Loading...
1996-10-03 Town of Truckee TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 3, 1996, 6:00 P.M. Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board Room 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, CA CALL TO ORDER Mayor McCormack called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council Members Carpenter, Cross, Drake, Eagan, and Mayor McCormack ALSO PRESENT: Stephen L. Wright, Town Manager; J. Dennis Crabb, Town Attorney; and Vicki Soderquist, Deputy Town Clerk PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Jim Porter. PUBLIC COMMENT Larry Prosor stated his opposition to the proposed equestrian facility at 10730 Balfour Reach adjacent to the Glenshire subdivision. He expressed the following concerns: increased traffic on a steep and winding road (Sommerset Drive), safety of children in the area, water mn-off, contamination of the well site on the property, air pollution, health concerns, noise and lighting pollution, and lack of enforcement by Nevada County. He requested that the Town represent the area at the Nevada County Planning Commission meeting on 10/16/96 at 1:00 p.m. at the TTSA boardroom. Geoff Stephens~ General Manager. Glenshire Propertv Owners Association, stated they had not taken a position regarding the equestrian facility at Balfour Reach but were concerned with the potential ramifications. Their Board would be meeting on 10/9/96 to discuss the project. Wendv Sch_ielderup stated the proposed equestrian facility was not compatible with a residential area and requested that the Town take a stand in opposition to the facility. She further expressed her concem regarding lack of enforcement by Nevada County if the facility was built and noted that there would be increased demands on the Town. She felt the Sphere of Influence should protect all Truckee residents. Mr. Lashbmok recommended that the equestrian facility be agendized as a report at the next Council meeting. 5. PRESENTATIONS - None 6. CONSENT CALENDAR (One simple motion approves all of thc following actions.) Motion by Councilmembcr Drake, Seconded by Councilmember Carpenter, passed unanimously, to approve the Consent Calendar with Items 6.6 and 6.7 pulled. 6.1 Minutes of September 19, 1996 Regular Council Meeting. Recommendation: approve. 6.2 Proclamation for Help Children with Mental Retardation Days. Recommendation: approve. Mayor McCormack read the proclamation and presented it to Julias Nicklas, Grand Knight, Council 7583, Knights of Columbus. 6.3 Proclamation for Supporting Truckee River Restoration Project. Recommendation: approve. Mayor McCormack read the proclamation and presented it to Councilmember Eagan on behalf of Sarah Trebilcock. 6.4 Resolution 96-36 Ratifying the Uniform Fire Code and California Building Standards. Recommendation: approve Resolution 96-36. 6.5 Authorization to Purchase Two (2) Vehicles. Recommendation: Authorize staff to issue a purchase order to Weaver Auto & Truck Center and Michael Hohl Motor Company. 6.6 Award Bid for Sand and De-icing Cinders. Recommendation: award bid to Sha- Neva in the amount of $56,760. Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Cross stated that Sba-Nova had filed a claim against the Town for $200,000 and questioned the appropriateness of thc award of bid. Mr. Crabb stated that State law dictated the bid process and the Town had no discretion other than to award to the lowest bidder. He recommended the awarding of the bid and dealing with the claim on its own merits. Motion by Councilmember Cross, Seconded by Councilmember Drake, passed unanimously, to award the bid to Sha-Neva in the amount of $56,760. 6.7 Abandonment of Recreational Easement on Lots 32, 45, 46, 50, 51 and 52 within the Glenshire Subdivision, Unit 2. Recommendation: approve Resolution 96-35 approving the summary vacation/abandonment. Pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Carpenter announced a conflict of interest and left the dais. Councilmember Eagan questioned if staff had taken a comprehensive look at the abandonment of easements in the entire area to make sure the Town was not cutting off options in the future. Jon Lander, Town Engineer, responded that requests for abandonment were reviewed on a case by case basis. The policy issue was the recreation plan, but due to the large amount of land set aside for open space staffdid not feel the recreational easements were effective or could be logically utilized for its purpose. Mr. Crabb stated that the offer for the public use for recreation was really made to the homeowners and not to Nevada County or Truckee. Staff was raising the issue as to whether it should be conditioned on a resolution by the Town Council Minutes October 3, 1996 Regular Page 2 Homeowners Association clarifying that they did not want to use it for the use of the homeowners. Councilmember Eagan questioned if the open spaces were for public use. Mr. Lander responded that the open spaces and recreation easements were for the sole use of the lot owners and not intended for public use except for Nevada County's construction and maintenance of drainage and slopes in the area. Geoff Stephens, General Manager, Glenshire Property Owners Association, informed Council that 1/3 of the