HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council/PCDC Minutes 11/17/2003November 17, 2003
Vol. 39, Page 241
L'
w~ A ~~ "
a ~ ~ ~ City of'l'etalua, C'al~f®~nia
I$'5,a MEETING OF PETALUM~4 CITY COUNCIL AND THE
PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
City Council/PCDC Minutes
Monday, November 17, 2003 - 3:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting
3:00 P.M. -CITY COUNCFL
CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
Present: Members Harris, Healy, O'Brien, Mayor Glass., Torliatt, Moynihan
Absent: Canevaro
B. Pledge of Allegiance
C. Moment of Silence
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council Member Moynihan commented, on the recent failure of Measures "C"
and "D" on the November 4; 2003 ballot and requested a future agenda item to
discuss. amendment the budget for modifications to levels of funding for street
maintenance.
Council Member Torliatt reported on having attended the promotional badge
ceremony and. swearing-in of new firefighters recently held by the Fire
Department.
CITY MANAGER. COMMENTS
There were none.
AGENDA CHANGES AND DELETIONS
The Mayor noted that Item 9.A, PCDC Presentation of the Petaluma Retail
Leakage and Strategy Report on the evening agenda, will be moved up and
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1.5
16
17
Vol. 39, Page 242
November 1:7, 2003
heard just before Item 8.6, Discussion Regarding the Solid .Waste Collection
Request for Proposals.
Council Member .Torliatt commented in light of new info
rmation ceceive~d this
afternoon .asked if the Council would move Item 4:A, PCDC discussion regarding
the Owner Participdtion Agreement Between LOK Petaluma Marina. Hotel
Company, LLC and the ,Petaluma Community Development Commis_siori to the
December l , 2003 Cify Council/PCDC Meeting.. The balance of ~ Council
concurred with, the request.
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
-:• Presentation by Ron Kaetzel of the Municipal IS Association. of Califorhia: to
the City of Petaluma for "Achievement in Information Technology for 2003.-
2004" Award.
Due ,to a death: in the family of Tim INiIliamsen, IS'Nlanager, who was scheduled
to accept this award on behalf of the City, this item was postponed until .the
December 1; 2003 meeting.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council/PCDC/PPFA Minutes of October 27, 2003.
Council Member Torliatt requested' that Page 1`7, line 34 anal asked
that a statement be added to reflect she was advocating
increasing the ih-lieu housing, fees {referencing the sliding scale]
upward from what was being proposed.
Council Member Torliatt also requested Page 22; line 48, be
changed to reflect "urban grow#h boundary. ": She also asked that
fhe Minutes reflect her request to amend the PCD guid`elin.es to'not
allow for a single use in that project to be in excess of 98,OOO~square
feet.
MOTION to approve the Oct. 27, 2003: _Ivfinutes as amended: -
M/S Torliatt and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
B. City Council Minutes of November 3, 2003.
Council Member Healy requested Page. 8;-dine 15, be changed~to
reflect "Wilfred Avenue" and Page 8, line:28, be amended to, read:.
"....the total fix to be paid #or ou# ofi existing City resources. Fot~fhe
remaining, half, he business community would pay 57~ and
residential consumers would pay about 43~."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43.
44
45
46
2
November T7, 2003
Vol. 39, Page 243
MOTION to approve the November 3, 2003 Minutes.as amended:
M/S Torliatt and Glass. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL: OF`PROPOSED AGENDA
C. Approval of Proposed Agenda for Council's Regular Meeting of
December 1, 2003.
City Manager Bierman noted the following items have now been
added:
^ LOK Agreement (continued, from this afternoon)
^ Resolution Adopting the Housing In-Lieu Fees
^ Resolution Adopting Workforce Housing Linkage Fees
^ Discussion .and Direction. of 2005 RTP Funding Sources and
Priorities (Presentation by SCTA staff)
Council Member Torliatt commented on the Easement for Pacific
Bell (at Washington Creek and Sonoma Mountain Parkway) for a
Fiber Optic Cabinet already scheduled to be on the agenda and
indicated she hoped the proposal would be an underground
cabinet.
Council Member Moynihan commented fhat he would like to see
an expansion of discussion on the .Resolution Accepting the
' ;Pavement Maintenance Project to include a discussion on the
maintenance program .and the potential funding.
Council Member Moynihan noted he would also like to have a
discussion on the Capital Improvement .Program, with a
comprehensive overview: Additionally, he noted since we have
converted the City's financial system, we should have ayear-to-
date. variance report as to if we are on budget for capital
improvements or`not.
City Manager Bierman clarified that staff'will be submitting a report
on the CIP to the City Council and the item will be scheduled for a
discussion once that is accomplished and noted that may .not be
until the first part of January, or perhaps at the mid-year budget
review.
Council Member Torliatt clarified Council had previously agreed to
receive the CIP report in December and to have a discussion
scheduled on the agenda during the mid-year budget review.
Vol. 39, Page 244
November 17, 2003
1 Council Member Moynihan stressed the need to address ;the streets
2 issue sooner rather than Igter, noting fhe Council owes 'it to the
3 public to respond to the vote of the November~4, 2003 Election.
4
5 Vice Mayor Q'Brien requested a presentation . on the Fetaluuma,
6 River Authority on December '1, 2003 or at the first'meeting th'e': City
7 Mardger determines is feasible.. __
8 ~ '
9 Council Member Healy noted.-the December l , 2003' .Agenda is
10 getting pretty full and suggesfed_ the Council may want fo have a
1 } Special meeting on 'December 8, 2003 to discuss issues.
12
13 Council Mernber.Harris agreed that receiving a variance report as
14 soon as possible from~the City Manager would be helpful.
15
16 MOTION to approve the Proposed Agenda .to include th`e above
17 ~ reference.d items, with the proviso thaf staff looks at the possbilify
18 of scheduling some of these items at an additional meeting on
19 _ December 8, 2003. -
20
21 M/S Torliatt and.Healy. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
22
23 Council Member Conevoro orrived 4t the City Council Meeting at .this .time.
-24 .
25 3. CONSENT~GALENDAR
26
27 Council Member Torliatt requested :Item 3.A be pulled from the Consent
28 Calendar for separate discussion.
29
30 Council Member Healy requested Item 3:F be pulled from. the Consent
31 Calera'dar for separate discussion, - -
32
33 MOTION to adopt the balance of the Consent Calendar:
34
35 M/S O'Brien and Healy. CARRIED IJ;NANIMOUSLY. ~ .:.
36 ~. .
37 A. Resolution Accepting the Completion. of the 2003:-2004 Water Main.
38 Replacement Project. Thee Project nvglved Replacing Water' Nlaihs
39 at Various Locations to Improve Service and Re-duce Mainfenance
40 Costs. Final. Contract Cost:; $380,000:. Funding, Source: -Water '
41 -Funds. Contractor: Piazza Construction ,(Ban/Nguyen)
42
43 B. Resolution:2003-221 N.C:S. to Purchase Upgrade of Existing QuicNet
44 Citywide. Traffic Control:System Software. (Skladzien/Allen)
45
46 C. Re§olution 2003-222 N.C.S.: Awarding. Construction Contract for the ,
47 Petaluma. Transit Maintenance and Opercitions Building: Remodel
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
November 17, 2003
Vol. 39, Page 245
Project No. 9032. The Estimated Project Cost: $160,000. Funding
Source: TDA. (Skladzien/Castaldo)
D. Resolution. 2003-223 N:C.S. Accepting the Completion of HVAC
Removal/Replacement,., First Phase of 'the FY 2003-2004 Petaluma
Regional Library Remodel Project No. 9028. (Skladzien/Castaldo)
E. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment 1
of the Urban Streams Agreement #P13-024 with the State
Department of Water Resources for Land Acquisition (Grange) and
Restoration of a Portion of the Denman Reach of the Petaluma River.
(Tuft)
F. 'Ordinance 2167 N.C.S. '(First Reading) Amending Petaluma
Municipal Code Chapter 3`.04, PERSONNEL, Section 3.04.130
APPEAL. (Robbins)
G. Resolution 2003-225 N.C.S. Authorizing the Police Department to
Accept a Traffic Safety Grcint from the California Office of Traffic
Safety for a Seat Belf Mini-Grant Enforcement in the Amount of
$14,020.00. (Simms)
Items. Removed from the Consent Ccilendar for Discussion:
A. .Resolution 2003-226 N.C.S: Accepting the~Completion of the 2003-
2004: 'W,ater Main Replacement ,Project. The Project Involved
Replacing Water Mains at Various Locations to Improve Service
and Reduce Maintenance Costs. Final Contract Cost: $380,000.
