Topics included:
- Recovery and infrastructure: North Pine Street Fire rebuild to begin with footing/foundation work next week; subsoil challenges noted; internal mezzanine addition (~3,300 sq ft) to increase upper-floor space deemed positive for financial recovery.
- Department updates: No new updates from Police or Fire; Steve had no report but expects one next meeting and praised a wall-painting project and parade turnout; reconstruction report planned for next meeting.
- Public input and correspondence: Public comment on non-agenda items opened with no speakers; correspondence discussed on AT&T charges, Planning Commission letter, and a late fax about 407 Old Downieville Rd to be addressed later.
- 407 Old Downieville Rd septic issue: Discussion on septic-use approval with potential closed session due to procedural complexity; extensive background on permits and variances; misdated letter noted.
- Tolling and statutes debate: Consideration of which statute of limitations applies; concerns about policy and Deer Creek pollution; warnings about rushing to extend rights and multiple possible limits; lack of clarity in tolling agreement.
- Community input: Concerns raised about legal timing and policy; Friends of Deer Creek highlighted uncertainties and lack of legal expertise.
- Lot 15 appeal and process: Appeal of Planning Commission denial for ~2,200 sq ft home continued; Nielsen proposed detach-inside garage plan; decision delayed to allow additional testimony; discussion on proper process (ARC vs architectural review) and next meeting on the 27th.
- Planning/land-use outcome: Council amended application to detach the garage, dropped the appeal, and returned to Planning Commission with no additional fees.
- Grand jury responses: Four residents’ initial responses deemed unsatisfactory; revised responses filed with four signatures; plan to refile with a six-month status-report clause; council’s response already filed.
- Fire tax/ballot: Amendment to delay tax collection to January 1, 2003 and limit ballot text to fee amounts; direct/indirect costs debated; one abstention; measure passed.
- Chamber/governance: Broad support for Chamber of Commerce; proposed a liaison to Chamber board meetings; emphasis on collaboration with Chamber and Theatre Commission.
- Traffic/street issues: Railroad Avenue one-way feasibility discussed; Maureen Mitchell’s 60-day timeline; review committee proposed; street-naming items for Melo Pello and a private driveway tabled for further study.
- Grants/leases and parks: Upfront approach to mandated-cost recovery funding approved; lease amended to reassign Science Free Corporation Yard Lease to D&D Supply; planning for Deer Creek Coordinated Resource Management Plan and related grants (including a $580,000 Pioneer Park grant); bulb-garden project at Penzance Park; sign honoring the Callaway family discussed.

Full Transcript of the Video:

>> The name is the approval of the minutes.

I have a correction.

It says Mayor Arnette.

>> Where?
>> The meeting was called to order by Mayor Arnette.

>> Maybe you were saying me.

>> I have done it.

>> Mayor McKay on the next line, what do you want?
>> Comments on the?
>> I would move to approve as corrected.

>> Second.

>> All those in favor?
>> Aye.

>> Aye.

>> All right.

Department report, City Engineer, update rebuilding progress on the North Pine Street Fire.

>> Mayor, the project is due to begin officially next week with the Footings and Foundation work.

The Footings have given quite a challenge as a result of the subsoil that we encountered.

Conley may have some more.

Other than that, I think we're kind of progressing well in my eyes.

There's no reason why we won't be moving right along that.

>> The only thing I have to add is the designers, the architect and the owners, through some very careful study, have been able to generate a new mezzanine space inside the building so they will generate an additional 3,000 square feet of usable round-the-wall space upon the upper floor.

That will help everybody recover from financial problems.

So it's without changing the exterior of the building with one inch.

>> A little height, either.

>> A little height, yeah, just creating a mezzanine space inside.

So that's a very good development.

>> You gained 3,300?
>> 3,300 square foot gain, yeah.

>> Anything else?
Okay.

Police Department, that's report.

We have anything from Lou?
Anything in our packet?
>> Yeah, I didn't have anything in my packet.

>> Okay.

Nothing.

All right.

Fire Department, any report from Fire Department?
Greg?
>> Nothing.

>> Any questions?
>> Okay.

Any questions from Greg?
Anyone here?
Okay, see none.

We'll move on.

All right.

Committee reports, kind of the same stuff.

Steve, do you have anything to report?
>> Not this time.

I anticipate the next meeting I probably will.

>> How did that go with the painting of the little wall?
>> Yeah, well, I think we got a lot of good publicity on that.

That was a great thing, the hands-on.

I went down on Friday after the children's parade and that was a good turnout.

So it looks real nice.

And as it has been indicated tonight, we're getting to that pivotal moment where things start going in the other direction and it starts to go back up again.

That will be a big day.

So I would anticipate the next meeting I'll have a report on a couple of items relative to the reconstruction.

>> Okay.

Anything more further from you, Connelly?
No, no?
Okay.

And now, so hearing from the public, comment on items not on the agenda are welcome at this time.

Power, action or discussion by the Council may not occur at this time.

Comments to three minutes.

Anyone wishing to speak on anything not on the agenda at this time?
Okay.

Seeing none, close public comment.

Correspondence, Kathy?
>> Mr.
Mayor and Council, we had one item of correspondence that was in at the time the packet was prepared and that is from AT&T broadband, which is our cable TV service and it's kind of more of the same of what we've been getting, miscellaneous changes to their service charges, returning a box and getting a, you know, what the different equipment you get and some changes, slight increases to those.

And then we had just an item of, I'm not sure if it's an item of correspondence or what that came in from the chairman of the planning commission today, which is a proposed letter that would go out to some property owners.

So I've placed that on the table in front of you.

And a letter from also that came in late this afternoon, faxed in from Abigail Gibbons, dealing with 407 Old Downeyville and that's on your agenda later.

>> All right.

Old business.

First item, review of 407 Old Downeyville Highway, approval with allowance for use of septic system.

This item was requested by Councilman Weaver.

Jim, you want us to give us a -- >> Well, as you recall, we met in closed session last time.

We continued at this time for another closed session so that you could talk to Bill as he was absent last time.

And as far as the total in agreement itself, whether you want to meet in closed session first and then talk about it or talk about it now, basically there's a statute of limitations issue here.

It's a complex situation procedurally, so it's hard to know what the statute of limitations would actually be.

But there's a chance there's only a 90-day statute of limitations.

So the Simborgs, who are attorney, are saying negotiations might take longer than that.

We don't want to lose our rights while we're talking to you about trying to avoid a lawsuit.

So they've asked us to agree to basically extend the statute of limitations for a period of six months while we negotiate.

And if we don't, I would expect they'd probably file a lawsuit within the next week or so just to protect their rights.

>> At this point, you don't have an opinion, relative to the ability, the comments by Ms.

Gibbons?
>> Oh, by Ms.

Gibbons.

My research on this, and Bill can speak up whenever he feels like it, but basically this is a situation where back around 1989 the county gave two septic permits to this property out on Old Downieville Highway.

