- The February 24, 2003 meeting included a brickwork update on the project, no committee/council reports, and no action beyond noting observations.
- Habitat for Humanity discussion centered on deferring vs waiving planning and other city fees, with a potential CPI-based fee indexing, sewer hookup fee debate, and two zoning overlays on one parcel; a novel three-party land-transfer concept was introduced, amendments for the mayor’s signature were planned, and a time-limited affordable housing pilot (~20–30 years) was proposed.
- A broader housing strategy shift was discussed to involve Habitat and other nonprofits, aiming to set a tone for future workforce housing and provide affordability over time through timed arrangements.
- Financial/fees framework contemplated deferring all city-controlled fees (with some costs outside city control) and debated waiving vs deferring the sewer connection fee (~$1,130–$1,230).
- Public process/oversight covered housing-target clarity, a tree-protection ordinance debate (including possible Ponderosa pine exemptions), withdrawal of the 254 Boulder Street appeal, and ongoing findings discussions.
- Governance/procedure touched on whether withdrawal constitutes denial, potential restart with generic historic-preservation findings, and efforts to preserve ordinances and prior staff/Planning Commission work.
- Infrastructure updates noted wastewater treatment plant compliance on schedule, tentative USDA funding prospects, and ongoing design funding and hydroelectric planning with local consultants.
- The council debated a tentative “deny with findings” motion (eight findings circulated) to guide next steps and possibly share findings with the Planning Commission if the case returns; a motion to withdraw the appeal and refer findings for Planning Commission input was discussed, with concerns about prejudging applications and lack of applicant discussion. The 212 Nevada Street appeal was continued; the Miners Foundry announced a community sprinkler system opening. The meeting concluded with an executive session planned for a no-anticipated-litigation claim and a postponed public-employee performance evaluation.

Full Transcript of the Video:

Welcome to the City Council meeting of Monday, February 24, 2003.

We will all please rise and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right, first item on the agenda, approval of the amendments for February 10, 2003.

Move to approve.

Second.

All those in favor?
Aye.

All those in favor?
Aye.

All right, committee or council member reports, anything?
Nothing tonight, David.

Okay.

Conley?
As you can see, they've got the brick is almost halfway up the building on the commercial street side.

Yep.

It's a wonderful texture in the colors.

People may think, well, maybe all the bricks are supposed to be exactly the same color.

Well, that's not how life is now.

When they're all, they're extruded.

You get, when they go through the firing process after they've been extruded, you get some get lighter and some are darker and it's good, which adds to the texture and so forth.

There are a few signs of some, what may be possible, over glazing where it almost looks like a dripping material has covered some of the bricks and we're going to be looking at possible ways of cleaning some of that off.

Overall, the bricks are just as were approved by the planning commission and in my opinion, I think they really look good.

Yeah, they have kind of like, I was looking at them real close today and they look worn.

Some of them are intentionally cracked on the surface and chipped away and things like that.

Is that?
Well, what we did in the manufacturing, all the bricks after they were cast, fired and cut, then they were tumbled.

Almost like putting them in your spin dryer.

They're tumbled so that nicked the edges and gave it the extra texture.

I had a question.

I was looking at them and someone came up to me and was looking at them.

They have the wall behind them, the center block wall and they're out about an inch away from that wall.

Is that normal?
They will be filled as they go up, they fill that with grout.

I was just curious.

They're tied each course of bricks.

Those little more taps are bent down so they get pulled out and put in?
They all pull in and they go in and they tie the brick to the counter block wall.

And then the mortar gets jammed behind.

I can sleep at night.

I don't have to worry about that.

I don't sleep too tight.

Department reports.

The city attorney habitat for humanity agreement.

Basically when we started comparing notes and got various people talk to us, it wasn't clear what we had deferred and what we hadn't.

So I wanted to simply get the council's blessing on our final version to if we deferred something.

The only thing we deferred was the cost of running the application through our system.

Everything else will eventually be paid if and when they ever sell to someone who's not a low income buyer.

So at this point basically -- >> There's a new one here for exhibit A.

Is that -- >> When James finished off.

>> Okay.

Go ahead.

>> The issue is did you want to defer the planning fees needed to process it or did you want to waive them?
It wasn't quite clear.

>> I've just placed before you a list of all those same fees showing them all deferred.

It would be in effect a new exhibit A to the agreement.

We have four sets of minutes here from the different times you discussed this and it still wasn't clear looking back on all the minutes.

