HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 1A 10/13/2009
to
ewe ~ ... ~ ~ ^~~~
CLTY OF PETALUMA~ CALIFORNIA VGTC7~E:~ ~ `~~ ~~~'
~~1~~ ~~~
Agenda Title: Receive .Staff Report Pursuant to California Elections Code 1V$eeting Date: October 13, 2009
Section 9212 Concerning the Potential Fiscal and Other Impacts of a
Proposed Initiative to Reduce City of Petaluma Wastewater Service Rates to Meeting Time: 6:00 PM
Rates in Effect on January 1, 2006. Discussion and Possible Action to
Adopt Ordinance Reducing City of Petaluma Wastewater Service Rates to
Rates in Effect on January 1, 2006; or, Submit the Ordinance to the Voters
Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of California Elections Code Section 1045.
Category: ^ Presentation ^ Appointments ^ Consent ^ Public Hearing ®Unfinished Business ^ New Business
Department: Director: Contact Person: Phone Number:
City Clerk Claire Cooper Claire Cooper 778-4361
City Attorney Eric Danly Eric Danly 778-4362
Water Resources and Mike Ban Mike Ban 778-4546
Conservation
Total Cost of Proposal or Proiect: Name of Fund:
Account Number:
Amount Budgeted: Current Fund Balancer
1Zecommendation: It is recommended that the City Council take the following action: Adopt the proposed
resolution (Attachment 5), submitting the measure for the November 2, 2010 ballot.
1. ^ First reading of Ordinance approved unanimously, or with unanimous vote. to allow posting prior to second reading
2. ^ First reading of Ordinance approved without unanimous vote: Ordinance has been published/posted prior to second
reading; see Attachment
3. ^ Other action requiring special notice: Notice has been given, see Attachment
Summary Statement: On January 15, 2009 a voter initiative was filed with the City Clerk. If approved, the
initiative would reduce the City wastewater service rates updated effective January 1, 2007, to rates established
by Resolution No. 2002-189, which were the rates in effect on January 1, 2006. A title and summary of the
initiative was provided to the initiative filer on January 29, 2009. On July 22, 2009, initiative proponents filed
with the City Clerk documents purporting to include 334 petition sections and 1586 signatures. The initiative
petition sections received on July 22"d were forwarded to the Sonoma County Clerk pursuant to an agreement
between the City of Petaluma and the County of Sonoma concerning the provision of certain election services.
The County Clerk provided a certificate concerning its review of the petition sections. In accordance with the
Elections Code, the City Clerk examined the petition sections and certified the results of her examination at the
September 14`h City Council meeting. At that meeting, the Council also ordered the preparation of a report
concerning fiscal and other impacts of the proposed initiative (Attachment 6). Pursuant to Elections Code
section 9215, the City Council must take action to either: 1) adopt the initiative measure without alteration at
tonight's meeting or at a regular meeting within 10 days; or 2) submit the measure for the November 2, 2010
ballot.
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item:
1. Notice of Intentto Circulate .Petition and Certification by Proponent Regarding Use of Signatures
2. Title and Summary for Proposed Initiative
3. County Clerk's Certificate
4; City Clerk's Certificate
5. Resolution Submitting the;Proposed Initiative for the November 2, 201.0 Election
6. Report on `Potential Fiscal and Other Impacts. of Proposed .Initiative
Rev,~ewed 6v Finance Director: Reviewed hv•(',ity Aftnrrrev~ Annrn~Ard-l~v-a°,it~ wr~.,~aP.-•
Dater ~ o 8(09 ~ v Date: w ~ ~~ ~d
Date'Last Revised:
2
CITY ®~' PETAI.UlVIA, CALIF®RNIA
®ctober 13, 2009
AGENDA DEPORT
FOR
RECEIV E STAFF REPORT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 9212 CONCERNING THE
POTENTIAL )FISCAL AND OTHER IMPACTS OF A PROPOSED INITIATLVE TO REDUCE CITY OF PETALUMA
WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES TO RATES IN EFFECT ON JANUARY 1, 2006. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE
ACTION TO ADOPT ®RDINANCE REDUCING CITY OF PETALUMA WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES TO RATES IN
EFFECT ON JANUARY 1, 2006; OR, SUBMIT THE ORDINANCE TO THE VOTERS PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (B~
OF CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 1045.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the proposed resolution attached as Attachment 6, submitting the. measure
for the November 2, 2010 ballot.
2. )BACKGROUND: A proposed initiative measure, notice of intent to circulate petition, and certification
regarding use of signatures was filed by James Fitzgerald on behalf of a group called "Petalumans for
Fair Utility Rates" ("PFUR") on January 15, 2009. The proposed initiative was provided to the City
Attorney's office for preparation of a ballot title and summary under Elections Code Section 9203. The
ballot title anal summary were provided to Mr. Fitzgerald on January 29, 2009. The initiative, notice of
intent to circulate and certification regarding use of signatures are contained in Attachment 1. The title
and summary are contained in Attachment 2.
The initiative would reduce City wastewater rates to the rates in effect January 1, 2006. The initiative
also includes a severability clause and provides that it may only be amended by voter approval.
On July 22, 2009, Mr. Fitzgerald, on behalf of PFUR, filed documents purporting to include 333
initiative petition sections and 1,586 signatures, and asserting that 21,850 ballots were cast in Petaluma
for the November 2006 gubernatorial election, and that therefore, under Article XIIIC, Section 3 of the
California. Constitution, 5% of the votes cast, or 1093 valid signatures were required for certification of
the measure.
The July 22 initiative petition submission was forwarded that day to the Sonoma County Clerk pursuant
to an agreement between the City of Petaluma and the County of Sonoma providing for the. performance
of certain election services by the County Clerk.
On July 24, 2009, the County Clerk's office provided a certificate stating that the petitions were received
by the County Clerk on July 22, 2009; the petitions consisted of 333 sections and had attached to them
affidavits purported to be of the signature gatherers containing the dates the signatures were gathered,
and stating that signatures were signed in the gatherers' presence; that the County Clerk verified
signatures by examining County voter registration. records, and that the County Clerk counted the
following signatures:
3
Unverified (raw count) 1,579
Verified signatures 1,370
Verified, sufficient, signatures 1,169
Verified signatures not sufficient 201
The County Clerk's certificate also gave 1093 as the required number of signatures for certification, and
provided a statistical breakdown of the signatures checked. See. Attachment 3.
3. DISCUSSION.:
In accordance with the Elections Code, the City Clerk, as the City Elections Official, had 30 working
days from July 22, or until September 2, 2009, to examine the petition sections and determine their
sufficiency. The City Clerk certified the sufficiency of the petitions at the next regular City Council
meeting on September 14, 2009. See Attachment 4. At the September 14`" meeting, the City Council
also ordered staff to submit a report concerning potential fiscal, general plan and zoning, land use,
infrastructure, and other impacts of the initiative pursuant to Elections Code Section 9212. See
Attachment 6. Elections Code Section 9215 now requires the Council to 1) adopt the initiative measure
without alteration at tonight's meeting or a regular meeting within 10 days of tonight's meeting; or 2)
submit the measure for the November 2, 2010 ballot (staff recommendation, see Attachment 5,
Resolution Ordering the Submission, etc.).
4. )FINANCIAL AND GENERAL PLAN IMPACTS:
Potential financial impacts on the City are described in the Report on Potential Fiscal and Other Impacts
of Proposed Initiative to Reduce City of Petaluma Wastewater Service Rates to Rates in Effect on
January 1, 2006, Attachment 6 ("Report"). They include, in addition to reduction of wastewater service
rates for City wastewater customers: litigation costs related to determining the initiative's validity;
liability from defaulting on the State Revolving Fund loan; liability from defaulting on outstanding
wastewater revenue bonds; liability due to breach of matching :grant obligations; reduced funding for
City and Petaluma Community Development Commission debt-funded projects; increased finance costs
for the wastewater enterprise; negative impact on existing City credit; increased cost and/or
unavailability of debt financing for other City operations; City liability for unfunded -debt service; cuts in
other City department operating budgets to replace lost wastewater revenues from General Fund
revenues; a reduced ability of the City's General Fund to grow over time; and insolvency of the City if
insufficient funds are available from other sources to replace lost wastewater revenues and maintain
essential services.
In addition to fiscal impacts, reduced revenue from the proposed initiative could jeopardize
implementation of the City's recycled water program which is necessary to offset potable water use and
thereby provide additional potable water supply for General. Plan 2025 development. The proposed
initiative is therefore inconsistent with General Plan 2025 water supply goals, policies and programs.
The proposed initiative is also inconsistent with other General Plan 2025 goals, policies and programs,
as more fully described in the Report. These include maintaining wastewater system facilities that
protect the environment and meet regulatory discharge requirements, preserving groundwater for
emergency and peak demand uses, and providing adequate services for General Plan buildout to meet
State and General Plan 2025 housing goals and General Plan 2025 fiscal health and economic
sustainability goals. .
1305579.2
A!-4c~,.ch m~r,~ 1
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE PETITION
Notice is hereby given by the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate a petition
within the City of Petaluma for the purpose of reducing wastewater rate increases made in City Council
Resolution No. 2007-023.
A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows:
I) Many seniors, renters, small businesses and low-income families will not be able to afford
the huge rate increases adopted by the Petaluma City Council.
2) Development must contribute its fair share of the cost to increase the capacity of the
wastewater system and not unduly burden the existing ratepayers.
3) The City of Petaluma has been misappropriating wastewater revenues to cover the general
fund expenditures in violation of the Charter of the City of Petaluma.
~s
Mr. J nes W. Fitzgeral3oard Member,
Pet umans for Fair Utility Rates
405 Via Gigi Street Petaluma, CA 94952
5
Initiative Measure to be Submitted to the Voters
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I: The rate schedule for wastewater service set forth in Resolution No. 2007-023 of the
Petaluma City Council shall be reduced to the rates established by Resolution No.
2002-189, which were the rates in effect on January 1, 2006.
SECTION II: [f any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
applications, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.
SEC`hION l Il: This measure may not be amended except upon voter approval.
ID
Certification by proponent of initiative measure; use of signatures
I, James W. Fitzgerald, acknowledge that it is a misdemeanor under state law
(Section 18650 of the Elections Code) to knowingly or willfully allow the
signatures on an initiative petition to be used for any purpose other than
qualification of the proposed measure for the ballot. I certify that I will
not knowingly or willfully allow the signatures for this initiative to be
used for any purpose other than qualification of the measure for the ballot.
ames W. Fir_ger
Dated this 7`h day of January, 2009
1
~{-~ 0.Ch m>=r1~ 2-
INITIATIVE TO REllUCE CURRENT CITY OF PETAL,UMA WASTEWATER
SERVICE RATES TO RATES IN EFFECT ON JANUARY I, 2006
The initiative measure would reduce the wastewater service rate schedule established by
City of Petaluma Resolution No. 2007-23, effective February 1, 2007, to the rates that were in
effect on January 1, 2006 pursuant to City of Petaluma Resolution No. 2002-189.
If any provision or application of the initiative measure is held invalid, that invalidity is
not intended to affect any other provision or application of the initiative measure.
"1'he initiative measure may not be amended except by subsequent voter approval
Dated: January 29, 2009
1187431.1
..~-_~
~i
,\
I3 ~`
y
Eric W. Danly
City Attorn~y, City of Petaluma
8
A}}0.Ch m~~'~' 3
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE
TO INITIATIVE PETITION
I, JANICE ATKINSON, SONOMA COUNTY CLERK AND REGISTRAR OF VOTERS, COUNTY
OF SONOMA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HEREBY CERTIFY:
That the Initiative to Reduce Current City of Petaluma Wastewater Service Rates to Rates in
Effect on January 1, 2006, Initiative petition was received by our office on July 22, 2009. Said
petition consists of 333 sections;
That each section contains signatures purporting to be the signatures of qualified electors in the
City of Petaluma, County of Sonoma;
That attached to each section of this petition at the time it was filed was an affidavit purporting to
be the affidavit of the person who solicited the signatures, and containing the dates between
which the purported qualified electors signed this petition;
That the affiant stated his or her own qualification, that he or she had solicited the signatures
upon that section, that a{I of the signatures were made in his or her .presence, and that to the
best of his or her knowledge and belief each signature to that section was the genuine signature
of the person whose name it purports to be;
That I verified the required number of signatures by examining the records of registration in this
county, current and in effect at the respective purportive dates of such signing to determine
what .number of qualified electors signed the petition, and from that examination I have
determined the following facts regarding this petition:
1) Number of unverified signatures filed by proponent (raw count) 1,579
2) Number of verified signatures 1,370
a) Number of signatures found sufficient 1,169
b) Number of signatures found not sufficient 201
(1) Not sufficient because duplicate 4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this 24'h day
of July, 2009.
JANICE ATKINSON
SONOMA COUNTY CLERK & REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
~ ~
BY:y~ ,1 ~~~7~~_!~~ t~~c.~~~--~_<.~ Deputy
Debra Russotti, Deputy
/,V oci
4J.
i ~ 1 g%
>~ ~ --
Petition Result Breakdown
49- Petaluma:~Reduce Wastewater Service Rates ,
Petaluma Reduce Wastewater Service Ratf~s
Signatures Required 1093
Raw Count 1,579
Sample Size 1,579 Percent of Percent of
Sigs Checked 1,370 Sigs Checked Sample Size
Sigs Not Checked 209 13.2.%
Sigs Valid 1,169 85.3 % 74.0
Sigs Invalid 201 14.7 % 12.7 %
Duplicated 4 0.0 % 0.3
Non-duplicate Invalids 197 14.0 % 12.5
. -
.,
RESULTABBR t RESULT DESCRIPTION
Approved Approved 1,169 85.3
NotReg Not Registered 119 8.7 %
OutOfDist Out of District 7 0.5
Duplicate Signed more than once 4 0.3
RegLate Registered Late 2 0.1 %
RegDiffAdd Registered at a Different Address 37 2.7
Cantldnffy Cannot Identify 3 0.2 %
NoResAdd No Residence Address Given 6 0.4
SigNoMatch Signatures Don't Match 23 1.7
l0
~MR012 -Petition Result Breakdown Page 1 of 1
~inted: 7/24/2009 8:37:28AM
~'E ~ Q.G~'1 m Lt1
City Clerk's Certification
(Cal. Elec. Code. §9114)
Initiative to Reduce City of Petaluma Wastewater Service Rates
to Rates in Effect on January 1, 2006
The following certification is made by the Petaluma City Clerlc in her capacity as
Elections Official for the City of Petaluma pursuant to Elections Code Section 9114 and
other applicable law. In accordance with Section 9114 the Elections Official is required
to examine initiative petitions and to determine whether they are signed by the requisite
number of voters within 30 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays} from the
date of the filing of the petition, and, if the petition is found sufficient, to certify the
results of the examination at the next regular meeting of the legislative body.
Factual Background
On January 15, 2009, James Fitzgerald filed an initiative measure, notice of intent
to circulate petition and certification regarding use of signatures for an initiative on
behalf of a group called "Petalumans for Fair Utility Rates" ("PFUR") that would reduce
the City of Petaluma wastewater service rates to rates in effect January 1, 2006. The
initiative measure also provided that it could not be amended except by voter approval
and included a severablity provision.
The measure was submitted to the City Attorney for preparation of ballot title and
summary wluch were provided to Mr. Fitzgerald on January 29, 2009.
On July 22, 2009, initiative proponents filed doctunents purporting to include 333
petition sections containuig 1,586 signatures, and asserting that 21,850 ballots were cast
in Petaluma for the November 2006 gubernatorial election, and that therefore, under
Article XIIIC, Section 3 of the California Constitution, 5% of the votes cast or 1093 valid
signatures are required. for certification of the measure.
The July 22, 2009 submission was forwarded that day to the Sonoma County
Clerk pursuant to an agreement between the City of Petaluma and the County of Sonoma
providing for the performance of certain election services by the, County Clerk.
On July 24, 2009; the County Clerk's office provided a certificate stating that: the
petitions were received by the County Clerlc July Z2, 20Q9, the petitions consisted of 333
sections and had attached affidavits puuporting to be of the signature gatherers
containing the dates the signatures were gathered and stating. that signatures were signed
in the gatherers' presence; that the Co~.uity Clerk verified signatures by examining County
voter registration records; and the County Clerk counted the following signahres:
Unverified (raw count} 1,579
Verified signatures 1,370
Verified, sufficient signatures 1,169
Verified signatures not sufficient 201
Verified signatures not sufficient because
duplicate 4
The County Clerk's certificate also gave 1093 as the required number of
signatures for certification.
Certification
The undersigned has examined the petition sections submitted July 22, 2009 in
accordance with California .Elections Code Section 9114 and the substantive and
procedural requirements contained in California Elections Code Section 9200 et seq., and
certif es that:
1. The required number of signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot is
1093 in accordance with Article XIIIC, Section 3 of the California
Constitution and California Elections Code Section 9035.
2. The petition .includes 1,169 sufficient signatures in accordance with the
requirements of California Elections Code Section 9200 et seq. and other
applicable law, acid therefore is sufficient pursuant to California Elections
Code Section 9114.
L.~~ ~-
Claire Cooper
Petaluma City Clerk
Date
1290929.1
t2
Resolution No. 2009=XY~ N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, California
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA ORDERING THE SUBMISSION
TO TIJIE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF AN
ORDINANCE TO REDUCE CITY OF PETALUMA
WASTEWATER RATES TO RATES IN EFFECT ON JANUARY 1,
2006 AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD
ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2010, REQUESTING THE
SONOMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO
CONSOLIDATE SAID ELECTION WITH THE NOVEMBER 2,
2010 STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION AND PROVIDING
FOR SUBMISSION OF BALLOT ARGUMENTS AND
REBUTTALS
WHEREAS, on January I5, 2009, a voter initiative was filed with the Petaluma City
Clerk which, if approved by a majority of City voters, would reduce the City wastewater
service rates to rates in effect January 1, 2006; and
WHEREAS, on January 29, 2009, a title and summary of the initiative was provided to
the initiative filer; and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2009, proponents of the initiative filed with the City Clerk
documents purporting to include 333.petition sections containing 1,586 signatures; and
WHEREAS, the initiative petition sections received July 22, 2009, were forwarded to
the Sonoma County Clerk pursuant to an agreement between the City of Petaluma and the
County of Sonoma concerning the provision of certain election services; and
WHEREAS, the County Clerk has provided a certificate concerning review of the
petition sections; and
WHEREAS, Elections Code Section 9114 requires the City Clerk, as the City Elections
Off ciao, to examine such petition sections and determine the sufficiency thereof within
30 working. days (excluding holidays) of filing of the petition, or by September 2,
2009,City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, Elections Code Section 9114 provides that if the City Clerk determines the
petitions to be sufficient, the Clerk shall certify the results of her examination to the City
Council at its next regular meeting; and
WHEREAS, Elections Code Section 9215 requires that upon certification by the City
Clerk to the City Council, the City Council must take one of three actions prescribed
under that section, namely: 1) adopt the ordinance, without alteration, at the meeting at
which the petition is certified, or a regular meeting within 10 days of that meeting, 2)
~~
submit the ordinance to the voters pursuant to Elections Code Section 1405, subdivision
(b) at the next regular municipal election , or 3) order staff to submit a report concerning
potential fiscal, general plan and zoning, land use, infrastructure, and other impacts of the
initiative within 30 days of the meeting at which the petition is certified; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has certified the sufficiency of the petition in accordance
with Elections Code Section 9114 and other applicable law; and
WHEREAS, November 2, 2010 is the date of the City's next regular municipal election;
and
WHEREAS, Section 4 of Article III of the Petaluma City Charter provides that except as
otherwise specified in the Charter, all regular and special city elections are to be held in
accordance with the Elections Code, as amended; and
WHEREAS, Section 76 of Article XII of the Petaluma City Charter provides that
ordinances maybe enacted by and for the city pursuant to Division 4 (now.Division 9) of
Chapter 3, Article 1 of the Elections Code, as amended; and
WHEREAS, provisions of the Elections Code set forth the procedures and requirements
for the submission of measures to the voters, including: consolidation of municipal and
statewide elections, placement on the ballot, amendment and withdrawal, submission of
ballot arguments, preparation of impartial analysis and rebuttal arguments;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PETALUMA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOW:
1. Pursuant to the requirements of the City of Petaluma Charter, California
Elections Code Section 9215(b) and other applicable law, there is called and ordered to
be held in the City of Petaluma, California, on Tuesday, November 2, 2010, an election
for the purpose of submitting to the voters a measure that would reduce City of Petaluma
wastewater service rates to rates in effect on January 1, 2006.
2. The ballot language for the proposed ordinance shall be as follows:
1VIEASiJRE
"Shall an ordinance be adopted to reduce City of Petaluma
wastewater service rates to rates in effect on January 1, 2006? YES
NO
ly
3. The measure to be approved by the voters pursuant to Section 2 of this
resolution is as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.
4. (a) An election on the measure set forth in Section 2 shall be held in
conjunction with the municipal election to be-held in the Cityof Petaluma on Tuesday,
November 2, 2010. In accordance with the Petaluma City Charter and California
Elections Code Section 10403, the City Council requests that the Board of Supervisors of
Sonoma County consolidate the election on the measure with the statewide general
election on the same day and issue instructions to the Sonoma County Election
Department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated
election.
(b) The election on the measure set forth in Section 2 shall be held and
conducted, the votes canvassed and the returns made, and the results ascertained ,and
determined as provided for herein and the Elections Code.
(c) The election for the measure set forth in Section 2 shall be held in
Sonoma County in the City of Petaluma on November 2; 20.10, as required bylaw, and
the Sonoma County Election Department is authorized to canvas the returns of that
election with respect to the votes cast in the City of Petaluma.
(d) At the next regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Petaluma occurring after the returns of the election for the measure set forth in Section 2
have been canvassed and the certification of the results to the City Council, the City
Council shall cause to be entered in its minutes a statement of the results of the election.
5. (a) In accordance with Elections Code Section 9282 and 9283,
arguments submitted for or against the measure shall not exceed 300 words in length, and
shall be printed upon the same sheet of paper and mailed to each voter with the sample
ballot for the election and may be signed by not more than five persons.
(b) In accordance with Elections Code Section 9282, the following
headings, as appropriate, shall precede the arguments' wording, but shall not be counted
in the 300 word maximum: "Argument Against Measure " or, "Argument For
Measure " (the blank spaces being filled only with the letter or number,. if any,
designating the measure).
(c) In accordance with Elections Code Section 9283, printed
arguments submitted to voters in accordance with Section 9282 of the Elections Code
shall be filed with the City Clerk, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of
the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization the name of the
organization and the printed name and' signature of at least one of its principal officers.
Arguments are due in the office of the City Clerk prior to 5:00 p.m. on Monday, Aug~lst
1,(; 2~1 ~.
15
(d) The City Council may authorize, by motion, a member or members
to prepare a draft argument against the measure and to return the draft for consideration
and adoption by the City Council at a duly noticed meeting of the City Council. In
accordance with Elections Code Section 9287, any council members authorized by the
City Council to do so may sign the argument against the measure: However, in
accordance with Elections Code Section 9283, if the argument against the measure is
signed by more than 5 council members, only the signatures of the first five council
members to sign the ballot argument will be printed with the ballot argument.
(e) Alternatively, the City Council may authorize, by motion, a
member or members of the City Council to cooperate with members of the community
and/or interested parties and/or organizations to prepare a draft argument against the
measure.
6. (a) Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9285, when the City Clerk has
selected the arguments for and against the measure, that will be printed and distributed to
the voters, the City Clerk shall send copies of the argument in favor of the measure to the
authors of the argument against, and copies of the argument against to the authors of the
argument in favor. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct
arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument that it
seeks to rebut.
(b) Rebuttal arguments shall not exceed two hundred fifty words and
maybe signed by more than five persons, however, only the first five persons to sign will
be printed with the ballot measure. The persons that sign the rebuttal arguments may be
different persons than the persons that signed the direct arguments.
(c) The last day for submission of rebuttal arguments for or against the
measure shall be by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 26, 2010.
(d) All previous resolutions providing for the filing of rebuttal
arguments for City of Petaluma measures are repealed. The provisions of this resolution
concerning rebuttal arguments shall only apply to the election to be held on November 2,
2010, and following the conclusion of that election are repealed.
7. In accordance with Elections Code Section 9280, the City Attorney is
directed to file with the City Clerk by August l6, 2010, an impartial analysis of the
measure, not to exceed five hundred words, showing the effect of the measure.
8. The City of Petaluma recognizes that additional costs maybe incurred by
the County by reason of the measure and agrees to reimburse the County for such costs.
The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to appropriate the necessary funds to
pay for the City's cost of placing the measure on the election ballot.
9. (a) The City Clerk is directed to f le a certified copy of this resolution
with the Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County and the Sonoma County Elections
~ ~ID
Department on or before August 6, 2010. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and
directed to take all steps necessary to place the measure on the ballot and to cause the
measure attached as Exhibit A to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation,
or any other newspaper designated as the official newspaper of the City of Petaluma, in
accordance with California Elections Code Section 12111 and California Government
Code Section 6061. A copy of the measure shall be made available to any voter upon
request. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give further additional notice of the
measure in time, form and manner as required bylaw.
(b) In all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be
held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of September, 2009, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Pamela Torliatt, Mayor
Claire Cooper, City Clerk
~ 1.,
EXEIBIT A
The People of the City of Petaluma do ordain as follows:
SECTION I: The rate schedule for wastewater service set forth in Resolution No. 2007-023
of the Petaluma City Council shall be reduced to the rates established by
Resolution-No. 2002-189, which were the rates in effect on January 1, 2006.
SECTION II: If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions
or applications, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.
SECTION III: This measure may not be amended except upon voter approval.
1285100.3
~~ v~,.
REPORT ON POTENTIAL FISCAL AND OTI~ER IIVIPACTS OF
PROPOSED INITIATIVE TO REDiJCE CITY OF PETALUIVIA
WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES
TO RATES IN EFFECT ON JANiJARY 1, 2006
IN ACCORDANCE WITII CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE
SECTION .9212
1
Report on Potential Fiscal, and: Other Impacts of Proposed Initiative
to Reduce City of Petaluma Wasfewater Service Rates
to Rates in Effect on January 1, 2006
(Report Ordered by Direction of the Petaluma. City Council on September 14, 2009
pursuant to .California Elections Code Section 9212)
INTRODUCTION -THE -2009 PROPOSED WASTEWATER RATE REDUCTION INITIATIVE
On January 7, 2009, Petaluma. received a notice of intent to circulate a petition to qualify a ballot
initiative that would reduce City of Petaluma wastewater service rates to rates in effect on
January 1, 2006. The summary of the proposed initiative, as prepared by the City Attorney and
supplied to the initiative proponents, reads as follows:
The initiative measure would reduce. the wastewater service rate schedule established by
City of Petaluma Resolution No. 20.07-023, effective: February 1, 2007, to the rates that
were in effect on January 1,.2006 pursuant to City ofPetaluma Resolution No. 2002-189.
If any provision or application of the initiative measure is held invalid, that invalidity is
not intended to affect 'any other provision or application of the initiative measure.
The initiative measure may not be amended except by subsequent voter approval.
The wastewater service rates for 2007 through 2011 were adopted'by City Council Resolution
No. 2007-023, which became effective February 1, 2007..
The proposed initiative measure :is ;a subset. of Measure K, the rate reduction ballot initiative
presented. to, and rejected by; -Petaluma- voters at the November; 2008 election. There are two
differences between the proposed initiative measure and Measure K. Unlike Measure K, the
proposed measure seeks only- to rollback. wastewater (sewer) rates;. rather than both water and
wastewater rates, and the proposed measure does: not expressly limit .future rates.
The petition for the proposed. initiative was circulated and signed ,petition documents filed with
the City Clerk.. on July 22, 2009.: The City Clerk certified the :petition documents as sufficient on
September 14, 2009. That same day the City Council directed City staff to report within 30 days
on~ signifi'cant potential impacts of the .initiative. The. purpose of this report is to discuss
significant potential f'-seal and .other impacts of the proposed initiative, and to provide
background information concerning Petaluma's wastewater utility and its; financial structure to
assist City decision makers and members of the public in understanding the impacts of the
proposed initiative.
Elections Code Section 92.12 provides that reports under that- section may consider, in addition to
fiscal impacts of a proposed. initiative, a proposed initiative's effect on the internal consistency of
the general plan; on land uses, the ability to meet housing needs; funding for infrastructure, the
vitality and viability of the business climate and redevelopment programs, and any other relevant
matters.
2
PETAL><J1VIA'S WASTEWATER UTILITY
The wastewater rates adopted by the City Council on January 22, 2007 under Resolution No.
2007-023 support operation and maintenance of a wastewater system that provides 24-hour
collection, treatment, disposal and reuse of domestic, commercial and industrial wastewater
generated. by over 55,000 residents and businesses in Petaluma and approximately 1,500
residents and businesses in the unincorporated Sonoma County community of Penngrove.
Petaluma's wastewater is collected. through an underground network of over 190 miles of
collection system pipeline. A network of nine collection system pump stations pump the
wastewater to the City's new Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility. Treated wastewater is
released to the Petaluma River during the winter, and recycled during the summer for irrigation
of 700 acres of agricultural land, wo golf courses and a vineyard.
Increases in Petaluma's wastewater ,rates were required. to cover ongoing operation and
maintenance costs, to meet debt service obligations, and to fund the utility's capital improvement
program, including construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility to replace the City's
Hopper Street- Wastewater Treatment Facility, the C Street Pump Station, Upgrade Project,
expansion of the recycled water program, and replacement of worn and deteriorated. sewer
pipelines. The Hopper Street facility, which was originally constructed in 1938, could not meet
anticipated.. growth in the community, did not produce tertiary recycled water, could not
consistently .meet current permit requirements, ~ could not meet future permit requirements,2 did
not have odor control, and was ..near the end of its useful. hfe.3 The Ellis Creek Water Recycling
Facility was designed to accommodate growth anticipated under the City's General Plan, and to:
® Comply with Federal, State and regional air and water quality regulations;
® Protect the water quality of the Petaluma River and the San Francisco Bay by treating
wastewater in an environmentally sensitive manner;
® Stabilize and treat biosolids ,generated in the wastewater treatment process to EPA's
Class B standards to permit beneficial reuse of the biosolids;
® Produce tertiary .recycled water in, accordance with California Title 22 regulations to
provide recycled water for irrigation users throughout the City; and
~ From January 2000 through April 2004, the City was assessed mandatory minimum penalties totaling $162,000 for
fifty-four permit violations at the Hopper Street facility.
z For example, the new NPDES permit includes. lower Total Suspended Solids (TSS) limits which reduce the
monthly TSS average from 45 mg/L to 30 mg/L and the weekly TSS average from.65 mg/L to 45 mg/L, which the
Hopper Street`facility could not meet.
a A 2001 evaluation. determined many of the facilities at Hopper Street were not' useable for long term treatment
because they lacked adequate capacity, were in very poor condition, did not meet current building standards and
would be costly to upgrade.
3
® Provide storage in the oxidation ponds necessary to support the recycled water program
for the period from May 1 to October 20 when discharge to the Petaluma River is
prohibited.
Construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility began October 2005 and was
substantially completed June 2009. It is now in operation and treating 4.5 million gallons of
wastewater per day (mgd), and producing about 4.3 mgd of recycled water for irrigation and use
on-site. Tertiary recycled water is used on-site for plant process water, fire protection, landscape
irrigation and toilet flushing. ~-1s the recycled water system expands, tertiary recycled water will
be used for irrigation of urban areas currently dependent on drinking water, which will annually
make over 460 million gallons of potable water supply available that would otherwise be used
for irrigation. The plant is also producing approximately 20 tons of biosolids per day which are
being beneficially reused to construct landfill cells.
FINANCING FOR PETALUMA'S WASTEWATER UTILITY
Revenue
The City's wastewater enterprise generates the vast majority of its revenues from user charges.
For the year ending June 30, 2009, the enterprise generated approximately $17.2 million in user
charges.. User charge revenue for fiscal year 09-10 is estimated to be $19.3 million and for fiscal
year 10-11 is estimated to be $21.8 million.
Expenses
Operating expenses for the wastewater utility include the cost of salaries and benefits for City
staff, electricity and fuel, operating materials, supplies and equipment, and biosolids disposal and
reuse. Expenses for operation and maintenance of the storm"drainage system are included in the
wastewater enterprise. A well maintained storm drainage system benefits the wastewater system
in that it serves to keep infiltration. and inflow (I&I) from the wastewater system. This reduces
sanitary sewer flows through the wastewater collection system. into the treatment plant and helps
keep the sizing of sanitary sewers and the treatment plant at appropriate levels and helps reduce
operating costs. The wastewater enterprise transfers a portion of its revenue to the City of
Petaluma's General Fund to cover its share of administrative and overhead costs for services
provided by the General Fund 'to the wastewater enterprise such as utility billing, risk
management and information technology. Total operating expenses (before debt service and
interest) for the year ending. June 30, 2009, are estimated at $8.2 million. Budgeted operating
expenses .during fiscal year 09-10 and fiscal year 10-11 are estimated at $11.3 million and $11.7
million, respectively. The increased expenses are attributable to increases ~in General Fund
overhead costs and the estimated new costs associated with operation and maintenance of the
Ellis Creek. Water Recycling Facility, which began operation during fiscal year 09-10. Costs for
operation and maintenance of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility are higher than the
Hopper Street Facility because the Ellis Creek facility provides a higher level of wastewater
treatment than the Hopper Street facility did.
4
Debt.
Existing long-term. debt obligations of the wastewater utility are summarized as follows:
2000 Wastewater Revenue Bonds. These revenue bonds had a par value of $8;895,000
when issued. Annual. debt service payments are about $720,000 and will continue until
2020. The outstanding balance on the revenue bonds is $5,935,000. The revenue bonds
were issued to fund the, Pond .Influent Pump Station Upgrade Project, the Disinfection
Facility Upgrade Project, and planning and environmental documentation in support of
the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project.
2005 State Revolving Fund Loan from the State Water Resources Control Board. The
City obtained a loan from the ..State in 2005 for nearly $126 million at an interest. rate of
2.4% to assist in construction of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility. At the end of
September 2009, over $113 .million had been received by the City. Annual payments are
estimated at nearly $7.8 million with a 20-year repayment. .term. Full principal and
interest payments under the State Revolving Fund Loan commence in Apri12010.
2005 Revolving Lines of Credit. The City obtained two revolving lines of credit in 2005
to assist with the financing of the Ellis Creek Water .Recycl'ing Facility. This "bridge
financing" was necessary because the State Revolving- Fund loan funding was not
available until. after construction of the Ellis Creek WRF''began and the State Revolving
Fund loan could not be used to refund expenditures that occurred prior to issuance of the
loan: In addition, the State Revolving Fund loan. would not cover all the anticipated
plant expenditures (such' as expenditures for builder's ri k insurance coverage, laboratory
equipment, office furniture, and telephone systems), and annual disbursements of the
State Revolving Fund were capped at $25 million, below the anticipated annual
expenditures required for construction of the project.
o BNP Paribas line. of credit of $75 million.. As of .August 28, 2009, the City had
borrowed $14.3' million against the line of credit. The interest rate is variable and
interest costs and fees to date have totaled about $3'64,000. The loan matures and
full repayment of the amount.borrowed is due on,August 1, 2010.
o Zions First National Bank line of credit of $25 million. As of August 28, 2009,
the -City had borrowed $9.4 million against the line of credit. The interest rate for
the first year is fixed at 3.88% and variable thereafter. Interest costs and fees in
Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009 totaled about $352,000. The loan matures and .full
repayment of the' amount borrowed is due on August 1, 2010.
Each of `the City's long-term debt obligations on behalf of the wastewater utility are subject to
debt agreements. containing various terms and conditions.: Summarized below are some of the
-key debt covenants intended to minimize risk of the City's-creditors that are contained in the debt
agreements.
5
The 2000 Wastewater Revenue Bonds require the City to maintain char~es for the wastewater
system during each fiscal year which are sufficient to yield net revenues, excluding, connection
fees, at least equal to one hundred percent (10,0%) of the wastewater enterprise debt service, and
net revenues including :connection fees at .least equal to one hundred twenty-five percent (125%)
of the wastewater debt service. Section 9 of'Exhibit A -.Scope of`Work of the City's agreement
with the State Water Resources Control Board governing the State .Revolving Fund loan requires
the City to maintain a user :charge system sufficient. to meet the requirements of Section
204(b)(1) of the federal Clean. Water. Act, which, together with :its implementing regulations,
requires development of a user charge system that. generates cuff dent. revenue to pay the total
operation and maintenance costs necessary for the proper ;operaton, maintenance and
replacement of treatment works, and requires each recipient. of wastewater services to pay its
proportionate share of the costs: Section 4.4 of Exhibit B -Budget Detail and Payment
Provisions of the State Revolving :Fund loan agreement further requires the City to set rates
sufficient to yield net revenues which: are equal to the debt service of the wastewater enterprise.
This section also prohibits the City from reducing wastewater service rates, unless the net
revenues from such reduced rates will at all times be sufficient to meet the requirements of
Section 4.4.
The City's loan agreements with Zions Bank and BNP Paribas .require that the City impose
wastewater service rates and collect wastewater service rate proceeds so that net revenues of the
wastewater enterprise, including connection fee proceeds, .equal at least 125% of the enterprise's
annual debt service obligations.
By August 1, 20.10 the City is required to repay all amounts borrowed against the two lines of
credit. Anticipated. principal .balances on the two .lines of credit total about $26,676,0005. The
City has planned to issue new .long-term debt (revenue bonds) to pay off the lines of credit by, the
time the amounts borrowed'become due, as well as to obtain~~additional funds for planned capital
improvement projects. The City has not yet begun the formal process of issuing new debt. The
wastewater enterprise's current cash .balance is budgeted for an operations reserve and for part or
all of several capital improvements; including the C Street Pump.. Station Upgrade Project, the
Hopper Street Water Recycling Facility Decommissioning Project, Sewer Main Replacement
projects, and the recycled water expansion program. Use of cash reserves to pay the line of
credit debt would prevent 'the City from establishing an adequate operating reserve and from
pursuing needed capital improvements.
Capital Program
The wastewater enterprise. is in the :midst of an extensive capital ..improvement program, which
.includes construction of -the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility; which was completed in 2009.
a Net revenues` means: the amount .of all gross charges received, for,: and:all other gross :income and revenues. derived
by the City from, the ownership or operation of the wastewater system or otherwise arising. from the wastewater
system during such.period; including transfers from any rate stabilization reserve accounts, less the amount of
operations and maintenance:costs for such period.
s This includes an estimated $3 million additional. amount to be borrowed in completing the Ellis Creek Water
Recycling Facility construction program.
6
Total costs for this project are estimated at $159 million. Other planned capital improvements
include:
• The C Street Pump Station Upgrade Project, which includes flood protection (the pump
station is located adjacent to the Petaluma River), replacement of worn pumps, provision
of standby pumping capability (under the current operation, all pumps run during storm
events which leaves no backup should a pump failure occur), and replacement of the
emergency generator.
• The Hopper Street Wastewater Treatment Facility Demolition Project, which includes
decommissioning of the facility and demolition of above ground structures which are no
longer used.
• Various system improvement projects to replace or repair deteriorated pipe, manholes
and pump stations.
• Expansion of the water recycling system, which is a key component in the City's water
supply plan.
In .summary, over the next five fiscal years the City plans to invest $23 million in rion-
replacement capital projects and $29 million in replacement capital projects, for a total
investment of $52 million.
Future Debt
At present, it is anticipated that .the City would issue about $29.4 .million in new wastewater
revenue bonds in 2010 in order to provide net proceeds sufficient to pay off the two lines of
credit. Annual debt service related. to these bonds is estimated at about $2.1 million for 30 years.
In addition, at present it is anticipated that the City would issue about $21 million in new
wastewater bonds in 2012 to. provide needed funds for the capital improvement program.
Annual debt service related to these bonds is estimated at about $1.5 million for 30 years.
Baseline Financial Plan
Exhibit 1, attached to this report, presents an updated financial plan that illustrates how the
wastewater enterprise, under currently-approved wastewater rates, meets all its obligations for
operations and maintenance, debt service and related coverage, and capital improvement
program. needs, as well as maintains prudent operating and capital program reserves.
PETALUMA WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES
Wastewater rates for Petaluma commercial and industrial customers are based on a fixed service
charge and a commodity charge based on wastewater produced, as measured by the water meter.
Wastewater .rates for Petaluma residential customers consist of a fixed service charge plus a
commodity charge based on average winter water usage. Basing the commodity charge on
average winter water usage avoids charges for water that is used for irrigation outside the
residence. This structure 'is more equitable than a flat wastewater charge, which is still used by
many communities, and rewards indoor water conservation efforts. On January 22, 2007, the
Petaluma City Council adopted a utility investment program supported by annual wastewater rate
7
increases to be phased in over afive-year period. The first increase became effective February 1,
2007. Subsequent increases occurred on January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2009. Wastewater rates
for 2009, 2010 and 2011 are illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1
Wastewater Rate Schedule for 2009, 2010 and 2011,
)Effective January 1 of Each Year
T e of Char e ~ 2009 2010 2011
Fixed Monthly Charge ($/month)
Single-Family Residential 13.14 14.85 16.78
Multi-Unit Residential, per dwelling unit 13.14 14.85 16.78
Unmetered Residential, per dwelling unit 63.79 72.08 81.45
Commercial
Low-Strength 13.14 14.85 16.78
Medium-Strength 1.3.14 14.85 16.78
High-Strength 13.14 14.85 16.78
Metered Industrial Users 13.14 14.85 16.78
Variable charge ($/hcf)
Single-Family Residential 6.23 7.04 7.96
Multi-Unit Residential 6.23 7.04 7.96
Commercial
Low-Strength 6:20 7.01 7.92
Medium-Strength 7:3 8 8.34 9.42
High-Strength 9.55 10.79 12.19
Metered Industrial Users
Flow ($/hcf) 4.62 5.22 5.90
BOD ($/lb) 0.45 0.51 0.57
TSS ($/lb) 0.49 0.55 0.63
The average wintertime water usage for a single family .residential customer is approximately 8
hundred cubic. feet (h. cf) per morith (1 hcf = 748 galloris). Therefore the average single family
wastewater bill in 2009 is $62.98 per month, calculated as follows:
Fixed monthly charge = $13.14
Usage charge = $6.23/hcf
Monthly wastewater bill = $13.14 + ($6:23/hcf x 8hcf) _ $62.98
A comparison of the 2009 monthly wastewater bill for single family residential customers using
8 hcf per month in the nine Sonoma County cities is provided in Figure 1.
8
Figure 1
`Estimated 1Vlonthly Year 2009 Wastewater Bill
For Average Single Family Residential Customer
:~~+r.orr
$80.1)0
$"0.00
$60.00
'~SQ.n~)
~;atr.tut
~;o.an
~ZO.o±~
~;io.oo
~u.rl0
~~cia1W
G~
~~~
_i ~ _ . ~ ~
~. ,;hoc `~~y`' ¢~a ~,~.'` t,.
~,c ~
~s~ ~~~.
Figure 1 is provided to illustrate how Petaluma's wastewater rates compare to other Sonoma
County cities. There are signif cant differences. between the agencies. For example, Petaluma's
and Healdsburg's rates support construction and operation 'of -new wastewater treatment plants,
which were constructed. to replace antiquated facilities and meet. increasingly stringent water
quality regulations; and are designed to produce tertiary treated water. The cities of Sebastopol,
Santa Rosa, Cotati,~ and Rohnerh'Park are part of the City of Santa Rosa's Laguna Subregional
System. Rohnert Park's rate refl'eets a wastewater initiative that passed in 2008 and reduced the
average single family residential wastewater bill by $19.62 per month.
The proposed initiative would reduce Petaluma's wastewater rates to those in effect on January
1, 2006: These rates are illustrated. in Table 2.
9
Table 2
Wastewater 12ate Schedule for January 2006
T e of Char a Rate
Fixed 1Vlonthly Charge ($/month)
Single-Family Residential $9.11.
Multi-Unit Residential, per dwelling unit $9.11
Unmetered Residential, per dwelling unit $44.21
Commercial
Low-Strength $9.11
Medium-Strength $9.11
High-Strength $9.'11
Metered Industrial Users $9.11
Variable charge ($/hcfj
Single;-Family Residential $4.319
Multi-Unit Residential $4.319
Commercial
Low-:Strength $4.298
Medium-Strength $5.113
:High-Strength $6:616
Metered Industrial Users
Flow ($~hcfj $3.202
BOD ($/lb) $0.311
TSS ($~/lb) $0:340
The average single family residential customer's wastewater bill would be $43.66/month
calculated as follows:
Fixed monthly charge = $9:11
Usage charge = $4.319/hcf
Monthly wastewater bill = $9.11 + ($4.319/hcf x 8hcf) _ $43.66
A comparison of the monthly wastewater bill for single family residential customers in Petaluma
i~f the, proposed wastewater initiative passes with the eight other Sonoma County cities is
provided. in Figure 2.
10
Figure 2
Estimated Monthly Wastewater Bill For Average Single Family Petaluma Residential
Customer if the Proposed Wastewater Rate. Rollback Initiative Passes
(Year 2011 Rate for Petaluma, Year 2009 Rates For ®ther Cities)
~~~(-.oi.- _ .___ _ _.
$0.00 ........
^, 0.0(1 ._ ... .........................._.................................
$60.00 ... .............._..................................................
:4+SO:Ilf1 ~ .... ..... _....
$=10.00 '!
$30.1)0 ..... .........................................
:fi10.00
~
~
$10:00 ~
E
$1).00 `<
. I ,...__
_......
~~4~i 1,yC
`
~
Ci \~
a
`p. `,~.
G
;~
~,~
~~
~La
Q
I _. _ I ~ I
.•,~ ~.
~~a
As shown in Figure 2, Petaluma' rates would be the second lowest in the County, lower than
Rohnert.Park's rates, which were changed due to a,smilar wastewater initiative in 2008. It's
important to note-that the: ".Petaluma :Initiative" rate shown in Figure 2 is a Year 2011 rate,
whereas the rates for the other cities are 2009 rates. It is likely that some or all of the other cities
will raise their rates in the next' fwo years.
11
~....,.~ ~..,.............a~. ~ ~ ..._.._.....~
4`~ ~,° ~~~~' a`' ,~„`~
IIVIFACTS OF TIFIE PROPtJSEI) INI'T'IA'T'IVE
Significant potential `impacts of the pr"oposed initiative, if approved by the voters, are discussed
below.
1. The' proposed initiative may be invalid. The proposed initiative may impair existing
contract .obligations of the wastewater enterprise, including the bond and loan contract
obligations described above, in violation of the contract clauses in the California and U.S.
Constitutions. For example, if the proposed initiative takes effect, the City will be unable
to satisfy the ratios of enterprise revenue to debt that are .required by the 2000 Wastewater
Revenue :Bonds, the State Resolving .Fund loan; and the lines of credit. with Zions Bank and
BNP Paribas, discussed "above. This can also be seen in Exhibits 1 and 2 to this report,
which .compare Petaluma's wastewater enterprise finances without the proposed initiative
(Exhibit 1 - ,Baseline) with. the proposed initiative's impact on wastewater enterprise
finances (Exhibit 2). If the proposed initiative takes effect, it will also violate the
prohibition against rate'reducfions in the State Revolving Fund loan, also discussed above.
Exhibit 2 to this report :also shows that the proposed. initiative, if approved, would result in
wastewater service rates insufficient to pay the debt service on the State Revolving Fund
loan, in violation of Section 4.4 of the loan agreement.
The proposed initiative may also impermissibly impair ether essential government powers,
and impermissibly interfere with the City Council's fiscal responsibilities and ability under
state law and the Petaluma Municipal. Code to set wastewater service charges at levels
adequate to fund operating, capital, and debt costs of the City's wastewater enterprise. If
the validity of the proposed. initiative measure is litigated, the wastewater enterprise (and
the ratepayers) may incur. significant litigation expense.
The proposed initiative may also impermissibly eonfl'ict with statutory and. regulatory
requirements that apply to the City's wastewater enterprise.. For example, the rates
imposed by the proposed initiative would be insuff cient to satisfy requirements for sewer
revenue bonds, including. the .requirements in California Health and Safety Code Section
5040 that sewer rates be set "...sufficient in each year for the payment.. of the proper and
.reasonable expenses of .operation, repair, replacement,. and maintenance of the works
[wastewater facilities:], and .for payment of the principal of and the interest of the bonds."
If the proposed initiative takes effect, it would probably also violate the requirements of
California ~'S;tate Water Resources Control Board Order No.2006-003.; (Statewide General
Waste Discharge `Requrernerits for Sanitary Sewer S,ystems). Provision 9 of Order No.
2006-Q03 .requires Petaluma to allocate adequate resources'for the operation, maintenance,
and repair of its Sanitary sewer. system; by establishing a proper rate structure. It can be
seen in Exhibit 2 to this: report. that the proposed initiative would prevent Petaluma from
adequately funding sanitary sewer system operation, maintenance and repair. As discussed
above; the State- Revolving, Fund agreement also .requires the City to .maintain a user charge
system .sufficient to :meet the requirements of Section 204(.b)(l) of the federal Clean Water
Act, which, together with its' implementing regulations; requires development of a user
charge system that ;generates sufficient revenue to pay the: total operation and maintenance
costs necessary for the proper operation, maintenance and replacement of treatment works,
12
and requires each, recipient of wastewater services to pay its .proportionate share of the
costs. As can be seen from .Exhibit 2 to thus report,; the rates that would be imposed under
the proposed initiative would violate the Clean Water Act requirements.
2. The reduction_in revenue created by the proposed initiative would negatively impact
operation and mai'ritenance of the wastewater utility.
Exhibit 2, attached to this report, presents a financial impact assessment of the proposed
initiative. that illustrates' how the wastewater enterprise, under reduced wastewater rates,
will be unable to meet. its obligations' for operation and maintenance, debt service and
related coverage, and capital improvement program needs, as' well as maintain prudent
operating and capital program reserves. Specific adverse impacts include:
2.1 Even prior' to the 2`01'0' :election the proposed initiative may be a "reportable
event" with negative. effects on the City's Revolving. Credit Agreements with Zions
Bank and BNP Paribas and the State Revolving Fund Loan, and Petaluma's credit
rating generally. Once. the initiative has been certified and placed on the ballot, the City
may be required by terms of its existing loan agreements to notify its lenders of the
potential material adverse effects on the City's fiscal condition. This can affect the City's
credit with these lenders and potentially affect other sources of .debt financing. Negative
impact on the City's credit due to the proposed initiative could preclude or make more
costly issuance of additional debt to repay the lines of credit; which become due on August
10, 2010.
2.2 The proposed initiative m_ay prevent the City -from makang payments to Zions
First National .Bank and' BNP Paribas that are .due on August 1, ZO10 under -the City's
Revolving Credit Agreements. As of the end of August 2009, the total. amount borrowed
under both lines of ,credit of the sewer enterprise is about $23;675;000. Approximately $3
million more from these. lines of credit may be needed to fully complete the Ellis Creek
facility. Current estimates ,indicate that the wastewater enterprise may be at least $8
million short of funds to repay the lines of credit (assuming all reserve wastewater
enterprise funds are applied to pay the line of credit debt, regardless of the uses for which
such reserve funds are .currently earmarked). If the City is unable to secure funds to repay
the line, of credit debt when it matures on August 10, 2010; and defaults on one or both of
the lines of credit, that default will have to be reported to the State Water Resources
Control Board, under. the terms of-the State Revolving Loan Agreement. This may affect
the City's credit':and' the City's obligations under the State Revolving- Loan fund agreement.
2.3 The proposed initiative could cause the City to default on its State Revolving
Fund loan. Starting in April, 2010, annual 'principal and interest payments estimated at
$7.8 ,million dollars, per year will be due on the State Revolving Fund Loan. As can be
,seen 'in Exhibit 2 fo this_ report, without adequate revenue from wastewater service charges,
the City may be unable to pay the debt service on the State Revolving Fund loan and would
be 'in default. on the loan,, absent General Fund or other revenues to make up the estimated
$16 .million shortfall that would exist by the end of fiscal. year 10-11. A default could
result in loss of any remaining, undisbursed loan funding, enforcement action by the State
on the loan, litigation between the State and the City; and negative impacts on the City's
13
credit. rating, A default. would also impact the State Revolving Fund loan program's ability
to fund other projects, as it relies on installment payments to fund other projects. If
.Petaluma General Fund- revenue were diverted to make the State Revolving Fund
payments, it would reduce the General Fund and reduce General Fund-supported services
accordingly. '
2.4 The proposed initiative could cause'the City to default on outstanding wastewater
revenue. bonds, beginning. with the payment due on 1Vlay 1, 2011. Without adequate
revenue from wastewafe"r charges; the City may be unable to pay the debt service on the
wastewater revenue 6orids,; that were issued and sold in 2000, acid would also be in default
on covenant obligations.. The, annual bond payment is about $720,000. As can be seen
from Exhibit 2 to this report; 'if the wastewater enterprise fund exhausts enterprise reserve
funds to repay the lines of credit ,and/or make the State .Revolving Fund loan payments,
there may not be sufficient cash for the bond payment. A default could result in loss of
loan funding, other City liability, financial exposure arising out of litigation by the City's
bondholders, negative impacts on the City's credit rating, and .inability to secure .future debt
funding. Downgrading fihe City`s credit rating would make future borrowing more
expensive, if `if is available. In the event of default, the bond Trustee. may declare the bond
principal immediately due and payable. The Trustee may also pursue any available remedy
at -law or in equity to enforce the outstanding bondpayments..
2.5 'The proposed initiative could delay or cause cancellation of other wastewater
projects funded. by wastewater charges, and preYent the City from maintaining
wastewater .service levels, complying with applicable regulatory .requirements and
protecting the public health and safety. As can be seen from Exhibit 2 to this report, if
the proposed initiative takes effect, the City would have to cut back on operations,
maintenance and/or service levels to keep expenses in balance with the lower revenue
stream, particularly if reserve funds :must be used to meet debt obligations. It also may be
necessary for the City to reduce or eliminate capital replacement ~ and rehabilitation
programs to .maintain facility operations. Delayed or cancelled replacement of City sewer
pipelines, pump stations treatment facilities or recycled water facilities could result in
failure of these facilities and place .the City in violation of its National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits for operation of the. wastewater collection system,
the.recycled water system;-and the wastewater treatment, system. Failure of these facilities
could cause environmental damage, increase risks to public health, and degrade, the
.Petaluma River's water quality. Such failures could also result in imposition of significant
State water quality fines.
3. The proposed initiative could compromise the City's .ability to treat its wastewater
and .result in a State moratorium on new sewer connections. If wastewater system
operations are impacted to ;a significant degree by reduced revenue imposed by the
proposed. initiative; the City's ability to treat the community's wastewater could be
compromised. If State regulators determine that. a consent: order is necessary, the State
could impose a moratorium on new connections. -State regulatory review and monitoring
of Petaluma wastewater utilities would -also ,probably increase.
14
4. The proposed initiative would impact not only the wastewater enterprise,; but also the
.rest. of the- City's financial, structure; ;including City and Petaluma Community
Development Commission debt-funded projects. The potential impacts of the proposed
initiative could extend beyond the.. wastewater enterprise to the City's financial structure as
a whole. For example, if the public finance rating agencies lower the City wastewater bond
ratings to. Triple B from the current AMinus, -the: credit .ratings of the City and Petaluma
Community Development Commission (the City's redevelopment agency) would be placed
on .credit watch. That would result in higher interest rates for debt issued by the City or the
Petaluma Community Development Commission. Higher interest rates would reduce
funding available for projects listed in the Petaluma Community Development
Commssiori,'s `Five Year Implementation Plan; which relies on an additional $45 million of
bond financing. Affected projects would include infrastructure improvements such as
street work, major cross-town connectors and interchanges such as Rainier and Old
Redwood .Highway, and construction of updated City fire and police headquarters
buildings. Reduction of redevelopment project funding may in turn reduce other revenue
to the City~fi`om ongoing tax increment. growth. Projects that could be funded by General
Fund debt; such as the East Washington ball fields; could' be similarly affected. A
significant .decrease in the City's credit rating could make debt funding unavailable; even at
higher interest rates.
5. The proposed initiative cou"Id result in a $10 million annual deficit in the wastewater
utility, potentially impacting other City finances and services. If the proposed initiative
takes effect; the City's wastewater fund revenue would. be unable to support any debt
service without .impairing ongoing operations and minimal system rehabilitation and
replacement. Exhibit 2, at the end of this report, ,shows. the cumulative impact of annual
deficits over the next several years. The information for ,fiscal year 10-11 is complicated
by the obligation to repay the lines of credit, as well as showing reduced wastewater rates
for a partial. year. Information for fiscal year 11-12 is more reflective of a steady state
environment if wastewater rates are. reduced. At that time, annual revenues are estimated
to be, about $.12.7 million. Annual operating expenses. -.are estimated to total about $12.0
million ate that time. Minimal system replacement and rehabilitation is estimated at about
$1.6 million at that. time. Finally, annual debt service (on the SRF loan and 2000
wastewater revenue bonds) total .about $8.5 million per year. Annual expenses in these
three areas exceed the available revenue by $10 mllionb. A deficit on this order or
magntude'would persist until revenues were re-established to close this gap.
6. The proposed initiative could resulf in insolvency of the. City if insufficient funds are
available from other sources to replace lost water and sewer revenues and maintain
essential services: To obtain protection from creditors and continue operating' its
wastewater utility; 'the City could be required to seek bankruptcy protection, incur related
expenses and suffer riegatiwe impacts on the City credit rating and the City's ability to issue
debt and otherwise fund City operations.
b A cash shortfall ,in °fiscal year 9 0-11 is estimated at about $16 million after using all available cash reserves to pay
off the lines of credit and meet other debt obligations. Only a prudent operating reserve would remain in the
wastewater utility.
15
7. T'he proposed initiative could prevent the implementation of recycled water programs
that are, necessary under General Plan 2025 to provide a current and' future water
supply to Petaluma's citizens. Goal 8-G-3 of the City's General .Plan 2025 requires the
City to maximize the. use of recycled water .as a potable water offset to manage water
demands acid meet. regulatory .requirements for wastewater discharge. As can. be seen from
Exhibit 2 to this report, reduced wastewater revenues due to the proposed initiative would
eliminate funding for the Water Recycling Expansion Program which is essential to
provide the potable water offset that makes up a large part of the City's future water supply,
as determined by the City's adopted General Plan 2025. Therefore, the proposed initiative
would threaten the City's ability to provide for existing and .future water supply needs of its
citizens, in addifion to threatening the City's ability to provide adequate levels of
wastewater service acid operation.
8. The proposed initiative will cause reduction in wastewater operating revenues which
may .interfere with Genera[ Plan Goals, Programs and Policies for management of the
recycled wastewater program under General Plan Goal 8-G-4. Goal 8-G-4 requires
the City 'to manage the wastewater collection and treatment system to address 100%
capture. and treatment of the City's wastewater in an economically and ecologically sound
manner: Policies and Programs under this Goal include 8-P-15, requiring capacity of the
waste treatment facility to be maintained and expanded as needed to keep pace with
growth; $=P-1,S.A, requiring implementation of an adopted waste treatment facility master
plan and ,construction of distribution improvements; through development conditions of
approval. (which presumes sufficient distribution infrastructure to bring recycled water to
such development).; andseveral other programs which .require a stable revenue base to
permit ongoing ..maintenance, periodic .replacement of .system infrastructure and necessary
improvements. To the .extent that. revenue shortfalls identified in Exhibit 2 to this. report
limit the ability of the City to fulfill this goal and implement the adopted policies and
programs, the proposed initiative `will create inconsistencies with General Plan 2025.
9. The proposed initiative will impair the City's ability to: meet General Plan Housing
Element Goals. The City adopted an updated Housing Element 2009-2014 on June 15,
2009. Goal. 1 requires the City to provide adequate residential opportunities to
accommodate projected. residential growth and facilitate .mobility within the ownership and
rental. markets. Goal 2 requires the City to promote a range of housing types to meet the
.housing. needs. of all. Petalumans. Goal 3 requires the City to minimize constraints on
housing development to expedite construction and lower development costs. Other
Housing Element,;goals ,speak to creation and preservation of affordable and special needs
housing, `with attention to eliminating constraints on such development. Programs 3.8 and
3.9 under 'Goal 3 state' that the City will actively participate in the Sonoma County Water
Agency's projects to increase the capacity of the City's water supply system and reinforce
its water distribution system. However, very recent actions by the Sonoma County Water
Agency suggest that the water agency may be unwilling to seek and provide additional
imported water for Petaluma. Therefore, the General. Plan 2025 water supply programs
which depend. on use of recycled water for potable offset are critical to providing water and
wastewater services for development sufficient to meet the City's housing goals, some of
which are mandated by ABAG regional housing allocations and state Department of
16
Housing Cornmunty,Development requirements: To the extent that the proposed initiative
prevents or eurtails~ City recycled. water programs, the City's. ability to meet its Housing
Element goals will be impaired.
10. 'The proposed initiative will'impair the `City's ability to meet General Plan Goa19-G-1,
Economic Health and Sustainability. Goal 9-G-1 and. the Policies and Programs
identified to implerrient it dca'1 with establishing a diverse and sustainable local economy.
Without. adequate rate-based funding to maintain capacity and operational capability of the
wastewater system, and the continued implementation of recycled water/potable water
offset programs as an essential component of future water supply, the City will not be able
to attract `the types of new business essential to fiscal ..health or to adequately serve
residents. Policies 9-P-6(A), (B) and (C) recognize that adequate City revenue is essential
to sustain public services and infrastructure needed to serve the residential, commercial and
industrial. activities. necessary for a balanced and vibrant local economy. Impaired recycled
water infrastructure funding resulting from the- proposed initiative would be inconsistent
with these goals.
11. 'The proposed. initiative ,could cause cancellation or 'reduction of public .access and
educational activities. at the Ellis Creek Wastewater Recycling Facility. Without
adequate revenue from wastewater charges, in order to preserve basic wastewater
operations, the City could. be required to reduce or cancel programs at the waste treatment
facility which are intended to protect the environment and provide public access and
education regarding the Ellis Creek open space and public amenities. This would create an
inconsistency with General. Plari 2025 Policy 8-P-17:, "Maintain and expand. public access
and educational opportunities at the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility."
1305917.1
17
Exhibit 1 ~ ,
' , City of Petaluma -Wastewater Utili ty j ~
Multi-Year F,tnancial Plan ~ l ( E Baselin e Analysis
'~ FY 08-09 ~ FY 09-5O ~ FY 1O-li ' FY 11-12 # FY 12 13 ~ FY 13-14
i
._
, ., Pro'ection ~ ~~Bud et i Estimate Estimate Estimate 1 Estimate
__
..
1
_ Wastewater Rate Increases (calendar Year).--> ~
__ ..._.. ._
13.0%
... ....
, .__ 13.0°!0
9 5%i ~
...
3.5%i
.._.. .....
3.5%
..
WASTEWATEROPERATING FUND i 1 '
2 Beginning Balance 1B 007,716 ( 24 231,968 } 8,513,547 6,819 547 ~ 6,545,747 ,5,,314,347
__ Revenues
..._ ... I
f
~
~ '
.. _
_ j
_
3 Charges for Sales
Y ~( 17 220,139 ( 19 250 000 21 806 000 23 655,000
~ 24 665,000 25,771,000
4
' S ~
Charges forRecycledvWtr. Sales ~
f
S
Ch ~
_ ..
085
4 20 000 ~ „ .
_._..
11 700 _„ _ 21 000:
12 000 22,000
12
000 23,000
000 ~
12 24,000
12
000
arges
or
ernces _}
_.__ -. , , , ,
, ,
6 Grant/Debt Ptoceeds 16 582,082 26 672 000 ~ ~
7 Open Space Distract 6500_00 '~
8
..,,._._
9 _
Capacity Charges ..~ . _._ .. __M _ _ ~
_ .m_ ._.,._
Other Revenue 289 907 ~
_._.,,._ ..
4
4,938 ~ ._~
. 42 490 _.. _
44 000 ,
~
46,000 I
_
.. .. __
48,000
_
__ . __ .__..
50,000
......
_ _
_
.r 10
'._ _
.
~. _ -.,,.~.. ... _ ~
,Investment Earnings 360,000 _
485 000
... ___.._._~; _ _, _
,213 000 ;
. OS 000
2, _, _ 229,000
_ _ _ _, _ 213,000
,_ __
11 Total Revenues 34 501 151 47,331,190 22y096,000 f 23,940,000 ~ 24,977,000 26,070,000
Expenditures and Transfers
v ___ . _ , _ _ _,_, k
_.
. .
_ _.
12 _..._
_
Wastewater Administration 4,060,108 913,650 944 000 979,000 1,017,OG0 1,059,000
13 dndustnal Pretreatment, ~ 73,346 346,450 ~ 354,000 372,000 366,000 402,000
14 Wastewater Storm Dtains ~- 724,713 730,300 755;000 '.
_. 783;000 813,000 846,000
15
16 Collection System
Reclamation 798,085
763,174 1,555,934
955;330, 1,608 000
988 000 '~. 1,667,000
1;024,000 1 732 000
1 064 000 1,803 000,
1,107,000
17 _
Customer Service ~ 49,178 96,150. 1 99;000 '._ 103,000 102,000 111,000
18 _ _ _
General Fund Ovh Transfer
647;200 4 _
1 135 000 { _
1,173 000
1 216 000
_. ._
1 263,000
_
1,315,000
-
19 _
_
Treatment 1 084,767 5 543 700 ~ .. _5,728 000 ;_ 5 938 000 _ 6 168,000 6,420 000
. i 20 _ €
Debt Serv ;
2000 WW.
Bonds 716,,704 , _ 718 374 ~ _ ,724,000 722,000 _ 725,000 726 000
^ 21 .
.
_
Debt Serv - SWRCB SRF'Loan [ - ; 7 777 633 ! 7,778 000 :
_ 7 778,000 7 778 000 7,778 000
22 Liries of Credit }
Revolving 71b,013 I Z7 275,581 ~ .
__ _ ._ . - ,,,. -
_
_ ,
_ ~_
~
0 _
' .
~
2,134 000:
2 131,800
2,138,400
2,133,200
.
_
24 2~WWWBonds _) -
Debt Serv.- 201 -
~-'~'-"'
_ _.
~
1 517,000
1,522,400
~....-
25 ...~.... ... ....._ ._,,._..
Capital Protects
! _.. .
14 257,362 L .. ~.
i ».w
' ~
26 _ _
._? - - )~
Transfer to CapitaLFund
-' ~ i _
16000 000 _
1 500 000
1,500 000 _ _
1 500,000
1,500 000
27
_ _. - --
Total Expenditures _ _ ~_ -23 890,670, ~ _63 049,6.1,1 ~ __
"23;790 000 1
__.~_._
24,213 800 ~
"_ __._._ _.._i_.,_
26,208,400.
..._ 9
26,721,600
_ .....,,.
28 I
Ending Balance 28"618197 ~ 8,513,547 ~ 6,819j547 '_ ::6,545,747 ~ ~ .5,314,347 ~ 4,662,747
29
30 _
Operoting Reserve (33-'0 of 0&M)_
Rate Stabiliiahon Reserve 2 706,000
4 000,000 3 722 000E
1 500 000 3;846,000 3,987 000 3 _ __ 4 142 000
_. 4,31'1,000..
-
,
31 __
-.
Uncommitted Balance ~' ~ , 21 912,197 _ 3 291 547 _
2 973 547 2 558,747 _
1,172,347 351,747
32 DS Coverage (w/o Conn. Fees), 1.0 min. 4.18 1.26 i 4.19 1.17 1.11 1.12
33 _
DS Coverage (w/ Conn. Fees), 125 min.' 4.38 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.30 1.36_
WASTEWATER cAPITAI FUND ~ _._ __ _._ .,. , _, ._
34 _
Beg/mm~g Balance ~ ~
_ _... ! __ _..., ~.
-~ :8,502 000
_ _ 5 361 000 17 422,000 2,680 000
Revenues f i
..
35 ... ..... ...... _ .1_...
Capacty Charges _, _ _ _ _, _ ..,..
Y ,
,._ 200 000 §
1,274 000 i
1 767,000 (
2,297,000 {
2,867,000 _
36 Transfer from,Operatin Fund
g I 16 000,000 ! 1,500 000: 1 500,000 i 1,500,000 ' 1,500,000
_
37 _ _ .
_
Grant/DebtEroceeds 1 _ __
_
i .
4,150,000;
i
_
19 000 000 I
_ j
_ _
38 _ _- - _.
dnvestment Earnlhgs_ _ ~
.. _, _ _
._ .. __ t
-, _ _
,..., .- - __
_, _.,213 000, I
_ "161 000
_ I.... 7
610 000
_..- ...._ i.
_...,107 000_
_ _.
39 Total Revenues ~ 20,350;000 ~ 2,987 000 ' 22-,428 000 ~ 4 407,000: 4,474,000
E I
40
.._..
41 Recycled Water Protects
,,. .. ., _. .__.P
Phase 26 Recycled_Wtr Pipe &Reservoir
__.__ -...
.
100,000
.._ __
3,231 000
3 775,_0.00
._
42 Phase 2A Recycled Water Pipel,ne i r 50 000 ~ 1 450 000 1 631 000
43
r Phasc ~ Retitled Water P,pehne ( { - ~
~ 1 276 000 ` _ 2 632,000 ~ ,3,137,000,
,
44 Recyclyd water Pump. Station 2Improv ~' ~
_ 545 000 ~ ~. _ I _ ,,,, _
q5 _
Recycled Water Pump Station l Improv I
..
_.
_r .
._ 600,Onr7
._.._.. ,
__ ,._.
_ ._...,._ _
_.,_.,.. ,. _.
,_. _
46 _._
.~. __,r. _ .. ._- .
Recycled hater Main Pump Station Improv ._..._..__..- , .,..
_.
I 570 000 ,
Wastewater Protects _. ~ {k~
~ ~~ t _,. i _ __, ~~~ ~
~ ,.,,.
47 C Street Pump Station U rade
{_~~
P9 ~
_ 1 000 000
_..- 2,378 000 _ ,_ _
48 _
_
_. _
Demo of Hopper St. WW Trtm[. Facil
i ,
~ ~
100 000 ,310 000 770 000 ~ .10,683,000
49 ,
_
Water Recycling Facility EII
Creek ~
is 7,820,000 3 1 286 000 E
50 _
_
_
`SCADA Eliis'Creek~WRF~ T ~~ _ ( 478 000
51 Wilmington Pump
,
Station ..60,000 '. 165,000 i 751,000 ,
` 52 _
.
,
Oxidavon Pond Levee: Reinforcement S0 000
~~ 590 000 ' ~1„__
~~53
~ Sev er Main Replacement 2010 Various ~ .
~ 815 000 265 000 645 000 _ 755 000 ,_865 000.
'
54 Victoria Pump Station Generator
{ ~ 160 000 i _
55 Manhole Rehabihtat,on
f 280 000 j 280 000 :a _ 418 000 ~ 418 000 _528 000
. _
7 .,Upgrade, I
~. _ :,. 1-
~ t
._
. .450 000
~ .,178 000 ~... _
OOG
3 135 000
„ 5 7otal ExP
endrtures _
j 1
11 848,000 6
10 000: 87 000
10,3 19 lqg
,000 4,665 000
'
_
58 --- _-mow, .;-._ _. ;....
Ca /tai Reserve . _ ._..
i 8,502,000 ;i 5,381,000• i 17,422,000 1. 2,680,000 I 2,489,000
18
_ ..m. - -- -- ._ _, _ _
Exhibit 2~ ~ _ ...,
. _ ..
. ,.
~ _-
, _. ...
_ Qty of Petaluma. Wastewater Utility i i
Multi-Year FinanclaUPlan e Initiative Im a ct Anal sis
I FY 08 09 ~ FY 09-10 ~ FY 10-1`I FY 11 12 FY 12 13 _ FY 13-14
j ~- _
~~ ._
Pro'ection ._
Budget {
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
„ ..
1 ,,,_,,,,, _ ncreases ,(Calendar Year) --> I
~~~~ ~ _..__ .._ _13 0%~,,,._,
-.. _ .. ~,_ _ -38.7%',
__...- ,.- 0.0%
_- _.. 0.0%!
- .... ._ ;: 0.0%
_ _. _.
WASTEWATER OPERATI
NG FUND
~i
~
~
~ ~~
~ ._,....-
~~ ~~~
2 _ ._..,
Be fnnrn :Balance
B 9_ .._.__„._.~ __. 18 007 716~
_~
24 231 968 ._..__
~
~~~~~ ~
~
18 714,000 _
~
(12 a29;000)=
(21,897 000)1.
(32,162 000)
Revenues
3
Cha
tges for,
Sales
17 2220,139 ~
19,250 000~~~
~
16 514,000
12 580,000
12
,580 000 ~..
12 580 000
4 ,
.
Charges for Recycled Wtr. Safes ,
{ ,
20 000 21,000 22,000 _
23,000 24,000
5
6 Charges for Services
Grant/Debt Proceeds _ ~ ~-~ ~ 4 085
1 ~~ ~
6 582 082 11 700
-~~~ ~~~ ~~
- 12 000
-~~ 12,000 12,000 12,000
7 Open Space District ; .8.50,000
8
9 Capanty Charges
e ~ ~
Oth
r R
n 289,907 i
44 938
42 490 -
44
000
45
000 t
46
000
47
000
10 eve
e
u
Investment Earnings __. _
t_
_„ 360 000
_.. .
485 000 ,,
. . ,
- 468;000 , ,
- ,
- ,
-
11 Total Revenues _ ~ 34 501 151 ~
., _...r .._.
"" 20,659 190 1
. 17 059 000
...- 12 659 000
.. ..._ 12 661 000 ~
___- . ._ 12.663,000
Expenditures and Transfers ' ~
= ~ - '
12 Wastewater Administration 4 060,108 I
913 650 944,000 ~ ._. 972,000 1,001,000 _ 1,031,000..,
_
13 - _
Industrial Pretreatment 73,34b' 346 950 !
-
~.. 359,000 ~
_..__ -.r 370 000
W_ 381 000
~_. 392,000
14V .....~
Waster ater.5[orm Drams ~ _..-.
724 713 . .
730 300 } m755,000 _ 776,OOD 801 000 825 000
15 Collectwn System _
798 085 ~ 1 555,934: 1 608000 1 656,000
mm 1,706 000 _ 1,,757 000_.
16 Reclamation
~ ~~ ~ 763 174 956 3a0
~ 988,000 ~~ l 018,000
__ 1,D49,000 -
' 1,080,000
17 _ _
Customer Service 44,178 96 150 ~ 99;000. 102 000 __105 000
__- _108,000_,
_
' 18 General Fund Ovh Transfer _
647 200 1,135,000 '
. 1,173;000 1 208,000 1,244,000 1,281,000
19 Treatment : Ob4,l67 j _
5,543,700 5 728,000 5 900,000 6,077,000 ?. 6,259,000
~~~20 Deb[ Serv. - 2000 WW Bonds 716 704 j 71b 374 ,~ _ _724,000 -_ 722,000 725,000 ~. 726,000,_
21 Debt Serv SWRCB SRF Loan I 7 777 633 ~
~~ 7,778,000 7,778,000 7,778 000 I 7 778 000
22 Redolvmg Lmcs of Credit _ 716,013 # 600 000~ 26,676,000 - ~ - .
23 Debt Serv - 2010 WW Bonds
24 Debt Serv - 2012 W W Bonds I - I - -
__.
__m
25 ~_._ ~._~__..~..~... __,_
Capital Projects: _._ m~._._,
14 257,382 ~ ~
._.(_~ ._._ . W ..
' .~ _ _~_ _ .
, 26 .
Transfer to Capital Fund ~ I 5,803,000 # 1,370;000 1 623,000 2,059,000 1,528,000.
27 Total Expenditures 23 890 670 I 26,177,030 ` 48 202,000 I„ __ 22,127,000 ,22,926 000 ? 22,765,000
28 Fnding8alance 28,61'8;197 j 18,714,000 ~. ( 12,429;000):.. (21;897,000)' (32;162;000)(. (42;264,000)
29 _ _
Operating Reserve (33% of O&M) , ,
2' 706 000 ~
_ 3 722 000 j
3846;000
_ ._3 961,000 I
,4,080,000 ,'
4,202,000
30 Rate. Stabilization Reserve a 000,000 1 1,500 000 -
1 -
31 Uncommitted Balance 21 912 197 ° _
13,492 000 I
(16 275,000)
_
_ _ - ~
_ (25 858 000) (36,242 000);_ (46,466,000)
32 _ , _ _
DS Coverage (w/o Conn. Fees) 1 0 min _., __ 4.18 1 26 I 0:21 0.13 0.09
~ 0.05
33 DS Covera a w/ Conn. Fees), 1.25 min 4 38 i 1.28 ( 0.21 0 13 0 09 7 0.05.
.._
i ..._..
WASTEWATER CAPITAL FUND
__
, _
_ _ _ I
_
.. ....
j
._i.
....._..
~,__,34 Beginning Balance ,...r .,._._.... -___.j._._ ~ - ! ........ ............_
Revenues 1 ~ . . _~ .
~_ , _,._,
~~
_ . ..
ing Fund
~~
s
Gna
m
n
O _ ..- ~. _._ 7. 4 850 0000
_ _._ _. _ _. ~
.a 1 370 000
_.._......mw. ~..... 1 623 000
_... 2,059 000E 1,528 000
38 rningS
t
I
e
e
t Ea I ~
39 Total Revenues_ _ __ __ y,_ ~~ ,10,153,000 ~ 1 370,000 1 623,000 2,059,000.. 1,528,000
Ex endrtures ._... .. ..._ ....._~ -- -. .. .... -.
40 Rec tied Water Pro ects
~
...}
........ i ..
..
.....
..-.. . '.
41 Phase 28 Recycled Wtr
Pi e & Res
_._.
__
P ____ .._.._ _ _ ..... _ .._. .._. ._...... ...... _ _..
47 ,
,
Phase 2A Recycled„ Water Pipeline,
..._ ~.. ;..._.
_
_.._.._._ _ , -.
_ __._..._.._ ~
43
.
, ,
Phase 3 Recycled N/ate~Pipeline _ ~
.
_ ..._. .- ..
_....
_ _. .
..
.
!
... _. __-_. __ .. ._ I
_,~_. __.4..
_ _.... ,_
_.. _... ... ..
_
_
...
. _
44 ..
.
.,
,Recycled Water Pump Statiom2lmprov._ k !_ _
45 RecycledWater Pump. Sfation.a ]mprov.
46
~~~ Recycled Water Main Pump Station Improv..
_ ~ ' ....._,.. _~., _....- __.. ._......._ ._.. _ -_ _t. _..._ .. ............._
Wastewater ProjectsT ___- _._ _. __ .,,.,,,., ,,,,,.,_
47 C Street Pump Station`Upgrade ;
8 Demo of Hopper St WW Trtmt
.Faol i 100 000
_ '
4 _
l
Ellis Creek
a _
_ _
.
7 - ~ - ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ -
50 RF
W
CADA Ellis Creek r 478 000 '
j . ._ .
.
51 '-
g~,,,._., p .. _
WIImIn ton Pum Station ~ - .,.
.. 60,000 __._
165,000 _
_751,000 .
I 52 .-
OxidationPOndlLevee„Reinforcement !
..
::
,
. 50;000
. 590,000
_._.
~
_
.._._._
__-..., .........._.
.... .m..
' S3 .,.-_. _.._ .......~.._._...,.._.
......
... ,.~.
_
Sc:.cr Main Replacement 2010 various .,,
_._... ._,._._,.~ _ _
_ ,..
815,000 . ..
265;000 _
.
~ 645,OQ0 .
755,000
_ 865,000
54
Victoria Pump Station~Generator _
~~ ! _
160 000 _ _
55 Manhole Rehabilitation b 280 000 280000 418,000 418,000 528,000
_
56 Lift Station Upgrade I 450 000 175,000 395,000 135,000 135,000
57 Total Expenditures 1 10,153 000 { 1 370;000 1 623,000 2,059 000 ~ 1,528,000.
-_ 58 Ending Balance I -
19