Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1954-05-15SPECIAL M~.~ING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAE FRANCISCO PflELD SATURDAY, MAY 15, 1954 PLACE: TIME: Council C~ha~bers, City Hall l0 a. m. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: ~o'/~ 7 The meeting was called to order at 10:26 a. m. by Mayor Smith. present: Councilman John Noouan, Telford Smith, George Bosworth Absent: Councilman Francis Lucchio, ~lio Cortesi. Mayor Smith explained the reason for calling the special meeting today, reading from the prepared statement of City Attorney Lyons as to the purpose of the special meeting as follows: SPECIAL MEETING This is a special meeting of the City Council called for the purpose of discussing the geuerel bond issue authorized by the people at a special election held on July 26, 1949, The election w~s called for the special purpose of submitting to the people the proposition of whether or not the City of South San Francisco should incur a general bonded indebtedness in the amount of $1,667,000.00 for the construction of a complete municipal sewage disposal system to serve the City of South San Francisco. This gives ri~e-to certain questions, namely, the purpose of the sewage disposal system, its capacity, amd whether or not it will be adequate to serve not only the present needs of the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, but also the future growth of these two cities a~ the same maybe reasonably anticipated. In particular, we are now concerned with the ceu~truction of an industrial sewage collection system and the processing of industrial waste, by the combined demestic and industrial sewage treatment plant, and the matter of Engineer Ran~ettts contract for engineering services in connection with the installation and construction of the indmstrial sewage collection system. Upon the completion of the reading of the statement, 0o~ucilman Bosworth asked that a cor- rection be made as follows: That it was for the ccmrplete construction of a sewage system. At this time City Attorney Lyons read from the sample ballot of the special election held ou July 26, 1949, suggesting that the City Clerk place the complete wording of that proposi- tion in these minutes. MEASURE: Sewage Disposal System "Shall the City of South San Francisco incur a bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $1,667,000 for the acquisition, construction and completion of the following municipal improvement, to wit: A Sewage Disposal System, including sewage treatment plant, digester, clarifiers, grit 'chambers, sludge and lift l~S, laboratory and office building, together with outfall, intercepting, connecting and lateral sewers, pipes, p~unpiug station, manholes, lauds, easements, rights-of-way and other works, property or structures necessary or convenient for a complete sewage disposal system of the City of South San Francisco?" Mayor Smith then explained the questions as enumerated by Councilman Noonan at the end of the last adjourned meeting. Ne stated for the record he would read them. They were as follows: (1) What additional demand will be m~de on the Sewage Plant? (2) Can we acc~n- modate this demand? (B) If mnable to accomodate the increased load, do we have sufficient funds to accomodate the added load? (4) Did we provide for pre-treatment of waste in the collection .system? (5) What is the increased demand expressed in population figures? Director of Public Works Goss suggested the following additional information: (l) Design analysis of treatment plant, (2) Design analysis of industrial sewers, (B) Agreements with manufacturers as to pre-trmatmeut required as recommended by Brown & Caldwell and to set requirements of Health Department and Water Pollution Control Board. Mayor Smith stated that the council had bids to consider and that they should either be accepted or rejected. He further remarked that the desire of this meeting is au engineering audit to establish its status. Also an attempt to'consolidate and bring together facts and figures regarding this industrial sewer. Mayor Smith stated a report had been received from the Manufacturers Association which hJ requested the City Manager to re~d. Upon completion of the reading, Mayor Smith asked Mr. Wilsey, engineer for the Manufacturers, if he had any comments to offer as engineer for the manufacturers. Mr. Wilsey remarked that the manufacturers have had two meetings regarding this project. After considerable thought it was felt that if the bids were rejected and re- called, no better bids would be realized. For that reason they felt that the city should proceed with the bids received. He also remarked that the council should proceed at once to determine what the cost would be with the new figures received. He then spoke ou some of the changes which had been