| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:01.03 | City Clerk | Councilmember Pfeiffer? Here. Councilmember Ford? Here. Councilmember Weiner? Present. Vice Mayor Leone? |
| 00:00:05.70 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:00:05.75 | Vice Mayor Leone | President. Thank you. |
| 00:00:08.74 | City Clerk | Mayor Kelly. |
| 00:00:09.48 | Mayor Kelly | here. All right, let's see. Jim Irving, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? |
| 00:00:17.14 | Jim Irving | I love it. Jesus Christ. of the United States of America. and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:00:21.70 | Unknown | to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, invisible. Thank you. |
| 00:00:28.55 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:00:28.58 | Unknown | the |
| 00:00:28.65 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:00:28.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:28.79 | Mayor Kelly | . |
| 00:00:29.04 | Unknown | Thank you, Judge. |
| 00:00:31.49 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. All right, we need a motion to approve the agenda. |
| 00:00:38.34 | Jim Irving | So move. |
| 00:00:39.62 | Mayor Kelly | Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? |
| 00:00:42.49 | Jim Irving | Hi. |
| 00:00:45.36 | Mayor Kelly | All right, we have one item on our agenda today, which is a call for a special election on June 5, 2012, when the annexation of the city of Sausalito into the Southern Marin Fire Protection District for the provision of fire protection services. And Charlie? You can lead off. |
| 00:01:06.23 | Jeffrey Chase | Good morning, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. |
| 00:01:17.57 | Jeffrey Chase | The item before you is to call for a special election and staff's recommendation at the end of this presentation will be that the election be set for June 5, 2012. My presentation and be shared with Mary Wagner. And for the audience sake, copies of the presentation will be put up on the website after the City Council meeting. A little bit of background, the process that we've gone through to get to this point today has been a process that has been very transparent, has been participatory, and included independent review by some highly qualified experts, and we came to a conclusion that was informed and rational and in the best interest of the city of Sausalito and its citizens. The... chart here is a visual And I've added the number of meetings that we've had post the September 13th decision to submit the application to LAFCO. And what I like to see about this chart is the transparency and accountability and the outreach to the public that was done from 2007 to 2012. and intensifying as we got closer and closer until today. The, does not include the couple of the public workshops that we held, so there was even more items, but I was running out of room at the end of the page and running out of time to prepare this presentation. |
| 00:02:39.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:49.12 | Jeffrey Chase | Again, I just want to emphasize that the process, the fire annexation process, had two tracks of independent, transparent, participatory, and representative reviews. And each one of those tracks had dual tracks within them. The city council and through its two-by-two committee, as you see here, the two-by-two committee meetings and the city council meetings all went through a process where we went through a public procurement process to select a consultant to help us walk through the options, identify the options, and walk through the options and analyze the options. That expert CityGate was hired as a result of a public procurement process where we went out with RFPs, proposals were received, the district and the city interviewed people and came to the conclusion that the most prominent expert, the most independent expert would have been CityGates. Appointments to the 2x2 committee were city council people who represent taxpayers, city management and fire district management who represent the organizations they're from, and Uh. uh, The whole process then was submitted to LAFCO upon the city council's direction. And LAFCO went through a process that was transparent and participatory and used their own experts and their own analyses and represented their constituents. And that process happened twice. Once at the original LAFCO hearing and again at the request for reconsideration. I just want to address a couple of highlighted items. that we've been talking about. One is pension matters. First matter I'd like to bring up is we're talking about city taxpayers. Our pocketbook, the pocketbook of city taxpayers and how they pay for the 15 firefighters. So here we have 15 firefighters. and, Currently. for the, types of pension benefits that 15 firefighters have. They have the benefits that they've earned through today. And then they have the benefits of of the future. and And it's all coming from city taxpayers. When the firefighters move to the Southern Marin Fire Protection District, the question is what's going to happen to the pension benefits for the past? And what will happen to the pension benefits from the future and who's going to pay for it? So let's just take our city taxpayer bucket of money and put it into two buckets and show that the earned pension benefits and liabilities will stay with the city as they go forward and they'll be funded by city taxpayers. the, Future benefits and liabilities then will be funded by city taxpayers through the Southern Marin Fire Protection District. Another thing I'd like to mention about the pension matters is that no matter what happens to discount rates, no matter what happens to CalPERS assumptions, that the past benefits and liabilities would be the same, whether you're annexed or not. whether we're Annexed. or not. city taxpayers will come and the impact's the same. Now in the future, there's some talk about future discount rates and future impacts and future GASB rulings. And no matter what happens, this amount will stay the same, whether we're annexed, or we're not. Whether we're annexed or we're not, The amounts will be the same and there would be no difference from annexation and non-annexation. There is uncertainty in the future about pension reform and what we've done through this process and I'd like to answer this question is that not only did fire annexation consider all these pension questions, but it also effectuates pension reform. Because moving our employees in the Southern Marin Fire Protection District is moving them into a two-tier system. some pension reform that they've initiated a while back. the employees will participate in paying the cost of their pension contribution. The Sausalito firefighters are going from a single tier system to a multi-tier, AMSERA. It's going to reduce the Southern Marin Fire Protection District's overall rates. And by the way, that was considered in the negotiation. increases the number of employees in EMSERA to amortize unfunded liabilities. In other words, it's making their pool healthier. The firefighters pick up 50% of their contributions and and it gives the city the opportunity to pay off its side fund reducing the city's liability so no matter what happens with GASB contributions, GASB pronouncements in the future, So, the we would have our liabilities reduced. I'd like to talk also about how this makes safety better. Safety for our citizens and safety for our firefighters. Right now we have 15 City of Sausalito firefighters. If we had our own City of Sausalito Fire Department, we would have five firefighters on duty at any given point in time responding out of one station. When we annex to the district and we have |
| 00:08:13.84 | Jeffrey Chase | of 15 firefighters available at any given point in time responding from three stations coming to the system with a workforce of 51 people available to respond to the deterrence of the city of Sausalito. Fully trained, fully coordinated, all operational on the same equipment and under one unified command. In other words, the attack on that fire would be the most effective to contain fires to the room of origin or to the house of origin. |
| 00:08:50.78 | Jeffrey Chase | You've heard me talk many times that we've reached that whole public participatory process was the city's mid-range Financial. strategic financial plan because we knew that in fiscal year 2012, we would be reaching the point where revenues and expenditures coincided. In terms of a budgetary impact, the annexation was the city councils who gave the city staff direction to say, how can we best? effectuate, deliver fire services at the most economic costs and keep the city general fund able to deliver the full range of service that we deliver to our citizens. And so in terms of budget reform, the annexation was the city's policy, midterm strategic financial strategy to get us past 2012. So for those reasons, staff is recommending a June 5th election date Because we have seven years of public information and as you saw from that first graph, A lot of that information has been condensed in the past year and a whole bunch in the past six months. That information is fresh. It's vivid in our citizens' minds. And through this process and through and the communication to our citizens that don't you want this to come to a vote. We want them to remember all that information, have it fresh, and then for June 5th being able to make the right decision. their decision. It removes the budget uncertainty. As you all know, we have to adopt our budget by June 30th. As we go into the June 30th meeting, Adopting a balanced budget, if the election occurs by June 5th, we will know the answer and we'll be able to adopt a budget that makes sense. If we wait to the fiscal year to the 2012-2013 year, every month compounds the budget impact. As you know, if