HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/18/2004 October 18, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 281
~P'LZT~ ,
R
Cit~v of Petalufna, California
X85$, MEETING OF THE PETALUMA CITY CODNGIL/
PETAL`UMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
City Council/PCDC Minu#es
Monday October 1'8, 2004 - 3:00 ,P.M,
Regular Meeting
1 MONDAY, OCT.OB'ER 1:8, 2004 -AFTERNOON'. SESSION
2 3:00 PM:~
3
4 CALL TO ORDER
5
6 A. Roll Call '
. 7
8 Members Harris, Healy, Moynihan;. O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt and Mayor Glass
9
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
21 Larissa Bishop-Sage, PLAN, reported that she has .collected another 320 signatures for a.
22 total of 1,462.
23
24 Susan. Kirks, PCQN explained the community out~redch her group had done resulted in
25 support from people outside the Petaluma community. ,
~6
27 Geoff Cartwright; .Petaluma, said a .consultant suggested having post-development
28 surveys. completed for the Zero Net Fill areas. H'e wanted a mechanism in place to be
29 sure that this requirement is fulfilled.
~30 .
31 Janice Cader-Thompson, Petaluma, referred to a meeting' the DSL group had arranged
32 and 'held in February of 2002 with neighbors in the drew of fihe proposed development
33 and their promise to hold additional meetings ;for public input. She stated that DSL had
34 held no additional meetings and is in the: process of building a 340,000 square foot "strip
35 mall" on .McDowell. She felt Council was, supporting development without any public
36 participation.
37
Vol. 40, Page 282 October 18, 2004
1 Council. Member Torliaff asked if a notice was received by mail and if a 'public mee:fing
2 had' been held.
3
4 Janice. Coder-Thompson replied that two. people received the EIR scoping lefter and no
5 public meeting had .been Held.
6
7 COUNCIL COMMENT
8
9 Vice Mayor Moynihan. reported that he attended the quarterly library board meeting
10 and they extended them- appreciation for the support received to complete. the
11 Com"munity:Room `Expansion. A ribbon cutting will be held November 12', 200'4 at.5:30
12 p.m.
13
4 Council Member Torlidtt mentioned th
to Council re ardin the number of I at she had. re nested information to be
15 g g gads o'f fill 're
oved frbrn the Kohl's site provided
and how
16 many had been. delivered; and: what areas were in andjbr out of the flood plain area.
1.7 She also asked for more information about the E(R seoping,session; or clarification of what
18 the :notice may' have been that was sent to a couple of residents adjacent to the Downy
19 Savings & Loan site fDSC). She stated that there should be an EIR scoping,session .that
20 included public. notice ;to' allow neighborhood comments on the potential 16,000 tidily
21 car trips; she requestedinformation on this as well.
22
23 Mayor' Gfass stated that he did.. attend the DSL meeting in 2002 and that promises were:
24 made that: neighborhood meetings and input would be factored into their decisions, yHe
25 had repeatedly asked for meetings to be held and he felt that DSL-should be. held. to its
_ 26. _promise. On fheZero Net Fill policy; he wanted to strengthen the City's~aceountability,-for
27 the ordinance because it was an important .pant. of flood confrol management : ;
28 practices.,l=le wanted. the City'to make -sure that there was a method to track'what-fill is
29 added arid, removed' from. the flood plain. He advocated stringent compliance'v~ith the
30 .Zero Net Fill policy to be consistent with the General Plan.
31.
,32 CITY MANAGER COMMENT
33
34 City Manage"r Bierman referred to the departmental ~Varignce Report haridou# of the
35 General Fund Expenditure- Summary. He explained that'in f he first quarter, :the 'City was
36 on target for expenditures for the: year. He said.. the revenue report would be .coming. .
37 ,
38 AGENDA CHANGES AND DELETIONS (Chang,es to current agenda only).. -None.
39
40 1. APPROVAL-O'F.MINIITES
41
42 A. City Council Nlinufes of.Sepfember 20, 2004.
43
44 Council .Member Torliatt had changes, to Page 5> ..Line 1 to state, "The City
45 Manager had recommended the origihdf deadline, that was: being.
46 recommended .again, because the Council actually tried- to ..shorten the
47 - time and put the City .Manager in a .box of :making sure it got done
48 earlier:"
49
50 Council Member Healy mentioned page 3, left hand.. column the item
51 I`ettering should be corrected. On page 15, on line 32 -indicated the City
October 18, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 283
1 Manager had offered a solution and. this should be included in the
2 minutes.
3.
4 MOTION to approve the minutes of September 20, 2004, as amended.
5
6 M/S Torliatt/Healy
7 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
8
9 2. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGENDA
10 -
11 A. Approval of Proposed Agenda for Council's Regular Meeting of
12 November 1, 2004.
13
- 14 MOTION to .approve the. agenda for the November 1, 2004 Meeting.
15
16 ~ M/S Glass/To,rliatt
17 CARRIED: UNANIMOUSLY
18
19 3. CONSENT CALENDAR
20
21 Council Member Harris requested to remove' 3:D.; Vice Mayor Moynihan
22 requested to remove 3.C. '
23
24 MOTION to approve the balance of'the Consent Calendar (items 3A and 3B).
25 - -
. 26 _ M/S O'Brien/Healy -
27 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY -
28
29 A. Resolution 2004-195 N.C.S. Awarding a Construction Contract for 2004 Old
30 East Petaluma Revitalization Area Sidewalk'Installation and Replacement
31 Project 0500400. (Skladzien/Lackie)
32 B. Resolution 2004.-1:96: N:C.S. Authorizing. the Petaluma Police Department to
33 Accept a Juvenile Accountability Block Grant from the California Board of
34 Corrections in the amount of. $6,974.00. (Required matching funds of
35 $697.00 will be taken from the: Patrol Overtime account.) (Hood/Lyons)
36
' 37 ITEMS-REMOVED FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION
38
39 C. Resolution 2004-197 N.G.S: Ratifying 'the Memorandum of Understanding
40 Executed between the. City of Retalurna and the American Federation of
41 State, County and Municip.dl Employees (AFSCNIE) Local 675 for
42 Employees. of .Unit 1 (Confidential), Unit 2 (Maintenance), and Unit 3
43 (Clerical/Technical). (Robbins)
44
45 Vice Mayor Moynihan read for the. record: "The City is very fortunate #o
46 have a capable, professional .workforce; ideally, we like to over-
47 compensate them all. Unfortunately, increasing ovr compensation
48 expendifv~es reduces the service-levels provided #o the citizens of our
49 community. In short, We, spend snore money to do less. I will not be
50 supporting this additional compensation expenditure. The City Council is
51 being asked to vote for a retroactive pay increase for this Bargaining Unit.
