HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/03/2004 May 3, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 19
a
C'ify of Petalu~ac, ,.California
Z,85$ MEETING OE THE PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION AND THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL .
PCDC/City Council Minutes
Monday, Mqy°3;:.2004 - 3:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting
1 CALL TO ORDER
2
3 A. Roll Call
4
5 Present: Glass, Harris, Healy, Moynihan, O`Brien, Thompson, Torliatt
6 Absent:, None ,
7
8 B. Pledge of.Allegiance
9
10 PUBLIC COMMENT
11 .
12 Tom Maunder; .Petaluma, addressed the City Council in protest of the assessment for the
13 Downtown Business Improvement District and indicated he feels the PDA has a conflict of
14 interest.
15
16 COUNCIL. COMMENT
17
18 Council Member .Torliatt; reported on the Water Advisory Committee meeting where
19 discussion took place regarding the Memorandum of Understanding and the new Master
20 Water Agreemenf. She indicated both of these documents will be coming before
21 Council and she has asked .staffi to provide .Council with ared-lined copy for the
22 ..Council's. review. She indicated once this :happens she will be asking for this to be
23 agendized for discussion to give her direction for negotidtions.
- 24
25 Council Member Thompson commenfed on the noise that firefighters in Station #1 are
26 putting up with due to construction taking place next door, and referenced the
'27 recruitment .fora .Risk IvYanager. The City Manager clarified the City is not looking for a
28 Risk, Manager.
29
30 Mayor Glass mentioned progress is being made on the Flood Control Project and that
3'1 SMART, the railroad authority, has signed off on the final flood control project. He
32 .indicated this project should be completed within two more winters.
33
34 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
35 -
36 City Manager Bierman presented the Fiscal Year 2004-05 Preliminary Budget document
37 to 'Council. He stated. the budget is balanced and has. service impacts. The estimated
38 revenue is $32,051,700 for.fhe General Fund; the estimated expenses are $31,860,450. This
39 reflects the .necessary adjustment for the increase in ,P~ERS costs of approximately $1.7
40 million. The balancing of the budget was accomplished by eliminating 10~~2 vacant
Vol. 40, Page 20 May 3, .2004
1 positions, reducing one=tune expenses, reducing ;overtime, supplies,, a_nd freezing wages
2 and benefits:-where possible._He expects fine special budget meetings with the firsf to be
3 held May 18th. By mid-May the City may' know what the State wilt be: taking; He
4 expected $350 million from the cities 'and $250 'million from the RDA's over the :hex# two
5 .years. He credited staff for their hard work and diligence.
6
7 AGENDA CH'ANG'ES.AND DELETIONS
8
9 Mayor Glass announced Item 2.1 had .been moved fo New Busiriess ~5.6 and Item 4:,B
1'0 would be the last order of business before. adjourning to Closed Session,:
11
1'2 PROCLAMATIONS:AND PRESENTATIONS
13
14 Proclamation for :Older Americans Month/Presentation by Healthy Community
15 Consortium (HC2).
16
17 Vice Mayor Moynihan presented the Oldec Americans Month proclamation to Dorothy
18 Morris.
19
20 Pat Landrum,, Executive Director of the Healthy .Community Consortium, explained the
2 ] accomplishments .and goa_ Is of the organization.:
22
23 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
24
25 None submitted.
26
27 1. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGENDA
28
9 A. .Approval of Proposed Agenda for Council/PCD'C's meeting of May 1'7;
30 2004. _
31
32 MOTION fo approve the proposed agenda:
33 ~ _
34 M/S Healy and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
35
36 2. CONSENT CALENDAR
37 ,
38 Council,Member'O'Brien requesfied:ltems 2'.A and 2.E be removed from the
39 Consent Calendar for separate discussion:
40
41 MOTION to adopt the balance of the Consent Calendar:
42
43 M/S O'Brien and'Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
44
45 A. Resolution Awarding ConYraet to ,Ashlin ;Pacific Construction, Inc. for
46 Construction of the East Washington Street Sewer Main Repldcement
47 Project C50T300. (Ban/Eckerson);. Item removed from the Consent
48 Calendar for separate discussion.
49
50 B. Resolution. 2004-056 N.C.S Approving the: Award.. of'the Sonoma=Marin Fair
51 ..Law: Enforcement Service Contract on June lb through June 20, 2004 to
52 the Petdluma Police Department. (.Hood/Lyons)
May 3, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 21
1
2 C. Resolution_2004-057 N.C.S Authorizing the Police Department to Accept a .
3 Traffic Safety Grant From the California Office of Traffic .Safety for a Seat
4 Belt Compliance Campaign in the amount of $34,874.00. (Hood/Thomas)
5
6 D. ~ Resolution .2004=058 N.C.S Authorizing the Police Department to Accept a
7 Traffic Safety "Grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety for a Driving
8 Impaired Restraint Enforcement (DIRE) Project in the amount of $37,720.00.
9 (Hood/Lyons)
10 -
1 1 E. Resolution Accepting Completion of the 2002 Water Well Project C501100
12 (NorCal Pump and Well Service). (Ban/Simmons) Item removed from the
13 Consent Calendar for separate discussion.
14
15 F. Resolution 2004--059 N.C.S Accepting Completion of 2003 Residential
16 Street Reconstruction Project C500600 (Ghilotti Construction).
17 (SkladzieniCastaido}
18
19 G. Resolution 2004-..060 N.C.S Approving a Three (3) Year Extension of
20 Wittman Enterprises for a Professional Services Agreement for Ambulance
21 Billing. (.Netter)
22
23 H. Resolution..2004-061 N.C.S in Support of California's Law to Reduce Globaf
24 Warming Pollution.
25
26 ~ Decnl~ f:n.+~-r,f +ho (~i+a, r^,,.in^il ^f Po+nli ~m ry r~f•
,
27 In+on+inr, 1 evci Deneeeeerrcnrcf
28 Ao~herizing the IssdanEe and Sale ^f ^w:
29 D a: nr::nri Iw.nr.•.~ierv~en+ D.,nrle Del n~:nn +n Aeenecrv+e of
~1:efr~:
rt
/ ~ r ~
30 7A 11 rlio~iillo I-llnh\A/rv\/1 r-, ri i^I Aeeneemenf 11:e~rii+f Aln 7r.