The permits, as best I could tell, back in the early '90s still appeared to be good.

And at that point I had written a letter, I think sometime in 1993, indicating that it was okay.

They had permits, I believe they'd already actually constructed the septic system at the time I wrote the letter.

And so I simply indicated, yes, you've got permits and you can use them.

Then a series of events took place basically where they applied for a conditional use permit, excuse me, a variance to construct the homes because of the steep slopes.

There we went through a long process of negotiating with the sim boards on the basis that if they were going to go ahead and build out there when we extended the sewer, we expected them to hook up, do some negotiations back and forth, and at one point they finally said, okay, once you extend the sewer line out to where we are, we'll hook up, pay the hookup charges and we'll pay our sharer to extend the line out there when it happens.

So on that basis the city signed a contract with them.

They placed a fairly sizeable sum of money in trust with the city to pay for their share of the costs.

And then at that point the city granted the variances a bill that can speak better than I can, but basically the city did go ahead and approved two buildings being there, one about 1,500 square feet, one about 3,300 square feet.

The smaller one was built and the larger one is the one they're talking about building at this time.

They came in and got an extension of time because their conditional use permit was running out and their variance application was running out.

So they came in, they got an extension of time, a two year extension.

The letter that's written is one of those written at the early part of the year and it's misdated.

It says one date and it's actually another date.

And so based on the two year extension that was given, actually their time would be actually May 27, 2003.

Because of the misdate of the letter, it says we thought it was May 27, 2002.

So that's the issue.

Now some argument could be made that our ordinance only allows one year extension at a time.

It's not crystal clear what a judge would do with the language as it is.

It's possible that it's only one year extension is maximum but you could read it a couple of different ways.

And the problem is of course the permit was granted, the extension was granted, no one appealed.

So I'm not sure even if we could convince a judge that only a one year extension could be granted where there was a two year appeal, I'm not sure where we would be legally.

So at this point that seems to be the situation and Bill can comment on the plans himself.

He actually looked at the plans.

If we're going to go into executive session, I don't have anything to say.

He kind of gave us overview.

Are we going to go into executive session?
There's a couple of facts here that we need to clear up.

I don't know if we want to.

I think we need to go into executive session because we need to talk about the fact that their attorney has made pretty clear that they intend to file a lawsuit if they're prevented from going ahead with their construction.

And so we need to be able to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of our case and I need to be fairly frank which I don't want to do in open session since obviously the other attorneys can easily just get the minutes to listen to the tape and hear exactly what I've got to advise the council.

Are you suggesting we do that now and come back or do we do it under the closed session?
I'm fine with doing the closed session and coming back and taking care of it after that rather than break down and break up the meeting.

At what point would we have any public comment or notice to the public or anything?
I mean if there's people that want to speak to this.

If they want to speak to the tolling agreement or if other issues involve, that's fine if they want to speak now.

If issues were raised in the public, that's fine if they want to speak to the public.

I think it's fine if she wants to say anything additional or anybody else does.

I think we need to go into closed session and probably best to go in at the end of the evening and break up the meeting.

So can we take that comment now from those people?
If there are people who are interested in this topic, although I don't think this meeting is going to take a long time, would you anticipate some kind of an announcement?
Probably the only announcement would be is that we've agreed to enter the tolling agreement, otherwise I don't expect an announcement, but there's a possibility depending what the council comes up with.

Okay, at this point.

Just I had a question.

We have item on the agenda to discuss the proposed tolling agreement and the matter of old business not in closed session.

Is there any reason why we can't discuss that?
That's fine.

I think it's pretty clear what I said was basically they will probably file a suit very soon if we don't agree to it just because they're worried about their statute of limitations.

This is a very short one.

They'll lose their rights.

I have a couple questions.

Number one, when you talk about statute of limitations, what is the statute supposedly applying to?
What's the trigger?
What phase of this does the so-called statute apply to?
Well, that's why I said it's confusing because depending on how you look at this, you're going to get various statute of limitations.

What they don't want to be in a position is that obviously if I went to court on behalf of the city, I would be trying to categorize this in a certain way to give us the shorter statute of limitations possible in order to throw out the case.

They don't want to have to run that gauntlet because you could look at this various ways.

You could say that nothing's even happened yet.

There is no statute of limitations running.

But you could also say, well, yes, there was.

The 27th came and we took a position that they -- we had written a letter before we had done more work and said, looks like you -- 27th brought dead date.

It's possible to look at it and say, well, the staff in the city took a position on the 27th and the 90 days runs from there.

I doubt it.

My guess is they've got much longer statute of limitations than 90 days, but they don't want to take that chance of losing out of technicality.

This thing is so involved with so many different aspects.

It seems to me there could be all kinds of different statutes and limitations applying to different approvals or not approvals or authorization or anything else.

So I don't see how we can be talking about agreeing to any kind of a relief from any statute of limitations.

We don't even know what we're talking about.

Well, we're not -- Plus, there may be other ones come up as things proceed that may be other things identified that have statutes applying to them.

So I don't see how we -- Yeah, what this agreement is basically saying is whatever the statute of limitations turns out to be, let's say it's 90 days, that in effect it would be 90 days plus the extension we're agreeing to.

If it turns out to be a year, then it'll be a year plus.

So it's not -- we're not waiving any statute of limitations.

We're agreeing that we'll give an extension.

And we don't have to, obviously.

We just say no, and then they'll probably file suit early, and then we'll deal with it from there.

And what body sets any statute of limitations?
That's written up in the law.

The problem is this is not your usual case, and you can argue many different statute of limitations, and the court would ultimately have to decide, yes, this is the statute of limitations, or as you pointed out, there might be one statute of limitations for part of the case and another one for another part.

So, yeah, at this point, you can argue anything from nine months or 90 days on up to a couple of years, which when it would turn out to be, who knows, until you litigate it and get a decision.

They don't want to take that chance, and it turns out to be 90 days, and they lost because they waited too long.

The law sets all these statutes, and just any party to any litigation can waive any of those as they so choose.

Right.

You can waive them if you want to.

Otherwise, if you don't waive them, the judge just calls it the way he sees it, and that's the result that clears some things in my mind.

All right.

We'll open up public comment at this time on this item.

Lee Pemberton, 16414, Queenville Place.

I can appreciate Mr.
Anderson's dilemma with trying to explain it, but the one simple fact is that the city made a determination in 1991 not to allow any further septic systems within the city limits.

This is now 2002.

You're talking about a set of plans that were filed to the previous landowner in 1989.

You're talking about a letter from the city attorney to landowners in 1993 that was even after the city had made the determination not to allow additional septic systems.

You're still talking about a system that's on the side of a hill running into Deer Creek.

You know, those are basic facts, and I just hope that you bear those in mind when you deliberate this, but some many years ago you made the decision not to allow any more septic systems to be allowed within the city limits, and it seems like whatever statute of limitations that could be construed as being relevant to this particular case is not going to last this many years, and all a tolling agreement does is suspend something.

