HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 06/05/2000June 5, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 15
3 City of .Petaluma, California
4 Minutes of a Regular
5 City Council Meeting,
6
!� 7
8
9 Monday, June 5, 2000
10 Council Chambers
11
12
13 The Petaluma City Council met on this day at 2:05 P.M. in the Council Chambers.
14
15 ROLL CALL
16
17 PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Healy, Keller (2:15 P.M.), Maguire,, .
is Mayor Thompson, and Vice Mayor Torliatt
19
20 ABSENT: Council Member Hamilton
21
22 PUBLIC COMMENT
23
24 None
25
26 CLOSED SESSION
27
28 City Attorney Richard Rudnansky announced the following items Council was to
29 address in Closed Session:
30
31 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR, Agency Negotiator: City Negotiator. Unrepresented
32 Employee: City Manager
33
34 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to Litigation
35 Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code §54956.9 (2 matters)
36
37 The Council adjourned to the City Manager's Conference Room for Closed Session.
38
39 ADJOURN
40
41 The Closed Session adjourned at 3:00 P.M.
42
43
44 *******
45
Vol. 35, Page 16 June 5, 2000
1
2
Monday, June 5, 2000'
3 RECONVENE
4
5 The, Petaluma City Council reconvened on this: date at 4:30 P.M. in the Council
6 Chambers immediately following the Petaluma 'Community Development' Com -mission
7 meeting.
s
9 REPORT OUTOF CLOSED SESSION
10
11 -Mayor Thompson announcedthat no reportable action was taken on items addressed
12 during the Closed Session..
13
14 ROLL CALL
15
16 PRESENT: Council Members Cader=Thompson, Healy, Keller, Maguire., Mayor
17 Thompson, and Vice Mayor Torliatt
1s
19 ABSENT: Council Member Hamilton
20
21 PUBLIC_ COMMENT
22
23 Jessica Vann Gardner, Executive Director, ,Petaluma Visitors Bureau., 799 Baywood
24 Drive #1, spoke: regarding the promotion of tourism 'in Petaluma, noting that Petaluma
25 was recently named in Travel. and Leisure_ magazine's top ten destinations list as. a
26 great place to Visit.
27
28 Steve_Buckley, 501, . East, Washington Street, .questioned why RidgevieW Heights
29 Subdivision was not on the Council's agenda and voiced his. concerns about the timing
30 of the appeal.
31
32 City Attorney Richard Rudnansky noted ,that the City was notified of a threat of litigation
33 regarding the project and he advised the. Council not to discuss the matter in open
34 session; it was on Council's agenda asp a Closed Session, item.
35
36 Mr. Buckley continued his comments, stating his. opposition to the amount of lawn
37 space mandated for new homes'in the City, he;,asked that an ,administrative, item move,
38 forward on an agenda for the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC)
39 to address cutbacks to the amount of water used for landscaping.
40
41 COUNCIL COMMENT
42
43 Council Member Cader-Thompson thanked Jessica Van Gardner for all of .her work in
44 connection with the City's Visitor's Program.
45
46 'COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGEMENT- REPORTS
June 5, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 17
1 .. .
2 None
3
4 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND; DELETIONS
5
6 None
7
a APPROVAL -OF, MINUTES
9
to May 22, 2000
11
12 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Torliatt, to
13 approve the minutes of the- May 22, 2000 City Council meeting as
14 submitted.
15 MOTION
16 PASSED: 5/1/1 (Council Member Healy abstained; Hamilton absent)
17
18 CONSENT CALENDAR
19
20 At the request of members of the public and' Council, Mayor Thompson removed items
21 3, 5 and 9 from Consent
22
23 1. Resolution 00-96'N.C.S. Accepting Claims and Bills. (Cornyn)
24
25 2. Resolution 00-97 N.C.S. Establishing Holidays for Fiscal Year 2000-2001
26 (Acorne)
27
28 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Torliatt,
29 to adopt Consent Calendar items 1 and 2.
30
31 MOTION
32 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Hamilton absent)
33
34 UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Items removed from Consent 3, 5 and 9)
35
36 1. Resolution Approving Agreement with the County of Sonoma for a Portion of the .
37 Cost of a Fly -Over and Mapping Through Digital Ortho -photography of the
38 Petaluma Area for a Cost Not -to -Exceed $60,000. (Cooper)
39
40 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked City Management that in, the .future, when the City h_ad
41 contracts with the County, to inclutle information regarding the overall cost to the
42 County and, when and if applicable, a breakdown of participating cities
43 proportionate amounts, that information was, not included with the item. She
44 wanted to know if the mapping process being: done could be used directly with
45 projects the City was currently working on and integrated with and as a part of
46 the General Plan process.
Vol. 35, Page 18
June 5, 2000
1 -
2 Council Member Keller expressed similar concerns and asked City Management
3 if the mapping being done was in sufficient detail.to accomplish the GIS work for
4 the Surface Water Management Plan:,
s
6 City Manager Fred Stouderleplied `Yes." The -General Plan was. a priority of the
7 GIS, which included Council'spriorities of Surface. UVater Management, River
8 Enhancement, _: Economic Development, Transportation, and the Central
9 Petaluma Specific Plan, all of which required.a great level of detail.
10
11 GIS Manager Trae Cooper reported that all the photos would meet the
12 requirements of the City's GIS"system.
13
14 Council Member Keller asked who. owned the product, the photography; and
15 whether the City could establish a fee and sell aerial photographs. to interested
16 membersof the public of their. homes. He recommended that City ;Management
17 do so if that was, true. s
18
19 Mr. Cooper replied the City would basically own the photography of the. City' of
20 Petaluma and could sell the photography.
22
23 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved; seconded by Keller, to adopt
24 Resolution 00-98 N.C.S. Approving Agreement with the County `of
25 Sonoma for a .Portion of the Cost, of a Fly -Over and Mapping
26 Through Digital Ortho -photography of the Petaluma Area for a Cost
27 Not -to -Exceed $60,000.
28
29 MOTION
30 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Hamilton absent)
31
32 5. Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of a Jacobsen HR -90,10 Gang Mower
33 From. H. V. Carter Company in the Amount of $68,558.12. (Carr)
34
35 Vice Mayor Torliatt encouraged City Management in the future to include
36 employees, that is, mechanics, who were expected to work on n equipment °the
37 City purchased, in the specifications process.
38
39 MOTION: Vice Mayor Torliatt- moved, seconded by Council Member
40 Keller, to adopt, Resolution 00-99 N.C.S. Authorizing the
41 Purchase, of a Jacobsen HR -9016 Gang Mower From H. V..
42 Carter Comp"any in the Amount of $68;558.12.
43
44 MOTION
45 PASSED: 6_/0/1 (Hamilton absent) ,
46 -
June 5, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 19
1 9. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Mixed Use Recycling and Adoption
2 of Collection Rates. (Beatty)
3
4 Vice Mayor Torliatt wanted the Council given the opportunity to have an
s expanded discussion regarding recycling programs.