31
~ r,^r^ ^ D In+e.~l BeEdments and /ldtheri~ing ^~al
32 d ~ pp~ v c u ,y ~cc~a~cv
33 Ac-#io~s. This item. was moved to New Business, Item
34 S.B.
35
36 Items removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion:
37
3$ A. Resolution 2004-062 N.C.S: Awarding Contract to Ashlin Pacific
39 Construction, Inc. for Construction of the East Washington Street Sewer
40 Main Replacement Project C501300: (Ban/Eckerson).
41
42 Council Member O'Brien questioned the cost and the balance in the
43 fund.
44
45 Interim Water Resources and Conservation Director Mike Ban explained
46 that over $200,000 is remaining.
47
48 MOTION to adopt the Resolution:
49
50 M/S O'Brien and Glass. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
51
Vol. 40, Page 22 May 3, 2004
1 F. Resolution 2004-.068 N:C.S Accepting Completion. of the 2002 Water Well
2 Project 0501100 (NorCdl Pump and Well Service): (Bari/Simmons)
3
4 Council Member O`Brien commented this project was brought in under
5 budget and complimented. staff.
6
7 MOTION to adopt the resolution:
8 .
9 M/S O'Brien and Glass. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
l0
1 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING
12
13 A. Public Hearing and Adoption. of Re"solution Levying an Annual Assessmenf
14 for fiscal Year'2004 for the Downtown Business Improvement: Disfrict,
15
16 Mayor.Glass opened the public hearing and entertained a motion to
17 close and continue to 'May 17, 2004.
18
19 MOTION to continue the: hearing to May 17, 2004:
20
21 M/S Moynihan and O'Brien: CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
22 _
23 AYES: Harris, Thompson, O'Brien, Moynihan, Torliatt, Glass
24 NOES: None
25 ABSTP„IN: Healy
26
27 4, UNFINISHED BUSINESS
28
29 A. Resolution No. '2004=064 N.C$. Discussion and Possible Action Amending
30 Resolution 2004=02$ `N,C.S. to Reduce Transient Occupbncy Fees at he
31 Turning Basin to $20:00 Per Day Year=.Round.
32 _
33 City Manager .Mike Bierman rioted lie hdd met earlier with. the; Petaluma _
34 Yacht Club representatives and they''agreed~to $20.Q0 per day fee. The
35 collection issue was. taken care of by the Yacht Club who will set up a
36 secure "pass-through." for the payment of fees and improve instructions: to
37 visiting yacht clubs for collection.
38
39 MOTION to adopt'the. resolution:
40
41 M/S O'Brien and Moynihan. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
42
43 Council then moved to ifem S.A.
44
45 5. NEW'BUSINESS -City Council and PCDC
46
47 A. PCDC Resolution 200.4=06 Authorizing., 'the Purchase of .a Prefrabricated
48 Pedestrian Bridge to Cross Washington Creek as Part ofi the Petaluma River
49 Trail Project 9876/0200503.
50
51 Director of Development and Rede~e'lopment .P,aul Mardngella presented
52 the project and explained the enhancements to river access. He wanted
May 3, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 23"
1 to award the purchase in advance of the construction because of the 12
2 weeks required to construct the bridge.
3
4 Mr. Marangella explained that alternative bids for asphalt and other
5 paving. rnaferials will be offered and that "Quarry Finds" are crushed
6 granite. He also referred to the report. "Item 4. financial Impacts" and
7 explained the physical length of the project and indicated there will be
8 options when .the .bids .are awarded. to reduce the length of the
9 irnprovernents. He explained $1.3 million: has been appropriated for the
10 pathways to implement the River Access Enhancement Plan and it would
1 1 be up to Council to determine how far to continue the path after installing
12 the bridge.
13
14 Vice Mayor Moynihan asked for clarification, and if this would link the
15 Lynch .Creek Trail and provide access to -the Oak Creek Trail to the
16 Johnson propertyand the Chelsea project.
17
18 Mr. Marangella explained the trail would connect the end of Lynch Creek
19 to Payran only.
20
21 PUBLIC COMMENT
22
23 Geoff"Cartwright,:Petaluma addressed the Cify Council and indicated this
24 was going to be an amenity for the community to enjoy th'e River.
25
26 MOTION to adopt the resolu.fiion: .
27
28 M/S Torliatt and. Healy. CARRIED ON A 6-1" VOTE AS FOLLOWS:
29 -
30 AYES: Harris, Healy, Thompson, Moynihan, Torliatt, Glass
31 NOES: ~ O'Brien
32
33 Council'Mem6er O'Brien explained his "No" vote and indicated he didn't
34 want to get caught in "we've gone this far, we can't stop." He noted he
35 felt :money is an issue this year and the ,Council has to watch all
36 expenditures. '
37 -
' 38 Mayor' Glass explained his "Yes" vote and indicated he felt it was~.a safety
39 issue and would consistently vote for bike paths of d class 1 variety:
40
41 Council Member Torliatt reminded ;everyone this is an implementation of
42 the Petaluma River Enhancement Plan to bring people downtown.
43 -
44 B, Resolutions of the City Council of Petaluma:
45
46 1. Resolution 2004,-065. NC:S Intention to Levy Reassessment for
47 Assessmenf District 24 (Lakeville Highway) and 25 (McNear
48 Landing); and,
49 2. Resolution .2004-066 N.C.S Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of
50 .Limited Obligation Refunding, Improvement Bonds Relating to '
51 Assessment 'District 24 (Lakeville Highway) and 25 .(McNear
52 Landing); and,
Vol. 40, Page 24 May 3, 2004.
1 3. Resolution 2004=067 NG,S' .Approving .Related Doe.uments and,
2 Authorizing Official Actions .Related to Assessmenf District' 24
3 (Lakeville Highway) and 25 (McNear Landing).. (Netter)
4
5
b .Interim Finance -.Director Joe Netter stated that this process.. was
7 necessary to refund assessmenf .district bonds- from the 1996.
