NEVADA CITY, Calif. July 28, 2009 - On Monday evening, Nevada City's council chamber was empty save for council members, staff, four proponents of a grant project and this lone reporter. A special meeting had been called last Wednesday to consider a request from American Rivers, South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL) and the Yuba Watershed Institute for a grant application. Nobody expected to see a collision of non-profit constraints, state deadlines and local government 'process.'
Administered by the State Water Resources Control Board, American Recovery and Reinvestment (ARRA) funds [stimulus funds] in excess of $280 million have been received by California. The State Water Board received $45 million of federal funding for stormwater management. The grant application for $375,000 submitted by American Rivers for Stormwater Management in the Yuba River would potentially create up to 27 jobs. The application made it on the Water Board's Projects in the Works list, also known as the Priority Projects List (PPL).
Why call a special meeting when no action can be taken?
Last Wednesday, council decided to hold a special meeting to consider the project, due to a deadline from the State Water Board. Specifically, the council would decide if the project was suitable for Nevada City and if the city would be the lead agency for a part of the process, namely the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) portion.
The city manager, who was absent at last night's meeting, authored the agenda item:
Subject: Discuss and Consider a Request from the American Rivers and its Partners for the City to Become the Lead Agency for a Grant Application on Stormwater Management in the Yuba Watershed.
Recommendation: Direct Staff
In government speak, this means no action is proposed, no vote or public hearing scheduled.
Process vs. Priority
Elisabeth Soderstrom, Senior Director of Conservation with American Rivers, started out by thanking the council for holding a special meeting and apologized for the deadline constraints saying, "It's stimulus funding, so it's all very last-minute." She continued by explaining that whoever gets all the requirements of the grant fulfilled first and the documentation completed will get the funding. The monies will be distributed by the end of August, if not earlier, Soderstrom said.
The project, aimed at stormwater management in a financially disadvantaged community (Nevada City), aims to construct green infrastructure to reduce sediment, pollutants and erosive peak flows in the Yuba watershed. Some of the proposed projects include: vegetative swales, installation of downspouts onto porous surfaces, and rainwater harvesting. Most of the proposed sites are located on city property, hence the request for the city to be the lead agency on the CEQA portion of the application.
Councilwoman Barbara Coffman had some choice words for the applicants before her. "I am appalled that you submitted an application, with letters attached to it dated from April, stating that you were going to do all this stuff to Nevada City property without ever once speaking to any official of the City of Nevada City. You did not talk to our Chief Engineer, Public Works, City Manager, Parks and Rec, you talked to no one... This project went forward without seeking permission from anybody that is named in the project... Just because a project says the words 'green' and 'sustainable' does not necessarily mean that it is something good for the City of Nevada City. Or, that it is something good to do to our public space. And free money is not always free. Free money comes with responsibilities."
Coffman then proceeded to detail her objections to each proposed project, saying "there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. I'm just really stunned that nobody thought it might be a good idea to ask permission and to work with Nevada City staff..."
Mayor Reinette Senum agreed with Coffman on the need for process, saying "that is exactly why, last Friday in our strategic planning workshop, I said it would be a really good idea to have a committee in place for people who want to help our city and who don't know the protocol."
Coffman was undeterred: "I have to say, if this is an organization that thinks it's O.K. to do that [put something on city property] without asking for permission, then it is not an organization that..."
Senum interrupted her unsuccessfully and Councilwoman Sally Harris suggested, "let's tone it down, this a professional meeting."
Soderstrom then clarified that the application submitted to the state in April did not contain any specific locations and that the site proposals before the council were suggestions to the city.
Councilwoman Harris asked about the timeline of notification to the city. Soderstrom explained the fluctuating nature of requirements for stimulus funds and said they only learned of additional documents requirements a week ago. Mayor Senum confirmed she had told the non-profits to work with staff on preliminary designs and site specifics. City Engineer Bill Falconi said he understood "this money flies around and it'll be gone before long."
Details and the Devil Therein
The council, staff and Soderstrom then had a lengthy discussion about the technical feasibility of the proposed work. Public Works Director Verne Taylor pointed out a vegetative swale might be impractical at the proposed location in the city parking lot, but would work great in the city's maintenance yard. City Planner Cindy Siegfried wanted to make sure the council understood the CEQA process and Bill Falconi pointed out several obstacles to the various projects.
Coffman again insisted that if the city was to be the lead agency, they needed to know exactly what was being proposed. Soderstrom explained that the city was not the lead agency for the project, only for the CEQA portion of possible sites on city property.
Councilman Robert Bergman wanted to know if it is possible to move a project location. "Is it possible to say 'Oops, this doesn't work here, but it can over there' and still retain the funding?"
Councilman David McKay inquired about a possible extension of the project deadline from one to two years. He said he didn't want to pile on more workload onto staff, just because of a grant opportunity with no iron-clad guarantee of funding.
The discussion lasted for over an hour. In the end, the council voted 4-1 to direct staff to spend 10 hours to identify possible locations and types of projects. Coffman voted No, "not because it's not a good idea to meet with staff, but because that should have been done sooner." Staff will bring back their findings in the next two weeks.
By submitting a comment you consent to our rules. Please use your real first and last name, not a nickname or alias. Thank you.
