Brown Act violation charged in Sonoma’s water rate debate

Officials refute open-meeting-law violation; Petlock announces run for City Council. Plus Agenda for Jan. 17 council meeting.|

City Council Agenda, Jan. 17

The Sonoma City Council will meet on Wednesday this week, due to the public holiday on Monday, honoring Martin Luther King Jr.

Primary agenda items include:

• An extension of an interim Urgency Ordinance imposing a moratorium on wine tasting facilities in the Plaza Retail Overlay District;

• The first City Council Workshop on pricing and rate-setting policy options and strategies for the 2018 Water Rate Study;

• A review of the Mayor’s annual assignment of council members to various boards and committees

• Discussion and possible action regarding Mayor Madolyn Agrimonti’s requests to (1) Change the City of Sonoma’s Community Meeting Room to “Council Chambers” and (2) Change the title of Mayor Pro Tem to “Vice Mayor,” consistent with most other city councils in Sonoma County.

The public meeting gets underway way 6 p.m. in the Community Meeting Room, 117 First St. W., Sonoma.

For the third time in a year, accusations of Brown Act violations have been leveled at a Sonoma governing body.

This latest concerns a City Council meeting last June when the Council agreed in closed session to discontinue two controversial money transfers from the Water Fund to the General Fund in the current budget – and to additionally sequester three prior years of those transfers – decisions which could be viewed as “actions,” and thus illegal by the at-times exasperating law’s terms.

The Brown Act, in effect since 1953, guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies, especially where decisions are made and actions taken.

The Brown Act was invoked a year ago by Bill Boerum of the Sonoma Valley Hospital District board of directors when that board, according to Boerum, decided in closed session to sell its 2.8-acre “south lot.” Another Brown Act question came up again in April when the Planning Commission added an agenda item following a lengthy meeting, after the public had exited.

Formal Brown Act complaints are typically made to the county District Attorney’s office which, based on their merit, may recommend a public rehearing of the contested issue.

The changes to the city Water Fund budget policy came in response to multiple warnings from Sonoma resident Chris Petlock over the repeated and substantial transfers of money to the General Fund, transfers which were common until a 2015 San Juan Capistrano court decision essentially rendered them illegal in the eyes of the state. (That decision was also responsible for recent changes to the rate structure of the Valley of the Moon Water District, where Petlock also serves as financial officer.)

The subject of the closed session and its result were poorly communicated by the council, which delivered only an oral report following the June 3 closed session, prior to the start of the regular session and before the public television cameras began their broadcast. The minutes were only released six months later, with the Dec. 18 agenda.

In his complaint to the City Council, Petlock argued that the late release of the minutes and the subject of the closed session was “way outside the norm of previous performance” for a government that purports to value transparency.

“We have filed demands for Cure and Correction under the Brown Act and have begun pressuring the Sonoma County District Attorney to review the matter as well as,” wrote Petlock on a Facebook page for a group he formed called the City of Sonoma Taxpayers.

According to the Brown Act, reparations for any violation can be made by a public re-hearing of the matter in public discussion within 30 days of the reported violation (which is how the Sonoma Valley Healthcare District resolved Boerum’s complaint). That means a discussion of the water fund transfers and the accompanying sequestration might have been considered as an agenda item for the Wednesday, Jan. 17 City Council meeting.

However, on Jan. 10, Sonoma City Attorney Jeff Walter responded to the complaint with a letter to Petlock denying that any Brown Act violation took place, however conceding that the minutes as released “may suffer from a lack of precision.”

But, wrote Walter, “in truth and in fact” the Council didn’t in closed session make a decision to end the water fund transfers, it gave direction for staff to place the matter on a future Council agenda.

“And consistent with this direction, seven days later, on June 12, 2017, the Council conducted a properly noticed study session,” wrote Walter.

It was during that session, said Walter, that the council dealt with the annual budget and announced they would cease transferring funds from the Water Fund to the General Fund, and sequester three years of past transfers.

As did the Council members in their meetings, Walter gave a nod to Petlock’s persistence, noting that the cessation of transfers “is something that you have been advocating for many months… The City is doing what you urge and is using its limited resources to move forward to update its water rate study and associated rates.”

In response, Petlock told the Index-Tribune, “I am concerned that the City Attorney offers the opinion in his response that the minutes are ‘imprecise’ and further offers a different version of events than what is clearly written in the minutes without any proof.”

And, perhaps matching the City’s dismissive tone, Petlock counters, “It’s been six months, maybe everyone’s memory is getting hazy.”

If so, everyone better sharpen their focus soon. On Friday, Jan. 12, Petlock announced his intention be a candidate for the Sonoma City Council on the November ballot, when the seats of councilmembers Gary Edwards, Rachel Hundley and current-Mayor Madolyn Agrimonti are up for re-election.

Contact Christian at christian.kallen@sonomanews.com.

City Council Agenda, Jan. 17

The Sonoma City Council will meet on Wednesday this week, due to the public holiday on Monday, honoring Martin Luther King Jr.

Primary agenda items include:

• An extension of an interim Urgency Ordinance imposing a moratorium on wine tasting facilities in the Plaza Retail Overlay District;

• The first City Council Workshop on pricing and rate-setting policy options and strategies for the 2018 Water Rate Study;

• A review of the Mayor’s annual assignment of council members to various boards and committees

• Discussion and possible action regarding Mayor Madolyn Agrimonti’s requests to (1) Change the City of Sonoma’s Community Meeting Room to “Council Chambers” and (2) Change the title of Mayor Pro Tem to “Vice Mayor,” consistent with most other city councils in Sonoma County.

The public meeting gets underway way 6 p.m. in the Community Meeting Room, 117 First St. W., Sonoma.

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.