you have a million dollar shortfall or a $1.4 million shortfall, and if you have to wait one month, well, you just lost about $100,000. And now it becomes an even bigger shortfall to fix over a smaller period of time. So having a June 5th election allows us to be able to have a balanced budget and to realize all the savings that are there at fire annexation. If we wanted to wait until August, the August election costs more. People are on vacation in August. And the only option for a vote then, which takes away some of the the voters. opportunity, it'd be a mail-in option. And they wouldn't be able to physically cast their vote. And then by the time we get to November, not only is the information, the richness of the information that we've been able to provide up until this point in time will be dimmed in their mind, But people will be concerned about the November general election. Who knows what's going to happen between now and then with the war thunderings in Iran and the economy and everything else going. Fire annexation may be the smallest thing in people's mind. But on June 5th, it's going to be the largest thing in their mind. And lastly, there are many, many city priorities. And by addressing this sooner rather than later, then we can attend to those other city priorities. That's all the presentation that I have, but I'd like to turn it over at this time to Mary to walk through the procedural elements of the LAPCO vote. And then of course we're all ready to answer questions if you have any after that. |
| 00:12:38.44 | Mary Wagner | Bye. |
| 00:12:48.62 | Mary Wagner | Thanks, Charlie. I may need your mouse. |
| 00:12:53.29 | Unknown | MR. MS. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. |
| 00:12:54.36 | Mary Wagner | Ha ha ha. Disengage your nose. A lot of the information that I'm going to go over we discussed on February 28th. when I gave you the presentation on the process that would be following once the registrar voters had certified the Thank you. the results of the protest. Sorry. |
| 00:13:19.89 | Mary Wagner | Hold on one second. you Clickers networking. |
| 00:13:27.38 | Mary Wagner | Thanks. |
| 00:13:31.80 | Mary Wagner | Ugh. Sorry, that's what happens. Okay, so last night on March 8th, LAFCO took action to adopt the findings regarding the number of written protests it received adopted a resolution forwarding the annexation for confirmation by the voters and as they're statutorily required, is informing the city and the city elections official that we must now conduct an election and direct the City Council to, excuse me, request the City Council to direct the elections official to conduct the necessary election. LAFCO also took action as they are statutorily required to do to approve the impartial analysis. which is a LAFCO action. LAFCO is executive director prepares it and then the LAFCO board actually modifies as they did last night and approves it and then submits it to the elections official. So the action item you have in front of you today is the call for the election. The city council has a resolution in front of it. to direct the elections official who is the city clerk to conduct the necessary election. Call, provide for, and give notice of the special election. fix the date for the election. And we are recommending that you request consolidation with the state primary election, and then request the services from the Marin County Registrar voters with respect to the election. That's the process that's typically followed for city elections, including council elections. We went over this at your last meeting. The election actually takes place within the city. Registered voters determine the matter. Voters residing outside the city but within the boundaries of the district are not entitled to vote on the measure. and each ballot is entitled to one vote. The election must be held on the next established election date that occurs at least 88 days after which the council calls the election. And as we discussed on February 28th, there were three dates available, June 5th, August 28th by the mail ballot, and November 6th. The ballot language is statutorily driven, and this is the exact language that is from the statute and was in the LAFCO resolution, and it's the same language that's in front of you today. The ballot language will read, shall the order adopted on November 10, 2011, and reaffirmed on February 8, 2012? the Marin local agency formation commission ordering the annexation of the territory of the city of Sausalito to the Southern Wind Fire Protection District be confirmed subject to the terms and conditions specified in the order. A question came up at the LAFCO hearing last night about this last sentence, the subject to the terms and conditions specified in the order. This is the exact language from the statute, and there's really no discretion to modify that. But that question did come up last night, so I wanted to raise that for you again here today. And why don't I get through all this and then we can come back to questions. Questions were also raised about ballot arguments on your February 28th meeting. So the Marin County Register of Voters establishes the deadlines and in your packet today you have that pamphlet that was produced by the county. March 9th today is the date for submittal of resolutions of consolidation and ballot wording. March 19th is the date for submittal of ballot arguments, for and against. March 26th is the date for submittal of rebuttal arguments. Rebuttal arguments have to be authorized by the City Council. So on your dais today, you have a red line of the resolution which adds in the language which allows for rebuttal arguments. The City Council or members of the Council, or excuse me, the members of the Council that it authorizes may file a written argument in favor of or against the annexation. The argument for and the argument against the ballot language cannot exceed 300 words. Again, as I just indicated, council action is required to authorize rebuttals. Rebuttals cannot exceed 250 words. And with that, our recommendation is that you adopt the resolution in front of you, either the revised resolution with the language regarding rebuttals, if the Council wishes to allow that, OR THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS IN YOUR PACKET THAT DOES NOT that rebuttal language to call for the election on Tuesday, June the 5th. I'm happy to answer any questions as is Charlie. |
| 00:17:51.24 | Mayor Kelly | All right, we'll start with Carolyn. Questions? |
| 00:17:55.14 | Carolyn Ford | Yes, my first question is for our city attorney. Last night at the LAFCO meeting, as you mentioned, Mary, the statement was discussed, and there is no latitude for them to change the statement as written. But there was the decision to add additional wording to better so that the public can better understand this as I recall. |
| 00:18:26.29 | Mary Wagner | There was two items there. One was the ballot language itself, and then the impartial analysis. The ballot language they approved, they directed the Executive Director to contact the county. |
| 00:18:34.57 | Carolyn Ford | They do. |
| 00:18:34.96 | Jim Irving | Thank you. |
| 00:18:38.24 | Mary Wagner | to see if the county believed there was any wiggle room in that language. The statute's very clear. It says this is precisely the language that you will put in. So there really is not any discretion to change that wording. |
| 00:18:44.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:18:44.65 | Carolyn Ford | Yes. |
| 00:18:52.24 | Carolyn Ford | Yes, the difference here between what you're saying and I'm saying is that I understood them to say that there was a possibility that additional language could be added to that statement. In other words, his statement is cast in stone. but additional language to explain further explain the statement was allowed. No. |
| 00:19:15.38 | Mary Wagner | That wasn't the action they took and that's not accurate. They're not allowed to add. |
| 00:19:19.26 | Carolyn Ford | Well, I simply disagree with you. |
| 00:19:20.68 | Mary Wagner | Well, if I can clarify, Councilmember Ford says I understood the LAFCO action was to adopt the resolution to ask the executive director to determine if language could be clarified, added, revised, to the statutorily required language. |
| 00:19:37.70 | Carolyn Ford | Yes, they did direct him to do that. So, |
| 00:19:41.38 | Mary Wagner | So I don't think we disagree on that. |
| 00:19:42.97 | Carolyn Ford | I guess we don't because language may, we may be able to add language and clarify. |
| 00:19:50.97 | Mary Wagner | I believe the statute is very clear and you cannot Thank you. |
| 00:19:54.17 | Carolyn Ford | Well, |
| 00:19:54.39 | Mary Wagner | revise it. |
| 00:19:55.34 | Carolyn Ford | They were going to ask the registrar anyway, so. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. And I have a couple questions for our City Financial Officer, Charlie. |
| 00:20:13.49 | Carolyn Ford | When was the public notified that the residents would be giving 45% of our property taxes to SMFD in perpetuity, essentially? When was that done? Thank you. |
| 00:20:34.20 | Jeffrey Chase | I don't have the exact dates, but you can see that as the formula was worked through on that first chart that I showed you, that the formula was presented publicly in every one of those meetings that the question was asked. |
| 00:20:48.43 | Carolyn Ford | Okay, I will tell you, if you don't have the exact date, I do, because I remember that meeting very well. It was September the 13th. It was the first meeting when we got back from Council vacation. And my second question... |
| 00:21:05.03 | Adam Politzer | Mr. Mayor, if I may just help our finance director with that question. |
| 00:21:05.07 | Carolyn Ford | Yeah. |
