Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2.A - Late Document 2/11/2013 Agenda/Itenv 42.A - Doom/matt receGved.after d 4tra>uttavy RECEIVED Bryant R. Moynihan FEB 112013 P. 0. Box 2210 Petaluma, CA 94953-2210 CITY CLERK February 11, 2013 Hand Delivered & emailed Petaluma City Council City of Petaluma 11 English St. Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: February 10, 2013 Mid-Year Budget Review Dear City Council: I watched the presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) by the City's new auditor. And while the presenter was easier to understand this year, she failed to discuss the huge problem facing Petaluma, the unsustainable increase in the unfunded PERS pension plan. Isn't it ironic that the Rancho Cotati Fire District has no unfunded pension liabilities and Petaluma has somewhere around $50 million today? FYI, I am attaching a more comprehensive analysis of the unfunded PERS Pension liabilities. While there was a decrease in the rate of the increase of the unfunded liabilities last year, it is still not sustainable. I would propose that if the City Council is serious about standing behind their commitments and not defaulting on the retired city employees that the City adopt a policy to contribute a minimum of $10 million a year until such a time as there are no unfunded pension liabilities. I also read with a vested interest that the City Staff is admitting that there is no basis to transfer from the wastewater enterprise fund $90,000/year to the City's General Fund. And while I applaud them for reluctantly reversing this $180,000 mistake, I must ask when will they stop charging the ratepayers excessive intra-governmental charges, excessive Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Administration Fees and stop paying the City Manager and Finance Director out of the Wastewater and Water Enterprise Funds in violation of the State Constitution? There is no urgency to adopt an urgency ordinance. You have until July 1, 2013 to make these changes. Wouldn't it be better to get it right? Have your staff document why there needs to be an increase in CIP Administration fees, etc. Is it too much to ask of this city council to be fiscally responsible and to hold your staff accountable? Sincerely, 1 a L t, nt R. oynihan * -4 t o C -I EAe K ER -,E, (/) < C -I O R1 — 0 O — ° N N 7 Si .71 = N co n 7 n p 3 N E m (n P co — n N c) ,7 CI m (Urn °�' w °' °' nib a cn N N (Do 871 N w 3 CO r m c v o m V t 07 FD- CD a (n cn m C) o Q co o_ N 7J CD 3 m N EA C N 3 EA N A rn A 0) 0) O D OD CO N () (D W W CO 0) N 1 0 A c O N D 0 J O`Z V 0 O (T A O) N J (T J N CA N EA 49 EA EA D- -• CT EA N EA EA N N A N CO EA () N) N > N N j -1 A -' -. co O -1 0 S W co O J O) N N co O (T (D A A (O N • V N C nt O) W to O N N NCO V O N O A ° O N (n o coo OD N o CO J co o CO OOD N Zl CO to co to EA C) EA EA W EA EA EA N C W N OD J N CO 0) CO n N O) -CO j "co -co J A O -• N W CO CO N co A co J a N J CO N J (O O) CO N C O -CO CO A O) r A N N A O -u- ,..o Oo V CO V (T N o -s Cn A CO O 0 a EA O 4/9 EA m W J W (8 -P (0O 0 W > co CD CO CO O) (O A A J (a () CD CO CO J N O) N C (N) CO CO N CO In A W m W O _O • V A J CO N O O o V N N o CO (T o (AO O W `G (D et) N EA EA EA (D EA A EA A EA -s EA W r • co A N 0 CO N (T1 O- (T W O J O ' A -c) _a co co j' W o O O O) O 'p A O O � in O O co O J O O) N 3 (_ —, co- CO O CO O CO O W O O co j OO O V(O O o CO O o CO -+ 0• (D co EA (A EA EA EA CT EA A EA EA CO N CO A O) -+ -, CO cT (T1 O2 (r NO O J O 8 A O o W N ...• OV J O O CO 0 J O O O) N 3 cn 0) W cn O CO O v CO O co O O � O) p) o° O J O N O A D CD O N O o CO O o CO N d EA fA EA EA O EEpp cn EA — (A CO O A O N CO CD R1 J O 0 A O 0 CO N O O O (T O..CT) O v O co m N N O (T O -co O A -co O it O O O o O N 0 o co O o co A co O. J J