Vol. 40; Page 284 October 18, 2004
1 This will be a precedent that .will .lead to roughly another Million Dollars ih
2 - compensation expenditures foc .this fiscal year: This expenditure. has not
3 been budgeted, there is no additional revenues to p'ay for i# and the .City
4 Council refuses to identify what services or personnel will be cut to cover
~ this cost. Therefore, we are effectively voting o expend reserve funds this
6 year and next fiscal year. Let us aIF ;pray that we do not have an
-7 edrthquake, flood; or another Polly Klass abduction with only o:ur depleted
8 reserves, with .which to respond.. When we adop ed this year's budget,. we
9 aleeady agreed to over 2 Million in compensation increases. Council
10' Members pledged at that time to hold the line on spending. Today's vote
11 - will ,breach .that pledge. In fine midst of an economic slow=do.w,n; our
12 overall compensation increases will reach approximately 9~. The Council
`1'3 has again been out-negotiated, lNe have been duped into believing
14 that we must compete :with other Cities: The City Administration and
15 Unio
ns routinely survey a select group ofothercities and play us against
16 each other. As a result, all of he cities have given increases which over-
17 compensate city employees: l asked the City Council to conduct a wage
18 survey comparing oir compensation o that of the privy#e sector: They
19 refused to do so: A rough sgrnpling of positions such as custodians dnd
20 ~ secretaries indicate that we are 15 to 20~ over market: That doesn''t
21 mclude:;the generous health benefits and retirement packages City
22 Employees receive. Over one.-half of our .City employees receive
23 compensation packages in excess of $1:00;000. I .know of ,no private
24 sector cornpany,that compensdtes at such high Jewels: If we compare
25 our pubic,safety positions to their military counterparts; the compensation
26differential -would be even more .profound: Yes, it would, be nice: to
27 ~ compensate everyone as much qs they think they are worth. Politically, it
28 is difficulf fo hold the line on such expenditures: But the City Council
29 cannot 'contin'ue to rdise taxes .arid- fees and' cut service, .levels. We must
30 b:e fiscally~responsible."
. .31
32 ~ ~ Mayor Glass said for the record, "It ;is the City's staff that has this town
°33 turned around:. It is ,the. City staff that is doing all the work that you are
34 - seeing. 1!Ve are competing for.alabor force, and pie are competing -with.
35: a labor force fairly, on fair terms, and' we are bargaining; and will continue
36 Ito. bargain, with all of our labor:gr'oups in good faith."
37
38 MOTION to approve the resolution.
3.9 - CARRIED BYTHE`FOLLOWING VOTEc
40
41 AYES: Harris, Healy, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt, Glass -
42 -N'QES: ~ Moynihan
43
44 D. Resolution-2004-198-N.C.S. Revising Job Classifications "for-.Fire Inspector I
45 and Fire: M'arsh.al, and Creating. New Job Glassifica#ions for Fire Inspector 11
46 and Facilities:Maintenance'Worker III:: (Robbins).
47 -
48 Council Member. Harris hqd a question in ,light of the recent litigation in
49 California 'over .exempt versus :non-exempt-status of positions. He wanted
50 to know how this position was considered. "Non.-Exempt."
51
October 18, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 285
1 Gity.Manager Bierman explained that this position was for a Division Head
2 and therefore "'Non-Exempt."
3
4 MOTION to approve the resolution.
5
6 M/S Harris/O' Brien
7 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
8
9 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10
_ 11 A. Direction Regarding Rejecting All' Bids for the Petaluma Municipal Airport
12 Project No. C100103 and Deferring the Project Until Sufficient Funding
13 Becomes .Available. (Netter/close)
14
15 Resolution. Rejecting all Bids and Postponing the Project.
16 OR
17 Resolution Awarding a Construction contract for the Petaluma
18 Municipal Airport Hangar Construction Project.
19
20 PUBLIC COMMENT
21 .
22 Steve Geney, North Bay Construction, reported that they had met with the
23 architect and engineering firm. as well 'as members of the Airport
24 Commission. and had 'identified approximately $250,000 of value
25 engineering items that could be changed. He addressed concerns about
26 making changes of-ter awarding the contract, he explained that this is
27 common and CalTrans does this routinely.
28 .
29 PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED
30
31 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked staff about the cost savings and value
32 engineering summary and why these changes are being recommended.
33
34 Finance Director Joe Netter stated that the project was necessary to
35 expand the airporf. He referenced the Staff Report and the costs that
36 have fo be decided before awarding the bid. North Bay's bid was $4.783
37 million. on an engineer's estimate of $4 million. He said Council was not
38 aware of the additional design costs, inspection/testing, permits,
39 development fees, 5% City administration fee, and contingencies -this
40 brought the cost to $5.9. He referred to the bond budget and resources of
41 $4.13 million left a $1.8 million shortfall. He referred to the fees that were
42 waived, especially the development fee of $380,000 with the majority
43 corning from traffic mitigation qnd the 5%sureharge of $21;000 = he asked
44 Council ,if they would agree to these waivers. He .explained the shortfall
45 then remaining.. was $1.382 million and where this money could come
46 from. He explained a $1.4 million CalTrans Aviation loan had been applied
47 for, but they would not know if it'was awarded for a couple of. months. He
48 stated that if the loan is approved, Council needed to identify the source
49 of funds. He said to pay for this, the -rents throughout the airport would
50 have to be raised. To pay for this the' Airport Manager recommended a
51 fee increase of approximately 14%, an 11% T-Hangar rent increase; fuel
52 increase, and an approximate 22% raise for the new hangars would bring
Vol. 40, Page 286 October 18, 2004
1 in $1..4 million. compared to the. current $995,OQ0; 'he explained the
2 expenses as .well. He said. he expected to break even without additional..
3 funding but added, all of this was based on assumptions.
4
5 Finance Director Netter explained that re-.bidding the project was
6 preferred. He stated awarding the project was an option,. but a project
7 cannot be awarded without an appropriation and the total amount of
8 funding :necessary is not available. He said if could. be awarded with an
9 ~ interfund loan, '"bridge loan;.'` until -the state .loan is approved. He also
10 stated Counc'iC could accept the contractor's .offer to wait` uhtil April 15,
11 2005; giving. the .City #ime to arrange for the appropriation. ',He said.' this
12 would hot :award the bid and the bid could still be rejected. He stated
13 that he thought it was in the City's best interes#~ to .not negotiate value
14 engineering items at this point.
15
16 Mayor Glass asked at: what point beyond the $l .4 million would. 'the
17 ~ possibility .of cost over rugs make this project impossible.
18
19 Finance Director Netter stated he calculated that for every $:100,000 there
20 is an additional debt- service cost of $8,700/annually.
21 -
22 Airport Manager Mike Glose: stated he was certain that they could make
23 the $1.4 million loan amoucit, and .at $1;8 million ,they would cancel the
24 project.. He felt at $l .5 :million it was workable; but anything abovethis
25 amount would be difficult.
27 Council Member O'Brien .asked about the value engineering reductions
28 not just the fee reduction.
29
30 Finance Director Netter explained that they did not ignore they value
31 engineering. He said in his efforts to protect the City and to rninirnize any
32 challenges Ghat might be raised'; since these are not contractual
33 agreements, because the City is required to award it at the full amount-.
34 .
35 City Manager Bierman clarified that the contract has to be awarded and.
36 then,. through Change Orders; changes to 'reduce costs could be .made.
37 He again, explained Council's. options.
38
39 Council Member Redly :asked about potential change .orders and what
40 the scope, of these reductions would be considered,
41
42 Finance Director Netter explained changes would involve the brick
43 facade, showers,. other cosmetic features, drainage, and. transport of
44 excavation materials,
45
46 Council ,Member .Harris .asked what items FAA funding would. not cover,
47 and when the loan is applied ,for; would .not be included..
48
49 Finance'.Drector Netter explained that the non-:eligible items would not be
50 part of the application.
51
.October T;8; 2004 Vol. 40, Page 287
1 Council Member Healy asked what the probability was of obtaining the
2 state loan. He also asked if staff was assured that the increase in hangar
3 rentals would not result in vacancies.
