City Council

City Council — July 15, 2024

This was a regular meeting of the Petaluma City Council and Petaluma Community Development Successor Agency (PCDSA), called to order at 6:30 p.m. All seven councilmembers were present. The meeting covered routine administrative matters as well as several consequential items, including mid-year budget adjustments, a ballot argument for the Urban Growth Boundary renewal, and a formal position opposing a Sonoma County agricultural measure.

*Note: The official minutes list Councilmembers Healy and Pocekay as present; these names do not match the known council roster provided. They are reflected here as recorded in the official minutes.*

Consent Calendar (Items 1–5)

The Council approved five consent items without discussion: the minutes of the July 1, 2024 meeting; the tentative agenda for August 5 and a schedule of significant items through September; acceptance of the completed Payran-Madison Trenchless Sewer Main Replacement Project by K.J. Woods Construction, Inc.; an amendment to the Classification and Compensation Plan revising pay ranges for Unit 8 positions; and the second and final reading of an ordinance authorizing a lease amendment with Basin Street Properties for 2,789 square feet of additional office space for Fire Department administrative offices at 161 2nd Street.

Vote: Carried 7–0. Councilmember Nau abstained from Item 1 (meeting minutes) only.

Mid-Year Budget Appropriations (Item 6)

Finance Director Jessie Gooch presented proposed adjustments to the City's operating budget for fiscal year 2023–24 (July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024). The Council introduced three ordinances on first reading to change certain appropriations, along with a resolution authorizing the commitment and release of various General Fund reserves for specific uses. No public comment was received.

Vote: Carried 7–0. A second reading will be required before the ordinances take effect.

Councilmember Expense Reimbursement Policy (Item 7)

Assistant City Attorneys Dylan Brady and Jordan Green presented an updated expense reimbursement policy for City Councilmembers, required under California Government Code §§ 53232–53232.4 and AB 1234 training requirements. The new policy repeals and replaces a 2003 resolution. During discussion, staff agreed to add a memo section to the reimbursement form. No public comment was received.

Vote: Carried 7–0.

Committee Appointments (Item 8)

City Clerk Caitlin Corley presented the staff report, and Mayor McDonnell outlined the voting procedures for appointments. The Council appointed three individuals to fill vacancies on City advisory committees:

No public comment was received.

Vote: Carried 7–0.

Ballot Argument for Measure XX — Urban Growth Boundary Extension (Item 9)

Special Projects Manager Heather Hines and City Attorney Eric Danly presented a draft ballot argument in support of Measure XX, which will appear before Petaluma voters. The measure would replace the existing Petaluma Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), update references to specific potential expansion areas, modify criteria related to transit-oriented development, and extend the UGB through December 31, 2050.

The Council reviewed and refined the argument text: staff noted a typo in paragraph four that would be corrected, and the Council requested changing the word "every" to "any" in the argument language. The Council also decided that signatures would appear in order of Mayor, Vice Mayor, and then councilmembers alphabetically — with only the first five signatories printed in the voter guide. No public comment was received.

Vote: Carried 7–0.

Resolution Opposing Measure J (Item 10)

Assistant to the City Manager Patrick Carter and City Attorney Eric Danly presented a resolution affirming the City's support for farms, ranches, and agricultural operations in Petaluma and Sonoma County, and formally opposing Measure J, a Sonoma County ballot measure. Five members of the public spoke, including Kathy Tresch, Brent Newell, Oscar Erik Allen, Darren Racusen, and Paul Martin — though the minutes do not detail the content of their comments. Council discussion followed before the vote.

Vote: Carried 7–0.

Key Takeaways