COUNCIL WATCH…
A Report on Council

Notes and commentary on the 11/2/09 Petaluma Council Meeting presented by the Council Watch Team of Petaluma Tomorrow

In reporting, Petaluma Tomorrow may agree or disagree with the positions of any Council member, and it is legitimate to be critical of their decisions or question their motivations on any particular issue. Nonetheless, we should all recognize and respect the commitment of time and energy they are making on our behalf.

Executive Summary:
The Council outlined a number of suggestions for City Manager Brown to provide parameters for preparing final recommendations to the Council to meet the estimated 2009-2010 budget shortfall. It also took legislative action to complete the reconstituted Planning Commission.

Agenda Item: 5A. Discussion and Adoption of Ordinances 2330, 2331, 2332, and 2333 N.C.S. to Change Certain Appropriations for the Operations for the City of Petaluma from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately; PCDC Resolution Approving Adjustments to the Petaluma Community Development Commission FY 2009-2010 Budget; and, First Quarter FY 2009-2010 Budget Review – General Fund. (Brown/Haas)


What’s at Stake:
The City even after budget cuts taken in October now faces a shortfall
of just under $2.3 million for FY 09-10. This meeting is about how to make further cuts or generate more revenue. A large number of employees attended.

Staff Report:
City Manager Brown outlined the steps already taken and summarized the options which existed. New steps included furloughs, shifting more healthcare costs to employees, a few more golden handshakes, and further bargaining with employee unions, including discussing wage cuts across the board to save jobs.

CM Brown also said the Council could put a measure on the ballot to raise the Transit Occupancy Tax (hotel/motel tax), without impacting lodging business per a consultant’s report since Petaluma’s TOT taxes are below the local average, and they could place a small tax on event tickets. Many other cities have adopted one or both of these.

Brown noted that at least two project developers had approached him offering to make advanced payments of projected sales tax income and development fees from development projects such Regency and Deer Creek Village (the former DSL site on McDowell). Brown clearly cautioned the council that this was not a sound move because it appears to obligate the city while it is still in the review and approval process, and it looks to the public like bribery or the purchase of favorable treatment in the review process.

Council Comments:
A variety of comments centered on actions that would eliminate or soften the impact of the cuts being discussed. Healy alluded to developments in the pipeline that could generate fees to offset cuts and then introduced and distributed to the Council a letter from Merlone Geier Management’s Deer Creek Village project, proposing to prepay sales tax revenue in the form of a short term loan to the City and would be conditioned and paid upon City approval of the project prior to April 2, 2010. Glass brought out concerns about this kind of maneuver and expressed opposition. Barrett asked if there could be further consolidation of managerial functions between General Fund-funded positions and Enterprise Fund (sewer, water) -funded positions. City Attorney Danley said it wouldn’t save anything for the General Find as the Enterprise Fund savings must be passed on to the Enterprise Fund. Mayor Torliatt commented that 80% of city costs were labor and that further cuts would likely impact existing jobs. She noted that there was likely to be revenue generation in the next fiscal year coming from such projects as Regency, North River Landing, and the Silk Mill Hotel which were moving through the planning process.

Public Comment:
Mr. Silacci, representing Local 675, complained that there had not been enough meetings with City Manager Brown and other matters involving re-hiring of retired employees and the use of part time workers.

CM Brown noted that he needed direction from the Council before he met with labor groups again, and that the budget numbers change quickly, making discussions of what cuts are needed something of a moving target. He also noted that the few employees that were hired back as contractors were in critical positions that could not be left vacant, and that at least two of those had been replaced with new full time employees.

Council Comments and Votes:
Mayor Torliatt inquired about part timer utilization and what percentage of salary cuts was needed. Brown explained that there were fewer and that there was no plan to replace full timers with part timers and that he’d have to calculate the cut percentage and furlough plans and report at a later meeting. Rabbitt
described a scaled system of the UC Regent’s furlough plan where higher level employees and managers took larger percentage wage cuts than lower level employees. Barrett supported this method. Glass endorsed the possibility of additional TOT revenues and the admission tax at events in the City but cautioned against planning based on anticipated revenues. Mayor Torliatt summarized the considerations of the Council mentioning hotel tax, admission tax, possible revenues, furloughs, eliminating part timer positions first, and golden handshakes. Healy acknowledged the UC Regent’s plan but suggested a look at the S.R. Jr. College scaled plan with 15%, 10%, etc. cuts in benefits starting with the City Council and top management. He also suggested that a one time plan be adopted that would aim at a mid point of the $2.3 million deficit anticipating some revenues would be realized. Mayor Torliatt commented that benefit cuts would also apply to the Council and a mid level target seemed appropriate. Vote proposed by Barrett and seconded by Renee all in favor of directing the City Manager to pursue the options listed.

Analysis:
With the exception of the surprise introduction of the Merlone Geier proposition by Healy, the Council was uniform in searching for the least painful solution for employees.

The Council meeting was rudely interrupted by former Councilman Bryant Moynihan demanding to make a public comment just before the vote. Having missed the Public Comment period, he obnoxiously tried to force the Mayor and Council to hear him. When Moynihan, after being reminded of the established procedure, refused to comply, Mayor Torliatt was forced to recess the meeting. This was just another example of Moynihan’s arrogance, lack of concern for others in the audience, and his penchant to attack the City and Council.