Funding Source: Water Funds. Contractor: Piazza Construction
(Ban/Nguyen)
Council Member Torliatt commented on how the bids came in
significantly under budget, approximately $50,000. She indicated
she would like to see the City work in partnership with the School
District on some water conservation and retrofitting projects, e.g.,
some irrigation replacement and trying to reduce water
consumption. She indicated this is a great opportunity to move
forward on a project like this can save the schools money as well as
conserving water.
MOTION to adopt the resolution:
M/S Torliatt and O'Brien. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
F. Ordinance 2:167 N.C.S. ('First
Municipal Code Chapter 3.04,
APPEAL. (Robbins)
Reading) Amending Petaluma
PERSONNEL, Section 3.04.130
Vol. 39, Page 246
November 17, 2003
l Council Member Hegly clarified with Pdmala Robbins, fnferim
2 Human Resources Manager;: this. proposed procedure has been
3 reviewed by AFSCM'E and will be reviewed by the other bargaining
4 groups as their contracts come up. He also rioted it dppears qs
5 though the City is moving toward fhe elimination of the Personnel
6 Board.
7
8 MOTLON to introduce the ordinance.
9
10 M/S Heoly and O'B'ren. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11
12 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - PCDC
13
14 A. ~ PCDC Discussion. and. Action Authorizing the Exe.c:ution of the First
15 Amendment to an Owner ,Participation Agreement. Between tOK
16 Petaluma .Haring Hotel Company, LLC -and the Petaluma
17 Community Development Commission. (Ivlarangella)
18
19 This item was postponed and moved to .the December 1, 2003 meeting
20 agenda.
21
22 5. NEW BUSINESS ~-...:PCDC
23
24 A. Discussion .and Action Adopting d Resolution Rejecting All Bids for
25 the Water Street/Riverwalk Improvements: Phase I - '.Utility
26 Undergrounding Project No. 9891 and Authorizing the Project to be
27 _ Re-B'id. (N1arangella
28
29 Pgul Hgrgngella, Director of Economic. Development dnd
30 Redevelopment, gave the. staff report and recorrimended
31 rejecting the bids; rebidding the project and having this item .return
32 for Council consideration at the December 15, 2003 Meeting.
33 _
34 Council Member ~Canevaro indicated he was prepared to move.
35 forward with ,the existing bid and award. the contract fo Northb.ay
36 Construction, Inc. He also added, if. this is. robid, bidders will Drily
37 come in and Gook at the low bid and with thatinformation create a
38 whole different kind of problem.
39
40 City Council discussion envied regarding the :protest that was filed
41 by Ghilloti Bros., lnc.
42
43 _ Council Member Hegly asked City Attorney .Richard 'Rudnansky to
44 ~ explain what- the. imp ications would be if the Council were; to go
45 ~ ahead and award the contract dnd then there was subsequen ly a
46 successfuC bid protest..
47
November 17, 2003
Vol. 39, Page 247
City Attorney Richard Rudnansky noted the consequences of a
2 successful challenge would be first of the challenger (the second
3 low bidder) would be entitled to the cost of preparation. of the bid.
4 The other possibility would be that the contract that was awarded
5 could be determined by the Court to be void.
6
7 Council Member Moynihan. clarified with Mr. Marangella that there
8 are no .assurances that Ghilloti will lower their bid to that of or
9 below Northbay Construction's low bid. He also clarified that there
10 are no assurances that Northbay Constructiori will rebid this project.
11 He noted that potentially, in addition. to the cost of rebidding, it
12 could result in an actual higher project cost. He indicated it seems
13 to him if the City has a bid process, it should be followed, and
14 according to the information he has, the protest process has not
15 been properly followed. He ' supported Council Member
16 Canevaro's suggestion.
17
18 ~ Mr: Marangella indicated he has a resolution prepared for the
19 award of the contract to Northbay Construction, should the
20 Council decide to move in that direction.
21
22 Vice Mayor O'Brien clarified with Mr. Marangella that other bidders
23 did ihclude a dollar amount for the deleted item and are not
24 protesting the current bid process. He then indicated he concurred
25 with Council Members Canevaro and Moynihan and supported
26 awarding the bid to Norfhbay'Consti-uction.
27
28 Council Member Tor(iatt noted it was her understanding there were
29 some concerns regarding the potential for a change in the bid or
30 for add-ons after the bid process was awarded and during
31 construction. Also, she questioned ~if the City has to go to court
32 and pay for attorney's fees and the City ends up losing, what
33 would our potential attorney's fees be in litigating something like
34 this?
35
36 City Attorney Rudnansky indicated he is not certain, but he does
37 not believe the City would have to pay for their attorney's fees, just
38 the cost of putting the'bid together.
39
40 Council Member Harris confirmed with staff that the bid' protest.
41 filed was not followed to the letter of the law. Staff responded the
42 protest letter was hand delivered to a project manager after 5 p.m.
43 The process required that the letter be delivered to the City
44 Manager by 5 p.m.
45
46 Discussion ensued regarding the one-dollar amount being bid on
47 the deleted item and what potentially that would allow for.
48
Vol. 39, Page 248 '.November 17, `2003
1 Public Comment: (Thee fol%wing portion was 'transcribed verb4tim)
2
3 Mike Ghiloff, Ghilotti Bros..; Inc: Good evening,: Ivlr. Mayor and ,City
4
~ Council Me'rnbers: I'm here without Counsel and am representing
5 Ghilotti Bros.:My name 'is Mike Ghilotti, I am President of Ghilotti
6 Bros., and we-are the lowest responsible bidder for this. project. I'm
7 here wifho.ut Counsel' because I was under fh'e :i'rnpression that this
8 was going to rebid and was not going to be pursued as to
9 awarding to Northbay, The basis for my being here `today, was to
10 urge you to go ahead and award to the lowest responsible bidder,
l 1 which is Ghilotti Bros. If~ you do anything else, other than that it is
12 illegal.. 1Ne've written a leater dated No~ecnber Sth, which we
13 protested,,#axed' a copy to the City Manager prior to 5 o'clock and
l 4 hand delivered to our meeting at S o'clock at the City.. But i'n that,
15 it clearly documents that bids that do not conform to thecontract
16 requirements are invalid. Irregularities cannot be waived. A public,
17 agency is :bound to. follow 'the requirements that they initiate in (heir
18 .bid documents. And, if the. City disregards its own solicitation
19 requirements; you: are opering the door for fraud, favoritism: and
20 undue irifl'uence in public contracting, which is th'e: exact thing that
21 public contracting is trying to prevent; This isn't an issue; about a
22 .dollar. Gfilotti Bros.. were never, and I don't think any of tli'e other
23 contractors ever received any- information saying that this item was
24 _
~ delete.d. There wds an addendum sent out -the bid form on it had
25 this bid item. as a part of the bid package to fill out. It did not say
26 "deleted" if did not .have any reference to that ~:i.tem being
27 deleted: Jt was :a part of the bid package that you were to fill out.
X28 It is not about a dollar: The fact ofi fhe matter `is, is as contractors in
29 public contracting, No .rf. hbay, Ghilotti Bros..., everybody knows'you
3Q fill out 'the; bid form. You .have to put a'dollar amount in there for'
31 every bid item. If you don't, then your bid is non-responsive: If you.
32 don't, then .your bide is more restrictive -than the next contractor's -
33 because;. therefbre,l, do not ihtend on doing that work;. there is no
34 method of payment for that work,. so on and so forth. We're the
35 only contractor protesting this job because, frankly, everybody'else
36 is much higher. than Ghilotti Bros. and Northbay. You wgn't receive
37 . - _ protests frorn~ other conttracoors° if they're third., fourth, fiffh in line,
38' unless, of course,. `.they thought Ghilotti Bros., did something wrong..
39 We have ,not, so we° have been the only protestor for this job. I was,
40 here today to talk about the fact that the City should be
41 - encouraged to award. "it to the lowest bidder, which is Ghilotti 'Bros:.