You know, you made the decision or your predecessor made a decision, and I think from a health and safety standpoint it's a good decision, particularly in the Deer Creek drainage, that this septic system not be allowed.

They have the alternative of hooking up to a sewage extension at some time, or financing one of their own.

So I would wholeheartedly recommend that you deny this application.

Thank you.

Jaylon Cooper, 524 East Broad Street.

Good evening.

I think the first thing that the city attorney said this evening about this agenda item was that it involved some complex issues, and I think it's never prudent to, when you have complex issues, to feel like you're rushed into making a decision on something.

It kind of seems like that's what's going on tonight under the gun of this imminent threat of litigation, and I have a couple of questions I'd like to pose to the city attorney.

One, what is the basis for your conclusion that litigation is imminent?
I've sent a letter from Mr.
Bill Heimer saying they're going to sue us.

What's the date of that letter?
It was about two weeks ago.

Okay.

They're going to sue you unless what occurs?
Unless we allow them to build the house as a pollutant.

Well, you know, this case, from my research and that of others, has kind of a checkered past, and I hate to see the city buckle under to that kind of bullying by someone who really, from what I can see in the history of this, hasn't really followed the procedure properly, certainly not to the letter of the law.

And for us to just give into that sets a very, very, I think, undesirable precedent for the city to actually invite further violation of law, if not more litigation.

My understanding is the law of '91 through Resolution 91-25 basically made it clear that we're not accepting any new houses unless they're hooked into our sewer system.

We're not accepting septic systems.

And as Mr.
Pemberton said, it's 11 years later, and we're finding a way to allow, it seems to me, a contravention of that resolution, which is pretty well established.

I'm not sure what basis that has legally unless you're trying to grandfather in some previous agreement, which is nebulous to me right now.

I don't know what it is, but that law is very clear.

It's been on the books for 11 years, and if you want to follow the letter of the law, you want to honor due process, you want to care about respect for the law in this community to give into this kind of bullying, which is clearly against what the policy is in this town now.

We don't do this.

We do not allow septics to hook up, not to mention its proximity to Deer Creek.

And in 1999, Friends of Deer Creek through John Vander Veen made it very clear they were extremely concerned about the proximity to Deer Creek and what pollution problems that could present.

So, you know, there are a lot of factors here.

You know it's a complex issue.

I think it requires a little more attention as to not only the past history, but what the current law is.

And so, you know, I'm not clear.

In 1999, May of 1999, there was a basically planning commission approval of building two units with temporary use of a septic system.

What does that mean?
How long is temporary?
How long is that going to be allowed?
We're not clear on this.

I think there's a lot of uncertainties, and that takes me to the actual tolling agreement itself.

And I think it's not my specialty of law, admittedly.

And let's take a look at the tolling agreement.

I think as Mr.
Weaver pointed out, if you're going to submit a tolling agreement regarding a statute of limitations, don't you think it would be advisable to identify specifically the specific statute that you're referring to?
What statute of limitations are we talking about?
Because if we don't do that, we don't know whether it's 90 days, as you've indicated, possibly, or two years.

And I don't know what the authority is for a 90-day statute of limitations.

Maybe you can clarify that, Mr.
Anderson, because I'm not aware of a 90-day statute of limitations.

There are on various.

.

.

No, this is a particular situation.

Where would there be a 90-day statute?
It's a land use application.

A lot of times there's 90-day limitations.

As I've indicated, I doubt it's 90 days.

I think it's longer.

But it could be.

.

.

I could certainly make a decent argument to a judge's 90 days.

What would be the authority for a 90-day statute of limitations?
Basically, on a lot of land use applications, you've got 90 days to challenge.

Is there a particular statute that sets out 90 days as a statute of limitations?
Yes, there is.

Do you know what that is?
No, I don't.

Well, I think we ought to know what that is.

And I think we ought to know which statute of limitations is applicable to this situation.

Because the city is really putting itself in a position of kind of giving away the store in a situation where there's already been questionable, I think, following of proper procedure.

And to just, you know, continue that under the gun of possible litigation, I just find that not satisfactory.

I think our city representatives need to find out what the law is, find out what the history of this case is, and act appropriately.

As far as whether we have a one-year extension from 527, 2001 or a two-year extension.

We don't, we don't seem to know that.

And I don't know why we don't know that.

It says two years.

And why is it two as opposed to one?
I think you've indicated it could be one.

The statute could be read as saying only one at a time, but the extension is clearly two years.

It's just, the letter's misdated, so it looks like it ends May 27, 2002, and it's really May 27, 2003.

And the letter is misdated.

Is there a received stamp on the letter from City Hall?
It's a letter we sent out.

Okay.

The date, it's one of those sent the first of the year, so it says 2000, and it's really 2001.

And that was a letter written by Ruth Poulter.

When you look at the body, the letter's real clear.

There's a mistake.

Okay.

Well, to me it seems as though, and I may be wrong, there are enough questions, in fact and of law, in this particular agenda item, that if you all feel comfortable with under the gun of possible litigation rushing into this, that's up to you, obviously.

But I don't think it's well advised.

And I don't think that the tolling agreement provides a clear, I mean, you're, you're signing on to this thing.

I don't think it provides a clear reference to a statute of limitations.

As Mr.
Weaver said, what time period, when does that begin?
What are we talking about?
We know they want to exclude a six month period where they can negotiate.

And clearly the issues that they're negotiating aren't clarified in this agreement.

I think maybe they ought to be, because there's some questionable procedure in the history of this case, or this application.

So with all of those questions that are, I don't think anybody's disputing that they exist.

Why the, why rush into this?
Just because the city might, might, might get sued.

I think if, if the other party had, if there was a history in this case of following the law, took the letter of the law, and the city felt that had been the case, that'd be one thing.

But it's, it's your job, the city attorney, Mr.
Anderson, to assess the, the weaknesses or strengths of a case in terms of litigation.

There's certainly enough questions here that I would wonder why you would advise the city to rush into, to, to an agreement that even on its face doesn't have the details it should.

I thank you for your consideration.

Any further comment on this item from the public?
It's not a close public comment.

Discussion at the table?
I thought we weren't going to discuss until we'd had this executive session.

Exactly.

That's what I was going to say.

I understood that.

Thank you.

We were taking the comment only.

Okay.

That's fine.

All right.

Move on to item number two, lot number 15, Chief Kelly Drive, appeal of planning commission decision, denying construction of approximately 2,200 square foot single family home with approximately 600 square feet attached garage, approximately 600 square feet attached carriage house, approximately 800 square feet of the porch.

Note that this item was continued to allow the city attorney to prepare findings.

There will be no public input on this issue.

David, if I could before I, I did discuss this briefly with the city attorney before the meeting.

I have met with some of the property owners and the relevant property owner who arrived from out of town just after the meeting started.

