Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2000-04-20 Town of Truckee TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES April 20, 2000, 6:00 P.M. Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board Room 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, CA 4. 5. 6. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Schneider called the regular Council meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers: Drake, Florian, McCormack, Susman, and Mayor Schneider ALSO PRESENT: Stephen L. Wright, Town Manager; J. Dennis Crabb, Town Attorney; and Vicki C. Soderquist, Town Clerk PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Anne Grogan. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None PRESENTATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR (One motion approves all of the following actions.) Motion by Councilmember Drake to approve the Consent Calendar, Seconded by Councilmember Snsman, passed unanimously with Items 6.3 and 6.7 pulled. 6.1 6.2 6.3 Minutes of April 6, 2000 Regular Meeting. Recommendation: Council approve. Minutes of April 6, 2000 Special Council/RDA Meeting. Recommendation: Council approve. Authorization to Advertise Slurry Seal Contract for Construction Bids - CIP 60-03-02. Recommendation: Council authorize the Town Engineer to advertise thc 2000 Slumy Seal contract for construction bids. Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember McCormack referred to the large section of Northwoods Blvd, as well as Sitzmark and noted that they were not in the pavement management plan. Dan Wilkins, Town Engineer, stated that the work had been deferred from last year duc to gas installations. Last years projects for slurry and overlay were included in four contracts and staff felt that by including all the work and bidding once at the beginning of season they would receive better bid costs and less overall disruption. Motion by Councilmember Susman to authorize the Town Engineer to advertise the 2000 Slurry Seal contract for construction bids, Seconded by Councilmember McCormack, passed unanimously. 6.4 6.5 Single Family Solid Waste Parcel Charges. Recommendation: Council adopt Resolution 2000-22 author/zing the Nevada County Board of Supervisors to continue a parcel charge for solid waste services within the Town limits for single family units. Pine Cone Road Acceptance. Recommendation: Council adopt Resolution 2000-23 accepting Pine Cone Road into the Town maintained road system. 6.6 6.7 Contract for On-Call Engineering Services. Recommendation: Council approve the scope of work and authorize the Town Manager to execute contract with LSC Transportation Consultants to provide on-call engineering services associated with various planning applications. Resolution of Support for Local Projects Under Nevada County Heritage 2000. Recommendation: Council adopt Resolution 2000-24 supporting local projects for early funding through Park and Water Bond allocation. Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Susman stated he had pulled the item to bring it to the attention of the public. There was approximately $1.2 million in funds for enhancing access to the Truckee River corridor; it was a grant where the public would actually see something in the ground. He thanked the County for their support. Mayor Schneider stated that Nevada County Supervisor Conklin had been communicating with the Town regarding the project. It was an opportunity to obtain funding for the Truckee River Legacy Trail or the Master Trails Plan. Councilmember Drake stated that the Nevada County Transportation Commission had requested $300,000 in TEA funds for the Truckee River Legacy Trail. It had been rated the number one project in the County with the Western County also supporting it. Motion by Councilmember Susman to adopt Resolution 2000-24 supporting local projects for early funding through Park and Water Bond allocation, Seconded by Councilmember Fiorian, passed unanimously. COUNCIL IMMEDIATE PRIORITIES 7.1 2000/2001 Priorities. Recommendation: Council approve the 2000/2001 Preliminary Work Plan as established at the recent Team Building Workshop and establish review dates later in the year to update this ongoing effort. Mr. Wright stated that each year the Council held a two-day workshop to talk about the inter-working relationships of the organization/staff and what the future priorities should be for the upcoming fiscal year. He then reviewed the "A" priorities. For the first time, the Council also held a visioning workshop with staff and the Planning Commission. Only consensus was reached at the workshop, therefore, he recommended that Council take formal action in adopting the 2000/01 priorities. Mayor Schneider stated that it was the third ~vorkshop she had attended, the fifih for the Town, and she felt it was very effective and a great opportunity to learn how to work with each other effectively and review where the Town was at and where the Town should go in the future. It was very intensive and she appreciated the opportunity. Councilmember Susman agreed that it was important and useful and noted there were many significant priorities for the community. He felt that PC2 and Peoria Sunnyside should be added to the "A" or "On-Going" priorities due to the large amount of staff time that they would take. He also agreed with the Mayor's comments. Councilmember Drake stated that for the first time the Council/Commission had worked on long-range visioning which he felt would help them to look ahead. He felt the team building/priority setting was excellent. Councilmember Florian felt that having the Planning Commissioners attend was of great value. It was also a great opportunity to renew relationships with staff/staff and staff/Council. Town of Truckee April 20, 2000 Regular Page 2 