Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/15/1997December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 201 1 Ii~IINUTES z OF A ~GUI.A~t MEE~VG 3 PETAI.iJN~ CI'I'~' CO~JNC~ a 1VYONIDAY, I)ECEIVIBEIZ 15, 1997 S ROI,I, CALL 3:00 ¢~.m. 6 Present: Read, Keller, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss ~ Absent: Stompe g PRESENT'ATI01~1 9 Mayor Hilligoss presented a 15 year pin to Joe Kagan who is Chief Building Inspector. io She also presented a 25 year pin to Gene Beatty, City Manager. 11 COiTNC~ COMMENT' iz PT - brought up the fact that the City Council received an "Alert, Alert, Alert" from the i3 Sonoma County Transportation Authority that on Tuesday, September 16, the Board of ia Supervisors has agendized and 8:30 a.m. discussion of the Marin/Sonoma Multi-modal is Transportation and Land Use Study and they are going to set a date for hearing on the i6 transportation issues facing all of Sonoma County and there will be an opportunity for public i~ comment. Thank 7ennifer Barrett for continuing to seek money for CalFed Grant proposals. is We had received a memo from her that unfortunately we were not granted the proposals in i9 the first round but she is continuing to put us out there and trying to get money for us and I Zo wanted to thank her for her efforts in doing that. We keep receiving letters, the latest of Zi which is from Healdsburg, regarding Sonoma County and the Study on Revenue Sharing and aa Fiscalization of Land Use. I am assuming from the content of these letters that our Council 23 as well as the other Councils in the County have been asked to give some feedback on this za concept. So if the City Manager could get some more information on that for us, I would zs like to see us look into it and give our feedback so we don't get left out of the voting on that. z6 City Manager Gene Beatty - we will agendize that for the Sth of 7anuary. z~ NR - last week I attended the National League of Cities and attended various session while I 2s was there, heard Colin Powell speak. The best sessions I went to was regarding the Census, z9 Census 2000, how pivotal it is, but the best session I went to was a session on visioning, so Scottsdale, Arizona, did and I'd like the Council to see it. This is how they did their 3i visioning and how visioning is the pivotal center point for everything, the budget, the goals, 32 the general plan, the specific plan, and how it's all incorporated altogether and I can't say 33 how an~cious I am to start our visioning process with our new City Manager corrung on board 34 very soon. If people would like to see it, tlus is how they are talking to their folks, and ss secondly as more of a doom and gloom, this morrung I attended the regular meeting of the 36 Board of Directors of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Authority and I would put out a s~ caution, caution, caution that once again the Joint Powers Authority is looking at the City of ss Petaluma 6 acres, dead center of town, that I know the Central Petaluma Specific Plan 39 Committee is working hard on along with staff and the consultants and all of our citizens ao good dollars, and this is I would not say it's in jeopardy, but I would say that as soon as the ai committee and the staff and the consultants have something that is not concrete but a2 somewhere between a visualization and a little bit better than concept and you can say that a3 here is this land use, and here is this land use, and here is this land use, that you need to get Key to abbreviations: JH-vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire Page 202, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i your tails down to this meeting, ne~ one will be January 26 to state ttus is exactly what we 2 are doing. It is on the table right now frorn the Rail folks themselves that they need funding 3 to be able to improve the tracks, and the only way they can improve the tracks is to lease the a land that they have. And the only land that doesn't have toxic clean-up on it between here s and Oregon is Petaluma, and so this morning I stated the status th~t I perceive in the Crreen 6 Sheet saying that you're very close to determining the land use issues and brought that out ~ that the folks on the other side of the table who are attempting to run a railroad don't have a any money to do it let's not get so caught up City of Petaluma and realizing the ultimate land 9 use authority is the City of Petaluma and these are the owners of the land. And I would only io hope that the City is more proactive and talks to these people before we find ourselves in ii loggerheads about it's our land and we're going to put `x' use on it and the City is saying we i2 would like to see this `x' use on it within 8 to 10 month. I have st~ted this message before, I i3 am not crying wolf. I will hope that this gets down to the Authority to realize that Petaluma ia is serious about planrung in this area. is The Council asked that a representative be sent to the next meeting to have regular i6 communication and do it on a regular basis. 17 MYI~TUTES ia The minutes of the December 1, 1997, meeting were approved as amended: i9 PT - Page 184, Line 30 - the domestic water and irrigation water arnd pumping are paid for by !/ 2o Mr. Coombs. I think the correct statement is the domestic water is paid for by Mr. Coombs Zi and the imgation water and the is paid for by the City as well as the water is paid for by the Zz City the pumping cost the electricity only is paid for by Mr. Coombs. 23 PT - Page 185 - Line 4- I also stated the reason I think it's extremely unfair that they only 2a get 20% of the or that the Citizens only get 20% of the average green fee is because the City ~ 2s put in major capital costs of 126 acres of land in addition to the fac~ that the City is providing 26 the water for this facility which is the major operating cost of a golf course and that's why I 2~ believe it's unfair. 2s Also David Keller brought up the point that he wanted to make sure that pesticides and 29 herbicides on the land were taken care of and I believe Pamela Tuft responded that for the so conditions of approved for the Golf Course that was one of the General Plan items that they 3i were going to make sure is implemented. sz PT - Page 188 - Line 22 - I believe I requested public ashtrays to be put in Putnam Plaza and V. 33 I am not sure if that was a different one mstead of 7ane Harrulton. JH I didn't. 34 JH - Page 189, Lines 1- 4, JH wants the Council to discuss what we want to offer and ask 3s for from the City of Novato and that is completely separate from the discussions on 101 and ~ 36 what do we want and how do we want to pay for rt and I did not want Phil Erickson of s~ Calthorpe to come to the joint meeting with Novato, I want Phil Erickson to come with the sa joint meeting of the Chamber of Commerce. 39 PT - Page 189 - Line 6- Regarding the curfew issue all schools should be noticed to give the ~- ao City some feedback. ai PT - Page 190 - Line 4- I noted that Corona Creek Elementary School opened, which I/ az believe reduced a lot of the traffic around the Meadow School area and asked people to 43 respond to that as they came up when we discussed Zinfa.ndel. aa The minutes of December 8 were approved as corrected: Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stoinpe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 203 DK - Page 196, Study Session Opening - he had requested that the conversation about 2 negotiation priorities be discussed in closed session to not give an advantage to the bidders; 3 that was declined by the other Councilmembers. 4 CONSEIVT CALENIDAR s The following items which are noncontroversial and which have been reviewed by the City 6 Council and staff were enacted by one motion which was introduced by NR and seconded by ~ MM. s Ayes: Read, Keller, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss 9 Noes: None io Absent: Stompe 11 ItES~. 97-329 I+1CS 12 CI.AIMS ANID BII.~S is Resolution 97-329 NCS approving Claims and Bills #69523 to #69868. la 1tES0. 97-330 NCS is E~.~CT'ION CON~'RAC~' WITFI COUNT~' i6 Resolution 97-330 NCS approving contract with the Sonoma County Election Department i~ for various Election assistance. The contract is valid for five years. 1g OI~ 2065 NCS 19 ~ZOI~TE ~RICO P1ZOD~TC~'S AREA zo Adopt Ordinance 2065 NCS rezoning AP 007-700-003, 004, and 005 from Central zi Commercial to Riverfront Warehouse. 22 ~SO. 97-331 ~TCS z3 POI,ICE C~ilt PUItCHASE za Resolution 97-331 NCS authorizing purchase of one 1997 Ford Crown Victoria police 2s vehicle with funds form the 1997 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Funds. 26 ~SO. 97-3321~TCS 2~ ANNUAI. TItEASU~R'S It~POItT aa Resolution 97-332 NCS to review and file Treasurer's report as of September 30, 1997. 29 1tES0. 97-333 NC5 3o GRANT REQUES'I' FOIt I.~'NC~ CI~EI~ 3i Resolution 97-333 NCS approving the application and assurances for grant funds under the 32 Coastal Conservancy Access Program for the Lynch Creek Pedestnan Trail, Bridge and 33 Freeway Undercrossing. 34 * * * * * End of Consent Calendar * * * * * 35 O1tD. 2064 NCS 36 ~tOOS'I'ER 1tUN LEASE Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane.Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, ~1~IS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire Page 204, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i Adopt Ordinance 2064 NCS approving the third lease amendment for Rooster Run Golf z Course. Introduced at the December 1 meeting by Introduced by M[M, seconded by MS, and 3 ordered published. a Ayes: Itead, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss s Nces: Keller 6 Absent: Stompe ~ ~SO. 97-334 NCS s ~~ 1V~STER PI,A1~T 9 Resolution 97-334 NCS authorizing execution of a contract with Jeff Mason to develop a io Fire Master Plan. It is suggested that a Citizens Advisory Committee participate in the ii project. The life of the proposed master plan is five years, however, Mr. Mason encourages iz the plan to be updated every two years or so. It will be drawn in such a way that renewing i3 and updating the plan can be done easily by the City. The City Cauncil wants to be certain ia that the inner workings of the Fire Department is included as they relate to resolution of is problems that may occur in the Department. The Council would also like to see the Master i6 Plan developed so that it can be integrated with the community and its vision. The Council i~ asked about integrating the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system into the Fire Master is Plan. The new City Manager will be of great assistance in assisting us in making that this to i9 be a part of the entire community values clarification and visioning process. Introduced by 2o PT, seconded by MM. 2i Ayes: Read, Keller, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss 22 Noes: None 2s Absent: Stompe 24 Zs RESO. 97-335 NCS ~USINESS PI,AN FOR ~'1~E MA~TA 26 Resolution 97-335 NCS authorizing an agreement with Dr. Ted Rust ofPlanrung and Applied 2~ Economics to create a. Business Plan for the Petaluma Marina. I~r. Ted Rust, Mr. Dean Zs Anderson and Mr. Curt Bolton are the team which will prepare the document. Messrs. 29 Anderson and Bolton are from the Grand Marina in Alameda. Dr. Rust assured the Council 3o they will be able to accomplish the task within four months. They will include such options si as live aboards in the study. The slips will be reconfigured. We will work collaboratively 32 with the consulting team towards the goal of having a financially successful marina. 33 Additionally, the City Council would like to hear from the Siefel group, who were awarded 34 the contract to work on the City's redevelopment agencies at an earlier meeting this 35 afternoon. Dredging as well as the history of the Marina were also to be reviewed. Dr. Rust 36 said, "You have to tailor the product for the market you are in," and that is what they will do s~ for the City. Introduced by DK, seconded by PT. 38 Ayes: Read, Keller, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss 39 Noes: None ao Absent: Stompe 41 42 ~~IS~~ ~p~~~ as The Airport manager solicitation is now down to doing background on the finalist. aa CLOSED SESSI01~1 Key to abbreviations: JH-I~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Cour~cilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 205 i Public Employee Appointment and Employment, pursuant to Government Code §54957, z Title City Manager (further discussion and deliberation); and, s Conference with Labor Negotiator (pursuant to Government Code §54957.6) Agency a Negotiator Ralph Freedman, Unrepresented employee: City Manager; and, s Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (pursuant to Government Code 6 §54957.6) 2 potential cases. ~ The first two were on the agenda but were not needed. The third closed session item only s represented one potential case. 9 AID~OU1tN io RECONVENE 7:00 p.en. i i Present: Read, Keller, Stompe, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss i2 Absent: None is PLEDGE OF AI.LEGYANCE ia Midshipman Ryan DeWitt and Christopher Swayer, Eagle Scouts, led the Pledge of is Allegiance to the flag. i6 11~YOlVIENT' OF SYLENCE i~ ~'~SENTA~'IOll1 ia The Petaluma Sings, a youth ehoir, sang a group of Christmas songs for the audience. 19 ~ PItOCI.AMA~'IOIVS Zo The Mayor read proclamations for Steven David Stacey and Ryan DeWitt for their Eagle zi Scout presentation at the Elks Lodge on December 28. Christopher C. Squire will also zz receive his Eagle rank at that time. z3 PYTBI,IC COIVIMEN~' Za Elizabeth Meredith - eommented on the articles in the Press Democrat where the newspaper Zs expressed their feelings about the Community City Manager Selection Committee taking their 26 action in Closed Session. 2~ ~Ianlc Flum - noted his statistics on the proposed Rairuer Overpass which he said would be z~ 560 feet long, 90 feet wide, 40-50 feet above grade, 60 feet above water. This will be a Zv lasting visual disfigurement. Also, this will not be connected to Adobe Road so traffic in so town will be increased. si Dennis Dailey - the City should act decisively now for Lafferty Ranch Access. It can be 3a resolved within 90 days. The City Attorney can ask for a Declaration of Relief, and he can 33 ask for a permanent injunction against attach. We have an option to gain the initiative now. 34 Jerry Price - the transportation and planning process is in need of our attention. The highway 3s between Novato and Petaluma is 2 lanes smaller than it is south of Novato. There has been a 36 lengthy process to create a preferred plan. It is important to choose the transportation Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire Page 206, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i proposal in its present state. What we are talking about is a two county issue. He read a 2 portion of the study where the committee took the Novato/Petaluma portion of the Highway s 101 plan out. a Ned Orrett - he suggested another step in the water conservation process ~(i.e., assist in s installation of low flush toilets); increase the industrial conservation as well as the residential. 6 The Rose Foundation in Oakland has $50,000 available to study Petaluma water issues. He ~ suggested $15,000 be made available to study the industrial water conservation. They are s interested and are looking for final proposals by the end of the month. We would do the 9 research. There is the opportunity to address the huge amounts of water they use in their io processes. ~Iere is an opportunity for partnership with the industrial commuruty. Over the i i next 5 to 10 years it might make sense to spend $1 Million to $2 Million to help local ~2 industry. We are proposing to provide $15,000 of services to the City. He will be looking is for help from the City Engineer Hargis to review the proposal. If it is granted the money ia would be offered at the end of March. Mr. Orrett would be willing to work with staff on his ~s conservation project. The Council nodded approval. The City Engineer noted a report as i6 done for the Water Agency by Montgomery and Ned is a`sub' to that report and is looking i~ at 12 to 15 different alternatives to water conservation. This is an off-shoot of that Ned is would be looking to the City Council on the $1 Million over 10 years, Ned would be looking i9 to the City Council in water and sewer rates to support that kind of funding. Mr. Orrett and zo staff will come back with more information. This would be less money than you would si normally pay for equivalent services in terms of water infrastructure, and at the same time 22 that money is instead channeled to local economic development. a3 CO~JI~ICIL COMM~N'T aa JH Asked that Ricardo I,opez of the Iiuman Rights Commission wants to be on an agenda - zs it is scheduled for January 5. Tuesday, the Supervisors are going to talk about a 26 transportation plan. There will be time for the public comment. Everybody is aware of the z~ need for congestion relief between Novato and Petaluma. How to achieve that is not just a 2s "yes~or a no." There are many choices. There has been a l~.ck of discussion in the public z9 forum. She would have this topic on the agenda once a montli for discussion and an update 3o from Allen Tilton and to give the public an opportunity for public discussion. She doesn't si want this presented to voters is a misleading and oversimplified manner. If we are going to s2 improve that stretch of highway with the proposed sales tax measure, then either we need to 33 extend the life of the tax measure or remove parts of the Calthorpe plan. We need to know 34 what our choices are and what lcind of choice people want t~ make. She wants us to take ss leadership and provide an opportunity for discussion. Let us put the information out to the 36 public. Marin will be making choices. CALTRANS will spend $15 Million on design and s~ environmental assessment for southbound Highway 101, including widening of the bridge, 3a the conversion of the highway to a limited access 6-lane highway. This is the last section of 39 major highway in the 9 Bay Area counties that has not been converted to a limited access ao freeway. They have earmarked over $70 Billion for Bay Area transportation projects over ai the next 20 years. We should do some lobbying for some of those funds. She will bring a aa draft resolution to the next meeting for this section of the road. She would urge 43 CALTRANS to proceed with the design and environmental review. aa DK - Happy Holidays and Very Happy New Year and to the Jewish Community a Very as ~Iappy Chanukah. Remembering there was a struggle over religious freedom over 2,000 a6 years ago. That kind of struggle happens every day of the wee~C on a continuing basis all over Key to abbreviations: JH-Yice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM: PatriciaHilligoss, MS:CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Couricilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 207 i the world. The cause of religious freedom is not one that has died and is just celebrated on z the Holidays is an ongoing struggle. The celebration and that struggle continues. On the 3 draft letter to District Attorney Mullins, has the Council come to agreement? Response - a there has been no agreement on the language of the letter urging him to pursue the fraudulent s signature case as quickly as possible. The~Sonoma County Transportation Authority has met 6 and he noted that the executive authority meeting between Marin and Sonoma Counties ~ agreed to write to CALTRANS to urge CALTRANS to support expenditure of the $15 s 1Vlillion for engineering design and environmental review for the Novato narrows (section of v LJ. S. Highway 101 between Petaluma and Novato). A letter will also go to the State Senate io and Assembly. He anticipates a staff report in February on the senes of transportation i i measures. He anticipates a staff report in February on the series of transportation measures. iz He is looking forward to the meeting with the Chamber of Commerce regarding polling is information clarification. So we cannot be so parochial as to try and break up a coalition that ia has been very, very carefully crafted over the past few years. We need to be able to sell the is entire county. i6 PT - one of the things the Council is trying to convey is more information should be shared ~~ with the public as possible about this Calthorpe study. She urged citizens to read the actual is document on the Calthorpe Plan. It is available at the Library and the Planning Department i9 have loaner copies. If all goes will with CALTRANS' plans, construction of Highway 101 ao (Novato to Petaluma) could start in 2004. She read an article from the Marin Independent zi Journal. The article restated the information given by Vice Mayor JH about the CALTRANS ~2 proposal. It noted there may be lanes limited to carpool lanes and buses during commute Zs hours. The Annual Report has been distributed. This Council may have been accused at ~a times of not being able to get anything done. There are a lot of things that get done at the 2s City level. Two of the things she is most proud of are the new Police Chief and tonight we z6 are proud to be hiring a new City Manager. a~ MM - thank Beth Meredith for her defense of us in the scurrilous attack by Bruce Kyse. I Za would just ask Mr. Kyse the same thing and the same thing to Pete Golis and Mike Parman 29 and that is why don't you take this up with the Sacramento level and make this statewide so instead of punishing us as the guinea pig. There is a lot of support for decision-making in 3i open but if you are the only City in the State that is sticking you neck out, there is a penalty 3z for that. He asked the City Attorney to respond to Doug Daily's comments about Lafferty 33 Ranch. The one tlung that is slightly new is a possible permanent injunction against 34 challenge. Can you speak to that, Rich? 3s City Attorney Richard Rudnansky - I'll give you an update where we are, we have actually 36 had a survey done. That survey has now been reduced to a map that has been recorded. I 3~ believe that there have been posts put into the ground by our surveyors. We have also ss received a survey done by the other side. He has had several conversations with the s9 attorneys for Bettman and Pfendler. We have another meeting scheduled this week after ao surveyors have reviewed their survey. We are moving along trymg to find out which of the ai surveyors is wrong and where each one is so we have a better idea as to what the true picture 42 1S. as MS - I would like the public to participate in the Christmas Cheer program. About 1~000 aa new toys were provided to youth in Petaluma and Penngrove plus food baskets to farrulies. as Donations can be dropped off at the Petaluma Community Center on McDowell. New toys, a6 package and canned goods are being sought. She attended the National League of Cities a Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor .Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire Page 208, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i congress of cities and exposition. She came back with some ideas: from the Showcase of z City Programs she looked at Community Policing Programs. A New York state city had 3 community policing program to combat domestic violence prograrn. They trained their a police officers from their area in a method called, "Theatre for Change." She would like to s see the City look into this program. They funded this through a COPPS grant. She watched 6 some videos and they were interesting so she wants to pass this on to Chief Parks. General ~ Colin Powell talked about America's Promise the Alliance for Youth. s Youth should have access to five critical resource which are critical to their 9 development; (1) An ongoing relationship with a c~ring adult, ~o (2) Safe places and structured activities in non-school hours, n (3) Healthy start for a healthy future, ~a (4) Marketable and career skill through effective education and i3 (5) An opportunity to give back through service. ~a The goal is to provided 2 million young people with acc~ss to all five developmental is resources, and an additional 5 million with access to at least one resource. She would like to i6 have this agendized so the program can be discussed further. She talked about this with a i~ group called Americor. This is a resource we should take advantage of for food and shelter ~s for these volunteers who would spend 5 to 6 weeks on various projects such as trail building i9 and community gardens. Another community policing idea had citizens crime prevention ao advisory board, police journal cable television program once a month, police and seniors zi together where the officer visits a senior periodically. She went to Westchester and learned 22 about their Parks and Rec programs she thinks a caricature like map of downtown for the 2s historic downtown would be nice. A letter was received from 7ack Balshaw regarding Za pedestrian safety at Prince Park. She asked staffto respond to that. Zs Mayor PH suggested that be referred to the Traffic Committee. We asked that something be 26 done quite a while ago and nothing has been done. z~ NR - when Petaluma goes to the bank and opens up that $18 1Vlillion from CALTRANS, za District 4 is only of the districts in the State of California that is going to the well to ask for z9 money in their wish list. It is not a guarantee. So that is not a given. Tee The minutes of the 30 ~'ebruary 23, 1998, meeting were approved as t The minutes of the February 23, 1998, 3~ meeting were approved as that should be clarified. That was reported at the last SCTA 3z (Sonoma County Transportation Authority) meeting. 33 ~S0.97-3361VCS 34 APPOINT CITY MANAGEIt ss Resolution 97-336 NCS appointing Frederick C. Stouder as City Manager effective February 36 2, 1998. Mr. Stouder will be moving down to Petaluma from Burien, Washington. The City s~ Councilmembers expressed their pleasure in their anticipation of his arrival; and there were ss many warm words of welcome to Fred and his wife, Charmaine. 39 JH felt the process which was followed to select a new City Manager worked very well, and ao she recommended the process to any other City. Having a department-head committee, a ai bargaining unit committee, a group of citizens, and a group of City Managers interviewing az the three final candidates and then malcing recommendations to the City Council was very 43 helpful to her. The Councilmembers also expressed their pleasure in the working relationship aa that resulted from their contracting with Ralph Freedman of Ralph Anderson and Associates, as the executive search firm. They all were very pleased with the entire process. Introduced by a~ MM and seconded by DK. Key to abbreviations: JH-Viee Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Naney Read PH-Mayor M. Fatricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Cour~cilmember Pdmela Torliatt MM-Couneilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 209 1 Ayes: Read, Keller, Stompe, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss 2 Noes: None 3 Absent: None 4 VV~IS~'EWA'I'ER Y+'AC~I~' s PT - noted before the discussion began that she spoke with Gary Giacomini, Chris McAuliffe 6 and Pete Talbot regarding their issues. ~ The Mayor asked how many in the audience were here for the Landscape Assessment District s items, Agenda ~tems 11 and 12. No one responded. 9 Verbatim from 12/15/97 on wastewater io Michael Ban, Utility Engineer - the action item before you tonight is a resolution regarding ii receipt of estimated costs of public project alternative from the Sonoma County Water i2 Agency pursuant of the City's efforts to conduct the project evaluation required by the Local is Government Privatization Act of 1985 for our Wastewater treatment plant project. The City ia Council directed City Staff to refer this item to the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee is several weeks ago for the Committee's consideration and recommendation. The i6 Committee's consideration of this issue included review of relevant documents, discussion i~ with City staff and discussion with representatives from the Sonoma County Water Agency. is The Committee's recommendations on this issue were provided to the City Council in a i9 November 18 memo from the Committee. The Committee's recommendations in that memo ao is shown up here on the slide where, if the Council is interested in receiving the Agency zi assistance in preparing the estimated costs for the public project alternative, (1) the Agency's a2 assistance should be provided in the form of detailed mdependent estimates. (2) The Zs Committee further recommends that the Agency's assistance should not be provided in the za form of a proposal. (3) And, finally, the Committee recommended that the City should zs proceed with conducting its own independent evaluation of the project. 26 These recommendations have been incorporated into the resolution that's before the Council ~~ right now. The staff recommends that this resolution be adopted. I'd be happy to answer Za any questions the Council may have on this. 29 MM - a couple of minor points on the wording of the resolution. On page 2 of the 3o resolution, Line 6 the Whereas, the Sonoma County Water Agency's proposal to enter into a si design-build contract with the City's selected vendor would represent a serious conflict of 3a interest. I think we should scratch that because they have never really made a formal 33 proposal to us. It's not in the form of a proposal, it never was, so this is really a meaningless 34 statement. Then on the ne~ Whereas, "the Citizens Committee recommended the City ss continue with the ... in process..." et cetera, to me, I think, that is just redundant. We have 36 already said the same thing in the front. I would just strike that for simplicity's purpose, if 3~ there is no objection. 3s PH - I think they are there for a purpose, what was the purpose? 39 Michael Ban - on Item 6 this is actually the statement the idea that the Agency originally ao came up with, and that is presented in the report that we reference in the resolution, and it ai was merely to establish the record. a2 MM - It is clear, though, that they never did make a proposal to us. 43 PH - I think we talked about it. aa PT - does it matter if we take it out? Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Cou»cilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire Page 210, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i PH - I think it's good to leave it in. If it doesn't make any differenc~, let's leave it in. 2 NR - I'd like the staff or the attorney to state why the Whereas on Line 6 is in and also to s state why it is on # 10, and was there any previous resolutions that this wording was included a that if we pull it out now, whether we think it's arbitrary or not, that it would reflect back on s any other resolution. 6 Michael Ban - there aren't any previous resolutions. This language is from the memorandum ~ that the Citizens Committee provided to the Council g NR - May I eontinue? Then may I ask the City Attorney, or one of the attorneys regarding 9 this project, the pros and cons of leaving these in„ since they are in the initial resolution? io Rich Rudnansky, City Attorney - with respect to the first one I would defer to Karen ii Hedlund, but it seems to me that perhaps it could be changed a b~t if there is no objection, i2 that "should the Sonoma County Water Agency submit a proposal, it may be a conflict of is interest." But, again, perhaps Karen could comment on that. ~a MM Rich, could I point, you to Line 32 on the prior page, because I think that particular is whereas really sums up the point distinctly. i6 Karen Hedlund, attorney for city -- I'm not sure the particular wording of any of these i~ Whereas clauses is necessarily critical to the validity of a resolution that you would pass, but is the language that the City Attorney suggested modifying to just "suggest" there could be a i9 conflict of interest clearly it would be awkward if you were negotiating with one party for 2o privatization and that same party was at the same time negotiating with a third party on a zi entirely different deal. That's all this is intended to, I think, intended to express. 2z MS - I think it's fine to change the wording so that it may be a confYict of interest. 23 Rudnansky - well I indicated that should the Sonoma County Water Agency propose or make aa a proposal, you are right, we haven't received one yet, they've indicated a desire to do so but 2s we haven't. We're not sure whether they are going to do one. So should they subrrut a 26 proposal, then it would appear to possibly be a serious conflict of interest. z~ MS - I'll make that a motion with that one amendment. Zs DK - on the conclusive paragraph page 3"Be it Further Resolved, I would like feedback z9 from Karen or Rich it says "Be it Further Resolved by the City Council that the City shall 3o conduct its own independent evaluation and privatization projec~ with the conventionally 3i financed project as required by the local government Privatization Act in accordance with 3z processes established by the City." Does that, Is that implying that information received from 33 the Sonoma County Water Agency is not in compliance or is serving in that capacity, or is 3a this shall also conduct? 3s Karen Hedlund, attorney for city -- the Act requires that the city do its own evaluation. 36 DK - the information provided under ttus agreement by the Water Agency could not 3~ substitute for that 3a Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - not unless you somehow forrnally appointed the Water 39 Agency as your agent. And it's not clear that the statute contemplates that, but that would ao be the only way to do it. ai DK - let's pursue that for a moment, because my concern would be, let's say for instance we a2 come with, we hire an engineering firm to come back with their proposal, Water Agency 43 comes back with their proposal. I want to make sure that they are on an equivalent basis and , Key to abbreviations: JH-vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Courrcilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MILf-Couneilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 211 i that either one or both would serve the purpose of the comparison in the local government ~ Privatization Act. s Karen Hedlund, attorney for city -- I think you have to consider your own estimate. You're a saying one or the other and s MM - Madam Mayor 6 Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - I think you have to do and consider your own estimate, ~ DK - that's why I was wondering whether or not, what would it take to make the Water s Agency estimate equivalent to the one we would hire out? 9 Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - you mean as a substitute? io DK - not a substitute, but essentially what we are looking at is two sets of numbers i i Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - well it is hard to answer that question without know what i2 they are going to look like. I mean I think you're going to want to evaluate them. You're i3 going to want to look at what basis for them is and come to you own conclusion. I mean, you ia can't whether or not they are a"equivalent" is will be a question of fact at the time. is DK - equivalent is more in the legal prerogative for us to be able to use information from i6 one, the other, or both , or neither, in this case. i~ Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - well I think you have to consider your own estimate and ia you can consider alternatives, the statute does talk about alternatives i9 DK - the statute allows us to consider ao Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - consider alternatives zi MM - Karen, as far as I know and correct me if I'm wrong, what's in the staff report here 2a the paragraph is really the only where it says evaluate the project design capacity et cetera as zs well as other alternatives to the project and found that the project cost will be equal to or za lower than conventional financing. If I'm not mistaken that's the only verbiage in the as Privatization Act that directs how to proceed here, but regardless of that the Committee's 26 recommendation was, that we do the both, except, as I understand it, the way I read it, you z~ could accept the Water Agency's proposal as long as it was responsive to comparing the zs same type of plant design . z9 DK - that's what I'm trying to clarify, if the language in this allows us to do that 3o MM - that's my understanding of it, but what we've recommended as a Committee is that 3i we would do them both because then you can compare the two simultaneously and if there is 32 a disparity then you can go into the methodology of they each came into their own numbers 33 so that you can determine if they're a truing up that you can have but either way with this 34 recommendation this should be ample way ample numbers to compare it to 3s J~I -- so with this resolution we are agreeing to do a city evaluation, city staff will do an 36 evaluation and an estimate, and the Sonoma County Water Agency will do an evaluation and s~ an estimate, and we'll have those two as two public comparisons of public option to the ss private options. 39 MM - not staff we would have a hire an engineer ao JH -- this will not be done in house? ai MM - no Key to abbreviations: JH-vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councrlmember Matt Maguire Page 212, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i JH -- this will be done, we will hire a consultant, another consultarat to do it? 2 DK - engineering firm 3 J~I -- why wouldn't we just aslc the Sonoma County Water Agency to do it? a MM - well, that was the original proposal and that was what was discussed at Citizens s Wastewater Adyisory Committee, but after discussing it, there was general consensus that it 6 would be more prudent to have both. ~ JH -- why? I want that justified. s Michael Ban mmm 9 MIVI - I don't clearly recall, Mike, do you recall the process, the thought process? io Bill W}ute Y tlunk one of the reasons Karen ~ i DK - build a new plant up on North McDowell i2 Bill White I think one of the reasons Karen hit on, put her finger right on, the city must do i3 one. And we felt that the city must do their own evaluation, and we felt that the Water ia Agency can do one also in fact would do one. We were very comfortable with just the Water is Agency doing it right at the start and then when I think the city had to do one and I think i6 that's the reason why we end up with two of them. i~ JH - - Madam Niayor ia Bill Wlute we are not uncomfortable with that I rrught add Yane and Councilmembers because i9 as Matt said we can true them up if there is any and look at their methodology if there is ~o some disparity between the public methods of evaluation and the prices. If they actually zi come out right on the dime equal, you know, that's the number. If there is some disparity, we 2~ might want to, look at how they were determined. a3 JH -- my question is why wouldn't we just ask the Sonoma County Water Agency to Za provide the public evaluation the evaluation of a publicly owned and run alternative? Zs Bill White we did s6 M1~1- Madam Mayor 2~ JH -- and what was the response, you did? 2s Bill White we did and we would have been very happy with that, but it was stated that the z9 city also had to do one. 3o MM - I think Bill there was also 3i 7Fi -- we're not doing one. We are going to hire somebody to do one. sz MM - it wasn't so much 33 7H -- so why wouldn't we hire the Sonoma County Water Agency? 34 MNI - Jane maybe I can answer 3s J~-I -- well, I just want to ask my questions and get answers. 36 Bill White and I am just giving my logic on it. Maybe there is a different; maybe, Mike, can s~ clear it up a little bit? sa JH - - okay Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Cour~cilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Cour~cilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember MattMaguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 213 i Michael Ban - one of the reasons we wanted to have the city to participate in it is there is a z great deal of synergy with having the city prepare the estimates and since the city staff and s our consulting team are very fairuliar with both proposals having basically lived and breathed a them for the past year. s JH -- okay, but I thought that the city wasn't going to be doing the estimates. We were 6 going to hire somebody else to do it. ~ Michael Ban we are going to be doing the estimates with our consultants' help. a JH -- okay who would that consultant be? 9 Michael Ban Brown and Caldwell. io NIM - Madam Mayor, first, of all we haven't had the discussion as to who it would be, as far ii as I know. I know there has been some discussion. but that's something that this body can i2 weigh in on if we so choose, but: Jane, I think the other thing was that there were other i3 parties who are not comfortable with the Water Agency providing those numbers. ia JH - who were those parties? is MM - that's just i6 JH - I just want everything out here, it's just not clear. i~ NIM - I think there was some discomfort with the vendors, possibly there was consideration is of the timing of the presentation and how that would come from the Water Agency, and iv would that look like a proposal, and did that put us into a legal limbo? There were a lot of Zo those kinds of questions. Out of that morass we came with the two which the engineers Zi estimate is not going to be a lengthy nor expensive part of this process. zs Michael Ban that's correct. z3 JH - does this make sense to everybody? It does not make sense to me. This is not clear and Za I'm just getting more upset as the meeting progresses. zs DK - what I understood Councilman Maguire saying essentially because the Water Agency 26 could wind up being a bidder on this project, for them to do the public private comparison is z~ a process that finalizes the privatization effort it was up for questioning whether or not the Zs Agency's numbers would be accurate or realistic and not just low balling. z9 JH - but we are already saying in the resolution that they can't be a bidder, or that they are so not giving a proposal. We are only asking them for evaluation. Then, at the same time, we are 3i saying, we don't trust their evaluation. So we are going to do our own to compare to their sz evaluation, it's just, does this, am I reading it right? 