Loading...
Council Minutes 10/05/2000 CITY OF AMMON October 5, 2000 Minutes of the Public Hearing and the Regular Meeting of the Mayor and City Council: The meeting was called to order by Mayor C. Bruce Ard at 7:30 P.M. in the City Building, 2135 South Ammon Road, Ammon, Idaho, with the following City Officials present: Mayor C. Bruce Ard Council member W. Lee Bean Councilmember Leslie Folsom Councilmember Harvey L. Crandall Councilmember Ira K. Hall Attorney W. Joe Anderson Engineer Bill Manwill Public Works Director David Wadsworth Fire Chief Clarence Nelson City Clerk Aleen C. Jensen Deputy Clerk Connie R. Guymon Others Present: David Kraykovic, 2910 Teton Street, Ammon R. Shawn and Susan Garbett, 2290 Dove Drive, Ammon Roxanne Skidmore, 2280 Dove Drive, Ammon Earl and Linda Cleverly, 2830 Teton Street, Ammon Jeffery L. Cooke, NewCom Wireless Frank O'Leary, NewCom Wireless Rex, Kristi, and Blake Portmann, NewCom Wireless Tom Hunsaker, 2925 Carolyn Lane, Ammon Cindy Donovan, 3725 East Sunnyside Road, Ammon Roger Hill, School District No. 93 Michael McQuain, School District No. 93 Thayne Gardner, Jason Anderson, Corey Reid - Scout Troop #443 Danny Greene, Geoff Belnap, Colter Howell - Scout Troop #443 Mike and Sue Nelson - Scout Troop #443 Alan Cunningham, Mountain River Engineering David Benton, Benton Engineering Mary Flegel, 2855 Teton Street, Ammon Jeff Freiberg, Harper-Leavitt Engineering Ryan Loftus, Harper-Leavitt Engineering Karen Anderson, Vice Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission Council member Leslie Folsom Led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, and Councilmember Bean offered a prayer. The Boy Scouts were welcomed. The First item on the agenda was a Planning and Zoning Commission report by City Council Meeting, October 5, 2000 - Page 2 Vice Chairman Karen Anderson. Van Arnold's request for annexation of approximately six or seven acres along the eastside of Sand Creek was recommended for approval. There was one vote opposing the request because it is not on our current Future Land Use Map and it is not on the proposed Future Land Use Map. The Commission considered a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless communication tower. There was not a quorum present so the request was sent on to the City Council. There were concerns about towers, and members thought we should consider an ordinance for Ammon. Some of the concerns were about location of towers and some were about co-location. The Fourth Amended Plat of Ricks Farm was recommended for approval. The Final Plat for Oak Ridge Addition was recommended for approval. The Final Plat for Briarwood Division No. 2 was recommended for approval. The Preliminary Plat for Majestic Acres, which is located in the new industrial park area, was recommended for approval with the addition of street names. A site plan of the building in front of Kmart was reviewed. The developers of Ammon Ranch distributed draft copies of the development agreement for the members to read and to make recommendations. The request for annexation of the Smith/Ritter property was tabled again. The Commission members voted to review the proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate the rest of Van Arnold's property as commercial in place of low density residential. Regarding the Oak Ridge Addition, which was formerly the Anderson Lumber Company property, it was recommended that the access street to 17th Street is lined up with Curlew Drive and that the name be changed to Curlew Drive. The names on the streets in Majestic Acres are 14th North and Majestic Circle. Alan E. Cunningham of Mountain River Engineering presented the Fourth Amended Plat for Ricks Farm Division No.1. Sportsman's Warehouse is located on this piece of property. When the property was originally platted, it was platted as one big block. The developers propose to divide it into smaller lots to fit the businesses interested in locating there. Sportsman's Warehouse is building on Lot 4 and Lot 5 is planned for parking. Councilmember Bean moved to accept the Fourth Amended Plat for Ricks Farm Division NO.1 as presented. Councilmember Folsom seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Bean - Yes; Folsom - Yes; Crandall - Yes; Hall - Yes. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was a review of the Final Plat for Oak Ridge Addition. The Council discussed the location of the property and the adjacent properties. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval. The property is now owned by Tom Arave of Arave Construction and was annexed and zoned previously. Jeff Freiberg of Harper-Leavitt Engineering arrived and explained the plat details. There was no problem with lining up Curlew Drive or the name change to Curlew Drive. Anderson Lumber Company signed an Annexation and Development Agreement in October 1994. The Council questioned whether or not the agreement should be amended. It was agreed to have Arave review the existing agreement before action is taken. Arave has indicated that he would like to begin moving dirt in City Council Meeting, October 5,2000 - Page 3 the spring. Councilmember Hall moved to table until October 19, 2000, the Final Plat for Oak Ridge Addition until they have had the opportunity