HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.B 07/02/2012 AentactiItenw#4.3
W C +It SP'LU
1859
DATE: July 2, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John C. Brown, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing an Interfund Loan from the Storm Drainage Impact Fee
Fund to the Storm water Utility Fund, in an amount not to exceed $800,000.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution Authorizing an Interfund Loan
from the Storm Drainage Impact Fee Fund to the Storm wWater Utility Fund, in an amount not
to exceed $800,000.
BACKGROUND
On June 18, 2012 the City Council considered authorizing.a loan from the Storm Drainage
Impact Fee fund to the recently established Storm Water Utility Fund, in an amount not -to-
exceed $1.6 million. The staff report and supporting documents provided to the Council on June
18, 2012 are attached. The loan was proposed to cover storm water maintenance costs for the
period from January 1, 2012 through December 31;2014. Given the then-pending special
Council meeting to discuss placing one or more tax measures on the ballot, and the possibility
that proceeds from a tax measure could be used to fund storm water maintenance activities,
Council deferred consideration of this item until its July 2, 2012 meeting. During the June 18,
2012 discussion, some council Members expressed an interest in a.lesser loan, especially if storm
water costs could be supported from a source other than the interfund loan.
DISCUSSION
On June 25, 2012 the City Council discussed storm water maintenance as one potential activity
to be funded from a local sales tax. The Council is open to further consideration of a sales tax
measure, pending community feedback. In the meanwhile, these activities are being conducted
without having formalized the financing strategy that is being used to fund them. The Council
has adopted a budget for 2012/13 that includes the transfer of funds from the Storm Drainage
Impact Fee fund to the Storm water Maintenance fund, pursuant to an interfund loan. To
formalize the loan; as the City's interfund loan policy requires, approval of the loan at this time
is recommended. Given the uncertainty regarding a sales tax measure, and council member
interest in a lesser loan, the resolution and promissory note accompanying this report reflect a
Agenda Revi w
City AttorneYl( Finance Director City Manager
1
not-to-exceed amount of$800,000 for the period from January 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.
That period coincides with the end of the 2012/13 fiscal year.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The recomniended action will establish a maximum obligation of$800,000 for principle loaned
during the period from January 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013, from the Storm Drainage Impact
Fee fund (fmd.nuniber 2155) to the Storm Water Utility fund (fund number 6800). Transfers
will be made from time to time, based on actual expenses but shall not exceed $800,000 in the
aggregate for that period, unless a higher amount is subsequently authorized by the City Council.
Using a-2.37 percent interest rate, which reflects the ten-year average of the City Treasury's
investment earnings, and a 12 year pay-back period beginning in 2015, annual debt service
would be approximately $76,000. Payments,are programmed into the General fund financial
forecast beginning in $2014/15 but will need to be approved in the budget in each year that
payments are made.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution with Exhibit
2. June 18, 2012 staff report with Stormwater Costs
•
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2012 - N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FROM THE STORM DRAINAGE IMPACT
FEE FUND TO THE STORM WATER UTILITY FUND
WHEREAS, Storm water maintenance and operations costs have historically been
budgeted in the Wastewater Utility Fund; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the activities associated with those costs do not directly support
the operations of the Wastewater system; and
WHEREAS, those costs were removed from the Wastewater Utility fund and excluded
from expenses included in rate setting adjustments that were approved by the City Council in
November 2011 and became effective on January I, 2012; and
WHEREAS, Staff has conducted a thorough analysis of all activities associated with
storm water maintenance and,operations, and has identified core activities which are required to
maintain the storm water system and protect the community and environment from the adverse
effects of unmanaged storm water runoff; and
WHEREAS, those activities are estimated to cost approximately$500,000 per year, and
are now budgeted in a separate Storm Water Utility fund for which there is not yet a dedicated
funding source; and
•
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to investigate options for establishing
a.dedicated funding source for the aforementioned activities, and such investigation is
anticipated to be completed by January 2015; and
WHEREAS, in the meanwhile, due to financial hardship, it is not possible to support the
aforementioned activities through a subsidy from the General Fund such that another funding
source is required in the near-term; and
WHEREAS, funds are available in the Storm Drainage Impact Fee Fund that can be used
to support these costs; and
WHEREAS,it is the policy of the City Council thatiinterfund loans of greater than one
year may be approved, provided that such loans are repaid in fifteen (15) years or less, and.that
interest should be paid on such loans;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Petaluma
hereby approves an interfundloan from the Storm Drainage Impact Fee fund to the Storm Water
Utility fund.
1. The interfund loan shall be formalized pursuant to a Promissory Note, attached and
incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
2. The loan amount shall not exceed $800,000 unless authorized by the CityCouncil.
3. Amounts shall be transferred as the City Manager directs from time to time, not to exceed
the total sum of$800,000. These funds shall provide for core storm water maintenance
and operations activities for the period from January 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.
4. Interest shall be charged at the rate of that earned by the City Treasurer's Investment
Portfolio (variable %) per annum, and shall accrue quarterly, effective January 1, 2012.
