What else happened at the Nov. 4 Sebastopol City Council meeting?
Council hears first-quarter updates on the General Fund and Enterprise Funds
The Nov. 4 city council meeting was dominated by a discussion of an urgency just-cause eviction ordinance, which the council ultimately approved—and we covered in depth in this article. This city council recap will cover everything else that happened in that meeting, including first-quarter budget updates on the General Fund and the city’s Water and Sewer Funds. This recap is not going to be a thrill-a-minute, but there are some interesting details, including a spontaneous, full-throated suggestion (not on the agenda, therefore not official) to make Mary Gourley the actual city manager.
Mayor Stephen Zollman, Councilmember Sandra Maurer and Councilmember Phill Carter were present for the Nov. 4 Sebastopol City Council meeting. Vice Mayor Jill McLewis attended via Zoom. Councilmember Neysa Hinton was absent.
Consent Calendar
The consent calendar consists of items that are routine in nature or don’t require additional discussion, often because they’ve been discussed extensively at a previous council meeting.
In addition to approving the minutes of earlier meetings, the council unanimously approved the following:
The conversion of the administrative technician classification to a I (entry-level)/II (journey-level) classification series. The salary range for an Administrative Technician I is 10% below that of an Administrative Technician II. According to the staff report, “This change will enable the City to offer a pathway to entry into this robust and challenging classification, the roles for which span multiple departments and functions, providing opportunities for career development for both current and future City employees.”
Approval of amendment to Pay Rates and Ranges Schedule. The city is required to post a publicly available pay schedule. Recent changes—including changes to the admin tech position discussed above and a 2% cost-of-living increase for the accountant/analyst, public works supervisor, and administrative services officer, previously approved by the City Council on June 17—necessitated this amendment. See the schedule here.
Amendment to the composition and membership qualifications of the Enterprise Funds Oversight Committee. The council approved reducing the number of people on the committee from six to five and broadened the eligibility for those with accounting experience to join the committee even if they reside outside the city limits. (See the full staff report here.) The council also OK’d the seating of the committee without council interviews.
Regular Agenda
FIRST QUARTER UPDATE ON THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS
This update, which was given by Administrative Services Director Ana Kwong, covered the first quarter of the 2025-26 Enterprise Funds budgets. Kwong noted that the council’s Budget Committee had asked that she include last year’s figures for the same period so that they could easily see how the two compared.
She noted that the water fund update included just two months: July and August. “So let’s start with water funds: we billed 21% of the yearly budget, which is a bit higher than expected for just two months.” She said this was due to the water rate increase and also the fact that during the summer months, water use is a bit higher. She noted that expenses are at 23%, which is on track.
In terms of the sewer (or wastewater) fund, she said the city had billed 16% of the yearly budget, with expenses at 19%.
Kwong noted that “The staff did compare this first quarter with the rate model, and the outcome for the income and expenses are working as intended. So both funds are performing as expected.” She noted she’ll be able to produce a fuller picture at the mid-year review, where “there will be more data so that we will know where things stand.”
In public comment, Kyle Falbo brought up the problematic nature of the city’s cost allocation plan, which seems to have been based on an algorithm applicable to all cities, rather than actual costs in Sebastopol. (A city’s cost allocation model is a method for distributing the costs of shared services—like administration and legal expenses—across different city departments.) He noted, for example, that the water and sewer funds are being charged $200,000 (actually it’s a little more than $100,000) for city council expenses, when our city council is, in fact, unpaid. He was probably thinking of the $200,000 in legal expenses that the cost allocation plan suggests should be charged to Water and Sewer. (Read more about this controversy at the end of this article from June 26, 2025, under the section heading “An obscure bureaucratic tool raises hackles and questions.” )
Mayor Zollman pressed Kwong on this point. She repied that, “Staff is working with the consultant to revisit the cost allocation plan,” and that “it’s been an ongoing discussion with the budget committee.”
Councilmember Phill Carter asked if either of the Water or Sewer Funds have been charged (with payments moved into the city’s General Fund) thus far this year based on that cost allocation plan. Kwong said that, yes, they had because these expenses are paid quarterly.
Councilmember Maurer noted that, “In the Budget Committee, we did discuss bringing this back to the [Enterprise Fund] Oversight Committee to do a deeper dive on that cost allocation plan.”
FIRST QUARTER UPDATE ON THE GENERAL FUND
In discussing the General Fund, Kwong noted that revenues for the first quarter were at 8.7% of the budgeted expectation, while expenditures were at 23.1%. Kwong explained this difference3 by noting that the city’s major income sources, like property tax and sales tax, haven’t come in yet. “Property tax doesn’t come in until December, and sales taxes are always two months behind,” she said.
“Keep in mind that the first quarter numbers are always limited, and there’s no cause for concern at this point…We’ll know more when we do the second quarter [update], where we have six months of income.”
COUNCIL DELAYS CONFIRMATION OF AN EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRM FOR CITY MANAGER RECRUITMENT
Five executive search firms responded to the City’s Request for Proposals for an executive search firm to recruit for a new city manager. Based on the staff’s review, two firms—WBCP and CPS HR Consulting—were recommended for in-person interviews. The council interviewed both firms in open session and based upon the interviews, selected WBCP. There were some questions about the WBCP contract however, so this matter was delayed until the next meeting to obtain clarity on the contract agreements.
In public comment on this issue, Darryl Miller noted that Interim City Manager Mary Gourley “has done an incredible job.” He wondered why the council was going to spend $35,000 of the city’s money (really the citizens’ money, he noted) to hire a separate executive search firm. “I don’t understand how you can’t figure out how to get someone who wants to come to this community or is already in this community or her [meaning Gourley] to become the city manager…I don’t understand why you’re always getting consulting firms.”
In response, public commenter Kyle Falbo opined, “I don’t actually want any of these people trying to find a city manager,” he said, gesturing to the city council. “I want a contract professional who knows how to find effective executive leadership to do this work.” He then returned to his perennial complaint about the city ignoring the need for robust public participation in its decisions.
In response to Falbo’s comments, Councilmember Maurer said that “public participation has been articulated and it’s required part of the process.”
In response to Miller’s comment, she said, “I agree that Mary is the best. I know that’s not what we’re voting on right now, but if she would be willing, I would love to bump Mary up into that regular city manager position, because since she’s been the interim city manager—and before she was even appointed—she’s done her work in a stellar way. She is the best. I can’t imagine we’re going to find anybody better.”
Councilmember Phill Carter seconded this (unofficial) sentiment.