| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Jill Hoffman | Regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council and the Sausalito financing authority for June 30th 2015. Debbie would you take the role for each agency. |
| 00:00:14.95 | Debbie (City Clerk) | Councilmember and member Weiner. |
| 00:00:18.36 | Councilmember Weiner | President. |
| 00:00:19.44 | Debbie (City Clerk) | Councilmember and member Pfeiffer? Here. Councilmember and member Withey? |
| 00:00:25.50 | Councilmember Withey | Here. |
| 00:00:29.56 | Debbie (City Clerk) | Vice Chair. And vice mayor. Hoffman? Thank you. Mayor and Chairperson. Thank you. Theodoyce. |
| 00:00:41.14 | Jill Hoffman | Present. Maybe we have Carol Peltz lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please, Carol. |
| 00:00:48.80 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. I think she just stepped out. |
| 00:01:06.18 | Unknown | Amen. Thank you. for liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:01:11.92 | Councilmember Weiner | Well, cool. |
| 00:01:31.54 | Jill Hoffman | Don't move. |
| 00:01:32.35 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Second. |
| 00:01:34.21 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? Aye. Passes unanimously. So we move on to the public hearing of the Sausalito Sausalito City Council. and the board of directors of the Sausalito Financing Authority. This is a joint. public hearing of the Sausalito City Council and Sausalito Financing Authority to approve the issuance Thank you. of certificates of participation to finance capital improvements through the city's MLK campus, and Robin Sweeney, Southview and Dunphy Parks. And we will have. Charlie, our administrative services director, Charlie Francis, give the presentation, Charlie. |
| 00:02:18.73 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. |
| 00:02:18.74 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:02:18.76 | Charlie Francis | Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the council. Certificates of Participation for MLK and Park Improvements. Agendas, I'm going to walk through the project, how funding capital projects, talk about all the different mechanisms of it, talk about some precedents that we have, some council actions, and of course there will be a time for questions and discussions, and then I have recommended motions for you at the end of the meeting. Basically, we're asking for your approval tonight to authorize Certificates of Particip participation for financing the MLK facility assessment project and Sausalito parks the MLK facility assessment was received by the City Council several meetings ago and in that meeting we saw that we had a two facilities here building four and building five that were in good condition we had two buildings buildings three six and seven that were in fair condition but the majority of the building is in fair as in poor position or very poor position and if we did nothing and continued to defer maintenance on the mlk facility by the end years, you know, most of the facility would be poor to very poor, would be in bad condition. So we must do something to protect our asset. And during the budget process, we had proposed that we fund all of the assessments. There was, I mean, all of the conditions that needed to be addressed. For example, the immediate needs were $1,244,000 spread around foundations, basement structure, exterior, roofing, the gymnasium, the field improvements, things like that. But it made sense that if we could, rather than finance one and then wait until years three through ten to do the others, that if we could wrap it all together one and then wait till years three through ten to do the others, that if we could wrap it all together, we'd do the whole $3 million in one swoop, get it done with, and the facility's protected and in good condition for the next ten years with ongoing maintenance. As we looked at the facility, though, we also then looked at some other infrastructure needs that the city has. And you can recognize from these pictures here that what we have here is Robin Sweeney Park, and we have Dunphy Park over here. And each one of those parks, Robin Sweeney, has about $1,855,000 worth of infrastructure improvements that have been estimated. And Dunphyey Park, no, $1,150,000. Dumfey Park, $1.8 million. And Southview Park, which has different levels in there, including all these cracks going in there. The retaining wall needs to be shored up over in here. And so that has about another $1 million worth of projects, capital infrastructure needs. So when we looked at it all, we totaled it up, and we saw that we have a total of $7,193,000 worth of infrastructure needs for MLK improvements and parks. Now, why that made sense of looking at it all together is because, and this chart explains it's a little busy in the numbers, but it's a 15-year projection. 15 years because that's about the outstanding of the existing leases for the major anchor tenants that have three, five-year option leases left. Those are options at the tenant's discretion. And here in this scenario, I've estimated growth in revenues based on the inflation escalators that are already in those leases. And I forecast expenses and operating expenses based on inflation. So in this scenario, what I said was, well, one thing we could do is pay go the MLK improvements that are out there that have been identified, the $3 million. And we could also work towards paying back the general fund loan. The general fund loan is currently $6,348,000. So if we put together a 15-year debt service schedule for the payback, the general fund over that 15 years, it would be about $611,000 worth of annual debt service expense. Thank you. for the payback, the general fund over that 15 years, it would be about $611,000 worth of annual debt service expense. And then the pay-go, the surplus that comes out of that after operating expenses would be these amounts here, $625,000, $340,000, $368,000. And so this first seven years is what it would take for pay go improvements to pay just the mlk improvements the 3 million 38 000 then the mlk fund starts generating a surplus of about 500 to 700 000 a year which if we were going to use that surplus to pay for parks it would take wouldn't be able to start to the year 2022 and it would take the balance of eight years to finish those parks and you would only have less than two million dollars left in the mlk fund if you did not do parks at all you would end up accumulating 5.9 million dollars in the mlk fund so i ran second scenario. The second scenario said, well, let's do certificates of participation just for the MLK improvements and continue to put a debt service schedule in place to pay off the general fund loan. So once again, we see the general fund loans paid off in 15 years. The MLK improvements are financed over 15 years. And if we were going, if we were gonna use the surplus at that time to pay for park improvements, it would take 15 years, almost 14 years, to pay for all the park improvements and it would leave less than a million dollars less in the MLK fund. If we decided not to do parks out of the MLK fund, it would have 4.8 million. So I just wanna toggle back and forth. Without doing park improvements and paying off the general fund loan and paying for MLK improvements, the MLK fund, after 15 years, would either have $6 million or $5 million, based on which scenario. The primary difference between those numbers would be the interest expense on the COPs to do the MLK improvements. So we examined the third option. The third option option said let's forgive the general fund loan and and use the cash flow from the MLK facility to finance a certificates of participation to not only do the MLK improvements but also the park improvements upfront And what we end up with is the general fund loan is eliminated. The MLK improvements are financed. The parks improvements are financed. And at the end of the 15 years, the MLK fund has $8 million left over, and we've accomplished all of the other objectives. So that's why staff then came back and said, doing this kind of an analysis, these kinds of scenario planning makes sense, and we recommended it to the City Council to include in the budget so that we could come before you tonight and ask you to authorize certificates of participation to to accomplish some major infrastructure for the city to forgive this controversial general fund loan to do the MLK improvements and to accumulate enough money in the MLK fund to use it for whatever purpose the MLK fund will want to have at the end of 15 years. It'll be free, unencumbered, and have $8 million in the bank. So with that, $8 million versus 4.8 and no parks, or 5.9 and no parks. You see, you generate more money for the future by doing this issue. So the Sausalito, in order to issue tax-exempt bonds, we use a financing vehicle called the Sausalito Financing Authority. The Sausalito Financing Authority is the successor to the Sausalito Capital Improvements Authority that was used to finance the old city hall improvements, the former 1999 lease financing agreement on the MLK property. It was a fallout of part of the redevelopment laws that it was accidentally dissolved by action of the state, so we recreated the Sausalito Financing Authority in order to do the sewer revenue bonds last year. And so that's the vehicle to do it, and I'm gonna show you why we need that vehicle. Thank you. you First of all, this is kind of a complicated diagram. I'm gonna try to make it a little more simpler for you. The local government lessee, that's the city. And let's just for illustration purposes say that this right here is the MLK facility. The lessor, this entity down here, is the Sausalito financing authority. So what happens is there's a ground lease that goes this way from the city. to the Sausalito Financing Authority, leasing the MLK facility to them for a dollar a year. The Sausalito Financing Authority then leases it back to the city this way. approximately $700,000 a year. In other words, the amount of debt service that would be needed to generate present value for all of these facilities. So then the Sausalito Finance Authority assigns those leases to a trustee via a trust agreement. And that trust agreement says all of the monies that would have come to the lessor, we're sending here, so we're actually doing this. We're sending $700,000 a year from the city to the trustee. The trustee, via the underwriter, and agreements that the city has with the underwriter. It says, Present value, can we get that from certificate holders? And certificate holders, then through the underwriter, says, we'll give you $8 million in exchange for this $700,000 annual debt service. That money goes to the underwriter, comes to the city, goes to the MLK, and it builds the parks. So did all that scribble make that diagram easier? It's a typical transaction that's done in California for certificates of participation. In order to do that, we've put together a financing team. The financing team for the most part is the same financing team that we had for the sewer revenue bond where we have Bryant Quint, from Quentin Thimig as our bond counsel. Brian could not be here tonight because his daughter is giving birth to his first granddaughter. And so his partner, there you go. Thank you. He's here in his place tonight and can answer any questions that you might have on tax-exempt status and the legal structure of the bond issue. In addition, we have Mr. Craig Hill from NHA Advisors is our municipal advisor. He was our municipal advisor throughout the sewer rate study as well as for the sewer revenue bonds. And our trustee is the Bank of New York Trust Company, the same trustee that we use for our general obligation bonds, for our sewer bonds, and for this. So in order to make for easy succession, we decided that the same trust company makes sense, so all our reserve funds are in one place. Now, unlike the sewer revenue bonds, where we just took the cash flow and went to the market and got competitive bids this time we're proposing using an underwriter because there's a deep story to tell behind the this financing and the underwriter then we'll do a competitive selection for we actually wrote an RFP that had here's the kinds of things we're looking for an underwriter how do you meet those qualifications and how would you help us structure this deal so the underwriters yet to be determined and of course the underwriter always has an underwriter counsel that supports that the official statement and everything is correct when they're marketing that to to their Biden purchasers. So that has not to be determined yet. Okay, there's a whole plethora of documents, but basically the documents effectuate that diagram that I showed you. There's resolutions. There's facility lease agreements that go back and forth. There's assignment agreements to the trustee. There's disclosure certificates where we must and we do make the proper disclosures to the bond market and our financial statements and to various government entities that monitor that. And then there's a draft preliminary official statement which was included in your packet. Yesterday I believe we handed out a substitute resolution that was in the packet and the substitute resolution included that the desire of the city council that there be at least a minimum amount spent on each park where we put a million dollars. We didn't want one park to scope of services to suddenly expand and all of a sudden we end up with one park MLK improvements and the other two parks not saving any money so we put a million dollars minimum to be invested in each park and then the scope of services to balance out the rest of that money. The resolutions specify that the proceeds from the certificates of participation can only be used on the MLK facility improvements or the three parks. They cannot be used for any other governmental purpose. If there are excess funds at the end, they would have to be rebated. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any prepayment opportunities, so it would have to be held in the reserve account until the end of the issue. |
| 00:16:36.40 | Charlie Francis | We're anticipating in order to generate the approximately $7,200,000 of proceeds needed for the three projects that we would have to issue $8,100,000 worth of bonds. Now it sounds like, so the $8,100,000 gives 7.2. $680,000 of it goes into a reserve fund, and that reserve fund can be used for the last year's debt service. I just want to show you I took that into account, and this chart right here is that I did not put the $680,000 here in the last year of our financing plan because it comes out of the reserve fund. Our issuance cost will be $160,000 for the bond attorney, for the financial advisor, for the printing of the documents, and approximately $80,000 for underwriter fees. That's negotiated at the time of the sale based on discount rates and things like that. So. Just a little bit of background on the MLK facility. On August 1st, 1987, the city entered into a lease purchase agreement with the Sausalito School District that had an amendment in 1997. On December 18th of 1997, Ordinance 1128 was adopted by the city council. And on September 28th, 1999, the city brought forward a lease-leaseback financing arrangement between, here it is, the Sausalito Capital Improvements Authority, the predecessor to the now Sausalito Financing Authority, where we leased and leased back, just like that diagram that I showed you before, the MLK facility in order to finance certain capital improvements. Those capital improvements include MLK improvements, They included other city capital improvements, and in fact, it also included a lease purchase agreement payment on the Sausalito School District loan, which in effect I think made it a refunding agreement as well as certificates of participation. The kinds of city capital improvement projects that were identified in the resolution adopted by the city council at the time included these. So Area 3 sewer, Gate 5 sewer, Civic Center generator, slide repairs, retaining walls, fire station, seismic retrofit. You can read the whole list of projects. What was interesting in September of 1999, and this is extracted from the minutes from the September 28th, 1999 meeting, Council Member Roberts asked Mr. Arner, Brock Arner was our city manager at the time, if there was any conflict with the ordinance 1128, which would result from this arrangement. And Mr. Arner responded that both Craig Labate and Paul Anderson, who are both legal counsel for the city, have opined in writing that there is no conflict with Ordinance 1128. There were a number of watchdogs in the audience that night of Ordinance 1128. Not one of them objected to this leaseback financing agreement. In fact, when reading the minutes, you almost find an endorsement for this lease financing agreement. So the actions that staff is asking the council to take tonight as a joint council and authority is that you conduct a joint public hearing, which you're doing now, and to approve the issuance. And then there's three motions. I've included these motions at the end of this PowerPoint presentation so that if you choose to make these motions, you can read them off the screen and make it a lot easier for you. The motions approve the resolution providing for the Tax Equity and Reform Act public hearing and then approve the proceedings from both the city's perspective and as the board of directors for the Sausalito Financing Authority. The Sausalito Financing Authority and the city of Sausalito are basically you, the city council. So with that I have a nice picture of Southview, Robin Sweeney and Dunphy Park and ready to answer any questions you might have and help you engage in any discussion you might wanna take. |
| 00:20:40.71 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Charlie. As soon as we get through our technical difficulty, we'll we'll open it up to Council questions. |
| 00:20:40.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:20:41.07 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 00:20:41.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:20:41.10 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. |
| 00:20:48.11 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, who'd like to start? |
| 00:20:52.09 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Charlie. You're welcome. Could you go to, it was the slide that showed the maintenance costs at $3,038,044.86 for |
| 00:20:52.54 | Jill Hoffman | Councilmember Pfeiffer. Thank you. You're welcome. |
| 00:21:08.78 | Charlie Francis | This one or this one? |
| 00:21:09.32 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Either this one. Either one. |
| 00:21:11.11 | Charlie Francis | Okay. |
| 00:21:11.12 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | It's fine. When this was presented to Council... It was my understanding that that $3 million total represented the maintenance, the deferred maintenance costs, you know, for MLK. I got a copy of the detailed spreadsheet with all of the line items, and that detailed spreadsheet includes what the tenants are responsible for paying. And yet what the tenants are responsible for paying were lumped in to this $3 million total. So I was wondering if you could comment on that. |
| 00:21:59.03 | Unknown | Well, I see. |
| 00:21:59.05 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | It's my understanding the three million was what the city was responsible for paying, and yet when I compared that to the long spreadsheet, that three million appears to include what tenants, like the Lise School is supposed to be covering as well. |
| 00:22:14.86 | Charlie Francis | Well staff will definitely review that and if there are tenant improvements that are responsible for the tenant they'll be removed. |
| 00:22:21.81 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. I have more questions, but I yield to counsel. I don't want to monopolize this. |
| 00:22:30.94 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, that's cool. |
| 00:22:31.70 | Layla Samrad | Thank you. |
| 00:22:31.97 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:22:31.99 | Layla Samrad | Thank you. |
| 00:22:32.04 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay. So we had a couple of correspondence in the last two days about the radiology . Thank you for the reminder. So we've had a couple of pieces of correspondence in the last two days. on today, just today we had one piece and another one on June 29th. about the legality of the transaction under Ordinance 1128. And Charlie, this is a question for either you or Mary or Adam or whoever wants to jump in on this. So how is this transaction that we're talking about now, not a violation of ordinance 1128 that requires voter approval Um, the city shall maintain ownership of Martin Luther King property and shall not sell lease or otherwise dispose of property without voter approval. So can you guys tell us how that's not a violation of loan 20? |
| 00:23:26.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:23:26.82 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:23:30.24 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Vice Mayor Hoffman, and thank you for turning your mic on. Sorry about that. |
| 00:23:33.31 | Jill Hoffman | Um, |
| 00:23:35.59 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, so we have received a couple of pieces of correspondence, and I've had the opportunity to speak with both Pearl Perlmutter from Schutmohally and a couple other people who've raised some concerns regarding 1128. And my opinion remains the same, and it's the opinion that I gave you when we spoke about this last time, that the city's on firm legal ground with respect to the application of ordinance 1128 to the proposed certificates of participation. I think Charlie did an excellent job of going over some of the history for you of the issuance that occurred in 1999. and the fact that these same questions arose. And I'm always happy when prior city attorneys give the same opinion that I have given you guys before I had the benefit of their opinions in my hand. A couple of the issues that have came up or |
| 00:24:12.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:24:24.97 | Jill Hoffman | Hold on a second. Mr. Francis, could you turn the lights back on, please? What did I do? Oh, sorry. Sorry, Mary. Go ahead. |
| 00:24:30.35 | Charlie Francis | They do. |
| 00:24:35.68 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I think it might be helpful to go through some of the points that have been raised, particularly in the written correspondence, if I may. One of which is there's a concern that the COPs, quote-unquote, unreasonably extend the MLK debt retirement schedule. And I think that's simply inaccurate, particularly with respect to the information that Charlie just shared with you and has been shared previously. That in fact, the MLK property is in a better position. as a result of the issuance of the COPs and the concurrent forgiveness, if you will, of the MLK fund debt to the general fund. And I believe Charlie went through that with you in some detail. There's also been raised a concern that this lease back structure violates 1128. This is simply a financing mechanism. It's in effect a legal construct, if you will, that allows for this financing to occur. It is clear that 1128 was not designed to prevent this type of lease back arrangement and the fact that it's been undertaken before serves as some evidence of that. And as Charlie indicated, ordinance 1128 was adopted in 97 and that financing actually occurred in 1999. Um, there's also been concerns raised about the, the fact that the financing documents give other entities the right to come in, in the event of a default and take over the leasing of the property. Um, there are many layers of, uh, activity that would have to occur before that would happen. You know, putting the city in default for failure to make a payment, giving the city the opportunity to cure, going through a number of those types of mechanisms and the fact that the documents contain the possibility that that occurs. is not a violation of 1128 and would not be a violation of 1128 even if it were at that point. until that activity actually occurred. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS. that's kind of coupled with this concern about the length of the leases and the fact that the ability to extend beyond the initial five-year term lies with the tenant and at the tenant's discretion. I think those arguments are missing the fundamental point that the city could re-let the premises in the event that either of the schools decided not to continue on in their lease. or during a conversation I had with someone on the phone, there was concerns that financial situations for the schools could change. and that they may decide not to continue or they could go into default. THE FEDERAL. MLK, I believe, if you look over the history of the city's leasing of that property, has had a very low vacancy rate, and the city has been able to continue to lease that out. So I don't think that that's really a big concern. The other issue that has been raised and was raised previously was the use of the funds on again quote unquote unapproved purposes for capital improvements at other parks and ordinance 1128 simply doesn't say that there's nothing in 1128 that prohibits the use of funds generated utilizing this financing mechanism or even the least revenues generated at MLK from being utilized on other projects. So I think that. in a nutshell, answer some of the concerns that have been raised. If there's a point that I've missed or something else you'd like me to address, I'd be happy to. |
