HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 01/22/2005January 22, 2005
Vol. 40, Page 39.
ALU
a City of Petaluma,, California
MEETING OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL
lg5$
City Council Minutes
(Public Comment and Council Comment Portion)
Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 9:00 a.m.
Special Goal Setting Session
1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - 9:00 A.M.
2
3 CALL TO ORDER
4
5 A. Roll Call
6
7 Council Members Canevaro, Harris, Healy, Nau, O'Brien, Torliatt and Mayor Glass
8
9 B. Pledge of Allegiance'- Council Member Torliatt
10 C. Moment of Silence
11
12 Mayor Glass welcomed the many members of the public present at the meeting. He
13 asked that if the meeting became .too lengthy for all those wishing to speak at Public
14 Comment to take their turn at the microphone, they submit a speaker card with their
15 name -and address and comments to the City Clerk. He asked the Clerk to transcribe
16 those statements into the record verbatim.
17
18 Council Member Canevaro asked to have Council Comment before Public Comment as
19 he thought the public had not been given the full story and that a lot of their concerns
20 could be alleviated that way.
21
22 Mayor Glass agreed, but added that since their was division on the Council on the issue
23
24 Council Member Torliatt emphasized brat this was not an agendized item, and it was not
25 permissible for Council to "get into a back and forth, presentation, and things of that
26 nature."
27
28 Mayor Glass suggested setting the clock for three minutes for each Council Member,
29 and alternating between Council Members who had voted in favor of awarding the
.z,
30 garbage franchise to Norcal Waste, Inc., and those who had "voted against, and asked
31 for guidance from the City Attorney on the legality of such a process.
32
33 City Attorney Rudnansky stated that..Public`Comment is to allow members of the public
34 to make comments on matters that are not on the agenda. There cannot be a
35 discussion among Council, cannot beta "back arid forth" to any degree among Council
36 or the public. There may be a short question, or Council may direct staff to get some
37 direction. `
38
Vol. 40, Page 394 January 22, 2005
Mayor Glass asked if he could adjust the agenda order, and allow Council Comment
before Public Comment, limit each Council Member to three minutes, and refrain from
engaging in dialogue.
City Attorney Rudnansky suggested'that Public Comment be heard first, and stated: that
no discussion by Council on the merits of the issue should be made.
Mayor Glass said in light of the City Attorney's statement, he would allow Public
Comment at this time.
Council Member Canevaro asked that Mr. Legnitto of Norcal Waste Systems; Inc. be the
first speaker.
Mayor Glass agreed, and asked that the Clerk set the clock for 2 minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENT (Begin verbatim transcription)
John Legnitto, Norcal Waste Systems, Inc.: The first thing I'd like to do is ... there's been a.
lot of confusion about what's going on here. We've put up website -
www.sunsetscavenaer:com/oetaluma.htm - so people can see what's, going on. But I
want ta.set the record straight - the only thing that's going to soar in the City of
Petaluma is recycling- not rates. You need to understand that. I've had thin passed out
and what this is what was approved in the consultant's,report: the fhree-can rsystem at
$12.09, and that's where we'll be starting with the City of Petaluma. Rates arenot going
to double. What we were approved for is.;because we.hdve the ability to get you, to 70%
recycling. That doesn't mean thaf.on Day One you're going to go to 70% recycling.
We're going to work together with the City Manager to establish the ratesin this City to
move toward 70%recycling. I think it`s-important.to note that there's been a lot of
misinformation and I th'ink'that's doing.a disservice both to the _community...'One.thing I
know is there are lots of seniors concerned about what's going on here, and, our
experience with handling seniors on; fixed 'incomes is to have those types of rates for fixed
income seniors. That needs to be negotiated with Mr. Bierman when we negotiate our
contract. As for as the commercial, I see that the -commercial people have concerns.
They will have the some incentives, although they'll be commercial programs tied to
reducing. Our company was built on the factthat we need to reduce what you put in
your garbage can, and increase wh&you put in your blue and your green cans. Those
two things will manage your rate. The less you put -in that black can, the less you're.going
to pay for. The typical household in. Petaluma should be able to put up this, which is 224
gallons of service at $12.09 on a monthly rate: That';s what we. proposed in the
consultant's report, that what we intend to start with, an`d 'that's what we'll be working
with Mr. Bierman on.