4
5 Finance Director Netter said that -there are a high percentage of
6 indications for approval -but there was a question of timing. He stated
7 that. he met with Airport Manager Close, the architect, and consultant
8 and. he was .assured that the tenants responded positively and these rates
9 would be competitive.
10
11 Council Member Torliatt asked when the increase in hangar fees, fuel
12 costs and the personal property tax cost make the project work. She
13 stated she wasn't aware of fee increases on existing hangars to make the
14 project work financially.
15
16 . -Airport Manager Close explained that hangar rents increase 3% annually;.
17 the 14% personal property tax would. result from the new hangar; and,
18 ~ because of the number gf new a,ireraft, the revenue from fuel would
19 increase. -
20
21 Council,Memb;er Torliatt asked if this was an increase in cost of purchasing
22 and/or renting, or an increase in revenue.. She; clarified that the current
23 tenants are not aware of these proposed increases in rents.
24
25 Airport Manager Close answered it was an increase in revenue by
- - ~ 26 _ _ referring fo Finance .Director Netter's explanation that in order to have the - ,
- 27 ..income to ,pay off~the'$1.4 million loan, the Airport would have to raise the
- ~ 28 curren#_ hangar rents by '10% and .the. new hangars another 12~ over this
29 to repay this loan. He stated the ,Airport .Commission is aware of the plan
30 to increase :fees to pay forthis project.
31
32 Dice; ;Mayor Moynihan asked- if this project would pay for itself without
33 drawing. from otherrevenue sources -the answer was "No."
34
- 3,5 •Airport Manager Close stated that he would prefer to reject all bids until
36 ~ `fhe City knows it can get the loan. He said the loan manager would not
37 .commit to assuring the loan buf she did ;indicate the feasibility.
38 '
39 Council Member Torliatt sfidted she. would favor waiting, considering the
4.0 information given today, and the fact that the. tenants have not been
41 notified, of the rent increase,. and that there was not a funding source
42 except accessing the General Fund if the .loan is not approved. She
43 indicated she wasn't ;aware that the fees would. have to be increased so
44 much ao make fhe project 'happen. She supported. waiting until April,
45 notifying tenants of the rent increase; and public notification of this.
46 increase as well.
47 -
- 48 Council Member Thompson asked City Attorney Rudnansky if it was
49 possible to award a bid contingent on approval of a loan.
50
51 City Attorney Rudnansky stated this could raise problems since it could be
52 viewed as an illusory without' funds ,to pay for the contract.
Vol. 40,'Page 288 October 18, 2004
1
2 City Manager Bierman °explained' that to. do the: $1.4; the tents needed, to
3 be increased, receive the loan from. fhe state, and after awarding do.the
4 value engineering. He recommended holding the bid unfit April 1:5, 2005
5 to give time to get" the funding together.
6
7 Council' M'em6er Thompson stated he would recommend holding the bid
8 until there was written. approval of the loan and then award the bid.
9 Councilmembers fayored'this,as their direction for the project.
10
11 Council ;Member Healy stated for the record he would award the
12 ~ contractfiaavoid losing the construction season.
13
14 There was NO ACTION TAKEN on this item.
15
16 B. Considetgtion of a Request by Lon and ;Peggy Wiley`to Accept Their
1
17 Appeal of a Decision by'the Planning Comii~iission~'to Uphold in Part.a_nd,
8 Deny in Pqr-t an Appeal of~a Decision'by the Community Development
19 Direr-tor and City Engineer to: Admitiist~ati~ely Approve a Tentative Parcel
20 NI;aP for Frope?ty iocdted at 3 Ricci: Court. (Moore)
2'1
22 Community Development Directo~.Mike Moore provided the backgr,;oun`d
23 for this item for additional consideration. 1=ie stated a 'tentative parcel
24 map had been. approved for the parcel'and the. neighbors and the Wileys
25 had appealed this. The: Planning Co,mrnssion tejecfed the. Blues ~ .
26 (neighbors) approval-and approved and denied :in part the Wileys. I~'e .
27 stated the .Department disagreed thaf~ °the Wileys -were given incorrect
28 infotma`f'ion regarding the appeal time period. Ne indicated three issues
29 for Council con:"siderafion:' 1`) To consider tfe appeal; _2) Tq grant ;this
30 appeal, should this be expanded to allow others- to file •an appeal for a
31 subsequent' hearing; 3) Direction for fees owed to the City for processing
32 the Wileys application to date, ~ -
33
34 ~ Council Member Tbrliatt-asked for and received a breakdown of the fees.
35
36 Council Member O'Bri'en referred to the Wiley` ' letter stdting that the
37 Planning Department !sent- a letter .on .October 14 with an error and
38 refused to correct„it and asked the Director to ad"dress his. He also .asked
39 about an allegation that the Blue°s appeal wds one day late according.
40 to the date`stamp.and it wqs' accepted. Lastly, they .have requested an
41 official response for six weeks .and have not received one.
42
43 bisector Moore. responded to the date ergot as occurring in. the City Clerk';s
44 office and that it was received in a: timely manner and referred to the
45 memo. feom the City Clerk: He added that he met with the Wileys' after
46 interviewing staff°to determine what. had happened and addressed these
47 issues..
48
49 Lon Wiley,: Petaluma;. asked 'for the Council's help to resolve the matter
50 and hear their appeal.
51
October 18, 2004 Vol. 40, Page-289
1 Council Member Torliafh asked Mr. Wiley if they disputed the fees in totality
2 or a portion of the 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 Healy, 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 neighbors that they came to the Planning Department and asked any
15 questions. He stated it would be an. Open Hearing.
16
17 Council Member T.orliati .clarified for the Wiley's benefit to assure they
18 understood that the Council would not ,just focus on their appeal items;
19 but would become open. fo Public Comment onthe entire project as well.
20 .
21 City Attorney Rudnansky, #or the record, reminded Council of the timelines
22 and that 'the Council. was willing to hear this based specifically on an
23 apparent miscommuriicgtion with; the Planning staff, some issues ,relative
24 to notice, and perhaps some issues ,relative to costs.
2~ -
_ 26 Council. Member O'Brien wanted the motion amended to include that the
27 Wileys would not bear the cost of an erroneous notice.
28
29 Vice.Mayor Moynihan deferred to staff for this.
30
31 M/S: Moynihan/O`Brien
32 VOTE: Unanimous '
33 .
34 5. NEW BUSINESS -CITY COUNCIL AND PCDC
35 - ' .
36 Council approved moving to item 5'F.' of New Business at this time.
37
38 F. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding a Modification to the Design
39 ''and Construction of a Proposed Raised Concrete Median on North
40 McDowell Boulevard~from Redwood Way to the Southern Boundary of the
41 Redwood Gateway Shopping Center. (Moore/Spaulding/Bates) -
42
43 Community Developments ..Director Mike Moore explained this item was
44 before Council due to :fhe improvements to the Redwood Gateway
45 shopping center and the 'pacing project on North McDowell. He gave a
46 background of the project and the traffic: study. He explained the design
47 for fhe co"ritinuous 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, were concerned about impacts to
50 their businesses and it was decided to bring it to Council for their direction.
51
52
Vol. 40, Page 290 October 18, 2004
1 In response to Council Member,. Torliatt's .question, Director .Moore
2 indicated that every property owner and' occupant within .500 feet of =the
3 subject property was notified.
4
5 Vice: Mayor Moynihan asked if the notificatiiln dealt with, the project
6 approval. of the Redwood Gateway Center or if it notified them of, the
7 access de5'igh changes.
