[0:41] stands under God.

[0:50] Please be seated. Claire will not be here today. I'll be chairing the

[0:54] meeting. Roll call. And for the record are Mayor Prom Davis,

[0:59] council members Cole, Greggo, and Swanson. Absent for the record is Mayor

[1:05] Forier, and she is attending a regional plan

[1:08] update all day today with TRPA, which is very important and critical to to this

[1:13] city and courts of the basin. So, opening statement by the city clerk

[1:16] regarding meeting procedures and conduct. Susie,

[1:19] good morning and welcome to the regular city council meeting of Tuesday, March

[1:23] 20th. Before we proceed, as a courtesy to others and to limit interference with

[1:28] our audio and video broadcast equipment, please silence or turn off all cell

[1:31] phones, pagers, and any other type of communication devices. If you are in

[1:36] need of an assisted listening device, please make a request to the city clerk.

[1:41] We encourage and welcome public participation. If you wish to speak on

[1:44] an item listed on the agenda, please complete one of the yellow speaker

[1:48] comment forms, which are located in the back of the council chambers on the

[1:52] small podium. Please indicate the item that you wish

[1:55] to speak on and provide it to the city clerk or assistant city clerk Ellen

[1:59] Palazzo prior to the item being heard. Public communication items are limited

[2:04] to three minutes and this is the time for members of the public to address the

[2:08] city council on items not listed on the agenda. Please note, however, in

[2:13] accordance with the Brown Act, the city council cannot deliberate or vote on any

[2:17] matter raised under public communications. Comments for all other

[2:21] SK scheduled agenda items are limited to 5 minutes. The city clerk will use the

[2:26] meeting timer which will be posted on the whiteboard to the left of the

[2:29] podium. When you are called upon to speak, please come forward to the

[2:33] podium, state your name clearly for the record, and we respectfully ask that you

[2:37] keep your comments concise and once the timer ends to please be seated. The city

[2:43] council asks that respect be shown to the council, city staff, and members of

[2:47] the audience, and ask that you please refrain from clapping, booing, or shouts

[2:52] of approval or disagreement during the meeting.

[2:56] Thank you. Could you repeat that? All right. This is an opportunity for

[3:00] public comments, as the city clerk said, uh, for items not listed on the agenda

[3:05] and limit your comments to three minutes. We can do brief comments, but

[3:08] we can't discuss it or or vote on it. Anyone in the public wants to talk about

[3:12] anything on non-aggenda items, please come forward.

[3:16] Okay, seeing none, city commission reports and council member assignments

[3:21] to boards, committees and commission reports. Angela.

[3:24] Um, we have an item on today's agenda that's reflective of the action taken

[3:30] last week at the California Tahoe Conservancy board meeting at which they

[3:34] authorized for their portion to go ahead with the proposed land swap of um

[3:39] critical properties. Further um and now can find my longer comments inside the

[3:43] land swap issue. Some comments and questions have come up related to the

[3:47] fact that for the first time in if ever or in a long while CTC is looking at um

[3:54] take getting some of the property off its roles and potentially selling some

[3:57] properties and there's some concern out in the public about whether or not

[4:01] that's really consistent with the role of CTC and I'll um go into that in more

[4:05] detail during the discussion because it's relevant there but I did want to

[4:08] alert the public to the fact that um we are very cognizant of that issue.

[4:12] Secondly, I was spent most of last week in Washington DC as part of the lobbying

[4:16] group looking at transportation funding. It was good to be there. It was very

[4:21] helpful for the city to be part of the coalition. Otherwise, we'd have been

[4:24] represented primarily by private sector interests. So, it was good to be a

[4:28] well-rounded group. We spoke with seven legislative delegates that represented

[4:33] us and then um had communications into the federal highways and um

[4:38] transportation um department did as much as we could do

[4:43] to try to secure front-end loading on how to make a successful Tiger 4

[4:47] application which is the funding for us for the loop road um a $60 million

[4:52] project. We also secured um commitments for letters of support. It was also the

[4:57] first time we had met in Washington with staff in longer than anyone could

[5:01] remember. Tom, you may have been the last one that was there. What, 10 years

[5:03] ago? Yeah.

[5:05] Before there was highways. Yeah.

[5:07] So, before there was. So, that was um an important piece that's continuing to go

[5:12] on. And um you never know how you're going to last, but we learned a lot that

[5:17] we wouldn't have known or been able to do to make this um application strong.

[5:21] While there are no earmarks, there are now such things as letter marks, which

[5:24] means when you when they're overs subscribed in the first round, if you

[5:27] don't have letters from your congressional delegation, um

[5:30] particularly on the Senate side, you're tossed out. So, we learned that that was

[5:33] an important piece of keeping us in the running, at least for consideration as

[5:37] they're really drilling down. Bruce,

[5:42] um while I'm attending the committees I've been assigned to, there's nothing

[5:45] to report. How?

[5:47] No report. And the only report I have is I uh had a JPA meeting last Monday of

[5:53] Kaho Amblelet Service. Uh and I also attended a chamber of commerce meeting

[5:58] last Thursday. So it's all I got to report.

[6:02] Okay. This time we have a presentation a 15minute presentation uh proposal by the

[6:07] bike park association to pursue planning and implementation of proposed bike park

[6:13] in the Beija community park. No action will be taken. Stan,

[6:17] mayor prom, members of the council, um Stansere, community services director.

[6:21] For the record, what we have today is a presentation

[6:25] um from two local bike associations for the creation of a bike park in Beiju

[6:30] Park. Staff has been working with um both groups for quite a while on a

[6:36] conceptual design for the improvements. We really feel like this is not only a a

[6:41] a sound investment uh in our community as far as a park amenity, but in

[6:45] addition to that, it will create another special event venue for us. So, with

[6:49] that, I'd like to introduce Garrett Villa Noeva, who's going to make a

[6:52] presentation to you this morning. Thank you, Stan. Garrett, welcome.

[6:56] Thank you. And happy first day of spring.

[6:59] Yeah, thank you. It almost feels like it. Okay, let me pull this up here.

[7:06] Let's see.

[7:11] Okay, there we go. All right, thank you for uh taking the time to hear my

[7:15] presentation. It's about 15 minutes and uh I'm going to run through it kind of

[7:18] quick because uh we've got a lot of pictures to show you. Uh so what we've

[7:23] been working on is a uh bike park proposal at Beiju Community Park on a

[7:29] 4acre parcel, 4 acre parcel. Um the uh so we're we're comprised of two

[7:37] different groups. Uh the Tahoe Area Mountain Bike Association and the South

[7:41] Lake Tahoe BMX Association uh has members in both groups that are uh

[7:47] interested in developing this bike path proposal. So we've teamed up and we're

[7:52] working on forming the bike park association uh to to make this thing

[7:56] happen. Uh there's three members, three core members right now that are

[8:00] representing this project. Myself, Lauren Thomaselli, and Ben Fish.

[8:06] Um this slide is actually a little bit

[8:09] outdated, but the the the reason we're here is to present this uh to the

[8:14] council for your um understanding of of what we're what we're trying to achieve

[8:19] uh which is a 4acre bike park at Beiju Park. Uh so real quickly we want to run

[8:24] through some slides showing you what is a bike park. Um and and and the slides

[8:28] kind of speak for themselves. Uh but I'll go into some details of of what

[8:32] this serves as. Um and one of the best examples we can see out there is the

[8:36] Valmount bike park in Boulder, Colorado, which is a really well-developed bike

[8:40] park. Um and it's got in particular, it's got excellent signing, which uh

[8:46] you'll see throughout this presentation. Uh but you can see in this photo, this

[8:49] is kind of the main reception area. of the bike park and uh it's you know

[8:55] there's there's like 30 30 some odd people all different shapes and sizes

[8:59] even spectators um at the bike parks. It's heavily used. It's just recently

[9:04] been opened. Um this this slide is showing a dual slalom course. So bike

[9:09] park is a place where you can have both formal competitive events and and

[9:12] friendly competition as well. Um here's a slide just a location map of uh Beiju

[9:19] Park and you can't really see it very well but on the lower uh right side of

[9:24] the screen there that's the location of the uh Lake Tahoe greenway bike path uh

[9:29] which has uh recently been approved and uh is planned to be constructed by the

[9:34] California Tahoe Conservancy. Uh so this would be located directly adjacent to

[9:39] the uh greenway. It's close to the college. It's centrally located. Um,

[9:43] we've got a schematic of uh what the bike park could look like. Um, and

[9:49] there's several different elements. Uh, the first phase we're proposing is the

[9:54] uh pump track and the kids zone. And I'll go into detail what what those

[10:00] would look like. Um, so here's a picture of a pump track. Uh, this is kind of a

[10:04] nice size pump track. Uh, pretty easy to construct. Uh, very highly used. They're

[10:09] excellent for uh providing uh skill building, safe place for uh kids and

[10:15] adults to uh uh get better at at uh bike handling skills and in particular a bump

[10:20] track. The reason it's called a pump track is because when you get good at a

[10:24] pump track, you don't actually pedal on a pump track. You you push and pull your

[10:27] bike uh to get through the bumps and and not pedal, although most of us pedal. Um

[10:34] here's some more examples of pump tracks. One of them, the one on the

[10:37] right, is uh actually under construction. You can see some hand

[10:40] tools in the background. Uh so it's mostly handshaped uh kind of piled with

[10:45] uh equipment and then hand shaped. So they're very easy to construct and the

[10:49] little guy on the red helmet just can't wait for it to be done.

[10:53] Um more pictures of pump tracks. This one's at Valmont again. Um again, you'll

[10:58] notice the signing is really topnotch. And this is uh this is one of my

[11:04] favorite slides. you're seeing uh three generations represented in this slide.

[11:07] Uh so it's a it's definitely a familyfriendly

[11:11] uh type of facility. Again, in Belmont, this is the their tot

[11:16] track. This would be a component of a kid zone. Um and in this picture, you're

[11:21] not really seeing the tot track so much. You're seeing some bike racks. There's a

[11:24] rock that uh is placed so that people can actually ride over it. And so these

[11:29] are elements that are incorporated into the entire bike park uh to make it fun

[11:33] and interesting and a place where people want to congregate. And in the case of

[11:36] South Lake Tahoe, you know, we have as as you all likely know a really

[11:41] fantastic uh trails here in Tahoe. And a big draw for uh our visitors is coming

[11:46] up here to be able to bike. What we don't have is a hub. we don't have that

[11:50] central location where people gather, meet um and and then uh conduct their

[11:56] biking activities from there. Um u this slide's interesting too, I think,

[12:02] because this is a a baseball field uh and they simply lay out these features

[12:08] and and it's a bike park. Uh so in this case, it's kind of adapting an existing

[12:12] space to use it as a bike park as well. And you can't really see it very well in

[12:17] this in this uh on the screen, but in the background there's there's about

[12:22] three times as many spectators as there are bike bikers in this picture, which I

[12:25] think is kind of interesting. And that's a good shot, too. The guy's a

[12:31] little bit proud of his strider. That's a that bike on the left is a strider. It

[12:35] doesn't have pedals. That's kind of a modern way kids are learning how to ride

[12:37] their bikes uh without training wheels and more more kids and stuff. Uh so the

[12:44] second park so phase one we would construct first. That's that's why it's

[12:47] phase one. We you know ideally we would be able to start on it this summer. Um

[12:52] however we'll we'll uh get through the approval process first. Phase two would

[12:56] come second. Phase two includes uh the BMX track and the skill zone. Um you

[13:02] know we currently have a BMX track as you know which is uh very successful um

[13:08] located uh uh over um at Alaho School. uh well actually the back of the middle

[13:13] school between Alaha school and uh this is a a picture of some sponsored

[13:18] professional riders lot of spectators at BMX races uh BMX races are or BMXing in

[13:25] general is is growing it's booming right now we're seeing a lot of more

[13:29] participation uh in recent years uh uh so it's a growing sport at this time and

[13:35] so we see these kids coming in and for probably the next to five five to 10

[13:39] years I think we're going to see uh kind of a plug of BMX riders coming through.

[13:44] Uh so it's it's it's uh got a lot of popularity right now. This is a a

[13:48] picture of our BMX track right here at South Lake Tahoe. Bunch of riders. Um

[13:53] another picture of the Spectra area. And we do have riders that uh go and compete

[13:57] at national race events and that are nationally ranked from our track.

[14:02] Um our BMX track is uh uh you know, it's interesting. It's not it's not a big

[14:08] track. However, uh I've traveled around to the Southwest a little bit to

[14:12] different BMX tracks and nothing quite matches the uh camaraderie and the uh

[14:18] the the family feeling we have at our BMX track. It's it's really a

[14:22] spectacular uh uh facility. Um the new BMX track before I go on to phase three

[14:30] would be bigger, a little bit bigger um and it would have the capacity to draw

[14:34] larger events like national races. So the uh the venue uh is a little bit

[14:39] bigger uh a little more developed. Um the last element would be a slope style

[14:44] type course and in an advanced skill zone. And I apologize for kind of

[14:48] blasting through these slides. I've got a lot of pictures and and not too much

[14:51] time so I'm going kind of fast. Um so uh just an example of some advanced type

[14:57] skills. Um, I like this photo because if you look through the front wheel, you

[15:01] can see her friend is is giving her a spot so that you know if she falls,

[15:04] she's not going to hurt herself. And these are the kinds of things that the

[15:07] signs instruct people to do. If you're uncomfortable with with trying this for

[15:11] the first time, have some of your friends spot you. So, if you fall,

[15:13] you're not going to dislocate your shoulder. Um, in this slide, we're

[15:18] seeing uh what's called progression, uh, which is a really important aspect of

[15:22] risk management for for any facility. But uh for the bike park, uh you can go

[15:27] off the small jumps or as you get more comfortable, you can start to ramp up

[15:30] and try the harder jumps. So it gives folks a choice and allows them to

[15:33] develop their skills. Uh this is kind of an overview picture of a slope style

[15:38] course at uh Valmont Park and more examples of slope style

[15:44] courses.

