HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 1.A-Minutes 11/15/2004FLU November 15..2004
City of. etacl sma, California...
I8 5,$ MEETING OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL/
PETALUMA COMMUNITY .DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
DRAFT City,; Council %PCDC Minutes.
Monday „October 18 2004 - 3:00 PM:,
Regular Meeting
•
1 MONDAY, OCTOBER 18 ;.2004.. - AFTERNOON SESSION .
2 3 :00 P:M,
3 .
4 CALL TO ORDER
5 -
6 A. Roll Call
7
8 Members Harris, Healy, Moynihan, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt and Mayor Glass
10 B. Pledge of.Allegiance
11
12 PRESENTATIONS /PROCLAMATIONS
13'
14 United Nations Day_ Proclamation.
15
16 Red °Ribbon Week ,Proclamation October 23 31., 2004 - Presented to Dick Sharke,
17 McDowell Drug Force Task Representative and Dwayne Sogis, Vietnam Veterans.
18
19 PUBLIC COMMENT
20
p- g Cprissa Bisho Sa e, PLAN, reported that she °has, co llected another 320 signatures for a
22 21
total of 1,462.
23
24 Susan Kirks, PLAN; explained; - the community outreach group had done resulted in
25 -♦support from people outside the Petaluma commurnty.`
26,', ,
27 ,' „Geoff: Cartwright,: Petaluma, said
a consultant. suggested,,, having' post - development
28 surveys completed for the Zero,, Net Fill areas. He wanted a mecfl`ani'sm'in place to be
29 sure that.fhis'requi'rement is fulfilled:
30
31 .. , .
Janice Caller Tt�"o'mps m
on P.etalua,,.referred to a mee;fing the DSL °group had arranged
32; and held, in' February of 2002 with neighbors h e area of the proposed development
33 and their promise to hold'additional meetings for - public input. Sher stated that DSL had
34` `h Id additional meetings and is in'; the process `of building a 340,000 square foot "strip
35” mall „''` 'bh .McDowell. She felt Council was supporting development without” Aany public
36, participation
3 7,;
4 , ,
Vol. XX, Page 2 October 18,2004
Council Member Torliatt asked if a notice was, received by mail and if a public meeting
had been held.
Janice Cader- Thompson replied that two people received the EIR scoping letter and no
public meeting had been held.
COUNCIL COMMENT
'Vice Mayor Moynihan reported that he attended the quarterly library board 'meeting
and they, extended their appreciation for the support received to complete the:
Community Room Expansion. A 'ribbon cutting will be held November 12,. 2004 at 5:30
P.M.
Council Member Toriiatt mentioned that she had'requesfed information to be provided,
to Council regarding the, number of loads: of fill removed from the Kohl's site and how
many had been delivered; and what areas were in and /or outof the flood plain area.
She also asked for more information:- about the El •scoping session, or clarification of what
the notice may have 'that was sent to a; couple of residents adjacent to the Downy
, Savings 8, Loan site (DSL). She stated that there should be an EIR scoping session that
included public notice to 'allow neighborhood comments on the potential 16,000 daily
car trips; she requested 'information on this as well.
Mayor Glass stated that: he did attend the DSL meeting in 2002 and, that promises were
made: that neighborhood meetings and input would be factored into their decisions.'He
'had repeatedly asked for meetings to be held and' he felt 'that DSL should be held to its
promise. On the Zero Net Fill policy, he wanted to strengthen the City's accountability for
the ordinance because it was an important part, of flood control ,management
practices. He 'wanted the City to make sure that there was a - method to track what fill, is_
added and removed from the flood plain. He advocated stringent compliance with the
Zero Net Fill policy to be consis tent with 'the General 'Plan.
CITY MANAGER - COMMENT
City Manager Bierman referred to the departmental Variance Report handout of the
Generdl' Fund Expenditure Summary. He expiaine.d' that .in. the 'first .quarter, the City-Was
on target for expenditures for the year. Ho'said the, revenge report would be coming.
AGENDA CHANGES AND: :DELETIONS (;Changes to current,agenda only). - None.
APPROyAL,OF MINUTES
A. City Council Minutes of September 20 2004.
Council. Member TOrIIdtt had changes to Page 5, Line, 1 to state, ''The City
Manager had, recommended the original °deadline, that was being
recommended again, because the Council acfually tried ,to shorten the
time and put :the City Manager in a box of making sure it got done
earlier.'"
Council Member Healy mentioned pdge ,3, left hand column the :item
lettering should be corrected. On page 15, on line 32 indicated the City
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
3�6
37
38.
42
43
44
45:
46.,
47
4�� .
49 l
50.i'
54
October 1'8, 2004 1 . Vol. XX, Pidge 3,
Mana'g'er had offered a solution and thi I s shb0ld be included in the
minutes.
'MOTION to apprbv6'fhe Minutes of -September 20; 2004, as amended;
M/S Torliaff/He'dly
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
2. APPROVAL!OF• PROPOSED ED AGENDA"
A. Approva
l cif Prop Agenda for Cq�upcil's _R egular Meeting of
Nb4ornber 1,
MOTION to, approve, the agenda for the November 1, 2004 Meeting.
M4 Glass/Torliatt
' N
'6'ARRIE "UNA IMOUSLT
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Harri - requested to remove 3.D.; Vice Mayor Moynihan
requesfed1c. remove 3-C.
MOTION to approve the ba.la'nce of the Consent Calendar (items 3A and 3B).
r
M/S O'Brien/HOOly
CARRIED VNANIMOUSLY
A. Resol6tiori:, 2004 =1 .N C Awarding q,,Construction Contract for' 2004 Old
East Petaluma Revitalization Area Sidewalk Installation and Replacement
Pro,jecf (SkladzieNLacki
B.. Re 2'004-:1.96 N.C.S.Auth.o-rilind the Petaluma Police Department to
Ac 1 1316cWiGrant from� t he California Board of
I celpf a'Juve-nil'& Acco'unfidbliffy
Cbere in the-.amoun't of $ . 6,974.00. -(Required matching funds of
$_697,00will•beta.k.'enfrom fhbPaffb[0vertim-e account.) (Hood/Lyons)
ITEMS REM OVED FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION
C. Resolution 2004 -197 N.C.S. Ratifying the Memorandum of Understanding
Executed between the City of Petaluma and the American Federation of
State; '.County and Municipal' Emplo ees (AF SCME) Local 675 for
Employees of Unit 1 (Porifid6ritiol), Uhit '2 '(Maintenance), and Unit 3
(.Clerical/Technical). (Robbins)
Vice:, Mdyor,Moy . pihan, readfor the record: "The, City is very fortunate to
have a capable,. profession workforce; ideally, we like to compensate,
even over compensate; - them all: Unfdrfuhately, 'increasing our
corn en s ation expe inditures reduces the service levels providbd to the
_p
ze
citins of the community. In short, I we sp6nd more money to do less. I
dm going to be supoorting this additional, compensation expenditure.
The: City Council here is being, asked to vote for retroactive pay increases
Vol. XX, Page 4
October 18,, 2004
for this particular bargaining unit. This is going to be a precedent that will
lead to another roughly million dollars in compensation expenditures for
this year. This expenditure has not been budgeted, there are no
additional revenues to pay for it,. and the City Council .refuses to identify
what services or personnel will be cut to coverthis cost. Therefore, we are
effectively voting to expend reserve fiunds ,this year and next fiscal year.
Let us all pray that we do not have -an earthquake, a flood,, or another
Polly Klaas :abduction with our- depleted reserves with which to respond.