| 00:28:06.59 | Jill Hoffman | I have a couple of follow-ups, is that okay? Yep. Is there any, there was a mention in the correspondence about including a reference to ordinance 1128 in the documents, in the certificate of participation documents. Is there any reason why we couldn't do that or wouldn't want to do that? |
| 00:28:22.85 | Mary Wagner | know I think that would be a really good question for our financing council |
| 00:28:28.46 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Is the financing council here? Are they comfortable with the question from left field? We didn't make you come up. |
| 00:28:34.53 | Mary Wagner | We make you come up to the mic. So I think if I could put it in a nutshell, the question is should the disclosure documents that accompany the financing or the legal opinions include some kind of reference to Ordinance 1128? |
| 00:28:43.91 | Jill Hoffman | 1128. Or is there any reason why we couldn't or wouldn't want to do that? |
| 00:28:49.65 | Unknown (Financing Counsel) | I don't believe that will be a problem. |
| 00:28:52.55 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 00:28:52.87 | Unknown (Financing Counsel) | Thank you. to amend the documents. |
| 00:28:54.44 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thanks. Well done. And my next question is to Charlie, if that's okay. It's sort of on the... There was a reference in one of the pieces of correspondence about the cost of the... |
| 00:29:04.13 | Mary Wagner | sort of on the |
| 00:29:10.53 | Jill Hoffman | of the funding that we're not quite ready to use yet. In other words, if we're gonna borrow whatever it is eight million and we're not really ready to use anything i think other than first robin sweeney park and let's I've got that wrong. It seems like that's the only part really that we have some plans and that we've got the, you know, we're ready to kind of go on. We're sort of there with Dumpy. With regard to Southview, we've got some work on that. Is that why it's in a two-step process? I saw in one part that we're gonna borrow a certain amount now and a certain amount later, or can you explain a little bit about the cost of the money? |
| 00:29:39.72 | Charlie Francis | No. There's a technical reason why it's in a two-step process. But first to address the concern, I think that the MLK improvements coupled with the Dumpy Park, Robin Sweeney Park, I can get them mixed up, are enough to consume majority of the proceeds or a big a big chunk of the proceeds right away in other words there's no reason not to delay it so there's purely a technical reason to delay it and the technical reason was when we did the sewer revenue bonds we made those bonds bank qualified and we made them bank qualified in order to get a better interest rate in the market at that time when you make and that's because we did not anticipate at that present time that we were going to be doing any other financings for the rest of the year bank qualified comes with it an automatic 10 million dollar cap on what you could issue as debt during a calendar year so the capacity we have left from that 10 million cap is 3 million 250,000 to issue now with the balance 6 million to be not 6 million 5 million or less to be issued in January |
| 00:31:00.99 | Adam Politzer | Mr. and Mr. Mayor, can I just tag on to that? Yeah. Because I don't want there to be a myth that there is no expense that's still needed for Dunphy Park and Southview. They're still planning and engineering and, you know, pre-application work. And we've been very fortunate to have Jacques Goldman and Paul Leffingwell volunteering their time. But even they are looking in my meeting with Jonathan Goldman and Paul and Jacques last week. They need professional help. So there's money, professional help in the architectural context here. I need professional help. |
| 00:31:35.55 | Charlie Francis | I'm not. |
| 00:31:37.64 | Adam Politzer | But at the end of the day, there are real dollars that need to be spent in advance. So it's not pushing these off into years. This is how do we now start moving forward with some of the technical needs to move these projects up to the planning and application process. |
| 00:31:55.16 | Jill Hoffman | Charlie, what's the, so, but what is the cost of, you know, the dollar cost of not being ready to spend the money when we have it? like let's say for January, we're not quite ready to go on with Dunphy and with Southview. Is there a mechanism or could we wait for that second you know, to borrow that second portion until we actually need it? Or would we want to do that? Is there... |
| 00:32:16.45 | Charlie Francis | Well, as Adam just said, I don't think there's a need to wait because we're not ready to spend the money. I think the money is ready to be spent. But if we did want to wait, when we close on the second issue is up to us. |
| 00:32:32.43 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, all right, okay. Yeah, thank you. |
| 00:32:35.27 | Charlie Francis | We received real benefit from making them bank qualified loans in terms of an interest rate discount that we got in the market back then. And so it was worth doing for that purpose. |
| 00:32:51.65 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So Charlie, getting back to my earlier question about the spreadsheet that had the maintenance for MLK where you got the $3 million. Yeah. |
| 00:32:57.48 | Charlie Francis | Yeah. |
| 00:33:02.27 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | The other comment I have about that is that I was looking at what the tenants were responsible for and what the city was responsible for. And in looking at the Lise Schoolies, it says they're responsible for... They're renting it as is, but they're responsible for ventilation, heating, electrical systems, refrigeration equipment, serving the premises, windows, doors, storefronts, light glass, interior walls, ceilings, interior plumbing. I saw some line items in that report. that seem to bleed into these areas. And so I had a lot of questions. When you go back and look at that total, could you also revisit that alignment? |
| 00:33:44.59 | Unknown | Sure. Okay. |
| 00:33:48.86 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a follow-up question. So I've talked to a couple people who were actually around for that September 28, 1999 meeting, which is being used as the precedent regarding ordinance 1128, which as you know was a citizen's initiative. It was a citizen's initiative because they wanted MLK to be the community center, as you know. What I'm hearing is that it was not necessarily pitched to the public as a lease that was going to do anything other than provide maintenance for MLK. And I was wondering if you could comment on that, what the staff report from that point says, the dialogue, et cetera. |
| 00:34:34.14 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. |
| 00:34:40.60 | Charlie Francis | I don't have the staff report, I only have the minutes from the meeting and I have the financing documents. |
| 00:34:46.89 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So you haven't looked at what was presented to the public on that day? No. OK. So I have a follow up question. Other than the financing document, |
| 00:34:54.15 | Charlie Francis | Other than the financing documents, which are part of the background. |
| 00:34:55.59 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. well yeah but I I guess that you know it's important in terms of what is presented to the public so so I I understand that we're doing well there was a |
| 00:35:06.01 | Charlie Francis | there was a comment in the minutes that where there was a request made that the notification list of the documents and the whole package that was presented to the public be expanded for other people and and I'm assuming the city did that |
| 00:35:23.68 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I'm sorry, well, expanded for other people, aka- |
| 00:35:27.23 | Charlie Francis | There was a required notification list. I imagine at that time there might have been a notification around the perimeter of MLK. And names were suggested to be added to that list, and the city council agreed and directed staff to add those names to the list. Clearly we need to go back and look at how it was presented. So I'm sure that there was adequate public notice of that meeting. |
| 00:35:31.80 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | like a. Yeah. |
| 00:35:42.89 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | clearly we need to look at how it was presented well in it I know there was adequate public notice my question is what what the public was told at that meeting and how the lease was presented so my next question has to do with I know that we split the certificates of participation into series A and series B because of the sewer bond you you know cap limit for debt. I know that the current city Currently has 20 million. I believe in current bond debt that the city is carrying and that with Series A and B am I right with that 20 million? That's what I that's what I'm telling that Okay, and that with this |
| 00:36:26.00 | Charlie Francis | That's what I tallied up. No, of what? General obligation bonds? |
| 00:36:33.82 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | general obligation bonds bond and all over over yeah yeah that would be that would be good to know because if that's true we're looking at another 8.1 million and we are splitting this into series a and series B because |
| 00:36:35.35 | Charlie Francis | I could look that up. |
| 00:36:49.90 | Charlie Francis | No, no, no, I'm afraid that I didn't communicate that right. It's 10 million issued in any year. And the year that the bank qualifying issue was gone, you can only issue a total of 10 million in that one year. It's not a cap on the total city debt. |
| 00:37:10.89 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No, I understand that. Okay. I understand that. But it was my understanding, it was the terms of the sewer bond that we could only, we had a cap in terms of that debt in going forward for 2015. |
| 00:37:21.23 | Charlie Francis | Yeah. Sewer bonds were what, $6 million? |
| 00:37:25.59 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | No, for doing the certificates of participation, we couldn't do the $8.1 million all in 2015 because of the terms of the sewer bond. Correct. Okay. So I guess can you comment on, I mean, with this $8.1 million, that's a 40% debt increase if we're looking at $20 million today. |
| 00:37:32.37 | Charlie Francis | That's right. |
| 00:37:47.03 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | in bond debt. And can you comment on that? Are there risks involved in that? It just seems like a lot to me. |
| 00:37:51.81 | Charlie Francis | It just seems like a lot to me. Well, they all have different revenue sources to pay for it. The general obligation bonds were a voter-approved tax that people imposed on themselves in order to provide for the public safety. So there's no general fund or risk to, or no city risk, because the tax is automatically levied and the amount is automatically sent to a trustee and the trustee pays the debt service this city this administration has done a great job in paying off debt we paid off the lease purchase agreement paid off the 1999 lease we paid off the old city hall and the energy loan, and I think there are some others. So we've created debt capacity for the purpose, for those opportunities when it makes the most sense. And as you saw from the financial analysis, in order to accumulate the most amount of money for the purpose that MLK was originally designed for, was to be self-sufficient and be a recreation facility with whatever enhancements the community wanted, this is what we did. that MLK was originally designed for was to be self-sufficient and be a recreation facility with whatever enhancements the community wanted this debt mechanism is the way to do it financed not by city revenues but by tenant revenues that are on the site so I think that this is a reasonable use of debt and actually is a is a finance strategic financial use of debt that the city should pursue |
| 00:39:09.99 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So, |
| 00:39:20.41 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So with the Series A and the Series B, would they both have the same interest rate? Because I've heard that the big attractiveness is that interest rates are low right now. |
| 00:39:26.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:39:26.46 | Charlie Francis | . |
| 00:39:26.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:39:26.53 | Charlie Francis | Thank you. |
| 00:39:26.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:39:26.72 | Charlie Francis | That would be a big |
| 00:39:31.20 | Charlie Francis | Of course, and we don't know what interest rates will be in January, so what we do is a forward delivery on that, so we'll know what the interest rate that we're paying for is now, and we'll negotiate that with the underwriter. |
| 00:39:34.33 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I'm just curious. |
| 00:39:44.89 | Charlie Francis | That interest rate forward delivery risk is offset by the basis points that we got on the bank qualified portion when we qualified the sewer revenue bond. |
| 00:39:56.03 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So another question I have is the total we're looking at not just, I mean, we're looking at the whole site here in terms of the certificates of participation. It's my understanding that the value of the structures is at 10 million. And so if we're doing certificates of participation at 8.1 million, that's like 80% of the value of that site. Can you comment on that? |
| 00:40:19.13 | Charlie Francis | Can you come? Sure. The property is only there to say... as the lease mechanism. What the city is really covenanting is the lease stream. It has nothing to do with the value of the property. So the lease stream, of which we have almost a 1.5 revenue coverage over debt service, is what's being provided to pay that debt service. |
| 00:40:45.47 | Adam Politzer | Mr. Mayor, can I just, you know, looking at the clock and knowing that there's several folks in there, maybe there's a few more questions and then turn it to public comment and then come back to questions of counseling. |
| 00:40:56.10 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I can wait. I can wait. |
| 00:40:59.43 | Councilmember Weiner | One quickie. How much, Charlie, how much did the say put in improvements up there? And that would be including the playground, roughly? It doesn't have to be exact. |
| 00:41:13.84 | Charlie Francis | Oh. Thank you. I could never come up with an exact number at the top of my head here, but the playground was |
| 00:41:18.46 | Councilmember Weiner | I'm not sure. |
| 00:41:19.93 | Adam Politzer | The playoff. and I think we've been told $4 million for the improvements inside the lease side. So a total of five. |
| 00:41:27.10 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:41:28.64 | Councilmember Weiner | Okay, thank you. |
| 00:41:29.38 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:41:29.43 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 00:41:31.25 | Jill Hoffman | Let's open it up to public comment. We'll come back to council questions afterwards. And I have a list. of, oh, we have quite a list. These are, are these? Are these all on? |
| 00:41:45.70 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, are these all on? Yes. |
| 00:41:52.85 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, then, when I call you then, please let me know that. Okay. Thank you. Well, actually, are you? Okay. Okay. Okay. Nina, the Duchi and Ava Glasgow. |
| 00:42:12.55 | Jill Hoffman | All right, we start out fun. |
| 00:42:19.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:42:23.62 | Nina (Public Commenter) | Hello, our names are Nina and Ava. |
| 00:42:26.87 | Ava (Public Commenter) | We would appreciate it if you would be so kind to fund our local parks. My father played |
| 00:42:33.18 | Nina (Public Commenter) | And. |
| 00:42:33.59 | Ava (Public Commenter) | the violence we need. |
| 00:42:34.38 | Nina (Public Commenter) | in this in Robins we need Park when he was young it's been roughly 31 years since it's been built |
| 00:42:41.03 | Ava (Public Commenter) | It's overdue for a rebuild. We have seen the plans and we are sure the local children will love the new park. I have a little brother who is five months old, and I would like him to enjoy the park when he is older as I have. |
| 00:42:57.26 | Nina (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 00:42:57.35 | Ava (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 00:42:57.38 | Nina (Public Commenter) | Thank you. The children of Sausalito love to play outside and I think that I would enjoy it too. Thank you for your consideration. |
| 00:43:10.21 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Well done. |
| 00:43:10.63 | Nina (Public Commenter) | Well, |
| 00:43:17.35 | Jill Hoffman | I'm going to call several names at a time, Heather Richard, Susan Knowles. And Jeffrey Knowles. Is Heather there? You're up. Oh. Thank you. |
| 00:43:34.04 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 00:43:34.53 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:43:39.07 | Heather Richard (Public Commenter) | Hi, I'm Heather Richard. I just want to speak for the park's improvement as well. I can tell you, having raised three children now here in Sausalito and being deeply involved in the schools and in the park and in also trying to create a maritime rec center at Sausalito Community Boating and Cast Marina, that the parks and the outdoor spaces in our town are extremely heavily used. There's a lot of activity that goes on there all the time. And it's kind of a shame that we've let them go so long, and I'd really like to see this happen. I have a lot of faith in Charlie, and I think that he's done a fantastic job in coming up with a creative solution. I know also for a fact that it's very difficult to raise money for these kinds of projects as we're seeing ourselves. So I'd really like to see this go forward. And thank you for your consideration. |
| 00:44:34.94 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:44:43.14 | Unknown | Hi, good evening, Council. I'm Susan Cleveland Knowles. I'm a resident of Sausalito. I've raised two children here. I have my daughter, Hillary Knowles, and my son, Jack Knowles, ages 8 and 10. They have gone through exclusively to date Sausalito schools, the Sausalito Nursery School and Willow Creek Academy. And tonight I'm speaking in strong support for the COP and for funding for parks. Our parks are in desperate need of maintenance and repair. We live near Southview Park and it is a tragic It's just a tragedy. It's the most beautiful park in the world. It's got a beautiful view of San Francisco, yet it's desperately in need of attention. And we all know that Rob and Sweeney Park, Dunphy Park, and our other parks are also in need of attention. It's extremely sad to me that the most beautiful park currently in town is one built by a private school, the lyse. And all of our children, I think, play there regularly because it's safe, it's up to date, and it's interesting for them. um, And my daughter wanted me to specifically mention that she walks down a to Southview Park, and she would really appreciate some improvements there. As you all know, the number of families in Sausalito is growing. We have worked very, very, very hard to make our local schools better. And I don't feel like we should have to fight for parks. It is a no brainer. I think you know what the right decision is. Parks are an amenity that we should. have in Sausalito. It is something we can well afford, and the COP is a good way to do it. We travel every weekend to other jurisdictions throughout Marin to go to parks that are in good shape, and that are safe and that are up to date. We should not have to do that. We all gather at Rob and Sweeney, and we gather there because it's a great community space. But right now, it's not a great park. It needs help. And I really hope that you'll support this measure tonight. Thank you very much. |
| 00:46:50.87 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Can we hold our applause, please, till the end? I'd ask that you hold your applause on these until we're at the very end. Jeffrey Knowles, uh, then we'll have Kate store and Robert Woodrum. |
| 00:47:04.87 | Jeffrey Knowles (Public Commenter) | Good evening, Council. I am here also to speak on behalf of a vote in favor of the COP to fund the parks. I have lived in Sausalito since 1995. I moved here as a bachelor. I met my wife, who you just heard from, and decided to stay. When we decided to have a family, we thought hard about whether we should stay in Sausalito because the pattern is, as you know, common for people who start to raise a family to move away from Sausalito. And we decided to stay and we decided to go all in and make sure our kids go to school here and do what we can to improve the community. During the time we've been here, we've seen a number of families leave. And there is a cost to staying here as a family. And it's because there aren't the family kind of amenities and infrastructure that many other communities in Marin have. I don't think we need to have a community like that. I think this community can support every demographic And I think that if we decide as a community we're going to support every demographic, we will start creating the infrastructure that will keep families here. Tonight, I know there are a number of families who have come to speak on behalf of the parks and to urge you to fund the COP. I know we've lost some tonight because it's gotten a little late. and they needed to get their kids home. But I know there is a very strong feeling in Sausalito that we really need the infrastructure for families. This is one step in that direction. The schools are another step. As some of you may know, I'm serving on the board at Willow Creek. We are improving that school year by year. It's becoming a place where local kids want to go to school. It's one of the most diverse schools, not only in Marin County, but probably in all of California. We have All we need here to keep families here and the parks are one piece that are going to do that. Please fund these parks. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:49:00.77 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:49:01.72 | Jeffrey Knowles (Public Commenter) | All right. |
| 00:49:01.97 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:49:05.46 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 00:49:06.20 | Kate Storer | Hello, City Council. Mayor Theodorus, I'm Kate Storr. I'm a resident for the last seven years. I'm going to be speaking later tonight, so I won't take the time on the Airbnb and hosting issue, so I hope my fellow parents will stay and weigh in on that as well. I'd like to say that I support funding the parks and the COP. I think this just makes good business sense for Sausalito, and I urge you to support it. Thank you. |
| 00:49:29.95 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And Robert, then John Flavin and Doreen Gurnard. |
| 00:49:36.05 | Robert Woodrum | Robert Woodrum, I am a business owner, homeowner, I have two kids. In Willow Creek School, and I'm here in support of this parks thing, I don't know. What's it called, COP or something? We want the parks. We need the parks. It's an investment in the future. And I thought of a couple of things that we've invested in that have paid off, and one was the City Hall Improvements Committee that I served on, and it seemed to have paid off. The library's commitment to children seems to have paid off. All of these parents' commitment to Willow Creek seems to have paid off. A lot of us live in small houses or houseboats. We need somewhere to go, and the parks are where a lot of us end up up going right now they're not in good shape southview park is it's a disaster it's a lawsuit waiting to happen dunphy is i'm sure i'm probably not supposed to say this but a homeless encampment we go there for bocce on fridays sometimes Thursdays, it's a mess. There's empty liquor bottles. It's not good. And Sweeney Park, both of my kids have been in the emergency room twice because the equipment is so old and subpar. So I, again, as a business owner and as a homeowner, I sincerely hope that we can get this forward and get these parks done. And it's not even in my interest. My kids will be outgrown of these parks by the time it comes around. So this is a real investment in the future. I don't think it's something we can pass up. Thank you. |
| 00:51:11.96 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, John Flavin. |
| 00:51:15.11 | John Flavin (Public Commenter) | Well, I'm the Grinch. I'm speaking against this. I basically believe it to be illegal. And I respect what Mary said, but I don't think a prior decision by a council or city attorney serves as legal precedent. I think if this thing is challenged, if it goes to court, they're gonna say a lease is a lease is a lease, and you have violated 1128. If you do so, things really begin to fall apart. The trustee turns around, sues the bond counsel for not revealing all this. Bond counsel looks at city attorney's reps and warranties, sues the city attorney. And you got two big lawsuits on your hands. This is a very dangerous approach you're taking here. I think it'd be better to work this out with the voters and get their support. versus doing this kind of what I consider a renegade approach. this is borrowing against the future once again yes all these kids are here they want to use the parks and all but come the future they're the ones are going to be exposed here because what's not really clear is if those lease payments are not made by the schools, those fall upon the taxpayers. So let's be clear about that and have understand that this $20 million of bond issue then gets piled on with the 8.5. operating here The staff report says you don't have the money to pay for this, so you're borrowing. Any household that would take this approach and just add to their credit card debt is making a huge mistake. So please, I understand how popular this is. I understand the emotional pull. of repairing the parts. It's illegal and it's imprudent. Thank you. |
