HomeMy Public PortalAbout1997-06-10 Town of Truckee
TOWN COUNCIL/NEVADA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
June 10, 1997, 1:30 P.M.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board Room
! 1570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, CA
CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Drake called the meeting to order at 1:49 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Council Members Carpenter, Florian, Susman, and Mayor Drake
ABSENT:
Council Member McCormack
Supervisors Dardick, Grattan, Knecht, Van Zant, and Chair Antonson
ALSO PRESENT:
Stephen L. Wright, Town Manager; J. Dennis Crabb, Town Attorney; and
Vicki Soderquist, Deputy Town Clerk
PUBLIC COMMENT - None
SCHEDULED ITEMS:
4.1 Presentation on Proposed Amendments to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Ozone and Particulate Matter and the Potential Impacts on Eastern Nevada County - Rod
Hill, Air Pollution Control Officer, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District.
Mr. Hill gave a brief outline of the NAAQS review process; health effects of ozone and particulate
matter; how the new proposed standards compared to the current standards; what areas would be
affected by the new standard and the prognosis for Nevada County and Truckee; ramification of
nonattainment under the old system; new national policies resulting from the NAAQS revision; and
what needed to be done to position Nevada County and Truckee to avoid federal nonattainment. He
requested that the Council and Board consider the content of the letter being drafted to President
Clinton and support the District's efforts to avoid federal nonattainment for both the current NAAQS
standards and the soon-to-be revised standards for ozone and particulate matter.
General discussion followed the presentation.
4.2 Revised Memorandum of Understanding for Library Services Among the County,
Town of Truckee and Friends of the Library. Recommendation: Council approve the revised
Memorandum of Understanding with Nevada County and Friends of the Library for the period of
July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998.
David Brennan, Chief Administrative Officer, informed the Board that staff had reviewed the
revised MOU and recommended adoption. The MOU was similar to the agreement currently
between the County and Grass Valley.
Francisco Pinneli, Library Director, thanked the Friends of the Truckee Library for their efforts
and support. He then reviewed the key points of the MOU and emphasized that the MOU was from
one-time only Town revenues and was for one year only.
Supervisor Dardick questioned if there would be change in the current level of staffing at the library.
Mr. Pinneli replied that the MOU would increase the .5 libra~ assistant by 2 hours/week, one of the
hourly library assistant would gain an additional hour and, the third library assistant would gain an
additional 14 hours. He would be hiring a librarian at $12.78/hour which would be paid from the
MOU. He noted that the other libraries currently had more staffing.
Kelly Carroll, Secretary, Friends of the Truckee Library, stated the proposed changes in the
MOU were insignificant. He noted that it was a one year funding commitment from the Town and
they were concerned regarding the hiring of staffthrough the MOU. They hoped the County would
fulfill their obligation to run the County library system as it was a temporary relief measure made
available by the Town. The $7,500 from each party in the MOU was a cap, they were not
committing to $7,500, but would pay up to $7,500. There was concem that the MOU would be used
in an effort to downgrade existing services provided by the County and he requested that they be
involved in the County's budgeting process. Chair Antonson replied that the County had made a two
year commitment to the library, therefore, funding would stay the same as last year.
Supervisor Grattan questioned if the Friends had talked with the Town regarding taking over the full
responsibility of the library. Mr. Carroll replied that they had not talked to the Town.
Motion by Supervisor Dardick, Seconded by Supervisor Grattan, to approve the modified
Memorandum of Understanding ($7,500 each from the Friends and Town), approved 4-0-1
with Van Zant absent.
Motion by Councilmember Carpenter, Seconded by Councilmember Susman, to approve the
modified Memorandum of Understanding ($7,500 each from the Friends and Town), approved
4-0-1 with McCormack absent.
4.3 ' Status of Negotiations with Nevada County on the Contract for Sheriff's Services for
the Town of Truckee. Recommendation: No action required by Council.