| 00:21:11.56 | Adam Politzer | as the comment was also made last night at the LAFCO meeting, it was also the same night that we told the voters that we would take the parcel tax off. So that was part of the communication at that meeting was that after full negotiations with Southern Marin and the employees, the parcel tax was removed, and that was when the decision to shift the property tax was made. |
| 00:21:37.60 | Carolyn Ford | Correct, so then both the 45% percent taxes, property taxes, were decided that night, and the vote was taken away from the residents. And that was the first time the residents heard of this. That was September 13th. |
| 00:21:46.09 | Unknown | . |
| 00:21:46.14 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:21:54.41 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:21:54.54 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:21:54.69 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 00:21:54.71 | Mayor Kelly | of this. That was September 13th. questions please. Questions? |
| 00:21:58.20 | Carolyn Ford | Questions? Okay. Was September the 13th the first time that the voters heard about the 45% transfer of our property taxes to SMFD essentially forever. and two, that they would not have the right to vote. Is that not correct? |
| 00:22:17.44 | Jeffrey Chase | I don't feel like I'm on a witness stand, Mrs. Ford, but I would like to say |
| 00:22:18.34 | Carolyn Ford | Excuse me? |
| 00:22:22.45 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 00:22:22.47 | Jeffrey Chase | Well, I'm sorry. |
| 00:22:22.51 | Carolyn Ford | that the citizens... If you could answer the question, if not... |
| 00:22:22.78 | Jeffrey Chase | that the citizens... |
| 00:22:25.80 | Mayor Kelly | It's a good day. |
| 00:22:25.88 | Carolyn Ford | Yeah. |
| 00:22:25.96 | Mayor Kelly | Councilmember Ford, would you please let him answer the question? |
| 00:22:26.00 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 00:22:26.03 | Carolyn Ford | Bye. |
| 00:22:26.32 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 00:22:26.40 | Carolyn Ford | Bye. Certainly. |
| 00:22:29.74 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:22:30.17 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 00:22:30.20 | Mayor Kelly | you |
| 00:22:30.25 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 00:22:30.27 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:22:30.28 | Jeffrey Chase | The citizens |
| 00:22:31.41 | Carolyn Ford | I'm looking for a national... |
| 00:22:31.92 | Jeffrey Chase | From the beginning we're always informed that there would be a transfer of property tax. The finalization of the amount of 45% of what the city receives of property tax was made at the September 13th meeting as my memories refresh. |
| 00:22:50.62 | Adam Politzer | Yes, okay. Thank you. If I may add, because it's important to note this, this was also discussed at the Finance Committee before, and members of today's audience were at that meeting when that was presented there. So it was at two public meetings at the Finance Committee meeting prior to the September City Council meeting. |
| 00:22:51.21 | Carolyn Ford | Okay. |
| 00:22:51.68 | Jeffrey Chase | if I can. |
| 00:22:52.47 | Carolyn Ford | Right. |
| 00:23:10.14 | Carolyn Ford | Okay. So on September 13th, those two things happened. Did not the city council approve it that very evening and were not workshops scheduled for after that meeting instead of before sending the application to LAFCO? In other words, the city council was presented, the residents were presented with the public information that about the 45% of our taxes, the vote being taken away. And that very same night, council approved. The. application to LAFCO before holding Additional public workshops? |
| 00:23:53.11 | Jeffrey Chase | Your memory is very good. |
| 00:23:55.08 | Carolyn Ford | I'm surprised that yours is not as good. Okay. Well, that in fact was the case. And the other thing you stated is that LAFCO conducted their own analysis separately. I do not believe, and I think that it was stated last night. Question. Okay. Wasn't it stated last night, then I'll ask our city attorney and city manager, that LAFCO indeed did not conduct a separate financial |
| 00:24:13.22 | Mayor Kelly | Last night. Question. OK. |
| 00:24:27.33 | Carolyn Ford | analysis. They were involved with the city during the entire process, so they did not conduct a separate analysis and, in essence, rubber stamped the cities. position. |
| 00:24:42.28 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, that's not the case. They didn't hire a outside firm such as CityGate, but they have their own city or county council that advises them and review the information throughout the process. Their expert council and county council were involved as was our city attorney and the Southern Marin. attorney throughout this process as well. So they did have, other than Peter Banning, participate in the analysis of the information. Um, |
| 00:25:19.74 | Jeffrey Chase | And to add to that, they also reached out to actuaries and had actually watch the review it independent of the review that we did. |
| 00:25:20.03 | Adam Politzer | Ed. |
| 00:25:30.20 | Carolyn Ford | Correct. What kind of financial expertise did they have on their consultancy firm? |
| 00:25:37.14 | Mayor Kelly | I think that's a question that we can't ask for them, for LAFCO. |
| 00:25:41.73 | Carolyn Ford | I'm sorry? |
| 00:25:42.24 | Mayor Kelly | That's a question for LAFCO. He doesn't know what LAFCO did. |
| 00:25:45.09 | Carolyn Ford | actually our consultants. |
| 00:25:49.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:25:49.39 | Carolyn Ford | CityGate, I'm asking, I'll drop the question. I'm sure there are other questions here at the moment. |
| 00:25:49.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:25:49.54 | Mayor Kelly | Oh, go ahead. |
| 00:25:50.07 | Unknown | I'm asking. |
| 00:25:50.93 | Mayor Kelly | You want to answer yourself? |
| 00:25:52.78 | Unknown | I'm asking. |
| 00:25:58.39 | Mayor Kelly | All right. Thank you. Councilmember Weiner, do you have questions? No. All right. Councilmember Pfeiffer. |
| 00:26:00.61 | Carolyn Ford | question. |
| 00:26:05.49 | Unknown | Thank you, Mayor Kelly. Hey, Charlie. Could I see the first slide where you were talking about the impacts with the pension reforms and the the prior slide. It's all the text. You mentioned the two-tier text. Pension. The pension, yeah, there you go. So you have the heading pension reform, and you mentioned the fact that it's a two-tier system. Is it the case though that, and you say the second move firefighters from Sausalito from a single tier, to a multi-tier in Amsera. Is it the case though that our firefighters are currently at a tier that is the second tier at IMCARA. In other words, the pension benefits and everything are the same. |
| 00:26:57.77 | Jeffrey Chase | Yes, they're moving the pension benefits that our firefighters receive are at the lowest tier that Southern Marin Fire Protection District has. And it is the tier, the second tier, that most agencies are trying to get to with their safety personnel. |
| 00:27:14.83 | Unknown | I guess I'm just, my question was how is that pension reform for, I mean for Sausalito, we're already at that lower tier. In other words, when we move to Southern Marine Fire, there's no change because their second tier is our tier, our first tier. And my next question is, wouldn't you agree that if Sausalito were to introduce a second tier, it would be lower than the Southern Marin's current second tier. |
| 00:27:46.25 | Jeffrey Chase | I can't predict the future. |
| 00:27:48.14 | Unknown | Well, OK. And... Let's see, my next question, thank you, Charlie, is, so Adam, you mentioned that there was a finance committee meeting Prior to September 13th, in which it was discussed, of the 45%, the change from 35% to 45%, is it the case that that finance committee meeting happened just seven days before the 13th? |
| 00:28:06.79 | Carolyn Ford | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:28:07.31 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:28:20.83 | Adam Politzer | I'm sure the Finance Committee happened on its regular scheduled Finance Committee date, which they meet once a month, and sometimes that falls seven days, sometimes it's shorter, depending on when the City Council meetings fall. City Council meetings fall, as everyone knows, twice a month, but it's not always on the first and third. But it was scheduled as a regular scheduled meeting, noticed properly, and members of the public were in attendance. |
| 00:28:50.22 | Unknown | And Mary, I have a question for you. Last night at the LAFCO meeting, I thought when Peter Banning was under questioning regarding the impartiality of that analysis, Sorry, Councilmember Leon thinks it's funny. |
| 00:29:07.03 | Mayor Kelly | I'm sorry, I do have a question. One point, please. |
| 00:29:07.96 | Unknown | Okay. I'm sorry, I do have a question. Is it the case that my recollection was that Peter Banning, when he was asked whether or not he checked up on the numbers that he had pulled from the city's analysis, he admitted that he had not validated that data himself. |
| 00:29:30.86 | Mary Wagner | I don't recall exactly what Peter Banning's response was. No, okay. Councilman Pfeiffer. |
| 00:29:34.61 | Unknown | Councilman. Thank you. |
| 00:29:37.22 | Mayor Kelly | All right. Mr. Mayor. Well, I have one clarification. What's the 35% you're talking about? |
| 00:29:38.52 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:29:46.74 | Unknown | To be specific, I was saying, what I meant to say was that the 45% that was presented, what we're dealing with now on September 13th, was originally discussed just seven days before in the finance committee. |
| 00:30:04.98 | Mayor Kelly | Right. No 35 percent. No numbers were percentages were discussed, but 35 percent. |
