COUNCIL WATCH…
A Report on Council

Notes and commentary on the 4/13/09 Special Petaluma Council and Planning and Community Development Commission Meeting
Presented by the Council Watch Team of Petaluma Tomorrow

Agenda Item 1A: Presentation and Discussion of the Current Status of and Developing a Strategic Vision for the Petaluma Community Development Commission (City Mgr., John Brown; Head of Planning Dept., Michael Moore; Libby Seifel)

Mgr. Brown noted that this was the third meeting in a workshop series looking for direction in building the Capital Improvements Plan (C.I.P.) budget. Since the original 5 year CIP budget, 2008 to 2012, will have to be reduced by some $8 million between now and 2012, careful decisions on Development Fund investments will have to be made.

Mr. Brown suggested more flexible use of development funds, funding by goals rather than projects. This would optimize future returns in development fees and taxes for the city. As a hypothetical example he cited the case of an excellent project that may have to be turned away today, because funds for the adjacent street had not been earmarked. With more flexible funding allocations, the city may be able to negotiate a better outcome, saving the project.

There was general City Council consensus supporting a Goal Based CIP budget.
Councilman Rabbitt said that he hoped that the Rainier overpass would be kept near the top. Comments from the public included a call for more parking structures, and a caution against building in the flood plain.

Agenda Item 2A: Resolution Authorizing Reorganization, Layoffs, and Abolishing the following Positions in the Community Development Department for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Due to lack of Work or Funds: One Assistant Director of Community Development, One Associate Planner, One Administrative Assistant, and One Permit Processing Technician. (J. Brown).

Mgr. Brown took considerable time to review the city’s recent financial history. He noted that in May of 2008, when the city was faced with a potential $3 million deficit, but had an optimistic outlook for development projects in the pipeline, the Community Development Department was set up to operate as a financial enterprise. That is, fees taken in from new development were supposed to fully cover the Department’s operations.

With the collapse of the economy, many projects did not go forward, and the anticipated income (fees) from those projects never materialized. In September of 2008, when the Community Development Dept. was in the red by $1.1 million, the Council approved cutting 12 staff positions. Because the city’s expenses continue to outstrip its income, Brown suggested the further staff cuts. He emphasized the urgency of the situation and asked the Council to not delay acting. The potential loss in the Department for 2009 could be around $1 million.

Brown said that there were 3 ways to handle the needed staff functions during this financial crisis interim -- Outside private contracting, contracting with other public agencies, and having laid-off staff work part time on projects that they had been handling prior to being laid-off. Brown pointed out that the Private Contractor option would probably require a 12 to 14 month contract with the city. Brown further said that he would retain a half-time position for someone to co-ordinate the Department’s activity.

Public Comments were uniformly in opposition to doing away with the planning department. Some pointed out that the “enterprise” concept was the wrong way to go in the first place. No other city department, providing necessary services, is expected to pay its own way. Many commented on the loss of project continuity and the loss of valuable institutional memory, things that could not be outsourced or replaced. Some said that individual homeowners, confronted with massive inconvenience at city hall, would simply build their projects illegally, without permits.

Council members had some of the same concerns as those who made the public comments. Councilmember Renee suggested technological aid to help customer service. Councilmember Barrett said she believed that the Planning Dept. should not be an enterprise operation, but because of the current serious financial crisis she reluctantly had to support the city manager. Councilmember Healy wanted one planner to remain on staff. Councilmember Rabbitt said that more study should be given to see if more staff could possibly be retained. Councilmember Glass anguished over the situation but concluded there was no other way but to “bite the bullet now”.

The council vote was 4 to 2 to support the personnel recommendations of the city manager. Torliatt, Barrett, Glass, and Renee voted FOR the motion. Rabbitt and Healy voted AGAINST the motion. Harris was ABSENT.

Analysis: The City’s Water resources and Conservation Department’s (sewer and water supply) budget has been an enterprise fund for years, but it has a steadier demand and operates with more predictability. The decision to make Community Development Dept. an enterprise fund was risky at the time and borne out of urgent necessity and limited options, but with the rapid decline in building activity, comparable layoffs would likely be occurring whether it was an enterprise fund or funded through the General Fund.