Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 09/22/2000September 22, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 227 1 City of Petaluma, California 2 Minutes of a Special 3 City Council Meeting 4 s 6 Friday, September 22, 2000 7 Council Chambers 8 9 The Petaluma City Council met on this day at 8:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers. io ROLL CALL 11 PRESENT: Cader-Thompson, .Hamilton, Healy, Keller (8:35 a.m.), Maguire, Torliatt lz ABSENT: Thompson 13 PUBLIC COMMENT la None is COUNCIL COMMENT 16 None ~ 17 CORRESPONDENCE 18 None other than what was included in the Council's agenda packet. 19 20 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 21 22 1. Discussion and Possible Direction regarding Proposed Water Forum to be z3 Hosted by the City of Petaluma on Thursday, October 19, 2000. 24 zs Council Member Hamilton proposed that the Council give direction to City Management z~ to send out invitations to a summit on water policy to be held on October 19, 2000 at 27 the Petaluma Community Center. She recommended that Council Member Keller, Vice 28 Mayor Torliatt and herself be appointed as a subcommittee of the Council to work up an 29 agenda and a format for the Summit to bring back to the Council for review and 3o comment. She wanted the Summit to be a presentation of factual information, perhaps 31 in panel discussions, an overview of the water system. She then suggested sample 32 wording for the invitation. She wanted to invite the board members of the water 33 contractors to engage in open communication regarding thoughts about a water policy. 34 3s Council Member Cader-Thompson supported the proposal and the appointment of the 36 subcommittee as suggested by Council Member Hamilton. 37 38 ~9T Vol. 35, Page 228 September 22, 2000 I Council Member Healy supported the proposal for conference. He stressed the Council z think about what it was they were trying to achieve and the what the end product was to 3 be, that is, beginning a dialogue, creating a process, or if it was to achieve a specific 4 result. He expressed his concern that the conference be planned in a way that s maximized attendance and noted that he had suggested to the City Manager that ~ Petaluma co-host the event with the Town of Sonoma... s Vice Mayor Torliatt agreed. to Council Member Healy continued that he had suggested the event take place at a II neutral site (Sonoma State Campus). He was concerned that the proposed date for the 12 event, less than three weeks before the General Election, would not yield the highest 13 turnout from other cities and agencies. 14 Is Council Member Hamilton queried if that was because people would be involved in 16 elections. 17 Is Council Member Healy replied yes, that the City of Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, and 19 other cities. He referred to a letter dated September 19 from Supervisor Mike Kerns zo (Kerns' letter) that indicated the S.C.W.A. wanted letters of intent from the contractors zl before the proposed date for the summit. He thought the topic would be scheduled on Zz the agenda for the October 2 Council meeting for discussion about how the Council 23 would address the request. He expressed that he was not sure if a letter of intent was 24 due on October 13 and the proposed summit was to take place on October 19 how the is Council would address that issue. z6 z~ Council Member Maguire expressed that he shared some of Council Member Healy's Zs concerns. He expressed concern and referenced the Kerns' letter and other sources z~ that. he heard references to an "advisory group." He stated that the City of Petaluma 3o wanted to start a dialogue and create a process. He thought the Council should work 31 towards the potential of establishing an independent group of water users with its own 3z legal representation. He would hold off on comments about the references to an 33 "advisory committee" until the subcommittee appointed by the Council had time to 34 address that with the Board of Supervisors. The long-term result that he looked for was 3s a shift in the balance of power so users looked out for the own interests better than the 36 S.C.W.A. had done in the past. He believed it was advisable to be cautious about what 37 the objective was for this first forum. He wanted it to be as organized, cohesive and 3s successful as possible. He believed there was supported throughout the County so the 39 balancing question may be how much of this is made or disregarded as a campaign 4o issue. This Council knew it far surpassed any campaign but in terms of getting people 41 to the meeting, getting their attention, commitment, and having a dialogue, he wanted 42 to know what the other Council Members thought. 43 44 4s Council Member Cader-Thompson noted that problems with water agencies were a 46 statewide concern, not just here in Petaluma. The State had begun to address that the 1 1 ~~ y September 22, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 229 ~ agencies have too much power over their contractors; she believed there would be 2 changes in the future. She was not concerned that this was a campaign issue. The 3 City was getting different information from the Board of Supervisors and she believed a the contractors were, once again, excluded, and not kept informed. She supported the s meeting on October 19, having it at the Petaluma Community Center. She noted that ~ Board of Supervisors was trying to surpass the forum to retain their control instead of ~ allowing the public and the other contractors the opportunity to provide input. s 9 Council Member Keller supported moving ahead with a forum on October 19 at the io Petaluma Community Center, and was not opposed to co-hosting the event with ~~ Sonoma. He expressed his concern .given both Randy Poole's letter of last week and 12 the Kerns' letter that the Board of Supervisors had proceeded as if there was not else to 13 talk to; they had proceeded as if they could make all the decisions. He was confounded is because during the discussions the subcommittee of the Council had with the is Supervisors, they talked about how the next contracts would be derived, whether they ~~ would be individual contracts or whether they would be a group contract. Supervisor ~~ Cale said, specifically, "Well I can see there are advantages either way. We haven't is decided." The following day the Council received a letter from Randy Poole stating the ~9 S.C.W.A. was moving ahead with individual contracts. Two days later, the Kerns letter zo states that they are moving ahead with individual contracts. 2~ 22 Either these Supervisors were going to have the discussion with the rest of the 23 Supervisors, which they had not had, over the benefits or the shortcomings of doing 2a individual contracts vs. group contracts or they are not. He was frustrated that the 2s discussion they had in private, (1) was put in the newspapers, (2) despite the fact they z~ had talked about where the flexibility could be. While they acknowledged the 2~ importance of some of the long-term policy issues that were raised, they nevertheless 2s proceeded as if they didn't have to talk with the contractors and as if the discussions 29 they had with the Council subcommittee didn't happen. It frustrated him that they had 3o planted their feet on individual contracts; the problem with individual contracts was they 31 vulcanized the system, there was no way to coordinating the needs between agencies, 32 and the cost sharing becomes more difficult and more critical. Every agency then (1) 33 negotiating again, in private with the S.C.W.A., nobody looking at the big picture except 34 the S.C.W.A. There was a possibility of making separate deals with each agency, and 35 each agency pressing for their own needs to the detriment of other contractors, and (2) 36 all of the years of coordination that had to be hammered out through a mutually agreed 37 upon contract were lost. In addition, managing a series of individual contracts was 3s much more difficult. The power returned, in even a stronger form, to the Board of 39 Supervisors acting as the S.C.W.A. He thought it was important to proceed with the ao forum on October 19. He did not believe this was purely an election issue; this was ai election issue for now and the next thirty years. 42 a3 Council Member Hamilton liked the idea of co-hosting the event with Sonoma but - as thought there was a logistical problem as they did not have sufficient to meet and vote as on it as a Council and that would create a delay in the time it took to get invitations out. a~ She wanted Council to authorize the invitations mailed, stating an agenda would follow, ~7~ T Vol. 35, Page 230 September 22, 2000 ~ send out agendas, and in the interim ask Sonoma if they would joint the City as a co- 2 host of the event. 3 4 MOTION: Council Member Hamilton moved, seconded by Keller to have a Summit on s Water Policy on October 19 at the Petaluma Community Center, using the sample ~ wording as provided from the City Manager's office, that is, 7 a "After looking at an overview of the water system as it exists today, under Amendment ~ 10, the City of Petaluma will hold a facilitated discussion to gain input or consensus on io how we can best work together to manage our water resources for the future." ~~ iz Council Member Hamilton added that she thought the people attended more functions 13 during an election season and that would yield a better turn out before the election than is afterward. is ~~ Vice Mayor Torliatt agreed. She then stated that the Mayor asked that it be reported 17 that Virginia Stroh Martin was going to attend the forum and that she be asked whether ~s she wanted to participate on a panel or as an attendee and that her invitation should ~9 include that. zo z~ PUBLIC COMMENT zz 23 Bryant Moynihan 102 Dawn Place: Stated that he did not consider this a "special" z4 meeting and wanted to protest as it appeared to be a meeting with an objective to set 2s the agenda for yet another meeting in advance of the election. He sensed it was a 26 political move rather than good public policy. z7 zs Beth Meredith 104 Fifth Street: Asked that Council consider the (non-elected) public's z9 input as well and that they be given the opportunity to get answers to their question; be 3o clear about what can be accomplished by the meeting; what was the process for an 31 ongoing dialogue should be included on the agenda. 32 33 END OF PUBLIC COMMENT 34 3s Council Member Maguire asked that the invitation language be modified to include, 36 after, "consensus," the following: "from all water users, and policymakers." 37 3g Council Member Hamilton offered to amend the invitation language from, "the City of 39 Petaluma," to "we will host and facilitate a discussion with all water users, water 4o contractors and policymakers on how we can best work together to manage our water 41 resources fro the future." 42 43 Council Member Maguire added that he hoped what would come out of this meeting 44 4s was what other meetings would they have, who would host them, what dates, and how did they provide for thorough public testimony. 46 ~9~ September 22, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 231 ~ Council Member Healy referred to Mr. Moynihan's comments and asked when the z meeting was noticed. 3 4 City Manager Stouder replied that the agenda was sent to all of the Council Members s by 8:15 a.m. on Thursday. ~ City Clerk advised that the agenda was sent to a substantial number of the public and s the press by electronic mail before noon on Thursday. 9 io Council Member Healy supported the motion and added that he preferred that the ~~ forum be held after the election. The Board of Supervisors was in a difficult position as ~z they had some contractors that wanted to study issues and get a process going and 13 other contractors that were in desperate situations and wanted to move ahead more ~a quickly. A letter received today from Valley of the Moon, one of the contractors stated is that they wanted to move ahead as fast as they possible could; the Board may be in a ~6 situation where they needed to sign individual agreements with agencies. He ~~ understood Randy Poole's letter and the Kerns' letter to state that the infrastructure, is transmission storage facilities must move forward at this time. He thought the issues 19 the Council wanted to discuss the City's entitlements and allocations and _he believed zo individual agreements might be a way to get both sides what they need in the process. 2~ _ zz Council Member Keller stated that the. City needed to move ahead, the urgency to get _ z3 the invitations out was very clear, the meeting had been properly noticed. The fact that za the S.C.W.A. had arbitrarily imposed an October 13 deadline moved all the more zs urgency for the City to move forward with the forum. He wanted a list of policy questions z~ developed by the contractors as a result of the forum and. an outline of potential dates z~ for them to be addressed. He asked the Council Members if there was a subsequent zs meeting address issues and it went to a vote, was it a vote by everyone there, by z9 contractors? 30 31 Council Member Hamilton replied that after the agenda and format had been discussed 3z it would come back to the Council at their next Council meeting and added that there 33 would be ongoing discussion about it up until October 19. 34 3s MOTION AMENDED: Council Member Hamilton moved, seconded by Keller to adopt a 36 Resolution to have a Summit on Water Policy on October 19 at the Petaluma 37 Community Center, using the sample wording as provided from the City Manager's 3a office, as amended; that is, 39 40 "After looking at an overview of the water system as it exists today, under Amendment 41 10, we will host and facilitate a discussion with all water users, water contractors and az policymakers on how we can best work together to manage our water resources fro the 43 future." 44 ~gI Vol. 35, Page 232 September 22, 2000 ~ Diane Reilly Torres noted that the League of Women Votes was to sponsor a z discussion regarding water issues and asked that the Marin Municipal Water District be 3 invited to participate in the forum. 4 s The Council agreed they would. 6 ~ MOTION s PASSED: 6/0/1 (Thompson) 9 io Council Member Maguire asked if the subcommittee had scheduled another date to ~ ~ meet with the Supervisors. ~z 13 Vice Mayor Torliatt replied, "no." ]4 ~s Council Member Maguire asked that a meeting be schedule with the primary question ~~ being where are the Supervisors and afollow-up on the last subcommittee meeting. is Council Member Healy was not sure that the subcommittee approach was the best way ~9 to continue discussion; they did not get a good result the last time and now they were zo squabbling about what had been said behind closed doors. zi zz Council Member Maguire asked if there was a nod of heads for direction to City z3 Management for the next subcommittee meeting. 24 zs A Council majority nodded in agreement. 2G z~ Diane Reilly Torres added that she thought there should be a member of the public on za the subcommittee. z9 3o Council Member Cader-Thompson stated that she thought the information should be in 31 the public so everyone knew what was going on as the newspapers got the information 3z before the Council did. 33 34 Vice Mayor Torliatt stated the meeting was for the water forum and was now adjourned. 3s ADJOURN 36 At 8:55 a.m., the meeting was adjourned. 37 38 39 4o ATT T: a2 Beverly J. Kline, City I k 43 44 4s ****** amela Torliatt, Vice Mayor 1 J L.7~