42 at roughly $950;000. This is still well under the engnee"r's estimat,e
43 and will allow you to mope forward on d project that was very time
44 sensitive and continue to do the construction as requested. So I wilt
45 urge you to reference this' document that, we provided in our bid
46~ ~ protest that clearly states that there is no .basis for awarding it to
November 17, 2003 Vol. 39, Page 249
Northbay - fha°t''would not be a conforming bid as required by the
2 City°of'Petaluma.
3
4 Mayor Glass: Thank you Mr. Ghilotti. Steve Geney, is it?
5 - _ .
6 ~ Mr. Geney: I will defer to my attorney first, then I will speak.
7
8 Mike Senneff: Mayor Glass and Members of the City Council, my
9 name is Mike Senneff and I am here representing Northbay
10 Construction. There are really two issues I would like to address.
11 One is the merits of the protest. And; that is the issue of whether or
12 not Ghilotti Bros. knew that this particular item had been deleted
13 from. the bid requirements and whether they were acting under
14 some kind of a misconception. I think it's really clear that they knew
15 that the item and issue had been deleted. What happened is the
16 bid documents were sent out. The bid documents included what's
17 called item # 12 which identified electrical pedestals that were to
18 be installed. Then an addendum to the bid documents came out.
19 It still had the same printed form language, but as part of the
20 addendum it had the project specifications for the electrical work
21 which crossed out the pedestals. And, the result of that was Ghilotti
22 Bros. wrote a letter to the City in which they acknowledged and
23 said "new addendum issued has the wiring cable along with the
24 service meter pedestal crossed out. What is being installed under
25 this. i em`?" The City responded by a letter of clarification that went
26 to every bidder. And it said, clearly, That the receptacles and their
27 wiring, the connection to the meter pedestal and the installation of
28 the meter. pedestal will be included in a future construction
29 contract. Everybody here knew that item had been deleted.. So
30 Northbay bid it and it put "deleted." Ghilotti bid it and it bid a
31 do-liar. What that gives Ghilotti is the option if they got this knocked
32 out going in for an extra bn that item. If Northbay gets this contract
33 they can't come in for an extra. There's no unfair advantage fo
34 Northbay. There's no disadvantage to Ghilotti. They knew darned
35 well what was happening. Bvt the problem is that, what`s
36 happened`, and .it's a little awkward because this protest did not
37 come to the attention of Northbay until well after it had come to
38 the attention of the City. Ghilotti did a late protest here. They filed
39 ~ a protes# with the City that was after the mandatory time limit that
40 - is set forth in your bid protest procedures. And those protest
41' procedures are very clear. They tell every contractor these
42 procedures are mandatory. And if you fail to follow them,
43' essentially you are out of luck. The bid protest procedures required
44 fhe 'protest be-filed and served on the City no later than 5 p.m. on
45 the fifth working. day after the bid opening. The bid opening here
46 was on October 29t". The bid protest was hand delivered to the
47 City at 6:15 p:m. on November 5t". Too late. They had sent an
48 earlier letter to the City that they never copied Northbay with. So
Vol. 39, Page 250
November 17, 20.03
1 they had sent an earle_r, .detailed le.tter~ to the. City but the bid
2 protest procedures also require that anytime you_do~a protest-you
3 let the others who are interested know. Particularly, the ocher
4 biddirig contractors. .And you erve them with. everything.
5 Northbay didn't get that until after it learned of the late G;hlotti
6 protest. So,; from Northbay's p'erspe.ctive we~shouldn`'t even be here
7 on the merits of this because the Ghilotti Bros. bid protest is ,not
8 timely and. is not adequate..
10 CouncilMember Torliatt: Mr. Mayor....gnd I just throw this out there
11 for Council's consideration and the contractor's
12 consideration....would you consider, if We did move -this. forward,
13 would Northbay Construction consider paying for and ,defending
14. any lawsuit that we got in#o as a result of this if the project. is
1.5 .important enough for Northbay to actually get .awarded andi we
16 could move forward on this so we don't have to mess-around with.
17 $100,000 or $120;000 and potentially have. the. bid driven 'up. So, I
18 jusf throw that out there..
19
20 Mr. Genet': f'm Stever Genet', Vice President and one of the owners
21 of Northbay Cons.trucfion. Mr. Mayor dnd Members of .Council, first
22 of al) to .answer Council Member Torliatt's question,: I think by. the
23 mere .facf. of the indemnification clau"ses in the contract we are
24 required to pay `for those costs.. We had this happen once before,
25 six or seven years ago, .one of fhe cases that was' actually
26 documented in the protest of (unidentified word) case, did go to a
27 lawsuit. and it was upheld and consequently, .;if other negotiations
28 weren't worked out at that time the- contract deemed .null and
29 void., We would not only have to pay the attorney's. fees
30 associated With that, we would, be responsible for paying, back file
31 ..monies t.o the, City that we received for-'the project. But, we know
32 the .level of risk here on this, And, just by, once we enter into the
~
33 contract anal indemnification clauses, we'll be 'responsible fior that
34 anyway.. I'd like to add a couple: other issues, like., Mr.. Seneff"had
35 eluded to -there ace two issues here - one, is- a so-called
36 discrepancy 'in our bid: We feet that we ccn defend that right
37 down to~ the bottom line. There are no discrepancies - we feel we.
38 would win any lawsuit thaf would come subsequent. But second, of
39 all and for me the most important part of this is that. the protest
40 ifself., My belief is that you can't gefi to .door #2 vvhic,h ,is th'e
41 deficiency question in the ,bids without .crossing. through: door '# 1
42 and that is there a proper protest. The specs clearly call for a
43 protest procedure that is mandatory. Th`ere's eight items fhat° have
4.4 to be followed to the "T" in order to be, a legitimate protest. Two, at
45 a minimum; these items were not followed.: One of -the;tems in the
46 specs, and if I' mdy, clearly states that the procedure and time limits
47 .set forth in this paragraph are mandatory 'an°d are the: bidder sole
48 and exclusive remedy in the event of -bid protest: The bidders
November 17, 2003 Vol. 39, Page 251
failure to comply with these procedures shall constitute a waiver of
2 any right ~to further pursue the bid protest, including filing a
3 government code claim or legal proceedings. Bidder may not rely
4 on a protest submitted by another bidder and must timelypursue its
5 owri protest. So failing to provide the protest in the manner that
6 ,was specified in the specs eliminates this bid protestor from even
7 - filing suit. Now, we all know in this. litigious society that's, you know,
8 if you're gonna file it, you're :gonna file it....but the point is, that if
9 you don't go through door # 1, which is the proper bid protest
10 procedures, you can't get to door #2, which is even starting to
1 1 question the bid validity. Just a couple other points. I'm concerned
12 if the Council doesn't stand up for these specs, that the doors are
13 going to get .opened from here in on out - it just leads to a lot of
14 illegitimacy in bids and anything else in -these project specifications.
15 Next thing you know a guy's a minute late on a bid and you know
16 things go on like that. So, I think. it's imperative that the City really
17 stand behind its procedures, uphold those specs. We're not only
18 $116,000 lower than the second bidder Ghilotti Bros. with $346,000
19 lower than the budget, the engineer's estimate on this. So, there's
20 a tremendous savings to the City that should also be looked at in
21 this matter.
22
23 Mayor Glass: Thank you very much. I will allow it, usually we don't.
24 But I can see fha't...you know, iri the interest of clarity....Mr. Ghilotti
25 and then I'll allow Mr. Geney to come back if he wishes, or his
26 counsel. Mr. Ghilotti.
27
28 Mr. Ghilotti: Thank you Mr. Mayor, I'll try to make this brief. I can
29 appreciate that both contractors here want to do what is right. We
30 talked.ab'out the proper thing to do -standing behind we don't
31 want bids in the future. As it's stated right now, the determination is
32 either decide. that the protest was proper - if it wasn't proper the
33 City still h'as to do the right thing. You cannot award the bid to
34 Northb.ay.. Having an addendurri that crosses out an item does not
35 mean that it is deleted.. Okay? Because we asked a question for
36 clarification, your own specifications clearly say clarifications don't
37 have a .determination on the contract documents. The bid
38 documents clearly listed all the 'bid items. Every contractor has a
39 responsibility to put a price in, be it a dollar or something else for
40 that. What t'm here today is saying exactly what Mr. Geney is
41 saying.. Don't let the system go sideways. The other contractors put
42 in d price for that bid item. Why was Northbay writing in deleted?
43 ~ You don`t write in ''deleted" under a bid item. That is not a proper
44 and responsive bid. You never are gonna find any agency
45 awarding a bid to a contractor that writes in "deleted" under a bid
46 .item. It cannot happen. It's an illegal award. So whether you take
47 and accept our protest or you don't, the fact of the matter is you
48 cannot legally award the job to Northbay. The bid is nonresponsive
Vol. 39, Page 252
November 17, 2003
1 - it had, a bid item that had to be filled out whether it's a, dollar or
2 whether it's $100,000: We're making a lot of assumptions
3 tonight......well Ghilot:ti `thou,ght this or Northbay this......:.I'll tell you
4 what - Ghifotti can "t go back, ih for an extra. If we are asked~to .do
5 ;that work,it will cost a dollar to the City: if Northbay:goes back and
6 does that work, yes, they .may be able to ,ask for money. We.
7 cannot. We wrote in a price;. That's the, reason you have a line. item
8 .for that. As far as everything else.:the indemnification, "that's .all
9 hearsay. You have: to -award the contract first for the contractor to
10 be dole to indemnify the City. ~ You cannot aegally .award, the
1 1 contract. So, I was here today to 'say tb promote going forward to
12 awarding it to Ghilotti ,Bros. as the lowest responsive bid. Clearly if
13 there's a question about a protest; the City must .rebid all the
14' projects because you cannot legally award it to Northbay based.
15 on the fact they did not adequately fill out the bid section, I would
16 request that you ask- Paul, the City representative here, to show you
17 the document and:. you ,guys decides where you think fhat'
18 adequately.,...the bid `item sheet, whether if adequately would felt.
l9 you as a bidder you. don't have to 'fill this out; if's deleted. That's. n'ot
20 .what .happened. That'a why, the other c`ontrac or filled .out'a price.-
21 for that bid, asp well 'as Ghilotti Bros. We are the legally 'low
22 responsible bid and I''II take questions if I need to.
24 Mayor Glass; Are ther..e, any questions for Mr. Ghilotti? (no
25 response) Would Mr. Genet',care to respond2 '(Nod ,
(End of verbatim transcript.)
29 Council Member Moynihan;'reco.mmended rejecting; the. four other
30 bids. at this time and then in a se,parate~ action direct staff ao brin`g a.
31 new resolution back. and any additional recommendations .that
32 they would have at .that time for consideration by, the Council to
33 award the contract to Northbay Construction,: lnc. `
35 ~ City Attorney'Rudnansky noted thgt~if the Council'is going to.reject
36 any bids, then all bid"s•shoul.d be rejected: .
37 _
38 Council Mernber Healy commented that having reviewed N1r.
39 Rudndnsky's, memo he is till unwilling to deviate .from staff's
40 recommendation and would support rejecting, all the bids, and
41 rebidding this: project. ,
42
43 City Council .discussion ensued, regarding what action Council
44 could acfually take based on -the agenda wording.
45
November 17, 2003
VoL 39, Page 253 ~ -
1 City Manager .Bierman commented the best and safest way to go would
2 be for the Council to reject the bids, rebid the project, and the matter will
3 be brought back for Council action on December 15, 2003.
4
5 MOTION by Mdyor Glass to reject all the bids. Seconded by Council
6 Member Healy.
7
8 Council Member Moynihan commented he wants to accept the low bid
9 and is not comfortable rejecting all bids. He also .noted concern with
10 awarding the low bid based on how file agenda language is worded
1 1 and noted for the .record he will not be supporting the motion. He would
12 support a resolution coming back at the next meeting awarding the bid
13 to Northbay.
14
15 CounciC Member Torliatt commented if she is certain the City won't be
16 paying for any litigation on this contract, she doesn't have a problem with
17 moving forward with the award to Northbay.
18
19 City Attorney Rudnansky questioned whether Northbay would be willing
20 to sign a contract indicating they would defend, indemnify, and hold
21 harmless for any attack against this award?
22
23 (Verbatim)
24 Steve Genet', Vice President Northbay, we would agree to that.
25
26 (End verbatim.)
27
28 City Manager Bierman again recommended the Council rejecting all bids
29 - or hold this same item until next week.
30
31 MOTION to reject all the bids:
32
33 M/S Glass and Healy. MOTION FAILED.
34
35 AYES: Healy and Glass
36 NOES: Harris, Canevaro, O'Brien, Torliatt and Moynihan
37
38 MOTION to bring this matter back with additional staff recommendations
39 on December 1, 2003.
40
41 M/S Canevaro and Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
42
43 Vice Mayor O'Brien stressed the desire: to have an accurate staff report on
44 this issue as he feels pertinent information. was missing.
45
46
47
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
lb
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
''4
25
26
27
28
29
30'
31
32
33
34
35
36-
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Vol. 39, Page 254 November 17, 2003:
6. NEW BUSINESS - CITY COUNCIL
A. Ordinance 21'68:N:C:S. Infroduction (.First Reading) Authorizing the
City Manager to Execute the Necessary Documents to Complete
the Exchange of Property {Lot Line Adjustment), and, the
Acceptance of the Dedication of a Public Easement. with Shamrock
:Materials, Inc.. to Facilitate the Connection of the McNear
Peninsula Park, Phase T;'Tlrail System to'Hopper Street (Tuft)
Pamela Tuft, General. Plan Drec#or„ gave the staff report.
Council Member Torlatt commented on how wonderful it is that
Shamrock .has offered this to the City and indicated we should.
consider "Shamrock Trail" for the naming of this trail.
l/ice.Mayor O'Brien stepped out of the Council Chambers at .this.. point
Staff went over fhe proposed plans for the Bay Area Ridge Trail.
MOTION to introduce the ordinance:
M/S .Moynihan and Torlatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Vice Mayor O'Brien ,returned to the: Council'Chambers
B. Resolution. 2003,-.227 N.C.S. Approving final Conceptual :Design Plane.
and Authorizing Distribution of Request for Prop:os.als fbr
Co,nstrueton of fmprovements for McNear Peninsula Park, Phase 1.
(Tuft)
Scott D.uiven, Associate Planner, gave the staff report.
George Sevagio, Wetlands Research. Associations, went over the
conceptual design of the park.
Council Member. Moynihan expressed concerns with the potential.
liability with boardwalks and piers. He also voiced concerns with
the livery stable attracting t:he homeless population.
City Council discussion ensued, regarding access locations to fhe
Park.
Council Member ,Healy clarified.. this. project had not been
reviewed by SPARC ,and indicated he would supporf it being
reviewed' by SPARC before the`final drawing preparations..
November 17, 2003 vol. 39, Page 255
City :Manager Bierman noted this project has been reviewed by the
2 Recreation and Parks Commission.
3
4 Council Member Torliatt commented on the access on Copeland
5 Street and indicated she believes this is the proposed access for
6 the Sonoma/Mann Area Rail Transit link. She commented on the
7 proposed route and indicated it may be a Regional Route and
8 improvements at that location are definitely important to make
9 sure there is attention paid to detail there. She also indicated she
10 agrees with Council Member Healy that SPARC should be looking
11 at this project as well as the .Gatti Park Project. She noted SPARC
12 may have a heavy schedule, but she agrees if their input is not
13 given on these project the Councif may regret it in the future.
14
15 Public Comment
16
17 David Yedrsley, Petaluma, addressed the City Council, advocating
18 .for the project. He added to have access to McNear peninsula is a
19 dream come true fo some residents. With regard to access to the
20 River, he would like to see a small boat access and have it woven
21 into the plan. He stressed a small board access, storage and center
22 would be an enhancement and that the small boardwalk or
23 floating dock should stay in the plan. He continued by indicating
24 this would make a wonderful destination for paddlers. H'e
25 concluded by recommending the use of the livery stable for a
26 Maritime Heritage Center.
27
28 Council Member Harris commented it is nice to see the State
29 funding for improvements and indicated he doesn't want to bury
30 this in the process by sending it back to SPARC for review.
31
32 Council. Member Moynihan indicated `there is a landscape
33 archifect on SPARC who .could give advice and suggested if you
34 could get- input from -that individual without running the project
35 through the whole SPARC that would be good. He indicated he Is
36 comfortable going forward with the review that has already taken
37 place and indicated because of the liability, he continues to :'be
38 concerned about the marsh overlooks. He would like to see the
39 elimination of the overlooks optional element.