I would respectfully request three minutes to confer with Mr.
Nielsen before I make my report.

So you want to take a recess?
Three minutes is all I need.

Okay.

He came from out of town so he wasn't here before 7.

Is that agreeable to the rest of the council?
Absolutely.

Okay.

It's over.

I did it.

If you'll recall at the last meeting, although it was not part of the motion that I was to meet with the property owners, the indication was that I would try to organize a meeting with as many as I could.

And I think Jim's closing words at the last meeting were that you could hear whatever I've got to say and move on from there however you wish.

I met with eight property owners representing 11 of the 20 lots all at one time.

And it was a great meeting and in fact some of them met each other for the first time.

So it was time well spent.

We spent about an hour and a half, although the item on the agenda is specifically Mr.
Nielsen's house.

Mr.
Nielsen has a compromise that he is agreeable to that he would hope that with support of the council that he could return to the Planning Commission with his compromise and that the motion that's pending on findings would not be necessary tonight.

Mr.
Nielsen's compromise offer is to detach the two-car garage, the carriage house as it's described in the application, to detach that two-car carriage house without a connecting breezeway back to the main house and by doing so create the home with a two-car detached garage, a look that apparently the majority of the council supported.

The Commission may recall was two to two so there was no opinion of the Commission because it was two to two.

But there was certainly it seemed that this in this body a need for a detached garage.

So Mr.
Nielsen has offered that as a compromise and would like to return to the Planning Commission so that they could address the architectural review aspect of the detached two-car garage.

While still maintaining the other garage.

That is correct.

This is a what we would call a two-way compromise.

Mr.
Nielsen who prefers to have all four garage stalls attached has agreed to detach two and this majority of the City Council wishing not to have any attached would be agreeing to two.

And it would seem like a fair compromise and the certainly visually the look of that property would be one of a private residence with a detached garage.

And if the council would agree to that then I would hope there'd be no need to proceed with findings of denial.

Excuse me Jim couldn't the couldn't the appellant just withdraw his appeal?
He could certainly withdraw his appeal and just go back and file a new application.

If he was turned down he would then appeal back to here or I suppose it sounds like maybe they're asking for a decision that two garage is attached and two unattached would be acceptable to the council and the council's saying it back to the Planning Commission on that basis.

I'm not sure.

That is exactly the basis yes.

So they're asking for a decision the only I would say about that is the council's inclined to go that way.

I think the public was led to believe that that the decision was going to occur tonight with no further testimony so people may not have come here prepared to testify or maybe not come at all.

So if you're inclined to do the second one I think we ought to continue this for two weeks and with a notice of the people who were who wanted to be here and thought there was no comment could come back and give their comment to this proposal.

I think we have to put this back in a little perspective.

Mr.
Nielsen has appealed to the City Council the decision of the Planning Commission to deny his project and the Planning Commission denied his project for various reasons one of the major ones being the detached or non detached garage problem.

I think the only proper thing for this body to do is if Mr.
Nielsen wants to change his proposal then it would be proper for him to just withdraw his appeal to this body and go back to the Planning Commission in that way.

The second alternative to me would be the only thing this body could do would be to deny his appeal and at that point then he can go back to the Planning Commission with whatever revisions compromise whatever you want to call it.

I think it's pretty clear.

I feel that if we were to approve the compromise we would be in effect somewhat tying the Planning Commission's hands and I don't know that that's the proper way to start out something that's coming back again for a look-see.

Yeah to have us pre agree on something that we're going to he's we're gonna give a decision and yet it's still gonna go back to the Planning Commission so whatever the Planning Commission decides it's kind of moot because we've pre preempted that and it doesn't seem I mean I think it's good that there has been this effort to to work it out but there's already procedures as Connelly has suggested that would lead to that same thing through proper channels and I agree that as Jim said that we've got to be careful here because we just we were going to just be looking at the findings and now this kind of a change would mean that the public hasn't been properly notified and I wouldn't want to be in violation of the ground.

Well it's because if we have it properly noticed something and people aren't here able to speak on it we would be in violation so it's that simple.

We're being asked to play Planning Commissioner.

I don't think that's a rule.

Well one one role that perhaps we're overlooking is that we set policy and the Commission carries out policy it's not the other way around so I would not be uncomfortable at all with the Council giving direction to the Commission.

I believe that's our job.

If however there are not three votes to to take the action that has been suggested then at a minimum I would hope that that Mr.
Nielsen would be able to return to the Planning Commission without any additional fees and that in good faith he'd be given the opportunity to offer his compromise to the Commission.

I would agree with that.

I see nothing on that.

What are we talking about the way of fees generally?
$100.

Is Mr.
Nielsen willing to do that?
Well although we can't hear from the public Jim I think we could hear from the appellant could we not?
As to whether he wants to either and there's two choices either we can go through with the appeal make the findings and take the vote or he can simply withdraw his appeal and file an amended application back with the Planning Commission we can certainly hear from him which way he would like to go.

And then we can kind of heard the direction here.

Norm do you want to take a stab at that one?
That wasn't one of the options we discussed so I'm gonna let you speak.

Well I'd like to request that I have an ARC meeting which I understand is the City Planner and two of the commissioners and I'd also like for Lori Oberholzer to not be one of the commissioners.

I don't think that she can objectively handle this case so I'd be willing to drop the appeal and do that sort of thing.

Well the ARC is for environmental only.

You're not asking for the right thing because if you went to ARC the only thing they could do is environmental review.

The ARC is not like an ARC that you might, other cities sometimes handle it differently but in our ARC we only handle environmental issues and there is an environmental issue.

He would be going back for architectural review.

All he has to go back for architecture review to the Commission as a whole all five people.

Okay well I'd be willing to do that.

Would that require new noticing and new public hearings at the Commission level?
No there's no there's no public notice other than just the Brown Act on architectural review.

Okay so he could be on the next, could he make the next Planning Commission agenda?
The one on Thursday is closed already out but he could make the one on 27.

And what about the fees and to waive the way of any additional fees?
Okay.

Am I to believe that we're basically just starting all over again back at the Planning Commission as I did the first time?
That's what I'm hearing you say you want to drop your appeal start over again with an with an amended application and the Council's indicating they would not charge you an additional fee.

At least it wouldn't be from scratch because you're all you're proposing is to detach the garage.

Okay all right.

This would be an amended application.

Amended application with no fees.

I think all we should do is just have a motion from the Council that yes pursuant to his request we're going to just drop the appeal and make a decision either way and just agree to have it taken back to the Planning Commission on an amended application with a fee way.

I would so move.

I second.

All those in favor?
Aye.

All right well appreciate that.

Thank you Steve for meeting with us.

I think that's a step anyway and we'll see where we go from here.

All right.

Grand Jury Response Review of Staff's amended response and possible decision to amend council response.

Well I'll comment on it.