33 DK - no 34 JH - I would just be happy to have the Sonoma County Water Agency provide the public ss alternative. I don't see the problem with that. 36 Michael Ban - hopefully I can clear this up. The Water Agency said that they are interested 3~ in providing the alternative project, and, the cost for that, which is allowable under the 3s Privatization Act. So they are not necessarily doing the conventional financing approach 39 analysis that the city will be doing. ao J~I - okay, I'd like to hear more about that. The Privatization Act, as Matt Maguire said ai earlier, requires us to do an evaluation of the project's design and cost compared wrth other a2 conventional financing methods as well as other alternatives to the project; and the Sonoma Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire Page 214, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i County Water Agency has suggested that their role in this process could be that they would 2 provide the cost estimate for the other alternatives to the project. s 7H - Madam 1Vlayor a MM - Madam Mayor s JH - is that 6 MM - Y have to say that's not my understanding of their proposal. My understanding was ~ they were basically going to give us the numbers of a publicly fund~d version of whatever the s negotiated plant is going to be. 9 JH - well, Madam Mayor, in the beginning, there was there has just been confusion around ~o this from the beginning. That vvas my understanding, originally. Then I get this and ttus. i~ Sounds like now it's gone back to, there's been confusion about the Water Agency and what i2 their role is. The reason I'm really hanging on to this is I want us to clarify it now, once and is for all, so that we all know what we expect of them and what their role is and they don't end ia up getting sued or we don't get sued. You know, we're down to the what we put in print is is really important how we define things. i6 PT - so what Councilmember I3amilton is asking for is a definition of what the Water Agency i~ is going to provide and a definition of what the city is going to do, what we are going to do is for ourselves. i9 Bill White - Madam Nlayor, Matt, correct me if you disagree here, my understanding is that 2o we are going to have a private plant designed. We are then going to give that to the Water zi Agency and have them price out that private cost, and we are going to give it to the city staff, za and they are going to price that private plan, no other options. They are going to price that Zs private plan. Za JH - that negotiated design? Zs Bill White that negotiated design. That's my understanding. That's vvhat I think we agreed to. 26 Okay. And why did we go with two of them? t~ lot of it was because in the early stages there z~ was a lot of confusion with the Water Agency. Was it going to be a bid? Was it going to be a za ttus? Were they going to hire one of the..? But the bottom, but af~er all that sifted through, 29 the fact of the matter is I think we all felt that if one was good, two is better. It's been a lot 3o more complex than that. They are going to price out the precise private plant that we 3i negotiate and technical plant that we negotiated. sa PT - so it's nice to have 3 bids that come in so we can compare and these are 3 bids. 33 Bill White basically, that's what it is. 34 PT - 3 numbers that we can compare. 3s all talk at once cannot decipher (City Clerk) 36 Bill White and from the City staff and consultant standpoint, we are not really looking at a lot 3~ of money here, because they have done all the work; they know all the plans; they'll be 3s involved in negotiations; they then take it and price it out on a public basis. I think there was s9 some concern on the part of the Council at one point in time that that may not be real ao thorough... and that's why we went with the Water Agency. So I think there's a legitimate ai reason for the Water Agency to be doing it on kind of a third party basis. There is also a aa legitimate reason for the city staff/consultants to be doing it. Yes, it will cost more money. 43 But they will also have a, be a check on it; and I don't just, don't tlnink it's, I think maybe we Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Cour~cilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Cou~cilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Cour~cilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 215 i are making more of it than we need. There's no real hidden reason why it's there. It's just, ~ we felt two would be better than one. 3 JH - if the these aren't just the Water Agency evaluation is not just an idle exercise? a Bill White - no it isn't at all. s JH = it could be if it turned out to be much better numbers and looked much better, then we 6 could turn to the Sonoma County Water Agency and say well want you to give us a proposal. ~ Bill White - no, it's not my understanding. Well if it turns out to be a much better proposal, a then the answer is the private's out, then we go back to Stage 1. 9 MM - Madam Mayor io Bill White then just say okay build it. i i MNI - Madam Mayor i~ Bill White not doing the design, they're not doing construction plans, they're not doing i3 everything; and to say that it would be, I mean, to go to somebody, just, it would be unfair to ~a the Water Agency; it would be unfair to the City of Petaluma to take their numbers and say is fine build it because they haven't designed it. They've taken the design somebody else did i6 and priced it out as though it were done in the public forum. i~ 7H - so it is just an exercise? is Bill White it's an exercise. i9 JH - what'd you say it was? ~o Bill White and it's in fulfillment of the 1985 law which says that once you come to a zi conclusion on the private, you have to do the public alternative to see whether the private is zz the way to go. If the pnvate is not the way to go, because the public beats it in price, z3 private's out and we go back to start. Za 7H - Madam Mayor zs Bill White under that Act, we could go back and renegotiate on some other things at that a6 point, but that's the purpose of the Water Agency's estimate, that's the purpose of the city 2~ staff/consultant's estimate, is essentially just a confirmation of the Water Agency. zs MM - that's right and the z9 NR - Madam Mayor 3o MM - to make the decision, you also have to be looking at the risk factor which is sort of a 3i nebulous, difficult to quantify part, but it's true what Bill is saying. If the comparison shows sz that the public is significantly cheaper, taking into account the risk aspects, then that's it for 33 the privatized approach. You then have a myriad of choices in terms of whether you go back 34 under the 2660 a new 1996 law or design-build, then you've got a number of choices. I 3s wouldn't call it starting over, because there is plenty that we built on. 36 Bill White it's not exactly starting over. s~ NR - thank you. Do I have the floor? Since those two points have been clarified in this last 3s discussion, then I would feel much more comfortable if those were included as Whereas's in 39 this legislation. ao JH - I would too. Key to abbreviations. JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMary Stompe DK Councilmember David Ke/ler, PT-Councilmember PamelafTorliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire ~. ., . . .. ;iGe~J a".:. ., Page 216, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i NIZ - so everybody knows from here on in, this is what, this part Uf the resolution affecting 2 the Sonoma County Water Agency deals with, and if somebody Gould wordsmith it so we s could have it, I would greatly appreciate that. a Bill White Karen, am I correct in the statements that Matt and I have said here together? s Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - couldn't hear 6 Bill White I simply said I'm trying to put it in a fairly straight forward and simple matter is ~ that the purpose of the Water Agency's evaluation, ~they will take c~esign what we finalize on s the technical design, and they will price it out in the public environment, and at the same time 9 we are asking that the, staff will do that, staff/consultant will pric~ it out, and when that is ~o priced out, that will be the comparative, the public comparison to the private, ii I~aren Hedlund, attorney for city - Madam 1Vlayor, can I clarify? It's a little bit difficult to i2 talk about exactly what the Sonoma County Water Agency will do under this ~3 recommendation, since we know what they originally proposed that they would do, and I ia believe that the reason that they stated to us at one of the meetings that we had that what is they were proposing to do was to present an alternative, as opposed to the conventional i6 public financing, is because they wanted to, at least at some point ~hey had the concept they i~ would under this `96 Act be able to do design build, which is not conventional, and they ia would propose to enter into a long term service agreement, which is different from what you i9 would do, if you would build it yourself. So what they may come back to you with something Zo that would be useful for you for comparative purposes, but it will b~ an alternative, maybe an 2~ alternative that may not be exactly the same that your engineers and the consultants would Zz come up with in terms of trying to tell you what it would cost you short term and long term, z3 were you to do it yourself on the conventional design bid build scenario. za JH - so they may come back with an alternative? Zs MNi - Madam Mayor 26 Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - they may come back with an alternative that is somewhat z~ different from conventional design bid build. 2s JH - they're 29 Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - we don't know what they are going to come back with. so JH - does this resolution preclude them frorn coming back with what they want to come back 3 i with? 3z Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - I don't think so. 33 MN~ - no 34 DK - Madam Mayor ss MM - Madam Mayor 36 DK - going back to where I was originally, on the last paragraph, if we were to say, Be it 3~ Further Resolved by the City Council that the city shall also conduct its own independent sa evaluation, that gives the Sonoma County Water Agency the ability to come back with 39 basically a full comparative and to be taken as in satisfactory of Privatization Act requirement ao or if they don't, then they don't. At least they would be, it allows us by this resolution to a~ accept them as equals, if in fact they are line by line equals. a2 7H - if we say what? Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Cour~cilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember MattMaguire December 15, 1997 DK - if the word, "also" z JH - where Vo1.31, Page 217 s DK - on Line 6 page 3 at the end of the line, Shall "also" conduct its own independent a evaluation of the privatization project. s MM - Madam Mayor 6 PH - which is fine. ~ MM - again, I have to set the record straight, and Bill is standing up to say the same thing s Bill White there may have been some discussions with outside of the Committee 9 ~~ - io Bill White but the Committee's understanding i i MM - at the Committee level was that the Water Agency was going to provide the numbers i2 of the design agreed upon negotiated plan. And that was the numbers that they offered to us i3 for comparison for this precise required 85 Act compaxison. Now, once that comparison is ia done, they have said that they might propose an alternative plant design, but that was not the is numbers they have beeri offering to us for comparison purposes. i6 Bill White - that's my understanding also. i~ NR - Do I have the floor? Then what we need now is to have that clarified in this, and if it ia can't be wordsmithed tonight, right now, then somebody bring it back so we can approve a i9 resolution, because this is a crucial part to come back. Zo MM - Madam Mayor zi NR - and I'd like an attorney to look at it. zz NIM - Madam Mayor I think this has got all the words in it that's required. It says, Whereas z3 the local government Privatization Act of 85 requires the city to evaluate the privatization 2a project with a conventionally funded project and other alternatives to the project. It's right zs there, it's the first Whereas. That's exactly what, that's exactly what it says and that's what z6 we are discussing. a~ DK - that would come with the 3rd Whereas on page 2 as MM - that's right z9 JH - okay I'm ready to move. so *MS - I moved it 3 i MM - that was with what? 3z JH - "also"? 33 PH - with the "also" in there and the "should" 34 MM - did we want to strike the Whereas on line 10 page 2 as redundant? 3s JH - oh let's be redundant. 36 PH - let's leave it in. 3~ MM - all right. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire ;~ ~ Page 218, Vol. 31 i PH - just in case. Decem~er 15, 1997 ~ ~ *MS - I moved it but there wasn't a second. *MNI - I'll second it 3 a NR - are you still in discussion Madam Mayor, s PH - no, we voted. 6 NR - then would you call for discussion Madam Mayor ~ PH - no, we have already done it you're the only one who hasn't voted. s NR - then, I don't think it's clear, Madam Mayor, that's why I voted `no.' 9 ~50.97-3371VCS io ESTIMA'TEID COSTS FOR PU~LIC PROJECT AT,TE1tNATIVE SEWE12 PL'AN'I' ~~ Ayes: Keller, Stompe, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss Noes: Read iz i3 MM - I agree it's a little murky, but I think it's more murky on the side of redundancy than ~a NR - well, that's when we probably agree to disagree, thank you, l'vladam Mayor. is --------------------------------------------- i6 FARNKOPF ItEPORT Cont'd, to Januaa~v 5 i~ PH - Should we take the, there are quite a few here that would like to speak to this, should is we take them now? i9 NIM - Madam Mayor, why don't we go through Item 10 (Resolution authorizing ao incorporation of provisions into the wastewater privatization service agreement based on Zi recommendations in the Farnkopf Report) because I think all the discussion is going to be 22 on Item l OC (negotiation of one or both vendors). Zs PH - no it's l0A - 3 most of them za MM - all right zs PH - so let's - Mike Stark 26 Stark - Madam Mayor, before we begin, does somebody want to introduce the subject? 2~ PH -DK - cant understand all talking at once. zs PH - let's take care of .. 29 NINI - we are going to discuss the Farnkopf report recommendations. so MS - could we ask if any member of the public wants to speak about B? 3i PH - evidently not, they all said 3. 3z Audience - we don't have a 3 on our agenda. 33 PH - 34 JH - l0A 1 l0A 2 l0A 3. We already did l0A 1. Does anybody need to speak about 10A2? 3s PH - 10A2 anybody want to talk about? Key to abbreviations: JH-I~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- CounciJmember David Keller, PT-Cour~cilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire Decembec 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 219 i NIM - Madam Mayor on l0A 2 which listed as l OB on our actual staff report 2 PH - I know it, I know it. s MM - I just want to point out that this left direction that I thought was given in our study a session whereby the more frequent 2 year review of the true up of the indexes was going to s be incorporated. 6 PH - yes ~ 1VIlVI - does that match everybody's recollection? s PH - yes 9 DK - specifically, on that I had requested, and I thought there was consent to come back for io this evening prior to consideration on this, of the more detailed proposal on how that ii assessment and evaluation was going to be done, not just some of it, but also what the i2 evaluation criteria would be how we are going to get a handle on what the numbers are and is we don't have a report on that. ia Michael Ban if I could respond to Councilmember I~eller's question, as requested, Pat is Gallagher, did put together an outline and draft on how the urut cost reconciliation process i6 would be done. I FAXed that to John Farnkopf, and John and I with Pat have not had a i~ chance to review it with Pat, and we felt it would be more prudent for us to take a look at the ig draft before it came before the Council. That's why it's not here tonight. i9 DK - do you have an expectation when you might be able to be done with that? zo PT - whenever Pat can meet. 2i MM - Madam Mayor, maybe we should just continue this particular piece of it until we get Za that information, and then maybe this could even go on the consent calendar if there is not .. 23 DK - talked (but I couldn't understand because someone else was talkin~ Za PT - I have another question regarding this resolution on page 2 line 16, I'm going to read 2s the paragraph there because, Be it Further Resolved by the Petaluma City Council 26 converting from an indexed service fee to a cost plus service fee and utilization of a cost plus 2~ approach for the cost of renewals and replacements as recommended in the Farnkopf report Za would constitute a significant change from the draft wastewater privatization service 29 agreement, would erode the benefits of privatization, would eliminate the company's 3o incentive for efficient operation of a new treatment facility and, therefore, shall not be 3i incorporated into the wastewater privatization service agreement. My question is, when we sz receive the Sonoma County Water Agency and the city's independent evaluations and those 33 two are completed, is that going to be based on a cost plus methodology versus an index fee 34 service? Because that's what it seems like it would be, cost plus, and that's how you'd figure 3s out what it is. So I just want clarification on that. 36 Michael Ban - in doing the public evaluation, we will take the approach that if the city were 3~ to own it so it's not necessarily a straight cost plus approach, it would be similar to the way ' sa the treatment plant contract runs now. 39 PT - which is ~ ao Michael Ban it's not strictly a cost plus, the city does pay for all the maintenance. ai PT - so it would be cost only, plus running the facility, as what would be factored in. So az what I am getting at is that we would have an evaluation that it would be to just build the Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire Page 220, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i facility and run it versus trying to create a profit, as it would be in an indexed serviee fee type z of contract, I mean an indexed service fee type of contract, if you continued to just add on s the CPI can just add up moneywise versus if the city does its own approach, it's just what it a actually costs and there is no " CPI" increase, is that correct? ar do you understand my s question? 6 MM - are we comparing whole life cyele cost of the project or are we comparing capital ~ cost? s Michael Ban we will be comparing life cycle costs. 9 MM - so then does that include things like.. ' io Michael Ban there would be an escalation under the public cost for the increase in operations ~~ cost. i2 PT - and you're going to use a flat percentage for that percentage, or how are we going to is determine that? ia Tom Hargis I think that's going to be part of the staff/consultant role is to try to determine is what the most appropriate way to do that public comparison is. The city funds repairs, i6 breakdowns, the force majeure, earthquake, floods and those kind of things as well as the i~ cunent operations service contract, which has inflation aspects built into it. There are certain is multipliers, but the city assumes a major part of the risk with those things I just enumerated. i9 PT - so we'll be looking at a CPI increase for the operation and maintenance of the facility if Zo we contracted it out in our city's evaluation, and then the other component will be the capital 2~ cost plus the repairs or the capital repa~rs? 2z Tom Hargis we have to look at it over the life of the project, the life cycle that some of these a3 things are going to need repair or need replacement over that we're trying to estimate that aa PT - and we are doing that for the entire 30 year period? ~s Tom Hargis in order to have a fair comparison, I think going back to that other item, I think z6 the original concept was the city was going to do an evaluation, the Water Agency came z~ forward and there was some thinking that probably having two to look at in such a critical 2a element was probably the safer thing. Maybe it's overload with information, but it's the safe z9 way of doing it. 3o PT - thank you 3i DK - I would like this to come back and revise this resolution when it comes back s2 microphone didn't really pick up here ..resolution with the information we just requested. 33 It's going to be difficult to see how we can go ahead into negotiation absent clarifying how 34 this procedure is going to be done, unless it gets held for later negotiation. The proposed ss resolution, that's on the Farnkopf recommendations. 36 PT - specifically #3 3~ DK - we're going to hold that which means that negotiations would be held until this is 38 identified, clarified and approved. And, I, when it comes back just for stai~ s benefit, I would 39 strongly object to the inclusion of language about using cost based payments to the company, ao it would erode our benefits of the privatization it would eliminate the company's incentive for ai efficient operation for a new treatment facility. There is lots ~of experience elsewhere, a2 numerous utilities, that is absolutely contrary to that, and I don't think that statement should 43 be in there at all. Key to abbrevrations: JH-viee Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Couneilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Cour~cilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 221 i MS - Councilmember Keller, you are asking for us to hold negotiations? 2 DK - well, I'm not sure how we are going to proceed with full negotiations absent this s information on how they are going to get their service fees or calculated and readjusted. It a seems kind of difficult to be able to negotiate, if they don't know how their compensation is s based examined and adjusted. 