40
41 MOTION to approve the introduction of the ordinance, including
42 that it would not be necessary to send this project to SPARC.
43
44 M/S Moynihan and Harris. MOTION FAILED.
45
46 AYES: Moynihan
47 NOES: Canevaro, Harris, Healy, O'Brien, Torliatt and Glass
48
Vol. 39, Page 256
November 17; :2003
1 Council :Member Healy indicated he would support moving
2 forward with.. project as presented at fhis time, :but would
3 recommend SPARE reviewing t° without having it have to come
4 back to the- Council. He 'noted he would:-hate •to see it rushed
5 , through without the. broad-based inpuf the SPARC represents.
6
7' MOTION to ,introduce the ordinance and direct that SPARC review
'8 the project°with no further requirement for it'to come- back to'fhe
9 Council..
10
1 1 M/S Ne.aly and Tocliatt. MOTION. CARRIED BY SHE' FOLLOWING VOTE:
12
13 AYES: Canevaro; Harris, Healy, O'Brien, Torliatt and Glass
14 NQES: Moynihan
15
16 C. Resolution: 2003-2-28 N:CS. Approving Gatti` Park' Final Conceptual
17 Design Plan and Authorizing: Distribution of Request for Proposals for
18 Constructon_of (mprovemenfs. (Carr)
19
20 Jim Carr, Director of P.a_rks and. Recreation, 'gave the staff report
21 and recommended approval of the plan:
22
23 Gretchen Stranzl Me'Cgnn went over 'th'e conceptual plan and:
24 design •of the. park. •
25
26 Council ,Member 'Torliatt clarified with staff.' that this plan; had: not
2Z gone to SPARC or the Bicycle. and Pedestrian Committee. ~S,taff
28 noted the park- followed. the City's., Park development standards
~..
29 - and the City's arborist was heavily involved:
30
31 Council Member Torliatt continued by stating she feels, SPARC d'o:es
32 need to take a look. at this from their perspective. She indicated
33 she would like #o see the lookou#s along .Capri Creek having. chairs
34 dnd tables .that .are. an art feature, with potential.. donations froi~rm
35 service clubs and businesses offsetting the costs. 'Sh:e continuedl by
36 noting where should be better-defined .pedestrian access from the
37 southwest corner of the park. to the signalized intersection, making
38 it easily contiguous,. She also suggesting making the restroom look
39 more .like an architectural; feature, dike the ,gazebo by perhaps
40 elevating the gazebo and restro.om to create better security.. She
41 cornrnented on the' need fo look .at: fhis project from a pedestrian
42 _ level with the elevations of the structures in mind, as she feels these
43 - would be better visually from a "security standpoint: She indicated
44 consideration should be given to eliminating the tree. fo th`e right ofi
45 the gazebo; slowing traffic down and providing for traffic calming
46 measures on the street between the shopping cenfer and the par,'k'.
4.7 She qu:estio,ned fhe need for the proposed vending ;rngchines and.
48 continued by commenting on the need. for wind deflecting
November 17, 2003 ~ Vol. 39, Page 257
devices (as the area is a very windy area) and that lighting should
2 be away from neighborhoods and shine downward.
3
4 Vice Mayor O'Brien thanked staff and the Parks and Recreation
5 Commission for their efforts and indicated he feels the design "as
6 is" is wonderful. He indicated he feels there is no need for this
7 project to go to SPARC or the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee
8 for review.
9
10 MOTION to adopt the resolution and plan "as is." Seconded by
1 1 Council Member Moynihan..
12
13 Council Member Healy indicated his thanks to a many different
14 people, including previous Councils. He indicated this is in a
15 different posture than the previous item and sees nothing to send
16 to SPARC for review at this point in time. He added as design work
17 proceeds he would recommend SPARC take a look and see what
18 is being proposed. Hs voiced additional concerns with parking
19 around the perimeter of the baseball field and confirmed activities
20 would be limited to liftle league games. He concluded by
21 indicating he is supportive of the motion made if it doesn't
22 preclude SPARC from reviewing this later.
23
24 Council Member Moynihan stated this has been a long time in
25 coming and the City has a lot to be proud of. He indicated he
26 would. like to support the thank yous given to the Parks and
27 Recreation Department. He added the design of this park has
28 been very public and there are clearly needs for these public fields
29 and the ,fermis courts. He noted every issue that Council Member
30 Torliatt raised, he has heard to some degree at the Parks and
31 Recreation Committee Meetings. He stated he doesn't feel "more"
32 is better when it comes to bureaucracy. He concluded by
33 indicating he is not supportive of sending this project to SPARC and
34 stated he supports Vice Mayor O'Bren's motion. He added the
35 recornmehdation is good and noted Mr. Hagan was the liaison on
36 the R~$creation and Parks Committee representing the Bike
37 Committee.
38
39 Mayor Glass indicated he wouldn't mind seeing the gazebo and
40 restroom buildings being looked at by SPARC. Staff concurred.
41 Mayor Glass concluded by stating he thinks this is a spectacular
42 plan.
43
44 Council Member . Canevaro commented on the water faucet
45 facilities and supported having bike racks. He commented on the
46 connection points with the north/south trail and clarified they hook
47 into the urban separator.
48
Vol. 39, Page 258
November 17, 2003
1 City Council and staff-discussion ensued regarding access points.
2
3 Council Member Torlidtf indicated she was making constructive
4 comments regarding some of the features in the park and hopes
5 they are taken into considergfion when -they are, Jooking at the final
6 drawings for this .project. She concluded when final specifications
7 are created,. she hopes it goes to SPARC for theirinput.
8
9 Council. acted, on the. motion to approve the plan "as is" dnd to
10 authorize distribution of the RFP for consfruction of• improvemenfs:
11
12 MIS O"Brien and Moynihan. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13
14 CITY COUNCIL CLOSED~SESSIbN
15 •
16 PUBLIC COMMENT
17
18 There were none.
19
20 ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
21
22 Council adjourned at 5:20 p.m. to discuss. the following mafters:
23 •
24 • CONFERENCE WITH .LEGAL COUNSEL= EXISTING LITIGATION - Government Code
25 §54956.9;(a) - 2 cases:
26 • McCardle vs. City of Petaluma et. al. (Sonoma County Superior Court Case No.
27 226978); and,
28 Parsegian vs. City of Petaluma et. al. (Sonoma County Superior Court Cdse~,No.
29 229976)
30 • CONFERENCE WITH 'REAL. PROPERTY NEGOTIAtO:R: Pursuant to Government- Code
31 §54956.8. P~op,erty: Two Parcels, Located on fhe 4000 Block of Lakeville Highway
32 (APNs 0.1:7-170-002 :and 068-010-026)., One Parcef Located Sowu.thwest' of the Gity's
33 Oxidation Ponds (APN 019-330-009.);. A Small Portion of One Parcel ..Located at 3880
34 Cypress Drive (APN 005-090-062). Negotiating Party: Michael Bierman/Michael Ban.
35 Under Negotiation: Price, Terms or Payment, or Both:
36 :• CONFERENCE WTIH LEGAL. ,COUNSEL-EXISTING 11TIGATIQI~: (,Government Code
37 §54956.9(x;)) 2 cases:
38 Sandalwood Estafes, LLC vs, City of Petaluma, •e`t al (Court of Appeal, First
39 Appellate District, CaseNo: A102613J..
4.0 .Affected Residents of the Sandalwood Mobile Home Owner's Association vs. City
4.1 of Petaluma et al (Sonoma County Superior Courf Case No. 233343)
42
November 17, 2003 Vol. 39, Page 259'
2 ~~EVENING SESSION -7:00 P'.M.
3
4 CALL TO' ORDER
5
6 A. Roll Call.
7 •
8 Present: Members Canevaro; Harris, Healy, O'Brien, Mayor Gldss,
9 Torliatt, Moynihan
10
11 B. Pledge of Allegiance
12 C. Moment of Silence
13
14 REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS TAKEN
15
16 City.Attorney Rudnansky indicated there was. no reportable action in a couple of
17 the cases, however, the Council has reached an agreed to "in principal" a MOU
18 which hopefully will. resolve the Sandalwood eases.