Bill, myself and Kathy and Paul each received a letter back from the grand jury indicating that our responses were not satisfactory.

They gave the way we supposedly should have responded to them and we sat down with Jim and this is and you do see these this response going back to them carries all the four signatures the previous one had three and Paul filed his separately with slight difference than what the three of us had done before.

No reasons on your agendas we would anticipate since you basically followed the same one as staff did previously that we could anticipate that the city councils will be being returned also.

We think this one should meet the requirements or the suggestions the suggestions that was in the form of letter back to each of us individually.

All right.

Any discussion?
I just think we just accept there.

Okay.

All right.

And re-file your your response.

If you get a request that's the idea if you get a letter back to the mayor that then you would have the mayor would send this one if that's satisfactory.

Okay.

That's the motion.

I will try one more time then to add one simple statement at the end of our response which is that we agree to it to advise the Planning Commission of that we agree to provide a grand jury with a status report within six months of adopting these findings.

To add that clause.

On the grand jury response?
Yeah on our response to the grand jury to add a clause at the end advising the grand jury that we will provide them with a status report within six months of our response.

We're correct to assume that we have already filed this council's response.

Yes you were filed.

Unless we are instructed that it's inadequate then it's done correct.

Right.

We're just anticipating that you'll get the same response back because yours was filed one month later than ours was.

So you're you're Steve what you're asking is in case we file again you would like that added.

Well actually I could do it now by merely filing it our own amendment.

I mean I think it's reasonable to assume that if four people got a letter from the grand jury we'll be the fifth.

We're using exactly the same language.

So why don't we just agree to the amended response tonight with a cover letter saying that based upon the discussion with the city staff we realize that perhaps we were in error in the manner in which we filed our response and then add a clause that we will provide them with a status report within six months.

And so very well and good except for once again you're asking us to put ourselves in a position giving ourselves a self-imposed deadline to report something to the jury.

Which is not just a discussion.

A deadline for status only.

We don't even have a second so we shouldn't probably be discussing this without a second.

Does it seem to be a second?
It doesn't appear to be.

Okay.

All right moving on.

However, before we move on.

I would move that we refile this with the amended version as Stephen suggested with the cover letter anticipating that they are going to I just I was just I'm not I'm not in favor of the added verbiage.

I think it's probably a good idea to refile this as we probably will get the letter.

So we're anticipating a little bit.

All in favor?
Aye.

I'm going to abstain.

All right next item amendment to resolution 2002-24 fire tax measure city attorney will explain minor change to wording about language to meet state elections criteria.

Yes as you will recall it a few weeks ago we approved a proposed ordinance to be placed on the November ballot.

After we did that we had a staff meeting and also talked to the county and realized a couple small changes that should be made.

First of all as to the proposed ordinance everything would stay exactly the same except it indicated on the previous version and unfortunately with my computers something happened the language that I want you to see didn't come out on that paper that he sent over to you.

So the the only change it would be on the proposed ordinance is the previous version said that if it was passed we would start collecting the tax the day that it was passed.

We realized that creates quite a financial problem and so we wanted to change it to indicate that we'd start collecting the tax January 1st 2003 accounting wise it makes it a lot easier a lot simpler for the county to do it a lot less charges are going to give to us.

And then the second one is the resolution says the following shall be placed on the ballot and it basically incorporates all the language of the ordinance and the county called and said you can only have 75 words so basically what I want to do is instead of placing the entire language of the ordinance in the resolution we simply place the language that sets forth the fees and cut the language down to make up 75 words and we've checked it it's very easy to do so we simply place the amounts and the categories but none of the rest of the boilerplate of the ordinance would go in in the ballot itself.

Yes indicated by the county clerk if you know the other verbiage that was in there that we can always have that included in the city attorneys impartial analysis that will be done or in the ballot argument so if there's wording that's being deleted in order to get to the 75 words there's a way to put it in so that people still know that.

That's correct.

What about cost to the city to administer this?
Well there's two costs there's direct and indirectors the direct is that the county when they collect the money they figure out the cost of their staff involved in actually doing the work to collect the money and they deduct that from the check so if the check is 32,000 from the voters and their cost is 5,000 they send us a check for $27,000.

The indirect cost is that primarily Kathy has to do a lot of work to get the information to the county so that they can they can go ahead and put all the information on the tax bill to all the various people in Nevada City.

All the properties and everything.

Right.

So she has to spend a long time it doesn't show up in any bill but obviously she has less time to put on other matters so we're trying to say both the direct cost and indirect cost because Kathy would have to do it twice potentially the other wording was done.

Isn't there a way to avoid the indirect the direct cost?
Isn't there a way for isn't there a way for us to somehow collect this money without paying the county five or six thousand dollars?
I just picked it up I don't know if that's what we need to do.

We have to send out our own bills.

Jim used in his example that it was five thousand dollars in preparation of the budget.

You show the county's total collection fees a separate line item and for collecting all of our taxes including the current parcel tax for the fire tax we're paying the county about this past year about sixteen thousand dollars to collect all of our taxes including that one.

You couldn't even touch it for what the county does.

I don't even know I have no idea how the procedure would even be done.

Great.

Thank you.

And since they're already collecting a fire tax for us the fact that that fire tax increases means their fees would increase theoretically.

There's going to be some because the old tax said all the money is going to be used for equipment only and this one the way it's worded is half as for equipment and half as for personnel.

So it has to be billed separately on the second one for the county purposes.

It can be added on but they've got to do internal work to clarify who paid what.

That's what creates all the extra work even for the city.

Well I would move to approve amendment to resolution 2002-24.

Second.

I will vote no again for the reason previously stated which is I think this should be a public safety tax not a fire tax.

All those in favor?
Aye.

No.

And on to new business.

Kim James request to discuss Chamber of Commerce summer nights event and council review of events allowed on streets.

Do we have anything from new gym or should we just let her talk?
No I think Mr.
Ryan Sheppard presented.

Okay.

Open to public comment.

Kim James 14668 Applewood Lane.

On May 28 I learned that the chamber was putting on for the hot summer nights a hot bodies contest which I found offensive to the city's image.

So I came to the council meeting and just mentioned it.

The chamber is very generous and invited me to their committee meeting.

Very unclear with what they were planning even as a group whether it was a body building thing or a weight lifting thing and how all the details of that.

And most of them showed that they were unclear about what was being proposed although they had someone on their behalf going through town promoting it.

And that's why how I found out purely by accident that this was even going to happen.

So I found out today from Kathy Whittlesey that it's no longer on the menu.

So that's all my concern is now and still how do we know that something like this couldn't come up again.

So we can have this conversations like this before the events instead of after something happens that were a little ashamed of.

That's my view on it.

Because I know that the city council does not control the chamber but who allows street closures and for what reason.

We do allow street closures and they are usually ongoing events we're very very well very well aware of.

They always have minor changes to them and we don't micromanage them.