8 Lakeville Highway ..Assessment and. the McNear Landing
9 A"ssessmerif District of 1997: He explained that this action would.
10 take. advantage of lower interest rates and would save
11 approximdtely $205,000, as wel( as providing $25,000 in
12 administrative fees. for the City. He ~ explained th'e timing of
13 issuance is important due to the'.instability of the market,.
14
15 Vice Mayor Moynihan questioned the $l 15,000 it would .cost to
l b issuer the new bond'. of and asked if the fear of interest rate
17 increaseswas behind this.
T8
19 Mr. Netter explained that interests rates are at a 40-year low and
20 with the $205;000 in savings and the anticipated- increase in
'21 interest rates,, he felt this. was a good time., fo move forward'.-
22
23 Mayor Glass asked if° the. bonds were insured, would this make the
24 interest i=at:e lower.
25
26 Director Netter stated he did; not believe so, and the costs of the
27 insurancewould probably exceed any savings.
28 ~ ~ .
29 MOTION' to adoptahe resolutions:
30
31 M/S Healy and Torliaft. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
32
33 City Council'considered' Item 5.D prior to 5.C.
34
35 D. Discussion and- .Action Regarding 'fhe: fnfroduction _ of_ Ordinance 7:1'80
_
36 N.C:S. (a') Authorizing Execution of an .Option Agreement With Regency
37 _ Realty Group,, -.Inc. for. a Nonexclusive Pedestrian and Vehicular Access
38 ~ Ea"cement .Between East Washington .Street and Kenilwo"rth School Site (b)
39 Authorizing Execution of an Easement Agreement Following Satisfaction of,
40 - Specified Conditions,; and (c'"") Authorizing the. Negotiation and Execution.
41 of a .Lease Amendmenf'to Add' the Payran Firehouse. Property to the
42 Fairgrounds, Lease :and' to Exclude the Easement Area and
43 Skateboard~Solar Collector Area. (Marangella)
44
45 Director of Development and Redevelopmenf~ Paul Marangella explained
46 the b~ackground'''of the School' District's attempts to sell the site and the
47 City's role in bringing Regency' Group to purchase the property and urged
48 C'ouncil's approval of the proposed ordinance and legislative documents.
49
50 Council Member Torliaft cldrified her desire for public participation and
51 asked what the process would be to bring this project 'forward acid how
52 would. the City's ball fields, Swim Center and skate: park facilities services
'May 3, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 25
1 be continued. and/or relocated during the process. She supported this.
2 project and pointed out the need for consistent terms to be used. She
3 indicated .she felt the public would fully understand and have an
4 opportunity:, to participate in the process. And noted that this was the
5 beginning of the implementation of the City's retail strategy.
• 6
7 Mayor Glass reiterated that this process had to proceed quickly to bring a
8 new junior high to the City rather than renovating. Kenilworth Junior High.
9 He noted the proposal makes. the best use of the Kenilworth site as well as
10 replacing a swim centerthat has met its useful life.
11
12 Before action .was taken on Item 5.D, the staff'report was given on Item S.C:
13
14 C. Discussion and Action Adopting a Resolution 2004-068 N.C.S. Authorizing
15 the City Manager to Enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement
16 With Regency Realty Group Regarding the Possible Sale of Petaluma. Swim
17 Center and Adjacent Property. (Marangella) ,
18
19 Mr: Marangella briefly explained this item and the exclusive negotiating
20 rights agreement with Regency Group including the purchase or lease of
21 the pool site as an integral piece. for the whole project to go forward.
22
23 Council Member Healy questioned the draft agreement calling for a
24 "Confidentiality Clause" and wanted to make sure this did not preclude
25 the public and interested organizations from participating.
26
27 Mr. Marangella explained that this language was similarto items discussed
28 in Closed Session in regard; to properfy acquisitions with terms not being
29 discussed until the City is ready to award the project.
30
31 Vice Mayor Moynihan wanted clarification of exclusive negotiation rights
32 for a municipality to dispose of public property without allowing multiple
33 bidders. He ,also wanted to• know if an outside party could make a
34 cornpetitive bid for the property.
35 •
36 City Attorney Rudnansky explained that this `type of agreement has been
37 used in the pasf and is approp~Cate• "since it is not surplus property that
38 would have to. be offered to other entities. He clarified that under this as a
39 one-year negotiation agreement;. If there were another bid, 'the City
40 would accept'"the best terms to advance the"redevelopment of the site.
41
42 CouncilMember Torliatt wanted to make sure the process goes through
43 CEQA and includes all City approvals and wanted this added to the
44 language. She once.. again asked for ~a public .meeting between the
45 School District, the City~~Council, and the .Fair Board to discuss the financial
46 issues, retail strategy, and impacts on the Fair, etc.
47
48 City Attorney Rudnarisky explained that the option agreement requires
49 Regency to meet a~ number of"conditions, including entitlements, to
50 exercise their option on the easement.
51
Vol. 40, Page 26 M'ay 3, 2004
1 Vice .Mayor fVtoynihan stated concerns about taking hasty action orn this
2 project and stayed he would rathersee the pool and skateboard park.
3 replacement issues worked, out first. He noted' he wanted along-term plan
4 -developed `for the fairgrounds fo exten"d the, lease and the shared: use of
5 the: facility ;along with the replacement of` the Litfle League field. (Carter
6 Field) that needs to be welC defined before the project goes further:. He -
7 said.. the ,Parks and' Recreation Commission, ds part of the General Plan;
8 had designated the Fairgrounds as a park site. He' felt Carter Field could
9 be located :on the Fairgrounds property a"nd used during the non-fair
10 season .and added that with the possibility of the need for a third Junior'-
1 1 Higr and High School to Petaluma, it seemed inconsistent to sell this piece
12 of property without the School District:: providing an explanation. He also
13 noted that the circUfation proposed 'for .this project would ,have an; impact
14 on an already congested Washington Street and anothercross-town ~tvpe
15 connector is needed.
16
17 Council Member Harris said he would enthusiastically endorse. this since
18 this. site was listed on the :Retail Leakage Study as an appropriate retail
19 site, He questioned why the skateboard `park was .not: Listed as being
20 replaced at the developer's expense as°was fhe Swim Center:
21
22 Mr. flAarangella confirmed that the proposal would include replacement
23 of dli facilities. ~ "
24 ~ -
25 PUBGC COMMENT
26 - -
27 Tiroy Sanderson, -'t'residenf .Petaluma National. Little League; Petaluma,
28 addressed-. the City Council. 'and stated the baseball diamonds on the
29 Kenilworth property are the home fields for his league. His is willing to work
30 with. the City to. move the league to a suitable, appropriate, dnd
31 equitable location.
32
33 Lou Steinberg, Petglu,ma School Boacd, Petaluma, addressed the. City
-
34 Council. and encouraged them to approve both measures.. The school
35 district will. help mitigafe any of the issues rdised regarding the project and
36 the repld"cement of the .community's amenities. He suggested relocating
37 part of the bdllparks to Petaluma~Junior High as well as providing football
38 fields for Pop Warner at the hew junior high: He explained' the timing issue
39 is part of the State of 'California's °requirements 'for upgrading of schools
40 and if fhe new site were not acted upon,.quickly, the funds would have to
41 be-used to upgrade the current site, which is undcceptable, .
42
43 Vice Mayor Moynihan indregted he wanted clarification, of the need
44 identified in the``Genei:al Plan for-d third junior/high school and where
45 would it be locafec!'. ~ -
46 -
47 Mr. Steinberg explained that- he school board does long-.term -
48 demographics to meet the future needs of Petaluma. He noted
49 Elementary enrollment has_ declined, arid:, -with the pricing of new homes,
50 they expect the decline'to continue over the next ten to twenty years. H'e
51 added the General Klan information. reflecfed old demographic
52 information that is not supported by current enrollment figures.
May 3; 2004 Vol. 40, Page 27
1
2 Geoff Cartwright; Petaluma, .addressed the City Council -in support of all
3 the proposals. He noted. concern with the secrecy clause as well: He
4 pointed out- that improvements to the Washington Street overpass are in
5 Caltrans' plans and this project will push it along.
6
7 Victor Chechanover, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and
8 ,questioned :the acceptance of the offer; execution of fihe lease; the time
9 frame for moving the Kitchen and Opportunity Center after the
10 completion of the Mary Isaac Center and the new wastewater treatment
11 plant; and if there are restrictions on the. amount of commercial
12 development allowed in the City.
13
14 Vice Mayor Moynihan .stated concerns .about Carter Field, the traffic
15 impacts, adequate funding at Old Redwood Highway and the cross-town
16 connector interchange, and suggested -using redevelopment funds for
17 long term transportdfiion cicculdtion issues. He closed by staffing if these
18 were all taken care of, he was comfortable with the project.
19
20 Council Member Heafy, To~liatF and. Cifiy Attorney Rudnansky discussed
21 the: inclusion of language to require the- developer to not only meet CEQA
22 but. all City approvdls as well before the project was approved.
23
24 Council Member Torliaft agreed that if all.. the City approvals were
25 included, in addition to CEQA, she would MOVE'the item.
26
27 MOTION to adopt the resolution and introduce the ordinance for items
28 ~ 5.C and SAD..
29
30 M/S Torlidtt and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
31
32 4. UNFINfSHED`BUSINESS fCONT1NUED)
33
34 B. .Resolution -2004:-069 N.CS Approving ,Extension of Contract with Empire .
35 - Waste Management for Sotid Waste Collection Services for a Period Nofi fio
36 Extend Beyond February 28, 2Q05: (Bierman) (Moved to after SD).
37
38 City Manager Bierman explained Empire Waste has agreed to withhold a
39 ~ rate increase in January 2004 and, January 2005 as well as including.
40 ' additional street sweeping and recycling. The County will increase the
41 ~ "tipping" fee from $54.40 'to $70 per 'ton July 15~~ If the City remains with the
42 County, Empire Waste could not absorb. this increase in costs and would
43 increase its rate by 6.61%. Other options were to decrease the rate 3.6%to
44 8.8% depending on the type of customer; .keep $250,000 as a lump sum;
45 use part of this :money to stay in the Joint Powers Agreement with Sonoma
46 County Waste Agency with a cost of approximately $125,000 per year.
47 - Staying with the County would result in a rate increase and continued
48 participation 'in the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). The Redwood Landfill
49 option would end membership with Sonoma County Waste unless the City
50 continues. to pay. This option would result in losing recycling services such
51 as household hazardous waste; composting, wood waste recycling, and
52 would require the City to file waste reports with the State. He
Vol. 40, Page 28 tvfay 3, 2004
1 recommended. ,the Redwood' Landfill option that would provide- a rate
2 decrease" to the City's customers, and;.;if desired, stay with. the County's
3 JPA.
4
5 Council AAember Torliatt'had a question abouf losing the recycling options.
6 and if this could be replaced, grid if so; by whom. ~ "
7
8 Jim tanda, Empire; Waste; stated there are curbside oil programs and his
9 company could do the. AB939 reporting. for household. hazardous waste
10 the City could use the $250,000' in any"rndnner it would like to.
11
12 "Council Member Healy wanted clarification and the cost~to repldce'the
13 programs provided. by the JPA.
14
15 Jim Landa explained that this included public education valued at about
1 b $30 -:$50;00,0.. He estimated the household hazardous waste seryice"~would "
17 be about $123,000. He dgreed thdt th'e City would Kaye to :have- funds
18 reserved to provide these services:
19
20 City Nlandger Bierman indicated he wasn~'tsure if'the'City could continue
21 as 'a member of the: County?~s JPA and noted the County could- "punish'"
22 the Gity for'withdrawing.
23
24 PUBLIC COMMENT
25
26 Susan Klassen, County of Sonoma, Department of Transportation and
27 Public Works, urged the City Council.to wait on the out-of`-county hauling-
28 until the four proposals are evaluated. The Mayor wanted an explanation. `
29 of 'the costs ao -send out-of-county but she did not have do answer for this..
30 She explained that losing the fees thbt: Petaluma pays' has a big :..impact ,
31 on their system. ~ _
32
33 Council MemFiers O'Brien ancJ" Torliatt also questioned the variance of
34 costs. with the County as compared to out-of-county. .
35 '
36 Council Member Thompson made a MOTION fo remit' the payment to
37 remain in the JPA, to utilize Redwood Landfip, spread. the rate increase
38 across the board, and maintain ~as much of the reeyclin"g and other .
39 services to residents as possible.
40
41 Council Member T,orliatf was assured that the City NYanager would talk
42 with the JPA to see if they would provide the educational services.
43
44 City .Manager Bierman, cautioned sfiaying with 'the. County may result 'in
45 increases of 6.61'% in rafies and that programs with Waste Management r ,
46 may.cost something aswell.
47
48 Vice. Mayor 'Moynihan indicafed he is dll for savingsto the ratepayer and
49' he is open. to the out'=of-county 'option. Ne nofed recovery rates: have
50 been do 'issue, for 'him and he is .unimpressed with fhe JPA and their
51 management" of the landfill.
52
May 3, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 29
. 1 Mayor Glass indicated he is supportive of the MOTION and that the JPA •is
2 ~ not functioning at this time tb fill our needs.
3
4 MOTION to adopt the Resolution, which would include extending the
5 contract, utilizing Redwood Landfill and spreading the savings to residents
6 ~ 'and commercial accounts:
7
8 M/S Thompson and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9
10 ADJOURN TO: CITY COUNCIL :CLOSED SESSION
11
12 The City Council adjournedto Closed. Session at 5:16 p.m.
13
14 CLOSED SESSION
15
16 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov. Code §54956.9(a))
1 7 Bramblett et al vs. City of Petaluma et al (Sonoma County Superior
18 Courf Case. # MCV-1.74982).
19 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION -Significant Exposure to Litigation
20 (Government Code §54956.9(b)) (1 matter) :
21 ¦ PUBLIC EMPLOYEE°:PEREORMANCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to Govt. Code §54957(e): City
22 Manager .
23 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Government Code §54957)
24 Title: City Attorney'
25 ¦ CONFERENCE. WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Government Code §54957.6)
26 Agency Designdted Negotiator:-City Manager
27 Unrepresented Employee::-City Attorney
28 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR .NEGOTIATOR: Government Code §54957.6. Agency Negotiator:
29 Michael BiermanlPamala Robbins. Employee Organization: AFSCME and IAFF Local 1415.
30
31 EVENING SESSIOfV - 7:00 P.M.
32
33 CALL TO ORDER
34
35 A. Roll Call:
36
. 37 Present: Hargis, Healy, Moynihan, O'Brien, Thompson, Torliatt, Glass
38 Absent: None
39
40 B. Pledge of Allegiance
41
42 C. Moment of Silence
43
44 PRESENTATIONS
45
46 Proclamation for Salvation Army Week -May 10-15, 2004.
47
48 Proclamation for Bicycle-to-Work/School Week -May 17-21, 2004.
49
50 Council Member O'Brien presented. the proclamation for Bicycle-to-Work/School Week
51 to Bernie• Album. of the.Pedestrian Bicycle Committee, who explained the various events
52 planned during the week. ,
53
Vol. 40, Page 30 May 3, 2004
1 PUBLIC COMMENT
2
3 Bruce Hagan; Friends, of Lafferty Park, addressed.. the City Council and presented a copy
4 to Council of recommendafons ~egardng'Sonoma Mountain Road improverents:
5
6 Janet Gracyk, Petaluma. High .School .Library Boosters, addressed the City Council and
7 advised them of-one of the fundraising efforts, "A Taste for Literature," to maintain. the
8 high school libraryservice that`is threatened by State"budget cuts.
9
10' Richard Brawn, 'Petaluma, addressed the Gity Council .and explained 'th'e: amount
1 l needed annually f,or street improvements woui.d be computed as .$7500 per mile x 500
12 miles of City streets amounting to $3',250;000/year.
13
14 David Yearsley, Petaluma River Keeper, addressed the City Council on behalf of the
1.5 Petaluma Riper Clean=up Committee and thanked participants.
16
17 Gerald Moore; Petaluma ,Wetlands Alliance, addressed the Cify Council and.thanked the.
18 Council and City Manager for `.the completion of. the purchase :of the Gray's ranch and
19 explained the goals and objectives of the organization. He asked for a designated rigme
20 that would include "/vlarsfi'' or''1Netldnds" to identify the newly purchased wetlands.
21
22 Geoff Cartwright, Petaalum6; addressed the City Council and presented a sketch of
23 overpass improvements, for Washington Street that Calfirans could support and would
24 benefit the whole community. "
25
26 Peter Tscherneff, Petaluma; addressed the City Council regarding various topics and
27 commented on strawberries and Mexican farm workers' lack of drivers' licenses.
28 _
29 COUNCIL COAAMENT .
30
31 Council Member O'Brien, requested the meeting be adjqumed in the: memory of
32 Josephine Brown, Mayor Glass's mother, and offered' his condolences. •
33
34 Council Member Torliatt mentioned the River Clean-lJp and the Chili Cook-off` in which
35 she participated as a judge and noted the Petaluma Fire .Department-won best overall •
36 chili. She supported endorsing a name for the Gray'•s:Marsh and suggested the Petalumci
37 Wetlands Alliance could wgrk on this.. She supported Geoff Cartwright'a thoughts on' the
38 Washington Street overpass improvements aril wanted Caltrans to present an up.date~of
" 39 planned highway 1 Ol improvements to Council:
40
41 Vice Mayor Moynihan indicated he would like to .add the quarterly litigation budget
42 review to a future agenda
43
44 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
45
46 There were none.
47
48 6> PUBLIC'IiEARING •
49
50 A. Resolution ,2004-:070' N:C.S. Ordering Abatement of Nuisance Consisting of
51 Weetls •Growing on Public/Provide Property in the City of Petaluma and
May 3, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 31
1 Ordering the Fire Chief to Remove Said Weeds by Contract or his Own
2 Forces. (Ginn)
3
4 Mayor Glass opened the public hearing. Hearing no requests to speak the
5 public hearing was closed:
6
7 MOTION to adopt the resolution:
8
9 M/S O'Brien and Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10
1 1 7. '..NEW .BUSINESS
12
13 A. - Public. Meeting to Hear Testimony Regarding, the Formation of a
14 ..Landscape. and lighting Assessment District for the Washington Creek
15 :Village Subdivision. (Anchordoguy)