6 Michael Ban if the Council would like to see the language before that's incorporated into the ~ negotiations, we need that direction. s DK - you bet, that's what I thought was came out of the combined meeting last week. 9 MS - if that's the request, then this absolutely has to be on the first agenda in January. io PT - so there is no way that.. I would like to move forward, because we need to move ii forward, and my understanding, and let me clarify on page 2 the resolution line 8 under iz specifying the unit cost reconciliation process, it states Section 5.52 of the agreement i3 specifies the procedure for the initial three year and thereafter five year amendments the ia economic adjustment mechanism of the service fee. This procedure needs further is clarification, therefore specific language and examples shall be added to the agreement which i6 specifically and precisely describe how the unit cost reconciliation process shall be conducted. i~ Now my question to Karen Hedlund is if we do not negotiate this aspect of it, is it worth is going into negotiations on any of the other items? i9 Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - I think that certainly by January 6 we will have language zo that will clarify this for you. It's a very technical issue. We're not talking about making a zi major change in the whole structure of the contracts by going to cost plus. If you were az selecting to do that as opposed to simply clarifying how the indices will escalate, if it is pure z3 cost plus, then I would say `yes.' Don't go into negotiations until you have made that za decision, but this is a relatively technical issue, and I think we can get ready to go into zs negotiations, I think, as we outlined last week. One of the things we'll do before we sit down z6 with them is we have to revise the documents, and that will take a couple of weeks. So that z~ you could, I think, that you could begin the process now to authorize negotiations tonight. 2s We can come back on January 6 and finalize this one section and proceed. I don't think that z9 this is going to make a huge difference in the outcome of the negotiations, certainly not early 30 on. 3i PT - can we pass this resolution except 3z soinebody - mmmm-mmm 33 PT - because it specifically states here that it needs further clarification, and maybe we add on ~ sa to the bottom of this that we are going to be reconsidering, we are gomg to consider it at the ss January 6 meeting and that's when we are going to provide clarification. 36 DK - it seems there is no point in passing the resolution unless we have this clarified. Those 3~ are very specific and to me very important deternvnations how the bidders will be billed, how ss they will be able to increase their fees, and what kind of checks and balances this body or the 39 PPUC is going to have on that. I don't see any point in passing this resolution until we have ao that clarified and nailed down by this body. ai NIM - I think you ought to, Councilman Keller has a good point, and it would be most a2 prudent to do it that way. However, I personally am willing on the next item to move ahead 43 on the contract negotiations and the contract negotiation team and have this come back at the aa first meeting, so we can nail this down and not let it be hanging out there as we start to go as into negations because we are not going to get into negotiations that part of January anyway. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire ~ , 5~N.3 . . , . ~~ t~ . Page 222, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i DK - I would consent to that. z NI1VI - do we need a motion to continue this? s PH - I think we can just continue it. 4 ---°-------------------------------------°-- s IDISC~JSSION 01~1 N~GOTIATIONS 6 Michael ~an - the next item on the agenda is the request from staf£ that the City Council ~ provide direction to staflE regarding the negotiation phase of the wastewater treatment s facility's project. Back on September 29, the Council passed a motion to enter into 9 simultaneous contract negotiations with Montgomery United Water and U. S. Filter/EOS. io The Committee's recommendations were provided to the Council ir~ a memo dated December ii 3 and which were discussed with the Council at the Joint Study Session on December 8. i2 Included was the Committee's reiteration of their original recommendation that Montgomery i3 United Water be selected for sole contract negotiations. ia The Committee also provided a list of issues to be negotiated with Montgomery United is Water, and also a recommended negotiating team that included Attorney Karen Hedlund, i6 Financial Consultant Pat Gallagher, and myself as the corps negotiating team; and they i~ recommended that we be supported by City Engineer Tom Hargis, City Finance Director is David Spilman, Senior Planner Jennifer Barrett and Consulting Engineer Bill Faisst, and that ~9 the city retain John Farnkopf as special consultant to the negotiating team. In accordance zo with the council's direction, staff prepared~ a list of contract negotiation issues for zi Montgomery LTnited Water and U. S. Filter/EOS. This list was provided to the Council in a 22 December 8 staff report. z3 Negotiateon Options - The options available to the Council for th~ negotiation phase of the za wastewater facility project are (a) direct staff to negotiate with U. S. Filter/EOS, as shown Zs up here on the slide, (b) direct staff to begin contract negotiations with Montgomery IJnited 26 Water, (c) direct staff to begin simultaneous contract negotiations or option four (d) direct a~ staff not to negotiate with either 1Vlontgomery tJnited Water or iJ. S. Filter/EOS, but to begin zs an alternative procurement process. z9 ~'iene I.ines - 3o Single Vendor - With respect to the time lines for the first three options, we estimate that for si negotiating vvith a single vendor, either vendor, that staff would be able to bring back a sz negotiated contract and price and the results of the public project evaluation by 33 approximately early April to the Council. That's if the negotiations with a single vendor 3a reach a successful conclusion. ss Serial Negotiations - If we enter into a serial negotiation whereby the negotiations with the ~6 first team do not reach a successful conclusion it~ is estimated that that would add 3~ approximately 2 months to the time frame before staff would be able to bring back a sa negotiated contract and price and the results of the public project evaluation. 39 Simultaneous Negotiations - With respect to simultaneous negotiations, we estimate that staff ao will be able to bring back the negotiated contract and price for both proposals and the results ai of the public project evaluation for both proposals in approximately mid-May of next year. az Once the council provides direction on the negotiation phase of this project, staff will prepare 43 a resolution for Council adoption at the next available council meeting, and then proceed with Key to abbreviations: .TH-i~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Cou~rcilmemberMary Stompe DK- Counci/member David Keller, PT-Couracilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo131, Page 223 i contract negotiations. With that I would be happy to answer any questions the Council may ~ have. 3 MS - could you just quickly review the evaluation methodology as far as percentage weights a that were assigned? s MM - while he is doing that, Tom, is Ivlike just saying for the single vendor negotiation Just ; 6 subtract two months from all the time line that was presented in the staff report? ~ Tom Hargis I think he was adding two months, and I think you were subtracting a month and s a half for single vendor. 9 Michael Ban - it was early April for single vendor, mid-May for simultaneous contract io negotiations and appro~mately mid June for serial negotiations. All those time frames are i i dependent on how fruitful the negotiations are. iz Somebody said, say that again for me. i3 MM - maybe just run through the list and give us the dates with a single vendor negotiation. ia Michael Ban what we tried to do is come out with a similar bench mark for each option. is That benchmark being the time when staff would be prepared to bring for Council i6 consideration the negotiated contract and price for whichever proposal the Council selects i~ and the results of the public project evaluation. If we negotiate with a single vendor, it is is estimated that staff would be prepared to bring those items back in early April. If iv negotiations with a single vendor, the first vendor, do not reach successful conclusion, and zo we enter into a serial negotiations situation, we estimate that we'd reach that benchmark in Zi mid-June. Zz NIM - I called Gene Beatty last week, Sunday night rather, to ask if we could get a time 23 similar to this. Council you just run through these one at a time and give us what single za vendor and if that doesn't work would and skip the if that doesn't work portion and just give 2s us what a single vendor time line step by step would be. Can you do that or do you have to 26 get back to us. z~ Michael Ban I would have to get back to you. zs PT - isn't that, I'm sorry I don't want keep hammering away at this, but I thought that's one z9 of the things we asked for at the meeting last Nlonday. Have we just not had time to get to so it? 3i Tom Hargis - in defense of Mike, he was able to put the schedule together and some of it is sz because we had been working on this concept simultaneous negotiations, and since Monday, 33 it's hard to get all that put together that's why we can give it to you verbally on time, we 34 didn't have time to put together as far as actual dates and that's why I was saying cutting it ss by a month and a half or extending it by a couple of months. 36 PT - and I guess one of my frustrations is, and I like I said, I don't want to keep beating on 3~ the drum, I don't know why three and a half months to negotiate something like this. I really , ss don't. I just need some more clarification on that, because if you sit down for a week or two 39 weeks and you just hammer this thing out we can move on with it. It's so frustrating, and ao I'm sure it's fiustrating for staff, as well to just keep putting things and we put item B off ai until 7anuary 6 now, and that just prolongs the process. I want to stick to the timeline, and I a2 want to go to 43 Gene - Madam 1Vlayor Key to abbreviations: JH-vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire '~.; }i i;~;y~: Page 224, Vol. 31 i MS - Madam Mayor 2 PH - yes December.l5, 1997 3 Gene Beatty, City Manager - for clarification the reason it takes so long is because it's not a the only item on their plate. If the only thing they had to do was sit their for 8 hours a day s and negotiate, it could be done a lot sooner, but that's not the case. I think they are trying to 6 give you reasonable time lines that are reasonably attainable. T'hat's why they are a little ~ longer than perhaps you are desiring to see. From my point of view, there are numerous s items they are dealing with simultaneously beyond this issue. VVe just have to deal with 9 everything we have to deal with. io MS - can we get my question answered? ii Evaluation ~ercentages per Iteso, 96-339 liTCS - Michael Ban the question from i2 Councilmember Stompe was on the percentage for the performance criteria for the evaluation is methodology. What I am reading from is the September 8 staff report and this is the ~a Resolution 96-339 NCS approving the detailed proposal ~valuation and selection is methodology. For the 5 performance criteria, technical approach was given a 30% i6 weighting, financing approach a 10% weighting, financial capabilities a 15% weighting, i~ company staff qualifications 25%, and agreement terms 20%. is MM - one of the things that isn't specifically in the staff report, but we need to discuss at this i9 level, is who is on the actual negotiating team? so J~i - that is what I was going to bring up, because that's important. We're talking about how 2i long it is going to take. I'm assuming our negotiating team is largely made up of consultants zz who are paid negotiators. And so, that, we should be able to clear time for, depending on the as staff, I wish Gene were still in the room, because the time, I think is, I just want to hear Za more about that. But let's talk about who it will be. zs 1VINI -~ve had some discussion, not a lot at the Committee level but in my own ruriunations 26 on this since last Monday, I think we should still stick with Pat Gallagher and Karen 2~ Hedlund, but I'd like to have sitting on the team directly some senior staff, that should maybe Zs be Finance Director David Spilman,. City Attorney Rich Rudnansky, City Engineer Tom 29 ~Iargis. I think I would feel potentially, yeah I know that takes up a lot of our city resources so right there, but this is a very important. You know it's the single ~nost expensive thing that 3i we are going to be we have dealt with in the history of this city, and it's likely to be the most 3z expensive for decades to come. And, Mike Ban, should still be there, too, because he's got 33 the hands on experience. But I think seruor staff also needs to be ~there as the ones who are 34 ultimately directly responsible for the outcome of this. 3s JH - they've got to live with it. 36 M1~Y - put you guys right on the hot seat, and I think having our city attorney there is would s~ be helpful as well. 3s PT - I want, depending on who it is, I want to dedicate the time, I want whoever is going to 39 be sitting on the negotiating team to say we are going to sit here and we are going to hammer ao this thing out in the least amount of time as possible, and I this is a top priority, this is ai Number One priority, as far as I am concerned, because we need to move on with this, aa because the longer we wait, the more it costs everybody. 43 Rich Rudnansky, City ~ttorney -I would suggest, based on what I've seen how this has been aa going, that from time to time different expertise is necessary, whether it be David or myself as or engineering, and perhaps it would be best if we left the decision as to the consultants to Key to abbreviations: JH-I~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patrieia Hilligoss, MS Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Couracilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 225 i say okay Rich you be at the meeting on Tuesday, David on Wednesday, and leave that up to 2 the consultants. 3 MM = I'm not going to let you weasel out of it that easy, Rich, a Rich Rudnansky, City Attorney - I think there are reasons to do it that way. s M1VI - yes, but there are also reasons, to do it, to have you there all the way through and that 6 is that the negotiations are going to be intense and complex. We've gone a long time this is ~ the culmination of five or six years effort here, and I think in the negotiations you're gong to a have a much better feel if you are there from day one until the final day. And I know that's I 9 know it's a burden on every person that's going to be on that team, but I think it's critically io important that we have that continuity. That continuity is going to be very important ii Rich Rudnansky, City Attorney - believe me I'm not talking about the burden or the time it's i2 going to take, it just seems it might be more efficient and a better utilization of staff, if the i3 consultants made that call. Certainly we are around all the time so we could be there in a ~ ia minutes notice, maybe an hour. is MM - g would feel more comfortable if the City Council made the call, because the ~6 consultants work for us, I don't want us to have the consultants, you know, then direct senior i~ staff in these critical negotiations. I think that's something we, as really the really ultimately is responsible body, I want us to have direct connection there. i9 DK - I think it is imperative that we have an e~ctremely strong team negotiating, and I hate, zo at some level, I hate having this discussion. It is one of the pitfalls of government. You know Zi we are sitting here talking about negotiating a multimillion dollar contract and what our team 22 should be and what our strategy should be, and here are the vendors sitting here taking Zs copious notes. That's a very parado~cal situation to be in, and I hope the public understands za the difficulty of it and the awkwardness of it. And, in that context, time is not that critical a Zs pressure for me, a good job is critical. I don't want a repeat of the Marina contract, of an 26 MOU with `Vaste Ivlanagement or for that matter an auto mall sign contract. I want us, if a~ there re times for strategic gathering together where our team is to back off and spend a 2s week or two going through the implications of what has been laid on the table, they need to Zs have time to do that and not feel they are under the gun to rush back to the table with so something that hasn't been researched or properly thought through. I, frankly want, am si looking for a hard ass team on our part. We have consultants for the potential vendors who s2 are being paid hundreds of dollars an hour. They do this stuff frequently; they know how to 33 win; they know what the bottom line is. We have no access to that information. They have 34 full access to everything that has been made public in tlus Agency, and I think whatever 3s advantage we can give our team to negotiate, to negotiate as far as they can to come up with 36 an agreement that suits the ratepayers and the needs of the wastewater system, that would be s~ my charge to them. And if it takes an extra month to do that, we've got 40 or 50 years to live 3s with the results, and that's fine with me. And I think that the concept of having David 39 Spilman, Tom I~argis and Rich Rudnansky as primary responsibility for the city with other ao staff as needed, I like that. As Department Heads it kind of puts some of the responsibility in ai your hands as opposed to lower level staff who don't have who aren't in that position of a2 responsibility, and I think it's important to make it clear that you guys, which we trust you as will do, but to make it clear in an organizational fashion that you're expected to push hard. ~a MS - I'd like to weigh in on this issue. I definitely think seruor staff should be an integral part as of the team; however, I don't think they need to be there for all negotiations. I'm willing to 46 drive the cost of this up in order to do that. I'd like the process to proceed to continue to a~ proceed and am not willing to wait several months I don't think we need to I think once we Key to abbreviations: .1H-i~ice Mayor Jane Ilamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH:A~ayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire 4E~i~, •,SMI,r. Y_ , ~ ~ - ~ - . 4~~~~,~. ~16, ~.N Page 226, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i start negotiations, but as far as this being the top priority of staff, I think as a 2 Councilmember who sits up here every week and hear well Why didn't staff get this? Why s didn't they get us this? Yeah, it's a11 top priority so.. a JH - this is this week's top priority s MS - exactly, so, I mean, as a Council we need to be a little more sensitive to some of the 6 requests that are going to staff on a regular basis, and if I think all the Council feels this ~ should be a priority then we need to pull back a little bit on some of the other requests. s NR - I'd like to see a decision made on this tonight and I know that there's people who 9 you've got cards to speak and I'd like to find out if it wo.uld be ap~ropriate for those people io to speak tonight, yet do whatever we need to have so that there can be a decision made on ii this before we all adjourn this evening. i2 PH - okay, Mike Stark i3 Mike Stark - I think the subject has been introduced. ia MM - can you give us a minute to read this? is PH - minute? i6 Mike Stark, U. S. Filter/EOS - I certainly can. Madam Mayor, Members of the City i~ Council, Ladies and (pentlemen, you may remember my name is :Mike Stark and I am the is Vice President and General Nlanager of U. S. Filter Operating Services. I appreciate the i9 opporturuty to appear before you and I'm going to take that oppor~uruty to read my remarks ~o into the record so that there's no mistake about the intent of our comments. Zi We appear before you as we have many times before in the 18 years we have operated your 22 wastewater treatment p1anY, whether it was myself, Chris McAuliffe - Plant 1Vlanager, or 23 Chibby Alloway - the head of our Western Regional Office. As a partner with the city, we Za have demonstrated the history of service to the commuruty. We've worked hard to malce ss environmental protection our top priority. We've operated the existing plant compliantly and 26 safely. We have a proven record of performance. 'The history of local performance reflects 2~ our strong national and international record, as well. as In July of 1996, the Council issued a request for proposals to build a new wastewater z9 treatment plant along with a description of the criteria by which the proposals would be 3o evaluated and a system for weighting the components of that evaluation. A year ago, believe 3i it or not, tomorrow the Citizens Committee recommended an eval~nation methodology which 32 was adopted by unanimous vote of this Council and is included in Resolution 96-339 NCS. 33 This is included as Exhibit A in the packets we have provided to the Council this evening. 34 Please don't be alarmed by the size of the packet. I didn't mean for it to scare you. We just ss wanted to make sure you had all the information your staff an~ independent consultants 36 provided during the course of this evaluation process and could read it for yourself instead of 3~ just taking my word for it. The methodology in Resolution 96-339 NCS specifically states 3s that "if the same proposal is ranked first in both non price and price rankings," tliose are the 39 rankings applied by your staff and consultants and only such proposal will be recommended ao for contract negotiations unless a decision is made to reject all proposals. a~ In the packets we have provided, we've included both your own methodology and the staff az and independent consultant rankings. That's Kesolution 96-339 that's Exhibit A and the staflF 43 and consultant rankings are Exhibit B. Key to abbreviations: JH.