What a terrific article- and wow! Lee Mathias letter is fantastic too! He discusses soo many aspects of the budget in such detail. What a knowledgeable person!! Zollman sounds great too - the whole “glide” nonsense put forth by others as justification for passing an irresponsible budget is distressing in its almost childish and simplistic approach to complex issues.
I pray the City pays attention to Mr Mathias’ outstanding suggestions and that the Council start working harder at solving the fiscal nightmare looming. Their “kick the can down the road” (what “gliding”really means) approach bodes ill for our future.
When Mayor McLewis voted for Measure U, she voted for 40% of the measure U tax to go toward roads. The Measure U funding is in addition to traditional funding sources with the intent of increasing overall funding for roads because the roads are in terrible condition and require additional money for repairs.
Glide Path Philosophy of Economics only exists in Phil Carters mind. The principle of small changes over time is fine but there are no small changes represented in the budget plan. It took a letter from the public to get $250,000 in budget cuts. What was the Budget Committee doing? If there are planned gradual changes then they should be obvious in the 5-year forecast but the forecast just gets worse each year. A gradual plan would have an Ad hoc Committee meeting craft the “glide path”. This aircraft is out of gas and on a glide path to disaster.
Lee's Letter along with the work of other city citizens like Kate Haug are very helpful to me in working on the budget and I think there are some crossed wires in what my intent at the meeting was verse the understanding people took away. So please let me clear that up.
What I agree with Lee on (alot):
The Assistant City Manager/City Clerk restructuring — the City Manager has already begun addressing this.
Pushing the County for a higher share of property tax reimbursement — this is worth pursuing, though getting the County to agree is a separate question from whether we should try.
Several of Lee's other revenue ideas are exactly the kind of thinking we need more of, and some will likely become future agenda items.
Where I'd pump the brakes — the parcel tax:
We just asked voters to approve a parcel tax for fire service.
I'm hesitant to go back to voters for another one so soon, even for a good cause.
This isn't a rejection of the idea — dedicated funding tied to a clear public benefit can work — it's a question of timing. Now isn't that time.
On the glide path — what it is, and what it isn't:
The glide path responds ***specifically to the EOFC's findings*** It is narrow and purposeful so that a decade isn't impacting our general fund in one year. And also I will push back and say that every major economist follows this for major impacts to the economy like stock market crashes or massive interest rate moves. This glide theory has nothing to do with the annual budget.
-> As we layer in other funding measures over time, I expect our FY26-27 budget will look meaningfully better than today's deficit numbers suggest. This is a projection and does not field other work that I'm confident City Manager and staff will implement.
On roads — I want to correct
I am not suggesting we cut road projects. I actively support and approved our plan to include them. (We the budget committee) brought this budget with a schedule of road repairs that was carefully and thoughtfully driven by our new and fantastic PW Director.
What I actually said: this specific budget, as constructed, cannot reach balance through cuts alone without touching road projects, because road work is more than 40% of Measure U spending. If much of our increase in spending is staff - we cannot cut that as a line item at a budget meeting. If we do not approve a budget we look at a "government shut down" type of situation. We can do more work to improve efficiency and will.
That's a statement about where the money sits in this budget. It is not a proposal to walk away from our roads. Pragmatically, we need to get moving with the budget so we can operate. Can we continue to find efficiencies? Yes. Will we? Yes. Will the city end the year with $800k more spent than received? ( a budget is a plan not actuals) - I will work and the budget committee and the City will work very hard to prevent that. The fiscal last year will show we added $1.2 mm to our savings. That DOES NOT include rollover money from road repairs we have already allocated with last year's measure U. Budgets for road repair looks as if it was already spent - those moneys live in those project funds. The savings are real from very serious lean work and not having a full staff.
Again, The Budget Committee has supported a plan to rebuild — not patch — our roads over time, and that is a massive improvement over years past. Just see the approval of Strout St and probable allocations for a roads like Palm or Eastiside/Wesern. Those are real, and soon to be visible, examples of our commitment to roads.
Where this budget already stands:
We are fully staffed.
We are running lean.
We are delivering the services like public safety, a clean city, improved plaza, addressing homelessness that residents expect.
