Rio Dell City Council

Meeting Notes

February 7, 2006

I apologize for the delay in posting the meeting notes.  We have been very busy both at home and at work. 

The meeting began on time with all Council members in attendance as well as City Manager Jay Parrish, City Attorney David Martinek, Public Works Director Jim Hale and Accounting Supervisor Gordon (I apologize for not knowing his last name, I am terrible with names).  The Council Chambers were quite full with a number of people in attendance, a nice change of pace from the usual small group of regular attendees.  The meeting commenced with the usual routine of roll call and the Pledge of Allegiance. 

Ceremonial matters consisted of a proclamation in recognition and support of Engineer's week (Feb 19-26).  The proclamation was read by an engineer from Winzler and Kelly named Matt.  The proclamation recognized all types of engineer's and their contributions to society.  He stated the timing of the Engineer's week is to coincide with George Washington's birthday, who was one of the first American Engineer's (and a fascinating historical subject).  A number of Engineer's were in attendance, many of whom seemed to be from Winzler and Kelly (the very large local firm that is doing a great deal of work with the City).

Mayor Leonard then read aloud a letter received by the City from a local resident who was recently the victim of a burglary.  The resident praised the response by the Rio Dell Police Department.  The perpetrator was quickly ID'd and at least some (if not all) of the personal property was returned. 

The Consent Calendar was next with all items passed as a block with no debate.  These items included the minutes of the 12/6/05 regular meeting, the check register, the extension of the local severe weather and flooding emergency through 2/21/06, the extension of the local water emergency through 2/21/06 and the approval of the destruction of "specified records." 

Next came the Special Call Items and it began with a presentation by Winzler and Kelly and the approval of the recent storm drainage study.  This is another study funded by Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money which was to study the existing storm drainage and identify problem areas.  The preliminary study was completed on 12/03/05.  This may be the study that the Council approved on 11/1/05 with $35,000 of grant money that had to be used up right away or it might hinder future grant applications (see Meeting Notes of 11/1/05).  Rebecca from Winzler and Kelly presented the study to the Council which included a slide presentation of some of the findings.  It appears that Rio Dell has a storm water drainage problem that results in flooding to areas such as Belleview and Ogle Ave.  The grant money paid for an update to the GIS (Global Information Systems) database which included removing 23,000 ft. of conduit and ditches incorrectly mapped in the past and the addition of 19,000 ft. of conduit and ditches to the system.  The study cited problem areas that later flooded in the storms around New Years (These are areas that flood every time there is a major storm and have been a well known problem for many years).  There were a number of proposals that prioritized the identified problem areas and included cost estimates for focused studies of those areas.  Slides of work done in areas such as the Belleview neighborhood were labeled as "completed."  A resident of that neighborhood questioned what was meant by "completed" since their house was still underwater and no work had been done near their property that they were aware of.  Another engineer from Winzler and Kelly stated that while they were unfamiliar with the specifics of their situation, that neighborhood was identified in the study and so should be addressed sometime in the future.  Jim Hale, from Public Works, stated that his department was aware of their specific issues.  Hale stated that the "completed" notation was only referring to the emergency culvert repair work, other areas were being addressed as public works can get to them.  Hale stated that the city "inherited" many infrastructure problems with little money to fix them.  Hale assured the resident that the Vector truck (I think that is the large vacuum machine) would be at their home tomorrow to remove some of the standing water under the home.  Hale assured the resident that he knew their patience was wearing thin but their concerns were going to be addressed.  The resident stated that they have been asking the city for help with this well known problem for all of the seven years they have owned the property and they have demonstrated a great deal of patience.  The study was accepted by the Council.

The next item on the Special Call Items was pay request #6 for John N. Petersen, Inc in the amount of $4,860.00 for the raw water intake project.  There was also a status summary from an engineer with Winzler and Kelly on the Water Infrastructure Rehabilitation project.  This is a $5 million dollar project that is proceeding on schedule.  There will be 30,000 ft. of water line going in and 20,000 of that is in, so far.  All of the water line on the East side of town has been pressure tested and disinfected (with chlorine).  The completion date is anticipated to be the end of March.  There is a new water tank going in up on Douglas and there will be possible changes to the Dinsmore water tank.  Jay Parrish commented on the work which is causing disturbances to the water lines, resulting in some pretty nasty looking water.  The engineer stated that there have been a number of leaks showing up on the water lines as they are being worked on and uncovered which is making some water shutdowns unavoidable.  Council member Mike Dunker asked about any citizen complaints regarding any damaged equipment resulting from the water shutdowns, such as water pumps running dry.  City Clerk, Karen Dunham, stated that there was one such complaint that they know of and this will come before the Council later.  Citizens can file a claim for reimbursement from the City if the damage was caused by the City.  These claims would then come before the Council for consideration.  The Council members spoke about whether or not residents will notice any difference in water pressure once the work is complete.  It was pointed out that this would depend on what caused the lack of water pressure in the first place.  For instance, if the decrease in water pressure was due to a build up of residue in the water main leading to a neighborhood than they should be an improvement since these mains are being replaced.  If the decreased pressure is due to a build up in the pipes leading from the main to the residence, then they would not notice an improvement since those lines are not being replaced by the city.  Hale commented on how one particular residence on Painter St. should notice an improvement in their water pressure to the upstairs of their home, which has been a big problem in the past. 