| 00:53:13.83 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Doreen. |
| 00:53:17.91 | Doreen Gurnard (Public Commenter) | Wow, I'm scared. No, I'm not. That's really what I want to say. I am Doreen Gunnar and I live here in Sausalito and I do believe that this is the way to do this. Now, I know that I didn't just, I'm not some financial wizard. I know that. I have I have friends and other people who I've Have them look it over. Have them vet this thing. And to tell you the truth, every one of them have said that this is a really good idea. This is the right time to do this. I've tried to do my homework. and I stress that everybody do their homework around this thing because it is a little complicated. There's no question about that. But just because you don't understand it is not a good reason to say no. It means that you need to go a little bit deeper, and talk to people who may not always agree with you. But they may have a way to show you that this does work. And I think that we need to make an investment in our families and our children. And sometimes we have to take a leap and even invest in those schools. Because by having these schools here, we have three schools in Sausalito. Three schools. schools aren't going anywhere they're building they're deepening their roots in this community And I think that we have to show that we're willing to do the same. And I think by supporting the CLP, I think we're showing not only the schools, but also our residents that were in this for the long haul and were in it to make it work. So thank you. |
| 00:54:49.24 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:54:49.26 | Doreen Gurnard (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 00:54:49.66 | Jill Hoffman | Sam Penrose, Carol Peltz, and Tom Hoover. |
| 00:54:56.19 | Sam Penrose | I'll see you in my place. |
| 00:55:04.39 | Carol Peltz (Public Commenter) | I'm Carol Peltz. I used to sit up there and listen to all kinds of things. The difference was I had a little black dog who would sit under my feet. And this is an aside, of course. One day, Gary Ragianti, who was the city attorney in San Rafael, had a private client here who had the most outrageous demands against the city for some case. And my dog suddenly knew what to do. And so he came trotting out. Put himself right in the middle there. turned over. and just rolled all over his back. until my friend, The attorney. said to me afterwards, how did you get him to do that? And of course, I hadn't got him to do it. which is long way of coming around to saying This city has three wonderful park sites. They need improvement. We can do this. purposefully, carefully, legally, and make our town so much more livable. for everyone in the community, grandparents, parents, kids, visitors. And I think it's very important that you pull yourselves together. With. all the good advice that you've gotten. and try to Make this work. Make it good and make it lasting. Thank you. |
| 00:56:33.54 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Carol. Thank you. Tom Hoover. Then we have Alice Merrill and Jacques Ullman. |
| 00:56:43.95 | Unknown | I'm not sure. A society that doesn't invest in its children is a society on its way to extinction. And a society that doesn't invest in its children is the same as parents who do not nurture their children. So I would suggest having talked with some of the same people who have looked at the financing of this, that you should go forward with it. Because whether we actually have had kids of our own or all of our friends have children and grandchildren now, This is an investment. to keep children here and for the next generation. If you can't do that, and the people who don't want to do that, They should, I don't know. I don't want to say anything nasty about people who don't take care of their kids, but... And so anyway, that's my basic thing. Go forward with it because I've seen it vetted. I've talked also to some of the same experts apart from the city that this is an excellent financial way of not overburdening the taxpayer. And there is no, we all know that there is no certitude about any future even by midnight tonight. So to be talking about whether things are going to fall apart in five or ten years, it's good to look forward to that, but that is no reason because something might happen bad in the future to not do good now. |
| 00:58:02.96 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:58:04.57 | Unknown | Alice? |
| 00:58:05.06 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:58:11.30 | Alice Merrill | Hi, Alice Merrill. I would just say that in the years that I've been here, I think Charlie Francis is a really good steward of our money and of thinking about how to get the city going in the right direction and to keep it going. And so I think he's trustworthy. Thank you. I think if he figures something out like this, it's probably a pretty good thing. I don't understand it at all, but I think that, you know, it's like Doreen. I don't have a head for that. I'd also like to say that The city's been working on all the little parklets all over town. And I appreciate that because they really have been being fixed little by little by little. And so the city has a lot of parks, and they're all being taken care of. So that's good. Thanks. |
| 00:59:04.07 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks, Alice. Jacques? |
| 00:59:06.63 | Jacques Ullman (Public Commenter) | Jacques Ullman, I've lived here since 1970, brought up our daughter here. She, in fact, spent a couple of years at Lycée Francais. Anyway, also the socio-schools. I want to thank the staff for a very good presentation. I didn't understand the certificates of participation, and I read the staff report, and it really reassured me. I understood what it was about, and I believe they know what they're doing and I have confidence in them. And I think we should not confuse this effort to raise money for the parks with any future efforts for a community center. First of all, a community center is a completely different kind of entity and there were studies made for that. My wife was on a committee that looked into a swimming pool, and there were all kinds of problems. First of all, we're maybe not a community that can support something like that, and there were insurance problems and so on, and so that should not confuse the issue. What we need to do is fix what we already have and make sure that that serves the community and the parks that are being considered are a very important part of our community, not just for kids, for everyone. Dumpy Park serves all kinds of people. So you're going to put money to good use and I think that this kind of approach to go ahead and make the improvements and do the financing to have the money now, |
| 00:59:09.91 | Jill Hoffman | that. |
| 00:59:29.72 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:00:38.74 | Jacques Ullman (Public Commenter) | is the way to go rather than do it bit by bit. And with reference to Dunphy Park, the money could be used to do the studies and further the technical designs and engineering and maybe do a first phase of the park on the active north end with parking and toilet facilities. And that would then create a situation where the plan would be viable enough to seek other funding from other entities that are maybe more marine habitat oriented or ADA compliance for the shoreline path. It would open actually, maybe open up sources for other funding. Thank you. |
| 01:01:25.16 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Ursula Leffingwell, then we have Thomas Neumeier and I'm sorry. Scott Jamal? Sir. |
| 01:01:45.14 | Ursula Leffingwell (Public Commenter) | Hi, I'm Ursula Lefewey. I live at 415 Little Street, right across from here. And... and a Friends of Dumphy Park member since the inception of 2001. Horrible. Well, Honorable City Council members, I'd like to urge you to vote for the COP that has been presented to us very professionally tonight by Charlie Francis. I hear voices, however, that say, previously the parks are not used and need funds for their upgrades or we do Well, I say the parks are being used because I hear happy voices coming out from Robin Svallinich Park and also from Dumpy Park. Dumpy Park is South Salido's 4th of July park. However, the parks, all of them, need to be upgraded to code regulations, and to meet ADA requirements. before more trees fall on cars, like they have in Dumpy Park, hopefully never will Fall. again. and hopefully not on people. A redo is imperative to not incur more liability suits. According to experts, most trees in the park are at the end of their life and dangerous. Also, the overall conditions of the park is deteriorating very fast. following. plenty of community input. To a public forum, Friends of Dunphy Park are developing a pro bono Professional schematic master plan. It is almost ready for city review and hopefully approvals. I hope. I urge you to honor the diligent, never-ending efforts for the improvement of this very special last piece of quasi-natural waterfront. The Friends have been working since 2001 to fend off commercial development on this peninsula. Can you imagine a 360,000 square feet of office building on the peninsula? Well, that was the impetus for the fence of Dumphy Park, to tirelessly fight for the special waterfront property to remain free of buildings. too many years. ago, the city acquired the railroad parcels, as well as two parcels between Litho and Locust on the peninsula. with help from funds from environmental organizations and with the intent to have these parcels become part of Dumpy Park for residents to use and enjoy once improvements have been realized. Now the city has a chance to make the implementation of the first steps of this schematic master plan a reality in the foreseeable future through the funds from the COP. Please vote yes on this important issue. |
| 01:05:21.98 | Jill Hoffman | The President. |
| 01:05:24.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:05:26.57 | Thomas Neumeier (Public Commenter) | Good evening, council. When my wife and I moved here in 2004, I don't think it comes as any surprise that the word on the street was, this is not a town for kids. You will go to Saucena Nursery School most likely, and then you will move to Mill Valley, or you will move to Tiburon, or you will go private. And we said, hell no. And along with us, the Knowles, who you've heard from, the Weinzheimers, the Van Alls, many of the families here tonight all got together, and they also said the same thing. We're sticking around, and we're building this town for families. Thank you. We had a seminal meeting at our house in 06th. We all get together. And we all put our efforts into making this place work. As a result, you now have Caroline Van Ols, president of the school I've been on the school board since 09. Jeff Knowles is the head of the Willow Creek Board. Kurt Weinschirmer, Sam Penrose's wife, also on the board, all here tonight. |
| 01:06:28.20 | Thomas Neumeier (Public Commenter) | I ask you, I echo everything that's come before me. I don't think there's any new ground to be made here, but obviously with kids all in the school system, all making this investment, we all use these parks regularly. It's been said we love that investment. I think you can always throw up legal roadblocks. You can always create them. Lawyers love to be paid for that. That said, it's time to move forward. Putting on my finance cap, I agree with what Charlie said. You will never find rates this low. We just refinanced a lot of the school debt from, I think, about four and seven-eighths down to three and a quarter. You're not going to find this environment again. It's a cheap time to do it. It's the right call. Please make it. |
| 01:07:09.32 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:07:09.48 | Thomas Neumeier (Public Commenter) | It's got to be a good one. |
| 01:07:09.97 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:07:12.60 | Scott Jampol (Public Commenter) | Good evening, council, and I appreciate you mispronouncing my name, Scott Jampol. I have terrible handwriting, so I'm sure it was my fault. So I'm Scott Jampol. I'm a homeowner and city resident here with my wife, Patricia, and my son, Sam, who's eight, and daughter, Allie, who's seven. And I'm here to speak about my support for the COP and for the parks here. The irony here is I think I met most of you in a park here in Sausalito, whether it was competing at the chili cook-off with or against some of you, or it was the flyers you were handing out to me by the ferry where I take every day, or it was just outside this building as my kids played in the park here. So your platforms are based on support for families and support for the park, and I urge you to think about that as you're at this crossroads here. It's really important. I've seen in my six years now as a resident a lot of improvement here. I believe in the schools, and I've been getting more and more active at Willow Creek Academy, where my kids attend. I believe in the community, and I believe in the businesses that I've seen change and grow here in Sausalito since I've been here. And the one thing that I can say that hasn't changed since I've been here is the quality and safety of the parks. And it's just not acceptable at this point. We live in a town where most of the streets are not safe for kids. I live up on Glen Drive, and it's dangerous for me to walk my dog, let alone let my kids outside. So the parks are the central place where they come to see their friends, to get outside, to be active and healthy. And I think it'd be hard pressed, and I haven't heard an argument yet tonight, that they're safe and that they're good and that they're adequate. |
| 01:07:17.98 | Jill Hoffman | My apologies. |
| 01:08:55.99 | Scott Jampol (Public Commenter) | They are used. because there's no other alternative in this town, and I think it's super important. It's not really just a decision for families, though. This is about community. This is about how good it is for the businesses that surround our parks and how good it is for any homeowners and real estate owners in this town. And I really think that at this point the fact that families go elsewhere, as we do to go to the parks, And as a town that may pride itself now on having great parking lots instead of great parks, I think we ought to really rethink that. And so let's really be careful here as we're thinking about what we're going to do. Let's vote for families and vote for parks. Thank you. |
| 01:09:37.30 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Diane Broadrob, Amy Nordstrom, and David Holliman. |
| 01:09:50.47 | Diane Broadrob (Public Commenter) | Hi. Good evening, City Council. As demographics... |
| 01:09:54.58 | Bob Broadrob (Public Commenter) | We're just doubling up because we're married and I'll be up another time. We'll just do it all now. |
| 01:09:58.60 | Jill Hoffman | And could you state your names for the record here? |
| 01:10:00.62 | Bob Broadrob (Public Commenter) | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:10:02.36 | Diane Broadrob (Public Commenter) | My name is Diane Brockham. Thank you. And this is Bob Brockham, my husband. Thank you. As demographics have changed toward more children over the last 10 years, as we all know, our parks have not kept up with this increase in child population. And as citizens of this town with an eight-year-old named Max who attends school here and uses Robin Sweeney Park every single day, we live right across the street, so it's our backyard, |
| 01:10:05.59 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:10:06.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:10:30.85 | Diane Broadrob (Public Commenter) | I encourage you to approve the certificate of participation for improvements of all the parks in town and the MLK facility. Thank you very much. |
| 01:10:41.87 | Bob Broadrob (Public Commenter) | Thank you. I'm here to speak against the parks. |
| 01:10:42.81 | Diane Broadrob (Public Commenter) | speak again. Thank you. |
| 01:10:48.06 | Bob Broadrob (Public Commenter) | My wife and I are actually part of the new demographic that's coming. We're the newbies in town who moved here because of Willow Creek Academy and this wonderful school system that we have now. So we moved from San Francisco to join this wonderful community and this is one of the meetings that I can remember that I've been to. I've been here many times because I live right across the street. to hear people speaking out in favor of something. rather than to disprove something. |
| 01:11:22.50 | Bob Broadrob (Public Commenter) | So with that, I'll just say thank you, council, for your time and commitment to making a wise decision. Thank you. Amy Nortz. |
| 01:11:30.36 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:11:31.48 | Amy Nordstrom (Public Commenter) | Hi, I'm Amy Nordstrom. I'm a 13-year resident of Sausalito and a small business owner and a mother of two children. I'm in favor of passing, obviously, the certificate of approval. I don't think you can put a price tag on the well-being of our children and the safety of our children. And for me, it actually, It's a very personal story because my son at Robin Sweeney Park in February of 2014 was riding his bike and hit some of the pavement where the trees had pushed up all of the the pavement and he hit the lip, he fell over and to add insult to injury He fell into a hole where the trees are growing, which added another foot to his fall. And then in turn, he snapped both his ulna and his radius on his arm. And we had to call the ambulance and went to the emergency room. We were there for seven and a half hours. So as a mother, as I sat there with my little boy in the hospital, I'm thinking to myself, this is absolutely ridiculous. In a town like Sausalito, we've got these parks that are dilapidated. And every day when I'd go to the park after that with my son in a cast for almost three months, I watch kids slipping on the sand, on the wood, on the planks, busting their lips, busting their face, hurting themselves constantly. And why should we as parents put up with this? It's not okay. So honestly, I don't think that there's going to be any defaults on loans, bond issues, all of this. We need to pass the certificate of approval. That's it. These parks need to be upgraded. Thank you. |
| 01:13:05.14 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:13:10.11 | David Holliman (Public Commenter) | I'll be brief. A lot has been said. I guess I just want to echo the concept that There really are a lot of young families in town who just don't get to these meetings. We are looking after our kids in the evenings There's just a lot of interest in improving the infrastructure in this town. And it seems like the forces of obstruction are what are sort of Sausselito's known for. Like nothing seems to be able to get done. And I would like to see that change. The parks are just an absolutely perfect example of something that just needs to be improved. And the broken streets, the broken, you know, ramp to launch your boat. I mean, we all pay a lot. I come from a very modest beginning, and I've built a home here. I plan on improving it, and I pay a lot of property taxes. I think a lot of these young families pay substantial property taxes because they've bought these homes in the last 10 or 20 years, and they don't show up in these meetings. And they're paying a lot of tax, and they're getting very little for it. And I think that aggravation and that frustration is really growing. And I think it's time for it to be recognized. |
| 01:14:25.02 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Christine Scarpino. Thank you. Jack Knowles. And Vicki Nichols. |
| 01:14:36.94 | Christine Scarpino (Public Commenter) | Good evening, city council, city staff, and fellow residents. Thanks everybody for showing up. This is great to see such a good showing of our parent group here tonight. Thank you so much. City Council, I want to thank you for moving forward from last council meeting. And tonight, on a complicated yet very strategic and important decision, as you've heard from everybody speaking before me, Thank you. the decision to maintain and protect our city assets, the MLK building, and our parks. As most of you know, I've been following this proposal and have been commenting on its integrity. through letters and public comment. If you really understand this transaction at its face value, it makes sense. And I just want to thank Charlie Francis and city staff for proposing this and bringing this forward And just one note, if you're saying this transaction is an actual addition of an $8 million debt, I'm sorry, but you're not understanding this full transaction. And anyone who's saying it's a plus $8 million, I wish you'd go back and do your homework. I also have been doing a lot of reading. It appears that a similar transaction was approved, this has already been talked about tonight, but back in 1999. There appeared to be no dispute regarding ordinance 1128 at that time. for a similar $1.7 million finance plan for the city. for city public improvements. I would like to note that there are many strong voices in our community that respect your guidance. And rather than saying no with legal threats, We are saying to you tonight, yes, yes, yes. Please, let's keep moving forward. We trust your leadership. And we respect that you're doing the best for our city. Thank you. both the council and the staff. Thank you so much. Thank you. |
| 01:16:37.32 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:16:41.34 | Jack Knowles (Public Commenter) | Okay, my name is Jack Knowles, and I'm here because I want to make better parks because, I mean, why not? We had a lemonade stand right at Robin Sweeney the other day, and we got barely any money because no one comes there. We want more people to come. and make it better so that we can have better parks. And we walk down to Southview and play basketball and play at the park because we like that park. And we want to make it better so we can go there even more and go to Robin Sweeney and go to Dunphy for all these amazing things that we do there. I think when I go to other places and I look at their parks and I say, wow, I really wish I had that. And now I think we have that chance to actually put those things in and make them happen. So I think that's what we should do and make our parks better so that more kids and just to make it better. Okay. |
| 01:17:42.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:17:52.60 | Vicki Nichols | Hi, I'm Mayor and Council Members. My name is Vicki Nichols and I think that you've heard, I heartily agree with the Proposal for the COPs. I'm going to take a slightly just make a slightly a couple of different comments because you've heard so much positive support for this. I want to really thank Charlie. We know that he's going to be retiring soon, but as several other people have said, we're very fortunate to have his expertise. He's out in the hallway here, maybe being shy. I don't know. But I think he's presented an excellent opportunity for us to do this and as you've heard from other people in the community I can't imagine living here over 30 years How we'd ever get an opportunity again to do projects simultaneously particularly our to our parks We've been talking about this for years this opportunity to start Maybe parallel projects. I don't know how that works, but economy of scale with contractors, et cetera, I don't think we're going to see it again. So I think we definitely need to do this. I'm going to slightly disagree with my former HLB colleague, Mr. Flavin, and I don't understand the logic of getting the citizens or the voters' opinion if what they're voting on is about something that is already quote illegal. I think the whole issue of 1128 is not viable. I think it's not illegal. If you read the text it talks about sale and lease or chains of use. This is not what's being done here. So I hope that you feel comfortable with the advice of our city attorney, the precedents that we've seen that have benefited our community financially before, and we'll vote for this. And lastly, I really enjoyed the comments from the new person in town who said, he comes and all he hears is no, or he hears no a lot here. I've lived here, as I said, over 30 years. This is a wonderful place to live. And there's some great people here. And I wish with all my heart we can start saying yes more. There's some great opportunities here. So being the last speaker, I used to run track, and I think they called it the anchor when you were the last person on the relay. As the anchor, I would like to say that we need to start saying yes, and I urge you to vote for this. Thank you. |
| 01:20:17.56 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. We do have a couple more laps to go. And, uh, and, uh, So we have Gary. You can come back later, Mickey. |
| 01:20:24.66 | Adam Politzer | You can come back later, Mickey, if you want. |
| 01:20:27.43 | Jill Hoffman | Zinger line and Shelby van meter and those are the last two if anyone else would like to speak you need to fill out a speaker card if you would and Otherwise these are last two scary |
| 01:20:38.85 | Craig (Public Commenter) | Craig? Yeah. Oh, Craig. |
| 01:20:39.38 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. Craig, I've got to put my glasses on. |