8
9 Director Moore answered. the public notice was a generaP projec# notice. .
10 'but would not have been detailed .to note. the access changes.. If the
11 owner/tenant- carne in to look of the plans; 'they would have aeen .fhe'
12 access design then.
13 -
14 Mayor Glass asked the public to comment as to whether or not they
15 ~ received hofice of this item as they-.come fo speak.
16
17 .PUBLIC COMMENT
18
19 Jim Kallinger, Keegan and Coppin, Pefpluma, tated he represented the
20 owner of .1364. N. McDowell .as' the property manager. He ga~.e a
21 - background of the property ahd~ the number.and'type ofaenant5. He said
22 -the owners"' concern, came about'when the'left turn optioh to enterjext
23 their property was removed due, to the median's design, The complaint
24 ~ was- that no notice of this change was given and if .makes the access to
25 their property unworkable for many of fhe tenants. He stated, the
26 - - preferred option would be --to change the existing approved plans to
27 allow a. eonti;nuous double left turn lane 'or to allow,. access into the
28 n'ortherri entrance. He stated this would not help the problem of exiting
29 from the property.
30
31 Council Member Torliatt asked Mr. Kallinger to clarify if he did not receive
32 a notice, or the, property owner did .not receive a notice .regarding 'the
33 City's plans for the property across the street~and any modifications.
34
35 Jim Kallinger .stilted he 'did; not receive a notice and the property owner
36 had no recollection of receiving a notice and the owner- did not forward
37 any information #o him.
38
39 Suzanne Cochran; representing Damon Doss,, CEO of Petaluma 'Health
40 Care. Distri.et, reported fhat a notice :was received but it did not detail a
41 chahge~ to. the entrance. S,he 'read a letter from Damon Doss that stated'
42 they had not addressed this coneerri earlier because: they did;, not fully
43 understand the .EIR, They were not awar..e of d traffic hazard using. the
44 current configuration. They recognized the Redwood .Gateway shopping
45 center represented., an increase in. traffic and' a igrificant number of
46 vehicles have. tried to make an illegal left turn that created a traffic
47 hazard. They requested. a modification to allow a c"ontinuous double left-
48 turn lane in the area south of the. intersectionof McDowell/Redwood Way
49 to the southernmost driveway of the Redwood Gateway shopping center.
5.0
51 Rick .Leonard, Yardbirds, was concerned about access for large trucks:
52 entering his business and cUstorners who also pick up .merchandise at this
October 18, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 291
1 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
3 angle. He preferred the double center lane configuration as well.
4
5 Council Member O'Brien clarified that he was instructing his drivers to
6 make an illegal right turn.
7
8 Donald. Foster, Gettler-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 McDowell/Old. Redwood Hvvy'intersection. He commented that Kohl's
12 had three left-turn driveways and. local businesses have none. He felt that
13 the- .impact of all the U-Turn movements that will result from this
14 reconfiguration had not been addressed nor the hazard they present.
15
16 - Anthony Lynn, Castle, Inc., stated that 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 fhat the left turn access into
20 • Mofel b be moved down one: -more driveway to allow access to his
21 property -but even with this, trucks will not be able to get out of the
•22 property.because of~the median..
23 ~ ,
24 Bert Bangsberg, Yardbirds, stated fhat 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 it was best to leave the
27 access as it was. and he supports; this. with a= study by a `traffic engineer to
28 .review #lis area. .
29
30 Andrew Junius, Reuben and Junius;LLP, for Robertson Properties, developer _
31 of Kohl's; stated he wanted to focus. on the certainty and fairness as far as
32 property rights and development. He felt 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 changes would occur. He stated
35 that 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 the. project had been designed with the
40 left turn lanes northbound and southbound and they had agreed :fo this.
41 He also said they also agreed to approve fhe left turn=lane and to.modify
42 the existing approved lanes with the continuous double. left turn lanes and
43 not a continuous raised median throughout.
44
45 Tamara Thompson, Robertson '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. 40, Page 292 October;l8, 2004
1 .Dave Raffi'; Mission :Hills Mortgage, stated he 'was' surprised to see that a
2 left turn .lane. was not provided .for his business. He supported going back
3 to the original configuration from Nlotel 6.down to the median lane'for the
4 left turn lane fo Kohl's.
5
6 PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED
7
8 COl1NCIL COMMENT: -
9 .
10 Council Member Healy explained that`. the Planning Comrriission was
11 concerned about• the safety of left turn ou;t movernents~ and! supported a
12 U-turn movement. to achieve access. ~He supported Ivlr. Moynihan's
13 suggestion of lengthening the left- furn lane. for Motel 6 and other
14 properties. He asked;if'off-street access had been explored by linking 13'60
15 and 1364 McDowell's parking lots. He suggested that in respect to
16 Yardbirds access, a larger curb could be cut'and moving the pipes.
17
18 - ~ Council .Member Harris supported the original decision as approved with
19 the suggestions of Vice. Mayor Moynihan and .Councilrnember Healy
20 ~ incorporated. He asked. staff to add'ress,Mr. Raffi's'issues.
21 .
22 = Director Moore. explained that fhe main concerti was for .left turn
23 ~ movements out and th'e conflicts created because of this. He said' ;this
24 movement created, a hazardous. situation .and this was ,why the
25 continuous median was recommended:
. ,26 ~ _
27 'Council Member Torliatt stated sh'e could support the modifications
28 suggested.. She.. suggested that from a circulation standpoint "she would
29 support a~ longer left hand turn .lane at Redwood. Way and .closing the'
30 median as,.th'e Planning Commission and :traffic.. consultant had originally
31 recommended.
32
33 Council 11Aember .Healy :motioned to confirm the design that- was
34 ~ approved for the project with the modificdtion to give staff direction to
35 extend the left in-bound lane up •to 1364 N. McDowell to allow vehicles.. fo
35 access both Motel 6 and into. 1'364 N. McDowell: He •wanted to
37 encourage ,private property owners to look, at cross easements to resolve
38 the other issues,. and. to have Yardbirds and the Health Gare District widen
39 their driveways.
40
41 ~ _ ~ City ManageFBierman clarified if the first livider could rnove'up a bit and
42 the. next rnoyed_back to opeh access to -Motel 6 and the ,next property
43 ~ .and :all the dr.iv"eways would' be marked, "NO Left Turns: "
44
45 MOTION ,to corifirm the design, that was .approved for the project with the
46 , modification to give staff direction to extend the left in-bound lane'up ;fo
47 1:364 N: McDowell .and modify the dividers to allow vehicles to access
48 both Motel 6 and into 1,'364 N. McDowell, and to :install "No Left Turn" signs
49 at all. driveways.
SO
51 M/S Healy/Thompson
52 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
October 18, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 293
1 A. .Resolution. 2004-199 N.C.S. Awarding the Contract for the Management of
2 Biosolids .Stored on Wastewater Oxidation Pond Levees Project C501104.
3 (Ban/Orr)
4 Mayor Glass stated, for the record, that this vote eliminated legal liability
5 dating back to 1995.
6
7 .MOTION to approve the resolution.
8
9 M/S O'Brien/Healy
10 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
11
12 B. Introduction (First Reading) of Ordinance 2195. N.C.S. to Establish Speed
13 Limits on Various Streets within the City of Petaluma. (Skladzien)
14
15 Council Member Harris ;reeused himself because his home is located
16 - within 500 feet of Hartman Lane.
