HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/23/2004 August 23, 2004 Vol. 4Q, Page 217
¢ALU
a - ~ City of'Petalua9 California
SPECIAL MEETING O:F THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL
IggB
1 City Council Minutes
2 Monday, August 23, 2004- 6:00. P.M.
3
4
5
6 MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 2004 - CtOSED~ SESSION
7 6:00 P.M.
8
9 CALL TO ORDER - 6:06 P.M.
10
1 1 A. Roll. Call
12
13 Members Harris, Healy, Moynihan, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt and Mayor Glass
14
15 ADJOURN TO: CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION
16
17 PUBLIC COMMENT
18
19 None.
20
21 ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION.. .
22
23 a CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation
24 Pursuant to Subdivision Ib) of'§°54956;9: Potential~Cases: 1
25
26 ADJOURN TO EVENING SESSION
27
28 No reportable action taken.
29
30 MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 2004: -EVENING SESSION
31 7:00 'P.M.
32 -
33 CALL TO ORDER
34 . -
35 A. Roll Call
36
37 Members Harris, Healy, Moynihan, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt and Mayor Glass
38
39 B. Pledge of Allegiance -Council Member Healy
40
41 C. Moment of Silence
42
43
44
45
Vol. 40, Page 218 August 23, 2004
1 PUBLIC COMMENT
2
3 Bob Birkholz, 'P[esident of Tru-Brice Energy Management His company cornple,fed 'an
4 audit of City Hall's lighting last year. He asked Council to act on retrofitting.;Ci,ty Hall's
5 lighting. before the SBEA grant that pays for one-half of :the experise expires at fhe end of
b December.
7
8 Council Member Q'Brien asked how much 'it would cost to cover the P:CB Ballast disposal
9 fees. Mr. Birkholz. explained that very seldom is_this~charged back but the cost would be
10 approximately $2;000..
11
12 Greta Viguie, Superintendent, Pefaluma City Schools. - Reported' that McDowell
13 Elementary had, d new kindergarfen playground due to the generosity of Norfh bay
14 Corporation. The company has offered supporf in other areas as well.
15
16 COUNCIL COMMENTS
17
18 There were none.
19
20 CITY MAN'AGERr COMMENTS
21'
22 . -There were none.
23
24 1. NEW BUSINESS
25
26 A. Adoption of Ordinance:2190 N.C.S. to Re-Establish or Amentl Speed Limits
27 on Various ,Arterial and Collector Streets Within the City of Petaluma and-
28 Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately. (Hood)
29
30 Police :Chief'Steve Hood presented the Speed .Limit Ordinarce, indicating
31 this is required every five. yea~s,and the period has expired.
32
33 Council Member 7orliatt .asked if any speed limits were being :increased.
34
35 Police Ghief Hood stated. that ,he would defer to Public Facilities and
36 Services Director Rick Skladzen~ for specrfics; ,buf said the amended
37 speed limits were reduced; notraised.
38
39 MOTION to adopt the ordinance:
40
41 M/S.Torliatt and O''l3rien. CARRIED UNANIIIIIOUSCY.
42
43 B. Adoption (Second Reading) of ,Ordinance 2189 N:C'.S'. to Re-Establish or
44 Amend' Speed. Limits on, Various° Arterial'' and Collecfor Streets Within the
45 City of Petaluma,., (Skladzien') • .
46 ~ '
47 MOTION to adopt th'e ordinance:
48
49 M/S Torliatt.arid O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ,
50
51
52
- August 23, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 219
1 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2
3 A. Review,'Discussion and Possible Action on the Selection of Preferred
4 Contractor for Refuse Collection and Disposal Services. (Bierman/Beatty)
5
6 City Manager 'Bierman introduced the. report that was distributed this
7 afternoon.
8
9 Tracy Swanborn, Hilton, Farnkopf i;< Hobson, LLC, provided the
10 background of the process, an evaluation report including how the four
11 proposals compared, a review of Council input, and a proposed time
12 schedule.
13
14 .PUBLIC COMMENT
15 -
16 Jim Lando, Empire Waste Management -.Referred to Empire's July offer to
17 reduce their rates from what was stated in their proposal because of an
18 error on the recycling net revenues. He 'asked Council to consider that
19 Empire Waste would not have a transition period and to consider the
20 timeline for others to obtain permits. .
21
22 Council Member Torlatt asked for clarificatioh of the rates that .Empire
23 Waste submitted in July.
24
25 Mr. Lando said that; the letter stated-there: would be no increase in rates
26 and these rates reflected a 3.6% reduction using Redwood Landfill.
27
28 Mark. Steiner, Empire Waste Management, an employee of Empire Waste
29 for twenty-five years, explained his- perspective, of the company's training
30 program, maintenance, service, and how the company treats its
31 employees. He stated that the lowest price has fo be weighed against
32 how employees are provided for.
33
34 John Polzorii, Petaluma - .As a resident he would like to see a 70%
35 diversion, even if it cost spore initially and for Council to consider the
36 environment.
37
38 Michael Gross, Greerr Waste Recovery -Advised the Council that his
39 company performs on its contracts and they are 100% forthe_ community.
- 40
41 Steven Yeager, Petaluma.. - Recommehded Norcal'Systems because of its
42 ~ customer service, and- its implementation of the best recycling and
43 composting systems. ;He felt the additional cdsf would be worthwhile to
44 provide a cleaner environment.
45
46 John Legnito, ,Norcal Waste Systems,. Inc. -Stated his company supports
47 waste reduction and recycling. He :asked Council to look at the
48 alternative proposal and invest in sustainable waste. management.
49
50 Remi Cohen,. Bouchaine Vineyards, Napa, California -Indicated her
51 vineyards purchase compost from Norcal Waste and has been very
Vol. 40, Page 220 ~ August 23,.2004
1 ,pleased with the product. She supported Norcal. ds Pi=taluma's waste
2 hauler.
3
4 Lisa Hardin, Industrial Cdrting -Noted Empire Waste: Management's
5 proposal :for Scenario 4 to include debris box service. She asked that
b Council maintain the debris box open n%arket as they had previously
7 supported.
8
9 'Rick Powell, North Bay Corporation. - Referred to the comsultant's
10 presentation and the company `is building a new facility in Sonoma,
1 1 County to improve waste diversion 'in Sonoma County. He stated `that his
12 company would honor the contract if chosen and provide additional
13 diversion programs fo .the City. His company did not submit specific
14 proposals for Scenario 2, 3 & 4.
15
16 Linda Hale, Nladrone Vineyard Mdnagemenf -Supported Norcal compost
17 as a superior ,product. She said sustainability was important and: using
18 local waste to create compost used locally was important.
19
20 Lori Clyne, .Petaluma -Sup- ported Norcal because of her ,past experience
21 with thecompany in San Francisco, She stated that they are innovative in
22 recycling many materials acid composTing waste.
23
24 Victor Cheehanover, ;Petaluma - Wcu.ld like Council to review the wage
25 structure, h:ealtl~benefits and labor relations for each of these companies
26 and take tflis into consideration.
27
28 Gerald' Moore, Petaluma -Added consideration of the: Petaluma Marsh
29 and maintenance of` healthy wetlands as environmentally important. He
30 did notsupport using edwood Landfill or its expansion.
31
32 Larry fdginton, IUOE local 3 -Asked Council to consider labor praeti,ces
33 and policies of the companies being considered. He .mentioned, Empire
34 :Waste, Managemenf :and Norval V~/aste. Sy'sferris (employee owned),, as -
35 ~ ha:uing Jong established positive labor relations. He did not support North
36 Bay Corporation since it was~technically in `non-compliance with the City's
37 Request For Proposal: He -also questioned the figures that North Bay
38 - - stated.
39 `
40 Arthur Caller, Petaluma - He felt` that. the City was obligated fo take the
41 lowest 'bid as long as it is verified and' North Bay's offer should be
42 considered.
