HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 01/07/2002January 7, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 149
1 MINUTES OF A
2 R€GULAR MEETING.
3 OF TFEE
4 PETALUMA CO'MMUIVITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
5 MONDAY, JAIVUARV 7,..2002
6
7
g ROLL .CALL - 3:00 p.m.
9
10
11 PRESENT; O'Brien,.. Healy, Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan,
12 Vice Chair Caller-Thompson, Chairman Thompson.
13
14 CONSENT CALENDAR
15
16 The. following items were .enacted in one motion made by Commission Member
17 Maguire, seconded by Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson:
18
19 AYESc O'Brien, Healy, Torliatt, Maguire
20 - Vice Chair Caller-Thompson,. Chairman Thompson..
21 NOES: None
22 ABSENT: Moynihan
23
24 R ESO. 2002-01
25 KELLER STREET GARAGE
26
27 Resolution 2002-01 Accepting completion of the Keller Street Garage.
28 Improvements Project No. 9993 by Truesdell Corporation, 3529 E. Wood. Street,
29 Phoenix, Arizona 85040-1834 in the amount of $125,575.
30
31 Commission Member Torliatt would like to; sere the cleanliness of the ,garage
32 addressed in the: next phase. of improuenients. The $222,0.00 the City has spent
33 has been on structural improvements: During the second phase she would like to
34 see the tong-term rrmaintenance strategy and the source~of funding addressed.
35
36 ,AYES: Caller-Thompson, Healy, Maguire, Moynihan, O'Brien, Torliatt, Chairman Thompson
37 NOES: None
3'8 ABSENT`..None
39
40
41 * * * End PCDC Consent
42
43 ADJOURN.
44
45 The Petaluma Community'Deve'lopment Commission adjotarned.at 3:05 p.m.
46
47
48
Vol. 37, Page 150 January 7,.2002
1 MINUTES' OF A REGULAR
2 PETi4'LUM~4,CITY'000NCIL MEETING
3 - MONDAY,., JANUARY 7, '2002
4
5
6 ROLL CALL - 3:;15 p.m:
7-
8 PRESENT: O'Brien; Healy,;1"orliatf, Maguire, Moynihan,,
9' Vice Mayor Caller-Thompson,.. Mayor Thompson:
10 PUBLIC COMMENT
11
12 Brad Batson asked... Council to ,send ,a letter to the Chinese Government
13 condemning them for the- beating. of Americans who showed their support: at
14 Tianneman Square..
1'S
16 Council supported sending,a letter. .Mail a copy of the lefter to David Kute, 1665
17 Vendoia, San Rafael,, CA 94`9003..
18
19 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca D,ri~e supports Councilmember Torliatt as Council
20 Liaison to the S_onorna County 1N~ater Agency -Water Advisory Committee and
21 Janice Caller-Thompson as Council Liaison to the- Sonoma Gounty Transportation
22 Authority:
~23 .
24 UVayne: Vieler, 256 Petaluma Blvd North. Kodiak Jacks expressed his concern with,
25 regard's_ to water rates: It is difficult for a small business owner to have two large
26 rate increases, in one year...
27
28 COUNCIL COMMENT
29
30 Councilmember Tor,liatt stated the. Counci has tentatively scheduled ,a presentation.
3-1 on water, wastewater andsurface water rate: study on January 28• at the 7;:00 ,p::m:.
32 Council session. •.
33
34 Councilmember Maguire asked Council' if there was.. support forgoing on 'record `in
35 favor of Proposition 42, which. will bring funds to the. community:
36
37 Councilmember .Healy suggests that Proposition 42 be agend_ized for discussion
-38 before the Ma_ rch Primary. The California Teachers .Association is taking a position
39 in :opposition.
40
4:1 EMPLOYE€ SERVICE,AWi4RDS
42 _
43 Steve Simmons -25 Years Daniel Graverman - 25 Years
44 Bea Melville - 20 Years Kenneth Prophet - 15 Years
45 Michael Alvarez - 15 Years Doug Silacci - 5 Years
46
January 7, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 1.51
1 MINUTES
2
3 The minutes for December 3, 2001. were approved as amended. Page 15, Consent
4 Calendar vote omitted..
5 ~ Introduced by Couneilmernber Maguire,. seconded by Cader-Thompson.
6 AYES: O'Brien, Healy,,, Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan,
7 Vice 'Mayor Cader-Thompson, Mayor Thompson.
8 NOES: None
9 ABSENT: None
10 RES,0.2002-0~1 NCS
11 VICE MAYOR APPOINTMENT
12
13 Resolution 20Q2-01 NCS Appointing Mike Healy as Vice Mayor for the calentlar
14 year 2002.
15
16 AYES: O'Brien, Healy, Torliatt, Maguire;. Moynihan,
17 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson, Mayor Thompson.
18 NOES: None
19 .ABSENT: None
20 RESO.2002-02 IVCS
21 LIAISON APPOINTMENTS
22
23 Resolution 2002-02 NCS approving the following City Council liaison assignments:
24
25 Airport Commission. -Janice Cader-Thompson
26 Animal Services Advisory Committee -Matt Maguire _
27 Library Advisory Board -Bryant Moynihan
28 I'edestriari and Bicycle Advisory Committee -Pamela Torliatt
29 Recreation; Music, and Parks Commission -Mike Healy
30 Traffic Committee -Bryant Moynihan.
31
32 .AYES: O'Bri_en, Vice Mayor Healy,, Torliatt, .Maguire, Moynihan,
33 Cader-Thompson, MayorThompson.
34 NOES: None
35 ABSENT: None
36
37 Councilmember Cader-Thompson nominated Councilmember Torliatt as Council
38 Liaison fo~the:Planning Commission, seconded'by Councilmember Maguire.
39
40 AYES: Torliatt, Cader-Thompson, Maguire
41 NOES: O'Brien, Vice Mayor Healy; Moynihan, Mayor Thompson
42 ABSENT:. None
43
44 Resolution 2002-02 NCS Councilmember Moynihan nominated. Councilmember
45 O'Bri'en as Council Liaison to the Planning Commission, seconded by
46 Councilmember Maguire and Vice Mayor Healy.
47
48 AYES: O'Brien, Maguire, Moynihan, Vice Mayor Healy, Mayor Thompson
49 NOES: Torliatt, Cader-Thompson
50 ABSENT: None
Vol. 37, Page 152
January 7; 2002
1 RESO.2002-03 NCS
2 SCTA RERRESENTi4TIVE/ALTERNATIVE
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
21
Councilmemb:er Torliatt. nominated Counci)member Caller-Thompson as Council:
representative. `to the Sonoma County Transportation Authority:, seconded.. by
Cbuncilmenber Maguire..,
AYES: Caller=Thompson,, Torliatt„ Maguire
_._
NOES: O'Brien, Moynihan,'Vice Mayor Healy; Mayor Thompson
ABSENT: None
Resolution 20'02=03 NCS Councilmember Moynihan nominated Vice Mayor Healy
as Council representative to the Sonoma County Transportation Authority,
seconded:by Councilmet~iber Maguire.
AYES: 'O'Brien, Torliatt, Maguire; .Moynihan, Vice: Mayor Healy, Mayor Thompson
NOES: Caller-Thompson
ABSENT`.. .None
C.ouncilmembec Caller-Thompson nominated Gouncilmember .Maguire as Alternate
to tli~e Sonoma, County Transportation Authority, seconded by Cou,ncilrnember
°Torliaft.
. „'4AYES` Torliatt, Caller.-Thompson, Maguire
NOES: O'Brien;, ,Moynihan, Vice Ma_ yor Healy; Mayor, Thompson
ABSENT: None
29
Resolution 2002-03 NCS .Councilmember Maguire nominated Councilmember
Moynihan as Alternate to the Sonoma County Transportation ;Authority, seconded
by CouncilrimemberO'Bricn.
AYES: O'Brien, Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan:; Mayor Thompson
NOES: Torliatt, Caller-Thompson
ABSENT: None,
37
38
39
40
RESO.2002-04 N,CS;
SC.WA -WATER ADVISORY C:OMMITTEf
Resolution, 2002-04 N'CS appointing Counclmernber Torliatt to the Sonoma County
Water Agency 1Nater :Advisory Committee. Introduced by Councilrnember Cader-
Thompson;, seconded by Healy..
AYES:' O'Brien; Vice Mayor Nealy, Torliatt; Maguire, Moynihan;
Caller=Thompson, Mayor'Thompson
NOES: None
ABSENT': None
47
January 7, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 153
1 RES®..2002=05 NCS
2 SCWA -ZONE 2A
3
4 Resolutiori 2002-05 NCS_ Appointing Courcilmemb.er Torliatt .as representative on
5 the Sonoma G;ounty Water Agency's; Zone 2A Committee. Introduced by
6 Councilmember Maguire, seconded by Caller-Thompson.
7
8 AYES: O'Brien, Vice Mayor Healy, Torliatt,_ Maguire, Moynihan,
9 Caller-Thompson,~Mayor Thompson.
10 .NOES: None
11 ABSENT: None
12
13 RESO. 2002=06 NC.S
14 NORTFI SAY W'ATERSFiED ASSOCIATION
15
16 Resolution 2Q02=0;6 NCS appointing Councilmember O'Brien as representative of
17 the North Bay-Watershed A_ssociation.. Introduced by Vice.Mayor Healy, seconded
18 by Magui`_re, _ ~ -
19
20 AYES:.: O'Brien; Vee,Mayor Healy; Torliatt,. Maguire; Moynihan,
21 Caller=Thomp~sbm, Mayor Thompson. ,,
22 NOES: None ~ '~
23 ABSENT.: None ~ ' '- `
24 ~ _
25 ~ -
26 -.
27 MAYORS' & COUNCILMEMSERS' ASSOCIATION
28
29 Recommendation to: Mayors' & Councilmembe;rs' Association to Sonoma County
30 Human Se.raices Commission, Councilrnember Moynihan advised. Council h'e. would
31 be happy to serve on this Commission... if there was not someone from another
32 Council running for this position, and Mayors' & Councilmembers' Association to
33 Airport Land Use Commission. Mayor Thompson will get a clarification on these
34 two recommendations.
35
36 CONSENT CALENDAR
37
38 The- following item(s) was/were enacted in -one motion made by Councilmember
39 Maguire, seconded by Caller=Thompson:
40
41 AYES: O'Brien, Vice Mayor Healy, Torliatf, Maguire, Moynihan,
42 Caller-Thompson; Mayor Thompson.
43 NOES: None
44 ASSENT: None
45
46
47
48
49
Vol. 37, Page 154
January 7, 2002:
1 RESO,. 2002-09 NCS
2 DEFERRED CANIPENSATffON PLAN
3 ,
4 Resolution 2OQ2-.09 NCS~;Amendin,g the Hartford 45T Deferred Compensation Plan
5' pursuant to the Economic Growth and Tax'Re.lef Reconciliation Act of .2001:.
6
7
8 _
9 ~ ~ ****End Consent****
10
11
12; RESO. 2002,07 NCS
13 CLAIMS AND BILLS
14
15 Resolution' 2002-07 NCS Approving f aims and 'Bills:. Councilmember Moynihan
;16 would like to abstain from` the following two; line items:: Demand date 11/2"1/01
17 Check No. 16820 to Livingston- and Matfesieh and Demand date. 11/8%01' f.heck No.
18 16469 to Livingston and Mattes_ich. These are related to the Cit_y's litigation against
19 hi,m: He would also like to keep the cost of studies: down. Page 9 Check No 16369
20 Dan's Auto Parts in :the amount of $4,078.00. He .questioned whether or not. we .are
21 competitively bidding thaf periodically.. Infrodueed by Councilmember "fader-
22 Thompson, seconded by O'Brien.,
24 Councilmember Torliatt clarified that: her father owns. Dan's Auto and. Truck Parts.,
25 There are. a variety of Auto Parts: stores fhat the City purchases from': and they are
26 equally competitive.:. .,
28 AYESa Q'Brie'n; Vice Mayor.Healy; Torliatt, Magwire, Moynihan',
29 Gader-Thompson, Mayor Thompson. .
30 NOES: None.
31 ABSENT: ,None
32 ABST'ALN Moynihan (Check No. 16820: and 16469 both to Livingston and
33 Matfesicf)
34
35 RESO. 2002-08 NCS'
36 QUARTERLY TREAS:UREfRS REPORT
37
38 Resolution •2002'-0$ NCS Approving the Quarfe.rly Treasurer's Report.
39 founelmernber Moynihan questioned the Interfund Loan amounts. through the
40 month of September:: There is an Interfund Loan in the amount, of $175;,85:0
41 between the PCDC -Central Business D,istricf and.: tlie, fommunity Deve opment
42 Project Area.. Based on the budget it seems to me it should be substantially larger
43 than what is showing. Are we; posting 'every quarter; once a month 'or as the •funds
44 are actually loaned?
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
49
January 7, 2002
Vol: 37, Page 155
RESO. "2002-08 NCS
QUARTERLY TREASURERS REPORT, continued
Linde ,Rwwbaloff, Interim Controller, The Interfund Debt is updated quarterly and
done on a cash -flow basis so if the Central~Business District has spent the money
then.it will be transferred from 902. It i not transferred until` it's actually been spent.
Introduced by Councilmernber Moynihan, seconded by Cader-Thompson.
AYES? O'Brien, Vice Mayor Healy; Torliatt, Maguire, Moynihan,
Cader-Thompson, Mayor Thompson.
NOES: ...None
ABSENT: None.
PAYFiAN FLOOD MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Councilr;nember Moynihan~aSked where the CIP update was.. Mr. Stouder reiterated
that it would: be forthcoming' with the Mid-Year Budget Review.
TENTATIVE AGENDA JANUARY 28, 2002
Councilmember Torliatt stafed that Proposition 42 was added to this agenda in th"e
evening. , ,
z~ .
Added':at the request of the City Attorney -.Resolution .confirming costs incurred by
the City.of Petaluma.for 210 Baker Street.
Remove Campaign Finance Ordinance add to the- next agenda.
Motion made. by Councilmember Maguire., seconded by Cader-Thompson.
= AYES: O'Brien, Vice.Mayor Healy, Tbrliatt, Maguire, Moynihan,
Cader-Thompson,, Mayor Thompson.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
TRAFFf.C SAFETY RESPONSE SYSTEM.
Police :Chief Pat Parks presented his" report to Council. " Section 11.08.050 and
1.1.08.060: of the .Petaluma Municipal Code outlines how the Traffic Committee was
formed, duties, and terms.
Chief Parks has coordinated Traffic Group meetings, which. are held monthly,
quarterly or less depending on the need. The participants consist of key players
from the Police Department, Community Development, Public Facilities and
Services where they meet to discuss traffic. issues and complaints. He feels the
committee has been successful in operational level problem solving and addressing
the traffic safety concerns of the community.
Vol. 37, Page 156 January 7, 2002
COMM
RESPONSE SYSTEM AND
It is _h_is opinion. that traffic signs and :other signs should:. be p aced where they need
to ~be within fhe guidelines and if it is warranted.; -`
Neighborhood complaints would be discussed gat monthly meetings. There will be at
least one department director of each meeting, f there is an item. that is sensitive or
costly it will be brought before Council.