-I~ice Mayor Jane Hamiltort, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PatrieiaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Courecilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 227 i l encourage you to review those documents for yourself. Independently, your consultants z and internal staff conducted an exhaustive and thorough review of the two proposals. They 3 followed the rules that were outlined in your own methodology and took 18 pages to a describe and explain. The whole purpose behind this elaborate process is to ensure a fair and s impartial analysis, and to take the granting of such an important and costly contract out of the s realm of back room bargaining and sweetheart deals. At the end of this process, U. S, ! ~ Filter/EOS ranked #1 in both technical and pricing categories by a substantial margin. Those g rankings were not even close in either the staff of consultant reports. We ranked a ; 9 cumulative score of 800 point to Montgomery's 687. In the section dealing specifically with io the technical approach, we ranked 265 to Montgomery's 202. Specifically, Mike Ban ranked ii us technically at 279 to Montgomery's 204. While Jennifer Barrett ranked us 289 to iz Montgomery's 172. I am comfortable in saying this is a solid vote of confidence by your is staff and independent consultants. And I contend that these rankings are nothing to toss off ia lightly. They were done at the cost of the City and of the taxpayers of nearly $1.8 Million. is Now, if I may, let me remind you again your own methodology that's required under the i6 privatization law and ratified by you specifically states that the City will select for i~ negotiations the firm which is ranked first in technical and price by its staff will refuse to is negotiate with all firms. This methodology is typical and makes sense and the fairness of it is i9 obvious. That's why it's used all over the country. Any reasonable person making a decision zo like this would naturally favor the firm that gives them the best product at the lowest price. zi And I can say that in my 30 years of municipal business, I have never once seen the firm who z~ was ranked best both technically and in pricing not chosen to enter into negotiations. A zs move to negotiate solely with the second firm would be an unprecedented move and I have to za ask is this council prepared to disregard the work of your experienced, trained professionals 2s and independent consultants and the $1.8 Million investment the City has made in their work, ~6 I'd hope not. From a strictly legal standpoint, we could have taken the position that in z~ accordance with your own methodology, you are indeed required to choose U. S. Filter/EOS za for contract negotiations, that's the firm ranking first in both categories. As you know we ~9 have not taken that position and when the decision was made by you in September to enter so into dual negotiations I personally responded for U. S. k'ilter/EOS very enthusiastically; 3i whereas, our competitors reserved their agreement. I took that position then because I was 3z confident that our firm is the only one who can meet the city's technical needs, in addition to 33 offering the lowest price that the greatest corporate resources. During the course of 3a negotiations I arn confident of U. S. Filter/EOS's ability to meet any competrtor and give the ss citizens of Petaluma and the Council thaf represents them the best quality, safest and most 36 reliable and plant producing the highest quality water at the very lowest price and with the ~ 3~ willingness to provide the value added concepts expressed in the Farnkopf report. As a result ss I ask that you will honor the commitment you made to the public on September 29 and enter 39 into co negations with both firms immediately. ao There are three reasons I have heard tossed around as a justification for overturning the ai September 29 decision and I'd like to address them now. First , I've heard that co- az negotiating is too complicated and too time consuming. I just want to say that argument is 43 not at all accurate. Co-negotiation is the way many privatization's are going these days a11 aa over this country. In Buffalo, New York, just recently, co-negotiation was completed in six as weeks. In the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, they took two months. City Councils and 46 professional staff have come to realize that they are inherently more efficient with the two a~ vendors exerting pressure on one another which moves the process quickly, with ma~cimum as gain for the municipality. The sentiment was echoed by your own consultant Karen Hedlund. 49 And, I would ask that you refer to Exhibit C which is the green e~chibit, the staff report of Key to abbreviations: JH-vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PaMiciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire ,~,1'i :s~ `d~ ti. Page 228, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i December 8, 1997, to last week's staff report where your own city staff presented you with a z concise six page criteria for dual negotiations. And, I can make a prorrvse to you tonight, if s we are chosen for dual negotiations, we will devote our total time, attention and energy to a achieving a negotiated solution within 30 days from start of the negotiation process. s Secondly, I have heard that some think that there is no inherent advantage to the City in dual 6 negotiations. Excuse me, but this is just bunk. Because of the way you have deviated from ~ your own methodology the only way not achieve the cheapest and the best deal for the rate a payers and citizens of Petaluma is to enter into negotiations with both firms. It's not 9 surprising to me that our competitors and their die hard supporters fear co-negotiations. io Everyone knows that our price was lower to begin with and with the alterations being ii dictated by staff and the Committee recommendations our price is still lower now. I am here iz to tell you tonight that we are not talking about nickels and dimes, we're talking about the is difference between the two firms being millions of dollars. ia Thirdly, we were accused of not bringing forward any new or creative concepts over the last ~s few weeks. Well, that's true. Why, because we had won th~ process based on your i6 methodology and still agreed to co-negotiate. We have honored your request to be silent on i~ the matter until negotiations began. And we have been silent. Please don't analyze the ia ta~cpayers or U. S. Filter/EOS for following those rules or requests. i9 Einally, I'd like to close by addressing the issue of releasing the pricing information that has zo been such a bone of contention. I am so confident of our firm's price and the inherent value Zi of our proposal that I am prepared to announce our price right here tonight. At the Council's ~z request in any form you wish. I have the price in my hand now. Why am I willing to do that, zs because I want to eliminate and claims after the inevitable release of our competitors price Za that we had lowered our price after the fact. This offer is evidence of our faith in our Zs company, our product, and the competitiveness of our price. We know that Montgomery z6 cannot match our price. And if they should, you may see even fiirther reductions. Now I z~ know what you are thinking, you're looking at me and you're wondering how can they afford zs to do that? We can do this because we have 18 years of experiemce in Petaluma. Because z9 many of us call Petaluma home, and because ~J. S. FilterlEOS is the largest and wastewater 3o company in the world. And we have the resources internally to deliver the cost benefits and 3i efficiency of a one stop shop operation. These are advantages our competitor simply cannot 3z match. But the advantages the City Council can afford to withhold from the ratepayers and 33 the voters of the city, the only way for the city and the taxpayers to take advantage of the 34 best technical, environmental and cost effective product is to begin negotiation with U. S. 3s Filter/EOS immediately. Once this process is underway, we are c~nfident that you will see 36 that what we say is true. U. S. Filter/EOS product is not only technically superior, but is 3~ available at dramatically low cost to the city and its ratepayers. Agaig thank you for the 3s opportunity to address you tonight. I look forward to continuing our long and mutually 39 beneficial relationship and I am prepared to follow you direction regarding our offer to ao release our price torught or at a later prescribed date. Thank you for your attention. ai NR - a question for Mr. Stark. Now that you have in your hand in an envelope the price, is a2 this, I just need to ask you the question, may I ask the question, is this a price that has been 43 adjusted since your initial proposal in May that includes your different funding proposal the aa write the check approach. as Mike Stark - the price includes no technical changes to the proposal. It does include 46 guaranteed interest rate that we are prepared to stand behind. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 229 i NR - and that guaranteed interest rate is given because it's a new way then from the May z method of your financing. s Mike Stark - we had a lower price in the original offering and we believe we have a still a lower price and what we are aslcing is the opportunity to sit in co-negotiations and s demonstrate that to the city. ~ 6 NR - and then the last question is that a life cycle cost price that you have there or is it only ~ for construction. s Mike Stark - it includes construction costs and a life cycle cost so that you can make the 9 appropriate comparisons. io NR - are these in two separate .. i i Mike Stark - according to your Exhibit N i2 NR - the construction cost and then the life cycle cost. Is anything else included in there i3 besides those two numbers? ia Mike Stark - we thought that would occur at negotiation if there would be any changes to is that. i6 NR - it's 49rs game tickets. i~ 1Vlike Stark - if there are tickets to the Raiders, they are from A1 Davis not U. S. Filter/EOS is NIM - Mr. Stark, what's the configuration that that price represents? What plant design? iv Mike Stark - the plant design that we submitted in our original proposal. Zo MM - and if we were to negotiate a different plant design, would that affect the price? Zi Mike Stark - that probably could lower it. 22 MIVi - so that price in the envelope doesn't really represent 23 Mike Stark - with all. Za MNi - a final number of something that we've come to. Zs Mike Stark - with all due respect, Councilman Maguire, I don't know what you are so afraid 26 of with co-negotiations. What we've demonstrated all along is that we can generate the 2~ lowest price, and what we are saying is and based on your own methodology that we had zs won according to the methodology, and now if you give us a chance to negotiate, we will 29 have the lowest price with the best technology. so MM - Mr. Stark I don't doubt that, but I don't think that you would give us the best value in si the deal, personally speaking, and that's why I made the recommendation. s2 Mike Stark - I think that's a personal opinion, sir. 33 MM - I just want you to know that I don't have a fear of dual negotiations, what I am 34 looking is to proceed in the process that serves the public best and that is the ss recommendation that the Committee made and that's the one I stand by. In fact, you know 36 just to point out it's not true what you say about the we are required to choose U. S. 3~ Filter/EOS. Now the City Council is not and if you. 3s Mike Stark - I didn't say you were required. I said that you were required to choose or 39 negotiate with nobody. Key to abbreviations: JH-i~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire ..:~.f ~~~~ ~~. .~. ,. ~~~~~" .t . . .`h.. . .. Page 230, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i MNI - that's not correct. And in fact, the fact that you could make that statement says to me z you have a pretty serious misunderstanding of the process that we have laid out to date and 3 gone over innumerable times. Because this City Council is not beholden to that. The City a staff was required to make a recommendation based on the weighted criteria and they did so. s But the City Council has retained the right very clearly, so, and it's been reiterated, you 6 know, in the infinite number of times, that it is our decision based om what we think is best. ~ Mike Stark - Councilman 1Vlaguire with all due respect, again, wh~t we are asking for is co- s negotiations and what we are asking for you to do is follow your methodology, and I have 9 understood your position for many, many weeks now, and I don't think it's appropriate for io us to get into a debate about that here when the Council is considering single or co- ii negotiations. But I'd be glad to discuss the issue with you at any time you like. Thank you. ~2 PT - Madam Mayor i3 JH - Madam Mayor d think it is appropriate for us to hear from Karen Hedlund regarding ia what Mr. Stark is implying, basically, is implying that we are obligated to co-negotiations. is Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - the methodology makes it clear that the ultimate decision i6 is still within the discretion of the City Council. The language of the evaluation methodology i~ in 4.2.2 states, it's a long sentence, you have to break it apart, but it says, one or more is proposals will be selected for the purpose of contract negotiations (selected is what you do) i9 after review and comment by the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee and the staff zo Evaluation Committee's recommendations, and after approval by the city Council) based on 2i the city's deternunation in its sole and exclusive discretion of the most advantageous 22 combination of non-price and price considerations. So that is what you have to do, make a zs deternunation of the most advantageous combination of non-price and price considerations. ~a The ne~ sentence then says, if the same proposal is ranked first in both the non-price and Zs price rankings then only such proposal will be recommended by the staff Evaluation 26 Committee for contract negotiations unless a decision is made to recommend the rejection of z~ all proposals. So the provision, with respect to ranking first by both non-price and price Za ranking, that binds what the staff can recommend to you. Xou still have to exercise, 29 obviously, your own discretion and your own judgment based on the analysis of staff and so Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee and your own study and evaluation has brought to s i bear on it. 32 JH - thank you 33 DK - Madam Mayor the next sentence 34 Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - the lower ranked proposal will be considered for contract 3s negotiations only after negotiating with the first rank proposer cmncluded in the eity's sole 36 discretion and without reaching agreement on final contract terms. If no single proposer is 3~ ranked first on both non-price criterion and price criterion then eithei one or more than one ss proposer may be recommended for negotiations. There is another section that I think needs 39 to be read together with tlus and is Section 5.1 which talks about upon adoption by the City ao Council of a resolution accepting or modifying the recommendations of SEC and after ai comment by Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee, the City Manager shall appoint a aa contract negotiating team, et cetera. So I think that it is our view that the evaluation a3 methodology does preserve for the City Council the discretion to make its own decision. aa You're not sitting up there acting simply as a rubber stamp on what the city staff had as recommended to you. You can modify if you disagree with the staff evaluation you can 46 modify that and come to your conclusion. Key to abbreviations: JH-IJiee Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-CouneilmemberMary Stompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Cou~zcilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 231 i PT - It begs the question of one of the items that we have been dealing with from Day One is a the price information. And so we're put into, Karen, this question is going to be for you. It 3 puts us in the situation where we haven't seen the price information, so do we want to release a the price information, because I don't think it's good from a negotiating standpoint, but this s is, my opinion, puts us in a position where we almost have to see the price mformation in 6 order to forward. ~ Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - certainly you don't if you decide to go joint negotiations. s PT - But if we want to get with a single vendor. 9 Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - if you want to go with a single vendor, one of the things io you need to take into account, since this is a recommendation from Citizens Wastewater ii Advisory Committee, is what their recommendation on price negotiations is. And that was ia specifically that the negotiator should be directed to try to negotiate with Montgomery a i3 price that meets or beats the price that was offered by EOS. That was the basis of their ia recommendation on price. I don't believe that Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee was is simply ignoring the price consideration, and it was their way of dealing with it, and you could i6 choose to deal with it that way as well but. i~ P'T - so that's a way around the price/non-price criteria? ig Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - I think that's a way that you can deal with that issue and i9 then go forward with essentially serial negotiations, if that was the way that you wanted to Zo approach it. Zi Will L,yles, Kaweah Construction - I have a letter to read into the record. Based on the past n discussion, I am going to skip a couple paragraphs of it. My name is Will Lyles. I'm from 2s Fresno, California. I am President of Kaweah Construction Company. We have been a za member of the U. S. Filter/EOS team since the issuance of the RFQ's 8 years ago. My name 2s appears on our team's original statement of qualifications. I have attended numerous z6 Citizens VVastewater Advisory Committee and Council meetings. Kaweah is primarily a z~ public works contractor. In all my years of public works contracting construction, I have Za never witnessed a public agency award a project to a second place bidder, when the low 29 bidder was determined to be both responsive and responsible. Tonight you're considering 3o entering into sole source negotiations with Montgomery United Water, the second place si bidder. A decision to enter into sole source negotiations with Montgomery United Water 32 will result in higher fees for the rate payer, and in my opiruon it will violate your City Council 33 resolution 339. Resolution 339, skipping two paragraphs, states one of your objectives to be 3a a process which is unbiased, fair and defensible. How can you state that your process is 3s unbiased, fair and defensible, if you do not follow your own process? Procurements based on 36 Procurement Law should not even have the appearance of an impropriety. A decision of sole s~ source negotiating with Nlontgomery United Water raised significant questions with regard to sa improprieties. The members of Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee have done a 39 tremendous service to your community. They have led the charge through a very difficult ao process. The end of the result of this process will be much lower rates than there would have ai been if obtained through a conventional public model. The members of the Citizens a2 Wastewater Advisory Committee deserve the significant appreciation of the community. The as current problem, in my opinion, is that Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee has aa overstepped its authority per the Council's stated and approved methodology. As directed by as you, the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee does not have a role in determining which a6 vendor you should negotiate with. Nor does the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee a~ have the expertise to make the recommendations. Paragraph 2.1 states that the role of the Key to abbreviations: JH-i~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilrnember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Mnguire Page 232, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i methodology that the role of Citizens Wastewater Advisory Corrunittee is to review and 2 comment on the staff recommendations. It is not the role of Citizens Wastewater Advisory 3 Committee to make the recommendations. The role of scoring the two proposals is assigned a to staff, which, along with the consultants, thoroughly placed U. S. Filter/EOS superior to s Montgomery United Water. It is the staf~s scores which are intended to form the basis of 6 vendor selection. It's the staf~s scores which significantly favored U. S. Filter/EOS which ~ have been released to the public. Conversely, the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee a scoring has never been released to the public. Vendor selection is covered by Paragraph 9 4.2.2 of the resolution. The resolution states that a lower ranked proposal, Montgomery io United Water, would be considered for contract negotiations only after negotiations with ii such first rank proposer U. S. Filter/EOS are concluded. The Council should be aware, per iz comments of Karen Hedlund, that it will be precluded from adopting significant portions of i3 the Farnkopf recommendations, if it adopts sole source negotiations with Montgomery ia United Water. The only decision which the city should make, which complies with the is Council's stated objectives and process, is to negotiate with U. S. ]Filter/EOS. A decision to i6 negotiate with U. S. Filter/EOS is not only the correct decision, it is the decision which will i~ result in the lowest rates for tlie rate payers. Thank you. is PH - any questions? Bill Toci. i9 Bill Toci - it's Toe'sey, Madam Mayor, Councilmembers, thank you for the opportunity to ao speak. I am the Operations Supervisor at the current wastewater treatment facility for the Zi City of Petaluma, and pretty much everything that I was going to discuss tonight has already Zz been mentioned. One of the things that hasn't been brought up is the rate issue, and I am 23 kind of vague about how that's going to happen. Is that going to happen all at once? After a 2a decision is made, or is that going to happen in increments so that people who have a hard zs time meeting a monthly budget they are on fixed incomes? Will they see a monstrous bill 26 show up all of it added, or will this happen in increments that is something they could plan 2~ out and possibly get assistance on such as PG&E has rate payer ass~stance programs 2s available? And bemg that mostly everything I was going to say was covered already by z9 previous speakers, the other comment I want to make is that LT. S.. Filter/EOS is operating in 3o the facility right now. IJnlike some Councilmembers keep referring to Waste Management 3i being involved with the operation of the facility or involved with negotiations process right s2 now, that's not true, and it is U. S. Filter in negotiations with the city for the contract. 33 PT - can we have staff respond to the gentleman's question regarding the rate increases, 3a because I think we do have a plan here. 3s David Spilman - 1Vlayor and Members of the City Council, it's always been the intention of 36 staff and in the past City Council has acted on raising rates over a number of years, and it 37 would be anticipated that the rates would start to rise once the numbers were really known 3s over a several year period so that we could eliminate rate shock. A1so, I have discussed with 39 the Council before, we will be looking at adjusting the utility billing program to provide for ao variable rates as opposed to flat rates that we currently have for our residential users. Those ai variable rates could be based on the winter usage of water and thus people who use greater az amounts of water and thus create greater amounts of sewage and impact the sewer plant will a3 pay a higher fee or a higher amount than those people on fixed ineome or on that are aa generally single people. As for PG&E Y;ifeline types of rates, unfortunately Proposition 218, as which was passed by the voters last November, limits the City Council's ability to subsidize 46 different classes of rate payers because of either classifications or income. Those issues are a~ still being discussed in the State I,egislature and the Courts. Probably by the time we get to aa that point we will be able to have some guidance from that. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PatriciaFlilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 233 i PT - David, but don't we have a budget that we are following for fixed rate increase now in a order to start so we avoid the shock of having our rates increased? We adopted an increase, 3 I believe last January, of 5%. a David Spilman - last year we adopted an increase recommended in the this fiscal year's s budget. There is also an additional increase of about, I believe it's about, 5%, which I'll be 6 coming back to the City Council in the early winter on. We haven't adopted any future ~ increases. We provided to the Council projections of future increases just to give all of us the s Council and the public an indication where the rates are going. But, we have not asked the 9 Council to specifically adopt those rates. 1'rimarily, because we didn't really know where the io costs were actually going and how the costs were going to be structured. We'll be able to i i come back to the Council. I anticipate probably a year from now and, again, depending on i2 what is allowed under State Law, there may be a recommendation to go to multiple year i3 types of rates so that everybody's sure of what the rates will be in the future. ia PT - did that answer your question? is Bill Toci yes, it did i6 PH - Fred Zurth the Twin Creeks that's been postponed to continued to January 5, the neact i~ meeting. is PH - Dick Watson i9 Dick Watson - Thank you, Madam Mayor City Councilmembers, my name is Dick Watson. zo I'm a Vice President of the W. Lyles Company, we are sister companies with the Kaweah ai Construction and together we work for a parent orgaruzation who has been on the z2 Engineering News Record's Top 400 Contractors in the LJnited States on three different 23 occasions. I bring to the table over 30 years of experience building, bidding, managing ~a construction projects in excess of $300 Million. Will Lyles asked me to talk about experience zs with co-negotiations and, frankly, that's tough to do because we prefer single source 26 negotiation, or in public works the arena is typically going with the lowest responsible bidder. a~ But in past negotiation experience, I believe the city will benefit significantly by continuing 2s dual negotiations. As a contractor, second options and dual negotiations mamtain a very z9 significant competitive price of vendors. The result will be lower prices and a better 3o contractual arrangement. Direct experience is that the owner or a contractor obtains a lower si price when the competitive pressure is maintained. I,ast Monday night I am told that s2 Councilman Maguire stated his belief that the price of U. S. Filter/EOS would drop. ~'hat is 33 true. 'The city will not benefit from lower pricing if U. S. Filter/EOS is dropped from the 34 negotiation. The Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee recommendation would deny U. ss S. Filter/EOS being at the negotiating table. In addition to price, dual negotiations will help 36 develop more competitive contract terms and our team is very concerned with the structural 3~ integrity of existing soil conditions at the site and have dealt with that, and that's a lot of the ss basis for our longer time constraints in the construction option. An offer by our team to 39 include contractual terms protecting the city from a differing site condition claim with respect ao to settlements should have to be matched by our competitor. We have heard 3 basic ai objections to the city pursuing dual negotiations, namely time, cost and the difficulty of aa making a final decision. T'he first objection relative to time, our experience confirms that of 43 I~aren Hedlund the competitive pressure of dual negotiations is more likely to decrease time aa rather than to increase it. Dual negotiations assures that there will not complacency. The as second objection to costs, with respect to costs, we understand that dual negotiations may a6 cost the city $20,000 or $30,000 additionally. 'That seems to be a very small fairly a~ insignificant amount compared to the $1.8 Million the city has already spent to date. It is Key to abbreviations: JH-i~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PHMayorM. Patrlcia Hilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire Page 234, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 ~ also a very small amount as compared to the Millions that it rnay cost the ratepayers. The z third objection to selection, with respect to the difficulty of making a final decision, it may or 3 may not be a difficult decision. One fact is known, after dual negotiations all information will a be made public. The Council will not be asked to make a decision without a review of very s critical and significant information such as price. It is the job of a Councilmember to make 6 dif~°icult decisions, but it is not fair to ask you to make that difficult decision without the ~ information you need to make it. Yn summary, the city has too much to lose to eliminate U. s S. Filter/EOS from negotiations and a lot to gain. Only through keeping U. S. FilterlEOS at v the negotiating table can you as Councilmemtiers tell you rate payers that you obtained the io best possible deal for them. I'm sure your new City Manager, 1VIr. Stouder, would be very ii happy to have duaY negotiations. Thank you iz PH - Jim Ghilott~ ~3 Jim Glulotti - does anybody know the 49er score? It was 24-17 with 12 minutes to go, ia Niners favor. is DK -~Iay we take a break and find out? i6 PH - no, let's get finished i~ 7im Ghilotti - I am Jim Ghilotti of Ghilotti Construction. I was fortunate enough to be part of ia the U. S. FilterBOS team, at least I felt so during the last 49er ~ame that we sat here all i9 game. I.ast week I was informed that there was a possibility of changing again. I thank you zo again for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. I have watched tlnis process and i followed si these deliberations, I think as closely as anyone, although I have nat been in them nor a part ~z of them. In September, after much deliberation and input, you voted to negotiate with U. S. zs Filter/EOS and Montgomery United Water. And now we're considering going another way, za presumably with the intent, from what I have read and heard, to go with only one firm. It is zs very hard for me as a businessman, a local business person from Sonoma County who has to 26 live with the bid process every day in this town and every one around here, to understand the 2~ thinking of the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee, although the Citizens Wastewater ss Advisory Committee is just a committee. They're not a Council. They don't have a z9 responsibility to the voters as you do. ~'hey don't have to live under Fair Political Practices so standards, they are just a committee. So they don't have to apply themselves to findings and si fact the City Council does. You have to make that decision base~ on findings and fact and 32 previous resolutions. And the matter of fairness is what the whole bidding process is about. 33 This evaluation process is long and complicated and it is not an easy decision. I really find it 3a hard to believe that a lot of the other Petaluma residents that showed up tonight which aren't ss going to bore you with the talk but they are here in support at least the ones that could up 36 with missing two 49er games in a row on 1Vlonday night. It's hard to~understand how you s~ can keep out of negotiations the number one ranked technical firm and the number one sa ranked firm on price. I have listened to the process. I understand a little bit of legalese, in 39 fact some of the case law today in the State of California on competitive bidding is now they ao are quoting Ghilotti vs. the City of Richmond, and that was this Ghilotti because we felt ai somettung down there was unfair; we had to try to get the Court ta establish what is fair and aa right. Califorrua Yaw, California case law is full in the bidding process and in regard to 43 request for proposals and there is a recurring theme. The recurring theme is that the process 44 must be handled in a way that there is not even a hint of impropriety in the process. Now as when all the public hears is you've got a firm that won technically and a firm that won in a6 price, and staff recommended them, but the private committee that doesn't have to report to a~ anybody, and there's no disrespect in that statement but I do know the difference between as committees and commissions I was chairman of the Planning Commission in Sonoma, so I Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 235 i know the difference. It is hard for me to understand the accountability process there. You z are accountable, and you understand the difference. And that's why I am speaking to you 3 tonight hoping that you will take the decision a step farther based on the process you put out a in front of the public and in front of these people. T'hese people have spent hundreds of s thousands of dollars investing in because you asked them to. All we are asking is fairness. 6 The facts in tlus case that you have to deal with that I see are on techrucal merit LT. S. ~ Filter/EOS was rated high. In regard to price, which hasn't been disclosed yet, U. S. s Filter/EOS was rated high. I'm not talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars, we are 9 probably tallcing about rrullions of dollars. And you are being asked to make a decision io without knowing that fact, because we've changed the process but based on the process, if ii you were to follow stai~s recommendation you wouldn't have to know the przce. I don't see iz how you can make any other decision without knowing the price. That's one of your major is factors. The issues raised by the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee and other s in th~s ia process have raised a question of financial stability, and that is really hard for me to is understand. I tlunk it is very subjective. When the company you're are talking about made i6 more profit than it is going to cost to build the plant, they made more profit than that in one i~ year, so that's hard for me to see how somebody can question that financial stability, is especially when they met all the standards put out by you. They post a bid bond an insurance i9 company is willing to put that bid bond out there. They've got the resource to do it. I don't Zo know how a subjective person could say I don't think they are financially qualified. But again 2~ that's just me. I just run a business. They have met your requirements and should be allowed zz to continue in the process is a matter of fairness. The extra money, you're going to get that Zs money back ten-fold. And I'm not as eloquent as other people so sometimes I use words like za ludicrous, and I don't mean them to be offensive, so please don't take it that way, but it is 2s ludicrous to me, and that's the frustration built up, I guess. How somebody can say we are z6 going to deal with the price issue by making sure they are going to beat the other guys price, z~ you know what, if you change the standards so that you can lower the prices down to the ss other guy's price, just think of the millions in savings you can get if the other guy is in the s9 process, too and it's the rate payers who are going to benefit from that. And you are not 3o going to know that unless this guy's in the process with them. It's a win-win situation for the 3i City Council so it's very hard for me to understand. That slaps the face of the whole bidding s2 process when somebody says, well let's just negotiate w~th the other guy. And the 33 qualification is he beats the other guy's price. That tears down the whole competitive bidding 3a process. It's just not fair. You aren't going to get the benefit of their lower prices if they 3s aren't in the process, so I beg you is that a little too far, I implore you, I ask you to use your s6 wisdom that the voters used when they voted for you and come up with a decision that will s~ let us move forward tonight with a process of negotiating with both vendors, since that's the ss way we've now headed and give the citizens of Petaluma a truly competitive process and 39 restore the spirit of competitive bidding in Petaluma. Thank you. ao Pete Talbot. Madam Mayor, Councilmembers, we did not come tonight prepared with the ai volumes of material to submit. I think we had assumed that the public input part of this a2 process has taken its course through the workshop last week and so I'm not going to make a 43 long speeeh or read a prepared statement for or anything else. However, I think it's aa important to go back to a couple of basics here: Number 1, this is not a bid process, this is ~s not a public works project that has to be bid under the Public Contracts Code, if I've got that a6 right in the State of California. It is a privatization; it's a service contract; it's a whole a~ different set of rules. It's about value over a very long period of time. It's about what 48 company, what team are you most comfortable about most comfortable vv~th. And so all 49 these representations about our bid and this that and the other thing are really irrelevant, so because the 1985 law actually precludes you from malcing a decision based on dollars alone. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Cou»cilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire . . i tlh . ~. . ~ ~ i~ I i. ~ . Page 236, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i It says that in the law. 1~lumber 2, I ttunk we all know this was subjective process from the s word go. T'he staff was involved, the Citizens' Committee was involved, the Council was 3 involved. Everybody who went into this process knew the decision would be made by the a individuals at the dais in here. That it's not simply going to end with the staff adding up s some numbers and turning them in. You, read the record, you go to Citizens Committee 6 meetings for four years, ourselves, our competitors. That was all part of the process and ~ everybody accepted it and everybody went along with it. Everybody went along with an oral s presentation to the Citizens Committee, and another one to the City Council. That was part 9 of a subjective process designed to get to the value the underlying step you are about to take io tonight. !~ whole lot has been made of staff ratings. Anybody who has attended the meetings ii over the last six months knows that through discussion some correc~ions and modifications to i2 those ratings are probably now pretty clear. One of them was energy use. I'm not going to is go through all those, but the fact of the matter is the process over the six months has brought ia more things to light and the Citizens Committee looked at all that and made their is recommendation to you. Montgomery United Water is fully committed to your process here. i6 I'm not going to stand up here and waive around a third set of prices. ~1Ve gave you sets you i~ asked for. Presumably they are down the hall in the vault. We wrote you .a letter on is February 28 and said release them any time you want, provided you release the other guy's at ~9 the same time. That's your decision. I'm not about to stand up here and tell you when is the Zo appropriate time to release them. So, I think you process is appropriate. I think, as Karen 2i has told you, you've taken the appropriate steps and I think if you look carefully at your zz Citizen Committee's recommendation and the logic behind that and so forth you'll see the 23 merits there on a whole bunch of fronts starting with financial capability for the next 30 years 2a but right down to technical issues and the like. I urge you to move forward and to make a as decision and Montgomery United Water has every intention of sitting down and negotiating a 26 very competitive aggressive contract with the city that will provide long term benefits to the 2~ ratepayers. g might add one final thing that references are made to rejecting the second team. ag Well you are not rejecting anybody by making this decision. ~'ou're simply deciding who to z9 start talking with and so I think that's a distinction worth keeping xn mind. Thank you very so much for your time. 3i I~ennis fi~IcQuaid - Members of the Council my_ name is Y~enrus IVIcQuaid and I represent 3a Montgomery United Water. A couple of comments made torugllt that held me to come 33 before you. Mr. Stark began his comments by saying he was going to read them into the 34 record. Now as a lawyer I hear that comment and I think oh my gosh why are we making a 3s record. I guess we are going to have to have a review by a Court of what you as a Council 36 are doing. That's what he implied. And then Mr. Ghilotti got up and talked about the 3~ Ghilotti Construction case, and so I thought I'd read to you from that case, just so you know ss what the standard of review is of your actiori tonight by a Court should it be brought to a 39 Court. ~ecause in that case, the court said in reviewing the award of a public contract our ao function is the same as the trial court's to decide whether the public entity's decision is ai supported by substantial evidence. That review is limited to an examination of the proceeding a2 to determine whether or not the city's action were arbitrary, capr~cious, entirely lacking in 43 evidentiary support or inconsistent with proper procedure. T'here is a presumption that the aa city's act~ons were supported by substantial evidence and the plaintiff has the burden of as proving otherwise. We may not reweigh the evidence and must view it in the light most 46 favorable to the city's actions indulging all reasonable inferences in support of those actions. a7 And then there is another case, the Fullerton case that said, in reviev~ring such quasi-legislative as decision the trial court does not inquire whether if it had the power to act in the first instance 49 it would have taken the action by the administrative agency. The authority of the Court is so limited to determining whether the decision of the agency was arbitrary, capricious, entirely Key to abbreviations: .IH-I~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hillrgoss, MS-Councilmember Mpry Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Coun,cilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire ~'_ L'~!r December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 237 i lacking in evidentiary support or unlawfully or procedurally unfair. Now, the issue it seems z to me before you tonight raised by the comments of the representatives of U. S. Filter/EOS 3 or Mr. Ghilotti representing Ghilotti I suppose is whether you as a Council are exercising you a judgment to negotiate in exercising your judgment to negotiate solely with Montgomery s United Water first to see if you can come to a agreement with them would be in and thaY 6 decision is contrary to your staf~° rating whether such a decision which by the way would be i ~ consistent with the recommendations of Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee whether s that decision would be so arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support or 9 unlawfully or procedurally unfair that a court would overturn your decision. That's the issue io you've got. I submit that no Court, when faced with the voluminous administrative record ii compiled by this city over the past 5 years, could make such a finding. You should not be iz intimidated by Mr. Stark's implied threat when he announced he was reading his comments is into the record. You have little to fear from the record you and the staff compiled in this ia matter. Thank you. as Chris McAuliffe- Chris McAuliffe, I'm the Plant Manager of your wastewater facility and i6 I've been there for the last~l2 years. Madam Mayor and Councilmembers, it seems to me that i~ before you, you have quite a dilemma. You've had this dilemma for a number of months is now. You have one decision that was made by a recommendation that was made by a i9 citizens committee. You have another recommendation based on your methodology that you Zo agreed upon, and they are two different recommendations. It seems to me that you need to zi get off the pot, so to speak, and make a decision. As the person who is responsible for zz running your facility, we have a very excellent team. We have some of our operators here zs today, employees, and we deserve the City of Petaluma the citizens deserve to have a facility Za that will protect the environment of this community and you've got to make a decision. And as I think the fastest way of getting to that resolution is for you to enter into negotiations with z6 both teams. And I don't think that U. S. Filter/EOS, I'm not an attorney, but I don't we z~ implied any legal action on our part. Thanks. 