[15:47] And one last example. Oh, two more examples. U this is a a log

[15:52] ride. Uh just another the types and and features that we could put into uh the

[15:58] skills parks are really up to uh our imaginations. Um although they will all

[16:02] be designed uh in detail. And this is one of my I I really like

[16:08] this one. This one's uh just really aesthetic and looks super fun. And

[16:13] that's at Valmont Park as well. Here's a example of some signs. Um a lot

[16:19] of these are from Valmont Park. This sign is a donor sign. Just in a just for

[16:23] fun, I added up uh kind of what was represented in the sign in dollars and

[16:26] it's about $450,000. Um which is not so different what we

[16:31] anticipated a park would cost in total uh for for here at South Lake Tahoe. Um

[16:37] again, more signs. This is a extremely important aspect of risk management is

[16:41] to have good signing. uh set expectations, let people know how

[16:45] challenging different features are uh and guide them to the right areas and

[16:49] establish several rules so people uh know how to use the area. Again, really

[16:55] spectacular signs. Uh and we do I I would hope to emulate what they've done

[16:59] at Belmont as far as in particular with their signing because it is so good. Um

[17:04] trail conditions, they have skills loop signs.

[17:07] um spectators. So we think that uh the bike park would have tremendous capacity

[17:13] to draw spectator events and organized events uh and the site would be used as

[17:18] so. Um just to give you an example of uh you

[17:23] know some of the events that uh I've been to um the Sea Classic down in

[17:28] Monterey uh is an immense uh bike event. It's over the course of a week. Uh and

[17:35] they they draw thousands upon thousands of folks to that event. Uh and the the

[17:41] uh bike sponsors that come are pulling trailers filled with literally millions

[17:45] of dollars of equipment and bikes and cars and all kinds of stuff. It's it's

[17:49] uh I think the potential uh for a revenue generating venue uh is very good

[17:56] uh with the bike park. Um some of the costs, some of the needs uh

[18:02] would be uh five hours a week for u maintenance activities uh from the city

[18:06] staff. Um as well as the existing utilities is uh connections to the

[18:11] existing utilities for watering and for electrical would be needed. Uh and the

[18:16] total cost of construction is estimated uh very roughly at this point at

[18:19] $436,000.

[18:24] Uh we do anticipate that we'll need to get a squa uh permit for this. A categor

[18:29] categorical uh uh exemption would be needed. Um

[18:36] and uh we would need a TRPA permit which you know we we already working on the

[18:39] TRPA permit. Uh we've got our site plan coverage calcs and we've been talking to

[18:44] them about that. We think a permit for phase one is possible by June uh from

[18:49] TRPA. uh benefits. We've got a bunch of

[18:53] benefits here. Uh we do think again, you know, kind of

[18:57] restating what I had already said, but there is tremendous potential for

[19:00] economic benefits uh not only to directly to like bike shops, but also to

[19:05] for extending stays from our visitors in our community. This would just be

[19:09] another reason especially if we build uh the quality of bike park that that we

[19:14] envision. uh we feel people would choose to come here uh even to use our bike

[19:19] park uh and even stay extend their stays on either end of a vacation because our

[19:23] bike park would be of that caliber and quality.

[19:28] Uh this again would be a facility that is uh rentable. Uh the city could rent

[19:33] it out for different venues. Uh you know music, bikes, beer that kind of seems to

[19:39] be pretty popular theme among the bikers. Um

[19:46] Uh it provides a safe place and this is in in my mind this is one of the most

[19:50] important elements of the potential bike park is just providing a safe place for

[19:54] people to learn uh for kids to play uh and be outdoors with their on their

[19:59] bikes. Uh it would promote use of uh mode share bicycle uses a mode share. Um

[20:06] and I I think this statistic is kind of astounding. in Whistler. Uh $34 million

[20:11] is generated by biking over a three and a half month period uh in 2006. So

[20:17] that's that's very good. Uh it would be very low

[20:21] maintenance uh very easy to maintain and there's a lot of buyin uh we we know

[20:26] there's a lot of buyin from uh the folks in our groups that Tampa and South Lake

[20:31] Tahoe BMX as well as other community members. Um I I I've had uh different

[20:38] community members approach me from time to time uh asking me how would we go

[20:42] about building a bike park and uh so here we are. We're we're trying to uh

[20:46] push it forward. So that's been happening uh in various backyards and

[20:51] barbecues for about three years. Uh these types of discussions

[20:57] uh this would this does serve as attraction for folks of all ages. you

[21:01] know, we're seeing little kids that are just learning how to ride their bikes

[21:04] all the way up to uh folks that uh you know, are are collecting their uh senior

[21:09] citizen benefits out there at the bike parks.

[21:13] Uh and we feel that the the bike park is very compatible with the other uh Beiju

[21:19] uh uh facilities that are in place. The the bike park would not displace the

[21:23] Frisbee golf course uh whatsoever. Uh, and it would be located um behind the uh

[21:29] the playground. Um, the one thing that it would potentially um interrupt is the

[21:35] parkhorse that's out there. Um, however, in talking to city staff that the

[21:39] parkour is old. Um, and uh that wasn't viewed as a as a loss necessarily.

[21:49] Um, and the location is is central. It's going to be right next to the Lake Tahoe

[21:53] uh greenway, which will be that's going to be the backbone of our uh uh

[21:57] developed trail system in the future.

[22:02] Um in the US, I'll just read this one. In the US, mountain biking generates 26

[22:06] billion in annual economic activity. Uh and then, uh how much are how much are

[22:11] we getting? Um next steps, uh we are planning to

[22:15] submit a TRPA application. Uh we are developing designed uh uh uh detailed

[22:21] design documents which we're already working on with uh uh contracting uh

[22:26] that out. Um we're soliciting additional community support. And uh lastly, we

[22:32] hope to build or professionally build the phase one of the bike park as as

[22:36] soon as we have the proper approvals.

[22:41] That's it. Thank you. I I've watched biking in in this town.

[22:47] My son now 24 and he's been biking his whole life. I mean, and I go up there

[22:51] and there's I I don't think it's going to go away soon. I think the only

[22:54] economic benefit my son gave to it is to the orthopedists in town, but I I do I

[23:00] do think that there's a lot of people coming here. I would you kind of answer

[23:03] my question. So, you're pretty far along in the process. I didn't realize you're

[23:07] that far along. So, you've identified a site. You you worked with the parks and

[23:11] recck commission and you worked with our planning department. So, they're all on

[23:14] board with with using that site. Yes.

[23:16] And and your next steps, do how are you funding now? The application process

[23:21] isn't cheap either. So, are you raising money as you're going?

[23:24] We have a grant from Specialized, a $5,000 grant from Specialized Bicycle

[23:28] Company right now. We just applied for another grant from uh Bikes Beyond and

[23:33] uh we're we're continuing to see grants for uh uh funding and in addition we've

[23:40] got you over 100 letters of support for donating materials uh and and different

[23:45] things that we would need for the bike park.

[23:46] And then are you an LLC or something? You're doing this work on city property,

[23:51] but it's going to be city-owned and you're going to have a contract to run

[23:54] it or I guess you're still working out. City owned and city operated is is how

[23:58] uh what we what we understand at this point. Uh and we have uh two nonprofit

[24:03] organizations that would form uh one of those nonprofits would convert to become

[24:07] the bike park association. So, you'll have an agreement with the

[24:10] city. You're raising money and and improving the infrastructure of the

[24:12] city. So, I'm sure you got to get some kind of an agreement ahead of time.

[24:16] Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, we we're we're uh our next step is to seek city

[24:20] approval uh in order to move forward from this point before we

[24:24] you must have some city approval in order to have site plans done and go to

[24:27] the TRPA because we we have been working with uh city

[24:30] staff. Okay. I'm curious about how how we're

[24:34] going along without uh so the way that uh we've planned to do

[24:37] it is um the city will give a license agreement temporary license.

[24:41] Sir, could you state your name? I'm sorry. Thank you. near Philly,

[24:44] deputy city attorney. I've worked with Garrett and um some other members of the

[24:49] nonprofit um as well as our um uh parks and wreck employees. Um the way we would

[24:56] do it is we would grant the um nonprofit a temporary license agreement for

[25:02] construction purposes. Um and after the license agreement expires and the

[25:06] construction has been completed, the bike park would be a city um as Garrett

[25:11] said, run and operated um bike park. And that would allow us um to utilize the

[25:18] government available for damages that arise on the property, including

[25:22] personal injury damages. Um the nonprofit would partner with the city to

[25:27] continue hosting events um and potentially um um races and other

[25:34] temporary events, but the um upkeep and maintenance would be the responsibility

[25:38] of the city, which was the five hours a week um and utility obligations that you

[25:42] saw on there. Similar to what we did with our skate

[25:44] park. Yeah, exactly.

[25:46] Okay. Well, sounds great to me, Bruce.

[25:52] Angela just I think you've pretty well covered it but want to understand one is

[25:57] G well is this an open area or is it locked off and enclosed? I'm thinking

[26:01] about the current BMX facility over by the school district which for vandalism

[26:05] my understanding is I'm looking at Lauren Thomaselli in the crowd that it's

[26:08] been locked off at times is isn't it shut so that there's um protecting

[26:12] assets. So I'm wondering how with this being moved into Beiju Park and its use

[26:16] expanded is this going to be an open area and are there worries about

[26:20] vandalism? And then my other question had to do with scheduling between uses

[26:24] of the nonprofit and then the general public. And either one of you can maybe

[26:28] help me with those couple of questions. Go ahead.

[26:31] Lauren Thomaselli, founder and president, South BMX Association.

[26:35] She knows a little bit about BMX. Uh yeah, all great questions. Um the

[26:39] sanctioning body ensures tracks in a variety of um you know conditions.

[26:46] fencing uh fencing a BMX track the way the current track is fenced is an

[26:50] optional is an option to the sanctioning agreement. Many tracks are left are are

[26:55] built in public parks such as Beiju Park that allow usage you know during uh

[27:00] regular park hours. Um certainly fencing the the BMX track uh does allow the

[27:07] operators to control the maintenance and keep up on maintenance and also um

[27:13] really monitor the usage. Um but it's not necessary. Um so what what is

[27:20] required in terms of fencing for to be sanctioned and insured by this the uh

[27:24] national sanctioning body is a 4-foot spectator fence that protects the

[27:30] spectators from the riders when they're you know on the track and to protect you

[27:34] know from dogs or you know other uh you know things rolling onto the track that

[27:39] could interfere with the writing. Um but again the location of the site that

[27:45] we've identified is in a highly visible area. It's a highly used area. It will

[27:50] inspire um pretty much um you know a self-monitoring of you know the

[27:56] activities there and it'll inspire the stewardship from the you know the many a

[28:00] variety of writers that'll be using the park. And what was the second question?

[28:04] Second question had to do with scheduling hours and use

[28:07] of it being you know having those activities in a public park. How do you

[28:11] see will that just be managed through the parks and recck staff is just like

[28:15] any other event? Yeah. Yes, it would. You know, we would

[28:19] we would do um scheduling just like we do on all our facilities and school

[28:23] district facilities. Okay. You always want to look for that

[28:26] balance where you're encouraging all these kind of entre events and

[28:30] entrepreneurial uses but also making sure we've got a good balance for access

[28:34] for our um community members at large to be using this as an asset. Two more

[28:40] questions just related to it because this is a great idea. I'm so supportive

[28:43] of it. Um it's the right kind of idea but I do want to make sure how is asking

[28:47] some questions around city approvals. Mine is in the vetting of because Beij

[28:54] Park is very dear to many people and fought very hard to get it in getting

[28:58] this use coming in. Have we gone back to those appropriate user groups who are

[29:02] part of developing the community plan and then looking at the park to make

[29:06] sure that they are aware that this is a new phase in the life of Beijia Park.

[29:14] We will at this point we're just trying to determine feasibility and whether or

[29:18] not there's the willingness to continue with the planning and implementation. So

[29:23] this is this is the first step in the process.

[29:26] So we'll do that. H I know you've got a lot of history working with this and

[29:29] that would be it sounds like you're doing everything appropriately right

[29:32] now. I would just encourage making sure we keep that open dialogue going so that

[29:36] people understand the elements including even the park course which isn't the

[29:40] most used activity in the park but to feel like something's not being

[29:44] discarded without a good public input process. So those cover most of my

[29:49] questions for it. It looks great and seeing what's being based with Velmont.

[29:52] Oh, I had one last question. Coming from the school district, this looks like the

[29:56] way it's designed, it doesn't encourage any of our skateboarders to use any of

[30:00] the ramps, jumps, anything. Is that correct that this design really will um

[30:05] not encourage them to take that on too as part of their facilities?

[30:11] Well, I personally think that more importantly it does provide a venue for

[30:16] bicyclists in Beiju Park and will take the bikers that are in the skate park

[30:21] and possibly causing you know a hazard there and giving them a facility that

[30:26] they can use that's appropriate to their sport. So I you know I think it's going

[30:30] to create a much you know it's going to bring break those barriers and create a

[30:33] safer environment for both uh user groups. And then I would just like to

[30:37] say and I know that you know Angela from uh the the school district that the site

[30:42] that we are on um at uh at Lake TA Lake Taw Unified School District property

[30:47] were the only sanctioned uh BMX track on public school property in the country.

[30:50] So they did something really unprecedented 10 years ago by approving

[30:53] that. But that site is identified as part of a master plan for their track

[30:58] and field amenities. And one day um our that license agreement will end when

[31:02] they're ready to move forward. So, you know, it we've always known that that

[31:06] that site that uh that we've been so successful at with BMX track has been

[31:10] somewhat temporary. Um and uh and and it just fits right in with uh uh with the

[31:17] other bike or organizations ideas of creating a more diverse um uh bike park

[31:23] for a much wider range of uh bike users that live here and visit here. So, does

[31:30] this development allow the the BMX facilities currently on the LTUSD

[31:35] property to be moved into Beiju as well? That is that already I was I'm not

[31:39] clear. Then in the is it phase three when that facility that's currently on

[31:44] school district property will go into Beiju Park. Is that the plan?

[31:46] Phase two. That is phase phase two. And yes, that's

[31:50] a plan. and then and then that site would be restored to its original

[31:54] condition and where you know whatever the school district uh want whenever

[31:57] they wanted to move forward with their plans they could do. So

[32:00] I can attest you've been a good partner for the school district all these years.

[32:04] Thanks Angela. Mechanically will there be someone

[32:08] present all the time during all these activities because we're having a small

[32:11] children there and we can try to assume the parents will be there but that

[32:15] doesn't necessarily mean they will be. H how how that will that work?

[32:19] Nope. there will not be um the city will not be supervising the facility and

[32:23] that's um important uh to the management of it in order to make sure we can

[32:29] utilize our governmental immunities. Um at the events the events will be staffed

[32:34] at all times but during open hours it it will not be supervised.

[32:38] Will there be requirement that children under a certain age have parents?

[32:41] Yes. And there will be um all sorts of rules and warnings um that will um

[32:47] provide uh the city the um the uh necessary protections as far as personal

[32:55] injury uh liabilities. The liability side

[32:57] concerned. Yes. Yeah. But I'm not worried about the

[32:59] liability side. I'm worried about injury to the children.

[33:01] I'm sorry. How do you how do you how do you how do

[33:04] you I am too. I know how do you uh how do we how do we monitor this so that

[33:10] there isn't well kids doing stupid things

[33:12] perhaps you you two can speak to that but I think this is

[33:15] I think it would be it'd be real similar to how this big skate park works right

[33:19] now or or the playground for that matter uh you know I don't feel that the bike

[33:24] park in itself is inherently more dangerous than than those other

[33:28] activities and I think when we look at what's happening in other places uh what

[33:32] you're suggesting is exactly what they're doing They're they're saying,

[33:35] "Look, if you're under this age, you know, you're not going to you you have

[33:39] to have your parents to be here." Uh, as well as the other there's going to be

[33:42] other requirements as well as wear a helmet, you know, those types of things.

[33:47] But if there's no one there, who's going to insist on the helmet? Who's going to

[33:50] insist that the parents be present? Because it is, you know, I don't say

[33:55] it's not more dangerous, but because you're dealing with, you know, bicycles

[33:59] and they are more mechanical that, you know, might be a greater chance of

[34:03] injury. I'm just wondering whether someone should be watching the

[34:06] situation. Dan, you had a comment.

[34:08] Yeah, I did. Um Garrett was correct in his uh comparison to the to the skate

[34:13] park. Um it it's the same philosophy and the key to liability and safety is the

[34:18] signage that he touched on early in his presentation. If we clearly articulate

[34:22] the risk, which um when Garrett was showing this, you saw different varying

[34:27] degrees of difficulty. Um then that's how we're going to protect the kids.

[34:33] just through education and the signage. But um like Nera mentioned, there aren't

[34:38] many like facilities in the country that actually staff these these type of

[34:43] facilities. And a playground inherently has the same degree of risk as as a

[34:48] skate park or a bike park. And driving with Bruce, you have an

[34:52] inherent risk, too. Trust me. Uh you answered my question on

[34:56] liability. Uh the other one is is the timing again. You looking for June of

[35:02] this year? Yeah.

[35:05] If if we can uh get our approvals completed, yeah, we we are prepared to

[35:11] construct phase one this summer and have it open by this summer. Then

[35:16] that's the that's the goal. I think between this and the Go Ape

[35:19] Adventure Park, we're going to have some great activities for locals and visitors

[35:22] here if we get the Go Ape project going too out here at the airport.

[35:27] Lauren, you had another comment? Uh yeah, I just want to address uh uh Mr.

[35:30] Grego's uh concerns and that is uh with uh the current BMX track we operate we

[35:37] that we're there and staffed and open and supervised that facility two days a

[35:40] week throughout the summer two to three days a week and everyone who walks in

[35:44] that gate is required to have safety gear on that's mandated by the

[35:48] sanctioning body that provides the insurance 247 365 days a year for that

[35:53] site. um that alone educates uh riders and it you know it it develops um you

[36:01] know a respect for safety and wearing the gear um from a very young age. So

[36:07] the fact that we would be there holding these regularly scheduled um events and

[36:11] practices where the the facility will be staffed and supervised more than you

[36:16] know at least two days a week if not more will um help with educating uh the

[36:22] public on proper use of safety gear. Yeah. I think Lauren your second BMX

[36:27] bike is where the ice skating rink is now, right? I remember when you started

[36:31] that one and then we kicked you out of there.

[36:32] Yeah. So you've been moved around a lot.

[36:36] Uh yeah. Yeah. Well, we've been moved around twice. We've rebuilt the track

[36:39] three times. And yes, because the city took a took took a chance and and

[36:43] believed that we had a program that would be beneficial to the community, we

[36:46] had the opportunity to demonstrate uh the sport back in 2000. Uh thanks to the

[36:52] the sitting uh city council at that time who uh allowed us to do that and

[36:56] definitely proved to the community that it was worthwhile and they supported it

[36:59] and we've been successful for the last 10 years um where we are now.

[37:03] Thank you. Just one last comment for Bruce. Um, as a mother whose son blew

[37:08] out the front of his mouth on house property where the kids have that

[37:12] illegal jump that they do, um, I would much rather have had him on where you're

[37:19] 10 years old and you tell your parents you're going to be in one place and

[37:21] you're somewhere else. To have, um, been on a course like this instead of what

[37:25] the kids were building that was illegal and poorly put together and they go

[37:30] flying around. You can't prevent accidents. You have to trust parents are

[37:33] going to be responsible for their kids. But there is that age and it's that

[37:36] squirrely 10 to 13year-old boys uh bunch I'm really specifically looking at

[37:41] you've got to if they have a safe place I'd rather have that and get so Hal

[37:45] doesn't have the nuisance on his property anymore.

[37:47] You spell it C O L E. All right. Thank you very much. Great

[37:51] presentation. Look forward to the be another great addition to our recreation

[37:55] facilities in town. So all right. Next one is adoption of the

[37:59] regular and consent agenda. Is there any changes, additions, or deletions? City

[38:03] attorney, we need to pull number five. We received

[38:07] a bid protest. Okay. And city clerk,

[38:11] no changes other than number five being pulled.

[38:14] Hey, city manager, no changes.

[38:16] I just had one request by Claire. She wanted us to pull because she wants to

[38:20] participate in the close session on the city manager's annual annual performance

[38:25] evaluation item C under close session. So, we'll pull that for future

[38:30] discussion. She wants to be here for that. All right. So, item five is

[38:33] pulled. Any uh city council members want to pull anything? Angela?

[38:36] Yeah. Bruce.

[38:38] No. Hal.

[38:39] So, we're going to continue the performance evaluation.

[38:42] That's correct. Yeah. And I have nothing to pull. The chair will entertain a

[38:45] motion. I move uh to adopt a regular consent

[38:48] agenda with the changes discussed. Second. Move to second. All those in

[38:52] favor signify by saying I. All those opposed. Extension so carried.

[38:58] Okay, the first one we pulled. How do I reset this or do you do that, Susie?

[39:02] Okay. Uh, item five was pulled and this is a formal bid uh from recycle Tahoe

[39:07] custom combination rubbage recycling containers and the recommendation is

[39:12] award bid to Carson Valley Welding in the amount of 158,10319.

[39:17] Is there a staff presentation? I was going to make some quick comments

[39:21] and then Gary O'Neal is going to make the staff presentation and I was just

[39:25] going to discuss it here just briefly here. Um, the city did solicit the bids

[39:30] for 200 uh rubbish recycling containers on January 19th with the bid closing on

[39:36] February 14th. Nine bids were received with staff recommending that Carson

[39:40] Valley Welding be awarded the contract as the lowest responsible bidder. Two

[39:45] other biders, Tahoe Bear Box, the sixth lowest bidder, and Taho Bear Saver, the

[39:49] seventh lowest bidder, have protested the award of the contract to Carson

[39:53] Valley Welding based primarily on their belief that the proposed design is not

[39:57] vandalproof or animal resistant as required by the bid specifications.

[40:02] They've also raised trademark issues which they will address. It is their

[40:06] belief that only the bear saver CE232 meet the specifications for the bid. Um,

[40:13] just as a background, this bid is not a public works project. It is bid through

[40:18] the government code 54201, which requires cities to adopt policies and

[40:24] procedures, including bidding specifications governing the purchases

[40:28] and supplies of equipment by cities. So, this is an equipment purchase versus a

[40:33] public works contract, which is generally a construction project where

[40:37] we're actually constructing or building something or landscaping or maintaining

[40:41] something. Um, and so that's how different. So, instead of being under

[40:46] public contracts code like we were in those cases, we're under the government

[40:50] code, which gives us broad discretions pursuant to the policies that we adopt.

[40:55] The city has adopted administrative regulations. Most recently, they were

[41:00] revised in March of 2009. Section 6-17, which is included in your

[41:05] packet of the administrative regulations, allows anyone no later than

[41:10] 72 hours prior to the bid opening to protest the issues concerning the

[41:14] specifications or the bid procedure. In this case, we received no bid protest

[41:19] prior to the bid opening. After the bid opening, anyone may protest some aspect

[41:24] of the procurement that only becomes evident after the bid opening. The

[41:29] protest must be filed within five working days after the city notifies all

[41:33] biders of their contract award decisions. Following an adverse decision

[41:38] by the purchasing manager, the protesters protester may contact the

[41:43] city clerk within five working days to have their protest heard by the city

[41:47] council. And that is why we are here today. The city's council's decision is

[41:52] finding and final and binding on all the parties. In this case, I've also given

[41:57] you sections 6-17 through 6-13 through 17 that address the awarding of

[42:03] a contract for supplies and equipment. And Gary O'Neal will give you a staff

[42:07] report on the bids and some of the background information on the

[42:10] specifications. And I see here in the staff report,

[42:13] we're talking 225, not 200. Is that correct?

[42:16] I I think it was revised. G Gary will address it.

[42:19] And just for public's information, the the low bid was per unit was 68921

[42:25] and the high bid was 1,448156 and a whole bunch of inbetweens.

[42:32] Right. So Gary,

[42:34] yes, Gary O'Neal, buyer for the city. I can uh assist with the information and

[42:38] how the bid process was carried out. I might have to refer to Stan Sheer on

[42:42] some of the information about the grants and the actual program itself. This is

[42:46] actually the second bid. Uh the first bid that we went out um early in

[42:51] January. Uh there were some schematic drawings that were furnished by the

[42:54] parks and recck department were included in that um in the first original bid and

[43:00] at that time Bear Saver did comment that those were proprietary u trademark

[43:05] designs. And after that I learned that information we can bid. We rebid by

[43:12] pulling the schematic drawings. Um, one of the local iron shop vendors was a

[43:18] little bit disappointed in that. He wanted to have schematic drawings to

[43:21] work from and did not submit a bid. So, we left a little bit open-ended in that

[43:25] aspect. We also added section 4 at Patrick's uh uh suggestion which holds

[43:30] the city harmless. It indemnifies the city against trademark and copyright

[43:34] infringements. We received nine uh proposals or nine

[43:40] bids from nine various uh companies and I checked out Carson Valley Welding.

[43:45] They seem to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The references

[43:49] were good. Got very good um uh references. Uh the wildlife people that

[43:55] were used as a reference said that their bear boxes work to prevent wildlife from

[43:59] coming in. And I also visited the site of Carson

[44:03] Valley Welding in Carson City on Saturday, a couple Saturdays ago. Was

[44:07] impressed with their operation. Uh this is not something they're putting

[44:10] together in their garage. This is what they do, welding and power coating. And

[44:16] um at that time we went ahead and uh put together the staff report so that we

[44:20] could be here today. On Friday we received a bid protest from Bear Saver

[44:25] and Taho Bear Box. And unless you have any specific questions of me, Patrick,

[44:30] I'm not sure of the procedure at this time. Randy is here from Bear Saver and

[44:34] he I believe he would like to speak to the council on some issues. Uh we also

[44:37] have Don here and his attorney that can uh from Carson Valley Welding that can

[44:42] address some of the concerns that they have. I I don't want to spend a whole

[44:45] lot of time for the council. I know that you're busy, but I do want to answer the

[44:49] questions. Um let me know what you need to know.

[44:52] Okay. Hal has a question and then uh just before I hear from the the

[44:57] successful bidder and and the protesters, I just want to get a couple

[45:00] things clear regarding the trademark. Um Patrick, are you

[45:06] confident that we by not giving any schematics or design criteria that we

[45:11] now are free from any trademark uh claims against the solicitation of this

[45:17] product? I am confident that we are free from it and we're also going to get

[45:21] indemnification from Carson Valley. So then the trademark issue should we

[45:25] award it to one or the other and if somebody felt that they were they were

[45:28] infringed upon they would go it wouldn't be between them and the city between

[45:32] them and and the other vendor. Um it seemed like one of the protests

[45:36] was whether or not the low bidder was truly bearproof. What criteria did we

[45:41] have in our bid specs regarding how what we how we define bear proof?

[45:45] It was relatively open-ended. Um, we left it up to the actual submitter to

[45:51] show how their uh product is bearproof. Then who on the city said, "Okay, this

[45:55] meets our criteria being proof." That's a good question. Uh, Greg Ross is

[45:59] the actual project manager for the parks and recck department.

[46:02] Okay. So, it it sounds to me like that's going to be one of the issues. Okay. And

[46:05] that may be somewhat subjective. So, uh, I guess

[46:09] Well, it is it is subjective to make it 100% animal proof. uh you can't you

[46:14] can't put anything inside in it and have the bears try to get in

[46:17] it or anything. Right. Right.

[46:18] But then um Don might be able Don from Carson Valley

[46:21] Welding might be able to address that issue.

[46:23] And how did you handle the revised specifications that were issued after

[46:27] the closing of the bids? Did you did you That's actually part of the staff

[46:33] report. We've gone from 200 to 225 as a quantity. uh Greg Russ changed the the

[46:39] grade of steel and and the grade of steel has been changed

[46:42] also. Uh that actually came about from bearsaver who recommended galvanne

[46:47] steel. I'm learning a little bit more about metal now. Um they recommended

[46:51] that as a better product. Uh we did not specify that specifically in the bids.

[46:57] We left it kind of open-ended again 12 to 14 gauge uh cor non-corrosive steel.

[47:03] So, I'm a little gunshy when we we changed specs after the closing of the

[47:07] bids. Okay. And so, I'm just curious how it was handled this time. So, we got all

[47:11] our bids, then all the vendors were saying,

[47:13] "We want an a revised bid or an upgrade or an add-on uh given this. How did we

[47:18] handle that?" No, Bear Saver recommended a an improved

[47:21] rate of recommended. One of the vendors recommended this.

