Loading...
1993/01/12 City Council MinutesRohnert Park City Council Minutes January 12, 1993 The Council of the City of Rohnert Park met this date in regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m. in the City Offices, 6750 Commrce Boulevard, Rohnert Park, with Mayor Pro- Tempore Reilly presiding. CALL TO ORDER -Mayor Pro - Tempore Reilly called the regular session to order at approximately 6:25 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. Mayor Pro- Tempore Reilly advised that a closed session commenced this evening at 6:00 p.m. to discuss personnel matters and litigation matters. He said no action was taken and there was nothing to report at this time. ROLL CALL Present: (4) Councilmembers Eck, Gallagher, Spiro and Mayor Pro- Tempore Reilly Absent: (1) Mayor Hollingsworth (Out of town on business) Staff present for all or part of the meeting: City Manager Netter, City Attorney Flitner, Planning Director Skanchy, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Brust, Youth and Family Services Manager Park, Community Resource Specialist Vander Vennet and Director of Recreation Pekkain. INVOCATION Mayor Pro - Tempore Reilly said in keeping with the tradition of past councils of the City of Rohnert Park, the first City Council meeting of the year has been started with an invocation. He introduced Pastor Richard Swaybel of Grace Community Foursquare Church to give traditional invocation. Mayor Pro-Tempore Reilly consented to a citizen request to commAnt . Andrew Kovaly, 6920 Commerce Blvd., shared contents of his letter received at the City Offices on January 8, 1993 (No.19 on Comrunications) expressing opposition to the proposal of prayer at the City Council Meeting of January 12, 1993. He said the mixing of state and church are prohibited by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. Mr. Kovaly implored Mayor Pro- Tempore to cancel the invocation as scheduled for tonight's meeting. Mayor Pro-Tempore Reilly explained that a person could not present an issue two days before a Council meeting and change a long -time practice of having an invocation once at the beginning of each calendar year by different religious denominations. Consideration to change such a practice would need to be placed on an agenda for Council review and possible action. Pastor Richard Swaybel of Grace Commnity Foursquare Church gave the invocation as scheduled. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (2) January 12, 1993 Approval Upon motion by Councilmember Gallagher, seconded by Council- member of Eck, the minutes of December 7, 8 and 10, 1992 were unanimously Minutes approved as submitted. Approval Upon nation by Councilmember Eck, seconded by Councilmember Spiro , of the bills presented per the attached lists in the amounts of Bills $1,349,936.78 for December 22, 1992 and $1,089,425.15 for January 12, 1993; CDA bills in the amounts of $177,770.72 for December 22, 1992 and $92,713.54 for January 12,1993 were approved by the following vote: AYES: (3) Councilmembers Eck, Spiro and Mayor Pro- Tempore Reilly NOES: (0) None ABSTAIN: (1) Councilmember Gallagher (due to lack of time to fully review the items) ABSENT: (1) Mayor Hollingsworth Non - agendaed - Mayor Pro- Tempore Reilly queried if any Councilmember had any non - matters agendaed items to add to the agenda. Councilman Eck said he had one miscellaneous item to add. He also said he had received a request earlier today from Eric Anderson, representing M & M Feeds, who planned to arrive later tonight and would like to make comments during the composting facility item. Councilmember Spiro said she had a couple miscellaneous items. City Manager Netter said he also had a few items. Unscheduled Mayor Pro-Tempore Reilly stated that in compliance with State Law (The Public Brown Act), anyone in the audience who wished to make a comment may do Appearances so at this time, and /or wait to speak on agenda items as scheduled. In most cases, under legislation of the Brown Act, the Council cannot handle an item without agendizing. To ensure accurate recording, "Speaker Cards" are provided at the entrance of the Chamber and unscheduled public appearances are requested to fill out the cads and present to recording clerk after speaking. Holly Blue, 1312 Gold Way, President of Friends of the Animals in the Redwood Empire (FAIRE), expressed appreciation to City staff for recent efforts in putting together the Groundbreaking Ceremony for the new Animal Shelter, and to Mayor Hollingsworth for including FAIRE representatives in same. Keith Hallock, 1500 Baumgardner Lane., Santa Rosa, Ca. 95404, shared contents of his letter dated January 12, 1993 to Citizens of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County and the Rohnert Park City Council (copy attached to original set of these minutes) pertaining to the 1992 Sonoma County Grand Jury Final Report. Mr. Hallock's letter reviewed his complaints regarding the way developments have been processed in Rohnert Park and expressed his feelings that the Grand Jury Report substantiated same. Mayor Pro- Tempore Reilly explained that the 1992 Sonoma County Grand Jury Report had been presented to Council tonight just prior to this meeting and it would be thoroughly reviewed by each Councilmember. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (3) January 12, 1993 Councilmember Spiro said she had reviewed the referenced report briefly and even though she had not yet had the opportunity to read it thoroughly, no where in the report did she see any of the interpretations shared tonight by Mr. Hallock. Councilmember Spiro said W. Hallock was one whom she had met with last year regarding his affordable housing proposal, and said she did not appreciate the unfounded accusations made tonight. Ms. Spiro said she certainly thought Mr. Hallock should be careful about making such serious "accusations that could be considered slanderous because he did not have any facts to support such conclusions. "CORRECTION from 1/26/93 Council meeting: include specific Councilman Eck said since Mr. Hallock did say he has filed a claim accusations of against the City regarding this matter, it would probably be best from bribery,extortion, this point on to deal directly with legal counsel. Council agreed. racketeering and forgery. Andrew Kovaly, 6920 Commerce Blvd., referenced his comments at the opening of tonight's Council meeting pertaining to the need for "separation of church and state ". He presented to Council a framed document entitled "Your Bill of Rights ". Mr. Kovaly requested this item be placed in an appropriate place where everyone could see it. Mr. Kovaly also referenced copies provided to Council of the U. S. Supreme Court opinion (Everson v. Board of Education) regarding "what the 1st clause of the 1st amendment 'separation of state and church' implied" and shared contents therein. W. Kovaly then distributed to each Councilmember a copy of current manual published by the Assembly, 1991 -92 entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of California ". George Horwedel, 7669 Camino Colegio, said he had three things he would like to address: 1) the Bicycle Committee; 2) Jud Snyder's last article in the Clarion; and 3) the state budget crisis. He said he understood the Bicycle Committee did not include a member from Cotati and he thought that was a mistake. He commented that he thought money spent now would return ten -fold between the two cities working together on this committee. Councilman Eck responded that Council agreed to include the City of Cotati and the only question was the sharing of costs. Mr. Horwedel said Jud Snyder had suggested in his recent Clarion article that Rohnert Park Sections M and L be given to Cotati to mke the cities more equal in size. Mr. Horwedel suggested that the thought should be given to combining the two cities. This consideration could have a big effect on his third item of concern regarding the state budget and the likelihood that this year cities will be hit even harder with funding cuts than last year. By combining the two cities, various City Hall administration positions could be cut from the top. He suggested Council create a subcommittee to investigate this possibility and check with the school district to see how it accomplished combining the efforts of the two cities for the school system. Discussion followed during which Council comments confirmed the above considerations have been explored in the past. There was a committee that had looked at the boundaries which make sense on a map. However, trying to convince Rohnert Park and Cotati residents to be combined is another matter and not too feasible in the near future. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (4) January 12, 1993 Jake Mackenzie, 1536 Gladstone Way, said he was Chairperson on the Bicycle Committee of which Director of Public Works /City Engineer Brust organized the first meeting last week. He reported that one of the items of the meeting was that the Comnittee asked City Engineer Brust to proceed with a time schedule with Rohnert Park City Manager and be sure to extend an invitation to the City of Cotati to be involved in same. Councilman Eck Leaves Councilman Eck left the Chamber at approximately 6:58 p.m. C O N S E N T C A L E N D A R "CORRECTION from 1/26/93 Council Nhyor Hollingsworth *queried if anyone had any questions regarding the meeting: matters on the Consent Calendar which were explained in the City Change name Manager's Council Meeting Memo. to Mayor Pro - Tempore Reilly. Acknowledging the City Manager /Clerk's report on the posting of the agenda. Resolution A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK REJECTING No. 93 -01 THE CLAIM OF MICHAEL EUGENE HANNERS (re. an alleged accident on Roberts Lake Road & Santa Rosa Avenue) Resolution A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK ACCEPTING No. 93 -02 GRANT DEED FROM CODDING MIERPRISES (For Parcel "A" - Home Express parcel at Redwood Drive and Millbrae Avenue) Resolution A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AUTHORIZING No. 93 -03 THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE STATE -LOCAL ENTITY MY STER AGREEMWT AND PROGRAM SUPPLENETM (SB 300, formerly SB 140) Resolution APPROVING LE'T'TER AGREEMWr WITH LAWRY COKER DeSILVA TO PROVIDE FOR No. 93 -04 COMPANY NAME; CHANGE TO BSI LAWRY COKER DeSILVA ARCHITECTURE (Re. architectural services for new Animal Shelter, Proj. No. 1990 -14) Resolution A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK No. 93 -05 ALIZING AND APPROVING OFFICIATING SERVICES AGREEMEDTT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AND THE NORTHERN COAST OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION Resolution A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK No. 93 -06 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING OFFICIATING SERVICES AGREEMENT BE MMN THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AND THE PETALLM OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION Upon motion by Councilmember Spiro, seconded by Councilmember Gallagher, the Consent Calendar as outlined on the meeting's agenda was approved by the following vote: AYES: (3) Councilmembers Gallagher, Spiro, and Mayor Pro- Tempore Reilly NOES: (0) None ABSENT: (2) Councilman Eck and Mayor Hollingsworth Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (5) January 12, 1993 Protest of Stop Sign at Dawn Drive and Santa Dorotea Circle: City Manager Netter explained the protest of stop sign recently placed at the north intersection of Dawn Drive and Santa Dorotea Circle as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo. He said copies were provided to Council of various phone call messages and letters protesting this stop sign. W. Netter pointed out that one of the letters dated December 8th, 1992 was from Bruce A. Miller, resident of 908 Santa Dorotea Circle, who resides next to the installed stop sign, and that W. Miller's daughter was present at tonight's meeting to comment on same. City Manager Netter said copies were also provided to Council of resolution for consideration rescinding Resolution No. 92 -187 that could remove the stop sign, if Council so desires. Staff recommended, and would still recommend, not having a stop sign at this location. It is not justified by traffic engineering standards. Councilman Eck returns Councilman Eck returned to the Chamber at approximately 7:02 p.m. City Engineer Brust responded to Council questions to clarify the meaning of the Stop Sign Log kept from phone messages regarding this matter and said twenty (20) residents were against the placement of the referenced stop sign at Dawn Drive and Santa Dorotea Circle, and eleven (11) residents signified preference, if deemed necessary, to a the placement of a stop sign at Davis East. Mayor Pro - Tempore Reilly said when the placement of this stop sign came before Council, it was decided to look at the matter again in ninety (90) days following a trial period of same. The reason the stop sign was requested was for the safety of children. Mr. Reilly said he hoped the trial period would still be allowed since considering convenience versus child safety is not the same thing. Stefanie Miller, 908 Santa Dorotea Circle, expressed appreciation for the opportunity to speak and said she was the daughter of Bruce Miller. She said she was here tonight to represent her father who was unable to attend this Council meeting because he was attending another business meeting. Ms. Miller shared contents of her father's above - referenced letter protesting installation of the stop sign and confirmed their family resides next to same. She said she and her brother had lived and grown up at this Santa Dorotea intersection for the past fourteen years and they have not seen a hazard. Except for the construction of one new house, there has been no new housing developments in that area and there has not been an increase in traffic. There is no need for children to cross at the particular intersection because the crossing guard is right down the street at the next corner, therefore, it is truly not a safety issue for children. Ms. Miller said one concern of her family is that the petitioner for the stop sign will never use it on a daily basis and it has proved to be quite an inconvenience for the Miller family, especially pertaining to the privacy of their home. Stefanie Miller said it was her family's hope that the City would prevail and confirm that the stop sign is not necessary by rescinding Resolution No.92 -187. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (6) January 12, 1993 Kathleen A. Mortell, 922 Santa Dorotea Circle, said she thought removal of the stop sign after this length of time would be unsafe for children and pets of the neighborhood. The five to seven second delay in time for the driver to get to their final destination is not worth the risk of an accident involving a child. Linda DeBolt, 5701 Davis Circle, said she realized the purpose of the stop sign was to slow down traffic, but this location will not serve that purpose because there is virtually no traffic to consider at the Dawn /Santa Dorotea intersection. Wst of the children would cross at Country Club Drive and it is too far from the park to slow traffic near the park. It would make more sense to put a stop sign at East Davis and Santa Dorotea as this is a dangerous intersection and a stop sign there could slow traffic and keep those going to the park safer. The other stop sign only a half a block away might have to be taken out if a stop sign is placed at the East Davis intersection. Ms. DeBolt said an alternative might be to put speed bumps in the street and crosswalks, but requested Council not to place the stop sign where it makes no sense. Donna Merritt, 914 Santa Dorotea Circle, said she was the person that originally petitioned to have the referenced stop sign installed. She explained the reasons and procedures as previously reviewed in her letter dated October 8, 1992 and presented at the Council meeting of November 24th, 1992. Ms. Merritt distributed copies of a list of signatures to Council from various residents of the D Section expressing appreciation to the City Council for approving installation of said stop sign. She said significant reduction in speed has been noticed in the area since the installation of the stop sign and thanked Council for its time and cooperation. Barbara Uhl, 577 Dexter Circle, said she has lived in this neighborhood for 16 to 17 years and raised four children. She said she did not think the traffic has changed that much in the referenced area. She had not realizes there was so much controversy over this issue, but there are nine (9) stop signs from her house to the freeway, which she feels are excessive. Ms. Lhl said she was not personally convinced of the need of an additional stop sign. There is a stop sign at the park between Country Club Drive and the park. She said maybe what is needed is to have more police patrol and she did not think the issue is just speed trouble. Ms. Uhl responded to Council question pertaining to the direction she usually goes to do her shopping to which she said it depended on if she was going to downtown Santa Rosa or local errands. However, she felt the additional sign at Dawn Drive and Santa Dorotea Circle served no real purpose. Discussion followed during which City Manager Netter and Director of Public Works /City Engineer Brust responded to various Council questions as reviewed in previous staff reports and Council Meeting Memo. Staff has strongly recomended against the installation of this stop sign because staff did not feel it was warranted. Pros and cons of the effectiveness of stop signs and /or crosswalks were reviewed by Council with corments that safety could actually be hindered by these efforts. Consideration of speed bumps is another matter and, if considered, would be something staff would have to review further. City Engineer said there is an existing stop sign at the west of Davis Rohr rt Park City Council Minutes (7) January 12, 1993 and since the east leg of Davis is the most hazardous, recomnended, if a stop sign were to be put there, the stop sign immediately east of the park should be removed. A motion was made by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilnember Spiro, and unanimously approved, to proceed with the 90-day trial period for the Dawn Drive /Santa Dorotea Circle stop sign installation. Mayor Pro- Tempore Reilly confirmed this item would be placed on the March 9th, 1993 Council meeting agenda and that the concerned residents of the area would be duly notified accordingly. Ordinance AN ORDINANCE AMMING TITLE 9, CHAPTER 9.44, SECTION 9.44.160 THROUGH No. 570 SECTION 9.44.200 REGARDING AMPLIFIED SOUND WITH PROVISION AND APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS City Manager Netter explained the ordinance as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo which amends certain chapters of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code regarding amplified sound that changes certain provisions and establishes application requirements. The major changes are that the recommended new wording allows for the submittal of an application for a permit as previously directed by Council for staff to revise those sections of the Code to allow for additional flexibility pertaining to this matter. Said ordinance was introduced at the Council meeting of December 8th, 1992 following Council review of same. A public hearing has been scheduled at this time prior to Council discussion and possible adoption of this ordinance. Public Mayor Pro- Tenpore Reilly opened the public hearing at approximately Hearing 7:35 p.m. James Parker, 227 Santa Alicia Drive, said he did not quite understand how the changes differed from the existing Sound/Noise Ordinance. He asked if the only change was that the City would have a formalized application process. W. Parker said if the specified hours and days are taken out of the ordinance, a major change is being made to the ordinance. He asked if there is a process for notifying those who would be impacted by the various applications. City Manager Netter responded that approval or denial of the permit would be upon discretion of the Director of Public Safety based on how it may impact the surrounding neighborhoods. If the permit is disapproved, then the appeal procedure would be to the City Manager which gives greater flexibility for the City to determine these matters on a case by case basis. Mr. Parker further reviewed scenarios of residents, like himself, who live adjacent to parks that use PA systems. He said the proposed changes to the Sound Ordinance would only open the box wider for complications of the matter. He said the revisions would be short - sheeting those that should be notified and there are a large number of people impacted by this action. There being no one further desiring to speak, Mayor Pro- Tempore Reilly closed the public hearing. City Manager Netter further reviewed the changes confirming that the stipulation of specific hours and days had been removed from the ordinance and applications would be reviewed as outlined based on each situation, thus giving more flexibility to the process. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (8) January 12, 1993 A motion was made by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilmember Spiro, for discussion to adopt Ordinance No. 570. Discussion followed during which Mayor Pro- Tempore Reilly reviewed the logic of the more thorough, case by case review of applicants that would require individual approval by staff and pointed out the necessity of residents to take it upon themselves to obtain Council agendas in order to be informed of agenda items. Due to current and future budget restraints, the mailing of individual notices may not continue to be a possibility. Councilman Eck said the old Sound Ordinance was not working effectively because an individual was able to cancel the desires of the majority, therefore, the changes would provide the needed flexibility and individual review. Councilmember Spiro withdrew her second to the above motion by Councilman Eck to adopt Ordinance No. 570. Nbyor Pro - Tempore Reilly seconded the motion for the purpose of further discussion. Councilmember Spiro said she would like to review this matter further as she had not realized that the reference to specific times and days had been removed from the ordinance and thought citizens were entitled to the established times. City Manager Netter responded that this amendment applied only to the amplified sound and did not affect other types of noises referred to in other sections of the Sound Ordinance. Councilmember Spiro referenced Section 2 of the Sound Ordinance Amend- ment, first paragraph pertaining to applicant filing for a sound ampli- fying equipment use permit "sufficiently in advance of the date" of intended use. She said a certain amount of time should be specified. Councilman Eck and Mayor Pro- Tempore Reilly agreed to incorporate into above motion to adopt Ordinance No. 570, a time limit of seven (7) days for said use permit application in advance of intended use date of sound - amplifying equipment. Councilmember Spiro said she still did not approve of removing times and dates completely since nobody could have an event and be sure of these conditions. Discussion followed. City Manager Netter said staff recommendation had been made without the times because of the multitude of facilities in the comm pity. Mayor Pro- Tempore Reilly said it made no sense to place specific times in the Sound Ordinance if it included a condition of subject to change according to staff recommendation, therefore, he was willing to go with the discretion of the Director of Public Safety basing decision on the particular park, dates, event, etc. as reviewed. Upon reconfirmation of motion by Councilman Eck, seconded by Mayor Pro-Tempore Reilly, a time limit for use permit application of seven (7) days in advance of intended sound - amplifying equipment use was incorporated into Section 2, Section 9.44.170 Permit Application- - Filing, reading of Ordinance No. 570 was waived and said ordinance was adopted by the following vote: AYES: (3) Councilmembers Eck, Gallagher, and Mayor Pro-Tempore Reilly NOES: (1) Councilmember Spiro ABSENT: (1) Mayor Hollingsworth Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (9) January 12, 1993 Ordinance AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AMENDING THE ROHNERT PARK No. 571 M.VICIPAL CODE, SECTION 10.20.10 SPECIAL SPEED ZONES City Manager Netter explained the ordinance provided to Council for consideration and possible introduction establishing a prima facia speed limit on Bodway Parkway as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo. The 30 m.p.h. speed limit was established by a survey conducted by the Engineering and Public Safety Department. Staff recommends introduction of this ordinance. Discussion followed during which Director of Public Works /City Engineer Brust responded to various Council questions pertaining to the establishment of speed limits on certain roadways within the City. He said results of the survey conducted and discussion with the Public Safety Department indicated preference to 30 m.p.h. on Bodway Parkway. Upon motion by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilmember Spiro, and unanimously approved, reading of Ordinance No. 571 was waived and said ordinance was introduced. RECESS Mayor Pro- Tenpore Reilly declared a recess at approximately 7:55 p.m. RECONVENE Mayor Pro - Tempore Reilly reconvened the Council meeting at approximately 8:03 p.m. with all Councilmembers present except Mayor Hollingsworth. Scheduled Public Appearance: 1992 Review of Youth and Family Services operation - City Manager Netter introduced Manager of Youth and Family Services Jim Parks and Resource Specialist Kathy Vander Vennet to report on the 1992 Review of Youth and Family Services operation as explained in the Council Meeting Memo. Ms. Vander Vennet and Mr. Parks referenced copies provided to Council of packet of information regarding this program including organizational flow charts, statistics and an outline of various existing programs handled by this department. They shared contents therein via expanded charts on display, giving an overview and summary of the programs and services the City is currently providing in the human services area. Discussion followed during which Council extended complimentary comments toward the various efforts of the Youth and Family Services program and encouraged the representatives to continue in the same manner in providing the needed human service programs. COn nission /Committee /Board appointments: City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of various informational items pertaining to Commission / Committee /Board appoint- ments and shared comments as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo outlining policies for making appointments to same. The appointments scheduled to expire on December 31st, 1992 were listed on tonight's agenda. Copies of Fact Sheet Applications and /or letters were also provided to Council of those individuals seeking re- appointment or new appointments. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (10) January 12, 1993 Councilmember Gallagher said she brought up the inquiry about the City policy for making appointments to City Commissions because it affects the way she will make her nominations for appointments. She confirmed her inquiry dealt with the question of why Commissioners' terms do not coincide with Councilmembers' terms of office. She expressed the desire for consistency in the City's policies for all the commissions and said there is a person serving on one of the commissions that would normally be her nomination for appointment. The referenced Commissioner has one more year before his term expires and was former Councilmember Hopkin's nomination. Councilnvwber Gallagher said it was not her desire to for this Comnissioner to be re- appointed and she preferred to wait until after a consistent policy is established for Council nominations and appointments. Discussion followed during which Council reviewed previous decision to reduce the Cultural Arts Commission from 7 members to 5 members and was changed so that each Commissioner's term would coincide with the Councilmembers' terms, but the procedure was changed only for this Commission. Councilman Eck said he thought the change included other Commissions but review of the record proved otherwise. He said in spite of what the Grand Jury said in its recent report about Rohnert Park's appointment procedures, he thought the City has the most effective method of making appointments and planned to write to the Grand Jury to that effect. He recommended going ahead with the appointments and said two ways of turn over could be considered in most cases, and terms for appointments like the Bicycle Committee could be "grand- fathered" out or go to four (4) year terms. Councilman. Eck said, in the meantime, Council should go ahead and make appointments according to current policy. He agreed Council needed to work on the formula for consistency. Appointments to fill terms expired on December 31, 1992 were made as follows: 1) PLANNING CONMSSION Upon motion unanimously Commission. by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilmember Spiro, and approved, Vida Jones was re- appointed to the Planning Upon motion by Vice Mayor Reilly, seconded by Councilmember Spiro, and unanimously approved, Richard O'Connell was re- appointed to the Planning Commission. Upon motion by Counciln-mb- r Spiro, seconded by Councilman Eck, and unanimously approved, Vondina Farrell was re- appointed to the Planning Commission. 2) PARKS AND RECREATION COWISSION Upon motion by Councilmember Spiro, seconded by Councilman Eck, and unanimously approved, Barbara Thunen was re- appointed to the Parks and Recreation Comnission. Rohrnert Park City Council Minutes (11) January 12, 1993 3 ) CULTURAL ARTS CX)NMSSION Upon motion by Councilmember Spiro, seconded by Councilman Eck, and unanimously approved, Linda Holm was re- appointed to the Cultural Arts Commission. Upon motion by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilmember Spiro, and unanimously approved, Lew Kuehm was re- appointed to the Cultural Arts Commission. 4) SENIOR CITIZENS ADVISORY CO44ISSICN Upon motion by Vice Mayor Reilly, seconded by Councilmember Spiro, and unanimously approved, Lenore Jurgiel was re- appointed to the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission. 5) MOBILE HOME PARKS RENT APPEALS BOARD U�)on motion by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilmember Spiro, and unanimously approved, Richard Brody was re- appointed to the Mobile Home Parks Rent Appeals Board. 