A SPECIAL MEETING of the Sierra County Board of Supervisors was held in Loyalton on Tuesday, November 26, 2013 for the review of County agreement No. 2008-041 dated April 1, 2008 "Planning Services Cooperative Agreement" between County of Sierra and City of Loyalton for planning, zoning, land use, and building inspection professional services by the County to the City of Loyalton and direction with regards to action to continue, amend or terminate existing agreement. All supervisors were present except Supervisor Scott Schelfstein. Supervisor Peter Huebner started the meeting by stating the agreement had been violated by the City of Loyalton. He said the City already issued a building permit without Sierra County knowing about it and felt the agreement was no longer in effect. Sierra County Planning Director Tim Beals told the Board what he's come to know is that since September there has been an ongoing program by the City of Loyalton to start gaining independence in the area of current building and planning unbeknownst to the County. Beals only stumbled upon it when he was going to put a stop work order for a building project in the City. He called it spokes of a wheel and said County forms are being used and being signed off by people not associated with the County and no indication on their qualifications. Beals was aware that proper process hadn't been followed and the City didn't get good counsel from its planner. Beals stated separations are required for fire protection between property lines and between structures and there are flood plain issues. Beals felt dismayed at the lack of communication and being put in this position. He also felt sorry for the homeowner who was innocently caught in the cross fire and concerned about the liability that might accrue. Beals stated Council member Craig McHenry wanted to propose a 6-month pilot project that would allow the City a pathway for independence. Beals felt the purpose for this meeting was whether the County wants to come along for 6 months, adding he doesn't want to be "responsible for a program we don't have control over." Beals said it was stunning that there wasn't any communication from the City as there is a lot involved in the delivery of these services. He added, there is so much "involved with what we do it may be taken for granted." Beals wanted to makes sure the City Council was going into this with their eyes open, adding if "they want an independent department more power to them." Supervisor Lee Adams said in his view the County was invited in by City and just as easily can be invited out. He added the City can control their destiny. His concern is a two-tiered system, which isn't very practical. From the City of Loyalton, Councilman Craig McHenry gave a presentation as Mayor Brooks Mitchell was at a doctor's appointment. McHenry handed out a letter type document and told the Board and Beals they were starting at the wrong date. He stated Sierra County Board of Supervisors breached this agreement in 2012 when they required prior approval by the Board for any services to the City. McHenry went on to say in the middle of June in 2012 the City made multiple requests by phone and email to the County for an amended categorical exemption for the Loyalton City Park Improvement Project as the scope of the project had changed. McHenry stated a month later the City was informed the County had to get prior approval from the Board of Supervisors. McHenry concluded that since that breach they have not been using the County planning services. He continued if the County looked at the minutes and agendas for the City this has been very clear and in the last 6-8 months the City has had several zoning workshops and dealt with two variances. He added the City has established its own city code enforcement committee and done all of this without using the planning services of the County. McHenry said the City's preference is for the agreement to be suspended for 6 months. He stated "Tim made valid comments" and personally is not sure if the City can handle the building permit process, but has had numerous requests from citizens that aren't satisfied with the current building process. McHenry concluded that this has to be a mutual partnership not a dictation from the County to the City. He added the Council has done a lot in the last three years and are prepared to go forward and would like to work with the County. Beals exclaimed, "This is stunning!" a classic bait and switch and no more true than the man in the moon. He said this is classic trying to hide the real issue and divert attention to something else. Beals defended himself by stating he could provide the email and fax transmission of notice of exemption. He said he told them he was not going to sign on behalf of the lead agency and told the Board he wasn't comfortable with the project. Beals stated he and Bryan Davey assisted Mr. McHenry but the lead agency was the city. He continued that the County worked with the City every time it was requested. Beals said the County loaned equipment and gave them contact names and has bent over backwards whenever they asked for it. He added to put the blame on the County for the actions of the City is just incredible. McHenry interjected that Beals was confused as he did do a notice of categorical exemption for the proposed conversion of swimming pool building, but did not do the categorical exemption on the scope of the park project. He said he has the emails and they were ignored. McHenry added several requests were made for a County Grader and the City requested mutual assistance in regards to street repairs and their response was they could not do anything without prior approval from the Board of Supervisors. Beals said he brought those requests to the County Board every time and the County Board said fine, though wanted to steer away from the water sewer project when the repairs to the street were so completely lacking quality control and construction and wanted to stay out of it. Heubner felt they were on two different planets and asked McHenry if you have so much evidence, referencing the handout, you told your citizens something totally different at the last City Council meeting. Huebner continued and told McHenry the City broke the contract and his motion is to honor the contract and get out of the contract. Supervisor Beard said support services do not mean the County has control over everything that happens in the City. Beard stated Craig McHenry and Brooks Mitchell approached him about concerns he might have on the property next to him. Beard is a believer in property rights and has no objections of anyone building on their property as long as it was in the confines of their property. County Counsel Jim Curtis told Beard the focus is not on that specific permit. If it was on that permit, Beard would be disqualified. Curtis added the focus is on the relationship between the City and the County and their cooperative contract. Council member Pat Whitley asked, can the City do any better than the County? She didn't know, but they'd like to try. Vice Chair Paul Roen said nobody is going to fault you on that.. From the audience, Chris Alexander had two questions. How does the city and county plan to deal with existing permits from the county and does the letter from Mr. McHenry represent the entire council? Whitley doesn't know how many outstanding permits the County has. Beals said there probably are a half-dozen permits and the County could hand them over to the City or County could finish them, but there needs to be a handoff in place. McHenry told Alexander at the last City Council meeting the City voted to do the pilot project. Alexander further questioned the letter and whether the Council was in agreement. Whitley said no. Beals asked if the document represented the entire City Council and Huebner questioned whether it was an official document. McHenry said it wasn't a letter only his presentation on behalf of the City. Huebner and Roen asked County Counsel what their options were? County Counsel said City can terminate the contract but a shared structure formally or adhoc is not only inconsistent with state of law but asked what happens when something goes wrong? He added a comprised process invites both the City and County to be named in litigation. County Counsel doesn't remember seeing anything in writing about what McHenry is talking about but it's an indication that the relationship isn't working. He stated the agreement does have termination provisions, a 90-day clause, but when a contract is breached you don't have to go through the 90 days. Adams finds it somewhat interesting that the County breached almost a year ago and are just now hearing about it. He added it makes it awkward for the County to try and stay in this, though is fully fine with the City's independence and if it doesn't work well, he is willing to come back as there is a long history between the two entities. Adams asked what would it do to the City if at the snap of a gavel the City is exclusively doing building and planning. McHenry said he would like the County to finish those previously issued building projects. County Counsel suggested they don't terminate yet and come back at the next meeting with an agreement to terminate but recognizing the continuity of the old and previously issued building permits. Adams made a motion of intent, which didn't get a second. County Counsel wanted a paper trail and Alexander as a citizen would like to see a paper trail on this letter given by McHenry. Huebner wanted to terminate the agreement at this meeting, but received no second. Beals feels County should complete the tasks already being done by planning department. Curtis doesn't know how we carve that out if the Board finds the City in breach of contract and thinks a structure is appropriate. Adams made a motion of intent to terminate the agreement with action to continue those permits already issued by the County if that is not agreed to, the County terminates the motion period and all activities cease to function. Huebner made 2nd The motion passed with Beard voting no. County Counsel will have a resolution at the next board meeting, which is Tuesday, December 3rd in Downieville.