But in staff's opinion that there's no advantage in waiving fees because they will never be paid unless the house falls out of affordability.

If you defer the fees, then they will never be paid.

Assuming it remains -- >> You mean if we waive the fees?
>> I'm sorry.

If we waive the fees, we'll never recapture them no matter if the house becomes affordable or not.

If we defer the fees in the unlikely event that it would be sold at a market rate, then we would recoup those fees.

So staff thinks it's important to have them deferred as opposed to waived.

>> I think if you go back to the minutes of that meeting back in November?
>> October, December, and February.

And March.

>> We'll go back to any one of those meetings, pick your meeting.

We did definitely -- it's in the minutes if you said we would defer the fees.

So I would -- >> I think deferred rather than waived myself.

>> I think that would be proper.

>> And Mark, you mentioned something about now they don't want to actually split the lot.

They want to just zone part of it open space and part of R1, is that right?
>> Right.

There was some initial discussion about having two separate parcels.

But at this point, I think it's best to not do a lot split and Habitat retains ownership of the entire parcel.

There will be two zonings of that parcel to different overlays, one for the open space and one for the R1.

And at this point, there's no advantage to having a split and it might cause future problems if it's split.

So we would suggest that that language be removed from the agreement.

>> Tough paragraph on page two, then.

>> Right.

I'll have to go ahead.

>> I'll make the amendments, pass it by Mark, and then if he's satisfied, we'll hand it to the mayor for signature.

>> Also on the bottom of page one, which says the city and the valley city shall process and cost a lot split.

>> Right.

That's going to have to go out.

>> The whole thrust at the beginning was to make it as portable as possible to not require Habitat for Humanity to put up money based upon a speculative general plan of interest.

And this seems to accommodate them.

>> I believe that's true.

>> I mean, I'm sure the key is that they just are not in a position to spending thousands of dollars and advance on the conventional eventual outcome of the deed.

So this seems to accommodate that and accommodates the spirit of the discussions from a year or so ago that the fees, if it stays affordable, the fees by definition will be waived.

>> Right.

>> And if they do sell the market value, then it's fine.

>> I did have a local merchant tell me today and say that they'd like to see something in this agreement so that the house retains affordability for as long as possible, such as an escalator clause on these fees.

And we typically, I think, do put a percentage increase on fees so that, you know, if it's sold 50 years from now, it's not at the 2003 fee, it's at an escalated fee.

Kathy, what percentage have we used on fees before to escalate the time?
Have we set a percentage?
>> Well, what we've done on all of our payback agreements is 10% a year.

But we've, I think Jim, but I think there have been a couple of others where we've maybe tied it more to an index, but most of them that we've done, at least in the last 15 or 16 years, have been 10% added annually.

>> This is what in our discussions, Jim, you may recall that when we met with these folks early on, the agreement was going to be using CPI or some similar index.

And the hope was that by compounding this thing in, if it stayed affordable for 10 or 4 years, the fee would be so huge that you almost have to keep it affordable.

And that was the whole idea at the beginning.

But we were talking then about indexing it to CPI or something.

>> We could put that language, I think, in paragraph C on page 2, 2C.

We'll just put there that any future sale to other than a qualified low or low income buyer would require payment of the fees with a cost of living increase based on the payments.

>> I'll have to add a typical, I can add a typical CPI.

>> Well, there's already an established formula that we use for the perseverance mine.

Isn't that based on such and such as of this date and so on and so forth?
>> Well, it was, except that's a little different.

They set a base price and then they said no one could make more than a certain amount and what the CPI had gone up in the meantime.

So it wasn't, it's not a straight CPI index.

>> It's not a true CPI.

It's a modified CPI based on median income.

>> I think Jim just do what you think best and that, you know, I mean, and run it by >> It's just easiest for me to, I can look at that perseverance mine, road one, see if there's anything it's easy to do.

Otherwise, I'll just use a general CPI index and do it that way.

>> I think that would probably be easier because when we went to do the perseverance mine court one, when that issue came up, we found that we had to go back and try to find something that the government had published and we had a tough time, CPI is just out there and we can look at that pretty easily.

>> Now there would be some fees they still have to pay, right?
>> I think the way we're talking about they're going to defer everything.

>> Everything.

>> Processing fees will be deferred.

>> But I mean everything that's under the city's control bill, there are a couple that the city does not have control of.