[47:25] Um, it did not change the ranking of the bids,

[47:27] but Okay. One one vendor recommended it and then did you contact all the other

[47:32] vendors say this is what we want? No, I contacted the one the lowest

[47:36] vendor just the lowest vendor

[47:37] to discuss it with to discuss the uh materials. I'm kind of leaving it up to

[47:41] them as far as metal. You didn't offer it to all the

[47:43] vendors as an upgrade to see if it changed their prices. You just went to

[47:47] the lowest vendor and asked him. Correct. Okay.

[47:50] Because it it did not change the bid rankings. We're we're also we've got a

[47:54] timeline on the grant. The grant ends at the end of May. So

[47:59] timeline scared me. We were under timeline last time. I I want to do this

[48:02] right and not timeline. So you you don't you're assuming that it wouldn't

[48:05] affected the other biders by giving them the upgrade. You just gave it to the

[48:09] lower vendor and say how much would it cost extra to bring this upgrade, but

[48:12] you didn't give it to all the vendors to look at again.

[48:14] That's correct. Okay. Thank you.

[48:16] Let's clarify. So when was the change made in the galvanized steel? It was

[48:20] before or after the It was after It was after the closing.

[48:23] Yes. after the bid closing. After the bid closing.

[48:26] Okay. The additional cost did not affect who

[48:29] was the lowest bidder.

[48:32] So,

[48:38] I just want to ask following up on Hal's comment on attachment one, the technical

[48:42] specifications with this was the basis for the

[48:45] evaluation of what made something beareproof

[48:48] that all of them were asked to conform to. Is that my understanding?

[48:54] Are you referring to attachment one in the technical

[48:57] specifications? So on page four of the council item

[49:00] that says container shall limit the potential for nonrecyclables to end up

[49:03] in the recycled waist stream and must meet the following specifications and it

[49:07] goes A through U. That is correct.

[49:09] That was all the the level of detail you went to for

[49:13] that is correct. any of them to do this and the and then M was the one that was

[49:21] the galvanization or the the steel requirement.

[49:25] M M was the U specification for the material to be used.

[49:29] All right. And then just a point of process. I I understand how changes can

[49:33] happen when you have a project. I'm concerned about what to follow up again

[49:38] on what Al was bringing up that it's done

[49:42] either not it's either not a bid agenda or not after the contract's been awarded

[49:48] at some point once the contract's awarded if there's a change you you can

[49:51] make an a contract amendment that seems a cleaner more logical way to approach

[49:56] it then to make this interim change just if just as a process issue so I would

[50:01] throw that out just to ask maybe that as a question or are we doing best

[50:04] practices is in looking at this um because it does trouble me at the timing

[50:09] of when this happens. I understand you're saying that by amending their

[50:13] bid, the low bidder did not lose their place, but

[50:20] it's an irregularity in the bidding process that I'm I'm a little

[50:23] uncomfortable with. Okay, Bruce, you have a question.

[50:27] The comment I had is is there any manufacturer that you can buy this off

[50:31] the shelf? Do we have to have these custom made? Not that I'm aware of. Now,

[50:36] in all this recycling world and everything that's going on in the green

[50:39] world, there's nobody makes them off the shelf.

[50:42] Uh Stan, I for you, there are manufacturers that do so.

[50:48] Have we looked at those? We have. Um a lot of the reason that um

[50:54] the specs were written the way they were is because we have actually had some

[50:58] experience with some of these vendors historically and we haven't had uh a

[51:02] problem with the product. Okay. And then the question I have again back for the

[51:05] city attorney. Are you comfortable and I I am not comfortable when we change

[51:10] specs after the fact. Are you comfortable with this bid process and

[51:14] with a change after the the bid was issued from a legal perspective and

[51:19] defensive? I am comfortable because it doesn't

[51:22] change the bid order in this case. Um normally what we do is we'd award the

[51:26] bid and then we'd make a change order. Um, but I am comfortable knowing in

[51:31] advance that it will need to be galvanized

[51:34] and and so and not letting the other biders know just the the one bidder.

[51:39] Um, it's because it does not change the bid order in this case

[51:42] that change the cost, right?

[51:44] Okay.

[51:47] Thank you, Gary. Okay. Um, and Patrick, what order do you

[51:51] want to hear from the bid protester or the

[51:53] Well, it's up to the council, but I I would start with Carson Valley and then

[51:57] Yeah. Uh, Angel had another quick question.

[51:59] I have one more question just in the last piece. I don't think I'm seeing in

[52:02] here what the what is the changed bid from Carson Valley. Is it that they went

[52:10] from 639? Yeah. If you're saying it didn't change

[52:14] it, there's I'm not seeing the paper trail that goes from their original bid

[52:18] to their amended bid with the changed specification. And I'd like to make sure

[52:22] we're looking at that so that we can see that evidence. Is that in here? on page

[52:26] two of the staff report under the notes. Um I wanted to clarify because there is

[52:30] the the grid with the biders and what they proposed those that's the original

[52:35] proposals from the nine biders. Mhm.

[52:38] And if on page one you're actually uh recommending $158,000

[52:44] which is the change on the quantity and also is about an additional $3,000 more

[52:48] for the galvan material which is a little bit easier to work with lasts

[52:52] longer but it's a little bit more expensive. All right. Did you have them

[52:55] fill out just again trying to look at tease out process issues here? Okay.

[53:00] Where we have in our attachment to which was the Carson Valley bid document. Did

[53:05] they prepare an an additional bid document showing what the cost increase

[53:10] was or how did they respond back to you? Uh let's see.

[53:16] Attachment four includes a letter from PDM Steel Service which is the supplier

[53:21] for the Galvan material.

[53:26] But as to whether there's an actual a changed response page, no, there's not.

[53:35] That's why I is that in the resp

[53:37] I included attachment five, which is the a draft copy of the actual.

[53:41] Okay. No, I'm sorry. I I just didn't follow it

[53:45] to track how this worked. Okay. Thank you.

[53:47] No, they're they're good questions. I'm as as the buyer, I'm learning as I'm

[53:51] going along. Excuse us if we're a little gunshy, but we just goes by the book.

[53:55] So, thank you. That's why I was trying to spell out as

[53:57] much as I could in the staff report. The uh the bidder that won the award is

[54:00] Carson Valley Welding. Yes. And we'll let them go first with their

[54:04] comments. Thank you.

[54:11] Morning. I'm Robert Huckabe. I'm an attorney for Carson Valley Welding. Don

[54:14] Heldornne, the owner of Carson Valley Welding.

[54:17] Top of the morning. Morning. Um,

[54:23] Mr. Heldron has had a uh a business which has been manufacturing

[54:29] bear boxes that are widely used in the Tahoe area. So, he has a lot of

[54:35] experience in uh building trash enclosures that are truly bearer

[54:42] resistant. Um,

[54:45] one of the the things that kind that the uh protester kind of addressed were some

[54:53] things related to some of the functionality of the unit. The

[55:00] and what we've done is actually met each one of the technical specifications

[55:07] precisely. Um

[55:10] and by one of the key things we'd also point out is there was a criteria for

[55:14] vandalroof and our prototype uses a key similar to

[55:21] what they use on the bear boxes that for private uses where the trash people have

[55:29] a key to insert. This makes it uh that a casual passer by cannot open it up and

[55:38] disrupt the contents uh dump the trash or steal the containers or do those

[55:44] kinds of things. So that's a point that we've addressed

[55:48] as relates to the trademark issue. Um I is there included a a copy of the

[55:56] trademark diagram in the package? Yes.

[56:00] if I might present to the council. Um, here's a couple of pictures which the

[56:08] brown box is our prototype. The other two boxes are their uh product.

[56:16] Their trademark is specifically limited and I quote from their trademark. The

[56:22] mark consists of a configuration of the side portion of a metal container.

[56:29] We've outlined that in the copy of theirs to indicate that you folks can

[56:37] take a look at it from the real world person and say, "Is there

[56:43] an infringement?" We believe it's clear there's not. And as council for Mr.

[56:49] Helder's business, I'm prepared to defend that. As part of the contract

[56:54] award, we've agreed to indemnify the city from any uh trademark claims, and

[57:01] we're willing to take that risk and make that agreement.

[57:21] other comments.

[57:25] I've got one other question. One other thing that addresses ADA. So,

[57:29] the height. Okay. Yes. Uh the height of it, the ADA

[57:32] requirement is 48 in. Our box is at 47 1/2 in which is within the ADA

[57:40] requirement and obviously this is a prototype. Um you can see on the picture

[57:46] of it it has adjustable feet which was part of the city's uh technical

[57:51] specification so that it can be leveled and there can be height adjustments.

[57:58] Okay. Other questions? The questions go

[58:03] I thought you were done. uh addressing uh another part of their

[58:09] objection uh by Bears Saver. Um they're talking about

[58:15] um a design that uses a vertical shoe with sloping on the top to interface

[58:20] with the tail would most likely be similar enough to our protected design

[58:24] to warrant legal action. We believe that's smoke and mirrors. Obviously,

[58:29] you've seen their trademark. You've seen pictures of the product and I believe

[58:34] that it's visible to anyone that etc. Their trademark is

[58:41] based on trade dress. Trade dress means that they've used it in five years.

[58:46] They've sold a lot of the of their containers in the national parks and

[58:50] other places. And so it's based on saying that if somebody walked by that

[58:56] side profile would be identified with their product. We believe there's

[59:01] absolutely no infringement on that. Mr. Heldornne hadn't even seen their product

[59:06] when he designed his box.

[59:12] Uh Don Heldor, Carson Valley Welding. Uh when we designed our box, we designed it

[59:17] based on the criteria of the city of South Lake Tahoe and to address the the

[59:23] bear proof uh bear resistant uh question. Uh we've

[59:30] been building boxes for nine years to the city of and uh county, Elorado

[59:36] County and other counties surrounding the area and um we have 0%

[59:43] bare entries in our residential enclosures. And to make a box bear proof

[59:49] under the guidelines of the city, the city asked for a round hole to place

[59:55] recycles in. If you have a round hole in a box, anybody can stick their arm in

[1:00:00] there. And if there's arms long enough, they can reach the top of the box. And

[1:00:04] if the trash can is full, they'll they will be able to pull out an empty

[1:00:10] Coke bottle. As far as the shoot side, our design,

[1:00:17] which is different than the design of Bears Saver, because after I

[1:00:21] manufactured it, I went and took pictures of their box and looked at

[1:00:25] their design. Their design is a chute that has no sides. Their sides are

[1:00:30] manufactured into their box. Our sidewalls of our chute are incorporated

[1:00:35] into the chute itself. So when you open it, you have side you have metal sides

[1:00:39] on it to enu encapsulate the materials that you're placing. Uh it's a little

[1:00:45] smaller in design, so it'll deter people from bringing 20 gallon trash uh sacks

[1:00:51] out of their home and placing them in the city's containers. Um you cannot put

[1:00:57] your arm in it. uh a bear would not be able to open the enclosure and insert

[1:01:03] his arm and be able to reach any refuge at all. And we have uh pictures of that.

[1:01:11] And I also would like to submit some pictures of some testing that we have

[1:01:15] done at the uh uh Yellowstone Wolf and Discovery Center under the direction of

[1:01:23] Patty Soka who is uh living with wildlife foundation director. And may I

[1:01:28] present these to you please?

[1:01:36] Uh those pictures of uh that I've passed out are of our residential unit. We

[1:01:41] don't have any testing for uh this prototype unit. We just haven't had

[1:01:46] time. But uh the years 34 years of fabrication experience that I have is uh

[1:01:54] more than enough to know that that unit is going to be bear resistant on the

[1:01:58] doors. Uh once again, the hole in the top is something the city specified they

[1:02:04] would like to have. So we built it under their guidelines and uh we did our best

[1:02:08] to build it as high as we could to allow um ease of use to meet ADA guidelines

[1:02:16] and to keep people from reaching in and and uh taking taking out the products.

[1:02:24] Okay. Any questions for Carson Valley Welding? I

[1:02:26] have a question for the attorney. Uh I know a little bit about copyrighting

[1:02:30] music and other kinds of art, but how do you assure a design is proprietary? Is

[1:02:34] it a patent? Is it a trademark? Is it a copyright? How do how do you protect the

[1:02:41] design of of a product like this? Well, the product could have been

[1:02:48] protected by a copyright. It could have been attempted to protect by a patent if

[1:02:55] there was a unique enough design. As a matter of fact, I'm I believe that Bears

[1:02:59] Saver has patented their latch, which they use on other boxes, but that latch

[1:03:07] is actually not in compliance with the city's specifications for this box.

[1:03:14] Has Don done any protection of his the one marketing? So,

[1:03:19] anybody could copy Don's design for the other bear box?

[1:03:22] It's it's in the it's in the public domain. And you're not u you're not

[1:03:26] proposing that you do any kind of protection of your of your work here as

[1:03:30] far as not at this time?

[1:03:33] No, we it's an issue that you know what what

[1:03:37] Okay. What what Don is presenting here is uh a product that is responsive to

[1:03:43] the city's technical specifications. He's presenting his experience in

[1:03:50] building products like this, having done that in this area. Uh, by the way, Don

[1:03:57] lives here in town and so, uh, he's he's seen that in its actual use. the product

[1:04:06] uh technical protections. Um

[1:04:12] at this point in time, it would not be eligible

[1:04:15] for a trademark protection because he hasn't it's a brand new product. Um

[1:04:21] Bears Saver was able to obtain their trademark based on an alleged five years

[1:04:28] of public use. So it got a respect as trade dress in that they convinced the

[1:04:38] uh patent office that their profile from the side as they've diagrammed would be

[1:04:46] identified with their uh company and we don't dispute their trademark um because

[1:04:55] we came up with our own design. Thank you. Any other questions of

[1:04:59] council? I have a question. I want to make sure

[1:05:02] we're not barking up the wrong tree on this one. Um,

[1:05:07] does the city have as I read this, this is primarily just not to get but to try

[1:05:13] to make sure we're on the gerine arguments here. This is for a recycling

[1:05:17] program. It's funded through a recycle grant for recycle Tahoe and it's

[1:05:21] supposed to be as part of it animal resistant.

[1:05:25] Do we have any standards for bear resistance elsewhere in the city that we

[1:05:29] apply in any other way or any requirements that that are I'm just

[1:05:34] trying to clarify as we're looking at bear savers protest issues

[1:05:39] is the focus on whether it's trademark or not but being around bears and being

[1:05:43] bearroof really the gerine argument and do we have any other standards in the

[1:05:49] city or any receptacles that are held up to being bearroof in the city.

[1:05:56] Not that I'm aware of, although I do know that the uh assistant parks and

[1:05:59] recreation director before formulating the technical specifications met with

[1:06:03] some of the local agencies concerning wildlife and actually drew up a list of

[1:06:08] potential uh biders that were that had boxes that are out for the public to

[1:06:12] purchase that have been used in the past and that have been successful u being

[1:06:17] wildlife resistant. M Rover or Mr. Marino, give us any further

[1:06:21] clarification on that. Stan,

[1:06:26] the element of recycling here makes a difference in in the design as far as

[1:06:30] bear resistance or proof. Um, obviously we had to make allowances for the

[1:06:36] recycling effort because as you mentioned it is funded through a

[1:06:38] recycling grant. So it's kind of you know there's the primary purpose of

[1:06:43] these receptacles is to encourage people to recycle and then to make them as

[1:06:49] resistant as possible to animal invasion.

[1:06:54] Okay, any other questions? And Hillary Rover, director of

[1:06:58] development services. Um, I would need to go back and check the city code to

[1:07:02] see if there are any specifics related to um, bear proofness when it comes to

[1:07:08] our requirements for dumpster enclosures, but um, as I recall, there

[1:07:12] is not. We just use the term, but don't define it.

[1:07:16] And this just goes to trying to clarify is what's been awarded within the realm

[1:07:20] of what's reasonable in terms of any other city standards or requirements and

[1:07:24] the program need for it and in understanding what the challenge is and

[1:07:29] what are the relevant issues in the challenge.

[1:07:31] Okay. Any other questions for Carson Valley Welding from council? All right.

[1:07:35] Thank you. Uh the one protester is the bear savers. Please come forward.

[1:07:43] Welcome. Good morning, Mr. Mayor. Morning

[1:07:45] council. My name is Randy Stanway and I'm with Bearsaver Tahoe Bearbox.

[1:07:50] We've prepared some um material data handouts for you guys. If I can hand

[1:07:55] those out to you guys.

[1:08:00] Everybody has a copy.

[1:08:14] The only comment I have when we get a presentation like this and something

[1:08:17] handed to us at the last minute, it's hard for us to there's a lot of stuff in

[1:08:22] here to read this. I think this is just the uh the um

[1:08:25] Okay. The first summarize it.

[1:08:26] Yeah. Anyway, the summarization is um we do have duplicates. So, if any

[1:08:29] members of the audience want to to see a copy of this because we have

[1:08:33] is that the same one here? It's the same one we have

[1:08:36] to you this morning. without the binder, but you've got the

[1:08:40] full packet. So, when this bid first came out, um you

[1:08:44] know, basically our background is we're the North America's premier um

[1:08:50] manufacturer of bearproof and public high abuse trash units. Um combined

[1:08:56] engineering experience, we have about 55 years between myself and the other

[1:09:00] manufacturing engineer at our factory. So we spend a lot of money, time, effort

[1:09:06] um engineering with material analysis and also putting patents on all our

[1:09:11] products. Um all of our products in the field are tested with bears and um you

[1:09:18] know with public too. So and our CE232 that we proposed meets all the uh meets

[1:09:25] and exceeds most of the city guidelines. Um the uh and it's an off-the-shelf

[1:09:32] product, too. I mean, we have these things in service in Tahoe. We have

[1:09:36] probably about 600 in service all around Tahoe. Um our customers are like Calr,

[1:09:42] every ski resort, um all the cities in the North Lake, Incline Village, Evid,

[1:09:48] the list just goes on. And um and then uh so we think that

[1:09:54] their material that when they bid the G30 galvanization which which

[1:09:59] technically you can see in their package package gives your box about a fiveyear

[1:10:04] lifetime. Number one and then when you powder coat on top of that you can't get

[1:10:10] a good um chemical resistant powder coating to stick to that product. That's

[1:10:16] why you have to use galvanil. and galvanil is about a G90 weight.

[1:10:22] With with a good powder coating should give your box about a 22 to 28-year

[1:10:27] lifetime in conditions like Tahoe. Our FEA analysis put our boxes at about

[1:10:34] 18 to 22 years in the marine environment like beaches and and peers where a lot

[1:10:39] of them are as well. Um, you know, I mean, even though Carson

[1:10:44] Valley Welding's box looks good and it appears to meet most of the

[1:10:47] specifications, it's about 100 pounds underweight per unit.

[1:10:53] And um, and it's just it doesn't have stainless steel hinges. Um, it's got

[1:10:59] some it's got some issues where pretty much I believe from my experience that

[1:11:04] you're going to be replacing these boxes within 5 years or taking them out and

[1:11:08] having them fixed. And you know, I mean, our boxes are just

[1:11:12] pretty much the standard all over the United States. I mean, you know,

[1:11:16] everywhere has these boxes. Um, you know,

[1:11:22] and, uh, that's pretty much it. Um, they're a little bit more money, but we

[1:11:27] make them as cheaply as we as we possibly can to have them hold up

[1:11:32] against the public. Um, we've had you like we have units in Yusede Valley that

[1:11:37] get used probably 500,000 times a year. We have hundreds of these same units in

[1:11:42] in Yusede Valley. And that is and that's kind of our test grounds, not for the

[1:11:46] bears. Like we already know it's bearroof. It's for the for the public.

[1:11:50] High abuse destroys units. And you know, he has a great residential product, you

[1:11:57] know, but those only get used a couple times a week. your street side cans are

[1:12:01] going to be getting used hundreds of times possibly per day, you know,

[1:12:05] depending on the location. It's going to have to hold up to all the chemicals on

[1:12:08] the Highway 50 and all kinds of hard stuff.

[1:12:14] And we just don't believe that for $158,000

[1:12:18] um for an extra $60,000 you're going to get something that's going to last you

[1:12:22] 25, 30 years. In the bid, we, you know, it was kind of unclear whether the city

[1:12:28] wanted the cheapest box on their streets or the best value to the city. So, you

[1:12:34] know, we just pulled our regular C232 CHRR,

[1:12:39] you know, with the shoot that we've always had and just submitted that

[1:12:43] because that's what they actually put up there in the beginning on the first bid.

[1:12:48] They had a picture of our unit on the first bid and then um and then our you

[1:12:52] know our attorneys told us to call you and you know and see what the dealio was

[1:12:57] with it because it was a trademark configuration problem. If Carson Valley

[1:13:03] um continues with with his product, even though he has a couple changes in the

[1:13:07] profile of his design, our attorneys believe that it's going to cause

[1:13:11] confusion in the marketplace and it will be a viable case against Bear Saver and

[1:13:16] Carson Valley Welding and they're prepared to take action immediately.

[1:13:21] So, I mean, you know, I'm just here to kind of, you know, show the the the

[1:13:24] council that if you guys are going to spend this kind of money from this

[1:13:28] grant, you know, do you want something that's going to last a long time that's

[1:13:32] proven or do you not really care and you guys can bring them in, you know, and

[1:13:36] fix them up every now and then and have them repowder coated? Because that's

[1:13:40] what's going to happen if you don't get a bear saber box.

[1:13:44] Okay, questions, pal. So, um, two issues here that kind of

[1:13:48] concern me. one is, and I'll ask staff. So, when we originally solicited for

[1:13:54] bids, we used their product as a a picture of what we wanted. We used a a

[1:13:59] picture of their trademark product. At the time, I wasn't aware it came from.

[1:14:03] It was um submitted by the original project manager, but when I was informed

[1:14:08] by Bearsaver that it was their product that we were advertising in the

[1:14:12] schematic drawings, I immediately rejected or cancelled that bid and we

[1:14:17] redid it so that we did not use their schematic drawings.

[1:14:19] But did anything else change other than not the picture?

[1:14:22] The the picture was um taken off of the bid,

[1:14:25] but did any other specs change? We did add the section about

[1:14:29] indemnification that it was to be an original design,

[1:14:31] but okay. Okay. So, but nothing else changed in the bid except you removed

[1:14:35] the picture. Correct. Those two items were changed.

[1:14:38] And it's your contention that given these specs, you should be granted sole

[1:14:42] source standard. Um, usually most of most of our our

[1:14:46] deals are sole source. Um, because we are the government standard for

[1:14:50] products. Um, they spec us in on everything for every forest service job,

[1:14:55] whether it's a food storage container, recyclable, trash container, they spec

[1:14:59] us in. Sometime it has to go to bid. So that's part of your protest is you think

[1:15:02] you should have been a soul source given the specs.

[1:15:04] Um if if they want to use those specs. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:15:08] Patrick had a comment. Yeah. I mean unless they're trying to do

[1:15:10] a contest for, you know, the boxes, but I mean ours have been in in service now

[1:15:16] for over 12 years. We've had zero warranty issues on that product. Um we

[1:15:20] have them as far um east as Nova Scotia, as far north as Alaska, and as far south

[1:15:26] as San Antonio, Texas. Questioning that the validity product.

[1:15:28] I'm just trying to find the process. We did.

[1:15:30] Yeah. Yeah. So, Patrick, you had a comment?

[1:15:33] Well, I I just wanted to comment besides um the specifications were not changed,

[1:15:38] but we took out the diagram and the pictures in there. So, the

[1:15:41] specifications are there, and it's up to the biders as to how they meet those

[1:15:45] specifications. Previously, we had a design, my

[1:15:48] understanding, is a picture of what we were looking for. Guess what I'm trying

[1:15:51] to get at is when when the initial uh solicitation was done, all the vendors

[1:15:58] were given a picture of this product and specifications.

[1:16:02] Okay. So, we we rescended that picture after we found that it was somebody

[1:16:05] else's design. That's correct.

[1:16:08] Angela, you have some comments. Um, one, just to follow up on House, when you

[1:16:11] rescended the bid, did you let people know that it was a trade that there was

[1:16:15] a concern about trademark infringement or something to keep a playing field

[1:16:18] even around the second? Yes. Application.

[1:16:22] I included as an attachment the letter from Bears Saver uh stating that it

[1:16:26] wasn't trademark. So, they were clear their designs needed

[1:16:28] not to be. And then, um, I just want to clarify a couple of things, Randy. Um,

[1:16:34] as you talk about your product. One sounds like even though you're specked

[1:16:37] in, you have done public bid. Yes. Yes.

[1:16:40] You're aware that and you were aware of our rules that it was a low bid best

[1:16:45] value environment. Well, we didn't know. It did not say low

[1:16:49] bid. It said best value to the city. So, best value to the city is us meaning,

[1:16:53] you know, you guys are going to pay a certain amount for a box. We're going to

[1:16:56] give you a box that's going to last a long, long time. It didn't say lowest

[1:17:00] bidder wins it. Did you know how much money was

[1:17:02] available in this program? $394,000 was a grant. Um, now if it would have said

[1:17:07] low dollar bidder, we would have just re-engineered a light box, a light gauge

[1:17:12] box made out of G30 or G60 like Carson Valley Welding and we would have beat

[1:17:17] him in price. But our box has to have a certain standard. We have to have

[1:17:22] stainless steel hinges. And I understand that's what you're

[1:17:24] saying. But if you've done low bid work, public work

[1:17:29] by definition is low bid. Yeah. It didn't say low bid. Um, in in

[1:17:33] the bid documents, it said best value to the city. It did not say low bidder. It

[1:17:37] did not say low bidder wins a bid. And but your bid came in at almost

[1:17:40] double the low bid and you chose to go at a high at a high

[1:17:45] standard. We we go to the standard that we always

[1:17:48] go to for public high abuse boxes. There's only one standard. There's only

[1:17:53] one way to make these boxes that they last. And we've been

[1:17:56] I appreciate that. I'm just we're again our task here is the process and did our

[1:18:02] staff violate this process and how they did this so that this isn't not an

[1:18:07] appropriate award to be making. I I believe they did because they didn't

[1:18:11] say low bidder. They just said um best value to the city and you know

[1:18:14] maybe we could have the city attorney respond to that comment.

[1:18:17] Sure, Patrick. I value to me could be also low bid too.

[1:18:24] And I I I have not reviewed the bid document. So is that what we said?

[1:18:30] Best value or low bid? Yes.

[1:18:33] And our administrative code provides either uh lowest responsible bidder/best

[1:18:39] value. So we're looking for both when we're looking at the um awarding of the

[1:18:43] contract. Didn't say that. That's what he's

[1:18:46] saying. It apparently didn't say that in the

[1:18:48] actual bid documents. You have a copy of documents? Yes. Any

[1:18:57] other questions? You know, and also I want to add, you

[1:18:59] know, Carson Valley Welding submitted a um a bare testing um result from his

[1:19:04] residential units and it wasn't even pertaining to the product that he has

[1:19:08] right now. Um which is kind of misleading to the council,

[1:19:15] you know. Okay. Any other questions for Randy? All

[1:19:19] right. Thank you. Thank you. And then we had one more

[1:19:22] protest, did we? Besides uh Gary, did we have one more protest?

[1:19:27] No, I believe uh Bears Saver is the manufacturer. Randy can clarify this.

[1:19:31] Bears Saver is the manufacturer where Tahoe Bearbox is the actual distributor.

[1:19:35] So they're so

[1:19:37] two two companies but kind of the same entity.

[1:19:39] Okay. How do they submit bids separately?

[1:19:42] We do that all the time with with them. We double bid um a lot on on public

[1:19:49] works jobs because a lot of the uh the forest service jobs require two bids but

[1:19:55] they want the same product. So depending on you know Bear Saver does

[1:20:01] the the forest service stuff. I'm confused. You're the same company

[1:20:03] and you submit to No. I'm Tahoe Bearbox.

[1:20:06] Yeah. And Bears Saver is a different company.

[1:20:08] They're at they're the actual factory that actually manufactures them. I'm I'm

[1:20:13] just an engineer and a distributor. Okay. So it's yeah one product two

[1:20:17] different distributors to technically meet the rules.

[1:20:19] Okay. Thank you. All right.

[1:20:22] Okay. What's the pleasure of the council?

[1:20:26] I I just want to be clear. I don't think there's really an issue as to whether or

[1:20:30] not Bear Saver or Taho Bearbox would have met the qualifications as well, the

[1:20:34] specifications. The real issue is whether Carson Valley Welding meets

[1:20:38] those specifications as we bid the project.

[1:20:41] And and I want to open up to the public too. Does anyone in the uh public have

[1:20:45] any comments on this bid? Okay, I'll close the public comment back

[1:20:50] to council. Can I ask a question of of Donudge?

[1:20:57] If we're looking at at best value, obviously longevity is one of the

[1:21:02] things. What What is your box warrantied for? What is a length of warranty you

[1:21:05] give? Well, we had a limited lifetime warranty

[1:21:08] on the stainless steel hinges. Randy made a statement that we're not using

[1:21:12] stainless steel hinges and in fact we are and it is stated in my bid package

[1:21:16] as such. So what what is your warranty?

[1:21:18] The warranty is lifetime on the hinges and we've got 10 years on the powder

[1:21:22] coat and we've also we're also going to uh be using an anti-graffiti powder

[1:21:28] because we feel it's best for the city because of the tagging and uh the tag

[1:21:34] the tagging marking and any um vinyl decals that are put on the box. they'll

[1:21:40] be able to be removed. So, that's in response to to the appellant's uh

[1:21:43] arguments that their boxes are designed to use thousand times a day and yours

[1:21:48] are used residentially. We have the same usage and they give a 20-year warranty.

[1:21:51] You're giving a He didn't state a warranty.

[1:21:54] I thought he did. I thought he said 20 years.

[1:21:56] He said they they should last. He didn't state a warranty.

[1:21:58] But you're giving the city a limited lifetime warranty on the box

[1:22:02] on the hinges and the latches and

[1:22:04] and those are the parts that would wear out.

[1:22:06] How long should your box last? as long as his last. It's the same steel. It's

[1:22:11] the same material.

[1:22:15] Angela Gary, what were your criteria for

[1:22:18] evaluating the responses received? Like what was the basis for your rankings?

[1:22:24] The ranking is based upon the pricing. All right. So even though we say best

[1:22:29] value, best value really meant pricing. There weren't any other factoring

[1:22:34] criteria brought in like lifetime, length of

[1:22:38] life, any other no no

[1:22:42] subjective or other data. It was purely on price.

[1:22:44] It was making sure that the uh the lowest response was also a responsive

[1:22:48] bidder. Yeah. I want I want to just add I want

[1:22:53] to thank the council uh because of the time frame involved. Usually these

[1:22:56] things would be worked out um before going before council. uh this item was

[1:23:02] already on the agenda and when the bid protest came in on Friday and then so

[1:23:05] therefore we're here before you today. Okay. Thank you Gary.

[1:23:09] If as a consequence of council action there is so either way we go and with

[1:23:14] the timelines on this program what happens what happens I'm thinking back

[1:23:18] to Lake View Commons a different situation but one in which as a result

[1:23:22] of a decision made by council there was a protest

[1:23:27] and a delay in the project moving. So what happens either way, whether we send

[1:23:31] it back to be rebid or we accept it, what are the consequences and the

[1:23:36] consequences to the grant? It's possible that the grant could go

[1:23:40] away, although um the grant coordinator has applied for an additional one-year

[1:23:44] extension. We've already had a one-year extension.

[1:23:48] Stan might be able to follow up on Angela's question. What

[1:23:52] would be the quickest turnaround if we said uh there are some there is some

[1:23:57] confusion here. we'd like to rebid it and clarify that it's it's it's as long

[1:24:01] as they meet the criteria, it's low bidder, things like that. What what

[1:24:04] would what would the turnaround time if you said, "Okay, we're going to reject

[1:24:08] all bids, reissue a solicitation." How soon could What's the shortest time

[1:24:12] frame you could use? We usually go out to bid uh have it out

[1:24:16] posted for about 3 weeks after that. What's the shortest we could do and

[1:24:20] still meet the criteria? That depends upon the vendors

[1:24:22] themselves. could we could do it just a matter of a couple of days if they can

[1:24:26] put together a a bid that quickly for

[1:24:30] well legally what is what's the legal requirement

[1:24:32] well I think legally it just has to be a reasonable time the shortest I've seen

[1:24:35] it is generally about two weeks so okay

[1:24:38] and then if it was two weeks at what point would we be back at this point

[1:24:43] it's about two weeks before we can get it back on the council so you're looking

[1:24:46] at at least a month at least a month

[1:24:47] before it would come back would that would that jeopardize the

[1:24:50] program that's possible What was the deadline in

[1:24:53] the program? The end of May end of May.

[1:24:58] Okay. By the end of May on the wording. But by the end of May, we have to have

[1:25:02] it awarded or we got to actually have the cans.

[1:25:06] I'm not familiar with the actual wording in the grant itself.

[1:25:09] The grant's been going on for a couple years according to staff report.

[1:25:12] It has. We've already had one extension on this grant because of the transition

[1:25:16] in staff.

[1:25:19] Can we get clarification about the impact on is it easy enough to look up

[1:25:23] the wording on if the cans have to be bought or where we have to be in the

[1:25:27] process in May to retain the grant? If we tried to make it on the existing

[1:25:33] deadline without any extension, I would assume the money would have to be

[1:25:36] encumbered by the end of when the grant expired.

[1:25:39] And that could be a purchase order, correct?

[1:25:41] And a purchase order is not that hard to get taken care of. Let me ask the other

[1:25:46] question and answer the other side of it. If there's a protest, a suit is

[1:25:49] filed or something is going on or however the the protest continues, what

[1:25:53] happens to our ability to move forward?

[1:25:58] That's what I'm saying, but I want to hear Steph.

[1:26:00] Yeah, I would assume that's I would assume that we can't go forward with the

[1:26:04] purchase obviously until that's resolved and that and the grant would either have

[1:26:08] to be extended or dropped.

[1:26:13] Okay. I'd recommend we move forward with all speed and

[1:26:16] you want to make a rebate. Comments from council before we take

[1:26:19] action. Sure. I have a couple of comments. It does say

[1:26:22] that the ward shall be made to the bidder who in sole discretion of the

[1:26:26] city offers the best value to the city. Um I'm a little uncomfortable about some

[1:26:32] of the imperfections. uh we've got burned pretty badly with

[1:26:36] Lake View Commons and you know I know there's bid deadlines or grand deadlines

[1:26:42] but uh I'm concerned that if we I think we should do this again. I think we

[1:26:48] should uh be a little more clear on some of these issues or address these

[1:26:52] concerns. The idea of changing the the um the type of metal being used after

[1:26:59] the the fact bothers me even though it might not be material. But all these

[1:27:04] issues can be brought in front of a court and who knows how a judge would

[1:27:07] look and I think we need to bring more perfection to the bidding process than

[1:27:11] we have here. And I think we should state it

[1:27:14] specifically low bid based on the specs. That's right. I I appreciate though the

[1:27:19] wiggle room with best value in that if you get an an a low bidder that is not

[1:27:24] necess that we don't find to be a responsible bidder that I like that but

[1:27:29] I would add in maybe the judging criteria that the criteria will be based

[1:27:33] on low bid number one criteria and then the secondary I think that can help us

[1:27:38] out with that to protect us and you know no criticism to staff but

[1:27:42] you didn't seem when you put the criteria together that you appreciated

[1:27:45] what kind of metal should be used and so you know what kind of expertise

[1:27:49] does our staff have to evaluate the qualities of these boxes

[1:27:55] and and uh um and again it's a learning process but I just think that there's

[1:28:01] been there's too many questions here for me to award a bid today I I'm just

[1:28:06] uncomfortable I think we should do it again

[1:28:08] okay to to the city manager can you ensure

[1:28:10] working with staff to get this back to us in a timely way so that we can

[1:28:15] protect ourselves to make sure that there's a purchase order and this is

[1:28:18] encumbered within that deadline. I don't want to trust an extension in this

[1:28:22] environment. We could have this back to you by the

[1:28:24] meeting of April 17th. In the interim, we can work with the folks on the grant

[1:28:28] to explain the situation, but I think you can still encumber these funds in

[1:28:32] time to meet the requirements of the grant

[1:28:33] and you know the issues as discussed here today. So, okay, Cheryl will

[1:28:37] entertain a motion then. I make a motion not to award this bid

[1:28:41] and to request a rebid. Well, I think all we're going to do is make a motion

[1:28:45] to reject all bids. Make a motion to reject all bids

[1:28:47] and then rebid it and then direct the staff to rebid.

[1:28:52] Is that a motion then? That's a motion.

[1:28:53] Second. Move and seconded. Any further

[1:28:56] discussion by councel? Let's vote.

[1:29:06] That motion was unanimously carried. Okay, moving on. Uh that's the end of

[1:29:12] the consent agenda. We move forward to new business. Uh first item on new

[1:29:16] business is agreement between the city of South Lake Tahoe, California Tahoe

[1:29:20] Conservancy to transfer property ownership between the city and CTC. Uh

[1:29:26] and the APN numbers are all listed on here and staff will present those uh

[1:29:30] those properties. Hillary. Good morning, council. Hillary Rover,

[1:29:33] director of development services. What you're considering uh in this agenda

[1:29:37] item is an agreement with the California Tahoe Conservancy to transfer property

[1:29:42] ownership between the city and um the conservancy.

[1:29:48] The agreement involves two city parcels and four conservancy sites and um some

[1:29:55] coverage allocation. Thank you, Sebastian. You're awesome on

[1:29:59] short notice to get the map up for me. Um, the parcels involved are the city

[1:30:05] parcels. The first is the city's former drive-in theater property that's on

[1:30:10] Glenwood. And the purpose of the conservancy um obtaining ownership of

[1:30:15] this property is to complete the restoration and remove u the coverage

[1:30:20] that exist exists on the property. Then they would uh they plan to retire the

[1:30:26] majority of that coverage to meet their obligations under the excess coverage

[1:30:30] mitigation program and um potentially put the property up for sale as a single

[1:30:36] family home site.

[1:30:41] The second city property involved is um along the upper Truckucky River near

[1:30:45] Sunset Drive. And the um conservy's interest in this property is that um by

[1:30:52] their owning it, they can include it as part of their um Upper Truckucky Marsh

[1:30:58] restoration project. Conservancy parcels that are included in

[1:31:04] this agreement. Um the first one is the former Unicel property on Highway 50

[1:31:09] that's next to the um IHOP. This property was purchased by the CTC

[1:31:15] just last year and um due to the the location, the zoning, and that there had

[1:31:20] been previous um coverage on the property, it could be available for a

[1:31:24] variety of uses. Um there's no um specific um plan with the city to use it

[1:31:32] for for anything particular at this point. Um but because it does have that

[1:31:36] development potential, could be an asset for the city.

[1:31:41] Next is the conservancy parcels next to the Tahoe Daily Tribune building on the

[1:31:46] corner of Harrison Avenue and Modesto. This is um five different properties.

[1:31:52] And I do need to correct um some information in the staff report. I fixed

[1:31:57] it at the end of the paragraph but not within the paragraph. The um maximum

[1:32:03] allowed coverage if we were to develop that as a parking lot would be 50%. And

[1:32:08] there's a couple places in here where it still says 70, but um as a public

[1:32:12] service facility, we could develop that uh with 50% coverage. And your next

[1:32:18] agenda item includes a um amendment to professional services agreement with RO

[1:32:24] Anderson to begin taking that from a uh conceptual

[1:32:30] site for a parking lot to uh detailed designs as part of the Harrison Avenue

[1:32:35] project. Then we have a few um properties owned

[1:32:39] by the conservancy that um have historically been maintained and

[1:32:43] operated by the city. These include three parcels um on the west end of

[1:32:49] Reagan Beach where the city has uh maintained the property as part of

[1:32:54] Reagan Beach and um it is one of the sites that is utilized for weddings.

[1:33:01] Right next to as you exit Rab Beach to the right.

[1:33:05] Yes. on the hill where they do weddings on on the west side.

[1:33:08] We manage that now anyway, don't we? For the weddings

[1:33:10] there. Yes, there has been um an agreement. I believe it's actually

[1:33:13] expired at this point, but the city um has historically maintained and

[1:33:17] operated. Great location. Yeah.

[1:33:20] And the second um property in a similar situation is um property that was

[1:33:26] acquired by the conservancy that was previously um owned by CALR for

[1:33:33] the potential highway rerouting uh rightway and it's right there um as part

[1:33:40] of the soccer field next to the Lake Tahoe Community College uh the community

[1:33:45] ball field. The conservancy property includes um the parking lot there um a

[1:33:51] small portion of the the field itself and the bike trail. And again, the city

[1:33:56] has historically maintained and operated that property. And the question came up

[1:34:01] at the CTC board meeting last week about why the city would want to take

[1:34:06] ownership of these properties if we've had these agreements to maintain and

[1:34:10] operate. And um really it's just a streamlining of the process and putting

[1:34:17] uh properties in the hands of agencies that best manage them. So if there are

[1:34:22] major maintenance or um or repairs that need to be done on these properties, it

[1:34:28] really streamlines the process um that the one doing the work actually owns the

[1:34:33] property as well. As part of the agreement also, the

[1:34:39] conservancy would allocate 60,000 square feet of potential land coverage within

[1:34:45] the south state line hydraologic area and 50,000 square ft of potential land

[1:34:50] coverage within the upper Truckucky hydraologic area uh to be used for city

[1:34:56] public service or recreation projects within those hydraologic zones.

[1:35:02] There's no monetary exchange associated with this particular agreement. Um,

[1:35:08] however, we would split the um title and escrow fees and then the city would

[1:35:13] obtain title insurance for the conservancy properties that we take

[1:35:17] ownership for of. The CTC board did approve this agreement at their meeting

[1:35:22] last week and if you have any questions, be happy to answer them.

[1:35:26] Questions for Hillary? Uh, Angela straight under

[1:35:30] one comment. One thing we did do um as part of the agreement, we've reviewed

[1:35:34] the agreement and we approve it. We did add the two last paragraphs under the

[1:35:39] indemnification on page eight dealing with the cirleta issues and that was

[1:35:44] primarily because of the unic gas station that they're going to transfer

[1:35:48] over to us. So we wanted to be clear if there is any circular issues, any

[1:35:52] petroleum, any cleanup that needs to be done on that site that CTC would

[1:35:56] if I remember correctly how we purchased that property as a redevelopment agency

[1:36:01] then sold it to Fantasy Inn. So I think the title was clear at that time you may

[1:36:06] want to check it but that was an issue back then

[1:36:08] and the case with the regional board has been closed.