| 00:30:08.73 | Unknown | I was not at the Finance Committee meeting. |
| 00:30:11.28 | Mayor Kelly | meeting. |
| 00:30:12.85 | Unknown | And I mentioned 35, and I'm saying I meant to say, okay, I meant to say 45%. 45%. |
| 00:30:14.70 | Mayor Kelly | Where did you go? |
| 00:30:15.04 | Adam Politzer | Amen to the safe. |
| 00:30:16.05 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:30:18.79 | Adam Politzer | 45%. Mr. Mayor, yeah, and maybe I can help further clarify that. The 35% number was in all the information before because that was a lot of the debate prior to us removing the $90 parcel tax is that the $90 parcel tax plus the transfer of 35% of property tax was going to be our fair share. negotiations with Southern Marin and the employees and discussions with members of our community that were engaged in this, we were able to remove the $90 parcel tax by increasing the property tax transfer from 35% to 45%, which again is important for the public to recognize that we spend 55% today on fire service and 55% of our property tax now goes to pay for fire service. So there was a 20% savings with a $90 parcel tax was the original equation after successful negotiations with Southern Marin and the employees, we were able to not tax our residents but shift over 10% more of our progress. |
| 00:30:29.45 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:31:01.51 | Mary Wagner | 35%. |
| 00:31:30.54 | Unknown | So, Mr. Mayor, just to clarify what you asked me, the reason I said 35% was based on what, city manager said was all communication to the residents prior to that had been the 35% with the $90 parcel tax. And then in September 13th suddenly we had the 45% and the public had seven days prior notice with the finance committee meeting, which I believe met during the day. And the only two residents I know who attended were two. |
| 00:31:43.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:31:43.73 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:31:43.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:31:59.04 | Mayor Kelly | 10 or 10? Questions? |
| 00:32:00.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:00.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:00.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:00.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:00.98 | Unknown | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to clarify your question to me. |
| 00:32:01.06 | Unknown | Okay. Thank you. |
| 00:32:01.82 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 00:32:04.49 | Mayor Kelly | Councilman Ford, question. |
| 00:32:05.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:05.54 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 00:32:05.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:05.59 | Carolyn Ford | Yes, I have a question for the city attorney. The current contract that the JPA that we have with the Southern Marine Fire District. |
| 00:32:05.62 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:32:13.86 | Mayor Kelly | FIRE DISTRICT. |
| 00:32:14.68 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. I'm sorry? |
| 00:32:15.74 | Mayor Kelly | I'm sorry. It's not a JPA. It's a contract. It's a contract. |
| 00:32:17.69 | Carolyn Ford | The contract for services, I'm sorry. The current contract we have with them, could you tell me what the termination paragraph says in regard to how much notice agencies must give the other? |
| 00:32:38.44 | Mary Wagner | Sure. The agreement provides |
| 00:32:47.40 | Mary Wagner | that either agency may terminate the agreement by providing the other agency with 30 days written notice of the termination. Following the effective date of that, the agency making the decision to terminate sends written notice to the other agency The agreement shall terminate and be of no further force and effect one year from the date of the non-terminating agencies receipt of the termination notice. or upon such other date as mutually agreed upon by the agencies. |
| 00:33:14.64 | Carolyn Ford | So that would say that the Southern Marin Fire District, if they do decide to discontinue services, would have to give us a year's notice. Basically. |
| 00:33:31.03 | Mary Wagner | Essentially, unless... |
| 00:33:31.04 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. Yeah. Okay, provide services for you. Okay, I have a question for Chief Irving. |
| 00:33:32.93 | Mary Wagner | . Thank you. |
| 00:33:38.67 | Mayor Kelly | Good job. Okay. |
| 00:33:44.74 | Mayor Kelly | Good morning. |
| 00:33:45.23 | Carolyn Ford | Good morning, Chief. Has SMFD given us notice that they will end the contract? |
| 00:33:54.60 | Jim Irving | No, they have not. Okay, thanks. They did a couple years ago, though. |
| 00:33:55.49 | Carolyn Ford | Okay, thanks. They did a couple years ago, though. Yeah, but they have not at this point. |
| 00:34:01.23 | Jim Irving | They have not at this time, that is correct. |
| 00:34:02.93 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. Okay, and in the consultant's report, there are a couple of things that you might be able to answer. questions I have. One is that on, In regard to the cost per call, you look at your assessed value and you look at the number of calls you have and you look at Sausalito's assessed value, you look at the number of calls Sausalito has, and the cost per call is 7,305 for Southern Marin and 3,460 for Sausalito. Any idea why the costs are so much higher? |
| 00:34:45.36 | Jim Irving | Thank you. I'm not looking at the information you have. I couldn't tell you why. But part of the reason why is that we pay for a full management staff. that provide service to the city of Sausalito. The bottom line here is the city is getting a hell of a deal on fire protection. |
| 00:35:02.37 | Carolyn Ford | Yes, and I understand that, and we have been, and I understand that SMFD is unhappy with the current arrangement. The other thing I understand is those battalion chiefs cost roughly $300,000 a year. |
| 00:35:18.38 | Jim Irving | No, incorrect. They're about $240,000 per year for full benefits. |
| 00:35:23.14 | Carolyn Ford | for full benefits wages and how much of that is benefits? |
| 00:35:27.46 | Jim Irving | It's probably on the order of 50% of their base salary, so it's probably about one-third of that cost is benefits. |
| 00:35:37.01 | Carolyn Ford | Okay. |
| 00:35:43.76 | Carolyn Ford | Didn't the county just recently standardize the fire, standardized procedures for all firemen in all areas regarding operating and training? I thought I read something in the paper about that. |
| 00:36:01.20 | Jim Irving | There is a move countywide to try to standardize. I wouldn't say that we have absolutely standardized everything. We are trying to bring things more in line. That's an effort that all agencies have been doing. |
| 00:36:12.33 | Carolyn Ford | Okay, great. And one last question that's. |
| 00:36:16.50 | Jim Irving | Thank you. |
| 00:36:16.67 | Unknown | you |
| 00:36:17.02 | Carolyn Ford | that I've been wondering for a long time is why do fire engines respond along with the ambulance to calls? If it's a call thing you know someone's just had a heart attack why is that fire engine there in addition to the ambulance |
| 00:36:35.91 | Jim Irving | simply to have enough personnel to deal with an emergency. Obviously, if you look at the hills of Sausalito, you have lots of stairs and such. There are two people on an ambulance. Two people cannot provide the emergency care required for most medical emergencies. When you look at the need to actually carry people downstairs, the need to start IVs, flood IV bags, perform defibrillation, et cetera, it cannot be done by two people. |
| 00:37:04.02 | Carolyn Ford | How many people do that in the private sector? Any idea? I know that's outside your expertise. |
| 00:37:09.76 | Jim Irving | In the private sector? Well, here in Marin, none, because fire service provides all of the EMS in Marin. In the private sector, they respond to ambulances assisted by the fire department. There is no area anywhere in the state where they simply respond a private ambulance as a primary 911 provider. |
| 00:37:29.59 | Carolyn Ford | Okay, thanks. That's helpful. Thank you. |
| 00:37:34.68 | Mayor Kelly | All right, any more questions? All right, I have one question. Charlie, could I ask you a question? On the issue of, quote, double dipping, it's true that there were three people on the Sausalito payroll who, in effect, were eligible to double dip. and is it not true that those three individuals have now signed a contract with the city and with the fire protection service, if the district, if it in turn does happen, that they will... a contract with the city and with the fire protection service, if the district, if it in turn does happen, that they will not, during the length of their employment, ever double-dip. |
| 00:37:47.56 | Bob Breyer | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:38:17.49 | Jeffrey Chase | First, there were three employees eligible. One was, only one was eligible to retire with full benefits. Two would be eligible to retire with partial benefits. And as we mentioned before, it would make zero fiscal sense for any of them to, in effect, retire and double dip and then go to work because they would be losing benefits. And so I think in accordance with that, they did enter into an agreement, and I'm going to ask Chief Irving to confirm it. to say we wouldn't have done and we agree not to do, What? made foolish sense for us to do anyway. |
| 00:39:02.35 | Unknown | Anyway. All right. |
| 00:39:03.70 | Jeffrey Chase | jim is that correct I'm going to go to the |
| 00:39:07.39 | Vice Mayor Leone | why it doesn't make financial sense for them. |