Dave Brennan, Chief Administrative Officer, stated the staff report addressed four unresolved issues:
1) Proposition 172 funding; 2) cost allocation basis; 3) general liability insurance costs; and 4)
booking fees. He recommended that the item be continued to allow further discussion.
Mayor Drake felt it was time the issue came to closure and supported the recommendation for the
Chief Administrative Office and Town Manager to continue negotiations.
Chair Antonson and Supervisor Knecht questioned how close the agreement was to being finalized.
Mr. Wright replied that staff would meet with the possible inclusion of the Town and County
attorneys. He felt the County direction to staff would be to either reach agreement or agree to
disagree and bring it back within a brief period of time.
Chair Antonson directed that the Chief Administrative Officer and Town Manager meet and bring
back an agreement in two weeks. Supervisor Van Zant wanted it understood that the County wanted
to make it work.
4.4 Standard Professional Services Contract for Building Inspection Services for Eastern
Nevada County Projects in Proximity to the Town of Truckee. Recommendation: No action
required by Council.
Town Council Minutes
Jane 10, 1997 Regular
Page 2
Clint McKinley, Building Department Administrator, informed the Board that the Town had
performed the service as needed since May 1995 under a mutual agreement without a contract. He
recommended that the contract be approved as presented.
Supervisor Grattan questioned how the $75/hourly rate was determined. Tony Lashbrook, Director
of Community Development, replied that it was an established rate in the Town's fee structure based
upon a cost study that had been done between the March incorporation date and the July takeover
of building department responsibilities. The Town was in the process of updating the fee structure.
Motion by Supervisor Dardick, Seconded by Supervisor Grattan, passed unanimously, to
approve the contract for building inspection services as presented.
4.5 Introduction of Dr. Herbert Giese, Jr., County Health Officer.
Dr. Giese, Jr. informed the Board and Council that they would be hiring a full time public health
nurse in Truckee and expanding clinic services. They would also be establishing a "teen friendly"
environment in order to get more teens involved.
Supervisor Dardick acknowledged there was a need for more regionalization regarding health care
and community based services and, anticipated there would be future discussions regarding those
needs.
4.6 Presentation on Welfare Reform by John Crane, Director of Social Services.
John Crane, Director of Social Services, made a brief presentation on welfare reform.
Councilmember Carpenter questioned if the statistics for Truckee were drastically different. Mr.
Crane replied that the statistics for Truckee were in line with the rest of the County. The only area
that showed a difference in case load was with transient general assistance population, i.e. people
that were stranded and needed transportation or lodging. Therefore, they issued approximately six
times the number of bus passes in Truckee than they did in other areas of the County.
4.7 Proposed Memorandum of Underatanding with Nevada County Authorizing Continued
Solid Waste and Disposal Services with Eastern Nevada County and Remediation Closure and
Post-Closure of the Hirschdale Landfill. Recommendation: Direction to staff as desired.
David Brennan, Chief Administrative Officer, recommended that the Board deal with Item 12 of
their morning agenda dealing with parcel charges in conjunction with Item 4.7. The public hearing
remained open.
Tom Miller, Director of Transportation and Sanitation, stated there was a current residential parcel
charge of $104.46 which provided unlimited pick-up. The MOU would eliminate the unlimited
pick-up and go to a 20-gallon pick-up/week in the incorporated area and existing level of service in
the unincorporated area for approximately six months. He then reviewed the duties of the County
and the Town as outlined in the MOU (report on file). The budget had been presented to the Solid
Waste Commission and it was recommended that the budget be adopted. A concern had been
expressed earlier by a member of the public regarding specific provisions established during the time
of incorporation as to who was responsible for solid waster services. The LAFCo incorporation
order provided for the continuation of CSA 7, i.e. funding ability within the Town limits, however,
CSA 7 had not been utilized for the last 2-3 budget years. Instead, the County with the agreement
Town Council Minutes
June 10, 1997 Regular
Page 3
of the Town, had agreed to exercise provisions of Government Code 25830 which was a different
parcel charge system. Staff would need additional time to reseamh whether other issues in the
LAFCo orders were accepted by the County Board at that time.
