Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 01/03/2005i 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 January 3, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 361 aw City of Petaluma, . ' ifo�ni. MEETING OF'THE PETALUMA'CITY COUNCIL/ X85$ PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION City Council/PCDC Minutes . Monday January 3, 2005 - 3:00 .P.M. Regular Tweeting MONDAY, JANUARY .3, 2005 2:00 P.M. TO 3:00 P.M. RECEPTION for Newly Elected Council Members and Returning Council Member Canevaro and Guests at City Hall, SWEARING-IN CEREMONY - 3:00 P.M. City Clerk Gayle Petersen swore in Petaluma Joint Union Elementary and High School District Board Trustees Camille Sauve and Mary Schafer. City Clerk Gayle Petersen swore in new City Council Member Karen Nau, re-elected Council Members Mike O'Brien and Pamela Torliatt, and returning Council Member Keith Canevaro. CITY COUNCIL MEETING - 3:15 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. Roll Call Council Members Canevaro, Harris, Healy, Nau, 0"Brien, Torliatt and Mayor Glass B. Pledge of Allegiance - Council Member Canevaro Council Member Torliatt-said to fellow Council Members she hoped to have a productive year and that she was looking forward' to "working as a unit and swimming in the some direction." Sher congratulated new and returning Council Members. She thanked her family and those in community who, supported her through her last two terms and hopefully_ through this term. She also thanked all those who helped her get- re-elected. She stated she was honored to be the highest vote getter with 9.1% voter, turn -out. -She commended individuals for accepting their voting responsibility. She .stated she would maintain her integrity whether for or against a project. Council Member Canevaro formally thanked the community and everyone who looked after his family while he was -gone. Council Member O'Brien thanked everyone who participated in the last election. He said his dad gave him good advice, to make the right decision, not the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Vol. 40, Page 362 January 3, 2005 political decision, and ,you will be'rewarded for it. He said those on the other side of issues could contribute positively. Council -Member Nau said she felt privileged to serve Petaluma. She thanked her family and current Council Members and those who supported her in her campaign. She stated she would be working'for the next generation. Council Member Harris thanked Council Member Keith Canevaro for his service ,to his country.and welcomed him .back. He congratulated Council Members Nau, Torliatt, O'Brien, and, Canevaro. He said he would 'build on the successes of the last two years and continue to work toward moving the City forward. PRESENTATIONS Mayor Glass and Council Member Harris presented Employee Service Awards for the Fourth Quarter -of 2004. City Manager Mike Bierman: presented the Employee oUthe Fourth. Quarter Award to.Andrew D'Ottavio, Geographic Information Systems, Technician II, and the 2004 Employee of the Year Award to Anna Santos, Human Resources Benefits Administrative Assistant. Tawny Tesconi introduced ,Libby F.itzGerald, and Bill Gabbert, .members .of the -three Petaluma Rotary Clubs, and gave an, update regarding Fundraising Efforts for the McNear Peninsula Park in recognition of the •100th Anniversary of Rotary. -She explained the commemorative brick project and said' that nearly_ . $47,000 had been raised toward the McNear project. VICE MAYOR/LIAISON .APPOINTMENTS A. � .Resolution 2005-001 'N:C.S. Electing Mike Harris Vice Mayor. MOTION to appoint Council Member Harris as Vice Mayor. M/S: Glass/O'Brien CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. Discussion and Direction Rega.rding.City Council Appointments to .Citizen Bodies (Boards, Committees and Commissions). MOTION to appoint Council Member Torliatt as Council Liaison to the Planning Commission. Glass/Torliatt MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:, AYES: Glass, Torliatt NOES: 'Canevaro, Harris, Healy, Nau, O'Brien ABSENT: None. MOTION to appoint Council Member�Canevaro as Council Liaison to the Planning Commission. M/S: Healy/Harris January 3, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 363 1 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2 3 MOTION by Mayor Glass to appoint Council, Member Torliatt as Council Liaison to 4 the Bicycle andPedestrian Advisory Committee. 5 6 NO SECOND. 7 8 MOTION to appoint=Council Member Nau as Council Liaison to the Bicycle and 9 Pedestrian Advisory Committee. 10 11 M/S: Torliatt/Harris 12 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13 14 MOTION to appoint Council. Member O'Brien as Council Liaison to the Airport 15 Commission; Council_ Member Harris to the Recreation, Music, and Parks 16 Commission; Council Member Nau to .the Library Advisory Board and Traffic 17 Committees, and Council Member Torliatt to the Water Advisory Committee 18 (WAC) and Zone 2A Committee. - 19 20 M/S: Glass/Canevaro . 21 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 22 23 Since no Council Members expressed` interest in serving as Council liaison to the 24 Animal Services Advisory Committee, Mayor Glass announced the appointment 25 would be made at the. January 24, 2005 meeting. The City Clerk was asked to 26 reagendize this item. 27 28 MOTION to appoint Council Member Healy as Council representative to the 29 Sonoma County Transit Authority(SCTA).