parcels had some type of easement. Since 1968 Nevada County had been granting abandonments on recreational easements, but unless they did a title search on each property they would never know which easements had been abandoned. None of the easements had been developed and they were not opposed to abandonment of recreational easements. It was their impression that the easements were the Town's to govern. Individual homeowners held title to the easements and, therefore, held the liability. Councilmember Eagan questioned if the HOA would object to the resolution as a condition of abandonment. Mr. Stephens responded they were not opposed to abandonment and at one time questioned if all recreational easements could be abandoned carte blanc. He questioned why that information was not brought up three years ago when the item was brought to staff and what Nevada County had done, i.e. what process did they follow. Mr. Crabb stated it was a policy issue for the Council. Motion by Councilmember Eagan to approve the summary vacation and abandonment as described, conditioned upon a resolution by the Homeowners Association of accountability of abandonment. Mr. Crabb clarified that the HOA resolution would state that on behalf of the homeowners they were waiving any homeowners rights to the recreational easements. Motion Seconded by Councilmember Cross. Mr. Stephens questioned what precedent was set with the abandonment of recreational easements over the last 20 years. Councilmember Cross stated the Town was a new governmental agency. Mr. Stephens stated he was concerned that there would be a new process. Motion withdrawn by Councilmembers Eagan and Cross. Motion by Councilmember Eagan, Seconded by Councilmember Cross, passed 4-0-0-1 with Councilmember Carpenter abstaining, to defer action to the next meeting for staff to work with the Glenshire Homeowners Association. Town Council Minutes October 3, 1996 Regular Page 3 Councilmember Carpenter returned to the dais. COUNCIL IMMEDIATE (9-12 MONTH) PRIORITIES 7.1 Public Hearing to consider funding requests for COPS Program. Recommendation: conduct the public hearing, consider funding a School Resources Officer, and request Truckee Unified School District and Nevada County Sheriffto assist in funding the balance of the School Resources Officer in future fiscal years. Mr. Wright stated the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) program was a new source of funding from the State General Fund for law enforcement purposes. The Town had received recommendations from the School District and Sheriff's Department regarding the establishment of a School Resources Officer. The annual cost would be approximately $52,000 which was twice the funding level, therefore, partners were needed in the program. The initial funding would cover the cost of the Officer for the remainder of FY 1996-97. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. Josh Susman felt the COPS program was vitally important for the safety of the schools and children. The level of service accepted by the Town, i.e. response time of 15 minutes, also needed to be addressed. There being no further public testimony, the public heating was declared closed. Councilmember Drake stated the Town's share would only fund ½ of an officer and the School Resources Officer was attractive because of the offers to augment it to a full time position. He agreed there were other law enforcement needs but other funding was not available. Rob Davenport, Deputy with Nevada County Sheriff's Department, stated with the addition of a SRO the beat officer no longer had to be diverted from regular patrol to address school issues. There was also a benefit of having a uniformed SRO on campus to talk to the students, help direct traffic, deal with nmaways, give advice to school administrator, and do follow-up on other cases. They investigated all crimes and incidents fi'om bus stop to bus stop. They also presented drug prevention programs and worked with the Juvenile Probation Department. Youth violence was escalating and the school situation was unique. Councilmember Eagan questioned how special events were handled which were in addition to the regular eight hour shift. Deputy Davenport responded they were locked into a 5 day/week which corresponded to regular school hours. After school activities were considered overtime which was paid to their department. Jack Bayer, Chief of Police, stated they were existing costs whether a patrol officer or SRO was utilized. If the school requested an officer the school reimbursed them Town Council Minutes October 3, 1996 Regular Page 4 for the services. If it was an event the Department felt needed additional officers, the Department absorbed those costs. Mike Finney, Assistant Principal, Truckee High School, felt the SRO was a prime oppommity to increase the safety at all the schools and create an "officer friendly" program in the lower schools. There was an increase in confrontations between students along with increased incidents of drag usc. The presence of authority was needed as well as recognition of the officers as friends. Gang problems were also an issue. The District would consider funding in the next budget process. He hoped the Town, School, and Nevada County could become partners for the program. Georgine Goldstein, Nevada County Probation Officer, stated she had contacted the Town in February regarding signs of gangs coming to Truckee. She felt the SRO could do intervention and supply valuable information to their department. Captain Bayer stated he agreed with the comments made by the speakers. The Town needed to be pro-active regarding the youth problems. He noted there was a small amount of money available from school safety grants that could be put back into the General Fund. He felt the program would take 1-2 years to see if it was working and strongly reconunended Council support. Councilmember Carpenter stated funding would be easy to budget for the remainder the of the fiscal year, but noted that it would set an expectation of level of service. The Town would have to be the bad guy if additional funding was not available and they had to discontinue the program. The Town needed partners and he hoped the School District and Nevada County would participate. Councilmember Drake stated that the SRO would encompass the DARE program which would allow more patrol coverage. The SRO would also be doing regular patrol during the summer when school was not in session. He agreed that it was a good program, but felt a measure needed to be identified early in order to monitor the programs success. Councilmember Cross questioned what would happen when the funding ran out. There would be an expectation for that level of service and it would be difficult to discontinue. $52,000 was only a small increase in the total budget, but represented 10% of the paving budget. Code enforcement was also a big issue. He cautioned that the addition of a new service created a reduction in service somewhere else. Council had to prioritize where the money was spent. It would be difficult to measure the success of the program because they were at the front end of a developing problem. If the problem never developed the success would be difficult to quantify. Town Council Minutes October 3, 1996 Regular Page 5 Councilmember Eagan agreed with Councilmember Cross, but felt the School District and Sheriff's Department would step in and fully fund the SRO. She anticipated that it would be a lot of work to make sure that there was a partnership so other services would not suffer. Councilmember Drake noted that a mandated responsibility of the Council was also public safety. The SRO was an evolving position and it appeared to be successful in other areas. Councilmember Carpenter agreed with Councilmember Cross' comments. The Council had to wrestle with the issue of roads or kids and kids were a Town asset. He felt Council needed to have that discussion. Mayor McCormack felt the community would support their decision regarding the funding of the SRO. Motion by Couneilmember Drake, Seconded by Couneilmember Eagan, passed unanimously, to allocate the funding from the COPS program to the School Resources Officer for the present fiscal year and to work with the School District and Sheriff's Department regarding funding for future years. Councilmember Eagan encouraged the Sheriff's Department to look for someone that spoke Spanish or was willing to learn Spanish. Council recessed at 7:32 p.m. and reconvened at 7:41 p.m. STAFF REPORTS 8.1 Sphere of Influence - Adoption of Final Report. Recommendation: adopt Resolution 96-34 Approving a Sphere of Influence request to the Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission. Tony Lashbrook, Director of Community Development, reviewed the significant changes in the proposed Sphere, i.e. 1) remove the airport and pursue a MOU; 2) recognize County land use in Sphere area; 3) address the comments and concerns of special districts; 4) remove property from the Sphere that was designated for large parcel development; and 5) add information for master service element. The Sphere area had been reduced from 30 sq. miles to 13 sq. miles. The Town recognized County land use designations and the timing mechanisms for annexation were more flexible, i.e. the timing mechanisms related to annexation only. Revisions to the General Plan would be necessary if LAFCo supported the Sphere request in order to be consistent with the Sphere. Councilmember Carpenter questioned the status of the Acevedo property. Mr. Lashbrook responded that it remained in the Sphere and retained the County's land use designation. Councilmember Carpenter questioned if annexation would still require the property owners consent. Mr. Lashbrook responded that annexation could not occur if the Town Council Minutes October 3, 1996 Regular Page 6 property was not included in the Sphere, if opposed by a majority of property owners, or if not desirable to the Town. It would be difficult/impossible for the Town to annex property without development linked to the annexation request. Mayor McCormack questioned if a developer and the Town wanted to annex property and the property owner did not, what would happen. Mr. Lashbrook replied that it would depend on LAFCo and the County. Nevada County LAFCo had an adopted policy with procedures that stated "urban development should occur in cities/towns where feasible". The County's General Plan had policies that