5. The first loan payment, including accrued interest, shall be made on June 30, 2015 and
annually thereafter„in twelve equal annual installments, such that the entire principal and
interest shall be repaid on or before June 30, 2026, unless extended by the City Council.
6. Payment of the full amount of principal advanced and any interest otherwise unpaid shall
be made no later than June 30, 2026, unless extended by the City Council.
7. The City Manager and Finance Director/City Treasurer are hereby authorized to execute
the Promissory Note and any associated documents that may be subsequently needed.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF PETALUMA, CA
PROMISSORY NOTE•FOR INTERFUND LOAN
•
This Promissory Note (Note) for an Interfund Loan is executed as of July 3, 2012, by the City
Treasurer of the City of Petaluma, acting as custodian of the funds of the City of Petaluma, and
the City Manager of the City, acting for the City Council in implementation of the directives and
authority of Resolution Number 20f2- , adopted on July 2, 2012.
1. The Treasurer shalt transfer to the Storm Water Utility Fund, from the Storm Drainage
Impact Fee Fund, the expenditures necessary and incurred during each fiscal year for
core storm water maintenance-and operations activities for the period from January 1,
2012 through June 30, 2013, not to exceed the total principal sum of Eight Hundred
Thousand dollars ($800,000).
2. Interest shall accrue quarterly, without compounding, beginning January 1, 2012, on all
principal sums advanced at the same rate as for the City Treasurer's Investment
Portfolio (variable %) per annum, based on the previous year earnings of said portfolio.
3. Payment of principal and all interest accrued as of January 1, 2015 shall begin on June
30, 2015 and shall be made in twelve equal annual installments such that the entire
principal and accrued interest shall be fully repaid on or before June 30, 2026.
4. The full sum of the Interfund Loan including all principal advanced and interest
otherwise remaining unpaid pursuant to this Promissory Note is due and payable no
later than June 30,1026. The full sum or any partial'payment of principal may be
prepaid with no penalty.
5. This Note is subject to the terms of City of Petaluma Resolution Number 2012-
Executed as of the date first above written
CITY OF PETALUMA, CA
By:
City Treasurer
By:
City Manager
Approved as to form this day of , 20
By:
•
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT 2
2ALtry/
•
t85g
DATE: June 18, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John C. Brown, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing a Loan from the Storm Drainage Impact Fee Fund to the
Storm Water Utility Fund in an Amount Not to Exceed $1.6 Million.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution Authorizing a Loan from
Storm Drainage Impact Fee Fund to the Storm Water Utility fund in an amount not to exceed
$1.6 million.
BACKGROUND
The City undertook a review of its utility rates during 2010 and 2011. In that process, the City
Council was able to reduce the amount of the wastewater rate adjustment that was approved in
2006, for implementation in 2011, from an increase of 13 percenfdown to nine (9) percent.
Wastewater rate adjustments were further reduced to an increase of five (5) percent for 2012 and
are limited to CPI-based increases in each of the next four years.
During the rate adjustment process;'other studies were conducted that contributed to assumptions
used in the recommended ratestructure presented to Council:inNovember 2011. These included
an Urban Water Management.Plan (UWMP), and a Stonnwater Program Funding.Evaluation.
The UWMP provided justification for City Council to reduce the number, and extend the timing,
of capital projects incorporated into}rate setting, basedon a lower-than-previously-estimated-
need for potablewater offsets from recycled water. The Storm Drainage study addressed both
operational and capital needs associated with the kind of program anticipated in the General
Plan, and the financing options available to meet those needs. If also sought to address storm
water-related costs.charged to the wastewater budget. The consultant, HDR;yconcluded that
storm drainage maintenance costs are appropriately charged to the wastewater budget, as they are
in many other jurisdictions. This conclusion was based on the rationale that such activities
benefit the wastewater•system.
They reduce the'amount of infiltration and inundation the system would otherwise have to carry
and process, and reduce associated costs. This rationale appears to be generally consistent in the
case of Howard Janis Taxpayers'Association v. City of Shlinas.(2002) 98Cal.App.4`s 1351. In
that case, the court held that storm water fees are subject to the majority vote requirements in
Agenda Review:
City Attorney Finance Director City Manager
Proposition 218, because storm water systems are not the same as sewer systems. However, the
case appears to leave open the potential for charging and recovering as sewer charges exempt
from majority vote requirements storm drainage maintenance costs necessary to maintain
sanitary sewer systems,such as maintenance needed to protect sewer facilities from storm
events.
In 2011, staff conducted a review of the costs attributable to storm water maintenance before
finalizing recommendations for water and wastewater rate setting. Following is a summary of
storm water expenditures at Midyear 2011/12.
Stormwater Program Expenditure Summary 7/1/2011 -12/31 2011
2011/12*
Sal/Ben $61,845
Supplies $6,017
Services $104,935
Total $172,797
* through 12/31/2011
Material provided to the Council in November 2011 identified the costs of storm water related
services that provide direct benefits required for safe and cost-effective operation of the
wastewater system. Costs in this category were approximately$290,000 and were factored into
2011 Wastewater rate setting. A budget amount of$582,000 for storm water costs not directly
necessary for wastewater operations was excluded from the final rate setting calculations.
Excluding those costs reduced the overall rate adjustment approved by the City Council for 2012
by 2.8 percent for the average rate payer.
During the public hearing conducted in November 2011, Bryant Moynihan appeared and
protested against the inclusion of any storm water maintenance costs in the Wastewater budget,
even those staff maintain are necessary for the safe and cost effective operation of the City's
wastewater system. The Council unanimously approved rate adjustments that incorporated
$290,000 in storm water related costs that are required for operation of the wastewater system.
The November, 2011 rate adjustments excluded the $582,000 in storm water related costs not
directly necessary for wastewater operations from the rate calculations.
In January 2012, Mr. Moynihan filed suit with the Superior Court seeking: a writ of mandate
directing the City to cease transfers of wastewater enterprise funds to support storm drainage
maintenance or operations and restore to the wastewater fund all prior expenditures for storm
drainage maintenance and operations; a judgment declaring the City's practices have and will
continue to violate the California Constitution; a restraining order and injunctions to prevent the
City from transferring funds front the wastewater enterprise to support storm drainage operations
and maintenance and ordering the City to restore to the wastewater fund all prior expenditures
for stone drainage maintenance and operations; and attorney's fees and costs. While staff
acknowledges the requirements of the Salinas case, discussed above, we disagree with Mr.
Moynihan's contention that no storm water related charges may be treated as legitimate costs of
•
1
the wastewater system under Salinas. ;Staff also believes Mr. Moynihan is barred from
challenging prior wastewater rate setting actions.
This agenda item addresses, in part, the Council's priority to evaluate options for funding storm
water maintenance costs.
DISCUSSION
The City has historically charged storm water-related costs to the Wastewater budget, relying on
the rationale articulated in the HDR study. Rate setting documents in 2000 and 2006 specifically
discussed these charges. Ratepayerssdid not protest proposed rate adjustments in sufficient
numbers to disapprove the rates approved by City Councils in those years. Staff has not
researched rate adjustments prior to 2000 to determine whether these charges were incorporated
in earlier rate settings, although it is highly-likely that they were. Documents in 2000 and 2006
were available for review by ratepayers:. As previously indicated, and discussed in the HDR
study, assessing charges of this type to Wastewater funds is an equitable means of charging
residents for the cost of storm water activities:
"...HDR has concluded that the City's [then] current funding of its storm water program
through sewer rates can be justified based on the benefits to customers. These benefits
• include: Reduced sewage collection and treatment costs; Protection of surface water and
groundwater; Flood Control; Broader environmental benefits, such as protection and
enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat"I. HDR further concluded:
"Regarding,concerns about:fairness, equity, and subsidies under California's Proposition
218 regulations, HDR believes the sewer rate revenue used to pay for a portion of storm
water activities is an appropriate use of sewer funds, does not create subsidies, and is a
fair and equitable means of charging City residents for storm water program costs. This
position is based on a review of industry practices; methodologies used by similar
sewer/storm water utilities, and basic cost of service principles."2
It appears that, consistent with the Salinas case, the costs of activities directly necessary to
support the operation of the wastewater system, whether or not they are also related to storm
water maintenance, are allowable expenses for rate setting purposes. As noted above, such storm
water related wastewater costs were estimated in 2011 at approximately$290,000. As indicated,
stonn water related;costs totaling $582,000 that are not directly necessary for operation of the
wastewater:system were:excluded from rate setting calculations for rates effective January 2012
based on<a.staff analysis of budgeted costs conducted at that time. All storm water maintenance
related costs, those directly necessary for operation of wastewater system and those that are
not, are now assigned to a separate budget which resides in a separate Storm Water Utility fund.
Since November 2011 staff has continued to analyze storm water costs; to:
HDR, City of Petaluma Stomiwater Program Funding Evaluation, April 21011. Page 1.
2 Ibid.
0
• assure that all activities charged to the wastewater budget are allowable under the Salinas
case;
• evaluate the accuracy of the amounts budgeted when compared to actual expenditure
experience;
• establish which activities are ongoing and which may no longer be necessary; and
• identify other funds which may be more appropriately charged for the service provided.
Attachment 2 summarizes the results of that analysis and is the basis for cost estimates for
ongoing services now resident in the Storm Water Utility fund.
Staff found some activities had previously been budgeted to include contingencies. These items
are reduced to exclude contingencies, based on trend analysis and anticipated need. Other
activities were irregular or,one-time, rather than ongoing, and were removed if appropriations for
those activities are not currently necessary. Justification also exists for charging a portion of
storm water related activities to other funds. It is proposed that these items be charged to those
funds, through transfers that-will support,the new storm water fund. Ultimately, there remains a
group of activities that must be conducted on a continuing basis, for which no dedicated funding
source now exists. In some jurisdictions these items would be funded through benefit
assessments. In others, they are charged to the General Fund. Funding these activities today
represents a serious challenge. The General fund lacks capacity to absorb these costs and no
separate funding source, such as a Storm water utility, exists.