- 30 31 M/S: Glass/O'.Brien 32 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 33 34 MOTION to appoint'Council Member: Torliatt as Alternate Council representative 35 to..SCTA. 36 37 M/S: Glass/O' Brien 38 39 MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING DOTE: 40 AYES: Mayor Glass, O'Brien, Torliatt . 41 NOES: Canevaro, Vice Mayor Harris, Healy, Nau 42 ABSENT: None 43 44 MOTION 'to appoint Council Member Canevaro as Alternate Council 45 representative to SCTA. 46 47 Council Member Torliatt stated she would be supporting Council Member 48 Canevaro's appointment, but added that she was aware that a lot of discussion 49 goes on behind the scenes and felt it was -unfortunate that the Council couldn't 50 come to some resolution before the vote was. taken. 51 52 M/S: Torliatt/Glass Vol, 40, Pogo 364 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY., January 3, 2005 C. Recommendation to the- Mayors' & Councilmembers" Association, Mayors' City Selection Committee, -f of the following Committee, Appointments: Bay Area, Air Quality Management Board (Pne position) MOTION to appoint Council Member Torliatt. M/S: G ' lass/Healy "CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Golden Gate Btidge.,, Highway & Transportation District (one -position) MOTION to appoint Council Member O'Brien. M/S- Glass1H1qrr_i,s CARRIED,,UNANIMOUSLY. Remote Access Network (RAN) Board (one position - must be filled by a Mayor;, no specific term.) MOTION to appoint Mayor Glass. M/S: . Glass/Torliatt CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Metropolitan Transportation Comrnisiibn (one, seat;- three, nominees. needed for recommendation to the e Sonoma County Board'of!Supervisdrs, makes akes'th ' e final appointment. Term,eXpires February 2007,) MOTION,.to support. appointment of Council' Member Jake Mackenzie rn. (Rohnert Park) and Council Meber . Bob Blanchard (Santa Rosa). M/S: H-ealy/O'Brien -CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Agricultural Preservation '& -Open Space District- AdAsory Committee (one. position; term expires June 2005) MOTION to support appointment of Vice Mayor Gail Pardini-Plass (Cloverdale). Healy/Torlidtf CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. &GRQMG MGFin AF9G R51i!.491964 (SMART) 11 �Qomr:RissiGR, BGGrdipf (tWe pesr4iqRs; feur ye.er t6rm's�): ORe PGSitiOR iS Git IdFg8 99d GRe pesitieR M04, GISE) be �Gl F9PFeSeR�Gfkib GR WT -A' Ri -rqi .... I•___E4qt te 99GtiGR 1 • CAQ20, RG Gif�' FAG�l hGV8 morp thqp Ane ;:;qqR;b8F GFi SMART; G4 rAeFRIact-C mu -0 be_ 49n; 99' th!(Q- FAil "R$Q'i 1 SGRGR;G 991=)Rt�'; GRd Gt seGf is Gpe -,Removed by City Manager B'ierman. 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 4.0 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 January 3, 2005 PUBLIC COMMENT Vol. 40, Page 365 Don Weisenfluh, Petaluma; said that the elected representatives were duty-bound to set the record straight regarding school funding and misleading citizens about the "so called school budget cuts." Victor. Chechanover, Petaluma, mentioned the. need for removal of signs, indicating Lakeville was closed; he wanted the City to find money to survey sidewalk conditions; at Shollenberger Park, the unpaved path needed gravel to fill puddles that make it difficult to negotiate. COUNCIL COMMENT Council Member O'Brien asked about the signs on Lakeville and their removal. He asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Michele Rosen, John Bordessa, Sr., and Phyllis Hart. Vice Mayor Harris thanked the Council for:allowing him to serve as Council Liaison to the Planning Commission last year and looks forwards to serving on the Recreation, Music and. Parks Commission. He said he wanted to move forward on filling the vacancy on the Planning Commission: He mentioned the "traffic- problems at GBG Market near the roundabout'and a neighborhood request to address this. Council Member Torliatt reported on the WAC meeting in Santa Rosa. She mentioned that Marin Municipal Wafer' District (MMWD) was .discussing exercising an option to use an additional 5,000 acre feet of water for their system; she said this option would expire June 30, 2005: She said the Water Advisory Committee had put together a committee to discuss this issue. She,:said one item to be discussed involved bringing MMWD on as a prime contractor :and they have requested several _options for WAC to review. She thought Mike Ban, Water Resources and. Conservation Director, could provide materials to Council regarding this: She mentioned using a staff committee to discuss the progress on the Best Management Practices for Water Conservation. She said Randy Poole, General Manager .of' the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), had requested WAC increase O&M ;charges for conservation and that staff at WAC would discuss this increase. She said she bad raised issues regarding'the fact that WAC members have the authority to. increase the O&M, not the Water Agency. She wanted to focus on. how to best deal with ' the water supply issues. She commended the National, Valley, and American Little League for .reorganizingtheir boundaries. She hoped this would reduce cross-town travel because of these new boundaries. She asked for update on the library