There isn't a lot of obvious fat left to cut, which is exactly why revenue and expense both need attention, not just one or the other. The fat for some services like insurance or animal welfare are ongoing negotiations that it is not prudent to cut until we can. And while insurance is not something we control, many things are.
On revenue:
Cuts don't grow the City's revenue.
If we're serious about fixing the structural deficit, growing revenue has to be part of the plan.
Tools like the EFID matter here — a way to fund larger projects that grow the City's sales tax base over time, rather than just preserving what we already have.
On Lee's point about implementation costs: the roughly $75,000 cited for that work can likely be absorbed without new spending.
Let's talk it through, I am very happy to discuss further and openly. I will never say that I have the right and the only way. We are a city that has to work together, and I am here for it.
I live outside city limits so haven't ever delved into Sebastopol's budget. But I've long had the impression that nobody was really minding the store or the budget. The sewer cost allocation mess really underscored that. Why did it take a Grand Jury investigation to identify the cause of the problem? Isn't that what paid staff and Council members are supposed to do? Lee Mathias' letter is astonishing, really. The compensation level of the Assistant City Manager is mind boggling on its face. How is it possible that this highly compensated city staff and Council members had not already identified these fundamental budget issues or at least included some of them in the budget just adopted? Kudos to Lee for doing the work of the City. Nobody who reads this article and Lee's letter should vote for one more cent coming out of taxpayers' pockets until the letter's recommendations are taken seriously.
The Enterprise Fund Oversight Committee, which I formed and sit on, was already digging into the Capital Allocation Plan issues before the Grand Jury report came out. The Budget Committee had separately started work on the CAP and on how we fund infrastructure long-term. Some of that work takes time to show results. I hope you're starting to see it now, and will see more soon.
The Grand Jury report came after we'd already begun. It may even have been prompted by that work.
On salaries, yes, they're high, especially in comparison to the private sector. But it's not simple and there are legacy rules and issues. High costs are part of why positions sit vacant, which is exactly why I think the answer is better staff productivity, not more hires.
Everything in Lee's letter is valuable and part of our thinking on this budget.
And to be clear on taxes: I don't support new general taxes on residents. TOT and UUT are a different category to me, they're narrower, tied to tourism and utility use rather than a broad ask of every citizen. Although the UUT isn't my first goto either.
THANK YOU TO MAYOR McLEWIS AND COUNCIL MEMBER ZOLLMAN for taking the time to understand the budget. They showed their critical thinking skills and financial acumen by voting no. Council Member Zollman was rightfully reluctant to pass on a deficit budget to the next city council. That's integrity!
Mayor McLewis' suggestion to continue the discussion to the next meeting was very wise.
Watching the meeting, it was obvious that 3 council members didn't understand the seriousness of their vote. They have a fiscal responsibility to the citizens of the City of Sebastopol and with the changing numbers, the late hour, and the importance of this budget, they have an ethical mandate to be fully informed on issues before voting.
Why did Phill and Sandra vote "yes"? That is a great question as they are both on the budget committee and Phill is on the water and sewer committee so he knows all about the illegal transfers and they both know about the deficit. And if you watch the meeting, Neysa was quite confused.
No one should be surprised the city is denying the illegal transfers, they have to say that. Surly our city attorney has told them to deny, deny, deny.
Time tracking. The city needs to track their time. This is a no-brainer. Every functional entity does that. Why are they so against it?
And a big thank you to Lee and Kate. They have both spent an inordinate amount of time trying to help this city.
It is a little misleading to say Councilmembers Zollman and McLewis were confused leading to the mayor’s objection to cutting the streets budget. I went back and reviewed the tape. Councilmember Zollman and Mayor McLewis were not confused.
Councilmember Carter very clearly explained in a long speech that he felt the city was spending too much on street repairs. He stated clearly: “I will go down saying we are putting a whole lot of money on roads”. When Councilmember Zollman tried to bring the focus back to the structural deficit, Councilmember Carter blurted out: ““The only way to kill it is to take the roads off…”. It was here that Mayor McLewis expressed her exacerbation at his proposal, stating in part: “people pay taxes for roads and water and sewer”.
