Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/08/1997December 8, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 195 1 1VIIN~JT'ES z OF A REGUI.Alt ~IIDJOtJRNEI) MEETIIVG 3 PETAI.iJNNIAA CI'TY COiJNCII~ a MONDAY, IDECEM~Eit 8, 1997 5 ItOI.I. CAI,L 6:30 t~.m. 6 Present: Read, Keller, Stompe, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton, Mayor Hilligoss 7 Absent: None 8 CI.OSEID SESSION 9 The Council went into Closed Session for Public Employee Appointment and Employment io pursuant to Government Code §54957 Title City Manager - further discussion and ii deliberation; and Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code §54957.6 i2 Agency Negotiator Ralph Freedman, Unrepresented Employee - City Manager. i3 At 7:00 the Mayor announced there was nothing to report out of the Closed Session. 14 PLEDGE OF AI.I,EGIANCE is PU~LIC COlVY1VIEN'T i6 Terrence Garvey, 83 Maria Drive - read a long letter outlining his suggestions about the i~ proposed sewer contract and related documents. He included a copy of the most current ia Value Line financial reports on the two proposers, U. S. Filter Corporation and United Water i9 Resources (Montgomery United Filter). There were 67 plus issues that he listed which may Zo need negotiation. ~ie disagrees with the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee's zi (CWAC) recommendation to negotiate with, what Mr. Garvey says is the high bidder, 2z Montgomery United Water, when the staff and the consultants recommended U. S. Filter for zs Performance and Pricing. He also notes the CWAC has not used the same rating criteria that 2a was adopted by the City Council in Resolution 96-339 NCS. ~s He said that the CWAC recommendation of Montgomery United Water ignores the Request 26 ~or Proposal (RFP) requirements, rejects the low bidder, does not follow the CWAC 2~ recommended and Council adopted procedure for selection (Resolution 96-339 NCS), Zs disagrees with Staff recommendations, and discounts various consultants' reports. 29 Mr. Garvey suggested the Council consider the following: (1) Opt for City ownership of the so plant and a shorter time for the Operations and Maintenance contract; (2) 5elect the low 3i bidder that meets the RFP requirements, (3) Reject both bids and start over with clearer 3z direction to the bidders; (4) (a) Choose a suitable proposal and enter into a contract with that 33 proposer for design and preparation of bid documents, then (b) Contract for construction and 34 financing, then, (c) Contract for operation and maintenance. A copy of the Garvey packet ss was given to all present. 36 ~~~N~~. ~~~~E~~ 3~ MM - trash cans at Putnam Plaza are overflowing, he has been told. Key to abbreviations: JH-vice 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 Page 196, Vol. 31 ~ STUDY SESSION ~ December 8, 1997 ~~ P~ ~ a..~ 3 z The City Council and the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee (CWAC) met in Study 3 Session to discuss details of the steps to be taken toward negotiation with the two proposed a venders on the new sewer plant. The members of CWAC, Councilman Matt Maguire, Bill s White, Ralph Sartori, and Dan Libarle, were all present. 6 CWAC recommendation - Bill White reviewed why the CWAC had recommended ~ Montgomery United Water over U. S. Filter. He said their process could be streamlined and s there is a reduced construction time. The negotiation issue is the price. CWAC recommends 9 that Montgomery United Water reduce its price to meet U. S. Filter's price. (It should be io noted, the actual figures have not been distributed to either CWAC or the City Council i i because the ftnal configuration of the treatment plant has not yet been determined by the iz City. - City Clerk) is MS expressed concern that the City Council chose to negotiate with two vendors, yet the ~a CWAC did not respond to that Council direction. is NIM - CWAC used their same rating criteria again and came up with Montgomery United i6 Water. CWAC found Montgomery United Water more responsive to the City: NIM said U. i~ S. Filter/EOS is higher in energy cost/use. It is difficult to compare "apples" with "apples" in is this type of negotiation process where the technological processes are somewhat different. i9 We have said all along that Montgomery United Water should bring their price down to meet Zo U. S. Filter/EOS. The response from Montgomery United Water on `force majeure' was Zi more finite. z2 JH asked the CWAC members what made them decide on Montgomery LTnited Water. Dan ~3 I.ibarle said nothing has changed much and feels their approach was superior. ~ill White aa noted that this process has become cumbersome and the costs are increasing with time. Dan ~s Libarle noted that he would feel more comfortable to get the process going. If the Council 26 wants to negotiate with 2 vendors, then they should do it. 2~. Ralph Sartori - when it came back to us it, would have been easy to say `go with EOS.' zs Montgomery United Water was clear and concise. U: S. Filter/EOS gave me something that z9 they thought I wanted. I am loolcing at tomorrow, am worried about the ratepayer. With the 3o technology, they'll make it work. We need to look at Ned Orrett's letter (the letter is on 3~ development of a`treatment wetland' which wouid need to be built elsewhere, because the 32 wetland proposed by the City cannot be used for treatment.) gJ. S. Filter/EOS really hasn't s3 shown me enough. ltegarding fhe Farnkopf report, it was different. It is said you can't see 34 the forest for the trees, well there were more trees identifiecfl in this report. The `public ss comparison' is going to help. We ~do need to get going. He would still negotiate with one 36 vendor. s~ Utility Engineer Michael Ban said it will take 4- 6 weeks to complete the cost estimates for ss the `public comparison' of the final vendor bid. 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 8, 1997 Vo131, Page 197 i MS asked what experience the consultants have had negotiating with two vendor teams 2 simultaneously. Attorney Karen Hedlund has participated in such a situation as 3 representative of one of the vendor teams. She said the negotiation process would be quicker a with dual negotiations, because it can change the dynamics. Dual negotiations will take more s time and cost a bit more, but not twice as much. It will take less time than negotiating with 6 one vendor and then negotiating with another vendor serially. In response to the question, `if ~ the Council approved something on December 15, what would the timeline be to move it s along?' Karen responded that one preliminary step needs to be done first to reflect decisions 9 already made. 