One would be the regional transportation.

>> Right, school.

>> Mitigation fee.

>> One is the financing, timber payback and NID.

>> School mitigation.

And what about the sewer hookup?
>> That would be up to the council whether they're going to defer it right now.

>> The sewer hookup was 1,130, a minute or 1,230.

>> Yeah, that's not in the list.

>> And then there's the building department too.

There's the building department fee plus inspection.

>> Well, that's county, that's not city.

>> We're not leaving.

>> The sewer connection would be.

>> But that's part of the deal with law.

>> No, the sewer actual bill's talking about our 1,230.

And when we looked at the minutes, I think it was, they were going to be connecting to the sewer and that would be an impact right then.

It's up to you to decide whether you want to waive that also and have me amend exhibit A and put that in or whether that 1,230 would be collected at the time they actually connect and start using the sewer.

>> Because you got that.

In this case, Steve, you're right, what you just said, you beat me to the punch.

You got the 1,230 plus lower robinsons payback, which we don't have any jurisdiction over that one either.

>> Yeah, we told them at the time that they would have to negotiate with law and with schools, anybody else, but it would only waive our fees.

>> And there's still the 1,230 that's not listed on there.

>> Yeah, I think that should be listed too, that in the spirit of deferring all the fees, would you need a motion or direction?
>> Direction on that and maybe a motion for the whole agreement as modified.

>> Okay, now I would move to have the city attorney amend the agreement as represented by tonight's discussion and have the mayor execute on behalf of Nevada City to include the deferment of the sewer connection fee.

>> Second.

>> Under discussion.

>> Yeah.

Well, I like to stay consistent and all along I've said that whoever gets this house is basically going to be in a situation where it's like they've won the lottery.

They're going to get a house in a three-digit address in Nevada City at a really, really reasonable price and even with the silent second, basically, the way I understand it is with the silent second, should they sell a house at market value, they have to split the pot.

But they still are going to make out, they could stand and make out at a very, very, very hefty profit and I don't think that's right.

I think this should have been affordable in perpetuity.

I'm a strong supporter of Habitat for Humanity and have been for years.

I'm not opposed to the project.

I'm just opposed to bending over backwards and waiving all these fees to make it affordable for one person but not for anyone who should happen to follow in their footsteps.

So like every other time this has been on the table, I will not support it.

>> I'm no part of that, Kerry.

I know you've been very consistent with that and I think that I've been very consistent in saying that the whole idea of doing this was to do it as a pilot project to see how it works and that the whole vision could be expanded to additional homes.

To go into a city and not necessarily by Habitat for Humanity but by other workforce housing nonprofits but that this is definitely a new approach for our community in working with Habitat.

And of course in Habitat's case, as we've discussed before, but for the sake of the record tonight, or anyone that's interested to meet, is that Habitat for Humanity's national charter doesn't allow for a developing perpetuity to happen in the living room.

It was 30 years or something.

Actually it was 20 and they were prepared to go to 30 but they couldn't go beyond that.

So that's why we got to the point where we're at.

Yeah, you've been very consistent.

This is a concept that Habitat has not used in any other community in the United States.

This is a brand new concept and we will be setting the tone, I hope, for future housing as well.

>> How is it different from the way they do it, like what they've been doing?
>> I've never done a three party relationship.

Here's a case where a private landowner is giving the land to the city that goes to Habitat and all of these being waived.

And this whole concept that led to the disputes being deferred has not been done in any other country.

>> But the property owner is not giving the land to the city to give?
>> No, not now, but that's how this whole thing was initiated, was this idea of making the city a third party and just moving all this paper through so that as a temporary property owner we would not be assessing ourselves' fees.

And so that was what led to this concept.

Yeah, something hadn't been done before.

>> Well, my feelings exactly, and Kerry, you said it so eloquently.

I'm not going to try and restate it.

That's exactly how I felt in it.

And I also really support -- supported this concept and all the hard work you've done, Steve, on this.

I think it's really good.

I think it'll pass tonight.

I think it's as -- we fell a little short on this.

If there was any opportunity to have an affordable house in Nevada City and with this caveat of interperpetuity, this project was the one that fit the best.

And yet we've got future projects coming down the pipeline where it's going to be real hard to ask them to put those kinds of things in their projects if we can't even do it on something like this where the land is being donated and all the right elements are there to make it work and the costs are real low.

When people are paying high top dollar for land and then building on it and then to try and ask people to do that, that's really twisting an arm pretty hard.