Ellen Bicheler, Petalum'a:. I, have to say'that I am outraged by Council's decision :on the
garbage contract. I spent many hours researching this, as a:consequence. I e-mailed all
the people who voted for it! Mike Q' Brien, Mike Harris, Karen Nau, and Keith Canevaro. I
took their comments and'I looked them over and I understand some of the things that
they were'saying, but I think we really need to, go back and.rescind this decision and
look at this whole issue again. I guarantee you., this time. around, that .the public will
provide more feedback on this. My coricerns are .the following: If the Council is so
concerned about recycling, Green Waste Recovery has a much better recycling
program, in that they have. only one truck that they"use and they also were cheaper.
They came in for a ten-year contract at -.,..I don't have the exact figure here - I think it's
$53.8 million, as opposed to Norcal's $'101 million.'But what concerns me more is a grave
January 22, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 395
1 concern. I addressed Mike O'Brien about this in an e-mail but he didn't respond to me.
2 He accepted $800 in donations from the garbage contractors and I think this is unethical
3 that he is still voting on this issue. This is documented by an October 18 Press Democrat
4 article, "Garbage Firms Give to Council Hopefuls." Pam Torliatt and Cindy Thomas
5 originally got contributions, but they gave their contributions back. I think, based on this
6 and the fact that we have some really uneven bids here, that we need to go back on
7 this issue. Thank you.
8
9 Bryant Moynihan', Petaluma: It's a pleasure to be talking to you from this side of the dais,
10 at least on this decision: This is a tough decision and I don't think you're going to come
11 away pleasing. everyone, by any chance. But I think the problem here is not the decision
12 'as it is, the process. We ran into trouble as a Council six or eight months ago when we
13 went away from a bid process and getting competitive bids that keep rates down to
14 going to this proposal process, which is kind of convoluted and was tainted months ago.
15 Unfortunately, what's happened here is we're not getting the competition. When you
16 throw North Bay out - when you throw out the low bidder - when you keep changing the
17 criteria under which you're judging the various proposals - you. create an atmosphere
18 which is not open, not public, not informative, and it doesn't allow any of the bidders, so
19 to speak, to actually bid. I suggest you need to step back, reconsider this, by going out
20 and clearly outlining your criferia and seeking a new bid. If you want 70% recovery rate,
21 and' I see that four of you do, ask for a bid of 70%. Don't ask for a bid of multiple levels or
22 anything along that line. If you want a new fleet of trucks, require that in your bid. If you
23 want a facility in Sonoma County, require that in your bid. But go and be clear for a
24 change. Be clear -as to what you',re, requiring, and then go out, and allow everyone to
25 bid it, be it North Bay or Norcal or Empire -Waste or Green Waste, for that matter. I think
26 then you'll. end up with a result that the public can support, because they'll know that
27 they're getting the best value for.the:money; because you've had a competitive bid
28 process. Any thing short of that, and I'm afraid your decision will be questioned: Good
29 luck. Have fun.
30
31 Christyne Davidian, Petaluma: I have lived in Petaluma since 1991. 1 am a single mom; I
32 have two children, so I obviously have my own bills to consider here. When I first got to
33 Petaluma (I own my home, as a matter of fact), I thought that my waste bill was my best
34 bargain of all my bills. I use the smallest can; I pay.$25 every two months. In the last ten
35 years, they've added more recycling cans and included yard waste without any
36 increase to my rates. My water tripled and I pay more taxes for Petaluma schools. So as
37 you can understand, we've all seen increases in so many other things, I can just feel
38 confident that. my waste is the best bargain I see right now. So I don't want to see any
39 increase in. my bills. I have a degree in Botany, so I understand the environmental issues. I
4.0 am gprofessional procurement agent; I'm a certified purchasing manager, so I
41 understand the process of bids, analysis, and ethical. awards. I don't see that this has
42 been done in an ethical manner, and it's really disappointing to me as a professional. I
43 work for Motorola, so I handle millions and millions of dollars, and I know how to award
44 bids ethically. This is very disappointing to me, with all the information I have heard, that
45 this.isgoing to the highest bidder. I'm a fanatical recycler. I put one bag in my waste can
46 every week. I recycle all my paper, my plastic, my bottles and cans. I take my plastic, my
47 bottles and cans, to Petaluma Recycling. What I'd like to ask you - the 70% recycling
48 that's going to be taken - who's going to benefit from that money for the recycling? Is it
49 going to be given back to us in rebates? Is it going to go to the City? Because somebody
50 is making money on all that plastic and glass and cans that's being taken away, so I'd
51 like to know if that's being considered as a possible rebate back - by whoever gets this
52 award.