| 00:39:11.14 | Jeffrey Chase | When they choose reciprocity and go over to the Southern Marin Fire Protection District and they choose reciprocity in the MCERA system, then they would be just like moving from one CAELPERS system to another CAELPERS system and they would continue then to work a few more years until they reach full retirement age or retirement age where they can't work anymore and then get the full retirement benefit from that system. the No. the likelihood that any of them would have worked the full 10 years and reached the reciprocity under the new system would have been very small because firefighters usually don't work that old. And I think Jim might be able to elaborate on that a little more. |
| 00:40:06.03 | Jim Irving | you |
| 00:40:09.39 | Jim Irving | Charlie's correct is that if they elect reciprocity, their years in service are counted. towards the MSERA program. If they don't, they essentially start as brand new employees, meaning they have to work 10 years in order to receive any benefit from MSERA. So it's very unlikely that any of them would do this. As we've explained before, a firefighter would have to work until, for two of them to be in their early 60s, but the one who's already eligible, he'd have to work until he was 67. These are line firefighters. These are not administrative people. people. You are not 60s, but the one who was already eligible, he'd have to work until he was 67. You know, these are line firefighters. These are not administrative people. You are not going to see line firefighters at, you know, 60-some years old out dragging hoes and carrying ladders and all that. It's just not going to happen. So we went to those firefighters and we said, you know, look at the numbers, talk to your financial consultants or whoever, and get back to us. Two of them immediately said, |
| 00:40:36.32 | Mary Wagner | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:41:05.10 | Jim Irving | just not going to happen. The third one, met with a financial advisor. Afterwards, he said, I'm good. So we currently have drafted new language for the the side letter agreement for our saw-seedal firefighters to transfer over, and they have agreed to put in that, that they will not double dip. So none of them will elect to retire and then come to work for the district. |
| 00:41:32.40 | Unknown | Mayor Kelly, I have a question. |
| 00:41:33.92 | Jim Irving | Thank you. |
| 00:41:34.00 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 00:41:34.14 | Jim Irving | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 00:41:35.89 | Unknown | Thank you, Jim. So does that mean that those three firefighters will be taking reciprocity? |
| 00:41:41.48 | Jim Irving | Yes, that does. |
| 00:41:42.32 | Unknown | Okay, but that still means that our unfunded pension liability, which before was estimated going from 1.6 million to 3.7 million, that's still number is staying the same. |
| 00:41:54.49 | Jim Irving | The numbers that are in the reports are exactly the same. |
| 00:41:57.28 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:41:59.82 | Carolyn Ford | Mr. Mayor. |
| 00:42:00.72 | Jim Irving | this. |
| 00:42:01.05 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. I have one more question for our city financial officer, Charlie. |
| 00:42:10.25 | Vice Mayor Leone | What's Charlie's title? Can we just read that into the record? |
| 00:42:13.49 | Adam Politzer | Administrative Services. you |
| 00:42:15.40 | Vice Mayor Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:42:15.41 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 00:42:15.45 | Vice Mayor Leone | Director. |
| 00:42:17.26 | Carolyn Ford | Okay, Charlie, Just for the record, I would like to confirm, and for the people who might be watching, that we estimate a savings of $184,000 a year. |
| 00:42:35.66 | Jeffrey Chase | That's correct. |
| 00:42:37.20 | Carolyn Ford | And if we were to have the firemen pay their portion of their pensions, we would save $127,000 a year. |
| 00:42:51.22 | Jeffrey Chase | I'd have to confirm that number. |
| 00:42:53.15 | Carolyn Ford | It's in your reports. So 127 versus 184, all other city employees pay there. |
| 00:42:54.51 | Jeffrey Chase | Okay. |
| 00:43:01.89 | Carolyn Ford | Pensions. They're a portion of their pensions, I believe. |
| 00:43:05.55 | Jeffrey Chase | Yes, about five or six years ago, the city increased everyone's salary by the equivalent amount of the amount of PERS employee contribution that they would now be contributing. So it was a zero effect |
| 00:43:18.31 | Adam Politzer | Yeah. their net pay. Mr. Mayor, if I can just add to the answer to that response that Charlie provided. That's assuming that we keep the employees, which then assumes that we would not annex, which then assumes that we would either have a JPA or a new contract for service with additional money, which ranges at the worst-case scenario of $1.4 million or more. So if we kept our employees and Southern Marin |
| 00:43:23.20 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:43:25.97 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:43:52.68 | Adam Politzer | uh, stuck to the letter that they sent us saying that the only option that they would consider was annexation, then we're looking at an increased cost, but we would save money on our employees paying their share if in fact we were able to negotiate that. |
| 00:44:09.91 | Carolyn Ford | Well, not to get into the details of the financials, but you would agree that 1.4 million is the very top. |
| 00:44:17.12 | Mayor Kelly | Not necessarily. |
| 00:44:17.76 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 00:44:17.95 | Adam Politzer | Now I would agree with the language that Lafco put in there that it was an estimate. |
| 00:44:22.20 | Carolyn Ford | Okay. Okay. All right. I guess just one follow-up point. Question. Question. Thank you. What say will Sausalito residents and taxpayers have in pension reform under the Southern Marin Fire District? |
| 00:44:39.28 | Jeffrey Chase | I'm sorry. |
| 00:44:41.81 | Carolyn Ford | If we annex, what say will Sausalito taxpayers have in pension reform for firefighters under the... |
| 00:44:50.39 | Adam Politzer | I really think that's a question for Jim Irving. We can't speak for Southern Marin. |
| 00:45:01.11 | Jim Irving | As you are aware, once the city is annexed into the district, any city resident can run for the Southerman Fire Protection District Board, and through that voice of people on the board, through their elected representatives, they can do whatever pension form they choose to do as long as it's within the guidelines of the state legislation. |
| 00:45:23.69 | Carolyn Ford | Okay, and two follow-up questions. The, there are no specific seats for Sausalito on the board. |
| 00:45:35.11 | Jim Irving | There currently are no seats specified for Sausalito. The district board has agreed to put two people ad hoc on the board until the next election. |
| 00:45:39.67 | Carolyn Ford | additional. Thank you. |
| 00:45:46.12 | Carolyn Ford | Okay, and Sausalito residents represent what percentage of the voters? This is all just for the record. Mm-hmm. |
| 00:45:53.63 | Jim Irving | approximately 26%. |
| 00:45:56.19 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 00:45:57.49 | Jim Irving | And I might add that in the last election, when Mr. Weiner and Mr. Leone were elected to City Council, Both of them received more votes than the three people that were elected to the last district election. So, in fact, if they had been running for the fire district board, they would both be on the fire district board. |
| 00:46:17.72 | Carolyn Ford | Well, they accept, Chief, that they were running against someone who opposed the fire annexation. |
| 00:46:23.48 | Jim Irving | Well, I'll see you next time. Wait. |
| 00:46:24.14 | Carolyn Ford | Bye. |
| 00:46:24.37 | Jim Irving | Thank you. |
| 00:46:24.42 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 00:46:24.44 | Jim Irving | Thank you. |
| 00:46:24.46 | Carolyn Ford | . |
| 00:46:24.52 | Jim Irving | The numbers are the numbers, Carolyn. |
| 00:46:27.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:46:27.58 | Jim Irving | Thank you. |
| 00:46:27.63 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 00:46:27.68 | Jim Irving | Thank you. |
| 00:46:27.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:46:27.71 | Carolyn Ford | you |
| 00:46:27.86 | Jim Irving | Ms. I know the numbers are the numbers, but we have to look at these numbers. |
| 00:46:28.07 | Carolyn Ford | I know the numbers. |
| 00:46:28.96 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, I have a question. Mr. Mayor, I have a question. Thank you. |
| 00:46:30.97 | Mayor Kelly | Assumption. Yeah. Thank you. Let's wrap the questions up because we're just doing record stuff now. Thank you. And we're not asking questions. Thank you. |
| 00:46:35.39 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Jim, you said that the fire board would allow two ad hoc members from Sausalito for the first year. It's my understanding, is it true that those ad hoc members would not have voting privileges? That is correct. Okay, thank you. |
| 00:46:52.33 | Mayor Kelly | That is correct. All right. Any more questions? Hopefully not. No. Thank you. Great. |
| 00:46:56.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:46:56.97 | Vice Mayor Leone | So, that's great. Jim, do you, can you ask one question? So, the Southern Marin Board can't make people voting members. You'd have to change your whole electoral system. |
| 00:46:59.17 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:47:08.09 | Jim Irving | There's no legal way that they can make those people voting members. Right. The district board has done everything that it legally can to provide representation for Sausalito during that interim period once the annexation occurs. |
| 00:47:13.39 | Vice Mayor Leone | You have to wait. |
| 00:47:14.39 | Jeffrey Chase | Thank you. |
