Document Minden_doc_e6ad82dc8f

( 77r Minden NEVADA ( 77r Minden NEVADA The Minden Town Board meeting was held at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 3, 2013, at 1602 Esmeralda Avenue, Minden, Nevada. Board members present: Matt Bernard, Charlie Condron, Roxanne Stangle, and Steve Thaler. John Stephans was not in attendance. Staff present: Greg Hill, Jenifer Davidson, Trish Koepnick, Tim Russell and Ryan Russell. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairman Condron. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Condron. Thaler/Bernard moved for the approval of the agenda as published. Motion carried unanimously. Bernard/Stangle moved for the approval of the minutes of the May 23, 2013 and June 5, 2013 Board Meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Acknowledgement of Gifts: Ms. Davidson acknowledged Model Dairy’s contribution to the 4th of July celebration, saying that we cannot thank them enough for their partnership with the Town of Minden. Acknowledgement of Service Awards: None Public comment: Bob Pohlman said he found it interesting that the commissioners made a comment at their latest meeting about putting the 3 million dollar waterline south, as no one has talked to Minden about it. Gardnerville water actually goes to Pinenut Road, and he does not understand why Gardnerville would not do a line to Ruhenstroth. He also passed out a newsletter from Gardnerville Water Company showing the local water rates. He gave a Mr. Condron a table for Mr. Stephans concerning the rate schedule for depreciation for ten years, noting that it is quite creative. He also thought the report from RCI done for the Subconservancy District was quite educational. Ms. Davidson read a letter submitted by Sandy Deyo. He felt that it is imperative to have cost estimates on design features to be paid for by the Town before Town approval. STAFF REPORTS: 1. Public Works: report by Greg Hill Written report was handed out as it did not make it into the packet. He showed current pictures of the Heybourne Booster Station, COD Casino and the CVI Amphitheater. The COD project has started, including the sidewalk removal and the improvements for the parking lot. We took receipt of new truck on July 1. As we own the parking lot at Francisco’s, Mr. Hill suggested that the Board consider at a future Board meeting to abandon the parking lot that the Town owns at Francisco’s and let them take over the maintenance. Mr. Condron asked for more information to be able to consider this, as it is good timing. 2. Engineering Report: report by Tim Russell, sitting in for Bruce Scott. Next month the street sealing will be on agenda. There will also be more information on the 395 utilities, as NV Energy has been contacted. No questions from the Board. 3. Attorney Report: report by Ryan Russell Most of Mr. Russell’s time has been spent on the interlocal agreement amendments. On June 6 the amendment between Minden and Douglas County was approved by the County. The retroactive payment back to July 2012 will be executed when the agreements to the other entities are approved. There is an ---PAGE BREAK--- Minden Town Board Minutes July 3, 2013 Page 2 of 8 error in displaying the appropriate exhibit, which was corrected, and the Carson City agreement has been approved. Indian Hills has the amendment with the clerical correction and is in the process of approval. To finalize and secure an agreement on the gateway project, a letter has been prepared requesting a formal agreement with NDOT. He has been asked to research to issue of ownership of sidewalks. No Board questions. 4. Manager’s Report: report by Jenifer Davidson Ms. Davidson reported that yesterday she was informed that we have been awarded a $66,000 grant from the State for the trailhead at Jake’s and would like to get the funds secured in the form of an agreement. The study of the regions’ water system prepared by RCI has been provided to the Board. Copies will be available in the office, by email and on website. This draft will be reviewed by the Subconservancy District at their August meeting. She will let the Board know when that meeting will be held. Mr. Bernard expressed excitement about getting the grant and said that this positions us well for other grants. He also said that he had no idea that the report was done by RCI; he would like to have this on the agenda and hear from RCI on this matter. 5. Board member committee reports:  Policy and Procedure Review Steve Thaler said that he has been working on agenda item 7. His next policy project will be the sidewalk policy in conjunction with information from Ryan Russell.  Event Planning Roxanne Stangle invited all to come tomorrow to Minden Park for the 4th of July celebration. We have planned for 200 kids for the parade; there will be lots of food, and she hopes everyone comes and has a good time.  Capital Improvement Plan Matt Bernard said that the priorities for capital projects are on the agenda tonight.  New Development Application John Stephans was not present  Minden Water Charlie Condron thanked the staff for all for the work done on the interlocal agreement and he will be thrilled if this is wrapped up by mid July. He is looking forward to putting energy elsewhere. 6. Chairman Report Mr. Condron thanked staff and public for all of the work on the Carson Valley Days breakfast He also reported that Mr. Stephans had arranged a meeting with Bently and it was held last Friday. It was a very exciting meeting and he promised that John would report about some of the visioning that is going on and the opportunity to partner with Bently in the future. Bently plans to occupy the Farmers Bank building by next April with around 30 people working there. CONSENT AGENDA FOR POSSIBLE ACTION 1. Approval of June 2013 financial report including claims paid May 30, 2013 through June 20, 2013. Thaler/ Stangle moved to approve the consent agenda Motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA: 1. For possible action: Discussion and possible action to approve, approve with conditions, continue, or deny Land Development Application (LDA) 13-006, for Edgewood Companies, for a Tentative Subdivision Map dividing an existing 89.64 parcel into 17 parcels, the smallest is 5.0 acres, including a variance to improvement standards, pursuant to Douglas County Code Section ---PAGE BREAK--- Minden Town Board Minutes July 3, 2013 Page 3 of 8 20.704.070 to reduce the community features and an equestrian trail. The subject property is located south of Buckeye Road and east of Sixth Street in the RA-5 (Rural Agriculture – five acre minimum net parcel size) zoning district and in the Central Agricultural Community Plan. (APN: 1320-34-001-028). Appearance by Stephanie Hicks, Senior Planner/Grants Professional for R.O. Anderson Engineering, Inc. Mr. Bernard recused himself as he works in a private capacity in the interest of the Edgewood Company. Stephanie Hicks as well as Mitchell Mize were present representing Edgewood Companies. This project was previously approved in January 2009 and is presented tonight exactly as originally approved; nothing has been modified. The request is on the agenda tonight because 4 years have gone by and the developer would like to keep this subdivision map active. The project site is south of Buckeye and west of Orchard. Applicant is asking to have private roadways maintained by a Homeowners association; alongside the roads will be irrigation ditches and drainage channels as well as a 4 foot shoulder. This would connect to Minden for water, which is the reason they are here tonight asking for approval. Ms Davidson asked why this was removed last month. Ms. Hicks said that there was some original discussion regarding Muller Parkway improvements. There is an existing development agreement in place that satisfies the needs, and does not need to be part of this application, Ms. Hicks clarified Item 5 on the letter from RCI concerning Lot 8, which has an existing well at the southern part of the property. This would be supplemental irrigation benefitting the subdivision, and they would like it to remain in the subdivision. Mr. Scott had asked the question because the existence of open wells can be a conduit for contamination possibilities, but since that time there has been a more intensive wellhead protection plan put in place by the County. RCI concurs with findings of Ms. Hicks and sees no need for the well to be plugged. Mr. Thaler asked what the status of the well was in 2008 and how this issue came up. Ms Hicks said there was never intent to abandon the well; it was always meant for supplemental irrigation. Some of this will need to be ironed out within the next four years before this parcel map expires again. The Town will review the improvement plans before the final map. Mr. Condron hopes that the irrigation is well thought out, keeping in mind how the ground uses the water today. He noted that some of the biggest conflicts come when water goes unto other peoples’ property. Ms. Hicks said that the plans will have to go to the water conveyance committee for review. Public comment: Ms Davidson read a letter submitted by Sandy Deyo, who was not able to be present tonight. His first concern has to do with the gate house and staffing, and it is doubtful that there would be 24 hour access. He also had concerns with trash removal issues if the Town provides trash service. Bev Giannopulos was also concerned about the trash pickup and if it would be readily accessible, as well as fire truck access. Ms. Hicks said that there is no request for trash service from the Town; East Fork has reviewed this and would like to see some sort of turnaround for vehicles. Thaler/Stangle moved to approve Land Development Application (LDA) 13-006, for Edgewood Companies, for a Tentative Subdivision Map dividing an existing 89.64 parcel into 17 parcels, the smallest is 5.0 acres, including a variance to improvement standards, pursuant to Douglas County Code Section 20.704.070 to reduce the community features and an equestrian trail. The subject property is located south of Buckeye Road and east of Sixth Street in the RA-5 (Rural Agriculture – five acre minimum net parcel size) zoning district and in the Central Agricultural Community Plan (APN: 1320- 34-001-028) subject to conditions in the letter from RCI with the exception of item 5. Motion carried unanimously. 2. For possible action: Discussion and possible action to approve, approve with conditions, continue or deny the “First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Relating to Water Service made ---PAGE BREAK--- Minden Town Board Minutes July 3, 2013 Page 4 of 8 by and between Indian Hills General Improvement District, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada (“IHGID”), and the Town of Minden (“Town”), an unincorporated town and a political subdivision of the State of Nevada. Appearance by Jenifer Davidson, Town Manager. Ms. Davidson said that the revised amendment is consistent with the amendments approved with Douglas County and Carson City. Mr. Russell added that the agreement will come into effect when the amendments with Indian Hills and Carson City are approved. The retroactive payment is covered in the Douglas County agreements. No Board questions Public comment: None Bernard/Thaler moved to approve the First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Relating to Water Service made by and between Indian Hills General Improvement District, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada (“IHGID”), and the Town of Minden (“Town”), an unincorporated town and a political subdivision of the State of Nevada. Motion carried unanimously. 3. For possible action: Discussion and possible action to approve, approve with conditions, continue, or deny the proposed Town of Minden Employee Evaluation and Merit System. Appearance by Jenifer Davidson, Town Manager. Ms. Davidson said that the Board had expressed concern about the evaluation system in relation to the budget. She is bringing back a proposal for revision of the merit rating system. Staff has been informed of the process and invited to give input. They expressed a concern that the 6% merit was a lofty goal under the previous score ranges and now very unlikely. She felt that most evaluations would be average and only a few would be exceptional. They also asked when the last cost of living increase was given by the Board. She found that prior to 2006 both merit increases and cost of living increases were given but not since. They expressed concerns relevant to some things that she also agrees with them including making job descriptions more specific. Currently park and water department have the same pay grade and she agrees with this concern. They also expressed some concern regarding the PMP system itself. She agrees that the current program is difficult. The HR department says that most evaluation systems have flaws, but there are a number of things that we can be done to make it more relevant including removing some of the categories not applicable. Most of the comments from staff did not pertain to the proposal, which she believes means they understand. Mr. Hill said that the main concern is if we go to this system would the Board be considering cost of living raises in the future, and if they do will it based on regional or local CPI. Mr. Thaler said he was part of that transition from the old system, and he feels that the current system is better than the old system. Under the old system you just got a cost of living, and this was argued and negotiated. With the new system the County tried to get rid of unknowns and go to a system strictly based on performance. He feels that this sends a message to employees is work hard at performing and make sure that your supervisor sees it. It is unfair that someone gets a 4% just to show up, which the County score ranges allows. It is incumbent for supervisors to make sure that employees are evaluated on the system and not on personality. Also, every item has a weight, and as you evaluate job descriptions managers can decide how to weight the categories, which develops how the numbers come out. Mr. Bernard said that he has tried to understand how we compensate our employees and how to motivate people. He feels we are trying to make the system more equitable. Ms. Davidson said that historically, the average merits were 5-6 % before she came on board. Mr. Bernard said that this gives the person trying to excel more compensation. He said we are not talking about a cost of living increase here; we are only looking at changing score ranges. ---PAGE BREAK--- Minden Town Board Minutes July 3, 2013 Page 5 of 8 Ms. Stangle said that she has had several conversations with Jenifer and employees. This is a good starting point and she thinks this will be a good combined with equity in the job description. She had encouraged employees to give input tonight, and assured them that they are not a vindictive Board. Mr. Condron said this is truly a reflection of the economic times more than anything else. If cash flow into Minden was more instead of less each year, and growth was requiring more hard work, it would be different. He encouraged a look at job descriptions as well as pay grading; licensing, etc should be worth more, especially moving into the big wholesale water business. He really appreciates that Jen went to the employees and talked to them about this, and the work she put into this. Mr. Thaler highly encouraged the manager that this area is one of the top 10 things to do daily and this might not be perfect, but it is fair. Last year we gave our manager goals and she needs to prove performance. The same applies to goals and categories employees are graded on. He said the employees should take the evaluation and make it the map to a He hopes every employee is a 6% employee. It is also about having a manager make sure that the employees are evaluated fairly. He would like her to report next year on how it works, and keep track of what the average is. Greg Hill said that concerning job descriptions, the problem is that we are such a small group of employees that no one is specialized and they work in varied areas, and this was detrimental as far as the pay grades that they ended up with. Public comment: None Ms. Davidson said she would like to touch back on the cost of living issue, to try to clearly represent the employees concern. As the original 6% included the cost of living built into the score ranges, the concern was that the new ranges effectively takes out the cost of living aspect. Perhaps the Board could consider this cost of living as an option each year at budgeting time. Bernard/Thaler moved to approve proposed Town of Minden Employee Evaluation and Merit System as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 4. For possible action: Discussion and possible action to approve, approve with conditions, continue or deny a request to 1) accept or reject a bid by Qualcon Contractors for the Town’s 2013 Street Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $338,196.00; and if 4.1 is approved to 2) authorize the Chairman to execute Agreement for the same on behalf of the Town. Appearance by Tim Russell, Senior Civil Engineer, Resource Concepts Inc. Mr. Russell said the results of the bids with Qualcon are $54,000 below the engineer’s estimate. He has no reservations as they did an excellent job last time. The project includes work on Esmeralda coordinating with the COD contractor, and making sure that everything underground is done before we let our contractor in. There is also minor drainage and curb work at the corner of 6th & Mono, a portion of Bougainvillea near Canterbury, as well as Azalea Court. We are continuing our approach of addressing the roads below standard in the worst sections of Town. Mr. Hill said that he met with COD site managers and they know the deadline for our work; this will be no problem, and there will be some cost savings as they will not have to patch. He said that the problem with the drainage at 6th and Mono is that the handicap ramp blocks the drainage, and it is hard to get a decent slope because of the flat grade; quite often the problem is just moved down the street. This is a good reason to have underground storm drains in future developments. Mr. Thaler asked for a map showing the street work. He also asked staff to make sure that the car show in August is not affected, and that all of the business owners know about the work. Public comment: None ---PAGE BREAK--- Minden Town Board Minutes July 3, 2013 Page 6 of 8 Thaler/Stangle moved to accept a bid by Qualcon Contractors for the Town’s 2013 Street Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $338,196.00; and to authorize the Chairman to execute Agreement for the same on behalf of the Town. Motion carried unanimously. 5. For possible action: Discussion and possible action to approve, approve with conditions, continue or deny a request to 1) accept a bid by Aqua Drilling for a test well at the Heybourne Booster Station in the amount of $56,552.67; and if 5.1 is approved to 2) authorize the Chairman to execute Agreement for the same on behalf of the Town. Appearance by Tim Russell, Senior Civil Engineer, Resource Concepts Inc. Mr. Russell said this test well is part of the wholesale commitment the Town has made, as we need more production. Prior to Carson City coming on line, we will need Well 7 and at least one more production well in service. A well at the Buckeye Site still makes sense at some point; further detailed information needs to be gathered at the Buckeye Well site to find a viable aquifer stratum to pull water from without the need to treat for arsenic. However, in coordination with Greg Hill the concept of a production well at the Heybourne Booster Station was pulled into the forefront of discussions for production. The Heybourne Well may be a better investment of funds at this time as there is a higher potential that good water quality can be found there based on the quality we have at Well 5. Mr. Thaler felt that location should be based on the possibility of high production; he wondered what research is done before a well site is picked. Mr. Russell said that siting a well is a balance between many factors including: where you can actually drill because you own property, not being too close to other wells, water quality at the site, and where water rights can be placed, as closer to the river is more likely to be contested. Production is historically not an issue because of the aquifer. Sites for future Town wells include Bently’s quasi municipal water well site that they would have to run through the Town’s water system, as well as the site at the Ranch at Gardnerville. Mr. Condron said that he recently learned that Bently has an ag well site very close to the Heybourne Booster pump station, and this is a major concern to him, especially with the major change in the way Bently runs their operation. He felt that this is too much of an unknown and it would be premature to select this as a test site. Mr. Bernard questioned why we are we moving away from the Buckeye site if is a viable well site, and if we budgeted for this new site testing. Tim said he believes we can spend a little bit of money and get ok answers and potentially have to treat water down the road, or spend more money, getting more test wells and avoiding treatment. Ms. Davidson said that a portion of the CIP budget is dedicated to drilling test wells. The only reason we would have another test well is if we have water quality issues. Mr. Russell said that we have the rights coming from Indian Hills that would be applicable; it is a net transfer. He said that at this time we do not have enough information for the Buckeye site, as the mix of composite sections we got back were inconclusive, and more samples would be needed at specific locations in order to determine the quality at different levels. He said that we could continue at the Buckeye site, but based on Well 5 he felt that we could find good quality water at the Heybourne site without having to do the further testing at the Buckeye site. Mr. Hill said historically the wells closer to the river have better quality with lower arsenic levels. Public comment: None Stangle/Thaler moved to continue this agenda item until more information was received. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bernard said that we need some more definitive answers when we approve funds for a test well. Mr. Russell said you never get 100% definitive answers from test wells. He was not sure if they will have to rebid on this; he has more concern about getting closer to next summer and not having the production. ---PAGE BREAK--- Minden Town Board Minutes July 3, 2013 Page 7 of 8 6 For possible action: Review, discussion and possible action regarding the proposed Minden Capital Improvement Plan priorities prepared by Minden Staff. Appearance by Jenifer Davidson, Town Manager. Ms. Davidson said that this is a stab at attempting to generate a lot of discussion. She would also like to see deadlines for when the Board would like to see these projects accomplished, to be able to focus on what they want to get done. The Board gave the following priorities: Mr. Condron: 1. Gateway, even if phased. 