'That would take 2 weeks and then another 45 to 90 days to conctude the io process. i i JH suggested that the Rainier item already scheduled for the December 15 agenda could be iz removed to allow time for discussion of the wastewater items. ~3 PT asked how much time the Sonoma County Water Agency would take. Bill White advised ia this can't happen until the City's negotiations are completed. Michael Ban suggested that is some of the work could be done simultaneously. That time frame would be 90 days. i6 MM noted we would give the community time to look at the project so they could `weigh in' i~ on it. ia ln response to the questions, `when can we get to the point where we have a11 alternatives, i9 we can release the prices, and we can have a review?' the answer was 3 months, but that is 2o ambitious. ~~ PT wants this subject, new wastewater plant, to be top priority on the City Council agendas 2s until the questions are resolved. z3 DK asked why the CWAC chose Montgomery United Water over LJ. S. Filter/EOS. Bill za White responded that Montgomery United Water was more detailed, substantive, did a lot zs more homework, and was more prepared with questions. U. S. Filter/EOS answered how 26 they thought we wanted them to. They had a timely construction process. He liked the ~~ development team and engineers. We have heard nothing to change our feeling. zs City Manager Gene Beatty said since the Council has given direction to do dual negotiations, Zv do you wish to continue that process. 3o JH would like to have an opportunity to reconsider that action on dual negotiations on the 3i December 15 agenda. s~ The Mayor asked why the staffrecommended EOS (U. S. Filter/EOS). 33 City Engineer Hargis said the staff, using the Council's adopted guidelines, gave the vendors 34 a ngorous, regimented evaluation. The scoring done by staff was done independently, then 3s the scores were added up. We took our recommendation to CWAC and then to the City 36 Council. s~ MS asked again what are the options for reviewing the price. It was noted the information 3s could be released to 3 Councilmembers, pursuant to the State's Brown Act. She wants to 39 see everyttung in detail on the financial proposal as does DK. DK suggested going over the ao prices in Closed Session. That is not atlowable under the Brown Act regulations. ai The vendor bid figures will be held pending the Sonoma County Water Agency's public az comparison. Key to abbreviations: JH-i~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PN-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Counci7member David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire -~3"' . i:'t/^S~'. ' ' . ~ h rt .. .., i . . Page 198, Vol. 31 December 8, 1997 i NR said let us vote on the 15th, then let it rest, either negotia.te with one or with two, but z let's make a decision. 3 PT noted that when the Council has a final product from the vendor and the Sonoma County a Water Agency and the staff review, then the Council can make the best decision on the best s alternative. MM noted that the City vvants tlus to be `performance based.' 6 There was considerable discussion about force majeure. l~Ir. Farnkopf suggested that ~ specifying unit cost reconciliation and specific language needs to be added to the agreement s so there is a specific and precise description as to how the 5 year reconciliation is to be 9 conducted. io Pat Gallagher noted there is an inflation adjustment that needs tm be resolved. The efficiency ~ i of the operating facility should stay with the company. DK asked if retroactive compensation i2 is recoverable. Pat Gallagher of Camp, Dresser and McKee said the inflation should be i3 recoverable, the rate payer is protected. DK then asked if tfie contract can be enforced. Mr. i4 (iallagher responded that if the City defaults them out, it ~would be expensive for the is company, but not necessarily for the City. The penalty is substantial. i6 PT asked the consultants to suggest language that would point out the unit cost i~ reconciliation and how the 5 year reconciliation would be worked out. It was suggested the ia administration burden be kept on the low side. There should be a 2 year review, an appendix i9 listing cost iterns that would be adjusted, and a methodology to ~ccomplish that. Zo Mayor PH said you are asking Montgomery United Water to change their whole plan. zi Vice Mayor JH said they haven't touched on the public alternative and she wants to hear the Zz recommendation. Bill White noted that the Sonoma County Water Agency is competent to z3 do the public alternative. He also thinks the City should conduct an independent alternative 24 COSt. Zs Ralph Sartori said it might be `overkill' but it would close a lot af doors; it's like checkmate. 26 I~K said on the dispute resolution process, he wants more than 60 days. He asked where is s~ the PUC proposal. NI1VI responded that they were waiting for the Farnkopf report before the za Council discussed a Petaluma Utility Commission (PUC). 29 In building a time line for the Council, staff will include the PUC process. 3o The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. and the Council went into a Closed Session for 3i Public Employee Appointment and Employment pursuant to Government Code §54957 Title 3a City Manager - further discussion and deliberation; and Confe~-ence with Labor Negotiator 33 pursuant to Government Code §54957.6 Agency Negotiator Ralph Freedman, Unrepresented 34 Employee - City Manager. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor.lane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember NancyRead PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS:Councilmem6erMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire December 8, 1997 i z At 9:25 p.m. the meeting was adjourned 3 4 ~ , S t~~~ [ 1 ~A/~.~ .~1~iL~/ 6 , ~ ~ ATTEST: 9 10 11 i2 Patricia E. Bernard, City Clerk 13 Vo1.31, Page 199 AI)JO~T1tN ~ M. Patricia Hilligoss, Mayor 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