I appreciate the kind words about the performance, even if I disagree with the interpretation.
Kate may very well be right that “ignorance is bliss” and that there was no nefarious conspiracy. My point was not that anyone was personally lining their pockets. The piracy was a metaphor for what happened to ratepayer funds.
But ignorance is not much of a defense when laws and public money are involved. We generally do not accept “I didn’t know” as an answer when someone violates the law, and I’m not sure why we should expect less accountability from governmental institutions with decades of experience managing public funds.
Whether these decisions resulted from malice, negligence, institutional inertia, or a failure to understand the law is an important distinction when judging the people involved. It does not change the need to identify what happened, correct it, reconcile the past, and put controls in place so it does not happen again.
That was ultimately the point beneath the pirate hat.
"Whether these decisions resulted from malice, negligence, institutional inertia, or a failure to understand the law is an important distinction when judging the people involved. It does not change the need to identify what happened, correct it, reconcile the past, and put controls in place so it does not happen again.
That was ultimately the point beneath the pirate hat."
Yes, great article. And her work makes me so happy. Having vision can be used in many ways and it's beautiful when they intertwine in non-typical ways.
The one thing I still want to see are names. Who is responsible for this? It's not about blame but it matters tremendously with an election coming up. Who made these decisions? Do they have connections to current candidates? Why is there such a lack of personal accountability - are we just being polite?
Great article! To think someone had to spend three years of their life uncovering what should have been handled correctly in the first place. I'm going to go out on a limb and say nobody is going to be held accountable.
In an unusual turn of events, I have nothing to add. Kate Haug made this complicated issue fascinating and simple to understand. This well written article enhanced that understanding and is extending the reach of the program. Hopefully that reach includes city council members who "couldn't attend". There was a standing room crowd that is now informed about important issues with our water and wastewater system and its mismanagement. This should raise the bar for sitting council members and candidates to get up to speed.
One more comment, which I think is relevant. The Water and Sewer administration, infrastructure and billing is specific to those who pay a Water and Sewer bill to the City of Sebastopol. Many West County neighbors are on wells and septic and therefore are responsible for maintaining their own systems and their costs are fully governed by their own choices. No one on a well pays tiered water rates or has increased septic costs due to meter size. No on on a well is paying for City Administration. People on wells determine how much water is available to them and how to maintain their systems. People within the City pay for a communal system, where everyone has to pay for maintaining the shared pipes, wells, costs for administration, wastewater processing, electricity, repairs. Being on City Water and Sewer is financial endeavor shared by all ratepayers. People living on well water and septic have a different relationship to the finances and use of water and wastewater. The City and Council have a specific responsibility to the Ratepayer - meaning those who pay a Water and Sewer bill to the City of Sebastopol. As many City issues overlap with our West County neighbors, the City and Council must keep the finances and infrastructure repairs for the City's Water and Sewer as distinct issues that are specific to the City Ratepayers. Revenue for Water and Sewer infrastructure and maintenance is generated through Water and Sewer Bills. Revenue for other City Infrastructure such as roads, sidewalks, and parks is generated within City Limits via sales tax, property tax, transient occupancy tax and other taxes. The City is responsible for the infrastructure and for the most part (unless it is able to secure a grant) responsible for generating the revenue associated with taxes. Sebastopol is a small 2 square mile town and has to generate enough revenue via taxes to support all of its infrastructure.
Sorry but i can't give the city council and staff (past and present) a hall pass. The issue is simple too see. The city general fund budget was / is running a deficit and the water sewer fund is running a surplus. Bingo, just charge some city overhead to the water sewer fund and problem solved! And always easier to raise rates for water sewer services verse paying for employee costs.
And if the current council was really on the up and up, why isnt the accounting problem fixed going forward? ( because they'd have to deal with the hole in the general fund).
Great Coverage of this vital and important event that took place. It was telling that only 2 of the City Council candidates running were there for the entire town hall. I saw Jill McLewis make an appearance after it was over but she wasn't even there for the presentation, which is pretty shocking. Ostriches with heads in the sand.
Unless an event is purely social, the Brown Act prohibits more than 2 of 5 City Council members showing up at an interactive event like this. Heads not in the sand, but playing by the often confounding rules of a California law.
The Brown Act has its value; it is supposed to prevent backroom dealings. As the EFOC Finance Committee was only allowed 4 minutes to present on June 2 and it appears some Council Members still do not fully understand the hard boundaries between the Enterprise Funds and General Fund, it might have benefitted for 2 of them to attend. Laura has done a great job presenting the information in this and other articles. The City has its official reply to the Grand Jury, which is a public document. You can read it here.