| 01:20:42.73 | Craig (Public Commenter) | This is my first meeting, actually, a recent transplant out here from Alexandria, Virginia. And, you know, one of the things that we kept hearing over and over when we were kind of researching where to live when we make the big move out to the Bay Area was not Sausalito. It's just not, you know, it's not the place. It's not the community. It's not for families. And so I think the people had outdated advice that we were talking to. and you know so we made a move to another locale, and what we found was that we were drawn to Sausalito. I've got a three-year-old and a five-year-old. And when we would come to Sausalito while we were living elsewhere here in the area, we felt an incredibly strong sense of community at the playgrounds and at the parks. And while they are very dilapidated, you know, the community backbone really is provided and supported at the parks. So I'm strongly in favor of passing the COP. And I think that with our 5-year-old attending Willow Creek next year and the amazing things that we've already experienced about that school, there's a lot of potential still to be had with the community. I think it's come a very, very long way. But we're at the point where we're just strongly recommending this city to everybody that we know that doesn't live here and that are making the decision to move out of San Francisco and they're thinking about Mill Valley or somewhere farther north. And we're saying, no, let's consider Sausalito. Come to Sausalito. It is the place that you want to be. And I really think that improving the infrastructure at the park level is going to provide a much stronger backbone, plus for safety reasons. Thank you. |
| 01:20:42.82 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:21:44.60 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:21:44.61 | Unknown | where they're going. |
| 01:21:50.45 | Unknown | already. |
| 01:22:29.03 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks, Greg. Shelby Van Meter. |
| 01:22:32.66 | Shelby Van Meter (Public Commenter) | Yes, good evening, Mayor. Theodorus and council members I've been here before and I have a little different comment to make this evening. I want to thank you all for so thoughtfully considering this important issue. I know you all love this town as much as we do. and that you have and are working on making a decision that, you feel is the best for this community. But I'd like to suggest that beyond the budgetary concerns, beyond any nervousness about taking even what seems to be a well calculated, well vetted risk, beyond the obvious value of finally improving our three largest public parks, beyond these there are bigger picture issues that have to do with values and ways of being. We're talking about the issue of civic pride. about the spirit and energy that come when a community has passionate pride in who it is and what its leaders are and who its leaders are. We're talking about how South Leader presents itself physically. To its residents, to those who come here to work every day, and to those who visit. We're talking about the greater economic viability that comes when a town's face, quote unquote face, shows it is well managed and financially fit. People from Mill Valley and Tiburon notice, and so do people from Paris, London, Sacchide, and Vena del Mar. We all want Sausalito to be a town that shows that it cares and has its act together. Our parks, our public landscapes speak for us. Finally, in deciding whether or not to pursue this amazing opportunity, We're talking about the need to consider that the quality of our parks, our public spaces, reflects our dignity as a community and the respect the city has for its people. We're talking about the responsibility we take for what we leave behind when our time is over. We need to ask ourselves what kind of example we want to leave behind, what legacy, We, you, have the opportunity to be inspirational. Please vote yes on the COPs. Thank you very much. |
| 01:24:51.10 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks, Shelby. We have, who's next, David? |
| 01:24:56.11 | David Sudo (Public Commenter) | you |
| 01:25:00.41 | David Sudo (Public Commenter) | Hi, David Sudo, City Council. I'd like to urge you to vote yes on the COP. I think there are a lot more eloquent people here today who have already spoke. I think, and I wrote a letter today outlining why I really think this should pass. I don't see this any different than getting a home improvement loan. In this case, we're backing it up with revenue, both at MLK and I would also like to point out that Dunphy Park is often used for events such as weddings and special events that also bring in revenue. But I'm pretty sure there haven't been a lot of those events this year at Dunphy Park just because it's such a bad condition right now between the lack of maintenance and the drought it's just not a very pretty place to have a wedding right now I think we really need to fix this up you know we have liability issues which cost us money if we don't fix this up we're losing revenue we just need to get it done and take care of our parks thank you |
| 01:26:04.49 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Anyone else on this issue? Okay, seeing none. |
| 01:26:09.11 | Unknown (Public Commenter) | Yes, yes. Thank you. |
| 01:26:15.97 | Unknown (Public Commenter) | Hello, Mayor and City Council. And I think it's worth the $8 million just to get all these people and these kids in this room. I looked at the report and I'm not in favor of people getting into debt. If anybody's heard me talk here before, I'm a jubileist. And one of the things is we're a little like Greece, and we want to cancel the debts. However, in this case, it looks like it's being paid for by the leases of MLK. Now, speaking about Dunphy Park, I heard one person say that there's a, it's I rundown and the homeless people. Well, houseless is a better way to put it, but not necessarily boatless. The Casas Marina place that is, to the north has been empty since 2008. And Nine. It's now 2015. That's six years. I think they built the transcontinental railway quicker than that. That's a way to get kids involved with sailing, which is something that I know they're trying to do. Well, sometimes we don't need to try, we need to just do it. So this, people know that I like to bring Torah portions THE END OF These are the portions that are coming from Genesis to the end of Deuteronomy, and this week The portion is called Balak, and the Haftor begins this way. It says, and the remnant of Jacob... shall be in the midst of many peoples like dew sent by the Lord, like torrents of rain upon vegetation, that does not hope for any man and does not wait For the sons of men. So whatever happens, I'd like it to happen. quickly. Thank you very much. |
| 01:28:09.15 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:28:09.16 | Unknown (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 01:28:09.69 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Anyone else on this topic? Okay. Seeing none, we'll close public comment. We'll bring it back up here for council question again. We'd like to start. |
| 01:28:20.64 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, some follow-up. So we've heard about the Ordinance 1128 and that's kind of embedded across Oh, sorry. So we've heard about Ordinance 1128, which requires... Voter approval of any changes to MLK, cell, lease, etc. So. Voter approval meaning a ballot issue, is that right? Mary? Anyone? Yes. Okay. What would that look like? Like if we said, okay. I guess maybe we need to have a voter approval. How would that proceed from this point from tonight forward? What would we do? |
| 01:28:59.13 | Mary Wagner | The council would approve a call for an election and you would put out the question that would go on the ballot, which would read something along the lines of, Shall the city and then enter into, you know, describe the transaction. |
| 01:29:17.20 | Jill Hoffman | And that would be for this November? |
| 01:29:18.94 | Mary Wagner | I would have to look to the city clerk to see if we could make the timeline. I don't know if it's possible to make that timeline. |
| 01:29:19.06 | Jill Hoffman | Or we could if we could. |
| 01:29:24.91 | Jill Hoffman | because it's July now. |
| 01:29:26.36 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, and there's a whole schedule that's put out by the registrar voters for the county on when you have to ask for the call for the election, when you have to submit ballot materials. There's statutory time frames that have to run, and I don't have that at my fingertips. I think it's a, I don't know what the schedule is. I don't believe we could make it, but I don't have that information in front of me tonight. |
| 01:29:26.40 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 01:29:43.06 | Jill Hoffman | That's right. |
| 01:29:48.54 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And so if not this election, then when would the next one opportunity be? I believe it would be May. March March okay 2016 yep |
| 01:30:03.39 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 01:30:03.41 | Adam Politzer | Correct, 2016. And Vice Mayor Hoffman, in addition, that's the internal mechanical components. Then there's the education component that the city can play a role, which you've seen in the Measure O and also in fire consolidation. |
| 01:30:05.77 | Jill Hoffman | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:30:19.71 | Adam Politzer | where we can provide the facts to the community so that they understand what it is that is being asked them to vote on. Then the city staff has to step away from that and a community group has to come forward to actually run and manage the election process. The actual having coffees and hosting meetings and going door to door. So that would have to be done by the community, not... Staff could not play a role in that. |
| 01:30:46.67 | Jill Hoffman | And I realize I'm throwing these questions to you, out of left field, but what's an estimate for what an election would cost just the city's part of the union? All right, I'm asking, asking. |
| 01:30:58.98 | Christine Scarpino (Public Commenter) | Sorry. Sorry. |
| 01:31:01.42 | Debbie (City Clerk) | I don't have the exact figure but I believe we budget $20,000 for every election. |
| 01:31:07.80 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | All right. Thanks. I will just comment. I think that we, |
| 01:31:14.23 | Debbie (City Clerk) | Thank you. |
| 01:31:14.25 | Unknown | you |
| 01:31:14.33 | David Holliman (Public Commenter) | Thank you. |
| 01:31:14.38 | Unknown | for your question. |
| 01:31:14.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:15.58 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, question follow up. In the last, I mean there's the amount of money that the city spends to to educate, which is, you know, you know, flexible. And then there is the actual cost of the election itself. And I believe the figure 7,000 sticks in my mind because of our voting base, our registered voting base. So anyway, that was just something we can follow up and confirm. The other thing is the March 2016 date you mentioned, is that assuming a special election? Because we can wait for these, like, you know, the regular formal elections, or we can do a special election. It's my understanding special elections can happen sooner. Is that correct? |
| 01:32:02.78 | Adam Politzer | Special elections can happen sooner. They're just actually more expensive because it's a single item. |
| 01:32:09.33 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, we could get it. You still have to qualify yourself to go through the mechanical process. |
| 01:32:10.24 | Adam Politzer | You still have to qualify yourself to go through the mechanical process. |
| 01:32:12.97 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:32:16.47 | Jill Hoffman | Any other questions? |
| 01:32:19.65 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Uh, let's see. I think I had a question. |
| 01:32:27.94 | Jill Hoffman | Any other questions here? Thank you. All right. I'm going to close questions. And we're going to move it now we move into Comments, council comments. So who would like to start? |
| 01:32:45.46 | Jill Hoffman | So I don't take the the provisions of 1128 lightly. And I do believe that there's room for interpretation there about whether or not this is, whether or not we're in solid legal ground or not solid legal ground or can someone bring an action But. when I fall down on the ability of the city to take care of their parks and clearly the residents support for that effort I mean, that's the balance that I make, and that's a very, very serious balance that I make. that we're not giving up one voter group for another voter group in the will of the people. But I think, you know, in this process, And, um, because of the because of the provisions that we were able to put in the certificates of deposit, they, that it will be coterminous with the current leases. Um, and that we can structure it so that the monies will go specifically for the parks, um, that I fell down on the, uh, the, the decision making process of voting for the COPs. I think, you know, it's fabulous what's going on in our town right now. And I think of it as Sausalito Renaissance. Because when I first moved here 15 years ago, It was not a particularly great place. for school-aged kids. It was a great place for toddlers, and that was a surprise. And then as we went through the decision making process for the schools, You know, the schools were not quite there that they are now. And so the secret that is getting out is that Sausalito is a fantastic place to move and stay. when we were young we only had one child so a lot of our friends when their second child got into school, they moved out of town. And now I see these parents that have done tremendous work in the schools and the school board And I think it's fabulous, and I want to support it. And so I'm supporting the COP. Thanks. |
| 01:34:45.32 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. |
| 01:34:48.32 | Layla Samrad | It looks like. |
| 01:34:53.81 | Councilmember Weiner | Well. I came on this council about nine years ago. We went through a hard time in 2008. with the recession. And in that time, we still worked on streets We cemented streets that hadn't been done in 33 years. We started working on the sewers, all the infrastructure that that had been let go for many, many years. Now we come to a crossroads where, as far as I'm concerned, the last one to get done on the infrastructure, as I just indicated, was the parks. Don't let fear drive you. I've been up here enough years to hear enough people in this town tell you that everything's going to fall apart or we will go out of business and everything else. If you really look at the fire department, we had the same guy, John Flavin, Dead set against it. I don't even know, I know at least a million dollars has been saved. And where has the service been interrupted? You have these certain people that just run on fear. If you want to go that direction, I won't. I'm the oldest member up here. All right? And I should be more fearful as we get older. All right? But that isn't the case. And some people can say, They're right in what they're doing. Well, our job up here, and this is what you voted for us for, is to make the best decision. It might not be the right decision for others, but the best decision, and we have to do that. This is ridiculous. Every 10 years goes by, it's going to cost you double to do what we're doing. So they can kick the can down the road and they can tell you about 1128, which is antiquated anyway. If we go through with this, we ought to turn around and vote on 1128 just to get rid of it anyway. All right? Move up with the times. Stop living in the past. We have to be in the present. because that will guide us to our future. You stay with their negative thinking, And when you live in the past, you can only dream of the future. You can't be in it. So I'm totally in favor of this. |
| 01:37:22.32 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I want to thank everyone who came tonight, everyone who spoke, and everyone who's been writing. It's really great. Sausalito is for families. Our schools are fantastic. I mean, what we're seeing tonight is just a repeat of what we've seen throughout the town. We have great pride in making Sausalito family-friendly. Our parks need to be upgraded. I have a track record track record for those of you who know me a seven-year track record of voting yes on park upgrades I voted yes on cloud view upgrade yes on on the Harrison Park Marianne Sears Park upgrade yes on funding the consultant to do the Robin Sweeney analysis for that new design. I voted yes on the funding for that to help the workshop for the Friends of Dunphy Park to work towards their schematic master plan. But I also need to say yes to a citizens initiative that was carved and championed by the citizens of Sausalito. Ordinance 1128 needs a ballot vote. It needs a ballot vote. You look at the language of that ordinance and you look at what we're doing here, what's being proposed. I would fund the parks. I would look at Measure O funding. Frankly, I would take the $250,000 from the ambassador program and I would put that to parks. In 2011, I fought to fund the $500,000 for Robin Sweeney's playground upgrade. I wanted to do a phased implementation of that so I support park upgrades and I agree with you this is an urgent need unfortunately if you want to go this route 1128 requires a ballot vote the the MLK site did not if there's a reason we have basketball courts in that beautiful soccer field that that our children can play soccer on That whole site is there because of the vision of parents just like you back in 89 who banded together and said, we want this site for a community center. And they banded together and they passed it when the council wouldn't. And they got a citizens initiative and it was passed by the people. That's a high bar for me. And so I say we need to bring this to the voters. If want to fund if you want to pursue this route for funding it needs to go to the ballot vote it needs to be put in front of the citizens because it's a citizens initiative the other thing I would say is that I I look at some of these things that are being put together. Robin Sweeney, we've got a lot of clarity on the design. Dunphy Park, I know it's a schematic master plan. It hasn't had the full vetting of the public. I know that it would move the cruising club. The cruising club has said it would need to be funded to do... I mean, there are complexities here. So I do think it needs the clarity of a ballot vote. That's the right way to go because of 1128. Thank you. |
| 01:40:40.96 | Councilmember Withey | As I've made very clear, I am very supportive of the proposal that staff has put forward. I'd just like to make three points briefly. I fully agree with Councilmember Pfeiffer that if indeed the City Council were to take an action that was in violation of Ordinance 1128, then that action should go to a vote of the people. Under California law, it's the duty of a city council to interpret its ordinances and to interpret its general plan. In my role as interpreting the ordinance, I'm very comfortable that in no way does this transaction violate ordinance 1128 so there's no need to go to a vote of the people secondly I just like to make a comment about debt there's been an implication that taking on debt is in a sense burdening and burdening our residents for the future it would be in my opinion in the current financial environment an act of gross irresponsibility not to take on this debt to take on the this debt is actually giving a gift to our children down the road because there would never be an opportunity to raise money at these interest rates again and the last thing is as I've promised all along and every time I every few times I talk I remind myself that I'm here to make decisions for all the residents |
| 01:41:45.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:27.73 | Councilmember Withey | all the residents of Sausalito. And, you know, it's time to remember that some of our residents are toddlers. Some of our residents are three, four, five years old. Some of them are in grade school. And there's nothing more important that we can give those young residents than safe, comfortable, pleasing, pleasant places to go play. And I can't think of anything that I would be more proud of than doing that. |
| 01:43:06.31 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, please. I want to thank you all for coming out tonight. It's a warm night and sitting through this. But I think I resonate with whoever said it. It's really wonderful when we sit up here we come out that there's something so positive that we can come out and support. And I appreciate Charlie and the rest of the staff for bringing this forward of an opportunity to go forward in a way to finance our parks, which would otherwise not, certainly not get financed in the near future. And to bring this forward, Uh, THE END OF We now have a lot of young families. We want to track that. And you're all out here tonight. So it's really something that we really want to support. I appreciate it. We're investing in our future. I want to go back to the people in 1987. I, Carol, I'm not sure if you were there for this one, but whoever were taking over MLK, buying MLK at the time, I'm sure there was a debate. There was a debate in everything. They took a risk, the council took a risk. Not only did we acquire it, now we use it to be able to finance other parks. We have to show some leadership and take some risks at times. And I think this one's a no brainer for us. As far as 1128, It's been brought up. over the last three sessions, we have a firm legal opinion that it doesn't apply. Council interprets it. I think so and technically there are a lot of ordinance we have if they don't apply we don't and there are other initiatives. We don't vote on them. And I think the other thing I want to be clear, the spirit of 1128 was that if the council was taking action, that voters would otherwise not support. In this case, we would be using 1128 to have one or two people try to use a technicality to thwart the will of the voters and the residents, and we can't let that happen. So I think I fully support it. And I'm ready for someone to make a motion. |
| 01:45:00.33 | Councilmember Weiner | Do we read all three or individually? Okay, I move that the City Council of the City of Sausalito approve the resolution providing for a Tax Equity and Reform Act public hearing on the issuance of COPs and the nature of the improvements for the projects. |
| 01:45:20.66 | Jill Hoffman | Second. Debbie, would you do a roll vote? |
| 01:45:26.05 | Debbie (City Clerk) | Councilmember Weiner. Thank you. |
| 01:45:27.78 | Councilmember Weiner | you know. |
| 01:45:27.87 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 01:45:28.19 | Debbie (City Clerk) | Thank you. Councilmember Pfeiffer. |
| 01:45:29.98 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:45:29.99 | Debbie (City Clerk) | Thank you. |
| 01:45:30.01 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | know. |
| 01:45:32.24 | Debbie (City Clerk) | Councilmember Withey? Yes. Vice Mayor Hoffman? Yes. Mayor Theodore. |
| 01:45:33.30 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. |
| 01:45:33.32 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 01:45:37.40 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, that passes four to one. Congratulations, everyone. Have a good day. Thank you. The Press. |
| 01:45:47.95 | Councilmember Withey | We've got two more moments. |
| 01:45:49.37 | Councilmember Weiner | two more oh yeah relax we got two more to go all right I move that the City Council of the city of Sausalito approved the resolution approving proceedings to finance capital improvements to the project |
| 01:45:50.16 | Councilmember Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:45:50.24 | Councilmember Withey | We have a great day. |
| 01:45:50.43 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:45:50.50 | Councilmember Withey | Yeah, relax, we got two more to go. The President's office is a good one. |
| 01:46:03.61 | Councilmember Weiner | approving the issuance of COPs for such purposes in approving related documents and official actions. |
| 01:46:11.90 | Councilmember Withey | Second. Happy? |
| 01:46:17.99 | Debbie (City Clerk) | Council member Weiner? Yes. Council member Fiverr? No. Council member Withey? Yes. Vice Mayor Hoffman? |
| 01:46:19.10 | Councilmember Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:46:19.12 | Councilmember Weiner | Yes. No. Yes. |
| 01:46:23.56 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Is this where I would say, I would like that the references to 1128 be included in the documents, or should I – and that I vote yes? Yes. Okay, thanks. I vote yes. |
| 01:46:40.70 | Debbie (City Clerk) | Mayor Theodorus. |
| 01:46:41.46 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. We have one more motion. |
| 01:46:45.58 | Councilmember Weiner | Yes, move that the board of directors of the Sausalito Financing Authority approve the resolution of authorizing the issuance and sale of COPs to finance capital improvements to the project and approving related documents and official action. |
| 01:47:00.46 | Councilmember Withey | Second. |
| 01:47:01.96 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a substitute motion. I move that the board of directors of the Saucydo financing authority send this issue to the voters per ordinance 1128 prior to issuance and sale of certificates of participation. |