Mr. Wright stated the only issue before the Council was the MOU and, it was his understanding that
there could be conceptual approval with issue points to be further discussed and final action taken
in the future. An issue point to be considered related to various funding sources for the solid waste
budget in Eastern County. Historically, there had been funding sources other than the parcel charge
and the Town wanted consideration of those made within the MOU. Supervisor Gattan requested
that Mr. Wright elaborate on what the "other funding sources" were. Mr. Wright replied that the
Eastern County budget had collectively included both Town residents and the unincorporated
residents, parcel charges, interest earnings on funds maintained, timber tax funds, and property
taxes.
Mr. Miller stated there was both secured tax and yield tax. The present budget showed a total of
other sources, excluding parcel charges and non-interest, of $I05,000. The Town was requesting
that those monies be credited against Eastern solid waste services and dedicated to the Eastern
County budget. County staff determined they were funds that were under the discretion of the
County Board, but for the present year they were designated to the Eastern County budget. The
Town had also questioned why those funds had been allocated to the Eastern County budget in the
past and County staff had been unable to ascertain why. It appeared the funds could have been a
result of Proposition 13 and were put into the budget to try to give a floor of services to the Eastern
County side, plus there could have been some entanglement with CSA 7 in terms of it's authorities
to collect taxes.
Geoff Stephens, General Manager, Glenshire/Devonshire Residents Association, stated he was
concerned with an agreement being approved before the public knew what the level of service there
would be. Preliminary information appeared to include a 67% increase with a 50% reduction in
service.
Chair Antonson questioned how a parcel charge could be collected without rendering services. Jim
FlageoIlet, County Attorney, replied that there would be services rendered to all property owners.
Mr. Stephens added that property owners had received very good service with a very low charge,
but felt that 2 32-gallon cans should be allowed which would be a 23% increase in the MOU which
he felt was fair.
Charlie White, Donner Lake, stated that 30 years ago he was charged a parcel charge on his vacant
lot and questioned why that was not continued. Mr. Wright replied that the parcel charge was only
for developed parcels and it was difficult to change with Proposition 218. Chair Antonson stated
it was his understanding that the parcel charge on vacant lots had been challenged within Nevada
County.
Dan Wendin, Donner Lake, felt the issue was a public relations fiasco and urged careful handling
by the Council and the Board. He felt there were many unanswered questions, i.e. a number of
homes being accessed by one driveway, illegal use of dumpsters, dumping of trash on roadways and
vacant lots. He questioned why the Town was afraid of Proposition 218. It was a complicated issue
and he did not feel that everyone would understand the service/rate structure. He further questioned
why there was an indemnity in the MOU regarding Proposition 218. Mr. Flageollet replied that their
auditor/controller requested that special districts indemnify him as the collector of taxes as he did
Town Council Minutes
June 10, 1997Regular
Page 4
not want to be sued as the money was only passed through his office to the Town. Mr. Crabb stated
that indemnification was standard in every county he practiced in.
Pat Sutton, resident, distributed copies of the terms and conditions of incorporation which stated
that CSA 7 was to be continued which incorporated trash service. She also passed out a copy of
LAFCo's Summary Memorandum which stated CSA 7 would be "preserved and extended to all
areas now receiving solid waste services and the County government entity". She did not feel that
the County's proposed ordinance amendment complied with Government Code Section 25830. She
further felt the County had more authority to impose a parcel charge under CSA 7 than GC 25830
and, that the Town had to go to the voter regarding the imposed parcel charge, collection fees by the
hauler, and franchise charges. The ordinance was changing references from CSA 7 to tax rate areas,
but the tax bills received by the property owners listed CSA 7. An environmental evaluation should
be conducted due to the potential of more trash/garbage being let around Town in order to avoid fees
along with a substantial fire danger because of the additional charge for hauling yard waste. If the
County could not continue to operate solid waste collection and disposal in Truckee then she
suggested that there were two other agencies in Town that had the statutory power to do that, i.e.