16
17 ,Resolution 2004.-.071. N.C.S. Proposing Formation of the Washington Creek
18 Village Subdivision Landscape and Lighting Assessment'District.
19
20 Resolution 2004-072 N.C.S. Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report for
21 the Washington Creek Village Subdivision Landscape and Lighting
22 Assessment District.
23
24 Resolution 2004-073. N.C.S. Intention to: Order Levy and Collection of
25 Assessments .for the Washington Greek Village Subdivision Landscape and
26 Lighting Assessment District.
27
28 Parks and .Landscape Manager Ed Anchordoguy presented the first of two
29 sessions '.necessary to establish the Washington Creek Village Landscape
30 and Assessment District Fund for. the. maintenance of the common
31 landscaping area and street Iiglting. He indicated the estimated annual
32 .maintenance -cost would be $1;2,821 with 37 lots in the subdivision
33 amounting to $347 per residence,~and that this assessment could not be
34 increased, without a .majority ,vote. of property owners. He concluded by
35 indicating the. formation process. will conclude on May 17, 2004 with a
36 public hearing and a counting.of the ballots.
37
3$ The Mayor called for public. comment on this item and there were no
39 requests to speak:
40
41 MOTION to adopt the Resolutions:
42
43 M/S Torliatt and Moynihan. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:
44 -
45 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
46
47 A. Presentation by Proposers for Solid Waste,~~Recycldble Materials, and. Yard
48 Trimming. Gollection Services: (Bierman)
49
50 City Manager Bierman introduced the consultants from Hilton, Farnkopf 8~
51 Hobson, LLG fo present information regarding the proposals, followed by
52 presentations by each of the four proposers.
Vol. 40, Page 32 ~ May 3, 2004
1
2 Tracy Swanbom, Hilton, ;Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC, gage an overview of the
3 proposals without an evaluation, which will be presented later. She ;gave
4 the background. of th_e procu~e.,ment process and explained the four
5 different scenarios that- were presented fo ,the proposers to develop :their`
6 proposals. for waste ..disposal that 'would meet the :City's needs. She
7 ex la'ined the ro osals with some
p p p preliminary information on rate
8 structure. She. expected to have the final. evaluation to ~Gouncil on July 19,
9 2004 with a start of service wifh'the new~franchise in March" 2005.
10
11 Jim Lantla, Empire Waste Management, gave an "overuievv of their
1.2 proposal which .included an immediate residential rate reduction of` 1'0%
T3 and that there would be rio disruption to the :customer. He indicated
14 Empire Waste is a leader ih customer service, safety, and maintenance
15 and -they would r"educe costs to seniors in moEjile home parks, and 'would
16 provide three annual: public. recycling/waste .opportunities for City-
17 ~ sponsored, events. He added `the company has afull-time environmental
1$ educator; q recycling facility is available; and they will offer single-stream-
19 .recycling with emphasis on~commercial customers to lower their costs..
20
21 Michael Gross,. Green Wasfe, gage an overview of their proposal anal
22 indicated their company has~increased lari'dfill diversion over fhe past four
23 years from 42%; up to '80% in the cities they serve..; He ",indicated Industrial'
24 Carting; ahd Z-Best Composting are their ,subcontractors and their
25 proposal offered Option;1 with 50% diversion•and Option 2~ with up to 80%
26 diversion with d guarantee of 7Q%. -He continued ,by noting their proposal
27 would' reduce truck, traffic as well because of the "split=.truck" design. He
28 added' the company offers :d-very good safety record, customer service,.
29 street sweeping, and cornmunify outreach.
30 _
31 John Legnito, Nor`-Cal Waste Systems, gdye an overview of their proposal
32 and indicated first yea~~ costs would be approximafely $8.9 million with a
33 full=tirne_ manager:_and facilities: in Petaluma. He rioted the first year rate fo
34 the City would be X7.5 -million 'and. any difference would be amortized
35 ~ over the t;errn of the contract, They would hire" the current work force. with
36 a wage and benefit package to' match what they have. They offer:
37
38 _ Single-stream recycling .
39 • 3=cart recycling, program.
40 • Match the diversion level the City desires
41 • ~ Composting of•food waste
42 •r Outreach/Education/Environmental Education program
43
44 Rick ..Powell,. North .Bay Corporation, gave an overview of their proposal
45 and: indicated they would continue to use the Sonoma Couhty lritegrated
46 Waste Management System and maintain employee continuity with the
47 same pay grid benefits with a seamless transition. He added. they will .pay
48 the City of Petaluma $300,000 per ,year: He stressed their- proposal "would
49 offer more revenue to the City through franchise fees. on temporary debris.
50 boxes dnd recycling, "revenue and concluded by stating they are
51 designing" a new processing plant to enhance a.nd increase the diversion
52 level.
May 3, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 33
1~
2 Single Stream recycling
3 Weeklygreen waste recycling
4 Free commercial recycling
5 a Free service to public schools/Santa Rosa Junior College
6 Free refuse and portable toilets for all City-sponsored events
7 Curbside pick-up of Christmas. trees
8 Public" Education/Outreach program
9 Exceeds AB 939 and proposes a 7Q% diversion goal
10
1 1 PUBLIC COMMENT
12
13 Diane Reilly-Torres, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and indicated
14 she wanted recycling carts with wheels to make it easier to take items to
15 the curb; a low income option; asked if the $300,000 could be passed as
16 savings. to the customer; and if the 50cents that is currently paid for street
17 . sweeping would remain.
18
19 Kathy Gilstrap, Petaluma, addressed the City Council and. indicated she
20 works for Whole Foods and is in partnership with Nor-Cal to handle all their
21green waste for composting and endorses them.
22
23. David Yearsley, Petaluma,. addressed the City Council and indicated he
24 wanted to bring attention ,to the impact of this contract to the Petaluma
25 River and Marsh. He noted the Redwood Landfill borders the Petaluma
26 River and sits in an environmentally' sensitive area. With plans. to almost
27 double .its size, he-felt this site poses a threat to the River/Marsh in case of
28 a failure and also the bird diversion program affects wildlife.
