$100,000 unlikely to go to swim center

<p>Although members of the community group that received a controversial $100,000 payment from the developers of the Target shopping center have not yet decided what the money will go toward, there is at least one cause that may be ruled out, according to recent e-mails between city leaders.</p><p>Of the many suggested destinations for the money, one popular possibility has been a donation to the swim center adjacent to the shopping center site. But leaders of the Petaluma Community Coalition are hesitant to donate to the swim center because its board of directors supported the Regency project, which the PCC opposed.</p><p>Regency agreed to pay for modernization and improvements to the swim center as part of the project approval. However, an aging boiler and heating system still need to be replaced. Some people, including Councilmember Tiffany Renée, have appealed to the leaders of the PCC to donate part of the payment they received from Regency to the swim center. But Renée said in a recent e-mail to a member of the city's Aquatics Advisory Board and obtained by the Argus-Courier that leaders of the PCC are reluctant to do so because of the aquatics board's support of the Regency project.</p><p>Regency, the city and the PCC reached a settlement last month that cleared the shopping center of legal roadblocks posed by two lawsuits. Regency had sued the city in January over its claims of approval delays, and the PCC sued in March over impacts it claimed were not addressed in the environmental review process. In the settlement agreement, Regency agreed to pay for the city's and the PCC's legal fees, but also made a lump sum $100,000 payment to the group. </p><p>Renée's e-mail to Carol Eber of the swim center's aquatics board revealed that part of the $100,000 payment may not go to the swim center, as she had suggested. Renée said that “the standing opinion (of the aquatics board) seems to be somewhat of a deterrent for PCC donating money to the swim center.”</p><p>PCC co-founder Matt Maguire said that he has no comment on the payment or the aquatics board and could not confirm the PCC's reluctance to direct the money to the swim center.</p><p>Eber said that the aquatics board decided to support the project only after certain improvements were made.</p><p>“They came to the table and we negotiated and we got some concessions,” said Eber. “The aquatics board felt that even though it wasn't everything we wanted, it was good enough.”</p><p>Although Johnson Drive — which will be built close to the swim center and could expose swimmers to vehicle exhaust — was not reconfigured, as the PCC had tried to negotiate, the board was happy with other improvements and decided to support the project.</p><p>In addition to informing Eber about the unlikelihood of the payment money going to the swim center, Renée herself brought up questions about the aquatics board's influence on the project.</p><p>“I don't understand how a small advisory committee has weighed in so heavily,” she said.</p><p>Renée said she is seeking information on whether the aquatics board should be considered a government body subject to the Brown Act, a state law which requires public access to government decisions and meetings. She urged more public input into the aquatics board and worried about the power that the private board had in negotiating with Regency.</p><p>Eber said that the aquatics board has asked the city in the past about whether is it subject to the Brown Act. The city responded that the board is not an official city body and is free to form its own opinion, she said.</p><p>“The aquatics board has pressed to be involved from the beginning of the Regency project to make sure the plans worked with the aquatics community and the aquatics community's needs,” said Eber.</p><p>“If that's wrong, city staff hasn't said so,” she added.</p><p>(Contact Philip Riley at philip.riley@arguscourier.com)</p>