[1:36:12] Bruce, that was the same question I had about

[1:36:14] the whether the site's clean. I'm sure it is. Uh, we'll open it up to

[1:36:19] the public for any comments from the public regarding transfer land between

[1:36:23] the CTC and and the city of South Lake Tahoe.

[1:36:28] Hi, my name is Bob Demire. I live on Omali Drive. I just had a couple of

[1:36:32] questions for Hillary. Welcome, Bob.

[1:36:34] Good. Welcome. Oh, thank you.

[1:36:36] And good morning, council. Sorry. Uh, the appraisal values of the different

[1:36:41] properties, are they comparable? The ones that they're going to be

[1:36:45] exchanging and what specifically It's pretty close. We've looked at it. It's

[1:36:49] It's a few bucks in favor of CTC, but it's it's not significant,

[1:36:53] right? And then the um the streamlining, what are we talking about in savings and

[1:36:59] dollars as a result of the streamlining? The JPA fields are getting pretty old,

[1:37:04] aren't they? I mean, uh the what JPA the uh public ball fields I've heard

[1:37:09] are are getting old and are going to be needing replacement. Does actually

[1:37:14] having title to the property save you money in when it comes time to replacing

[1:37:19] them? I'm not quite sure I understand the

[1:37:23] question. I think um Hillary, why don't you

[1:37:25] address that? But I do think Cal, you could correct us in in maintaining the

[1:37:29] new community ballfield built at the college. Isn't that a responsibility of

[1:37:33] measure R to maintain or that they fund the cost of the

[1:37:37] maintenance on that? Well, they fund the cost of building it.

[1:37:39] I I think we're maintaining it. So, we're maintaining it anyway. Okay.

[1:37:43] Hillary.

[1:37:47] Yeah, just to answer the questions that were brought up. Um the table in

[1:37:50] attachment C has details um regarding each property and um it did just occur

[1:37:56] to me as I was sitting down. I also did not mention that for the drive-in

[1:37:59] theater property. Excuse me. The city would retain the

[1:38:03] rights for an easement and a U construction staging area related to the

[1:38:07] Beiju erosion control project. But, um, back to attachment C that gives the

[1:38:11] details of each of the properties, excuse me.

[1:38:16] Um, the drive-in theater property, we did have an appraisal done. That

[1:38:21] appraisal, um, the the value was set at $630,000.

[1:38:28] Um, there is some question of the amount of coverage on the property that was

[1:38:33] included in the appraisal. So, we agreed to make the the value a range until

[1:38:38] those issues could be um clarified with TRPA and then um $18,000 was taken off

[1:38:44] of the value for the easement and the construction staging area for the Beiju

[1:38:49] erosion control project. Um the other properties that had appraisals

[1:38:56] done on them were the Harrison Avenue properties.

[1:39:02] Let me find the value here. And that was the um five different lots

[1:39:08] and the appraisal for those

[1:39:14] came in at $150,000. And then the former Unical property was

[1:39:20] also we had a um a formal appraisal done that came in at $357,000.

[1:39:27] And then the other properties that um you are listed as the asset lands, we

[1:39:32] did not go through the expense of having a detailed appraisal done on them, but

[1:39:37] we were able to um put some approximate values based on um comparable sales um

[1:39:44] as well as experience with the CTC on land exchanges. Um so that's where those

[1:39:49] values came from. And if you compare the um just the asset lands part of the

[1:39:56] trade um it does come out to um pretty close to an even trade for the two um

[1:40:02] agencies. Questions for Hillary.

[1:40:05] All right. Maybe a follow-up comment for Bob to

[1:40:08] help explain things and I know we have Bruce coming up from CTC to help explain

[1:40:11] a few of the things, but in terms of the value, especially at that ball field, we

[1:40:15] learned when we did the snow globe event that all of a sudden there was a wrinkle

[1:40:18] in the city trying to do um a larger scale event than just the the local

[1:40:23] soccer leagues managing it because we had to go through CTC as another layer

[1:40:27] of approvals for a property that we essentially manage and take care of and

[1:40:31] consider to be ours. So that it it's a clarification and a streamlining. And

[1:40:36] then I the one comment I promised earlier I'd make and then as a prelude

[1:40:39] to Bruce is that CTC has been talking with the city and other agencies that

[1:40:46] over the last 20 years as properties urban properties have been acquired by

[1:40:50] CTC to do their function. There are some properties that make more sense to be

[1:40:55] aligned into another holder such as CTC does a better job with urban uplands

[1:41:00] areas. Perhaps some of their properties that are more in wilder areas may make

[1:41:05] more sense for the Forest Service or the county to maintain because of adjacency

[1:41:09] to their properties and to preserve and protect them and and we all have to be

[1:41:14] paying attention to budgets and the affordability of maintaining them. this

[1:41:18] exchange aligned so that the city is owning properties that make some sense

[1:41:22] and have it. We're not going to do anything with that drive-in property. It

[1:41:25] was primarily a backup for coverage based on hydraological area and also

[1:41:29] because we thought at one point we were going to move Beiju Park in that

[1:41:32] direction and and a new forest is growing in there

[1:41:36] now. So to align that back to CTC makes sense with CTC's covenants and something

[1:41:41] they're not moving away from. That was the biggest piece I wanted to frame.

[1:41:44] After the CTC meeting, I got hit with several people saying, "Is CTC getting

[1:41:49] out of business? Are they going into development?" And that's not the case.

[1:41:53] We're just aligning proper property strategically. That makes sense, such as

[1:41:57] Unicel property along Highway 50 by Fantasy. It makes more sense for us to

[1:42:02] have that available for appropriate development on the city's business core

[1:42:06] and for them to have again the drive-in property in some of the other areas. So,

[1:42:10] it's really a smart, cautious, slowm moving alignment of strategic properties

[1:42:17] that fit very tight criteria and don't violate bond covenants, use covenants,

[1:42:22] or any other factor for the CTC or for the city.

[1:42:26] Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the council.

[1:42:30] Bruce Eisner with the Tahoe Conservancy staff. As Hillary had indicated and

[1:42:36] Angela is a member of our board, the conservancy did unanimously approve the

[1:42:41] proposal that is before the council last Thursday. And uh essentially on behalf

[1:42:47] of the staff of the conservancy, we appreciated the efforts of the city

[1:42:52] manager and Hillary as well as a couple of the council members who were involved

[1:42:56] in helping to put together uh the proposal before you that I think

[1:43:02] Angela has summarized very well. It meets our objectives respectively. It's

[1:43:09] consistent with the principles of both organizations and I'm certainly

[1:43:15] available to answer specific questions if you have any.

[1:43:18] Okay. Any specific questions for CTC? We like

[1:43:21] you. You give away money. So, it's always a good agency that gives away

[1:43:25] money. Any other questions from council? Okay. We've already closed the public

[1:43:29] session. Back to council for action. Chair will entertain a motion. I'd just

[1:43:33] like to clarify too that we had the benefit of Hal Cole coming in to help us

[1:43:37] with the final negotiations on this who is a former CTC board member and

[1:43:41] long-term advocate who has brought a very deep understanding and historic

[1:43:45] perspective on it and and and Hal, if you'd want to carry the me the um the

[1:43:50] motion. All right, I'll carry the motion then to

[1:43:53] approve and execute the agreement for the uh property ex transfer between CTC

[1:43:59] and the city of South Lake Tahoe. Moved and seconded. Let's vote.

[1:44:12] That motion's unanimously carried. Thank you. Uh, next under new business

[1:44:16] is amendment number one to professional service agreement between the city of

[1:44:20] South Lake Tahoe and Ro Anderson Engineering for engineering design

[1:44:24] permitting and financial consulting services for Harrison Avenue project in

[1:44:29] the amount of $53,771. Hillary,

[1:44:34] thank you. Hillary Rover, director of development services. Um, what's before

[1:44:37] you is amendment number one to the professional services agreement with RO

[1:44:42] Anderson for engineering design, permitting, and financial consulting

[1:44:46] services for the Harrison Avenue project. Um, in December, the city

[1:44:50] council approved the professional services agreement with RO Anderson and

[1:44:56] we have been working uh with the property owners in the

[1:45:00] Harrison Avenue area and um, RO Anderson has been facilitating a lot of very good

[1:45:05] discussions with those property owners and as the project design has moved

[1:45:09] forward and been refined, we've directed several changes. Uh those and changes

[1:45:14] include realignment of the bike trail behind the businesses along Riverside

[1:45:19] Avenue, including the parking lot on the five uh parcels on the corner of Modesto

[1:45:24] and Harrison that were just discussed in the the land exchange. uh modifications

[1:45:29] to the two boat trailer parking lots down by the Lake View Commons end of the

[1:45:34] project and to um those modifications are to accommodate uh the bike trail

[1:45:40] going through those properties and um connecting to Lake View Commons.

[1:45:46] The current project design which we're at about uh 50% level are scheduled to

[1:45:52] be presented to the planning commission as well as the city council um in April.

[1:45:56] The planning commission meeting is April 12th and council is April 17th where we

[1:46:01] would um just for discussion purposes present those designs um and get some

[1:46:06] detailed feedback on that. These changes that have been directed

[1:46:11] require an amendment to the professional services agreement with RO Anderson in

[1:46:16] order to complete the design work that is outside of the original project area

[1:46:20] and to incorporate the property there on Harrison and Modesto.

[1:46:25] The amendment also includes a review of the city's pedestrian light standard. Uh

[1:46:31] council has expressed um some concerns or um questions about the current city

[1:46:37] light standard. So we've requested that the um uh lighting engineer that is

[1:46:42] working on the Harrison Avenue project also do uh an overall review of that

[1:46:47] standard for its appropriateness for um lighting bike paths and sidewalks.

[1:46:53] The total cost of the amendment is uh $53,771

[1:46:58] which is within the original contracted contingency amount. Uh with this

[1:47:03] amendment, it would bring the entire contract amount to $599859.

[1:47:10] I'm sorry, $599,895.

[1:47:16] No sense. Um,

[1:47:19] so other than that, blunder if you have any other questions for open to the

[1:47:24] public health. Um, Hillary, can you um bring me up to

[1:47:28] speed? We have an existing parking lot next to the new Lake View Commons boat

[1:47:32] lot launch. That was a motel we tore down.

[1:47:34] Mhm. That that parking lot, I think, is only

[1:47:37] covering 30% of the land. Correct.

[1:47:40] When Rick Angelo was here, he and I looked at it. that was there was banked

[1:47:45] coverage on there from the existing motel that exceeded 30%.

[1:47:48] Correct. Is that coverage still there? Because

[1:47:50] I'm still concerned that that parking lot is not big enough and I've always

[1:47:53] advocated that we need to especially with boat launching that just eats up

[1:47:57] parking like you can't believe. Is there still coverage available on that? And if

[1:48:01] so, would that be under the scope of our Anderson to to see if we could expand

[1:48:06] the parking lot given that we have coverage there?

[1:48:08] Yes, it is. I've been working with the TRPA staff to um allow for 50% coverage

[1:48:14] on that property as a public service facility that's accessory to the

[1:48:17] recreation facilities adjacent. Uh the difficulty was that that property um was

[1:48:22] not included in the community plan boundaries when it was um demoed as the

[1:48:27] hotel and turned into the parking lot. But um I do have um verbal

[1:48:33] acknowledgement from TRPA staff that um that their interpretation of the code

[1:48:38] would be that that could have up to 50% and I'm currently working on getting

[1:48:42] that in writing from them. But it is a part of this scope amendment that Ro

[1:48:47] Anderson would um redesign that parking area. putting the bike path through

[1:48:53] there. We have we may need to make some adjustments to the trailer parking which

[1:48:57] we need to retain for the um obligations under the grant, but um that may need to

[1:49:02] be moved um in order to accommodate that bike trail. And in addition providing

[1:49:08] more regular car vehicle um parking up to that 50% coverage on that property.

[1:49:15] And that property would also be utilized as a primary location for water quality

[1:49:21] treatment for the entire project area. And am I correct? There was

[1:49:25] with the footprint of the motel, there was more than 50% coverage there. There

[1:49:28] is. So that extra coverage is in the South Stateline area. Could we then use

[1:49:32] that coverage to go to the 30 to 50% on Harrison Avenue Park?

[1:49:36] Yes. So, we have a we have a um a bank of coverage in that state line

[1:49:42] hydraologic area that would allow us to utilize that for the Harrison and

[1:49:48] Modesto property as well as expanding. My goal is to maximize the parking on

[1:49:52] both those. If I've learned anything in 20 years, it's parking really drives the

[1:49:56] projects. I don't care how much we try to inhibit it and encourage people to

[1:49:59] take buses and stuff. Our visitors for the foreseeable future want to get back

[1:50:05] and forth to the beach. Yes, and that is our intent to maximize um in both those

[1:50:09] locations. We've also again been working with the the property owners diligently

[1:50:15] to squeeze in every parking space that we can um find room for so that they can

[1:50:21] um still have parking for their business.

[1:50:24] Less is the impact on the neighborhood if we can provide public parking.

[1:50:27] Right. Thank you, Bruce.

[1:50:30] Angela. Okay. Open up the public for comments.

[1:50:34] Does anyone in the public have any comments on uh this item?

[1:50:38] Okay, seeing none, back to council. Council entertain a motion.

[1:50:46] I move approval. Second.

[1:50:48] Move and seconded. Let's vote.

[1:50:58] The motion's unanimously carried. Thank you. The next item on new

[1:51:02] business, item C, discussion and possible direction action for staff to

[1:51:07] fac to facilitate the development of a joint study group with the city of South

[1:51:12] Lake Tahoe Fire Department and the Lake Valley Fire Protection District to

[1:51:15] explore a possible consolidation of the two agencies.

[1:51:19] Brian, uh, Mayor Prom, Council Brian Uler, uh, police and fire chief for city

[1:51:25] of South Lake Tahoe. Um, on the agenda transmittal, I

[1:51:29] indicated that it would take about 10 minutes. I hope you're not disappointed

[1:51:32] or feel cheated if I go a little bit under that. Uh, not counting for

[1:51:37] questions.

[1:51:40] Our uh, city's chop from the top approach to uh, financial problem is

[1:51:45] positioned well uh, in terms of our fire department uh, potentially merging or

[1:51:52] consolidating with Lake Valley. Our lean design meaning no chief and um not

[1:52:00] having a traditional management structure has given rise to a ground

[1:52:04] swell of dialogue both inside and outside the department. Uh my sense at

[1:52:09] this very early stage is that at a minimum uh our community is poised for a

[1:52:14] thoughtful evaluation and consideration for uh such a merger or consolidation.