expansion project .and when ,it would be completed. She asked that the meeting me adjourned in memory of Peter. Campanile. Council Member Nau mentioned the opening of "Dorothy's Place" at the Library on January -9, 2005, from 1-4 PM. She explained her desire to be on the Bike and Pedestrian Committee wasbecause she is an avid, walker. She was concerned with the Eden Housing project on Washington Street and how the .elementary school -aged children would get to McKinley School safely and the need for safe bicycle/pedestrian routes. She mentioned :that the citizens of Petaluma were happy with repairs to the streets but now that roads are, smooth, traffic calming measures were needed. She mentioned. her service on the Recreation, Music, and Parks Commission and said she was very happy with the Gatti Park progress and the McNear Peninsula project. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 VoL.40, Page 366 January 3, 2005 Council Member Canevaro commented that when .he returned. after. eight months absence, he saw all the projects that Council had put forth and thought the last couple of years had been very productive and the City was heading'in the right. direction. . Mayor Glass said the City would look for revenue enhancement that was fair. He stated he :strongly supported downtown and the redevelopment dollars being pumped into downtown to invigorate it: He said he also supported, a partnership and that needs and wants have to be met with the revenue available. He said the solution is how to achieve revenue in the least offensive way possible., He said Council needed to'be aggressive, establishing a businessfriendly partnership when it makes business sense for the .City. 11 CITY MANAGER COMMENT -.None. AGENDA CHANGES AND DELETIONS, (Changes to current°agenda only). 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council/PCDC/PPFC Minutes of December 6-,.2004. Council Member, Torliatt noted page. 12; line 14, during the General Plan discussion on the countywide ;transportation pian, should include language on. the need to work with Marin County to potentially consolidate transit systems: On page 23. around line 30-34, stated that the. Council was creating an assessment- district that one property' owner had the majority vote and that was why she,voted against it. On page24, line 45 she wanted the minutes'to state which City officials Mr. Connolly had talked to. MOTION to -approve minutes of December 6, 2004, as amended. M/S:, Torliatt/O'Brien. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Glass, Harris, Healy, O'Brien, Torliatt ABSTAIN: Canevaro, Nau ' - 2. APPROVAL OF'PROPOSED AGENDA, A. Approval_.of Proposed Agenda for. Council's Regular Meeting.of January- 24, anuary24, 2005, and Special Meetings of January 18,, 2005, January 221 2005; and February 15, 2005. City Manager Bierman referred to a memo.- that 'listed special meetings necessary to accomplish the -workload and the approval for these was included_ in the motion: January 18, 2005 -Waste Collection Vendors January 22, 200'5 -Goals and Objectives Session February 15, 2005 - Lomas.Developmen't . MOTION to approve agendas for January 18, 22, 24, and February 15, 2005. M/S: . ':Brien/Canevaro 'January 3, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 367 1 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2 _. 3 3. CONSENT CALENDAR 4 5 City Manager Bierman removed Item 3.B. to another time. Item 3. F. was removed 6 for discussion because a protest had been filed. Council Member Torliatt 7 removed Item 3.D for discussion. 8 9 A. Resolution 2005-002 N.C.S. Accepting the Completion of the Phase 1 10 Biosolids Removal Project. (Ban/Orr) 11 j 12 B. r, Gno+inn fho Cemp!etien of the Tennis Court DesurfaGhi- pFGj G A/14n r. fir fhe 11 1 r- PeFk a pert and D Gro Tennis 13 ,-,�eE# E�tea,�.,�L�cE#��si�-Qel�Tefa,,,s 14 Gawts.- 1Q-Gw - This item was removed by City Manager Bierman, and will 15 be re-agendized for a future meeting. 16 17 C. Resolution 2005-003 N.C.S. Accepting Completion of the E. Washington & 18 Washington Creek Multi -Use Trail Project 03 -Cl 0.0401. (Skladzien/Castaldo) 19 20 D. Resolution 2005-006 N.C1S. Accepting Completion of the Pavement 21 Maintenance Project 9732-6. (Skladzien/Castaldo) - This item was 22 removed for discussion. 23 24 E. Resolution 2005=004 N.C:S. Accepting Completion of the 2004 Re -Roof 25 Corporation Yard Buildings Project C 100205 (Skladzien/Lackie) 26 27 F. Resolution 2005-007. N.C.&. Authorizing Award of Contract for the 28 Construction of the McNearPeninsula Phase I Improvements Project to C. 29 Hardy, -General Engineering Contractor, Inc., and Authorizing the City 30 `Manager: to: Execute the Construction Agreement. (Tuft) - This item was 31 removed for,discussion., 32 33 G. Resolution -2005-005 K.C.S. Accepting Claims and Bills from November, 34 2004. ,(Netter) 35 36 MOTION to adopt balance of Consent! Calendar (items A, C, E, G). 37 38 M/S: Torliatt/O'Brien 39 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 40 41 Items Removed for Discussion 42 43 D. Resolution 2005-006 N.C.S. Accepting Completion of the Pavement 44 Maintenance Project 97324: (Skladzien/Castaldo) 45 46 Council Member Torliatt stated the original contract was for $543,000 and 47 later there was al.