| 01:47:22.05 | Jill Hoffman | Do we have a second? Seeing no second, we'll move on to the original motion. Do we have a second? |
| 01:47:27.82 | Councilmember Withey | Second. |
| 01:47:28.64 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, Debbie, would you take the roll on that? |
| 01:47:35.29 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 01:47:35.31 | Councilmember Weiner | Yes. Member Weiner. |
| 01:47:35.68 | Debbie (City Clerk) | Member Weiner. |
| 01:47:36.79 | Councilmember Weiner | Thank you. Yes. |
| 01:47:38.63 | Debbie (City Clerk) | Member Pfeiffer? No. Member Withey? |
| 01:47:39.83 | Councilmember Withey | Thank you. Yes. |
| 01:47:42.67 | Debbie (City Clerk) | Vice Chair Hoffman? Yes. Chair Theodore. |
| 01:47:47.86 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. So we can clap now, right? |
| 01:47:50.72 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:47:54.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:47:54.31 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:47:54.68 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:47:57.62 | Jill Hoffman | We will adjourn the Sausalito Finances Authority, and we'll take a break right now. Thank you. |
| 01:48:57.96 | Unknown | I know you're tired. Thanks for coming. I had to say something. |
| 01:48:59.43 | Unknown | you |
| 01:49:03.09 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:49:10.13 | Unknown | So bad. |
| 01:49:11.07 | Unknown | the world. |
| 01:49:44.45 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:49:52.39 | Ursula Leffingwell (Public Commenter) | I'm gonna go get it. |
| 01:50:08.65 | Sam Penrose | I've just got so much more confidence. |
| 01:50:13.07 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 01:50:27.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:50:32.97 | Unknown | you you Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:50:36.97 | Unknown | other |
| 01:50:37.52 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. you |
| 01:50:40.21 | Unknown | I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to chat with you, but I'm glad you're reminded that you were there. I saw you there, and I somehow missed you with that. |
| 01:50:50.40 | Thomas Neumeier (Public Commenter) | I'm going to be working with you. I hope you're in many future. Thanks for tonight, guys. You've been nice to meet you. |
| 01:50:56.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:51:09.05 | Unknown | We're about to reconvene. |
| 01:51:16.94 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. We'll now reconvene as the regular Sausalito City Council meeting your agenda. There are no special I'm not sure. presentations or mayor announcements we move down to communications. This is the time for the city council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. Except in very limited situations, state law precludes the council from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items that are not on the agenda. However, the Council may refer matters not on the agenda to city staff or direct that the subject be agendized for a future meeting. I have. some speaker cards on matters Not on the agenda, so I'll go through those first. Kathleen Clark. miss man that that |
| 01:52:05.65 | Adam Politzer | They'd laugh. They didn't realize that we had a Hearing before this and so they're going to come to another meeting |
| 01:52:11.08 | Jill Hoffman | Do we have anyone who would like to speak on a matter not on the agenda? |
| 01:52:12.04 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 01:52:16.24 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, seeing none. We'll move on to item 3 minutes of the regular meeting of June 16 2015. We have a motion to approve as submitted or there any recommended changes. |
| 01:52:31.31 | Councilmember Withey | I would move to approve as submitted with one minor change. Okay. On... |
| 01:52:37.52 | Unknown | Okay? |
| 01:52:41.05 | Councilmember Withey | Page six of six. lying 15. Under item 7C, this is in relation to future agenda items. I think clarification, we have, I think, Council Member Pfeiffer asked for an update on the homeless shelter zoning. And so I think we need to add the word shelter because it says homeless zone. That doesn't mean anything. So I think we need to add shelter. So I move for approval in minutes with that change. |
| 01:53:20.93 | Jill Hoffman | Any other recommended changes or are we? We do do we have a second that motion second. |
| 01:53:25.89 | Councilmember Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:53:25.90 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? I passage unanimously. |
| 01:53:27.07 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:53:27.09 | Councilmember Withey | Bye. |
| 01:53:31.07 | Jill Hoffman | Now we move on to the consent calendar, item four. Matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non-controversial. Require no discussion. are expected to have unanimous council support. and may be enacted by the Council in one motion in the form listed. There will be no separate discussion of consent calendar items. However, before the council votes on a motion to adopt, The consent calendar items, council members, city staff, or members of the public, may request that items be removed from the consent calendar for separate action. Do we have any public comments or request to remove items from the consent calendar? Please. |
| 01:54:13.52 | Vicki Nichols | Mayor Theodorus, I just have a couple of questions on item C. I support the Spirit of the agreement, but I have a couple of questions. So can that be pulled or? |
| 01:54:28.53 | Councilmember Weiner | I'll see what the question is, that answer. |
| 01:54:30.64 | Jill Hoffman | Can we see what the questions are and if we can answer them, then it would make it a lot more expeditious to do that. |
| 01:54:32.10 | Vicki Nichols | Sure. Sure. So my question would be, as a former HLB person who is very supportive. |
| 01:54:43.29 | Jill Hoffman | And by the way, may I interrupt you before we go with adding in case with anyone else, is anyone else on the council interested in pulling items? |
| 01:54:51.92 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I have a question about D. |
| 01:54:54.04 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, well, let's then, no other, okay, so let's go on. Sorry, Vicki, go ahead. No, no, continue, sorry. |
| 01:54:57.42 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:54:57.43 | Vicki Nichols | You want me to ask now? Go ahead. No, no. Continue. Sorry. Okay. So I'm very aware of the line item for moving forward or at least working further on a potential historic district down in the marinship area. And I'm also very supportive of this, the rails and their existing work are very important. My concern is, and I'm sure it's been vetted, but I would like to get an opinion of someone that by doing this limited portion in the marinship, we're not precluding being able to do something larger at a different time. |
| 01:55:40.03 | Adam Politzer | No, this is something that we feel we have to do as part of what was approved, the $50,000. This is really phase one of that $50,000, but it's a really important question to ask to have answered up front. So we want not to exceed $20,000, and we're actually going to be calling on the Historical Society folks to help us in that process but step one is what we're asking for tonight But it's not limiting us to the rest of the project that is the bigger scope. |
| 01:56:12.86 | Vicki Nichols | Okay. you Thanks. |
| 01:56:15.70 | Adam Politzer | Uh, |
| 01:56:15.97 | Jill Hoffman | um, Any other comments from the public? Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Now we'll move to council. Does council have any questions or requests to remove anything? Council member Pfeiffer. |
| 01:56:29.02 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. I have a question about D. Specifically, it involves the accessibility improvements. I think that's related to the ADA. And I was wondering if our Public Works Director could comment. I've received, does this include fixing the ADA You know, the trip hazard on Princess and Bridgeway that was recently constructed. It's got flags and plastic around it. You know, the step, it goes down. It was recently installed and... Thank you. Now it's got hazard tape around it. |
| 01:57:11.17 | Jonathon Goldman | Now it's got hazard tape around it. Mr. Mayor, with your permission, your Public Works Director and City Engineer Jonathan Goldman. The short answer to your question is no. This project does not include that piece of work. However, the trip hazard has been abated with the installation of a rail. |
| 01:57:32.04 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:57:34.39 | Jonathon Goldman | Thank you. |
| 01:57:34.59 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, any other questions? Okay, can we have a motion for approval? |
| 01:57:39.23 | Councilmember Withey | I move to adopt the consent calendar items for A |
| 01:57:42.98 | Jill Hoffman | root d. Second. Can we do it by? Okay, all in favor? Aye. That's unanimous. It passes. |
| 01:57:49.29 | Councilmember Weiner | Hi. |
| 01:57:49.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:57:54.10 | Jill Hoffman | We now move on to item six, and that is, A, receive an oral biannual report from the chief of the Southern Marin Fire District, Fire Chief Chris Tubbs. |
| 01:58:23.06 | Chris Tubbs | a little slow. Mayor Theodorus, Vice Mayor Hoffman, council members, for the record, Chris Tubbs, your fire chief. I'd also like to acknowledge a couple of our board members that are here tonight. Our board president, Stephen Willis, here in the front row, Tom Perazzo, and our finance manager, Elisa Shiffman. They're here to help keep me out of trouble tonight. I'd like to thank you all for the opportunity to come and speak before you and share about some of the great work that is going on in our organization. It's been a real privilege to be in this organization since this last October. It's been a short period of time, been a long learning curve, but I've enjoyed every minute of it. As I present this tonight to you, I'd like to do this through three lenses. Those lenses are what have we been doing during the last eight months since I arrived, what are we currently working on, and what does the future have in store for us with some of the initiatives that we see coming down the road. This is not an exhaustive list by any means, but is merely the high points. We'll be producing a comprehensive annual report in a couple of months, and we'll be sharing that with the community and with you and our elected board. |
| 01:59:36.34 | Chris Tubbs | So as I said, when I first arrived in October, there was a transition period between Chief Irving and myself. We had about a month or a month and a half in which to sort of exchange all of the information. During that period, I also took the opportunity to get out and visit with all of our firefighters and crews and kind of hear what was going on in the organization, where they saw opportunities for our organization to grow and improve. One of the themes that jumped out at me right away was The question, excuse me. Where are we going? What's our destination? Where do you see this organization moving in the coming years? So that sort of led into the identification of a need to create a vision for the organization. As we know, it's very important in an organization to have a couple of key elements, one of those being a vision. Clearly we have to have a mission. That's what we're here for. That identifies our purpose. The vision also leads to our strategic objectives. What is the work that we're going to be doing each year to help us achieve that vision? And ultimately, that generates the budget. That is the fuel that helps us achieve our vision. In addition to working through this vision process, and you will see right up here, we have listed the eight elements that we identified in that. This is just a summary. Again, this is a... Ultimately, this led to a document that really expands on each of those elements so that our staff understands when we talk about things like economic resiliency. What does that mean, economic resiliency? The other thing that we identified, again, is in part through this interaction with the crew, was the need to do a cultural survey. In other words, we wanted to get a sense from the organization what was the health. What did people think about the organization? Were there opportunities for us to improve some of the things that we do internally? Are there things for us to improve with regards to our customers? Are there things that we could do better? We contracted with a group called the Results Group. It's an organization that I have a long history with from my previous employer. And in that process, there are 32 questions that are teed up for our employees through an anonymous process. Of those 32 questions, there are six key elements that we look at because they affect all 32. And there is a requirement that we achieve 80%. That's our target goal for all 32 of those elements. From that process, we identified out of those six key elements, five that were below the 80%. and one that was above. And as an example, one of those was internal communications. So from that work, we sat down with our leadership teams, and we said, okay, so how do we begin to cure some of these issues? We identified action plans for each of those, and we're currently working on those. You'll note on the slide that on each one of these there is an italic bullet at the bottom of each of those items that I talk about. The intent of that is to show you what elements of our vision those particular issues are addressing. The next thing I want to talk about is shared services. Clearly the council's very well aware of the annexation that occurred between the city of Sausalito and the Southern Marin Fire District. you may or may not be aware of efforts that have continued to go on to look for other opportunities to share existing resources to leverage efficiencies and cost avoidance. One of the things that we identified that we needed to do as we began to explore other opportunities was identify a strategic goal. Why were we doing this? What was the purpose of looking at other opportunities for shared services? And that is up there on the screen for you. And it simply says, to identify and implement programs processes and partnerships with Mill Valley Fire that result in cost savings or cost avoidance for our organizations, and communities and increase organizational efficiencies, enhance firefighter and citizen safety, and strengthen mission resiliency. From that, one of the initiatives that we began to work on, and actually started shortly before I arrived, was the sharing of battalion chiefs. Both agencies were down one position. That provided an opportunity for us to say, hey, can we take the existing resources and leverage them to benefit both communities without having to hire additional people. We recently completed a time span experiment with that, and from that process we identified that the program is a success. That has then translated into a staff report that Chief Tom Welch with Mill Valley Fire and I have drafted and will be finalizing in bringing before both this body, the board, and also the city of Mill Valley where we articulate those efficiencies, those cost avoidance items, as well as we note that there is a combined savings as a result of this initiative of just shy of $500,000. |
| 02:04:47.59 | Chris Tubbs | And again, you'll see below the vision elements that this shared services work has helped us move towards. |
| 02:05:01.66 | Chris Tubbs | Budget development. Not long after I arrived, I was thrust right into a budget development process. Not only a steep learning curve, but now let's figure out how we're going to fund the organization for the next year. One of the things that we implemented this year was a zero-based budgeting approach. For those who are not aware of what a zero-based budgeting approach is, that is taking every budget essentially down to zero, every program budget we have in the fire district. down to zero and asking our budget managers to make a case for the money that they are requesting relative to our strategic goals and our vision. In other words, how is your proposal gonna help us achieve these goals that we have as an organization This was a real cultural shift. Our folks had never been through this process before. We recently completed that, presented that to the board this last week, which was approved. And our budget for 2015 and 2016 is actually 1% lower than the 2014-2015 budget. |
| 02:06:04.62 | Chris Tubbs | One of the things as part of this budget development process that we believe is very, very important for our citizens is transparency. When we ask the taxpayers to entrust us with their money, There is a sense a contract. We are promising to do something with that money. And part of that promise includes showing them what we're doing with that money, giving them the opportunity to see how those monies are being spent. uh... and as part of our budget we have um... adopted uh... the OpenGov program which we'll be deploying here in the coming months. And I know the city of Sausalito is very familiar with that. Charlie helped us with that process. The next item I want to talk about that we have been working on the past eight months is the recent grand jury report that was released in April of this year. I apologize to the council that I wasn't able to provide you with a written response prior to Monday this week, but we only finished completing that on Friday. The board teed this up this past Wednesday, was able to work through the legal analysis, and put together our required legal response. In April, the grand jury released a report titled, Pension Enhancements, a Case for Government Code Violations and a Lack of Transparency. that occurred between 2001 and 2006. The district hired outside counsel to review the report and the District's documentation and assess the alleged violations noted in the report. Legal counsel presented this analysis to the board last week and, as prescribed by law, adopted a response to the presiding judge. Southern Marin Fire was one of four agencies cited in the report, allegedly violating four elements or four times violating California Government Code 7507 between 2001 and 2006. So what is 7507? Just to summarize very quickly, fundamentally it has two elements. One element requires a two-week notification to the public for any proposed increase in benefit enhancements to the pension system. and that an actuarial study on the impacts of those enhancements must be conducted and made public. The intent clearly is to allow the public time to review the financial implications of the proposed enhancements and to have the opportunity to address the elected officials. Legal analysis found that during the period the district increased benefits twice and reduced benefits once. The district secured four different retirement benefit actuarial Excuse me, I've got to find my notes here. Studies from William Mercer as prescribed by code 7507. before making the two retirement plan changes, thus meeting this requirement of California Government Code 7507. There was no requirement on the law then to conduct an actuarial for pension decreases. That has since changed, by the way. The District's documentation is unclear as to whether the reports were publicly disclosed during a meeting at least two weeks before adoption of the benefit increases, though that the memorandum of understanding and the resolutions were all adopted. at noticed public meetings as new business items, not on the consent calendar, and the district records show that no one from the public attended any of those meetings. The report also asked the district to respond to a question of vesting and legal counsel noted that the grand jury finding does not reach a conclusion. but simply states that these benefits may or may not be vested, and therefore our agency cannot agree or disagree with that finding. Council additionally noted that is not aware of any reported California case or statute that prevents benefits from vesting in the event of incomplete compliance with California Government Code 7507. Clearly as a result of that, as the fire chief and speaking for the board as well, we have a legal obligation to follow the contracts that we have entered into until the courts tell us otherwise. Our legal counsel has recommended, per the grand jury report, some improvements including the adoption of a policy that would prevent any future violations of Government Code 7507. and a policy for reporting out to the public regarding the employment and pension costs in terms of the amount and the employer's ability to pay on a current cash flow basis. We will be drafting and adopting these policies within the next few months. The report also recommends the establishment of a pension oversight committee, and this will require further legal analysis as it may violate other California regulations. We'll be posting our formal response to the Grand Jury Report to our website because we believe it's important for the community to know what our response is. So what's our current focus? What have we been working on most recently? Well, again, shared services is an ongoing initiative for us as a result of the success from the BC Sharing Initiative. We believe that there are some other things that we can do together to help save money or be more efficient. We're exploring a shared management team. We don't know exactly what that looks like yet, but we're looking at what might be of mutual benefit to both organizations. We are aligning operations and procedures. For example, our policies. Since we work together, we respond to fires, we respond to rescues, We think it's important to be singing from the same sheet of music. And so we're putting energies into that. We're also exercising a number of joint processes, such as shared officer meetings. Again, it's an opportunity for us to communicate a message singularly through two agencies who work very closely together. Strategic plan. Our strategic plan has expired and the work has been completed. And we'll report that out to the community in our annual report. We recently selected a consultant to help us initiate a new strategic planning process. That strategic planning process, of course, is the basis of how we establish our strategic objectives for the coming years, which then ultimately leads to how we build our budget. |
| 02:12:15.11 | Chris Tubbs | deployment analysis. A deployment analysis is a tool that we use, and we are going to initiate that this year as well, that helps us look at our current resources and our allocated resources and asks and helps us answer the question, are we doing that as effectively and efficiently as we can? For example, our facilities, our apparatus inventory, and our staffing model. foundational information for helping us make some very important financial decisions in the future. It also sets us up for accreditation and helps us with our ISO rating. And we'll be doing an ISO review this August, which we believe is very important. for our communities because we think there is going to be an improvement Technology plan, we've also been putting a lot of energy into our, looking at how we do technology. There has been a major trend in the private sector and in the public sector for the last several years to move to cloud-based technology. The reason for that is it helps reduce your overhead costs. helps reduce the amount of IT staffing you have to have. It helps reduce the hardware that you have to have. So we have been making steps in that regard and seeing some savings from that already. So we will continue to look at doing more work in that area. Thank you. Leadership Academy, again, is part of our work with the results group with the survey. This week we launched into a leadership academy for our officers group. We have been doing this with the city of Mill Valley, the fire department there. Again, an opportunity to do this and sort of build these joint processes, sending out a singular message so that when we're operating out on the fire ground, we're doing that as one team. So we'll look down the road. Clearly, we see that developing a sustainable economic model is important for any organization, and we think there's things that we can do to continue to improve in that regard. If most organizations keep doing business the way that they do, oftentimes they're faced with converging revenue and expenditure lines. That's certainly something we have concerns about and are looking at. We want to ensure most importantly that there's alignment between our vision, our mission and our strategic goals. Increased public transparency. We believe it's important, again, to tell the community. How are we spending their money relative to what we have told them that we're going to do? This is something that we're going to continue to work on as an organization. We think that there are things that we're doing right. But we also believe that there's opportunity to do things better. Again, shared services, a common theme. We believe that there are more opportunities to leverage some efficiencies and cost avoidance And finally, community risk reduction. community risk reduction is a term uh... that was developed by the u.s. fire administration approximately ten years ago Traditional fire departments have a fire prevention division, an operations division, public education division, and so they create unintentionally silos. Committee risk reduction is about really taking a holistic look at our communities, looking at the risks we have, and making sure that we align all of our resources collectively and in a coordinated fashion to deliver services to address those risks. One example of that might be if we have a number of what we call fall calls, in other words, we have folks who fall down either due to age or medical impairments, And if we have a high incidence of that, that gives us an opportunity to say, are there things that we can do to help mitigate that, either through awareness and education or through other means? Yes. We currently don't have a community risk reduction approach in our organization, but that is something that we're working towards. Finally, we received two weeks ago another grand jury report on COIN, which is civic openness in negotiations. We've not yet processed that, but that is in front of our plate. We'll certainly be reporting back to the council as well as the board. And with that, I certainly open it up to the council for questions. |
| 02:16:21.64 | Jill Hoffman | questions who would like to start? Let's do it. Pfeiffer? |
| 02:16:24.73 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes, so thank you very much, Chief, and I appreciate that presentation. It was very inclusive. I want to zero in on the grand jury report, specifically regarding the 7507 violations. It's my understanding that the district's legal counsel made the comment that future annual costs determined by an actuary were not disclosed at a public meeting two weeks prior to adoption of the benefit increases. There's no record that the district did this, which would not, I guess, the disclosure process would not comply under the statute. Can you respond to that? And I'm quoting the district's legal counsel. |
| 02:17:20.43 | Chris Tubbs | Can you tell me what part of the report you're reading? |
| 02:17:23.10 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I am referring to the grand jury report that talks about the violation of 7507 and the public disclosure two weeks prior to implementing a benefits increase. And it's my understanding at a recent meeting last week when you were taking Q&A from the organization Citizens for Sustainable Pension Plans that a question was raised and and your the legal counsel made the comment that that if the future annual costs determined by the actuary were not disclosed to the public meeting two weeks prior in other words 757 then the district did not comply with the disclosure process under the statute and he said that there was the district you have no record of having done that so it seemed like he he admitted that that that that 7507 that compliance of two weeks notification had not happened to notify the public actually |
| 02:17:33.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:18:26.68 | Chris Tubbs | Actually, there's a piece missing to his response. His response also included that there was no proof that it did not occur. |
| 02:18:29.60 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 02:18:33.85 | Chris Tubbs | So it's unclear as to whether that part of 7507 was violated. |
| 02:18:39.79 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, I believe 7507, you should have, I mean, there should be clear proof that you notified the public two weeks prior. I mean, you would imagine to have, I mean, I imagine to have, you know, released something or posted something on a website or something to these, to this effect. Is the absence of not having proof that you didn't do it enough to satisfy the statute? |
| 02:19:02.17 | Chris Tubbs | Immunization. |
| 02:19:11.00 | Chris Tubbs | Obviously, these events occurred back in 2001 and 2006, and I can't speak for the board or the fire chief at that time. When we received the grand jury report, we were asked to assess their findings and their recommendations based on the records that we have, which is what legal counsel did. And we know that we have good documentation with regards to board meetings and board meeting minutes and the actions taken and the order in which they were taken. But we don't have anything posted in any of our meeting minutes or agendas about when those things were posted, i.e. the agenda. So in the absence of that, and especially considering that we're required by law under Penal Code 933 to respond in very specific ways, as you know, one of those is do we fully agree or do we partially agree or partially disagree? And because there is an absence of information, we believe it would be irresponsible to draw a conclusion based on the absence of that information. |
| 02:20:15.41 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I have a follow-up question. One of the recommendations from the grand jury was that Southern Rune Fire District form a citizens pension oversight committee. In your response, you make the comment that this recommendation is better suited to the larger employees with more active retirement programs. The district needs to determine if this recommendation is reasonable and practical what are your thoughts that I was concerned when I read that read that statement because it's my opinion that you're not too small to have a citizens oversight a pension oversight committee. And I was wondering, what are the next steps you might take to move in that direction, to, you know, ascertain the viability of doing that? |
| 02:21:01.21 | Chris Tubbs | I think, first of all, it's important to clarify that the response to the grand jury report is not my response. That's the response of the board. That's their legal obligation. The grand jury report asks us as a district to assess those things, which staff provides that analysis. But ultimately, these things are required to be discussed in an open meeting, giving the community the opportunity to hear the legal analysis and respond to that. As a result of that, there was discussion by the board about the need for an oversight committee, and one of the elements of that discussion was, is that not the role of the board and the finance committee? We have plenty of opportunities for financial oversight, all of which are open to the public. One of the things that we shared with those who were in attendance from the CSPP was an invitation. to say if you are concerned about those kinds of things, we have multiple opportunities for you to participate and ensure that there is transparency in those decisions. For the board, I think that there was a concern about not fulfilling their obligation as elected officials, which is, that's part of their role is to provide that oversight. |
| 02:22:19.41 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So if it's the role of the board to provide that oversight, I wonder why the grand jury recommended this. I mean, to me, when I'm looking at the violations that the grand jury pointed out, of which four out of 107 applied to this agency, for them to make that recommendation, to me, I know one of your bullets was talking about building trust and transparency. Wouldn't you say that this might be an important step to build that trust and transparency with the public? given this grand jury report. |
| 02:22:54.81 | Chris Tubbs | I don't know that the creation of an oversight committee directly translates into creating more transparency. I think the issue is what are we doing as an organization at the board level and at the staff level to build that trust and respect with the community. And if there are questions such as what were raised in the grand jury report, It's incumbent on us to make sure that we are fulfilling the legal requirements and the spirit of those legal requirements, which is the transparency showing the people how are their dollars being used and are they being used appropriately. |
| 02:23:27.82 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you, Chief. |
| 02:23:30.75 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:23:30.79 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:23:30.89 | Jill Hoffman | Any questions? I have a couple questions. Hi, Chief. How are you? |
| 02:23:32.78 | Chris Tubbs | Thank you. |
| 02:23:32.91 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:23:32.96 | Chris Tubbs | Question? I'm good, how are you? |
| 02:23:35.92 | Jill Hoffman | Good, thanks for sticking around. So I have a couple of follow-up questions based on that very thing that you just were discussing with Council Member Pfeiffer and that's the Citizens Pension Oversight Committee. And specifically, I'm looking at the Marin County Civil Grand Jury. and they reviewed for employers, it says in the report. And who are those four employers? |
| 02:23:58.99 | Chris Tubbs | Marin County Fire, Novato Fire District, Southern Marin Fire District, and, oh now I'm drawing a blank on that. The county? |
| 02:24:07.84 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | County |
| 02:24:08.60 | Chris Tubbs | Thank you. |
| 02:24:08.75 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | It was County of Marin. |
| 02:24:09.28 | Chris Tubbs | county county Moran it was Kenny Moran Novato Southern Marin and San Rafael sorry |
| 02:24:15.18 | Jill Hoffman | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:24:15.27 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:24:15.32 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:24:15.34 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:24:15.40 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:24:15.42 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yeah, same for five. |
| 02:24:16.03 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. And so they but they made the same recommendation for all four of those employers, correct? With regard to this citizens pension oversight committee? |
| 02:24:26.58 | Chris Tubbs | I believe they did. |
| 02:24:27.84 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. And that was to address? the approximate you know 536 million in unfunded pension liability. Correct. |
| 02:24:38.45 | Chris Tubbs | Correct. |
| 02:24:38.98 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, and so it seems to me that as taxpayers and members of the Southern Marin Fire District, that this would be a very good thing. for the Citizens Pension Oversight Committee to be formed, at least in the near term, and I understand that it may be, we may be smaller I mean, that may impose a burden you know, on the Southern Marin, but I would hope that the Southern Marin firefighters seriously consider forming such an oversight committee at least, if nothing else, and to give credibility and you know. reassurance to the citizens that the past problems have been fixed. Um, What are the, going forward, what are, what if any remedies have been put into place, um, that corrects these um, the collective the collective unfunded pension liability of $536 million. Are there anything any remedies that can be put into place to Fix that or... I mean... There was a further question Under Finding Six, future pension benefits provided for provided for by the enhances may or may not have vested. And then the response is, you can't respond to that because you don't know if it's, since the statement simply asserts that something may or may not exist. Are you prepared? tonight to comment on whether or not they vested |
| 02:26:08.58 | Chris Tubbs | I don't believe that's in my purview. I believe if you read the report, what council also says is that there are no legal precedents one way or the other, I'm not an attorney. My job is merely to enforce those regulations that are imposed upon the district. And in this case, those are contractual obligations. And until we're told otherwise by the court, we have a legal obligation to follow them. Otherwise, we put the district at great financial risk. |
| 02:26:37.00 | Jill Hoffman | Have there been any proposals to remedy any of those? collective unfunded pension liabilities. |
| 02:26:43.58 | Chris Tubbs | Yes, as you noted in my discussion about the grand jury report, there was a pension enhancement decrease that was brought on by the firefighters themselves recognizing that the financial model was unsustainable. We're currently in negotiations with our bargaining group, and obviously I can't get into specifics, but addressing the pension liability and ways that we can stop the bleeding might be a great way to tee that up are things that we're exploring. And we have agreement with the association that that's an important item that we need to get settled in this contract. |
| 02:27:20.20 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:27:20.61 | Chris Tubbs | Yeah. |
| 02:27:20.84 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:27:27.66 | Councilmember Withey | Good evening, Chief. Thanks for coming. Change in topics, shared services. Could you comment a little bit in more detail about the shared management with Mill Valley? I'm sort of trying to figure out how you get a shared management system working, and is it sort of a prelude to more integration of the two courses? |
| 02:27:57.97 | Chris Tubbs | I think probably the first important thing in any of those types of discussions or... assessments is recognizing that bringing two parties together and looking at those types of opportunities, it has to be recognized that it has to be mutually beneficial, which clearly is one of the things that we want to keep in mind in this process. As I understand, prior to my arrival, there was discussion amongst four fire agencies, Marin County, Timberon Fire, Mill Valley Fire, and Southern Marin Fire, in regards to having four fire chiefs and some duplication in the management structure within a small geographic area. And the question was asked, could we do that differently or do the current governmental boundaries, political boundaries other cultural types of things inhibit that. we believe that we have an obligation to our citizens to explore opportunities where we can leverage greater efficiencies, perhaps save money. So to your question, what we're looking at with Mill Valley is, is there an opportunity to have a shared fire chief? We don't know the answer to that question clearly. We don't even know if Mill Valley is interested in that, but that question is being asked. |
| 02:29:17.35 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:29:17.38 | Chris Tubbs | Well, |
| 02:29:17.60 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Council Member Pfeiffer, other questions? |
| 02:29:27.24 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So is the board discussing, given the grand jury report, again, regarding the 7507 violation, which the grand jury thoroughly researched and determined that the violation had occurred, and your legal counsel confirmed that there was no proof that it had occurred, or I guess had not occurred, but then, you know, that's that's a different bar. Is there a discussion on the board to consider whether or not those those benefits were then in fact legal and whether the taxpayer is is entitled to some sort of recourse, you know, retroactively given given the grand jury report? |
| 02:30:14.00 | Chris Tubbs | Let me, I guess, go back and ensure that there's clarity and understanding what the grand jury report cited and what we have proof of through our documentation. As I noted earlier, there is a requirement in that law that we give a two-week notification. That is the part that is unclear. What is not unclear is, did we meet the regulation with regard to providing an actuarial report for the pension enhancements relative to all of the affected positions in the organization. the Southern Marin Fire District complied, fully complied, with that part of 7507. So the question, in a sense, really remains is, we certainly gave notification to the community through our normal process for our board meetings. And we know that no one in the public attended, um, And there is a question of whether that announcement for those enhancements went out a week, two weeks, three weeks. We don't know the answer to that question. So as a result, that's the response that we provide back to the presiding judge. The legal question about whether those enhancements are vested or not, again, I would... I'm not sure. respond that I can't answer that question. I'm not an attorney. We have to rely on our legal counsel for that. And as legal counsel told us, there's no precedent one way or the other right now with regards to whether those are vested. But there is a belief that they are vested until the court tells us otherwise. |
| 02:31:48.82 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Welcome back. See no further question. We'll open it up to public comment at this point. |
| 02:31:56.97 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:31:57.00 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:31:57.19 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:32:01.88 | Jill Hoffman | No, no one from the public like to speak on this. Okay. Seeing none, we'll move it up to a council discussion council comment who would like to start. |
| 02:32:12.83 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I want to thank the Chief for coming and making this presentation. I really appreciate it and answering all of my questions. I would concur with the grand jury report, though, especially with respect to the pension, the Citizens' Pension Oversight Committee. I think that's very important when certainly unfunded pension liabilities are unsustainable and they're climbing. And they're the public eye and if the goal is to promote trust and transparency I think this recommendation from the grand jury would go a long way to promoting that and promoting a good rapport and kind of openness and transparency so that is the only thing I would say to that and of course anything you can do in terms of pension reform you know looking at ways to address the unfunded pension liability you know it's it's a great concern and so that that would be my comment and thank you for your your presentation, and thank you for all that you do as a Southern Marin Fire District. We very much appreciate your hard work, and just, you know, it's really, truly, we appreciate it very much. Thank you very much. |
| 02:33:25.73 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 02:33:29.46 | Councilmember Withey | Thank you very much. |
| 02:33:30.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:35.89 | Councilmember Withey | Yeah, I will of course echo Councilmember Pfeiffer's thanks to the Chief and to Southern Marin. FIRE, I got to know everybody there quite well, having participated intimately in helping in the end make the FIRE consolidation work through measure D and so I know that was a good deal in terms of it was sort of like the ultimate result of shared services was moving forward and I think it's great that you're exploring that because in the end I learned through the fire consolidation process it's about building scales about building career opportunities about building all kinds of things for everybody there so I would also say to anybody here or anybody listening that if you want to find out more go along to the Southern Marin Fire District board meetings, because I think you'll learn a lot. And that's the best way for you to learn, is to exercise your rights. So I would very much encourage that. |
| 02:34:58.29 | Jill Hoffman | just echoing the comments of the other members, thank you for coming. Thank you for all that you do for our town and our district. But I do think it's really important that you have the citizens' oversight Committee for the pensions, especially the fact that this problem didn't come to light until there was a grand jury investigation. And the sheer size of the problem, I think, warrants the four-minute committee. However you can do that within the cost parameters, I totally understand, but I think it's really important. Thanks. |
| 02:35:30.37 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Chief Tubbs and thank the board members and Steve and Tom and others and, and and thank you for the great job that you do and keeping us safe and, you know, and the good work and and continuing the tradition of good work there. So we really appreciate that. And we need to get you here more often. I think that's important. you know, now that you're here, I realized that we have to put you on the schedule, we'll try to make it earlier. And I do echo the comments on the on the oversight committee, one of the things we know that you do a great job in, in, in keeping a safe fires and other kinds of things. Some of the things that we worry about, here for the city are pensions, and we certainly know that we're on the hook for, you know, as taxpayers and pensions. IT WOULD BE NICE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OR SOMETHING IN MORE DETAIL THAT IT'S EASY TO GO TO. THERE MAY BE SOME OPEN GOV OR SOME OTHER WAYS THAT WE AS CITIZENS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE ARE IN RELATION TO THE into the fire district are more can be more comfortable about what's being addressed there. So but thank you very much for coming tonight. And I think that's it. Okay, thank you. |
| 02:36:48.96 | Jill Hoffman | We move on to item. 6B short term Vacation Rentals Code Enforcement Program And that's Danny Castro, our Community Development Director. |
| 02:37:17.24 | Danny Castro | Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Just waiting for this to come up. Thank you. The item before you is the discussion on short-term vacation rentals. |
| 02:37:32.65 | Danny Castro | At your March 17th, 2015 meeting that says 2014, it should be 2015, City Council meeting, you received an introduction on short-term rentals, background, and issues and challenges in Sausalito. You also... had also received background on our code enforcement, and received a presentation from Senator Mike McGuire, who has a pending Senate Bill 593. |
| 02:38:04.71 | Danny Castro | The Sausalito Municipal Code does not permit short-term rentals. The code refers to accessory uses that are permitted and states that renting rooms for long-term, more than 30 days occupancy in a dwelling is permitted in the residential zoning districts, but short-term rentals for less than 30 days is not a type of use that is permitted. |
| 02:38:32.70 | Danny Castro | The pending Bill 593 is again at the March 17th meeting. A presentation was made by California Senator Mike McGuire, who introduced a proposed bill that would require housing platforms, and that's such as Airbnb, VRBO, HomeAway, for example, to disclose a listing of short term rentals that are operating in the city. The address and number of days rented and require that these housing platforms remit transit occupancy tax, or TOT, to the city. This legislation would also assist staff in code enforcement efforts to regulate their prohibition of short term rentals. However, staff has been informed that this pending legislation has been tabled until year 2017. The direction at the March meeting was to continue to enforce the regulations, which prohibit short-term rentals, and to devise a code enforcement program that identifies properties that are violating the regulations, collects the transient occupancy tax, the TOT, for the period of time that it has been rented, and recover the costs for a code enforcement officer. In your 2015-2016 budget, this month, on June 16th, the City Council approved code enforcement to regulate short-term rental uses at a revenue-neutral cost of $50,000. And so before you is here is a description of the short-term rental code enforcement program. We would contract for a part-time code enforcement officer at a $50,000 cost to manage the short-term rental code enforcement program. Again, this is a cost neutral position with the cost recovery by way of the TOT revenue. Provide an article in the Sausalito Currents and prepare handout brochures that describes that short-term rental uses are prohibited in the residential districts. And a code enforcement program will be in effect to remove such uses and to collect the backed TOT for the period of time the use was rented. We would focus code enforcement activity primarily on single family homes that are being used as short term rentals. We would use existing contracted business license discovery service through our finance department to conduct passive business scans to discover short-term rental uses in the city. So this would be one tool that we would utilize. And the code enforcement officer will also investigate any claims or complaints. |
| 02:41:25.44 | Danny Castro | The code enforcement officer will review Sausalito properties on websites like Airbnb and VRBO and compile a list where locations can be identified and investigate. Staff will also research code enforcement programs that have been implemented in other cities. We would also send a, the code enforcement officer will send a courtesy notice to property owners that have been identified as using their property as short-term rentals, inform them that short-term rentals are prohibited, and demand that they seize operation within 30 days and remit the TOT for the period that they were using as a short-term rental. We would also implement the administrative penalties that are currently established in our municipal code for violators who do not seize their short-term rental operations and do not remit the back TOT owed to the city. And the penalties are 100, 200, and also 500, and thereafter 500 as a cumulative until compliance is achieved. |
| 02:42:30.79 | Danny Castro | The program that is proposed before you is a trial period. We like to take this opportunity to test the enforcement capability, test the cost recovery via the remittance of the transient occupancy tax, test the success rate of seizing operation of short term rentals, and then return to the city council at the end of the year with a report on the program and review options. The recommendation tonight is to direct staff to implement the short-term rental code enforcement program and report to the City Council with an update and recommendations at the end of the year. Other options are to direct staff to implement the program with revisions or any other direction the Council wishes to provide. And that concludes my report. |