Councilmember McCormack stated that under the "B" priorities there was an incorrect statement, i.e. Sphere of Influence/General Plan Amendment - pending action by LAFCo. The action was a Town function but was pending the completion of the Development Code Motion by Councilmember Susman to approve the 2000/01 Preliminary Work Plan, as amended to include the addition of PC2 and Peoria Sunnyside to the On-Going priority list and the correction of action to be taken regarding the Sphere of Influence/General Plan under "B" priorities, staff to return with review dates later in the year, Seconded by Councilmember Drake, passed unanimously. STAFF REPORTS 8.1 Wolfe Estates - Acceptance of $276,588 Bond From Developers Insurance Co. (continued from the April 6, 2000 meeting). Recommendation: Council adopt Resolution 2000-12 authorizing the acceptance of a bond payment from Developers Insurance Co., and absolving Developers Insurance Company from further liability regarding lack of performance by Wolfe Development, Inc. to fulfill its development agreement regarding Wolfe Estates Phase IV. Dan Wilkins, Town Engineer, stated that the project was still in the position where the development agreement was in arrears. The Town had made 2-3 attempts to set some criteria which could be reasonably met to allow Wolfe Development to complete those improvements but the attempts were not well received by Wolfe Development. The last Council action set a chain of events in which Wolfe Development was to have an engineer under contract with both the contract and work assignable to the Town if they were not paid by Wolfe Development and that had not happened. Another criteria was that an $80,000 security be posted with the Town for the anticipated shortfall and that had not been received. Therefore, the recommendation of staffwas to pull the performance bond due to lack of performance by Wolfe Development. Mr. Crabb informed the Council that the initial resolution had been modified to include one amendment dealing with the Labor & Materials Bond due to liens placed on the properties. It made it very clear to the bonding company that what was being pulled was the Performance Bond and not the Labor and Materials Bond and if there were liens that bond was still available to satisfy any of those liens. Staffs recommendation was to adopt that resolution and to immediately start work with the property owners on an implementation plan for commencement of the improvements. He was not sure that it would work out in terms of the details but it would take a few days for the bond paperwork to be accomplished and during that time staff would work with the property owners to see if the project could be moved forward. If there was an opportunity while the paperwork was being processed, staff would try to take advantage of it and, if successful, would report back to Council. If it was not successful, staff would proceed with the implementation plan. Jean Solberg, representative for Wolfe Development, Inc., reviewed the series of events that occurred over the last two weeks. Her client's direction had been to continue work on the project without delay. Cranmer Engineering had completed the setting of aerial photography targets and initiated the site survey. Due to the change in the weather the final completion of the survey fieldwork and flight work had been on hold. They would re-initiate work as soon as the weather cleared. She clarified that the binary data was not available from King Engineering and there were no outstanding funds owed to King Engineering by Wolfe Development. Mr. Crabb had been made aware of contracts for engineering and construction of the project that were in place which staff had received last fall. Mr. Crabb suggested that Mr. Hammonds meet with the lot owners in the Bay area and try to work out a plan to allow Hammonds Construction to proceed with construction under the existing contract with Wolfe Development. The meeting was held on April 18th and Mr. Hammonds met with the Serranos and Austins but Mr. Crabb was unable to attend. Mr. Hammonds proposed a plan that Town of Truckee April 20, 2000 Regular Page 3 would allow Wolfe Development to continue with construction improvements under the existing contract. Ms. Solberg then read an excerpt from Mr. Hammond's letter dated April 17, 2000 - The plan was to complete driveway and utilities without litigation associated with pulling the bond. If the construction of the project was not as anticipated by the Town at the end of November 30, 2000 Wolfe Development would agree in some form to relinquish rights against the parties and allow the Town to assume contracts and complete this project unopposed by Wolfe Development. The converse would also apply, Hammonds Construction would also agree to complete the work with the Town assuming Wolfe's contract or would agree to discontinue work at the Town's direction and only have the right to be paid for the work that had been completed and would have no further involvement financially in the project. In that scenario all parties would have the opportunities to win. In their opinion that would be the soonest the road could be completed if Wolfe's bond was called. Therefore, the owners and Town had nothing to lose and could only improve their current situation. She clarified that Hammonds and Wolfe Development had agreed to release the Town from any future litigation if not able to perform by the end of the building season. The two attending lot owners agreed with Mr. Hammonds' plan and were prepared to do so if asked by Council. Since the meeting with the lot owners on Tuesday they had tried unsuccessfully to talk to Mr. Crabb or Mr. Wilkins. It was her understanding that Mr. Crabb had talked to Mr. Harnrnonds just prior to the Council meeting. Her clients felt strongly that they should be allowed to go forward on a project that they had already started. Pulling of the bond would only create legal costs for all parties, as well as delays of construction beyond the building season. Ms. Solberg added her personal comment that as a property owner and taxpayer in Truckee, as well as a land use consultant, she did not see how the Town or lot owners could lose with the Hammonds' deal. Speaking for herself and her client, she requested that the Council approve the formal creation of Mr. Hammonds' proposal as all parties except the Council had agreed. She further requested that the Council not fight a battle with her client that would only result in more delays in construction and a need for tax dollars to be spent on a pending legal battle that only the Council could avert. It was a way out for everyone, if not completed by the end of the year her client was willing to release and not in any way sue the Town Councilmember McCormack stated that at the last meeting the developer wanted to use an engineering contractor in Oregon and was not willing to continue with Cramner and questioned what had changed. Ms. Solberg stated that Councilmember McCormack was incorrect, Cramner Engineering would be used for local work and was always going to be (surveying, aerial photography, processing permits), Hammonds Construction wanted to use his engineer in Oregon for design, as they felt most comfortable due to their history together. They would sub-out some of local work to Cramner. Mr. Serrano questioned what would happen to the bond between now and the end of November under Hammonds' plan. Ms. Solberg replied that it was her understanding that it would just sit there ready to be pulled, there was no time limit. Tino Serrano, Lot 36, stated he was at the meeting with Hammonds and had not agreed to the concept. Mr. Hammonds had reiterated his proposal which involved holding the bond for another six months. They met with Hammonds as a courtesy. He felt reiterated what he had previously said, but would do so once again, Ron Stover was not before them, the developer was still in default, there was no additional security posted, there was no engineer under contract and assignable to the Town, and the situation was still be misrepresented. Therefore, he would not support any delay in any manner and hoped that it was the last line drawn in the sand. He would not restrict in any way the Town considering working with any contractor and would not rule anyone in or out, let people compete for Town of Truckee April 20, 2000 Regular Page 4 the work. All parties agreed that Regge King had a head start on the competition. One of Hammonds' concerns with Cramner was that they were making false promises in agreeing to have engineering done by May 4th because Hammonds felt it would take 90 days to develop engineering plans. He admitted that others had a head start and could do the work faster and at a lower cost. Mr. Serrano stated he could not imagine anything that would convince anyone to grant another extension. Mayor Schneider questioned if a formal association/LLC/organization had been established. Mr. Serrrano stated that they did not have legal machinery in place. They had discussed their need to enter into a formal agreement and were anxious to move forward. Councilmember McCormack stated that it was represented by Ms. Solberg that Mr. Hammonds had a proposal to get engineering and construction done during the current year, he questioned if Mr. Serrano rejected that proposal. Mr. Serrano replied that he felt it was possible regarding the engineering and construction, that was not the obstacle, the obstacle was the lack of any belief that they would perform in the future because they had not in the past, as well as their unwillingness to guarantee that. By their failure to back their own performance he did not feel that he could support him. Dennis Austin, Lot 35, stated he was also present at the meeting with Hammonds and Serrano. His opinion was somewhere between Ms. Solberg and Mr. Serrano, it was his recollection that it was said that they did not think that Hammonds could convince the Town that it was a good plan, but if they could he would probably support it, but would not lobby for it. He still believed that there was no objective evidence that Wolfe intended to follow through in finishing the subdivision. After discussion with Hammonds he came to the conclusion/hunch that Wolfe would probably follow through, but he had no objective evidence. Therefore, he could not lobby in favor of not using the bond money and working with the Town on finishing the improvements. He liked Dave Hammonds, but the whole thing was crazy. He was worried that if the bond was pulled and they worked with the Town, the property owners would be dependent on the Town. He liked the people at the Town and was amazed at the support they had received but he hoped that trust was well placed. They were not developers and hoped that it worked. Mayor Schneider questioned Mr. Austin's recommendation if he were a Councilmember. Mr. Austin replied that he would have to vote to pull the bond due to the objective evidence presented. As a property owner he also recommend pulling the bond. He wanted the Council to understand the position they would be in. Councilmember Drake clarified that the Town was not a contractor but would be a facilitator for the project. Staff would work with the property owners to accomplish the improvements. Mr. Austin stated that he understood that, but did not know what would happen. Councilmember Susman stated that the prior Council actions were at the will of the property owners due to the treatment received and lack of faith in Wolfe Development. Once again, his interest was in the will of the property owners. Councilmember