Based on the analysis summarized in Attachment 2, storm water-related activities for 2012/13
total approximately$1.06 million. Of that, approximately$299,500 is directly attributed to the
Wastewater fund for activities such as inspection, cleaning and repair of drop inlets and storm
tubes; utility inventory mapping; and minor amounts for education/development, and intra-
governmental charges and administrative-overhead. That amount is slightly more than the
$290,000 used in rate setting calculations.
Another $265,300 is attributable to other funds for the benefits provided to them. This
represents costs that should be charged to CIP projects for project management, environmental
and planning services, and compliance with regulatory permits. It also includes costs associated
with development review that should be charged to applicants on a cost-recovery basis, and costs
to other funds based on benefits derived by those funds. The remaining amount, approximately
$499,000 covers an array of necessary services, activities, and staff costs including cost of
oversight agency permits, equipment rentals, vehicle maintenance, and consulting services for
report preparation, to name a few. As previously indicated, these costs might typically be
charged to the General Fund or supported by fees or charges such as those related to a-stonn
water utility. Establishing a storm water utility was discussed during the.HDR presentation to
Council in May 2011. It was also discussed during the Council's 2012 and 2013 goal setting
session, where the Council decided to defer pursuing that option at the present time. Such an
action would require voter approval and&the next opportunity to place-the matter on the ballot for
a general election is-November 2014.
The cost of all subject activities are now budgeted in a separate Storm Water Utility fund and
supported by transfers. Transfers include water and wastewater funds, CIP projects, and cost
recovery associated with development applications. The concept of a loan, to.cover those costs
that would otherwise be funded through dedicated storm water charges or the General Fund, until
another revenue source can'be,secured, has been discussed by the Council., The budget for
2012/13 was approved by the Council on-June 4, 2012 and includes the new fund, the
aforementioned transfers, and a transfer from the Storm Drainage Impact Fee fund.. This latter
transfer represents a loan from the:inipact fee fund, needed to support the balance of costs in
2012/13. It is recommended that transfers from this source continue through December 31,
2014. This will enable the Council to pursue-the'pro'cess of establishing a storm water utility,
including placing the matter on the November 2014 ballot, and/or to consider alternative funding
sources that might fill the same need in the meanwhile.
The City's interfund loan policy authorizes the City Manager to approve long-term interfund loans (12
months or more only when authorized by City Council Resolution). This has been done in the past with a
Promissory Note. The policy provides that loans should include interest'charges and shall have a
maximum term of 15 years.
It appears that, based on.an<annual.loan of$499,000 for the period from January 1, 2012 through
December 31, 2014, adjusted for inflation at an annual rate of three percent,a maximum loan of
approximately $1.6 million is needed from the Storm Drainage Impact fee fund. Pursuant to the
Interfund loan policy, interest equal to the rate earned by the City Treasurer's Investment
Portfolio (variable %)per annum will be charged for interfund loans.-Currently, the interest rate
earned on the investment portfolio averages approximately six tenths of one percent (.6%). The
ten year average for investment earnings on the portfolio is approximately 2.37%.
It is proposed, then, thatdhe City Council authorize a loan from the Storm Drainage Impact Fee
fund, to the Stormwater Fund, inan.amount not-to-exceed $1.6 million for the period from
January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014. It is proposed'that interest accrue during this
period,but that debt service payments,.be deferred until 2015. This recognizes the lack of funds
currently available to service this debt. 'Interest would be calculated on,a variable rate,per
annum,using the average rate earned by the City Treasurer's Investment Portfolio. Using the ten
year average as the basis for estimatingrthe cost of this proposal, with interest accruing in 2012,
2013, and 2014, and a 12-year payback'period to follow. Loan repayments would be,
approximately$151,300 per year; and would be serviced from either the general fund, or from a
dedicated storm water revenue;source. These costs are currently taken into account in the
General Fund's long term financial forecast; beginning in FY 2014/1.5.
As this mechanism is necessary to maintain storm water operations'during the next two years, a
promissory note and enabling resolution are attached for your consideration'and approval.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The recommended action will establish an obligation of approximately$1.6 million, for principle
loaned during the period from January 1, 2012 through December 31,2014 from the Storm
Drainage Impact Fee fund(fund number 2155) to the Storm Water Utility fund (fund number
6800). Transfers will be made from time to time, based on actual expenses incurred but shall not
exceed $1.6 million in the aggregate'for that period, unless a higher amount is subsequently
approved by the City Council. Interest rates are at an all time low, and the City Treasury is
I0
currently earning approximately six tenths of one percent (.6%) on its investment portfolio.
Using the ten-year average rate;of 2:37 percent, which would be more appropriate looking fifteen
years into the future, and with a 12-year pay-back period, annual loan payments, starting after
January 1,2015 would be approximately$151,300. An amount sufficient to make debt service
payments is programmed in the General.fund:percent financial forecast beginning in 2014/15,
but would need to be incorporated into the budget in each year payments will be necessary.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Stormwater Costs
•
ATTACHMENT 1
•
Resolution No. 2012 - N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FROM THE STORM DRAINAGE IMPACT
FEE FUND TO THE STORM WATER UTILITY FUND
WHEREAS, Storm water maintenance and operations,costs have historically been
budgeted in the Wastewater Utility Fund; and
WHEREAS, a portion of.the activities associated with those costs do not directly support
the operations of the Wastewater system; and
.WHEREAS, those costs Were removed from the Wastewater Utility fund and excluded
from expenses included in rate setting adjustments that were approved by the City"Council in
November 2011 and became,effective on January 1, 2012; and
'WHEREAS, Staff has'conducted a thorough analysis of all.activities associated with
storm water maintenance and operation`s,and has identified core activities which are required to
maintain the storm water system and protect the community and environment from the adverse
effects of unmanaged storrmwater runoff; and
WHEREAS, those activities are estimated to cost approximately$500,000 per year, and
are now budgeted in a separate StorM Water Utility fund for which there is not yet a dedicated
funding source; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City Council to-investigate options for establishing
a dedicated.fending source for the aforementioned activities, and such investigation is
anticipated to be completed by January 2015; and
WHEREAS, in the meanwhile, due-to financial hardship, it is not possible to support the
aforementioned activities,through.a subsidy from the General Fund such that another funding
source is required in the near-term; and
WHEREAS, funds are available in the Storm Drainage Impact Fee Fund that can be used
to support these costs for the period from January 1, 2012 though December 31, 2015; and
WHEREAS, it is the policy ofthe City Council that-interfund loans of greater than one
year may be approved, provided-that such.loans are repaid in fifteen (15) years or less, and that
interest should be paid on such loans;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Petaluma
hereby approves an interfund loan from the Storm Drainage Impact Fee fund to the Storm Water
Utility fund.
1. The interfund loan shall be formalized pursuant to a Promissory Note, attached and
incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
2. The loan amount shall not exceed $1,600,000 unless authorized by the City Council.
3. Amounts shall be transferred as the City Manager directs from time to time, not to exceed
the total sum of$1,600,000. These-funds-shall provide for core storm water maintenance
and operations activities for the period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014.
4. Interest shall be charged at the rate of that earned by the City Treasurer's Investment
Portfolio (variable %) per annum, and shall accrue quarterly, effective January 1, 2012.
5. The first loan payment, including accrued interest, shall be made on June 30, 2015 and
annually thereafter, in twelve equal annual installments, such that the entire principal and
interest shall be repaid on or before June 30, 2026, unless-extended by the City Council.
6. Payment of the full amount of principal advanced and any interest otherwise unpaid shall
be made no later than June 30, 2026, unless extended by the City Council.
7. The City Manager and Finance Director/City Treasurer are hereby authorized to execute
the Promissory Note and any associated documents that maybe subsequently needed.
1"5
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF PETALUMA, CA
PROMISSORY NOTE FOR INTERFUND LOAN
This Promissory Note (Note) for an Interfund Loan-is executed as of June 19, 2012, by the City
Treasurer of the City of Petaluma, acting as custodian of the funds of the City of Petaluma, and
the City Manager of the City, acting for the City Council in implementation of the directives and
authority of Resolution.Number'2012- , adopted on June 1/8, 2012.
1. The Treasurer shall transfer to the Storm Water Utility Fund, from the Storm Drainage
Impact Fee Fund, the expenditures necessary and incurred during each fiscal year for
core storm water'maintenance'and operations activities for the period from January 1,
2012 through December 31, 2014, not to exceed the total principal sum of One Million
Six Hundred Thousand dollars ($1,600,000).
2. Interest shall accrue quarterly, without compounding, beginning January 1, 2012, on all
principal sums advanced at the same rate as for the City Treasurer's Investment
Portfolio (variable %) per annum, based on the previous year earnings of said portfolio.
3. Payment of principal and all interest accrued as of January 1, 2015 shall begin on June
30, 2015 and shall bemade in twelve equal annual installments such that the entire
principal and accnied'interest shall be fully repaid on or before June 30, 2026.
4. The full sum of the Interfund Loan including all principal advanced and interest
otherwise remaining unpaid pursuant to this Promissory Note is due and payable no
later than June 30, 2026. The full sum or any partial payment of principal may be
prepaid with no penalty.
5. This Note is subject to the terms of City of Petaluma Resolution Number 2012-
Executed as of the date first above written
CITY OF PETALUMA, CA
By:.
City Treasurer
By:
City Manager
Approved as to form this 'day of , 20 .
By:
City Attorney
• ATTACHMENT 2
6/is/rz
,rte F2jYL U
4 i / N
E
`o
G
X
ni
Y.
rn
0
o'
C r i0 T G:. n Y C O2 7 O
£ a 2 v :S '3 b .o
m ° o m a' 'a - c. 0 E u° 0 v
n c
,c c o 5 u ° ° = d;n 3 -.21 CI
m L E 'v 0 E E E o .c to «o v co_ of _ c,a 10 g q c S
d n a a c a -5 '" w t
. v °o « v v : o w8 5 E w n =.8' v.�° b 8 3 a « c v.co o N E m
E o > ° = o c LL E c o° '° a° 3 a a a a c
>, _ c o o o c a ° off E 3 ° 6 A•i a`o 3 '03'.c m #.o = o v ¢ v rc 3 0 E
a Co m
• a
.. a I o a s o ` o c n ° c ° x - o « o n v to
z 3 r o o m o.o m v v a o 7 'o o ': ,N
£ m o' r o
r5= c v° Env o c a o o o_ N v'.o = a
I' n o.. o °'__ a o i
0 2 m w �: E o v i E o 0 m o.. >o 9 > o E
d 3 u co o , .- 0 o f E o m ° u a £
av v :, _ d c5 o °
c 2 c a
l9- u° LP U U 'w 3 1 F cE "O E a :' t9 L9 . 0 ¢ m° 0 m° 0 to
Nw tJ w u ow al
all
ul
an¢aag0 lueulwo0 eu o r a d d
un- . o. L i
-''a
E
o n ' ° c°' N LL 0
m o v ° -
o v c a. o - ° z' a c V .c.o
a.z° E G. 3 ` o. o o m o. ° _o'o 3 u.
E >O O ¢ H m c o 0 o.,V 0.9 0
o c v.o' V c ' l r °c° E °
- ° o °' = v c' na a c° 86' c ma v m
>. � o o.?. o c. 0 o 3 w - a "). E ° E.o L i
Q E c o a c � v. m c:°'- '° 2:
o U .Q N;;� a v m'« 6.0. C m e a 0 N
z ° c .? v 3 .g c i m q _ re'l q 3' `u c
ra
13 .91 = t 3 0.c v 3 'v 0 o. 2 3 co cc OD rirk
v = c u c 0 c a.r< - E
E 3 0 Y o a r1 2 m a. a A C v v No A c
Y. ° c - w .c o. °O E i- c m �co
n vo. 3` E 'o• o o o c re c u g ° a N .,70 E. c w o m v n m a O'..� 'H' in _ o ° 0 0 0 °
Lv v Erato,
E _ ti .6' .°_o > C :'oo v '.0 3 0 40g8 0
v' W ° 'o Su.-o 'O w z .n ° 8 «° 3 z ¢ ', o a ¢>.« 3 r 3 o u
8 3
luawaYeuei r
µ .
lalemw01s $
luawaBeueW g X
lalamwI0IS %
0 0
141
a0 $ .r• e , - 7 ..
•
Jayl0 % g
.
o 0 g g
JalemalseM$
lalemalseM % •
•
° § ! S
c c
to
Ey .- _ — v r
co 10 E To
,a w a. o Lztaj
c L '2 v .0 -c 3 Y u°
a LLa`'J G _ v J'c ° it c E >..o £
o E oo >: v ¢ ° ',mot° T E
c` E a o E o < E,. Ly E a E o d _•m
E w 0` E o 'E 2 3 F r:° 3 v
TD o ggseA/uoilla5 < .. N' m e m .'o'.~ n m
16
CI w m v. a a w rr ."+ o t0 Section/Task#
3 ° N a a. v .. o a £ (n .0 o 3 o.. o
.0 '5 a o o - — 'm 3 _ _ c' _ 3
.. - 3 o H a N a.a3 n w 'a !a 3' v
°o''
u o m ca �_. m*n�a. 3 m a a 0. N o . = ma Task _-�
3 n o °o
o . ;'». a ro J o om 0 _ \n .
°
c F:c Fc. c' n 30 T T a ,, 3a
L n ,.2 n - -o ',.a
u u a ,N a
,n ,n u �n H ,n v •n
o t o
v, m g .
X .% Wastewater
a� 5 Wastewater
3 3 %•Other
5 Other
-
c
v
•
c,
- 8 8 " '%:Stormwater,
; d, 9 5 as• 8 .. Management
5 Stormwa ter
it, in r Management I p
.l
-!
o o,^k m'a . o 5 i o on o, m 0 o o n s a .g. F 5 m
0 �.o o ,d ° o m c a N
3 s'"3 0 3 = 3 x n, c n, c g,av i a 2 �,a �'
6 'n-° 3 'ac- m n N o 2 p- d o' a q
n' - _ v -c '° £ 3 o £ 3 C m.^ 9 . ° 9. O c: >
0
£ ° o. s m 2 y 12-c• 3 .2' y,5o o c ° u _ _ x,ui n o
aa a. n` oo o m 'o _ ▪ _ v 5 - o
c ! n o`£ta 3 F s o 2 £ _o 3. `v_w o 0 2 .- $ o o.
£ 1. ' LT 04 o.. o o t3 F\ 3c a o £ $ n o 33 N
0
o a z: X n > a o £ a ° o -
ti o � � � _ °? o� v o o
o _ _ _-.0, a c o.q . 0. 0 co
3 < 3 u in
3 63 a E.
n 3 o 0 3 .0 � 2 � o. 3 ,,r o p, o,' o ..v o 3 a J 2 ° ° 4 0 ^ N
o° _to ° n 3.w j. v ? o o': o o 5
a ° o - _ o
d O 0
c o, a o
9 c A 1n
- n' n - 9 �:, Dominant Directive
x n
a ? -. o` o » F
-- m. -• 0 W � a a R m 3 » F`R o o o o y F d £ n a _ .o
a o - o n n » a v ' m x 3 - o 5. +' i� M 8
0 3 I.-
^ ? a c
H A. a R °° m z n n 3.. .. .2 F 2 £ a 2 » o.
3 M m o »o,'N. zw a N. n o a
ki 3. s 3' 3 3.a ' n c 3 'a
v - 0 w a o = D 3 a: a'.o ..g
m . n,
` 7 0-9 + 3 -0. 0 m o 50 . j j w -
(l a m jj 17. 7 m m w o .o ' o v ¢ ° » o ,£' N m
m m 3 m B o 2, o
2 -0 co a
0
•
°
x
o
•
0
F .
r.
m
n
0
0
N
a
O
rq
,a
•
,
3
E
0
. w
. x
• DT
rn
N
O
a = m ' m n o v .c 2.
E ,y n V,3LL v a t $ 2ad 3. 8 Em a d
> r
3E Iv ..m o
w
.c
u
a 3 E'z, 3 • 8 A $q o — 0 v _
°
c a ' a:z o m z E,. Q E a — ? g `w✓ o. a . o_ .2 E c • co ° E t¢ v o 5 P.
• E z ° q' c _ 9 E 2 o E c « a c z - a 2 z a m 3 rt,a A E
a ° ' a — c a
m . m u w E Q r E co c..„) aU
,E a v v• L E ° u c „cc E m o
Z a m E V � 3 " n s a p ' ' "
— as
m m v E m e a7 • • ° v2o c r ° a n 'a v a . .- a c
,E m
_ ro c a E a nE a E �
- E e E >-z z E a v z.E .O ol Li a s
'- a E o,z o
m ^ ti•cc de t g E E. > 5 r• d c E „
0 c c a • o c • '° o° 3 Y0 o 3 >m „ a Va E v A ` z
• o o r A v � . ° .. o .° V a
. 6 3 a c ° a ° E o:m o E « m u o ft E- E n c ° U a E .5,2-, E E E c ° :E ° o- « A �v 0 z q a 305, _ro v e .E E E {a E m o `
o z u 0 _ ma w . 2wuvn m w 2 u n Vo a. w E a
aA!pai!0 luewwou a
0 cc 0 c' s 0 CO v
in En
C
a
n o 0 o co o co
E
Ev3 c E.o ° o v a a o
o
n c-.'a u
. o t a 3 e n a _ a a .
3• 3 m p o c a
a t L 0
c.
3 C A L E
to `a --.tl
c
c a E o E. °i o. m H
" a L 3
o t
° g.
-,
O o Eam O o uv o o a
E a „ a E o a w z o « a
Is 5 o '„ s po n 0 m a c
a o E E 'c -c m co
n a a A a °° v 5
a o 2- v c = E v' _ _ — „ A
c o o En .E .0 Y m
a re t v i a "'0. l a E a a i i
8
)uawa1eueW 'I m ti H .i. N .. .�
salemwm15 5
luawaBeueW o®tie o X ^
w X X o
.apem .,ol5 % "
I:
1 tn
I::Il • _ .
Aa400 S
.iayl0 % $MIME
ialematseM 5
•
ialemalseM % 6 II. .
°°
c o
1 5 - .111 a o ° E E. E
«
a c a E':- ° o 2 0 ° fl G — .
0
a o _ 6 N .c` •i.
: ¢ E v o m a a u « E n3 a Eq « : ' IttH 3 _ I
> — E F o E s � a w
p oui/uopas n n n N n z r _N N N m II «
"
i‘.1
•
°o e m w
v. a w n'i .w gi Section/Task p
< A n.. o - .._ ' '^ 0 3 3 0 a o' o f a v, ` F c b 3,
o 'o 'n ° v .poi o ¢a R o n _o ro u o oi L A N
o.
3 3 3 n F^ 13°o w;
v m c v °m 3 11' 3
d ▪ b '. 0 2 p 3 a f0'� _ .» 3 =. c Task mil'a.
C 9 J n = _ - <
i - - a. 3 •' a 3 & b .
D-
...4 n 0
rt
-r.m v� -i m Nin in v� c 33 ; 88 ; ti ( HHjI
la
o ° - 2 N,.o 0. o2:
nJa 9
0
® N H rn v yO g
S .. 2
- -•
%'Wastewater
R $Wastewater^
°... ; II %' other
'.N $ Other
c
c
Management
us
$`Srormwater
Management
. I.