And I don't know if we're going to be able to do it.

So it's kind of sad to see that we weren't able to take this to its fullest extent and have it be win-win for everyone and for the people of Nevada City.

Well, I can't see it as not a win-win.

To me it is.

Well, we're going to get -- Could have been more of a win-win.

How's that?
Yeah.

That's funny.

We talk down every project that's going to come along because of this.

This is a single incident here.

I think we -- Well -- The situation was before us and we had the opportunity to do it and I'm glad we're going to do it or I think we're going to.

Well, I'm glad we're doing it too.

I just think that we fell short on what we could have done and it wouldn't have been that big of a difference in dollars.

So anyway -- Call the question.

I have no comment.

Okay.

Do you want to do a roll call vote?
Not necessary?
Okay.

Then just want to -- Okay.

Good girl?
Yes.

It was my second bulge.

Yes.

Reber?
Yes.

Are you ahead?
No.

Okay.

No.

You too.

Okay.

All right.

Moving on, we have administration report on wastewater treatment plant compliance and continuing work by Kennedy Janks consultants.

Mark?
The staff with assistance from Kennedy Janks has been successful in meeting the deadlines for the regional water quality control board regulations on us filing reports and having a plan of action.

So I believe we've dodged the short-term bullet.

However, the long-term bullet is of course the cost of making the upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant, which is anywhere from $2 to $5 million at this point.

We have some good news in that we met with USDA loan and grant people, and they indicated that it looks very positive.

And to that end, I've signed a time and materials agreement with Kennedy Janks to provide the preliminary design that USDA needs to further process our application.

If it does appear that we are not going to get that USDA grant loan package, then we would back away from the cost of Kennedy Janks until we found some other funding and pressed the state to give us some relief on those deadlines.

But at this point, it's just an update for you all to let you know we have engaged Kennedy Janks to take us to the next step on a time and materials basis.

So they're going to apply for the USDA grants.

They need to have a little more actual meat and potatoes to show them.

We have actually made the application, and their preliminary feedback is very positive.

They haven't awarded us anything yet, but they've accepted the application very positively.

They were most impressed with the tour of the plant, too.

State of the art.

That's right.

A report on hydroelectric projects.

Was there any questions on that before we move on to the next thing?
Just as an aside, Doug Calucci, who was with Farmer's Home at the time we took the first loans way back when and saw the old plant with the trickling filters and everything else was still there and met with Mark and Bill on this and Steve Odom.

I'm not quite sure how he says his last name, but both of them have been familiar with the old plant, and so they were really excited with the new plant because it's the first time that Doug's been up in town and probably to look at it in 17, 18 years, something like that.

Bill, do you have anything to add to that?
No, I think it's been all covered.

I really think it's going to happen.

I feel pretty good about it, too.

I don't think we're going to have a lot of problems.

Jim Wooford and Jim Schifoni have done some preliminary work to hold with line with our compliance so that we'll be in compliance for the interim period as well, and I feel pretty good about that, too.

Yes, we don't have anything bad to say about that right now.

You mean you always have something bad?
No, I don't know.

The second item is a report on the Hydroelectric Project.

Bill has been working with Klein Schmidt Energy and Water Resources Consultants who did the initial feasibility study on the project, and they have given us a proposal to proceed with preliminary design of the project.

We were paid in full from the Nevada County Power Authority for the feasibility study, and we're looking at grants to pay for the design work on this, and we'll be proceeding with that shortly.

Good, good, good.

And we were reimbursed for everything we spent today.

Good.

Okay, we'll see.

Hearing from the public, comments on items not on the agenda are welcome at this time.

However, action or discussion by the council may not occur at this time.

Comments are limited to three minutes.

Is there anyone has anything to say about anything that is not on the agenda?
I've got someone there, and then I can just come up to the mic and state your name and address please.

This name is Roger Savage.

I live at 231 Nevada Street.

And the item I want to discuss with you tonight is, actually more than a question I think, what the real number is that is the quota for a Nevada city to meet, to meet their quota to the state for whatever you want to call it, affordable housing or workforce housing or a sweat equity housing.

You know, we read things in a paper about the county being 4,000 units behind.

And I remember when we built the 13 units over on Searles Avenue.

At that time, I think the population of Nevada City was around 2,500.

And the number that was thrown around at that time was around 18 or 19.