| 02:43:23.50 | Jill Hoffman | you danny bring it up here for questions we'd like to start You're in Pfeiffer. |
| 02:43:30.43 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes. Thank you, Danny, for that overview. So we had one of our residents write in and made a statement, and I just wondered if you could comment on it, stating that the zoning ordinance, specifically Section 1022.030, is not clear, according to this resident, regarding allowable land use for short-term rentals of periods of less than 30 days. This counters what my understanding always was, which was that we were clear that short-term rentals under 30 days were illegal. Can you comment on that? |
| 02:44:12.80 | Danny Castro | The section 1022.030 refers to the permitted uses, the allowable uses within the residential districts. This is not listed as a permitted use. And so when it's not listed as a permitted use, it's a prohibited use. |
| 02:44:26.41 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 02:44:33.41 | Councilmember Withey | Yeah, one of the, I noticed that this is a sort of pilot short-term program to, I would say, gain as much information as possible. So one of the areas that I know confuses a lot of people is, okay, we've got an ordinance saying that rentals less than 30 days is not permitted. And yet many jurisdictions, and I think we have found ourselves, it's actually very difficult to enforce. Could you talk about some of the difficulties and the fact that one of the things Mike McGuire wants to do, Senator McGuire wants to do is sort of give some people some more tools, but that's not here yet. So could you talk about the problems of enforcement? Sure. |
| 02:45:20.56 | Danny Castro | I think cities are currently grappling. We realize that Airbnb is not going away, short-term housing platforms like this, the sharing economy. However, cities are conducting various code enforcement. The difficulties, as you say, are that these websites do not provide addresses. So we're not able to have that information readily available other than investigate based on complaints that we receive, and we've received a handful of them. And also, so that's part of the difficulty, and is verifying that in fact, that they are in fact renting for less than 30 days. And cooperation from these individuals, That is essentially in follow-up because it's my understanding, too, it's very time intensive because, again, it's the verification that they are renting for less than 30 days. |
| 02:46:29.83 | Jill Hoffman | Danny, I haven't heard any complaints or any evidence that that the short-term rentals are eroding the hotel business in Sausalito. Is that true? Or do you have any comment on that? |
| 02:46:39.18 | Danny Castro | True. |
| 02:46:43.50 | Danny Castro | I have not, no, I don't have a comment. I haven't heard that particularly. Okay. |
| 02:46:48.42 | Jill Hoffman | In other words, they don't compete with the hotels. |
| 02:46:50.82 | Adam Politzer | I think that we've heard in the past not recently but at the hospitality committee meetings those conversations have happened at those meetings and then |
| 02:46:55.65 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:47:01.20 | Adam Politzer | And previous council discussions. the hoteliers have shared that on the playing field should be leveled. |
| 02:47:12.96 | Jill Hoffman | I have, no, I haven't thought. And is there any, Do we have any idea of how many actual rental long-term rental units in town? In other words, you know, year to year leases are, you know, those types of units, do we have any numbers of how many of those units have actually been converted to short term rentals? |
| 02:47:32.38 | Danny Castro | and don't have that information. Thank you. |
| 02:47:33.99 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And can you give me an idea of how many nuisance complaints we've had with regard to, that you can attribute specifically to the short term rentals here in town? |
| 02:47:43.94 | Danny Castro | Sure, I think I have about four or five |
| 02:47:47.23 | Jill Hoffman | THE END OF THE END OF THE Okay, at four or five this year? |
| 02:47:50.61 | Danny Castro | Well, complaints, they haven't raised to the level of nuisance, but have had complaint forms provided, code complaints forms. |
| 02:48:07.30 | Jill Hoffman | Danny, I have a question. How close are you to implementation this trial period? program meaning. What would it take to get it started? When would you anticipate it? I imagine soon because, you state that the trial would go through the end of this year. |
| 02:48:25.73 | Danny Castro | I anticipate if tonight the City Council gives me direction to implement this program that within the next following month, we would be able to begin contract with a code enforcement officer to then begin managing a program. |
| 02:48:42.25 | Jill Hoffman | And I take it what it would take is this part-time code enforcement officer and the service that you talked about that would do some of the searching. With those two elements, you would be able to implement this program, is that correct? Yes. OK, thanks. |
| 02:48:58.77 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Danny, maybe this was in the staff report, but I didn't see it. What is the TOT tax? What is the percentage? It's 12%. It is 12%. Okay. I have another follow-up. So... |
| 02:49:05.77 | Danny Castro | Thank you. |
| 02:49:13.89 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I know that we've had complaints. I know that we have addresses. I know that we know of at least one person in town who is running a business where there's a single-family home that's constantly rented out, and then there's even a liveaboard situation. This same person owns a sailboat and rents that as an Airbnb, and evidently this is his business, it's just ridiculous and with loud parties and everything. So my question is to enforce if we have this code enforcer how will things be different in terms of remedying that sort of a egregious situation where you know someone is I mean, just disturbing two neighborhoods and running a business, a hotel business, basically, in neighborhoods. |
| 02:50:03.52 | Danny Castro | That's right. |
| 02:50:09.58 | Danny Castro | I think with this code enforcement program, the difference would be we would have a dedicated staff member who would be working primarily on this program. |
| 02:50:19.04 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I ask the question because I recall once hearing an explanation that the fines to follow up, you know, to enforce, you know, and to rectify that sort of a situation, that the tools were not very robust and the fines, you know, were, you know, 100, 200, 500. Do you need anything more from this council in terms of tools to enforce an egregious situation like this? Or is that something we could ask the code enforcer to come back to us with recommendations, you know, in six months or something? Or can you comment on that today, tonight? |
| 02:51:00.13 | Danny Castro | that The fines are now established by way of our current municipal code. So that would require that we have to revisit that if we were to increase those fines, for example. But that would have to come back to you. |
| 02:51:17.72 | Mary Wagner | And Mr. Mayor, if I could address that as well. Part of the issue with the fine structure is that every day has to be noticed as another violation in order to accumulate what would be considered to be a more meaningful fine. So you issue one code enforcement complaint. The next day you would need to issue another for the ongoing violation and each day of that violation. So it's very staff intensive and very time consuming. We can certainly look at that fee structure, work with the code enforcement officer to report back to you on any recommendations to make modifications to the existing TOT ordinance to revise that fee structure if necessary. |
| 02:51:58.49 | Danny Castro | If I could add to that too, when you do issue an administrative citation, there are also appeal rights, so that there's a ten day period. So when you issue number one citation, you do have to wait at least ten days and provide that opportunity for appeal. |
| 02:52:17.18 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | So I guess that's why I'm asking the question, because I know the current process as written is cumbersome, and this is a new business model, so it wasn't really written to address this particular issue that we're having right now in town. So any recommendations from the front lines are appreciated in terms of how we can streamline, how we can make that more succinct. because I have heard of renters getting evicted for Airbnb, you know, to make room for short-term rentals. And I have, you know, had complaints from neighbors saying, you know, pretty egregious parties and, you know, taking the parking illegal parking and everything it's just crazy so You know I if we need better remedies then You know that would be good to explore |
| 02:53:10.68 | Danny Castro | OK. |
| 02:53:11.74 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And I agree we need to differentiate from the people who are trying to make ends meet and renting a room out in their home or something, you know, versus someone who's running a business model and, you know, gaming the system, in my opinion. Thank you. |
| 02:53:30.64 | Jill Hoffman | And, Danny, I've seen the staff report that you've attached the short-term rental ordinance that we had during 2012 and 2013 for the America's Cup events. And that you also attached a synopsis, a very good synopsis of other communities. you communities such as ours that are, you know, somewhat tourist-based. And so do we have any metrics from... when we had this ordinance, short-term ordinance during the America's Cup. I see that it was, there was a minimum of seven consecutive days and it was only during, looks like the summer months from July to October and May to October of the next year. So do, Thank you. Did. Okay, so is it correct that we don't have any numbers on how many people took advantage of that? |
| 02:54:22.02 | Danny Castro | I didn't actually research that particular. I am aware that there was a short period of time we allowed them. |
| 02:54:24.67 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:54:29.33 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thanks. |
| 02:54:31.96 | Jill Hoffman | Danny. Currently, and you could take any just approximately and take any period of time to go back a year. How much are we collecting in TOT from? from rentals. from apartment or house rentals or houses, you know, non hotels, let's call or illegal short term rentals. How much to do are we collecting? Currently? Yes. |
| 02:54:55.12 | Danny Castro | I believe, I was talking to Charlie Francis, I think it was 20,000, but don't quote me on that. |
| 02:55:02.15 | Jill Hoffman | And do you have any sense of, so Charlie would know, do you have any sense of how many individuals that'd be from? So you're guessing 20, but you don't know. I don't know the numbers. |
| 02:55:10.35 | Adam Politzer | But you don't know. I don't know. I don't know the numbers. Mr. Mayor, I think, and I wasn't part of this conversation that Danny and Charlie had. but they were kind of going back to the, um, America's Cup. rental and I what my understanding is from my conversation with Danny earlier was that the people that were renting out their homes during that process have continued to rent out their homes but they have also continued to pay The T. And these homes, to our understanding, have not been on the list of complaints. The noticing process that went through to approve those back during the America's Cup allowed the neighbors to understand that they were granted permission. So we would assume that those neighbors would be contacting us if there's been ongoing issues there. I'm not saying there hasn't been issues, but we haven't been made aware of it. But we believe whatever that revenue that has been generated from short-term vacation rentals has been from this small group of homes that qualified back during the America's Cup. |
| 02:56:16.01 | Jill Hoffman | Other questions? Thank you. A minute. No other questions. Okay. We'll close council questions and bring it to public comment. I have speaker cards and we'll start with. I'm not sure. Melanie Mershand, I'm sorry. |
| 02:56:35.42 | Kate Storer | No, you're, you're, you're Thank you. |
| 02:56:37.14 | Jill Hoffman | Miroshawn, I'm sorry. |
| 02:56:38.12 | Kate Storer | Thank you. |
| 02:56:40.42 | Jill Hoffman | And then Kate Storer and Robert Woodrum. What is this? Yeah. Woodrum. |
| 02:56:49.66 | Unknown | Good evening, everyone. I admire you for being able to function at this time of the evening. Actually, we did have a few people that abandoned our cause tonight. We had about six people who had to go. So we'll thank you for staying. |
| 02:56:53.50 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 02:56:53.65 | Unknown | I CAN. |
| 02:57:03.05 | Unknown | We spoke on March 17th. um, I'm a Sausalito resident. I don't host here, but I do have a home in Lake Tahoe where my husband and I host. Since that time, I've been speaking with other hosts here in Sausalito. We have been Many of them have expressed the fact that they're reluctant to speak up about it because they're concerned about it being a gray area of the law and concerned that they could get in trouble. Most of the hosts that I've been speaking to, they are on the side of hosting very responsibly, and so you're not seeing complaints. Many of them have their neighbors who are quite happy with the service and even use the service when family and friends are visiting in town. So, you know, there is, there is a real community aspect to where it's working and there aren't complaints. We, Did gather some information, some data. We asked hosts to pull data from their own listings to share information about who is renting, Many of the times you'll see it's family and friends. This was in the presentation that we provided last week. And many of the times it's business travelers. I think we want to build a case and share that this is one way that Sausalito could bring in some of those high-value visitors that we were talking about in March 17th meeting. People who stay in the community, who shop in the community, and who spend their money here. And if it's done responsibly, we really want to urge the council to think about having this be additive to Sausalito. I know my time is super limited. but there are a lot of logistical hurdles to host being able to submit the TOT. One of them is on the regulatory front. The other is on the technology platform front. The ground is shifting very quickly right now. We were contacted by Airbnb just last week. because SB 593 is not happening. they are turning those resources to work at the city level. They are right now working to prioritize lists of cities where they want to begin looking at discussions of automatically remitting the TOT. we think that if we can get Airbnb, we've been asking them as well to make accommodations for us to make this more above board. we think that if Airbnb can have these conversations, we'd love Sausalito to be at the top of that list. There are cities like Healdsburg, where Mark McGuire's from. They spend $100,000 on enforcement. |
| 02:59:24.98 | Unknown | and the |
| 02:59:30.84 | Unknown | There's home sharing going on in Healdsburg right now. We would love to see a trial of having this go forward and having enforcement dollars spent on those bad Apple hosts, which every host here... you know, the hosts that are responsible really have a hard time with those hosts because they don't like it either. Um, So what I want to do is really urge you, yes, of course, to let this go forward. This is going to be around in 10 years' time, and I think it will be an important revenue stream for communities. In 10 years' time, it will be more equalized and ubiquitous. There are speed bumps on the road now to getting it in place. But, you know, please don't say no yet. please have conversations with the platforms you know this could be done in a productive way. So thank you so much for your time, and we're also happy to have more conversations and share more information. |
| 03:00:22.91 | Jill Hoffman | Kate Snor, please. |
| 03:00:28.65 | Kate Storer | Hi there, I'm Kate Storer and you heard from me earlier. I'm a seven year resident here in Sausalito. I love it here. I'm not sure. I'm also a parent Willow Creek Academy. I'm the former treasurer of the South Souter Nursery School, and I'm very engaged in my community. I had no idea. And I should add, I'm also a host. I had no idea that what I was doing was not allowed until I came quite by chance to the March 17th meeting. So I thank you city council members and Mayor Theodorus For... inviting public comment on this issue tonight. I really appreciate it. And I want to tell you a little bit of a story about why I host, so that you can have a different sense of what hosting is all about. A few years ago, my husband and I, who ran an organization for 15 years, decided to change things up. We wanted to travel less, be around more. We left our jobs. We had no idea what would hit us next. I ended up having to go through a series of surgeries that were not covered by my healthcare. prevented me from working. And on top of that, our house flooded. So suddenly, you know, here we are with these huge looming expenses and no place to live. Fortunately for us, there was a neighbor in town who did do short term rentals. And while our house was being reconstructed, we were able to stay there for two weeks at a shot, off and on for what turned out to be a period of about six months. I, in the process of that, of course, we had to redo our downstairs room. And looking at the code, I thought I would just do an ADU unit. Well, it turns out we don't meet the requirements. So we ended up renting it out as a short-term rental. It was 2013. I read the code. It's not one code, by the way. It's two different pieces of legislation, one of which does not prohibit short-term rentals, and the other of which requires a TOT. I expected I would have to pay a TOT. I had no idea that this was illegal. I think the code is extremely unclear right now. Long story short, it's been a completely great experience. We have wonderful people stay with us. The biggest surprise, of course, is that a lot of them are just friends and family of neighbors because who else wants to stay? in a place for seven days or more, think about it. I can't tell you how many new proud grandparents have stayed at my house. Um, Beyond that, I think it's a great way for families to stay in the community. We would have had to leave, and instead we get to be here. Our daughter got to stay in the school that she loves. This should be a part of thinking flexibility about affordable housing in Sausalito. Finally, I understand that tonight we're considering stricter enforcement. What we'd like to encourage you to do is take a step back and consider smarter enforcement. There's a big difference between the variety that people host for all sorts of reasons. I think it would be good to understand it a bit more. In addition, the code was unclear, so going back and charging looking for back TOT is very unfair. It's out of character for all of you. You're good people. You wouldn't do that to a neighbor. And it's out of character for the city of Sausalito. Let's look at the code, think about alternatives, make this a win-win-win for everyone. Thank you very much. |
| 03:03:48.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Robert Woodrum. |
| 03:03:53.48 | Robert Woodrum | I'm completely unprepared for this and actually didn't have an opinion about it until tonight. Kate asked me to speak because I was here for the parks thing. Honestly, I've never given it a whole lot of thought. But I have two very, very close friends who would no longer own their homes in Sausalito were it not for doing these short-term rentals. One's been here since the 70s. Another one, not quite as long, but they wouldn't be here anymore. It saved their house. It does sound like a real gray area to me, but this enforcement officer, this is what's wrong with government. It's a snake chase in its tail. and you're talking about hiring somebody for 50 grand who is going to find 50 grand to pay himself through ticketing people does not make any sense the other thing I wanted to mention is the company that they contract with to get people for business licenses if it's anything similar to that it was horrible and it made me not want to have a business in Sausalito dealing with that company. So I would encourage you, take a step back and look at this a little more closely. It seems like a real opportunity that could be made into something positive instead of another fight against residents. It doesn't seem entirely bad, so. |
| 03:05:14.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:05:14.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:05:14.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:05:17.62 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. Sam Penrose. |
| 03:05:23.41 | Sam Penrose | I have lived in Sausalito for 14 years. I have never wanted to be a host. My next-door neighbor hosts all the time. When her tenants lock themselves out, I get to help them in. When the people with the poor English skills have the son with a 104-degree fever at 11 o'clock at night, I get to drive them to Bryn General. And I'm fine with that. A lot of lovely people have come and experienced Sausalito. Speaking of grandparents, my children's grandparents have stayed next door. She's respectful and if she wasn't, I would deal with it. And the problem would be not that she was renting, but that there was a disrespect issue or a nuisance or a loud party and I assume we have statutes that can handle that. And that we don't need to say, Someone who was a host hosted a loud party, therefore people who hosts are loud party people. Earlier in the discussion regarding the parks, you heard four people by my count say we need a change towards yes and towards positive things happening. I was really struck by Mr. Castro's gloss on the regulations for housing use that anything that is not listed is therefore prohibited, meaning that Anything you do with your home Everything you do with your home is illegal, and then we make a couple exceptions, right? And On the one hand. On the other hand, I very much respect due process in the law, and if that's the law, that needs to be taken seriously. But that as an attitude, as a synagogu for the attitude that's out there, is really what we want to change. So I hope you will look at this new thing that's happening and go, huh, a whole bunch of Sausalito residents are doing something. A whole bunch of other people are coming in and doing something. It's probably a good thing. It may lead to new costs and new issues, and by all means, let's manage them. By all means, let's follow the law in due process. But let's think, oh gosh, our citizens are trying to do something. Let's help them. Thank you. change is happening. cool, maybe it's good. That would be what I would hope to get out of this process. And I appreciate very much all of your hard work. And I particularly appreciate the Councilmember Pfeiffer's very precise questions about the details of the law, because I do think due process matters, and I do think the specifics of the rules matters. I just would like to see you encourage change and embrace the new things that your citizens are doing, even if they weren't written down in the code 20 years ago. Thank you. |
| 03:08:02.35 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And then after that, we'll be. Wesley Renza. Elsa Quinn. And Melanie Chancellor, did we? |
| 03:08:19.55 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 03:08:26.09 | Neil Whitelaw | Neil Whitelaw, resident of 48 years. Before I start, I'd like to take a pause. I just found out here tonight that a very long-time resident, maybe of 70 years, Al Ekstrom, is seriously ill with pneumonia in intensive care unit at the VA. And those that would like to send a prayer and good thoughts towards him, he's in very serious condition. |
| 03:08:56.52 | Neil Whitelaw | Once again, government's sticking in their nose in a place that doesn't belong. I believe the right to rent out your place for a short-term rental, is guaranteed by your constitutional rights. I think you have passed the law and ordinance. that is illegal, unconstitutional. |
| 03:09:22.69 | Neil Whitelaw | 90% of these people aren't making a business out of this. They're perhaps traveling somewhere. and using the funds they bring in. to pay for part of their travel, otherwise they couldn't. Things are changing. it's a good thing for the most part. We have laws that will take care of the occasional party or problem and so forth. He probably had more problems... people that were celebrating and drinking with the sailboat races two years ago than you would out of just somebody using Airbnb. If you stick your neck out further on this, I think you'll have Airbnb or somebody slamming you with a major lawsuit and bringing in the, uh, American Civil Labories Union. From what I can hear so far, It would cost you a hell of a lot more To enforce this and all the regulations and all the things you have to do to collect a limited amount of money Somebody said earlier, government chasing its tail. You don't belong in this business. These people aren't in business. And government shouldn't be in the business of curtailing people's constitutional rights. Government's gone too far. The population's in an uproar all over about it. It's turning out, and I don't think it's happened here, Yet. But people hate their government all over the country, all over the world. People are in rebellion about this. They're saying, get out of my business. I think consul. and the laws and ordinances you've passed already about short-term rental. are sticking your nose in people's private and protected by the Constitution business. Thank you. I ask you to consider that. Thank you. Things are new. |