•
8 p �,
£ m q o 0 o a n v °n o ___
0a � » y c m N: N
b 'r a < S .� o 3 o v " m o
b ° ° n 3 = s 0. v o �.3 a !�. cn ?-
Si N
a r.
-: 3 :° a ?-.o � v° o o °• ism° m n r
n N 3. c 3 3
b n INa 6 - A n b A ' A a..p. -2 W
b .� F a 2 < 'TA r'. a » 2 o'.» a 3 P' u.el
m as o o ° _.p o. F F ..._c m °-:�' a ° i,
w o m 3 r,°», c v c E m ,- a , ° N
N ° ' ,a,lO- A:� 3. » v �: °• °°. n ° `Leg.' 3 ry -"' 2
Rai 0 .g. g', .2 £ .2 3;.� .5 w' .
c G - 9 ' °
•
_ a — E
n a C ° » ' n a
o a P a:
v o o F ± o _ o
n 2 .m m' o.„' .r" Ra 3i. _ a o a
0 0 2 nr.a-. - .T 2 �. 3. v
3 w w 2.� _ ° a4 » o 2
3 N
ro 0 b o a3 - ° ..
a a - n D
aG1. „ O m
N
a
a n m c-) % a . - Dominant Directive
m m n
ryi 2 0 ., coo n. p 3 m m x' nG V„4l o Ll z v n 2 z-
w ' 3 = a °v w a o o 3 ' o ' o 0 ; cu ,
3 3 °' ^- o ° n o 3 n N o a s a a
o
a 3 ae o o.'c. 3 o J 2 3 o m — o w° m °° $
3:- '�. 0 3. m 3 3::». m
' 3( ° 3 3 a 31v ° o. 3 3 c
o.v a s .°^a o 0 0 3 w
- b n
z h n 9 z- w - w c
.2 o ' a m o m ° - m
3 0 3 A M., 3 0 3 ' °
o T o J b 3 a
° ..3 z o 3 z i° _ a o 3 m
_„ o o o m N. o. 9_,I 'o a' a. v a
F D C La - tp n E,.».I S o°o m
F o H o „ r, -5. vo ' a a ro For v _ ?
o n 2 '3 <_ n 3 00a £ 3. a_
P A S X _
o .
w
F
m
G1
N
0
•
m
n
•
• a
0
0
NJ
•
•
N
0
' «
. U
. . • 3
E'
`o.
• i
0l •
o N °y w nmi °i. w. Section/Task H
w' m a 3 - a
.. ° 3 v G K 3 a Q ° Q
E °.,:� ° o 3'•y w,= Task
° m cc a'n N 3
ne _ G a m - .
is
n 3 3
n
FL • G
9
I O
0
•
0 0
Et X° _%Wastewater
$Wastewater
•
t 151 g
— — % Other
r
$ Other
Eg co
c_ c c .
V v—
o B'� - . o o 0 0 - ;%'Stormwater
El v X' X K' X X. Management
•
$ Stormwater
LO' ^• Management ii 1.
g
ow a m -o x 3 m •n n o � x ° - -
g.m.
- LIE = Wag ° n o ° r F
>
'
. ° °. b' d T c m a D3 42
u r c 3
. n
E '',51 o ,2, uo:• d o• a m r,
m° q.v °, fi ::.D ,n.
• 3 0 ' 3
R 3 :3 3 n
.o o - n. �' n _ .°2. 5
v o. ow . i n:. 3. ' CI
2 w: ^3' _ _
. i a - . a .
3 0 n o • ?
3 3 v v•
F b 2, i m', 3..:< o
n g o n
w ° 0 2
.n
3 i - n. o
c c c n'v � T m n n w — — -
m. n n O.. a 9'n @ 0. o g n n p' 3 ' n o n
0. m
D O n, co o a •„ ti a n ° o n Ao o p. 3 n Dominant Directive
tr. n.
^ 6 D• o: o' m -3 T ° o: ro ai b n o D o rD 3 w a �:
3 g, m I� m _ = m 3. v m o n n 'n,
a-� o':< m b y:° n'r v o m o °r o N c_
o n ° v•� m-o' - c ,°•' � ,m. n �' yabo p. £ 0 3 3. a n
° 3 o n' a o o d an a s ss a v 3 a a
0.
EL a n De C C.' b 3 C`^' N J 3b d. d• 3 O n O 2 A '•
T C
'A v o, b it n b m 2 3 :y m o 3. re i c ��l re n
w :'o.w m N y..c' n '� D '� 'w b. 3 n b
ch 7,7
D ° a � c rn » -2 N c A
Z m o' o• g -3 2 3 3 3 3: v Q
o b b: m 3' aD.. D o G - 3.cm
O. O. w
' - 2 a a
rir b. b a
.m n
o ,. 3 n -
o:
2 °`
o
E .
0
w
. x • •
N
•
X'
al
ci
ta
O •
3 .
m •
n
o -
G •
N..
N
•