17 .
18 .Public Facilities and Services Director Rick Skladzien presented the item
19 and- named the streets impacted. He explained that studies have
20 indicated the need to address changes iri traffic patterns that have
21 occurred.
22
23 MOTION to introduce the ordinance.
24 M/S O'Brien/Healy
25
26 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
27
28 AYES: Mayor Glass; Healy;: Vice Mayor Moynihan, O'Brien,
29 Thompson, Torlidtt
30 NOES: None
31 RECUSED: Harris
32
33 C. Resolution 2004-200 N.C.S. Providing for Continuation of Salary and
34 Benefits for Eligible City Employees called to Active Military Duty or Military
35 Training. (Robbins)
36
37 MOTION to approve the resolution:.
38
39 M/S O'Brien/Torliatt
40 CARRIED .UNANIMOUSLY
41
42 D. PCDC: Discussion and Action Adopting PCDC. Resolution 2004-17
43 Authorizing 'Modifications to fhe .:Storefront Improvement Loan Program
44 and Authorizing the Executive .Director to Execute a Loan Agreement and
45 Related Documents with Stephen A. Lind, et al, and to provide a loan in
46 the amount of up to $200,000 for the Restoration and Historic Preservation
47 of 119 Petaluma Blvd. North. (Marangella)
48
49 Economic ..Development and Redevelopment. Director Paul Marangella
50 presented the item and explained the restoration of this property through
51 the use of-this program.
Vol. 40, Page 294 October 18, 2004
1
2 Counci ,Member` Harris asked about the 0% loan and using the enfire fund
3 for this project.
4
5 Director Marangella explained 'that the magnifude of .the work 'was so
6 extensive the property owner would not be able to do',fhis on his/her own.
7 He stated that the $20Q,000 had been budgeted each yaar had` not been
8 applied for by any- storeowners and 'he was comfortdble using the 'full.
9 ~ amount forthis project.
10 '
11 Council Member Torliatt`supporfed this program aril requested. that when
12 the. facade is removed., to do the work at night.
13
14 Vice.,Mayoc Moynihan asked about the servicing of the loan Arid 'if the
15 City's..investment was preserved. He also was concerned about the City
16 Loaning, the, money, not a private bank:
17
18 Director Marangella stated this is addressed in the agreernent. He
19 explained, private banks were not interested in this because. =they .reserve
20 the ,right to determine to whom they would provide loans to a_ nd the City
21 required a blanket loan program. .
22
23 Council Member Healy supported the: program but he did not think.
24 performing the work at night was advisable without''looking at ,practical .
25 issues.
27 PUBLIC COMMENT .
28
29 Christopher Stevick, President Heritage Homes - He let the Council know
30 how magnificent the building would be when restored: He said it was the
31 Storefront Program that brought the idea of restoring the fa~ade'to mind.
32
33 Vice Mayor Moynihan left the Council Chambers at this time,
34 '
35 MOTION to adopt the resolution.
36 MJS Torliatt/Healy
37
38 CARRIED BY THE~FOLLOWING VOTE:
39
40 AYES: Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy,'O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt
41 NOES: .None
42 ABSENT: Vice Mayor Moynihan
43
44 G. Resolution 2004=201 N'.C.S. Authorizing the Purchase of .Furnishings for the
45 W"titer Field. Office Project: (Simmons)
46
47 MOTION to adoptthe resolution.
48 -M/S O'Brien/Glass
49
50 CARRIED BY THE FOI:"LOWING VOTE:
51
52 AYES: Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy,. O`Brien,. Thompson, Torliatt
October 1'8, 2004 Vol. 40; Page 295
1 NOES: None
2 ABSENT: Vice Mayor Moynihan
3
4 ADJOURN TO: CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION
5
6 CONFERENCE WITH ._L'ABOR NEGOTIATOR: Government Code §54957.6. Agency Negotiator:
7 Michael;Bie,~rndn/Pamala Robbins. Employee Organization: IAFF Local 1415 and Unrepresented
8 Employees. '
9 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to Government Code §54957(e): City
10 Manager.
. 11 m CONFERENCE WITH'LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: Significant Exposure to Litigation
12 Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of §54956.9: Potential Cases: 1
13
14
15 MONDAY, OCTOBER 18', 2004.- EVENING'. SESSION
16 7:00 P.M.
17
18 CALL TO ORDER
19
20 A. Roll Call
21 ;
22 ~•Members Harris, Healy, Moynihan, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt and Mayor Glass
23
24 B. ~ Pledge of Allegiance
25
2'6 C. Moment of Silence
27
28 REPORT OUT OF'CLOSED SESSION •ACTIONS TAKEN
29
30 There was no reportable action taken.
31
32 PUBLIC, COMMENT, - Mayor Glass stated that the Public could speak on any item,
33 including fhe- Garbage: RFP.
34
3'S PUBLIC' COM'MENi
3'6
37 Geoff~Cartwright; Petaluma; showed the Council and public. the flood area as mapped
3'8 by the. federal government (FEMA) and ..noted the extensive filood plain in Petaluma and
39 the Denman Flat area where development is occurring.
40
41 Cindy Thomas, Petaluma, Candiddfe for City Council, .referred to the Press Democrat's
42 article regarding contributions from garbage firms to candidates. She stated she did not
43 ,like: to be included in thin group as accepting these contribufions and that she would be
44 returning this to the donor. She said she wanted the process to be totally beyond
45 ,reproach and would not accept any donations from the .garbage companies and
46 challenged other candidates to do the same.
47
48 David Cibschi#z, .Petaluma, commented on Council Member Thompson's past statement .
49 that he did not support any building in the #loodplain and that this has changed. He also
50 mentioned the' donation of the Casa Grande Motel, site for the new firehouse. He said .
51 that the lot;size was too small. He also mentioned the recent paving on his street and the
52 lack of treatment of the base for the overlay and the quality of the finish work. He said he
53 wanted the public to b~e sure to listen to the candidates as they explain their positions. He
Vol. 40, Page 296 October 18,'2004
1 also mentioned. the funding for next year's "Independence Day celebration and that it
2 was available now, ,instead of in June, when the plans for this year's. program were to be
3 made and thought itwas apre-election stunt.
4
5 Jane Hamilton; Petaluma, .addressed the garbage franchise process issue and how it was
6 agendized. She thought. thaf North Bay was excluded due to being non-responsive and
7 now was being considered; she thought fhis'was not to_be allowed and would cause the-
8 City of Petaluma to lose credibility when contractors submit their offers. She also referred
9 to the politics' of asking oilier council members/candidates to not raise garbage rates' as
1.0 a political manipulation and oversimplification because of the complexity of ahe
11 contract and considering all the factors .other than ,cost.
i2 ,
13 Janice Cader-Thompson; Petaluma, mentioned th'at' to date, over ,half of Council
1.4 Member O'Brien and Candidate Nau's war chests had come from large developer
15 interests. She. said; she was; supporting candidates that understood the impacts of out of
16 control developmenf and did not represenf special interesfs and the ethics Hof
17 endorsements.
18 .
19 Bill Donahue, Petaluma, spoke to his concerns about the Council.commitrnent made in
20 September 2003 regarding rezoning of mofjle home parks and a conversion ordinance.
2'1 to cover the change of use of mobile, home parks. He mentioned the City of, eSonomd ~ .
22 had addressed these .concerns.