We really believe in the quality of the people at the Chamber of Commerce.

And this isn't after the fact that the event hasn't happened yet so we didn't find out about it afterwards.

It is a small town and things do get spread around before they're fully consummated or thought out.

And that can sometimes create its own problems being a small town.

And it's one of the great things about it is because people hear about it and you get to have input.

I don't think it's been the city's policy to just let it run willy-nilly.

Steve's worked with them closely for years and years and could probably speak to the way the chamber comes up with these things and looks at these proposals.

And that's the checks and balances that I see including having you hear about it and being invited to one of their committee meetings.

Since we're not going to vote on it, because I don't participate on votes on events affecting the Chamber of Commerce.

I have an economic conflict of interest, Kim, so I would just sit normally.

But since we're not going to vote, a suggestion would be you're wondering how to keep yourself appraised of what's happening.

I would suggest that you ask the Commission to make you their delegate and go to the monthly Chamber of Commerce board meetings where you will learn things as quickly as the board members learn them.

Those meetings are open to all members of the Chamber.

And I believe the Theatre Commission is a member of the Chamber.

So if every right to go to the President of the Chamber is sitting here tonight, I'm sure he'd be happy to affirm that.

As a Chamber member, you have every right to go to their meetings and sit and learn things as quickly as they learn them.

But the Council is comfortable with things being planned on that level that will affect the City's image and economic effects as well.

That the Council is happy with things being decided on behalf of Nevada City on their own.

I had to honor this past January, Kim, of attending the 100th anniversary of the Nevada City Chamber of Commerce.

And I think that they have been Nevada City's promotional agency for 100 years and have done one hell of a job.

I agree.

And I think David summarized things pretty well.

When we begin to tell the Chamber of Commerce what to do, we might as well become the Chamber of Commerce.

They do a fine job.

They've been a great promotional agency for this community for 100 years.

And with any luck, they'll promote this town for the next 100 years.

And I really think that the Chamber board is no more of a closed meeting than a City Council meeting.

You can just walk right in, sit down, and when an item comes up on an agenda, you'll know quicker than anybody else in Nevada City.

I heard Kathy Whittlesey on the radio discussing this.

And as I heard her saying that they're going to change their thoughts on this, I said to Kim, "Thank you, Kim.

You've done a nice job.

"
It's a nice thing about our community when people feel that something is not quite the way it should be.

They're free to speak up, and they do come and speak up, and they write letters, expressing their thoughts.

And that's how it all kind of works, and it's really, really good.

And I appreciate what you've done.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If it wasn't for issues like this, then you wouldn't be able to use the word "smirmy" in their editorial field.

Is that me?
I don't know.

You don't want to know.

It's smurfs.

I think it is.

It's smurfs.

All right.

The next item, Maureen Mitchell, request to make Railroad Avenue one way.

Hello.

I am here to sort of run this by you.

I don't know if I need to be at the Department of Transportation, so I'm just ignorant, but I was told to present it.

I don't know if it's -- I've been living off 131 Martin Street, first of all, my property, runs along Railroad Avenue, and that's by Northern Queen there.

And part of it's paved and part of it's not.

I'm wondering if there is a feasibility of having it go one way.

I say that because of the increased traffic in the area for the last three years.

And also, the dirt section is really just room for one car, but people have to pull over for the other to get by.

So I've been living off from Railroad Avenue for 24 years, so I've seen a lot of change.

The other concern that I have is safety concern with -- I say probably 20 percent follow the traffic, the speed limit traffic.

So I'm wondering if you would give some consideration if this is possible for a one-way situation.

Sort of close to my heart, Avenue, Railroad Avenue is.

Well, every time I've gone up there, Maureen, I've wondered why it wasn't one way to begin with.

I don't know if you would like to go up there and say, "I'm not going to go up there.

"
But I'm wondering if you would give some consideration if you would give some consideration.

I don't know if you would like to go up there and say, "I'm not going to go up there.

"
But I think we were having the project, the NID project and stuff, and you made a proposal and we looked at that just overall the different streets that are impacted in different ways.

Perhaps we should have one and look at this.

This is something that would be under the purview of, I would imagine, our police chief.

Police chief.

Whatever you do, you would have the police chief involved.

Absolutely.

Police chief is the one who makes these decisions.

As Steve pointed out, this is a thoroughfare for that part of town that if there are other solutions that possibly might be in the future, I don't know, far near or in between things like that as the town grows, they get improved or added on to things like that.

I don't know.

So am I at the wrong place?
No.

You're at the right place.

I don't know how this works.

I'm very ignorant.

It's not something we make a decision right now.

And it may be that there would be no decision in particular made in any right way.

It's something that a lot of things have to be looked at and it has to get in line with all the things that are already being looked at.

Well, David, I want you and I to reconstitute our committee a couple of years ago and meet with the police chief and perhaps the city engineer, discuss traffic circulation, public safety, road width, perhaps involve the fire chief because I know that there's certainly a public safety issue involved in the narrow width of that road trying to get fire trucks up and down it and get back to Maureen soon with some kind of response other than thanks for coming.

So after all of that, who is the contact person that I would call?
Oh, we'll get in touch with you.

Well, at some point we'll-- You don't know my phone number.

So I feel very strongly about this.

So it's like, oh, six months later.

Oh, well, we-- Oh, it won't be that long, Maureen.

It won't be that long.

In fact, your phone number is down in your location.

Oh, it is?
Okay.

All right.

I forgot about that.

Yeah.

So I should be hearing from you within the month.

You'll be hearing from us this summer?
This summer.

What month in the summer?
[laughter] Hey, you'll be hearing from us?
Are you still teaching?
You retired?
Oh, I was going to say, well, you can hear from us before school starts.

Well, we can do that.

I mean, that's 60 days.

Do you need specific-- Well, we can get-- No, Steve, we can't.

No.

We really can't.

We really can't, but-- All right.

But you've got a commitment from David and myself, and we'll get with the appropriate staff, and we'll get back to you.

It'll certainly be this summer.

All right.

I appreciate that much.

But we wouldn't want to promise you 15 days, 30 days.

Steve.

Well, let's let the rest of the council discuss this, too.

I mean, it's about to just-- Oh, yeah.

--you and I make a decision, but there's a full table.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, whatever committee report we've got, we'd be bringing back here anyway.

I think you need to be back to the council before you back to Ms.

Mitchell.

Okay.

Is there any other council members that would want to be part of this, I mean, other than myself and Steve, or other than myself or Steve?
I would suggest that I might be a pretty good service on such a committee because I do have a pretty good solid background on my presentation.

Why don't you do it to us, please?
Oh.

See how I got out of that morning?
No, no, no.

Oh, oh, it's climbing in myself.

I was going to say that I've got plenty on my plate as mayor.

Oh, he doesn't take a number in weight.

Okay.

It'll be kindly a nice off-morning.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Okay.

The human endeavor resource entity here.

Request for final.