to review the Annexation and Development Agreement that is in place for Anderson Lumber. Councilmember Crandall seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Hall- Yes; Crandall - Yes; Bean - Yes; Folsom - Yes. The motion carried unanimously. David Benton of Benton Engineering presented the Final Plat of Briarwood Division No.2. The Council was oriented to the location of the property. The development agreement now in place covers Lawrence Ricks' entire property, which is being developed by Jay Johnson. Briarwood Division NO.1 was previously approved and houses are under construction. Councilmember Hall moved to approve the Final Plat of Briarwood Division No.2. Councilmember Bean seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Hall - Yes; Bean - Yes; Crandall - Yes; Folsom - Yes. The motion carried unanimously. Ryan Loftus of Harper-Leavitt Engineering presented the Preliminary Plat for Majestic Acres. Majestic Acres is part of the property annexed as Beck et al. It is adjacent to the Riverside Nursery and Doyle Beck is developing the property to the south. Majestic Circle provides an access to the back of the Riverside Nursery property. Chad Eldridge owns the property. A development agreement will be submitted with the final plat. Councilmember Bean moved to approve the Preliminary Plat of Majestic Acres as presented with the east/west street to be 14th North and the north/south street to be Majestic Circle. Councilmember Hall seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Bean - Yes; Hall - Yes; Crandall - Yes; Folsom - Yes. The motion carried unanimously. Mayor Ard opened the Public Hearing to consider the request of NewCom Wireless for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a communication pole on a parcel of land next to an existing cellular tower off Eagle Drive east of the Teton Spectrum property. Notice of the Hearing was published in the Post Register on September 21 and September 28, 2000. Also, notices of the hearing were mailed to property owners within three hundred (300) feet and to other interested parties. Mayor Ard swore in the parties in interest who desired to present testimony. Frank O'Leary introduced Rex Portmann and thanked the City Council for hearing their proposal. NewCom is a PCS company, which was described as a high breed cellular phone. It is a higher frequency. The best way to describe it in lay terms is a cellular signal will travel in about a twenty mile radius in a rural area while a PCS signal will go about eight miles. In a densely populated area such as a city, NewCom needs to be within about a mile of whatever they are going to hit. The two biggest enemies are trees and buildings. The higher the frequency the less penetration, so more sites are needed and they have to be closer to what is to be covered. The positive side is it is an all-digital system. NewCom is building in an area from Bliss, City Council Meeting, October 5, 2000 - Page 4 Idaho, to the Wyoming border and from the Utah border to the Montana border. There are approximately 92 sites in this market. They have done everything they can to co- locate, to site in permitted use areas, and to try to do the right thing. Mr. O'Leary continued with a history of their efforts. First they contacted the High School with an offer to buy poles for lighting the football field. The school was unsure whether or not they wanted to accept the offer. Next Grand Teton Storage was contacted and it was promising for quite a while. There was a difficulty with ingress, egress, and other details so that site was abandoned. Next they talked to the City of Ammon about the Well NO.7 property. It was hoped they could accomplish what was needed with a ninety foot E-Lam pole. The test proved that a one hundred fifty foot pole would be required. In trying to select another site, the City Office suggested co- location with U.S. Cellular. NewCom has been unsuccessful working out a co-location with U. S. Cellular. They looked at the adjacent site to see if it would be acceptable for a ninety-foot pole. It was tested. It will work. They have a willing landlord. Pictures were displayed to show pole designs. NewCom proposes a laminated, wood pole with a face mount. The site is not manned. Computer controls everything. The pole will be engineered for three carriers, but there is load limitation. Ken Hunter, 2270 Dove Drive, attended the hearing for U. S. Cellular. He remembered them saying they were building the tower to accommodate other users. Maybe the City should write to U. S. Cellular to remind them the tower was approved for other users, but now you won't let them on. It is ridiculous if the cost for co-location is overpriced. He suggested varying the location. The two towers are proposed to be in a row like a fence behind the residences. The impact might be less if the second tower was moved to the west. Roxanne Skidmore, 2280 Dove Drive, explained the existing tower is basically in her backyard. How much notice was given to the residents when the first tower was put in? A lot of people did not know it was going up and did not know what it was. When she found out what it was, she was extremely alarmed. She wondered if the Council understands what the technological makings of them are. What they do to the environment. What they do to the human body. How they work from transmitting the signals from the tower to the cellular phone. How that impacts the body and the area where the tower is sitting. As far as physical problems being connected with the base stations, the jury is still in on that. It is still being investigated. People have been hurt. She had collected data that she was willing to share. Her main concern was with property value. According to data she had collected some areas where towers were erected have caused the property value to go down from 15% to 30%. Who owns the property where NewCom wants to locate? Roger Ball is the owner. Towers may create a phobia and people could not sell homes. She doesn't like the thing in her backyard. It makes a terrible noise. It has diesel. She is allergic to diesel City Council Meeting, October 5, 2000 - Page 5 engines. She is asthmatic and her daughter is asthmatic. She has had to take her to the hospital. Council member Folsom commented that communication towers are FCC regulated. It is necessary to conform to their standards. Roxanne continued that a different element is being brought into their neighborhood. This is a concern because it changes the environment. The tower is an eyesore. It is a pollutant-an air pollutant and a noise pollutant. She was not at the U.S.Cellular hearing. She was not notified. (A notice was mailed to her father who is the owner of record of the property where Roxanne lives.) She is angry. She cannot believe that a community that has prided itself on being a good community to raise children would allow something like that. Notices of the hearing were mailed to the property owners within three hundred (300) feet for the U. S. Cellular hearing. The names to be notified were provided by the applicant from the Bonneville County Assessor's Office. The list for the U. S. Cellular hearing did not show many property owners within three hundred (300) feet. The notification list for this hearing was expanded. Mary Flegel, 2055 Teton Street, commented that the first tower went up over night. One of her neighbors and she did some research on the Internet to find out exactly what was going on with cell towers. Then they walked around the block from Teton Street and Dove Drive to survey the neighbors to see who received notification. The only one she found was Ken Hunter. The noise is very discouraging. From the Internet, she found out the towers are going up all over the country. The technology is booming. It is going at a rate that people can't keep up with how to deal with it as a city and legally. People who were leasing the land for towers were not sued, but City Officials have been sued because people in the community were not notified and given the chance for input. There are considerable concerns about health affects. The issue is too new for anyone to know for sure about the health affects. The claims are that the health risks come with long term exposure at lower levels of radiation at exactly the band that is put out by these cellular towers. The people from 100 to 800 feet away from the tower are most at risk for exposure. "If there is any doubt at all that there is a health risk with these towers, you can not put us at risk. You can not make that decision for us." Jason Anderson inquired if there was more risk when there are two or three transmitters on a pole rather than only one. This is not known for sure. Frank O'Leary pointed out that you could find anything on the Internet that you want. The federal government has established the fact that the health issue is not to be a concern or part of the consideration in determining the location of a cellular tower. City Council Meeting, October 5,2000 - Page 6 Most of the discussion was about health issues, which in most hearings is not allowed to be discussed. Why not? Because the Federal Communications Act of 1996 states it can not be part of the consideration. Therefore, it should not be part of the testimony. The FCC regulations have been quoted twice. Council member Bean questioned if there were any hazardous materials stored, utilized, or constructed with. No. There is no generator. The heating and air conditioning are electric. Council member Hall asked if Mr. O'Leary was aware of any lawsuits brought out in the public comments. He is not and he does site acquisitions in three states. He has no knowledge of a lawsuit such as spoken of. He did not say there wasn't one. NewCom is 1.9 megahertz. U.S. Cellular is 800. NewCom is a much higher frequency. U.S. Cellular is called cellular and NewCom is called PCS. There are installations on hospitals and apartment buildings. It has been deemed by FCC to not be a health hazard. There is a microwave on the High School that is 2.5 megahertz. David Kraykovic, 2910 Teton St, has been doing some research into cell towers, specifically health hazards. One of the things that should arouse your attention, no one can guarantee even 90% that the stuff is not going to hurt us. No one really knows. He had documentation on cell phones. He also had a City of Idaho Falls ordinance. It does not say much about public hazards. He quoted some of the I.F. ordinances. He knows the hazard associated with a reactor. He would much rather have a reactor in his backyard than a cell tower. The reason is, that no one can tell him for sure about what affects the tower has. The higher the frequency the more the hazard. He does not think it is worth taking a chance. Susan Garbett, 2290 Dove Drive, said she was not aware the U.S. Cellular tower was going in until it was there in her backyard. It is hard to know about all this health affects. It is here and there and you don't know which direction to go. Certainly the value of her home has been decreased. What NewCom shows is better than the tower in place but she wonders, if we did not get the straight story from U.S. Cellular, what can you believe. We need to go back to find out why we can not get along with one tower. Maybe we need to have concern about how many towers we put where and in what neighborhood. In order to make the communication system work you have to have towers, but they are pretty ugly looking. "I'm not fond of that being the view out my back window. Earl Cleverly, 2830 Teton Street, stated he is in the last house on Teton and the next house is the first house on Dove as it starts to make the turn. Since the tower went in City Council Meeting, October 5,2000 - Page 7 his wife has been extremely concerned about her health and worried that her health is decreasing. He could not say whether or not it is or is not decreasing. She has had health problems for a long time. She is very worried, and the mental anxiety has been great. He is having more headaches. He does not know if it is the tower or a sinus problem. He worries about it. He did not hear a word about the first tower installation. The business needs places to go, but, if we were going to error, he would hope we error on safety or on the side of caution. Once action is taken it is difficult to go backwards. He thinks it is interesting that the properties are leased rather than owned by U.S. Cellular. Is there a reason why the property was leased from Roger Ball rather than purchased? Is it so financial burden of a suit goes to the owner rather than the lessee? Linda Cleverly, 2830 Teton, stated that she has been diagnosed with M.S., but she has been doing really well. She started noticing headaches. She marked on her calendar when she started having problems, and that is when the tower went in. Ever since then she has been having greater symptoms. I believe the tower affects health, and she does not believe the chance should be taken. She does not want the NewCom tower to go up, and she wants the U.S. Cellular tower taken out. She agrees with all the testimonies. The tower is ugly. She does not like her property value going down. It is a very sore spot. Tom Hunsaker, 2920 Carolyn Lane, did not speak for Planning and Zoning because they did not have an opinion on this request. He spoke for himself on the research he has done. He spoke on both sides of the issue. First, he stated the five guidelines the Federal Government has required that must be followed in making the decision. (1) We are not allowed to be unreasonably discriminating between various wireless telecommunication providers. (2) We cannot prohibit wireless telecommunication towers. (3) When a request comes in, the City must act in a reasonable amount of time. We are allowed to place certain moratoriums, but our ordinances are not ready for that. (4) If the request is denied, it must be denied in writing and it must be based on fact. (5) If a wireless telecommunication facility meets technical transmission standards set by the FCC the federal government mandates it must be considered to be safe. Our duty is to make sure it minimally meets FCC regulations. Tom Hunsaker was one of the Planning and Zoning Commission members who recommended approval of the U.S. Cellular tower. It is a lot bigger, a lot shiner, and a lot more atrusive than he was led to believe. He failed by not going to look at an existing installation. Regarding leasing versus ownership, as fast as the technology is changing, in time towers may not be needed. He commented that the City of Idaho Falls ordinance has some interesting things. They have two overlay zones which specifies the distance from residential property depending on height of the tower. City Council Meeting, October 5, 2000 - Page 8 Also, their ordinance specifies a minimum distance between towers. Towers are not allowed in residential zones. The U.S. Cellular tower is on property zoned R-3A. This causes concern about recommending adding another tower in a residential zone. Regardless of the action on NewCom, the City needs to get an ordinance on telecommunication towers. City of Idaho Falls is trying to promote co-locations first. The FCC is not actively considering the health issue. The City is not allowed to consider the heath issue. The FCC does not specifically address moratoriums. Several municipalities established moratoriums and legal action was taken against them. The courts ruled with the cities in every case as long as it was a reasonable time and did not drag on. Councilmember Crandall expressed appreciation to Tom Hunsaker for his research on telecommunication towers. Karen Anderson, 755 TieBreaker, pointed out that, when U.S. Cellular requested their Conditional Use Permit, it was a first request and no one knew what to ask of them. A time limitation should have probably been placed on U.S. Cellular's permit. She suggested that the Council consider a time frame so the provider would have to come back before the granting body if they wanted to continue their operation. Even though a time frame was not placed on U.S. Cellular, the City can request them to come back to answer any problems. The generator for the tower has caused a noise problem. The City can address the noise problem, but FCC says the City can't deal with health issues. Ken Hunter commented on a noise problem. He suggested some investigation before accusing U.S. Cellular. There is an irrigation pump in the vicinity, which is likely to be causing the noise. The City of Ammon approved a Conditional Use Permit to U.S. Cellular. The City did not enter into a written agreement with them. Frank O'Leary summarized and discussed some of the comments, which were made. NewCom and the landlord are willing to move the antenna support structure on the property. Pictures were presented of the structure they anticipate installing. They have told the City the dimensions. They have tried to present a true and realistic image. The structure will be developed for co-location. Regarding a guarantee that their rates will be reasonable, they are willing to agree to the same as Idaho Falls has put in their agreement. They would be willing to make it part of the Conditional Use Permit from Ammon that established what the rates could be. It is based on the cost of site development and you pay a percentage of that cost for the rent. They would be willing to have that part of the stipulation for the co-location fees. That way they are City Council Meeting, October 5, 2000 - Page 9 established and they can't fluctuate. It makes co-location a realistic opportunity for other people coming in. NewCom con not undo what has been done for U.S. Cellular. They are trying to submit a proposal that meets their needs and is as least attrusive as they can make it and still make it functional. The frequency they transmit at and the FCC regulates the level of power. The FCC says the health risk can not be considered. Whether to lease or to purchase is a business decision. Technology was discussed. Wireless telecommunication is regulated, and it is monitored. Debra Clapp, 2210 Dove Drive, does not want a lot of towers behind her house. Are the sheds that go at the base of the towers regulated? Will there be a high fence around the facility so kids from the High School do not go and hang out behind it? She is concerned about the health factor because two of her family has had cancer. You can't trust the federal government to tell what is going to give health problems and what is not. Her main concern is what it is going to look like and how many are we going to allow in our neighborhood. Maybe NewCom ought to look at an alternate location because one is enough back there. She hopes for some landscaping. NewCom does not have another site in Ammon at this time. This is the fourth site tested. One site in Ammon is all that is anticipated to be needed. All the sites in the Idaho Falls area have been acquired. There are seven sites. Mayor Ard closed the Public Hearing and called for City Council discussion. Councilmember Folsom commented on the research information supplied by Tom Hunsaker on wireless telecommunication towers and expressed concern about our need to be able to have some controls for future requests. She recommended a moratorium to allow time to negotiate with U. S. Cellular regarding co-locating and to become prepared for future requests. A six months moratorium would give time for Ammon to get an ordinance in place. We do not know enough about telecommunication facilities to keep allowing them. Ammon wants to support the industry, but it needs to be done properly. Councilmember Hall pointed out that we couldn't discriminate. If we do not allow another provider or if we put a six months moratorium on, is that discrimination? Attorney Anderson advised that depends on the reason for denial. An arbitrary denial is discrimination, but if there were a valid reason, it would not be. Idaho law provides a right to have a moratorium on certain actions, but he was not prepared to advise on the procedure for a moratorium. Mayor Ard explained to those in attendance regarding the U. S. Cellular request for a Conditional Use Permit that the City followed the rules we had. We did not try to sneak anything under the table. It was not intended to be so. All the public hearings are published. City Council Meeting, October 5, 2000 - Page 10 Council member Folsom pushed for a moratorium. She wanted time to get more information and to make an ordinance to protect the citizens, the City, and the providers. Rex Portmann asked if the City has to act first on NewCom's application that is in before they set a moratorium. Attorney Anderson advised they could set the moratorium while the application is pending. If they decided on a moratorium for a period of time, they would not have to rule on NewCom's request. Councilmember Bean pointed out that the citizens have spoken that they do not want the tower there. It is difficult for the City Council to rule against their wishes. The suggested moratorium would be a maximum of six months. It may not take that long to get an ordinance in place. A discussion followed. Councilmember Bean recommended tabling the issue until the next meeting. We do not have enough information. We have plenty of information, but it is hard to digest it all to make a decision at this meeting in order to approve or deny NewCom's request. Also, he did not want to make a decision for a moratorium until there was more discussion. He would like more information from our legal counsel. Council member Bean moved to table action on the request of NewCom for a Conditional Use Permit for a telecommunication tower until the next meeting. Councilmember Hall seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Bean - Yes; Hall - Yes; Crandall - Yes; Folsom - No. Folsom voted no because she has studied the information. The motion carried. Representatives of Joint School District No. 93 attended the meeting to discuss the Owen Street Traffic Study. The final report has not been received. The City Council was not prepared to discuss the report. Council member Folsom explained her understandings and concerns about the draft copy of the report. Engineer Manwill did a quick review. In the report, they have gone through and evaluated the existing situation. There are two intersection problems that need to be looked at. The report talks about level of service, and it is rated A to F. A level of service rated C or above is generally acceptable, and it is not economically feasible to try to improve it. The two intersections are causing problems because they are too close together. One is the intersection going into Hillcrest High School parking lot from Owen Street. The report concludes, "From the previous analyses, it has been shown that from a capacity and level-of-service perspective, the Owen Street Extension will not have a significant impact." The study recommendations do not solve the problem. They have based their report on an extension of Owen Street. Engineer Manwill has met with Darrel West of BMPO. Opening Owen Street would be a mistake. The School District was right and City of Ammon was wrong. Engineer Manwill has proposed that the report is restudied to consider his input and then to complete the final report with City Council Meeting, October 5, 2000 - Page 11 recommended action. The Council discussed the draft copy of the report and ideas for arriving at a solution to correct the problem. Previously the City believed the problem was traffic volume and did not identify the congestion because of the spacing of the accesses. The report was recognized as only a draft. Engineer Manwill believes it is an incomplete draft. Nothing should happen until the draft is finalized. Regarding the waterline across the School property to Ricks' farm, action is still pending. Councilmember Crandall moved to approve the minutes of City Council Meeting held August 3, 2000. Councilmember Hall seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Crandall - Yes; Hall - Yes; Bean - Yes; Folsom - Yes. The motion carried unanimously. Regarding postal service for Ammon, Mayor Ard has been in contact with Lennis Tirrell and Jeff Cole, Postmaster. They are going to get together to see if they can work out an agreement to locate a temporary postal unit in Ammon. The ribbon cutting for Zions Bank in Albertsons has been scheduled for October 6, 2000, at 11 :00 A.M. Councilmember Bean has drafted a letter to Chad Stanger, Public Works Director for the City of Idaho Falls. The letter is an attempt to establish a starting point relative to a sewer/Area of Impact agreement. The Council was asked to read the letter and to recommend changes so the letter can be on Chad's desk Tuesday morning. The letter points out that there are three points that need to be resolved: (1) where the Area of Impact line should be drawn on Hitt Road; (2) annexing in each other's Area of Impact; and (3) the sewer service area. According to Councilmember Bean, items one and two are not negotiable, but item three is negotiable. The sewer service area is to estimate growth and for master planning. The letter suggests that the sewer service area can be eliminated and the desired results still be accomplished by working together on master planning. The existing sewer agreement defines the service areas. There was discussion on the wording of the letter to determine if it states Ammon's case but is not too provocative. The attorneys for the two entities will work out the agreement. A discussion meeting has been planned for noon on Monday, October 9, in the conference room of Attorney Anderson's office. The purpose of the meeting is for IBSD and City of Ammon to discuss the sewer approach with City of Idaho Falls. Reports: Attorney Anderson advised there is an Annexation/Development Agreement with Quail Ridge proposed by Mountain River Engineering. Engineer Bill Manwill has City Council Meeting, October 5, 2000 - Page 12 reviewed it and made suggestions. Daryl Kofoed of Mountain River Engineering was not available for Attorney Anderson to discuss the agreement with him. The Council was asked if they wanted to review the agreement at the meeting or to do it at the next meeting. Engineer Manwill picked out some items the Council should discuss. The developer would bring the sewer down off the hill and they would pay for it. The City of Ammon would pay for any oversize. "The City of Ammon will collect a connection fee from future subdivisions that connect to said outfall. The City will reimburse the developer for installation costs of the outfall sewer as fees are collected." Engineer Manwill stated he did not think we agreed to that. The developers were to build the system that they need to sewer their subdivision which comes all the way to Mason Street and the City will pay for the part of the oversize on the 12" line. Reimbursement was never discussed. The next item, "The developer shall cause said well site and system to be delivered to the City for operation upon acceptance by the City Engineer." The developers are saying they will build a water system necessary to serve their subdivision and then turn it over to Ammon and it will become part of the Ammon water system. The City will have an isolated system up on the hill. The developers will not have a system that they operate. As soon as the system is completed, they will give it to Ammon to operate. The developer will only build what he needs in his subdivision. The oversize needed is in 21 st Street. "The well will be drilled at a diameter that will provide adequate water for the development and shall be drilled deep enough for culinary and domestic use and will be drilled to act as a test well for possible future further development. Future requirements by the City may require a larger diameter and the City shall have the right to modify the system as it deems necessary in the future." The reason they are doing this is, if you drill a large hole and put in little equipment, DEQ will not approve. The last item is "The well site is also an acceptable site for future water storage tanks. for the City of Ammon and the City shall have the rights to modify as it sees fit in the future." The developer is putting in the small tank to serve their system but not the large one for Ammon. They have not agreed on the site. They are waiting for the City to tell them how much we need. The agreement does not include a fire station, and it should be added. If DEQ is not going to allow a big well site at that point, we should require the developer to drill a test well to show the City what it will do. The developer is going to drill next to the irrigation well that is up there. It is ridiculous to do two rigs because they have the well there. It is bigger than the test well that they will drill to pump their water. Public Works Director Wadsworth pointed out that the irrigation well might not be going down into the aquifer, which we would want. A requirement should be that the well they drill acts as a test well for the one the City will do and they will take it down far enough to serve our needs. It was questioned why we don't drill an adequate well in the first place. It is better to drill a test well. The test well would be at the developer's expense but the expanded City Council Meeting, October 5, 2000 - Page 13 well would be at the City's expense. The developer is willing to do the larger well if DEQ would approve. Indications are that DEQ will not allow them to drill a 14" well and put in 6" equipment. There was a discussion about how to word the agreement. Engineer Manwill suggested some one needs to go in and design the water system. There are two or three engineering studies the City needs to have done. The firm most qualified, who is working in this area, is Benton Engineering, particularly Paul Snarr. The City needs to look at the water system and the storage tank on the hill. Also, a study needs to look at the Ross Avenue sewer lift station and all the services that are potentially going to come in there. The water on the hill, the Ross Avenue lift station, and the service area need to be studied to obtain hard numbers concerning what our capacity is and what we need to do to expand to service the area. The last area that needs to be studied is 1 ih Street and how far north we want to go to determine whether it can be sewered by Hitt Road or Ammon Road. The well on the hill should be adequate to service fire hydrants. There is not a problem using Benton Engineering provided the cost is quoted up front. The development agreement for Quail Ridge should include the park. A four-unit building is being constructed on a pad in front of Kmart. Plans were submitted for review as a courtesy. Eddy's Day Old Store will occupy the largest unit. Councilmember Folsom advised that the utility billing for Palisades Park is being revised to bill them per unit the same as other apartment complexes. Skidmore's trailer park is being disconnected from Ammon's sewer system and is being connected to the Idaho Falls system. The request for a day care at 2155 Midway Avenue is up for Judicial Review. The Blatter claim for reimbursement of items mistakenly collected with the garbage will be considered by the Small Claim Court on October 31,2000. Claims were approved. Councilmember Crandall moved to adjourn the meeting, and Councilmember Folsom seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :50 P.M. Mayor Attest: City Clerk