indicated that urban development should occur in community regions versus outlying areas. Councilmember Drake questioned if the report included the verbiage regarding the County zoning staying the same and no timing mechanisms unless an annexation occurred. Mr. Lashbrook stated that the Town would modify the General Plan to provide land uses in the Sphere area that were identical to, or similar, to the County's designation. The annexation phasing policies did not have a regulatory affect on when development could occur. Unless the property was annexed the phasing policies would not apply. Councilmember Cross referred to page 22 of the report regarding the Town policy of acceptance of new roads and stated it was his understanding that the policy was predicated upon finding a permanent funding solution to road maintenance. He did not feel that was reflected in the report. Councilmember Eagan felt it important for staff to go over the report and make certain that it accurately reflected where the Town was at today. Mayor McCormack felt the Town's request to LAFCo was more defensible with the revised land uses and other proposed changes. He questioned when staffwould bring forward the General Plan amendments. Mr. Lashbrook recommended that the General Plan not be modified in front of the commitment by LAFCo to adopt the Sphere. Council would have to formally initiate a General Plan amendment to start the process. Councilmember Drake referred to the letter from Abbott & Associates which stated "sufficient lands within the Town's boundaries to accommodate projected residential/commercial/industrial growth for the 20 year planning period". He questioned how the Town could go beyond its boundaries with the Sphere. Mr. Lashbrook responded that it was an accurate statement and through the General Plan process land had been set aside in the Town in low intensity designations for future consideration of development. The only reason the Sphere boundary was bigger than the Town boundary was because there were urban development designations adjacent to or near the Town which created a need for the Town to be able to consider annexation. Town Council Minutes October 3, 1996 Regular Page 7 Councilmember Drake questioned if it was Mr. Lashbrook's opinion that the Town was not protected adequately unless the Sphere was expanded. Mr. Lashbrook replied that if the Town wanted the capability of annexation of urban development on the Town's boundaries, it needed to be in the Sphere. Mayor McCormack questioned if a development was in the Sphere if the County would defer to the Town. Mr. Lashbrook stated the County General Plan stated that the land nsc within a Sphere would be the same as, or less intensive, than the County. The Council had directed staffto change the land uses to eliminate that conflict and reflect the County's land use. Councilmember Cross stated Council had looked at de-intensifying land use density around the perimeters of the Town. If the County's land use was more intense, he questioned if the Town was running the risk of changing the intensity within the Town along the perimeter. Mr. Lashbrook stated there was a risk that the issue could arise while processing the General Plan amendment. The amendment could be controversial. Councilmember Carpenter questioned what would happen if the Town did not amend the General Plan to the County land use. Mr. Lashbrook assumed that if the Sphere was not approved the Town would have to revisit the issue with LAFCo. The initiation of the General Plan amendment would show LAFCo the Town's intent to follow through with the intent of the report. Councilmember Cross stated Council provided direction that the Sphere would not be used to protect the Town's perimeters. He questioned if the timing issue was also a protection issue. Mr. Lashbrook stated that it was, but it was not enfomeable unless the Town annexed the property. Councilmember Cross referred to the timing issues on page 32 and felt it was strong language regarding control and that there was room in the language for a misunderstanding. Mayor McCormack stated that correspondence regarding the Sphere had been received from Porter Simon, SEA, and Sylvester Engineering. Josh Susman questioned if LAFCo could require that a property be annexed. Mr. Lashbrook stated that could only be done if LAFCo had control over some other annexation or new district formation. Mr. Susman stated the purpose of the Sphere was to control development on the Town's perimeter and he supported the Sphere. Margaret Urke, Executive Director of CABPRO, asked the following questions: 1) was there regulatory control when in the Sphere but not annexed; 2) could the Sphere designations be delayed until the Town General Plan designations were made to match the County's General Plan designations: 3) was the Town's phasing for the purpose of delaying development of parcels; 4) how would the Town handle the Town Council Minutes October 3, 1996 Regular Page 8 difference in the County's General Plan designations when they did not match; 5) what would be gained from annexation and what other needs would then be created; 6) if a property owner did not want annexation why include them in the Sphere; 7) what was the definition of premature development; 8) if property was included in the Sphere did that mean that LAFCo felt it should be annexed; and 9) what were the arguments a property owner could use to justify not being annexed. Mr. Lashbrook stated there could be outside factors which would make annexation feasible and the purpose of the Sphere was to say that if it was appropriate to annex, it would give the Town the ability to annex. Staff was looking at the interests for the developing property owner, what their needs were, and what demands were placed on the community. He stated that there were policies in the County General Plan regarding phasing and timing of development but there was no criteria as to when that would be appropriate. Kevin McCall, SEA Incorporated Consulting Engineers, representing the property owners for Waddle Ranch, stated he was concerned with the additional timing mechanisms above and beyond the County's. The Waddle property was not contiguous to Town property, there was no realistic expectation the Town would annex the property, the urban designation was incorrect, and the Town's plan for annexation was planning for the impossible. The property owners would not support annexation at the present time and he requested that Council exclude Section 16 from the Sphere. He felt Council should invest their time on schools, roads, libraries, the downtown plan, etc. Mayor McCormack stated the letter submitted to Council left open the option of annexation. James Porter, Law Offices of Porter Simon, representing the Acevedo property, stated the property had been down zoned by Nevada County without notice from Commercial to Rural-5. They did not want to be included in the Sphere, but if they were to be included he requested that timing mechanisms not be imposed. He also represented the Waddle Ranch property owners and stated annexation would never happen for that property, therefore, there would be no reason to plan for it. He had been told by Dale Creighton that in Nevada City and Grass Valley the County deferred to the towns and gave them primary control over the development if the developer and Town wanted annexation and the property owner did not. Therefore, it was a powerful weapon against the property owner. It was his understanding that there were no timing mechanisms and, if there were, they were not enforceable but the staffreport referred to timing mechanisms and phasing policies. Mr. Lashbrook replied that staff was directed to include timing policies in the General Plan for internal consistency. He recommended that staffmodify the language on page 32 to show that the only way the policies would work would be to regulate the timing of annexation, they would not have the affect of imposing policies on the County if annexation was not being contemplated. Town Council Minutes October 3, 1996 Regular Page 9 Edgar Stratton, owner of Dependable Tow, questioned why property owners did not want to be included the Sphere. Mr. Lashbrook stated the General Plan would not be adequate if there was a Sphere that included property outside of Town and there were no policies regarding the timing of annexation. Those policies did not regulate the timing of development that occurred in the County. Councilmember Cross stated the language was not clear. Mr. Lashbrook recommended that the language be clarified. Councilmember Cross questioned if there was a timing policy for annexation and development occurred, if the Town would be precluded from the opportunity to annex by the timing policy. Mr. Lashbrook responded that it would depend on how rigid the policy was and what flexibility was provided in the process. Development would not be regulated by those policies. Councilmember Cross questioned if language could be put into the policies which would reserve the right to consider annexation if development occurred sooner and still provide for internal consistency with the General Plan. Mr. Lashbrook felt the policies would deal more with the type of development and need for development rather than a rigid policy which stated "no development for 10 years". Councilmember Drake stated that timing mechanisms would affect their ability to develop their land. He questioned why they needed the timing mechanism. Mr. Lashbrook replied that the policy would provide discretion and not be tied into a specific number of years. The timing mechanisms would be reviewed through a formal public hearing process. The timing mechanisms did not have a regulatory affect on the property owners development interests. Councilmember Carpenter stated that timing policies were already on all land within the Town. If property was annexed they should also have timing policies. By being included in the Sphere the property owner had the option of annexation and, if not included, annexation could not be considered. Mr. Lashbrook felt the wording "timing policies" should be changed to "criteria for annexation". The Town was not trying to control the development outside of Town. Mr. Crabb stated annexation was a property owner consent issue, i.e. if they did not agree to annexation it did not happen. If there were unacceptable costs to the Town the Town would not want to annex even if the property owner wanted annexation. Motion by Councilmember Carpenter to adopt Resolution 96-34 with a clarification of the road acceptance policy and on the timing, i.e. redefining as "criteria for annexation". Amendment to Motion by Councilmember Eagan that the acceptance of new roads would be expanded to include that all the levels of discussion regarding the Master Services Element would reflect the current situation. Amendment agreed to by the Maker of the Motion. Town Council Minutes October 3, 1996 Regular Page 10 8.2 Motion and Amendment Seconded by Councilmember Cross, passed unanimously. Recommended Work Program Regarding Property at the Southwest Corner of Highway 267 and 1-80. Recommendation: authorize staffto prepare a scope of work and select consultant regarding the Barsell property. Mr. Lashbrook stated there was no obligation to pursue the work program. The property owner tentatively agreed to reimburse the direct cost of hiring specialized design and marketing expertise. The Town would set the scope of work, review the work, and have control of the product. The Town was under no requirement to perform such an in-depth study. Councilmember Carpenter questioned if the Town would have to accept the recommendation of the consultant. Mr. Lashbrook felt if the report was done properly there would be a clear vision, but Council would not have to automatically accept the recommendation. If the report was completed it could be easier for the developer if the project had community support. Mayor McCormack questioned if design also included the type of services that would be associated with the property. Mr. Lashbrook responded that they wanted to address two issues: 1) the proper configuration and appearance for the building on the site to maximize the benefit to Downtown; and 2) what were the reasonable uses within the buildings to get what the Town wanted on the site. Mayor McCormack questioned what would happen if Council did not approve the report. Mr. Lashbrook replied that the owner could go back to the Planning Commission to move their project forward on their own. Larry Hoffman, representing the Barsell property, felt there was expertise available that had dealt with gateway projects and they were prepared to move along quickly. Their letter was to make sure that there was no question regarding the scope of work, timing issues, and that their offer was not a blank check. Mr. Lashbrook stated there was a concern that the Town was committing to a "holding" pattern, for the property. Staffindicated that they were not committing to a "holding" pattern but were also not going to select the most immediately financially viable development either. Councilmember Cross felt the analysis should include a broadened scope which would look at the mid-term and long-term benefit. Mr. Hoffman concurred with Councilmember Cross' comments. Stephanie Olivieri, Mountain Area Preservation Foundation (MAPF), stated a great deal of public input had been received regarding the downtown plan and she did not feel a continuance was necessary. The economic viability should follow and not lead the project. The criteria for the Barsell property should include a gateway, Town Council Minutes October 3, 1996 Regular Page 11 sensitivity to adjacent cemetery, economic impacts, rerouting 267 and the 267 by- pass, the negative impacts ora by-pass on the Downtown area, and how the project would impact the Downtown area. She recommended that if the study was performed that they seek the advice of Tony Nelessen and that the Downtown Committee recommendation also be studied. Josh Snsman stated the issue should be "what about Truckee". MAPF was not against property rights but what was right for property. They supported the recommendations from the Downtown Advisory Committee and felt any additional studies should be focused on the Committee's findings. Mr. Lashbrook agreed with the exception of the recommendation of consulting with Mr. Nelessen and the economic impacts on other businesses Downtown. The competition issue was not perceived in the scope of work, but they would want to know the economic viability on the Downtown area. Councilmember Eagan felt the initial Council direction was due to new information presented and not due to any threat of litigation. They fully understood that if they took action it would not be a "taking". She felt Council was trying to protect the process. Economic viability should follow the vision, but they needed to know what was viable within that vision. She supported the study if the scope of work was done in a tight time frame in order to protect the Downtown process. If it could not be done within a tight time frame it should go back to the Planning Commission with the additional information. Councilmember Carpenter felt the additional study would tie into the process. He did not know what "visitor/lodging and associated retail" was and felt the study would help to define that use. All comments should be included for review in the final product. Mr. Wright informed Council that staffwas looking for authorization to draft a scope of work and select a consultant. Staffwould not be returning to Council unless an agreement regarding scope could not be reached. Councilmember Carpenter wanted to