When we ddopted this .year's budget we already agreed to over $2
million in compensation increases. 'Councilmembers piedged dt thdt,time
to hold the; line on s , endin p , today's vote, will breach that pledge, In the
P 9
midst of an economic'slowdown, our overall compensation increases will
reach approximately 9 %. The Council has' again been out - negotiated, 'I
believe that we have been duped that we must compete with other
cities: The City administration and unions routinely survey a group
of other' cities' and play us against each other. As a result, all the, cities
have given increases that' over compensate ,city employees. I. ask; the
City Council to conduct a wage survey'comparing our compensation to
that of the private sector;, they refuse to do so. A rough sampling of
positions such as custodians and secretaries indicate' that' we .are 15% -
20% over market. That doesn't include. 'th °e generous health benefits and
retirement packages City'employees receive. Over one-half of our City
employees receive compensation packages in excessof $100,`000. ('know
of no private sector company that compensates at such high levels. If
compare our public safety positions ,to their :military counterparts;, the
compensation differential wilt be ,even more profound. Yes ,it would 'be-
nice to compensate everyone as much as they think they are worth ;.
politically, it is difficult to hold the line on such expenditures. But the City
Council cannot continue to raise taxes and 'fees and cut,service levels.
We must be fiscally responsible.. "
Mayor Glass said for the record, ." It 'is the City's staff that has this town,
turned around. It is the City staff that is doing all the work that you are
seeing.: We are. competing fora labor force; and we are, competing with
a laborforce fairly, on fair terms, and we are bargaining, .and will continue
to bargain with all of our labor groups in good faith:
MOTION to approve the resolution:
CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE'
AYES: Harris, Healy, O' Brien, Thompson; Torliatt, Glass
NOES: Moynihan
D. Resolution 2004 -118 'WC.S. Revising Job Classifications for Fire Inspector I
and Fire Marshal, and Creating New Job Classifications for Fire Inspector II
and Fadilities Maintenance Worker III. (Robbins,)
Council - Member Harris had a in light, Of the recent litigation in
California over exempt versus non - exempt status of "positions. He wanted
to know how this ;position' was considered "Nan- Exempt. "
poi
2
11
•
J
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
31
33
34
35
3
37
.38
39"
4Q,
41
42
43
44
45
46
48
49
50
51
52
October 18,'2004' Vol. XX, Page 5
J x P Idinedrthat this position was for a Division Head
City Mdna er Bierman e and therefore "Non-Exerht.
MOTION to, approve, the resolution.
M/S Hdffis /UB,rien
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Direction Regarding, ,R ejecting All Bl.dl,s, for� the Petaluma' Municipal. Airport
and "' Def6(iri_h0 Project Until Suffidoht Funding
Becomes'. Ayailable (Nqtter/Q�lps
'Reso''lution Rejec ting all Bids, and Postponing the Project.
OR
Re Aw ardi ng ' on solu'fi' Construction contract for the Petaluma
M, 0n ic pa i '- I Air port rt Hangar Construction Project.
:
4.
I -
PUBLI&COM - MEN . T
Steve Gen6y, North Bay Construction, rbpoeted had met with the
architbe-I and "eng,ineerihg.�-fi�m,.as'-Wu-.11, as members of the Airport
Commission and ad. �: , i approximately $250,000 of value
rig ne�erih
e i g, items that. c bo c ha ng ed. " , He''-addressed - concerns about
making chpng,ps after .,awarding the contract, he explained that this is
common and CdlTra,.ns Jhis routin
J
PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED
Vlce;'Mayor oynlh'an,I,'ask6 staff a bout 'the cost savings and value
6hgin'6e . ring su'mm ary and why these changes are being recommended.
Finan Director Joe Nettef stated that the project was necessary to
e , xpanid the 'airport. - He referenced the; °Sfaff Report and the costs that
have tol be decided'b.efbr.,e,, awarding 4he bid. l�North -Bay's bid was $4.783
million on On eHdin.eei. s es $4 He said Council was not
ciwbre of the' additional' id'e'sigh coSfs, Inspection /testing, :p6emits,
, ,develo�pmen.tlfbes,, ,, 5%.C , ity - administration -fee and contingencies - this
01 f and .resources of
, "'; 'ih -$5 ' He referred b e bond, budge
,6"r duopt co st to
$4 13 million left,.a $'1.8 million sho(, Kb referred to, the -fees th&
Wpiyed,,'especidlly the development t6e� of $380,000 with the majority
TI
�or6 fi dffit- rnifigpi i I o . n an f I 6�� r 57wsU c arge �b'f , 21
coming 'f t r 000 -:110 asked
' Council if they would, agree to -'these waivers.. He exbldined the shortfall
4, he , n - remaining w $ '
as - 1.382 " and where this money' could come
from. Hewexplained $] million , Cal loan hdd.,been applied
for, bpt th wob l,d hot, know i,frif was awarded f6f d couple .of mon H e
needed entif
-st., - fed , that if the lban.,is approved C ouncil ' d &id the -source
He said to pay I'h&, rents . 'throughout the airport would
have to be, raised. To pay for this J Manager recommended a
fee increase of approx"irribtely 1`4(76, an 11% T-Hanga ;rent , increasei fuel
increase, and an approxi raise for the new- hangars would bring
Vol. XX, Page b October 18, 2004
in $1 -.4 million compared to - , the current $995,000; he explained the
expenses as well. He said he expected to break even. without additional •
funding but added, all of this was.based on assumptions.
Finance Director Netter explained .that. re- bidding the project was
preferred. -He stated awarding the project was an option, but a project
cannot be awarded without` an appropriation -,and the total amount of
funding necessary is not available. He.said it could be awarded with an
interfund loan, "bridge loan," until the state loan is .approved:. He also
stated Council could accept contractor's offer to wait until April 15,
2005; giving the City time to arrange for the appropriation. He said thi&
would not award the bid and the bid. could still be rejected. He stated
that he, thought it was in the City's best interest to not negotiate; value
engineering items at this point.
Mayor Glass :asked at what point beyond the $1.4 million would the
possibility of•cost over runs,; make this project impossible..
Finance Director `Netter stated he calculated that for every $100;000 there,
is an additional debt'service cost of.$8,700 /annually.,
Airport Manager Mike Glose stated he was. , certain that they °could make
the $1.4. million 'loan amount, and, at $1:8 million they would cancel the.
project. He felt at $1.5 million it was workable, but anything above'- this
amount would be difficult.
Council, M'ernber O'Brien asked about the value engineering reductions
not just the fee. reduction,
Finance Director Netter explained that they did not ignore 'the value
engineering'. He. said in his efforts to protect ,the City and to minimize any
challenges that might, be ,raised', since these are, not:, contractual „
agreements, because the City'is required'to award it: at the fulf amount:
City Mandger Blierman clarified that' the contract has to be awarded and,
then, through Change Orders, changes to reduce costs could be made.
He, again explained Cou,ncil's options.
Cou_ncil',Member Heal,.y,, asked'.abouf potential change orders and: what
the scope of these reductions, would be' considered:
Finance Director Netter eXp . la changes would involve the: brick
fagade, showers other cosmetic features; draina'ge,, and. transport of
excavation materials,
Council Member Harris asked what items. FAA 'funding would not cover;
and when the. loan is applied for, would not be included.
Finance'Director Netter explained that the non - eligible items would.not;be
part'of the'application.
•
i
October 18, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 7
Council M'ecnber Healy asked 'what the probability was of obtaining the
•
2
state to He also asked if staff was assured that the increase in hangar
ry'
3
rentalsn.
ould not result' in vac'an'cies.
is
4
'
�
5
� � �� there ;are a high percentage of
Finance Director Netter said th at
6
indications for approval -.but there• was,,, a question of timing: He stated
7
� �
that he " m et with Airport Manager .close, the architect, and consultant
8
and he w as positively and these rates
assured .fhha't the tenants responded
9
would be'competitive. �
10
11
Council I'Member To'rliatf asked when1'th&'increase in hangar .fees, fuel
12
costs and th e p property ro fax cost" make the project work. She
, p ert y
13
stated she wasn't aware of'fee' increases on existing hangars to make the
14
;project work .financially. '
1 -6
Airport Maud er' Glose ex lained that hangar rents increase 3% annually;
9 p
17
the 14% ersonal ro ert t ax ,
ax would result from the new hangar; and,
p p
8
because:of' the nurri'� ` nevv 'aircraft; ,the; revenue from fuel would
b r" of
19
. ase,,:;.
ncr e
20
21
Council Member Torli atf aske,,d if this,w,as , an increase in cost,of purchasing
22
and /or renting,, or an ;increase in revenue.. :She clarified that the current
23
tenants are, nof'..aware these proposed'llincreases in rents.
24
25
Airport M;angg "e'r Glose answered it ".was an increase in revenue by
26
referring to Finance Director iNette( explanation thc(6h order to have the
`27
income to pay off the"$�l .4 million loan' th Airport would have to raise the
28
current hangar rents by 10% and `the new ,hangars another 12% over 'this
29
to repay 'f his loan. He 'stated the Airport` Commission is aware of the plan
30
to increase fee °s'`to ^•pay for this "project :"
31
„
32
Vice Mayor Nlo.yn han asked rf this. project' r would .pay for itself without
33
drawing from - her revenue sources -the answer was "No.”
34
Air p ort� Maria 9 er' G9os:e, state d that' he, would prefer to reject all bids until
36
'th6 City knows it can get the loan. 'He saiid` the loan manager would not
37
"' commit to assuring the loah,but sh "e did iridicdte the feasibility:.
,8
39
Council °M_ember Torliatt.stat,eel she would favor waiting, considering the
�
' tenants have not 't been
given toda the fact that 'the tens
�0
i nformation
notified of the. rent increase; and°' that' there was hot 'a funding source
except accessing
' the. General Fund "if the loan is not approved. She
43
indicated e \ asn't aware thaf'the fees would have to be increased so
'.
44
'much to "_make the prolect „happen. She supported waiting until. April,
45
notifying' tenants- of the rent increase, and public notification of this
46
increase as well.
47
!1
48
' Council Memberr Thomps_'on asked Ci,fy. Attorney Rudnansky if it was
49
possible to award a bid contingent�on approval of a loan.
50
51
nsky stated this: , , raise problems since it could be
Cif y A tt a n
a
52
viewed lluso wifhout funds t,o pay for'the contract.
g as an illusory
as y
"
Vol. XX, Page "8 October 18,.2004
City Manager Bierman explained that to, ado the $1.4, "the rents needed to • ,,
be increased, receive the loan from the state, and after awarding do the
value engineering. He recommended holding. the bid until April '15, 2005
-to give time to get the funding together.
Council ;Member Thompson stated, he would recommend holding, the bid
Until, there was written approval of th loan and then award' .the 'bid.
�Councilmembers favored this as their'd irection for the project.
,Council Member Healy stated for the record he. would award the
contract to avoid losing the construction.-season.
There was NO ACTION TAKEN on this item
'B. Considera of ,a Request by`Loa and Peggy Wiley to Accept Their
Appeal of a Decision by the Planning; Commission to .Uphold `in, Part and
-Deny in Part on Appeal of a _Decision by the Community.De,vetopm;er t
Director.and City Engineer to Administratively Approve a Tentative Parcel
Map. for Property located at'3 Ricci Court. (Moore)
Community Development ,Director Mike Moore provided the background
for this item for :additional consideration. He stated a tentative: parcel
map.had been approved for the parcel and the neighbors and the Wileys
had appealed this. The Planning Commission rejected the Blues
(neighbors) approval and approved and denied in part 'th;e Wileys.. He
stated the Department disagreed that the Wileys were given incorrect
information regarding the, .a ' ppeal, time period. He indicated three; issues
for Council consideration: 1), To consider' the appeal; 2) To grant this.
appeal, should this be expanded to allow others to file an appeal for a
subsequent hearing; 3) Direction for fees owed to the City for processing.
the Wileys application to date:
CouncilMember'Torliatt asked for and received a breakdown of th fees.
Council 'Member O'Brien, referred. to the Wiley's' letter stating that the.
Planning Department sent a letter on 'October 14 with an error and
;refused .to correct it and asked the Director to "address. this ". He also asked
about a allegation that the °:Blue's appeal was one day date °according
to the ,date :stamp and it was accepted. Lastly, they have ,re- quested an
official response: for six weeks and have'Do received one.
Director Moore responded to the ,dafe error as occurring in the City Clerk's
office and that it was received in a timely manner.. and referred to the
memo from the City Clerk. He added that he met w, ith the Wileys after
interviewing staff nto , determine, what had happened and addressed these
issues.
Lon Wiley Petaluma,; asked for the Council's help to resolve the matter
and hear their appeal.
i.� ,• d �::.
i: �,. .'I • ���' Icy. - �1 - r" i I. • u i
October 18; 2004 Vol. 0, Page 9
1
Council. Member Torliatt asked Mr. Wiley if they disputed the fees in totality
•
2
or : a' portion of'' theA fees -; ,he 'stated he had not seen the bill or a
3:
- breakdown
4
5
Mayor Glass ,polled the Council to see"if %there was a consensus to hear
6
appeal:' .
7
8
in support of hearing the- appeal ". Torliatt, O'Brien, Moynihan, Thompson,
9
H'e'ealy,,, Harris
10
11
City Attorney - Rudnansky clarified the neighbors could express their
12
viewpoint�'but their appeals, if there are any, would'not be before Council.
13
He asked' Council to 'keep in mind that 'there is no indication from the
14
n'e ghbors� "'`that'`fhey carne ,to• the; Planning. Department . and asked any
15
questions. He stated it would-be an. Hearing.
16
17
Council 'Member Torliatt clarified,, for the Wiley's benefit to assure they
18
understood that the.Council'woufd''not jus .. ocus on their appeal items; it
19
would become open tolrpublic comment„ as well.
21
City Attorney Rudnansky for the record ,'Teminded Council of - the timelines
22
and_ that the Council wds willing to hear this' based specifically on an
23
apparent miscomrnun cation with the 'Planning staff, some issues relative
24
to notice;'and perhaps °some, issues relative to costs.
25
�
27
Wii'eys hot bear the cost of an erroneous notice.
28
„.
29
Vice Mayor Moynihan deferred to staff. for this.
30
31
M/S Moynihan /O'Brien
/S
32
E:' Unanimous
33�
' `COUNCIL PCDC
34
5. NEW BUSINESS AND
35
36
Council roved'movin " to item 5.F. of New Rusin" af-this time.
i l pp y ess
37
38
ardin
F. Discussion and .Possible Action Regarding a Modification to the Design
'
„p
39
y
and Construction 'of ` a Proposed' '' "d. Concrete Median on North.
40
McDowep Bouleyardi, rorn Re dwood Wa;y to the' Southern Boundary of the
41
Redwood Gateway, Shopping Center
42
y Developm rector ,Mikei Moore explained this item was
44
„
befo euCouncil efothe improvementsF to thee' Redwood Gateway
45
5
sh pping center and the paving, project" on North McDowell. He gave a
sho 'kground'
4
of the project and the traffic study. IHe explained .the design
47
for , the , continuous raised median With two breaks for north and
48
southbound turns. He stated that after this design was implemented; local
49
businesses,, particularly•on the eastside, concerned about impacts to
50
their businesses and it was decded'J,0 bring it to Council for their direction. .
„
52
Vol. XX, Page 10
October 1.8, 2004
In response to Council .Member Torliatt' > s, question Director Moore •
indicated that evey property owner and; occupant within 500 feet of the
subject property was notified.
Vice Mayor Moynihan asked if the- notification dealt with the project .
approval of the Redwood Gateway Center or if it notified them o.f, the
access design changes.
Director'Moore answered the public notice was a general project' notice
but would not have been detailed to, note the access changes. If 'the
owner /tenant came in to. look at the- plans, they would have seen ,the'
access design then.
Mayor 'Glass asked the public to comment as to whether or not they
received notice; of'this item as they come to speak.
PUBLIC.- COMMENT
Jim Kallinger, Keegan -and„ Coppin Petaluma, stated he represented the
owner of 1;364 N. McDowell as the property manager. He gave .a.
backgro-,u.nd of'fhe property and the number and type .of tenants. He said
the owners.' concern. came- about when the left turn option to enter /exit
their' property was removed due. to the median's design. The m
co_pldi
was that no. notice of this change was given and it makes the access to
their property unworkable for many of the. tenants. He stated the
preferred option would .be Jo change: the. existing approved plans to
allow a continuous double• left turn lane or to allow access into fhe
northern entrance. He stated this would not help the problem of exiting
from, the property:
CQUncil, Member T&Ilatf asked Mr: Kalfnger to clarify if he did not receive:
a notice, or the ;property owner did not receive a notice regarding the
City'st plans forthe,peoperty across,fhe street and any modifications.
Jim Kallinger stated he did not .receive a notice and the property owner
had no recollec-tion of receiving 'ci notice and the owner did not ,forward
any 'information to. him.
Suzanne Cochran, representing Damon,, Doss,. ;CEO of' Petaluma Health
.Care District; reported, that a notice was received but. it did not detail a
change to the entrance. She read a letter •from Damon Doss that stated
they had, not.addressed this' concern earlier because they did not fully
Understand` the EIR., They were not aware of a_ traffic hazard using the
current configuration. They recognized, the Redwood Gateway Shopping
.center .represented an ;increase in traffic and a significant number of
vehicles have tried -Jo make an illegal left turn that created a traffic
hazard. They requested a modification to allow a continuous double left-
turn ,lane in the area south of the intersection of McDowell /Redwood' Way
to the southernmost driveway of the Redwood Gateway shopping center.
;Rick 'Leonard, Yardbirds, was concerned about access for large trucks
entering his business and customers who also pick up merchandise at this
INI
October 1'8, 2004 Vol. XX, Page I I .
location. "He indicated this .created a safety 'hazard and the only way
-2
large trucks could.access the driveway was to use the left lane for a wider
a °
3
angle': N'e prbferred the double center- lane configuration as well.
4
5
Council Member O'Brieri clarified that -he was instructing his drivers to
6
make an illegal right turn.
7,
8
Donald ,Foster, G'ettler-Ryan, Inc.,,.stated that his office did not receive a
°9
notice of.;the Kohl's development or° the - lane closure. He stated he had
10
reviewed, the traffic study and the number of accidents °that occurred at
11
the M °cDowell /Old Redwood Hwy intersection. He commented that Kohl's
12
had Xthr,'ee,�left -turn driveways and focal businesses !have none. He felt that
13
the lim pact of all the U -Turn movements that will result from this
14
reconfiguration had not been adds "essed" nor the hazard they present.
15
16
Anthony' Lynn; Casfle, Inc stated thdt his employees and owners could
17
no longer .make safe left turns into- or out of the business. Most of his
18
business' is from Old Redwood or the' freeway and' now U -Turns are
19
required to access his business. He 'asked that the left turn access into
20
Motel' &' be moved down one more driveway to allow access to his
21
property °' 7 but ..even with this, trucks will not be able to get out of the
22
property because'of the median:
23
„
24
Bern Bangsberg, Yardbirds, stated that'his -,one concern was for safety. He
.;
25
listed the number of trips generated by this one property at 1360 N.
26
McDowell; He quoted the W =Trans study indicating if was best to leave the
27
access as; it was and he supports this "with a study by a traffic engineer to
28
review this area.
_
29
30
A ndrew Reuben and Reube and Junius UP,rfor Robertson Properties, developer
r
31
of'Kohl's, stated he wanted to focus on the certainty and fairness as far as
32
p r o pert y rights 'g hts; , a .
p p y ndde.velopment:,; He felf that the approval process was
'
33
designed to resolve all issues before the. development is approved so that
34
the developer'could be assured, that no .ch'anges would occur. He stated
35
fhaf the northbound ,left turn from :North McDowell was critical to go
36
forward with this development "and " for its success. He felt making
37
changes..,at °this time was very unfair and supported the left turn lane.
38
;
39
Terry Nowodzelski < Kohl's, stated #tie project -had been designed with the
40
left tUrh lanes _northbound and southbound and a;they had agreed to this.
41
He also said they also agreed 'to approve the left turn lane and to modify
42
thie "existing approved'lanes with the continuous double left turn lanes and
43
not a continuous raised median throughout.
44�
45'
Tamara ,Thompson, ' Properties, stated the project was
46'
constructed based on the approvals that were granted that included a
47
specific left turn ;that -.was requested She mentioned that one of the. main
48
-components of site selection is ,ease of access. Kohl's had stated that it
49
was; of paramount "importance for the success of the shopping center to
50
maintain .ease of access with a left turn. She said they are postponing
51
adding additional tenants until this issue is resolved
52
Vol. XX, Page 12 Octob-er 18, 2004
Dave Raffia Mission Bills Mortgage stated he was surprised to see 'that a
left turn lane was -not provided, for his business He supported going back
to the origin al,configuration from Motel 6 down'to'the median lane for the
left turn lane to Kohl'r.
PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED
COUNCIL COMMENT
Council Member Healy explained that the Planning C'omrnission was
conceme,d about the safety of left turn out movements and supported a
U -turn movement lo achieve access. He Rsupported Mr. Moynihan's
suggestion of lengthening the left turn: lane for Motel 6 and other
properties. He asked if off- street'access had been explored,by linking 1360
and 1364 McDowell's parking lots. He s- uggested that in respect to
Yardbirds access, a larger curb could be cut and moving the Pipes--,
Council Member ,Harris supported: the original decision as approved with
the suggestions of_ Vice Mayor Moynihan and Councilmember Healy''_
incorporated. He asked staff to address Mr. Raffi's issues.
Director Moore. explained that the main. concern was for . left turn
movements out and the conflicts created because of this. He said this
movement created a hazardous situation and this was why the
continuous median was recommended.
Council Member Torliatt stated., she could support the. modifications
suggested. She suggested that from a circulation standpoint she would
support a longer left hand turn lane at Redwood Way and closing fhe
median as the Planning Commission and traffic consultant had originally
recommended.
Council Member Healy motioned ,to confirm the design that was
approved for the project with the modification to give staff direction to
extend the left in -bound lane up to 1364 N. McDowell to allow vehicles to
access both Motel 6 and into- 1364 'N. McDowell. He wanted to
encourage private property owners to look at doss easements to resolve
the other and to have Yardbirds and the +Health Care District widen
their driveways.
City Manager Bierman clarified if the first divider could move_ . up a bit and
the next moved ;back to open access; to Motel. 6 and the next 'property
and all the driveways would be marked, "No Left Turns."
MOTION to confirm the design that was approved for the project with the
modification to give staff direction to extend, the,deft'in -bound lane up to
1364 N. McDowell and',modify the dividers to allow vehicles to access
both. Motel 6 and `into 1.364-N. McDowell, and to install ''No Left Turn" signs
at all driveways.
M/S Healy /Thompson
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY �'
2
•
October 18, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 13
A. Resolution 2004 =199 N:C.S. 'Award'ing the Contract °for the Management of
Biosolids ;Stored on. Wastewater Oxidation Pond Levees Project' C501104.
(Ban /60'
Mayor Glass stated;. for.the record,:, that this vote eliminated legal liability
dating back to. j 9,95..,, 11 .,
OTION to, a pprove the resolution.'
M. PP y ,. ,
M /.S O'Brien /Healy .
CARRIED''UN'ANIMOU$LY
B. introduction ;(First Reading) of Ordinance 21195 N.C.S'. Establish Speed
Limits on`Various Streets'witl in the;, City "of Petalumm
Council' "Memb`er� Harris, recused himself because his home is located
within.500 ~feet of Hartman Lane.
Pu
blic Facilities and Services Director Rick Skladzien presented the item
and ndrned the streets impacted.. He. explained that studies have
indicated the need to .address "changes in traffic patterns that have
occurre'd..`
MOTION to intr' uceithe•ordinance.
M /S` °O''Brien %Healy
CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES:' Mayor Glass, Healy, Vice Mayor Moynihan, O'Brien,
Thompson, Torliatf
NOES:, None
RECUSEDf "
°' :Harris
7 i i
C. Resolution' ' 2004- 200.- N.C:S. Providing i. for Continuation. of Salary and
Benefits g for Eli i"ble Cit 'Em e Military Duty or Military
g' y ployees called t Aetiv
Trainor Robbii )-
MOTION t:o ap.prove the resolution
N
CARRIED en /Torliatt „
M S,' Bn,UNANIMOUSLY
PCDC: Discussion and Action• Adopting PCDC Resolution 2004 =17
Authorizing Mo to, the Storefront Improvement Loan Program
and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute a „Lorin Agreement and
Related, Documents with Stephen; A Lind, et al, and to provide' a loan in
the amount of up to $200;000' fo.r the Restoration and Historic Preservation
of 1 °19 Petaluma .Blvd. North. (Mdrangella)
gnomic Development and Redevelopment Director Paul Mara.ngella
presented the item and explained 'the restoration of this property through
,.the use of this program.
4
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2' 1
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.
Vol. XX, Page 14 October 1& 2004
Council Member Harris asked about the 05 loan and using 4heentire fund •
for'fhis� project:
Director Marangella explained that the magnitude of the work was so'
extensive the property owner °would not boo able to do this on his /her own.
He stated that'the $200,000 had been budgeted each year had not been
applied; for by a,ny 'storeowners and he was comfortable using' the full,
amount for'this.project.
Council Membe-r7orliatt supported, this program. and requested, that, when
the facade isAremoyed, to do the work at night.,
`Vice Mayor Moynihan :asked about the iservicing of the loan and. if the
: City's investment was p reserved. He also was concerned about the City'
loaning the money, not a private bank.
Director 'Marangella stated' this 'is .addressed in the agreement. He
explained private hanks' were n ot interested .ip this b eca use they reserve
the right to'determine to whom they would provide loans'to and the City
required a blanket loan program.
Council Member Healy supported the program but he did not think'
,performing the.'work at night was advisable without- looking -af practical
"issues.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Christ:opherStOVick President .Heritage Homes He let the Council;,know
how magnificent the building 'would be when. restored. He said. it , was the
Storefront Program that brought the `idea of restoring the faoade to ;mind. _
Vice Mayor Moynihan left'the Council Chambers at this time.
MOTION to adopt the resolution.
M/S Torliatt /Healy .
CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy „O'.Brien,'Thompson, Torliatt
NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Moynihan
G. Resolution 2 -201 N.C.S. Authorizing the Purchase of Furnishings for the
Water Field Office;` Project. (Simmons)
MOTION'to adopt the r resolution.
M/S O'Brien /Glass
CARRIED'BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE
AYES,- Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, O'Brien; Thompson, Torliatt
hp m
October 18, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 15
" d
"
1
2
NOES.. None .
ABSENT: Vice' Mayor Moynihan
4
- ADJOU ' kNiOCITYCO.UNCIL CLOSED SESSIO
6
EGOTIA u
m CONFERENCE WITH LABOR N TOR. , 'Government' Code, §54957.6. Agency Negotiator:
7
Michael Bierman /Pamala Robbins.. Employee Organization` IAFF Local 14.15 and Unrepresented
„
8
Employ
9
o PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERF'ORMANCE'EVALUATION; Pursuant to Government Code §54957(e): City
'
1 1
� � SEL � TION: Significant Exposure to Litigation
COW- RENCE WITH LEGAL , , COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED' "6TIGA
12
Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of §'54956:9^ Potential'Cases: 1
15
1i- MONDAnY', OCTOBER 1f8,,2004�,-' EVENING_SEStION
16
17
1 "&
CALL TO ORDER
19
. _
20
A. Roll Call : , ,. a
21
22
Members Harris, "Hedly; Moynihan, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt and Mayor Glass
23
24
B. Pledge qf ce '°
25
26
C. Moment of.Silence
2'8
REPORT OUT OF CLOSED.SESSION ACTIONS'TA N
KE
29
30
There' was n o , reportable action taken.
I ,
31
f -' " " u l
32
M NT May& Glass stated that
PUBLIC.-COMMENT th blic could speak on any item,
. e P
33
including the Garbage,R PP
34
35
PUBLIC COMMENT
I ,
37
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma showed the' Council, and, public,, the flood area as mapped
'"
38
I the federal government (FEMA) and noted the'extensiye flood plain in Petaluma and
39
the Denman Flat area where development is occurring.
40
4.
4,1�
Cind Thgmas etaluma; Cantlitlaf`g for referred to the Press Democrat's
y ,y r
'42
gi � � es. She stated she did not
article re ardor ' aontnbutions from " arba e firms to
g
43
f r
like to be included in this group as accepting these contributions and that she would be
44
returning this ,to the donor. She said she,,''wanted .the; process to be totally beyond
"
45
reproach and " ce t a "n donations fro
p wo`uld not qc p y rn the garbage companies and
46,
challengedpother „candidates to do.the,same.
41
48
Do id l - co.
alums commented on Council Member Thompson's past statement
m ldin
4
_
� � Pet I ' °
that ' did n 'ot pport
he' ui g in the fl oodplain, and that this has changed. He also
any b'
50
mentioned the `�do,nation of the Casa Grande Motel site for the new firehouse. He said
S`l
ioned ^t he recent paving 'on his street and the
that the lot size was too small. He also menu
52
lack of treatment of.the base for the overlay and. the quality,of the finish work. He said he
53
wanted the publicao;be "sure to listen to the °'candidates as they explain their positions. He
Vol'. XX, Page 1.6 October 18, 2004
also mentioned the funding for next. year's Independence Dray celebration and that "it
was available now;;Iinstead of in June when the plans for this year's program were'to be
made and thought it was a pre- election stunt.
Jane Hamilton, Petaluma; a-,ddressed the garbage franchise process issue and how it was
agendized. ,She thought that North ;Bay was excluded due to being. non - responsive and
now was being considered; she , thought.this was. -not to: be allowed and would,cause the
City of Petaluma to lose credibility'when contractors submit their offers. She. also referred
to the politics of asking other council, members /candidates °to not raise garbage rates as
a political manipulation and oversimplification because of the complexity of the
contract and considering all the factors other than cost.,
Janice Cader - Thompson, Petaluma, mentioned that to date, over half of Council
Member O'Brien and Candidate. Nau's war chests .had come from large developer
interests. She said she, was supporting candidates that understood the. impgcts .of out, of
control development and did not represent special interests and the, -ethics. of
endorsements.
Bill Donahue, Petaluma, spoke ,to his concerns about the Council commitment made in
September 2003 regarding rezoning of mobile home parks and a conversion .ordinance
to cover the change of use of mobil'' home parks. He mentioned the City of Sonoma
had addressed these concerns.
Stan Gold, Petaluma, read a letter from today's Press bei nocrat— ".Poor'Trdck Record by
Alexander Krebs " - " Petaluma has,spent thousands of dollars on consultants to circulate .
the requests ,for proposals fior Petaluma's garbage contract and evaluate responses.,, in
August, the Petaluma City Council voted to exclude North 'Bdy Corporation bid because
City Manager Mike Bierman found the bid to .be so low it would barely cover costs„ had a: .
lack of confidence in #heir ability to deliver high quolity<service at that rate; and had
knowledge of their record of safety violations, poor fleet management, and incidents* _
involving bodily injury in other ,comm unities. Suddenly in .October's campaign season;
North Ba.y wants to be reconsidered. Pledse hold this decision until after the elections,
then, reevaluate_ oil offers and:the integrity of the providers as shown through their`frack
records in other communities. This is not just about providing the lowest rate: North Bay
has earned the reputation of being a political player, manipulating from behind the
scenes-. It w.as no, accident'that North Bay lost their San Anselrno contract and had' to ;sel[
their Fairfax contract. This is "the last thing that Petaluma needs. Council Members.
beware, protect. yourconstituen.ts
Spence Burton, Petaluma Candidate for City Council, talked about :the .concept of, the
garbage contract. 'He stated that the City must accept th'e lowest bid. He wanted North
Bay's proposal included in the package' for consideraton even if it'isn'taccepted.
. PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED
COUNCILCO'MMENT
Council' Member Thompson thanked Council, AAember O'Brien for arranging funding for
the Indepenclence Day celebration. "14e said that Shamrock , and Basin :Street were
donors, not North Bay Corporation.
•
October 18, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 17
1,
Council Member Healy stated,�that °tirrie is nearing' for'th,e downtown parking garage and
2
movie theater to. be on =line. He stated 'that both structures would look very different than
., „
they do at��this oint and ria
to for the downtown.
p i will be appropriate
y p
4
5
Council. Member O'Brien, thanked ;Basin Street and Shamrock companies for their
6
donation the In '
Lion to fund p donee Da y� c elebration:
7
to public comment home issues and
C ounc i l I she
9
hoped,'torlagend zrred
esponded toile-
the Press Democrat
10
article, re ardin • leentributi;ons from e ,Sheen that she knew Lisa Hardin
g g,
" � u h' National V�%oman -s f'�olitica�icated-thd
of Industrial Carting thro g ' '' Caucus thaf helps women to be
12
elected to political boards and commission"s•and this'was a reason for Lisa to support her
13
campaign other than
an for the; garbage contract. She "stated that she wanted to
y perce alle dance to an mdiVid ual company and that she sent
g y
15
the'$200 donation'ba to Lisa Hardin.,,
16
17
asin issues." He advocated for,
Mayor Glas's cornmente ddlrn /purch g '
18
and -did 'accept, public�mone to finance his , ampai
y gn. He felt this resulted in clean
19
icbntribuf ions tofcandida e. ,
tes for:.eleeted -offic
20
.
21
CITY: MANAGER,COMM'EN7
22'
23
There was none;., �
24
25
6. UNFINISHED:,I3USINEiS
.26
27
A. Discussion and, Direction Regarding Whether New Proposal from
28
Nortil! d' Corporation °Should be C,onsld;ered'in Process for Award of New
29
Garbage, Franchise. Healy /Moynihan) I^
30
, ,
31
Council Member Healy, -clarified `that cost is not the only issue to be
32
considered and that quality and I'evel of service are very important. He
33
stated that this was not a bidding process,, it was a Request for Proposal
34
process and This is 'an importdn`tu distinction; and it is a process of
35
negotiation He asked. the City Attorney fo point out any liability exposure
36
if the City ^would allow, North Bay back 'into the process from the other
37-
three proposers.
39
y ney Rudn6nsKy' :explained (flat this was not a :competitive
City tto
40
bidding process. He l stated thata he understood this proposal 'was put
4.1
together "to.`alloww the "CouneiL.as',!mu6ch flezibilityas possible. He pointed to
42
language in the RFP that the ;City refers lits,rights and sole discretion to take
43
whatever actions necessary/appropria'te that would be. in the best
44
interest of the City; and ` f was listed as an .option to extend the deadline
45
for submitting proposals.'
46
47
i MayorGl'ass polled the Council tosee if the item would be heard:
48
Coun it Harris 'and, and Vice Mayor. Moynihan were in
50
Members
earing the item. This created the majority vote necessary for the
51
item to be heard.
52
Vol. XX, Page .18 October 18, 2004
Vice: Moynihan clarified that the process was a proposal process; •
not a bid 'process. He did not feel eliminating the low bidder at the
beginning a process, made sense. He said he wanted an open —bid
process. He stated he wanted the Council to be clear and consistent
and to eliminate 'the' public perception, of corruption by starting with a
clean bid 'with'specific bid requirements.
PUBLIC�COMMENT
Clay Clement, Lawyer for North Bay Corporation, stated 'that he felt that
his client ,had been slandered by the ;competition. He said that' the
company ,had never requested a rate :increase because 'it could not
mee,f the bid amount. He.said that _Rohnert Park; Windsor and Santa Rosa;
questioned the bid .amounts as well an the company ist performing,
services as bid. He mentioned that North Bay „Corporation had never
been sued by the cities it ,served and had never 'had a contract
terminated_ ,because of violations. He said - that regarding resubmitting, this,
was in response to asuggestion to use an 'outbf county disposal facility'as;
compared to' the original proposal that assumed using the Central Landfill.
He asked Council 'to i'nclud'e North Bay "Corporation in.' the negotiations
and that ;the Council could be assured :that North Bay could meet .the°
requirements.
Council Member Torliatt asked', if North•Bay Corporation was currently in,
ompli in Santa Rosa a nd if they are meeting alb of the requirements
'of the contract.
Mr. Clement answered that there may, be some details that they arei not
meeting; but essentially they .:are in compliance. He had talked to the
Deputy City Attorney and was, told that rq couple of details were under
discussion regarding areas�where North; Bay needed to improve. H'e said
did, not know °what the issues:were.
'Council Member Torliatt .asked if their facility on Standish was in
compliance with' all the: health and safety regulations; as well as water
quality conformance. .
Mr, Clement stated that they were not. He explained it was because
North Bay had, gone from servicing a relaaively small operation and,_ in a
short period' of :time, assumed a huge operation_. He said 'steps are . being
taken and they .are looking for a new facility that will accommodate
"real "' diversion.
Ma Y or Glass asked, that if Mr. 'Clement didn't know what' the issues. were.,,
.how did he know that they-were small issues.
Mr. Clement stated that this' is. what Deputy City Attorney Caroline Fowler
told him when he spoke with her.
Council Member O'Brien asked :if .North Bay Corporation was in litigation.
with any'off he regulatory agencies.
as
ap & is 9
l
2
4
5
6
7
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
3:9
40
41
42
43
44
45
46'
47 "
48
49
50
51
52
r
October 18,'2004
t
Vol. XX, Page 1 9
Mr. Clement stated, none that he knew of. He' said the company is in
discussion with the County "of Sonoma ' about problems on Standish and
some other problems.
Ernie Carpenter,' Industna - -1 Carting, read a letter for the record. "Industrial
Carting and 'Green „Waste °•has follo,w,ed the process established by the
Petaluma City Council to select d'solid waste recycle and yard trimming
service "provider, Although costly. and time consuming, it has been a level
playing field up iIfo this point. Shov'id you allow North Bay Corporation to
reenter the`process at-'this time you' make a mockery of that process.
Why They' failed to",;, comply with' your instructions ; in the beginning,
submitting one bid for 50% recycling., When given the opportunity to clarify
their bid,' which gove-thern inth"e March 1 letter, they again refused
to °comply. When August 23rd the City Manager clarified the Council
action at Ithe end of ,that m °eeting that was 'to: negotiate with three
companies. North Bay. wps "formally eliminated by vote of that meeting.
A
bids,
d s s r a l nd co�tsrwere exrt!os wh en .all the other companies
p p ed, N orth Bay is now requesting to be
allowed to submit a new proposal. They have seen all the numbers, did
no
hat reply ith grater diversion, scenarios, and apparently
ve no s m ath for'�t►mel►nes our direction, or process. All they had -to
p
do' was greater d►version,scenacios and aorn I yw ' wt fh your specific
directions as the' other three companies did; ;rather, they specifically
stayed with the one bid scenario and were found to be non-responsive by
p. d . I, ,
this. Gounctl. We`' ask that you honor your; previous actions. We ask in the
name of fair play and consistency that you not allow North Bay to reenter
thv�'process under these rcumstonce''s You have gained significant
Ices on behalf of the Cit ,well within
e industry cost parameters with the
three bids deemed 'in� compliance "' He commented that as far as
slander, they had.not slandered anyone.
Vice Mayor Moynihan clarified again, that this was not a bid but a
proposal process. He stated that when ''the original' bids came in they
came ,in fat. the, state mandated recovery rate. WherYodditional proposals
were `requested' from all the contra ctors 'they were asked for a 50 %, 60%
and 70% recovery rate. He said he did not recall that North Bay
Corporation made a proposalI for the 50' or 60% recovery rate. He asked
if North Bay had made 'd proposal for these rates.
Mayor° Ghass 'answered that the 50 %• rate was; more 'expensive than the
70 %rate therefore the Gouncil went the 70% « 4, , ate for consideration.,
Ernl p p p,
• ie Carpenter responded onded that h'e• acce ted 'the Mayor's answer..
Vice Mayor Moynihan stated that, "as he
saw if, if one or two aspects of
the proposal are not responded Ito, others, who do not ; respond to a
higher recove ry p
"'rate, a rea" inclibecl non -res
orisive. He.- `stated that all four
parties could be held I as being non- responsive to the ,complete proposal..
He. stated ;that the reasons given by'--the City Manager and Council had
nothing to do with a tack 6P response or- a higher recovery rate, but
whether the party could moe.t "the obligations of. the contract.
„ ,
Vol.'XX, Page 20 October 18, 2004
Mr. Carpenter stated the companies.responded to 50 %, 60% and 70% and
this was included in their RFP: added that he did not see a tainted
perception this process, he stated that the Council had shown due
diligence.
Greg Gunheim, Operating Engineers Local #3, stated he respected the
desire to, include the lowest bid and a3 clean process with the best value.
He said safety is a consideration and he:.hoped that Council, 'did not
reopen the proposal process.: He suggested looking , at: the safety records
and history of the ,bidders if Council reopens this process.
Janice Cader= Thompson, Petaluma, stated she thought the process had
b een going well but the political season ha brought Councilmember
Healy and Vice Mayor Moynihan to "stirthe pot." She said a'fair process is
equally im,port.ant as cost. She said she trusted � -the, City Manager to
negotiate a fair contract and to proceed.,
Larry ;Kay, ; Petdluma, stated that he 'was: satisfied with Empire Waste's
performance. He was af_raid.,that everyone' would be charged increased_
rates, because, some, people ; do not recycle a s. h e does. He felt 'that
money was' �ra serious issue because of all the tax increases and bond
issues that have arisen. He wanted Council to reconsider and get the, best
rate.
Jane ,Hamilton, Petaluma, .stated. ;she was concerned with the "fairness
issue.'" ,I. She did not 'support allowing a :non-responsive proposer being
considered. She also .asked Council to' consider the proposers safety _
record, record of violations, fleet maintenance; and who are they as a
carrier? She suggested these issues should be included in the proposals if
they are resubmitted. She ;said North Bay Corporation did not have a
good safety record.
Geoff: Cartwnght,. Petaluma, stated that, "All they need to do is build
where it floods and every, winter it °will wash away."
PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED
COUNCIL COMMENT
City Manager 'Bierman .stated' that ..this ,process went back to 2001 with
public outreach in 2002; the RFP wasJnitiated`in'December of 2002, in April
2003 a couple of proposals were submitted and then discussion of higher
diversion rates and other amenities for the: garbage contract occurred'in
December, 2003 the ,RFP was finalized as far as diversion ,scenarios, and
`the City Manager was asked to negotiate a better deal with Empire
Waste Management, and this was done. At the same-time, the issue with
the: "County its JPA, and taking garbage :ou;t of county arose. At this point
It was decided to reissue the RFP, which was done in December 2003
requesting I four proposals: 1), to meet' AB939, '1A) option 'to. use Central
Landfill or out.:of county disposal; dis,;osal; for diversion of 2) ;50 %, 3)_ 60 %,, and 4)
70 %: Proposals were received from .Empire Waste Management, 'Green
Waste N -Cal. and North Bay, Corporation. North Bay did not: submit
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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
,30'
- 40
4.1
42
43
'45
46
4 4 � 7 8
49
°5O
51
52
M
4 1
O'ctober 18,,2004 Vol. XX, Page 21
proposal§11or the diversion scenarios. The August selection process resulted
in recognizing' that higher diversion levels' Were desired and after.
reviewin'414h lstr s. an., s ehgth 'd v�6aknessd' A,of the proposals a selection was
Yl.
made,'- of three- proposers' for the, 50%, 70% diversion. North Bay
subsequently offeredl.a., 7,0,%, proposal, but the issue 'arose of submitting a
proposal after a selection had 'l.been made regarding whom the City
would be with. He said the Council wanted to include North
Bay he would ri6go
e ith'4h.eh . ""also.
Council; Member 'Hedly h`6 be!fdir-to; the proposers and
rat `epq y " ers,,HP,s'aid dial no e0h le, dice q& this was a proposal, not a
ratepayers
, bidding . prbcl and, all the .companies. have seen each others
presentations and are aware of wh being proposed. He stated that
the Councw:s - direction Was. fb''h ave. ik& three remaining companies
sharpen; - their pencils and improve their pricing structures, so no one is,
lo'itk �roobsals,�l� He stated 'he wanted to meet
the state Mandate bult'did"not have to obtain the 70% diversion level if it
would , 'bel7a , significant expense,t&A , he ratep He said the main reason
he voted to ex.clude'Nb.rt,h My and -he would have excluded the highest
as well, ,was his concerns d0puf'the quality of their vehicle fleet, He said
thqj.ji,q;i,th` new proposal North Bdy� higher diversion rate and
_�e ,
Would purchase a new fleet' for Petaluma. :He'said there are many issues
jr,icluding,'perfo'rmance,,�standards, reporting, 'and training. He said these
standar have to be setJofth in gre&"d6 taill because this is a ten-year
agreement and the pqo,icipcints could change. He said he shared the
concern. about the 11 ip roce"s"s `bibt h e would, not support a formal bidding
prbc6s's, because of all"the variables that 'would prevent the process from
moving" forward and"he N Ba felt If1he,oroods.cil,poproach was best, He felt that
allowirib �, back info the Orbdess' would ,best serve bringing. 9 � -Y
closure to the. process and the ratepayers.
'
Vic-6 'May6f noted thah''n' ' the p roposers. responded to one, o p
pirop .,2, 3 & 4 based on' the ;summary information given to Council.
, He:iasked, the C ity Mana, a 4er fo'iexplain this situation.
City, dt all the companies proposed on I
Maridg6t Bierman explained than b4di 1,Ai,�.!Ili"n�clo On scenarios 2, 3 and 4 (diversion rates)
NbrM Bay did not propose on any of'these scenarios, but the others did
:0 bi
,n,,coM inations of these.,
' re'covery rate "and
e ce Ma,ybr,;Mo JS hihah-stated that - the companies responded at
y was critical in saying who responcled.
v�(y
AP City Mdnager Bilerman, i8drified thbt Council was looking at higher
rates 'for zsc'e6ar`ios"2; 3 or 4, l6r.`6 combination of these, to get
iyersion
higher 'diversion rates °Ond in consideration of Costs as- well. He stated
T , when this level of service was identified, North' Bay Corporation did not
meet `it'.
"
Vlce�`Wdyor Moynihan lrecdlled d t when, multipl'p proposals were
requested ifrom' each, it was. done so t.o'know what the cost, differential
would be. The Council did` not make d commitment but wanted. to know
Vol. XX, Page 22 October 18, 2004'
,how much;it,w.ould cost to obtain a higher diversion rate. He did not feel a
commitment .had been made 'to a 70% , recovery rate. He did not mind if
the - :ouncil continued with. the: proposal process but wanted to .outline, for
the, public and . the contactors just how the process. will work to .restore
integrity'and show, that the ratepayers are getting the best rate
Mayor Glass: interjected' that he spent three days visiting , sites. He said that
meeting AB939 was . not adequate, and. that the County had no
alternative plan for, when the landfill was full, so diversion was very
important. . 'Hie recalled. Council's direction was to find the highest'rates of
diversion above the law's requirements that was economically
achievable. He felt it was unfair because com0anies costs to deal with
volume: results', in the more collected, the lower the rates become,
resulting,in higher:costs at 50% diversion than 70 %. He stated h was willing
to look at North Bay Corporation inten -years when they had established a
track record. `He supported buying the higher- diversion because. as
landfills' become' consumed and land- to locate ;them on becomes ^,scarce,
the City would not know what future costs to dispose. of the garbage
would be: He, felt that it was economically advantageous,,,to! increase
diversion rates especially in the long term.
Council Member Harris appreciated the complexitie of this'issue but he
felt that a level playing field 'should be;_ maintained, and the negotiating
team should be aware of the, rules and let`them negotiate the ,best rate
from the proposals that, have `b'een accepted.
Council Me'm ber'T homp son St ated that he +did not see an U nd ermining of
the process. He said be stood by.Council's .earlier decision to not accept
North Bdy's new bid.
Council Member O'Brien stated that he stood by .Council's earlier decision
and thought North -;Bay had been non- responsive when they stood by
their original proposal knowing there was an option to go out of county for
disposal.
Council Member T,drliaff addressed the. resubmit issue stating that the
Council .did ask for a subsequent`RFP to deal with :this issue and `asked all
of;the proposers to resubmit; she did. not favor resubmitting again.
She also addressed responsiveness versus.. non - responsiveness, stating'she
supported the City Manager "s staternentst regarding the ;three' companies
that responded to higher diversion, rates. She did' not support accepting
North'Bay`s bid because it leant to'the. integrity.of the process and she felt
the City should 'stand by its. position;. She said cost 'is absolutely .a factor
and � the ratepayer wants: 'the lowest cost. and a higher diversion; rate
would achieve this. She; wanted Council to establish a reward system that
would' benefit people for recycling and using smaller cans. She wanted
the community to know that every proposer 'will be, prodding single
stream recycling and fhe diversion rate will ;go ,up. She reiterated that this
is an ;RFP process °not -a bid and it is unknown as to what amount the rates
will increase. She also said, regarding compliance issues and after, talking,
to the-City of Santa Rosa;. that North Bay hard pulled their application for a
M
4� 1�
II1.,. il.I
0
l�
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
41
42.
43
44
45
46
4T
48
49
50
51
52
October'] 8, 2004 Vol. XX, Page 23
f
new newl without having a new fa t,'see how they could meet
the g cility since they are not in
compliance with their current' facility. Sh'e:, said if Council decides- to
include North Bay; she' would`request a' prequalification process to deal
With the proposers. She Lead' portions of a let -ter from Ross Marvel,
Petaluma; " .: i s absurd that the.' 'ity would consider allowing North Bay
Corp86i6h to. ,further pa rticipate in discussions with the City after being
re ecte`d for their lack of responsiveness. If is the wrong message to send to
the. oiher three remaining 'bidders who submitted responsive bids. To
preserve the integrity of the ,process, I would encourage the City of
Pe alumd
to stay with
the remaining three- responsive bidders and
dompleae this process without allowing North Bay Corporation, with their
perceived. „political clout, to subvert and manipulate the process. If
Petaluma gets: the reputation of running a sham bidding process, who
would participate in the future..."
Vice Mayor !Moynihan said that he thought the rates would double in
Petaluma.
City Mandger Bierman: explained how the negotiations would take place.
He: stated they would continue- with the :three proposers who were
accepted' on August23, 2004. He stated that he has had initial discussions
and will continue to - negotiate. He explained the team consisted of the
City" Manager, former ' Assistant City Ma'hboer, Gene Beatty, 'and the
consultants.:He said when the final proposal is arrived at among the three,
it would b,e brought back,to the Councili for their decision. He stated these
would be closed -door negotiations:
Mayor Glass summarized That a. majority of Council Members did not
support considering ,North B'ay Corporation as a proposer for the garbage
contract. The majority consisted of Council Members O'Brien, Harris,
Thompson, Torliatt, and Mayor Glass..
Council Healy 'requested a memo from staff describing the
process from here forward.
B: Re
Vi Discussion of Councils, RUles Policies and Procedures.
(Ru.dnansky)
CityAttorney Rich Rudnansky explained ,that once a year Council must
review its rules and see if any changes. are in order.. He suggested two
modifications to be considered. Under 8 L., the recommenda was to
clarify the :replacement of council' members with respect to outside
g g Another suggestion regarding
appontin
com a councih itself
me ember during a temporary absence, he set forth a
proposed process for when this occurs for their consideration.
MOTION'to approve the re changes.
M/S Moy,nihon /Glass
CARRIED' UNANIMOUSLY
I
Vol. XX, Page 24 October 18, 2004
I
1 PUBLIC COMMENT
2
3 Stan Gold Petaluma, suggesfecl a change in the relationship of the City
4 Council to its, operating l commissions He stated Planning Commission
5 members have. changed their votes because they want to get proper
6 consideration from the :City Council of certain conditions..
7
C nci Member Healy requested' more input from staff as how this could
9
10 ,
11 Mayor Glass indicated •a change of agenda order had been enacted to
12 place Presentations /Proclamation before Public Comment.
13
14 ADJOURN
15
16 The meeting was adjourned at 8;5`5 p:m.
17
1.8
19
20
21
22
23 David Glass, Mayor
24
25
26
27 ATTEST
28
29
30
31
32 Gayle Petersen, City Clerk
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40 _
.41 I
42
43
44 j
45
46
47
48, j.
•
0