6
7 Assistant City Manager Beatty agreed and clarified that .a temporary rate
8 structure- was agreed upon and established while the City continued discussions
9 with the hauler regarding modifications to the agreement to further encourage
10 recycling. The proposed rates reflected those modifications for residences. The
11 hauler's initial, response to a mixed-use :single -can recycling program was that it
12 was minimally a year to eighteen months Out. They were prepared to make a
13' presentation regarding that type of a recycling program prior to that at which time
14 the Council would have the opportunity to have .an expanded discussion
15 regarding mixed-use single -can recycling.
16
17 Council Member Maguire noted that he met with the haulers to work out a more
18 proactive pricing structure the results of which were currently before the Council.
19 Fie thanked the haulers for being willing participants to that extent. However, he
20 was anxious to have them come back to the Council for further discussions
i1 regarding recycling aspects.
22
23 MOTION: Council Member Maguire- moved, seconded by Cader-
24 Thompson, to adopt Resolution 00-100 N.C.S. Establishing
25 Collection Rates for Recycling.
26
27 MOTION
28 PASSED:. 5/1/1 (Vice Mayor Torliatt voting "no"; Council Member
29 Hamilton absent)
30
31 Clerks Note: The :following item was continued to the evening session:
32
"33 7. Discussion and Possible Direction regarding Resolution of the City Council of
34 the City of Petaluma Consenting to and Approving an Owner Participation
35 ,_Agreement By and Between the Community Development Commission of
36 the City of Petaluma and Lok Petaluma Marina Hotel Company, LLC.
37
38 Also, agenda item 10, Report, Discussion, and Possible Action Regarding, Boards,
39 Commissions, and Committees. (Kline/Stouder) was removed and scheduled to a date
40 uncertain, and the following item was previously moved from the Council's Consent
41 Calendar and was numbered in a prior agenda as agenda item 4.
42
43 8. Resolution Awarding Contract to Successful Bidder(s) for Operation of Petaluma
44 Transit's General Public Fixed Route and/or Door -to -Door Para -Transit
45 Transit Services. (Ryan)
46
43
44
45
46
Vol. 35, Page 20
June 5, 2000
Program Coordinator Jaynes Ryan provided background 'information and
presented and explained the basis of City Management's recommendations. He
noted one error in the executive summary, that was that Laidlaw had indicated'in
their proposal that they were willing to do both fixed route and door-to=door Para -
Transit transit services or fixed route transit services only: He. added that the
information ,did. not affect his recommendation.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Victor Chechanover, 2301 Marylyn, stated his disappointment that.the proposals
did not .address the living wage; salaries referenced in, the report, were
inadequate in comparison with the skills and experience necessary to, do the job.
Ron Kirtley, Director of 'Petaluma, People Services Center (PPSC), stated _his -
support of _PPSC being awarded the contract with the City event though they
were not the low bidder and explained why.
Dave King, a Board Member of ,PPSC, 835 Sixth Street; spoke in supported of
PPFC being, awarded the contract though, not the low bidder and stated that the '
low bidderwas not always the best bid nor did they necessarily provi'de� the best
service to the community.
Irwin Rosenberg, Area Vice President Laidlaw, Transit Services,, Inc. Jor the
Western, U.S.,, 15200 Ventura Boulevard Suite, 1050 Sherman Oaks; CA, as°'the
current contractor with the City for fixed route transit, services, spoke in support
of his company maintaining its fixed route services for the City of Petaluma.
Susan Zucker, 15 Lone Oak Court, spoke in support of the City awarding the
contract to PPSC.
Jon Monson, President of MV Transportation, Inc, 420 Executive Court N - Suite.
6, Fairfield, .CA, low bidder, spoke in favor of hisproposal for transit, Para -Transit
services for Petaluma and as the low bidder asked the City to honor its bid
criteria.
Dorothy Morris, 533 Albert Way, spoke regarding the benefits of' Petaluma's
transit services for the community.
Esther Collins, 316Eastwood-, spoke regarding the benefits of Peta luma'sz transit
services to her as a member of the community and in favor -of 'maintaining
existing services.
END. OF PUBLIC COMMENT
Council discussion included:
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
June 5, 2000 ' Vol. 35, Page 21
• Awarding PPSC the portion of the contract for Para -Transit services
• Awarding MV Transportation.the contract for fixed route services
• Whether PPSC could be retained for sixty days and return with an amended
bid for Para -Transit services,
• Maintaining the level of.services that PPSC for the community
• Rejecting,all bids regarding Para -Transit services
• Re -bid or continuation of existing contract with PPSC
• If re -bid,, a refined RFP (Request ,for Proposal) being .more specific with the
types of service
Vice Mayor Torliatt acknowledged and thanked Harriett Acorne for her efforts at
PPSC through the years and noted that Ms. Acorne was to retire and would be
missed. .
Mayor Thompson asked the City Attorney if .it was possible to extend the contract
with PPSC and award the fixed route services to MV.
Council Member Healy,asked the.City Attorney if the Council rejected all bids for
Para -Transit services what would happen after that.
Mr. Rudnansky was not prepared -to 'comment on what .the consequences were,
It was his understanding that federal law required -a bidding process. Hewas not
sure whether bidding one part _of the service would satisfy federal requirements
and stated that he would need -to look into what;those requirements were.
Council :Member .Maguire asked: the City.Attorney if was acceptable to award the
Para -Transit, services to PPSC and:MV for,fixed route services.
Mr. Rudnansky replied that, he, was not .sure:- The City had gone out for
competitive. bidding: �-However,..°'itr was a .-professional -service or services
agreement and typically, it was..not a requirement to award based on low bid. He
suggested that the item_'return at a future meeting in order to give him time to
look at the federal requirements
Mr. Stouder suggested -June 11.9 -as a possible datelorpthe,item,to return
Mr. Rudnansky offered rthat the. -Council could take action With. the condition that
the action taken was not in conflict- with federal law. ,If it was, it would return to
the Council at the June 19 meeting:.
MOTION: Council Member,Maguire moved, seconded by Council
Member Keller to adopt Resolution 00-101A N.C.S. Awarding
Contract for Operation of Petaluma Transit's General Public
Door -to -Door Para=Transit Transit Services to PPSC and Fixed
Route Transit Services to MV Transportation subject to
Vol. 35, Page 22
June 5, 2000
1 confirmation that: such action was not in conflict with, :federal
2 regulations.
3
4 Vice Mayor Torliatt wanted to include 'in --the motion MV Transportation's
5 verbal offer become a requirement -to retain Laidlaw employees, at. their
6 current positions/status/seniority. She believed the current employees had
7 provided a great service to the community.
8
9 Council Member Maguire declined to incorporate that into the: motion. He,
10 thought MV couldtake that as direction from the Council and stated that he
11 believed her suggestion got into the realm. of micro -management.
12
13 Mayor Thompson .agreed and called for the. vote.
14
15 MOTION
16 PASSED: 6%0/1 (Hamilton absent)
17
18 8. Report Regarding Status of Payran Project and Discussion and Possible.