see the scope of work and if there was a problem Council could call for a special meting. Motion by Councilmember Drake, Seconded by Councilmember Eagan, passed unanimously, to approve the staff recommendation. MATTERS OF INTEREST TO COUNCIL MEMBERS 9.1 Redevelopment Discussion. Recommendation: set redevelopment workshop date. Mr. Wright stated the Downtown Committee was beginning to talk about financing and one of the potential funding opporUmities would be redevelopment. The process of creating a Redevelopment Agency would take time and staff suggested that Council begin talking about the concept of redevelopment, whether or not it would Town Council Minutes October 3, 1996 Regular Page 12 9.2 9.3 work in Truckee, and the pros and cons. A workshop could include the Council, Planning Commission, Downtown Committee, Board of Realtors, and public. The Executive Director of the California Redevelopment Association would give an overview of the redevelopment process and issue points. It was the consensus of the Council to hold a Redevelopment Workshop on Wednesday, 10/30/96 at 2:00 p.m. with an alternate date of Tuesday, 10/29/96 at 2:00 p.m. Councilmember Eagan questioned whether the workshop should be videotaped. Mr. Wright felt it would be a good idea. Public Works Snow and Maintenance Staffing Levels. Recommendation: approve temporary employee salary matrix and adopt staffing level portion of the Public Works's budget as outlined in the report. Tom Covey, Director of Public Works, stated the budget levels for Public Works' staffing had not been established. He then gave a brief overview of the tracking system that would be utilized to measure the performance of the temporary employees. Staff felt they could provide a higher level of service at a lower cost by utilizing temporaries and developing a salary matrix which would entice them to return each year. Mayor McCormack noted that an independent variable would be how much snow was removed and when the snowpack melted. He did not feel the dollar amount would tell too much. Mr. Covey stated it was also the condition of the snow that fell. Councilmember Eagan felt the data was good, but was not sum that it would help to track the program. The objective was to attract experienced drivers, less time lost for training, and returning operators would know the routes. She felt those that returned would be the measure of the program. Mr. Wright felt another measurement would be how much more the Town was getting from a $13/hour person that retumed versus the $11/hour person, i.e was the Town getting 20% more road plowed per day by the experienced driver. Councilmember Carpenter stated the Town would also save money as the proposed program was more cost effective and dealt with the training issue. It was worth taking the time to go through the process as it developed a better product. Councilmember Cross stated under the new proposal the Town would also receive a higher rate of reimbursement. Motion by Councilmember Carpenter, Seconded by Councilmember Drake, passed unanimously, to approve the staff recommendation. League of California Cities Resolutions. Recommendation: Council provide direction to voting delegate. Town Council Minutes October 3, 1996 Regular Page 13 10. 11. 11. Motion by Councilmember Cross, Seconded by Councilmember Carpenter, to approve the recommended direction to the voting delegate. Mayor McCormack stated the League was a very important organization and Council did not want to impact their effectiveness. He was not sure if changing the appointment of the chair and vice-chair would make a difference. Councilmember Carpenter stated the committee usually decided who the chair and vice-chair would be and then it was forwarded to the president for ratification. Therefore, he recommended that Resolution 2, Committee Chair Appointments, be approved. He did not have a recommendation on Resolution 3, Composition of Board of Directors. Mr. Wright stated the philosophy behind Resolution 3. Mayor McCormack stated he would prefer to not take a position on Item 3 and noted several other resolutions did not have an impact on Truckee. He would also disapprove Resolution 14, Voter Approval - Revenue Measures. Councilmember Drake stated that he recommended taking a "no" position on Resolution 14 as the matter would be decided by the vote on "Jarvis III". Councilmember Carpenter noted that all the resolutions could be amended prior to the vote and Councilmember Drake would need some latitude. Amendment to Motion by the Maker and Second, passed unanimously, to take no position on Resolution 3, Composition of Board of Directors. 9.4 Use of Town Logo. Recommendation: Council provide direction to staff. It was the consensus of the Council to defer Item 9.4 to the meeting of October 17, 1996. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS - none. CLOSED SESSION regarding litigation against Nevada County pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9. Closed Session was not held. ADJOURNMENT - Mayor McCormack adjourned the meeting at 10:21 p.m. by: Respectfully submitted, STEPHEN L. WRIGHT, Town Manager x'~ &~'~'~C~M~.L~ Soderquist, Vicki C. ,~[~eputy Town Clerk Town Council Minutes October 3, 1996 Regular Page 14