more than 54'ODO active wells statewide and quadrupled production since 2012, Much of the new oil extracted in C0|Or8dO comes from increasingly populated Weld County, north of Denver. The Firestone blast killed brothers-in-law Mark Martinez and Joey Irwin and seriously injuredEhn Anadarko Petroleum, company spokeswoman Jennifer Brice said, "will continue to cooperate with all @g8nCiea, including the National Transportation Safety Board and the {|{}GCC, until all investigations are DDrnp|ete' while also continuing tOwork with re0U|81OnS' elected OffiCi8|S and others tobuild upon the actions we've already taken tOimprove a8fety.^ A -a The following are among atleast 12 fires and explosions atoil and gas facilities after the Firestone blast: , One Anadarko contract worker was killed and two others were injured W18y25vvhenatank exploded near Mead. The workers were changing "dump lines" and "one or more tanks exploded," according to 8 report filed in C{}GCC`S database. The U.S. {}CCupatiDn8! Health and Safety recently issued citations to Anadarko and three contractor companies for violations at the site, with penalties totaling about $70.000. OSHA area director Herb Gibson said. "AO1-y8ar+]|dman died after fire broke out Nov. 18during work Onablocked DCPMidstream Oil and gas pipeline near {5a|etQn east CfGreeley. That man, later identified 83George Cottingham Of Greeley, was One of three workers injured in the fire. The COGC[| did not receive a report on this incident, Hartman said, because the pipeline was a "gathering line" outside the agency's regulatory purview. - A worker was injured May 8 near Greeley when fumes from a Synergy Resources Corp. tank ignited Greeley firefighters responded. °Aworker was injured JVO81SinVVe|dC0Untv3fter8h[88t8Sre8LVVSStennC)pSr3dng{|Ornp@ny well pad. The company report to COGCC said "leaking valve and fluid caught fire" and "one person was taken tOthe hOSpit3i^The worker was treated and released. , /# the north edge UfBrighton, 8truchdrivar8OUghtnlediCa!CanebutvvasncdhOsDha|ized8ft8r fleeing a fire that broke out Oct. 12 at Great Western facility. Brighton firefighters naciOg to the scene asked contractors tOclose off gas flows from wells, according tOthe CC)GCCreport. This fire was the S8COnd in 8 three-week period at the o8rDe Site. On Sept. 20. Brighton firefighters "set unmanned ground valves t0spray cool water Onother process equipment aSamitigation technique to isolate the incident." ^ On Nov. 7. hydrocarbons spilled into 8 combustion devD8. causing it to catch fire at SRC Energy facilities in Weld County. Greeley firefighters responded. No injuries were reported, "C)nSept. 12.8lightning strike apparently |edb}8nexokzsiOn@tBeOYPetrO|8uOOf3C|UbSSin Garfield County. The blast blew 83OO-b8rre)tank 15Oyards. AGrand Valley Fire Department crew sprayed foam when they arrived to douse flames in "smoldering metal and insulation." ^{}nJuly 3U.8lightning strike caused apower failure that resulted iO8fire inCheyenne County at Citation Oil and Gas Corp facilities. The CC>GCCreport said: "Fire was burning from the thief hatch and 2 -inch vent riser. The Cheyenne Wells Fire Department responded and used foam to extinguish the fire." ^ On Sept. 11, 8 Platte \/8Uey Fine District crew put out 8 fine at a Great VV8Stenl f8[j|hv in VV8|d County after "aleased compressor" caught OOfire atowell pad. "The rental company ... is scheduling afuU investigation, which will include the root cause 3D@|ySiS'^8 CC)GCCfOrO said, The Firestone explosion calied into question pUblic safety and environmental proteCtion amid the expansion of oil and gas operations near people. Gov. John H\Ch8n|onper said CO!On8dO 0ffiCi3|S vvOu|d do everything possible to rnakeSure such e disaster never happens again. One proposed rule Ch8DgR VVOUld n8qUin8 COOlp8Oi8S to cut off flUYV)iDeS connected to Oil and gas VV8\)s when they abandon wells. Another change would require companies tOtest all f|Ovv|ineStO make sure they are not leaking --not just high pn8SSVP8 lines @S3tpresent. CODlDGOies VVOUld have to report more incidents iOVO/ViOg fin85^ injuries and fatalities. And the COGCC could begin to regulate the "gathering lines" that link the flDVV<iDes closest tOwellheads with larger interstate pipelines that carry fuels tO refineries. The Colorado Oil and Gas Association industry group and several Ofits member companies are participating in a safety working group initiated by Hickenlooper, "There are safety cOuOCi|S in Colorado's different oil and Q@S basins that exist to promote xofeh/ and environmental protection within the industry. By and !8Fg8. the Oil and gas sector has a solid Safah/ record.^ C[)GA president Dan Haley Said. "The results of the state's first -of -its kind. comprehensive exam of flowlines, with a 99.65 percent passage rate, demonstrate our ongoing commitment to safety. Out of the Snna|| nennainder, no major leaks were reported, and the upcoming floxv|ine rulemaking at the COGCCwill further strengthen existing safety rules." Yet some Colorado Front Range families living near oil and gas facilities remain worried and have joined "protectors" groups that protest industry expanSi0n near people. The recent �nsmand explosions have piqued concerns. "I'm sure the[8 are pipelines under my house. But I don't know where they Gn3." Erie resident [>8Vid /\dl8[. 25' said VVhi|8 holding his 1 -year-old daughter, H8[D8[. ata recent neighborhood demonstration. ''Aft8[ Fi[8StOD8. I would like the lines to be mapped. I GDl afraid I'll have natural gas leaking into O0yhouse and that it could cause 8neXplOSiOn." November 14, 2017, the city of Fruitland held a Planning & Zoning hearing At that hearing State Senator Abby Lee (D9), who has been Heavily invo€ved over the past several years with oil &. gas legislation, stated that lawmakers (including herself) had fought to preserve LLUPA, which establishes, in law, the right, and obligation of cities and counties to develop regulations that protect their way of life. Senator Lee specified that the State minimum 300 foot setbacks are NOT the ceiling, but rather a floor and that the Idaho Legislature intended for communities to establish larger setbacks vihen deemed appropriate based upr,,n local community standards and needs. She xurlher asserted that this is -3 "real opportunity to test that authority and, if necessary=, to go beck to the legislature and protect that LLUPA PA piece because it's a critical and shared value across our state'. Finally, she recommended that cities and counties adopt: adequate regulations now before drilling starts, because "as Payette County goes on oil and gas, so goes the state," On December 11, 2017, Fruitland City Council met to discuss the revised ordinance. In her opening statements city attorney Bonney clarified, for the record, that cities and counties cannot be sued by the State, the Idaho Oil and Cas Conservation Commission (IOCCC), or Idaho Department of Lands(IDL), for writing strict drilling ordinances because the Stag and its agencies have no legal standing as the injured par=ties. Only an applicant for a drilling per°rnit can, sue- as an injured party and in doing so they risk losing in court and establishing a iegal precedent for similar losses in other jurisdictions. Texas-based Alta Mesa, currently the only active producer here in Idaho, was reportedly $875 million in debt just last year and was hit with a $4.57 million settlement for fraud, deceit, RICO, etc., for non-payment and under -payment of royalties to property owners in another state just a few months ago. Similar concerns have been voiced by mineral owners who contracted with them here in Idaho. Their stock has been in a downward spiral since they went public just a month or so ago. They are also pushing hard for Class II injection wells here — a documented cause of water & soil contamination, earthquake clusters and a threat to public health and safety in oil and gas producing states across the nation - in order to dispose of waste and produced water as cheaply as possible. �`. B% Michael Phillis httr ss� Uvww Iaw3F0.Cnm/articles /9762 '2/a`ta n,es z_aq rep -,n- k7a41*-57.q-,-to-set lea gli_rr,,,/a Lower oil and gas severance taxes, secrecy prompts suspicion in W. Idaho BY ROCKY BARKER Failure to pass adequate protections for our community because of apprehension that this, or any other operator might retaliate in court would be ludicrous. Testimony by these public officials has reiterated what we at CAIA have been saying all along — that you do have the authority under LLUPA and that it is your duty to exercise that authority in order to protect your constituents and their property, as well as public infrastructure, from potential negative impacts of drilling operations within Eagle city limits.