19 Direction Regarding Payran .Flood Management Project Financing and
20 Budget. (Hargis/Stouder)
21
22 Mr. Stouder provided 'background information, a status report including :existing .
23 strategies of City Management' "regarding the flood management project financing
24 and budget. The City was aggressively lobbying for a new authorization to be
25 introduced to' adjust and qualify the project from its existing 85/15% to:a 75/25%,
26 cost sharing agreement with "the federal government. The immediate question
27 was regarding 'the $2 5 million •invo.ice, received' by the City to ;complete the
28 project under ,the 'existing contract. He, expressed concern that should the City
29 pay this invoice it- could jeopardize the- support and attention regarding this
30 project currently being given by the federal government. Conversely;, if the
31 invoice 'Was not "paid,. the U':S. Army'�Corps, from. their `point:.of' view, had 'no
32 choicebut to demobilize tile. project And terminate the contract..'The costs to
33 remobilize. the projectwould.-be increased andi passed on to the City and, or the
34 taxpayers. He then made the; following recommendations:
35
36 ® Borrow'$1.515 'million from. the City's General, Fund Equipment Replacement
37 Reserves to finance the completion, of the contract with, the. U:. S.. Corps until,
38 the proceeds of the new Redevelopment Tax Allocation: ,Bonds became
39 available on June 23;yat which time the loan would be fully repaid with interest
40 from the bond, less -than a thirty- day period.
41
42 ® Attempt to negotiate lwith_ the 'U. S. 'Army`Corps. a cost effective change order
43 for the construction of a transition channel during the next fish window that
44 would' afiow the completion of, the -contract as originally proposed and return
45 to the Council in two weeks with a recommendation.
46 '
June 5, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 23
1 Vice Mayor Torliatt believed the City should move forward based on the liabilities
2 involved; the City needed to show its commitment to complete the project to the
3 citizens of the Payran area. She was optimistic that the City would be reimbursed
4 for a significant portion of the cost of the project.
5
6 MOTION: Vice Mayor Torliatt moved, seconded by Council Member Maguire,,
7 to direct City Management to:
8
9 Borrow.$1.515 million from the City's General .Fund Equipment
io Replacement Reserves to finance the completion of the
II contract with the U. S_ Corps until the proceeds of the new
12 Redevelopment Tax Allocation Bonds became available on
13 June 23 at which time the loan would be fully repaid with
14 interest from the bond, less than a thirty -day period.
15
16 ® Attempt to negotiate with the U. S. Army Corps a cost effective
17 change order for the construction of a transition channel during
18 the next .fish window that would allow the completion of the
19 contract as originally proposed and return to the Council in two
20 weeks with a recommendation.
21
22 Council Member Maguire stated that he believed the responsible path the City
23 ,take was to pay the $:1.515 million rather than the full $2.5 million. He wanted
24 the project to continue to move forward.
25
26 Council Member. Cader-Thompson noted how important it was for the City to
27 read the fine details in contracts to avoid this type of situation in the future.
28
29
30
31
32
33 PUBLIC COMMENT
34
35 Vince Landof, 12 Cordelia Drive, spoke in favor of continuing the project,, stating
36 that he thought the Council was committed to carry out the decision of prior
37 administration.
38
39 John Cheney, 55 Rocca Drive, spoke in favor of continuing the project and about
40 flooding problems in Petaluma.
41
42 Bryant Moynihan, 102 Dawn Place, spoke in favor of City Management and
43 Council scrutinizing details when approving projects and emphasized that the
44 Council understand what was spent, and where the money was to come from,
45 including a complete breakdown of financing.
46
Vol. 35, Page 24 June 5, 2000
I Mr. Stouder replied that an.February 9 a complete break own of the project's
2 financing Was
� provided. He added that reserve funds wereavailable for the
3 thirty -day transfer.
4
5 Geoff Cartwright., 56 Rocca Drive, spoke in favor of continuing the project and
6 about flooding problems in Petaluma.
7
END OF PUBLIC COMMENT
9
10 Council Member Keller supported themotion without enthusiasm.. He rioted that
11 the cost, of the final project was completely etely out,of the City's control., The City was
12 required 'under the existing, contract to pay whatever charges it was billed by the.
13 Ui S. Army Corps and there was no limit; it was a poorly drafted contract.
14
15 Council Mem, be( Healy supported the motion, with an equal. lack of enthusiasm
16 and noted his distress with the City'reverting to inter -fund borrowing; he. did :not
17 want to see it continue, However the consequences of not taking this action may
18 result in
' demobilization of the project. 'additional costs and claims incurred, and
19 losing the support rid attention with the federal government. and the U. S. Army
20 Corps to achieve a long-term, financing solution outweighed his misgivings on
21 inter -fund borrowing. He clarified that this action only got the City through the
22 current project, the current contract which was already substantially completed; it
23 did not include the removal' and replacement of. the two rail bridges and he was
24 uncertain that the Ci I ty would be able to continue with that work until
25 congressional funding was received.
26
27 MOTION
28 PASSED- 6/0/1 (Hamilton absent)
29
30
31 ADJOURN
32
33 Mayor Thompson adjourned the Council's afternoon session at .615. P.M, and
34 announced the Council would .meet for dinner at La Familigia.
35
36
37
38
39 Monday, June 5, 2000
40 Council Chambers
41
42 RECONVENE,
43
44. The Petaluma City Council reconvened on this date, at 7:40 P.M. in the Council
45 Chambers I immediately following the Petaluma C omMunity Development Commission
46 meeting.
June 5, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 25
t
2 ROLL CALL
3
4 PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Healy, Keller, Maguire, Mayor
5 Thompson, and Vice Mayor Torliatt
6
7 ABSENT: Council Member Hamilton
a
9 PUBLIC COMMENT
io Victor Chechanover, 2301 Marylyn; asked that the City not state a minimum wage of
11 $8.50 when seeking Requests for Proposals.
12 Vince Landof, 12 Cordelia Drive, spoke regarding the City's commitment to finish the
13 flood project.
14 Richard Brawn, 141, Grevillia Drive, spoke regarding development proposals and asked
15 that City problems such as traffic congestion, affordable housing,'flooding, and'the
16 perpetual temporary impairment of water during the summer be considered on an
17 upcoming Council agenda.
is Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke regarding development in the floodplain.
