The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 11/23/1959November 23,,1959 - 1:00 p. m. City Hall - Petaluma, Calif. Special meeting of the Council of the City of'Petaluma called to order by Mayor Parent. ROLL CALL. Present: Councilmen Crin.ella, � Ellis,, Gustafson, King, Van Bebber and Mayor Paren Absent: Councilman Matzen. READING OF THE CALL: Notice of the call for special meeting and the Clerk's certificate of mailing were submitted and. filed, Consent to the 7 holding of said special meeting was indicated by the signatures of the Councilmen. attending the meeting. Consideration of the Employment of Stone & Youngberg I as Recommended by Petaluma. Wdter Commission Res. W�_4-59 Councilman King 6x-prbssed"the opihibh'that'it was necessary to hire Stone & Yo'Ungberg'at this time in connection with the - contratt with County on the Petaluma Aqueduct. He believed the Council. should first try to workout a contract with the Sonoma County Board of'Supervis Then - if . problems should arise which necessitate the aid of a consultant firm, - he would certainly be agreeable the of Stone & Youngberg'at that 1. Approximately 1_15 p. m. Councilman Matzen entered the Council. Chamber.. Councilman Crihella also expressed th6 opinion that it should not be - necessary to hire such a firm as Stone -& Young at this time; however, he too would be wilting to hire extra ' legal counsel in regard to the final contract, if it shou be decided - then that the C ity. needs experts - in the field. Councilman Van,Bebber felt that there were not - only engineering problems involved in the - matter of the Petaluma: A qpeduct, but - also economic problems. He did'not believe the Council had the technical knowledge required u., solve all of the problems. -- Councilman Van Bebber further. - stated that he fel ts t this was a which would'.affec.t the future of - Petaluma for at least the term of the.bond issue. He therefore favored the hiring of Stone & Youngberg at this tim.e, Sfanley Cit addressed the Council explaining his feelings on this matter He believed that if th contract could not ,be worked out between the City and the County, then a consultant firm would certainly have to be hired,, "wheffier it be Stone. Youngberg or . some other firm. Councilman Van Bebber - noted , that Stone Youngberg's,fee for the actual contr a work of negotiating - ct would be'.,$5000. 00, - which he did not was very expensive. consideringthe importance of the matter. - He also pointed out that there was a time - element involved, in that'a construction schedule had alrea d. ,y. been setup for the - Petafuma - Aqueduct project, Councilman -Ellis steed that he felt the a greement . should worked out and then if the Council feels - it - needs . th.e assistance of a consultant firm, Svbne,.& Youngberg"couild b ' e hired Councilman King suggested that contract negotiations be deferred'until the consultant: engineer, ,Mr'. R. E. Layton, has submitted his report on the Petalump. water . system, Councilman Matzen agreed that further 'action * the Council should be deferred until, the consultant Liltant engineer's report had received. - . A poll, was then "determine. if the majority of the Council wished this matter held over ., as suggested. - The - of the poll were as follows:' Ayes. Councilmen Crinella, Ellis, Gustafson, King, Matzen - a:nd:.Mayor Parent. Noes. Councilman.Van Bebber. (contd) Novem.ber' 25, 1959 Re Hiring of-Stone. & Youngberg - vod cone 1fefore. ng� A.'ihe- aboe above 1l ayor "Parent - stated that' although he felt certain the C ty ,#ould the help consultants in the'matter after hearing ;sOrne of the points brought out at this d iscussion,, he agreed that the subject should be gi:ven`further study. . The City Manager was directed to arrange a study session the afternoon of l)eo 7, at which Mra Layton was to be present to'go:over'ha.s report t' th the Counc'lo - Mr. Layton s iep ort was to be i the hands of ` the Council before this date. 2:00 po m. -The meeting was .ad bu:ened to the - ,Council ca,"ucus room at this time. Li.nd M'ar'Subd Re City Participatio in Construction of "Payran St.. Hf idge - Th- 7F lerk `read'.a letter from the Atwater Investment Co. re cost of extending the Payran St. bridge.frdm,' 28;° to-4 I t I? sta.tedl : , ha,t -the love bid for Ch.e original plan was $4 7000 and that the wider bri woii_ld . cost "$ A Oo - The cost. to the -City for the "additional 12' would $17, 740'0 Discussion was had regarding the .b1d and : the - :method of - �ontributzng the.Ci:ty °".s share.. : Councilman King questioned 'whether or'not-the City :itself would not have to call. for b °ids . =for the bridge, after-approval of - the plans .by the'Di:vision of Highways. - ,He .further.;-tated -that then; a ter the;:blds had been received, the difference, or the share to be borne by each party, could be . deterinined o _ . It was pointed Put by the City Engineer. and the City Manager that, indications from the San Francisco office :of the. ..D f H ivision .oighways - were that?ey believed that ?:t could be' worked ot:by' "agreement wzth:the.Subdvider without. - delay because the City, was in a .minor - role and that ghee had"Alre approved -it. However, they - designated the cost - for the City- :share to be beiween- . $1 -2 000. tb - $15; 000. t'I"he 'City Attorney stated that "under the = proposal he, did not it necessary for the City -to- call. for that th n egotiations were for the - - " general. Ci:t: °s 'benefit with a; .cohtraetor is personally - ; constrUddh seine thing for a= ,private party -. - He also pointed Put that four" other bids had beer.► received 'and that:, these would - be s�ubnzitted to, for`;examination - After discussion it was the general` opinion - that the sum of $l'7, �40a was too `high. . The C i ty E 'st,ated that his estimates for the additional I.2' xan: bet e. - $:12 5 Oo and 4, OOQ that` he - could not the--s:um - of 0 $17, 740, He- also ;that t Ow ,ion ,of H ghways - wi undoubtedly request, that ghe City l for a. roval th y Pp y. PP e entire :Payran St. project- including,th brad e and th.e a.nd construction of the street - a.s pne This is estimated to Lost between :.$4:0 0000 a nd - .. , $50,000. and will us.e g'as'tax' � nstruction funds for two years. Mr. George Kazen, representing the bidder, indicated that b idd er could probably absorb - the.'difference,between the "414, 000. and the $17, "740 The - City Engineer slate that inasmuch`as the.plans have "not been finally pproved and`-since the City - must get - approval - on this plan; . it' may _ be that-further changes` will. be required by the:.Divis on of °Highways;. therefore, the percentage ,rate .of /52nd would probably be the .most egtuitable, . because cost'may - go upward or° rdownwardo . _ F discussion by members of -.the Council,- t'w by the following poll., -- that - the C % ty- paktr(ipa.te.,in the building of the.br dge up - to' $14, 000'. 'or 12 /52nds - whiichever is the lesser arn,ount a �Asa. Coune- ilmen Gustaf on King 1�%Iatzen, .ye- ::Van Pebber, _and ":'Mayon. Parent _.. Mgyor:Parent pointed out .that - the "C1ty - has a - limited :- amount "of' funds that the City has t determine hdw rriuoh 1t. can put into the br reser°� e the rest for - the extension and .construction, of the street° 1 1 ,� I i' P-. - 1- 0 d .4 November 23, 1959 I ADJOURNMENT: There being.n ' o further business to come before the meeting, the meeting was adjourned. Attest-, ��4 a - ---- - - --- ------ C ity - - C 1. e'r k — ayor. (3)