[1:52:21] Early on, our fire department, our fire association was in contact with Lake

[1:52:26] Valley Fire Association and in turn uh Gareth Harris, the chief for Lake Valley

[1:52:31] Fire Department has approached the Lake Valley Governing body in an effort to

[1:52:36] seek approval which was uh completed on March 8th for uh continuing to move a

[1:52:41] process forward. Uh note that I previously referred to

[1:52:46] this as a merger. I I think that in my mind the end result of a full

[1:52:52] consolidation would be uh representing an entirely new organization. Uh

[1:52:57] characterizing this as one taking over another might be dangerous or cause one

[1:53:02] group to feel inferior in some way to the other group. So I think it's

[1:53:06] important for us to uh be sensitive about some of those things as we move

[1:53:10] forward. I believe that our ultimate goal or end view uh should be a larger

[1:53:16] more efficient organization that makes better use of upper level resources. An

[1:53:21] example of that would be having a single command structure that uh oversees five

[1:53:27] stations that operate within the city as opposed to two separate command

[1:53:31] structures each of which do three or two stations just seems on its face as being

[1:53:36] more efficient. Um further a single training program would be uh a you know

[1:53:44] useful and more efficient. Uh having a single fire prevention program I believe

[1:53:49] would meet the needs of our community. Today staff is asking for council

[1:53:54] support to move forward um with this requ this this request is simple. We're

[1:54:00] not asking for money or a consultant firm or anything like that. It seems to

[1:54:04] me that the to make the best decision about uh such an effort that has some

[1:54:10] significance to it would require our people uh meaning our council members,

[1:54:15] Lake Valley board, our city manager, employees and management folks to fully

[1:54:20] understand the intimate financial and people details

[1:54:25] uh about such a a merger. A closing thought is that I don't

[1:54:30] believe that uh such an effort would be wasted. Uh because there's really a

[1:54:34] broad spectrum of potential outcomes. Uh on one end, we could leave our

[1:54:38] organizations as they are right now. Um at in the middle somewhere might be

[1:54:43] contracts with Lake Valley that includes coverage, management coverage or command

[1:54:48] kinders of coverage um at more significant events. Uh coverage for fire

[1:54:54] marshall services and fire prevention programs. um maybe even a uh some sort

[1:54:59] of a JPA formed between the two organizations.

[1:55:03] And then at the other end of the spectrum, of course, is a successful

[1:55:06] creation of a completely new organization that represents the needs

[1:55:10] of all the city and Lake Valley district residents.

[1:55:15] So that that concludes my presentation pending any of your questions.

[1:55:19] Questions for the chief? Okay, seeing none, I'll open to the

[1:55:24] public for comments. Anyone in the public have any comments?

[1:55:34] Uh Dave Huber, Lake Valley Fire Protection District Board of Director.

[1:55:39] And uh we urge you to go forward with this, at

[1:55:42] least on a committee standpoint, to sit down and let's talk about consolidation

[1:55:46] or mergers or whatever you're referring to it, annexation.

[1:55:51] um our board voted to um bring this proposal to you and uh I think uh it's

[1:55:58] best for our service to our community that at least we owe them the the to

[1:56:03] look into it and uh to forge on. So questions of Dave.

[1:56:09] Okay. Thank you. All right.

[1:56:10] Anyone else have any comments under public comments?

[1:56:12] I do have one question for Dave. Dave, who be would be representing Lake

[1:56:16] Valley's board on this study group? That hasn't been decided yet. until you

[1:56:21] guys make a decision here if you're going to pursue it.

[1:56:24] Okay? So then we'd get back to our meeting and

[1:56:26] decide who'd be on that uh committee and I'm sure you'd be doing the same

[1:56:31] thing if you approve it today. Okay. Anyone else in the public have any

[1:56:35] comments before I close public comments?

[1:56:40] Seeing none public comments are closed. Back to council for discussion and

[1:56:43] action. Uh regarding the the timing, I think

[1:56:47] timing is perfect for us right now because of the economy and obviously our

[1:56:52] structure has changed and one important thing in the study group that I was

[1:56:56] really glad to see is that we're going to have uh it's recommended we have fire

[1:57:00] association representative. I think that's critical that we have our

[1:57:04] association there at the table because it's going to affect them too. So uh

[1:57:08] with that I'll open it up to comments from the council. Angela,

[1:57:12] just serving on the the JPA one, I'm already seeing how well our two agencies

[1:57:17] work together in providing all of our EMS services and that this is a great

[1:57:21] opportunity to look forward. I do want to make sure that the community

[1:57:24] understands, at least from my perspective as a council member, we're

[1:57:27] in an era where we have to look at cost and service delivery efficiencies, but

[1:57:31] that this really will only exist if it makes sense for our staff for and the

[1:57:37] community they serve. If this doesn't work, you don't move forward for on a

[1:57:41] cost basis. It's not the answer and it won't be rammed down people's throats.

[1:57:45] There are a lot of things to be looked at. And as this evolves, they I am uh

[1:57:51] clear that there will be ample opportunity for our community members to

[1:57:56] really weigh in on this and to understand what this means to them as

[1:58:00] those who will be receiving those services. And I just want to make sure

[1:58:02] that that's really clear that this bi-weekly process with this list that

[1:58:06] we're looking first, does the service model fit? Is it appropriate? If it's

[1:58:10] not, does it mean that meet the test to go forward? Does it what benefits can it

[1:58:15] provide? And then what will it cost? And then we start really talking with our

[1:58:19] community about is it what they want then having done all that work. And I

[1:58:22] want to make sure that's really clear. Yeah. And to the public, this is just a

[1:58:25] study group. No decisions as Angela said have been made. a lot of questions we

[1:58:30] have to get defined and so we're looking at the opport the opportunity to do this

[1:58:34] but uh no way are we proposing anything at this point but we got a lot of

[1:58:38] questions and we got to get a lot of answers Bruce

[1:58:42] I just think it's a good idea to look at its potential for saving the uh city

[1:58:47] some money and we need to save money how uh we've been talking about this as

[1:58:52] long as I've been involved in the city uh as you say timing is right we we owe

[1:58:57] it to the public to to look at at what it would mean. But I agree with Angela.

[1:59:01] The primary concern we all have going into this is is public safety, response

[1:59:06] times, uh level of service. Are we being asked to also appoint two council

[1:59:12] members at this meeting or if we pass this to do it at a later?

[1:59:15] Two council meetings or two council members at this meeting. By the way,

[1:59:19] Angela referred to it. Angela and I sit on a JPA. Tahoe uh provides the

[1:59:24] ambulance service. We've got a template and we've worked together for 10 years

[1:59:27] on that template and it's worked quite well. And by the way, most of the calls

[1:59:32] uh are for ambullet service right now. So the JPA has been working well

[1:59:37] together for a long long time and and we've got a great working relationship

[1:59:42] uh with Lake Valley Fire Protection. Would it be appropriate for the two

[1:59:45] members of the ambulance JPA to also serve as this? Is that what is people's

[1:59:51] It's up to council. Yeah. we have your confidence it makes

[1:59:53] sense to move forward or I mean Tom and I are both neither one of us have any

[1:59:58] secrets or what we do so that if it was the council's desire to add

[2:00:01] What's that mean secrets what we do well it's it's just wide open and we

[2:00:06] don't we don't we're not hugging our experience and our work to our chest and

[2:00:11] that we're the only ones who can do it if the council felt it was important to

[2:00:14] add another level of expertise by having one or two members do it I I don't have

[2:00:19] an objection to it but we do we are steeped in

[2:00:22] I think you're more familiar. I think it makes a lot of sense.

[2:00:26] Just as a point of information, Claire did indicate a strong interest in

[2:00:30] serving on this. So, if you could consider her in her absence.

[2:00:34] That's fine. It's up to the direction of the council. I'll do whatever you want

[2:00:36] to do. Well, I I like to move to use the

[2:00:39] existing members that are on the JPA. Do I hear a second?

[2:00:43] Make a motion for the We'll make that a separate one.

[2:00:49] What staff? I see what you're saying.

[2:00:52] Okay. I move staff recommendation. Well, I Yeah, I'll second that we

[2:00:56] authorize a formation of a joint study group to explore the possibility.

[2:00:59] Okay. Moved and seconded. Let's vote.

[2:01:11] Motion unanimously carried. We need a second motion.

[2:01:16] Okay. As soon as the screen's clear. Okay. I move that we appoint the two

[2:01:23] existing members to the existing G JPA to be on this study group.

[2:01:29] Second. Moved and second it. Let's vote.

[2:01:39] That motion's unanimously carried. Thank you very much. And that concludes

[2:01:44] new business. We'll go on to uh council member reports before we go into close

[2:01:50] session and we'll start with uh Angela.

[2:01:55] Nothing to add. Okay, Bruce.

[2:01:58] Uh just one thing to report. Um, at some point this council is going to

[2:02:04] be facing uh uh to make a selection regarding uh connect concession air

[2:02:10] services at Elorado Beach Boat uh launch facility.

[2:02:16] Um there's some proposals out there and some people have bid bidded for those

[2:02:21] concessionire positions. Um, I'm aware that the uh Beach Comr Invocation

[2:02:28] Membership Association uh that's located on 999 Lake View

[2:02:32] Avenue has made an application for that and my wife who has worked there for 14

[2:02:38] years as general manager. Um, therefore I I have have what the law

[2:02:44] says a remote interest and I would have a conflict of interest. And so I'm just

[2:02:49] announcing that I will not be involved in any of those discussions or obviously

[2:02:54] voting or be involved in any way whatsoever in the uh selection of

[2:02:59] whoever might be that concessionaire. And I will not discuss with any of the

[2:03:05] other council members any of my views regarding that that contract. And I need

[2:03:09] to announce that. And uh the beach comr is a nonprofit organization under IRS

[2:03:14] code section 501c3. And um I think that covers it, but just

[2:03:21] so that council's aware of that. Okay.

[2:03:23] Thank you, Cal. It was brought to my attention uh

[2:03:27] earlier that we have now begun enforcing um the property owners to clear public

[2:03:33] sidewalks that front their property and we've have cited a few people and I I've

[2:03:39] also been informed, I don't know if it's true, that RDA property, conservancy

[2:03:43] property, any publicly held property is not being held to the same standard. I

[2:03:46] just wonder if that's true and if if that ordinance required public entities

[2:03:50] to clear their public sidewalks in front of their property as well.

[2:03:54] Stan, can you address that? Yeah, we're making every effort to clear

[2:03:58] the city sidewalks um and uh to the same standard that the public is being

[2:04:04] required to redevelopment belongs to the state now.

[2:04:08] That's their job. So, and I don't know the conservancy own

[2:04:12] I think owns a couple of parcels. I think they own Harrison Avenue still or

[2:04:16] maybe not. May I provide clarification on that?

[2:04:22] Yes. No. On the concern they own. That question was raised in the in the

[2:04:26] board meeting and it was clarified that they are clearing their properties. They

[2:04:30] are under contract with someone who is sent out every day on a on a seasonl

[2:04:34] long contract to clear all their properties.

[2:04:37] Okay. We'd work with the state agencies. The federal government's a different

[2:04:41] story, but I don't know that they own any property along Highway 50, but

[2:04:44] I just want to make sure we're holding ourselves the same standard we are to

[2:04:47] the private property owners. That's all. Okay. Anything else? Al

[2:04:51] had a couple quick items. Uh Angela, I'd like to get a presentation from the

[2:04:56] Tahoe Transportation District. Uh I'm getting some conflicting information on

[2:05:00] the the the ferry, the proposal. I have some serious concerns about it when I

[2:05:05] read numbers like 3,500 people daily. Uh I'm not sure they're correct and we

[2:05:10] don't want to discuss it now, but I'd like to get a presentation and part of

[2:05:14] that is I'd like to tell transportation district to consider. I know you went to

[2:05:20] DC. We want to really do the grand experiment here on transportation

[2:05:24] instead of running across the lake ferry. I suggest we come up with a

[2:05:28] program to do free South Lake Tahoe bus transportation for a couple years. It's

[2:05:32] always been made comments by the TRPA and transportation district that we can

[2:05:36] have a big impact uh in the city. So maybe perhaps we do a two-year

[2:05:41] experiment with free bus transportation both for visitors and locals and maybe

[2:05:45] they do the same thing on Northshore with TART. So I'd like you to see if we

[2:05:49] can agend that or at least do a presentation. The last comment that I

[2:05:53] had, I reviewing some uh uh on the planning commission uh process and I

[2:05:59] noted in there and I thought we had discussed this and agreed. There is no

[2:06:03] appeal process in the planning commission to the city council and I

[2:06:06] have some concerns about that and I'd like to bring it back to council for

[2:06:10] future discussion because we are the elected officials and it has to do with

[2:06:14] the sign ordinance for example and if something gets turned down there is no

[2:06:17] recourse uh for the public to come back to us who they elected. So if I have

[2:06:22] concurrence with the council, I'd like to bring that back for for discussion in

[2:06:25] the future. I'd like to see that discussed.

[2:06:27] Okay. I just want to clarify on the planning

[2:06:30] commission. It depends on what the item is.

[2:06:32] And this has to do with signage. I read that specifically and that could be

[2:06:35] contentuous. So I think it's important the to the public that we make that

[2:06:39] final decision and they can appeal it to us. So with that uh with that said,

[2:06:44] we'll uh adjourn a regular meeting, take a fiveminut break, come back for a close

[2:06:49] city attorney. Yeah, we got to take any public comments regarding closed session

[2:06:53] items. I know. No, it's not any public comment

[2:06:56] regarding I mean close session regarding closed session. And I forgot

[2:07:00] to ask for city uh clerk's comments. Just state your next meeting is

[2:07:06] scheduled for April 3rd. However, you do have a closed session this Saturday at

[2:07:10] 10 a.m. That's correct. City attorney, I just

[2:07:12] got excited because we're almost done by 11.

[2:07:14] I I I have none. City manager.

[2:07:18] Nothing yet. See, I told you guys I had no comments. All right, meeting

[2:07:21] adjourned. We'll go to close session in 5 minutes.

March 20, 2012 City of South Lake Tahoe City Council Meeting

Transcript