ig COUNCIL COMMENTS
20 Council Member Cader-Thompson reported that she held a. meeting at her home .with
21 members of Petaluma Community Access (PCA); twelve people attended and a good
22 dialogue took place. She stated there was a need for leadership at'PCA and believed a
23 mediator could help the group's organizational_ development. She acknowledged the
24 benefits of having a public access station and encouraged the community to support
25 PCA financially.'
26 Mayor Thompson reported that the Petaluma Area Chamber of. Commerce, wanted a
27 member of the Council to join their task force -on housing. He asked interested Council
28 Members to contact him directly.
29
30 PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
31 Mayor Thompson read a proclamation that acknowledged June 2 as RSVP Volunteer
32 Recognition Day to thank volunteers in the community.
33 Mayor Thompson read a proclamation that acknowledged the week of June 12 - 18 as
34 Men's Health Week and presented it to Joe Manthey.
35 COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGEMENT REPORTS
36 Mayor Thompson announced that Council Member Jane Hamilton was having serious
37 eye problems and was to undergo a second surgery to correct the problem; she would
Vol. 35, Page 26
June 5,2000
i not be able to attend meetings for the next 30 days. On behalf of the Council and the
2 Community he: conveyed best wishes for her speedy recovery.
3 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4
5 6. (Moved from the Afternoon Session) Discussion and Possible Direction regarding
6 Resolution - of the City Council of the City of Petaluma Consenting to and
7 Approving an Owner Participation Agreement By and Between the Community
8 Development Commission of the City of Petaluma and Lok PetalUrna Marina
9 Hotel Company, LLC.
10
11 Mayor Thompson announced the Council" concurred with the Coinm,issib,n's
12 decision to have the City Manager relate Council's p6ti,tion and direction to the
13 developers and return with a report, at a. meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
14 Ju"ne"'l 4 at 5:30 P.M. in the, Council Chambers.
15
16 lfem, continued- to Wednesday, June 14, 2000 in the Council Chambers "at 5,:30
17 P. M.
18
19 11. Status Report= on Activities of the Animal Services Advisory Committee.
io (TavEires/.Skladzien)
21
22 v oPetaluma Animal Shelter Services Manager Nancee Tavares, provided a
23- report covering'. the accomplishments of Petaluma's Animal Services and
24 Shelter over the preceding ten. months. She stated the reputation of
25 Petaluma's Animal Services and the Shelter had improved dramatically .since
,26- the Cify'],as'sumidd direct management.
27
28 Ch.air of the: Animal Advisory Commprovided an update
,ittee- Sue 'Simmons.
29
regarding the activities of the committee over the past year, draft. policies for
30 Petaluma -;Animal Services for
or the Council to review and approve,, and an update
31 -of a five-year plan that included plans 'into: the year 2003.. She concluded with the
32 facility.
33
34 Council comment and discussion included:
35
36 e Clarifidatibn'of hours of operations for picking up or dropping, off strays.
37 0 Status of the fund raising committee.
38 o Injured animals., uncontained animals. statement.
39 o Bilingual outreach,.
40 e Detailed policy regarding feral cats definitioa of a controlled environment.
41
42 No action taken.
43
44 12. Report on Status of Animal Shelter, Renovation Project. (Beeitty/8kladzien)
45
June 5, 2000 Vol. 35, Page '27
1 Animal Shelter Services Manager Nancee Tavares provided background
2 information regarding the inadequacies of the Shelter facilities noting that the
3 facility was very old, very small, and very outdated. The Shelter was built fifty
4 years ago when the population in Petaluma was fifteen thousand. She then
5 introduced the City's contract architect.
6
7 Linda Good, Architect with Equinox Design, provided background and a status
s report regar..ding'the progress of the Animal Shelter Renovation Project plans that
9 included design and cost details. She wanted direction from Council before
10 proceedihgI, with the p"rojOct. She offered the following options:
11
12 1. Complete the plans as designed and solicit bids for the entire project;
13 construction could begin in summer.
14
15 2. Modify the plan to reduce the costs as stated in her report that would result in
16 a savings of approximately $-67,000.
17
1s 3. Produce a bid package with above changes as alternates that may result in
19 about half the savings expected 'if the plans were modified prior to bid.
20
21 4. Break theproject into two phases to allow critical functional areas to be built
22 first postponing the. remaining portions for future construction when funding
23 became available. This option would result in .higher project costs' due to
24 economies of scale, inflation, and less competition for smaller projects.
25
26 Council comments and discussion followed and included:
27
28 ® Space for growth of the facility based on the capacity expected.
29 ® Details of the design and construction.
30 ® Bidding for a winter construction for an overall cost savings.
31 ® ADA compliance issues.
32 ® Location of the building within proximity to the boundary lines.
33 ® Funding for the, project.
34
35 PUBLIC COMMENT
36
37 Becky Snyder, 1 Pierce Street, a volunteer at the shelter, spoke regarding
38 building materials for the roof of the proposed shelter.
39
40 END .OF PUBLIC COMMENT
41
42 Council Member Healy acknowledged the tremendous efforts of the volunteers
43 and noted his support for top-notch animal services provided in Petaluma. He
44 was very concerned about the rapidly escalating costs for both the capital facility
45 and the operating budget; in less than a. year the cost of the capital facility
46 increased from $200,000 to $600,000 and operating costs had grown from
Vol, 35, Page 28 June 5, 2000
1 $300,000 to a proposed $490,000, an increase equal, to about two-thirds in two
2 years., He, thought -this - was an opportunity for the.Cityto.re-eval-uate. how' animal
3 services. were, provided, in Petaluma.
4
5 He noted that 'Marin County had' one. facility for the. entire county and that
6 Sonorna County built a, $500,000 facility just north -of Santa Rosa. It did not
7 make sense, to him to have Balkanized servicesin this day and ,age of limited
8 government budgets. He wanted, the Council -to look at whether there* were
9 opportunities to cooperate With other agencies, to cooperate with the county, to
10 Cooperate, with the City of Rohnert !Park-, .to cooperate with Marin, centralize
11 services, .and find out if there was, more cost -effectiveness; if not, proceed with
12 the project, if so, then.. this -was an _opportunity to proceed in that direction: He
13 was not prepared to support the proposal until he had answers to his questibns.
14
15 Council Member Maguire replied that prior investigation found the coverage at
16 the county level :And with other agencies participating was not the quality the
17 Council, wanted.- Increases. in operating costs were due in large part due to the:
18 City. s commitment to have parody pay for all employeesof thei City. He was
19 more inclined to support the, effort that was moving along with the beliefthqt the
20 City wase acting now effectively in setting up a, �solid organization,, Which was
g
21 being done, and Was far more cost effective in.the ,long run than.,going back and
22 re-examining the City's approach, and the history leading to where the. City was
23 today. He was willing to bite the bullet. on the cost overage; it looked like a very
24 Well designed, facility., very I utilitarian, with room for expansion ;if heeded'. The
25 City had. a lot of pressing needs but few within the realm of actual reality and
26 possibility given the funding available today; he wanted to build the shelter and
27 let the volunteers of the ' community make it shine. He believed that would
28 generate; some synergy in, terms of'd6i-hg f undraising.
29
30 Council Member Healy -asked that City Management respond, to Mr., Maguire's
31 comments and' remind theCouncil when it last approached the county, ROhnert
32 Park and had detailed discussions about possible cost-sharing. He reminded, the.
33 Council that when �the 'agreed 'to bring ,the operation in-house it was, based on,
34 cost,estimates that provedtobe4ildly optimistic. They were -not ,being realized; it
35 was much. .. more expensive that what some of these same people said, it would
36 cost. Though he believed it was done in good faith, it. had not proved 'to be the
37 case.
38
39 Council Member Maguire replied -that county costs Would have -increased as well.
40
41 Council Member Healy wanted to know what -that was; he suggested the Council
42 find out.
43
44 Council Member Keller asked -that. the-, committee work diligently to get donated
45 funds.. He suggested. , ested short-fqnding, the- project $75,00.0 and asking the
46 committee to get those fundsfrom the community.
June 5, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 29
1
z Mayor Thompson asked if surrounding areas, `the county and Roh.nert Park, had
3 been contacted regarding information about services and related costs.
4
5 Mr. Beatty replied that prior to the City taking on this project, City Management
6 solicited the Humane Society in the county on two different occasions. The.
7 county responded most recently. Rohnert Park was not in a position to provide
s the kind of services, and still do not, provide the services. the" City did. The
9 county's proposal, a year ago, to operate the field service, not the shelter
10 operations, just the animal field services element was as much as,,the City's
u budget for the whole operation.
12
13 He agreed with Council Member Healy that every city .did not need, its own
14 shelter but Petaluma was the second largest city in the county and he thought,.
15 whether people became accustomed to it or.not, :.therewere other models that
16 the City may eventually have to look at. Up until recently, - the City provided,
17 shelter services for the City of Cotati,; he believed they were contracting with
is Rohnert Park now due to the logistics. The, City could be open to doing
19 something like that in the future, such as, field -.services.
20
21 Over the past year there was a strong desire on the part of the Animal, Services
22 Committee Lto have a shelter operation in Petaluma as long as it could be
23 afforded.. He thought it could create synergy if the City provided evidenoer that the
24 kind of shelter the community expected, raising additional funds, whether it was
25 towards a shortfall in the capital project or capital funds for new programs that
26 were funded completely through donations was possible.
27
28 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked for confirmation of a balanced budget, that is that there
29 was no cost overrun.
30
31 Mr. Beatty replied that, as far as he knew, there should be no cost overrun.
32 There was a."level of service agreed upon and it was significantly higher than
33 what was earlier •anticipated.. A lot of that was due to the desire to have
34 competitive wages; when the employees moved from being contract. providers to
35 City employees they came under the umbrella of various unions and labor
36 associations that had a say about their wages. He believed the shelter had
37 attracted some great people and put a great team together. He did not apologize
38 for that, he thought it was necessary.
39
40 Vice Mayor Torliatt added that the City of Santa Rosa was considering a contract
41 with the county for animal control services for approximately $3 - $4 million
42 dollars.
43
44 Mr. Beatty stated that the difference with Santa Rosa compared to Petaluma was
45 that the Humane Society, the County, was all ready there. They did.not have a
46 facility; the City was in a position that it could 'take it over when the Humane
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Vol. 35, Page 30
June 5, 2000
Society left. When the Humane Society left Santa Rosa, they were in a pinch.
They needed, a place to house the animals.
Mayor Thompson, in summary, :stated the Council needed .to come -about with an
amount for the animal shelter. He clarified that the savings would be, $68,000 if
items were not :done.
Vice',Mayor Torliatt clarified that the. City was not, awarding a bid at this time; the
Citymas going,put to solicit bids'for the project.
Mayor Thompson agreed adding that the City needed to have a figure.
Vice Mayor Torliatt replied -that the figure was based on the plans the contractors,
would bid oh.'
Mayor Thompson said: he understood that those plans were estimated. at
$586;000.:
Vice Mayor Torliatt stated I at,was what City Management estimated.
Mayor Thompson asked the City Clerk to read, a statement prepared and .
submitted by Council Member Jane Hamilton.
City Clerk Beverly Kline noted that Council Member Hamilton contacted her
earlier that day and asked that she read a statement in her behalf as the Council
Liaison to the Animal Services Advisory Committee:
1 strongly recommend that the Council fund the additional amount
necessary for the project from the Community Facilities Fund and;
as staff as recommended, pay back the loan over the next'ten to
fifteen years from the General Fund. When the Committee
considered the fact that the cost of these improvements will rise;
literally on, a monthly .basis, it became increasingly clear that the
most economical route is to, complete ,the project all at once an'd�
sooner rather than later. With a facility that can b6tfer
accommodate "volunteers and, programs, the shelter will be in a
more powerful position to raise funds and engage the community in
providing this essential service. l ,realize ,that there are several
facilities in dire need and competing for the same money in this
fund. 1 want you to consider that the animal shelter ,has been on
that list the longest;of any of there► and,.it.has always languished _ at
the -bottom of that li"st..Now=is the time to fund some much-needed
improvements to our shelter; not only for the animals but .also for
the, staff that works there and for;the.public.
June 5, 2000 Vol: 35, Page 3f
1 Mr. Stouder referred to comments made by Mayor Thompson and Vice Mayor
2 Torliatt and stated that he thought they were talking about two different things.
3 He thought the Vice Mayor was talking about the bidding process to see what the
4 real costs might be and he thought the Mayor was asking if items should be
5 eliminated from the specifications that would result in fewer items being bid and
6 lessen the cost of the project.
7
s Mayor Thompson asked, whether or not City Management could get bids that
9 included all the specifications and did not include them.
10
11 Council Member Maguire replied that Ms. Good indicated that was more difficult
12 as the alternatives.
13
14 Mayor Thompson agreed.
15
16 Ms.Good continued adding that process resulted in about half of the savings.
17 Each; of the items, if they went through it like a shopping list, Incrementally,
18 incrementally there would not be a savings especially if the City proceeded with
19 an alternate method.
20
21 Mayor Thompson thought it sounded more confusing, that is, the alternates. He
22 .thought it was less confusing to submit something without them.
23
24 Ms. Good agreed and continued that the preference was to put the project out to
25 bid as designed.
26
27 Mayor Thompson stated that would be his recommendation.
2s
29 Council Member Maguire proposed giving staff direction to bid the project as
30 designed with 'the understanding that the Council, if willing, would authorize up to
31 $500,000 and anything over that the Council would look to the committee to raise
32 the funds for the remaining amount.
33
34 Mr. Stouder commented on Council Member Healy's earlier comment. about. the
35 cost and the nature of the project. Initially the Council accepted an idea of costs
36 from the Animal Services Committee without an understanding of what the City's
37 real objectives were;,:the project ,began with' a budget, not a result. The Council
38 then asked the' citizens' committee .to come. up with the best possible solution;
39 that was not where they started. He thought that was one of the major
40 differences in the costs. He stated that you _ couldn't design an end product.
41 around a budget, particularly if it was several years old and was not accurate to
42 begin with. It was not a cost overrun; it ,was more a matter' of what were the
43 objectives of the project at the time the budget was established.
44
45 Council Member Keller asked if Council Member Maguire made a motion.
46
Vol. 35, Page 32 June 5, 2000
1 Council Member .Maguire replied that he .suggested' -a direction for staff„ it was
2 not in the form of a motion.
3
4 Council Member Keller concurred: He wanted it put out to bid as designed, see
5 what came. back,, and if there was cost savings determined by proceeding as
6 soon as possible or waiting until winter,; there may not be because the: cost of
7 materials was going up. He wanted to proceed with the understanding that -the
s City would move forward with a contribution of 'half a million dollars with the
9 balance to be raised *as a capital fundraising campaign for the, animal shelter.
10
11 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked that staff bid it out with the design specifications.