6) SISTER CITIES COMMITTEE Upon motion by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilmember Spiro, and unanimously approved, Mike Grubler, Ron Rasmussen and Lena Bloeser were re- appointed at large to the Sister Cities Committee. I*hyor Pro°Tempore Reilly extended congratulations to all the above appointments and expressed appreciation for each persons continued efforts in serving the cocmmnity. City Attorney F'litner and City Manager Netter responded to various Council questions regarding this matter with explanation that such a Policy could not be changed tonight due to the various conditions of the commissions, such as, certain ones are established by ordinance, the Rent Appeals Board is by initiative, the Bicycle Committee was just instituted by lot, and Sisters City Committee was at large. The new policy could be retroactive or established from the point of expired terms, depending upon Council directive and decision. City Attorney said consideration would have to be given to whether this should be set by resolution or formal policy. City Manager Netter responded to Council inquiry that the policy change could not be voted on tonight because it will involve an ordinance change which requires a first reading for introduction and thirty (30) days for adoption. Further discussion followed regarding possible considerations for appointment policy changes with suggestion to go with two (2) year terms /even years and rotate out with Council terms. Councilmember Gallagher said she already officially requested the above- referenced -`CORRECTION from Commissioner to resign #so she could make her own nomination for 1726/93 Council appointment. Councilman Eck said this was obviously not a staff Meeting: directive and was a concern that would have to be dealt with by include reasons Council. Consideration would have to be given first to the decision pertaining to 2 of establishin g the two ( ) year cycle for appointment team and then conflict of the terms would need to be switched, but the question is, does Council interest. want to do that now. Councilmember Spiro said she had a problem with dismissing an appointee when they only have one year to go to complete a previously appointed four year term. It seemed such a person should be permitted to go ahead and finish the term as appointed. City Attorney F'litner and City Manager Netter responded to various Council questions regarding this matter with explanation that such a Policy could not be changed tonight due to the various conditions of the commissions, such as, certain ones are established by ordinance, the Rent Appeals Board is by initiative, the Bicycle Committee was just instituted by lot, and Sisters City Committee was at large. The new policy could be retroactive or established from the point of expired terms, depending upon Council directive and decision. City Attorney said consideration would have to be given to whether this should be set by resolution or formal policy. City Manager Netter responded to Council inquiry that the policy change could not be voted on tonight because it will involve an ordinance change which requires a first reading for introduction and thirty (30) days for adoption. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (12) January 12, 1993 Council concurred this item would be placed on the next Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Staff direction would be to review both options based on how the various commissions are set up and make recommendations on how to set up a consistent policy for Commission /Committee /Board appointments. Council agreed the newly formed Bicycle Committee should be included in the policy proposals for consistency and that all appointments should be made by Council appointment rather than by lot or at large. City Engineer Brost advised that the only condition for appointments to the Bicycle Committee is that the hers have to be bicycle advocates. Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (JPA) wood waste /composting facility update: City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of staff report with attachments regarding Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (JPA) creation of a wood waste and composting facility and shared comments as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo. He said W. Ken Wells, Executive Director of the JPA, was present at tonight's meeting to respond to Council questions and give an update on the status of the creation of this composting and wood waste processing facility and summarize the procedures in the selection of a company to perform these services. Mr. Netter explained SOM's recommendation of a letter of intent related to the decision to negotiate an agreement with Sonoma Compost Conpany /Empire Waste Management, Inc. outlining terms and conditions of the rating structure and other operational terms. This will be reviewed at SCWMA meeting of January 20th, 1993, of which Assistant to the City Manager Carl Leivo is Chairman, with anticipation of an agreement to be prepared for consideration at the February 17th, 1993 SCR4k meeting, if there is substantial consensus to proceed at the January 20th meeting. Staff needs Council consensus to proceed with the letter of intent or indicate reasons that it does not agree with this direction. It is staff's opinion that the Sonoma Compost /Empire Waste Management proposal is the best proposal and recommends Council's affirmative vote to proceed. Direction is needed in order to proceed. City Manager Netter said copies were also provided to Council of letters received tonight from M & M Feed dated January 6, 1993, December 7 and 31, 1992 expressing concerns regarding this matter. Eric Anderson, 776 Wyoming Drive, Santa Rosa, Ca. 95405, representing M & M Feeds, shared contents of above- referenced letters (copies attached to original set of these minutes) expressing concerns as the lowest bidder for this project. He said M & M Feed feels it is the proposer with the greatest experience in the compost business and is convinced this program is more costly than necessary. M & M Feed strongly urges Council to reject the proposed letter of intent and instruct its representative on the Waste Management Agency to develop a more sensible and less costly alternative. Kevin Walbridge of Empire Waste Management, said the above report by Eric Anderson for M & M Feeds was extremely full of misinformation. This was not a bid, it was a proposal. Mr. Walbridge reviewed the extensive process of the SCWMA. He said the Committee realized what the facts were and what the costs were going to be when the proposals were compared. After that they made a choice based on the analysis of many details. This decision should not be overturned in one evening as there are a Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (13) January 12, 1993 lot of issues not considered such as a place to take the compost. There is not a lot of time before action will be necessary. The Committee has worked on this for the last two years and the effort has been tried and proven in the community. Mr. Walbridge said he would be happy to answer further Council questions regarding this matter. Linda Christopher, 1010 Copeland Creek Drive, said she did not work for any of the companies represented here tonight. She expressed agreement with Eric Anderson's concern about the wood waste portion of the proposal that was chosen and said it will be built so a lot of money will be spent in the name of recycling. That is a big concern because of the cost. She said the second item of concern was regarding the referenced letter of intent. She said she agreed with Mr. Anderson's comments on that also in that you pay whether delivered or not. Ms. Christopher gave the example that the City of Sonoma was considering an innovative program that, if the decision was made to do it, would have had to pay for material whether or not it went into the system. Third, the cost. Ms. Christopher said she thought the Sonoma Compost /Empire Waste Management proposal was too expensive because there was not any cap on costs and it did not compare to other cities offering programs. She urged Council to vote no on the letter of intent and said she would like to see the wood waste and compost separated to get the best results and implementation of the products. It did not seem the proposal had to address those things in which the company was not experienced. Ken Wells, Executive Director of Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (JPA) responded to numerous Council questions and reviewed contents of his above - referenced summary reports as outlined in staff report and Council Meeting Memo regarding JPA Composting Agreement. He reviewed the many complexities related to evaluating the proposals and explained the process whereby the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency was able to negotiate a composite rate of $9.83 per ton with the Sonoma Compost /Empire Waste Management team. He also pointed out that this procedure was consideration of proposals, not bids, since it was necessary to look at qualified proposals first and then look at price. A tremendous amount of consideration has to go into the depth of service. Further discussion included comments that the public is looking to Council to make this decision easier or at least more understandable. Since both presentations seemed to make sense tonight, Council concluded it was necessary to review the matter in more detail for better comprehension of all factors involved. Council concurred to schedule a public work session on bbnday, January 25th, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. here at the City Offices for the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (JPA) creation of a wood waste and composting facility. All interested parties were invited to participate for further review and detailed explanations of same. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (14) January 12, 1993 Rohnert Park Cultural Arts Corporation - "30th Birthday" painting: City Manager Netter advised that communications today with members of the Cultural Arts Corporation confirmed reconsideration of its request for the City to purchase and frame the "30th Birthday Cake" painting as shown on the 1992 Annual Report. He said the Cultural Arts Corporation decided it would be able to cover the cost of this painting. Resident Discount Cards: City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of staff report dated January 8, 1993 from Finance Director Harrow regarding Universal Resident Cards with attached recent survey of rates charged by golf courses in Sonoma County. He shared contents therein including comments in the Council Meeting Memo recommending a $15 annual fee to cover processing costs of the Universal Resident Card that would entitle residents to receive substantial discounts at both Mountain Shadows Golf Courses, the Performing Arts Center and the Sports Center. City Manager Netter responded to various Council questions and said a public comment period had been scheduled at this time on tonight's agenda regarding this matter as recommended by Council at its previous meeting. Public Comments - Mayor Pro- Terpore Reilly opened the meeting to public comments at approximately 9:30 p.m. Katherine Collins, 828 Lilac Way, said it was her understanding that residents already get a discount when utilizing City facilities other than the golf courses. Does this card mean the golf course would retain its costs in the neighborhood? City Manager responded the Mountain Shadows pays for the cost of the film and incidentals. The City provides the labor for processing the cards and would reimburse the golf course for the cost of the film. In response to Ms. Collins inquiry regarding the necessity of the cards, City Manager explained the high volume of processing the resident cards during four or five months of the year. He said residents get the discounts signified by the cards, but now the processing fee would pay for costs of the card. Mr. Netter confirmed to Ms. Collins further inquiry that the golf course does require the resident card to qualify for the resident rates. Herb Lyons, 14 Walnut Circle, said this was another example of starting from the bottom again to cut costs. He said, speaking as a senior citizen, he does not play golf any more, does not exercise and is just dormant. He said this does not give the seniors an even break and the $15 charge for the card is out of pocket. The City should start cutting off the top instead of the bottom and give the seniors a break. Dave Mochel, 4405 Hollingsworth Circle, asked if a person had to actually live in Rohnert Park to qualify for the resident card or could they have a business here or some other affiliation. City Manager responded that currently part of the agreement with American Golf defines qualifica- tions for the discount card as a person who lives or owns a business in Rohnert Park. He said there are other "grandfathering" situations whereby a person is classified a resident for golf course purposes, as well as "honorary resident" situations like recently acknowledged for Jack Cavanaugh. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (15) January 12, 1993 There being no one further desiring to speak regarding this matter, Mayor Pro- Tempore Reilly closed public comments at approximately 9:36 p.m. Discussion followed during which City Manager Netter responded to further Council questions regarding the proposed processing charges for the Universal Resident Card. Council agreed the charge should be directly related to processing costs and the City should not try to funnel excesses into the General Fund. It was concluded that charging $8 instead of $15 would be a sufficient trial amount to cover processing costs of the resident cards. In response to resident Holly Blue inquiry from the audience as a non - golfer, City Manager confirmed that this resident card would basically be a golf card and was not necessary for the standard resident discounts provided at the other City facilities. Some people use the card for identification purposes. This is just an attempt to simplify procedures and cover costs. Upon motion by Councilman Eck, seconded by Mayor Pro-Tempore Reilly, to issue a Universal Resident Card with emphasis on golf, at a trial fee amount of $8 to cover processing costs, beginning February ist, 1993, was unanimously approved. Parks and Recreation matters: 1) Rohnert Park Babe Ruth Bambino Baseball letter request - City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of letter dated December 6, 1992 from Rohnert Park Babe Ruth Bambino Baseball, Inc. requesting approval and continued cooperation for projects at A Park and C Park as listed on tonight's Council meeting agenda. He shared contents therein as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo. The specific requests included: 1) adding a restroom near the snack bar at A Park and enlarge the existing snack bar; 2) adding hot and cold running water in concession stand at C Park; and 3) direction on filing for a use permit to use a P. A. system at A and C Park for the coming season. This third item was dealt with earlier tonight by the adoption of Sound Ordinance No. 570. City Manager Netter said staff recommends Council authorization of these improvements to be made by the Rohnert Park Babe Ruth Baseball organization at no cost to the City. Upon motion by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilmember Spiro, the above- reviewed items 1 and 2 pertaining to improvements for projects at A Park and C Park by Rohnert Park Babe Ruth Baseball, Inc. as requested, were unanimously approved as recomrended by staff. Rohnert Park Comtunity Stadium proposals: City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of staff report dated December 30, 1992 with various attachments regarding proposals for Rohnert Park Stadium. He shared contents therein as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo outlining three (3) options of use as follows: Option No. 1 would include the current use of Guanella Bros., and City softball leagues; Option No. 2 would be to convert the existing facility to a soccer field with combined use as a softball field; and Option No. 3 would be to convert the existing field back to a baseball field which would accommodate the Redwood Empire Baseball League, possibly the Blue Jays Baseball League, and other baseball programs. He said Director of Recreation Pekkain was Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (16) January 12, 1993 available at tonight's meeting to respond to Council questions. City Manager Netter said it appeared that Option No. 2 would give the highest and greatest use of the Stadium. Mr. Netter said the City currently has a contract with Guanella Bros and advised that he and the Council Committee had a meeting last Friday with Walt Guanella during which Mr. Guanella explained their situation regarding pitcher from New Zealand who has not yet confirmed intentions for the upcoming year. Mr. Guanella said this would be a deciding factor for them regarding interest in use of the Stadium and has asked for two more weeks to finalize communications regarding this matter. City Manager Netter said he reviewed this matter with Director of Recreation Pekkain who confirmed it would be sufficient to make decisions on the Stadium options by the end of the month. Mir. Netter said the City would have Walt Guanella's decision by the next Council meeting. Discussion followed during which staff responded to further Council questions pertaining to adequate size of the Stadium field and conversion costs of the options as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Tom Gray of the North Bay Breakers responded from the audience to Council inquiry that the 65'x105' Stadium field size suited the needs of its professional soccer team proposal. Council discussed various other possibilities for use of the stadium, specifically mentioning =CORRECTION from the men's baseball league in Rohnert Park which involves many teams.` 1/26/93 Council Recreation Director Pekkain said the local baseball teams usually Meeting: consists of wives and family members of team players in the crowds as Council comments compared to an adult soccer game that brings in a different element included that the and has much more appeal to spectators. If the use of the Stadium for options were not soccer is successful, it has potential of bringing mach more revenue comparable because into the City than baseball has proven in the past. Councilman Eck the costs for rehatsaid this could be an opportunity to bring a new sport into town to were not included maximize the use of the Stadium. in options 2 and 3. Power Failure - P. G. & E. power failure occurred at approximately 10:00 p.m. Discussion followed during which Council agreed it would have been necessary to make a motion to either extend this meeting beyond the established 10:00 p.m. adjournment time, or adjourn to another time to complete the agenda items as scheduled. Consideration was given to various times and dates that would be best to finish the agenda. A motion was made by Councilmember Spiro, seconded by Councilmember Gallagher, and unanimously approved, to adjourn this meeting to 5:00 p.m., Thursday, January 14, 1993 here in the City Council Chamber to complete tonight's agenda items as scheduled (prior to the previously scheduled Mayors and Councilmembers' meeting at 6:30 p.m. at Mountain Shadows). Adjournment Mayor Pro- Tempore Reilly adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., January 14, 1993 per above motion. 12 January 1993 Citizens of Rohnert Park & Sonoma County & the Rohnert Park City Council The 1992 Sonoma County Grand Jury Final Report is out. It is an unbiased, non- partisan well written document that should be read by all citizens of Sonoma County and particularly the people of Rohnert Park. The Report is quite clear in substantiating our complaints regarding the way developments have been processed in Rohnert Park. The Grand Jury Investigation focused on the 80 acre annexation by Rogers /Condiotti, as an example, because time constraints wouldn't allow similar investigations of the Wine Center, the Performing Art Center Endowment Fund or the Bidding Procedures used by the City for outside vendors and many other complaints. This report and the work done by the Grand Jury has laid the foundation for cleaning up the problems of corruption, malfeasance and improprieties by elected officials, staff and others, with allegations that include but are not limited to bribery, extortion, racketeering, forgery and the covering up of a suspicious death. It is now up to you, the citizens, to demand that action be taken at every level of government to fire and recall those who have at a minimum condoned this corrupt atmosphere by not speaking out long ago and to also prosecute those that are criminally guilty. This arena of corruption and the "majority of three" vote system, started long before the Wine Center and 80 acre annexation request and long before I tried to get annexed in 1985. It started almost from the day of the incorporation of the city. Paul Golis, the founder of Rohnert Park, was forced out of developing because of the 3 -2 vote of which the two senior city councilman, Hopkins and Hollingsworth, have always been a party to. The site where MacDonalds was built is one of many examples of the "majority of three" system but it was the last for Golis. I am grateful for the cooperation and information we have received from Mr. Golis and without his help we would not have the actual court depositions telling the true history of Rohnert Park. It started with the cable tv contract and Jimmie Rogers (who was on the city council), Dr. Donald Davis, Peter Callinan and his brother -in -law, Jack Buchanan in some real estate deals with William Schiller, the regional manager of Storer TV. Although Total TV in Santa Rosa was the low bidder, they didn't get the contract because they wouldn't rent office space from Rogers and Davis, in a building they owned on Southwest Boulevard. The manager of Total TV said he couldn't do business like that. But Schiller did, although he was later told by his company to divest all interest with Rogers, Buchanan and Callinan. To this day, Rogers and Schiller still own real estate together and the story of how Rogers and Davis became partners is told in the depositions. Why haven't you, the citizens, heard the details of this pattern of corruption and the 3 -2 vote that keeps anyone out of Rohnert Park except those that go through Rogers? It is not that the news media hasn't the details. The Press Democrat had every bit of information that the Grand Jury did and yet they didn't do any investigative reporting. They left out many important details about the Grand Jury Report in their article last Sunday. The Grand Jury Report should have been a head line article on the front page. I don't know for sure about the media but it has become crystal clear why nothing has been done over the years by the local law enforcement agency of the District Attorney's office. It isn't that people haven't tried. There have been efforts over the years to get the DA to do something about the corruption, starting with the cable tv deal and a citizen's group who were protesting the obvious conflict of interest. A Rohnert Park Planning Commissioner's former wife tried to prosecute her husband through the DA's office for forging her signature on property deeds that included some that were notarized by one of our city councilmen. Another ex -wife also complained to the DA about similar forgeries, as well as being forced to sign documents with a gun held to her head. These examples have been taken to the DA, along with examples of forged deeds of current wives in rather strange transactions in which wives names are taken off title by quit claims or other deeds, even though they are still married and even though California is a Community Property state. Even with this, the DA's office will do nothing. But we have heard that Jimmie Rogers has bragged of having the DA and judges in his pocket, so it comes as no surprise that nothing has ever been done, even after our visits with the DA and our presentation of substantiating documents to the Grand Jury. How high and widespread is the corruption? We have filed complaints at many agencies at the state level with a very poor response. We have also filed complaints at the Federal level and have a much better response and now that the Grand Jury findings are out we expect to see activity at the Federal level. The reluctance of the DA to prosecute corrupt officials, elected or staff, is very clear in the rest of the Grand Jury Report, with examples of serious problems with 4th District Supervisor Nick Esposti and the County Building Department, as well as many other issues dating back through other Grand Jury reports. Esposti has not been prosecuted but has had the arrogance to try to get the Grand Jury disbanded. I have been financially damaged by the actions of this city council and staff but I am not alone. As a result of this regime's actions you have suffered from a lack of competition that would have brought better quality and lower prices for your homes. The west side shopping centers could have been built on vacant city lands instead of the privately held properties of this corrupt regime. You have lost millions of dollars in funds that could have gone to your school district and city coffers. I will be filing a claim against the city as my avenue to receive compensation for my financial losses. You too must organize and demand changes, prosecutions or whatever is necessary to compensate for your losses. I am here before you tonight to ask you to demand the resignation of those city officials and employees involved in these matters that were spelled out in the Grand Jury report and I am also asking for the resignation of the city council members involved. Let us stand united to oppose the "ROYALISTS" of Sonoma County Keith Hallock T� 74540 Hill Road Covelo, Ca. 95428 (707) 983 -6273 January 6, 199 To: Interested Parties Re: Contract to Provide Organic Material Processing, Composting and Marketing Services for the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency I am writing to express my concerns, as the lowest bidder for this project, regarding the proposed contract. Included in this packet is an analysis, dated December 7, 1992, of the three proposals originally accepted for consideration and an analysis, dated December 31, 1992, of the new contract negotiated between the selected proposer and the Agency. In addition to the significant issues of policy and cost raised in the analyses, the composting business I have built over the past decade would be severely threatened by this program because of the unnecessary subsidies provided to a potential competitor. I also believe the program as presently proposed contradicts the highest policy goals of AB 939, i.e., source reduction as the ultimate goal in reducing the volume of solid waste flowing into our landfills. While local government is attempting to educate the public and private business to reduce waste stream inputs this "put or pay" contract requires the Agency to maintain minimum levels of wood and yard waste into the system and would require payment to the contractors for those set minimums. This proposal, therefore, clearly establishes contradictory goals within the AB 939 framework. As the proposer with the greatest experience in the compost business, I remain convinced this program is more costly than necessary and I strongly urge you to reject the proposed letter of intent and instruct your representative on the Waste Management Agency to develop a more sensible and less costly alternative. Thank you for your serious consideration of these issues. I am available at your convenience to discuss these matters in greater detail. Sincerely, Martin Mileck Eric Anderson December 31, 1992 To: Interested Parties From: Eric Anderson, Representing M & M Feeds Contact: Eric Anderson, 579 -2535, or Martin Mileck, M & M Feeds, 983 -6273 Re: Proposed contract with Empire Waste Management and Sonoma County Compost. The recently negotiated agreement between EWM /SCC and the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency to provide organic material processing, composting and marketing services is a bad deal for local governments and the ratepaying public. It is a particularly disturbing proposal because it is another unnecessary straw on the camel's back of local businesses that find it increasingly difficult to remain competitive in California's regulatory environment. While the waste management goals of AB 939 are clearly good and necessary public policy it should be the objective of local decision - makers to implement these programs in the least costly fashion. The current proposal has all the makings of an expensive boondoggle. The program is still too costly. The minimum cost, according to "Attachment A" of the new proposal, is $9.83 per ton - 53% higher than the cost of the M &M Feeds /Soils Plus proposal. A careful reading of the entire proposed agreement confirms the contract will probably result in much higher costs. In fact, because the contract is structured to remove any risk to the contractor the Agency has no way of estimating the cost of the contract to the Agency. It is a no- risk giveaway to EWM /SCC. Estimated costs in "Attachment A" have been theoretically reduced by "guaranteed revenue." The term "guaranteed revenue" could not be more deceptive. There is no "guarantee" whatsoever of any revenue! The "change in market prices" clause on page 3 removes any guarantee and makes the cost per ton shown on "Attachment A" meaningless. The clause also removes any incentive for the contractor to market the product - they receive their income whether they sell the product or give it away. ® 776 Wyoming Drive • Santa Rosa; CA 95405 (707) 579 -2535 While the Agency is claiming this agreement is comparatively a low cost program, they are basing their cost estimates on best case scenarios they cannot guarantee. There is simply no way of knowing what this contract is going to cost the public! The M &M /Soils Plus proposal shares revenue with the Agency providing the necessary market incentive for contract performance. The "put -or -pay" structure of the current agreement is a bad deal for the public. EWM /SCC will be laughing all the way to the bank and ratepayers will be left holding the bag. Because of their limited experience in the wood waste processing business and the lack of necessary equipment to develop other wood waste products, EWM /SCC propose to only enter the fuel market with the wood waste product. If the fuel market softens due to other similar programs or future restrictions on emissions there is virtually no limit to how high the cost per ton to the Agency will rise. Given our long experience in the wood waste business, M &M /SP can assure the Agency the $12.00 /ton "guaranteed" revenue figure is unrealistic and will have to be adjusted downward. As for the "guaranteed revenue" from sales of compost, EWM /SCC have never produced or marketed compost on any significant scale and can only speculate regarding prospective markets. Given their lack of experience, it would be more realistic to assume EWM /SCC will be forced to give the product away or resort to landspreading as suggested in the Grab 'n Grow proposal. "Guaranteed revenue" would disappear from the cost equation, the contractor would resort to the "change in market prices" clause, and the Agency(read local ratepayers) would once again be left holding the bag. The $9.83 /ton figure is clearly meaningless. The Agency can be comfortably assured it will increase, very possibly doubling costs to the Agency. However, because there are no cost caps in the contract, ultimate costs to the ratepayers are impossible to estimate. It is further observed if the Agency never delivers a single ton to be processed it will be contractually committed to paying EWM /SCC $2.7 million, not counting penalties. Compare that with the M &M /SP price of $2.3 million for processing 200 tons per day. There is simply no reason for the Agency to rush into this program, especially given the serious questions and significant uncertainties surrounding the proposed agreement. While it is commendable Sonoma County local governments are attempting to implement programs sooner than necessary to meet AB 939 mandated timelines, there isn't any reason to put ratepayers at the substantial financial risks presented by this agreement. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of these issues. Eric Anderson December 7, 1992 To: Interested Parties From: Eric Anderson, Representing M & M Feeds. Re: Contract to Provide Organic Material Processing, Composting and Marketing Services for the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency The Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (AGENCY), acting on behalf of a joint powers agency comprised of the eight cities and the County of Sonoma, is recommending a contract for processing, composting and marketing services to meet state mandated goals as specified in AB 939. The recommended proposal: does not adequately fulfill the primary purpose of the contract in meeting AB 939 goals; is far more expensive than is necessary to achieve the AGENCY'S objectives, placing an undue financial burden on ratepayers, local business and local governments; relies on two companies for contract performance that have no record of experience in processing, composting or marketing the volume of organic wastes generated by the contracting agency; has been chosen based on evaluation criteria that differ significantly from the criteria as represented in the original REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS. We believe the following analysis of the aforementioned objections to the proposed contract raise significant issues that should be sufficient cause for the local government members of the joint powers agency to reject the contract as proposed. The proposal as recommended has raised serious questions and generated public controversy(see attachment) supporting our belief the contract should be rejected and the proposals returned to the AGENCY for further review and reevaluation. I. AB 939 Goals The most curious and glaring omission in the proposal review process is that AB 939 diversion goals are not quantified, or even considered. The M & M /Soils Plus proposal is the only proposal that guarantees 100% credit for diversion. Both Grab n' Grow and Waste Management propose to transform a significant portion of the potentially divertable waste to fuel. ® 776 Wyoming Drive • Santa Rosa, CA 95405 (707) 579 -2535 Why hasn't the AGENCY evaluated the proposals based on the one factor that is the very reason for creating this project? AB 939 has placed a large, albeit necessary, burden on local governments and created a potentially large financial cost for the ratepaying public and private businesses. Wood waste(16.7 %) and yard debris(14.9 %) constitute the largest, most easily segregated and most cheaply diverted portion of the total solid waste stream. M &M /SP /EB guarantee in their proposal every ton will qualify for diversion credits. The SCC /EWM proposal, in addition to the higher cost of their proposal, have presented a plan that may require local agencies to design and implement additional programs that are totally unnecessary. II. Cost of Proposal The AGENCY selected three proposals for consideration during the selection process ranging in overall cost from $7.50 per ton(M & M Feed /Soils Plus /Earthbound Compost proposal (M &M /SP /EC)) to $24 per ton(Empire Waste Management /Sonoma County Compost (SCC /EWM).) A recent survey conducted by the AGENCY revealed costs for similar programs around the state ranging from $0 per ton(Marin County, City of Modesto) to $33 per ton(City of Davis.) Reasons for Cost Differentials A. Experience M &M /SP /EB is the only proposer with long -term experience in processing and marketing the types and volumes of organic wastes required by the AGENCY. Our experience is reflected in the realistic expense and equipment schedules in our proposal. Why wasn't the experience factor appropriately evaluated during the selection process? B. Equipment M &M /SP /EB already owns some of the equipment necessary for contract performance. Soils Plus owns, or is in the process of purchasing, all of the equipment needed for the wood waste processing portion of the contract which would result in significant capital cost savings to the AGENCY. M &M and Soils Plus own the trucking capacity required for the marketing portion of contract performance. -2- In addition, M &M is knowledgeable regarding the aftermarket for some of the needed equipment and does not believe it necessary the AGENCY fund capital costs for brand new equipment. The SCC /EWM proposal includes unnecessary costs for testing equipment. M &M has used the services of an independent laboratory for testing its compost product for the last several years. As well as reducing capital costs to the AGENCY, M &M believes independent testing is a more appropriate protocol. Why is the AGENCY funding unnecessary capital costs? C. Marketing M & M is the only proposer with extensive experience marketing large volumes of compost. Our proposal is the only one that guarantees from day one that all the product will be successfully marketed. The recommended proposal would have the AGENCY fund an unnecessary and unproven marketing plan. SCC /EWM have no experience marketing large volumes of compost to the agricultural community. Developing the sub - markets suggested in the SCC /EWM proposal is simply a proposal to fund, at ratepayers expense, Sonoma County Compost's entry to the retail compost market. Why is the AGENCY using public funds to subsidize an unnecessary and expensive product development and marketing program designed to compete with private enterprise in an existing market, i.e. the nursery, horticultural specialty and bagged compost and mulch markets? III. Proposers' Experience M &M /SP /EB is the only proposer with extensive large volume composting experience(see attachment.) The "COMPOST PROPOSAL REVIEW AND INTERVIEW SUMMARY TABLE" included in the AGENCY'S memorandum of November 11, 1992 is very misleading in this regard. The memorandum credits Empire Waste Management, a local subsidiary of a national conglomerate with, "varied, local and national" experience. However, as is clear from a review of the EWM /SCC proposal, no one in EWM's local management team has any -3- experience in e no xperience regard. SCC is a experience in Processing, small local com volumes of wood waste or ar Composting or marketing that has yard debris. g large The "REVIEW" also creates Proposals, a nonexistent technicalpdistinctioe yard waste and other compostable materials, evaluating the between composting experience, AGENCY'S contention that Rather than the evaluation EWM /SCC have the re and knowledge regarding makes it clear a experience e organic materials was Processing, compostinack of experience organic instrumental in the g and marketing competing proposals by the review committee. isevaluation of the M &M processes, composts and organic materials. wood waste markets 15,000 tons tons of Soils Plus has processed and marketed of Products through ,000 tons were diverted the edfirst 11 90,000 (approximately 30 landfill.) It is months of 1992 experience that this reasoned judgement based on a county of less than envisioned Project can be implemented Years cost Y AGENCY staff. Plemented at a cost far IV. Evaluation Criteria The criteria contained in the Interview Summary Table" "Compost Proposal Review and evaluation criteria are significant) must rely Provided on Y different than the y in good faith on page 19 of the RFQp. Proposers- We believe post - proposal changesninrthelRF confidence and Provided in the Public solicit responsible In the long -run inhibits QP undermines the AGENCY's Public sector. Proposals from professionals in the Private to private The inconsistencies between the RFQp evaluation "Proposal... Summary tlon criteria and the conclusion the " Y able seem to substantiate the reasonable selection rather than fairly designed to justify he Most disturbing from M �Y evaluate y AGENCY'S & M s PerspeCtiveearemthelnumeroussals. omissions and misrepresentations re While we garding our proposal. have examined a number of the inconsistence Preceding portion of this Point out a few more this analysis siWe think it is es in the evaluation significant differencesain the criteria. A. Marketing Successful marketing critical element for contracted product is successful) performance. clearly a have carefully large volumes of M &M has been Y developed and expanded compost co to a market we a continuing basis. -4- We believe the agricultural marketplace can assimilate the additional quantities of compost produced from this project without the need to enter and compete in other existing markets. Soils Plus has had similar success in the wood waste products market. Why is "diversification" used in the marketing plan evaluation? There is no justification presented by the AGENCY in any documentation for the need to sell the end product in any particular way. Why is the AGENCY intent on supporting an unproven marketing plan? B. Personnel Why did the AGENCY rate our proposal inadequate on the basis of personnel? Why were Soils Plus personnel not included when comparing our staffing levels to the other proposals? If the AGENCY has special expertise in this area why were staffing levels not stipulated in the RFQP? We would be more than happy to negotiate this issue with AGENCY staff and increase our staffing levels at the facility if the AGENCY thinks it necessary. Our proposal would still cost the AGENCY significantly less than the SCC /EWM proposal. C. Public Education While we were impressed with the education program in the SCC /EWM proposal it is unclear why this criterion was even included in the Proposal Review. This criterion was not included in the RFQP evaluation components. In fact, the proposal specifically states, "The facility shall provide public education opportunities and other appropriate activities as determined in consultation with the AGENCY(emphasis added)," 2.2, 9., page 4. Contrary to the Summary Table M & M did propose a public education component (see page 10 of proposal.) Why did the AGENCY reserve the right to consultancy for the public education component in the RFQP, and then make it a mayor element of the comparative review process? D. Women -owned Businesses The RFQP evaluation criteria included credit for "use of minority- owned, women- owned, and Sonoma County -owned businesses." M &M /SP /EB was the only proposer utilizing the -5- services of a woman -owned business. Why wasn't this issue addressed in the "SUMMARY TABLE ?" Concluding Remarks We understand as of this writing the AGENCY is renegotiating the SCC /EWM proposal. With all due respect we would appreciate the same consideration. We have been in this business longer than any other proposer. We are confident in our ability to perform all contracted services at the lowest cost to the AGENCY. Thank you for your consideration. Attachments. Respectfully Submitted, Eric Anderson -6- Cooperative Extension MENDOCINO COUNTY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 707 - 463 -4495 County Ag Center/ Courthouse Fax: 707 -463 -4477 Ukiah, CA 95482 Mr. Ken Wells Sonoma County Waste Management Agency 575 Administrative Drive #117A Santa Rosa, Ca. 95403 Dear Mr. Wells: I read recently in the Press Democrat of your Agency's decision to award a contract to Waste Management for an urban composting program. The article indicated that Martin Millick of M & M Feed made a proposal presentation that wasn't as good as Waste Managements', but I want to support the fact that Mr. Millick is very much in the compost business. Many of the growers in our county use his products and services. I have seen Mr. Millick's business expand from a fairly small localized service centered around Covelo into one that delivers products all over the North Coast. Mr. Millick has done all of this without subsidies from anyone, and he has worked closely with myself and other agricul- tural consultants to develop a formulated product that is effec- tive in promoting crop growth. Mr. Millick is very much a "can do" sort of person who is energetic and focused on the task at hand. He has a proven track record in running an economically viable composting operation. I'm sorry that he didn't present himself better to your agency, for I believe that he could pro- vide a satisfactory composting operation at a competitive price. If there is an opportunity for your organization to review Mr. Millick's proposal again in the future, I encourage you to look more closely at his extensive and successful experience in the compost business. Sincerely: 6ienn T. iiQGuurty, iPlanL JCr1Ci1C C eiUV L�vt� cc: Martin Millick Location: 579 Low Gap Road, Ukiah University of California, United States Department of Agriculture and Mendocino County cooperating - t�re:s �.er io/i�/ae C OIl1pOSt proput's high bid gets- nod By TOM CHORNEAU Suawriw Sonoma County officials id Thursday they are close to an agreement with a partnership led by Empire Waste Management Inc. for a multimillion-dollar compost . project, although the firm's propos. al Is nearly three times higher than the lowest bidder. Ken Wells, director of the county Waste Management Agency, said his office expects to conclude nego- tiations with Empire and Sonoma Compost Co. of Santa Rosa later this month to build and operate the recycling facility. It will convert yard waste and wood scraps into landscape products for resale. Once complete, the compost proj- ect is expected to Increase monthly gg8arbage rates countywide from 11.25 to $3 a household, according to Wells.; Empire's Initial bid would cost nearly $8.2 million ovtr the five- ' ; yyear contract. - ' A competing proposal, submitted �by a grQUp led by Martin Mileck of Covelo, would come to $2.8 million over the same period. Another bid ;submitted by Grab 'n' Grow would -cost about $7 million. ; 'Wells said that under the terms :of the contract proposal, the waste ;agency is not required to automati- : tally accept the lowest bidder. He -said the selection committee con - :sidered all aspects of the business : proposal before selecting Empire. -Additionally, Wells said -he Is :hopeful Empire's comb will come :. :down — although he acknowledged .the final costs are Ilkely= to • be - ;hlgber than the low bid. ;Political clout claim _I.:,Mtieck, to the composting busk -t, 'new since 1884, claims his team's r proposal was vndervalued by the -County because he lacked. the poll [ -� :ical clout to get a fair hearing. "i eon t snow way out the county -just seemed to ignore us," Mileck • :sald. "You would think that with a :bid like ours they would have bent over backwards to see If we could :fulfill their needs — but It didn't ;happen. Someone told me that our bid :was unrealistically low. It I had known that the county had so much -money that they wanted higher %bids on this, we would have bid 'high, too. I just don't understand 'i`" County Supervisor Ernie Carpen- ter, the only elected official on the .10-member waste agency board :and a member of the selection :committee. said Mlleck's proposal was Incomplete and his team's key ;partners were unprepared during -the Interview process. L '111- prepared Wells said the contractor is ex- put down what they wanted. I wish ."Mileck did not turn in a very petted to not only design, build and if they had real questions about us good proposal on paper." he said. operate the compost dump but also doing this job that they really look • Our selection committee was to market the byproducts. over our operation." unanimous that based on that we $0-50 S lit He said his company, M &M Feed did not want to interview them. p Co., already develops and markets "They came to us and protested Revenue gained by the products' about 30,000 tons of non -wood and so we agreed to Interview them sale are expected to be split be- compost each year. In addition, but even there, they were ill - pre - tween the agency and contractor. Kracker's company, Soils Plus, .pared and and could not answer Empire, a subsidiary of Waste handles up to 50,000 tons of wood key questions satisfactorily." Management Co. Inc. — the na• waste annually. The Empire group, on the other tion's largest waste disposal compa- "We already do more business 'hand. Carpenter said, offered a ny — already has contracts with than the county wants to with this more complete' and professional Santa Rosa and Petaluma for curb. project — I don't see how we don't , proposel. He said Empire was side garbage pickup. qualify at least for the second udanlmously voted best by the Although Empire and Its related round of negotiations," Mileck said. :selection committee. ' . companies are well known for their ' •'Kevin Walbridge, Empire Waste political acumen nationwide, Car. Key gUeStlan3 ,general manager, said his firm's penter denied the decision to go Carpenter said a key problem for proposal came out on top because it with the bigger company was pollU- him was the fact that Mtieck's :wps simply the best one submitted. tally motivated. group did not have a formal part. • The compost facility, which is- "This Is not a street we're build. nership agreement. .gdmned to be built at the county's' ing here with a layer of concrete, Mileck countered the associates :cdnUW dump wet of Cotad early, curbs and gutters all set out for the had agreed to incorporate if it was •aixt year, is necessary because of a'' contractor. This is something very required by the county. :nlw state law that ,requires citlesa new," Carpenter said. "We felt it Jason -White said she was con. 'bad counties to divert 25 percent of best to go with the proposal that cerned about how the partners Abair waste from landfills by'11i95 , appeared most solid." lagd 50 percent of the waste by the, Barbara Jason - White, assistant to Healdsburg's city manager and a would deal with sorting contami. Y member of the selection commit- nets out of the yard and wood t� � ' IIlpOtit`process-, ' : ' ., -• tee, said Mileck's team may be waste. if ring the compost process, or• capable of performing the contract . Mileck responded the companies ,�mdaai1m metarfaW such as,kltchen r but it flunked the application pro-; deal with the problem now with iirasts'and yard clipper. am piled! %. cee . .; :. - .b �, . �.: ?•,, hand sorting, magnets and air -pow- AW a pit:Vlah fertUirer and waters, uftked process ` .,� Bred hoses. ;- ;tojbrew :• "•� "`- tx` +i'" r T: p Wells suggested the Mileck bid : �. -After a Jweek 'or two of sitting, i• "We went through a process, we was also low because the team did Ndth"somef-careful +turning, the,L put out an RFP (request for proposv not include new equipment in the �filxtltre develops in" landscape .elm) and we reviewed them," she cost and he was concerned about .pi'oduct. used ,,bytgardeners and said. "Maybe they (Mileck) could ` machine failures. �pulldetsiH c; :ayl K ^:' ^• .:do the job, bu they didn't show It. "For the price we were offeringg. S'N.ftod scrape also- are ' recycled `We're+hwnaxi_ 4M it seems to be we could buy a whole .!anlo wood Cmpa.�or,tnsgygpj the lions and based on a amwerapwe r lot of new equipment and still beat 'Mme markets. - . " madeourchoke. �:,_a9k- Empire's price by a good sum, a'1Tbe county's plan is to build one.. ,n Dsn` Carlson. waste engineer r; Mileck said. .�thp state's largest compost facW- -with. the city of Santa Race lad a^° Wells said that while Mileck's '�1e�.- capable :of handling up to' selection- committee member, •de•l: price was attractive, in his protes. 40,000 tons of waste a year. Half of,', clined to answer why he voted with sional opinion, it was unrealistic. total would be in wood chips . the - majority and referred gµes. _ "This 1s going to be a major Mind MU In garden waste. .. ,. .�'donsto Wets , `�+ . ? operation," Wells explained. "We Mileck was joined on'the waste can't look only at price• we've got to Proposal by two long -time business l, look at the whole picture and when associate — Chuck Kracker, gen. that's considered there's no ques• ersl partner of Soils Plus of Santa . tion that Empire and Sonoma Com. Rasa and Nancy Summers, owner- Poet offers the best proposal." of Earthbound of Rohnert Park. - None have ever successfully bid on a public works conirsa "I'll "'admit that we, are not professionals at bidding for con- tracts. ". Mllack said.. "We tried to'' Jp"M P Martin Mileck, standing amid mountains ojcompost on Oliret Road is Santa Rota, contends his low bid was virtually ignored by tit county. Jp"M P Martin Mileck, standing amid mountains ojcompost on Oliret Road is Santa Rota, contends his low bid was virtually ignored by tit county.