| 00:47:14.41 | Vice Mayor Leone | Thank you. |
| 00:47:24.11 | Mayor Kelly | When is the next board member election? |
| 00:47:25.81 | Jim Irving | It would be November of next year. So. |
| 00:47:28.97 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Three or four months. All right. |
| 00:47:33.00 | Bob Breyer | Next year. 2013. |
| 00:47:35.74 | Mayor Kelly | 13? Oh, sorry. All right. I'm going to close questions and open public comment. Would any member of the public like to comment on any item, or on this item, on the agenda? Mr. Flavin? |
| 00:47:36.88 | Bob Breyer | Okay. |
| 00:47:56.05 | John Flavin | My name is John Flavin. I'm a resident of Sausalito. 1,370 voters asked for an independent analysis of this situation. They signed a petition. It was unprecedented, as I recall from last night's discussion for LAFCO, that such a thing would be accomplished. what they were looking for. was an independent analysis and time to consider it. |
| 00:48:19.21 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:48:22.48 | John Flavin | I see the Europe push for June election to thwart both of those efforts. There are a couple other comments I'd like to make. First, I think it's already been made about this two-tier system. We've made a big deal about that. The reality is the effect is nothing. We've also talked in terms of the I lost my train of thought here. This whole issue about pensions and all has not been fully analyzed. It's never been brought forward. You make the point about the double dipping. The double dipping, if you read Bartell's report, They say, yes, there can be double dipping, there can be an analysis, they want to charge you to do that, but it is there and there is an impact from it. |
| 00:49:06.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:06.83 | John Flavin | And then the final thing about these contracts, these contracts that they were not going to double dip, I'd like to know what consideration was given to those three firefighters as part of that contract. because my memory from years ago in law school is a contract without consideration is unenforceable. So they can talk, you can say this about they wouldn't double dip, there's nothing to prevent them from doing so. |
| 00:49:39.28 | Mayor Kelly | Anyone else care to comment on the public? THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 00:49:49.67 | Matt Bouchard | Matt Bouchard, Southern Fire Department, your fire department. A couple things. First, I want to say thank you to the council members that have supported this. In my opinion, you guys have always been good stewards of the people and the taxpayers. |
| 00:49:52.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:50:03.98 | Matt Bouchard | You've got an independent consultant to analyze this and has been reviewed over eight years. And, um, You saw an obvious cost savings. and you saw a zero reduction in fire service and emergency services. Public safety remained high. and you did exactly what you were elected to do. It's unfortunate now that it's going to go back to the public to get It wastes some time, it wastes some money, and play on their democratic process. to do what was obvious, and you guys did. to the council members that did not support this and wanted it to go to the public, We understand that. The one outstanding question is at what point are those council members willing to engage in dialogue with the firefighters. The invitation has been extended multiple times. It's at no avail. And we want to know what the plan is. what the contingency plan is. The question on the table today, is whether or not you put this to the vote, as is now required. And when to do it? I'm not sure. Personally, I encourage you to do it as soon as possible. |
| 00:51:07.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:51:08.07 | Matt Bouchard | We're exhausted. The council members that have been involved in this for a long time are exhausted, and let me tell you, this community is exhausted. with this subject. Let's get it done. ballot as soon as possible so we can get this taken care of. It seems to me that the only people that aren't exhausted are the Johnny-come-latelys. the people that have been involved with this very complex issue for a very short period of time. It's painfully obvious to all of us this is the right thing to do. So I encourage you. to move forward and get this on the ballot as soon as possible. not only for the fact that we're all exhausted, You guys have a budget. to plan for for next fiscal year. I don't know how you can plan a budget. when you don't even know if you're going to have your own standalone fire department. So you need an answer to this complex problem as soon as possible. And we need to get this to the people as soon as possible before it becomes forgotten. Again, We encourage the council members that have not engaged in any dialogue with a single firefighter at length Thank you. on this very complex issue. I don't understand how you can have such strong opinions about something as important as public safety without even talking about your technical experts that do it. You asked some questions today about why fire engines respond with ambulances. That's a question that needs at least an hour's worth of dialogue to answer so you can have a full comprehension of that. to have a fire chief try and respond to that in two or three minutes, it's not enough. So, We don't understand why that invitation has fallen on deaf ears to this point. So in closing, Get this on the ballot as soon as possible. Let's put this thing to bed and let's move forward. This is your city's public safety that's at stake here. Thank you. |
| 00:52:48.14 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:52:48.36 | Matt Bouchard | Thank you. |
| 00:52:48.38 | Carolyn Ford | Thank you. |
| 00:52:49.19 | Matt Bouchard | Thank you, Matt. |
| 00:52:51.01 | Carolyn Ford | Mr. Mayor, for the record. |
| 00:52:52.50 | Matt Bouchard | Thank you. |
| 00:52:52.51 | Mayor Kelly | For the record? No, for every public comment. Public comment. All right. I'll comment. You can make your comment later, please. Yes. Chuck Donald. |
| 00:52:54.35 | Carolyn Ford | All right, I'll comment on it. |
| 00:53:06.54 | Chuck Donald | Chuck Donald, I'm a resident of Sausalito. I have several comments. First of all, a minor one. We have a new piece of equipment here. New podium. And the word that comes to my mind quick is this. the Center for Pandemonium, Bye. The reason I say this is because We, Johnny, come lately, the previous speaker referred to people who are protesting this And Johnny came lately and said, I was on the Planning Commission, I don't know when it was, seven or eight years ago, when a group of citizens Jane Whitman. particularly headed it up, but it was participated in by Amy Belser, several other people who are J.R. Roberts, who are Council members established a fund. They actually contributed money that went into the city Uh. books. to try to get a new firehouse. Now, so I'm not a Johnny-come-lately, Uh, I was on a planning commission when that up. The proposal was approved and it was voted down later. Another person who's a good friend of mine now, thought that that was wrong, instigated a motion for go to public vote. Public vote said they didn't like what the Planning Commission had approved. By then, in deference to the rule of the people, the democracy that's going on, I became, the treasurer of the campaign committee for Proposition 15, which was funding the new firehouse. So I'm not a John Eacom lately, and I have some background. during all that period, There may have been. and private meetings, discussions about annexation to the larger district, But it never became a large public issue. Large public issue didn't come up despite Charlie Francis's Nice charts, and I'm sure everything he said happened. It was not a major issue, if it was an issue at all, until the last year or two. Now, let me go on the the pandemonium that's current here now I believe lies with the City Council the citizens now, back up for a moment. I believe that from an operational standpoint or a safety standpoint, as Charlie put it, we should have a joint or we should annex to it, I think that's a good idea. But, We have to be confident of the documents that implement that, are not going to be ruin the city's finances. We don't have that. or at least we, the people there, interested in it now. do not have confidence in the city council. Now, you say, why? I point out, And I see some surprise comments from the podium up there. But let me cite an instance here, and I forget the exact issue, It was about two or three months ago THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERED AN ITEM IN THE CLOSED SESSION And then on the same evening, it was on the consent calendar, Your time is up. Time's up. I'll abide by the democratic actions of the council. Thank you. |
| 00:56:15.86 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:56:27.59 | Wendy Richards | Wendy Richards, 48 Woodward Avenue. Ladies and gentlemen of the council, thank you for the hard work you have put into this. I know you work very hard as volunteers. Before I address you first, I also would like to address the speaker prior to Charlie. whom I assume, sir, you are a member of the Sausalito Fire Force. You can hear me. Great, thank you. I have taken, had the benefit of your services in emergency, and I thank you for that. |
| 00:56:49.52 | Mary Wagner | I'm not. |
| 00:56:49.56 | Matt Bouchard | I have a question. |
| 00:56:49.83 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:56:55.40 | Wendy Richards | I would also request due respect to the citizens of this city. |
| 00:56:59.56 | Mayor Kelly | Wendy, you need to address the council. |
| 00:57:01.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:57:01.91 | Wendy Richards | I just would like to ask that you respect the citizens of this city. Wendy, you need to address the council. |
| 00:57:08.02 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 00:57:08.03 | Wendy Richards | Oh, okay. I would like to ask all our city employees that they provide due respect to the taxpayers in this town. We are exhausted because we work hard to pay taxes. And those taxes, in turn, pay the salaries of the people who work for us, the citizens. And I think it is only appropriate that we consider very carefully The hard work you have done and the analysis you have done in the context of the bigger picture. This is more than an issue For our beloved firemen, this is an issue of sovereignty, this is an issue of Voter sovereignty, 26% versus 100%. That is where the voters have a concern. We've all worked hard. I worked on the Finance Committee to build the building. We are all committed. And when we can leave our businesses, and come to these meetings like I have canceled calls this morning with my clients to be here, we do so. And when we have to work to pay for our own retirement and the retirement of those who are already retired and the retirement of those to come, we work hard at our jobs to do so. And we deserve the time to carefully consider when we are redistricting ourselves out of 100% of our vote. That's the bigger issue. It's way bigger than our beloved fire forces and our budgets. And you are taking on a very important decision today. I came to request that this be voted upon in the November election. I think this is a critical issue. I lived in Europe when they built the Euro, and I watched as the Danish voters opted out of the Euro and thank God for the Danes that they're not involved in the Euro today. Because who could foresee what would happen? They could. And I think there are a number of voters in our city who need to carefully understand The economic benefits that you very carefully structured are worth the cost of losing their sovereignty. That's the issue for me. I don't know the answer to that yet, but I think it is a very critical issue, and I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. |
| 00:59:32.74 | Mayor Kelly | Appreciate your consideration. Does anyone else care to address the public on this matter? |
| 00:59:42.39 | Vicki Nichols | Vicki Nichols, 117 Caledonia. Just to sort of comment on a couple of previous speakers' comments, I have a different view in the ruin of the city's finances. I think that unless we do the annexation, we're going to be in severe financial trouble. We've been looking at this for years. And I think the... For me personally, this has been a very transparent thing. This stuff has been up all over the place. We have our meetings televised, et cetera, et cetera. The issue of annexation has been talked about since the, after the vote of the Public Safety Building Measure B, When in the final report, I've mentioned this to you before, it was mentioned that there was talks of consolidation then. It was written into the report, so this issue has been discussed for years off and on. I happen to come to a lot of meetings, which maybe others can't, but we can certainly find information easily. And I know everybody in this room knows how to get information in minutes. through the internet, et cetera. So I would urge you to put this on the June election. We need to get this settled. I'm concerned that if we don't get this settled, the impacts of the uncertainty really will pay havoc with the city's finances. We heard in the last council meeting that we already have a slight shortage. I can't imagine as a previous budget person for a corporation having to do two budgets, one with possibly deducting $1.4 million of revenue and one without it, and gambling, which one's going to make it. I also, as I've stated before, I think if this doesn't go on June, I think every council person up here needs to publicly show us where you're going to make $1.4 million of cuts or where you're going to put on the ballot a $400 parcel tax to make up the difference. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:01:38.42 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:01:38.47 | Vicki Nichols | Bye. |
| 01:01:38.49 | Mayor Kelly | THE END OF |
| 01:01:38.68 | Vicki Nichols | you |
| 01:01:38.73 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 01:01:45.32 | Alice Merrill | Alice Merrill. I'm a resident of Sausalito. And I... I support moving forward in June. I know that there are people I've been talking to, a lot of, a lot of people in town. And there are people who have concerns. they wish that they had been able to at least ask some questions. But they're all also know that this election is just going to damage the city in the end. It's going to Uh... It's gonna be really, really hard on this town to have to have this election. And if it drags out, it's gonna be worse. And, And I know that there are people who wish that they maybe had known a little bit more about it, You know, as Vicki says, she's been to a lot of meetings. She's known about it. I'd heard of it. I knew about it. How, I don't know, but I did. So people did have an opportunity to know about it. It wasn't made a big thing about. I don't know. I just would really like to see it move forward. I think that the firefighters are really good guys, And I understand that, you know, that's a different thing than our voting rights and all that. But I did talk to one firefighter who, just on the street one day out of uniform, And two things, he said that if he goes, if we do annex, he's actually going to get a cut in pay. But that if he lived here, which he might or might not, but if he did, he would vote for it. So there you have it. He knows he'll get a cut in pay and he'd vote for it because it's a better deal for the citizens. And that just came out of the words of a firefighter. And the other thing was, He did mention that he has asked the people who are not for it to come and talk and that they never have gone and had a conversation with the firefighters And I've learned a lot just by stopping firefighters and saying, what do you think? So I know that they have good information and it's not self-centered or self-serving. So that's fine. |
| 01:04:23.17 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:04:23.82 | Alice Merrill | you |
| 01:04:24.42 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you, Allison. |
| 01:04:29.22 | Mayor Kelly | of. |
| 01:04:35.97 | Bob Breyer | Hello, my name's Bob Breyer. I am the president of the Marine Professional Firefighters, which the Sausalito Southern Marin members are part of our union, Local 1775. I'm also a retired battalion chief from Southern Marin Fire District, so I've served here in the Southern Marin area as a battalion chief. And also, just to give you a background, too, I was also part consolidation that brought Alto and TAM together to form the Southern Marin Fire Protection District. And both of those districts have both realized savings over the years. The easiest example is going from two fire chiefs down to one chief, from six battalion chiefs to three battalion chiefs, and there's a direct savings there. |
| 01:05:10.90 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:05:22.29 | Bob Breyer | . I know there's a lot of emotions into this issue. I've been involved with this process for seven years. And like everybody said, it does take a toll on you. But when you're fighting for something that you truly believe is the right thing, It brings together a makes us into one team. If you could imagine, your council, and another council going to take care of a a municipal problem you guys are going to show up and you got your own way to do it here and they got their own way to do it there. And that kind of happens when you go to a fire. If we go to San Rafael, problem solved eventually, but it just doesn't happen smoothly. And, What we've got in Southern Marin with the Sausalito employees is a full team. We've gotten rid of that way that you do it and we do it and that's one team. So that's the importance for us as firefighters. There's a lot of things that you've talked about, and for us, Um, I know. Mr. Flavin stated he wasn't opposed to the annexation. He wanted the people to vote on it. As firefighters, we believe in democracy, and if you want to vote for it, that's fine. Our thing was is we wanted to be fiscally responsible. Why should the city have to go spend money to go to a ballot that's going to say, hey, we're all saving $1.4 million in the end Why should we go through this process and spend more money to go to the ballot? However, they've gotten 25% to sign it, and there's 75% of the population that did not sign it. So, Quickly go into the pension reform. You guys are a lot of people want to blame firefighters and government. This is a perfect opportunity. You're reducing duplication. If you go back to your own department, you're going to create A chief, three battalion chiefs, because you need that administrative help. You've already eliminated that. You've also taken those four people out of your $100,000 club also with the tears You're correct, 3% of 55 is there. you want your employees to pick up more of the retirement When they go to Southern Marin, the employees are going to start picking up more of their retirement. Thank you. Thank you, Bob. Is anyone else? |
| 01:07:40.97 | Mayor Kelly | care to address this. All right, sitting down, I'll bring it up back up here. I would ask that it's been asked and said already, that we hold our comments to bare minimum so we can just be done with the meeting today as opposed to carry this out in long diatribes. So with that, I'll start at this end. Linda, please. |
| 01:08:06.78 | Unknown | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I do want to comment that I have talked with firefighters during the petition campaign informally about at least two off-duty firefighters. I also had a one-on-one meeting with Fire Chief Jim Irving about annexation. And in addition, I want to comment that regarding the comment about the Johnny Come Latelys Well, keep in mind that the residents of Sausalito first heard about this 45% deal on September 13th. And it was the same day that it was voted on. So, you know, hardly a Johnny come lately. I mean, the devil's in the details. This was something that... Even as a council member, I only had five days warning, and two of those days were on the weekend, Saturday and Sunday. Thank you. Uh, I'm also very concerned about the LAFCO impartial analysis In my opinion, it's not impartial. It's very biased. It pulls from city. The city analysis and Peter Banning of LAFCO, I do recall him saying that he had not himself validated the city's numbers and had just pulled that data. So I'm very concerned about this. Most of all, I'm concerned that this council is rushing to a June vote, that the number one thing that residents have said is that they want an independent analysis done. An independent analysis has not been done. And to rush this to June means that residents are going to have to scramble to implement this independent analysis. And that's why I believe that this should be in November. I don't understand the rush, and I think we need to consider the very, very high stakes that are involved in annexation. And we need to listen to the residents and listen to the message they sent, that they want the right to vote. They also want an independent analysis done. Thank you. |
| 01:10:28.27 | Chuck Donald | Carol? |
| 01:10:31.12 | Alice Merrill | for the |
| 01:10:31.39 | Unknown | you |
| 01:10:31.64 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 01:10:32.36 | Mayor Kelly | Do you have anything to say? I don't have anything to say. You don't have anything to say? Yes. |
| 01:10:35.76 | Jim Irving | I do. you know, I sit up here, and I must admit, really, I am surrounded by, on this council, some very, very intelligent people. a much, much higher education than I've had. But I have also had the opportunity to really start work at the age of 17. And build many, many businesses and at one time, at one time had over 200 employees in all my places. And one thing I learned about my business, because it is a necessity business, the same as the fire department. is that It's a people. It's a people business and it's a service business. And if you really look, My comment is that in the last seven, eight years, you can go throughout this whole town and talk about, to the people, about what service we've had from this fire department. So I know it's working. I know one thing, when you have happy employees, They have a tendency to be more aware They don't get injured as much. They don't get sick as much. And the important thing is to be on time and be at work. So when I hear all of these things going back and forth. Nowhere have I heard about what really it is, and that's the people. the employees that we have in this fire department, and the service that they give. I hear all of these things about pensions and all of these what I consider things that are in place. They're state controlled in many ways. But yet, I hear about the past. I hear about the future. But yet, folks, we're living in the present. And our service and our people in that fire department has to know that we are behind them, not trying to divide and break them up. I really am amazed by the idea that Oh, shit. that Look, when we're up here I really attempt to not be emotional about it. It's business. We make the decisions on on some some of the information that's given to us, but also common sense. And I'm telling you, that common sense tells me a couple of things. Number one. We. The June ballot makes sense to me. Not only is it fresh in their minds, it's the most important issue that I think I've had in the six years that I've been up here. So it should totally stand on its own. not mixed in with a presidential election with enough stuff coming in the mail that people all of a sudden, it gets diluted. So I'm fully in favor of the June 5th. |
| 01:13:43.95 | Mayor Kelly | Also, number four. |
| 01:13:47.64 | Carolyn Ford | Well... Several people have said that the annexation process has been going on for years. And, but that's really not the issue. The issue here is that residents have not been informed of what the annexation involves, and particularly what they stand to lose. The City Council was made aware of the permanent 45% property tax transfer at our September 13th meeting last year. That's when the residents learned about what was going on with the annexation. Three council members approved the annexation application and rushed it to LAFCO before holding public meetings to inform residents of the change. The public meetings were scheduled after. they had already submitted the application to LAFCO. It was at the same September 13th meeting. that residents also learn they would no longer have the vote, this having been promised to them right along by our city council. Thanks to the hard work of interested residents, the residents now have the vote. It is important that they understand the pros and the cons of this annexation and what they are losing. As an example, the 45% property tax transfer is essentially forever. The city will lose the ability to bring fire costs down to a reasonable level. as we will no longer have control of fire services or pensions. Where will we find the money for our library, our parks, roads, and sewers? There has been no independent analysis of the financial report, and the report that we received is simply a snapshot in time without future projections. City officials and a majority of the City Council have repeatedly denied residents a financial oversight committee for the fire annexation. Why? What are they afraid of? Residents need time to educate themselves in the fire annexation. Fire annexation issue. Holding an election in June does not allow opponents the time required to educate the public. |
| 01:16:32.39 | Mayor Kelly | All right. I ask for a resolution of the City Council. The City of Sausalito calling and giving notice of a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, June 5, 2012. requesting consolidation of that election with the state primary election, and requesting services from the Marin County Registrar of Voters with respect to that election. |
| 01:16:55.75 | Mary Wagner | Mr. Mayor, may I ask a quick question? Did you want to include the rebuttal language? I mean, I... |
| 01:16:55.78 | Mayor Kelly | No. Mr. Mayor. question. I'm using the one that includes rebuttal language, yes. |
| 01:17:02.77 | Mary Wagner | that's been placed on your dais and there are also copies of your |
| 01:17:04.68 | Mayor Kelly | Correct. Whereas section 9285. So do I have a motion? |
| 01:17:11.98 | Jim Irving | Yes, so be it. |
| 01:17:13.64 | Mayor Kelly | So moved. Okay. Do I have a second? |
| 01:17:19.42 | Vice Mayor Leone | and you just make the motion yourself? No. I may. |
| 01:17:20.74 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:17:21.99 | Jim Irving | I made the motion, believe it or not. |
| 01:17:22.34 | Mayor Kelly | Thank you. |
| 01:17:22.48 | Vice Mayor Leone | Thank you. Sick. Thank you. |
| 01:17:26.66 | Mayor Kelly | All right. What do you call the road? |
| 01:17:33.90 | City Clerk | Council Member Fiver. No. |
| 01:17:35.29 | Carolyn Ford | you |
| 01:17:36.40 | City Clerk | Council Member Ford. |
| 01:17:37.58 | Carolyn Ford | No. |
| 01:17:38.68 | City Clerk | Councilmember Weiner. |
| 01:17:39.99 | Jim Irving | Yes. |
| 01:17:40.89 | City Clerk | Vice Mayor Leone. |
| 01:17:42.85 | Jim Irving | Thank you. |
| 01:17:42.86 | City Clerk | Thank you. |
| 01:17:42.91 | Jim Irving | Thank you. |
| 01:17:42.97 | Vice Mayor Leone | Thank you. |
| 01:17:42.98 | Jim Irving | Thank you. |
| 01:17:43.00 | Vice Mayor Leone | Yes. |
| 01:17:43.82 | City Clerk | Mayor Kelly. |
| 01:17:44.57 | Mayor Kelly | Yes. All right, with that, I'll move adjourn. |
Matt Bouchard — In Favor: Thanked council members who supported annexation, emphasizing cost savings and maintained public safety. Urged a June election to resolve exhaustion and budget uncertainty, and criticized council members who haven't engaged with firefighters for dialogue on public safety. ▶ 📄
Chuck Donald — Against: Stated he is not a 'Johnny-come-lately' and has been involved since planning commission days. Supported annexation from a safety standpoint but lacked confidence in the city council due to past procedural issues, emphasizing the need for trustworthy implementation documents. ▶ 📄
Wendy Richards — Against: Requested respect for taxpayers and careful consideration of voter sovereignty (losing 100% vote to 26%). Urged a November election to allow time for residents to understand the economic benefits versus the cost of losing sovereignty, drawing parallels to the Euro crisis. ▶ 📄
Vicki Nichols — In Favor: Argued that annexation is necessary to avoid severe financial trouble, citing transparency and long-standing discussion. Urged a June election to settle uncertainty and avoid budget havoc, challenging council members to specify cuts or a parcel tax if annexation fails. ▶ 📄
Alice Merrill — In Favor: Supported a June election, acknowledging some residents had concerns but emphasizing the damage of a prolonged election. Shared an anecdote about a firefighter willing to take a pay cut for the benefit of citizens, and noted firefighters are open to conversations. ▶ 📄
Bob Breyer — In Favor: As president of the firefighters' union, highlighted savings from past consolidations and the importance of a unified team. Supported democracy but questioned spending on a vote when savings are clear, and noted pension reforms with employees contributing more in the district. ▶ 📄