12
13 Mayor Thompson agreed with the Vice Mayor. Before he authorized the
14 $500,000 for the project, he wanted to see how the. bids came back,
15
16 Mr. Beatty stated there was a problem -going out to bid based on the. engineer's'-
17
ngineer's17 estimate if it exceeded the authority :given by .Council. He needed a ,fir,.m dollar
is amount to allow for bidders to tailor the design to fit within that number,
19
20 Mayor Thompson did not want the contractor to bid into that" He wanted to know
21 how much it was going to cost to build the facility.
22
23 Mr. Beatty- agreed to proceed on -that basis.
24
25 RECESS: 9:25 P.M.
26
27 RECONVENE: 9:35 P.M.
2s
29
30 13. Status Report and Possible Direction on . Redw.00d Empire Sports Complex- .
31 Proposal Generally Located on E. Washington Street, East of Airport. (Carr)
32
33 Parks and Recreation Director Jim Carr provided background information and a
34 status report of the project including maps of the property in connectionwith the:
35 airport, Prince Park, and ,reviewed, City Management's memorandum dated May
36. 26; 200.0. The facility's developer was Marty Hronec_ who proposed a six -softball.
37 field complex, one permanent soccer field, and two additional soccer fields made
38 available to the Petaluma Youth Soccer Leagues:., The City Attorney; Rich
39 Rudnansky and Community Development Director Mike Moore and Mr;. Carr met
40 with Mr. Hronec to express some of the concerns of Council, .such as long term
41 leases, personal guarantees protecting the City from exposure to any 'liability in
42 the future from default, and that, the insurance requirements, may need to be
43 strengthened from its current $2.million dollar liability limit.
44
45 Marty Hronec addressed Council's questions with regard to the transition zone.
46 He'did.not think that his proposed building was located within the transition zone.
June 5, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 33
1 His architect drew the transition zone, laid "it .over the drawing of the complex,
2 and he then saw that a portion of the main" building was fifteen feet- into the
3 transition zone boundary. The bottom portion of building, downstairs, part of the
4 eating area, was ten feet into that including a five-foot overhang. So part of a
5 deck, fifteen feet of a deck and ten feet of the eating area downstairs was inside
6 the boundaries of the transition zone. The rest of the buildings were outside the
7 controversial transition zone. He had the ability to move the building fifteen feet
s and get it completely out of that zone. He continued that an airplane having a
9 problem taking. off would have to make a tight turn and a that,
backwards to hit
to the main portion of the proposed complex because the runway was past the
u main buildings. 'He then addressed the positive economic impacts that would
12 result for the City from this type of a recreation complex. With respect to
13 concerns about water, he found a businessman in Petaluma that invented an
14 irrigation system, ready for production, and was said to generate a savings of
15 forty-five percent. The product was called "Weather Track," it was an automatic
16 irrigation system he was seriously considering for the proposed complex. He met
17 with the president and board of directors for the Petaluma Youth Soccer League,
1s and he
'their support; they were. delighted to have the two smaller fields
19 designed, in the proposal for their use (with first right of refusal). He had "not
20 heard from the Petaluma Girls' Softball Association but he had received and
21 thought the Council had as well numerous letters. from the Petaluma Parks and
22 Recreation Softball 'teams. He was willing to °re=negotiate portions of his lease
23 but wanted to know which parts the Council was interested in re -negotiating.
24 "
25 Council questions and requests- for clarification included:
26
27 a Revenues; generated. from "tournaments. w
28 ® Reticence regarding long-term leases.
29 ® Irrigation.
30 ® Benefits to youth sports in the community (no fees charged).
31 ® Location of the facility.
32 ® Completion of improvement at Prince Park.
33
34 PUBLIC COMMENT
35
36 Don Smith, 24 Raymond Lane, spoke in opposition to the Redwood Empire
37 Sports Complex project. He read a memorandum from Sonoma County Counsel
38 dated May 17 addressed to the Airport Land Use Commissioners,-
39
ommissioners:39
40 ...Item 6. The commission directed staff to work with County
41 Counsel to draft a letter to the City 'of .Petaluma` clarifying the
42 commission's interpretation of its population density' requirements
43 for the transitional zone concerning the development of the
44 Redwood Empire Sports Facility. The -clarification was that the
45 population density limits any particular use to fifty persons for each
46 acre at any time. `
Vol. 35, Page 34
.June 5, 2000
2 He continued .referencing. Mr, Hronec, comments to- move :the building and;noted
3 the policy .plan stated 'that, : `Any: portion, that was in the transitional zone, the
4 entire area would be considered within the •transitional zone. Moving thebuilding
s would not make a difference. He then- provided historical information regarding
6 the approval process of Prince Park. He added that the real problem facing the
7 proposed project was not take: offs but that it was located under a flight, path -for
s the Ultra --Lights; which flew only five hundred feet from the ground. Federal ,air
9 _ regulations stated that an airplane had no limited altitude when taking off or
10 landing, those aircraft can be below the five hundred foot .designation. To him,
11 having a, [substantial] number .of people on the.ground under,a flight; path was a,
12 dangerous situation. He thought that was. why, .having an Airport Land, Use
13 Commission and Policy .Plan was to protect those- people in the aircraft and
14 those on, the, ground.
15 Council questions., included:
16
17 o Whether Ultra -Lights flew at night or not.
18 ® How many rides were taking place at the airport?
19 ® What did 'the Airport Commission recommend as use for the property
20 proposed?
21 ® Whether or not the decisions of the Airport Land Use Advisory Committee,
22 were binding on the .City; what was the legal framework? .
23
24 Mr. Smith replied:
25
26 ® No, Ultra -Lights did not fly at night. and there, probably twelve to thirteen rides
27 ® He thought -the Airport Gommission supported the property be maintained for
28 agricultural use.
29 The City could not,override the Policy Plan 'as far as the number of people,
30 that is fifty persons per ,acre.. The. City couldover rule but must have a
31 :"finding in fact" that.the Airport Land Use Commission erred.
32
33 Council Member Healy stated he'.had trouble making sense of the Policy Plan
34 because if a residence_ had a party and over fifty people attended they would be,
35 violating the policy.
36
37 Mr.°Smith explained. the reason. the Policy Plan existswas', for example, because
38 of the accident involving 40C-8 .in Sacramento;, thankc,goodness it' crashed in a
39 junkyard.
40 s
41 Council Member Healy believed that raised the question of being more in line
42 with a runway and a DC -8 would have quite a challenges -getting -to the property
43 the project was, proposed for •from that runaway.
44
45 Mr. Smith replied, not if iflost a couple of -engines on, one side, it could curl ,over
46 there pretty quick. You couldn't fly a DC -8 out of Petaluma anyway. A •twin-
June 5, 2000 Vol. 35, Page -35
1 engine aircraft could become very unstable with the loss of an engine on
2 departure because of VMC; they did not fly well without one of their engines at a
3 'different speed.
4
5 Council Member Keller asked if the ALUC, gave a statement in writing to the
6_ Council that this project should not be allowed at the location
8 Mr., Smith replied that the ALUC found and approved the project subject to a
9 "maximum of fifty persons per any one acre", that portion was approved.
10
11 Council Member Keller asked if the Council found the density on any particular
12 acre at. any particular time would likely be over fifty people, then the City would
-13 need to overrule the recommendation of the ALUC with a collection of findings
14 stating why.