The other Budget Committee member, Councilmember Mauer, went on to explain that when she agreed to reserve 40% of Measure U sales tax for roads (it is actually for city infrastructure including roads and city buildings) she was not aware of the other funds the city receives for roads. She argued about reducing the Measure U reserved funds by that amount received from the other sources.
She is correct that there are other sources of revenue to the city from the State and the County (Gas tax, Go Sonoma, SB-1). These funds have specific restrictions on how they can be used. Historically, the city has prioritized these funds for crosswalks and bike lanes and not street repairs.
The endless debate at the meeting distracted from the real issue as it relates to streets. Forty percent of Measure U money generates about $600,000. The Street Plan presented to the council April 15, 2025, explained that it would take at least $1.0MM just to keep the city’s streets in their current condition (50% poor or very poor) and the lowest PCI (Pavement Condition Index) of any city in the County.
Councilwoman Mauer is missing the point, even $600,000 will only slow the deterioration of the roads. Instead of debating and cutting already insufficient funding to repair roads, the Budget Committee should be challenging how the money in the other street related funds is being budgeted. It might be time to shift from cross walks and bike lanes to fixing streets.
As I recall, the bike lanes and the crosswalks are the work of Caltrans on Highway 116 and Bodega Avenue. I think the deal was that the city would not get Caltrans money for fixing the streets unless they did the bike lanes and the ADA crosswalks.
The confusion I was thinking of referred to when Maurer first tried to explain the $510,000 for roads– which, if Sebastopol had to biennial cycle, would’ve meant that the deficit was roughly $340,000 or something instead of 850K. But we don’t, so it’s not. Anyway, I had that conversation in the back of my mind as this council conversation about roads commenced. I can see now that it was probably a broader conversation.
I understand and saw what you saw. There were several things going on at the same time with Carter and Mauer trying to explain away the budget deficit. I was frustrated that they didn't seem to be taking this seriously and perhaps interpreted McLewis' and Zollman's reaction to be similar to my own. Always dangerous...they can speak for themselves. I thought they were correct in their concerns.
Sandra Maurer was correct when she said the city gets other money for roads. Gas Tax, SB1 and GoSonoma for example. It is actually quite a lot of money. I went back and looked at how that money was spent for the last couple of years, and it seemed like crosswalks and bike lanes. These revenue funds don't get a lot of discussion during the budget process. The street funds are scattered among the other revenue funds in the budget. Sometimes you can see the work in the section describing the revenue funds, sometimes you have to go to the CIP projects to find what the money was spent on. It all should be put in one section called Streets so normal humans can see what is going on.
I watched the council meeting (well, almost all of it!) and I disagree with Councilmember Carter. The City of Sebastopol cannot spend “too much money” on the streets. It never has, and never will.
Unlike the Sewer and Water Enterprise funds, there are no dedicated fund sources in the City budgets for street work. Typically, the best use of the extremely limited funding for road repairs dictates that it goes to the most-traveled streets. This is true in all jurisdictions, large and small. Sadly, for many years now, the City’s street maintenance needs have far exceeded the City’s ability to fund them. We don’t pay a monthly user fee for City streets. And in Sebastopol, a huge amount of the wear and tear on our street system comes from the larger rural area outside Sebastopol, our “market area”, our neighbors and friends who come through town to visit us, dine and shop, go to school and churches, etc., but who do not pay taxes in our jurisdiction.
As for the state highways, Caltrans is responsible for operation and maintenance of the roadway and facilities (signals, lights, etc) of SR 116 from Cooper Road to Mill Station Road, and for SR12, from Main Street to the east. Bodega Avenue West of Main Street is a City street and our responsibility to pay for. The Average Daily Traffic volume on Bodega Avenue is around 13,000 vehicles per day. The City sometimes gets grant funding for street improvement projects on local streets from the State and Federal governments, but we compete with the other municipalities and the County for these, and since we are a small jurisdiction, our ‘share’ is usually far short of our growing need. Also, there are always ‘matching funds’ required of the City, and these must come from the General fund.
I am going to push back on the characterization of my intent.
I am proud of how much we're putting into roads this year. That was intentional. We are using last year's surplus to go into roads this year that contribute significantly to a proposed, but not actual, deficit. My actions say so. Look at the already approved CIP and the one for next year. Look at the vote for Strout St. and the streets we will bring back after we get a better equitable to do list.
In the Budget Committee, I was explaining a tradeoff to my colleagues, not proposing a cut: if the goal were to make this budget show a smaller number on paper, the only way to do that would be to take road funding out — and I said clearly that nobody wants that, including me. Again look at my actions. Look at my actions on the EOFC. I am working to be transparent and make sure infrastructure is sorted for the next 30-50 years.
******Here's what the actuals actually show****** the City budgeted $15.24 million in General Fund expenditures for FY25-26 and is on track to spend about $14.52 million. Meaning the year is closing with savings, not a shortfall as we budgeted last year. FY25-26 is projected to end with a surplus of roughly $1.1 - $1.2 million. Please see the reserves section of the budget inset above.
That's my story-> we're using last year's surplus plus next years measure U 40%, on top of money already set aside, to do more roads and infrastructure, not less. Am I concerned about a structural issue deficit? 100% Here's where we diverge or at least where I am concentrating additionally - because I agree with becoming more efficient and looking for cost reductions:
Cutting is a long term solution to the structural issue. The advice to augment our general fund with pension savings drawdown isn't optimal either. I do not think cutting services and raising taxes are sustainable when costs are rising faster than revenues. We need to invest in our town. We need to proactively address our income by being more business friendly, supporting our downtown, our identity , our events, our schools and our parks ( pragmatically in ways that seek ROI) AND in ways suitable for the character of our town.
The Budget Committee has supported a plan to rebuild, not patch, our roads over time. This is why I push back on your characterization of events. This year's numbers are proof we're following through on that, not backing away from it. This year and last year's CIP is proof of action in progress.
Question for Phil: How much does the city need to invest annually to gradually increase the overall PCI (Pavement Condition Index) for the city. How much is the budget now over the next 5 years? What is the projected PCI score in 5 years at the current planned spending level. A level which you have suggested is not sustainable?
I don't think I understand the question. Do I think roads should be improved on a steady state level to incrementally improve the PCI? Yes. What is exactly that dollar amount for the next 5 years? Hard to say given the variable situation we are in. Should we plan 5 years out. Yes. Should we have this answer? Also yes. I think we should have regular street rebuild budget. I think job one was to get some visibility on today and begin. Job 2 is a better 5 - 10 year plan for all things. I would put this in the work in progress bucket. Next steps. These questions are important. I'll get back to you. Keep me on it.
Look at the Pavement Management Budget Options Report presented to Council on April 15, 2025. The report provides the data necessary to make a plan. It also clearly explains the concept of deterioration over time and the dramatic increase in cost to repair as roads decline. Don't feel bad if you don't remember the item, you voted to approve it on the consent calendar.
Q1: How much to invest annually to gradually increase the PCI score? Answer: $1.4MM per year. PCI score increases from 55-60.
Q2: How much are we planning to invest for the next 5 years? Answer: The report states that the current strategy is to fund an average of $800,000 in pavement repairs and maintenance (not bike lanes and crosswalks) each year. At this investment level the PCI score will decrease from 55 to 52.
Looking at the current CIP budget, the vast majority of the spending will be another phase of the Bodega Rd rehabilitation project. Much of that is grant funded but the grant funding is $600,000 short. The city is going to have to invest most of its street budget into Bodega ave alone in FY28-29 which will limit the number of streets that can be repaired in the neighborhoods.
I don’t feel badly though it may seem like a jab - we looked at those months ago before the consent by my thought is those are not numbers we should take as gospel but an idea. I would like to really drill down on these next and as our new PW person and team get past budget season I believe we can get a better list that means more and can better help our planning. I’ll research what work is planned on Bodega and how much is matching grants given CalTrans and also whether that is the priority.
The last proposal made public was to put $20,000 of city money into the EIFD each year. after 4 years you could deplete that by taking out the $75,000? This is a sunk cost equal to 4 years of contributions. Math doesn't make sense?
It’s not a savings account. Please stay tuned for a better description but it unlocks funds- doesn’t prepay them. The math works with roi in property taxes over (45) years.
What a terrific article- and wow! Lee Mathias letter is fantastic too! He discusses soo many aspects of the budget in such detail. What a knowledgeable person!! Zollman sounds great too - the whole “glide” nonsense put forth by others as justification for passing an irresponsible budget is distressing in its almost childish and simplistic approach to complex issues.
I pray the City pays attention to Mr Mathias’ outstanding suggestions and that the Council start working harder at solving the fiscal nightmare looming. Their “kick the can down the road” (what “gliding”really means) approach bodes ill for our future.
When Mayor McLewis voted for Measure U, she voted for 40% of the measure U tax to go toward roads. The Measure U funding is in addition to traditional funding sources with the intent of increasing overall funding for roads because the roads are in terrible condition and require additional money for repairs.
Glide Path Philosophy of Economics only exists in Phil Carters mind. The principle of small changes over time is fine but there are no small changes represented in the budget plan. It took a letter from the public to get $250,000 in budget cuts. What was the Budget Committee doing? If there are planned gradual changes then they should be obvious in the 5-year forecast but the forecast just gets worse each year. A gradual plan would have an Ad hoc Committee meeting craft the “glide path”. This aircraft is out of gas and on a glide path to disaster.
Lee's Letter along with the work of other city citizens like Kate Haug are very helpful to me in working on the budget and I think there are some crossed wires in what my intent at the meeting was verse the understanding people took away. So please let me clear that up.
What I agree with Lee on (alot):
The Assistant City Manager/City Clerk restructuring — the City Manager has already begun addressing this.
Pushing the County for a higher share of property tax reimbursement — this is worth pursuing, though getting the County to agree is a separate question from whether we should try.
Several of Lee's other revenue ideas are exactly the kind of thinking we need more of, and some will likely become future agenda items.
Where I'd pump the brakes — the parcel tax:
We just asked voters to approve a parcel tax for fire service.
I'm hesitant to go back to voters for another one so soon, even for a good cause.
This isn't a rejection of the idea — dedicated funding tied to a clear public benefit can work — it's a question of timing. Now isn't that time.
On the glide path — what it is, and what it isn't:
The glide path responds ***specifically to the EOFC's findings*** It is narrow and purposeful so that a decade isn't impacting our general fund in one year. And also I will push back and say that every major economist follows this for major impacts to the economy like stock market crashes or massive interest rate moves. This glide theory has nothing to do with the annual budget.
-> As we layer in other funding measures over time, I expect our FY26-27 budget will look meaningfully better than today's deficit numbers suggest. This is a projection and does not field other work that I'm confident City Manager and staff will implement.
On roads — I want to correct
I am not suggesting we cut road projects. I actively support and approved our plan to include them. (We the budget committee) brought this budget with a schedule of road repairs that was carefully and thoughtfully driven by our new and fantastic PW Director.
What I actually said: this specific budget, as constructed, cannot reach balance through cuts alone without touching road projects, because road work is more than 40% of Measure U spending. If much of our increase in spending is staff - we cannot cut that as a line item at a budget meeting. If we do not approve a budget we look at a "government shut down" type of situation. We can do more work to improve efficiency and will.
That's a statement about where the money sits in this budget. It is not a proposal to walk away from our roads. Pragmatically, we need to get moving with the budget so we can operate. Can we continue to find efficiencies? Yes. Will we? Yes. Will the city end the year with $800k more spent than received? ( a budget is a plan not actuals) - I will work and the budget committee and the City will work very hard to prevent that. The fiscal last year will show we added $1.2 mm to our savings. That DOES NOT include rollover money from road repairs we have already allocated with last year's measure U. Budgets for road repair looks as if it was already spent - those moneys live in those project funds. The savings are real from very serious lean work and not having a full staff.
Again, The Budget Committee has supported a plan to rebuild — not patch — our roads over time, and that is a massive improvement over years past. Just see the approval of Strout St and probable allocations for a roads like Palm or Eastiside/Wesern. Those are real, and soon to be visible, examples of our commitment to roads.
Where this budget already stands:
We are fully staffed.
We are running lean.
We are delivering the services like public safety, a clean city, improved plaza, addressing homelessness that residents expect.
There isn't a lot of obvious fat left to cut, which is exactly why revenue and expense both need attention, not just one or the other. The fat for some services like insurance or animal welfare are ongoing negotiations that it is not prudent to cut until we can. And while insurance is not something we control, many things are.
On revenue:
Cuts don't grow the City's revenue.
If we're serious about fixing the structural deficit, growing revenue has to be part of the plan.
Tools like the EFID matter here — a way to fund larger projects that grow the City's sales tax base over time, rather than just preserving what we already have.
On Lee's point about implementation costs: the roughly $75,000 cited for that work can likely be absorbed without new spending.
Let's talk it through, I am very happy to discuss further and openly. I will never say that I have the right and the only way. We are a city that has to work together, and I am here for it.
I live outside city limits so haven't ever delved into Sebastopol's budget. But I've long had the impression that nobody was really minding the store or the budget. The sewer cost allocation mess really underscored that. Why did it take a Grand Jury investigation to identify the cause of the problem? Isn't that what paid staff and Council members are supposed to do? Lee Mathias' letter is astonishing, really. The compensation level of the Assistant City Manager is mind boggling on its face. How is it possible that this highly compensated city staff and Council members had not already identified these fundamental budget issues or at least included some of them in the budget just adopted? Kudos to Lee for doing the work of the City. Nobody who reads this article and Lee's letter should vote for one more cent coming out of taxpayers' pockets until the letter's recommendations are taken seriously.
The Enterprise Fund Oversight Committee, which I formed and sit on, was already digging into the Capital Allocation Plan issues before the Grand Jury report came out. The Budget Committee had separately started work on the CAP and on how we fund infrastructure long-term. Some of that work takes time to show results. I hope you're starting to see it now, and will see more soon.
The Grand Jury report came after we'd already begun. It may even have been prompted by that work.
On salaries, yes, they're high, especially in comparison to the private sector. But it's not simple and there are legacy rules and issues. High costs are part of why positions sit vacant, which is exactly why I think the answer is better staff productivity, not more hires.
Everything in Lee's letter is valuable and part of our thinking on this budget.
And to be clear on taxes: I don't support new general taxes on residents. TOT and UUT are a different category to me, they're narrower, tied to tourism and utility use rather than a broad ask of every citizen. Although the UUT isn't my first goto either.
Great article, thank you Laura!
THANK YOU TO MAYOR McLEWIS AND COUNCIL MEMBER ZOLLMAN for taking the time to understand the budget. They showed their critical thinking skills and financial acumen by voting no. Council Member Zollman was rightfully reluctant to pass on a deficit budget to the next city council. That's integrity!
Mayor McLewis' suggestion to continue the discussion to the next meeting was very wise.
Watching the meeting, it was obvious that 3 council members didn't understand the seriousness of their vote. They have a fiscal responsibility to the citizens of the City of Sebastopol and with the changing numbers, the late hour, and the importance of this budget, they have an ethical mandate to be fully informed on issues before voting.
Why did Phill and Sandra vote "yes"? That is a great question as they are both on the budget committee and Phill is on the water and sewer committee so he knows all about the illegal transfers and they both know about the deficit. And if you watch the meeting, Neysa was quite confused.
No one should be surprised the city is denying the illegal transfers, they have to say that. Surly our city attorney has told them to deny, deny, deny.
Time tracking. The city needs to track their time. This is a no-brainer. Every functional entity does that. Why are they so against it?
And a big thank you to Lee and Kate. They have both spent an inordinate amount of time trying to help this city.
Really great reporting. A real “back in the day “ moment.
It is a little misleading to say Councilmembers Zollman and McLewis were confused leading to the mayor’s objection to cutting the streets budget. I went back and reviewed the tape. Councilmember Zollman and Mayor McLewis were not confused.
Councilmember Carter very clearly explained in a long speech that he felt the city was spending too much on street repairs. He stated clearly: “I will go down saying we are putting a whole lot of money on roads”. When Councilmember Zollman tried to bring the focus back to the structural deficit, Councilmember Carter blurted out: ““The only way to kill it is to take the roads off…”. It was here that Mayor McLewis expressed her exacerbation at his proposal, stating in part: “people pay taxes for roads and water and sewer”.
The other Budget Committee member, Councilmember Mauer, went on to explain that when she agreed to reserve 40% of Measure U sales tax for roads (it is actually for city infrastructure including roads and city buildings) she was not aware of the other funds the city receives for roads. She argued about reducing the Measure U reserved funds by that amount received from the other sources.
She is correct that there are other sources of revenue to the city from the State and the County (Gas tax, Go Sonoma, SB-1). These funds have specific restrictions on how they can be used. Historically, the city has prioritized these funds for crosswalks and bike lanes and not street repairs.
The endless debate at the meeting distracted from the real issue as it relates to streets. Forty percent of Measure U money generates about $600,000. The Street Plan presented to the council April 15, 2025, explained that it would take at least $1.0MM just to keep the city’s streets in their current condition (50% poor or very poor) and the lowest PCI (Pavement Condition Index) of any city in the County.
Councilwoman Mauer is missing the point, even $600,000 will only slow the deterioration of the roads. Instead of debating and cutting already insufficient funding to repair roads, the Budget Committee should be challenging how the money in the other street related funds is being budgeted. It might be time to shift from cross walks and bike lanes to fixing streets.
As I recall, the bike lanes and the crosswalks are the work of Caltrans on Highway 116 and Bodega Avenue. I think the deal was that the city would not get Caltrans money for fixing the streets unless they did the bike lanes and the ADA crosswalks.
Other than that, your recitation of the facts above was correct.
The confusion I was thinking of referred to when Maurer first tried to explain the $510,000 for roads– which, if Sebastopol had to biennial cycle, would’ve meant that the deficit was roughly $340,000 or something instead of 850K. But we don’t, so it’s not. Anyway, I had that conversation in the back of my mind as this council conversation about roads commenced. I can see now that it was probably a broader conversation.
I understand and saw what you saw. There were several things going on at the same time with Carter and Mauer trying to explain away the budget deficit. I was frustrated that they didn't seem to be taking this seriously and perhaps interpreted McLewis' and Zollman's reaction to be similar to my own. Always dangerous...they can speak for themselves. I thought they were correct in their concerns.
Sandra Maurer was correct when she said the city gets other money for roads. Gas Tax, SB1 and GoSonoma for example. It is actually quite a lot of money. I went back and looked at how that money was spent for the last couple of years, and it seemed like crosswalks and bike lanes. These revenue funds don't get a lot of discussion during the budget process. The street funds are scattered among the other revenue funds in the budget. Sometimes you can see the work in the section describing the revenue funds, sometimes you have to go to the CIP projects to find what the money was spent on. It all should be put in one section called Streets so normal humans can see what is going on.
I watched the council meeting (well, almost all of it!) and I disagree with Councilmember Carter. The City of Sebastopol cannot spend “too much money” on the streets. It never has, and never will.
Unlike the Sewer and Water Enterprise funds, there are no dedicated fund sources in the City budgets for street work. Typically, the best use of the extremely limited funding for road repairs dictates that it goes to the most-traveled streets. This is true in all jurisdictions, large and small. Sadly, for many years now, the City’s street maintenance needs have far exceeded the City’s ability to fund them. We don’t pay a monthly user fee for City streets. And in Sebastopol, a huge amount of the wear and tear on our street system comes from the larger rural area outside Sebastopol, our “market area”, our neighbors and friends who come through town to visit us, dine and shop, go to school and churches, etc., but who do not pay taxes in our jurisdiction.
As for the state highways, Caltrans is responsible for operation and maintenance of the roadway and facilities (signals, lights, etc) of SR 116 from Cooper Road to Mill Station Road, and for SR12, from Main Street to the east. Bodega Avenue West of Main Street is a City street and our responsibility to pay for. The Average Daily Traffic volume on Bodega Avenue is around 13,000 vehicles per day. The City sometimes gets grant funding for street improvement projects on local streets from the State and Federal governments, but we compete with the other municipalities and the County for these, and since we are a small jurisdiction, our ‘share’ is usually far short of our growing need. Also, there are always ‘matching funds’ required of the City, and these must come from the General fund.
I am going to push back on the characterization of my intent.
I am proud of how much we're putting into roads this year. That was intentional. We are using last year's surplus to go into roads this year that contribute significantly to a proposed, but not actual, deficit. My actions say so. Look at the already approved CIP and the one for next year. Look at the vote for Strout St. and the streets we will bring back after we get a better equitable to do list.
In the Budget Committee, I was explaining a tradeoff to my colleagues, not proposing a cut: if the goal were to make this budget show a smaller number on paper, the only way to do that would be to take road funding out — and I said clearly that nobody wants that, including me. Again look at my actions. Look at my actions on the EOFC. I am working to be transparent and make sure infrastructure is sorted for the next 30-50 years.
******Here's what the actuals actually show****** the City budgeted $15.24 million in General Fund expenditures for FY25-26 and is on track to spend about $14.52 million. Meaning the year is closing with savings, not a shortfall as we budgeted last year. FY25-26 is projected to end with a surplus of roughly $1.1 - $1.2 million. Please see the reserves section of the budget inset above.
That's my story-> we're using last year's surplus plus next years measure U 40%, on top of money already set aside, to do more roads and infrastructure, not less. Am I concerned about a structural issue deficit? 100% Here's where we diverge or at least where I am concentrating additionally - because I agree with becoming more efficient and looking for cost reductions:
Cutting is a long term solution to the structural issue. The advice to augment our general fund with pension savings drawdown isn't optimal either. I do not think cutting services and raising taxes are sustainable when costs are rising faster than revenues. We need to invest in our town. We need to proactively address our income by being more business friendly, supporting our downtown, our identity , our events, our schools and our parks ( pragmatically in ways that seek ROI) AND in ways suitable for the character of our town.
The Budget Committee has supported a plan to rebuild, not patch, our roads over time. This is why I push back on your characterization of events. This year's numbers are proof we're following through on that, not backing away from it. This year and last year's CIP is proof of action in progress.
Question for Phil: How much does the city need to invest annually to gradually increase the overall PCI (Pavement Condition Index) for the city. How much is the budget now over the next 5 years? What is the projected PCI score in 5 years at the current planned spending level. A level which you have suggested is not sustainable?
I don't think I understand the question. Do I think roads should be improved on a steady state level to incrementally improve the PCI? Yes. What is exactly that dollar amount for the next 5 years? Hard to say given the variable situation we are in. Should we plan 5 years out. Yes. Should we have this answer? Also yes. I think we should have regular street rebuild budget. I think job one was to get some visibility on today and begin. Job 2 is a better 5 - 10 year plan for all things. I would put this in the work in progress bucket. Next steps. These questions are important. I'll get back to you. Keep me on it.
Look at the Pavement Management Budget Options Report presented to Council on April 15, 2025. The report provides the data necessary to make a plan. It also clearly explains the concept of deterioration over time and the dramatic increase in cost to repair as roads decline. Don't feel bad if you don't remember the item, you voted to approve it on the consent calendar.
Q1: How much to invest annually to gradually increase the PCI score? Answer: $1.4MM per year. PCI score increases from 55-60.
Q2: How much are we planning to invest for the next 5 years? Answer: The report states that the current strategy is to fund an average of $800,000 in pavement repairs and maintenance (not bike lanes and crosswalks) each year. At this investment level the PCI score will decrease from 55 to 52.
Looking at the current CIP budget, the vast majority of the spending will be another phase of the Bodega Rd rehabilitation project. Much of that is grant funded but the grant funding is $600,000 short. The city is going to have to invest most of its street budget into Bodega ave alone in FY28-29 which will limit the number of streets that can be repaired in the neighborhoods.
I don’t feel badly though it may seem like a jab - we looked at those months ago before the consent by my thought is those are not numbers we should take as gospel but an idea. I would like to really drill down on these next and as our new PW person and team get past budget season I believe we can get a better list that means more and can better help our planning. I’ll research what work is planned on Bodega and how much is matching grants given CalTrans and also whether that is the priority.
It should be noted that the EIFD set aside can be recovered and will be very helpful for any large one time project.
A city cannot take money out of an EIFD to pay for general municipal expenses.
Correct. This would not be the case. The money ($75k) spent to organize the EIFD is reimbursable to the general fund.
The last proposal made public was to put $20,000 of city money into the EIFD each year. after 4 years you could deplete that by taking out the $75,000? This is a sunk cost equal to 4 years of contributions. Math doesn't make sense?
It’s not a savings account. Please stay tuned for a better description but it unlocks funds- doesn’t prepay them. The math works with roi in property taxes over (45) years.
Too bad sales tax is already capped at its maximum.