2. Finish County Road ditching project at least to 10th Street. 3. Possibility of the Ironworks building for parking with the changes coming downtown. Ms. Stangle: 1. Gateway 2. County Road project 3. Parking issue downtown, perhaps a joint effort with the County. Douglas Ironworks is an important factor in this. Mr. Thaler: 1. Gateway 2. Highway 395 lights and parking structure, although very expensive. 3. Would like to finish County Road but need to talk to the County about this as it is their road. He agreed with Mr. Deyo’s comments about project costs, and wondered how much money we have to do any of these. Gardnerville was able to accomplish many projects through grants. We need to re-think what we can afford; should the Town bond, if we can do it without raising taxes? Bonds are good when interest rates are low; maybe we can better prioritize if we think about other revenue sources. Perhaps the economic development dollars from the County should be used for County Road. Mr. Bernard: 1. Gateway 2. He does not think grants are dead and we need to chase more grants. He felt that we are committed to Jakes as we just got money. 3. Esmeralda streetscape as well as the Slough Trails which we are currently committed to completing in conjunction with the grand funds that were awarded. He thinks we should keep chasing grants for the Hwy 395 lighting. He does not have County Road as a high priority because he would like to see the next part also done under NDOT grants. He thought it best to partner with the county for a parking lot as it would benefit the County also. Public comment: None Mr. Condron directed staff to proceed with this input as well as input from Mr. Stephans to create a list and formulate a plan. Perhaps each board member can take charge of a certain aspect to go forward. Mr. Thaler brought up concerns about the bond for the parking garage and the remainder of the money; Ms. Davidson said she understood that that remainder was committed to the new senior center. 7. For possible action: Review, discussion and possible action regarding the proposed format for the 2013 evaluation of the Minden Town Manager. Appearance by Steve Thaler, Member of the Minden Board. Mr. Condron thanked Mr. Thaler for taking this on. Mr. Thaler said he looked at the County manager evaluation, as well as Gardnerville Town manager. He worked with Ms. Davidson on this and came up with a system that is easy for each Board member to comment on her work product, know what she will be looking at doing the next year, and have a system to score. He felt that we need to leave the decision on the raise to the Board members. Categories are: exceptional, exceeds expectations, meets expectation, needs improvement, unsuccessful, not evaluated. The boxes will be marked, comments can be given, and after discussion the Board will determine if there will be a raise. There would not be a score to determine the raise, but this would be left to the discretion of the board. The raise should be a vote, not tied to the 0-6% figure of the County, as he felt this does not apply to top management. He does not want to limit the Board. ---PAGE BREAK--- Minden Town Board Minutes July 3, 2013 Page 8 of 8 Mr. Bernard said he would like to see a way to tie her new contract with her evaluation time doing this prior to her contract expiring. Mr. Condron agreed because if you are signing a contract you have an obligation, and perhaps the performance will not rate a new contract. Mr. Ryan Russell counseled that in most contracts the evaluation is approved in the contract. He felt that this could be addressed as we go forward and he would be happy to help. Ms. Stangle agreed that they should be done at the same time. She felt this is an in depth evaluation, and she likes the areas that we make comments on. Mr. Condron said that this is not the kind of evaluation process he prefers, it is so overwhelming that it doesn’t accomplish much. What is seen are the worst things first, and that is where he would rather see conversation. He also took issue with using the term personal characteristics; it will be changed to goal accomplishment. Mr. Thaler said when we complete goals we develop new goals for the next year; the major weight of the evaluation will be determined by goal accomplishment. Ms. Davidson said that this evaluation is one she is more familiar with; with last years’ she was a bit fearful but found it to be a pleasant experience. She is glad to see goals included. Her concern is how she would approach the job she does based on the evaluation given. She feels that she is being given a road map four months before her evaluation, where she has been focusing on the goals this entire year. She would like to see everything synced up but understands that at her management level she probably has no right to request that. Mr. Condron noted that they are searching for a tool that will function appropriately for the Board and the manager; if the horse changes in mid stream stay on the horse. Mr. Thaler suggested not worrying about evaluation; just do the best job you can and the evaluation will reflect it. Public comment: None Thaler/Bernard motioned that we use the proposed format system this year, pulling out item number 6 in the evaluation procedure. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Condron asked for Mr. Thaler to work with Ryan Russell to look at this evaluation process becoming part of the Manager’s contract. Meeting was adjourned at 9:01p.m.