15
16 Mr. Smith was not sure if the City had the authority to overrule that rule or not;
17 County Counsel would need to address that question.
18
19 Council Member Keller asked the City Attorney to clarify with County Counsel
20 and the ALUC if those were the conditions under which the City was to operate
21 and the City wanted to do something contrary to that, what kind of findings .did
22 the City need to have and what was the jeopardy, the liability the City would have
23 by making those findings.
24
25 Council Member Healy added', that as part of the analysis, he wanted to know
26 what procedures were established with the placing of Prince Park in its current
27 location subject to those same findings, he
because Prince Park was in
28 direct alignment with the airport runway and was much more problematical as far
29 as he was concerned.
30
31 Council Member Keller was concerned that errors were made in the past and
32 was not sure that the City should, strive to be consistent with the errors or try to
33 avoid new ones;, his preference was to try to avoid new ones.
34
35 Council Member Healy thought it was presumptuous to say there were errors
36 made with Prince Park; he wanted the records reviewed to see what was done,
37 how it was. done, and see if it was done properly.
38
39
40
41
42
43 t
44
45
46
Council Member Keller.agreed.
Council Member Cader-Thompson thought it was ironic that, for example, Prince
Park had electrical line running through it, a fuel tank on the runway for take -offs,
which was at Prince Park, and then there was the development at Rooster Run
Golf Course, where there was opportunity to have more than fifty people at any
given. time. Where were people at the time projects like these were approved.
She did not understand; she stated those were real safety issues for her.
Vol. 35, Page 36 June 5, 2.000
Mr. Smith agreed. When he: discovered the fuel tank at the airport, ":brought in,
an engineer to look at it; the engineer convinced him that the tank was bullet
proof. When the golf course was originally approved, all of the buildings there
now were not, there; the buildings showed up. ,
7 Council Member Cader-Thompson stated, that as .this Council reviewed projects,-.
s it came uptime and again that, buildings' just seemed to show up. She.wanted to
9 discuss how the Council was going to take the next step and move forward.
10
11 Mr. Hronec spoke in opposition to: Mr. Smith's comments. He had an ,adopted
12 resolution, unanimously was passed by ALUC that was still in :full force an'd'
13 effect. Petaluma's City Attorney recently gave ALUC an opinion on the, validity, of
14 that particular resolution. He understood from the last ALUC meeting .he
15 attended, that the..ALUC did not like Mr. Rudn, ansky's opinion and instead'. asked
16 for an opinion from County Counsel,, which, was their prerogative; neither Ji_m
17 Carr nor he were given the opportunity to speak at the meeting_.
1s
19 He ,continued that the Ultra -Lights diad not fly at night and, that, other aircraft that
20 flew at night during the time. the field, lights were on, was two and one-half flights,,
21 per night, on the average each year. He had ordered a tape of the meeting
22 where hisl project was approved; he believed the tape would prove that density
23 was discussed, one hundred twenty-five .people fit into those:. bleachers:around
24 the main field. It the number of people in the bleachers was a problem he was
25 willing to, portable bleachers in, which were not considered structures. He
26 wanted to be a good neighbor;,'he did not want to put anyone in harm's. way.
27
28 Mr. Carr clarified that the construction of Prince Park property bought' from. Mt.
29 Grey planned every inchof that park without consulting the Airport Commis"sign,
30 which included, tennis courts, monkey softball, and hardball fields among others.
31
32 The Airport Commission told them -t he design, was inappropriate due, to the
33 density per acre and that it must be redesigned. About that time, he came on
34 board with the City and the Council directed him to get the Prince Park portion of
35 it, get the lights out �of McNear Park; a common :theme. In that process, the
36 Prince Family Trust came forward to the City, and. -the Prince Park' design began..
37 He went to ALUC and the comment made at the meeting heattended was ,that
38 the City could, not have all of the improvements: in the center of the design;, the
39 center corridor needed to remain open as Mr. Smith indicated. This led to the
40 backstops ibeing placed in. their current location and that was why Prince, Park
41 was designed as is and as narrow as it is; all :the backstops are. to the west,.
42 which kept the corridor ,free for planes to ;land or take off. Thisled to the idea .of
43 a golf course; the City had the property, it could not be used for the '.sports
44 wanted_,, and at that time the Council was getting a lot of heat because Adobe
45 Creek Golf 'Course had just been purchased by another ,group of people who,.
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
June 5, 2000 Vol. 35, Page -37
raised the green fees tremendously and the community wanted a public golf
course. That was why Rooster Run was built in its present location.
Council Member Healy asked Mr. Carr if all of Prince Park was within the
transition zone.
Mr. Carr replied that it was.
Council Member Healy asked Mr. Carr for clarification; although -the park was in
the transition zone, it was not within direct line of the runway.
Mr. Carr replied that as the planes took off or landed, they were in the outfield
area, just west of the golf course fence.
Council Member Healy asked Mr. Carr if ALUC was concerned about fifty people
per acre on the Prince Park site and if so, how did that work out.
Mr. Carr replied that they were. The City was told that as long as they :kept the
center corridor clear it was deemed appropriate.
Council Member Healy asked Mr. Carr if there was a fifty person per acre, for
Prince Park.
Mr. Carr replied that technically, there was. For any given -ballgame, the.
attendance was approaching 30-40 people including spectators; the`.City'had not
rigorously monitored the situation.
Council,Member Maguire asked' Mr. Carr if the ALUC authority state legislation.
Mr. Smith replied that it was a mandate by state law.
Council Member .Healy asked Mr. Smith if the, "fifty person per acre" was also a
state law or something adopted in Sonoma County.
Mr. Smith replied that there were state guidelines that were reviewed
periodically., In addition, each airport land use commission had the authority to.
develop its own Policy Plan. However, the guidelines established by the state
were fairly closely followed. The last review was done in 1993 and currently ;it's
going through the revision process. He added that the ALUC operated under the
PUC (Public Utility Commission) and state Aeronautical Law.
Mayor Thompson asked Mr. Rudnansky if he would work with Mr. Hronec to
finalize the dilemma, that is, let the Council know what its options were at this
time.
Mayor Thompson asked for a straw vote regarding the location of the facility. All
seven Council Members concurred, by straw vote, their support of the location of
the facility.
Vol. 35, Page 38 June 5, 2000
Council, Member Cader-Thompson :expressed her concerns: regarding safety on
this project.,'The need 'in the community for playing fields was great. She thought
the project presented the least impact. is use that was close to an airport. She
thought it was a lot safer than Rooster Run that all ready was there. She had
issues with some of the terms in the lease; she wanted to make sure the Council
and the. developer could work through those concerns.
9 Vice Mayor Torliatt did not, haver concerns about the location of the project;_ she
10 questioned what was more financially advantageous for the: community:, She
11 . wanted the City to approach the, decision .with vision for the long term,, "that is,
12 how the .facility would be replaced and maintenance over the long term.
13
14 Council Member Healy agreed with the points raised by the. Vice Mayor. Now
15 that the Council agreed .that the location of the project was a good use of the
16 property; it could focus on the terms of the agreement.
17
18 Mr. Rudnansky stated that, his understanding of. direction was to contact County
J9 Counsel for a determination regarding the density, issue. With the assumption
20 that.could be overcome., orcould be addressed.:through findings, the Council was
21 agreeable for the location of the project. The next questions, was what terms in
22 agreement should be negotiated.
23
24 Council Member Keller asked Mr. Rudnansky, that if there were. finding contrary
25 to the ALUC requirements/recommendations, to get together with the: City's; Risk
26 Manager for an appraisal of what kind' of liability the City was exposed.,to. That
37 tied ;into:, one of ,the conditions in the ,lease, which, was that he wanted
28 indemnificationthat covered that- for the length' of time the fields were used.
29 Whether that was by bond or insurance, or co-insured make sure it covered, with
30 escalating clauses; for the term of the contract. Regarding the term of the
31 contract, fifty years. was out,of fine, in his opinion. He preferred a maximum of 20
32 - 25r years. With evaluations. along the line, he ,was looking for, in response to the
33 question raised by the Vice Mayor, a sinking fund' put: aside for field and facility
34 replacement as necessary. He wanted a clear understandirig on the part of the
35 City .Management, what City expenses were related to the facility because he
36 wanted to make sure those costs Were covered.
37
38 Mayor Thompson expressed that was a different .discussion. If the. City could
39 move forward with the location. and, intended use of .the proposed project, the
40 discussion would .return to the Council for consideration and direction to City
41 Management.
42
43 NEW BUSINESS
44
1 14.
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
June 5, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 39
Resolution Declaring the Existence of a Temporary Summertime Impairment of
Water Supply and Requesting Customers to Voluntarily Reduce Water
Consumption, with a Citywide Goal of Up to 15% Reduction. (Hargis/Simmons)
Vice Mayor Torliatt questioned the term "voluntarily." She wanted #o know,
should the City voluntarily reduced its water consumption, if it would work against
the City in negotiating future contracts with the Sonoma County Water Agency
(SCWA).
Director of Water Resources and Conservation Tom Hargis replied that during
the next four months, all the agencies that took water off the Russian River
Water Supply through. SCWA were asked to pass the same resolution. Supply
up
issues had come, at some of the contractor meetings. He anticipated that this
would probably be happening for the next seven to ten years, starting with fifteen
percent and possibly end up at a thirty percent reduction.
Vice Mayor Torliatt wanted to know if SCWA approved what the Council may
adopt tonight.
Mr. Hargis replied `yes."
Vice Mayor Torliatt asked Mr. Hargis what other contractors adopted this°,
legislation.
Water Supervisor Steve Simmons replied that all contractors were on board and
those who had not, would..
Mr. Hargis added that Santa Rosa was the first agency to adopt it and received
most of the publicity about it.
Vice Mayor Torliatt noted that the legislation was scheduled on SCWA agenda .
for July 25, 2000.
Council Member Cader-Thompson wanted to know how Rohnert Park could
reduce their water use by fifteen percent since they .didn't have water ,metets-.
S,he_ also wanted to know why Rohnert Park didn't just raise the rates and .get
things done more efficiently. Everyone was being asked to reduce water use and
,_yet Rohnert Park got some of Petaluma's water back, that is, after it went to
Marin and then to Rohnert Park. She thought. Rohnert Park should put water
meters in and bond themselves to move ahead faster.
Mr. Hargis understood Rohnert Park was considering a proposal for installation
of water meters. He added that it was mostly voluntary and geared towards
outside irrigation.
2
3
4
42
43
44
45
46
Vol. 35, Page 40
June 5, 2000
Council Member Cader-Thompson thanked Mr. Hargis for the information
regarding xeriscape.
Council Member. Keller asked Mr. .Hargis . if MMWD (Marin Municipal Water
District) and NMWD (North Marin Municipal Water District) had adopted the
legislation.
Mr. Simmons relied that they had.
Council Member_ Keller expressed concerns about the politics on the issue. He.
asked City Management, as a parallel issue, to get information to the Council on
the location of MMWD.parallel pipeline. project. He questioned if that was from
Castania tank.down, that is, where they"would be picking up.
Mr. Simmons replied that it; would be just south :of Castania tank; Castania tank
would continue to be the feeder for the parallel pipeline. The county pipeline
would stop at the pump station.
Council Member Keller questioned SCWA, that is, if they could achieve ,fifteen
percent reduction voluntarily; why was the county in a water impaired situation
permanently: Why weren't they being tougher in water conservation requests
and mandates through the entire countyrather than demanding to increase the
draft from the Russian River; 'it was a rhetorical `question, he wasn't looking to
City Management for an answer. He was deeply concerned about the path
SCWA took and that in, the long run would prove counter-productive. ,He believed_
fifteen percent was easily achievable. He wanted; if something like the "Weather -
Track" irrigation system that Mr. Hronec referred to, was available or coming
online, to promote to commercial irrigators, particularly_ all office buildings and.
something that could' be'mandated for future .construction.
Council Member Healy believed that the Council's action to adopt a resolution
asking folks to cutback fifteen percent was yet another step, and by far not the
last one, and he supported :it. "City Management would be doing clot"more to',
raise the.:awareness'in the community to facilitate conservation.
MOTION: Council Member' Maguire moved, seconded by Healy to;.adopt
Resolution 00-102 N.C.S. Declaring 'the Existence, of a
Temporary Summertime Impairment of Water Supply and
Requesting Customers to Voluntarily RReduce water
Consumption,, with a Citywide Goal of Up to 15% Reduction.
Vice Mayor. Torliatt wanted a, status report of the City's pilot program for
water conservation in City parks.
Parks and .Recreation Director Jim_ Carr stated''that SCWA Lynne Hulme did
a number of water audits at all of the City's parks. The City was in the
June 5, 2000 Vol. 35, Page.41
1 process of changing over a number of irrigation heads in' a couple of. the
2 parks with Lynne's assistance. The bottom line was to reduce water use.
3
4 Mr. Hargis added that the City was trying to quantify what the, reductions
5 were because City facilities provided an opportunity to monitor how much
6 water was used and the effectiveness of the program to measure
7 accomplishments.
s
9 PUBLIC COMMENT
10
11 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke regarding water supply conservation
12 efforts, development in the floodplain, and the flooding problem in Petaluma.
13
14 END OF PUBLIC COMMENT
15
16 MOTION
17 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Hamilton absent)
18
19 CLOSED SESSION
20
21 City Attorney Richard Rudnansky announced the following items that Council was
22 to address) in Closed Session:
23
24 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL. COUNSEL, Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to
25 Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code §54956.9 (1 matter)
26
27 At 10:45 P.M. the Council adjourned to the City Manager's Conference Room to
28 address Closed Session items.
29
3o ADJOURN
31
32 At 11:15 F.M. the meeting was adjourned with no reportable action taken on the item
33 addressed in Closed Session.
34
35
36 E. Clar ompson, Mayor
37
38 ATTEST:
39
40 �G�
i Beverly J. <line, City Clerl�
43
44
0
Ll