Is that withdrawn for right now?
No, it is.

Okay.

Continue.

Request by Melo Pello to Name Street, located off Chief Kelly Drive, Pello Lane.

The reason this is on your agenda, Melo wrote -- oh, no, that's how he signed it.

Melo Pello kind of just dropped a letter on my desk saying I'm ordering a sign saying Pello Lane, and he has some property right off Chief Kelly Drive.

You're aware of where his little piece of property is, and the city fixed a little as part of him giving some property to do Chief Kelly, we put a drive down to his property.

The council is -- under our ordinance, the council has to make decisions on street names.

Normally you get three submitted to you.

You choose which one you want or something like that.

So I just thought I better put it on the agenda so you can either ratify the name Pello Lane and just hang it up or ask him to come up with something else.

Is this actually a city street?
We have accepted it in all that that entails?
Sure, if it actually is a city street or not, was it ever accepted?
How long is it?
Oh, I see.

This is somewhat -- is it probably 100 feet to 300?
It's really a driveway.

We name a lot of streets that we don't accept.

What is the risk of naming another street that we're not going to accept?
There's no risk, obviously.

He may put his own sign up, I don't know.

Well, I would move that we accept the request by Miello Pello.

I'd like to know first, what is the status of that bill before we start naming it?
What is the status of it?
Well, our status is -- Is it a private driveway to his one piece of property?
And could it ultimately be to additional properties?
It's really the city in a position of doing anything with it, realistically.

It's a driveway to his single property.

The next property is bordered by the old club, which has an entrance on Highway 49.

Would there be any difference in, for instance, Tom putting a sign on his driveway saying "Tom's driveway"?
I guess he could.

I don't know.

I don't think the city has any jurisdiction, though, either.

If you want to name your driveway, you should name your driveway.

Well, maybe the appropriate response to Mr.
Knapp or something.

I think we ought to have a little bit more.

We're going to name it, no problem.

Well, I think if he's going to hang up a sign that's calling it a street or a lane or anything, it'll end up on a map somewhere at some point.

And the fire department's going to be looking at it.

911 will be asking me why I didn't send it to him.

So we at least need to look at this a little bit further before -- that's all I put it on for, is before a sign gets on the ground.

Maybe we ought to have a little -- and maybe we should have a sketch of the council and look at it and know what it is.

We're naming what length the next step.

I've got a map of it.

I can have that in the next council.

What does -- what does that -- He's owned multi-family, so we could have 15 or 20 houses now.

Yeah, so it could be a real street serving other homes.

It certainly could have a name.

I don't say that.

But it serves his lot and his lot only forever.

That's it.

Okay.

I would move that this item be tabled for two weeks in order to give staff appropriate time to research it.

And Mr.
Pullo will be notified to -- if he could please wait two more weeks and we'll have an answer for him.

Second?
All those in favor?
All right.

Aye.

Agreement for the fiscal year 2002-2003 state mandated cost recovery of company cost entration.

Bill?
Well, this memo that was prepared to the council enters a proposal from centration.

The city previously entered into agreement with this firm where on the mandated cost -- it's -- the limitations, one, of staff and two, really, of knowledge on what are the mandated.

These firms know exactly how to file for various cities, and they file for probably hundreds of -- various firms are out there filing for numerous -- and I started to say hundreds, but they may well file various types of paperwork for hundreds of cities.

The issue is that in the past they collected their money.

When the city received its money, it was sort of you file the mandated -- it is mandated -- the state must pay, and therefore the checks followed and the city, in turn, paid the firm.

Now with the governor's budget, the state has made it very clear in the budget that the mandated costs, while there will still be an encumbrance on the state of California, they will be delayed for approximately two years.

So these -- this firm is saying there is no way that we can do the paperwork for you and wait two years, because our cash flow goes to zero.

So the request is that they file them, the state, sooner or later, must pay them, and that they be paid their amount that they would have received once they file valid claims.

So they are asking to be paid up front rather than being paid at the rear.

So we would be paying that?
We would pay at this time knowing that -- We would get our money -- Right.

I did ask the gentleman at the time that he talked to Kathy and I on speakerphone, since how many calls had he made in recent days or two, because he said they were simply going to discontinue a number of their employees, and he said he had talked to 29 -- 30 cities, and 29 of them had agreed, at least verbally, in principle, because most cities don't have the staff nor the time to go through the paperwork, whereas they probably got it all under word processor and simply changed the names and collect the information from the individual cities to know what the total amount that they are going to file on behalf of those various cities.

So if they file a claim on behalf of the city, they would know what their percentage is per the agreement, and we would pay them based on them filing -- and based on our past experience with them, we think that they're reliable and their claims will be ultimately honored in the amount that they file them for.

And would that -- that's what I was going to ask.

Maybe nothing's 100 percent, but if they file a claim, is it at least 99 percent that we're going to be awarded that money?
I think it's 100 percent.

The courts have ruled the state will pay these mandated costs.

The state at this time simply hasn't the money.

The California cities is careful -- this is one of the issues they're monitoring the state on -- and they haven't decided whether it's two-year delay or one-year delay.

They'll probably try to delay as long as they can, but it's clear if we don't file, it's certainly -- and if the various cities up and down the state say, "Gee, we don't want to do that," it sort of takes the wind out of the sails of the cities as far as putting weight on the state to say, "Pay these fees.

"
Just because you don't know how to run the state of California, we would like to get paid what you told us we're supposed to do, and you're supposed to backfill that money.

I would move the support staff's recommendation and authorize the mayor to sign the agreement.

Second.

All those in favor?
Aye.

Item 6 under new business.

Amend the agreement.

Science Free Corporation Yard Lease reassigned of Premier Plumbing to D&D Supply Incorporated.

They're simply changing their ownership.

They're part of the owners of -- currently a premier -- joined with his other company, and apparently the D&D Supply is going to be the successor.

So they're asking that they operate under the same terms as the previous lease, and we have received an insurance certificate in the amount of a million dollars.

I move that Mayor Beathurise to sign the amended agreement.

Second.

All those in favor?
Second.

So essentially the current lease that we have to amend it, we would be going through and everywhere with Premier it would say D&D, but the dates would be the same.

The dates, other than that, everything stays exactly the same.

The operation is the same.

Yes.

Okay.

Any further discussion?
All in favor?
Aye.

All right.

Number 7.

The memorandum of understanding Deer Creek Coordinated Resource Management Plan, John Banderveen, Representative, and then there's a copy of Letter of Support, grant application file 6502.

I see John here.

Well, I think it's really just more that the -- that the mayor is or you've already believed signed the letter.

I think we did this -- We agreed to support the concept.

We did not yet agree to support the specific application form along the case.

So the trend to Deer Creek is where the work could be done in minor form.

This is different.

This is a little different.

No, this is what I thought this is what we had.

Well, we -- the concept proposal plan for the application for the grant monies has gone out.

