HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1.C 02/07/20051
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1.0
February 7, 2005
ALU
City of Petaluma, California
MEETING OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL/
z$5a PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
City Council/PCDC Minutes
Monday January 24, 2005 - 3:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting
MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 2005
CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Canevaro, Mayor Glass, Vice Mayor Harris, Healy, Nau, O'Brien, Torliatt
Pledge of Allegiance - Council Member O'Brien
Council Member Nau read a statement regarding her vote on the Selection of
Contractor for Refuse Collection and Disposal Services and Authorization for City
Manager to Complete Franchise Agreement Negotiations, and made a MOTION for
reconsideration of the action taken at the January 18, 2005 meeting.
Council Member Nau's Statement: (Begin verbatim transcription)
Our goal is to serve the entire community to the best of our ability. It is our
responsibility as City Council Members to represent the best interests of the
people of Petaluma. Last week's action of the majority of us, when we
selected the provider to collect our trash, has caused a maelstrom of
discontent among the voters of our city.
I, for one, cannot go anywhere in Petaluma since the vote was cast
without someone stopping me and wanting to know why we voted for the
most expensive choice. Additionally, I have received countless phone
calls and e-mails. While I know a certain amount of the phone calls were
orchestrated, the vast majority were sincere concerns expressed by their
astonishment that we voted as we did.
The angst expressed by so many people has caused me to rethink my
position. Last Tuesday, as I understood it, I had to make a selection
between the three remaining contractors bidding on our 10 -year contract
for garbage service. As a result, I voted in favor of Norcal.
I voted in favor of Norco/ because I am committed to protecting the
environment for our community, our children, and our future generations. I
felt that their proposed 70% recycling rate was the best recycling proposal
in front of us. I still believe that they are a quality company that provides
outstanding service.
Vol. 40, Page 406 January 24, 2005
What I didn't understand was the process which occurred before I was
elected to the City Council. Consequently, I have some checking on my
own. It appears that the criteria by which the proposals were judged was
constantly changing and did not provide clarity to the Council or to the
contractors.
I do not believe we have made either the best or the right decision. The
City extended the Waste Management contract once already to
continue the selection process. I believe that should remain in place.
I believe we should reopen the competitive bid process, requiring a 70%
recycling rate, and at the lowest cost possible to insure the best possible
deal for our environment and our ratepayers. We must empathize with
those in our community who are struggling economically. The poor, the
elderly, the young families all must be considered. (End verbatim
transcription)
M/S Nau/Healy.
City Attorney Rudnansky explained that Council's Rules, Policies, and Procedures states
that when a Council Member makes a motion for reconsideration, that motion may be
seconded at the time the motion is made, or at the next meeting. In this case, since
Council Member Healy has seconded the motion, it will be brought back for voting at
the February 7, 2005 meeting. If the motion passes, the actual reconsideration will be at
the next regular Council Meeting, potentially February 28.
Mayor Glass asked that Council Member Nau's statement be entered into the minutes
verbatim. He also asked the Public Comments regarding the garbage franchise be
transcribed verbatim.
Council Member Torliatt encouraged those who had come for Public Comment to tell
the Council what they think, even though there was a motion for reconsideration.
PUBLIC COMMENT (Begin verbatim transcription)
36 Donald Davis, Petaluma: We presently have a very excellent garbage pickup. They do a
37 good job, they're very congenial, and I have been wondering why you would vote for
38 the highest contractor. Either there are items we don't know, or you want to shock us
39 and then when you select one we don't feel quite so bad about it. Before I retired, 1
40 worked for a company where I sat in on contract meetings and the contractors - the
41 ones that wanted the contract - they had competitive bids. The ones that didn't' want
42 the contract, they made it 100% more, and said, "Well if we get it, that's cream on the
43 pig." But if somebody can do a good job at a lesser price, I think you ought to go there.
44
45 Howard Calmer, Petaluma: I'm a retired teacher for the Old Adobe School District. 1
46 haven't gotten involved in politics very much. In light of how things have been going -
47 the President being reelected and we've got an Action Figure Governor - I guess 1
48 shouldn't be surprised that we'd decide to have the Cadillac of garbage service when
49 we can't fix our streets. We've been waiting for a cross-town connector forever. And you
50 all decided we should pay double for garbage service. I don't get it. We certainly have
51 other things that we need to fix. Since the Governor is using the City money to balance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
January 24, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 407
the State's budget, we're going to have to pay for police and fire and many other things
down the road, perhaps. We need to start thinking about fiscal responsibility. We could
have done a lot to improve our garbage and recycling over the last ten years. We could
have fined people who didn't recycle. I've got neighbors that throw everything into the
same can, and nothing ever happens. There are other ways to save and recycle. Sixty
percent isn't bad for half the price. You need to rethink it.
John Legnitto, General Manager, Norcal Waste: I hope the process will play out, because
what we're offering here is to manage waste costs through recycling. We've always
offered that and we've always offered to work with the City to come up with the right
rates. The fact of the matter is, our intent is to put together this type of arrangement,
which would be $12.09 a month. No matter what anybody's telling you. At the end of the
day, when you're all set, most people have a current arrangement - over 64% of the City
- that looks like this [showing photo] with the three bins, that they're paying $15.33 for
today. In the long term, we would work with the Council to negotiate the rates. We take
care of our seniors in all the communities that we're in. We provide for all the different
aspects of our rates, so that people will be able to subscribe to the services they need,
and our company has never once tried to mislead anybody. It's very frustrating to hear
the things that are have been coming out over the last few days. Because all we want to
do is the right thing for your City. Thank you very much.
Colleen Dunaway, Petaluma: I voted for all four of the Council Members who just voted
for this garbage thing, and I'm appalled. I think going from 50 to 60% [diversion] is fine.
We don't need to go to 70% now. Saying that our rates will go down later is "pie in sky."
No one knows. At that point, the price of energy will probably be higher for the gas in the
trucks. My bottom line is, I think the Council needs to vote for what the people want, and
not what you think you want for us. You are not our teachers or our parents. You need to
vote for what we want. Thanks.
Ken Foley, Operating Engineers Local No. 3: Last week, Ken Oku, our district rep from San
Francisco/San Mateo spoke before you. I'm hear today representing him, and wish to
repeat what Ken said to you then. Operating Engineers District 1 is in support of Norcal
Waste Systems in their efforts to achieve the Petaluma contract. Operating Engineers
represents workers at numerous Norcal facilities in Northern California. We find them to
be an excellent employer, we have found them to be excellent to negotiate with, to
arrive reasonable and cost effective contracts with people we represent. We'd like,
once again, just to suggest that you move forward with appointing Norcal as your waste
hauler. Thank you.
Martin Pozzi, Petaluma: This year I will be 36 years at my current residence. I've lived in the
city limits for the past 55 years. I'm a retired general contractor. A brief statement about
Empire Waste: Empire Waste has done a great job for me over the years. In construction,
they furnished debris boxes at a reasonable price. Their pick up day has been always
prompt. Sometimes a relief driver misses a pickup: you can call the company, and
usually that day it's taken care of. To change to another company at this time and to
cost us double for the service we are getting would be a grave mistake. Please listen to
the people of Petaluma and continue to have Empire Waste be your garbage
company. They have given us good service in the past, and probably will continue to
give us good service in the future. Thank you.
Dewey Thomas, Petaluma: I have lived in Petaluma for 52 years. Mr. Pozzi, if he lives until
next month, will be here for 80. First of all, I want to apologize to Karen Nau for what I put
Vol. 40, Page 408 January 24, 2005
in this letter that you have hlfront ofyou. |was going tobring opthe fact that ifyou
change your mind, it doesn't mean you're waffling - it means that you're here to listen.
You are certainly listening. Thank you. I do want to say one thing. I resent Norcal coming
up here and speaking otevery meeting, when they're going tobeincontract
negotiations with the Council later on. This is public comment, | think, for the citizens of
Petaluma on issues that concern Petaluma. I think cost should enter into everything you
think about, including City business-espeoioUyvvhen it's other people's money! Mr.
O'Brien, | question the legality ofyour vote, when you're campaigning for reelection;
you're in negotiations with a company that you take campaign money from. I don't
know if that's legal or not. Apparently, you've researched it because you did it.
[Mayor Glass interjected here, telling Mr. Thomas Uwas "absolutely legal and that the
representative from Norcal had a "first amendment right to address the Council. "I
88r Thomas, continued: Not much tosay toyou, Mr. Harris, | guess. Thank you, Mr. Healy,
Pam Todiatt'and David Glass. Mr. Bierman has been working Vnthis for three years. You
can study something to death, and you won't come up with any new answers.
Julio ErcqOn[ Petaluma: Recently, | lost my wife. | had the paramedics come to my house
four times. They treated nlywife the way operson should be treated.
Ernie Carpenter, Industrial Carting and Green Waste: | wasn't going fospeak, but |
noticed that the other companies did. VVoconsider ourselves viable bidders. VVedon't
want to take a back seat to anyone in this process. We tried to play the game straight
up. | promise you that wowill continue tomove ahead with integrity and with a
commitment to do what we say. When we talk about being able to start with 70%
recycling tomorrow, we mean that. It's not something that's contingent upon other
issues. We respect your process, and we'd like to congratulate Council Member Nau on
being able to articulate a change of opinion. |' for one, which o lot ofelected people
(and no reflection on this group) would change their minds on a lot of things. So it does
come as a breath of fresh air, even though we obviously stand to gain. Thank you.
Robert O'Connor, Petaluma: | have only four quick questions for you, and | know |won't
get answers now, but if you will consider them, I'll appreciate that. I'd like to know if the
Council has documented proof from any reliable source that the new refuse company is
recycling 70% of its trash anywhere else. Does the contract that will be signed by the City
have guarantee that the new company will, after a certain period, recycle 70%V|fnot,
is there a stipulation that they can be fined monetarily for breach of contract? One of
the great services we get inPetaluma iofrom Waste Management. Twice oyear, they let
us bring our unusual and odd 'bad stuff' to special places in the City at no charge. We
can bring whatever we need to get rid of and they take it, free of charge. I'm not even
thinking about Christmas trees, which they also do free. We have a quiet sweeper, that
comes every week and has for many, many years to clean the trash off of the streets. We
really appreciate that it. I hope that's in the contract also. Thank you very much.
45 (End verbatim
46 COUNCIL COMMENT
47 Mayor Glass thanked the members ofthe public. Hesaid hehad been pretty vocal -his
48 concerns were strictly financial, and were based on expert analysis - not necessarily on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
January 24, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 409
customers during the first 16 months. After that, the rates would either stabilize or go up
even more. He thought the Argus -Courier had accurately reported the concerns
outlined in the staff report. The consultant expressed concern about the way the
proposed contract is financially structured. In order to "sleep at night," he needed to
make sure there is contract locked in that is in the best interest of the rate payers. Norcal
is an excellent company with a great ability to recycle. He was not sure, however, that
Petaluma could afford the price. He wished Petaluma had the money to do what Norcal
proposed.
Council Member Canevaro stated that the public had a misconception that he had said
at the January 18th meeting that he didn't care about price. He asked to read back from
his notes from that meeting, for the record. What he actually said was, "For me it was
never just about price. 1 asked for alternatives at 50, 60, and 70%, along with pricing, so
that we could consider the best product." He felt he had been done a bit of a disservice,
but said he would stick by his decision. Council gave direction to the City Manager to
negotiate a contract with Norcal. He emphasized that there is no set fee structure yet.
The negotiated contract would come back to Council for final approval. He hoped the
public would reserve judgment until that time.
Vice Mayor Harris agreed with Council Member Nau that Council needs to reconsider
the matter, with all the residential rates for all the can sizes for each proposer clearly laid
out for each citizen to do his own analysis, and all the commercial rates laid out for every
business. The senior discount rate needs to be specified as well. He looked forward to
that, but noted that he will not available for the February 28th meeting, and hoped the
matter could be agendized for a different date.
Mayor Glass asked the City Manager to determine when a Special Meeting could be
scheduled for this item.
Council Member Torliatt explained that her vote was based on "simple math." The
numbers Council had in front of had of them for a ten-year garbage contract were $50
million for Waste Management, $59 million for Green Waste, and $101 million Norcal
Waste Systems. Staff recommended the $50 million option; Council chose the $101 million
contract. She appreciated Council Member Nau requesting a reconsideration vote, but
stressed that she is not in favor of issuing a new RFP and starting the bidding process over
again. A choice should be made between the two remaining bidders based on the
lowest rates and highest recycling levels they could provide. She pointed out that Waste
Management could provide the service with a 10% increase in recycling. She felt Council
had many other projects to be working on; there were a number of redevelopment
projects, the new wastewater treatment plan, and many development proposals that
would be coming before them soon. She asked the public to give Council feedback on
whether they want to reopen the bidding process or move forward with one of the
current bidders.
Mayor Glass shared Council Member Torliatt's concerns.
Council Member O'Brien told Mr. Ercolini he was sorry for his loss. The City Attorney had
cautioned Council not to discuss the merits of the garbage issue at this meeting, as it was
not on the agenda. He hoped everyone heard the $12.09 per month that Norcal has
quoted. That would not double the garbage rates. He said everyone had been scared
by what was reported in the newspaper, but that was not what was going to happen.
Vol. 40, Page 410 January 24, 2005
Council Member Healy was in favor of scheduling a Special Meeting for Monday,
January 31 to vote on the motion for reconsideration, and another Special Meeting in
early February to revisit the issue. He made extensive comments at the Saturday, January
22 meeting, which were reported in the newspaper yesterday. To summarize what's in
front of the Council at this point: There are three companies that are proposing to get
the City's ten-year franchise. The City hired a very experienced firm to help analyze the
proposals, and prepare an unbiased, side-by-side comparison of what those proposals
really meant. That's what Council had before them on January 18th. He believed Council
should base their decision on that analysis. The figures for the three companies were
basically: Norcal Waste Systems, Inc. - 70% recycling with a 116% increase in rates; Green
Waste - 70% recycling with an 18% increase in rates; and Waste Management, the
current company in Petaluma - 60% recycling with a 3.8% rate hike. He asked for a show
of hands from the audience regarding which company should be awarded the
contract.
15 CITY MANAGER COMMENT - None.
16
17 AGENDA CHANGES AND DELETIONS (Changes to current agenda only).
City Manager Bierman removed Item 3.13 from the Consent Calendar. It will be re-
agenclized at a later date.
I APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council/PCDC Minutes of January 3, 2005.
Council Member Torliatt asked that page 5, line 24 be changed to read,
"She mentioned that Morin Municipal Water District (MMWD) was
discussing exercising an option to use an additional 5,000 acre feet of
water for their system." MOTION to approve the minutes of January 3,
2005 as amended. M/S Torliatt/Healy
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGENDA
A. Approval of Proposed Agenda for Council's Regular Meeting of February
7, 2005.
MOTION to approve the February 7, 2005 agenda as received at the dais.
M/S Torliatt/Healy
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Resolution 2005-013 N.C.S. Accepting the Claims and Bills from
December, 2004. (Netter)
46 B. AppFevGI ef Cooperative Agreement With CC)Unty Of Sonnme3 fGr
47 Development, Use and Maintenance of thta PPfcj1-,rncj Tran sit AAC311
48 (IRYGIR/Nette4 - This item was removed from the agenda.
49
50 C. Resolution 2005-014 N.C.S. Amending the Classification and
51 Compensation Plan by Establishing the Classifications of Human Resources
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
January 24, 2005
Vol. 40, Page 411
Assistant 1/I1, Human Resources Specialist, and Human Resources
Manager and Establishing the Pay Ranges and Unit Assignments for
Human Resources Assistant 1/I1, Human Resources Specialist, and Human
Resources Manager, and Abolishing the Classifications of Benefits
Administrative Assistant, Human Resources Analyst, Personnel Technician
and Human Resources Director. (Netter)
MOTION to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar (items A and C).
M/S Glass/O'Brien
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Discussion and Direction Regarding City Council Liaison Appointment to
Animal Services Advisory Committee.
Council Member Torliatt volunteered for this liaison position.
MOTION to appoint Council Member Torliatt as Council Liaison to the
Animal Services Advisory Committee for 2005.
M/S Glass/O'Brien
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Resolution 2005-015 N.C.S. Approving the 2005 Investment Policy. (Netter)
Interim Administrative Services Director Joe Netter presented the staff
report.
MOTION to approve the 2005 Investment Policy. M/S O'Brien/Harris
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION - 3:45 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT - None.
CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to Government Code §54957(e): City
Manager.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR: Government Code §54957.6. Agency Negotiator:
Michael Bierman/ Unrepresented Employees - Unit 8.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: Significant Exposure to
Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code §54956.9 (One Matter)
Vol. 40, Page 412 January 24, 2005
2
3
MONDAY, JANUARY 24,2005
EVENING SESSION -7:00PJN.
4 CALL TO ORDER -7I0p.m.
A. Roll Call
Canevaro, Mayor Glass, Vice Mayor Harris, Healy, Nau, O'Brien, Torliatt
B. Pledge of Allegiance -MoUVVhite Basin Street Properties
C. Moment of Silence
REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION - There was no reportable action taken.
PUBLIC COMMENT
LKbbyRtaGero|d' Petaluma, representing the Rotary Club mfPetaluma Valley, wanted to
publicly thank PCA for caring about Petaluma students and their teachers. PCA went out
ofibwmytoquicNyschodo|oo|iveintenimwubout"Lmnc/oHondfoEducotior\"on
event taking place this Saturday, January 29. This is a benefit for Petaluma area school
classroom projects, studentscho|orships.ond|itorocyproQnzmsondisboinghostedby
the Rotary Club of Petaluma Valley. There will be more than 35 exhibits of teachers'
projects needing funding of $200 and under. It will be held at the Community Center
from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Admission is $12; kids 12 and under are free, food and beverages
will be served, and there will be live entertainment and an auction She hoped to see
everyone there onSaturday.
Mayor Glass added that Saturday would bea"great day of " because that
evening there is an all -you -can -eat crab feed at the Boys and Girls Club, cost: $40.
John FitzGerm|d'Petaluma, Petaluma River Festival Association Board ofDirectors,
welcomed returning and newly elected Council Members Canevoro,Nmu'O'Brien and
Torliatt. The River Festival association for the last 19 years has organized and brought up
the Alma, the City's official ship' to Peta|omo, to coincide with the Butter and Eggs [)oy
festivities. Before that it was handled by the Adobe Days Association. He has been
notified by the National Parks Service of a conflict that may interfere with the arrival of
the Alma. He asked the Council to send a letter to the Parks Service asking them to
resolve the conflict and not break the almost 30 -year record of the Alma arriving here in
Petaluma.
JennhneLonouette'Executive Director, Petaluma Community Access (PCA)'spoke
regarding her vision of the future of PCA. Petaluma has its own television station with
three cablecast channels 24/7. In the access world, there has been a shift toward
fostering community voice, dialogue, and exchange of ideas and culture. She hopes
PCA will become the channel to tune into to find out what's going on in Petaluma. PCA
has new equipment, new training classes, a consistent, dedicated staff and a very
active, committed board of directors. They currently have four open seats on the board.
PCA would like to bring in new board members who will expand PCA's reach into the
community. PCA is located at Casa Grande High School on Ely Boulevard. Their hours are
3:00-9:00 p.m. M -F; ll o.rn.-2:OOp.rn.Saturdays. The phone number is773-3l90. Anyone
interested inserving onthe Board ofDirectors may contact PCA otboard (dLoco]v.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
January 24, 2005
Vol. 40, Page 413
Rich Poremba, Boys and Girls Clubs of Petaluma, spoke about Cruisin' the Boulevard, an
art event taking place in Petaluma this summer, and sponsored by the Boys and Girls
Club. Four -and -one-half foot long cruiser cars adorned by local and national artists will
be placed around town from late May through August. He thanked Mayor Glass for
mentioned the Crab Feed. Tickets are still available by calling Mr. Poremba at 769-5322,
extension 12.
Mayor Glass asked that the Public Comment regarding the garbage contract be
transcribed verbatim. He also invited those who did not wish to speak to write their
comments on a Speaker Card. Those comments would be entered into the minutes by
the City Clerk.
(Begin verbatim transcription)
Terence Garvey, Petaluma: I believe giving this contract, where there is very little
difference in the service we're going to get for this great increase in price is
unconscionable - a travesty. If nothing else, you should put it to vote. Council Member
Healy suggested putting it to the vote of the people. We're getting these kinds of
increases everywhere - the sewer plant is going to go up and up because of delays and
prices are going up. We don't need another price increase. Thank you.
John Legnitto, General Manager, Norcal Waste Systems, Inc.: I would like to again
emphasize the fact that Norcal's plan is to change the recycling system currently in
Petaluma which uses mini -bins, at $15.33 per month, to our system, which we are
proposing at $12.09 a month. I know there's a lot of confusion, and I'm sure hoping that
someone will ferret those things out. Based on what I heard, Norcal was to work with the
Council on a base proposal and move forward. That's what I heard. Sounds like
everybody's heard a lot of things different. The other thing I'd like to say is, I can't find a
place to put this tonight [holding up empty soda can]. Nowhere in this building can I find
a recycling container. With Norcal, there would be a recycling container. I'd like to
reemphasize the fact that we are committed to the citizens of Petaluma, we have
provisions in all our communities to manage senior rates, fixed incomes, and anything
along the way. If you do business with Norcal, you will pay more if you don't recycle. If
you recycle, you can manage your waste bill. We've proven that in the communities
that we serve. Thank you.
Jeff Mayne, Petaluma Downtown Association: The Downtown Association would like to let
you know that the merchants of downtown certainly are interested in and committed to
recycling, but we feel recycling of 60% is sufficient, given that Norcal would cost
considerably more. We feel that is an undue burden. We also want to let you know that
Empire Waste and traditionally been a tremendous partner of the downtown, helping us
with different events ranging from the Butter and Eggs Day Parade to the antique faires,
the Art and Garden Festival as well. They've stepped up as a sponsor in kind, as well as in
other ways, and we would like to see them continue as our partner downtown. Thank
you.
Spence Burton, Petaluma: I want to thank the over 5,000 people who voted for me in this
last election. My second thank you is to Mike Healy, because without him, we would be
stuck with this outrageous garbage increase. I do have some questions. In October, you
threw out the lowest bid, which was from North Bay. They were going to come in 300
less. The lowest rate I've seen from Norcal is $12.09. That still a 33% increase - and those
are the ones you're going to give a break to - not the big cans for people who have a
Vol. 40, Page 414 January 24, 2005
big family. That doesn't give o break fofamilies which are already doing recycling.
They're already doing their job, and they're going to be penalized - by at least 30%. 1
disagree with that. | think it's going 1obe101%'but I'll goalong with what people are
saying. I want to thank Karen also, publicly, for changing her mind. But I'll read you back
an exact quote from the Argus -Courier from October 15: "The ratepayers are paying so
much for water and sewer. TVadd mnadditional cost for garbage service is just
incredible," she said. "Everybody I talk to is mad about it. They don't want to pay
anymore." I give you credit for coming back and changing your mind. Only someone
with guts would come back and change their position when they realized they were
wrong. Thank you.
Tod Ferro, Petaluma: | live onthe east side nfPetaluma, and | support the Council going
with Norcal. I have them for a property I own in San Francisco and they do a very good
job. They accommodate us when we have overages and they take care of us very well. I
also think it's in the best interests of the residents when Norcal takes over and they
maximize all their recycling osbest they can. I'd hate tosee the decision bechanged
from Noroa||osomeone else. | understand that Waste Management isnow making
phone calls to pressure residents to complain and be on their side. I think that's a scare
tactic that vve don't need inthe City ofPetaluma. Thank you.
Bob F|goni Petaluma: | am a 25 -year resident of Petaluma and have participated in
recycling programs since they started. I even spent $15 of my own money to buy the
recycling bins inthe early l98O's.There have been very few changes inthe recycling
program here since then, even though the industry has changed greatly. I also recall
that when automation came to Petaluma, we were all given the 90 -gallon cans and
paid the 90-go||on nztm' and it wasn't until certain members of the City Council realized
that the 54, 32, and 20 -gallon cans existed that we were given the option to use smaller
cans and pay less. That's not what I call an environmental leader. I know that Norcal has
the best recycling programs tomeet the future environmental challenges toour
community, and I urge you to give Norcal a chance to negotiate a contract with the
City Manager. Thank you.
Marcia Keasier, Petaluma: I'm here this evening as a resident in support of the City
Council's decision to direct the staff to start negotiations with Norcal Waste Systems. I
lived in Novato before I came to Petaluma. They went to single stream recycling in
Novato, and they were amazed otthe difference that itmade inthe amount of
garbage that the citizens were putting in the landfill. I think we can't not afford to
increase garbage rates a bit if it means single -stream recycling, because we can't afford
to dump our landfills full of garbage that could be recycled and made into paper
products and other things. I urge you to continue negotiations with Norcal.
Council Member 7odiatt clarified that every single contractor was required toprovide
single -stream recycling.
Kelly Sepich, Petaluma: I am a student in Petaluma, representing many young voters in
town. In all my years, | was taught to protect the environment. | was proud of the City
when they voted for Norcal, but the vote has been retracted. It's money versus the
environment. Ten years from now do we want to be facing fees to create new dump
sites? Recycling is one of our last ways of preserving the environment. Noroa| is the best
recycling program offered to Petaluma. Waste Management hasn't updated in 20 years.
Recycling change isneeded inPetaluma. Thank you for your consideration.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
January 24, 2005
Vol. 40, Page 415
Sherry Marcia, Petaluma: I wanted to commend Ms. Nau for changing her vote and
looking deeper into the issue, and I would hope that the other three Council Members
would also come to the same conclusion. I would hope that whoever is picked for the
garbage contract would be a Sonoma County employer. I also support an arts
commission formed here in Petaluma. Thank you.
Paul Claeyssens, Petaluma: Have we committed to anybody any particular rate yet?
No? We're just talking about negotiating with somebody. I wanted to get that clear. I
would like to have you negotiate with the most capable company as far as getting our
recycling done, whatever rate you might get. I've heard the term "fuzzy math" thrown
around here. For me, the analysis that was done by the consultant is "fuzzy math." $101
million versus $50 million with imaginary rates, imaginary figures - it really doesn't make
much sense to me. If I were on a fixed or low income, I'd like to know that I would be
getting some special consideration, and I have heard that Norcal say that they would do
that. To what extent, I don't know, but from what I've heard from people, they do seem
to do what they say they're going to do. I have a piece of property here in town where
we have two 65 -gallon cans. I'm looking forward to being able to get rid of those two,
having one 35 -gallon can, and one big blue can, so that I could have a much lower
rate. I also have a commercial, 1-1/2 yard dumpster, and I understand the stuff in there is
easy to reprocess, and I'm looking forward to getting a better rate on that, too, with
Norcal. From what I can tell, they are the most capable. I think that they numbers that
are being thrown around are scaring everybody. I would much rather have some who is
capable of doing the best job of recycling. Thank you.
Jane Hamilton, former Council Member, Petaluma: I am a former City Council Member
and I'm somewhat acquainted, a little bit more than the average citizen, with the ins
and outs of garbage contracts. I'm really glad to hear that you're going to revisit the
decision that you made last week, because in my opinion, there is no legitimate
justification for that vote. The shallow reasons that you put forward on this dais last week
are embarrassing. As a matter of fact, the reasons you gave demonstrated to me that
you are not understanding the relationship between a franchise contract and the rate
structure. The City states the rate structure, not the company. Everybody was talking
about, "Just go to a lower rate." There's an equation: you have to do the math. You
don't know the answers yet. After the last Council Meeting, Council Members Canevaro
and O'Brien and Brian Sobel went to Andresen's with representatives from Norcal who
were here at the Council Meeting to have drinks - money on the bar, having a great
time - celebrating. Most people would know that this is not appropriate for a City
Council Member to do when you're in negotiations. The contract isn't finalized. It's not
party time. You should be defending and protecting the citizens, and not drinking with
buddies. I thought that this Council had given a directive that Council Members were not
to engage with the representatives of the companies, except as a group. I'm
complaining about that, and it really offends me. And don't embarrass this town any
further by suggesting that we bring North Bay back into the bidding process, or that we
do a referendum on this. Rumor has it that Norcal is trying to buy North Bay, they have
safety violations, we don't need it, and it's messy. Just move forward. Empire Waste can
do a 70`0 option and compare that to Green Waste and make a decision to move
forward. The really bad thing about this decision is that it's a simple thing: a garbage
contract. There are much more complex things coming to this City in the next year, and
we want to know that you're going to make sound decisions based on our benefit, not
somebody else's.
Vol. 40, Page 416 January 24, 2005
Darrell Ortmann, Petaluma: I talked to Mayor Glass for about 1/2 hour the other day, and I
really appreciate that you took the time to do that. I was very impressed. Also, I e-mailed
every one of you people and I got a response from Karen and I got a response from
Mike. Also, Karen, I appreciate your changing your point of view. I think that's very big of
you. I wish our President could do that sometimes. I just had two root canals at about 4:00
this afternoon, and my day is still probably more pleasant than yours! I was watching on
TV the other night, and I was really shocked when half -way through the process,
somebody asked, "Do we have a comparison of the small, middle, and large cans?"
You guys went for three years without any kind of comparison to know what you were
comparing - apples, oranges, bananas, whatever. I couldn't believe money had not
even come up until half -way through you asked staff to go do some quick numbers and
they did, in about ten minutes. Viewing it on TV, it looked like there was an ambush here
the other night. It looked like our Mayor, our City Manager, many of the staff, and some
of the City Council Members were just in shock on the vote. Perception is reality, and I
don't think any of you guys are doing anything bad and I don't think you have mean
spirits, but I think the perception of the people in the community is that there was some
kind of last minute, behind the scenes decision making the other night. I don't believe
that, but if people are thinking that ... well, perception is reality. We don't need the
Cadillac. We all recycle. We're all trying to do our best. Sixty percent, seventy percent, I
think they're pretty even. I'm a teacher, I don't have a lot of money, and for my rates to
be going up that much is just truly outrageous, and I hope you will consider my - and the
rest of the peoples' - ideas. Thank you.
Bill Donahue, Petaluma: I reside at Sandalwood Estates Mobile Home Park here in
Petaluma. I want to acknowledge what I've heard from some Council Members here
today that they are reconsidering the decision, and we truly appreciate that. I represent
many homeowners within the mobile home parks in Petaluma. I'm also an associate
manager for the Golden State Mobile and Manufactured Homeowners Association. In
the simplest terms, the decisions that were made I know were made with the best
interests of the people of Petaluma at heart. I don't question the integrity of any Council
Member here, nor the integrity of those I've heard from the different waste collection
companies. However, it is price. Many of us cannot afford to use the "Cadillac." We
have to find a happy medium, and I urge those of you who are not reconsidering your
vote to do so, and come up with a lower number. When it comes to the highest number
there of Norcal, I pay $8.76 a month for a 32 -gallon can. I will not be able to do anything
better than that, because I do recycle and even have my own in -park program to
handles these materials.
John Thomas, Petaluma: Thank God for PCA, Petaluma Community Access television, so
that these City Council Meetings see the light of day. I believe all the Council Members
realize that there are several thousand people at home watching these meetings on a
weekly basis. I want to speak to the Council majority who voted for the Norcal contract.
Something really stinks here. You certainly not following your past voting records, or for
one, campaign promises. Certainly none of the four of you have ever been
environmental champions, but in your comments in support of Norcal, it was all about
the 70% recycling and the environment. Empire Waste offered 60% recycling at basically
the same current rates, yet you voted to double our garbage rates with Norcal. Did any
of you think about the impact on small businesses in our community, or the many
residents struggling in the current economy? Is this really representative government?
Your vote leads to only one conclusion: there's political gain involved. There are several
lines that come to mind here: "You dance with the one that brought you," and "the
politics behind the politics." Does it have to do with the sale of property to Norcal to build
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
January 24, 2005
Vol. 40, Page 417
their proposed new facility? Does it have to do with the promised support of wealthy
individuals, businesses, or powerful political groups? Your vote certainly shows no sign of
concern for the citizens and businesses of our community. You're not going to be able to
hide from this. We will make sure that as time goes on, the reasons for your support see
the light of day, whether it's property sales, campaign donations, you can't hide. This is
really reminiscent of the vote two years ago to trash our campaign finance ordinance,
and you all know how the community rose up in that situation. How about a little
representative government? Your vote will have huge ramifications for your political
future.
Kristin Winter, Petaluma: I'd like you to consider the unintended consequences of what is
likely to come forward if you raise the garbage rates by that substantial an amount. A
certain percentage of the population in Petaluma are going to be faced with some
hard economic choices, and probably what they're going to consider doing, is to start
their own "ad hoc" recycling program. I think we'll probably find their garbage recycled
in the creeks, along the roads, behind commercial enterprises, where the poor business
owner has to then deal with cleaning up for the people who can't afford to pay the
higher rates. At some point, the City and the businesses will spend more money cleaning
up that which people leave lying along the side of the road. If you have any doubt that
this will happen, I would invite all of you to take a drive out extended I Street some time
towards San Antonio Road, and just see what people dump along side the road. With
that substantial an increase, the problem will only grow. Thank you.
Betty Mazzucchi, Petaluma: People of Petaluma, come forward and tell the four Council
Members - Keith Canevaro, Karen Nau, Mike Harris, and Mike O'Brien - we did not
approve pf their votes for Norcal, the highest priced of all three companies vying for the
garbage service contract for Petaluma. Just watching these four Council Members on
Saturday, the 22nd, at 9:00 a.m. here in City Hall, when the public speaking took place,
these four Council Members were just plain arrogant. This is no way for those Council
Members to act. It shows that have no feeling for community people, only for their own
personal beliefs and thinking. This is really shocking because they are put in the Council
seats by the people and they're working for the people of Petaluma. Please remember,
residents: Write your letters to the editor of the Press Democrat and the Argus -Courier and
state your views on the voting of these four Council Members. Also call them and tell
them how you feel about their votes for Norcal. We already have a great garbage
service here in Petaluma: Empire Waste Management, with a very small increase of 3.8%.
The City Manager, Mr. Bierman, recommended the City Council go with Empire Waste
Management, which was ignored by the four Council Members. As I have said before,
what is wrong with you people doing this to our community? I resent your remarks, Karen
Nau, about WalMart when you were talking about this situation on Saturday, and yes, I
do shop at WalMart, and always will, as my pocketbook loves it. I'm all for the
referendum taking place and then the whole City of Petaluma can show you people
how we feel about your votes for Norcal.
Cynthia Learned, Petaluma: These are the reasons I strongly object to decision on the
new garbage contract made by Mike O'Brien, Keith Conevaro, Karen Nau, and Mike
Harris. Keith Canevaro's quote, "For me it was never about the price," is an extremely
callous statement. He shows no regard for the residents of Petaluma. We all care about
recycling, but cost does matter. This sudden drop to $12.09 from the original $19.26 is a
smoke screen to quiet us all down. It is an initial fee only. In the blink of an eye, our costs
with Norcal will skyrocket. Mike O'Brien is friends with John Legnitto, a Norcal executive,
and should never have been allowed to vote on this issue. This does not sit right with me
Vol. 40, Page 418 January 24, 2005
at all. Waste Management has been a good company. I'm been very satisfied with their
service and they have been fair and decent with their fees. As far as I'm concerned, you
four Council Members should never be serving on the City Council. You have no
empathy or regard for what the people want or can afford. The impact of your decision
to go with Norcal is going to be horrendous to businesses and residents alike. I support
Mike Healy's vow to take this to the ballot box if you four do not come to your senses. If
City Council Members all up and down Sonoma County don't make reasonable
decisions, they are going to price the middle class right out of Sonoma County. At this
point, my vote is very powerful, I hope, and I will use it. Thank you.
Stephanie Dietrich, Petaluma: I've lived in Petaluma along with my husband since 1978.
I'm also an active teacher at one of the high schools. I'm here tonight as one of the
many people to express a concern over the negotiations for the trash contract. Mr.
Canevaro, I do have concerns about your comment about money, and the next time
you go out shopping and you want to kind of pat yourself on the back and say, "Look at
the great deal I just made," how dare you not say it's about money and value. The trash
contract IS about money and the best value. I'm not going to lie and say that Empire
Waste Management has been the best company. I've given them phone calls when my
trash has been missed, but the most part, I think the recycling that they can provide for
Petaluma is worth the cost and what most of the community can afford. We're already
priced out of housing - don't price us out of garbage collection.
Joanne Huhn, Petaluma: For 41 years, Waste Management has handled our trash. I take
my responsibility. I get it out there, they pick it up. They've always done a good job. I put
it out there. We already have one person in our neighborhood who will not pay for trash
pick up. He waits until nighttime, and goes out and puts his garbage in everybody else's
can. I can guarantee you there are going to a lot of others who follow suit. Waste
Management has done a very good job. The only time I've had to call them, they were
there promptly. Please, please reconsider. Thank you.
Cindy Thomas, Petaluma: Welcome, Karen. I came here prepared to really give you a
wallop, but will spare you in light of what happened at the meeting this afternoon. We'll
have another opportunity to discuss garbage in the future. I'm going to take advantage
of the fact that it seems like the Environmental Fairies have come to visit a few of you. I'm
going to ask you in the future to please consider discussion and adoption of community
impact reporting as a planning tool so that can avoid situations like this on development
and other items that will be coming to the City in the future. I'm hopeful that we're going
to see a little bit different behavior here. I didn't see a lot of comments in last week's
meeting that matched the campaign platforms and past voting records, and I hope I'm
not going to see that in the future. Remember, there are no mulligans in this game of
politics. Also, I'm hopeful that you're going to take advantage of the fact that the Labor
Fairies also came to visit and maybe take a little bit different position on the living wage,
should that ordinance ever come to this Council for decision. Thank you.
John Hanania, Petaluma: I have never seen the Council Chambers this full other than
when we're dealing with junk cars, junk in the streets, and garbage. I believe those who
make mistakes should have the opportunity to fix their mistakes. He had a very pleasant
discussion with Karen Nau on Saturday. In the City of Petaluma there are lots of people
who fantasize about dining in 5 -star restaurants, and having Dom Perignon champagne
and caviar, but can only afford McDonald's. Any increase in rates will affect them. I am
very confused. I hear there's 120% increase. I hear there's no increase. I hear Mr. O'Brien
stating rates will be going down. A few minutes later, Karen Nau said they're going to go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
January 24, 2005
Vol. 40, Page 419
up. My suggestion to the Council: Have a town meeting, outside of the Chambers. We
have done it in the past. This is a serious issue in town. Two wrongs don't make a right. I
think a lot of people here are getting a beating for making a mistake. I think we all need
to work together as a community. If you watch PCA, their motto is, "Building Community
Through Communication." It's our job as members of the community to work with you to
fix the problem. Thank you.
Ted Eshleman, Petaluma: Rising expenses are really something. I live on the east side,
and I have been satisfied with the garbage service as it has been, and it's expensive
enough. Many other people have been up here before, a lot more eloquent than 1, but
just looking at this at face value, and knowing that the City Manager and staff had
made a very strong recommendation after some study of this issue, I just think that the
price is just too dear for most of the average people here in town. I urge you to
reconsider, and keep this issue in front where people can see what's going on.
Joe Durney, Petaluma: Two brief points: all the bills have just gotten so big - water and
everything - and I don't like it. But as we strive to save money, let's be sure we don't do it
on the backs of our people. Cindy [Thomas] said something about the living wage, and I
think that's important. Seeing that these companies have collective bargaining isn't a
horrible thing, is it? The other thing is, some years ago, a new City Council tried to make
progressive changes with our Animal Shelter, but the intense bureaucracy wouldn't have
anything to do with it, and a lot of good people got hurt. Is that what's happening here?
I think you have some good ideas, and I know you're thinking about it hard.
Diane Reilly Torres, Petaluma: I cam down here to tell you all how proud I am of you and
how glad I am that you're representing me. She really enjoyed Mike Healy's comment
about "putting lipstick on a pig." That must be something an attorney would say. Karen,
thank you for thinking it over and listening to everybody. Keith, I've been misquoted in
the newspaper many times and I would bet my bottom dollar that you didn't say that
verbatim. Without Bryant Moynihan here, I don't have anyone to kick around. Thank you
all for listening to the public. Maybe the garbage companies, at their expense, could
hold workshops where citizens can come and ask questions. Next time something like this
happens, I encourage to use your resources: there are lot of intelligent people in town
who would like to give you recommendations.
Janice Cader-Thompson, Petaluma: As a former Council Member, I too learned a lot
about garbage when I represented this community. I have a common sense approach
when it comes to the taxpayers' dollars. I don't like government spending my hard-
earned money, especially when you can purchase the same product at half the cost. I
was one of the few residents who attended last week's Council Meeting to speak on the
garbage issue. I am back tonight to tell you how irate and surprised I was that you chose
Norcal and their 116% increase to the residents and business community. A good
business mind would have looked at the three bids and then would have eliminated the
bid that was not in line with the other two bidders, especially if they wanted to continue
in business. The City Council hired the firm Hilton Farnkopf and Hobson at a cost of
$233,000 to evaluate the three proposals. Their recommendation and our City Manager's
recommendation was to stay with Waste Management, because they offered a good
service at the lowest cost to the ratepayer. I've been pleased with Waste Management
and their employees. Who is this Council working for? The citizens of this community or
special interests? What are you getting in return for the vote to gouge the citizens of this
community? It's time to put an end to this episode, and even though members of this
Council were pressured to ask for a reconsideration of their vote, how can we trust your
Vol. 40, Page 420 January 24, 2005
judgment? Therefore, I support a referendum so the citizens can decide for themselves
which garbage service they prefer. I would also ask for a State and Federal investigation
into this matter. Something stinks... and it's not garbage. I would also like to say that
some of the individuals who came up to speak and have been members of our
community for many years failed to say that they worked for Norcal. Thank you very
much.
Wayne Eckstrom, Petaluma: I've been a resident for ten years, and I am a registered
voter. This issue all started with your consulting firm. Why did it take you so long to come
to a decision on who you wanted to pick for your garbage contractor? I feel it's an
excessive amount - almost a quarter of a million dollars -just for an opinion. Somebody
should have puff his foot down a lot sooner and said, "Enough's enough - you need to
come to the table with the work that was put to you." The City Council has dragged their
feet on this issue for quite some time, and now we've come to this impasse. Now we're
picking the lesser of evils. Who are we going to decide on? I'm working class man, and if
it comes down to it, I will take my own garbage to the dump. I do recycle. I don't see the
plan that you guys are proposing is enough. It's an excessive amount to be paying for
garbage, and if that isn't enough, I notice the City was also fined $87,000 for its
wastewater treatment center. All these fines are being transferred onto the taxpayers,
and I am tired of absorbing the cost of this negligent thinking. Thank you.
Mattie Christensen, Petaluma Tomorrow, Petaluma: Petaluma Tomorrow is a public
interest advocacy organization that promises open government, responsible growth, and
sustainable watershed management in the Petaluma area. You can check us out at
www.petaluma-tomorrow.org. Open government means that the people have the
opportunity to understand how decisions are made, and if any improper influence is
exerted over those decision. As someone else said tonight, "if you dance with the one
who brung ya - who brung ya to the dance." Let's look at the numbers. The cost of
running for a virtually unpaid City office has escalated over recent years to as much as
$60,000. Why? Why are donors willing to contribute so much money? Because "there's
gold in them thar hills." Gold in the form of a garbage contract, and sewage treatment
plant contract, an outlet mall, etc., etc. In the interest of open government, we call for
full disclosure. To start with, we ask Council Members to disclose all their contacts with all
the garbage companies involved and their paid consultants for the February 7 meeting.
Thank you.
Stan Gold, Petaluma: One of the early speakers this evening used the expression,
"Perception is Reality" and indeed it is. There's a responsibility that all elected officials
have, and with that comes the trust of the people. Consider this: you have a
congressman in the U.S. Congress. He accepts campaign funds from a corporation. Later
on, he sits on a committee that gives a multi-million dollar government contract to that
corporation. How does the community feel about that? Well, back in his home district,
they're up in arms. They say this is terrible! There appears to be a conflict of interest. He
may be a perfectly honest fellow. That's beside the point. Appearance is indeed reality.
It didn't happen in the U.S. Congress. It happened right here in Petaluma. Mike O'Brien,
Council Member, took $800 from the company that got the contract. When that
occurred, it was known to all, and money was given to two other candidates for City
Council, Pam Torliatt and Cindy Thomas. Both of them appreciated the fact that there
was an issue of ethics involved - of ethical perception. They did the right thing: they gave
the money back, because they knew, pretty soon, whoever won would have to be
sitting in judgment of giving a contract to the company that had just given them funds.
Mr. O'Brien remained silent. At the last City Council Meeting, I pointed this out to Mr.
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
@
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
|h
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
]7
38
34
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
January 24, 2005
Vol. 40, Page 421
Cy8rien.Not wanting tocause him any embarrassment, | didn't call him byname. |said
the City Council Member who did not return the fonds should recuse himself. Again, 88r
O'Brien remained silent, participated in the discussion, and voted on the contract for
Noroo|.Thank you.
David Keller, Petaluma: | was one ofthe Council Members who asked for garbage
rebidding five years ago. 4uwegothrough the selection ofomonopoly waste hauling
and recycling firm, I hear echoes of the early 1990's when Petaluma proposed privatizing
our wastewater treatment plant. What we found then was that ratepayers were about to
get gouged, and the environment would suffer, too. YYe fixed that after stopping the City
at the California Public Utilities Commission. We produced strong ratepayer protection
through aggressive contract negotiations and rate setting oversight, which needs tnbe
put into place for garbage service as well. I am disappointed that this Council majority
chose to do business with Norcal. Not only have they proposed doubling the costs of the
other two bidders, but Norcal was also recently convicted of bribery by senior executives
in San Bernardino County of San Bernardino County administrators. Several of them have
served jail time. Those offers and those bribes were incash, some ofitpaid inbars, in
cash, under the table. Some of it was done through consulting jobs. Some of it was done
through trips and other gifts. Further, Norcal wants our ratepayers to pay for a recycling
facility, yet they still keep title to it, even though our ratepayers have paid for it. I am
disappointed that the P.R. flacks for Noroo| one trying to present Noroo| as "green." Yet in
Green Washington, the price to be paid for responsible recycling and environmental
standards and labor standards is exorbitant. Thus follows the national Republican
conservative strategy ofclaiming that protecting the environment and paying fair and
living wages is "too expensive." This is nonsense. This is false, and an affront to a town that
does care. Those kind of national movements are looking for a backlash against labor
and against environmental protection. That should not happen here. What we need is
effective rate structures, effective oversight. That is where the details of the costs will
become clear, and I look forward to seeing those details before you vote on it. Thank
you.
Bryant Moynihan, Petaluma: | would like to commend my replacement, Karen Nou' on
having intestinal fortitude to actually make a motion for reconsideration. The way I see it,
politically, we have three inthe camp ofNorca|.three inthe camp ofEmpire Waste, and
Karen in the middle, who is asking to getting some public input, and asking to have a
competitive bid process. I think that's great. There was a little poll taken at the meeting
this afternoon, and I'd like to ask this group here: Who here supports a 117% rate
increase? Show of hands, please. OK. By a show of hands, who here would like to see a
30% reduction in your current rates? OK! That question wasn't asked this afternoon, and
I'm asking it right now, because guess what? North Bay made that proposal 8 months
ago, and the majority oftheCounci|-otthottimeMh.Canevonxond Ms. Nmuwere not
there - instead of accepting a bid with a 30% reduction in rates, we're going to go out
and rebid and we're going towant 50% and 60%and 7O% inaddition tothe State
mandated recovery rates. And guess what we ended up with? This mess, right here,
today. Ladies and Gentlemen, I listened to Mayor Glass on the radio today. Mayor Glass,
great presentation. You said it was, "a// about rates." Well, if it was all about rates, you
would have accepted the North Bay rate eight months ago - a 30% reduction. But you
chose not to do that. Unfortunately, you suggested that Council Members who
supported Nor:o|had other motivations. | don't think that shows good leadership. I'd like
tosuggest that they people here want ogood economic deal, and | think that North Bay
offered that. The only way that you folks are going 1nget out ofthis mess isto
competitively bid n10set recovery rate.
Vol. 40, Page 422 January 24, 2005
The following are written comments left by citizens at the meeting who did not wish to
speak:
David Reid, Petaluma: I feel that the current recycling service and cost is far preferred to
the proposed change. The existing company (Waste Management) has spent
considerable effort to efficiently recycle as much material as practical.
Barbara Harden, Petaluma: I am very much against the Norcal contract - too much
money for only 10% more recycling.
Paul Sherman, Petaluma: I think it is important for the City Council to consider recycling as
an important component of the new contract. Landfills must be conserved; we can't
build more, we must recycle. Please make sure you consider the original 70% goal for
recycling of our waste.
Art and Lorie Mulling, Petaluma: We object to the proposed contract with Norcal that will
double the price of garbage collection. My records show that Waste Management has
served us well since 1988 with modest increases and rates from $18.60 to current rate of
$25-30. They have done a fine job in our opinion. We assume this is the same company as
Waste Management. We feel their recycling is adequate and feel it would be unfair to
impose a cost of $50 - $60 per month for garbage pickup on the people of Petaluma -
especially without their consent.
Paul Agazzi, Petaluma: Petaluma needs better recycling.
Jacqueline Barros, Petaluma: I am against the new garbage company. I do not feel that
the increased costs are justified. There are too many people living in Petaluma on fixed
incomes and/or have lost jobs or are working for lower wages during the past four years.
Empire Waste has done a good job.
Linda Postenrieder, Pelican Art Gallery, Petaluma: I would like to see the recycling
extended to the shopping centers. Currently, I have to carry all my recycling from my
business to the house where it put it out for collection. Please extend recycling to the
businesses.
Irving Schuerman, Petaluma: I am against giving the trash collection contract to Norcal if
the most important factor is the 10% increase in recycling over the next competitor.
(End verbatim transcription)
COUNCIL COMMENT
Mayor Glass explained that he had let everyone know he was going to be on the radio
everywhere he went. He did not think a referendum was necessary. He would be glad to
go out and make sure the voters get a chance to choose a quality garbage contract, if
necessary. He thought Council could get the job done without dragging out the process
any longer. Council had three proposals in front of them that provided a full menu of
choices. He noted that Green Waste offered an excellent recycling program that is
much less expensive than Norcal. He read statements from the consultant's report about
the rate that would result from each proposer's scenario. Waste Management offered a
60% diversion rate, a 10% increase from what the City currently has. Council could
accept their offer and put an end to "this nonsense." He told the audience, " I ran to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
January 24, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 423
represent you - not the garbage company." The consultant's report stated that if the
City awarded the garbage contract to Norcal, huge rate increases would result. He has
tried to return every call and e-mail he has received about this issue, but because he
does not have a campaign staff, it has become overwhelming. He commended reporter
Joe Sanchez of the Press -Democrat, saying that every story he does is substantiated by
fact, and he quotes the source.
Council Member Healy thought the most salient comment came from [former Council
Member] Jane Hamilton - rate design is separate from revenue requirements. With any of
the companies, we can tailor rates as the Council deems fit, but when we "start
squeezing the balloon in one place, it pops out somewhere else. " That is the challenge. If
you discount the rates for one type of customer, then something else has to go up to
make up the difference. Because of Council's concern for not awarding the contract on
the basis of a slick sales presentation they engaged a very sophisticated consulting firm.
Council needs to rely primarily on that information, and come to closure on the issue. He
asked for a show of hands from the audience, after which he said his sense was that the
majority would like to see Council award the contract to Waste Management. However,
he believed he was the only Council Member who was publicly committed to Waste
Management. He told the audience they would probably need to come to several more
Council Meetings to speak to the issue before it was resolved.
Council Member Nau noted that she was a PCA board member in the past and she
encouraged parents to participate. She thanked all the citizens who had called her and
said she enjoyed talking to them. When she came into process, she eliminated Waste
Management because they didn't project a 70% recycling rate. Since then, after
listening to the public, she had decided she made a mistake. She was pleased that
Waste Management came to the school where she teaches with lesson plans and
educational package. She mentioned that her college-age daughter is an avid recycler
because Waste Management came to her school and taught her class about recycling.
She would like to see more recycling in public facilities and parks.
Vice Mayor Harris agreed with Council Member Nau's motion for reconsideration
because he has spoken to many members of the public and thinks the three proposals
and the rate structures need to be explained more clearly.
Council Member Torliatt explained that all the bidders were required to offer single -
stream recycling; that was part of the RFP. That service would begin as soon as a new
contract was in place. She has made every attempt to respond to all the e-mails and
phone calls she had received. She told anyone who had not yet received a response
from her that she would be getting back to them soon. She outlined the three proposals
and said, referring to Norcal's $101 million bid, that there was "no reason this City needs
to pay $50 million more than the lowest bidding contract." She was concerned that
when Council Member Nau made her motion for reconsideration, she talked about
reopening competitive bidding. She is not in favor of reopening and discussing the issue
again. There are two proposers on the table: Green Waste Recovery and Waste
Management. They are good bids, and Council can make a decision to go with a
company that will not increase the rates and will have at least 60% diversion - which is
10% higher than the City currently has. She would like to "put this to bed" because there
are many concerned citizens, and she doesn't want them to have to continue worrying
about what the City Council is going to do about their garbage rates.
\
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
\4
20
21
22
Vol. 40, Page 424
January 24, 2005
Council Member Canevaro, quoted from his notes from the January 18 meeting as he
did otthe afternoon session: "For rne/fwas never just about price. / asked for alternatives
ofJC\h[\and 70%,along with pricing, sothat wecould consider the best product"Aoo
nnarketingprofesdono|'heknmvvitwaspnssib|eto'"rnokefhenurnbero/mokonyvvoy
you want them to look." Council needed to look and companies and rates and decide
what was best for this long-term contract. He thought Mr. Hanania's suggestion of a
public workshop was ogood one.
Council Member O'Brien thought everything that could be said had already been said.
As this was not an agenclized issue, he would refrain from any further comment.
CITY MANAGER COMMENT -None.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing 1nConsider oProposed Public Art Program for the City of
Petaluma (Moore):
* Introduction ofOrdinance No. N.C.S.Amending Ordinance
lO72N.C.3.(The Zoning Ordinance) toAdd Article l94Public Art,
Requiring Public Art coPart ofAll New Development hnCertain Zones in
the City of Peho|unno
* Resolution Establishing Procedures and Guidelines for the City of
Petaluma Public Art Program and the Public Arts Committee.
Community Development Director Mike Moore presented the staff report,
draft ordinance and resolution. Per direction from Council inFebruary
2OO4'staff, with input from the Petaluma Arts Council, and relying
extensively onlegislation passed inother communities, have put the
materials before Council for their review and consideration this evening.
The ordinance would amend the Zoning Ordinance and would require
public art incertain commercial and industrial zones. Anin-lieu fee may
bepaid byapplicants who donot wish toprovide public art. The art or
the in -lieu fee isequal tol%ofthe construction cost and applies to
projects with o value of $500,000 or more. He mode the distinction that this
isnot animpact fee, and does not require onanalysis under State law. He
discussed the make-up and purview ofthe proposed Public Arts
Committee.
Vice Mayor Harris asked inrespect tokeeping track ofstaff time before
fee money breceived - would that time bebackfilled when the money
was received?
Mr. Moore thinks Council will have todecide what happens hnthe interim
until there issufficient money |oprovide for ostaff person. Perhaps one
option would botodosomething similar towhat Community
Development now does with the contract planners: When o project
comes inand nnapplication isfiled, the cost |ohire ncontract planner to
process that application is carried bythe applicant.
Council Member Torliattwanted |oclarify that the staff recommendation
was tointroduce the public art ordinance and the accompanying
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
January 24, 2005
Mr. Moore agreed.
Vol. 40, Page 425
Council Member O'Brien asked the 1%was based on initial proposed
costs or final costs, and what happened if there were cost overruns.
Mr. Moore explained that the definition refers to costs associated with
construction. Typically an estimate is provided when the applicant files a
building permit. This is then reviewed to see if the numbers look like "real"
numbers.
Council Member Healy noted that Parks and Recreation Director Jim
Carr's memo stated that the Recreation, Music, and Parks Commission
"unanimously approved a motion supporting the 'concept' of an
ordinance for public art." He asked for more information.
Mr. Moore said he not talked to Mr. Carr about that.
Council Member Nau stated that she was a member of the Recreation,
Music, and Parks Commission when this item was discussed, and said that
at the time, she didn't realize it would only apply to commercial
developments. She thought it would include housing developments.
Mr. Moore replied that staff was given specific direction from Council that
the ordinance would not apply to residential development. However,
there is a provision that says that residential developments of a certain size
may participate in the program if they choose to, but it's not a
requirement.
Council Member Nau clarified that she was in favor of it at the time
because she thought it would include housing developments.
Mayor Glass understood that the Lomas Development was going to
volunteer to include some public art in their project.
Mr. Moore could not confirm that. Southgate is doing public art.
Mayor Glass explained that this has been a volunteer effort for more than
a year at the direction of the Council, and asked the volunteers if they
would like to make statements.
Murray Rockowitz, Petaluma read a brief statement regarding the arts.
Alison Marks, Petaluma, Petaluma Arts Council, thanked those in the
audience who had waited through the lengthy public comment about
the garbage contract to hear the Public Art item. She thanked Council for
their vote of confidence and leadership position when they directed the
volunteers to work with staff last February on draft legislation to include
public art in new commercial development. She thanked City Manager
Mike Bierman and Community Development Director Mike Moore for their
support. She explained the process used to develop the proposed
ordinance. She emphasized that it would be a self-supporting program.
When they made a presentation to the Recreation, Music, and Parks
Vol. 40, Page 426 January 24, 2005
Commission, they recommended that a separate committee of interested
citizens be formed to work specifically on the public art issue. She
introduced Lynn Baer, a public art specialist who has worked with other
cities to establish public art programs for over 15 years.
Ms. Baer commended the City staff and volunteers for the ordinance they
put together. She reminded the audience that the fee would be 1 % of the
construction budget on a project, not the overall budget. That I% covers
all the administration costs of the art. She said the public art can make a
community, "feel very comfortable in new development, if it's done
correctly. "
Vice Mayor Harris mentioned that some municipalities have a 2% or 3%
fee.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Matt White, Basin Street Properties, said he did not oppose the concept,
but it needed a lot of work. He agrees developers should be involved in
the guidelines. He stated that Petaluma is a very expensive city to do
business with. He said that all fees charged to developers are passed on
to the public. He thought it was great that Petaluma has matured to the
point where it needs public art.
Barry Bussewitz, Petaluma, believes that those who live in Petaluma live
here because they love the beauty, and that aesthetic beauty nourishes
the community.
Larry Jonas, Petaluma, has seen public art in different cities and
wholeheartedly supports it.
Bill Phillips, Petaluma, endorsed the public arts ordinance.
Stephanie McAllister, Petaluma, thought this was a "huge opportunity" for
art, as there will be lots of development in the future.
opportunity.
Scott Hess, Petaluma, local photographer and on board of Arts Council,
endorsed the public arts ordinance.
Marilee Ford, Petaluma, artist, on board of Petaluma Arts Council,
endorsed the public arts ordinance.
Diana Faraone, Petaluma, has lived within walking distance of downtown
Petaluma for 17 years, and is proud to live in community considering such
a program. She commended the Mayor and Council.
Geri Digiorno, Petaluma, director of Petaluma Poetry Walk, endorsed the
public arts ordinance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
January 24, 2005
Vol. 40, Page 427
Edwin Hamilton, Petaluma, board of Arts Council, read a brief statement
endorsing the public arts ordinance.
Sandra Reed, Petaluma, landscape architect, spoke of what it means to a
project to bring art to it.
Linda Postenrieder, Petaluma, Owner, Pelican Art Gallery, and President of
Petaluma Arts Association, endorsed the public arts ordinance.
Jim March, Petaluma, father of six, three still at home, has enjoyed walking
around the City with his children. He thinks City should support this type of
program, which he said would leave a legacy for future generations
Larry Reed, Petaluma, member of SPARC, endorsed the public arts
ordinance.
Marjorie Helm, Petaluma, small business owner and member of Arts
Council Board, endorsed the public arts ordinance.
Sally Denman, Petaluma, arts therapist, endorsed the public arts
ordinance.
Janice Cader-Thompson, Petaluma, urged support of ordinance, and said
the Arts Council has done a tremendous job.
John Kinsella, Petaluma, endorsed the public arts ordinance.
COUNCIL COMMENT
Council Member Torliatt asked if it would be possible to appeal decisions
made by the committee, as it is with SPARC or the Planning Commission.
Mr. Moore responded that an appeal provision was not included,
because Council had made a comment about not wanting to be the
final arbiter on art choices.
Council Member Torliatt asked if developers would be represented on
committee or be part of the process.
Mr. Moore clarified that as part of passing the ordinance, Council would
direct the art committee to set up guidelines with input from developers.
Council Member Torliatt asked if those guidelines would come back to
Council for final approval.
Mr. Moore confirmed that they would.
Mayor Glass noted how pleasant it was to discuss something where the
cumulative impacts will be positive. He supported the I% for public art.
Council Member Torliatt stated that process there has been a tremendous
amount of support from the community. She thinks a lot of art can be
Vol. 40, Page 428 January 24, 2005
functiono|-snmethnAfor everyone. Having the ordinance hlplace
would raise the awareness ofart inthe development community. She is
open todiscussing inclusion ofonappeal process. She sees this 000n
opportunity 10connect the east and west sides ofPetaluma, and for the
City to"grow our transient occupancy hzx."When i1was time for a
motion, she would behappy 10move it.
Council Member Conevmrpnoted the need for more bo|Kke|cbin
Petaluma. Hesuggested that instead ofputting the ordinance into effect,
the City create ocommission tosuggest appropriate places for public art
and come toCouncil onocase bycase basis. He was not infavor of
mandating l%across the board.
Council Member O'Brien thanked Staff and the volunteers for the work
they've put into this. Hedid not want tobeinvolved inonappeal process.
subjective. Hethought SPARC should have the final decision. He
supported formation ofocommission but not l%across the board.
Vice Mayor Harris said hefelt conflicted, but would not support passing
the ordinance utthis time because offunding concerns
Council Member Nausaid the community had oneed for public art but
bigger need for bo||fie|ds.She would not bosupporting the ordinance.
Council Member Healy noted the "huge amount ofpositive energy here
/nthe roorn."Hosaid Petaluma isvery clearly "behind the curve" when it
comes topublic art. Howanted totry tosalvage opositive outcome ot
tonight's meeting. Hethought the ordinance with very minor changes
could gain widespread support. Hewould like Staff toarrange opublic
workshop within the next couple of weeks. He said he would like to discuss
the make upofthe committee further.
Council Member TorOa#pointed out that Council discussed this February
23.2OO4.|twas back oyear later. A"ton ofwork" had been put into this
ordinance. |fonly minor changes were needed, she wanted tobring it
back and hopes there would bemajority Counci|»opport.3heviewaitos
oTOT revenue source. Tocharacterize itosotax was not otall fair. She
made oMOTION todirect Staff toarrange oworkshop, and tohave the
agenda item come back otthe March 2l.2005Council Meeting.
Mayor Glass seconded the MOTION.
Council Member Conevonmasked ifthere was Council support toform o
commission.
Mayor Glass replied that hedid not want tohave "another layer of
bmeoucnaoy."Hesaid hewas disappointed that there was not mmajority
Council support for the ordinance. H*didn't mind making minor changes,
but hedidn't want |osee i|"watered down."Hesaid everyone had
worked too hard |osee this end uposo"meaningless cornmbxion."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
January 24, 2005
Vol. 40, Page 429
Council Member Healy agreed that he would rather see a bigger buy in
and not just a committee.
M/S Torliatt/Glass
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
B. Ellis Creek Water Recvclina Facilitv: Resolution 2005-016 N.C.S. Approving
a General Plan Amendment; Introduction of Ordinance 2199 N.C.S.
Approving a Prezoning and Rezoning to PCD - Planned Community
District; and Resolution 2005-017 N.C.S. Approving Annexation for the New
Water Recycling Facility located at 4104 Lakeville Highway, APN 005-009-
023, 068-001-023, 024 & 025; 068-010-026, and 017-170-002, File-04-ANX-
0698-CR.
Irene Borba, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
MOTION to introduce Ordinance 2199 N.C.S. and adopt Resolution 2005-
016 N.C.S. and Resolution 2005-017 N.C.S.
M/S O'Brien/Healy
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
C. Consideration of and Possible Action on a Memorandum from the City
Manager, in Response to City Council Direction to the City Manager to
Negotiate with Chelsea Property Group, Setting Forth a Proposal to
Amend the River Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet Village Master Plan to
Allow the City to Acquire Parcel C and Other Terms and Procedures
Pertaining to the Further Consideration of and Possible Action on the
Pending Master Plan Amendment for the Proposed Development of
Parcel B. (Bierman)
MOTION to continue this item to the February 28, 2005 Council Meeting,
confirming the request of the Chelsea Property Group.
M/S Glass/Canevero
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 11: 19 p.m.
ATTEST:
David Glass, Mayor
/s/
Vol. 40, Page 430 January 24, 2005
/s/
Claire Cooper, Interim City Clerk