Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/08/1997September 8, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 13 i 1~'II1~T~7TES z OF A 1tEG~JI,AR MEE"I'ING 3 PETAI.UI~ CI~ CO~TNCII. a Ii'IONDAl', SEP~'EIVI~ER ~, 1997 s ROLI, CAL,I. 3:00 p.an. 6 Present: Read, Keller, Stompe, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton ~ Absent: Mayor Hilligoss s PI~EDGE OF ALI,EGIANCE 9 The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Terrance Garvey. io 1VIO1VIEl~TT' OF SIL,ENCE ii COjJNCII, CO1VIlVIEN'T iz MS - the Employees Appreciation Picnic was a success. She thanked all the City staff that i3 helped setting up and cleaning up. McNear Park has no recycling cans. There is a can ia crusher that can be attached to a garbage can. The 3rd Annual Petaluma 24-hour Relay is is October 4 and 5 which raises funds for the Youth. She has met with both of the teams of i6 wastewater bidders prior to this meeting. i~ NR - commended MS for putting the barbeque together. The Art in the Park program was is last weekend. She has met with both vendors before this meeting. i9 PT - also met with both vendor teams. 2o MM - asked staff to change the report by the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee on 2i evaluation of the proposals to September 22. 2z DK - The editorial Board of the Press Democrat needs to get a life. Ttvs is the most public z3 participation in City Manager selection that has ever happened. The editorial is an za aborrunation. Zs CONSEI~1'I' CfLI.ElVDAit z6 The following items which are noncontroversial and which have been reviewed by the City z~ Council and staff were enacted by one motion which was introduced by Nancy Read and zs seconded by Matt Maguire. 29 Ayes: Read, Keiler, Stompe, Torliatt, Maguire, Vice Mayor Hamilton so Noes: None s i Absent: Mayor Hilligoss Key to abbreviations: JH-i~ice 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 14, Vol. 31 September 8, 1997 i RESO. 97-248 NCS z AN'TIQ~JE STREE'T &'t~~ 3 Resolution 9?-248 NCS authorizing closure of a portions of Kentucky Street, A Street, a Water Street and Main Street parking lot between 4:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on September 28, s 1997. 6 * * * * * ~nd of Consent Calendar * * * * * ~ DIPLOIVIAS s Assistant City Manager Warren Salmons awarded Doctor of Sewerosoahv Diplomas to: v The members of the Citizens Wastewater Advisory Comrruttee: io Ralph Sartori i i Ii~Iatt Maguire ~z Dan Libarle i3 Bill White ia Two citizens: is Terrance Garvey i6 Vasco Brazil i~ Wastewater Proposers: is Pete Talbot, Montgomery United Water i9 Chris McAuliffe, U. S. Filter zo Petaluma Staff: Zi Michael Ban, Utility Engineer ~2 Jennifer Banett, Senior Planner zs 'Thomas Hargis, City Engineer za David Spilman, Finance Director zs Richard Rudnansky, City Attorney z6 PROPOSAI~S - NEW SEW~~t PLAN~' z~ City Engineer Tom Hargis encouraged the public to either attend these meetings or write zs letters to the City Council about this issue. The proposed schedule is: a9 September 8 (today) 3o Vendor presentations from Montgomery United Water and U S Filter 3i Public and Council commerit 32 33 Seqtember 22 (two weeks from now) 34 Staff report on evaYuation of proposals 3s Citizens' Committee evaluation of proposals 36 Wastewater Consultant Team report on proposals 3~ Discussion of making proposer (bid) numbers public 38 Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CourzcilmemberMaryStompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire September 8, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 15 i September 29 (three weeks from now) z Report from Ratepayer Study (Farnkop~ s Public and Council comment, and possibly direction to staff a In this City Council meeting packet, among other things, were the following items: s - Staff Evaluation of Proposals for the Citizens Wastewater Advisory s Comrruttee ~ - Brown and Caldwell Techrucal comparison of Proposals s - Letter from U S Filter/EOS stating the would work with a minimum of an 9 "A" bond rating io - Citizens' Wastewater Advisory Committee Evaluation of the proposals and i i Recommendations to the City Council i2 - Financial Approach Analysis of proposals by Public Financial Management is - Wastewater Privatization Service Agreement Analysis of Proposals by ia Nossaman Guthner Knox & Elliott is - Resolution 96-339 NCS detailing proposal evaluation and selection i6 methodology i~ Staff was asked when the Sonoma Countv ~Vater Agencv (SCWA) will submit their ia evaluation of the publicly operated sewer treatment facility. City Engineer Hargis noted there i9 have been 3 meetings with the SCWA. They are going to contract with technical expertise to Zo assist in doing this evaluation for the City. The study should take several months. The City 2i Council asked that the September 15 agenda be revised to include a discussion and a 22 resolution on the subject. 23 Mr. Hargis requested that if the Council were to chose either proposer, that the staff be Za allowed to keep the other proposal in hand in case the City cannot come to a settlement with Zs the chosen party. The Service Agreement Analysis is scheduled for either September 22 or a6 29. MS - F'our alternatives were suggested, 1 and 2 Negotiate with one or the other 2~ proposer, 3 Negotiate with both proposers, 4 Begin alternative procurement process, add 5 zs Release all the numbers. DK agrees with release of the financial information. He also wants a 29 very complete list of what we want to negotiate. so I~ONTGOMElt~' ~TNITEI) WAT'ER 1VIITW PR~SEN~'ERS 3i The following named persons spoke to the City Council about the proposal submitted by s2 Montgomery United Water and about their interpretation of the U. S. Filter/EOS proposal. ss - Peter Talbot, Project Director MUW - VP Project Development, Montgomery Watson sa - Don Conell, Board Member, MLTW - Chairman & CEO United Water Resources ss - 3teve Howard, I,ead Banker, M[JW - Sr. V.P. Infrastructure Financing I,ehman 36 ~rothers 3~ - Ann Farrell, Design Manager M[JW - Principal Engineer United Water Services sa - I~on Goodrow, Operations Mgr. MUW - Principal Engineer United Water Services s9 - Vicki Scharnhorst, Project Consultant MUW - VP Municipal Operations Montgomery ao Watson (spoke on ecology) 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 16, Vol. 31 September 8, 1997 i IJ. S. FIL„~'ER / EOS ~~SENTERS 2 The following named persons spoke to the City Council-about the proposal submitted by U S 3 Filter/EOS and they referred to some of the MUW interpretations of the U S Filter proposal: a - Mike Stark, Vice President and General Manager of U S Filter Operations s - Tim Traff, Senior Vice President U. S. Filter - Finance 6 - Chibby Alloway, Vice President and Regional Manager U S Filter/EOS - Technical ~ - Chris McAuliffe, Petaluma Treatment Plant Manager - Environment & Community a 50NYE DI~'F~RENCES BETWEEN PROPOSE~tS 9 For the following paragraph, this is the abbreviation key: 1~Iontgomery United Water (M[JW) io and U. S. Filter (LJSF) i~ Some of the differences between the two proposals related to sewer pond use - lined (USF) i2 or unlined ponds (MUW), placement of blowers inside of a structure (LTSF) or outside of a i3 structure (~vIUV~, which pond to use for bio-solid recovery - one is adjacent to Lakeville ia Highway closest to town (MLJW) and the other is catty-corner from there and close to the ~s river (USF), and financing the project through the use of taxable or tax free bonds (~vIUW) or i6 financing `in-house' (tJSF). One will use "hazardous" chemicals (MW~, the other says it i~ will not use them (USF). The process to reduce water in the biosolids is different - use of a is centrifuge (USF) vs. a belt press (~VIUW). One would use hypochlorate and/or ferric chloride i9 (MUW) to combine with the sulfur compounds to reduce odor the other will use air blowing zo through wet compost (LJSF) to reduce odor. One manufactures related water treatment zi equipment which would reduce the cost of technology upgrades and replacement costs 2z (USF); the other does not (MCTW). One says ground water needs to be protected near the z3 sewer ponds (USF), the other says there is no problem with the ground water (M[JW). za SOME OF ~'~E SIMYI.ARI'I'IES BE~'WEEN P120POSEItS ss Some of the simi9arities of the two proposals include treatment will be to "Title 22" quality 26 of treated wasted wastewater. This level of treatment allows the treated wastewater to have z~ unrestricted use. They both will use ultra-violet disinfection. ~oth talked about doing some 2s sort of project that would be beneficial environmentally. When the new plant is on line, both s9 would use ten employees. 3o When asked what one would do if there is a contarrunant in the bio-solids, USF said that the 3i monitoring system would catch most of the heavy metals. The question was not asked of s2 MUW. LJSF said the capital improvements that would be needed to maintain an up to date 33 facility would not be the responsibility of the city during the 30 years of the contract. They 3a would develop criteria and upgrade programs with the assistance of an oversight committee 3s to be appointed. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember Ddvid Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire September 8, 1997 Vo1.31, Page fl7 i 1VIiJ~V on Debt vs. E ui - Always have been cautious when someone said just write me a a check, because I don't think that is particularly responsive to what the City had asked for. s We trace our routes to a utility and have operated a utility for almost 130 years. We operate a both the largest water and wastewater contract operations in the LJruted States. You heard a s mayor say we are saving them $73 Million over a 5 year period. That is not cost plus 6 regulation of a utility. We have cut them a check, not for the entire amount, but we did make ~ a payment to them. That also was not cost plus regulation which is what often utilities do. ~ Our business is runrung water and wastewater businesses. We do operate to Yower the cost 9 for all of our customers. I~ebt is less expensive than equity capital. It would be 1Vlontgomery io Water who would be the partner with the City not the bond holders. We don't think that ii writing a check for this project would be a responsible approach. The cost of financing is a iz direct pass through to the City. tJnited Water has over 100 years of demonstrated capacity is and access to the cheapest source of financing. In the State of Califorrua there is $1.6 Billion ~a of taac exempt bond cap that would be available in 1998. About 10% of that is set aside for is high priority environmental projects such as this. We believe that we could further drive ~6 down the cost of the debt financing through the issuance of tax exempt debt and get down to i~ that lowest point of 6% which will be a direct pass through to the customers of the City of ~s Petaluma. is 1VIUW on ~'etle 22 - A couple responses to the technical issue: On Title 22 they have serious 2o concerns about the ability of the USF proposal to even meet Title 22. We talked a lot about Zi what Title 22 requires. One thing the guidelines reyuire is 10 NTU's going onto the filters; z2 and from their own pilot study at Napa they had 50 NTU's going onto the filters. They say zs they do not believe that DHS?? would allow direct filtration of pond ef~luent on Page 33 then 2a on Page 43 they say it may not be possible to meet the 2 NTU limit for filtered ef~luent. 2s What is actually being constructed at Napa they have added another set of clarifier between 26 the on-site storage and the filters in order insure they have 10 NTU going onto the filters. So a~ that's why we did not follow the same approach; and again we have serious concerns that this Zs approach will meet Title 22. 29 1VIU`3' on Pond Liners - one thing that didn't corne up today is that USF has their sludge so lagoons in Pond 10, and those are clay lined, similar to what we are proposing. They'll be 3i storing sludge for 6 to 9 months in the sludge lagoons, and those are much closer to the river 3z and immediately upgradient from the river. We don't understand, if they are lining the 33 biolac, why they aren't lining the sludge lagoons with a polyethylene liner. sa 1VIU~V on VVet weather - I think we have more information there and possibly that's why we 3s feel that more storage is needed, because we did the infiltration inflow study. 36 1VI~JVV on VVe ~ave More - We did our own comparison of the capital facilities in the 3~ ground and in our comparison we believe that we have more dollars in the ground. We have 3s a parallel screen at the headworks. We have more diffusers in the biolac system. We have 39 larger clarifiers by 20%. We have more back-up equipment. VVe have a back-up blower, a ao back-up mix liquor pump. We have a back-up belt press for solids dewatering whereas have ai only one centrifuge. If that centrifuge is out of service they have to stockpile solids. We aa have larger filter capacity. If we check in their proposal they do not meet the 5 gallons per as rrunute per square foot with one urut out of service. We have a larger administration building 44 so that we can do these things of bringing the public into the facility. We'll have the space to as do that and lastly we have a larger temporary tower system. VVe have 1500 kv compared to 46 400 so that we will not have to bypass close to the ponds in the event of a power outage we a~ can always produce ~'itle 22 ef~lueng. Key to abbreviations: JH-I~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilmember DavidKeller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire Page 18, Vol. 31 September 8, 1997 i 1VIUW on Odor control - our approach to odor control is a proactive approach. Our z philosophy is a proactive one to keep the odors from generating in the first place. A couple s issues about it is