23 - -
24 Stan Gold, Petaluma,. read a letter from today'-s Press Democrat - "Poor Track Record by
25 Alexander Krebs" - "Pe;taluma.has spent thousands ;of dollars on consultants'to circulate
26 -_the:req.uests .for, proposals for Retalurna's garbage contract and evalua e responses. ¢n ~ -
27 August, the Petaluma City Council voted to exclude North Bay Corporation;bid because
28 City Manager Mike ..Bierman found th:e bid to be so low it would barely cover costs; had a
29 lack- of confidence in their ability to deliver- high quality service at that rate, and had
30 knowledge of .their record of safety violations, poor ;fleet management, and incidents
31 involvin- g bodily injury in other communities: Suddenly in~ October'scarnpaign season,
32 North .Bay wants to be reconsidered. PledSe hold #his decision until' after th'e elec ions;
33 then, reevaluate all offers and the .integrity of the- providers as shown .through their trgek;-
34 records in other communities: This is not just about providing the lowest rate.. North Bay
35 has earned the reputation of ,being a political player, manipulating from: bef~ind the
3'6 scenes. It was.no accident that.North Bay lost their San Anselmo con, tract and had to sel(
37 .their Fairfax- contract. This is the. last thing that .Petaluma needs„ Council Members
3:8 beware, protect your constituen s."
39
40 Spence Burton, Petaluma, Candidate for City Council, talked about the concept of the -
41 garbage contract. He "stated that the City must accept the lowest bid: He wanted North
42 Bay's proposal included in the package for consideration even if;it isn't aec.epted
43
44 PUBLIC CbMMENT CLOSED
45
46 COUNCIL C0I1A"MENT
47
48 Council Member Thompson thanked Council Member" O'Brien "for drranging funding, for
49 the Independence Day celebration. He said that Shamrock and. Basin Street were
50 donors, not North Bay Corporation.
51
October 18, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 297
1 Council Member Healy stated that time is nearing. for the downtown. parking garage and
2 movie theater'to be on-line. He stated that both structures would look very different than
3 they do at this point and will be appropriate for the downtown.
4
5 Council Member O'Brien thanked Basin Street and Shamrock companies for their
6 donation to fund the. Independence Day celebration.
7
8 Council Member T.orliatt referred to' public .comment on the mobile home issues and
9 stated she hoped to agendize these issues soon: She responded to the Press Democrat
10 article regarding .contributions from trash haulers. She indicated that she knew Lisa Hardin
11 of Industrial Carting through National Woman's Political Caucus that helps women to be
12 elected to political boards and commissions and this was a reason for Lisa to support her
13 campaign other than a vote for the garbage contract. She stated that she wanted to
14 remove any perception of any allegiance to any individual company and that she sent
15 the $200 donation back to Lisa Hardin.
16
17 Mayor, Glass commented on "influence peddling/purchasing issues." He advocated for,
18 and did. accept, public money to finance his campaign. He felt this resulted in clean
19 contributions'to candidates for elected office.
20 _
21 CITY MANAGER COMMENT
22
23 There was none.
24
25 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ,
26 _ - _
27 A. Discussion .and Possible Direction Regarding Whether New Proposal from
28 ~ North Bay Corporation,Should be Considered in Rrocess for Award of New
_ _
29 Garbage Franchise. (Healy/tvloynfan)
30 ~ a
31 Council` Member -Healy ,clarified that cost is not the only issue to be
32 considered and that`.:quality and ,level of service are very important. He
33 stated th_ a_t this was Jnot a bidding; process, it was a Request for Proposal
34 process and this is ari important distinction; and it is a process of
35 negotiation. He asked the City Attorney to point out any liability exposure
36 if the City. would allow North Bay back into the process from the other
37 three proposers.
38 _
.
39 ~ k City Attorney ;Rudnansky explained that this was not a competitive
40 bidding process. He stated. that he understood this proposal was put
41 together to allow the Council as much flexibility as possible. H.e pointed to
42 language in the RFP that;'the City refers its rights and sole discretion to take
43 whatever actions necessary/appropriate thdt would be in the best
44 interest of the City;. and it was listed as an option to extend the deadline
45 for submitting proposals.
46 ~ _
47 Mayor Glass polled the Council to see if .the item would be heard:
48
49 Council Members .Harris and Healy, and Vice Mayor Moynihan were in
50 favor of hearing the item. This created the majority vote necessary for the
51 item to be heard, without objection from any Council Member.
52
Vol. 40, Page 298 Ocfober 18, ?004
1 Vice:.Mayor Moynihan clarified that the process was a proposal. process,
2 not a bid process. He did not" feel .eliminating the low bidder at the
3 beginning of a process made sense, He said he wanted an open bid
4 process. He stated he wanted the Cou_ ncil to be clear and consistent
5 and to .eliminate the public perception of corruption by scarfing, with d
6 clean bid with specific, bid requirements.
7
8 PUBLIC COMMENT `
9
10 Clay Clement, Lawyer for North Bay Corporation,, stated that he felt that
11 his client had been. slandered by the cornpe-tition: He said that the _
12 company :had never reguestea a rate increase because it could not
13 . ~ meet the- bid amount. He -said; that. Rohnert Park, Windsor and Santa Rosa
14 questioned the bid amounts as' 'well and the company is performing
15 services as bi"d. He mentioned that North Bay Corporation had never
16 been sued by the cities it ..served and had never had a contract
17 terminated because of violations. ;Ne said. that .regarding resubmitting, this
18 was in response to a suggestion to use an out of countydispo""sal facility ds
19 compared to the original pro"posal:that assumed usingtne Central Landfill.
20 He asked Council to include North Bay Corporation in the negotiations
21 and that the Council could be assured that North Bay could meet the
22 requirements.
23
24 Council Member Torliatt asked if North Bay Corporation was currently in.
25 compliance in .Santa. Rosa and if they are meefiing all: of the requirements.
26 of'the contact. - -
27
28 Mr. Clement answered: that there may be some details that they are not
-
29 meeting, but :essentiall,y they are in. com,pliance~. He, had, ",talked to the
30 Deputy City Attorney and', was told.. that a couple of details were under
31 discussion regarding areas where North Bay needed to improve. He.said
32 did' not know what the issues were.. .
33 - ~ .
3'4 Council. 'Member Torliatt asked if their :facility on Standish. was in
35 compliance with all fhe health _,and safety: regulations, as well as water
36 quality compliance.
37
38 Mr Clement stated that they were. not. He "explained it' vvas because
39 North. Bay na.d gone from servicing, a relatively small operation and, in a
40 short period 'of"time, assumed a huge operation. He aaid .steps -are being
41 taken and they are looking for a new facility that will accommodate
42 "real"'diversion..
43
44 ;Mayor Glass" asked that if Mr. Clement didn't' know what fhe issues were,
45 how-did he know that they were small: issues. ,
46
47 - Mr Clement stated that this is what `Depu y City Attorney Caroline 'Fowler
48 told him when he spoke with .her.
49
50 ~ Council Member O'Brien ,asked if' North Bay Corporation was in litigation
51 with any of the regulatory agencies.
52
October 18, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 299
1 Mr. Clement stated, none: that he knew of. He said the company is in
2 discussion with, the County of Sonoma about problems on Standish and
3 some. other problems.
4
5 Ernie Carpenter, Industridl Cdrting, read a letter for the .record. ''Industrial
6 Carting gad Green Wpste has followed the process established by the
7 Petaluma City Council to select a solid waste recycle and yard trimming
8 service provider. Although costly and-time consuming, it has been a level
9 .playing field up to .this point.. Should you allow North :Bay Corporation to
10 reenter the process at this time you snake a mockery of that process.