19
20 PUBLIC COMMENT
21
22 Bill Donahue, Petaluma, addressed the City Council indicating he was happy to
23 .report that following mediation a number of adjustments had been made and
24 an agreement reached. He has, however, not seen the final agreement and
25 has not yet announced this to the residents. He. continued by thanking City
26 Attorney .Richard .:Rudnansky and Housing Administrator Bonne Gaebler for their
27 efforts and indicated he awaits the final agreement. He concluded by stressing
28 the needs of mobilehome owners in Petaluma still .require the Council's attention,
29 i.e. the rezoning of the parks. He added he would still like to see a
30 reconsideration of the September 8, 2003 City Council Minutes to reflect
31 comments he felt were missing.
32
33 Peter A. Tscherneff, Petaluma, addressed the City Council regarding
34 homelessness, and the holidays.
35
36 CORRESPONDENCE
37
38 There was none.
39
40 COUNCIL COMMENTAND LIAISON REPORTS
41
42 Council Member Torliatt indicated her desire to have the City Clerk review the
43 September 8, 2003 Minutes per Mr. Donahue's request; indicated she
44 participated in the Veteran's Day Parade festivities; and noted in January or
45 February the Council will be reagendizing issues for mobilehome parks, as well as
46 an arts fee.
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Vol. 39, Page 260
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
There were none.
November 1.7; 2003'
7. PUBLIC HEARING -CITY' COUNCIL
A. Public Hearing and Resolution '2003-22:9 N:C.S. Granting an
Extension of° Tirne to Owners of. the Lanmart ~uild'ing (39 Petaluma
Boulevard North) and the: Phoenix' Theater ,(205 Washington Street)
to Comply with Certain Provisions of the City. of Petaluma
Unreinforced Masonry Building Ordinance. (Chapter 17.3.4: of
Petaluma 'Municipal Code). (Moore)
Mike Moore, Director of Community Develo~arnent, gave the staff
report. It was noted the Phoenix Theatre would no't need to close
while. doing the work and work will begin in January, with permits'
expected to be issued, tomorrow.
City Council discussion; ensued, regarding the bomber ofi days (1,80)
after issuance that the building permit is good. for and that` there
will be a more detailed schedule for the work to be completed
once they meet with the contractors.
Furfher discussion ensued regarding any liability the City may 'be
incurring since they have been out of compliance and that this
extension. would not be precedent setting.. It was' noted that there
has been generally good compliance since this program hasi'been
in existence and =this°'is hoped to be an extraordinary situation that
the ~Ci,ty would not expect to run into again:
Council Merrsber Torliatt indicated her support' of staff Arid thgt it
would be prudent for the Council to re::c`eive some sort of status
report. on buildings out of compliance in the next' round ofi
inspections. She concluded by stating the building' owners, who
were subject to this in the first round have done a good` job of
responding.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Tom Knudtson; Phoenix' Theatre; addressed the City Council; an:d
explained. why changes were not made at the ~ change of
ownership.. Ne indicated they ~di'd riot have. 10 years to comply with.
the retro;fif and they have had to raise funds to do the:
improvements. He expfained they were under the false impression
that they would trigger ADA compliance as well, _but~ have been
informed differently. He concluded by' noting construction should
b.e complefed within fhree months after commencernenf.
November 17, 2003
Vol. 39, Page 261
1 Hearing no further requests to speak, the public hearing was.
2 closed.
3
4 .MOTION to adopt the resolution with inclusion of the milestones to
5 be met by the contractor:
6
7 M/S Canevaro and Torliatt. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8
9 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -CITY COUNCIL
10
11 A. Reintroduction (First Reading) of Ordinance No. 21.66 N.C.S.
12 Amending Sections 20.34.0.90 and 20:34.100 of the Petaluma
13 Municipal Code Regarding the Amount of Park Land and Park Fees
14 Required'. (Thomas)
15
16 City Attorney Rudnansky gave an overview of the proposed.
17 ordinance.
18
19 Bill Thomas, Finance Director, indicated the fees are based on the
20 .inventory of parkland and open space. If the Council changes the
21 mix (the inventory of park space), it will change the fee calculation.
22
23 MOTION by Council Member Torliatt, seconded by Mayor Glass, to
24 ~ adopt the ordinance as written.
25
26 Council discussion ensued regarding the inclusion of "within the
27 ~ urban growth boundary" language.
28
29 City Council discussion continued' regarding park area acres per
30 1,000 residents, and whether or not Lafferty acreage and lands
31 outside the urban boundary should be included. City Attorney
32 Rudnansky explained what Mr. Thorpe did was for the component
33 of the overall park impact fees, he obtained the standard of 5.94
34 acres. per 1,000. With thd;t fie determined what it would. cost per
35 acre to purchase open space. That component of the park fees,
36 which includes Lafferty, is only to be used for the purchase. of open.
37 space. So, if you take Lafferty out, it is going to significantly reduce
38 that component and that fee.
39
40 Council Member Torliatt indicated the question is do we want to
41 have the proportionality of the open space divided among the
42 entire community. The question is not whether or not its inside the
43 urban growth boundary, it's about accessible or potentially
44 accessible land that the City owns in this community and whether
45 or not we want to make sure we get the highest development fee
46 for fhat acreage. She stated she does not see where the urban
47 growth boundary comes into that calculation at all.
48
Vol. 39, Page 262
November 17, 2003
1 Vice Mayor O'Brien, commented, with reference to the. ordinance,
2 that page 1, dine 31, should be amended to change the word
3 "local" to "within th'e urban growth boundary."
4 .
5 Council' Member Torliatt ihdicated he~ wouldn't have any problem
6 segregating fh'e open space fee versus, i~he park fee in that
7 respect. She ridded she believes the open pace fee is calculated
8 separately and apart from the park fee.
9
10 City Attorney Rudnansky pointed' out this ordinance has nothing to
1 1 do with f he open space component of the park. -fees. He then
12 explained the three "buckets" of fees .and indicated this ordinance
13 has to do with the in-lieu fee relative to the dedication of land. He
._
14 further explained .that Lafferty's acreage is .only used 'to come up
15 -with a standard in which the fee to purchase future open space is
16 determined. It was noted the Quimby Act does allow for the: use of
l 7 Quimby Act fees for rehabilitation or ddvelopment of existing, parks.
18 He indicated he had difficulty in determining: (referencing the. 2r,a
19 column -the park development component) was a Quimby Act
20 Fee or an AB1600 Fee. He noted .what he understands is~ it is'
21 basically the same amount of fee if you determined it by Quimby
22 Act or AB'1600 analysis.
23
24 Finance Director Thomas: interjected that AB 1600 limits you to
25 aeguisifion of land and the Quimby Act allows you to reinvest in
26 your existing parkland.
2T
28 `' Council Member Healy clarified with City Attorney Rudnansky that
29 you: would be~ allowed to use Quimby Act funds, to develop
30
~ parklands that-you have purchased for a new park.
31
32 City Attorney Rudnansky explained what :happens is they p:ay the
33 #ee; which is really the same as a development ;park fee.,. b.ut they
34 .. get a credit back toward their in-lieu fee.. He stressed it is; the same
35 amount of money, it is just a wash between the credit they- get for
36 their in-.,lieu and the amount they pay for an impact fee: The
37 ordinance before the City Council is only setting the amount of the
38 fees.. What the Gouncif does with those: tees, can. be de'cid'ed at
39 any point.
40
41 -Council Member- Healy commen,te,d he_ would- not intend to use
42 .`these fees for development purposes at Lafferty. But he indicated
43 he does not want to hamstring future Council`s in terms- of
44 opportunities that may present themselves outside fhe urban
45 growth: boundary where we are interested in. having a local match
46 eveptually for other funds. that are available to create additional
47 open space buffers around th, e City.
48
November 17, 2003 Vol. 39, Page 263
Council Member Moynihan commented on his curiosity as to why
2 Lafferty is now shown as open space land when it is an asset of
3 what is today's Water Resources Department.
4
5 City Attorney Rudhansky responded the actual .use of that land
6 and water was changed from water supply to habitat four or five
7 years ago. He added it was unclear as to if the land was
8 purchased or if there was a determination that there was a transfer
9 of that to the Water Enterprise Fund.
i0
1 1 Finance Director Thomas indicated his recollection was it was never
12 apart of the Water Enterprise Fund. He added if the. purchase was
13 prior to 1960, there was no such thing as an Enterprise Fund yet.