And I remember at different meetings, even Beryl Robinson said it would be nice to get to that number to where we can tell the state thank you very much, but we'll take care of the city ourself.

And I've asked that question to different folks, and I've never gotten that numerical answer.

So I don't know of Nevada City's population today, which is around 3,000.

If the number that we're supposed to meet along with the other criteria to bring up the city's plan is 20.

If it is, are we there?
And one of the reasons I'm revving it up, it would be nice to get to that number so that I think everyone knows that things are getting pretty tight, things are awfully expensive, and it would be nice to keep the money inside the city for ourself.

And instead of deferring things like sewer fees and things, which no one seems to give any of the rest of us a break on it, it would be nice to get to that point to where, you know, we'd still like to help people out, but as things get really tight, we can say, hey, you know, we're sorry, you'll have to go look someplace else.

I know that's like throwing yourself on a third rail, but that's okay.

So anyway, maybe one of you council members can look into it or someone on the staff can give me a call and tell me, is Arc 4 to 20?
Is it 18?
Is it 19?
And with the ones that we already have, when you look around town at the other small units that are already there, there's a good possibility that we're already there.

Anyway, thank you.

>> Thank you, Mayor.

>> Would you like me to respond?
>> Yes, you want me to.

>> We -- I don't have an -- Mr.
Savage, I don't have an exact number for you, but we have received preliminary numbers from the state housing and community development office, and the numbers are higher than we liked, and we've made comments to that effect to them.

But if you'd like, I can send you a copy of that preliminary data from HCD.

>> Okay.

Thank you.

I'd appreciate it.

>> Okay.

Anyone else?
My name is Eldon Cyrus, and I live on Randolph Lane in Ruffin Ready.

And I do have a comment on an item that's not on the agenda for tonight regarding my request to modify the tree removal standards known as Section 17.

8.

090.

I'm requesting that that ordinance be amended to exclude Ponderosa pine trees from the protection of the above ordinance.

Above-referenced ordinance is dangerous and indiscriminate.

And so far as the ordinance defines and protects trees of any and all kinds, 10 inches or more in diameter, whether or not they are safe.

Blanket protection of all trees without evaluating trees for their potential to be hazardous is in direct conflict with the stated purpose of the zoning ordinance and municipal code "enacted in order to promote public health, safety, comfort, and general welfare throughout the city.

"
Many Ponderosa pine trees, the precise number of which cannot be determined, toppled, split, broke or lost hops during the December 2002 high windstorms, in the aftermath of those and other storms, it is a foreseeable consequence that injury and property damage can result from residing within striking distance of tall pine trees.

The ordinance protects all trees without minimizing any of the risks associated with tree failures.

The ordinance fails to provide for evaluation of the protected trees' potential to fail, the environments that may contribute to those failures, or if people or objects would be injured or damaged in the event of future tree failures.

Accordingly, blanket zoning ordinance protection of all trees with no concern for safety represents an unreasonable use of police powers.

Under the existing ordinance, property owners who eliminate dangerous tree situations will be charged with infractions and misdemeanors punishable by the maximum penalty established by law.

Therefore, I ask that you amend zoning ordinance 9701, also known as Section 17-8.

909, and also known as Section 17-8.

090, to exempt Ponderosa pine trees and allow such trees to be removed.

Remember safety first.

Thank you, and I have these comments in writing if anyone is interested to receive them.

Mr.
Mayor?
You could just go ahead and give them to us.

Also, I owe you an apology that we haven't had a meeting yet, and when I saw you here this evening when I came in, I prompted me to also remind my tree committee co-member Mr.
Weaver that we need to, in fact, get together.

I don't know about your life.

Mine, tonight is Monday, and for some reason I'm going to wake up tomorrow and it's going to be Thursday already, and hard enough hours in the day, but I certainly owe you an apology for the fact that we haven't formally sat down and had that first discussion since our last telephone conversation.

So we will make a point of doing it, and as I recall from our telephone conversation, you'd like to meet when it's raining, if it's possible.

I can meet at your convenience.

Thank you.

Okay, and I will make an extra point that Conley and I and maybe a couple of city staff members set up a time and give you a phone call and let you know she can come in.

Thank you for that.

Thank you.

Mr.
Mayor, we did have staff go back and look at the tree applications that we've received in the past year, and I believe all except one, or was it all, permits were approved?
Most of them were.

The vast majority of the applications that came in to the city were processed favorably and expeditious.

Permission was given to the applicant to take down the trees, so we do take careful consideration and safety issues.

Yeah, I know.

Thank you.

All right.

There is no correspondence, according to this.

And moving on to old business, the denial of appeal for 254 Boulder Street, that has been, they have removed their request, their appeal, so that's canceled.

And.

Mr.
Mayor, I will have to recuse myself from the table on this item, but I do want to address this item as a member of the public.

Which item are we talking about?
The Dewar.

Dewar.

Regarding withdrawing them?
I'm not sure what he.

Just to bring Council up to speed, we received on February 21st a letter from Charlotte and Howard Dewar saying, "Please withdraw our appeal of the Nevada City Planning Commission's denial of our application to renovate 254 Boulder.

We will not attend the February 24th City Council meeting and request that the findings for our appeal be withdrawn and not voted upon.

"
Staff has talked about this, and we have the option of just continuing this item from tonight if we would like to do more staff research, but Jim, I believe, has some points on it.

Shouldn't we?
I'm not sure.

I just took a point of order.

This wouldn't be something in the middle.

I'll be the opportunity for Tommy to comment so he can leave.

I think that's right.

Yeah, he should comment.

Before.

Before we get into any discussion.

That's right.

Yes.

Okay.

Conley.

Conley Weaver, 237 Boulder Street.

I understand that the applicant has withdrawn their appeal.

However, in our Council meeting of November 12th, I believe it was, of which I had to abstain as well, the Council voted 3-1 to deny the appeal, and the final documentation was held up until the City Attorney came up with the findings that he was asked to clarify and put down in writing.

Whether or not you're a vote to intend to deny the appeal, will that constitute an actual denial?
I don't know if Mr.
Anderson would have to make that determination or recommendation.

I do want to recommend very, very strongly that whatever happens, these findings that the City Attorney has come up with, be documented or established because it's taken well over a year through all the process of working with staff, working with the Planning Commission, through the City Council hearings and so forth, to establish a number of principles that are very carefully and very well spelled out in those proposed findings.

I think it's very, very important that the Council, whether or not it's specific to this particular application or to do ordinances in general, let all this hard work be not thrown down the drain because an applicant has just withdrawn their appeal.

I think there's some items that are very, very important in keeping our ordinances and our historic preservation healthy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just by way of a little background, I got a call from Dick Ellers late last week indicating that he was working for the doers and that they were going to dismiss their appeal and he also wanted no findings being made as they would start over again with a smaller project.

Asked my opinion, I said, "Well, the Council doesn't have to adopt any findings if you're going to just withdraw your appeal," and it's just as if it never existed.

If you decide for whatever reason you want to make the findings, I think we at least ought to give Mr.
Ellers an opportunity to see if that would change his mind about withdrawing the appeal because I think I'd let him to believe that we probably would have no reason to adopt a finding.

If we decide we want to adopt findings, I'd like to at least give him a chance to say his piece before we do it, basically.

Let me ask this.

If we were just to move on to the next item on the agenda, however, ask staff to agendize an item where essentially those findings could be not in regard to this case, but just in regard to the historic ordinance and so on and so forth, if this Council chose to adopt those findings, is that something that .

.

.

As a general statement?
Just as a general statement.

Anything to do with this issue, this residence, or these people?
What value would that be then?
To me, what they're saying is that we think we see that we need to have a different approach.

Please withdraw our appeal and we'll start over, which is everybody's right to do.

Jim is not correct.

Oh, sure.

They can always find the opportunity.

I'm just asking a question.

I just .

.

.

Cuz Conley brought it up.

To me, the fact that if someone wants to start it on another path and pay the fees, we certainly can't say no.

Right, but what Conley brought up was separate from that, and that is that all of this pages and all of this work definitely helped.

It's not like this comes up every day, and when it's not like this does come up in these few special instances and the amount of work that was gone through, it does bring up .

.

.

It helps define for future, I think, some very excellent .

.

.

And to just say that these are tossed aside, I would not wanna see that myself.

I wouldn't .

.

.

Maybe we're not losing it.

Well, I don't know how we could .

.

.

I guess my question .

.

.

But then the question comes up that the language in here is specific towards individuals and a certain resident.

So if we struck every reference to them and their address, would that water it down to the point where it would be the same as throwing them out?
Well, maybe a way of doing it would be .

.

.

First of all, I agree with Tom.