11 Why? They failed to comply with your instructions in the beginning,
12 sul?niitting one bid for 50~ recycling. When given the opportunity to clarify
13 their bid, which you gave=them in the March 19th letter, they again refused
14 ~ fo comply. When August'23rd the City Manager clarified the Covncil
15 action of the end of that meeting that he was 'to negotiate with three
16 companies.' North Bay was formally eliminated by vote at that meeting.
17 After disregarding your instructions when all the other companies
18 positions, bids, ahd costs were exposed, North Bay is now requesting to be
19 . allowed to submit a new proposal.. They have seen all the numbers,. did
20 not reply with your request for greater diversioh scenarios, and apparently
21 have no: sympathy for timelines,, your direction, or process. All,they had to
. 22 do was. develop greater diversion scenarios and comply with your specific
23 directions as .the :other three companies did; rather, they specifically
24 stayed with the one bid scenario and were found to be noh-responsive by
25 this Council. We ask that you hongr your previous actions. We ask in the
_ 26 name of fair play. and eohsistericy that you hot allow North Bay to.reenter
27 the process under these circumstances. you.have gained significant
28 services on behalf of the City, well within industry cost parameters with the
29 three bids deemed in compliance." He cpmmented that as far as
30 slander, they had not slandered anyone.
31
32 Vice Mayor Moynihan clarified again, that this was not a bid but a
33 proposal. process. He stated that when the original bids came in they
34 came in at'the state mandated recovery rate. When additional proposals-
35 were requested from all the contractors they were asked fora 50%, 600
36 and 70% recovery rate. He slid he • did not recall that North B'ay
37 Corporation made a proposal for the 50% or 60% recovery rate. He asked
38 if North Bay had made a proposal for these rates,
39
40 Mayor Glass answered that the 50% rate was more expensive than the
• 41 70% rate therefore the Council went to the 70% rate for consideration..
42
43 Ernie. Carpenter responded that he accepted the Mayor's answer.
44
45 Vice Mayor Moynihan stated that; as he saw it, if one or two aspects of
46 the proposal are not responded to, others, who do not respond to a
47 higher recovery rate,.are indeed' non-responsive. He stated that all four
48 parties could be held as being rion-responsive to the complete proposal.
49 He stated that the. reasons given by the City Manager and Council had
50 nothing to do with a lack of response or a higher recovery rate, but
51 whether the party could meet the' obligations of the contract.
52
Vol. 40, Page 300 October 1:8; 2004
1 Mr. Carpentef°stated the companies responded to 50%, 60% and 70% and
2 this was included in' .their RFP: He' added that he did' not see a; tainted
3 perception to this process, he stated that the. Council :had shown due
4 diligence. ,
5
6 Greg, Gunheim, Operating Engineers Local #3, stated ,he respected the `
7 desire to `include the lowest bid and a clean process with the best value.
8 He. -said. safety is a consideration sand he hoped that Council did. no,t
9 reopen the proposal process. He suggested looking at 'the safety records
10 and history of the bidders if Council reopens this. process.
11
12 Janice. Coder-Thompson, Petaluma, t.ated she 'ffiought the. process had'
13 been .going well but the political season had brought Gouncilmember
14 Healy andVice 'Mayor Moynihan to "stir the pot.'' She. said a fair process is
1.5 equally important as cost. She said she: trusted the City Manager to
16 negofidte a fair contract and'. to proceed.
17
1$ Larry Kay; .Petaluma, stated` that he vvas satisfied. with Empire Was4e:'s
19 ,performance,. He was afraid that everyone would. be charged increased .
20 rates because some people .do not recycle as he does. He felt that
21 _ money was ~ a serious issue because of all the tax 'increases .and bond
22 issues that have arisen. He wanted' Council°to~:reconsider and get'the'best
23 ~ rd"te_
24
25 ' ~.~Jane Hamilton, .Petaluma,, stated -she was concerned with,-the. "fairness
26 ~ - - -issue." She did -:not support allowing a ,non-responsive -proposer .being
27cons"'idered..She also- asked Council to consider the propos"ers sdfefy
28 ;record; .record of violations,: fleet maintenance, and who are they as a
29 carrier? She su
ggested, these issues should be included in the proposals if
30 ~ fhey are resubmitted,. She .said North Bay Corporation did not Kaye a
31 good safety record.
32 .
33 Geoff Cartwright; ,Petaluma,, stated that, "All they .need to do is build
34 ~ wliere,it floods and every winterif will wash awa:y."
35
36 ~ PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED
37 . _ -
38 COUNCIL COMMENT
39
40 City .Manager Biermgm stated that this: process went back to 2001 with
41 ~ public, oufreach in 2002;,the: RFP was,inifated in Decemberot 2002, in April
42 2003' a couple of proposals were submitted and then discussion of higher
43 diversion rates and otheramenites for°the garbage cont'cactoccurred; in
44 ~ December 2003 the RFP was finalized as far as: diversion.. scenarios, and
45 the City 'Manager was ,asked to negotiate a better :deal with. Empire
46 Waste Management, and this °was-done. At the same time, the issue with
47 the County, its JPA, and taking garbage: ou.t of county arose. At this point
48 It was decided to .reissue the RFP, `which was done in December 2003
49 requesting four proposals: 1) to meet A_B939, l.A) gption to. use Central
50 Landfill or out of county disposal; for diversion of 2) 50%, 3) b0~, and 4)
51 7rJ%, Proposals `were received from; Empire Waste Management, .Green.
52 Waste, Nor-Cal and North Bay Corporation. North Bay did not submit
Ocuber 18, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 301
1 proposals for the diversion scenarios. The August selection process resulted
2 in recognizing that higher diversion levels were desired and after
3 reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals a selection was
4 made of three proposers for the 50~ - 70% diversion. North Bay
5 subsequently offered a 70% proposal but the issue arose of submitting a
6 proposal dffer a selection had been made regarding whom the City
7 would be negotiating with: He said if the Council wanted to include North
8 Bay he would negotiate with them also.
9
10 Council Member Healy stated he wanted to be fair to the proposers. and
11 ratepayers. He said did not see the prejudice as this was a proposal, not a
12 bidding process and all the companies have seen each others
13 presentations and are aware of what was beirig proposed. He stated that
14 the Council's direction was to have the three remaining companies
15 sharpen their pencils and improve their pricing structures, so no one is
16 locked into 'the. proposals originally offered. He stated he wanted to meet
17 the sfate mandate but did not have to obtain the 70~ diversion level if it
18 would be a significant expense to the ratepayers. He said the main reason
19 he voted 'to exclude Noah Bay, and h'e would have excluded the highest
20 as well, was his concerns about the quality of their vehicle fleet. He said
21 than in the new proposal North Bay offered a higher diversion rate and
22 would purchase a new fleet for Petaluma. He said there are many issues
23 including performance standards, reporting, and training. He said these
24 standards have to be set forth. in great detail .because this is a ten-year
25 agreement and the participants could change. He said he shared the
26 - concern about the process but he would riot support a formal bidding
27 process because of all the variables that would prevent the process from
28 moving forward and he felt the proposal approach was best. He felt that
29 allowing North Bay back into the .process would best serve bringing
30 closure to the process and the ratepayers.
31
32 .Vice Mayor Moynihan noted that none of the proposers responded to
33 proposal l , 2, 3 8~ 4 based on the summary information given to Council.
34 He asked the City Manager to explain. this situation.
35
36 City Manager Bierman explained fhat al( the companies proposed on l
37 and 1 A, including N"orth Bay. On scenarios. 2, 3 and 4 (diversion rates)
38 North Bay did not propose on any of these scenarios, but the others did
39 on combinations of these.
40
41 Vice Mayor Moynihan slated` that none of the companies responded at
42 every recovery rate and this was critical in saying who responded.
43
44 City Manager Bierman clarified that Council was looking at higher
45 diversion rates for scenarios 2, 3 or 4, or a combination of these, to get
46 higher diversion rates and in consideration of costs as well. He stated
47 when this level of service was identified, North Bay Corporation did not
48 meet it.
49
. 50 Vice -Mayor Moynihan recalled that when multiple proposals were
51 requested from each, it was done so to know what the cost differential
52 would be. The Council did not make a commitment but wanted to know
Vol. 40, Page 302 October l8, 2004
how much it would cost to obtain a higher diversion rate. He did .not.. feel a
2 commitment had been made to a 70% recovery rate... He did.not mind if
3 the Council continued with the proposal process but wanted. to outline for
4 the public and the corifraetors just how the process will work to restore
5 integrity and show that the ratepayers are .getting: the best rate possible.
6
7 Mayor Glass interjected That he spent., three days visiting sites.. He said that
8 .meeting AB939 was not :adequate and that the County ,had.. no
9 alternative' plan for when the landfill was full, so diversion was very
10 important,.He recalled Council's directiori.:was to find the highest rates. of
11 'diversion.. above the aaw's. requii:ements that was- economically
12 achievable. He felt- it was unfai[ because; companies costs to deal with
13 volume results in the more collected, the lower the rates become,
14 resulting in higher costs at 50% diversion than 70%. He stated' he was willing
15 to'look at North:Bay Corporation in ten years whenahey had established a
16 - track record. H:e supported buying the ,higher diversion because as
17 landfills become consumed and land to locate there on becomes scarce,
18 the Cify -would not know what future. costs to dispose of thegarbage
19 would be, He felt that it was economicdlly advantageous to .increase
20 diversion rates especially in the long term,.. .
. 21
22 Council Member Harris appreciafed the complexities of this issue: buf he
23 felf that a level. playing field .should ,be maintained and the negotiating
24 team should tje aware of the rules .and let them negotiate the best rate
25 from the proposals that have been accepted.
26
27 Council Member Thompson stated Ghat he did not see :any undermining of
28 ~ ~ the process. He said he stood by Council's earlier decision to not accept
. 29 North. Bay`s new bid.
30
31 C:ouneil Member O'Brien stated that he stood by Council's earlier decision
32 and. thought North Bay had been non-responsive when they stood. by
3,3 their original proposal' knowing th-ere was an option to go out of county for
34 disposal
35
36 Council. Member Torliatt addressed the resubmi issue stating that- fhe
37 Council. did ask, for a subsequent RFP to deal vvifh this. issue and asked alt
- -
3'8 of the proposers fo resubmit; she did not,favor resubmitting again.
39
4;0 She also addressed ;responsiveness versus non-responsiveness, stating she
41 supported the City M'anager's statements regarding the three companies
42 that responded to higher diversion rates: She did: not support accepting
43 North.. Bay's bid because it leant to the integrity of the process and'shefelt
44 the. City .should stand by its position. She said cost is absolutely a factor
45 and the, ratepayer wants. the lowest cost and :a higher diversion rate
46 would achieve this.'She wanted Co.uhcil to establish a reward system 'that
47 would: benefit people f,or recycling and ,using smaller cans: She wanted
48 ~ the community to know that every proposer will be providing single
49 stream recycling and fhe diversion rate-will go up. She reiterated that this
50 is an RFP process not a bid and it is unknown as to what amount fhe rates
51 will increase. She also said, regarding compliance issues and after falking
52 to the City of Santa Rosa, that,North Bay had pulled their application fora
October 18, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 303
1 new facility in Santa Rosa. She said she did not see how they could meet
2 the new standard without having a new facility since they are not in
3 compliance with their current facility. She said if Council decides to
4 include North Bay, she would request a prequalification .process to deal
5 with. -the proposers. She read portions of a letter from Ross Marvel,
6 Petaluma: " it is absurd that the City would consider allowing North Bay
7 Corporation to further participate in discussions with the City after being
8 rejected for~their lack of responsiveriess. It is the wrong message to send to
9 the other three remaining bidders who submitted responsive bids. To
10 preserve the integrity of the process I would encourage the City of _
11 Petaluma to stay with the remaining three responsive bidders and
12 complete .this process without allowing North Bay Corporation, with their
13 perceived political clout, to subvert and manipulate the process. If
14 Petalumd gets the reputation ~of running a sham bidding process, who
15 would participate in the future..."
16
17 Vice Mayor Moynihan said that he thought the rates would double in
18 Petaluma.
19 y
20 ~ City Manager Bierman explained how'the negotiations would take place.
21 ;H`e- stated ;they would" continue with the three .proposers who were
22 ~ ~dccepted ~on August`23~ 2004. He stated that he has had initial discussions
23 and will .continue to negotiate. He explained. the team consisted of the
24 City Manager, former Assistant City Manager, Gene Beatty, and the
25 conSultarits. He said when the..final-proposal is arrived at among the three,
26 it would be brought back to the Council for their decision. He stated these
27 would be closed-door negotiations.
-28
29 Mayor Glass summarized that a majority of Council Members did not
30~~ support considering North Bay Corporation as a_ proposer for the garbage
31 contract. The majority cohsisted of Council Members O'Brien, Harris,
32 ~ Thompson, Torliatt, and Mayor Glass.
33
. 34 Council Member Hegly requested a memo from staff describing the
35 process from here forward.
36
37 B. Review and Discussion of Councils Rules, Policies and Procedures.
38 (Rudnansky)
3.9 - -
40 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky explained that once a year CounciP must
41 .review its rules and see if' ahy changes are in order. He suggested two
42 modifications to be considered. Under 8.L., the recommendation was to
43 clarify the .replacement of council members with respect to outside
44 committees, not the Council itself. Another suggestion regarding
45 appointing a councilmember during a temporary absence, he set forth a
46 proposed process for when. this occurs. for their consideration.
47
48 MOTION to approve the recommended changes.
49
50 All/S Moynihan/Glass
51 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
52
Vol. 40, Page 304 October 18, 2004
1 PUBLIC COMMENT
2
3 Stan :Gold, Fetgluma, suggested a change in the relationship of the .City
4 Council 'to its operating cornrnissions. He stated Planning Commission
5 members have changed their votes ,because. they want to get ,proper
6 consideration from. the City Counci[ of certain conditions.
7
8 Cbuncil,Me,mber Healy requested .more input from staff as hove 'thjs could
9 be written.
10 ~ ~ .
11 Mayor Glass indicated a change of agenda .order had been enac_ ted to
12 ~ place'Presenta`tions/Proclamation before Public Comment.
13
14 ADJOURN
15
16 The meeting was adjourned at 8:5'5 p.m.
17
18 .
19
~0
21 ~ ?
~22
23 yid Glass, Mayor.
24
25
26 _
27 ATTEST:
28
29
30
31
32 Gayle Pe rsen, City Clerk
33
34
35 -
36
39
3S
39
40
41
42
43 -
44
45
. 46
47
48