14
15 Council Member Canevaro interjected if the Council could adopt
16 the ordinance with language stipulating "inside the urban growth
17 boundary" he feels that would be a 90~ solution. He added if it is
18 the will of the Council at a later date to come back and change
19 that, that can be done at a later date.
20
21 Council Member Torliatt stressed this ordinance has nothing to do
22 wi#h how the City is spending the dollars. This is establishing the
23 standard that is used in calculating the fee.
24
25 City Attorney Rudnansky noted he is hearing confusion about what
26 _ the intent of what those fees (adopted by the recent fee
27 resolution) could be used for. He added that could be taken care
28 of at a later time by revising the resolution or passing a new
29 resolution. He asked the. Council to ,keep in mind that in order for
30 these fees to be used, they are going fo .have to come back to the
31 City Council for approval anyway.
32
33 Vice Mayor O'Brien indicated, for clarification, that he appreciates
34 the suggestion fora resolution because. that will have to be
35 changed. But; he added he would also like to see the ordinance
36 changed to reflect the same language. He harkened back to the
37 development at Magnolia where there was one document: that
38 said the land was to be used for one thing and another document
39 saying the land should be used forsomething else. He would like to
40 see both the ordinance and resolution be in agreement.
41
42 Mayor Glass, based on comments received, asked that the Park
43 Fee Resolution be addressed and brought back for Council
44 consideration at the earliest possible meeting.
45
46 City Council discussion continued regarding which motion is
47 actually on the floor.
48
Vol. 39, Page 264 November 17, 2Q03
It was noted the MOTION made by Council Member Torliatt and
secgnded by the Mayor, was to adopt' fh'e ordinance with the
language "as is."
Council Meme;er'Torlidtt stressed the reason that the Council needs
to pass this as soon as possible., and' we can come back with..-a
resolution at the. next meeting to .deal with. where i# goes; is
because. if Council doesn't adopt this th'e. fees don't ;go into effect
sooner rafher than later. She added she fhinks the entire Council
wants to make sure this fee, at the dollar amount, gets into the
system as soon as possible. where it gets spent can be determined
later.: .She just wants to make sure the fees is in place as soon. as
possible.
Council ,Member' Healy in'dicdted, to the extent _ people are
struggling with. 'the inside or outside the urban growth boundary
issue, that really is more appropriately addressed within the
resolution. He added, then language can be crafted that is .more
careful to deal with the nugrices of the issue.. H.e would encourage
Council Members to support the MOTION; on the floor.
fv1/S Torliatt and. Glass. MOTfON FAILED BYTHE FOLLOWING. VOTE:
AYES: Healy, Torliatt and Mayor' Glass
NOES:: Canevaro, Harris,'O''Brien, Moynihan
,City ,Attorney Rudnansky noted if the Council's desire is to amend.
the language on th'e ordinance and have the resolution be'.
consistent, fhen:-the resolution. could be brought back at the time
th'e ordinance would be before. the Council for second reading..
He clarified if the Council's desire is to bring back the.resolutio,n 'fo:
change the ianguage, there may some public noticing'
requirements fo do so. '
MOTION to re-introduce the ordinance with a language change, to
page l , ine 31,. which would now,read: "...aubject to his chapter
being devoted o: local ,park and recreational pueposes within the-
. urban: growth boundary.'' .
M/S Ivloyriihan. and O'Brien..MOTION. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING
"VOTE:
.AYES:: Canevaro, Harris, Healy, O'BTien, Glass and Moynihan
NOES: Torliatt
The City Council fhen took Item 9.A at this time.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43'
44
45
46
47
November 17, 2003
9. NEW BUSINESS - PCDC
Vol. 39, Page 265
A. PCDC Presentatidn and Discussion of the Draft Petaluma Retail
Leakage and Strategy Report. (Marangella) - No action token.
Paul Marangella, Economic Development and Redevelopment
Director, gave an overview and introduced Chris Turner who gave
a detailed presentation of the study.
City Council discussion ensued and clarifications were made with
regard to the study.
There was no official action taken by the Council regarding this
matter.
The City Council recessed at 9:20 p.m. to 9:25 p.m.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -CITY COUNCIL Gcon't)
B. Resolution Approving Revised Solid Waste Collection Request for
Proposals and Authorization to. Solicit Proposals; Resolution 2003-
230 N.C.S.. Authorizing Amendment "to Contract with Hilton, Farnkopf
& Hobson, LLC for Additional Work in the Amount of $59,918; and
Resolution 2003-231. N:C.S. Authorizing Amendment to Empire Waste
Management's Franchise Agreement Extending Expiration Date
Until No .Later Than February 28, 2005. (,Beatty)
Gene Beatty, Interim Assistant City Manager, gave the staff report
and .recommended the Council review the ,Revised Request for
Proposals and provide direction to staff regarding Council's
preferred. option(s), including approval of extra work to be
performed by Hilton, Farnkopf 8~ Hobson, LLC in the amount of
$59,918; and extend the current Empire Waste Management
contract until' no later than February 28, 2005.
Mr. Beatty clarified upon Council question, that of the two
proposals originally submitted, one has requested an extension and
there have been no withdrawals.
Public Input:
Curtis Michelini, Industrial Carting, addressed the City Council
asking that they continue to allow competitive debris box service in
Petaluma. He commented on commercial and demolition debris
box diversion programs, as well as recycling opportunities for a fee.
He indicated he hopes when the Council does the RFP, that they
implement that the materials must be taken to a permitted facility.
Vol. 39, Page 266
November 17, 2003
2 Ernie Carpenter, Industrial Carting,, addressed. the City .Council
3 regarding: his request and justification for change in the' RFP to
4 allow .for non-exclusive commercial recycling,. ~collectiori in
5 Petaluma. He pointed out the new proposed RFP is more restrictive.
6 He submitted, in writing, his proposed alternative language..for
7 Section 4.2E in the RFP. He concluded by' stating they are
8 agreeable to paying a franchise fee;; rneetin'g AB939 reporting
9 requirements and meeting other requirements of the City. He:
10 specifically requested they .b,e allowed to continue to recycle.
11 business. accounts and to charge a fee; and thgt the language
12 proposed be substituted in Section 4.2E, Commodities.
T3
14 Joe Garbarino, M'arin Sanitary :Service, addressed the City Council
15 indicated the City may wish fo consider some changes to the. ;RFP.
l6 H.e suggested the measurement of diversion needs to be reviewed
17 in two ways; utilizing the State formula and the actual percentage
18 of diversion of all materials handled by the contractor. He also
19 suggested that proposers utilize the current Waste management
20 collective .bargaining agreement when calculating their .collection
21 and maintenance labor costs: He added' the RFP should 'provid'e a
22 seniority roster for proper calculation of vacations and other
23 benefits provided.. in the collective bargaining agreement. He
24 additional. noted the RFP should require 'proposers to •utilize 'new
25 equipment.. In conclusion, Mr. G.arbarino suggested, the City
26 consider putting out: a separate contract for' disposal, indicating
27 this approach would allow fhe City to evaluate the true cost of
28 .disposal separate from, collection. ~ ,
29 '
30 Tracy_Swanborn, Consultant, indicated the origin~dl' RfP was done in
31 March ofi 2002 'and the March 2003 language is what now appears
32 ds the italicized. language on page 17 in 4:2E. She stated .C, :& D
33 materials that 'are. collected. through debris ;b•oxes is agreed,
34 'through a series of Council Meetings, not to be part of this
35 franchise. She further ;indicated thsw.;ould.-mean it would be an
36 • open competition for those materials and Industrial' Carting would
37 have, access to fhose rnatergls and would be able to, charge; ;the
38 custorriers for collection of'thatmaterial. •
39
40 Extensive City Council discussion took place regarding debris b.ox
41 issues, .including. disposal and recycling. Discussion`-also. ensued
42 regarding requirements for.reporting of diversion rates.
43
44 Council Member Torlia#t, referencing #9 of the summary of
45 changes,- commented on the need to include alternative fuel or
46 clean vehicles'into the' RFP.
47
November 17, 2003 Vol. 39., Page'267
1 'Vice Ntayor O'BFien went through the. draft RFP with recommended
2 ~ changes ~as~;follows:
3 -
4 Page- 1, the term of the new franchise agreement to be 10 years,
5 with two 5~=year extensions.
6
7 Page 3, with regard to general RFP Agreements, adding that
8 ~ investigations regarding equipment violations would be included,
9 as well as an independent investigation conducted by someone
10 other than who is doing the equipment investigations, i.e. Risk
1 1 Management.
12
13 Page 17, Food Waste,. Requested Services, change to reflect
14 collect source separated food waste "now" rather than at a later
15 date.
16 .
17 Page 18, Recyclable Material; change Requested Services to
18 delete requirement to "dt least 25-gallons of capacity per week
19 per unit" and indicated that should be left up to the contractor;
20 and under Food Waste, change the Requested Services to reflect
21 contractor to collect food waste "now" rather than at a later date.
22
23 Page 1'9, Recyclable Material, under Requested Services, asked
24 that the single-stream recyclables collection using "64 gallon carts
25 in addition to 96 gallon carts" be left up to the contractor; and
26 under Food Waste; change the .Requested Services to reflect
27 ~ contractor to collect food waste "now" rather than at a later date.
28
29 ,Page 21, with regard to Special Events, indicate the City will
30 provide a list of events.
31
32 Page 22, with regard to Diversion Plans, would recommend not
33 ~ attaching dates to when they would be implemented. He would
34 rather see them implemented sooner rather than later.
35 ~ '
36 ~ Page 30, eliminate` two additional references for a street sweeping
37 contract.
38
39 Page 31 under Compliance Records, make sure they have a
40 permitted facility.
41
42 Page 33, under Diversion Plan, indicated he could not locate the
43 waste characterization data in the RFP. (The consultant noted that
44 will be included in the final RFP.)
45
46 Page 34, to:p bullet, agreed that everyone should bid new
47 ~ equipment so-there is a level playing field.
48
vol. 39, Page 268 November 17, 2003
Council discussion. ensued .regarding" this request. Concerns for the
safety and cleanness of the; vehicles `is foremost: The:•'balance of
Council was not suppgrtive of requiring new'.Equipment.
Page 35, Marketing, delete the first bulle;f point:
Page 41, Marketing; remove Item 1.
Fra:nchise Agreement:
Page 29' of they Franchise Agreement; line 24, requested that, we
don"'t designate the type of-vehicle, but insteq"d leave it up to fhe
contractor:
It was noted that was included to not have ,larger vehicles being
used that would block the streets.
.Page 30 of :the "Franchise Agreement, dine. 25, indicated the
contractor shou_Id have ;the ability to sort and commingle
abandoned waste before- taking into the dump.
Paige" 43, line 18, questioned why' the contractor would have to
report on a monthly basis a list of containers painted or maintained
and date of such service.. He would suggest removing that from
~fhe Agreement.
.Page 45, remove the last two sentences.of I.. Uniforms:
Page 57, D., require a monthly report rafher than, within 24 hours.
Page 58, verified the currerit franchise rate. .
Page 69, Market Test of Rates, clarified with consultant the: ability to
d~o~ so.
Exhibit D, pages 1-5,-seems to him to be excessive: Verified "wi;th fhe
consultant that surrounding cities hdd a similar list.
Council discussion ensued regarding the issue of commingled
recyclables versus single-stream; debris boxes and,"diversion rates:
Council Member Moynih"an expressed, "addifonal concerns' with
diversion rates, and single-stream versus commingled recyclables,.
and stressed "the ratepayers. shouldn't have to pay fora 60 ~to 70
percent diversion rate. He commented: on haw stretching thi's
process out results in .higher rates for the ratepayers...
Council Mecnb:er Healy indicated he would ;be..willing to continue
this process and have a further RFP go out" if this-8-month extension
November 17, 2003 Vol. 39, Page 26'9
1 can be whittled down to something much smaller. But, he ,
2 continued, absent that he would. agree with Council Member
3 Moynihan and simply get the best deal we can for the ratepayers
4 and not continue to delay the. implementation of the new
5 contract. He concluded by voicing frustration with how there
6 seems to be multiple agendas with regard to this process.
7
8 Mayor Glass indicated he, too, wants to see this move forward, but-
9 in comparison, a couple of months for an extension for something
10 that has been in place several years, is not an overriding issue.
11
12
Discussion regarding the length of extension of the contract
13 continued.
14
15 Council Member Torliatt .indicated she is prepared to accept the
16 amendment Mr. Carpenter has put forward. She also noted if the
17 City Manager thinks Norcal's suggestion for an independent
18 disposal contract breakout, she would be willing to look at that and
19 feels it is an interesting concept.
20
21 Lengthy Council discussion ensued regarding diversion rates.
22 Council consensus was fo require them to bid on 50, 60 and 70%
23 diversion.
24
25 City Manager. Bierman indicated, and a majority of the Council
26 agreed to the terms of the agreement be 10 years, plus two one
27 year extensions.
28
29 A majority of the Council, with. reference to alternative fuel and
30 clean vehicles, agreed to require that it be bid both ways for the
31 50% diversion.
32
33 It was brought to the Council's attention that beginning in 2006,. all
34 garbage trucks would be required to be clean fuel vehicles.
35
36 The consultant summarized Council°s direction:
37
38 Recyclables, on a debris box basis, being open competition and
39 regulated anon=exclusion franchise agreement that.. specifies a
40 diversion requirement and a reporting requirement:
41
42 With regard to single stream versus other options, allow for other
43 options.
44
45 Separate disposal agreement and procurement for disposal
46 services would be left up to the City Manager if he believes that is
47 worth exploring.
48
Vol. 39, Page 270
November ] 7, 2003
1 ~ Regarding the irnplernentation timeline for t;he 60 and, 70%
2 diversion, after Council discussion if was determined that the
3 language .would be left- "gs~ is" and direct the City Manager to
4 negotiate a :more aggressive timeline.
5
6 Discussion ensued regarding; commercial recycling and how that
7 will integrate into. the overall diversion percentages.
8
9 Mayor Glass. made the MOTION to adopt the resolution authorizing
10 an amend.menf to the Contract with. Hilton, Farrikopf & Hobson.,
1 1 LLC. The motion was seconded by Council Member Canevaro.
12 -
13 City Council discussion ensued regarding the. reasoning for th:e
14 amendment to th. e contract, as well ds an explanation from the
15 contractor regarding those 'items that were :no.t covered in their
16 original scope ofi work. 1'n conclusion, Council Member Torliatt
17 requested detailed costs on what has 'been spent to date and on
18 what:
19
20 Council Member Healy indicated he would not be supporting
21 either resolution because he fieeas the, Council should move forward
22 with one of the two proposals already submitted.
23
24 Vice. 'Mayor O'Brien indicated he did not intend on supporting this'
25 ~ resolution, tonighf',because he' does not feel the City has received
26 value for the .money :that has been spent so far. H:e indicated
27 support for the request for a detailed List of 'costs. already incurred.
28 He indicated he would hope to see, in the future, a better work
29 produa;t from the consultant. He concluded by indicating he will
30 vote `for this ih .order. to move the process forward.
31
32 City. Manager Bierman and City Attorney Rudnansky explained
33 some of the work the consultant has completed at the request df
34 the City Council and indicated it is Drily fair that they should be
°35 paid for that work..
36
~37 ~ Motion to adopt:.
38
39 Resolution No.
;2003' 230 NC.S: Auth°orizing Amendment to
40 .
contract with Hilfon, Farnkopf &'Hobson, LLC for Additional Work in
41 the Amount of $59,918:
42
43 M/S Glass and Canevaro. CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING'VOTE:
44
45 AYES° Harris, Canevaro, O'Brien, Glass, Torliat_ t and
46 Moynihan
47 NOES: Healy
48
~ ,,:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
November 17, 2003
Motion to afloat:
Vol. 39, Page 27.1
Resolution- No. 2003.-231 N.C.S. Authorizing Amendment to Empire
Waste Management's Franchise Agreement Extending Expiration
Date to No Later Than February 28, 2005.
M/S O'Brien and Glass. CARRIED BY THE. FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Harris, Canevaro, O'Brien, Glass, Torlia'tt and
Moynihan
NOES: Healy
It was noted that resolution approving the revised RFP would come
back to the Council at a later date.
Adjourn
The City Council meeting was adjourned' at 1 1:40 p.m.
r
David Glass, Mayor
Attest:
~.
Gayle Phi ersen, City Clerk
******