Read and noted the first tranche of responses/fixes to be completed by next month. Worthwhile remembering that our current situation is 20 years in the making, with full fix costs beyond the capability of one City's annual budget. So, this has to be a phased, over-time effort. Appreciate your efforts Kate to help identify concrete solutions, and assume you will continue to monitor and keep up pressure to see the next tranche of responses approved and implemented.
Kent, this is definitely a problem that will require a focused commitment on the part of the current Council and any new Council Members. It requires a paradigm shift in action and thought. Previous Councils did not seem to be aware of distinction between Enterprise Funds and General Funds and the Prop. 218/ Prop. 26 requirements of keeping those separate. Obviously, the City Manager/Attorney should have made them aware as that was his job and legal responsibility. I believe that current Council can take steps to correct the current Cost Allocation plan as it is still not Prop. 218/ Prop. 26 compliant, implement time tracking so there is accurate data for future Cost Allocation Plans, and shift the debt burden of the Syserco Loan from the Water Fund to the General Fund. While I believe Syserco overcharged for its work on the Sewer System, that work does seem to be valid and therefore the Sewer Fund should maintain that portion of the loan payment. The City voted in Measure U to address infrastructure. It would be legal for the City to repay the Enterprise Funds, using Measure U funds over a 4-5 year period. It would also be legal for the City to absorb the Syserco Debt payment (as that loan was unnecessary and did not go through any due diligence process) to help alleviate the debt burden on the Water Fund so it can move forward with financing for infrastructure. To maintain Prop. 218/ Prop. 26 compliance, the City does need to adjust the current Cost Allocation plan. In addition, the City needs to refund Ratepayers for vacant positions. Ratepayers paid for a vacant City Manager position for over a year. Currently they are a paying for a vacant City Clerk position. The restitution of these funds are necessary to move forward with critical infrastructure like the Pleasant Hill Loop and Well #4. Council is aware of all of these items. They just need to put it on the agenda and approve them as they have done with other items. While the current Council cannot change the past, they certainly can change the future.
Rumor has it that Jill McLewis arrived as soon as possible after a pre-scheduled family medical appointment. Maybe Laura could contact Jill in an effort to ameliorate Rate Payer's shock?
There will be a video of the event posted for them. Not as if they don't realize the contents therein. They've already rec'd the grand jury presentation, the committee recommendation from Kate. And, largely ignored it, as evidenced by their replies to her and the grand jury itself. Meanwhile, cut to them obsessing over a Community Hub. Par for their "bankruptcy or bust" approach to governing. Given that Santa Rosa's Hearn Community Hub recently kicked off its first phase with a $35 million fund (likely to mushroom) you have to just cringe and shake your head at the folly. While the pipes delivering 50% of our water decay along Pleasant Hill and 2 of our Wells teeter into faltering states they're wasting time and tax-payer/water-rate-payer money on fanciful ideas.
I wanted to thank Laura for following this story for the last 12 months plus. She's done a great job. I wanted to thank everyone for attending. It was a wonderful event.
Ratepayer.info lists documents - like the Grand Jury Report (see pages 15-17 for infrastructure discussion) - and videos of various meetings.
I will be updating it to include the full talk in a few weeks. If you missed the talk, you'll be able to watch it there.
The EFOC, myself and other community members have presented many hours worth of financial analysis and documentation to the Council. They are aware of the situation. The City has replied to the Grand Jury without addressing any of the financial aspects of the Grand Jury finding or supplying financial documentation of their own. The City has said that it "needs to do more research" despite the fact that the EFOC has shared many financial documents and analysis.
While the current Council cannot undo the mistakes of the past, they can move forward with correcting the situation. The EFOC has made recommendations to slowly return the $5,500,000 identified by the Grand Jury. To put this in context, $5,500,000 would fund many critical needs in the Water System like Well #4 and the Pleasant Hill loop without raising water rates.
The current Council and the next Councils are responsible for returning the misappropriated funds identified by the Grand Jury to the Enterprise Funds. They are responsible for being Prop. 218 and Prop. 26 compliant and to understand what that means. They are responsible for understanding what it means to run a public utility - a Water and Sewer District. They are responsible for ensuring the safety and security of our Water System. They are responsible for managing capital intensive and long range capital improvements to our Water and Sewer System. We are headed into an El Niño year which means that we will be pumping rain water through our sewer system because our sewer system has miles and miles of old clay pipe that take on rain water. Environmentally this is bad because we use triple the amount of energy to pump that rain water and then it is processed in Santa Rosa, which costs money to the Ratepayer. We need to get those clay pipes replaced as it will lower costs and be more energy efficient. If the Council does not have the bandwidth to do this type of administration, we need a Water and Sewer board that can follow and track long-term, multi year infrastructure projects. Ratepayers currently pay for 50% of the Council budget, which means 50% of meetings and of Council time should be dedicated to Water and Sewer. Sadly, this is not the case.
As Laura points out, the talk was about democracy and the need for people to participate. We Hold Democracy Together. The Council does respond to their constituents if enough people show up. I encourage people to show up at Council meetings and write letters.
Tell Council that you want them to make the current Cost Allocation Plan Prop. 218/ Prop. 26 compliant. Tell Council you want them to restore the $5,500,000 identified by the Grand Jury back to the Enterprise Funds. Tell Council that you want them to follow the EFOC financial recommendations. Tell Council that Sewer Rates should be frozen, too, as they are based on the same bunk data as Water. Tell Council that you want critical infrastructure like Well #4 and the Pleasant Hill loop funded and fixed before there is a crisis.
Laura has covered many of these actions and I want to reiterate. It is important to follow and participate in your local government. We are lucky to have the Sebastopol Times so that we can actually follow our local government. Many communities have no way to follow what is happening in their communities. We do.
This council did establish the EFOC in Nov 2025. I brought it to council after a lot of work that needed to be done prior to make the conditions suitable - like staff availability. The establishment of the EFOC was due in part to contributions by MANY of the public... which includes - with gratitude- Kate Haug. While government may meander in ways that are not transparent this group add great clarity to the situation. You can't fix what you don't know. And now we know a great deal more about our water systems and soon our sewer system as the report is due in this fall. Onward...
Recommendations for the most fiscally responsible candidates for City Council to vote for, especially for those who are new to Sebastopol proper and trying to get up to speed on the massive amount of information.
I imagine Laura will probably have on-going information on candidates. I recommend watching the League of Women Voters candidate forum. They usually host one for Sebastopol and it is on zoom. You can typically submit questions in advance. Ask about candidate's priorities for the budget. The City has limited resources and has the capacity to complete a limited set of goals. It can't do everything at once so it needs to stick to priorities. Ask Candidates to list how they will use the extremely limited amounts of money the City generates through tax money. Ask them if they are willing to cut expenses to pay back the Enterprise Funds so that we have a safe and secure Water Supply and can replace our leaky clay pipes. Ask about the projects that you want to see completed. Roads? Sidewalks? Ives' Park? Plaza cleaned up? The reason why I list these specific topics is that they require funding and also management. If the citizens want to focus staff time and tax revenue on basic infrastructure, they need to let Council know that's what they want. It's important for voters to let Candidates know their priorities and the best way to do that is to tell them.
Priorities from a 2024 survey suggest that public safety, fiscal responsibility, emergency preparedness, and roads are top priorities.
For those of you who missed the talk, the area of critical importance is Water System safety and security. The Pleasant Hill Loop was cited by the Grand Jury as critical infrastructure. This has been noted as critical since 2005. See Grand Jury Report page 17.
The recent decision by Council to freeze Water Rates and remove tiers without adjusting the Cost Allocation Plan and transferring the Syserco Debt, creates Water Fund financial instability and threatens the Water Fund's ability to secure financing for infrastructure. This document produced by myself and other community members show the consequences. The City has yet to discuss infrastructure funding or to put all the EFOC recommendations, including Cost Allocation Plan reduction and the Syserco Loan, on the agenda.
I appreciate the kind words about the performance, even if I disagree with the interpretation.
Kate may very well be right that “ignorance is bliss” and that there was no nefarious conspiracy. My point was not that anyone was personally lining their pockets. The piracy was a metaphor for what happened to ratepayer funds.
But ignorance is not much of a defense when laws and public money are involved. We generally do not accept “I didn’t know” as an answer when someone violates the law, and I’m not sure why we should expect less accountability from governmental institutions with decades of experience managing public funds.
Whether these decisions resulted from malice, negligence, institutional inertia, or a failure to understand the law is an important distinction when judging the people involved. It does not change the need to identify what happened, correct it, reconcile the past, and put controls in place so it does not happen again.
That was ultimately the point beneath the pirate hat.
"Whether these decisions resulted from malice, negligence, institutional inertia, or a failure to understand the law is an important distinction when judging the people involved. It does not change the need to identify what happened, correct it, reconcile the past, and put controls in place so it does not happen again.
That was ultimately the point beneath the pirate hat."
Beautifully stated, Kyle!
Yes, great article. And her work makes me so happy. Having vision can be used in many ways and it's beautiful when they intertwine in non-typical ways.
The one thing I still want to see are names. Who is responsible for this? It's not about blame but it matters tremendously with an election coming up. Who made these decisions? Do they have connections to current candidates? Why is there such a lack of personal accountability - are we just being polite?
Great article! To think someone had to spend three years of their life uncovering what should have been handled correctly in the first place. I'm going to go out on a limb and say nobody is going to be held accountable.
In an unusual turn of events, I have nothing to add. Kate Haug made this complicated issue fascinating and simple to understand. This well written article enhanced that understanding and is extending the reach of the program. Hopefully that reach includes city council members who "couldn't attend". There was a standing room crowd that is now informed about important issues with our water and wastewater system and its mismanagement. This should raise the bar for sitting council members and candidates to get up to speed.
One more comment, which I think is relevant. The Water and Sewer administration, infrastructure and billing is specific to those who pay a Water and Sewer bill to the City of Sebastopol. Many West County neighbors are on wells and septic and therefore are responsible for maintaining their own systems and their costs are fully governed by their own choices. No one on a well pays tiered water rates or has increased septic costs due to meter size. No on on a well is paying for City Administration. People on wells determine how much water is available to them and how to maintain their systems. People within the City pay for a communal system, where everyone has to pay for maintaining the shared pipes, wells, costs for administration, wastewater processing, electricity, repairs. Being on City Water and Sewer is financial endeavor shared by all ratepayers. People living on well water and septic have a different relationship to the finances and use of water and wastewater. The City and Council have a specific responsibility to the Ratepayer - meaning those who pay a Water and Sewer bill to the City of Sebastopol. As many City issues overlap with our West County neighbors, the City and Council must keep the finances and infrastructure repairs for the City's Water and Sewer as distinct issues that are specific to the City Ratepayers. Revenue for Water and Sewer infrastructure and maintenance is generated through Water and Sewer Bills. Revenue for other City Infrastructure such as roads, sidewalks, and parks is generated within City Limits via sales tax, property tax, transient occupancy tax and other taxes. The City is responsible for the infrastructure and for the most part (unless it is able to secure a grant) responsible for generating the revenue associated with taxes. Sebastopol is a small 2 square mile town and has to generate enough revenue via taxes to support all of its infrastructure.
Sorry but i can't give the city council and staff (past and present) a hall pass. The issue is simple too see. The city general fund budget was / is running a deficit and the water sewer fund is running a surplus. Bingo, just charge some city overhead to the water sewer fund and problem solved! And always easier to raise rates for water sewer services verse paying for employee costs.
And if the current council was really on the up and up, why isnt the accounting problem fixed going forward? ( because they'd have to deal with the hole in the general fund).
Such an excellent article. Thank you. Great reporting and great gratitude to Kate Haug for explaining this complex issue so clearly.
Great Coverage of this vital and important event that took place. It was telling that only 2 of the City Council candidates running were there for the entire town hall. I saw Jill McLewis make an appearance after it was over but she wasn't even there for the presentation, which is pretty shocking. Ostriches with heads in the sand.
Unless an event is purely social, the Brown Act prohibits more than 2 of 5 City Council members showing up at an interactive event like this. Heads not in the sand, but playing by the often confounding rules of a California law.
The Brown Act has its value; it is supposed to prevent backroom dealings. As the EFOC Finance Committee was only allowed 4 minutes to present on June 2 and it appears some Council Members still do not fully understand the hard boundaries between the Enterprise Funds and General Fund, it might have benefitted for 2 of them to attend. Laura has done a great job presenting the information in this and other articles. The City has its official reply to the Grand Jury, which is a public document. You can read it here.
https://www.cityofsebastopol.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Agenda-Item-Number-11-Response-to-Grand-Jury-Report-to-CA-AM-7.14.26.pdf
Read and noted the first tranche of responses/fixes to be completed by next month. Worthwhile remembering that our current situation is 20 years in the making, with full fix costs beyond the capability of one City's annual budget. So, this has to be a phased, over-time effort. Appreciate your efforts Kate to help identify concrete solutions, and assume you will continue to monitor and keep up pressure to see the next tranche of responses approved and implemented.
Kent, this is definitely a problem that will require a focused commitment on the part of the current Council and any new Council Members. It requires a paradigm shift in action and thought. Previous Councils did not seem to be aware of distinction between Enterprise Funds and General Funds and the Prop. 218/ Prop. 26 requirements of keeping those separate. Obviously, the City Manager/Attorney should have made them aware as that was his job and legal responsibility. I believe that current Council can take steps to correct the current Cost Allocation plan as it is still not Prop. 218/ Prop. 26 compliant, implement time tracking so there is accurate data for future Cost Allocation Plans, and shift the debt burden of the Syserco Loan from the Water Fund to the General Fund. While I believe Syserco overcharged for its work on the Sewer System, that work does seem to be valid and therefore the Sewer Fund should maintain that portion of the loan payment. The City voted in Measure U to address infrastructure. It would be legal for the City to repay the Enterprise Funds, using Measure U funds over a 4-5 year period. It would also be legal for the City to absorb the Syserco Debt payment (as that loan was unnecessary and did not go through any due diligence process) to help alleviate the debt burden on the Water Fund so it can move forward with financing for infrastructure. To maintain Prop. 218/ Prop. 26 compliance, the City does need to adjust the current Cost Allocation plan. In addition, the City needs to refund Ratepayers for vacant positions. Ratepayers paid for a vacant City Manager position for over a year. Currently they are a paying for a vacant City Clerk position. The restitution of these funds are necessary to move forward with critical infrastructure like the Pleasant Hill Loop and Well #4. Council is aware of all of these items. They just need to put it on the agenda and approve them as they have done with other items. While the current Council cannot change the past, they certainly can change the future.
Then 2 of them could have gone. For something this important they should have been arguing amongst themselves who would go.
Rumor has it that Jill McLewis arrived as soon as possible after a pre-scheduled family medical appointment. Maybe Laura could contact Jill in an effort to ameliorate Rate Payer's shock?
Hi,
You can read the City's reply to the Grand Jury here. It's from the July 21 meeting. This is the official City position.
https://www.cityofsebastopol.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Agenda-Item-Number-11-Response-to-Grand-Jury-Report-to-CA-AM-7.14.26.pdf
There will be a video of the event posted for them. Not as if they don't realize the contents therein. They've already rec'd the grand jury presentation, the committee recommendation from Kate. And, largely ignored it, as evidenced by their replies to her and the grand jury itself. Meanwhile, cut to them obsessing over a Community Hub. Par for their "bankruptcy or bust" approach to governing. Given that Santa Rosa's Hearn Community Hub recently kicked off its first phase with a $35 million fund (likely to mushroom) you have to just cringe and shake your head at the folly. While the pipes delivering 50% of our water decay along Pleasant Hill and 2 of our Wells teeter into faltering states they're wasting time and tax-payer/water-rate-payer money on fanciful ideas.
Hello! Kate Haug here.
I wanted to thank Laura for following this story for the last 12 months plus. She's done a great job. I wanted to thank everyone for attending. It was a wonderful event.
I created a website: Ratepayer.Info
Ratepayer.info lists documents - like the Grand Jury Report (see pages 15-17 for infrastructure discussion) - and videos of various meetings.
I will be updating it to include the full talk in a few weeks. If you missed the talk, you'll be able to watch it there.
The EFOC, myself and other community members have presented many hours worth of financial analysis and documentation to the Council. They are aware of the situation. The City has replied to the Grand Jury without addressing any of the financial aspects of the Grand Jury finding or supplying financial documentation of their own. The City has said that it "needs to do more research" despite the fact that the EFOC has shared many financial documents and analysis.
While the current Council cannot undo the mistakes of the past, they can move forward with correcting the situation. The EFOC has made recommendations to slowly return the $5,500,000 identified by the Grand Jury. To put this in context, $5,500,000 would fund many critical needs in the Water System like Well #4 and the Pleasant Hill loop without raising water rates.
The current Council and the next Councils are responsible for returning the misappropriated funds identified by the Grand Jury to the Enterprise Funds. They are responsible for being Prop. 218 and Prop. 26 compliant and to understand what that means. They are responsible for understanding what it means to run a public utility - a Water and Sewer District. They are responsible for ensuring the safety and security of our Water System. They are responsible for managing capital intensive and long range capital improvements to our Water and Sewer System. We are headed into an El Niño year which means that we will be pumping rain water through our sewer system because our sewer system has miles and miles of old clay pipe that take on rain water. Environmentally this is bad because we use triple the amount of energy to pump that rain water and then it is processed in Santa Rosa, which costs money to the Ratepayer. We need to get those clay pipes replaced as it will lower costs and be more energy efficient. If the Council does not have the bandwidth to do this type of administration, we need a Water and Sewer board that can follow and track long-term, multi year infrastructure projects. Ratepayers currently pay for 50% of the Council budget, which means 50% of meetings and of Council time should be dedicated to Water and Sewer. Sadly, this is not the case.
As Laura points out, the talk was about democracy and the need for people to participate. We Hold Democracy Together. The Council does respond to their constituents if enough people show up. I encourage people to show up at Council meetings and write letters.
Tell Council that you want them to make the current Cost Allocation Plan Prop. 218/ Prop. 26 compliant. Tell Council you want them to restore the $5,500,000 identified by the Grand Jury back to the Enterprise Funds. Tell Council that you want them to follow the EFOC financial recommendations. Tell Council that Sewer Rates should be frozen, too, as they are based on the same bunk data as Water. Tell Council that you want critical infrastructure like Well #4 and the Pleasant Hill loop funded and fixed before there is a crisis.
Laura has covered many of these actions and I want to reiterate. It is important to follow and participate in your local government. We are lucky to have the Sebastopol Times so that we can actually follow our local government. Many communities have no way to follow what is happening in their communities. We do.
This council did establish the EFOC in Nov 2025. I brought it to council after a lot of work that needed to be done prior to make the conditions suitable - like staff availability. The establishment of the EFOC was due in part to contributions by MANY of the public... which includes - with gratitude- Kate Haug. While government may meander in ways that are not transparent this group add great clarity to the situation. You can't fix what you don't know. And now we know a great deal more about our water systems and soon our sewer system as the report is due in this fall. Onward...
My 'comment' is a question....
Recommendations for the most fiscally responsible candidates for City Council to vote for, especially for those who are new to Sebastopol proper and trying to get up to speed on the massive amount of information.
Hi Nancy,
I imagine Laura will probably have on-going information on candidates. I recommend watching the League of Women Voters candidate forum. They usually host one for Sebastopol and it is on zoom. You can typically submit questions in advance. Ask about candidate's priorities for the budget. The City has limited resources and has the capacity to complete a limited set of goals. It can't do everything at once so it needs to stick to priorities. Ask Candidates to list how they will use the extremely limited amounts of money the City generates through tax money. Ask them if they are willing to cut expenses to pay back the Enterprise Funds so that we have a safe and secure Water Supply and can replace our leaky clay pipes. Ask about the projects that you want to see completed. Roads? Sidewalks? Ives' Park? Plaza cleaned up? The reason why I list these specific topics is that they require funding and also management. If the citizens want to focus staff time and tax revenue on basic infrastructure, they need to let Council know that's what they want. It's important for voters to let Candidates know their priorities and the best way to do that is to tell them.
Priorities from a 2024 survey suggest that public safety, fiscal responsibility, emergency preparedness, and roads are top priorities.
https://www.cityofsebastopol.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Final-Report-Sebastopol-Community-Priorities-Survey.pdf
https://www.lwvsonoma.org
For those of you who missed the talk, the area of critical importance is Water System safety and security. The Pleasant Hill Loop was cited by the Grand Jury as critical infrastructure. This has been noted as critical since 2005. See Grand Jury Report page 17.
https://sonoma.courts.ca.gov/system/files/grand-jury/05-12-2026-sebast-water-posting.pdf
The recent decision by Council to freeze Water Rates and remove tiers without adjusting the Cost Allocation Plan and transferring the Syserco Debt, creates Water Fund financial instability and threatens the Water Fund's ability to secure financing for infrastructure. This document produced by myself and other community members show the consequences. The City has yet to discuss infrastructure funding or to put all the EFOC recommendations, including Cost Allocation Plan reduction and the Syserco Loan, on the agenda.
https://www.cityofsebastopol.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Kate-Haug-Water-and-Wastewater-Forecast-The-Responsible-Way-to-Freeze-Rates-and-Remove-Tiers-Public-Comment-7.7_Redacted.pdf