The last item in the Special Call Items was the consideration of an appeal to the revocation of a conditional use permit (CUP) by the planning department.  This CUP was issued to Michael Ward at his property located at 23 Center St. (The Automotive Workshop).  Carla Ralston, Code Enforcement Officer for the City, presented the cities recommendation with slides of the property.  Ralston stated this property has been a problem since 1994.  She stated that she found no evidence of Ward's contention that the City used the property for abandoned car abatement years ago (as we have heard from past Council members).  Ralston stated that some of the vehicle's and auto parts have been on the property for 8 years.  She stated that Ward does not work at that property anymore but had done auto body and fender work in the past.  Ralston stated that she had proposed changing the CUP but that the planning commission voted to revoke it entirely.  Michael Ward addressed the Council next.  He is appealing the decision based on seven points he had submitted to the City previously.  Ward pointed out that some of the slides presented were of the neighboring property and that he should not be penalized for the neighbor's property, which he has no control over.  Ward stated a prior Chief of Police had talked to him years ago about making his property available as an abatement lot for abandoned vehicles.  Ward invested roughly $10,000 to make the property into the abatement lot with chain link fencing, razor wire and a second chain link fence inside the property.  The City had assured him that there would be enough business from abandoned vehicle abatement to recuperate his expenses.  Ward stated he can produce receipts from payments received from the City for this abatement activity.  At some point, Ward stated the City stopped paying him for the vehicle abatement so he stopped performing the service.  The property is still a legal abatement yard and could be utilized as such.  Ward stated that the planning commission agenda had stated they were debating revising the permit but they decided to revoke it entirely without any prior notice.  Ward stated that he would be in favor of revising the permit and would work with the City on that but he did not want to have the entire CUP revoked as he would no longer be able to use his own property for automotive work.  Ward stated that if the city wanted to revoke his CUP, than perhaps they should reimburse him some of the expenses he paid for making the property into the abatement yard the city had requested years ago.  Council member Julie Woodall began to ask Ward a question but was stopped by Mayor Leonard who stated that the debate was between Council members only and should not include Ward at that point.  Woodall was told to make a motion and have it seconded and only then could a discussion begin.  This seemed to confuse everyone (including myself) since you would normally have a debate and then make a motion after careful consideration of all the issues.  If you make the motion first and then the debate changes someone's mind, they would have to pull the motion from the table and make an entirely new motion.  In any case, that was the instruction by the Mayor so Woodall made a motion, it was seconded and then Woodall was permitted to ask Ward questions about the property and its' history.  They discussed the problems Ward had in the past with a tenant who brought in many vehicles and lots of trash to the property.  The tenant was removed and Ward is continuing to clean up the mess left behind.  Ward pointed out that with the muddy conditions everywhere, no more cars could be pulled out of the yard until it dries out more.  Ward recently had pulled out an old RV, which took multiple trucks to pull it through the mud.  Then the trucks had to be pulled out of the mud.  Ward reiterated that he would be in favor of revising the CUP but does not want to lose it all together since he still does paint and body work at the property.  Council member Melissa Marks questioned the current zoning of the property and what would it allow if the CUP was revoked.  Ralston stated the property was zoned retail sales and light commercial which would not allow for any automotive work on the property.  Ward pointed out that he does a great deal of truck repair for Humboldt Creamery and the business (The Automotive Workshop) is licensed at that address.  He fears losing the business if the CUP is revoked entirely.  When discussing what started this whole process, Ralston stated she was looking at the blight issues and then noticed the conditional use permit and that Ward was not using it as originally intended.  She stated that her goal is to get rid of the CUP so that she can abate the property.  The CUP included automotive body work and painting in addition to the abatement lot.  Council member Marc Barsanti discussed his hesitation at totally revoking the CUP since he certainly does not want Rio Dell to lose another business and perhaps a modification would be in order.  Council Member Mike Dunker concurred with Barsanti but also stated that nothing has been done in the past to clean up the property and something had to be done.  Mayor Leonard remarked that the property might be a toxic site and subject to the Brownfield cleanup activity.  The Council then voted unanimously to uphold the planning commission decision to revoke the CUP in it's entirety. 

There were no public presentations tonight.

Reports from staff was next and began with the City Manager.  Parrish spoke of the Brownfield RFP (I don't know what that stands for) and that the Council will vote on a proposal in the near future.  Parrish remarked that the city is going to be raising rates (I assume he means across the board) to levels that match the city's costs.  The city is in the process of detailing these rate increases (similar to our recent water rate increases).  He is also working on reorganizing the job descriptions for city staff.

Jim Hale stated that the public works staff was stretched thin but working hard and keeping up.  He thanked the Council for "writing the checks" for what public works has needed to order recently.  Public works recently stabilized a garage that was at risk of falling into a stream behind the residence.  The clean up of storm damage continues.

Accounting Supervisor Gordon commented on the tremendous amount of paperwork involved in the many projects the city is currently working on.  121 accounts were recently added to the city budget to accurately record all of the various projects.  Gordon notified the Council of the recently passed law (AB1234) that went into effect on 1/1/06.  This law refers to reimbursements to legislative members and reimbursements for city business.  There is a new requirement of 2 hours in ethics training every 2 years for certain city staff as well as the governing body.  A policy is currently being drafted and will be put before the Council at the next meeting.  Mayor Leonard wanted to know if they got a trip down South, paid for by the City, for this training.  Gordon as well as Parrish commented that since the requirement affected a number of neighboring cities, it would be likely that a training could be offered in our area.  The training has to be approved by the State and Rio Dell has 15 people that would be required to attend.

Announcements of items to be discussed in the closed door session was next.  These items are:

1.  Potential litigation-Roberts vs. Rio Dell

2.  Potential litigation-Nuisance abatement issues

3.  Personnel Matter-Police department

4.  Potential litigation-Concerned citizens vs. Rio Dell

 

 

City Council Rio Dell California

Home

Sharon :-)