Vol. 40, Page 396 January 22, 2005
Sam .Braff, Petaluma: I'm a grouchy old bastard. I'm a senior, and I have a lot of senior
friends, most of them not as well off as'I am._ But you've got a garbage bill; if 1 read the
Press Democrat correctly, my garbage bill is going" out of sight. As a senior; just me and
my wife who is bedridden, we "put in `probably a quarter of a garbage can a week. I pay.
$186 a shot for my'"wife'sshots. I have to work, because the damned Social Security don't
cover it. You have a deal with your Water Department that said they'd give seniors a
break. But"we can't afford to take the break because we have to work part time. to pay
our medical bills. As far as I'm concerned, this damned high irate ... I worked in
construction all my life; I worked for a major, worldwide corporation, and we went- by the
low bid. We spelled out our bids, the companies would right their bids, we'd bid it
accordingly. But, from what I read in the Press Democrat, I feel like I'm getting hosed. I
don't like you making love to me and not'get'a kiss.
Mary Anne Hansen, .P'etaluma: My main residence for over 30 years has been oa F Street
here in.Petaluma. Numerous; people have asked me to come and speak at this meeting.
I realize one of'fhe"main points of this meeting is to encourage our elected officials to do
what's best for us. I whole heartedly support that'point: But I've been asked to come
here because over thirty years ago, l .decided to do something about my garbage in our
household. I have a problem with filling our landfills-, [have a real problem with unsightly
cans in frontof"our houses. I think that is a major American.sih. I have a.problem with the
noise and pollution that starts,in my neighborhood of 6:30 every Friday morning. So I
wanted to do something about it'. We pay attention4o everything we. purchase. We
recycle everything. We buy fresh food and bulk foods. We take our recycling to, our own.
recyclers in Petaluma.We do our best ,to buy products without packaging. If we must
have a product with packaging, we open'it at the store, leave it at the store, or. take it
home and send it back to the outtit that made it. We don't buy toys with batteries. We're
so good of it that I called the garbage company over thirty years ago arid.told them I' no
longer needed them. I haven't had a garbage bill in thirty years. For those of you who
like save money, imagine if enough people did this, the garbage companies would
realize they don't,have us over a barrel. They can then send OUt- non-polluting trucks" and .
maybe not have t'o start'at 6:30 in the morning. 1 average one or two biodegradable
bags a year. I have .a client that welcomes: me to put: it in their,dumpster because they
appreciate what I do. I offer to my neighborhood fhat I'vvill take their garbage that :they
make to the dumps free for them, if they will just try to do some of the things that I do. I
don't believe we need garbage pick up. Thank you.
Eileen Hallock,.Petaluma: I'm a resident of one of the oldest neighborhoods on the east
side. It is a multi -cultural neighborhood, where the majority of my neighbors work six to
seven days a week, two'incornes plus, and, most of them, besides °theirmain job, they
have a second job. What I'd like to point out is, this is going to impact- all of us. Not just the
seniors, and -1 can certainly empathize with them, since were all going to be there some
day. The majorityof my neighbors, and myself, are on an extrernely'tight'budget.l think
what needs to be -considered is. the small increase `to; yowls a big' increase to ,us. What I'd
also like to point ,out_ is that I've lived here almost my entire life. Empire' Waste has been
an excellent service. I've had no problem. What l think'we need to do" is change the
criteria of how.our service.is handled. Although I'm not always in. agree rrierit with Mr.
Moynihan,. I certainly, am now, and I respect his opinion, and would like "to second- it. I
really think this does :need to be.reviewed and we need to start from ground zero. I! don't
mean to sound nasty, but some of the 'feedback I'M getting,.is that rnost.people are
questioning.- they're suspect about whywe're going with Norcal; whenthe other
bidders are so much lower. I'm not pointed fingers at anybody, but I really think you
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 22, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 397
need to stop and remember, you represent us, and most of us don't have great incomes
in a very expensive area to live. Thank you.
Phil Giusti, Petaluma: I've lived in Petaluma for 25 years. My wife and I are beef ranchers
here. This is almost my 22nd year in the waste industry. I work for Norcal. I'm a second
generation garbage man. My father was a garbage man, and my two brothers and I
are garbage men. My family and I know garbage and we know recycling. My family and
I live in rural Petaluma. We already pay $35.09 per month for a 65 -gallon can. We tried
hauling our garbage to the dump, and it cost us half of what our garbage bill would
have been just for dump fees, not considering the time, the mess, and we still had to
deal with our own recycling. I would like to thank the Council Members who chose
Norcal, and I appreciate that they are not only looking at the cost for now, but also at
the long-term planning. Our dump is filling up. The charges at the dump have become
astronomical. Norcal is going to divert 70% of our garbage - and they can back that up.
We need to look at our other utility bills and what they cost. Garbage is going to be the
some or Worse some day if we don't do something about it now.], can't imagine what
the cost will be when we have no more room to dump in our landfill. I like the idea of not
being dependent on the dump. With the diversion station Norcal is going to build, we will
,havethat independence. As I said before, I have 22 years experience in the waste
business, and I know myself and my family.of,four, who currently use a 65 -gallon garbage
can, would be able to reduce that by two sizes under Norcal's recycling program, and
that would cost us much less than the numbers the newspaper is printing. Another thing
in favor of Norcal is their history of good service. We are an employee -owned company
that emphasizes good service to the customer. Imagine the service you'll get when the
owner of the company is your personal garbage man or recycler. I ask that the Council
stay with their decision to award the bid to Norcal. As an outsider looking in with 25 years
of Petaluma experience and 22 years in the waste industry, I feel that Norcal is the only
right choice. Thank you.
Betty Mazzucchi, Petaluma: I am at a loss to think that anyone could do what you four
members of the City Council are doing to the people of Petaluma. You should be
ashamed of yourselves, and furthermore, why would you.go outside of Sonoma County
to accept another company to come in and stick us for 120% more than we pay now.
From $8.76 to $19.26 a month for small'cans, $15.33 a month to $33.69 a month for large
cans. There are a lot of us seniors and a lot of low-income families who can hardly get by
on our fixed incomes, as well as all the other people in Petaluma. You've made the .
whole City feel like we've had a gun stuck in our back and told to give up 120% more of
our incomes. How dare you do this without thinking of the community first? What is wrong
with you four members of the City Council? Thank you.
Bob Kates, Petaluma: I don't know all the facts, but all I can tell you is what.l've read in
the Press Democrat.; It seems to be that if we're going to increase the rates for our
citizens here in Petaluma 120% to only get an increase of 10% recycling, that seems to
me to be a very imprudent decision. I consider myself to be an environmentalist. I've
worked for federal land management agencies for over 20 years. If I made a decision
like this, I would have been fired. I think the four members of the City Council that voted
for this went against the advice of the City employees and didn't take a really close look
at this, and if I hear Mr. Moynihan correctly, it sounds like the criteria has constantly
changed throughout this process. You didn't put out any kind of prospectus document
where you had specific criteria and then you voted on that criteria and you were
comparing apples with apples. I hope that you guys will re -consider your decision. For the
Vol. 40, Page 398 January 22, 2005
1 four of you who voted in favor of this, l hope you will change your minds. If not, I hope
2 there will be recall petition and we'll go ahead and boot you all out of office. Thank you.
3
4
5 Ron Kinyon, Petaluma:. I think that the biggest thing that surprises me is-that1he City
6 Council broke: a cardinal rule of a good politician. And that is, if you hit them in the
7 wallet, you're. going to,have problems. Big problems. Nine°ty-nine percentof the time, the
8 general public pays.little attention to what the City Council does. It's only when you stick
9 'em - outrageously - is when you're going to open upa can of worms, which you will
10 you had never done. I've read the papers extensively on this, I know that -I can't afford it.
11 1 know that 95% of the, senior citizens in the 872 units that are in the 6 or 7 [mobile home]
12 parks of Petaluma can't.afford it. If this goes through, ther,.e'is going to be hell to pay,
13 because you're`hitting us where it really hurts. Most of the time, people don't care. Nickel
14 and dime stuff; they'll go along with it. You nail them in the pocket hard enough; you'll
15 hear about it. Thank you.
16
17 David` Llbchiti, Petaluma: I'm sorry we're taking up your goal setting session this morning.
18 First of all, I'd like to thank Council Member Torliaft for returning her donation from
19 Industrial Carting last year. She has proven time and time again that the only way to
20 influence her opinion, is the will and the needs ofthe people. I don't understand this issue.
21 1 watched the Council Meeting last Tuesday. I watched it again on tape. ].still don't
22. understand it. Some comments were made that confused me.. I've read the article in the
23 Press Democrat. I thought it was very succinct. It stated; whaf I understood. A lot of things
24 are confusing to me. You talk about'the 70% recycling rate, and Norcal says they'll
25 "eventually" get there. GreenWaste says, fhey'Ildo it right off the bat. GreenWaste says
26 they'll run one truck for their pickups. We spent a lot of money. recently resurfacing our
27 City streets, and in most residential areas, the garbage trucks are the only trucks that run
28 down these streets. You'd be reducing half the load on those streets. I don "t know what
29 the answer is. I do know that you should revisitthis issue. I hate to say this, almost, but'I
30 agree with. Mr. Moynihan. 'You need to come up with something that all the bidders can
31 come up with the same number. Seventy % - you need -to work that, right off the bat.
32 New trucks... whenever, but everything needs to be down in black and white. No -"we'll
33 get there eventually." Thank you very much.
34
35 John Hanania, Petaluma: I see the Chief is here, so I°m going to. -stay really calm: I don't
36 want to be -escorted away in handcuffs. Anyway, I"d like to know why is the City -of
37 Petaluma recommending the bid of someone who has had major bribery in the past for
38 City officials and City staff, down in San Bernardino County. We're talking about millions
39 of dollars. How is it that the City who is a leadership to our community is recommending
40 that? I think that is outrageous. Number two, congratulations Karen Nau, on your new
41 seat. I'd, like to know, in a comment thatyou've said here ... I don't. want -to read the
42 whole thing :..you're on record along with Council Member Healy as saying you are not
43 in favor,of an increased rate: And now you're in favor of increasing rates. Mr. Mayor, I
44 have ,said this many times in the past. Leadership is by example. In every holiday season,.
45 you've seen'in the Press Democrat a nice picture of a police officer'and a fireman- and
46 down below, it says, "Support Your Local Businesses." Why 'is it that the, City is asking the
47 community to spend money in town so we can, support our Fire and Police Department -
48 but yet the City goes and gives a millions of dollars bid to outside of the City - so neither
49 the City nor the County is going to benefit°from this? I find this hard to believe. And I'm
50 trying to - you know; all of you.- I'm trying to really be pleasant, as you requested. So, if
51 leadership is by example, where is the example here?. I don't see it here. I think this needs
52 to be revisited. Thank you.
January 22, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 399
2 Stephanie Adams, Petaluma: I; am..a 10- year resident of Petaluma, and .I'm here
3 because I don't want my garbage rates to" go up, just like everybody else. I did°want to
4 compliment those of you who voted for this Norcal contract, for some political courage.
5 I'm sure that you had to expect a reaction like you're getting today. Nobody likes to see
6 their rates double. So I do give you credit for weighing the pros and cons and making the
7 decision that you made. However, I disagree with that decision, and that's what I'm
8 going to talk to you about. I think, as I follow this process through, it doesn't seem fair. 1
9 don't think you were clear with what the companies were to bid on, you changed the
10 process a couple of times. I think that one company bid on apples and another
.11 company bid on oranges, and you are kind of deciding based on different standards. If
12 what you wanted a 60% recycling rate, which is 10% above what the state requires; than
13 that's what the bid should have been on. But it looks like one company's bidding on a
14 60% recycling rate, and another company's bidding on a 70% rate, so the fees are going
15 to be different. So you need to decide what you want, and have them all bid on that,
16 and I don't think it was clear. On basic fairness, I don't think that worked out very well.
17 Also, we have a really wonderful City Manager who recommended another company.
18 He recommended Waste Management, and I don't'understand why his decision was
19 overridden, based on what I read in the newspaper. Another thing is, I'm here to show for
20 Waste Management. They've been a great company. Whenever I've called them -1
21 had a few issues over the years. Once I changed my can, called them, and then I forgot
22 to leave my can out. And they came into myside yard, got my old can, took it and
23 dumped'it and put my new one in the side yard forme. Little things like that. When I've
24 had complaints about the trucks jumping the gun and starting too early, I've called and
25 talked to a real.person. And I've appreciated that. So they've been good to this
26 community.
27
28 Bill Donahue, Petaluma: I live in the Sandalwood Estates Mobile Home Park. I came today
29 with the hope of talking about goal..setting, and I will attend to that later on. Right now,
30 I'm going to talk about garbage. The gentleman from Norcal, I agree with. There is a lot
31 of misinformation, some of which was handed to me as I came in the door. Very pretty
32 documents. The average can, on a monthly basis, is $15.33, the flier says. What
33 happened with the $8.76 1 pay? Where did $1.5.33,come from? Where are quotes on a
34 smaller can, which many people in the mobile home parks use? I believe it's about 15 or
35 16 gallons. No comments have been made on that. We have extraordinary recycling
36 programs within our parks. Just my organization alone, the homeowners association,
37 made $1,400 on extraordinary recyclables. We are very concerned about recycling' but
38 we are also concerned about what the gentleman from Norcal said. There is a lot of
39 misinformation. To base -a vote on misinformation and without letting the public truly
40 know what. is going on is; I think misleading your community. We need to reconsider, as
41 Mr. Moynihan said...and I shudder -again; I disagree with,many'things Mr. Moynihan says,
42 but we need to reconsider -this vote. The people,. the seniors of this community demand
43 your attention to the rates being charged. A Councilman, during your last meeting,
44 made a statement, " I'didn',t even have to consider price.". I ask you to consider price.
45
46 Marc Ashton, Petaluma: The question I have is what is the bottom line here? I'm a 20 -year
47 resident of Petaluma, my wife is native of Petaluma, and Petaluma is fast becoming a
48 City that my children_:will.not be able to afford to live in. I think we need to look at the
49 bottom line. I don't think we have all the facts in this story. One hauler was excluded for
50 whatever reason from the process..l'm sitting in the back there, and the one guy is
51 saying, "Oh, that's not true, that's not true." We have had a number of different fliers
52 handed out to us. The public does not know what the facts are. We have, I think, partial
Vol. 40, Page 400 January 22, 2005
1 information out of the Press Democrat, and'as people".have stated, we have apples and
2 oranges comparisons here.1 can recall we visiteci'fhis sirnilar,issue with'the cable rates:
3 When I first carne to'Petaluma, cable: Was relatively inexpensive. It was, "W -hat's the big
4 deal? It's°only 50 cents a day." The same cable package that I had 20 years ago is now
-5 $47.00. Everything in Petaluma just keeps going up and up and up. We already know
6 what the big outflow to Rohnert Park is. You go up'there and buy gas, if's $1.78. It was
7 $1.91 as I drove over here. Here in Petaluma, we're pricing ourselves right out of being, an
8 affordable'town, I heard we're talking about, having new, truths, new employees; we're
9 going to build something right here in Petaluma. The people who drive those trucks can't
10 afford to live in this, town! You need six figures [income] to buy a home in thistown. From -
11 the other waste company, they said their guys don't.make,six figures. Where are those
12 people going to live? They're not going to live here in town: So'l think the bottom line is,
13 what's it going to cost me? Will my'rafes'keep going up? Everything keeps going up. On
14 the cable deal.. -it's been a few years ... a comment was made by a Council Member,
15 "It's only going up a couple of dollars: That's just a latte." Maybe we don't all buy lattes.
16 My family recycles like crazy. We have the small can. And you're telling me my rates are
17 going to go up? Are they going up or are theynot going up? What are the facts?'You do
18 not have the facts here, and it needs to be presented .and the Press and the Argus need
19 to get the story straight and, compare apples to apples and,oranges to oranges,: and
20 let's get this process so that we all understand it. It's obvious noon - e knows what's going_
21 on.. Please, look at the bo;ftorim line. If you're going to do this thing ... and we all agree,
22 recycling's great, these are recycling companies. They.'re making money.on this stuff. We
23 laughed about composting at the last meeting.'They love it.. Do I get my free bag of
24 compost for -my "efforts to recycle? Where's my benefit?
25
26 Paul Claeyssens; Petaluma: My comment would reiterate what the prior speakers said,
27 . and that is most of -the information that I think the public is getting, ,including myself,
28 comes from the newspaper: I1was hereat the. meeting the other night. The newspaper
29 reporter left before Pamela [Torliatt] had her opportunity to -speak, and I don't think that
30 her thoughts got'included in what was in the paper: This is a complex'issue with respect
31 with' are the companies going to be putting monby back in the community, will -we be
32 getting effective -recycling, what is the cost. I really do'think that somehow, .someway,
33 we need to get together- an overall view..of the issues and an overall view of the things
34 that were considered in making this 7decisipn, and provide that to the public through
35 some route other than through the paper.
36
37 Dennis Elias, Petaluma: I've been reading all the.articles in the paper, and I'm not going
38 to be saying anything that you haven't already heard this morning from most of the
39 community. I don't -know if it's proper decorum to get a show of hands from people.as to
40 how -many are not in agreement with'this decision that:. Council's made, but if it's proper,
41 1 would ask them to give a show, of hands, so you can actuallysee who's not in -favor of
42 this decision. 'How many are, not -in favor of the decision? So you probably have about
43 90% of the people .here were not in favor of this decision.. That. speaks a lot. The questions
44 that I, have are: When will this, recycling :center be completed? I haven't seen anything
45 about that.. When will the 70% level. of recycling be reached? I. haven't seen anything
46 about that. And how long is the contract?' I haven't seen anything about that._ What I've
47 seen is, my rates are, going to go up. Exorbitantly.. And, that's not right. It's not right for
4, 8 me. It's not. right for any of thesenior citizens 'in the community,:and:it's not right for the
49 communityin general.,11d. like to point your attention again to Bryant Moynih-an's
50 comments because they ring real clear: What he's saying is, you need to revisit it, and
51 you need to revisit it in a very methodical way, and I don't agree with the decision'that
January 22, 2005
Vol. 40, Page 401
1 you're making it, and I don't want to see, my rates go up. So get this thing straightened
2 out. You've got the whole community up in arms about it. Thank you.
3
4
5
6 PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED (End verbatim transcription),
7
8 Mayor Glass commended the public, saying they were exceptional.
9
10 City Attorney Rudnansky reminded Council that there should not be any discussion or
11 debate among Council Members. The Brown Act allows a brief response to the
12 comments made by the public.
13
14 COUNCIL COMMENT
15
16 Council Member Canevaro stated he did not think the public had been given all the
17 fact. He did not think things were "as they seemed," and the community was the victim
18 of some irresponsible reporting. He said he been misquoted in the paper, and offered to
19 read back from his computer notes what he actually said at the meeting of January 18th.
20 He had received a, lot.of irate e-mails from the public, and when had responded,
21 explaining what he had actually said, many had apologized. He added there would be
22 an Argus Courier story next week that he thought would lay out the facts in some detail.
23 He did not think any of the Council Members' votes were "for sale." The Council are
24 members of the community, too.
25
26 Mayor Glass said good people could analyze what they've heard and come to different
27 conclusions. As a former journalist, he felt it was hard for a newspaper writer to "pick a
28 sound bite." He announced he would be on radio KSRO.on.Monday morning [January
29 24] from 9:00 - 11:00 a.m. He said Council Member Canevaro's interpretation of the
30 report was obviously different than his, but'he did not doubt his sincerity. When he first
31 became Mayor, he wanted to fix all the streets in Petaluma immediately, and he thought
32 the best way to do that was to pass a utility tax. It was voted down 2-1. In voting against
33 granting the contract to Norcal, he was looking out for what he thought were the values
34 of the community and what .they were willing to spend, on what product. He did not
35 intend to cast any aspersions on Norcal, which he thought was a fine company.
36
37 Council Member O'Brien responded to,statements that he accepted $800 from Norcal.
38 He clarified that he accepted $200 each from four members of Norcal to play in a
39 fundraiser golf tournament that he had., Considering the cost of golf, golf cart, and
40 meals, and 20% fundraiser administrator fees, he did not net much. He said his vote was
41 not and had never been "for sale," and his integrity was "beyond reproach." Every
42 Council candidate accepts funds during a campaign from different people. He thought
43 that returning the contribution would be tantamount to saying, ."l lied before - my vote
44 WAS for sale, but it's not anymore:" He supported Norcal because he believes they are
45 the best company. He had put'in over 1,000 hours on his own time researching garbage
46 rates. He thought 56% of the people in this town would probably, see a net reduction in
47 their garbage rates. He thought the newspaper published an inflammatory story to scare
48 citizens and to get them to buy papers the next day. In his four years on the Council, he
49 continued, he had made `"very conservative and fiscally responsible decisions. Why
50 would he change now, and why would the majority of this Council do that?" He urged
51 the community to wait for the end of 'the process, and if the rate was an increase over
Vol. 40, Page 402
January.22,-2005
1 the $12.09 quoted by Mr. Legnitto, he assured. them he would not "vote for final
2 ratification of the contract."
3
4 Council Member Healy referred to what he called a "fuzzy math sales pitch" made at
5 the beginning of Public Comment today, and said that kind of'onalysis was precisely the
6 reason Council hired a. very experienced consultant to put all the proposals side.by side
7 - on a fair, consistent basis. That analysis. indicated that Norcal's proposal would result in a
8 116% rate hike and that was the analysis_ that formed the basis of his decision not to
9 support going with Norcal;'but rather tosupport Waste Management. He had been
10 researching'the question of�whether or not the award of a garbage franchise was
11 subject to a citizen referendum, and he had confirmed that'it was. He referred to a 1998
12 Sonoma County Court of Appeals. He said he would promise the citizens and businesses
13 of Petaluma that itthe Council majority persisted in ifs, "misguided course of action" and
14 formally awards the franchise to. Norcal, he would, "promptly start gathering�signatures
15 on petitions to force a vote by the citizens of Petaluma on this issue." He said he would
16 join in collecting approximately 2,942 signatures, and he was confident there would be
17 little difficulty collecting the needed signatures and'that Petaluma voters would;
18 "overwhelmingly reject, this unnecessary 116% rate hike."
19
20 CounciLMember Nau said she had been ,trying to answer everyone's phonecalls and e-
21 mails.. Those communications'had opened her eyes to whaf citizens want..She thought it
22 better to, "pay o little bifmore to recycle -to take care of our garbage" thah-to have to
23 try in thirty years to save the river and environment. She wondered what`would happen
24 when the landfills were full.'She believed it important to be, "environmentally concerned
25 for our children and grandchildren and future generations of Petaluma." At the January
26 18th meeting, she was faced, she thought, with two choices: reconsider North B'ay's
27 proposal, or choose ;from among'the three companies whose proposals were presented.
28 She chose Norcal ;because of the 70% diversion. She did not like their rates. She
29 compared Waste Management to WalMart, saying, ''They're big, huge, and don't care
30 about their employees or the environment or give back to the community - they just
31 have the lowest rate. She ask ed'if that was what the citizens of Petaluma wanted: to
32 "get the lowest rate now and leave the mess for future generations to clean ,up behind
33 us." She did not vote for Green Wdste because it would not be a local company. She
34 thought that Norcal was the best for'qualify and service, and that was worth_ paying
35 more. She said that was what she wanted, buf she added she was listening to the
36 computer. Since she voted with, the majority,;she could make a motion for
37 reconsideration. She is struggling with -the decision. She was very disappointed'that the
38 newspaper did not report her concerns about the environment and the future of
39 Petaluma. She thought Norcal would work,with and for the community.
40
41 Council Member Torlidtt stated that all .of the garbage. companies that bid on. the.
42 contract are qualifie&to provide theservice. The original request for proposals asked for
43 a 50% diversion rate, which is the State mandate. Council later asked for costs at
44 50%760%770% diversion.rates for each company. Not all companies responded with costs
45 for each *rate. `What did come back was a totai cost to proyAde garbage service. The
46 basic figures were: $50 million from Waste Management; about $59 million for Green
47 - Waste Recovery, and $101 million to go with Norcal. They all'provided different options,
48- be it a facility in the community, and"particular diversion rate,etc. The $50' million
49 contract with Waste Management would provide the City with a 60% diversion rate -
50 that's up 10% from what'the City was originally going, to get. The. other two companies
51 were going to provide a 70% diversion. Norcal estimated that would not get up to 70%
52 until 2007. Green Waste Recovery said they would "almost immediately" get up to the
January 22, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 403
1 70% diversion rate. The rates going up, potentially, 116%, she thought was excessive. She
2 did not vote to do that, and she did not think the citizens of the community would allow_
3 that to happen. She thought there would be a lot of unrest. All the Council Members
4 have received phone calls. She had received a lot of calls from people asking, "What do
5 we do?" She explained that coming to the Council Meetings was part of what the
6 community could do - to tell Council what they think about the contract. She also
7 suggested letters to the [newspaper] editor, and continued contact with City Council
8 Members. She thought there might be a referendum, because she did not think the
9 community wanted to pay higher rates when, for a minimal increase, they could
10 increase the diversion rate. She has been a Council Member for eight years and knows
11 this community is "extremely price sensitive." She didn't think a rate increase of this
12 magnitude was acceptable, especially since other utility rates may rise. She said she _
13 would try to do what she could as a Council Member and citizen to, "try to go with a
14 different company."
15
16 Council. Member Harris said Council spent many hours analyzing the data that was given
17 to them. Each Council Member came up with his or her own analysis. He had received a
18 lot of feedback from the community. He suggested citizens review his comments from
19 the.January 1'8th meeting, which would be part of the transcribed minutes, or watch the
20 meeting on PCA, to see how he reached his. decision. He added that as he walked
21 people through his decision-making process, and showed how the cost, equipment,
22 labor relations, and needs for the future and planned for future compliance
23 requirements, they understood the process. He thought"the best course of action was to
24 have side by side comparisons of the proposals.
25
26 Mayor Glass thanked members of public for their decorum.
27
28 1. GOAL SETTING -SESSION
29
30 A. City Council Goal Setting Session for 2004-2005.
31
32
33 ADJOURN
34
35 The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
36
37
38
39
40 avid.Glass, Mayor
41
42
43
44
45
46 ATTEST_:
47
48
49
50 �
51 Claire Cooper, Interim City erk
52