COUNCIL WATCH…
A Report on Council

Notes and commentary on the 10/13/09 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.
Agenda item: 1A. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Receive Staff Report Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9212 Concerning the Potential Fiscal, General Plan and Zoning, Land Use, Infrastructure, and Other Impacts of a Proposed Initiative to Reduce City of Petaluma Wastewater Service Rates to Rates in Effect on January 1, 2006. Discussion and Possible Action to: Adopt Ordinance Reducing City of Petaluma Wastewater Service Rates to Rates in Effect on January 1, 2006; or, Adopt Resolution Submitting the Ordinance to the Voters Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of California Elections Code Section 1045. (Cooper/Danly/Ban) – Moved from the October 5, 2009 Regular City Council/PCDC Meeting.

What’s at stake:
This is the infamous sewer-rate rollback ballot measure that Bryant Moynihan and retired pilot Jim Fitzgerald are pushing again, after its defeat in the last election. The city council by law has to make one of two choices: They either have to adopt this resolution or send it to the voters (most likely in the November 2010 elections). Should the measure pass, it will wreak havoc to the City’s finances.

Staff Report:
Current sewer projects include an upgrade to the C Street pumping station that now has to run at maximum during storms; and spending approximately $1 million per year to replace old and dilapidated sewer lines throughout the city.

The City of Petaluma saved approximately $60 million on the new sewer treatment plant project by obtaining a low 2.4% interest State Revolving Fund loan. If we can’t make payments, we will be in default. The cost of refinancing this loan would be huge, if at all possible.

The current annual sewer budget calls for $12 million for operations and maintenance, $8.5 million for debt service repayment and $1.6 million for basic capital improvements. These can only be paid out of funds generated by sewer bill payments from its beneficiaries and cannot come out of the General Fund. By law, our sewer rates have to be high enough to cover these costs.

Should this measure pass, the City will have a shortfall of approximately $10 million annually.

Under current rates, sewer rates for the City of Petaluma are at the halfway point as compared to other Sonoma County cities. As we have a new sewer plant and other cities do not, their rates are likely to increase significantly when ours will not.

Public Comments:
Bryant Moynihan states that the city can overcome this deficit three ways:
1. We should eliminate funding for any pipeline for recycled water distribution and let developer fees pay for it
2. We should NOT demolish the old sewer treatment plant on Hopper Street and sell it as is to the State of California.
3. The City should cut wasteful spending in the Sewer Department.

Public Comment Rebuttal:
The pipeline for recycled water distribution has to happen for other reasons than new construction, such as supplying water to the golf courses and schools. It will help offset potable water usage, an increasingly important issue in times of global warming and stressed natural resources.

The city is obligated by potential liability to demolish the Hopper Street plant, and the State has no reason or obvious funding to buy it.

Council Comments:
Mayor Torliatt:
It is unfortunate that this issue is taking up city resources. If this measure were to pass, the result would be a deficit of $12 million for fiscal year 2010-2011, $22 million for FY 2011-2012, $32 million for FY 2012-2013 and $42 million for FY 2014.

Councilmembers Glass, Harris and Healy commented that this is an insult to the people after they voted down the very similar Measure K in 2008.

Council vote:
The council voted unanimously to send this to the ballot as they could not in good conscience saddle the City and the public with such a destructive measure.

Analysis:
State law should prohibit this measure from going into effect if it's passed. But anyway that you look at it, this two-man crusade is an insult to the citizens of Petaluma. Mr. Moynihan claims that this will save the people of Petaluma money. He doesn't acknowledge the $50,000 to $100,000 that putting two measures on the ballot has cost us in real dollars. Mr. Moynihan's so-called solutions barely make a dent in the $10 million annual deficit that approval of this measure would create. The Hopper Street site is far too valuable for its public use potential for to us to sell. It can't go to developers due to the government property surplusing process. This site could make a good location for a new police station or other civic use.

Why doesn't Mr. Moynihan care about the consequences of his actions? As was seen during his tenure on the City Council, he makes petulant demands based on flawed reasoning that force city staff and attorneys to waste hundreds of hours and tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars responding to him. For one who claims to be concerned about wasteful spending, he has arguably caused more of it than anyone else in recent memory. His abuse of the referendum process is deplorable and his apparent addiction to the public spotlight is sad. The big picture shows that passage of this measure could drive the City of Petaluma into bankruptcy. But the people of Petaluma are catching on to his efforts to misinform and mislead them. When informed that a reduction of their sewer bill will result in devastation to our city finances, they are likely to defeat this measure, just as they did on Measure K.