Diana Jorgenson
Portola Editor
11/4/2009

    Last week’s city council meeting was a livelier affair than is usual. Seating was full with standing room only, with attendants on a variety of agenda issues. Even the staff table was longer than usual and well attended.
    The agenda was long, but the mood was cheerful.
    Council member Bill Kennedy sported a new Stetson and City Manager Jim Murphy wore cowboy boots. A couple of other council members briefly wondered how “Eastside Cowboys” would look added to their nameplates.
    Local Agency Formation Commission chairman Robert Meacher, in an interview a couple of weeks ago, gifted the term to them and, oddly enough, they seemed fond of it.
    There were weighty issues on the agenda, including the future owner of power servicing Portola and Loyalton, as well as how that might impact the closed Sierra Pacific Industries co-generation plant in Loyalton; the future of a sign that has dominated the Portola landscape since at least the mid-60s; the transfer of the operation of Lake Davis Treatment Plant to Portola even before the transfer of ownership; discussions with Grizzly Lake Resort Improvement District about future growth and GLRID’s request to tap into the lower pipeline instead of the upper pipeline traditionally used; and a potential land swap between the city of Portola and Bill Powers.
    Oh yes, and a budget amendment of $76,409.96 allocated to LAFCo to cover additional expenses this year.
    Murphy introduced the topic: “Jon Benoit, the new director of LAFCo, met with (City Clerk) Leslie (Tigan) and me a couple of days ago and we were very impressed. He seemed very experienced. He handles four or five other counties and has a lot of good ideas.”
    Murphy continued, “Our costs for LAFCo are high this year, but I would propose to you that throughout my career, whenever I’ve seen an executive director or general manager anywhere leave—where you have to pay them—the cost is fairly high. There’s back vacation, back sick time; there’s usually severance pay.
    “In this particular case there were legal fees. Our budget amendment is a one-year thing and according to Mr. Benoit, we’re going to be saving in future years.”
    Murphy listed a one-sixth proportional cost of LAFCo conferences and travel expenses as just one of the ways that cost savings would occur in the future.
    Council member Dan Wilson interjected that at the last meeting of special districts, while not enough districts were present to constitute a definitive vote, the districts showed an overwhelming willingness to join LAFCo. This expanded makeup of the commission would reduce the county’s and city’s contributions to one-third each, rather than the 50–50 split they currently are subject to.
    The budget amendment was for $76,409.96. The settlement outlined in the agreement awards Gullixson $45,749.
    According to city staff in a follow-up question regarding the budget amendment, the amount above the settlement agreement covers rather extensive legal fees as well as a number of clean-up activities, such as reimbursing districts that paid for service reviews but did not receive them.
    During agenda discussion of the budget amendment, Murphy commented, “I asked Mr. Benoit if we should round it off like the county did, when it voted a $100,000 amendment. He said, ‘absolutely not, it’s going to cost $76,409.96 and not a penny more.’”
    Mayor Curt McBride motioned to pass the budget amendment; it was seconded by council member William Weaver and passed unanimously, no members absent.
    At the close of the meeting, City Attorney Steve Gross gave a report from a previous closed session of a special meeting held Sept. 23. There was an item of anticipated litigation: one case.
    “During that closed session, the council members by roll call vote (excepting John Larrieu who was absent) approved a settlement agreement between John Gullixson, Plumas County LAFCo, the County of Plumas, and the city of Portola, whereby all potential claims of the parties with respect to each other were resolved through that settlement. I want to report that out; we waited to report that out until all the parties had approved the agreement and had signed off on it.”
    Council member Bill Kennedy had a question. “The press has been contacting me: This is a public document, right? They don’t have to have us interpret it for them. They can get a copy and decide for themselves.”
    Gross responded, “They can. We can’t even comment on it, but it is a public document. It can be requested and obtained.”
    Citizen Larry Douglas asked to know the settlement amount, but Gross told him he could not tell him.
    “But it is a public document. It can be obtained. We are just really precluded from commenting on it. I think if you read it, you’d understand.”
    And the meeting adjourned.

    Editor’s Note: This particular meeting was long, because a great many interesting agenda items were up for discussion. There was also considerable public comment, so each of these will be the subject of a future article.