43
44 Paul Claeys"sens; Ledding Edge Properties -Reported that John Legnito of
45 Norval. had contacted riim previously about loeatirg in Petaluma for their
46 operations..- :He stated. that `a location .outside Petaluma has been.
47 identified and would be a favorable .site if they could get the proper
48 permits. -
49
August 23, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 221
1 COUNCIL COMMENT
2
3 .Mayor Glass explained, that the tours with Council Members Torliatt and
4 Q',Brien of the garbage facilities were very informative. He asked them to
5 state what they could report about their visits to the waste managers'
6 facilities.
7
8 Council Member O'Brien stated that he did not visit Empire Waste or North
9 Bay because he was. familiar with their operations. He visited Norcal and
10 Green Waste. He noted Empire Waste's equipment was very well
11 maintained, but after looking, at Norcal's equipment, safety program,
12 green and' food waste composting, alternative energy, and shop facilities,
13 he stated they are "head and shoulders" above every other provider. He
14 was also impressed with Green Waste but did not like their answer to how
15 they handle overloads and their compost product was not satisfactory,
16
17 Council Member Torliatt reported on her experience and felt that she had
18 a .good grasp of what each company would be offering. They toured
19 Green Waste> Norcal and' its port site, North Bay Corps, the Central
20 Landfill, Vacaville recycling that. Norcal uses,. Industrial Carting, Empire
21 Waste, and Redwood Landfill.. Green Waste has an 80% recycling
22 capability but she felt their monthly testing was lax and she would like to
23 see daily testing. She vvas_ impressed with Norcal's pro-active education
24 program to encourage people to recycle more. If a waste site is
25 developed in Petaluma., she wanted the City to look at technology to
26 recover methane from the green waste to provide energy.. She also asked
27 for clarification that Green Waste used bio-diesel. She stated she will base
28 her decision on not just cosf but long-term issues .such as diversion, safety,
29 air quality, impacts on local streets and road, customer service, wage
30 structure and laborrelations.
31 .
32 Tracy Swanborn of Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC clarified that all the cost
33 proposals were based on diesel-powered trucks. The -Green Waste
34 provider clarified that 'they- use bio-diesel in many of their trucks but the
35 proposal was based on :diesel, they could provide a cost for bio-diesel
36 and itwould probably be a small increase.
37
38 Council Member Healy stated that the City has an uncertain relationship
39 with the County's Joint Powers Agreement and landfill. He did not want to
40. commit the City to continue to use the County landfill over the long-term
4:1 as it was .indicated it would. close within the year and it is unclear for how
42 long or if it would be .permanent. He stated the County is insisting on a
43. package deal and in order to be in the JPA the City has to use the .
44: County's landfill site;. he did not support this.
45
46 Council Member Harris stated with respect to diversion and A6939
47 compliance, he wanted to balance the cost, diversion rates necessary,
48 and to position the City to meet future State mandates.
49
50 Vice Mayor Moynihan stated the percentage diversion level has never
51 been the issue. He cited the cost of .living in Petaluma and indicated the
Vol. 40, Page 222 .August 23, 2004
1 bottom-lin.e issue was the cost to the ratepayers and that the City-should
2 award to the lowest bidder.
3
4 Council Member Thorn,pson said he would look.. fora 50~ - 70% diversion
5 immediately and thought `the Council should decide this tonight.. He said
.6 Council .knows who has complied with the proposal process. He also
7 indicated Council should select up to three companies tonight and have
8 the City .Manager begin negotiations. He felt. the most innovative was.
9 Norval wifh its~;strong -City involvement, commitment to employees, and
10 equipment. He felt they would: be 'looking for opportunities to improve
11 °waste management. He stated that diversion was very important
12 because many'fandfills are reaching their storage capacities.
13
14 City Manager Bierman suggested balancing cost versus diversion as the
15 Council's method to choose. among the 2 - 3 proposals before them fo
16 determine the. highest diversion with the lowest cost.