29
30 Jane Hamilton, Petaluma, addressed, the City Council and reiterated the
31 safety records "of every company should be considered for each
32 company; commented on the number of trips a truck would be taking;
33 and diversion and recycling. should be at the highest level possible. She
34 suggested site visits to each proposer's facilities.
35
36 Kevin Drew, Petaluma, addressed "the C"ity Council. and indicated he is the
_ .
37 Residential. Recycling Coordinator for the City of San Francisco. He
3$ suggested Council Took carefully at the construction and. demolition,
39 commercial sector, and multi_family sector of each proposer's diversion
40 program and° how to work toward :zero waste .as they build their facilities.
41 He concluded ~by supporting: 'the idea :of Council Members visiting the
42 sites.
43
44 Council Member Torliatt asked if .all the proposers were charging for
45 commercial recycling. She also wanted to look at the
46 deficiencies/success rates in the different categories and how the
47 proposers will approach this... She also wanted information on how many
48 trips each would gene"rate. She asked for clarification of how franchise
49 fees will be applied to different revenue;sources.
50
51 Mr. Hilton explained that the companies were requested to provide what
52 their costs would be and explain in the franchise agreement how their
Vol. 40, Page 34 May 3, 2004:
1 compensation would be adjusted. The Council would make the decisions.
2 and sef the rates. There• are detailed forms for both costs and operational.
3 information to allow a comparison. of the different companies. The truck-
4 trip information will be compared. as well. The. franchise fee will be broken
5 out separately- and determine what enhancements are proposed.
6
7 ~ Council Member Harris had questions about the "full-.time equivalence!'
8 dedicated to the services and about customer service set-up and billing.
9 Empire Waste indicated that theirs is 26.3'5.
10
11 Vice Mayor Moynihan questioned the numbers presented and the
12 compliance with AB939. With the possibility of .going out of county, he
13 wanted fo look at the 50% diversion level and wanted the proposals to be
14 adjusted to meet' this. He clarified -with the consultant that they will look at
15 these issues and come- backwith an answer.
16
17 Council Member He_ aly wanted the consultant to explain how to move
18 forward; how to evaluate the rate impacts and how to compare the
19 proposals on an equal basis.
20
21 The consultant responded they would work with the companies to .reach
`22 an agreement on the exact numbers. They will present the first and
23 second year total' costs and' over the term of fhe -agreemen"t then
24 compute a "net present value'' analysis. to compare.. They will present
25 options available buf the focus will be on' the costs reported.
26
27 Counc%I Member Thompson asked', the consultants to clarify with North Bay
28 when the facility on Belleview will be fully operational and added
29 NorCal's "Estimated Average Rate Impgct'''was high and questioned how
30 ~ is this related to'building a new facility.
31
32 Council Member0'Brien wanted the following clarified:
33
34 Empire Waste Management -regarding the 10% reduction -why
35 weren';t the rates reduced by this amount before? How much more
36 would "the cost be. if'there. was a Petaluma facility? What percentage
37 ~ ofi their.customer service goals are being met?'
38 Green~Waste - Is the 80% diversion. their figure or a State figure? Where
39 would G; 8~ D ,sorfing take place? How' much would it raise rates fo
40 have. a facility in Petaluma? ;He had questions about the "split trucks''
41 since rucks can only carry so much ~wei~ht and how many trips would
42 be generated..
43 North Bay -How would rates be affected ,if they had a facility in
44 Petaluma? Is their Redwood Landfill site permitted?
45 NorCal -How much, less would their proposal be if they didn't build a .
46 new facility in letaluma?
47 He wanted. clarification of tlie~ truck trips and pollution generated to
48 ~ haul the trash out~~ of the .City:, How much would be saved by using
49 "CNG'` vehicles?
50
51 Mayor. Glass stated 'he understood 'North Bay was the least expensive,, but
52 questioned how much will residents save compared to Empire Waste
May 3, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 35
1 Management who is a known entity and has a higher diversion rate. He
2 noted Green Waste`s immediate diversion of 70-80 percent at a cheaper
3 cost was notable. He indicated he wanted clarification of NorCal's higher
4 costs and if it could be decreased.. He supported the idea of a
5 subcommittee-visit to the sites. -
6
7
8 B. Resolution 2004-074 N.C.S. Encouraging the California. Coastal.
9 Conservancy, "th'e California State :Park System, and Local Government
10 Officials to Work Together to Create a Park and Trail System of Regional
1 1 Significance on Sonoma Mountain. (Carr),
12
13 Parks and Recreation Director ~ Jim Carr presented .background
14 information regarding a potential.. easement on Sonoma Mountain to
15 connec# Jack London State Park with Lafferty Ranch. He noted after field
16 trips, the Recreation, Music dnd Parks Commission passed a Resolution in
17 2003 with suggestions to enact an "Over the Mountain" Trail; encourage
18 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors to support .this trail; and begin
19 dialogue with the appropriate officials and agencies to accomplish this.
20 He added one of the suggestions was to sell Lafferty Ranch to the State
21 Parks. He indicated the City`s Ordinance. indicated the Ranch should be
22 • made avdildble for passive recreational use and that the. property could
23 not be sold without the, vote of the citizens.
24
25 Council Member Torliatt proposed some changes to the resolution under
26 "Whereas" 'humber five to read as follows; '''Whereas,. it would be a
27 regional benefit if the California Coastal Conservancy and the California
28 State Park system were to acquire and develop a more extensive park
• 29 system with unsupervised access on Sonoma. Mountain." She also
30 suggested striking "than that within the abilities of the City of Petaluma."
31 In section 6> and proposed "Whereas,. the City of Pe aluma would only be
32 interested in sellirig Lafferty Ranch to the Sta#e for inclusion. in such a larger
33 park system." She wanted to•d'ele,te, '`ds an alternative to the City's plans
34 to, open Lafferty as d stand=alone municipaf•park without linkages to other
35 trdifs or parks." She felt these deletions were important to establish linkages
36 in the future to other trails or parks even vvifhout a sale.
37
38 PUBLIC COflAMENT
39
40 Bruce Hagen, Petaluma,. addressed the City Council. and supported the
41 amendments, especially ":unsupervised access." He said there would be
42 some marketing necessary fo sell the property.
43
44 Robert .Ramirez, .Petaluma, addressed the City Council and requested
45 they unanimously approve the resolution with the changes requested.
46
• 47 Elaine Ramirez,. Petaluma, addressed the City Council grid reminded them
48 of the problems dt Oak Hill Park with a neighbor who wanted to dictate
49 the use of the public park. and compared this with the situation at Lafferty.
50 She requested that the Council pursue the easement because it is an
51 incredible opportunity. -
52
Vol. 40, Page 36 May 3, 2Q04
1 Bill Kortum; Petaluma; addressed the City Council and indicted the offer
2 of the easement by 3onnie Mitsui will •fulfill the ambitions. of the parkaysfem
3 to connect, parks with trails. and makes it a regional park., He urged
4 Council` to approach the.'Coastal Conservancy fo establish this easemenf.
5. He indicated because of the Stgte;'s 'fiscal crises,. it would be important to
6 move quickly and' the sale would help to recapture the legal fees spent:
7 and provide public access.
8 ~
9 Council Member Healy indicated he wanted to begin the discussion, with
10 the different State agencies to .explore. a mutually beneficial
1 T arrangement. He supported the first. .change to -the resolution of
12 "unsupervised access" but felt the other .changes to the language might
13 undermine 'the validity of the EIR to support future City plans forthe park.
14
15 Mayor Glass: clarified the changes to. the resolution language would be
inserted. after, "a snore, extensive park system,"with, "unsupervised access
17 on Sonoma' Mountain>" .and on the: following whereas, ''`the City` .of
1$ ,Petaluma would only be hterested in selling Lafferty Ranch to the State:"
19
20 Council.Members Healy. and Torliatt agreed on the changes.
21
22 Vice Mayor. 'Moynihan indicated he has visited the Matsui -easement
23 property and' reminded Council.. that the: offer was to negotiate an
24 easement with terms and conditions that need to be worked out. He
25 referred to :the :resolution language .and indicated it was to support the
26 ,general goal of linking the trail system to Sonoma but he did not feel it
27 had. the. Recreation, Music and Parks- Commission full consensus. He stated
2g he would like•the Board of Supervisor''s support on this and supported the
29 creation of a subcommittee to work with the Board. He was open to the
30 sale of Lafferty'to the State or Open Space District.
31
32 Council Member O'Brien :n. oted from the map that there was' no
33 connection from fhe Matsui property to Jack London State Park. He feels
34 'that fhe County should be consulted: and the sale sf•iould ,be an open.
35 process.
36
37 Mr. Carr explained that'there is not a contiguous,property line. The State is
38 trying to negotiate a 500-foot: area that wouldjoin the tw,o parcels.
39
40 Council Member Thompson agreed with the resolution. and indicated he ~ •
41 ~ would like some guarantee that if fh`e State agrees to ;pursue this, the City
42 would develop a subcommittee and go Through a public process
43 regarding the sale otthis property. He Wanted to clarify `the sale requiring •
44 a vote of fhe people to: assure that the City would, follow this.
45
46 City Attorney Rudriansky explained that the ordinance is still in effect and
47 the passive: use is also: consistent with this ordinance. He. clarified with a
48 majority of Council votes, the ordinance could be amended...
49
50 Council': Member' Healy suggested. adding language fo assure a full public
51 process.
52
May 3, 2004 Vol. 40, Page 37
1 Council Member Harris did not want to interfere with the Tolay Ranch
2 purchase being accomplished.
3
4 Mayor Glass supported Healy, Thompson and Torliatt. He wanted to open
5 the public's property to the people and sees this as a method to achieve
6 this goal. He indicated he feels that transferring this to another
7 governmerital agency wouldn't require. an appraisal.
8
9 Council Member Torliatt 'indicated she wanted to address the Tolay
10 acquisition. She added this property purchase was not fully supported by
1 1 the Supervisors because of the $9 million cost, but noted she would like to
12 ~ ~ see two parks if possible in soufhern Sonoma County.
13
14 Council Member Healy presented the changes to the resolution that
15 would add another "Whereas" clause as follows, "Whereas if talks with the
16 State of California become serious, the possible surplusing of Lafferty
17 Ranch would be the subject of a public process, including at least one
1$ public hearing before d decision to sell Lafferty Ranch to the State would
19 be made." A "Furthermore" would be added to read, "The Council will
20 appoint~a subcommittee to discuss bettercooperation with the County of
21 Sonoma regarding potentidl park land development in the South
22 County."
23
24 Council Member' Moynihan stated that the implications of this action are
25 unknown if the adoption of the resolution is enough for the Coastal
26 Conservancy to act on or for State Parks to put this easement into the
27 process. He felt that this resolution brings competition for funds and the
28 County should be consulted before adopting this resolution and wants to
29 -use Assemblyman Joe Nation to support this process.
30
31 Mayor Glass stated he felt Assembl,yperson Migden would become
32 Califotnia's senator and represents the City as such. Her enthusiasm and
33 support for the resolution would support Bonnie Matsui's offer and result in
34 action. Fie did not feel that there is competition with Tolay Ranch and
35 there will be money for both.
36
37 Council Member Torliatt referred to the Outdoor Recreation plan goals
38 and that the trail connecting Lafferty is consistent with the trail plan
39 adopted by the Board of Supervisors arid will help implement that plan.
40
41 Council Member O'Brien did not see the rush to act on this and indicated
42 he wants the public involved before the Council votes. He sees
43 inconsistencies with the letter from Mary Mitsui and the property being in
44 her name, not Bonnie Mitsui's.
45
46 Council Member Healy supported the Mayor's enthusiasm for opening
47 publicly owned property to the public. He supported cooperating with the
48 Board of Supervisors and working together on this trail enhancement.
49
50 MOTION to adopt the resolution:
51
52 M/S Healy and Torliatt. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
Vol. 40, Page 38 May 3,.2004'
1
2 AYES: Healy,7hompson, Torliatt, Glass
3 NOTES: Harris, Moynihan, O'Brien
4
5 ADJOURNED
6
7 The. meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m.'in memory of Josephine Brown.
8
9
10
11
12
13 David Glass; Mayor
14
15 ATTEST:
16
17
18
19
20 Gayle tersen; City "Clerk
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 ,
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 ~ .
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52