[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.