This is excellent reporting, and this is why local news is so important. My only quibble is the lack of accountability -- if I read between the lines it would be the former City Manager who was responsible along with the previous councilmembers? What does he say? What do the longtime councilmembers say to straight up questions whether they have been more or less stealing from one budget to cover mismanagement in another? And all the people in city hall now have been there a long time. What does Mary Gourley say? And if none of them will talk, I would like to see their "no comments" recorded for the record.
Thank you, Laura, for such a detailed article. It is very important for people to understand that their water and sewer rates are based on the cost allocation plans and also that paying for water and paying for infrastructure is tied to how much money the enterprise funds are able to retain from fees paid by Ratepayers. When the city over charges the water and sewer funds for administrative overhead, there is not enough money to pay for infrastructure.
To start with I'd like to hear the city council take responsibility for this mess. Instead we get denial, denial, denial. Sound familiar? A class action lawsuit is sounding better and better. Only problem is that it would bankrupt this town in legal fees.
How did we budget a 30K surplus and end up with a $1.1MM added? Simple. The city council failed to appoint a City Manager. The entire Planning Department resigned and no replacements were successfully recruited. You delayed decisions on $500 MM in budgeted street repairs until they could not be completed in the year they were planned. Is that your hope for next year as well?
Failed? Maybe an opportunity? You're putting a lot of weight on circumstance. I think $1mm deserves some credit. I also want to say I was deeply unimpressed by the hires from the previous CM and that our current team Jane ( Sebastopol's former full time planning director who is deeply knowledgable about our city) and John are amazing - and in their limited roles - do a substantial amount of work. Amazing bang for buck. Is that a failure or clever? We may not need a big planning staff and this consulting arrangement has worked out affectively. Though it may be unsustainable it can be repeated. Street repairs did not begin literally because of the bid process. It's interesting you think this was a delay tactic - especially since this is in a specific FUND that treats the money as already spent AND does not affect future GF budgets. Please ask questions. I am here to reduce assumptions. I can give your the reasons for anything or find out if I do not know. I will over communicate. I will give you more detailed numbers or more granular detail.
Thank you, Laura. Seriously...your balanced approach and detailed reporting gives me confidence in the public hearing system. What appears to be a systemic problem now has to be rectified by new people in leadership. How do we fix the problem(s) without damaging the City while we are doing it? Lots of ideas and opinions. Slow and steady probably wins this particular race.
This issue is somewhat (quite a bit?) arcane to me, and I would really benefit from some kind soul's interpretation. Is this merely a recounting of the City's incorrect allocation of spent resources - between Water/Sewer and all else? Or is there to be a refunding of water/sewer charges to consumers - for "overcharges" over past years?
The city will be refunding some money to water and sewer, so that water and sewer can repair its infrastructure. I don’t believe there will be any money refunded to ratepayers.
I think Kate proposed freezing planned rate increases next year and billing residents at the lowest tier for all money as an offset for the money the city would be refunding to the enterprise funds for legal and engineering. The recent study showed $13million required for repairs and needed upgrades. One upgrade proposed is a loop along pleasant hill road identified 25 years ago as critical to ensuring water is available to more than half the city in the event of a water main failure…There is a sewer study ongoing that is likely to show our sewer pipes are old and leaky..yuck!
It more than that. Sebastopol recently had a huge increase in water rates and each year they continue to go up. Sebastopol pays the highest rates of any city in the county. Most other cities buy their water, Sebastopol has their own water and most of the cost is pumping water out of the ground. Even with these high rates there is almost no infrastructure spending. Where does all the money go? It is complicated but a lot goes to pay for the city’s general expenses. These expenses are supposed to be paid by tax dollars and you are supposed to be able to vote on how your tax dollars are being spent. If the city get their money by increasing water rates there is no vote needed. That is what the law says and that law is being broken.
Because her report exposed that the City's been lying to rate-payers and, essentially STEALING rate payer money through these rate hikes that aren't, in fact, going to infrastructure and are, in fact, going to the general fund. That's, technically, stealing. If someone wanted to do a class-action lawsuit this is 100% grounds for it. The sad reality, though, is that our city would likely go into bankruptcy protection, almost immediately, because they're already financially insolvent. I'm going to assume you don't sit in on City Council meetings much, otherwise, you'd know that they're facing budget shortfalls that are so bad they can't even issue bonds for the failing wells and sewer lines. There's no credit and the bonds would be Junk Bonds because the city couldn't pay the money back. It's a dire situation and they will likely go BK within the next 2-3 years. This goes well beyond "accounting quibble." It's flat-out larceny, and fiduciary sin by a city that's teetering on Chapter 13.
How do you know we are insolvent? Please look at our reserve account. We will be over ~30% of reserve funds in July at the end of year. We plan to draw that down to ~25% to do badly needed physical work. Our city policy goal for reserve funds is 15-20% so we will still have that 5% margin. A budget shortfall is not actual, it is a planning tool that should not be must spend allocations. For example, last year we budgeted for a $30,000 surplus. With hard work by all, this year we will put about $1.1 million of surplus in the bank. We've become more efficient. -> Teetering on Chapter 13 - when we largely have no debt - is not just an interesting declaration, it's a bit alarmist for others to take at face value. I do understand your feeling, the lack of trust for the council, and the worry that we could get to that financial position. I take those concerns very seriously.
The EFOC was a strong action by city council to begin making the adjustments needed for rate payers like me and you. The first step is to understand the problem and then pragmatically and intelligently implement change.
I don't sit in on Council meetings but I faithfully read the Times' reports on them. I am well aware of the budget shortfalls, but that the City would like to "issue bonds for the failing wells and sewer lines" is news to me. Could you lead me to a point where I could read about the City's desire to issue bonds?
This is excellent reporting, and this is why local news is so important. My only quibble is the lack of accountability -- if I read between the lines it would be the former City Manager who was responsible along with the previous councilmembers? What does he say? What do the longtime councilmembers say to straight up questions whether they have been more or less stealing from one budget to cover mismanagement in another? And all the people in city hall now have been there a long time. What does Mary Gourley say? And if none of them will talk, I would like to see their "no comments" recorded for the record.
Thank you, Laura, for such a detailed article. It is very important for people to understand that their water and sewer rates are based on the cost allocation plans and also that paying for water and paying for infrastructure is tied to how much money the enterprise funds are able to retain from fees paid by Ratepayers. When the city over charges the water and sewer funds for administrative overhead, there is not enough money to pay for infrastructure.
To start with I'd like to hear the city council take responsibility for this mess. Instead we get denial, denial, denial. Sound familiar? A class action lawsuit is sounding better and better. Only problem is that it would bankrupt this town in legal fees.
How did we budget a 30K surplus and end up with a $1.1MM added? Simple. The city council failed to appoint a City Manager. The entire Planning Department resigned and no replacements were successfully recruited. You delayed decisions on $500 MM in budgeted street repairs until they could not be completed in the year they were planned. Is that your hope for next year as well?
Failed? Maybe an opportunity? You're putting a lot of weight on circumstance. I think $1mm deserves some credit. I also want to say I was deeply unimpressed by the hires from the previous CM and that our current team Jane ( Sebastopol's former full time planning director who is deeply knowledgable about our city) and John are amazing - and in their limited roles - do a substantial amount of work. Amazing bang for buck. Is that a failure or clever? We may not need a big planning staff and this consulting arrangement has worked out affectively. Though it may be unsustainable it can be repeated. Street repairs did not begin literally because of the bid process. It's interesting you think this was a delay tactic - especially since this is in a specific FUND that treats the money as already spent AND does not affect future GF budgets. Please ask questions. I am here to reduce assumptions. I can give your the reasons for anything or find out if I do not know. I will over communicate. I will give you more detailed numbers or more granular detail.
Thank you, Laura. Seriously...your balanced approach and detailed reporting gives me confidence in the public hearing system. What appears to be a systemic problem now has to be rectified by new people in leadership. How do we fix the problem(s) without damaging the City while we are doing it? Lots of ideas and opinions. Slow and steady probably wins this particular race.
This issue is somewhat (quite a bit?) arcane to me, and I would really benefit from some kind soul's interpretation. Is this merely a recounting of the City's incorrect allocation of spent resources - between Water/Sewer and all else? Or is there to be a refunding of water/sewer charges to consumers - for "overcharges" over past years?
The city will be refunding some money to water and sewer, so that water and sewer can repair its infrastructure. I don’t believe there will be any money refunded to ratepayers.
I think Kate proposed freezing planned rate increases next year and billing residents at the lowest tier for all money as an offset for the money the city would be refunding to the enterprise funds for legal and engineering. The recent study showed $13million required for repairs and needed upgrades. One upgrade proposed is a loop along pleasant hill road identified 25 years ago as critical to ensuring water is available to more than half the city in the event of a water main failure…There is a sewer study ongoing that is likely to show our sewer pipes are old and leaky..yuck!
That was my 'instinctive' conclusion. So - - why is this anything more than an accountants' quibbl;e about where costs should be allocated?
It more than that. Sebastopol recently had a huge increase in water rates and each year they continue to go up. Sebastopol pays the highest rates of any city in the county. Most other cities buy their water, Sebastopol has their own water and most of the cost is pumping water out of the ground. Even with these high rates there is almost no infrastructure spending. Where does all the money go? It is complicated but a lot goes to pay for the city’s general expenses. These expenses are supposed to be paid by tax dollars and you are supposed to be able to vote on how your tax dollars are being spent. If the city get their money by increasing water rates there is no vote needed. That is what the law says and that law is being broken.
Because her report exposed that the City's been lying to rate-payers and, essentially STEALING rate payer money through these rate hikes that aren't, in fact, going to infrastructure and are, in fact, going to the general fund. That's, technically, stealing. If someone wanted to do a class-action lawsuit this is 100% grounds for it. The sad reality, though, is that our city would likely go into bankruptcy protection, almost immediately, because they're already financially insolvent. I'm going to assume you don't sit in on City Council meetings much, otherwise, you'd know that they're facing budget shortfalls that are so bad they can't even issue bonds for the failing wells and sewer lines. There's no credit and the bonds would be Junk Bonds because the city couldn't pay the money back. It's a dire situation and they will likely go BK within the next 2-3 years. This goes well beyond "accounting quibble." It's flat-out larceny, and fiduciary sin by a city that's teetering on Chapter 13.
How do you know we are insolvent? Please look at our reserve account. We will be over ~30% of reserve funds in July at the end of year. We plan to draw that down to ~25% to do badly needed physical work. Our city policy goal for reserve funds is 15-20% so we will still have that 5% margin. A budget shortfall is not actual, it is a planning tool that should not be must spend allocations. For example, last year we budgeted for a $30,000 surplus. With hard work by all, this year we will put about $1.1 million of surplus in the bank. We've become more efficient. -> Teetering on Chapter 13 - when we largely have no debt - is not just an interesting declaration, it's a bit alarmist for others to take at face value. I do understand your feeling, the lack of trust for the council, and the worry that we could get to that financial position. I take those concerns very seriously.
The EFOC was a strong action by city council to begin making the adjustments needed for rate payers like me and you. The first step is to understand the problem and then pragmatically and intelligently implement change.
I don't sit in on Council meetings but I faithfully read the Times' reports on them. I am well aware of the budget shortfalls, but that the City would like to "issue bonds for the failing wells and sewer lines" is news to me. Could you lead me to a point where I could read about the City's desire to issue bonds?
If there had been a a potential refund involved you would have had it in the lede.