The mayor sent a letter because you got -- you -- because council sort of partners with Friends of Deer Creek.

And it's for $580,000, I believe.

But then John submitted saying he would be President of the council meeting.

I don't know.

Well, that should be continued.

This memorandum of understanding, which is something different, which is called a Coordinated Resource Management Plan.

I really don't know any of the particulars on it.

What I know about it is -- and I don't know whether this will help.

I'll tell you what I know about it.

You guys agreed in concept what work could be done in Pioneer Park by the Friends of Deer Creek.

They submitted the preliminary application.

There was like 200 applications submitted in the state of California.

The -- the matter is to come in number two.

Now what you have to do is you've got to take this application and go for the formal funding.

And that's what he's doing.

And he wants the -- he's got to have the cities, good graces in order to do that.

He can't do that because it's city property, city related projects.

That's the way I understand it.

Is that right, Council?
Well, I do -- That's it.

That's it for the -- that's it for the funding.

But the MOU is a different -- It's un-dated and unsigned, I assume, and hasn't gone out yet.

I think this whole item should be continued to the next meeting to have representatives from the -- I was referring to the other -- I didn't know this, but -- The whole package.

And these are the next meeting.

Okay, so it's kind of a two-stage thing and we -- So this time it's representatives of the -- Yeah.

Yeah, we did agree in concept.

I certainly support in concept.

I have some specific questions about the application, but we certainly support the concept.

Okay, so -- Is there a motion?
Yes, there is a second.

Any discussion?
All those in favor?
Aye.

All right.

Proposal to name city property at Sacramento Street in Adams, Pennsant Park, Pennsant Park, and to plant bulbs in place.

I will abstain from this item.

I do have a parent conflict.

Did we have three names submitted on this, by the way?
Pennsant Park.

No?
There's a whole -- [Laughter] Pennsant Park.

Now, Bodman Park has to be over in Grass Valley.

That's the wrong city.

We're all a park.

Yeah.

Vern Taylor and I were discussing this while I was over in Pennsants recently.

You know, I picked up a brochure with -- flowers are very into flowers and bulbs, and thought this would be nice.

In Bodman, they had actually named a park or an area for Grass Valley, and I thought it would be nice if we had something in Nevada City.

So as Vern and I talked about it, we thought that the corner of -- we do own the property at the corner of Adams and Sacramento and Prospect, and there's a little rock bench there now.

This wouldn't be a high-maintenance grass and all that.

It would just be one or two areas to -- I mean, someone could sit on a rock and some bulbs that would bloom in spring, and a group of people have said that they would like to help with the maintenance and planning them.

Vern has an Eagle Scout that he would like to have as a part of his Eagle Scout Award project, and we have an offer for some funding to purchase the bulbs from an organization in town that, because their members are not as mobile as they'd like to be anymore, they're getting on in years, but they have money that they would like to put into it, but they can't really put any elbow grease into planning the bulbs and stuff.

Anyway, it's a proposal we thought would be nice.

Well, I would move to implement the proposal as submitted, naming the property at Sacramento and Adams Street, Penzance Park, the planting of bulbs, and the placing of the sign and the appropriate marker to the Callaway family.

You know, David, as Kathy was talking about it, I was thinking that City Manager Robinson will now have much time on his hands.

He might like to be the planter of the bulbs there at Will Barrow's house.

Well, he could help plant them for a while, and then when he feels like he's moved over to the other side and wants to just give the money, then that's fine too.

I didn't mean to give us off track.

I just couldn't resist it.

Did we?
I didn't have a question.

Okay, all in favor?
Aye.

Okay.

That was neat.

And any announcements from the table here?
We have one.

Let's see, I think we have one?
Okay.

There we go.

We have an announcement from the City of Nevada City announcing an announcement, recognizing the final City Council meeting for City Manager Burrow P.

Robinson Jr.

Whereas in the spring of 1964, a youthful Burrow P.

Robinson Jr.

attained the high office of City Councilman in his community of birth, then served as the council table for the next 14 months, and whereas on June 18, 1965, Burrow resigned as a member of the council, applied to the job of City Manager, and three days later, to no one's surprise, was named to the town's top administrative post, although it was admittedly a 3-1 split vote, and whereas Burrow immediately went to work juggling yearly budgets and occasionally resorting to slight of hand but always legal accounting practices that annually bewildered city auditors and amazed the council.

And whereas, through Burrow's diligence and perseverance, a 1965 Nevada City that was teetering on the verge of bankruptcy has emerged as a financially solvent municipality with a bright future and whereas, in recognition of his 37-year career, a dinner is being held Wednesday June 12, 2002 at the Elk's Lodge in Nevada City, at which time Burrow's accomplishments will likely be embellished even further, and more tall tales will be added to his existing legacy, and whereas tonight, Monday June 10, 2002, Burrow P.

Robinson Jr.

has completed his final meeting at the council table in his capacity as City Manager of Nevada City.

Now therefore, be it announced that the City Council of Nevada City, in a rare moment of fellowship and unanimity, encourages everyone now assembled in the Burrow P.

Robinson Community Hall to stand and join with three resounding cries of hip-hip hooray in honor of a man who has brought great distinction both to his profession and his community.

We need Bud Baker here.

Here you go.

David, could I just, you know, having learned to crunch numbers from the best number cruncher around, I did a little bit of quick calculations and figured that if he attended two meetings a month for 37 years, and then you throw in the extra council meetings that came up every once in a while.

Now, I put some out, and I added only three a year, and sometimes there's way more than that, especially during the general plan days and all that.

Council has attended over 1,125 city council meetings, and then you throw in the 15 or 20 years of attending planning commission meetings every twice a month.

We don't even want to start thinking about the number of meetings that he's attended, and it doesn't even touch all the other meetings like finance committee meetings.

So is he going to go to meetings and non-mis to be able to not wait?
He's going to have meetings, withdrawal.

There you go.

But I doubt there are very many people that have gone to almost, well, 1,500 plus city council planning commission meetings in Nevada City.

I think it's a record to be proud of.

Beat your heart out, Calvert.

Well thank you very much.

All I can say is that I'm starting the next chapter of my life, and certainly Wednesday night I'll hopefully have some embellishment on my thoughts about the city, but it is unquestionably a pleasure to work for the city of Nevada City.

I don't think anyone questions that I have a great love for this community, and I've tried my very best to do a good job.

People that I know back when I took this job, that I would be here 37 years.

I thought a year or two and I'd move on.

But time goes by fast when you're having fun.

So thank everybody very much.

Thank you.

Do we peel this off of here?
Or does he actually get the wood plaque?
I think we'll give him the whole thing.

Yeah, I think 37 years, it's not quite a gold watch, but we'll get it gold plated for him.

Move your journey to executive session.

It's possible we'll have an announcement.

It's possible, yeah.

(upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (upbeat guitar solo) (birds chirping) (footsteps) (birds chirping)