received from McGuire and Hester. He also said he would like hearings held and modifications made, stating that be felt one hearing would suffice. He stated that Mr. Randlett offered a reduced fee provided he be allowed to forgo the Estes payment. Mr. Wilsey said that the manufacturers should be notified regarding the increase in work cost and notices should be sent to them. City Attorney Lyons stated that notices should be sent to each property owner regarding the matter of the rehearing to be held. Time would have to be allowed, he said, for the local ofi~A~es of the manufacturers to send their notices to their eastern offices. He also said that if bids were to be awarded Monday night, a resolution co~&d be prepared for further protest hearing regarding the increase in bids over those submitted. Mr. Wilsey asked that if the council were to take this action, how much savings can be affected as the manufacturers were interested in it. Mr.oRandlettwas asked by Mayor Smith if he had any comments to make to which he replied that the only comment was that a proposal was ready regarding revised engineering fees which he had prepared and distributed at this time to council members. At this point, Director of Public Works Goss read Mr. Randlett's letter just given to the council. After reading of the letter, Mr. Randlett gave the difference in fees charged outlined in the letter. The net reduction was about $15,300.00. Director of Public Works Goss said that Thursday, he, in company of CityManager McClung, and Mr. Randlett, attended a meeting at Mr. Wilsey's office ~with Mr. Wilsey. The figures were gone over, he said, and that they seemed reasonable. He recozm~nded the city accepting Mr. Randlett's figures as proposed. He also said that the city should try to recoup the money from the government although he did not hold too much hope for this. He asked at this time of City Attorney Lyons if this amount paid could be added to the assessment district. City !\ttorney Lyons stated that if this were used in the work and w~s proper, it could be, but that the manufacturers should be advised regarding the further charge on their assessment as it would be added costs. Mr. Goss remarked that~maybe Mr. Ledwith who was conducting the audit could answer this question. Mr. Ledwith remarked that the charges that can be made because plans were used is a matter for the City Attorney to answer. City Attorney Lyons stated that he felt that it would be appropriate to make charges against the general bond issue although the plans may have been discarded, but were used in the preliminary work. Mayor Smith asked Mr. Randlett the reason he gave for reducing the fees to which he answered that this was outlined iu the first paragraph of hi~s letter that he submitted. Director of Public Works Goss stated he would like to ask Mr. Randlett what .value the Estes plans were to him. He answered that he would like to give som~ study to this and could give a report later on. Councilman Noonan then asked if it was the Healy and Tibbets line that cost so much to which Mr. Raudlett answered that various changes were made in several places to increase the cost. Councilman Noonan then inquired if this was the o~tstandiug example for the increased costs to which Mr. Raudlett replied that the additional line and pumping station and change of location attri~ to this. Councilman Noonan asked if the change of location increased the cost. Mr. Randlett answered that as the studies show~d, some changes were made. Council- man Noonan then asked that if the increase from $450,000 to $600,000 was due to Mealy and Tibbets. Mr. Raudlett replied that it was partly due to Healy and Tibbets and due to infor- mation regarding construction difficulties. Councilman Noonau remarked that he summed it up then that as far as Mr, Raudlett could recall, two factors were due to the increased cost, they being the Healy and Tibbets change, t~t Mr. Raudlett did not have sufficient information and as can recall now uo other reason for outstanding cost. Mr. Wilsey at this time cited the exa~le of blue mud present iu the area that may cause difficulty and the cost of vitri- fied pipe that was to be used. This he said is the answer to the problem. Councilman Bosworth asked if test borings were me~e prior to the ~igure of $450,000 having been established, to which Mr. Ramdlett answered no, that the estimate was made at the t~m~ the bond issue w~a proposed. Comucilman Bosworth then asked how much field expense would be made to determine what wms found. Mr. Randlett answred that $7,000 was spent for test borings which had been made by Dames and ~oore. Councilman Bosworth asked what percentage represented would be factors you brought to light here. Mr. Wilsey answered about 1OO~. After some discussion it was noted as follows: That the estimate in 1949 w~s $450,000; that Dames and Moore conducted soil tests in 195B; the contract price was $5B4,000; the revised estimate was $460,655 based on the Dames and Moore re~ort, the difference being $74, At this time a discussion was held regarding the pumping station near Colma Creek. It was pointed out that $70,753 wa~ the total assessment of Land Company properties and that Parcel 47 lying near Oolma Creek was assessed $41,698. A discussion was held as to whether or not any other easements were paid for other than the allowance given the Land Company for no assessment on their property. Mr. Randlett remarked that an estfmate ~as made of $16,000 for right of way of Land Company property, also stating that other lands for right of ways was one or two thousand dollars. At this time a discussion was held between Mr. Rmndlett and members of the council, going over the map at the same time. Mr. Goss was then asked by Councilman Bosworth if he was satisfied, and asked that momentarily the paroel spoken of be overlooked, asking if he felt the location of the p~mping station best served econom~ from the standpoint of an engineering study. Mr. Goss replied that it was a question of serving or not serving the area. He cited the fact that the relocating of the pumping statical:meant the use of gravity or a force mainJ There wo~ld be a difference of $30,000 if it were left out and the Land Co. re- quested to go back to a gravity line. After~a discussion between members of the council, Mr. Wilsey, Mr. Goss and Mr. Randlett, Councilman Bosworth stated that he would like to have the record show that the Director of Public Works give, his considered opinion as to location of the present pumping station, as to design proposed, and if it is the most satisfactory from an engineering point. Also q,,~l~il~j as to whether addition of land eouth of Colma Creek has added to the cost of the projec Mayor Smith then asked that some consideration be given Mr. Norgard, present from the firm of ~r~wn and Oaldw~ll, requesting that he be given the opportunity to make his coe~nents ou the problem. Mr. Goss stated that some of the disposal of w~ste coming from the plants car- ried 100% w~ste matters and that the discharge should be pre-treated somewhat and felt that it might be well for ~&r. Norgard to speak regarding this matter and the rates to be charged as well. Mr. Norgard remarked that a report had been given some seven years ago~ that the city should look into the matter of pre-treatment by industry of their waste matters and then treated by the city. He further stated that pre-treatment should also be done as a safeguard to the public health and safety. Councilman Noonau asked how long it would take Mr. Norgard and how much to make a study iu order that a report with recomm~eudations could be submitted regarding the suspended matters and solid matters. Mr. l~orgard ans~ered approximately BO0 hours in the field with the cost close to $1,O00. ~ouuci~u Noouan then asked how many months would it take to get a report if he were given the work to do. ~Ir. Norgard answered two mouths. Councilman Noonau then asked if Mr. Norgard felt that it was essential for such a study to be made and would he recommend one? ¥~. Norga~i answered that the city should have au ordinance governing what should be dumped in the sewer lines and what rate should be charged. Mr. Goss remarked that our proposed ordinance ~as modeled after the San Francisco ordinance and it seemed that our ordinance would have to be adopted after a realistic view- point. He also stated that before connecting lines to the packing houses, the city should see to it that they will not overload the plant. Councilman Noonan then asked that if in his opinion should we have a report such as x~ asked regarding the Brown and Oaldwell report, to which Mr. Goss replied that such a report should be had before going ahead. Councilman Noouau then said that he saw the problem as a three-fold duty. One was to go ahead with the report. The second was to start the project and the third, to get a waiver from the industries regarding charges for the pre-treatment of this matter. Mr. Wilsey stated that the question of cost of such a report is a problem of the packing plants~ that in speaking to the packing plant officers it did not present much of a problem, that this ch~rge could be included iu the sewer rental charges. Mayor Smith then asked if this plant was of a capacity and of a nature to take care of all the industrial se~age. Mr. Randlett replied that it was designed to take care of all sewage with some pre-treatment. Mr. Goss remarked that he felt it was worthwhile for the city to bring up to date the report and rate structure. Councilman Noonan then moved that the Mayor, City Manager~ and Department of Public Works Engineer meet with Mr. Norgard of Bro~ and Caldwell~ or any other firm' dealin~ APPROVED: in like work, calling in the Health Department, Water Pollution Board, or any other body, for the purpose of setting up rates ,or requiremeuts of pre-treatment. Councilman Bosworth secouded the motion, which was regularly carried. Couucilmau Noouau theu moved, that a writteu uotice be sent to the manufacturers and manufacturers engiueer of our procedure, requestiug that they couseut to the setting up of 'a formula aud requiremeuts of pre-treatmeu- before startiug th~s job. Couucilman Bosworth seconded the motion. City Attoruey Lyons iustructed the mayor and couucil members that the city could coutrol this by ordiuance, set. ting up the matter of disposing of wastes. Councilman Noonan theu changed his motiou as follows: He moved that the mauufacturers be advised that we are undertaking to set a formul~ for rates aud pre-treatmeut, also that the motion was being made upou advice of the City Attorney that this cau be controlled by ordinance and that there was no need for cousent from the mauufacturers. Councilman Bosworth secouded the motion. After some discussion, motiou was amended that a member of the manufacturers group or their eugiueer be a member of this c~_~ittee. It was further amended that the invitation be extended to the mauufacturers group or their engineer or a member be made an advisor to the committee. Motion as made, amended, and secGnded, was regularly carried. At this time, City Attoruey Lyons rem~ked that for the record the following appear: "The City Governmeut's authority to coutrol the collection and disposal of sewage and waste within the confines of the City is based upon its general police power to legislate with respect to matters affectin~ the health and gene~ welfare of the community, the people thereof, and the public in general." Mr. Ledwithwas then ask~i if he wished to give a report on the audit he was presently con- ducting. Mr. Ledwith replied that they have arrived at a cloee completion but that there were a number of sources yet to be arrived at regarding the monies still due the city. '~ ," Until all the a~Elit had been done he would be unable to answer at this time as a completed Councilm~n Noonan then .tared that the lettar ~s given to the council today by Mr. Randlett seems to be a new contract, that before accepting, the City Attorney compare this with the old contract and that he wO~ld like an aaAlysis ~ l~y the City AttorneY with the old con- tract. Mr. Ra~Alett stated that this had been ~a_~mitted for st~iy. Councilman Noonan then move~ that the letter be referred to the City Attorney, ~ayor, City Manager and Director of Public Works f~ analyai.. C~anc~man Bo~orth seconded the motion and then suggested that added .homld be a proviso that this ccmm~ittee come in with a firm basis for resolving auy contractual ~iffereuces. Councilman Noouan made Co~ncilmmu Bosworth's amendmeut part of his motion. Councilman Bosworth secouded the motiou as amended. Motiou as made and ameuded was regularly carried. A discussion was then held regarding the iu~pection work being done by the city and charge made for the service. After a brief discu~sion~ Couucilman Bosworth moved, seconded by Coun. cilman Noonan, that the inspection of the project be handled under the office of the Directo~ of Public Works aud charges be made under fees set up bythe proposed ordinance. After furtt discussion, motion as made aud secouded was withdrawn. Mayor Smith then requested to know if bids could be accepted at Monday nights meeting. City Attorney Lyons replied that the manufacturers had gtveu the city a green light on the bids subject to chauges in the plans. At this point City Attorney Lyous read the resolutiou as glveu to him by Mr. Wilsey. Mayor Smit~ theu appointed Couuc~l~au Bosworth and Councilmau Noonan as a committee for analysis of the resolution as prepared by Mr. Wilsey, as read by City Attorney Lyous, for report back to the couucil Monday night. City Attorney Lyons state~ that the assessment could be coufirmed before awarding the contract aud that the couucil had the right to modify and revise up to the acceptance of the work. It was stated that reasous for changing of the assessmeut could be a change iu plaus aud specifications, the cost could iucrease or decrease, or sc~e property owners maybe bearing unfair burden iu which case all must be modified. Councilmau Noouan then suggested that a dissolutiou of the committee be made upon the opinion given by the City Attoruey. Mayor Smith suggested that the committee advise the other abseut council members regarding this committee. There being no further business, Councilman Noonan moved, seconded by Cmuncilman Bosworth an~ regularly carried, that the meeting be adjourned. T~e of Adjournment - 1:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk