Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/13/1996May 13, 1996 Vol. 29, Page 439 i 1VIIN~J'~ES OF A~GUI..AR ADJOgJRNED 1V~ETYNG 2 PETAY.LJl~1A CITY COZJNCII. 3 1VIONI~AY, 1VIAY 13, 1996 a ROI,I, CALI, 7:00 p.m. s Present: Maguire, Hamilton, Stompe, Read, Shea, Vice Mayor Barlas, 6 Mayor Hilligoss ~ Absent: None g PLEDGE OF ALI.EGYANCE 9 Utility Engineer Michael Ban led the Pledge of Allegiance. io 1~ION~NN"~ OF SII,ENCE 11 PYT~I.IC CO1~~~NT iz Bruce Hagen, 145 Grevillia Drive - Citizens for Lafferiy Ranch and a Regional Park is - read his May 13 letter to Mayor Hilligoss and Councilmembers Read, Shea and ia Stompe. Their group is willing to commit their support for pursuing a regional park is contingent upon the Council rescinding the 1994 swap motion and enacting the ~6 ordinance their group is proposing to be on the November ballot. They feel that i~ Mr. Pfendler wants to use 1Vloon as a bargaining chip for restrictions on Lafferty to is meet his need for privacy. They refuse to participate in a discussion of Lafferty i9 access until Lafferty is off the table; then their group would be available for Zo assistance. ai Sheri Cardo, 501 Bryce Canyon Court - Contrary to what has been said at the aa previous Council meeting, Harry the dog was not adopted. He has been spayed and ~ is ready for a good home. She will work to keep Lafferty in City hands. She read Za an editorial from the May 10 issue of the Argus Courier. zs COgJNCII. COMII~NT ~ Mary Stompe - On April 29 the Council took action to establish a balanced a~ committee on the Lafferty Ranch and Moon Ranch issues. She would like that put Za on the next available agenda. 29 Mayor Hilligoss - The City received a resolution from the Board of Supervisors so thanking the Ciry of Petaluma for a donation of communications equipment. si WAS~WA~It FACII.ITIES P~tOJECT s2 Assistant City Manager Warren Salmons introduced the speakers and noted the staff 33 is soliciting comments from the Council so the staff can complete the resolutions for 34 certifying the Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Plan, approving the 3s Project Report and Recommendations and approving the Request for Proposals, 36 authorizing its issuance, and approving the Draft Contract Documents. 3~ Steve Kostka, environrnental specialist from the law firm of McCutchen, Doyle, ss Brown & Enersen - addressed the environmental documentation on the wastewater 39 project, which he said is some of the best he has seen. The City has gone way ao beyond what the Environmental Quality Act requires. Page 440, Vol. 29 May 13, 1996 i WASTBWATER FACILITIES PROJECT a He has reviewed and worked with staff on responses to comments and is satisfied 3 with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). There is no fundamental. difference a between an EIR for a privatized and one for a public facility. The California s Environmental Quality Act is concerned about environmental consequences. The 6 consequences of a private or a public facility are one and the same. This document ~ is fully adequate. Public or private ownership is a financial question, not an s environmental question. The EIR is valid arid legally adequate for all the decisions 9 you will be making in.connection with this project. io Senior Planner Jennifer Barrett said the Council has reviewed the project i~ recommendations from the last three meetings. There is general agreement on the ~a site being loeated at the treatinent ponds, on ;the use of advanced treatment, on ~3 continued- discharge into the Petaluma River at appropriate times, and on the need ia for additional storage of treated water. ~s The City has looked at every storage option. You can't use the marsh for storage; i6 but you ean use the marsh for discharge. A reservoir is needed. The facts clearly ~~ show Higgins Creek to be environmentally superior and mosf economical. There i8 has been research on eight potential marsh locations. We can incorporate a larger ~9 marsh component. The mosaic of fresh and salt water can be accomplished at Zo Shollenberger Park. This will reduce the size of the reservoir and the amount of Zi treated wastewater irrigation that is needed to replace discharging into the river. a2 This will prov.ide cesearch and educational opportunities. Reference is included in z~ the documents a6out the requirement for a larger marsh. Za Geoff Yarema, a lawyer working with Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott - All the u participants in this process have worked hard to make it a fair process. All the a6 component parts have been used before; design-build contracts have been used z~ successfully. While this may be new to California and to the wastewater industry, Zs these have been used successfully elsewhere. 29 The procurement process, the Request for Proposals, is not a decision to privatize. so It is to gather information to make the decision as to whether or not to privatize. s~ There will be stiff competition. The Council could decide to negotiate with more 32 than one proposer. The public will have an opportunity to comment on that 33 decision. When the Requests for Proposals are in, they will be evaluated against the sa base case. Staff is working with its consultant team to come up with that base case.. 35 This evaluation process will tell you whether or not the proposers are going to be 36 saving the City money over time. s~ The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and its staff have been involved 38 in the various steps along the way. They will have the role of "watchdog. n The 39 CPUC will not give an exemption to the City unless they are convinced there is ao proteation for the rate payers. May 13, 1996 Vol. 29, Page 441 i WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROJECT a Geoff Yarema continued - The proposals will be evaluated using very specific s criteria. It will be scored on how well the proposers did based upon that specific a criteria; and it will be done very objectively. Staff and consultants will recommend s to the wastewater committee; the wastewater committee will recommend to the 6 Council; the Council will make the decision whether or not to go with the ~ recommendations, do more negotiation, or discontinue the process. He doesn't s think the scores or evaluations of the wastewater committee can be overridden by the 9 Council. The Council does have the opportuniry to amend the RFP process. You io can make reallocations of risk during the negotiations, and this can come back to ii you for decision. Combining parts of teams would result in a situation that would ia be called `non-competitive'. is Cities are looking for ways to save money; and they are finding that privatizing is ia one method to do that. is Assistant City Manager Warren Salmons made the following wrap-up: i6 This project analysis has been exactly the kind of facility planning tool that was ~~ needed for decision-making for the wastewater treatment facility and the ancillary is facilities and programs which make up the wastewater utility system package. i9 He hopes that, as a result of this process, the Council has reached the conclusion Zo that the environmental impact report is thorough, the procedure is correct, and that it zi has the appropriate depth of information and the breadth of alternatives needed for aa the City Council to make the necessary decisions. He hopes the Council feels as staff a~ does that the analysis was a comprehensive and a systematic evaluation of the Za wastewater system. He emphasized the word "system," because this has been an zs collaborative effort that looked at more than just a faciliry. Through the process the z6 participants also looked at irrigation, at wastewater treatment, and at storage. They a~ looked at a system that begins with what goes into the pipe at our homes and at our Zs industries and ends with what comes out of the pipe on the other end of the a9 wastewater treatment system. Included with that end product, they looked at the use 30 of this as a resource at the end of the treatment system. si This is a really good piece of work. s2 On the RFP and contract documents, these documents do reflect the planning, 33 operational, technological and financial criteria established through that extensive 34 collaborative process accomplished by the community, the consultants and the City 3s Council. 36 The Council may remember that we ha~e come back to you on occasion to touch 3~ base with you on specific, important issues. Those were the approach, the service ss approach to privatization, discharge into the river, the meaning of phase-out, 39 whether to do a final environmental impact report prior to or after the issuance of an ao RFP, and the type of administrative body that would be best for the City to have to ai oversee the system. Those are all examples of times when we have come back to aa the City Council and received confirmation of your viewpoints on those issues. ~,. Page 442, Vol. 29 May 13, 1996 i WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROJECT a The process, which is specified in all the documents submitted to you, incorporates s, very key elements that have been emerging over these past several years of a community process and Council decision-making. These include continued rate s setting by the City Council, a competitive "proposal" process, a ehallenge to the 6 private sector's ingenuity to come up with technologies, procedures and operational ~ approaches to provide the City with wastewater treatment service at the lowest s possible cost, and an opportunity to compare private and public alternatives, side by 9 side, to see which is better for this community. io All those things, that have emerged over the course of the input process and over the ~~ course of many Council decisions, have yielded a process that will let us do all these iz things and much more. These are cornerstones to what's happening with our is proposed new wastewater treatment facility. ia Public Comment: ~s Onita Pellegrini - Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce - the Board of Directors of ~6 the Chamber of Commerce urges the City Council to reach a conclusion on this ~~ process in the near future. ia Vasco Brazil - when the public was asked to comment on the documents, it was the i9 December 29, 1995, document the public was able to address. This document you Zo have tonight is dated May, 1996. There are changes relating to the marsh. The ai earlier document referred to a demonstration marsh to be used for 6 years. Now Za you are talking about an altogether different type marsh. His comments would have ~ been very different had he had the opportunity to address the larger marsh use. A Za larger marsh would radically reduce the need for a reservoir. He also disagrees Zs with the siting of the marsh. He asked for the opportunity to address this newly a6 described marsh. z~ Jennifer Barrett said the recommended site is 265 acres, 150 acres could be Zs converted to a marsh system. The only way to get rid of a reservoir is to discharge 29 year-round. You will need a reservoir to hold treated wastewater, in any case. We so are allowing the vendors to design this. There will be time for additional comments si on the issue itself. 32 David Keller - there are other ways of establishing the rate structure than using the 33 Consumer Price Index. The pricing method ;assumes the base bid is the proper place 34 to start. This should be looked at much more carefully. The rate setting structure is ss lacking protection for the City's rate payers. A knowledgeable professional could 36 help improve this part of the process. What costs get assessed to shareholders? 3~ What costs get assessed to rate payers? How does efficiency and. conservation help 3s the rate payers? The contracts should be reviewed by someone knowledgeable in 39 rate payer perspective, not in utiliry company perspective. ao Gordon Blumenfeld, Gordon Manufacturing, Petaluma Area Chamber of ai Commerce, and a concerned resident. This was being discussed when he came here a2 6 years ago. We are two years past the time that we should have a new plant, and 43 we are still working on this. The safety, health and well being will be strained. if aa this goes on. We must get this done and under way. May 13, 1996 Vol. 29, Page 443 i WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROJECT a Brian Hayes - asked Mr. Yarema, through the Mayor, what percentage of cities in s California are going to this method of soliciting wastewater treatment options. a Geoff Yarema - a lot of cities are very unhappy over what has been done at their s sites in wastewater treatment over the past years. They feel costs are~too high for 6 what they are getting. There are a lot of cities that are concerned about the cost of ~ this type of service and are looking for a better way. Wastewater treatment has s become more technical, and cities do not want to keep their employees educated in 9 that field. io City Engineer Hargis - in response to the question will the wastewater treatment ii plant give up the ghost? He said that staff is continuing to put "band-aids" upon i2 "band-aids" at the plant. The plant is "mu~ed out" and they are doing their best to i3 keep the equipment functioning. When they have to buy new equipment, they try to ~a obtain machinery that can be used in the new facility. But, he wamed' the plant is ~s working at capaciry and they have operating problems in order to coritinue to meet i6 the City's discharge requirements. We spent a quarter of a million dollars on the i~ old plant last year. I don't want to give you great feelings of assurance because this i8 is an old plant that is at capacity. i9 Staff noted with the larger marsh, the irrigation needs are reduced. At the present Zo time, there is a need for two more irrigation sites. Zi Council comments: z2 Irrigation Management issues: Council recommended these be addressed after the z~ contract is ]~t.'a.wa~-~~-~- , Za Rate Payer protection study - There was concern expressed by the Councilmembers u as to whether or not the rate payers had sufficient protection. There should be a rate z6 payer analysis done prior to sending the RFP's out. The rate payer protection a~ should be refined in deta.il. There should be a Council discussion on hiring an as outside consultant to study additional rate payer protection provisions. There was a 29 discussion about the rate payer analyst. Staff suggested there would be time after so the "bids" have come in to do this. And, more information would be available on si which to do such a study after the proposals have come back to the City. Until that 3a time, there would not be sufficient information on each bidder's proposed rate 33 computation process to do an in depth study. 34 35 It was Council consensus to do a protective rate payer analysis when the proposals are known. s6 Private vs. Public - Other cities have found privatization a desirable path to follow. s~ Irrigation Sites - There are no specific sites that have been evaluated for irrigation. 3g Building Moratorium - If necessary we can always consider a building moratorium. 39 The documents should define more clearly the local utilities commission. ao Revolving Door - There should be a revolving door clause which prohibits a City ai Employee from being hired by the contracting firm for at least five years from his az date of termination. - - ~~!}~u!r ~,~' • . ;~; «,,: ~•, :'~ .,. . , . ~~;,9y,~ ~; ,;rc i ;~ . Page 444, Vol. 29 May 13, 1996 i Regarding Vasco Brazil's request for permission to comment on the marsh treatment z which has changed from the time he addressed his concerns about the EIR, the 3 Council suggested he prepare his comments and forward them to staff. He said that a would take about a week. ~ ~ ~ s • _ , 6 ' ' ~~~l~~ / ~ ~ - M. Patricia Hilligoss, Mayor s Attest: 9 IO 11 ia atricia E. Bernard, City Clerk