The meetings, are public and anyone with a concern~is~ welcome to attend,, Under
certain circumstances if there is a citizen with a specific issue that is not able to
attend a~ meeting during the day arrangements could. be made for. anevening,
meeting.
Counclmember Moynihan is concerned with the proper protocol in responding to a.
complaint. He asked if there was a log of complaints,, how items are selecfed for an~
agenda and what recourse do citizens have. _ `~
Mr. Skladzien stated that there is a complaint .log. Citizens are asked to put .the:ir
concerns in writing. A response .letter is Beni stating that their complaint had been
received and what kind of action is anticipated. Not every complaint needs "to be
addressed through 'the Traffic Committee. Those complaints that can be .dealt~;wfh
quickly and efficently.are. '.
C.ouncifinember Moynihan requested that Council receive a copy of the ~complaht.
log and the agenda's.
Mr. Skladzien :advised Council there. is a form that; is f filled out by the Assistant
Traffic Engineer, Phone Number (7Q7) 778-4303, aril a follow up letter is .°sent
thanking them for their concern. He ahso stated that his department would like to
revisit some of the stop signs to see if a study is warranted.
Councfm.ember Maguire handed Chief Parks a comp aint in writing from a
constituent;regarding the safety of walking across E. Washington @ Vallejo Street.
It ~~is the. recom. mendafion of Chief Parks not. to .reinstate the Traffic Safety
Cornrnittee at this -time. If the: need arises'in the future itwould be reconvened.
Couneilmember Moynihan would like to have a status report in ix-months.
January 7; 2002 Vol. 37, Page 1.57
1 ORD. 2126 INCS
2 PURCHASE G'RANG'E PROPERTY
3
4 .Adopt Ordinance 2126 NCS Authorizing the City Manager to complete all necessary
5 transactions for the purchase of .the Grange property pursuant to direction from City
6 council as set forth in Resolution 2001-075 NCS adopted .April 2, 2001. The State
7 Water Resources Qeparfinent -Urban Streams Restoration ..Program has awarded
8 the City a $566,884 grantfor the ,purchase -and restoration of the Grange Property in
9 accordance with the Riber Access .and Enhancement Plan. The 3.3-acre Grange
10 property is located on the west side of Industrial Avenue, north of Corona Road.
11
12 Councilm~ember Moynihan stated that he felt the City was paying too much for the
- 13 property.,
14
15 Introduced by Councilmenber Torliatt; seconded by Cader-Thompson.
16
17 AYES: O'Brien,.. Vice Mayor Healy, Torliatt; Maguire,
18 Cader-Thompson, Mayor Thompson.
19 NOES:: Moynihan
20 ABSENT: None.
21
22 CLOSED SESSION
23
24 Council adjourned to Closed Session at 4:37 p.m.
25
26 ® CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL On .EXIStIng'~ LltlgatlOri [Government Code
27 Section 54956.9(a)]; ~ ~~
28 Thompson, et al vs: City of Petaluma, of al, Sonoma County Superior Court Case N'o.
29 223293.
30 o Kimberly vs: City of Petaluma, Sonoma County Superior Court Case'No. 225543.
31 m Loeffler vs: City.of Petaluma, United States District Court Case No: C-01-0395 PJH.
32 Pike vs. City of Petaluma, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. TCR-373819.
33 City of Petaluma vs: Holmberg, Sonoma County"Superior Court Case No. 222739.
34 s Allen v. City of Petaluma, Sonoma County Superior CourtCa'se No. 222730.
35 o Olmstead vs. City of Petaluma, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. 223484.
36 ® Sampson'. vs: °Cty ofi Petaluma, United States District. Court Case No. C-01-1803 CW.
37 ® McCardle 'vs. City of Petaluma, Sonoma. County Superior Court Case No: 226978.
38 Lionsgate vs: City of Petaluma, Sonoma. County°Superior'Court Case No. 220489.
39 ® Sah Francisco Baykeepers vs: California State `Water Resources Control Board, (City
40 of Petaluma -Real Party in .Interest), Sonoma County Superior Court Case No.
41 .224434.
42 Arnett vs. CaIPERS et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No.
43 C-95-3022 CRB.
44
45
Vol. 37, Page 1.58
JanGary ;7;.2002'
RECONVENE - 7:.00, p:m.
2
3 ROLL CALL
PRESENT
O'Brien, Vice. Mayor Healy; Torliatt; Maguire, Moynihan,
Cader=Thompson; Mayor Thompson.
REPORT .OUT O.F CLOS:ED'SESSION
~-
Mayor Thompson reported that#here was no direction given during Closed Session:
PLEDGE DF ALLEGI'ANCE
Chris McAuliffe led the Pledge of Allegiance.
MOMENT OF S{LENCE
A moment of silence was observed.
20 PUBLIC COMNiEIVT
21
22 .Terence Garvey;, 83 Maria Dci~e, read a letter regarding the Boy Scouts,.
23
24 Peter Campanile;. 94~ Candlewood Drive; :Sandalwood ,Mobile Home Park s-poke
25 about the invasion on his lifestyle: Any homeowner with a low rental' base is being
26 coerced into, signing a, Gong=term lease taking them oiat :of the rental ordinance:
27 There are threats that'if the lease was not signed'they would be taken to arbitration.
28 The .homeowners asked .for mediation, but park owners rejecfed this.. They will not
29 divert "from their invasive aftacks:. Homeowners are .not given the necessary
30 information so that. they can prepare. for .the next. step.
Bill Donahue; Sandalwood Mobile Home. Park a significant increase. is coming fo:r
the residents.. Many of the residents wish to remain on a month=ito=month
agreement, which. is the.i_r right under the State Mobile Home Residency Law as well
a"s Petaluma's Rent Stabilization Program.:
He'asked ifi the City :was behind the ..new ownership or-the residents, does he. City
upport the ,O.rdinance and will the City support the cost of an attorney to give them
an equal playing ground with-these.own`ers?
January 7, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 159
1 PUBLIC C.ONiMENT, continued
2
3 Glen Brunner, President of the Sonoma County .Mobile Homeowners Association
4 met with .Pete Inman, President of I<aritos Corporation, which is a non profit
5 corporation. He is willing to .meet with the Council on February 1St. and discuss how
6 non-profits can help solve the .issue the residents of Sandalwood are facing. .
7
8 Geoff Cartwright, 56, Rocca Drive, is concerned. about. development in the
9 floodplain. The Chelsea Factory Outlet expansion and Redwood Technology Center
10 are in the floodpiain. There are mitigation issues that need resolved..
11
12 Diane Reilly Torres, Rainier Avenue, showed on the overhead a memo from Mr.
13 Stouder to the. Mayor and. City Council regarding the Calfrans Design. and
14 Environmental Review for'Highway 101 Widening, a flyer;, a partial mailing list and a
15 Nexus Realty flyer for 191 Lynch Creek Way. She feels Councilmember Moynihan
16 should notparticipate in any discussions on this item, It i"s upsetting fo lier that he is
17 representing Petaluma as an alternate on _the Sonoma County Transportation
18 Authority because she feels he has a conflict of interest..
19
20 C®UNC1L COMMENT
21
22 Councilmember Torliatt stated that .the information provided by Mr. Brunner was
23 sent to the City Attorney. Council. received a 'response to a letter that had been
24 addressed to .Councilmember Healy. She does think that; the members of the
25 Mobile. Horrme Park communities. in town need to understand. better what the }Mobile
26 Home Park Space Rent Stabilization Program provides for them. It is possible the
27 Council will have to revisit the Rent Stabilization Ordinance.
28
29 Councilmember Maguire stated that.. rent control laws are excessively litigated in this
30 state:. Developers have gone to court to try to eradicate them and it's fortunate that
31 we have not seen the complete elimination of them. If the'Council decides to revisit
32 he is willing fo do so. As our Housing Director, Bonne Gaebler pointed out you
33 need a willing seller to come to terms and he doesn't know if there has been any
34 discussions with the new owners. He has not heard any indication thaf there is
35 willingness on their part.
36
37 Councilmember O'Brien is also willing to meet with any of the parties involved.
38
39 Councilmember O'Brien announced the Petaluma Chapter of Ducks Unlimited is
40 holding a fundraiser dinner on February 2. For more. information you can call Mr.
41 O'Brien at 765-0:689. This is a good way to find out about: increasing, maintaining,
42 -and acquiring some. wetlands and helping out the bird population. He thanked John
43 Mills who donates his time to help out at the auction.
44
45
46
Vol. 37, Page 160
January 7,.2002
1 COUNCIL COMMENT, continued
2
3 Couneilmember Caller-Thompson .encouraged citizens to attend the Friday Night
4 Films cries shown on :Friday nights at 136_ ~ Kentucky Street. Last. week there was a
5 film on Scouting For AIL
She also welcomed Clara Nelson to the Council' Meeting:
9 Councilmember .Moynihan stated that: 'on December 19 h'e went to a Water'
10 Recycling tour of the Sonoma. Valley 1N~etlands project, which dealt :with the Napa
11 Salt. Marshes. He also toured the :Las Gallina's Valley District, the Petalum, a .,Ponds
12 .and the Llano Facility located, between Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa'. He learned
'I3 th:at they are: looking °to get a pipeline built with federal funds to take our effluent to
14 the Napa Salt Marsh ;Lands and ..restore that area. He :also had an opportunity to
15 tour the `S`anta Rosa facility with Councilmember Mr. Healy and Miles Ferris;
I6 -Director of lJtilities and City'Enginee`r..
°17 He-also atterded;a, presentation by Gerald Moore of`the Arcafa Marsh and W_ ldlife
18 Sanctuary; which, was: similar to information received here earlier.
19
20 RESO. 2002-10 NCS
21 TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
22:
23 ~ .Resolution 2002-10 NCS appointing Mayor .Clark Thompson, to compete the. term
24 left vacant'. by the resignation of Gabe Kearney. Since. there were. no applications
25 received for this position, Mayor Thompson volunteered himself to fill the position at
.26 this time.
_ ..
27 'Introduced by Councilmember Caller-Thompson, seconded b.y Torliatt.
AYES: O'Brie.n, Vice ,Mayor Healy, Torliatt; Maguire, Moynihan,
Caller-Thompson, Mayor Thompson.
- ~ ~ NOES: None .
ABSENT: None '
34 RESO:. 20.02-1.1 'NCS'
3'S YO..UTH C.O~MMIS.SCON
3'6 -
Resolution 2,002-11 NCS appointing Mitchell De Armon to the Youth Commission to
complete a. term ,left vacant by the, resignation of :Alan Anspach. `Term- to expire June
30, 20.03.
Introduced by Councilme.mbe.r Caller-Thompson; seconded byTorliatt
AYES: O'Brien, Vice Mayor Healy,- Torliatt„Maguire, Moynihan,
Gader-Thompson, Mayor Thompson.
NOES: .None
ABSENT': None
January 7, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 16`1
1 FtESO.. 2002..-12 NCS .
2 WATER RECYCLING.FACILITY
3
4 Doug Wing, Ca:rollo Engineers,, .did ~an overhead .presentation reviewing the
5 recommendations for the Water Recycling Facility.
6 - ,
7 Algae removal -densely vegetated wetlands -in Ponds 9'~and 1`0
8 Polishing wetlands on Parcels- A and B
9 Recycled water (tertiary system) with a 4 mgd capacity
10 Tertiary disinfection using UV system
11 Plant access consisting of new access road and bridge
12 ~~.
13 Overall Flow Schematic: ~ -
,. . .
14
15 Preliminary treatment consisting of bar screens and gr'it`removal
16 Secondary treatment roving,:mostly'organic and solid material `
17 Oxidation pond; -algae removal system
18 Disinfection prior to agricultural reuse and river discharge.
19
20 These are. major portions of the plant. that were focused on 1) algae removal 2)
21 disinfection-;for tertiary;. 3) size of the tertiary facilities 4.) solids ,handling. This is a
22 very complex wastewater system to produce. effluent for river discharge as well as
23 reuse that meets all requirements of the< current' permit and looks forward to the
24 #uture to meet future permit requirements.
25
,,
26 The first, recommendation to ,hit -on. is why algae removal. 1Ne spent a lot of time
27 talking about algae removal., wetlands. are DA'F and I juste need to remind. yo.u again
28 that. we expect the total suspended solids (TSS) requirements for river discharge to
29 go down to 30 milligrams per liter in the new „permit for this. facility. Listing pond
30 effluent'. has been above 30 milligrams p,er liter it's been an issue we have. always
31 identified. He showed staff several jars containing algae at different. stages of the
32 algae removing process. from theNapa oxidation pond effluent. This would .:not
33 meet discharge requirements for the: Fetalum.a River that is why an algae removal
34 facility is needed. ~-
3'S .
36 I' ,
- n ouc journey on ~alga'e removal options we d start o.ut looking at a,12 mgd capacity
37 recently we talked"to you about those new .metals data. allowed~,us to reduce those
38 facilities from, `12 to 6 mgd and that reduced our blended flow- scenario we could
39 have one' DAF unit or we could .have wetlands ~opfion the dense vegetation wetlands
40 in Ponds 9 .and 1.0; which, are. about 25, wet acres. What we did is we went from the
41 original weflands Layout of having densely vegetated, wetlands in Ponds 9 and 10
42 which we believe are. needed acid have -the- lowest: operations' and maintenance
43 costs. for algae; removal as .well as additional wetlands on Pa"reel. A and ;B.
44
45
46
Vol. 37, Page 1..62 .January 7, 2002
'1 RESO., 2Q02-12~:NCS.
2 WATER .RECYCLING FACILITY, co"ntinued
3
4 Previously w,e talked about enhancement° wetlands that provide many other benefits
5 in wastewater treatment and' additional wildlife habitat,, recreationaC benefits and
6 values. When we talked: about that. I`ast scenario in Ponds 9 and 10 we provided the-
7 costs: for either the wetlands option or the DAF option and because the. operating
8 costs. were approximately .half for the wetlands and then the, overall. annual costs
9 were the lowest that's why Carollo Engineers, and city staff recommended that
0 option.
12 -The thing we have .been .discussing in-hoia"se and 'has come up recently,: we talked
1.3' previously about Arcata as a model of what we're .doing here. in Petaluma. I`n Arcata:
14 they have a treatment facility t ,hat also includes oxidation ponds, 't"reatment,
15 ;wetlands, which are primarily .densely,, vegetated wetlands and polishing wetlands
16 (Marshes). The Arcata Plant.design 'is about 2.3 mgd;' they-.have 45 acres of ponds,;
1`7 7;5 acres ofi treated' marsh, but quife~ a bit of .enhancement. marsh. 1Nhat~thaf helps
18 them
do all those facilities reduces BOD; the' treatment wetlands help reduce. algae
19 and the polishing or enhancement wetlands dosome additional nu rient ..reduction
20 and while they have '.not collected the data it also does metal reductions.
21
22 That's:. when Professor`Bob Gearheart ,brought this slide to you he touted wetlands
23 for both treatment arid; polishing and he showed 'the effluent through the Arcata
24 Plant ;from raw sewage coming out of the treatment marshes;; coming out of the
25 enhancement marsh and this' was their potable water sample. That is why we
26 ,brought a new twist to the Council and' that's what's 'in the current staff report: are
27 polishing wetlands and their benefits are metal reduction, wildlife habitat and:
28 nut"rient reduction.
__ ..
29
30 We b:e ieve there are a couple of optons'that could be considered: for polish'irig;
31 wetlands; ,.and we'd shown that previously 'on only Parcel B which could
32 accommodate 6' mg"d o:r a larger facilitythat would 'be 'on Parcel A and B .that could
33 accommodate about 12 mgd. 1N~etlands ;be.nefits especially are helpful in meeting
34 future 'regulatory requirements currently 'these is going to: be a lower final standard
35 .especially with metals reduction. You can see from tfle Sacramento wetlands
3;6 demonstration project they found that Wetlands were especially able to, rernove~
,37 certain. `metals. Coupled' with the faet'that there is land available for the. City on. what
~38 we always talked aboutIParcels A with, 23 acres and B' with' 11 acres,. There is also
39 the City owned Parcel with approximately 18 acres an,d; fo"r which shown either th:e
40 area above 7 which is aboufi 22 acres or `the entire area above 5, 56 acres, we
41 believe that in one option you could. create polishing wetlands on parcel B and the
42 City owned parse', .or-.you could also create wetlands on Passel A and'B. The other
43 option: that we 'want to present is another way fo go with polishing wetlands is fo
44 actually construct for tfie full #low and that would require 'both, Parcel. B area and a
45 portion. of Parcel A: We believe approximately 3.0, wet acres would be sufficient to
46
January 7, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 163
1 RESO. 2002-12 f\I,CS
2 WATER RECYCLING FACfLITY, continued
3
4 treat 12 mgd and would require around 45 total acres- when you include the berm
5 and other facilities.
6
7 The, cost to the ratepayer for :the polishing wetlands would. be approximately $1.5 to
8 $3~dollars per~month for either 6 mgd or 12 mgd. per connection. Carollo Engineers
9 and City staff has:recommended polishing wetlands to provide, additional insurance
10 to meet future regulatory requirements especially- metals reduction as part of the
11 project.
12 ~ -• '
13 The other ,portions of th'e project before the Council. for decision-making is the
14 Recycled Water System capacity. We:.have developed a project either for 8 mgd of
15 Tertiary capacity or 4:'~mgd Tertiary capacity and con. time with the 4 mgd system
16 would continue the existing, secondary ag reuse system. Secondary effluent goes
17 to tertiary filtration, _UV disinfection, pumping and reuse for urban reuse and
18 continue the 'secondary reuse taking oxidation pond effluent going through algae
19 removal the current hypochlorite disinfection and going to agricultural reuse and
20 meeting all those requirements for secondary disinfection reuse.
21
22 1Ne believe there is a significant savings in construction and project costs for a
23 project that: is; only 4 mgd and matches .the demand that has been projected.
24 Therefore City staff have recommended a phased approach using a modular
25 system of filters and UV disinfection that could be expanded as the demand
26 increased, but not over building. the facility at this time, but only going in the .initial
27 phase of 4 mgd. :'
28
29 The next to the last decision to be, looked at was the .type of disinfection for tertiary
30 facilities,. hypochlorite or 'UV .disinfection., We have .given all the. pros and cons of
31 this, the costs, implications that they are similar costs UV has a slightly higher cost
32 on an annual basis; but has better water, quality for urban reuse especially because
33 we hadn't added the sodium :and chloride to the water. 1Ne would recommend UV
34 disinfection for the fertiary system.
35
36 Access alternatives, we talked about a new access road .and a ..bridge and as
37 discussed before. my~ cartoon takes 'it to the north., it might:. cross over some other
38 locations, but that access: obviously is going to: provide.the most convenient access
39 to this site.. The.. other .access alternative is 'the existing. east gate which can be
40 improved to meet Caltrans standards and... has fairly severe problems regarding
41 access to .Lakeville "Highway .during commute: times, .but: would still meet Caltrans
42 standards. We have shown Council the cost for these access alternatives and you
43 can see there is about a $1.7 million dollar difference from the recommended
44 a_Iternative to Lakeville Highway alternative we believe this access is going to give
45 you corivenient and safe access for not only plant staff, school groups,
46
Vol. 37, Page 164
January 7; 20.02
`1 RESO.2002-121VCS
2 WATER RECYCLING FAOILITY, .continued
4 Co.uncilrnernbers, :again. recommended the ;business park. access through:. Rarcel A
5 and B. -
6
7 Mr.: Hargis; the discharge requirements into the Petaluma River or, disposal on land
8 are different from other peoples: 1Ne need a 1Nate~r Recycling.,- Wastewater
9 Treatment Facility that meets the= characteristics: of Petaluma: W-hat w,e .have
lb presented to you is w,hat'we think best meets the needs of the City and its specific"s.
T'2 1Ne have brought. a different recommendation to you .and. one ofi our original
13 recommendations:- I would like.to point out that. there are .lots of alternatives. You.
14 could provide wastewater treatment 'for `the City with DAF or treatment wetlands
15 using existing. land. and meet: the City's discharge requirements.. V1/e are
T6 recommending to ;you' the poli hing wetlands: Part. of our- recommendation :is if we
1'T are going to spend $88 million dollars of the ratepa_yers.' money we want to do a
18 ,project that. though it's economical. and sustainability 'meets' the discharge
19 requirements.
20
21 There. is a polishing wetlands alternative that. we are. recommending that has a
22 safety factor in it. This allows for more stringent requirements for heavy .:metals.
23 Haying the land, available makes it' easier to build th`in'gs. know, 1Nfen you're on an
24 open piece of land moving dirt is the easiest time to build the biggest facility you
25 can. ~ -
27 Currently the ratepayer is paying about $30 a month for 1Nasfewater Treatment. By
..-
28 the time the: project is .complete sewer rates will go to about $5;0 per month; 'That
29 increase includes a new sewerplan't; operation of existing .collection system; pump
30 stations, some. level of inflow .and infiltration corifrol, pollution prevention'; existing
3'L system, and also the added'; storm water component which is probably one avenue
32 ofi rneefing future mandates. 'V1le believe that the cost of the new plant that portion
33 of the ~$5Q is .about $29 per year about $2:00 per month. Of the rate sfructure that's
34 come' along the. rates are now' $30 per month somewhere in the range of $5 to $15
35 dollars of that is fo go towards payment of the. new treatment fa~cilify.
Councilmember Cader-Thompson... made a motion to adopt the resolution supporting
,staffs recommendations, Seconded by Councilrnember T.orliatt, but she would like
to'hear from the public°and~ amend her second if necessary.
41 Councilmember Cader-Thompson asked flow Carollo arrived at the numbers for the
42 wetlands. it was 'her understanding that wetlands cost considerably '.less fo run. Is
43 the cost that I;'m looking at for the plant just for the construction?
Mr. 1Ning, the, cost'ineludes operation and maintenance of wetlands. Slide' I showed
that ratepayer impact of Polishing Wetlands'is a very slow number for operation :and
January 7, 2002
Vol, 37; Page.165
1 RESO. 2002-12 NCS
2 ~ WATER RECYCLING- FACILITY, continued
3
4 maintenance. ofi those wetlands. Approximately $100.,000 per year for the 6 mgd
5 Polishing `1Netlands and twice that. for the 12 mgd- Polishing 1Netlands.
6
7 Councilmember Caller-Thompson asked what the benefit would be of going with the
8 12 mgd instead of the 6 mgd for the wetlands.
9
10 Mr. Wing the larger the flow you can put Through- the wetlands the more reduction of
11 metals,. nutrients and polishing benefits you; will get.
12
13 Couneilrnernb:er Caller-Thompson. feels as th'ou'gh this plant is an insurance policy.
14 We're looking at a lot of money and she feels as though the Council has a
15 responsibility to the citizens to make sure that when we're half way through this
16 plant that there are not a lof. of change orders because of changes in regulations,.
17 The plant needs to be done right the first time and not add .on to it into the future.
18
19 Councilmember Tora,att would .like to know if, the. public does support the staff's
20 recomrnendafion. ;Her understanding of 'the recommendation is purchasing. Parcels
21 A and' B that would include better treated wastewater with the expansion of the
22 Wetlands Ponds.
23
24 Mr. Hargis:; yes; we recommend the Polishing, and management recommends we
25 buy Parcels A and B as a buffer.
26
27 Courcilmember Maguire., Page 2 of the staffi report talks about. cost dif_fecential
28 between Alternative 2B and 2D. Alternatives 2B -Algae Removal Wetlands (lowest
29 cost alternative) and. Alternative 2D -Algae Removal/Polishing Wetlands: the lacge,r
30 wetlands footprint. The cost differential of $680,000 of which 80% of that comes
31 from residential that equals $540,Og0, which is $25.90 a year ,per household, which
32 is $2.16 per month. Those figures are the ones that are modified by Mr. Wing's
33 comment that it's now the Polishing Wetlands cost `impact, the difference of $1.50
34 per month?
35
36 'Mr. Hargis,, Mr. 1N.ing was estimating somewhere between $1.50 and $3.00.
37
38 Councilmember Maguire,.. he was saying $1:50 per month #or the :6 mgd and. $3.00
39 per month for the 12 mgd to give you a differential of a $1.50' per month.
40
41 Mr. Ban it's actually a slighfly different comparison on .Mr. 1lVing's slide he compared
42 the 6 ;mgd Polishing Wetlands to the 12 mgd, 'in the staff report we compared the
43 Algae Remova_I Wetlands in ;Ponds 9 and 10 only to the 12 mgd Polishing Wetlands.
44
45 Councilmember Maguire so the Ponds 9 and 10 would still be the 12 mgd?
46
Vol. 37, Page 166
January 7,..2002
1 RESO.2002-12 NCS
2 WATER. RECYCLING FACILITY, continued
3 .
4 Mr: Ban no Ponds 9 and '10 would Piave no Polishing Wetlands.
5
6 Oouncilmember Maguire although. you would' be Treating up to 12 mgd but it
7 wouldri't ..Polished?
8
9 Mr. Ban on that option. it would be 6' .mgd going through The Algae Removal
10 Wetlands. only and there would be no Polishing. Uetlands.
11
12 Councilmember Maguire so then. the cost difference on a per month basis to the
T3 ratepayers. for the difference between the. 26 and 2D is still $2,`16 pe.r month?
14
15 Mr:, Ban, yes.
16
17 Mayor Thompson on Table 1 Scenario 2', Blended Effluent: -Alternate 2B, Alternate
18 2G and Alternate 2D, under costs on Scenario- 2 Alternative 26 Algae Rernoval_
19 Wetlands Ponds. 9 and 10 you have included. Iarid acquisition of $3 million dollars.
20 and under that;~sc'enario we were not going to~ buy any land so that $8 million.
21 shouldn't;, be ~in there.
22
23 Mr. Ban our recommendation was to purchase the land no matter which: alternative.
24 chosen.
25
26 Mayor Thompson under, Carollo's one of their first proposals of ,Algae Remova'I
27 Wetlands. Ponds 9 and.10 there was no land cost involved.
28 The originaCproposal showed'that'we didn't need the.UV'etlands.
29
30 Mr. Ban for certain options. w,e don't need Parcels A and B for Elie Wetlands;; but: we
,3"1 recommended that: we purchase Parcels A and' B no matter which alternative was
32 chosen; and we have 'been. asked.. to put" the land acquisition cost. -Prior'we didn't
33 include. any land acquisition costs. Council,
34
35 Mayor Thompson for Alternative 2B to funcfion you do notneed, the land acquisitien
36 cost.. Fo.r, the technical operation of the plant we did..not need to purchase A and B
3.7 correct?
3&
39 Mr. 'Ban, th:at'`s correct.
4.0
41 Gouncilmember .Maguire how- does the operations and maintenance cost of the
42 existing facility compare fo the new facility? The estimated cost :for the new
43 recycling facility are based on 6:7 mgd average dry whether flows which is 40%
44 higher than the current flows. At the time we; open 'the new plant w,e're ,not
45 automatically ,going to'be, jumping to that 40% level:
46; ., .
January 7, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 167
1 FtES®. 2002-12 NCS
2 WATER RECVCLIIVG .FACILITY, continued
3
4 Mr. Ban, No the 6:7 mgd is for build out of the current General Plan, which is
5 roughly in 15 years plus or minus.
6
7 Vice Mayor Healy the information we received talks about current rates being $30
8 per month. M.y understanding is those new rates went into effect January 1 and I'm
9 imagining that not to many members of the community have seen bills based on
10 those rates yet?
11
12 Mr. Ban that's correct.
13
14 Councilmemb.er Healy all of last calendar .year we were charging $25 per month .or
15 $50 bi-.monthly for wastewater for residential? When the new rates go into affect will
16 we still bill bi-monthly because that would be a, large increase for ratepayers.
17
18 Mr. Ban our recommendation is to bill monthly.
19
20 Vice Mayor Healy ;my ..understand is that. the.water has. to be disinfected before it
21 goes to the Polishing Wetlands and then does it .get. disinfected again after the
22 Polishing 1etlands
23
24 Mr. Wing, currently we are showing that the Polishing Wetlands water would go
25 through Disinfection; through the Polishing.. Wetlands and come back through
26 Disinfection. for double. Disinfection similar to ;Arcata. We had actually proposed,.to
27 regulatory .agencies that you would not need. the second Disinfection that. any
28 chloroform organisms would be just naturally occurring from the ducks or whatever
29 and would recommend that we would not.. need the second Disinfection step. W:e
30 would recommend that we not do that. 1Ne .have included that cost in our operation
31 costs.
32
33 Vice Mayor Healy, but it's the chemical Disinfection before the wetlands as opposed
34 to the UV, which is only for tertiary water.
35
36 Mr. Wing. the UV bisinfecton's for Tertiary Hypoehiorite is for Riper Discharge.
37
38 'Vice Mayor ;Healy; did you have a chance ~to look at the question about the filter
39 paks the other. type of filtration options?
40
41 Mr. UUing; yes, we are. considering two types of filters, one would be the disc filter
42 type as well as the continuous backwash filter. We think this filter may have some
43 promising points as far as expandability. We are not asking for a decision on that
44 tonight. Either filter system would be` modular and could be expanded for the
45 Tertiary System.
46
Vol. 37, .Page 1'68 January 7, 2002
1 RES0:.2002-12 NCS
2 WATER: RECYCLING FACILITY;; continued
3
4 Vice Mayor. Healy, with .respect to the Open, Space District and .potential. support
5 from, them for possible land acquisition, if the `City were to acquire. the property by
6 Eminent Domain we couldn't then turn to the: Open 'Space District and ask for their
7 support?
Ms. Tuft, No.
1,1 Councilmember :Moynihan. was a little surprised by the recommendation that came
12 forward suggesting the Polishing 1Netlands. It converted. us from, what, was
13 Alternative 26 to Alternative 2D. From what I' can tell, from the chart outlining, 'the
14 cost: the construction cost primarily;. but the. capital costs is an additional $6 million
15. dollars::; The'. numbers that we have: in front, of us ,indicate the total annualized cost
16' spread' over 25 years on~a yearly basis. works out to over $11;790;000 for'the new
1'7 treatment :plan"t and the operations and maintenance. Using now the $20,:000
1'8 connections as: a base, that is $590 per year roughly per ;ratepayer arid that's
19 roughly $50 per' month, that's,just for the treatment plant and' operation of the plant.
20 Your report 'in here: also indicates. fhat the D;istr'ibution System necessary foc the
x ~ ,.
'21 Tertiary Treatment System, we re Jooking at 'somewhere between $28 and $30
22 million dollars and I :don't know that, the rate :have looked at that 'or the', impact of
23 :additional $3:0 million .dollars for the Distribution System of Tertiary Treatment, I ~ just
24 wanted to confirm indeed tha 'those numbers weren't'in here also.
26 Mr. Ban the rates. include the Capital Impro~emenf Program :over the next five
.27 years;. "which does 'include the first phase of the Recycled Water. Program and.'the
28 pipeaine, out to Rooster Run, which. wasestimated 'between $7 acid $8 million..
29 dollars.
Councilmember Moynihan;, so it's not including the Tertiary Distribution System as
you ,proposed in Table 3. Handling the capacities of 26 mgd?
Mr. Ban, the sate doesn't include. $30 million dollars worth of infrastructure. It
includes the first phase.
37 Councilmember Moynihan there is same suggestion that we are also; in our rates,
38 paying for some Inflow and Infiltration in our collection system, .but I had read a
39 number and it was maybe a year ago that the necessary or anticipated needs in l
40 I was somewhere around $33 million dollars. Has. that number :been refined. at all,
41 Have we looked at upgrading our collection system and. eliminating this I
42 problem?
43
44 fVlr. Hargis; the $30 .million dollars -was a number that was kicked around as we
45 were: involved in some of'tfie I & 1 studies that said if you want'to really go in and try
46 and fix Inflow and Infiltration. your going to spend around $30 million dollars.. The
January 7, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 169
1 FiES_0.2002-012 .NC.S
2 VILATER RECYCLING FACfLITY, continued
4 study also .said `that it's not cost effecfive~. You have an Oxidation. Pond, you have
5 the ability to discharge.:to the Petaluma -Ri,~er,. but you don't: want to keep I & I as
6 something;- that deteriorates, you need to spend money .every year on an annual
7 program that tries to at least maintain the system, avoid collapses and sink holes
8 and maybe if you can improve some on the system. ;One of the things we've talked
9 about is the repair of sewer laterals as welt as the streets. In the wintertime you get
10 a lot of ground water coming into. the system and in the summer time you lose a lot
11 of water through that same pipe system. .
12
13 Councilmernber Moynihan is. curious what that smaller amount would be and I .can't
14 see the cost 'going down significantly in that type of thn.g`especially as the collection
15 system .continues to deteriorate over time: .
16 -
17 Mr. Hargis, it's: not going to go down-. One of°theifhings~we've explored verbally here
18 at Council is that discussions. about a home ,resale ordinance that would require
19 when ,you sell your. home that you."put li'n water conserving fixtures, you fix .your
20 leaking sewer lateral, you put in all energy efficient appliances, fix~the sidewalk, etc.
21 I think we're ;going to be looking at those, kinds of things. where its not just all going
22 in and fixing pipe.
23 :-: _
24 Councilmemb.er Moynihan, we pay a water and' sewer bill, we know what we've been
25 paying, -and realize it's been going up as gf recent quite a bit. There are a lot of
26 people that .are already commwnicating with us that they can't afford it. Now we're
27 talking, about an $88 million capital project, ,with annual. operating costs. We're
28 looking; at about a $600 per year hit to these ratepayers, plus we're; looking at I & ,I
29 which may oc may not be $30 mil_lon-;dollars- .plus we're looking at another $30
30 million ,of Distribution System of whatever operations and maintenance costs are
31 related tg th:at, plus we're looking at increasing utility costs not only in our utility bills.,
32 but the utilities it "takes, to actually run. these water and sewer sysferns: The numbers
33 just keep increasing and soon people will be fo:"need out of'this community. Yet your
34 recornrnendation shows your adding another $6` million dollars. of .capital costs and
35 additional operating and maintenance costs by doing Polishing Wetlands.
36
37 I understand ;it's great to have checks and balances.., but it also. seems to me that if
3.8 we can effectively have a system that's cost effective and .keeps the cost down up
39 front, 'if we need to come back- and add another insurance policy at a later time we
40 could possibly do that: He thinks this project is too costly and that some residents
41 won't be able to pay these bills. Maybe the project could be done in phases, instead
42 of having 4mgd capacity :on the tertiary treatment system, maybe have a 2mgd then
43 add :another 2.,mgd when appropriate. The cost increase is more than substantial. I
44 think when we started out talking about a new plant it w.as $25 million dollars; today
45 it's an$88 million dollar plant. I realize everyone is working hard and. we have all the
46 beifs and whistle's in this, but maybe we can get by with a_Chevy instead of a
Vol. 37, Page 1'70 January Z, 2002
i RESO.2002-Q1'2 NCS
2 'W.A~TER REC~XC.LING ..FACILITY,. continued
4 Cadillac: I think there a"re some areas that L definitely would 'like. to see, savings in
5 particular the. areas that ;the value engineering team had outlined. that' I felf needed.
6 to be investigated further. `I still have concerns about are the 'whole area.:of algae
7 creation: We're developing a. process.'here w, here: s""toting .water v,ia the oxidation
8ponds results in °the growth of.algae and then we have to .remove the :algae through
9 a process. It doesn't, sound like a particularly sustainable activity where you grow'
0 something, then remove it. 1
One of the pluses of touring other facilities such, as the Santa Rosa. Regional
Facility,; SonomaValley, Las G'allinas, It's all, three of them have a process which
doesn't do, just that.`_It doesn't grow algae: then remove it. 1t handles the flows.
differently; it doesn't provide,, large amounts. of storage within the: ;process.
understand.. there are issues: involving Polishing of metals and the. metals dropping
out, but from what I've seen'we have. not; really .given that adequate: consideration
:.
and that process can save us tens of millions of dollars I believe,. not only i'n
reduci'ng'the cost of the ;plant, but also the. operations cost and provide us with more
capacity 'for storage of'treated wastewater. The key there'f`rom What I ~can,te l; and
think l have outlined tb, you`.in the pasf;is the moving of the. discharge point similar t_o
where Santa. Rgsa;is and the like.
24 I'm wondering if we cannot get an overalf'flow schematic of a process,;. which does
25 ;not create algae then remove, it: `
26
27 Mr. Ban,, why algae oxidation ponds are :critical to our wastewater plant.. They do a
28 couple of ,things: for us. 1`) `They provide storage for our recycled; water program so'
29 that we can balance the recycled water needs. 2). They' reduce the metals in ..our
30 effluent; so that, we can meet sour permit _require,ments. One of the by-products; of
31 'having oxidation ponds is algae does grow ~in a; pond and, so'you have: to take it out.
32 If we don't take it out we won't meet our permit lirriits:.lf we, don't use. the p°onds we
33 don't have, storage to balance our recycled water program and we''re concerned that.
34 we won't meet our permit limits for metals:
Councilmembe,r Moyrhan; that did not answer my question. I provided over the
course of the weekend, I believe-you have all `received a copy of a. flow schematic
that's very unprofe"ssional, but I tried to line out slightly different process which is
similar to the process that is being followed by other areas in treating. wastewater.
41 The point is we do need storage., but :the real,. issue is where do ,you put .the
42 discharge point, where do you get permitted. Do you get permitted before the
43 storage occurs or do you get permitted at the end; of your oxidation ponds after
44 which you .have .grown-This algae a_nd then required to remove: it. The answer from
45 what I can see _is That there: is a way to .modify the process to continue to use the
46 ponds for storage, not to use there as part of"thee. actual treatment process and use.
January 7, 2002
2.
Vol. 37, Page 171
RESO.2002-012 IVCS
WATER RECYCLING FACILITY, continued
4 fashion that eli'rriinates the need for algae removal similar to other communities?
S
6 Mr. Wing, we're looking at a system that currently uses oxidation ponds for storage.
7 If we had ~a discharge .point before the oxidation ,ponds we would not have the
8 benefit of the ,metals reduction, we would .still have the storage, but the treatment
9 schematic that ends here doesn't provide for metals .reduction or polishing and
10 that's 'what' is different from some of the other facilities you have seen. They have
11 much less stringent permit at this time as far as metals in their effluent
12 requirements;.; More and ,more plants are seen in the recent times more stringent
13 metals requirements- and -they will have 'to go to metal reduction facilities which
14 currently pond systems are one ofi the best systems fgr removing metals. That's
15 why in thin case; Pefaluma has been fortunate that they've had ponds to be able to
Y6 meet the metals reduction requirement. Again you have to go through the ponds to
17 do it.: .You sample down, here for metals., you also end up with algae from the
18 oxidation ,ponds..
19
20 C,ouncilmember "Moynihan now that I understand your response,, you're basically
21 saying that. we. could mope this discharge. point, up, but then we're dealing with the
22 issues of metals. 1Ne'd, have adequate storage so we don't need to create .algae
23 from.a point Hof view of finding enough storage, but just for dealing with the metals.
24
25 nllr: Vying, :that's correct. `You need the ponds for metals reduction.
26
27 Councilmember Moynihan then I would like go and. address metals directly then so
28 we're all clear. I understand that we have been at this point sampling discharge: that
29 is coming currently from our Secondary process our antiquated secondary process
30 that we currently'have and, the sampling that's been .going, on we've been receiving
31 results that ;basically show that through 'the secondary clarifiers that the solids are
32 dropping ova the metals it returning via 'the dewatering activity on the return
33 activated sludge; it's going back and potentially can be .recycled through the
34 secondary process, in short our secondary process. is dealing with the metals. Our
35 metals at this point are well within our discharge permit. and we don't. have a need
36 for polishing wetlands at this point.
37
38 IVIr: Wing, the. initial data, that: we collected this fall ,showed the very first round of
39 sampingLLthat the secondary effluent met metals .requirements, but when we looked
40 at that, we believe it was only part of the picture that ,you have to look at alf the
41 st"reams, recycled streams in the plant and when w,e've done that the recent data.
42 has shown that secondary effluent. alone 'may meet your metals requirements,, :but
43 not the whole plant. discharge., When you add those recycled streams back in you
44 still, have a metals `issue. We're still collecting data to refine that information, but the
45 most recent sampling data shows that the metals comes out with the solids end up
46 in your sludge handling process and then you have what.we call these recycled
Vol. 37, Page 1.72 January 7, 2002
1 RESO.20.02-12 ~IVCS .
2 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY, .continued
3
4 flows coming from your solids handling process end up back in your stream :and
5 you'll have metals in your effluent. You do have to handle metals. ~.~
6
7 Councilmember Moynihan the activated sludge effluent. is what we're referring fo.
8
9 Mr. Wing the activated sludge. effluent or secondary effluent. The metals. do come
10 out with the solids that you remove in that process then when you deal with thq~se
11 solids you end up with .metals.
12
13 Councilmember Moynihan so on the belt drying or such you; e`nd up with. dewatering
i4 'activify that'occurs in the dewatering `do you believe there is a residue of metals.
15
16 Mr. 1Ning, the effluent. from that dewatering process. contains .metal. They are fairly
17 high levels.
18
_-
19 Councilmember Moynihan and you shownn your diagram a recirculation of~~what:you
20 referred to as return :activated sludge. would you not' recirculate the same .by- .
21 products :from :the dewatering? '
22
23 Mr. 1Ning actually where w,e're showing 'is where that waste activated sludge :.comes `
24 down. The metals would come down with those solids, then w,e°would go through, a
25 dewatering step and the water we take out we have to.take someplace,,~it.goes back
26 into. the process and it will contain metals..
27
28 Councilmember Moynihan, could that; wafer be handled in such a way' that you.
29 could drop the metals ouf and not recirculate 'it in~the same process?
30 -
31 Mr. Whig; to myknowledge the p'lanfs facilities have looked' at that. process and~the `
32 best way is to return if back into the process.
33
34 Counclmember Moynihan, by doing: so though you still ,remain 'having secondary.
35 effluent thatmeets your metals count.
36
37 Mr. Wing, you have metals above your effluent requirements. You do end up with
38 the ,metals, you ..removed some of the metals with the solids. that go out.. into
39 dewatering, but some are returned and still, have some in effluent that's correct.
40
41 Mr. Stouder if possible could Mr. 1N.ing re-answer it all in one continuous response.
42 think we have a sense of the various questions and it might be helpful to try. to
43 comprehensively summarize: the dialogue so it's, clear on the record. If. Mr. 1Nng `
4.4 could do that once Mr. Moynihan's compone`n_ts have been answered.
45
46
January 7, 2002
Vol. 37, ,Page 173'
1 FiESO. 2002-012 NCS
2 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY, continued
3
4 Mr. B'an, what I want to do is compare some metals results from some facilities that
5 are similar to the City of Petaluma.. One of the metals that the regional board iS
6 concerned with is .,copper and there are two facilities. neat us that come. under
7 similar regulations. Sonoma.. Valley County Sanitation District and the Novato
8 Sanitation District .have: similar water sources as us and. they are roughly similar in
9 size. They are both .secondary plants as well.. This line right here represents what's
10 coming out of their plant for :copper so the effluent, .copper concentrations range
11 from roughly 12 micrograms per liter down to just over 5. This line up .here is what
12 Sonoma Valley County Sanitation Districts permit limit is for copper. It's 20
13 micrograms per liter. This iS their future limit right here, 4.9 micrograms per liter.
14 They .have a problem.
15
16 Councilmember ;M'aguire you mentioned briefly 'that if we don't do the ponds,
17 storage and algae removal that screws up our- storage for., agricultural reuse;
18 correct? We need to have ,storage: for, agricultural reuse and to meet the discharge
19 requirements of when you can dump to the river aril can't.
20
21 Mr. Ban, if we didn't have the storage we wou dn't be able to balance the recycled
22 water program. because what's coming in .doesn't match what goes out for recycled
23 water use so the ponds. are a holding tank. to make the difference between what you
24 use and what is coming into the plant.
25
26 Councilmember Maguire and that .affects how you .reuse your ,agricultural water.
27 There are certain times of the year when you need ..storage.
28
29 Mr. Ban, that's correct.
30
31 Councilmember Maguire;,, Mr. Mayor I would just. point out for the record that this
32 history of this project 1 personally have been working on for ten years incorporated a
33 period where rnys.elf and other citizen watchdogs challenged the City former
34 :administration for signing an NIOU with our plant operators at the time to design,
35 build, .own and operate the first privatized sewer plant, 'in the. state. There was
36 outrage in `the community, it was challenged at the PUC, and the PUC said no you
37 cannot proceed with that. Out of that came "Sewer;School" 8 public workshops that
3'8 the City sponsored for the public. They were very well, attended and the purpose of
39 those workshops was to establish the performance .criteria. for this plant. Amongst
40 the performance criteria for this .plant were to move towards eventual. elimination of
4:1 discharge into the river. That means we must reuse whatever water we can and that
42 is the: underlying assumption that is being questioned by Mr. Moynihan that is
43 apparently not being understood by Mr. Moynihan as to why this, configuration has
44 evolved. to what it is today.
45
..Vol. 37, .Page 1'74 January 7, 2002
1 RESO.; 2002-012 NCS
._ .
2 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY; continued
3
4 Vice Mayor Healy, wheh I toured the. Santa. Rosa facility l was aware from the staff
5 report that their TS5 limits are lower than ours because. they discharge into arive.r
6 That 'liar drinking water pulled ouf drown stream,; but I didn' realize that Santa Rosa..
7 apparently has no: mefal's 'limitation in their discharge permit, is that eorrecf? -
8
9 Mr. Ban, their discharge permit does not specify their metals limits.
Vice Mayor Healy; it is not an issue at .th'is tune that. they've had to worry abouf. If
Novato: or Sonoma Valley or Santa Rosa h`as to do some. retrofit work around
metals issues what: in a general sense will they be looking at
15' Mr: Ban;. they've talked about doing reverse osmosis, but it's so expensive J don'.t
_16 think theywill go there. This is Novato Sanitary District, which is very similar m size
17 to us, similar water source., Again this line that goes ;up and- .down is the copper
1'8 concentration in, their .effluent: This° line up here' represented thei._r current permit
19 limit, which 'is 22. micrograms per liter; and this ine down here is the future limit of
20 4.9 micrograms per. lifer.. I think Novato's strategy is #o challenge: the Regional.
21 Board.
Couneilmember O'Brien if we build. wetlands do tley then. become jurisdictional.
wetlands? -
26 Mr. Wing ifi they're used for ;treatment included in the permitthey do not become
27 junsdctional. If they are strictly for enhancement or wildlife they would become:
28 jurisdictional wetlands.
29
30 Councilmember O'Brien is polishing considered treatment.
Mr: Wing; if they are permitted as'freatment and that's what we're proposing that"the
wetlands be for polishing' and treatment they would not be:considered' ~unsdictional
wetlands... They would. be part: of your treatment facility: ,As .long as their constructed
for the purpose and included 'in your permit as treatmentthey can't be challenged
as jurisdictional
38 Councilmember :O'BYien, what' happens. when we discharge again.. As Mr: M,agu'ire
39 said the purpose of sewer school was to set the perimeters of`ths and one. ultimate:
40 goal was Zero Discharge. The way I un`derstarid things we only have to polish if
4.1 we're discharging?
42
43 Mr. V1/:ing, if y,ou stop discharging would they become wetlands,, I don'f believe so
44 because they only become wetlands if you've created therm and they start out as
45 wetlands. If you created °them., and ffley start. out. as treatment th`ey're treatment.
January 7, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 175
1 RESO. 2002-.01,2 IVCS
2 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY, continued
3
4 Councilmember O'Brien., if our ultimate ;goal is zero discharge to the river -then we
5 don't need the Polishing Wetlands at that point.
6
7 Councilmember Maguire, the goal by the community was zero discharge to the
8 river. Not necessarily zero discharge to a treatment ponds or wetlands.
9
10 Mr..Ban, I think there's an assumption that we're going to go to zero discharge_ and
11 it's a big assumption. That is a huge volume of water that we would have to deal
12 with.. I think in setting the;goal the goal fmight~be to reuse. as much as we can, but in
13 order to go to zero discharge we would be looking at a tremendous capital
14 expenditure to do that.
15
16 Mr. Hargis, if the state mandates. zero di"scharge fo-the Petaluma River I don't know
17 what the discharge on to 'the. land. require;rnents are going to be. V1/e have, concern
18 with. our agricultural users; since we started the project about salts in our
19 wastewater;. you. can't take it'from~ here and put.. it someplace. We have talked about
20 the Cargill Salt Ponds; there are reports that .have building a dam on. Ellis Creek
21 Watershed. Petaluma is the only one of the eastern Marin, Southern Sonoma,
22 Regional Agency's that built any .component of the regional' system. That eventually
23 that was a series of treatment plants going down to a major plant on the shores of
24 San Pablo Bay: A time of discharge, into San Pablo .Bay and then eventually
25 reclamation putting dams on Tolay Valley and filling the reservoir and going to all
26 reclamation so fhere have been lofs of alternatives that have been talked about.
27 Cargill Salf Ponds. i.s a brine enviroramenf that conceivably could be improved. by
28 taking Napa River flows or recycled water flows from various treatment .plants to
29 lessen the concentration of .brine., but your going to have. to discharge That water into
30 the Napa River which means. the regional board has:ao give an exemption for~their
31 discharge requirements in order'to allow th'at'to happen.
32
33 Councilmember O'Brien if we could do' .algae removal with DAF could. we then do
34 polishing with the wetlands on Ponds 9 and 10?
3'S
36 You can do algae removal. with DAF's you could combine the ,DAF with the Pond 9
37 and ~10 Algae .removal :for polishing. That-would be_ an alternative Ghat had not been
38 considered. We would, have to look at the capacity; I believe it is only a 6 mgd
39 capacity for .Ponds 9 and 10, which is similar to the capacity for the Parcel B
40 Polishing Wetlands.
41
42 Councilmember O'Brien, one final question to clarify. The most cost, effective money
43 that we could. get to bui_Id this plant would be State Water .Bonds and State Water
44 Bonds money financing prevents us from building for the~f.uture.; We could only build
45 what 'we need right .now: Is that correct and would that preclude us from buying
46 Parcels A and B for future use?
Vol. 37, Page 176 .January 7, 2002
1 RESO.2002-012'.IVCS
2 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY, continued
3
4 Mr Ban, the financing. firom the. State Revolving Fund. ;it's not limited to what you
5 need foday, They wouldn't want you to~ come 'back for a loan once you. "met your
6 requirements. ct's to accommodate the growth. of the comrimunfy. Jt is my,
7 understanding you can't do land acquisition with State Resolving Fund monies.
8
9 Couneilmember Torliatt wants to hear from :the public. Responded to ,a couple of
10 things 'so the public was able to have the: benefit of some of the .iss.ues that I think°
11 we are facing. in the City of Petaluma. 1Ne recently received a letter that talked about
12 the facf~~that the, Regional. Quality Control Board maybe considering, declaring the
13 Petaluma River an impaired system. based on copper and diazinon and if copper is
14 an issue we want to do everything we can to eliminate the copper an,d the metals
15 out. of the system. That is one of the reasons polishing wetlands is an option that
_;
16 we should choose at this time because 'it will" be more cost effectiv".e now than it_
17 would be in the future years. The restrictions are only. going to get stricter:;
18
19 One of the thin
gs than I've talked :about at this C;ouneil and: said at the last; meeting
20 was ;in my involvement in issues dealing with water we are :de,aling, 'w.ith water"
21 supply issues from the Russian: River Nand ground water supplies, we''re talking
22 about' storm. water,. wastewater,, reclaimed water, distribution, inflow and infiltration,
_._
23 conservation, surface water runoff, etc. 1Nhen we're cooking at decision making we
24 .need 'to start looking at water and the money we ,spend on water on the: entire
.:25 system. Where. do we spend our money to fje most cost effective? One of the.
26 things. that we just spent .our money on last January was authorizing Am_endrnent
27 11, which was part ofi a water supply agreement. If you look at the projected rates
28 for ~~water deliveries they are going to doubt"e. The cost is going, to double on
29 projected rates #.o_r water delivery in the. next 20 'years. It'"s not just sewer. 'We didn'f'
30 bat an eye when we approved Amendment 1'1. c voted against that because we: l.ad
31 not gone through a process like we-are going through right now .looking at the, sewer.`
32 facility "and, "enhanced. wetlands that 'we need... I want everybody fo look at the: full
33 dollar figure and know when we're concerned about the fact that rates are going; to
34 double for wastewater rates, they're going to double for water rates. as well and we
35 need to start looking at where we spend ourrnoney most efficiently.
36
37 Councilmernber Moynihan, I "want to clarify in dealing, with the metals, the' metals:
3'8 threshold is an issue and fhe waters we discharge to the river is it an issue 'for
39 waters we use for agricultural reuse?
40
41 Mr. Wing again the current reuse requirements do not have metals. limits. 1Ne can'f
42 tell what they're going to include in the future.
43
44 Councilrnember Mgynihan so if a stream of activated sludge effluent to your
45 dewatering was redirected not to' the :river for discharge, b"ut -redirected for
46 agricultural reuse or some other area outside would that; be acceptable?
1
2
3
4
5
6
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
January 7, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 177
R ESO.2002-012 IVCS
WATER RECYCLING FACILITY, continued
Mr. Wing the recycled. stream actually .has othen components. besides metals.
They're high in BOD, Ammonia, they do require. treatment as well, aril that's what I
had not .added to that discussion. Those- streams do need treatment that's why
they're brought. back into the treatment train: ,
Councilmember Moynihan, so would there,be a way to handle such a treatment and
deposit it somewhere other than the river?
Mr. Wing you: need to return those to the treatment train to be :able: to treat the high
ammonia, high B;QD levels. There is no separate treatment for those recycled
streams.
Councilmernber Moynihan, I'm wondering if there can't, be another way, right now
those streams are being deposited. into fhe oxidation ponds are they. not? ,Have you
looked at, equalization storage between the grit removal and extended aeration
processes? An ability to store in case w,e .have' large surges due to rain etc?
Mr. 1Ning, what we've acually looked of is the ability",~to if it is a very high flow, divert
after grit removal to the oxidation ponds ystem.so we wouldn't have~to treat the full
hydraulic flow in the secondary process.
Councilmember Moynihan., I assume you would be dedicating one pond or 'h of a
pond or something for that overflow?
.. ,:
Mr. W"n_g, we would have a dedicated pond.;.that would have aeration equipment, be
able to treat that hi'gli wet whether flow.. - ,
Councilmember Moynihan we wouldn't then again use it oxidation or another part of
the process once we screen sewage into it?
Mr: Wing you would use it again for treatment, and storage.. B,y using equalization
ponds is if a possib'.ility then to size down the. secondary processes and potentially
realize some cost savings.
Mr. 1Ning that is what we have done in sizing the current. proposed secondary
process. It was downsized. so it didn't have to accommodate the full wet whether
flow.
Councilme:mber Moynihan so that is when you got up to 20 mgd maximum load that
K.
aan be handled there?
Mr: 1Ning if was 18 mgd for the secondary process is maximum.
Vol. 37, Page 178 January'7,, 20Q2
1 RES`O.2002-012_ NCS
2 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY, .continued
4 'Councilmemb~er :Moynihan, the expansion ofi Tertiary,. there was a policy that we
5 started .out and developed ,a Tertiary' proe~ess with an 8 mgd. capacity. The.
6 recommendation was revised to a 4 mgd process. Those components at 'least: the
7 actual Tertiary Filtration System and the related Disinfection that would , be
8 necessary be it lJV or other;, itseems to me those could be added incrementall',y,.
1Nould' there be potential' cost savings by phasing it in 2 mgd increments vs. 4 m;gd
increments?
Mr. Wing we phased ~it and what we, `thought was, the proper increment of 4 mgd and
then you can expand it in either 1 or 2 mgd increments past the 4 mgd.
Councilmember Moynihan as far as the capacity the. storage _in the now oxidation
ponds or potential storage ponds ,are we .looking at the end requirement for Tertiary
Treatment or for other forms of distribution of the treated effluent. 1Nhat I'm
wondering is if we started at the 18,b period that we cannot. discharge into the river?
The incremental amount we need to basically dispose of in addition to thee. storage
ponds if we said. retain. 7 storage ponds and stored our treated effluent.-for the
course of the. summer, what kind of ave"rage daily flows. do we need .to dissipafe to
have adequate storage?
25 Mr. UV~ing, currently the City :avera;ges ~approxirnately 4 mgd over that period for
26 disposal.
27
28 Councilrnenber Moynihan, I did 'have some points. regarding the land. cost: estimates,
29 also. For what it's worth I'rn still uncomfortable with 'the process ;and not looking at:
30 the algae alternative: that other communities have. 'I still believe there.. is a cost
3'1 savings.
32
33 RECESS: Council. took afive-minute recess.
Mr. Wing storage `is required for those periods when'you cannot' reuse the water as
in the spring or the fall especially 'the Fall everybody` cane imagine you:c not, reusing
and irrigating, in October; but you 'still have flow. comhg into the p ant. `You need to
be able: to store it during that period.
The recycled streams referred to that. contain :mefals and other constituents `that
require treatment;, the ,most cost effective means of treating those flows has always
been o return, it to the process. If there were another. magic process it would have
.been discovered kiy this ,point. This'is the most cost effective w,ay#o handle recycled
streams.
January 7, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 179
1 RESO. 2002-01.2 NCS
2 WATER. RECYCLING_FACILITY, continued
3
4 Public Comment
5
6 Alice Staller;, Caulfield Court, feels the City should utilize all possible funds to
7 acquire the land to make it a park.
8 .. _ ,
9 Geoff Cartwright; 56 Rocca Drive, asked Council not to delay their decision any
10 ,longer. Regulations become more stringent and will become more costly as time
11 goes by. Approve staff recommendation.
12
13 -Sylvan Eide,lman represents Madrone Audubon. He is an operator at the Sonoma
14 Valley Tre~atrnent Plant. A problem at Sonoma Valley is chronic problems with zinc
15 removal.., 'He: supports staff recommendation. to acquire the land for wetland
16 enhancement and the, ability to have more storage if needed.
17 ..
18 Barry Shapiro~,_ 515 "F". Street, supports staff's. recommendation. What are the
19 ramifications of the penalties if this is not done right. As a business owner in
20 Petaluma he believes the financial ramifications of monies coming into the
21 community would be tremendous.
22
23 Bob Dyer, 1708 :Granada Court, appeals to the Council to support staff's
24 recommendation. By passing this resolution you could say, "I saw the future, I had a
25 vision and I took a chance".
26
27 Elaine V1/oodriff,, 717 North McDowell, supports the filtration pond marsh wetlands
28 project. It would benefif the city through increased revenue from tourism. Create
29: -recreational opportunities for Petaluma citizens and provide areas for wildlife and
30' 'benefit ourenvironment.
31
32 Gerald Moore supports staff's. recommendation. He also brought more signed
33 petitions in. He recently searched the Internet for constructed wetlands and water
34 treatment plants across the country. One site stated that over 500 cities in Europe
35 and 600 cities in North America are using wetlands to purify wvastewater. Another
36 site stated that 500 cities in the U.S.A. are using. over building wetlands fo purify or
37 polish wastewater. Most are obtaining at or close to a tertiary quality with the added
38 benefits of reduced nitrogen, phosphate and if the appropriate plants. are used a
39 dramatic reduction in heavy .metals. He recommends anyone who is interested in
40 more information should look for these sites on the Internet.
41
42 Patricia Tuttle. Brown supports staff's recommendation. The. City has the chance to
43 implement ;a system. tha# is a sustainable option for wastewater. Expansion is likely,
44 metals need removal. The aesthetics possibility has already been talked about; the
45 storm drain water is an ugly thing that needs to be .addressed. The bigger the ponds
46 the more carbon dioxide that is taken out of the air.. It's only with staff's
Vol. 37, Page 180'
January 7, 2002
1 RES0.2002=O,T2'NCS
2 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY; continued
3
4 recommendation of tonight we will be doing an Arcata option because it's not,jusf
5 the closed ponds 'it's the open ponds together..
6
7 John Bertucei, 651 N. Fair Street, supports afull-fledged 1Netlands. Treatment.
8 Facility. The exfra acreage is a vital part- of the wetlands option. If the wetlands
9 option is chosen then you have to choose to acquire. the land to do the wetlands or
1.0 go with the DAF. It is time to.seek ari environmentally sound solution.., _
12 Stan Gold,. King. Road, believes this Water Recycling Plant being presented to the
13 citizens of Petaluma is a once in a lifetime opportunity:. It will' also bring people from,
14 far and wide to enjoy what your farsighted vision, had the ability to create: here. He
15 encourages the Council to purchase Parcels A and B because of .the seasonal
16 water storage capacity;.. the restrictions. on .effluent discharge regulations will
17 become more severe this: enables us #o meet those restrictions and' there "is
18 potential for ;expansion,. and would also allow us the economies of natural gravity
19 flow vs. the economics, of having to. pump :the effluent from one. marsh to the next
20 using .electric power. The higher ,elevations of Parcel A would permit ahe Imo t
21 efficient and economical wetlands design. .
22
23 Jerry Price., "D" Street; supports staff's recommendation o include the Polishing
24 Wetlands.
26 Grant Dads represents the...Bay Institute that is working closely with :Council and
27 supportive of your innovation, and your forward thinking. He offers hiS~help'in trying
28 to secure granf funding to help facilitate this project.- He .supports staff's
29 recommendation.
31 Barry Bussewitz; 315 Sixth Street; supports staff recommendation.'The purchase of
32 Parcels A sand B'. 'This 'is a long-te,rm investment at .a very reasonable cost with
`33 incredible public support. He feels it is good for Petaluma ari°d our planet forever.
34
35 Ygal Toster, 1,263. Ponderosa,, it comes down to dollar acid cents. This is the. right
36 way to go. Economically it is the only way to go because anything mechanical that
37 you build, breaks down.
38
39 :Council Comment
40
41 Councilmembe_r Torliatt stated that she was; proud of the public speakers. The
42 decision on the table is to support everything that has been, said in the audience..
43 She wants th"is project done once and done right:. This community continues to ~rvant
44 to move toward reducing; reusing sand replenishing our water resources 'and have a
45 public `benefit as we11:
46
January 7, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 181
1 RESO.2002-012.NCS
2 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY, continued
3
4 Couneilmember Maguire asked for a show of hands if there was anyone who
5 opposes the City acquiring Parcels A and B for the purpose: of the larger wetlands.
6
7 There was no show of .hands.
8
9 Councilmember Moynihan feels this project. is too expensive. He supports a
10 wetlands park.. People falking about treafinent wetlands, polishing wetlands. Holistic
11 process that not in position to approve. 1N:e're looking at a process that is effectively
12 mechanical.. It .has a secondary process that's, fairly tried ;and true. The one issue
13 here is algae removal and polishing of .metals: The alternatives that we're looking at
14 we need to keep in perspective. We have in the pasf; we currently are taking care of
15 our metals p"olishing in our existing Oxidation Bonds. He is not clear in the
16 presentation s"taff has made why if it's. inadequate to this point we "need to do
17 additional polishing.. We cannot with. our new secondary system, which immediately
18 has. taken out a considerable amount of metals we wouldn't. still be able to if not to
19 improve our metals' polishing through the Oxidation pond process why we would
20 have to then go and layout for additional funds. Not to say it wouldn't be a .great
21 .idea for a future capacity to purchase Parcels A and B or .for that. matter Parcel C,
22 which has ,great potential for a wetlands park also. :It's not appropriate for people to
23 come up here and say I don't mind paying more; money if they're living in the county
24 and their not paying the rates.
25
26 People. come u,p and mention their being embarrassed and I to am concerned about
27 b"eing emfarrassed, My concern is overall and we hate .gone. from a $25 million
28 dollar planf to an $88 million dollar plant. That is embarrassing and its
29 embarrassing to tell people whb can't afford it whether they are. elderly or young
30 families in our community that their .rates are going to go up to the tune of $55 per
31 month. l think an onerous repressive .type of water -rate is going to be a real
32 prob'Iem. I don't know if there's big ways to save a lot of money and keep that rate
33 down, but I think we Have. a responsibility,, as a Council. to our citizens here is to
34 make sure that we do as much as we can do. In that sense heatill continue to
35 question by we have created a process in which were creating algae and then
36 removing it. do. believe that we .can have an alternative: design for consideration
37 similar to what;other communities are doing. He is concerned about.moving forward
38 without necessarily asking aII the questions. and making sure that we are looking out
~~ 39 for the community's best. interesf.
40
41 Vice :Mayor Healyasked Mr. Davis to give Council and.. idea of what kinds .of
42 opportunities there .are -for funds coming from. other sources for polishing wetlands
43 pre acquisition.
44
45 Mr. Davis advised Council there: currently is a March Ballot Measure that will come
46 before the voters, Proposition 40 which is a Park and 1Nater Bond that is modeled
Vol. 37, Page 182
January 7, 2002
1 RESO. ,2002-01'2 `NCS
2 WATER RECYCLIfVG FACILITY, continued
4 after similar measures that were passed last year. County :Open- Space D,istYict;
5 Sonoma Land Trust.: There are: national organizations that work with Migratory
6 1Nater Foul Habitat and ;Ducks Unlimited; which are adept at securing funds and has
7 a lot of North. Bay funds available for private lands, which this is. He 'is offering o'
8 help to assist the City in the process: He would lookat ;maximizing every IocaL,dollar
9 ,invested, county dollars and leverage state and federal funding. In looking at t_he
10 Water Recycling components, there i"s Title 16 money from- the Bureau of
1;1 Reclamation, which can be brought, in depending on how this project is :designed,
12 and also other state funds authorized by the vofers but not yet allocated. He feels
13 there is a high degree of certainty that there would„ be attractive funding. The most
14 important one right now.is a Bay Area Wetlands Recovery,Program at the California
15 Coastal Conservancy. 'Fie also stated that Caltrans would be another source to
16 discuss-this with their Environmental Engineering and see where they mighf'be able
17 to participate on this one both Highway 101 and. Highway 116'.
18
19 Mr. Stouder stated that he had confidence in Mc. Davis' ,abilitq in offering his help in
20 finding funds.
21
22 Counci_Imember O'Brien as' area Chairman for Qucks Unlimited, he sent an e_ mail` to
23 Don Stacey; Regional Dire°ctor .and he said the Ducks: Unlimifed will not fund a
24. municipal sewer plant.'They will fund a park.
26 Vice. Mayor, Healy ,option '2B meets all of the ap,plicabae discharge; requirements .and
27 that is looking at; doubling sewer rates from where they were:l0 days ago. The exfra
28 'increment to get from 26 to ,2D is $9 million dollars in total construction costs. and
29 that's what: I`eads to the extra.$3:D~O per month .or $6,00: pe.r bill .per household. He
30 supports having a~buffer for the new'V1/astewater Facility.- It's 'not.. cfear`that the City
3'1 because of the need for a buffer needs to own in-fee all of the- Peta'iuma Poultry
32' .Processors property:.. He also #hinks that. Petaluma 'Poultry Processors. and :Clover"
33 are very imp_ortan't members of ou_r commuriity and ~we at least 'owe them the
pportunity to make a serious. pro_,posal given the communities desires that might
35 allow'them to stay in the community on a piece of'that land not'the entire 90 acres;
He does support.. the. extension of Shollenberger Park. The piece of land Petaluma
Poultry Processors owns that wouad be the, extension of Shollenberger; is in his
opinion of no value to them for anything other than a bargaining chip If' we use
Eminent Domain that !baows the opportunity for getting Open Space District support
for purchase of any of that land. :Because of the interest :in the comrnunify he would
be willing.. to support ;taking the ;polishing wetlands through- the design and
environmental processes and' in the meantime have the community look. fora other
funding sources for the expansion of the wetlands.
January 7, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 183
1 RESO. 2002-012 NCS
2 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY, continued
3
4 The staff report indicates hat bidding process is anticipated to start in July 2003.
5 He feels it is appropriate ~ to `'carry the polishing wetlands through that ,.point-.and
g ~ at this
6 make a decision at that time as to whetherfundin sources are available so th
7 doesn't have to be an additional burden on our residential: sewer ratepayers. There
8 is also the possibility of going to the voters and ask, them directly if they want. to see
9 this done if this is the `incremental cost. on your wastewater bill. Given the. fact that.
10 we can meet all the. discharge requirements, with Option 2B he is hesitant to make a
11 commitment beyond that tonight.
12
13 Mayor Thompson;,approximately 2 months it was indicated to me that the City could
14 perform their entire wastewater treatment system on the existing parcel of land on.
15 Lakeville Highway. One of the major questions at that time was whether we wanted
16 to use DAF or wetlands treatment under the proposed Ponds 9 and 10. As he read
17 the reports it was clear to him that the wetlands portion of-the proposal was. the only
18 way to go. Now we are looking to own and bui_Id on Parcels .A and B. He is of thee.
19 belief it is not fair to ask the ratepayers to bear the burden of purchasing Parcels A
20 and B for what is really a demonstration and some polishing, knowing full well we.
21 could still have the wastewater treated o'n the existing site. He is in favor of putting
22 wetlands on Parcels A and B: I understand there `is a lot: of opportunity for outside
23 monies and. I would like to pursue that and pursue working with Petaluma Poultry
24 Processors. We're saying this is going to be a savings for the ratepayers in the long
25 run. It would be a savings to them right now not to buy Parcels A and B and just
26 build the treatment plant on the existing parcel on Lakeville.. He is looking for ways
27 to put the polishing wetlands in but he would like the cooperation of the community
28 in looking to get this. money to do it. I would like to get the plant moving along and I
29 would like to get .the wetlands 'in on Parcels A and B, :but.. I'd like to have some
30 outside money on that. as well. Identified, earmarked so the ratepayers are. not
31 .going to have to pay the entire .burden of this and in the future as Mr. Moynihan
32 spoke about, at some point we will .have to:.pay for the distribution system to move
33 this treated wastewater back info town to the city parks., schools and 1 have a
34 terrible sense the ratepayers will bear the burden of that also. I'm looking for.help in
35 ways to get it built.
36
37 Councilmembe:r Cader-Thompson. looks: at this as ari ~ insurance policy. It is
38 important that when we're looking. at this pant that.. we don't ahort change the. public.
39 She doesn't want to see change orders come through. because something was .not
40 anticipated. She believes this is the right. thing to do fo'r this community. Fines
41 haven't been discussed;:. if 'the plant is off by a second or minute you automatically
42 get fined $3;Og0. Sonoma has approximately $100;000 fines per year. The
43 ratepayer pays for these fines. If the ratepayer paid fo,r Po fishing wetlands to make
44 their effluent-purer when it's going. into the Petaluma .River I don't think they would
4.5 object. to than. They don't know all the other charges. their being charged for, but
#6 they will. be able to walk around this environment. that will be here forever.
Vol. 37, Page 1`84
January 7, 2002
1 RES'0.2002-012,.N,C.S
2 WATER `RECYCLING FACILITY, continued
3 .
4 I realize we're building asewer plant,: but there is tried: and true sewer plants.. and
5 do believe-the tried and true. is really the one that is used forever~which is a' wetland
6 plant:, Throughout the; 'lJnited States you can se:e moire and more cities. are going
7 - toward this direction. The cost to. replace a mechanical" ;plant 'is very expensive.
8 There 'is no cost to replace a wetlands. As far as the Petaluma Poulfry Proc"essors
9 property there was an :offer on the table. and I~. th'ink' -'it's important that the City
10 Manager Viand Mayor go into negofations and talk with. them. There was an offer
,. ,
11 there and it was free property with strings attached ,no doubt. Do I believe ,the City
1'2 should own the entire piece of property I think we probably should, but we also have
13 to be .realistic and we have to discuss and negotiate;; 1 would like it if you and Mc.
14 Sto.uder would. participate in that. She, would like to .move forward and F understand
15 'what :your, saying' as far as the City coming up with mo"ney,, but I think w.e're not
16 talking ,a lot of money here for the Fong term future for this community.
18 Mayor- Thompson, we owe. it to the ratepayers to try and .get as much outside.
19" money as possible. These bills: are going to just escalate as the years go along.
20
21 Cader=Tho:meson I agree with you. and 1 chink with Mr. Davis we have. an incredible
22 'opportunity. As fac as Ducks Unlimited they won't support sewer plants; but there is
23 a lot.. of ~yurisdiction"al wetlands down in the area that they can actually support
24 ;enhancing those.
25 ~^
26 " Councifrnember O'Brien supports 'the wetlands.: I think the more wetlands we :can..
27 have the better,. but I think we're looking at two separate projects. We're looking at.
28 a sewer- project aril a park. project. VVe have more opportunity :getting private money
29 with the two separates ones: Another concern is :the comment. was made .that a
30 wetlands. `is easier to tweak than a. mechanical plant and 1 think about the new
31 wetlands "that went in a couple =of years ago on Highway 37 where Fish and. Game
32 misjudged by two inches he amount of water they let in and they flooded out
33 everybody's_septc system, which brought. the: rats out. Also with a question L asked
34 we find out that DAF for algae removal ..and then Polishing Wetlands in Ponds- 9 and
35 t0 was an alternative not looked at. This could be done on the original footprint: So
36 we're still getting wetlands without land acquisition cost or anything. He would also
37 like to explore the ability for private fiunding to do the wetlands as a separate.project
3.8 away from "the sewer plant so the ratepayers are not bearing the costs...
39
40 Mayor Thompson would .like to meet with Sylvan to~ discuss the :actual cost of the
41 operation of the ponds- in Sonoma.
42
43 Councilmember Moynihan There is an assumption of a .,land value: of $3 million
44 dollars and this afternoon I was arguing that we over valued a piece of property.
45 would .Like to put rout their the potential thatwe're uridervaluing tlii`s piece: of
46 property, not so much the Parcel B but Parcel A we're looking at a rate of .roughly
January 7, 2002
2
Vol. 37, Page 185
RESO. 2002-012.IVCS
WATER RECYCLING FACILITY, continued
4 $32;000 an acre which is an agricultural, price and if we looked at it from an
5 .industrial point of-view we'd: be looking, at $20:;OQ0 million for Parcel A alone. I think
6 just to b"e honest. with everyone that we've seen some„things go on locally whether it
7 is at Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District -and there" attempt. at acquisition by
8 Eminent. Domain _of the Silveria Ranch or. potentially, what's occurred as far as
9 valuation and .some Eminent Domain in NapaA, .think whaf I'm trying to say is the
10 assumption of the $3 million dollar price tag is ;not necessarily a ,good assumption
11 and I think. that. if we're ,going to discuss going forward on land acquisition ofi Parcel
12 A and B that I would. like to do so after we "have a Closed.;Session-.and we',discuss
13 potential liabilities: and risks and litigation, costs associated with that so we don't
14 repeat the lessons that were learned at Las Gallinas.
15 ~- ~~
16 Counclmember Maguire This is as clean and close. to `a beneficial recommendation
17 for the community that I hare`even seen. 1Ne have e;radicafed vast amounts of the
18 .natural resources of our earth, and;,yet we are dependent upon those resources for
19 our very. survival. We have a rare= opportunity ,,.as local Council. people.to :address
20 those major significant issues, These ~don't.just affect our>ratepayers~ahey affect our
21 children, and :grandchildren in how healthy'their world 'is going to beao lice in.
22 ,".
23 When talking about the cost the difference between :2B the preferred scenario Mr.
24 Healy says he prefers and 2D the staff recommendation is approximately $2.1`.6 per
25 month per ratepayer. If you accept staff's- recommendation that we should ;acquire
26 Parcel A :and B no matter what we do. I personally do;accept that recommendation.
27 He feeds, $3 million is a reasonable estimate. if nothing else the City owning thaf
28 land has money in the bank. We have elf been faced with the issue of the large
29 increasing cosf that is ..going to occur and affect our ratepayers. The fact of the
30 matter is that. it's going to be a 'high cost whether or not there is a wetlands
31 component and whether or not we buy'this piece of property. I :have to believe that if
32 we adopt the resolution and try to negotiafe a"friendly purchase with Petaluma
33 Poultry Processors; but we re intent upon acquiring all the property if we can come
34 to some friendly negotiations. I think that's going to surface the new number of
3'S acres -that those -folks .need.
36
37 The cost b_ eing high -with. or without. land acquisition, with:or "without the expanded
38 wetlands com onent is ; om to be, hard on eo le. How are the oin to f
. p ~- 9 9 _. P p Y g g; eel
39 about it if they pay a, High. pace and they got concrete. box or rf theirs paying
40 something that is smalf incrementally different! but have attractive wetlands. It's a
41 difference of $2.16 if you acquire: the land. The. $3 .million dollars out of the $88
42 million dollars'is 3% of the total cost. We're goring to "pass up acquiring. Phis fend and
43 (building wetlands for 3% of the cost. He .pleaded with 'his peer to see his
44 perspective. and recognize that this is a great. opportunity for us and we~ will be
45 .,proud.. of the rest ofour lives. ~
46 '
Vol. 37, .Page 1'86
January 7; 20Q2
1 RESO.2002-012: NC:S
2 WATER ;RECYC.LING FACILITY, .con#inued
3
The consultants haws gone- through looking #or ways to save money and will.
continue to do so as we; proceed. Maybe we can work: with; Ducks Unlimited o see'if
there are ways they can. help along, with the other entities::. Ne propose`d that:Councl:.
go ahead and adopt: the resolution and thaf we. direct sfaff to sego#ate with
Pefaluma Poultry` Processors.
10 Mayor Thompson, in your suggestion-that it'is only 3% more ifiwe go wifh scenario
11 2D, he doesn't tgtally agree with That: Alternative 2B which is just on the existing
12 site Ponds 9 .and 10 without; land cost;. beeause~ thaf'was not. really contemplated in
13 that one which, takes; that `subtotal cost down. to $78 mil iort so it's. actually $10
14 million more;, ao its approximately 12% Nigher,:
16 Councilmember Maguire, I think you; have fo~ ask yourself if` we do the 2B and in 15
17 yearn the Reg,iorial VVate'r Board says 'you haws got, to do a much higher .level of
18 polishing and :you go to acquire the property at that ,point it is! :going to be
19 significantly higher.
20 .. , ,.
21 Mayor `Thom_pson; I'm not~~against going; after"Parcel B and a portion of Parcel A. I:
22 don't know if we need it all for the` wetlands treatment and 1 would'... like to get into
23 negotiations with~'Petalurna Poultry_Processors and if they:give us the lower-portion L
24 would, be happy and then we will work: to see what their needs, are and we could
25 probab y use a portion ,of Parcel A as: well.
26 ~ '
27 Do I have any' disagreement on this 'Counc'il on the wetlands ,portions of the
28 treatment?
Councilmember Caller-Thompson," when she is talking about wetlands treatment
she is talking ,about. the larger wetland`treatment -and she doesn't look at it as a
recreational park, .she 'looks at it as part of the treatment facility:
No one d`sagreed.,
36 Counclmembec Torliatt we have been 'bantering a"rou:nd cost and acquisition of the
37 property. Last June this: Council during the budget hearings: at the last, meeting
38 voted on a, 4=2~ vote (she was absent and would have voted.:with the mnonfy) ~ to
39 remove $2 m,'illion dollars out of the budget #or property acquisition for this parcel
40 that we speak of:
41
42 The ;reality is that we had increased the sewer rates, a. year to year anal h.alf~.before
43 that to include the accumulation of that: $2 million dol.l'ars for the land ;acquis"ition. In
44 reality on paper the $2 .,million dollars for acquisition costs of that property is in a
45 reserve. account or part of our operations.
January 7, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 187
1 RESO. 2002-012 NCB
2 WATER RECYCLING .FACILITY, continued
3
4 1f we only need to .come up'-with an additional million. dollars of ratepayer money to
5 purchase this property if it comes out to $3 million then I think that is what we need
6 'fo do. She,agrees;thaf we need to look at every funding source available other than
7 our ratepayers to, maximize the amount of dollars that we don't .have to have our
8 ratepayers pay into this pot. When we voted on Amendment 11 on the supply side
9 of the water issue bast January we doubled in 20 years we're going to double our
10, cafes for. water supply. 1Ne didn't blink an eye about where we're going to get
11~ mitigation tlollars ;for doubling our rates on the supp y side- of water.
12 -
13. I don't understand why we are looking at a wastewater treatment facility that's going
14 'to provide ahuge ,amenity to our community and why we're nickel and dimeing
15 ourselves ~to;_deafh~ on getting additional dollars when we ,have people here that
16 have? been working ;on this stuff for forever on getting funds for wetlands
17 enhancement and. recreational opportunities, Fish and .Game and Coastal
18 Conservancy and all that, and why we're going to put all the pressure on the public
19 _ and those peopleY to ,come back and find the money. This is our opportunity, that's
20 why we're elected Here. We're elected here to make the hard decisions to maybe
21 make if a dollar, two-dollars per month to move forward on something that is a huge
22 amenity for this community. I can't believe that we're: not going to jump all over that.
23 She hears~Council say-they're for wetlands., but ao one will bite the bullet and do the
24 wetlands:
25 -
26 She wants to hear from those ratepayers that. are outraged that we're moving
27 forward and .`going to charge fhem another dollar or two dollars on their sewer rates.
28
29 Mayor Thompson, if you think it is only one- or two dollars then put it in the
30 Resolution that it is not to exceed two dollars in the increase 'in the sewer rate over
31 the next five years for these wetlands.
32
33 Councilmember Maguire, that's easily done if you except the premise that staff has
34 .recommending that we acquire Parcels.. A and B. I'm willing to go ahead with that,.
35 I'rn also-willing to go; ahead, I'm also willing to go ahead with than-and see what we
36 can work out in a friendly negotiation.-with the current property owner to see if they
37 need it all and"how .much.
38
39 Mayor Thompson, I would like to gef some of those negotiations. done: prior to
40 approving this so w.e can give the ratepayers some relief. It would be very prudent
41 of .us to pursue alternate funding when we have the opportunity and not to do it
42 doesn't make sense to me either.
43
44 Councilmember Caller-Thompson, are: you saying your not going to vote on this
45 tonight? What she. recommends is that a group of citizens get together and take
46 .initiatives out and bring this to the public. Let the public decide. A 4-3 vote on this is
Vol. 37, Page 188
.January 7;.2002
1 'RESO.2002-012 NCS
2; WATER RECYCLING FACILITY,: continued
3
4 not good. This is not the ,way to go. This is the biggest project we will ever be voting
5 on and we are literally bickering over pennies. It's a philosophy thing.. It has nothing;
6 to do with the,.sewer plant, nothing to do with the public, because it. doesn't. matter- _
7 what you say because like we're the God's and this is it.. Thafi',s: not.,what we are,
8 1Ne're here to listen to the public and we're supposed to be protecting the, public's. .
9 interest: in the long term. That is the goal of the CouneiL .` .
10
...
1.1 Councilrnember Maguire is not sure he supports Councilmern_ber Cader=Thompson
12 desire to go to an initiative. 1Ne have ample information. upon which to make a solid
13 decision. I think you Sir are t "tying, to find a way to come to, accomplish,°what we're
1.4 ~ hearing from the public:.. Is there. a way `if the proposed motion that i_s.on t:he: tab'le~
15 doesn't pass I would like to come back and say how much of. this:, can we adopt and
16 leave the Land. portion as a separate pursuit. ~ ,
17 _ .. ,
,..
18 Mayor Thompson, I can't believe that we're going to go ahead blindly and ,go after
19 this. property when we haven't even spoken to Petaluma Poultry Processors.
20 They've given us an offer, it's. known; it's fully well. known, that,their going to give us
21 Parcel B for come;,. whatever they need..: We're riot. quite. sure what they need acid
22 yet we're not willing to go into those negotiations.
23
24 Counclmember Maguire part of the 'issue 'if we are to pursue discussions with : `
25 Petaluma Poultry Processors'what they offered in their proposal is that we change. ~ .
26 the Urban Growth Boundary and that s_ something: else :entir..ely .and do not want; to
27 tie to our sewer plant approval process,. He is willing to see what we can negotiate., .
28 but I thinK that if w.e go into that I would ay that the mandatory stipulation would,.be~
29 that we are not addressing that question in th:e~ negotiations. That is a risk.thaf they .
30 took on when theypurchased that property and I'm no't willing to say we're going to
31 grant you some. status just because you did tha#. If we're going to ,go `into
32 negotiations it's to find out how much property can be amicably exchanged for
33 under-what terms, except we're not going to be talking about adjusting the UGB.
35 Mr. Stouder read a "portion of the_ Resolution, that states "The City- Manager is
36 authorized to enter into negotiations for acquisition of the, properties .known as.
37 Parcel. A and Parcel B''.: It does not say what the terms of conditions would' b'e, what
38 the: total amount is. The idea was to; if the C:ouncih is interested in opening that
-3,9 subject that he is authorized to officially begin those discussions that the City has
40 interest in purchasing. There are two points I would like to make. His sense 'is there
41 is .general ag_reemerit that that°s worth a try.. All the discussions about property
42 negotiations have, been either informal' or through rumors.: If we're serious about this
43 at all lets create a. structure. Another thing I think there ;is agreement on ,may,.be is
44 that at least ,proceed with the design and:, engineering of the recommended, option
45 that would include treated wetlands on Pareeas A and B, if th, e City does in fact
46 proceed with purchasing or something that,. includes purchasing pieces of it, and that
January 7, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 189
1 RESO. 2002=012 NCS
2 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY, continued
3
4 within that there. is a time frame to allow that to play out and to see what other kinds
5 of funds are: available: More or .less you have twelue months fo see what the reality
6 of property acquisition. would. be and the reality of additional financing.
7
8 Mayor Thompson, l would agree with that.
9
10 Councilmember Maguire, I would.. support that.
11
12 Mr. Stouder that is what. I sense an amended. without`you having voted on anything
13 yet seems ao :be emerging: You can go ahead :and vote, on the motion and, second.
14 The difference I think is that there's a sequence here and' the sequence would be in
15
16 February or.Ap.rl of next year we would be back with closure on additional financing
17 other than the ratepayers for this package and that would be in sufficient time
18 before a construction contract would be awarded and way before that time without
19 .knowing what. that. date .mighf be. We would know the real issues regarding what is
20 Petaluma Poultry Processors interest in Parcel A. What are the '.land acquisition,
21 realities from Petaluma Poultry :Processors: point of view? Secondly what are the.
22 costs possibilities for subsidy through some of'the processes that Mr. Davis offered
23 to lend his help and the time frame to let that play out.
24
25 Councilmember Maguire .stated that :would be workable to hire. Does the maker of
26 the motion -and second want to amend item 9 to include you., Mr: Mayor as ,part of
27 the negotiation. process.
28
29 Mayor Thompson in his opinion then we have thoroughly exhausted every attempt
30 to try to get this paid for with assistance outside, not just the ratepayers.
31
32 Councilmember Torliat# we all agree with that,, why, would.we want the ratepayers to
33 bear the cost of something that. She clarified that hey said. "we need to bite the
34 bullet to move 'forward: on this project because 'if it' going to cost additional' monies
35 we're goring for have'to do that". I am fully in support, which I .did state that l am ,f,ully
36' in support of getting any other type of funding, mechanism that doesn't .cost the
37 ratepayers anything other than. other tax dollars that we're: looking for somewhere
38 else.
39
40 C.ouncilcnember Cader=Thompson would be happy to amend her motion and add for
41 .the cost subsidies and forum......,...
42
4,3 Vice IVlayor Healy,; as the manager was saying there is going to be a time frame for
44 trying to; come to closure with .Petaluma ;Poultry Processors in the next. four to six
45 months; that there would be a decision in fhe early part of 2003 on whether to
46 proceed with the portions of this that are on Parcels A and B. We're not making that
Vol. 37, Page 190
January 7,.2002.
1 RESO.2002-01'.2 NCS
2 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY, confinued
3 '
4 decision tonight. That decisio.n_ w: ,ill .be formed by the ability to secure additional
5 funds.
6 __
7 Councilmember Cader-Thompson, that i not what I understood, I understood that.
8 we we're going to go. ahead with ;staffs recommendation and go through the
9 engineering and design phase and then come back to us to make the final decision
10' on the land: with.Petaluma Poultry Processors and also working with. Granf Davis on
11 opportunities for monies.
13 Mr.; Stouder we would ;have a refined .budget within the twelve-month peci`od -that
14 ,says here's °whaf the ratepayers would have and here is cornrnitments that are grant
15 funds. We're-being more specific. Yes.; Councilmember Torliatt's always correct;
16 certainly vice welcome granf funds; .but you -also: know we just- don't go out fishing;;
17 we're only successful. when. there is a clear deliberate -time consuming structure
18 ased u
' pon. highly understood calculafed' risks: That is what I'm suggesting in a
19 artners
p ip with
Mr. Davis, similar to what all of you participated in in the. Corps
20 projeet,~ I',m willing to take the risk for the.nine~or tenmonth"s to see what we can do.
21 on that and.. bring it back for the final decision' and `you vvould have the design and
22 engineering `in.front of you.
24 'Mayor Thompson and I'm willing for the ratepayers at this point to go ahead and
25 pay for the design and engineering portion of if° and after nine months to come .back
26 fo finalize the: funding for' us4for -the A .and B .portion or the: parks portion and'; to make
27 the final decision on that then.
28
29 Councilmember Tor„liatt; Mr. Mayor I don't see, the. difference. so I'm happy to
30 support that:
Mr: Stouder., before we say nine or ten months I uvanf to get fhe date real clear from..
the previous discussions on~fhe schedule of the; EIR; I would like to have the. motion
to say that..
3'6 Mayor Thompson I had February or April of next year. I have a first from
`37 Councilmember Cader=Thompson; second firom Councilmember Toraatt and the last
38 bit of`discussion from Mr. Moynihan:
40 Councilmember Moynihan I'm concerned becau"se we're first and seconding a
41 re"solution, which .h°as a lot of` things spelled out'in it that based; on what yo,u've just-
42 outlined would be inappropriate. I think we need to modify the resolution in a
43 number of areas. Could' I suggest, first of alf the preamble: reads like Who's Who in
44 history on_ .that. Can we just shorten it to tuvo paragraphs and then what I would
45 suggest; is that we as a Council if we want -to give them, a resolution is fo direct them
46 toproceed with the design ofi these Alternative 2B with a ve"rsion one and version
January 7, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 191
1 RESO.2002-012 IVC
2 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY, continued
3
4 two, version two potentially utilizing adjoining .lands. and leave it general like'° hat. I'd
5 hate to get into some specifies that are right here and I think that is covering what
6 the jist or direction is of what_we're seeking.
7
8 (verbatim transcription..'begins here) .
9
10 Councilmember Torliatt, you're not gonna support what we've all agreed on?
11
12 Councilmember Moynihan.,. I am supporting it. ~ I'm .just saying that the resolution
13 isn't worded to reflect wheat. we just agreed on so a_II we gotta do is. modify the
14 resolution and we can all agree.
15
16 Vice Mayor Healy -the only thing I would modify in the resolution I think we just
17 cobbled together probably the best we're .going to do tonight and if we get into .word-
18 smithing I'm afraid'. what might happen. The one thing I did talk with Carollo on at
19 break in Item 5 on the draft resolution -Solids Handling System, that needs to
20 clarify that it should be to the staff's recommendation, which is .Class B standards...
21
22 Councilmember Torliatt will amend her second to the: motion to include that.
23
24 Councilmember Moynihan could I suggest that the discussion as far as`the access if
25 that's included as' part of the discussions and the acquisition of the adjoining
26 property. It would be easier.
27
28 Mayor Thompson, that would change that, that would definitely change :that .and I
29 think we have to be flexible on that.
30
31 Mr. Stouder I understand that 8 and 9 are linked. I would. assume that, that it's an
32 open process. to begin with and would be ,reporting back to Council.
33
34 Councilmember Moynihan, I'm not sure about authorizing for the State Revolving
35 Fund, not that I have a problem authorizing that; but there are other. state funds
36 based on revenue generations.............
37
38 Mayor Thompson, how-about whichever is cheaper.
39
40 Councilmember Moynihan, I think to authorize. pursue financing.
41
42 Councilmember Torliatt it doesn't limit us. It doesn't limit us, its just stating one of
43 the...........
44
45 Councilmember Moynihan and I had some information that I actually meant to
46 provide to the City Manager.
Vol. 37, Page 192
January 7, 2002
1 RESO.2002-012 NCS
2 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY,, continued
3
4 Mr. Stouder, based,. upon ,the commitment that, basically I have made,, this is an
5 open fiield. Let~us do our job on Phis one folk"s'.
6
7 Couneilmernber'Moynihan as far as pursuing financing for it if we leave that general
8 ~ instead of specific. I would prefer that. And for that matter I'm kind of the thinking; L'm
9. not sure why we have to spell out alf 'the. capacities in this. I know this is the
10 proposal..;and we're going forward further designing theproposal.
11
L2 Council„member Cade.r-Thompson can we call' for the Vote Mayor?
13
14 Councilmember Moynihan I would .hate to restrict the design. team from, being able
15 to look at the alfernatives like whether it be the filfer packs„ but ,disk filters
16 which they discussed. Maybe the' ,capacities .and Things like that wouldn't be so.
17 The resolution does reflect all these points'thaf -we're being asked to ..................
:18 _ ... .
19 Mayor Thompson I am ,going fo call for the .vote here
20 -
21 Counoilmember Moynihan, then I request a full' "reading of the. Resolution.
22 -
23 .Mayor Thompson, well I think we're going to have that changed, I don'f want ....
24
25 Councilme,mber M'agui're„ Mr: Mayor, I'll read it-and I'll read it fast.
26
27 Councifinember Moynihan I would be willing; to ;'su'ggest he Whereas's could. be
28, skipped'. If we could just read the resolution portion on the last page.
29
30 Mayor; .one through eleven..
31
32 Councilmernber Moynihan with the modifications.
33
34 Councilmember Maguire read the last page of The Resolution,., which states:
35
36 NOW, TIiEREFORE BE 1T'RESOLVED by the Petaluma City Council that:
37
"38 1. The Petaluma City Council autho,r,izes the preparation of Plans. and
39 Specifications for Alternative 2D - Algae Removal%PoJishing 1Netlands 2
40 (Councilrnember Moynihan, we're not; agreeing tothat resolution)::
41 2. The. Water Recycling Facility will have the capacity to treat an average dry
42 weather flow of 6:7 mgd:
43 3. The Water. Recycling Facility will have the capacity to produce 4 rngd of tertiary
44 recycled water that meets the requirements of ;California Code of
45
4;6
January 7, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 193
1 RESO. 2002-01;2 NCB
2 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY, continued
3
4 Regylations, Title 22 .for "unr,esfricted re'use'" The. capacity of the tertiary
5 recycled Ovater'-facilities will be increased in the future as the. demand for
6 fertiary recycled water grows beyond 4 mgd.
7 4. UV disinfection will be used for disinfection of tertiary recycled water.
8 5. The solids. handling system will remove,.. dewater and stabilize biosolids
9 present in the wasfewate,r to Class B standards;.., ,
10 6. The layout for the; new water recycling 'facility will be approximately as
11 shown on attached Figure RES 1.
12 7. Wetlandsc
13 a. Approximately 25 acres of constructed wetlands will...b'e: constructed. in
14 City-owned Ponds 9 and 10 for algae removal and a flow of up to 6
15 mgd.
16 b, Approximate y 45 acres, of polishing. wetlands, for. a. flow of up to 12
17 mgd, will ,be constructed as follows: approximately'23'aaes in ".Parcel
18 A;" approximately 11 acres r "Parcel B," and approximately 1.1 acres in
19 the City-owned parcel :adjacent to "Parcei`.B''.
20 c. 'Polishi'ngwetlands will not ;be construe#ed_:below the 10.0-year flood
21 plain ele~afon of 7-feet.
22 8. An access- road from Cypress Drive to the new water recycling facility will
23 be constructed, including a bridge over .Ellis Creek.
24 9. The City Manager is authorized to; :ente,r :into negotiations for .acquisition of
25 the properties known as `Parcel A' and '`Parcel ~B'.'
26 10. The City Manager is authorized fo pursue State Revolving Fund financing
27 for the project
28 11. The City Manager, the Finance, Director and the, Director. of 1Nater
29 Re"sources and Conservation are authorized to sign the loan. documents.'for
30 the State Revolving Fund Iban.
31
32 Mr. Stouder, if I could point-out too that 7 b and c cannot happen unless 8 and 9 are
33 achieved: I appreciate the concern.
34
35 Mayor Thompson; that needs to be shown in the minutes too of this meeting.
36
37 Councilmember Moynihan, ,but the resolution Mr. 'Maguire just read was a draft
3'8 resolution recommending ~fhe Alternative 2D, which I just understood that. this group
39 is working with. 26 with a proviso that we provide the design and engineering. for
40 potentially expanding. 1Ne need. to go through. and ... ,(G:o.uncilmembe.r Maguire,
41 Mayor, l think we're talking semantics.) ......No were talking jist of this resolution.
42
43 Vice Mayor Healy if were: going to insist on this. um...,.. I don't think, I think what we
44 discussed and .what we reached a consensus on isn't what has been reduced to
45' paper a~t~ this point, -and if we're going to .insist on a reading of the resolution as
46
Vol. 37, Page 194
Janaary 7., 2002
1 RESO2002-012 NCS
2 WATER RECYCLING .FACILITY; continued
3 .
4 opposed 'to our normal practice of having staff go back through the minutes .and
5 fi'ghten it' up, then I think the proper procedure toright unfortunately would be to
6 `request staff to put together a resolution thaf actually reflects the consensus. of the .
7 Council and we can vote on it. I prefer` not; to go that way;. I' think the `public wants
8 closure on Phis.
9 ~ -., ,
10 Councilmernber IVlaguire, what exactly do'we need fo put inhere, I think very simply
1.1 we could say: ~ ~ - `
12
13 Bullet 12. Staff to pursue alternative funding sources.
14 Bullet- 13. Item 7b; Zc and 8 are: subject to the. ,success of the negotiations as
15 directed by Item 9.
1.6
17 Mr. Stouder, are subject:to the Councils;authorization of the o~ufcomes of Item 9.
18 .. _
19 Cbuncilmember Nlaguire;'okaysubject'to confi'rmati'on.
20 '
21 Vice :Mayor Healy; Mr: Maguire did you include Class B in Itern,'5.
22
23 Councilmember Maguire, I `did.
24 . .
25 Vice. Mayor Healy, Ithink- that;ccovers :it then.
26 ~ -
27 Councilmember Moynihan, ~No. 1 ,needs to be modified, were not suggesting
28 Alternative; 2D :Algae: Removal/Polishing UVetlands 2.. Also while: we're at it
29 (Couneilmenber Maguire, that's ° ,ernantics) Items....... No its not semantic it's..
30 referring the wrong alternative. W`e,°re: approving Alter'nat`ive 2B and I. think that's'
31 eery clear.
32
33 Mayor Thompson, that's actually true.
34
35 Couneilmember 'Moynihan, I think NO. 6 we're referencing a layout for the wafer
3'6 recycling property kiased on a fi`gare; which is got a different- design. _
37
38 Mayor Thompson, actually it's superceded at the end .because Alternative 2B can't
3;9 happen 'if 1'3 doesn't work which refers back to b and" c.
40
41 Councilrnember Moynihan 2B~ can work; 2D can't work.
42
43 Mr. Stouder the issue. with 2D as I understand it, by what I hear most of the. Council
44 saying; is, proceeding with the: design and engineering of that, of that, which could
45. be added tonumbe_r one: (Mayor Thompson, preparation plansand-specifications;
46
January 7, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 195
1 RESO.2002-012 NCS
2 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY, continued
3
4 for the design, and engineering) and the EIR work, all of that subject to the outcome
5 of number 9.
6
7 Councilmerriber Magwire, so add "and for design and engineering."
8
9 Mayor Thompson, Item 13 subject to 9 and 13.
10
11 Councilmember "Moynihan, Mr. Mayor,,. I'm sorry I'm tending to agree with Mr.
1'2: Wealy's first point..: I~;'think we've given pretty clear direction, actually somehow, City
13 Manager has interpreted correctly where we're. headed with. this whole thing and
_ 14 damn good luck;; l think f don't understand a real need for us to make a resolution at
15 this point, we've'given a direction.....
16'
17 Mayor Thompson I':d Jke to try and end it.
18
19 Councilmembe'r`Cader-Thompson do we need to change the motion?
20
21 Councilmember Torliatt no just amend the. changes.
22
23 ~ Councilmember Caller-Thompson I will amend `it as per changes.
24
25 Councilmember Torliaft, I will amend my second,
26 .
27 Councilmember Moynihan,, Oh boy, so does everyone like the City Clerk understand
28 what the resolution reads like?
29
30 Mayor Thompson, we will get it back. (Councilmember Caller-Thompson well I think
31 everybody does except maybe you .Bryant.)
32
33 Mayor Thompson what happens when the resolution 'is printed up and it's not what
34 we thought and;we can work through that next meeting?
35 -
36 Councilmember Torliatt everyone that voted in favor can ask for reconsideration.
37
38 Mr, Rudnansky, you can always rescind the resolution. and adopt another one.
39
40 Vice Mayor Healy, I have one. final. clarifying question. I°rn Sorry...
41
42 Courncilmember Maguire, we're almost there, a little patience here will pay off .....
43
44 Councilmember Healy, Mr. Maguire did your No. 13 have a time frame in it?
45
46 Councilmember Maguire, it did not.
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
Vol. 37, Page 196.
January 7, 2002
RESO.2002-01..2, NCS,
1NATER' RECYCLING' FACILITY, con#inued
Councilmember Healy; Should it?
Mayor Thompson, yeah we did
Mr. Stouder, I'm looking at Doug again, .but April.; or :February date 2003.
Vice "Mayor Healy; I would like to incorporate that.
Councilmember Torliatt, I'll snake it, an amendment to my'second.
Councilmember. Cader-Thompson and l will',, thank you ahd,addahat.to it.,
Mayor Thompson, wait a minute this is started 13 years ago, this is not something
we want to rush into.
Councilmember Cader-Thompson, okay let's vote.,.. Call. for the vote Mr. Mayor.
Mayor, let's vote.
Councilmember Moynihan, Mr. Mayor,; I'm sorry; I don't mean. to be a stickler;.
(Mayor Thompson, I understand, but you are) but- I don't ~be_lie~e that there are any
two Councilmembers sitting here that.. have the same interpretation of what thi's'
resolution is.
Vice Mayor Healy,. Phis just goes'to prove the: truth of the old adage that people with
squeamish stomachs. should not watch laws or sausages being made.
Councilmember Cader-Thompson, okay, we're voting.
Councilmember To,rliaft, it never turns out like we all think..
Councilmember Maguire..; Mr: Mayor, I guess Mr: "Moynihan is abstaining since he
has not voted.
Mayor Thompson., you ..gonna vote?
Councilmember Moynihan, Mr. Moynihan would: just- like to say that I was intending
to vote "yes" on this_ buf I do.r't think it has been handled correctly in this resolution,.
I'rn going to be compelled to vote "no". I'm sorry for that. Next, time we ,can do a
better job.
January 7, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 197
1 RESO. 2002-012 NCS
2 WATER FiECYC;LIIVG FACILITY, continued
3
4 AYES: Vice IVlayor Healy, Torliatt, Maguire,
5 Cader-Thompson, Mayor Thompson.
6 NOES: Moynihan
7 ABSENT': None
8 ABSTAIN: O'Brien
9
10 GENERAL PLAN
11
12 To be brought back at another date.
13
14 ADJOURN
15 The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
16
17
18
19
20 ATTEST:
21
22
23 Paulette Lyon, Interim Ci y Ierk
24
25
26
27 ******
E. Clark Thompson, Mayor