2a PH - any discussion? z9 dohn Barella Madam Mayor, City Councilmembers, my name is John Barella. I am owner of 3o North Bay Construction here in Petaluma. We've been based here about 20 years. I've done 3i a lot of work out at that wastewater plant, I installed a pump station I think back in 1981 or 3s 82, Tom, I you can refer my memory on that, and we put about 60,000 lineal feet of pipe, a 33 couple of pump stations, so I know the ground conditions out in that area. I've been born 34 and raised here in Petaluma. I know the ground conditions all over the area. I make I'll be , ss working on behalf of 1Vlontgomery Watson and the United Water team and I think with their 36 expertise. I've been on that team from the very beginning such as Kaweah started with them 3~ on the opposite team U. S. Filter/EOS and I think we have a very yualified team. We also 3s emptoy probably around 100 people just out of the Petaluma City of Petaluma that work for 39 my company. We employ about 250 people total. I was going to, I've already had all my ao employees sign a petition that is representing us wanting us to get the project. I didn't bring ai that in, I'll bring that in tomorrow and drop it off. But I think that Montgomery United aa VVater represents a good strong team. I think they have from the very start. I tlunk that ~ a3 when it carne to the technical end, the financial end, I think they were far superior, but that's aa my own opinion. Xou guys are going to have to make you own opinion on that. I felt very as comfortable working with them. I've been down to their office. I've worked with their staff 46 and I think that we put a heck of a team together with I3offman out of the Washington area, a~ Oregon, Washington, they are very qualified people. They are working over in Sacramento as right now. I went over and saw their operation. I feel very comfortable with this team and I 49 hope you feel comfortable with this team. I think a lot went on with both staff and with Key to abbreviations: JH-vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember 1Vancy Read PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe , DK- Councilmember Dmid Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt , MM-Councilmem8er MattMaguire p :`~i'~~r~•".~~~.~. ~ ~4 . . • . ;~:~'`., ~~r:r _ - ~ ~ ~1~,. zl~%1~', +i `~ Page 238, Vol. 31 ' December 15, 1997 i Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee. I think you guys got a lot more iriformation than z you anticipated, which I hope was going to be good information for all of you to make a s good decision but on behalf of United Water I hope you go our way. 'Phank you. a PT - Can I get clarification from Karen on the time factor again with dual negotiations and s single negotiations the e~ra cost of dual negotiations and the issue regarding the bid project, 6 versus we have "the capability of picking one or the other because it was not a bid project Mr. ~ Ghilotti brought up a point and Mr. Talbot rebutted that I believe sa~ I need clarification? s Karen Hedlund, attorney for city -- the first issue is the timing issue. If I can simplify that a 9 little bit, I think you can expect that dual negotiations might take as much as 50% longer than io single negotiations. If you did serial negotiations, obviously that wauld take if you took both ii of them to their final steep it double the time: In terms of cost, I don't know what the I don't i2 have all the costs, I mean Y have hours i3 Some Councilmembers talked with microphones off and I couldn't understand anyone. City ia Clerk ~s Karen Hedlund, attorney for city -- that's possible, it could be less, it could be more, we do r6 our best to keep the cost down. i~ PT - Yhat's the bid that you gave us, that was the proposal. is Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - yes that's right. iv P'T - that you firn~.. Zo Karen ~iedlund, attorney for city - and then your third question was... zi PT - the bid project with Mr. Ghilotti vs. the service contract that Mr. Talbot brought up.. Za Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - I'm not sure I understand the question.. zs PT - Mr. Ghilotti brought up the fact that tlus was a bid project and we needed to take the Za lowest and best bid. zs Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - I don't think that's what I heard him say. 26 PT - then tell me what you think he said and tell me what you think: Mr. Talbot said and tell 2~ me what the truth is. zs Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - this is not a bid situation where you are required to take 29 the lowest responsible the lowest bid from a responsible bidder. Ynu can consider price and 30 other factors. You have the ability to pick a price that is higher if tl~e other factors are more 3i important. ~'ou don't have to take the lowest price, you have consider both price and other ~z factors. 33 NR - question, question of Ms. ~iedlund; since we're getting right down to it a couple of 34 questions. In your professional opiruon, what is the best way now that we have all this in 3s front of us to negotiate the best possible deal? . 36 Karen IIedlund, attorney for city -- my professional opinion based an my experience, I think s~ you're going to get the best results from dual negotiations. I think you will get both parties 3s to better their onginal proposal and you will, I think, get from each of them a better result 39 than you would if you were negotiating with one separately. ao NR - rnay I follow up, yet about 3 minutes ago you, said, stated that it's going to take 50% ai longer to do dual and then it's been determined by the staff to be $50,000 more and granted a2 over the 30 year life of the $50,000 weighs into it but my second question then .. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamrlton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 239 i Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - I think you would get more than a$50,000 improvement z in the overall value of the project. s NR - okay that's good to hear, and then my last question for you, do you believe there has a been any threats of litigation shown here tonight? s Karen Hedlund, attorney for city - I haven't heard it. ~ 6 NR - thank you. ~ 7 J~-I - I believe Pve heard several and I believe we got a letter from Kaweah Construction ~ earlier, not tonight, that also implied it, and I'm no Ionger in favor of dual negotiations 9 regardless of what Karen Hedlund just said for several reasons. The time and the money and io I have seen enough of both proposers to know which company I feel most confident in ii dealing with and I would prefer to deal with. The financial strength of Montgomery means a iz lot to me. What means even more is their more detailed and substantive proposals their is responsive and thorough answers and their straightforward manner of dealing with things. I ia do not appreciate being lobbied, threatened, gimmicked, and communicated to m such a way is that I know that if a company is communicating with me in the front end coming in if they did i6 get the proposal on they way when problems arose that would be what I would expect to i~ have to deal with in the way of problem solving and because of all those t}ungs, because of is the Citizens Committee Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee's recommendation I would i9 recommend that we go into single negotiations with Montgomery and see where that leads Zo and especially with the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee's request that they make 2~ their price equal. Zz NR - thank you Madam 1Vlayor now that somebody has stated that it is listed in the agenda 23 that this would be part of the motion would be to include reconsideration of the vote and 2a isn't that kind of a dual thing that first of all the vote is reconsidered from the September 23 2s and the second motion would be made as to a new motion so right so we need so we a6 basically need to actions when this gets to that thank you. z~ MN~ - Y have seen notlung here tonight that changes my original opinion that the Citizens Za Wastewater Advisory Committee was and I were in concurrence with just like the recap. 29 There are substantive reasons that we made the recommendation for a single vendor and that so vendor being Montgomery. We recommended to go with Montgomery because they have a 3i well established financial history. It is over a hundred years old, that got them where they are 3z now as a powerFul company. That is not to say that U. S. Filter is not fully capable. The ~ 33 Committee recognizes that LT. S. Filter has full financial capability of providing this service 34 that we are looking for however, Montgomery's is a longer, steadier growth, less volatile and ~ ss when you are talking a 30 to 50 year period of a contract then that volatility issue is an 36 important one. The throughout this process they have been more responsive in detail to the 3~ request and the needs of the city and that was evident at those Committee level hearings. sa Yes, there was the process that staff went through in terms of the ranking and the numbenng 39 system that we developed to do that, once again those of us on the Committee did use that as ao well in part of our decision-making process and came up with Montgomery as the superior ai vendor. There have been changes. I think it's an interesting point to note that one of the ~z latest responses to a request for information was on the energy calculations and. 43 Montgomery's project as proposed uses less energy than LT. S. Filter's not only that but 44 originally as I understood it U. S. Filter's appeared and was believed by staff to be the lesser as energy consumptive, but in further analysis proved to be the greater energy consumptive a6 project. And that's one of the kinds of indications when you are getting a response back a~ from a vendor that is saying here's where we are at and we check it and they have to back Key to abbreviations.• JH-I~ice Mayor ~Iane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy IZead PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire .,:i~ rS'~ 1k>~rj~= . , . ' . •. ' . , • t; ri[;. :R Y ~ Page 240, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i pedal from that, that doesn't me ~the~ same level of security as whPn the vendor says here's z where vve're at and in fact when you analyze it the position is even better than it appeared on 3 the surface at the first crack. Those are just a few of the simple ones we had this discussion a before I won't go into the other details about why Montgomery specifically they are in the s minutes they are in the recommendations, but the issue of the going with a single vendor as 6 opposed to dual vendor is because this is a service contract we are looking for sometlung ~ that's a little more nebulous than just the lowest responsible bidde~, and if you go into dual s negotiations it's .not the reasons yes some of us have issues with the time and the cost et 9 cetera but if you're trying to negotiate a value with two different entities you're going to be io in two different processes and I just find that very difficult to be able to compare in an i i equitable way therefore I don't see that it's valuable for us to go through the extra time i2 trouble and expense to use that process. I think we're better off talcing the simple path of i3 choosing the vendor that has demonstrated that they are better qualified to serve our needs ia not that they're not both qualified, they are, the better qualified vendor and proceed into is negotiations with that vendor. So I would just reiterate the Committee's recommendations, i6 single vendor negotiation make that with Montgomery Watson. i~ MS - I have several comments, first I would like to begin my comments by I think both is vendors are capable of designing and building and running a plant. `JVith that said, I think our i9 Number 1 goal is to get the best rate for the rate payers of Petalum~ and I thought we began zo that process almost 3 months ago and it's come back for reconsideration. We've got 3 2i different recommendations. I think we need to look at all 3. But we need to look at zz recommendations as well as process and with regards to process I have witnessed some 23 ttungs that have concerned me and concerned me such that I just would urge this Council to Za keep it open and fair when I see look down the dais and see one Councilmember with a 2s correspondence from a vendor that I haven't seen. That, to me, doesn't keep it open and fair 26 or after we made our last. 2~ 7H - would you please comment on the correspondence. as MS - yah, I saw a letter actually at our last meeting that was. 29 PT - a copy was put in all of our boxes and it was also passed out at the Citizens Wastewater 3o Advisory Committee meeting. I first saw it at a Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee 3i meeting and I know. 32 MS - what letter are you referring to? 33 PT - are you talking about the ICaweah Construction letter? 34 MS - no, I'm not. 3s M1VI - what letter are you 36 MS - I was referring to a Montgomery Watson letter that I saw at the last meeting that you 3~ had, actually. 3s I~IlVI - oh s9 MS - but another, well I don't, another concern was after we made our last decision, I came ao home and unaware that the camera was left on, this was after we made the decision to go ai ahead with the dual negotiations, I see 3 Councilmembers deep in conversation still on tape. a2 And Y guess this process needs to be fair, needs to be open, it needs to, we need to look at al1 43 the recommendations, and when I look at all the recornmendations, we have aa recommendations from staff, from consultants, as well as from the Citizens Committee and as without having the price information which was criteria that we established not all the Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hi!ligoss, 11~IS Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- CouncilmemBer David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Counc!lmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 241 i members were on the Council at this time but that was established and then to go back than 2 say that we are going to go ahead with negotiations with one vendor I think is financially 3 irresponsible to the rate payers. I think our staff brings expertise, we had another situation a where a large contract, not large compared to ttus, where staff made one recommendation s and the I think it was a four-three vote the Council went another and that was the animal 6 control and now we are embroiled in litigation in that area. My point there is staffbrought up ~ expertise to the table, consultants brought expertise as well as the Citizens advisory s Committee so I think the fairest thing to do is to proceed with dual negotiations. I guess 9 what perplexes me the most is why do some people fear dual negotiations? We just heard io from our own attorney on this that we'll probably get the with dual negotiations the best deal ii for the rate payers and or the best price and to me it's just $50,000 is a sma11 price to pay and ~2 a couple of months if we can be more responsible to the rate payers by getting them the best ~3 deal. That should be our Number 1 objective. We were talking about a matter of a couple of ia months. I reviewed the financial data, I have reviewed what financial data I have of both is compatues and feel confident that both comparues again are strong companies financially, but i6 it just doesn't make sense to me to select one vendor tonight to go ahead with negotiations i~ with that one vendor without this Council knowing price mformation and knowing that we ia have varying recommendations; I think it is inesponsible to the rate payers and I think it just i9 doesn't make sense, when we're going to our decision-making process. We've looked at our zo methodology which again was adopted by the Council some time ago and part of that we Zi haven't privy to in that's the pricing information. When we look at negotiations, I think there 22 was a comment made last week that our attorney said that dual negotiations could actually 2s speed up the process. So we were given a time line and while that could be plus or minus aa two months, I think the timing is really insignificant when we look at this the amount of time zs we have spent so far. So I guess I would just urge this council to continue down the path of 26 dual negotiations keeping it fair for everyone, both vendors as well as the public. z7 MM - just in response to Councilwoman Stompe information not being shared with all Zg Councilmembers I would just remind Councilwoman Stompe that Rich Rudnansky our 29 attorney recommended that we not share information that we got from the vendors wrth all 3o the rest of the Council to avoid a violation of the Brown Act. I have had discussions with 3i both vendors more than once, I don't believe that I have any letter from Montgomery VVatson sz that I haven't shared anybody, but I wouldn't share it wrth the rest of the council in that 33 regard anyway because I was directed that would not be the appropriate way to proceed. 34 PH - well I tlunk that we know how most of you feel. I feel that the EOS technology is ss better and it doesn't have hazardous waste and I know that Ralph Sartori sent us something 36 and said that it wasn't very, it wasn't very hazardous, well either it's hazardous or it's not, I 3~ mean, being a little bit pregnant or a little bit hazardous, forget it. So anyway the Citizens ss Committee is asking Montgomery to come down to the price of EOS, they also are asking 39 that their technology be changed. I think it shows that they really EOS's plan is better. You ao know I never, I don't remember asking the City Committee to discuss whether we should go ai for one company or two. We made the decision in September, and we didn't ask the Citizens a2 Committee to come back and tell us what they thought about it. But that's what happened, 43 and I think it should stay the way it is and go with both of them. That's the fairest thing to aa do. as DK - Ivladam Mayor a6 JH - Madam Mayor before you, it's 10:30, there are still 4 more things on the agenda, I just a~ want to either release people so they can go home and tell them that we are not going to get 48 to the item Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmem6er Matt Maguire ty~ jA.. !_Hl;~ . ~ . . . . . . . ~ . i r+,'yFt ~Y L;~'~ . Page 242, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i DK - I was going to ask them if they wanted to come up here and take our places. ~ a PT - who's ready s JH - no, I'm sorry that we let it go this long, but people are sitting here and we have a DK - voter fraud, the LAD's s PT - nobody is here for LAD's are they? 6 PI~ - no ~ DK - no, so a NR - why don't we just do this item 9 DK - call it a year right io PH - you don't think there is going to be a decision tonight i i DK - I think i2 JH - no, on this item there will be a decision, on anything else. i3 PT - well there's nothing else to make a decision on except for what we are going to say on ia Novato, right, that's the only other thing. is PH - we won't discuss that tonight, anything you want to discuss with them, right it down i6 and turn it in. » JH - then we're going to meet on the Sth to do that? is PT - as far as I know there's not going to be a major discussion on the LAD's unless i9 somebody zo PH - so we could probably do them ai DK - what's that zz Gene Beatty - unless there's major questions on any of them it shouldn't take more than a zs few minutes. za PH - we could probably get down to 13, 2s MS - so Madam Mayor are we going to continue then, like 14 through 17? 26 P~I - yah z~ DK - procedural question, my first one Za MM - Madam Mayor there are reports I would like to hear z9 JH - we can try to Madam Mayor so PH - all right, let's go si DK - I have a couple of questions, there was a motion that was or a request to reconsider the 3a negotiations with one or two vendors that was made by somebody who voted for that motion 33 resolution the first time around, I voted against it, so I could not make that motion, I think sa procedurally, let's get one clear, and then we go on to discussion of what who we are going ss to recommend in negotiation. 36 37 -----JH - okay Madam Mayor I am making the motion to reconsider our vote of September 29 to enter into dual negotiations. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Ketler, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 243 ~ -----MM - I'll second that 2 PH - you voted against it though, too 3 NIM - I don't think it matters I think that's just an issue of who brings it back to the council. a DK - is that s PT - okay so we can agree to reconsider but we made a different decision tonight 6 NR - this is the first procedure question Ayes: Read, Keller, Hamilton, Torliatt, Maguire Noes: Stompe, giilligoss 9 DK - the ne~ct then is to in terms of recommending one or two vendors, I would recommend io one vendor for negotiations at this point. And I would recommend at this point that vendor i i be Montgomery. For me, because I think that technically, financially, a case can be made that iz the companies are equivalent and that price will be the only difference. However, I think as i3 we've seen this evening and frankly from my experience since the proposals have been ~a received there is really a different character between the two corporations and the two is conglomerates, conglomerations of proposers. And I think it could be said that U. S. Filter is i6 a more aggressive company, that's certainly how they've grown to be the size they are at the i~ moment. And they've also dealt with us more aggressively. From the initial comments made ia by Chris in the newspaper when the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee recommended i9 single negotiations, we'll take' you to court, to the kind of presentation that we're seeing this Zo evening where there not threats of litigation for an attorney to say it's threats of litigation but zi sitting up here you certainly feel like oh well what do we gotta cover to make sure that we Zz don't get slammed by one of the representatives. And that makes a difference in terms of Zs who I want to do business with. And it's an intangible, it's hard to put your finger on it. Za There are indeed some explicit incidents where that has come through. And if I look at Zs leaving a legacy of who the city is going to be doing business with over the next 30, 40, 50 a6 years in terms of corporate style, if we're going to privatize this operation, if we're to entrust ~~ a private corporation to do what is currently a murucipal function m its entirety, then we have zs to be very very very clear about who that corporation is and who that ?? it is, if that's 29 somebody we want to work with in the long run. And right now my feeling strongly is that 3o I'd much prefer to deal with the corporation that is represented by Montgomery United 3i Water, and for that reason, most significantly at this point, there are other things that go in sz there, the responsiveness, stable financial history, but for that reason in my heart at this point 33 the company that feel or the group of companies that I feel most comfortable about 34 proceeding with would be Montgomery. And, I would propose we go in that direction. ss Obviously, if it goes into negotiation and negotiations fail and some other stuff comes up, hey 36 we're not at a loss to say okay show your stuffto U. S. Filter but I feel here that very clearly 3~ that there is really a difference in corporate character. And I think in terms of a match, I 3a mean it's like kind of the things were saying about selecting a City Manager who is a match 39 for this community. And I think in some respects, we are dealing with similar issues. ao ai -----NIM - I'll move that we direct staff to begin single contract negotiations with Montgomery United Water. a2 MS - Madam Mayor may we have some more discussion. 43 -----JH - I'll second it Key to abbreviations: JH-~ce Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire .i ryM.,e;J}'~,~- ~ ~y .4p.'T. t~..9 .C~ .~,~°~~ ~hi~. .... ~ . 1 ,,... Page 244, Vol. 31 I~ecember 15, 1997 i MS - since it sounds like although not everybody had weighed in on this that we're going 2 down the line of one vendor, I'd like this council to request releasing the numbers. I think at s this point choosing one vendor without knowing the price components I'll borrow a somebody's words is ludicrous. So if that's the direction the majority of this council is going s is single negotiations, then I would request this council consider releasing pricing. 6 MM - Madam Mayor, I don't see any value in doing that at this point. We haven't ~ negotiated a final contract therefore the pricing once again is not for a finalized product. You s can't get the finalized product until you go through negotiations. We have said that we will 9 release all pricing when we come to the end of that process. Certainly on the Committee we io put in the constraint that Montgomery should it be chosen is obligated to meet or beat that ii price. If it's 80 gazillion dollars or 28 cents it is not really a germane point at this time. iz Richard Rudnansky, City Attorney --I would just remind the council that we are currently i3 involved in litigation over that issue and would recommend that perhaps there would be a ia better venue to discuss this since we are in pending litigation. is JH - thank you Madam Mayor could we call for the vote. Is there any more discussion? i6 NR - Madam Mayor thank you I know I am so far away and I'm not usually not very quiet. I i~ believe that all of the information that we have received for the last five and a half years ia through sewer school and the last six months I've started to attend the Citizens Wastewater i9 Advisory Committee has all come down to tonight and it's now or never as my friend Dan Zo Libarle said it's now time to fish or cut bait. Dan is right on this. And it's not that I don't 2i want to know what's in that envelope that Mr. Stark has, it's not tliat I don't want to know 22 what is in the vault. I think that it just needs to get down to one and to start. I was the one Zs that voted for dual negotiations on September 29 and said it was for the wrong reason that I Za was voting for two of them to negotiate. This is not an issue of whether who was going to Zs be the better of the private, the most important vote will be the next vote to determine 26 whether we do public or private. That's the most important vote. So to get this going, and 2~ to continue on, and to see some revelation of these prices to continue on with this Zs negotiation, Madam Mayor, I will be voting to negotiate with one and that's Montgomery 29 Watson. so DK - I do want to vote, I just need to let because I've been on record in support with Mary's s~ position on releasing figures, I just need to make that very clear. I agree, we've, except for 32 one major complication; sorry Rich, I've already said it. It's been said in public anyway, I said 33 it last week, and for those who weren't present at the meeting last week, I just want to make 34 it clear. Y think we've gotten to a stage where I would prefer to have'negotiations, I swore I ss didn't want to go into negotiations without the pricing. We are now constrained by the 36 process that we have. We should follow tlus up with a public price comparison. And if we s~ had released the prices now the validity and the comfort level with that public price ss comparison would be yuestioned. And I don't want to do that. So for that reason alone and 39 only that reason I'm willing to go on without having the pricing. Thank you. ao PT - Nladam Mayor, it really doesn't matter what I do, right, this has been a long five and a ai half six years. It really has, and I have talked to so many people as other Councilmembers I aa am sure have as well. And I think both vendors have very valid arguments on both sides of a3 this issue and our attorney has gone in my opinion back and forth at times on how we aa approach this. We received information on the 12th the Council received information that as included what our attorney read out loud to us regarding the contract negotiations and unless 46 a decision is made to recommend rejection of all proposals the lower ranked proposal would a~ be considered for contract negotiations only after negotiations with such first ranked Key to abbrevrations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hami/ton, NR-Councilmem6er Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hi/ligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire - , , ..,. December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 245 i proposer concluded and the city sole discretion without reaching an agreement on final z contract terms I wish I had this information on in September maybe I did and I just in the s multitude of paper missed it. I feel like I know both proposers really well as far as who I a trust and who I value and what aspects of each person that I value and the things that they s bring to the table because they all bring something different to the table, so you also have to 6 check with the gut. And my gut feel on tlus after I attended the last Citizens Wastewater ~ Advisory Committee meeting not our study session but our Citizens Wastewater Advisory s Committee meeting that was the last of three meetings, I started to get a taste at least in my 9 opinion of this threat of litigation even though our attorney has said that she hasn't heard any io threat of litigation when Mr. Lyles of Kaweah Construction got up and started passing out ii the papers saying oh just a little legal issue and starts passing it out, and I'm going okay great iz this is just great here we go. That did not leave a good taste in my mouth and I don't i3 appreciate that. I think that LJ. S. Filter's plant from what I can see is probably the better ia technology for the most part, I think that I don't want to have anything to do with hazardous is chemicals even though ferric chloride can be a hazardous material but not that hazardous, as i6 Madam Mayor put it, you know you're not half pregnant. I think that Montgomery United i~ Water has definitely put forward a very thorough proposal. I feel like every time I had a is questions as far as technology went Ann Weaver has it down pat and excuse me Ann Farrell i9 has it down pat and that's one of those gut checks that I contmue to have with Montgomery ~o United Water as opposed to U. S. Filter/EOS. And, I'll tell you this is not an easy decision zi because the bottom line is what is the best deal for the rate payer. And, but it is a long term 22 contract, and there's threat of litigation, and there's so many bazillions of variables and ~s volumes of books out there of things we have discussed and rehashed and but you have to go Za with your gut at this point in time and I think I have to go with Montgomery United Water to as recommend them for sole negotiation. There's no winner in this as far as I am concerned, z6 because no matter what decision we made somebody's not going to be happy about it. 2~ NR - hold on a second, I believe that this motion that's on the floor now after we've done the Zs reconsideration and who to needs to entail the language finding some findings in the motion z9 so that what we are saying is actually what we are doing right now and I think that some of 3o the suggestions we were given include this is based upon this Council's ability to modify the 3i recommendation from the Citizen's advisory and the staff and also that the city council has 32 the ability to deal with non-price and price criteria, that also that this is the most 33 advantageous combination of non-price and price consideration 34 PT - and we're not 3s NR - and 36 PT - eliminating the second vendor s~ NR - and that this may not work and it still may need to continue to go back and I would feel ss much more comfortable in putting in some findings as opposed to just making the motion and 39 I would rely on our legal staff to state what are the conditions that need to be included in that ao motion and the maker of the motion will need to include that in the motion and second. 41 a2 43 aa as M1~Y - I think Councilwoman Read has enumerated the points quite well actually you know I might just refine that a little bit by saying based on the reasons as stated by the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee as one and then adopt the list that Councilwoman Read just listed, make those findings upon which we are basing this motion. I therefore amend my motion. a6 second is amended. Key to abbreviations: JH-i~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. Patricia Hilligoss, MS CouncilmemberMary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire .:,:~,e~~:;ti~'.4;z. , ..'~^ir~aN+",, . Page 246, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i Karen ~Iedlund, attorney for city - I think it's sufficient for you because of the findings that 2 were in the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee recommendation that if you want to 3 adopt those as modified that fihat is sufficient and particularly also have given the extensive a discussion by each of you of reasons for taking this action. I think you can probably take the s action tonight. 6 M1~~1- call for the vote. ~ s Ayes: Read, Keller, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Torliatt, Maguire Noes: Stompe, Mayor Hilligoss 9 RESO. 97-338 NC5 io WOODSII)E VILI.AGE LAI) ii Resolution 97-338 NCS ordering improvements for Woodside Village Landscape Assessment i2 District. Councilwoman Stompe left the meeting. The public hearing was opened. There i3 being no one wishing to speak, the hearing was closed and the resolution was introduced by ~a PT and seconded by MM. is Ayes: Read, Keller, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss t6 Noes: None i~ Absent: Stompe ia RESO. 97-339 NCS i9 COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES - CASA DEL ORO #2 Zo Resolution 97-339 NCS annexing Casa del Oro #2 LAD to Country Club Estates LAD and Zi renariung Casa del Oro #2 to Country Club Estates Landscape Assessment District. The z2 public hearing was opened. There being no one wishing to speak, the hearing was closed and zs the resolution was introduced by PT and seconded by MM. - 2a Ayes: Read, Keller, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss 25 Noes: None ~ 26 Absent: Stompe z~ I.ANDSCAPE ASS~SSMENT IDIST'RICT ACTIONSID Zs The following six resolutions were introduced by NIM and seconded by JH. 29 Ayes: Read, Keller, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss so Noes: None 31 Absent: Stompe 32 ItESO. 97-340 NCS 33 CORONA CR~EK II I.AD ~PTITIA~'E PROCEEDINGS 34 Resolution 97-340 NCS initiating proceedings for Corona Creek II Landscape Assessment 3s District. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 247 1 IiESO. 97-341 NCS 2 CROSS C~EK I.AD INITIATE P1tOCEEDINGS s Resolution 97-341 NCS initiating proceedings for Cross Creek Landscape Assessment a District. S IZESO. 97-342 NCS 6 1VYcNEA~t I,ANIDIIVG I,AI) INTTIA'I'E PROCEEDINGS ~ Resolution 97-342 NCS initiating proceedings for McNear I,anding Landscape Assessment a District. y ~SO. 97-343 NCS io ~ORONA CREEK II I,AD ORD~RING IMPItOVEMENTS i~ Resolution 97-343 NCS. ordering improvements for Corona Creek II Landscape Assessment i~ District. 13 ~SO. 97-344 NCS ia CROSS CREEK I.AD ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS is Resolution 97-344 NCS ordering improvements for Cross Creek Landscape Assessment i6 District. 1~ 12ES0. 97-345 I~1CS ia Mcl~TEAR I.ANDING I,AD ORD~R IMPROVEMEN'I'S i9 Resolution 97-345 NCS ordering improvements for McNear Landing Landscape Assessment zo District. 21 RAINY~R CI~OSS TOWN CONNECTOR zz This matter was rescheduled for January 5, 1998. 23 JOIIVT' 1~IEE~'ING WYTIi NOVATO Za The discussion of agenda items for the Joint City Council meeting January 12 at Orsi's with Zs the Novato City Council was not conducted due to the lateness of the hour. Any suggestions 26 Councilmembers have for agenda items are to be submitted to the City Manager's Oi~'ice. 2~ COUNCIL COMMISSION/COMMI'Y'TEE APPOINTMENTS Zs This item is scheduled for the January 5 agenda. 29 VOTER F'RAUD UPDATE so Police Chief Pat Parks reviewed the entire report and documents which have been made 3i available to his office by the District Attorney's office and he spoke with the investigator, s2 Mike Meese, to get the most recent information about the case. He has not reviewed the 33 financial records but has discussed them with Mike Meese. Key to abbreviations: JH-I~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire , ;%~:5i:? .!f3:` - . . '; W . . . ., . , ~ .! : ~ . i . - . . . i°~'i : ., c. i Page 248, Vol. 31 December 15, 1997 i He said he has reviewed only those petitions that were included with the filing documents. a The investigators are proceeding competently and methodically with the case. All checks and s bank statements have been reviewed. There are some checks issued by individual folks to a individual circulators of petitions and those are being looked into. The District Attorney s review of all violations that they intend to prosecute at this time. Some were referred by the 6 Employment Development department. Some were from out of the area and acted on this ~ without knowledge of what was required; therefore the District Attorney feels it would be s difficult to be able to determine criminal intent. Also the statute of limitations on some of the 9 crimes (misdemeanor violations) has been exceeded. The District Attorney feels they have all io the forgers. There are two or more persons who will be interviewed. Itegarding several i i persons thought to be intimately involved in the issue, interviews have resulted in showing no i2 nexus between the case and the individuals. There is no indication that individuals did any is work while on the County payroll. Conspiracy charges, that's when you do when you can't ~a charge anything else. Financial disclosure statements have been looked at for a county is supervisor and at least one of the individuals involved, there appears to be no connection to ~6 the case. Some checks were written directly from the donor to payees and some are stated i~ on financial disclosure statements. Itemized expenditures indicated 11 people total were paid ia and some are yet to be interviewed. ~9 JH - the misdemeanor charge against Marion Hodge apparently was not outside the statute of Zo limitations. Chief Parks will check on that. Regarding full disclosure of the names of the Zi victims, according the District Attorney - no. There is still information that the Chief has not Zz reviewed. With the cooperation of the City Attorney, he will be happy to research yuestions Zs the Council has. Mike Meese's investigation has been done in a competent manner and he za has done the best he can with the hand he was dealt. zs PT - has Mr. Mullens contacted every person by letter that their name was used on the z6 initiative if it was a forgery. The people who were used in connection with putting the case 2~ together were interviewed in great detail. He has no information on the remainder. zs Richard Rudnansky spoke with the District Attorney and he indicated that his handwriting 29 expert did not go through all the list of signatures, they went as far as necessary to pursue a 3o crirrunal violation. Yt would be cost~y and time intensive to go through alY of the signatures. 3i Some of the information will come out in the case. Also, the District Attorney expressed 32 concern that the more this was discussed in public ,settings, the more ammunition it wouid 33 give to the defendant for change of venue. He also indicated he had some concerns that 34 prosecution of the matter if this information was released . and he also indicated that was 3s unaware of any authority that would allow the disclosure of the names of those whose names 36 were forged. 3~ JH - could be ask what the cost, when he says costly, I want ta know what does that mean. 3s Yiow much is it would it cost to charge for every forgery on petitions. When he says costly, 39 let's hear the number. Could we ask for the number how much that would be, what's the ao estimate, because each forgery represents a victim in Petaluma and it's just like a crime ai against property or a person that if you are a victim of it I think you want to see it charge. az You would like to know and you would like to see it charged and I think that we have a right 43 as a council and community to ask the DA what he means by costly and then we can look at aa that. Key to abbreviations: JH-i~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK Counci/member David Keller, PT-Councr/member Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire December 15, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 249 i NR - can that be put in the letter going to the DA? PT - my comment in the letter, that was ~ my comment I wrote back to Gene. JH - would everybody here agree to having that in the s letter? MM - that's fine with me. 7H - I do, certamly. Chief Parks - I can tell you the a amount of work the investigator has done thus far the bill was $1665 for the limited number s of signatures that he screened. The figure could be pretty substantial. MM - thank you for 6 the report and please convey our appreciation to Mr. Meese, as well. Please keep us posted. 7 AIDdOiTItN s At 11:10 p.m. the meeting was adjourned and the Mayor and Council wished everybody v Happy ~Iolidays. io ii ' , 12 ' 13 ia M. Patricia Hilligoss, Mayor is ATTEST: • 16 17 IS i9 Patricia E. Bernard, City Clerk Key to abbreviations: JH-Vrce Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire