The St. Helena City Council voted unanimously last week to rescind their Jan. 13 decision to impose mandatory water restrictions — but it may be just a delay.

City Councilmember Catarina Sanchez asked the council to reconsider the decision so the public would have a chance to comment on it and understand how it affects them.

Two weeks ago the council voted 3-2 — with Sanchez in the majority and Councilmembers Bonnie Schoch and Sharon Crull in dissent — to enter Phase II water restrictions, even though their agenda only mentioned the implementation of strictly voluntary conservation measures.

Phase II was scheduled to take effect today, with a display ad appearing in the St. Helena Star. But with the council voting to rescind their Jan. 13 action, the ad was canceled.

“Some urgency exists to begin these measures, but I do not believe that the situation is so severe or dire that we can dispense with adequate public notice required under the Brown Act,” Sanchez wrote in a letter to the St. Helena Star. “Our citizens deserve proper advance notice to effectively participate in the decision-making process. Better decisions will result when our citizens are fully informed.”

Her concerns are similar to those raised by Schoch and Crull when the council made its original decision.

On Tuesday Sanchez said the city should reconsider Phase II at a future meeting and publish bilingual flyers explaining water conservation, which would help “begin conservation at the homeowner level.”

Britton adamant

Mayor Del Britton fought hard to keep the water restrictions on track, at one point even preventing Councilmember Eric Sklar from putting forward a motion. But he eventually went along with the rest of the council in adopting a motion by Sklar to rescind the council’s Jan. 13 decision and discuss Phase II on Feb. 10, the council’s next regularly scheduled meeting.

Before that vote, Britton argued that rescinding the decision — which wasn’t mentioned on Tuesday’s agenda — would raise the same concerns about public notification that made the Jan. 13 decision so controversial.

“Don’t we owe the public the right to come and discuss whether we should rescind it or not?” he asked, adding that “most of the people I’ve talked to are glad we did it.”

Crull proposed scheduling a special meeting to rescind Phase II. But City Attorney Amy Valukevich said it was legal for the council to rescind a decision at the first meeting after the decision was made, regardless of whether it’s on the agenda.

Sklar said councilmembers “got ourselves into a corner” with their Jan. 13 decision. With Phase II scheduled to take effect Thursday, “we can’t get out of the bind without rescinding it,” he said.

Phase I restrictions, which the city has been under for since mid-2008, are purely voluntary. Going to Phase II would impose mandatory restrictions: customers with even-numbered addresses could only water their lawns, plants and vineyards on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Odd-numbered addresses could water only on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Watering would be prohibited on Mondays.

Brown Act violation

Sklar said he wanted to rescind the decision “to serve the purpose of public notification and openness which is a philosophy of the city,” not because the council had violated the state’s open meeting law, the Brown Act. Valukevich also reiterated the opinion she’d given on Jan. 13 that the council had not violated the law.

But according to Jim Ewert, an attorney for the California Newspaper Publishers Association who specializes in open government issues, the council did violate the Brown Act on Jan. 13 by taking an action that wasn’t listed on the agenda.

“If it’s not on the agenda and there are not circumstances under which the council has made a determination and voted on the necessity to take up an item that’s not on the agenda, they can’t talk about it,” said Ewert.

If a majority of the council votes that an emergency exists, they may take action that’s not on the agenda, said Ewert. But the council didn’t do that on Jan. 13.

This is the second time in a matter of weeks that the city has rescinded actions due to Brown Act issues. A Napa County District Attorney investigation concluded last month with a finding that the city violated the Brown Act by not identifying property involved in a closed session.

Rationing likely

According to the city’s Municipal Code, Phase II is triggered when Bell Canyon reservoir falls below specified levels at certain times of the year. It can also be put into effect if the conditions that trigger Phase III — Bell Canyon falling below 25 percent of its full capacity — “appear imminent.”

The council majority used the second provision to justify entering Phase II.

In spite of the procedural tug of war, there’s general agreement on the council that conservation will be crucial in St. Helena this year.

According to acting Director of Public Works John Ferons, if current weather patterns continue the reservoir will hit 25 percent around April 30.

As of Monday Bell Canyon reservoir, the city’s primary water source, was at just 38.7 percent of its full capacity. On Jan. 28, 2008, the reservoir had just been topped by heavy rainfall.

St. Helena has received 8.6 inches of rain this season, down from 22.3 inches at this time last year.