$1.1 million change order to add additional streets. She 48 said she supported having. the streets;, fixed, but she was worried about a 49 change. order amounting 'to twice the amount of the original contract., 50 She said she, would expect in the future that any change of this 51 magnitude.come to Council or be included in the original contract. 52 Vol. 40, Page 368 January"3, 2005 MOTION to adopt Resolution 2005-006 N.C.S: M/S: O'Brien/,Healy CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution 2005-007 N.C.S. Authorizing Award of Contract. for the- Construction heConstruction of the McNear Peninsula. Phase, I Improvements Project, to C. Hardy, General Engineering Contractor, Inc., and Authorizing. the City Manager to Execute the -Construction Agreement:. (Tuft) Public Comment Steve Gendy, President, North Bay Construction, Inc., requested Council reject C. Hardy's bid as non-responsive. 'He enumerated the deficiencies his company felt were present in C. Hardy's bid. Eric D'anly, Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson,, Attorneys at Law, responded. He addressedthe protest and comments by Steve Genay of North Bay Construction: He- explained that Norfh Bay's protest listed the failure: of C. Hardy to use .c corporate' seal; typos in the bid bond, and failure to provide an execution 'date onthe face'; failure of C., Hardy to include a full three years of experience; and C. 'Hardy had not performed work on 'a listed contract in excess df the bid amount. He said these issues had been analyzed,. he had talked to ,staff and -it was determined the protest had no merit. He.. listed the. reasons and the recommendation to Council to reject the protest-'and.award the contract as bid. He said the corporate seal issue was without merit since the Corporations Code states that the failure to use this seal does not affect any of the document's effectiveness. He explaihed 'the bid bond did have a typographical error in the project number; referred to an incorrect address-, should have listed-riverine improvements, left out "d" -in -landscaping, and the execution date was not noted. He drew the 'Council's attention to q sentence. that stated, "Principal has submitted the accompanying ,bid for the construction of 'the project number (with typos ),° 27:Hackard, Street (typo), shoreline 'trail and riverline (should have beeri riverine) improvements, construct park with parking lots, overlooks , � pathways, lanscaping (typo), habitat restoration,- etc." He said!, the,bid was signed by C. Hardy without a seal but accompanied by a signature acknowledged by a Notary, and for'th.e Surety, included a Power of Attorney-ypeifying the signature. Even with the typos it was clear that it.'was for this project and scope of work and was incorporated in the entire proposal that accompanied the bid bond. The proposal included -forms. fisting ;the correct project number and title and was therefore unambiguous: In his opinion, the bid bond wass:enforceable, binding on the surety and the low bidder, and therefore' the challenge was without merit. He mentioned the questionnaire "form thaf sought the bidder's background .and' referenced where the dollar dmount of prior projects or completeness of"the list were -not made with.'spec.ific requirementsfor the dollar amounts or the completeness of "the list. He explained .to Council rF; may. YJanuary 3,2005 Vol. 40, Page 369 1 that the purpose of the California Competitive Bidding statutes was to 2 ensure a fair bidding process and benefit the public, and not to enrich 3 contractors. He also mentioned losing funding if the award .process was 4 delayed. 5 6 Council Member O'Brien asked regarding the surety bond, how confident 7 was Mr. Danly that if something. went wrong the insurance company 8 would cover the bond. 9 10 Mr. Danly explained that this was the bid bond securing the contractor 11 providing.. the necessary documents, including insurance etc., not a 12 performance/labor/materials bond. He said he was not 100% certain - but 13 it.was unlikely that.a judge or court would view the bid.bond as anything 14 other than valid. 15 16 Council Member Torliatt asked if the references for C. Hardy as to 17 performance on other projects were checked. . 18 19 Mr. Danly answered that staff routinely does this and it was their 20 responsibility to do so. 21 22 Director Tuft answered. yes, regarding checking references. She said C. 23 Hardy had worked for the' City in the past and PF&S was happy with the 24 timeliness and quality of work performed. 25 26 Council Member Canevaro askedl if the bid bond errors could be fixed 27 before the project began. 28 29 Mr. Danly stated it was not permitted to alter a bid. post bid -opening. His 30 contention was thaf it was, a valid. bond and it could be confirmed that 31 the surety ,stoo,d, behind it. _ He mentioned section ..10.167 of the Public 32 Contract, code only applied'to state agencies- but in the 20.000 Section it 33 referred to cities. He said he supported the bid bond as binding. 34 35 Mr: Genay, North Bay Construction referred to a case titled "Consolidated 36 Landscape, vs. City.of Davis." ,'He said an unfair bid advantage had been 37 provided to the low bidder and the principle was that the bid could have 38 been pulle.d'and not have the bid bond called., 39 40 COUNCIL COMMENT 41 42 Mayor Glass said he was comfortable with accepting C. Hardy's bid. He 43 said' the City was in danger of 'losing igrant money. and there was a large 44 difference between C. Hardy's and North Bay's bid amounts. 45 46 Council. Member Healy concurred. He said it appeared that counsel has 47 reviewed the issue and should support staff recommendation. 48 49 MOTION to adopt Resolution 2005-007 N.C.S. 50 M/S: Glass/Healy 51 52 MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Vol. 40, Page 370 January,3, 2005 1 AYES: Canevaro,,Glass, Harris, Healy, Torliatt 2 NOES: Nau, O'Brien 3 4 Council Member O'Brien explained his "no" vote was because of his. 5 concern about, the. surety bond. He said insurance companies try 6 anything to "wiggle" out of paying a claim. He added that the claim that . 7 the City would lose grant money had been heard so many times 'it was" 8 not an acceptable argument to him. 9 10 Councii .Member Nau said she did not like to start out seeing. fhese 11 mistakes: and C.. Hardy should have looked at their bid before bringing ;it 12 to the City. She said the Council must'require people to be professional. 13 14 Council Member Torliatt stated she did not think that it was worth $73,OQO 15 in the difference between the bids or delaying the project. 16 17 4. UNFINISHED. BUSINESS 18 19 A. Resolution 2005-008 _N.C.S. Approving the Project Budget„ Appropriating 20 the Funds, and Awarding the Contract for the Riverwalk and Streetscape 21 Improvements at the Downtown River Apartments. Project Located dt'35 E. 22 Washington St reet..(Gaebler) 23 24 Housing Administrator Bonne. Gaebler presented the staff report. 25 26 Council Member. Torliatt congratulated staff on their success :in obtaining 27 these funds in. an extremely competitive process. 28 29 Council,Member Healy asked if the new lighted pedestrian crossing on 30 Was would be an LED treatment like the one.near Putnam Plaza. 31 32 Mr. Evert. answered that .it would. He said it would be a similar flashing 33 system and the corral half=way across provided for the. pedestrian to, turn 34 and look at -traffic and as.a safe haven. 35 36 - Councif,Member. O'Brien asked if there was drainage by the berm. 37 . 38 Mr. Evert said he would see.;that it drained properly. 39 40 Council Member Nau asked where the ,pedestrian walkway for children 4.1 walking°to, school would be placed. 42 43 Mr. Evert_ explained a separate project would extend the pathway along 44 the river to Madison and on to Lakeville in the future. 45 46 Council, ember Torliatt said this would be programmed for -the next fiscal 47 year as, the last phase of the River Enhancement Project with a. variety of 48 alternatives to be provided for the. Eden Housing project. 49 50 Ms. Gaebler said 'Eden Housing was working with each of the school 51- districts .serving the, children at Eden Housing. As soon 'as it was known January 3, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 371 1 which children would be attending, Redevelopment would work with the 2 parents to establish temporary pedestrian plans. 3 4 MOTION to adopt Resolution 2005-008 N.C.S. 5 M/S: Torliatt/Harris. 6 CARRIED. UNANIMOUSLY: 7 8 B. Resolution 2005=009 N.C:S. Amending Contract with Hilton Farnkopf & 9 Hobson Relating to Refuse Collection Selection Services. (Bierman) 10 11 City Manager Bierman presented the staff report requesting an additional 12 $59,000. He said a final report will be available to Council at the meeting 13 of January 18, 2005, since there was still a substantial amount of report 14 writing needed to finalize the selection process. 15 16 MOTION Resolution 2005-009 N.C.S. 17 M/S: Glass/Canevaro 18 19 Council Member Canevaro said it had been a year and he felt the 20 Council was no further ahead than. when he left for Iraq and he was 21 disappointed in the process. 22 23 Council Member O'Brien said he would be voting no. He stated the last 24 time this came to Council with a request for an additional $60,000 no one 25 was willing to make .the motion..He said City Manager Bierman stated the 26 Council had to bring this to closure so he reluctantly made the motion. He 27 hoped the:consultant got the message that they were not happy with the 28 work product and there would be no additional funds provided. He said 29 the contract was over 100% from the .original $150,000 contract and "all 30 we've done is have someone borrow ,our watch to tell us what time it is, 31 and then bill us for it." He said that they had promised six proposals but ,32 the Council only had three to review so they should have had ample time 33 to take the City to completion: He said he wanted to give them a 10 -day 34 terminatio_ n notice and direct staff to complete this by the 18th. 35 36 City Manager Bierman stated that the consultant brought two names but 37 Council requested to rewrite the Request for Proposal. He said' the 38 continuing process to narrow the choices among the proposers had 39 taken additional time and effort. He' stated this would 'be. the last piece of 40 the effort to reach a recommendation for Council on the 18th. 41 . 42 Council Member Harris asked' about the discrepancy in the number of 43 meetings the consultant 'stated they would participate in. They had 44 indicated three each but later in the estimated staff hours it listed ten 45 meetings, but some have two and. others, four. The City Manager clarified 46 the number of meetings. He also asked about the billing of $75/hour for 47 the administrative assistant as this seemed excessive. 48 49 Council Member `O'Brien noted in the original contract, dated March 1, 50 2002, the consultant listed all' the tasks. He said these had not been 51 completed. He said they listed background. checks, research permitting 52 history and [Risk Manager] Ron Blanquie had done this and listed other Vol. 40, Page 372 January 3, 2005 items that were done by staff. He said the City was "getting milked for every possible thing under'the sun." Council Member Torliatt said the last time Council talked about this contract a request was made for,an.accounting for the entire contract to date and she hadn't received this and asked 'if' one was available. She said some 'of the issues raised were valid because the Council did not have a cost accounting of what had actually occurred. City Manager Bierman explained ;that in the body of report it explains that if the $59,000 was' approved, the total compensation would amount to $233,768 and this accounting could be provided with the additional funding. Mayor Glass said he wanted to bring closure to solve the garbage contract problem and that more information was needed. He said he was frustratedwith Council's inefficiency in dealing with this issue. He stated he was not happy about spending more money, but could not make a decision with the information he. had. Council Member, Canevaro: Hilton-Farnkopf, could staff decision as of'J'anuary 18th. . asked the City Manager if Council dropped mobilize in time for the. Council to make a City 'Manager'Bierman answered that the consultant was his staff, working with Mr. Beatty and himself,and he needed this information; to provide a report to Council. Council'Member Torli'att noted that it looked like about half of the $59,000 had already'been spent. Council Member Canevaro asked staff to look at the adjustments Council Member O'Brien put forth to reduce the.amount. City Manager Bierman agreed. Council„Member %riia* clarified that the City Manager would give the Council, the back=.up if they approved this and she would vote for if. But she - felt that the Council needed the back: up for the $233,000 to compare it to what the original project estimates were and to see how this compared with the issues. Council Member O'Brien,raised., City Manager Bierman explained that he did not say that he would . provide the information only 'if' the Council approved 'it: He said 'if thiis is approved, they_ had spent $233,000 and the back-up data, for this would be provided. Council:, Member O'Brien said he would still 'be voting no and it was his personal opinion that the City was "getting ripped off.” January 3, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 373 1 Mayor Glass said he would vote for this but he understood Council 2 Member O'Brien's concerns and he .shared a lot of it. He said that from a 3 General Fund standpoint, money would be reimbursed by the provider. 4 5 MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING. VOTE: 6 AYES: Canevaro, Glass::Nau, Torliatt 7 NOES: Harris; Healy, O' Brien 8 9 Council Member Healy added that once Council decided to eliminate 10 the lowest cost proposal he lost, faith in the process. He thought the 11 consultant had done what Council had asked, but what they had asked 12 ,had changed a number of times. He said he didn't want to spend more 13 money to figure out which company wants the contract and extract a 14 rate increase from the consumers. 15 16 Council Member Torliatt said the $233,000.was way under budget for the 17 consulting -services and she did not see where the cost overruns were. 18 19 5. NEW BUSINESS 20 21 A. Presentation by AutoVu Technologies Re: AutoFind for Parking 22 Enforcement System and Adoption of Resolution 2005-010 N.C.S. 23 Approving the Purchase of Two (2) AutoVu GPS Systems. (Cost: $135,000) 24 (Netter) 25 26 Interim Finance Director Joe Netter presented the staff report. Greg 27 McClish,?arking Enforcement Officer, described the AutoFind system. 28 29 Council Member O'Brien asked how the system would work with the 72- 30 hour requirement for RV's to 'be moved. 31 32 Mr. Tom Keeley, AutoVu, :answered the software could be easily 33 configured to.address this by using the time -zone portion of the software. 34 35 Council Member Harris asked. what would happen if new technology 36 were developed. 37 38 Mr..Keeley explained that within 1246 months new technology would be 39 provided to clients and, they had, not charged current clients for any 40 upgrades. 41 42 Council Member Canevaro asked if the software and hardware would be 43 upgraded`. 44. 45 Mr. Keeley said that it would.. 46 47 Council Member Canevaro asked how reliable the GPS system was. 48 49 Mr. Keeley said GPS was not as, accurate as the company would like it to 50 be. He said that was why the company had developed proprietary map 51 matching .software with a dead reckoning system to compensate for any 52 drift or loss of satellite signal. Vol. 40,.:Page 374 January 3, 2005 Council Member Canevaro asked what .happened if someone contested the ticket based on this systern: Mr. Keeley.replied'that this had been tried but had not been successful. Council Member Torliatt asked if the AutoVu system would not allow cars to move space, to space .and instead to move out *of the block. She asked if a City ordinance was in effect- to require cars to be moved a cerfain. distance. Greg McClish explained in the past, the City had 14.5 and, 2 hour parking. He . believed City Council had approved that a driver would have to move the car to another,paeking time zone. He said the City would need a new rordinance now that two hour parking was the standard. He believed drivers should have to move at least a block to allow new people. to park. He`explained that within ,6.-7 months, AutoVu would allow parking -officers to issuea citation right off the touch screen. Council Member Torliatt clarified that he would come back to Council with d policy recommendation on the number of feet a vehicle needed to be moved. Finance Director Netter agreed. Council Member'Torliatt clarified that'the current parking `ticket cost was $35. She. asked if' this increased if: the driver had more than 'a certain number of tickets. Greg M'cClish explained the "-scofflaw" violation occurred when a driver did 'not'pay citationswithin 2.1 days. He said the cost would go, up to $'60 and every 21 days it would increase.. He stated that after five unpaid, citations; the City could irimpound'the vehicle until the fines were paid. Council Member Torliatt said. that it would encourage downtown employees to use the garage -with parking;permit Finance Director N'et#er,said this would be a major incentive for employees and business owners to use the garage and' they were also looking at using, the system to ticket private parking lots. 'Council MemberTorliatt thought information about the garage could be provided with the. ticket. .She said to clean, up ;on -street parking issues 'it would be helpful. to cover a wider area.. She would like to 'look at: the overall parking "program" in the. CPSP area ,and' this would be a''tool to implement this program. She wanted the City Manager to have the consultant who did the parking- recommendations for CPSP to use this . data to better serve customers, especially in the theater area, to determine what' parking limits were needed downtown. Council Member Canevaro asked how'long would it take for the system to pay for itself. January 3, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 375 1 2 Finance Director Nefter answered approximately 17-18 months or possibly 3 sooner. 4 5 6 Public Comment 7 8 Jeff Harriman, Petaluma, said he thought this was wonderful for 9 downfoWn. ,He said it was revenue enhancing, and would pay for itself. 10 11 Jeff Mayne, Petaluma,, said he was completely supportive. He felt that on 12 Kentucky Street the 'Merchants, were their own worst enemies and this 13 technology would solve problems. He gave kudos to Greg McClish. 14 15 Council Member Healy said he .supported this technology. He stated it 16 was an opportunity to change the culture in the downtown to overcome 17 the gamesmanship aspect ,and would encourage use of the parking 18 garage. He said this would increase the City's ability to address parking 19 issue"' elsewhere in the City. He suggested that Council consider during 20 the first week to issue warnings.to give people a heads up. 21 22 MOTION to adopt. Resolution 2005-010'N.C.S:. 23 24 M/S: O' Brien/Harris 25 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.. 26 27 B. Resolution 2005=011 XC.S. Reiterating Support for the Relocation of the At- -28 . Grade Crossing. 'of :the Smart Railroad Tracks from Hopper .Street to . 29 Caulfield Lane, (Request made•by Council. Members. Healy and O'Brien) 30 31 Council Member Torliatt noted that where the proposed resolution said, 32 "David 'Schonbrunn," it' should actually state, "Transportation Solutions 33 Defense -..and Education Funds," which is the group that filed the 34 application.,She asked,for a ''Whereas" to be added to reaffirm the City's 35 support: for rail service along ,the SMART corridor, which is an integral part 36 of the_ success of the CPV. 37 38 Council Member Healy agreed to accept -both of these comments and 39 suggested the. "Whereds" be added before the last "Whereas." 40 41 MOTION to adopt Resolution 2005-611 N.C'.S. 42 43 AA/S: Healy/O'Brien. 44 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 45 46 C. Discussion and Direction on the* Possible Referral to the Planning 47 Commission of the Lomas 'Residential 'Subdivision Project for Their Review 48 and Recommendation to, the City Council. 49 50 Council. -Member O'Brien recused himself to avoid any suggestion of 51 conflict of interest due 'to his membership in the Petaluma Golf and Vol: 40, Page 376 January 3, 2005 Coung.f try Club. He stated he was waitinor formal advice from the FPPC and left the dais. Mayor Glass ,stated he was in favor of returning this item to the Planning_ Commission for review and recommendation. City Manager Bierman,said he concurred. Council Member Healy said this was outside: the. boundaries of normal Council procedures: since the Planning_ Commission :did take a final'action- on thin proposal and, there was an appeal ;filed„ He felt this. was a reasonable compromise under the circumstances.. He -wanted to.be clear than Council would be hearing the appeal on 'February 15th .and would appreciate.any input the Planning Commission before that time. City Manager .Bierman said the only caveat would be if the geotechnical group comes; up with:additional.issues, then Lomas would have to address these and the February 15tn_d'ate would slide. Council Member Tdrliatt said the way, she read the letter was that Council was referring the project back to the, Planning Commission for a' normal review process. She said she would' agree with this. She said there had been issues with the application process°.and the format in which it was presented `to the Planning Commission. Shewanted to make, a statement regarding how 'the City was dealing with the fact that applications should be processed through CDD in a timely mannner, and the lack: thereof. She said d lot of things contributed to the dysfiinc:fion of how the, decision came down. She appreciated Lomas Development "returning and .asking 'for direction and she expected a full review by the Planning_ 'Commissi'on with a formal recomrnendafion .to the City Council. Council Member Healy said he understood the Planning Commission had made a final action and there was an appeal before Council scheduled for a date no later than February 15th.He said if was appropriate for the Commission to weigh in on these issues, and recommend conditions of. approval. ,He said that since they' had taken a formal action they would not be in a position to place conditions. He made a. MOTION to refer the issue back to the Planning Commission. City :Manager Bierman agreed -that it was a semantics issue an'd' the Commission made conditions and the Council would' hear the final appeal where all 'the..conditions could be dismissed or Council could add its own. Mayor Glass clarified: that when this went to the Planning Commission there was no way they could have made an intelligent decision because pertinent in was missing. ,He said "the Planning Commission voted to deny without 'prejudice, if this- was possible. 'He asked if conditions of. approval at the . Planning ommission of. if they were just a recommendation. January 3, 2005 Vol. 40, Page 377 1 City Attorney Rudnansky clarified that "denial without prejudice" typically 2 meant someone could return and reapply, less than a year later. 3 4 Council Member Torliatf said she understood, -that Council was being 5 asked to approve. She said it didn't mention coming to Council as an 6 appeal, but they could exercise that- language. She said there was a 7 problem with this process because fhe project hit a "snag" for a lot of 8 different reasons and it placed_ people in difficult positions. She said the 9 City Council should be dictating what the process was. 10 11 Council Member Healy clarified the motion, was to agendize the appeal 12 hearing before the City Council for a date .no later than February 15th, 13 subject -to the geo-technical review not showing 'any unexpected issues, 14 and to ask the Planning Commission for recommendations, including 15 proposed conditions of approval. 16 17 Council Member Torliatf clarified that she did not support this based on 18 the fact that this was an appeal. She agreed with the letter that Lomas 19 provided and she didn't understand why they were straying from what 20 the applicant had_asked for. 21 22 Council Member Healy stated that there was another letter in the packet 23 that said it was a formal appeal. 24 25 Council Member Torliatt stated she wanted to deal with this issue and did 26 _ not understand why Council was doing something other than what the 27 applicant- had asked for as a motion. She said she was concerned that 28 discussions had been held that were not part of the Council meeting and 29 she had been part of -these. She said she had tried to facilitate this process 30 to assure it returned to -the Planning'. Commission because ,she thought it 31 was very important to do this. She said if the Council entertains a motion 32 to accomplish this,. which was one of her goals for this proposal, the 33 Council should be on the same page and it was unfortunate that Council 34 was put in a position of dealing with an appeal as opposed to the 35 wording included in the application. She stated she wanted her 36 explanaf16n reflected in'the minutes and she supported this going back to 37 the Planning Commission. 38 39 M/S: Healy/Harris 40 MOTION CARRIED BY'THE,FOLLOWING VOTE: 41 AYES: Canevara, Glass,. Harris, Hedly,.'Nau 42 NOES: Torliat:t 43 ABSTAIN: O'Brien_ 44 45 ADJOURN -TO CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m. 4.6 47 PUBLIC COMMENT -None. 48 49 CLOSED SESSION 50 51 ® PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to Government Code §54957(e): City 52 Manager. 2 4 .6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27' 28 29 30 3:1 32 33 34 35 36' 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Vol._ 40; Page 378 January3, 2005 • CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR: Government Code §54957.6. Agency Negotiator: Michael Bierman/ Unrepresented Employees - Unit 8. • CONFERENCE. WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -' ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to ,Subdivision (b) of Government Code;§54956.9 (One Matter) • CONFERENCE WITH .LEGAL COUNSEL -. EXISTING- LITIGATION (Government Code §,54956(a)) - Thompson vs. Petaluma (Thompson II) (U'S. District Court', Northern California, Case: #CO3- 0033EDL) ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p:m. in memory of Michele Rosen, John Bordessa, Sr., Phyllis Hart and Peter Campanile. JANUARY 3,2005:- EVENING NO EVENING MEETING S.CHEDULEb ATTEST: Claire Cooper; Deputy "City Clexl e/ �e o e :.•