If they withdraw and wanna go back to square one and start again, they have a right to it's not the first time that's happened for sure.

But what might make this a little different, Jim, is that we actually took action.

Yes, we did.

It was a tentative .

.

.

Right, tentative was the thing.

Motion of intent.

It wasn't a finalized .

.

.

But we did take an action of .

.

.

And pretty much I think we would have come to the conclusion tonight, I think, that we can all pretty much .

.

.

We felt in reading and everything, the findings that you came up with and the way they were presented were, I think, a pretty strong argument for supporting them and supporting the Planning Commission.

So .

.

.

Yeah, what they did was .

.

.

That wasn't my feelings, but I mean .

.

.

The motion .

.

.

I was the maker of the motion and I described essentially these items and Jim said at that time, I described them in very .

.

.

In a short form.

And Jim wanted an opportunity to create some legalese to go with them.

So the motion was to deny with certain findings and this was a way of defining it.

Maybe the way to do it is for us as a council to ensure that these findings are provided to the Planning Commission if there is a refile on this property that is part of refiling on the property that these findings be given to the Planning Commission so that they have a sense of what our sentiments were.

Without solidifying it.

Yeah, you certainly said it down and said this represents some of the thinking of the council and so they have that as guidance.

We haven't actually adopted it but clearly it became a direction from the council.

That would work for me.

That's what satisfies their .

.

.

Yeah.

Let me throw a motion on the floor then if I could David and see.

I would move that we accept the withdrawal of the appeal from the doers but in so doing refer to the Planning Commission the potential findings that were agendized this evening so that they might have the benefit of that input should this come back to the Planning Commission.

Second.

All right.

Any further discussion?
Questions?
I don't think it's the right way to go.

I don't think it will hold it personally.

I think they would win in court.

I don't know.

I'm not an attorney.

I'll admit it.

But what we are saying is okay, 234 whatever the number is on Boulder Street, whatever you come to the Planning Commission with here's what we don't like.

I mean you're prejudging their application before it even starts and to me that's wrong.

Did anyone go up and visit with them?
To see what they're doing?
I mean just for curiosity.

No.

You should have.

You might have a different thought on it.

Well actually Tom I would not in my case because I based my vote and my motion originally was based upon the ordinance not upon their specific design plans.

I realize that.

I've been to that house many many times so I know it pretty well.

Having a walking tour of the home and what they wanted to do was that wasn't part of my purpose for my original motion to begin with.

I think all this does.

I understand what you're saying Tom but I think all this does is informally advise the Planning Commission that this is a document that I suspect.

I have a hunch that this is a document this council was prepared to adopt had they not withdrawn and I think that's a pretty fair assumption.

Well realizing that then and they maybe they realized the same thing and said perhaps we should start again with a different approach.

I'm just saying perhaps.

So they go to start again and here's the eight findings now already out there against them.

Well another way to.

Am I giving some guidance in their new plans?
Exactly what I was going to say that rather than them you know.

Okay I'm not going to vote for it.

Not in any way will I vote for it.

It's just not right in my feelings.

All right all those in favor.

Aye.

Opposed?
Yes.

Okay got that Kathy.

Okay.

If we have a date in court sometime I'd I just want to be known.

Sure.

All right next the appeal for 212 Nevada Street Tamara John Weaver and that has been decided has been continued I think it's Mark.

Director we asked the applicant to bring this back no later than the next council meeting so we can close this.

All right.

There aren't any public hearings about new business any announcements?
None?
Okay.

I'm sorry slow on my announcements.

The miners foundry has done a great job installing a fire sprinkler system with the help of some donations from the community and work of our public works department in the fire department and they've invited the council to a opening celebration for that as well as some other improvements they've made that's tomorrow at the miners foundry at 5 30.

Anybody's interested in bringing an umbrella so they can test the system.

Test the sprinkler system.

No smoking in the hall.

My just before we adjourn so it's all part of this record Tom thinking further about your comments I think that the record is clear that we did take action as a council we did vote as a council to deny the doers with certain findings and all these findings do is to put legal leads to something that we already took a position on as a council.

I still don't agree at all.

I just it's not right to me.

Executive session.

We don't have anything on the anticipated litigation.

And we had put off public employee performance evaluation to this meeting.

Yeah so we'd have a good two hours.

Move to adjourn to executive session.

All those in favor.

Aye.

What do we have in executive session?
We said we had put it off.

We put it off to last day.

[SOUND]