Agenda Item: 4A. Discussion and Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Members to Some or All of the Seats on the Reconstituted Planning Commission Pursuant to Section 3 of the Ordinance No. 2344 N.C.S. (Cooper/Danley)

What’s at Stake:
This item is the final reconciliation of the action to reconstitute the Planning Commission, incorporating the former Site Plan and Architectural Committee into the Planning Commission. The procedural step was necessary to respond to the threat of a lawsuit by Planning Commissioners who were not reappointed to the reconstituted Commission: Spence Burton, Kathleen Miller and Jack Rittenhouse.

Council Vote:
The result of three rounds of votes was Chris Johansen – 3 yrs.; Marianne Hurley –2 yrs.; Christopher Arras – 1 yr.; Jennifer Pierre, Dennis Elias, Melissa Abercrombie, all 4 yrs. Terry Kosevic was appointed as the Historic and Cultural Preservation member and Teresa Barrett as Council liaison member.

Comment:
It is ironic that the pro-growth interests have complained so loudly about this change, calling it a “power grab” etc., particularly since the former structure of separate Planning and SPARC was constantly the source of complaint and appeals from these same people. Rabbitt and Harris made caustic and insulting comments about the action to the rest of the Council, to which Glass noted their hypocrisy, since they had pledged to work together as a common Council goal.

The city mgr. makes over a quarter million a year, why hasn't he talked about himself taking a pay cut instead of only trying to hurt the blue collar workers of the city? Hypocrisy at it's best.

Nice, erroneous propaganda Petaluma Tomorrow. First, the meeting was adjourned, not recessed. That means that everything that took place after the mayor adjourned the meeting was invalid. This includes the inept council majority's second attempt to fire the planning commissioners. Second, no vote was taken on Teresa Barrett as the Planning Commission Council liaison member. Third, there is no threat of a lawsuit; there is a lawsuit and if it hadn't correctly pointed out the illegality of the council majority's actions, there would have been no second attempt at firing the sitting planning commissioners. Fourth, the mayor never closed public comment and so, essentially attempted to refuse to allow Moynihan an opportunity to speak (not that he had anything worthwhile to say although that isn't the point). Fifth, the name of the new, although still invalidly appointed, planning commissioner is Curtis Johansen, not Chris. Finally, the only person on the Council who regularly and repeatedly is insulting, caustic, belligerent and rude is David Glass.

Bruce....With the exception of the first sentence you are spot on with the rest. I watched the segements of the meeting a few times, just to make sure that the conclusions I would formulate were correct.

Sorry, once a meeting is adjourned, you can't go back and unadjourn it....its finished, period! The rest of the agenda items should have been placed on agenda items for future Council meetings.

The meeting was adjourned by the Mayor, but Mr. Danly confirmed for the record the council is treating the inturrption as a brief recess.

I also agree with everything stated by Bruce, especially the last sentence regarding Mr. Glass.

Procedurally, the meeting was actually recessed- as confirmed by the City's Attorney.

The word used may have been "adjourned", but the action was a Recess- an adjournment needs a Motion, a Second to said Motion, and then a full vote would be needed by the Council.

Guess what? You need a motion, a second and a vote to recess a meeting, too. The mayor never seeks a motion to recess or adjourn and she said adjourn so adjourn it is no matter what spin Danly tries to put on it.

I am going to make a motion to get rid of the council majority. Can I get a second?

I second!!!

Uh, No. Healy has (once again) misinformed you idiots.
since you are into legalities, you may as well add this to your other lawsuit.

Actually, it appears that it is you who are misinformed. The Council is holding a special meeting tonight to try to fire the planning commissioners for a third time due to the mayor's adjournment of the last council meeting before the council voted on the new planning commissioners. Perhaps the third time will be the charm although I'm sure our city council majority will find a way to screw it up again.

The great hypocrisy here comes from Glass and cohorts who expect us to believe their "spin" that this was done to fix a broken system. No one complained that the planning commissioners should be fired. That action was completely separate from questions about SPARC. By the way, SPARC is a good process, it had just run amuck in this town. The problem with backroom deals is that they are so transparent when exposed to the public. Now we have to put up with incompetence on the Planning commission as well as the Council. And we should expect that the next council will fire the present commissioners and replace them with new, maybe even competent, individuals.

ANYONE FOR A RECALL PETITION?

I was very disturbed, but not surprised to see that Glass may run for Mayor. I don't think thinking Petalumans can tolerate any more of his addition by subtraction. Thanks to him, we have an empty lot where the Casa Grande Motel once stood. His idea. I would hope that the next time something like this happens, we ask people with imagination what would be a better use for a building. Maybe now that it is " green " to re-use, we won't have to keep losing our character.

I constantly read how are Police Department is embattled with persons driving under the influence of alcohol. I am sure that this is not the only alcohol related crimes that are being committed. We have more bars and liquor stores in this community then we do safe havens for our young folks. We also have homeless folks who steal our cans and bottles, recycle them and then drink all day with there profits. I propose a liquor tax to fund public safety.

Does anyone read the agenda and staff reports? You can even get email notification and give you plenty of time - seems one PC candidate had some really poor taste while talking about her neighbors on Facebook, yet still got voted in. I for one am not proud to have this person represent Petaluma on the Planning Commission.

I hope Ms. Pierre can refrain from the type of behavior she has exhibited on Facebook.