Brent Parsons received two standing ovations as he ended 16 years as a Sutter Creek City Council member.

At Monday night's meeting in the Sutter Creek Auditorium, Parsons gave an emotional speech, naming many residents as mentors, advisors and friends. The joyful farewell was later dampened by a sewer rate increase.

The first ovation came after Parsons was given a formal send-off and official plaque by his longtime colleague on the council, Tim Murphy. A second award, from Sen. Dave Cox's office, was presented by Mayor Gary Wooten. "I've learned a lot from Brent," Wooten said. "He may ramble on, but it always made sense."

"I'm trying to save my tears for the sewer rate hearing later," Parsons quipped. He paid homage to his kids, "who don't remember their dad as a non-councilman." As he ended his speech, the audience rose to its feet once again in a final show of gratitude.

Moments later, Parsons' successor, Sandy Anderson, was sworn into office by City Clerk Judy Allen. "The plan," said Wooten, "is to put her right to work."

Well, not quite that fast. First, the council took a few moments to express its appreciation to Toni Linde for her work on last week's Parade of Lights, which drew twice as many dazzled onlookers as last year.

Monday night's ultimate focus was on sewer rates, however, as Parsons had mentioned. The cash-strapped city of Sutter Creek recently announced that the sewer rates would have to be raised substantially to wastewater customers in the city, as well as in Martell and Amador City, which pump effluent to the Sutter Creek wastewater plant.

The proposed increase would raise the rates a combined 39 percent by July 2010, from $50.05 to $60.57 in January, then to $66.27 in July 2009, and to $72.57 in July 2010.

The scheduled public hearing was prefaced by an hour-long explanation by City Manager Rob Duke of the historical and technical aspects of the present situation. Duke spoke of his arrival in Sutter Creek, where he was instantly embroiled in the regulatory actions that were driving the city to begin an extensive - and expensive - period of corrective measures.

The upshot of Duke's presentation was that the city was calling upon its residents to accept hefty increases in order to comply with state regulations, as well as prepare for an uncertain future that may or may not include cash infusions from development.

This complex issue was driven off course by some tiny numbers, labeled "effective rate," which had been inserted in the rate study done by the Reed Group, Inc. Chief consultant Bob Reed said that he thought the numbers would be helpful. By the slip of a keyboard entry, the effective rates on the flier announcing the public hearing didn't match those in the Wastewater Rate Review.

Sutter Creek resident Mimi Arata said that she had spent many hours working with the numbers, leading her to a frightening conclusion. "The effective rates on the flier," Arata said, "will result in a $2 million deficit in two years."

"I find it very gratifying that people read my reports," Reed replied. "The flat rates are correct. I cannot say whether the effective rates are correct or not, but they don't affect the flat rates. I apologize for inserting the effective rates. I thought that it would help."

All of this led to discussion of the legality of the evening's public hearing, which was noticed to the public by fliers with questionable numbers on them.

City Attorney Harriet Steiner studied the flier and gave her opinion that the notice for the meeting was still adequate, in that the rates that were on the agenda for possible approval were the flat rates, which were correct.

A number of residents came to the podium to question the city's arrangements with Amador City and the Amador Water Agency, which operates the Martell wastewater system under contract with the city. Answers to inquiries about relative rates were lost in discussion of retail versus wholesale, collection versus treatment and the impenetrable fog around the effective rates.

Mike Kirkley, a city planning commissioner and resident, presented a four-page document to the council, outlining his concerns about the city's proposed sewer rate increase. Kirkley noted that the public works personnel allocated to the sewer fund had doubled over previous years and that the city manager on patrol in his capacity as police chief is being charged to the sewer fund.

"The city's consultant, HDR, has billed over $670,000 for sewer-sanitation related reports and projects to the sewer fund," Kirkley's document continues. Duke responded to this with a list of the projects, many of which were required for regulatory compliance.

Among Kirkley's recommendations to the council were to delay the current rate increases and develop a committee to review the rate structure with resident input. He eventually got half of these wishes granted.

The concept of forming a committee was echoed by many residents and council members.

"We need revenue," said Councilman Pat Crosby. "I think it's critical that we get this money coming in. Let's raise the rates now, then the mayor can form a committee to work on rates for the future."

"I think we need an ad hoc committee, but we need to do something now," Murphy added. "I still have a lot of heartburn over the Sanitary Sewer Management Plan. My inclination is to implement the rates on Jan. 1 and form the committee."

In the end, that's exactly what happened. The city council voted 4-1 to implement the first step of the proposed three-step rate increase, beginning in January. They also decided to form an ad hoc committee that they intimated would be noticed and open to the public. The lone dissenting vote came from Mayor Wooten, who stated a preference for implementing the entire three-step rate increase immediately.

In his financial report to the council, Duke outlined a number of austerity measures that the city is going to impose in its attempt at offsetting an anticipated $157,000 budget deficit. The combination of 5 percent furloughs for city employees, cutting part-time police officers, selling off a truck, deferring city council stipends, reducing building inspector expenses and other moves are expected to save the city $121,000.

"These cuts are not enough," Duke allowed, "but if they are continued into next year, they will result in a reduction of more than $200,000."