HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/11/1966i�
-'MTNUTES ,OF MEETING
OF CITY COUNCIL
PETA LUMA,, CALIFORNIA
April 11, 1966
Council Meeting
A ttendance
Notice of the Call
,Assessment District
#9 -NS
`Res. #4490 NCS
Special meeting of the Council of the City of Petaluma
called to order by Councilman Colin, Vice - President
of the Council.
Present: Councilmen Battaglia, Brainerd, Cavanagh, Jr. ,
Colin, Joerger, and Lipman.
Absent: Mayor 'Putnam.
Notice of the Special Meeting called for April 11, 1966,
the certificate of the City Clerk of the delivery of said
notice, and the consent of the members of the City
Council to the holding of said meeting, submitted
and filed.
City Attorney Edouard Robert commented that the
City of Petaluma has been sued and served and that
a suit is pending in Superior Court,, and unless the
City desires to let this go by default, it has to appear
and answer. By the nature of the complaint and the
charges made in the complaint, he stated that it
was his recommendation, and the recommendation
of the bond counsel because of their implication in
the matter, that an associate counsel, who is inde-
pendent, be employed and that the Council authorize
the bond counsel, associate counsel and him to
appear and defend the action on behalf of the City.
Following a brief discussion, Resolution #4490 N. C. S.
authorizing employment of legal counsel in connection
with A ssessment District #9 N. S. , was introduced
by Councilman Cavanagh, Jr. , seconded by Councilman
Battaglia, and adopted by 6 affirmative votes, 1 absentee.
Swimming. Pool Complex
Mr. Milton Johnson, architect for the Swimming Pool,
presented a review of the bids received at the bid
opening on April 7th. Low bid was submitted by
Rupp Construction Company, Santa Rosa, in the
amount of $298., 000 for the base bid. Since the bid
and add alternates exceeded the $250, 000 funds
available, Dr. Rudloff and Mr. Johnson discussed
various ways to reduce costs of the pool complex.
However, Dr. Rudloff recommended that the size
and shape of the pool remain the same and that
changes be made in the peripheal facilities on the
site. It was pointed out that: 107 to 157 rise in
material and labor costs during the last six weeks
is the primary reason. for the difference between
the estimated costs and the actual bid prices. • As a
matter of information, the City Manager stated that
according to the' City. Attorney's opinion, the City
Charter does not permit negotiation to reduce costs,
and as the City Attorney added, the discrepancy is
toq: great to. reduce costs by change orders. Since
the matter involved considerable discussion and
exploration, upon a suggestion made by Dr. Rudloff,
it was decided that'the subject be considered' further
at a.study session with him and Mr. Johnson immediate-
ly following the Council meeting.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the
Council, the meeting was adjourned.
M ayor
Attest
�_:� tt er