McCormack stated that the property owners' desire was the only thing that got it as far along as it was. He felt the Council would have pulled the bond a long time ago. The property owners should not have any concern regarding the Town's willingness to move it forward, but he also felt everyone could count on litigation to delay the project. Councilmember Florian stated that when they failed to put up additional security that said a lot. The Council was willing to pull the bond and were waiting for the property owners direction. Town of Truckee April 20, 2000 Regular Page 5 o 10. Pete Record, Lot 34, stated that he a made a statement at the last meeting that if Mr. Stover was willing to put up the additional security he would be willing to give him the courtesy of moving forward. Mr. Stover had not done that, therefore, he recommended pulling the bond and getting it over with. Councilmember Drake stated that the legal and technical problems were complex, but the moral and ethical misfeasance performed and demonstrated by the developer, contractor, and land use planner were in his personal judgement unparalleled in Tmckee's history. He would vote to revoke the bond to bring positive closure for the property owners. Councilmember Susman stated that the Council hoped to have some magic, but that did not happen. There had only been vague language delivered by the representative of the Developer. He felt there was no doubt that the likely outcome was that the Town would be embroiled in litigation over the project. He referred to Ms. Solberg's comment regarding her tax dollars and noted that some of those tax dollars would be used to defend the Town from her boss. At the last meeting he had stated that if three of the four property owners requested that the bond be pulled he would support them and it appeared that three of the property owners were in support. Motion by Councilmember Susman to adopt Resolution 2000-12, as amended, and directing staff to immediately start work with the property owners on an implementation plan for commencement of the improvements, Seconded by Councilmember Drake, passed unanimously. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 9.1 LAFCo Report - Mr. Wright stated he and Councilmember Susman had attended the LAFCo meeting. An RFP to do an initial study regarding govemance issues in Eastern Nevada County was approved. Discussion included a desire by the LAFCo Board to see citizen input in the process ~vhether through a questionnaire or information gathering source and not just deal with the technical issues. It was his interpretation of their action that they did not want just the information from the Town or special districts but general citizens. The Council had committed $6,000-$7,000 for the project but the questionnaire component could raise that amount. He did not feel it would be significant but staff could be returning to Council to fund that gap. Councilmember McCormack stated that during the discussion of the survey the key word was "contacting community leaders" which was an important piece. Councilmember Susman stated that the document would be "a preliminary review of the opportunities for government reorganization in the Truckee area", it was nothing to pursue reorganization but would be a cursory study to see if there was a level to pursue. Another report presented to LAFCo (Truckee Area Local Governance Study) had the Town's name on it but the Town was not directly involved other than providing raw data very early in the process. During the LAFCo meeting the PUD representative denied that they had any direct ties with the document. It appeared that it was a document without an author. LAFCo Commissioner Hollander (Grass Valley) stated that the study had an obvious bias by the special districts. Therefore, LAFCo was going ahead with the initial report. Councilmember McCormack stated that LAFCo expressed the opinion that the next time the subject was discussed, i.e. when proposals were received, it would be appropriate to hold that meeting in Truckee. During that portion of the LAFCo meeting he had turned over the gavel to the vice-chair so it would not be perceived that he was using unfair influence on LAFCo's action. CLOSED SESSION to discuss litigation against Nevada County pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9; County of Nevada vs the Town of Truckee and the Truckee Redevelopment Agency Town of Truckee April 20, 2000 Regular Page 6 11. pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9; Town of Truckee vs Truckee Tahoe Airport District pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9; conference with real property negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 - property: 10181 and 10185 Truckee-Tahoe Airport Road, Truckee, Califomia, negotiating parties: Town Manager Stephen L. Wright representing Town (prospective purchaser) and Bank of the West (property owner), under negotiation: terms of purchase (price and payment terms); and labor negotiations between the Labor Negotiator (Town Manager) and the Town of Truckee Employees Association pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. Mr. Crabb stated that the Town had received a decision from the Superior Court in the case the Town of Truckee vs Nevada County and the Council had instructed the special counsel to file an appeal of certain aspects of that decision and to agree to certain other aspects of that decision to expedite the appeal. The special counsel would be processing the necessary documents to accomplish the Council direction. No reportable actions were taken on any other Closed Session items. ADJOURNMENT. Mayor Schneider adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, by: Vicki C. Soderquist, CMCPAk~I,:~ Town Clerk Town of Truckee April 20, 2000 Regular Page 7