Truckee Sanitary District and Truckee Donner Public Utility District. She felt the Town agreement
had the potential for financial problems for the community.
There being no further public testimony, the County closed their public hearing.
The Board and Council recessed at 3:24 p.m. and reconvened at 3:32 p.m.
Chair Antonson requested that staff address Ms. Sutton's concerns. Mr. Flageollet stated they had
been given the documents by Ms. Sutton at the meeting and had not had sufficient time to review
them. It appeared that the Summary Memo was a copy of minutes ora LAFCo hearing and was
internally inconsistent and not consistent with the Government Code. The LAFCo resolution
adopted for incorporation allowed the Town to assume operation of solid waste service with
contingencies. He did not have adequate documentation to determine whether the contingencies
were ever met, although he assumed they were. The auditor used the CSA as a tax area, but it did
not necessarily reflect an active CSA.
Councilmember Susman noted that after one year the program would be reassessed. It was
important to maintain the parcel charge in order to provide mandatory service which would protect
the health and welfare of the community.
Supervisor Grattan stated she was a strong proponent of having the Town Council manage their
municipality as close to 100% as possible. It was unnecessary to have the County collecting funds
for a private business and then passed through to the Town to be passed through to the vendor. The
limit of the County's responsibility regarding trash hauling was to the residents in the
unincorporated area of Truckee. Payment for services directly to the vendor was the best method.
Truckee residents, as a benefit of the County collecting funds, was receiving inexpensive service in
comparison to the Western portion of the County. She did not support a MOU in which the County
was responsible for collection. The County did have a responsibility for the Hirschdale landfill and
funds were set aside for the future needs of the facility, therefore, she felt it appropriate to support
the thirty years closure, with the Town contributing for remediation, closure, post-closure costs in
proportion of the population residing in the Town limits versus the entire Eastern Nevada County
at the time of incorporation in excess of the funds already set aside. The Solid Waste Commission
did not have the MOU before them and had not discussed it, but had supported the parcel charge.
They were uncomfortable with the $104.46 as a parcel charge being passed onto the Town with no
Town Council Minutes
June 10, 1997 Regular
Page 5
offer of service. They further recommended that there be an additional $25 charge imposed upon
everyone receiving services in Truckee for services provided. She recommended that the item be
continued in an effort to bring it to closure with the County out of the middle.
Mr. Miller stated when the item was brought before the Solid Waste Commission there was a very
short timeframe. The Commission questioned at that time what the level of service would be, but
staff had not yet determined the level of service. Concern was expressed regarding no service being
provided for $104.00.
Mr. Brennan stated the Board could place the ordinance on first reading and deal with the MOU
prior to the second reading. Supervisor Grattan explained that she did not want to leave the Town
without services.
Supervisor Van Zant agreed with Supervisor Grattan, but given Proposition 218 and the system
currently in place, the proposal was to work with the parcel charge to keep the system rolling.
Therefore, he would support the item, but felt something else should be in place next year.
Councilmember Drake indicated that the Town did not have a problem with the hauler or the service
provided. The hauler had offered a one month delay to meet with them to further to negotiate
service/fees.
Supervisor Knecht stated that ever since she could remember there was a parcel charge for Truckee
and the resolution before them did not change that. Therefore, she supported moving forward with
the parcel charge so the deadlines would not be missed. The ordinance did not deal with MOU and
nothing would change regarding the actual service levels.
Motion by Supervisor Dardick, Seconded by Supervisor Knecht, passed unanimously, to place
the ordinance on first reading.
Supervisor Grattan requested that the Solid Waste Commission review the MOU at their next
meeting. Mr. Miller requested a meeting with her and the Chair regarding the timelines.
ADJOURNMENT - Mayor Drake adjourned the meeting at 4:29 p.m.
by:
Respectfully submitted,
STEPHEN L. WRIGHT, Town Manager
Vicki C. Soderquist, cMC,"~eputy Town Clerk
Town Council Minutes
June 10, 1997 Regular
Page 6