with regard to the headwaters. It's possible odors could be generated. It's a also possible that they are not. Niany facilities just like this have open headwaters with no s headwater control facilities and there is not a problem. There is going to be a change in the 6 nature of the flow to the system when we convert from raw sewage going to the existing ~ force main when the new facility comes on line as compared to the combination of untreated s and treated sewage going through right now. Our approach has been to provide a system 9 that allows you to proactively handle the odors before they are generated, without having to io commit capital resources at sometlung that may not be necessary in the long run. Also by ii treating the odors and preventing them from forming the release of odors from air relief i2 valves along the length of the force main which runs through your industrial commercial areas i3 which could release odors intermittently in populated areas is eliminated completely. Finally, ia we eliminate processes that would generate odor and we minimize inventory of biosolids on is site to minimize odors. i6 MiJW on Iteuse - There is a balance that you have to strike between the desire to have a i~ beneficial reuse program and the handling of solids that go with managing and implementing is that program. Our approach has been to provide for a diversified management program. 'The i9 belt and suspenders approach. 20 1VIiTW on Emalovee relationships - we are sensitive to employee issues. We have worked zi with unions at many of our projects. \7Ve have worked with AFSCME and joined in a 22 partnership with us and negotiated contracts for the collection system. Zs 1l~IUW om Renewal and renlacement -we have set aside money for replacement of za equipment, approximately 6%. That is accounted for in our pricing. as Council to MIJW - MM regarding noise impacts of the blowers and the motors. Itesponse 26 - We are building the facilities at elevation 12 to 14 so the majority of the facilities won't be 2~ visible over the levees and from Lakeville Highway, this will also help to contain the odors zs and the noise in that Pond #2. We plan to put enclosures on the blowers and generators. 29 Anytlung that is not in a building you can purchase acoustical enclosures for it. This was so what we did to reduce capital cost. NIM - It will include the enclosures? Response - Right. si iTSF on - the Financial corriments - the numbers about USF as presented by MUW are s2 1994 and 1995 numbers. They do not represent the present. Clur debt is less than half of the 33 competitor's. The cost of debt financing or the cost of equity for a utility is significantly 34 higher than a company like ourselves. Regarding what is prudent, we are a company that is 3s far larger and what we do with our balance sheet is somettung that the Board gives direction 36 to. My job is to manage the balance sheet and we've always said we would never ever 3~ impede the growth or compromise our customers with an overloaded balance sheet. The 3s assets have actually grown another $300 or 400 Million since we released first quarter 39 information. So in terms of the $30+ Million that is being allocated to the City of Petaluma, ao you are less than 1% of our assets more or less as we enter the project bidding process this ai Fall. Our debt to total to total cap which is another measurement of financial stability is less aa than half that of our competitor. If you compare the debt to total equity, there is no as comparison at all. Key to abbreviations: JH-I~ice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire September 8, 1997 ~Io1.31, Page 19 i~TSF on financials, cont'd. As you look at the financial package here and how we decide to a pay for your plant off our balance sheet using how our weighted average cost of capital, the 3 numbers are far different than what they are talking about here. In terms of the question that a Matt asked, is tlus a change in proposal, I think another way for the City Council to look at it s is we are, in effect, becorrung the bond holder and not going to outside investors, it is 6 investors from U. S. Filter. As you look at the 30 year present value and what falls into the ~ bottom line each year for the next 30 years and the 2 ten year e~rtensions after that, our cost ~ of capital is just one aspect after the labor and after the land and everything else. It's just one 9 component. I think that as the numbers are revealed to the Council you will see that we are io the lowest cost providers, because we are the largest company here. ii iTSF's Response by Bill Knaff, Corolla Engineers - Filtering treated vvater - We will meet i~ Title 22 requirements. This water will be reused by you in several different ways. We do i3 nutrient reduction so there will be less algae. I'ou will not have the quality of water with the ia other design as you would with our design. There was some reference by MLJW about the is work at the Napa plant, there is no comparison with the facilities that you would have here. i6 We are going to have a much higher degree of treatment prior to discharge to the ponds. i~ Our design also includes nutrient reduction, so the amount of algae will be s~gnificantly less. i~ The filters at the end of the pond will also reduce more of these kinds of heavy metals, than i9 the other approach. Zo ~7SF on the use of electricitv, the MLJW proposal has four 400 horsepower blowers and Zi ours has four 300 horsepower blowers. It is just multiplication, they show a higher number za for us, so there is something wrong with the calculations. We have been through this 23 discussion at the committee level. The UV system is higher installed wattage than MUW, but 24 we have more flexibility in how that wattage is used. \]Ve think the overall energy 2s consumption is less. We would be happy to provide any information you may need to have 26 your technical advisors compare the electricity cost. In the long run, the differences may not z~ be a major point. Zs Z7SF on Chemicals - Chemical is not included in our costs, because we are not using ferric 29 chloride in our proposal, no hazardous chemicals at all. 3o ITSF' has never in its history had a contract ternunated early. We have won more EPA and 3~ safety awards than anybody else in the industry. ~'our consultants and your staflFdid not rate 3z certain aspects of our technical proposal and did not rate certain aspects of our financial 33 proposal as being superior, they rated our entire techrucal p'roposal and they rated our entire 34 financial proposal as being technically superior. 35 Council questions to iTSF - In response to the question about their suggestion many years 36 ago of an oxidation ditch, wasn't that what was proposed? USF said it was. It isn't 3~ actually that dissimilar to what we are both proposing right now. What the change in process sa between that early suggestion and now is the way we put air into the system, not so much the 39 sizing of it, or the shape of it, or what it looks like, an o~udation ditch and a biolac work fairly ao similarly, if you take away how we put air into the diffuser system. We could have used ai surface aerators like the aerated pond currently is using right now. Right now we are using a2 diffused air which is much more efficient and lower hours power requirement for the facility. 43 ~TSF - DK (question to Tim Traff on Financials) noted there is an internal cost of vour 44 funds to be used for t~lus project, please talk about what that cost is. iJSF Response - we are as a public company, and you can look at our working capital and how we get it from free cash 46 flow from operations and what value you may assign to that equity. 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 20, Vol. 31 SepYember 8, 1997 i iJSF - You can look at short-term borrowing from lines of credit from commercial banks. 2 You can look at the financing that we have used in the past, using convertible notes, which is s a bond like instrument that converts into equity. We have sold three of those over the past 3 a or 4 years; we sold one ten months ago with a 4.5% coupon on it. So our weighted average s cost of capital is we are not selling stock here to pay for this plant; we are going to be using 6 cash available on the books, and we will be using some lines of credit. But as we do with all ~ of our basic business operations on a daily basis. I believe that the number has been s presented to staff has a fixed number with an equity portion that is 100% higher than our 9 competition, and with a fixed rate of 6.5% on the debt portion. io ~JSF - DK Basically what I am looking for is the end number here, your weightecl average ii cost of eauital that you would be using for this proposaY would be about what? USF iz Response - It would be less than 6.5%. We could discuss the salaries of all the employees, i3 we could discuss the cost of cement and everything else, I would encourage the Council as ia they look at the numbers and the net present value that as we were educated on the process, is that interest expense is one of the highest components of pass through. We are offering i6 sometlung here that is very different. We're not going to outside investors, and the cost of i~ our capital is just simply a cost of our sales in providing the services to the City of Petaluma. is So when you look at the bottom line, it's included in that number. DK where I'm going with ~9 this is, if the cost of capital is a pass though USF it's not a pass through, it's pass through as zo an expense. DK correct, yes, and so what I am looking then is, does that mean in changing Zi your approach for financing that your final numbers will change from where they were when za the new numbers are resubmitted? USF I don't believe the numbers have changed - no - 23 what we're able to suggest to the City of Petaluma is that, in the final analysis, the bottom za line number should be the most cost effective. I believe that's what the staff has referred to, 2s in that we're, because of the size of our company able to stand before you today and say that z6 they are fixed today as represented, not floating subject to market eonditions, or rating 2~ agencaes or legal issues or subordinations to bond holders. So, does that make any sense? Zs DK - We'll unravel more as we go through. z9 Council comments and requests - The Council asked both proposers about "A~~endiz O" so and wants that to be absolutely complete for both proposals. There needs to be somettungin 3i the final documents about returning to the City (i.e. ratepayers) any savin s that would occur 32 as a result of improved technology, operating strategy or any other reason. The o~ersight 33 committee will work with that issue and LJSF will subnut proposed wording for the contract 34 to cover that issue. 35 NR requested that the City of Petaluma staff at the September 22 meeting give us the bottom 36 line life cycle cost of the treatment facility. MM feels the right moment has not been reached s~ to share the costs. The issue is not final. We are now entering into the phase that will make 3s the numbers real. It is his recommendation the City enters into the negotiation phase before 39 the numbers are released. City 1Vlanager Beatty said a discussion of the numbers could be ao placed on the September 22 agenda and it was asked that this be listed last on that agenda. ai PT does not want to have disclosure of the proposers' bid numbers until the negotiations are a2 completed. JH asked staff to some management of the proposed agenda items for the next a3 meeting. MM says it is acceptable to put this on the agenda for the next meeting, but he aa would prefer it be on the September 29 agenda. Proceed with picking a ~endor then proceed 45 with discussion of numbers, MS doesn't want to continue to put this discussion off. dI~ a6 noted there are enough Councilmembers who want it on the next agenda, at the end. Key to abbreviations: JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Reac1 PH-MayorM. PatriciaHilligoss, MS-CouncilmemberMaryStompe DK- Councilmember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Magufre September 8, 1997 Vo1.31, Page 21 i City Engineer Tom Hargis said staff will request the vendors to verify the content of ~ Appendix "O" in writing and we will look for that response. Anything you heard tonight if it s is different for the submitted proposal, the two vendor teams need to be submitting it in a writing so the City has a written document of their commitment. s At the 22nd staff and the consultants will be prepared to address the release of the finance 6 information and some suggestions how that might be done and still preserve the negotiating ~ posture the City is so concerned about. We will be restructuring things so that can be s discussed on the agenda. 9 I,IAISON io DK noted the Sonoma County Transportation Authority has a new Executive Director Susan ii Wilford who worked an aide with Valerie Brown in Sacramento. There is currently not the i2 Petaluma section of Highway 101 for HOV lanes does not have a project study report from is CALTRANS which means that SCTA is requesting that go forward. Currently it is ineligible ia for immediate programming and funding. The hope from SCTA is that goes into the STIP is funding cycle which would 2004, 2005. This would be lanes from the Petaluma bridge north i6 to tie into From 12 to Steele Lane is the first segment of that. There is nothing the City i~ needs to do at this time. ig ADJO~IRN iv At 11:10 p.m., the Council adjourned in memory of Mother zo zi 22 23 2a ATTEST: zs 26 _ r j 27 ~ v _ ~ I 2s Patricia E. Bernard, City Clerk . Key to abbreviations.• JH-Vice Mayor Jane Hamilton, NR-Councilmember Nancy Read PH-Mayor M. Patricia Hilligoss, MS-Councilmember Mary Stompe DK- Councilrnember David Keller, PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire