What happened at the Sebastopol City Council Goal Setting session?

The council chose six goals and a slew of strategies

At their Goal Setting meeting on Tuesday afternoon, the Sebastopol City Council agreed on six over-arching goals and attached a bunch of strategies/projects) to each goal. Unfortunately, they ran out of time before they could prioritize those strategies and projects, leaving that task to the city staff.

The event kicked off with a brief introduction by Mayor Stephen Zollman.

“Today’s session is designed to bring together the council, staff and our community to discuss and shape the immediate future of our city,” Zollman said. “The goal is to identify, perhaps between five and six key goals and priorities that reflect the shared goals and priorities of council. These priorities will guide our efforts over the next one to two years, ensuring that we stay focused on what truly matters.”

He continued, “At the end of the workshop, the council will take the goals and priorities and direct staff to develop a detailed action plan. This plan will outline the potential costs, and if feasible, how we will bring these priorities to life and ensure that we take concrete steps towards achieving them realistically.”

Zollman’s introduction was followed by public comment. Several commenters—Gene Nelson, Lisa and Steve Pierce and Jessica Hall—spoke about plans and projects for Ives Park. Senior Center Executive Director Katie Davis and board member Gary Bachelor said the senior center was quickly outgrowing its building on High Street. Fred Engbarth and Sarah Gurney spoke about a similar problem with the Sebastopol Library and brought up the need to expand facilities and perhaps build a kind of civic and nonprofit hub across from the Sebastopol Center for the Arts. Kate Haug threw water on these grand plans by reminding listeners of the city’s financial crisis, noting “Given this reality, city and staff and council need to spend their limited time and energy in making government more efficient and making infrastructure improvements that improve the quality of life for most people with the limited funds available to the city, like replacing the chain link fence in Ives Park.” Other commenters brought up the need to rebuild the labyrinth, build more housing, and increase civic engagement.

After public comment, the meeting facilitator, Steve Mermell, gave a brief introduction, for the sake of listeners, about the structure of city government and the nature of good local governance and civil engagement. He also laid out the structure of the meeting.

City Manager Don Schwartz set the upcoming discussion in the context of the city’s ongoing financial woes, epitomized in the chart below.

According to Schwartz, the budget deficit for next year looked to be around $300,000. He said the city needs two out of three things to happen to return to financial stability: the building of the Barlow Hotel, the building of Hotel Sebastopol, and a decision by the state to allow Sebastopol to receive the full 1/2 cent sales tax from Measure U. “One of those three is not enough,” Schwartz said. “Two of those three and we’ll be in good shape. Three out of three and we’ll be in very good shape.”

Setting goals and strategies to meet those goals

Mermell, who had previously interviewed all the council members individually, put up a tentative list of six goals drawn from those discussions. These included long-term fiscal sustainability, economic development, infrastructure, public safety, homelessness, and high-performing organization. The first five were suggested by the council members; the sixth came from the city manager. Councilmember Jill McLewis quibbled about this addition—usually, the board makes the goals/strategies and the staff carries them out—but other council members went along with it, figuring the city would need to be a high-performing organization to bring the other goals to fruition.

After a little horse-trading, the goal of “Homelessness” was subsumed under Public Safety and was replaced by Community Vitality, a suggestion by Councilmember Sandra Maurer. (McLewis objected to this, but was out-voted.)

The council also decided that the action window for these goals would last until the end of the next fiscal year, June 30, 2026, which was Councilmember Neysa Hinton’s suggestion.

The council then decided to open up for public comment on these goals. Kenna Lee said she didn’t like putting homelessness under Public Safety because it framed the issue in a pejorative way. Kate Haug, Mary Cone and Robert thought that Water and Sewer should be a main goal, but the council decided that that should be included under Infrastructure.

The council then proceeded to brainstorm strategies (or projects) that would fit under these goals. After brainstorming the list, the council gave a thumbs up/thumbs down to each strategy.

---

---

Note that the votes listed below relate only to the question of whether an item should be listed as a priority for the upcoming year. They are not binding votes of approval or disapproval of any project. (Also Assistant City Manager/City Clerk Mary Gourley and I did our best to count the thumbs up and thumbs down, but a few were unclear.)

LONGTERM FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

• Balanced budget (unanimous approval)

• Quarterly budget updates and an annual long-term financial report (unanimous approval)

• Review of the Measure U Spending Resolution during the budget process (unanimous approval)

• Oversight committee for the enterprise fund (water and sewer) as part of the budget committee process (4 thumbs up and thumbs down from Hinton)

• Create published budget reports for the public for the General Fund and Sewer and Water (unanimous approval)

• Diversify the city’s revenue base (unanimous approval)

• Update financial policies to ensure they meet CIRA (the city’s insurance pool/agency) (unanimous approval)

• Update development impact fees (unanimous approval)

• Grants from regional bodies (unanimous approval)

• Review zoning codes for streamlining permitting (unanimous approval)

The biggest disagreement in this section had to do with the idea of civilian oversight committees, which Councilmembers Maurer, McLewis and Carter support, and Councilmember Hinton opposes. Hinton suggested publishing public reports on the city budget and water and sewer budgets instead. Everyone agreed with the idea of publishing reports, but McLewis emphasized that this should not be in place of oversight committees. There was also some discussion of an oversight committee for Measure U spending, but that doesn’t seem to have made it onto the final list.

COMMUNITY VITALITY

• Restore the labyrinth (unanimous approval)

• Supporting community events with city sponsorships and reduced fees (unanimous approval)

• Dark Sky lighting (Carter, Maurer, Zollman thumbs up, Hinton and McLewis thumbs down). Maurer explained that this had to do with low-kelvin lighting with shades on the top so as not to cast light upwards.

• Acknowledging Indigenous people with public art, updating the city website and land acknowledgments (unanimous approval)

• Drought-tolerant landscape at city buildings (Carter, Maurer and Zollman gave thumbs up, while Hinton and McLewis gave thumbs down)

• Affordable housing through ADU condo-conversion (4 to 1 approval, McLewis dissenting because she said ADUs don’t produce impact fees. Carter said if they were condo-ized they would pay impact fees, but McLewis was unmoved by this.)

• Tiny Homes (4 to 1 approval, McLewis dissenting)

• Hanging flower baskets for downtown (4 to 1 approval, Carter dissenting because he said they don’t work.)

• Establishment of city ambassadors (Carter, McLewis and Zollman gave thumbs up, while Hinton and Maurer were thumbs down)

• Graffiti removal/cleaning commercial areas (unanimous approval)

• Festive activities and holiday events (unanimous approval)

• Grants—short-term (unanimous approval)

PUBLIC SAFETY

• Address issues relating to homelessness (unanimous approval)

• Reinstitute community policing volunteer program (approved 4 to 1, Hinton dissenting)

• Emergency Operations Center (emergency management, evacuation plans, etc.) (unanimous approval)

• Taking advantage of other free offerings from the county, such as CERT and the Community Mobile Response Team for mental illness (unanimous approval)

• Pursue no- or low-cost solutions related to addressing homelessness (unanimous approval)

• Explore the city’s relationship with the Coalition on the Homeless and whether it’s working. Consider change of lead agency. (unanimous approval)

• Active drug enforcement (unanimous approval) (McLewis asked, “Why do we have a needle exchange right where teenagers are going to get birth control?”)

• Work on drug issues with schools, library and other agencies (Zollman and McLewis in favor; Hinton, Carter and Maurer opposed for jurisdictional reasons.)

• Publish state-required statistics related to policing on the city website (McLewis, Zollman and Carter gave thumbs up, Maurer and Hinton were thumbs down). Maurer said she thought the police had enough to do without adding one more thing.

• Revisit infrastructure for backup of city emergency systems (unanimous approval)

INFRASTRUCTURE

• Trail projects, including a desktop study for Apple Blossom Trail (Zollman, Carter and Maurer thumbs up, while McLewis and Hinton gave thumbs down)

• Continue work with Caltrans Grant and Sustainable Transportation Grant (unanimous approval)

• Reduction of parking requirements for downtown (denied 4 to 1, with Carter the only yes vote)

• Potholes/street resurfacing (unanimous approval)

• Wastewater pipes/infrastructure/Sewer Master Plan (unanimous approval)

• Storm drain plan for the removal of silt (unanimous approval)

• Support of the California Urban Streams Partnership grant applications for Phase I of the Naturalization of Calder Creek in Ives Park (unanimous approval)

• Council to review Rotary Centennial Plan for Ives Park (unanimous approval)

• Well 4 (updates on status and funding plan) (unanimous approval)

• Review of downtown cell tower (Four thumbs down on this, with the Maurer the only yes vote)

• Review of city facilities, such as expansion of Senior Center/Library/City Hall/Community Center (4 in favor, McLewis opposed)

• SCTCA Funding Plan Cycle/Bodega Ave Bike Lanes/SCTCA Funding Plan Cycle 2 (unanimous approval)

• EIFD (unanimous approval)

• ADA walkway improvements in Ives Park (unanimous approval)

• Removal and/or replacement of chain link fence at Ives Park (4 to 1, Hinton dissenting). Hinton said she wanted to see the whole plan for Ives.

• Preserve and clean up of Laguna Wetlands and open bathroom during daytime hours (near ball field) (McLewis, Hinton and Carter thumbs down, with Maurer and Zollman thumbs up)

• Pickleball courts (Maurer and McLewis were thumbs up, while Hinton, Zollman and Carter gave thumbs down)

• Add items from staff: Water and Sewer Master Plan/ City buildings (unanimous approval)

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

• “Growing Businesses Together” town hall (unanimous approval)

• Attract and support market-rate housing (4 in favor, Hinton opposed)

• Support Chamber of Commerce in advertising and branding the city of Sebastopol (all five councilmembers disapproved of this idea)

• Council to hear a presentation from the new Community Development Director on economic development/plans/strategy/who (or what department) is keeping track of businesses/working with commercial brokers (unanimous approval)

• Clarification on Sebastopol Downtown Business Association merging with Chamber of Commerce (thumbs up from Carter, McLewis and Zollman, while Hinton and Maurer were thumbs down)

• Audit of whether the city is getting all business licensing fees and what city hall is doing to keep an eye on who’s paying and who’s not (approved 4 to 1, Maurer dissenting)

• Review of the Formula Business Ordinance (McLewis, Zollman and Carter thumbs up, Maurer and Hinton thumbs down)

• Business surveys (McLewis, Zollman and Carter thumbs up, Maurer and Hinton thumbs down)

ORGANIZATIONAL HIGH PERFORMANCE

• Achieving staffing/program targets that match best standards/operational staffing efficiencies/baseline budgets/performance management (unanimous approval)

• Hit Housing Element deadlines to avoid Builder’s Remedy (unanimous approval)

• Slow down major council decisions (Maurer, Carter and Hinton gave a thumbs up to this, while McLewis and Zollmangave a thumbs down). The context for this suggestion was the recent change of garbage haulers, which many citizens were surprised and upset by.

• Restoring public trust (unanimous approval)

• Utilizing technology, specifically AI (Zollman, McLewis and Carter thumbs up and Maurer and Hinton thumbs down)

• IT audit (unanimous approval)

• Improve communication with the public (unanimous approval)

• Shared services with other cities (unanimous approval)

• Cross-training of administrative staff and actions from Class-Compensation Study and Staffing Assessment (unanimous approval)

• Don Schwartz added the Hazard Mitigation Plan (no thumb vote taken)

Because they were running out of time, the council skipped what was supposed to be the final step of the workshop: prioritization of all these projects and strategies. Mayor Zollman suggested that their thumb votes could stand in as a kind of prioritization—unanimous votes indicating higher priority.

In comments after the meeting, City Manager Don Schwartz indicated that the council might need to provide the city staff with “a little more feedback on prioritization” so as not to waste staff time on items that weren’t really high priorities.

See the full, four-hour video of the goal-setting meeting here.

---