17
18 Couneil :Member Torliatt supported remaining in the JPA but not taking
19 trash to the landfill. She agreed wifh staff recommendations 'regarding
20 compliance with he proposal process. In balancing cost versus diversion,
21 she agreed with the City Manager's recommendation and would
22 approve' his negotiating, with the three proposers (Empire. Waste
23 .Management, Green ~Naste~ Recovery and Norval Waste Systems,.lnc.) to
24 come back with more refined cosf and diversion rates.
25
26 Council Member O`Brien stated that- the apparent lowest cost was: not
27 necessarily the most cosf-effective proposal or would ,provide the lowest
28 rate for the ratepayer. He explained that as_ prices. increase at landfills,
29 and as they reach capacity, .the ;price to dump gclrbage would also
30 increase and 'these costs would be passed 'on to the ratepayer: The
31 decision to use the highest diversion possible wilf'help.the ratepayer,. With
32 ~ future State mandates unknown, he supported looking at a real diversion
33 of at -least 50% or better. He would rather Abe out of the JPA .arid supported -
34 giving the City Manager direction to negotiate with-one. company and if it
35 isn°t timely; go to choice "B." He Harried Norval as his choice for number 1
36 and Green Waste as number2.
37
38 Council Member Harris said he was willing to 'let the=attorneys figure out
39 the JPA issue. He favored a'balanced approachwith diversion to position
40 the City for the future to comply with changes in state mandates:- He .
41 supported a 50% 70% diversion rate with the highest diversion at `the
42 lowest cost. He supported staff and the City Manager's recommendation
43 as indicated in the report. .
44 .
45 Council Member Healy .felt that ratepayers in Petaluma are price sensitive
46 and rate hikes. were not what the citizens expected from this process since..
47 other cities have experienced a rate reduction. H'e had made it clew
48 when he RFP vvas resfarted it was to look at higher .diversion rates and
49 gather more information to determine what additional cosf impacts
50 would be for higher= diversion levels than mandated by the State of
51 Califgrnia. He wanted to balance cost 'with diversion and he favored
52 Empire Waste and Green Waste. He felt that Norcal's service was
August 23, 2004 Vol. 40, Page-223
1 excellent but he wasn't sure that ratepayers would support rates 70-80
2 percent higher than Empire Waste or Green Waste over the long term.
3 With respect fo North Bay, he had concerns about the quality of service
4 and particularly the vehicle fleet.
5
6 Council Member Thompson warned -to talk to the County about the JPA
7 and to try to work things out with there. He .said Council has to decide
8 what diversion level at what cost: He said if Norcal' could reduce its cost, it
9 would be fhe best company.. He felt education of the public was
10 important also. He wanted a high diversion level especially after seeing
1 1 what has happened with the~County landfill.
12
13 Vice Mayor Moynihan stated he would~direct'the consultant to negotiate
14 with North Bay because it is 30~ below the other proposals. He didn't think
15 the Council could ignore the most affordable service and any concerns
16 could be addressed in the contract.
17
18 Mayor Glass stated he learned a lot from going to "Garbage .School" and
19 he views the County's position as being very vulnerable as far as the
20 landfill issue and that along-term liability'~was being formed. He wanted to
21 put Norcal, Green Waste and Wasfie Management on the list of proposers
22 to negotiate with. He said the JPA'w.as a poor agreement and he didn't
23 care if the City remained in'it or not.
24
25 Council Member TorliatF clarified her position on the JPA stating that she
26 felt that the. City should remain in. it to keep ifs options open and remain
27 flexible to provide services to the community. She stated the rates must be
28 affordable and she felt that through negotiations, there is a need to re-
29 look at the rate structure to incentivize, .recycling. She also said people
30 should be shown how to reduce their rates, fo incentivize smaller cans,
31 and encourage recycling in the business community too.
32
33 City Manager Bierman clarified that based on comments made, his
34 direction from Council was to negotiate with Empire Waste Management,
35 Green Waste Recovery and Norcal Waste Systems and bring back the
36 lowest possible numbers for Council to choose between diversion and
37 cost.
38
39 ADJOURN
40
41 The Council Meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
42
43
44 ,
45 j
46 David Glass, Mayor _ _
47 - _ _
48 Attest:
49
50
51
52 Gayle Pet en, City Clerk