| 03:11:11.47 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. We I think I have two more and I've just misplaced them. So Who else would like to speak on this subject? My apologies. Please. I think there's two more. Um, Please state your name as you. |
| 03:11:34.72 | Elsa | Hi, my name is Elsa. Thank you for taking a moment to listen to me. I've been in Southern Marin for 40 years. I've lived and worked in Sausalito for 15 years. I care deeply about the spirit of this community and I've seen it change a lot and I wholeheartedly support home sharing in this community. We have a community of people who are artists, who are designers, who have alternative lifestyles. For me, I'm single. I don't have a double income. I have a little rental here. I have a wonderful landlady, and I travel for work four to eight months a year. I have been for about eight years. And I share my home when I go away. And usually it's friends and family of my neighbors. often it would be people are going through divorces And I share my home when I go away. And usually it's friends and family of my neighbors. Often it would be people who are going through divorces who just need a little place to go, who are local community members or taxpayers in the local community. I thoroughly vet anybody that wants to come in and share my precious home. I leave all of my jewelry in my bedroom. It's not a hotel. I have a vacancy. My landlady says, you're going out of town? You have somebody there? Well, tell them not to park behind my spot. And it helps me to support my medical bills. It helps me to maintain my standard of living here in Southern Marin as the cost of living is shooting through the roof. And I just want to read real quick just a message I got today from a guest of mine who was, it's the parents of one of my neighbors. And they said, you know, I hope this reaches you in time. I just want to let you know that staying in your apartment for two weeks before my grandson's birth made everything convenient and cozy for us. Not only was your apartment right next door to my daughter's apartment, we were close to the stores. We got to go to the wonderful hairdressers right across the street and eat in the local restaurants. The home sharing was absolutely critical to us. We're elderly. They have health issues, and staying in a hotel was extremely uncomfortable for them. And I made them feel right at home, gave them a local tour, and their children live right down the street from me. This is the type of community building that to me is so important to protect and to to. penalize me as though I'm some kind of criminal because I offer hospitality to family members and local members of the community when they are in a time of need where they need a bridge whether their home is being renovated or they're going through a divorce and they just need to get away from their husband for a few weeks until they figure things out. These are the people that stay with me in my home and I absolutely love offering hospitality to them and I don't want to be seen as a criminal and penalized for this and effectively evicted from my apartment because while I'm away working on my projects, you know, what's my apartment just supposed to sit there empty? It doesn't make any sense. So there's just a huge spectrum here. Obviously, running a vacation rental as a business and creating an egregious problem That's one far end of the spectrum, but I think if you look a little deeper here, Most of this is community members helping community members the way we have done since the beginning of time. And so I hope you'll take a deeper consideration. Thank you. |
| 03:14:40.60 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Melanie Chancellor. |
| 03:14:45.85 | Melanie Chancellor | Good evening, Council and Mayor. Thank you for taking the time to consider this issue tonight. It's a little disheartened to hear that it's all about enforcement of something that's not legal. Thank you. that is based on, I think, seriously outdated. statutes that aren't even clear. And I am not a host. I don't intend to be a host at any time, but I absolutely am here to support those friends of mine who do host in Sausalito. I think it is a way for them to maintain and stay in Sausalito. It's viably not an option for some people that as Kate spoke so eloquently about how this was a lifesaver for her. And I think that the whole concept of spending all this money on enforcement instead of going after that 12% and I think most of the homeowners that I know would gladly pay that to continue to host and probably being in quite more than you know. trying to make money by enforcing a law that seems tenuous at best. So I am against this, and I hope that you reconsider catching up with the times and writing laws that are open to this. Thank you. |
| 03:16:08.13 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Anyone else? |
| 03:16:17.67 | Chloe Byrick | Good evening, everyone. My name is Chloe Byrick, and I live here in Sausalito. I'm from the Bay Area, originally born in Berkeley, but I've only lived here for just under a year now. And I currently rent, and I would love to buy a home here one day. Looking at the numbers, it's seeming a little daunting and intimidating. I have good friends here who are hosts, and this seems like a very good option for me as a way to afford to live in Sausalito. And on top of that, I have been an Airbnb. I've rented through Airbnbs all through the country and I've had great experiences and met great people. And so it seems like a good option all around. Thank you. So thank you for reconsidering this bill. |
| 03:17:08.83 | Dan LaRusso | Hi, Dan LaRusso. I live on 221 Bridgeway, and I figured it was a town hall meeting without a counter perspective here. I use Airbnb and VRBO and all those wonderful services. I also can see the potential downside of it. I have a 7-year-old daughter, also Willow Creek, and I can see, and again, it's probably that 10% or that 5% that concern me of the people who do manage it. I know there's our neighbor who lives across the street who owns the building, rents out the middle floor, two-bedroom apartment. I see everyday people coming and going, potentially every three to four days. The downside, I've met some great people is the upside. The downside is I have a seven-year-old daughter who woke up to a drone outside of her window last week. at 6 a.m. And, again, could have happened any time, could have happened anywhere. Just happened to be that person staying in that place. And I know we have code and all those fun things. I think it's interesting that we're looking at it in new creative ways. I don't think it's going away. I hope it does not go away. And I don't know what that fine line is between losing a sense of community and building one. I know it's a very complex issue and one I know everybody's going to give a lot of thought to. I can just see the difference in the block I live on. There are now four short-term rentals in my two years of being there, which has changed quite drastically. And it has changed things. Some for the good, some for the bad, but it's change. And I just thought I'd provide a different perspective on it where it is a good thing, but it also can potentially have a downside. |
| 03:18:47.57 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, anyone else? Okay. Seeing none, we'll close public comment. I want, Please line up so that we can, as the hour gets late, we can close public comment. Thank you. |
| 03:19:01.37 | Layla Samrad | Hi, my name is Layla Samrad. Thanks for being here so late. I'm a 15-year resident of Sausalito. And I have been hosting, like someone already shared, I didn't realize until really recently that I was doing something illegal. I moved here and bought my home when I was in advertising, and then I decided to switch careers and become a counselor. I didn't realize it would be way less lucrative. And so doing this has helped me to keep my home, which is wonderful because I love this community. I love being here. I offer my counseling at a sliding scale, which hopefully is contributing to the community as well. My experiences with my guests have been that they've all been just lovely, respectful, responsible people. who I feel good about having in my community, I understand that there is going to be you know, the occasional issue but I think that can happen with residents as well as people passing through or people staying in hotels as well as with Airbnb or VRBO guests for me having guests has also allowed me to share Sausalito with a broader range of people. And, um, you know, I feel that they do spend their dollars here and especially on Caledonia street because I kind of direct them to the local businesses. And I know for myself, when I travel to other places, I love meeting local people because then you kind of find out what it's really like there. And, um, Thank you. So it's been a very positive experience for me. Again, as has been said, I know that there are There are probably certain people that are doing it as a business, and you know, squeezing the rental market. And of course I don't agree with that. I rent out a room in my house. So again, I agree that there should be regulations that stop it from being such kind of more of a big business. Anyway, I would like to ask you to reject the proposal to ban home sharing in Sausalito. |
| 03:21:07.76 | Jill Hoffman | Anyone else? |
| 03:21:13.89 | Karen Jackson | Hi there, I too commend you for being so alert at this time. I'm a little sleepy. My name's Karen Jackson. I live on Spring Street. I'm currently a renter. I've lived here for a year. I've lived in the Bay Area for 10 years, and I'm a millennial. So I'm here to remind you that things are changing. And there aren't many of me here. And there's a conversation about why that is. And I won't go into a lot of depth about that, but my friends moved to the East Bay from San Francisco, and it has to do with the cost of ownership. I have moved here through creativity. and through ambition. And I worked to put myself through undergrad at Harvard. I worked to put myself through grad school. I am working to create a down payment for a house. But to afford a house here, a down payment for a house here, I can do that. To afford the tax and the mortgage for a house that might cost me $1.5 million. probably more, is impossible. And I would bet that most of the people in this room did not pay that for their homes and don't pay the taxes on that. So I encourage you to think of the next generation. |
| 03:22:30.64 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none, we'll close public comment. We are now, Council would like to start. |
| 03:22:47.85 | Councilmember Withey | I think some of you make a big presumption that we're all alert at this time. |
| 03:22:51.82 | Unknown | No. |
| 03:22:56.12 | Councilmember Withey | So we're here tonight to simply authorize $50,000 for pilot enforcement program. We're not here tonight to change our ordinance. We couldn't even if we wanted to. We'd have to go through separate public hearings. So first of all, I think... Why I support this is that we don't know enough information. We're not quite sure how to enforce. We're not quite sure what to enforce. And I think all of you that have made comments have shown that this is really quite a complex issue. The difference between someone who holds a single family residence here is simply an investment property and doesn't even live here and who just rents it out on short-term rentals. is very different from someone who is home sharing and finding creative ways to be able to live here. They're two very different things. And what I'm hoping is that as we can sort of grapple with enforcement a little bit more, we're going to get a lot more information. Certainly when Danny and the staff come back, and we sort of evaluate this period of time we've gone through, I'm certainly going to be looking to... Well, certainly I'm going to be asking the question, should we be changing our ordinance? But that's not a topic for tonight. Topic for tonight is authorizing $50,000 to do to have someone dedicated to start managing all of this and I think in the end What will happen is that as we learn the type of situations that are causing problems and then the type of situations where we never hear about because everything is working just fine, down the road, we will, I think, be able to have more intelligently, more in an informed way, rather, be able to ask the question, should we change our ordinance? But anyway, for now, I'm supportive of this $50,000 appropriation and look forward to seeing what the results are. |
| 03:25:49.58 | Councilmember Weiner | Yeah. I'm thinking a little differently. First of all, to spend $50,000 to go chase $20,000 to $50,000 doesn't make sense to me. But what really does make sense to me is, And I know we can't change it tonight on the ordinance About 48% of the people that live here in Sausalito are renters. one of the highest percentages in the state. I wouldn't want to see that depleted in a way that all of a sudden, people now find out that they can rent their places. in three months or four months and get as much as if they rented it for the whole year. But I am in favor of if you live in that home, you should be able to rent that out. Anybody that's going to rent out their home They're going to have children in there. They're not going to rent it out to someone that's going to make a mess, someone that is going to be very negative. People that just rent it and that are there, They don't care once they leave they don't realize how an effect they've had on a small community. Never mind putting out the garbage or the refuse on a Monday because they're leaving on a Monday and there's not a pickup service until Thursday. So that sits out there. That's number one. Number two, we are based in this community on neighborhoods. And this, in my thinking, renting it to someone that is a person that lives in the home that rents it out. I really don't think disturbs the neighborhood. But I do think people that are just renting it for the sake of renting it, have a way of fracturing, really splitting up. your neighborhood. The purpose of having this home sharing is to help the people that are living here. We all know what it costs. |
| 03:27:57.91 | Unknown | We'll be right back. |
| 03:27:58.52 | Councilmember Weiner | If I didn't buy my home in 1985, I don't think I could afford even the rent on it now. All right? So it's there to help the people that want to stay here. not to use it as a business. So I really feel that the owner should be President. and not just a hotel basis. I think going out and you talked about smart enforcement. to run around this town and try to figure out who's renting what and where. Good luck to you. That doesn't, that won't happen. |
| 03:28:41.82 | Neil Whitelaw | that I see on the paper. |
| 03:28:44.60 | Councilmember Weiner | Look, we're a small community. Help the people that want to stay here, and financially, this will help them stay here. But to do it as a business, no. |
| 03:28:59.37 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Well, thank you. I want to thank everyone who spoke. It's very important for us to hear from you. I am supportive of moving forward on this. I think this is a very complicated issue. We need to balance the need for some folks who are living in their home, who are living in Sausalito and they're just renting out a room to make ends meet versus people who are, you know, frankly, there are some folks who are running businesses in town. They've got homes and they're renting them out. They don't live here. We're seeing communities disintegrate. It's hurting neighborhoods and a sense of community in terms of, you know, turning what used to be a community, a neighborhood where neighbors were on first name basis to a situation where it's come and go and come and go and loud parties. I have heard from renters who have lost their affordable rental unit to make way for Airbnbs. I'm sorry, but that's a reality right now. And that gives me great cause for concern. We can't let this happen. So we need to find that balance, that balance between helping those who are just trying to make ends meet and who live here and who care about our community and our home sharing in a responsible way versus those who are being very egregious, in my opinion, in terms of just, you know, running a full-time hotel business in our neighborhoods, you know. And so that's of great concern to me. We're also hurting our affordable housing stock in this way. so I think this, what we're doing tonight is just a starting point. It's a starting point for the council to get a grip on a very complex issue so that we can understand what is the fair way, what is the best way to go forward in a way that serves the needs of our community. And that's why it's important that we hear from you so that you can help be a part of that solution. And, you know, I know that there are also people who did not come from both sides tonight out of fear. And I think that's fair to say on both sides of this issue. So anyway, what we're doing tonight is just a starting point to get more information about what's going on out there. So thank you. |
| 03:31:33.03 | Jill Hoffman | I echo a lot of the sentiment of my fellow council members. You know, it's about, to me it's about a balance. That we wanna make sure we're not eroding affordable housing stock, but we're also affording the homeowner the right to use property, the property owner, in the way they see fit and it's most beneficial for them as their decision making process. And so I think that's the balance. To be sure, we need to put controls on it. We probably would look to our America's Cup ordinance as a starting point. We would also look, or at least I would think, that we would look at some of the other communities that have done this, such as, um, Santa Monica and Malibu and San Jose and Dana Point, we would want to look at their ordinances. In the great SOSA leader tradition, I would expect a leader to emerge among your group, and they would have meetings, and you would come to a consensus about what you think is a good idea for the ordinance. and you would present your elected officials with some sort of a draft. ordinance and then we would move forward from there. I would make a starting point as what what I just talked about, the ordinances of other cities. I would encourage Airbnb, VRBO and any other online service to voluntarily allow people to pay their TOT through those services. and become a partner with the cities in collecting those. collecting those taxes. I don't think it's a bad thing. If it's not a problem for our community, then it's not a problem. And to be sure there are units that are our problems, and we need to be better as a community in taking care of those problems. But I think this home sharing One of the people that wrote in said we need as a community to engage in the sharing economy, and I agree with that. And I think it's something that's new, that's evolving, and we need to evolve with it as a city. and support all of our residents in this effort. And so I look forward to seeing what comes up next in this issue. |
| 03:33:30.55 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you all for coming. I just want you to be aware that We... as a council encouraged as a city, encourage home sharing. We just passed our housing element. It's a major part of our housing element that we encourage home sharing. We know the economics of it. We know that sometimes people have to TO DO THAT. BUT WHAT WE DON'T ENCOURAGE ARE SHORT-TERM RUNNALS, WHICH ARE MORE AND IT'S A a business. This has been decades. We don't even know how far back because people had Airbnb, I mean, had bed and breakfasts and such. And that's what cities do in zoning. They make residential places for residents and not for and, um, not for renting out. People, if you go to friend, if you want your friends and family there, that's not a rental. It's not a problem. You can have friends and family there. You can have if you need to supplement your income, you can have roommates. And that's home sharing. And we have that the what we what we're What's a problem is, is that when people are advertising, there's a lot of turnover, they're on Airbnb, people are using these things instead of rentals for themselves, they're renting them out as a business. It's a problem for the city. We lose our housing stock, it's limited. In the end, people are trying to do this to help buy houses or pay for rents, but in the end, they raise the housing prices and raise the rents because people come in they know they can make a lot more money. Like a lot of you, you don't have a roommate because you make more money when you do the Airbnb type of thing. So... I think that we need to go forward with this. We're going to find out a lot of information and where this comes out. Certainly, I think the easy one is we looked at the main homes. Certainly, If you're advertising on Airbnb, you're not advertising to this friend who is out of work for two weeks or lived down the way. You're really looking for people that are totally different. So I think that certainly we can start there, and I support this provision. And we'll find out a lot more on this as it goes on. Any, any, we have a motion. |
| 03:35:41.08 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Let me find it. Thank you. |
| 03:35:43.00 | Councilmember Weiner | Let's see. |
| 03:35:44.96 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I move to direct staff to implement the short term rental code enforcement program and report to the city council with an update and recommendations at the end of the year 2015. |
| 03:35:55.88 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, we have a second. |
| 03:35:59.59 | Jill Hoffman | Second. |
| 03:36:01.04 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? Aye. Aye. That passes unanimously. Thank you all. Let's close with that. |
| 03:36:02.43 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. |
| 03:36:08.81 | Jill Hoffman | We move now on to item seven city manager information for council. |
| 03:36:16.05 | Adam Politzer | Thank you, Mr. Mayor and City Council members. I'll keep my comments brief. and move through these quickly. Just wanted to give you a brief report from the, I'll wait for the audience to clear here. |
| 03:36:38.35 | Adam Politzer | Vice Mayor Hoffman had asked at a previous meeting that we make sure that we get a report from the activity downtown, specifically related to the bicycle parking program that the ambassadors are running. And we are on week two, and I am happy to say that it continues to be successful. We continue to get a lot of positive comments from the community. I've been down there out of ten days, eight days, observing the activity, talking to people, also observing the ferry operations and watching how the two entities work together and then share my observations with the police chief, our Public works director, and with Deb Votch, who's managing the ambassador program. We will continue to send out these updates in the current. So we got an update last week and put that in the current, and we'll do again this week. The reports arrive on Tuesdays because they get through the weekend and then take the time on Monday to pull the information together and then I receive it so it's perfect for our council meetings because I always have a fresh report the difference between week one and week two is that we have we made at the $167 more than week one. So this week we had a profit, or last week, sorry, last week we had a profit of $821 over expenses, and so that's $167 more profit than we made the week before. Just in the last two days they've collected over $1,000 in the neighborhood of $1,200 on Monday and a little over $1,000 on Tuesday. So each day of each week has also been a positive gain as the weather in the summer starts to roll forward and there's a great expectation of the activity this weekend with 4th of July. being on Saturday and then the following vacations that people take we would imagine the numbers will continue to grow that day forward They launched the ferry companies working with the ambassadors launched the boarding system on Sunday. We got a good report on Sunday night that the boarding system worked well. On Monday. the boarding system didn't work well. which is interesting because Sunday you have a much larger activity, participation of tourists and visitors coming and going, and it worked well. And on Monday, which is traditionally a slower day, it had its challenges. But the chief got involved as the public works director and the ferry folks and the ambassadors and they worked it out and today, It worked very well, and I went down there this afternoon and things were actually working very smoothly between both the ferry boarding and the Ambassador bike parking program. There are a couple notes also worth sharing. One is that they continue to recruit volunteers. And so as people in the community would like to be involved in something, I may not want to do it every day of the week, but once a week. or a couple of times a month, we're taking all shapes and sizes of volunteers and all interests in terms of length of time that they're willing to commit. And then as pointed out before, the volunteers actually benefit the city because every volunteer that works it's one less person that's paid and that means that there's more profit that the city will gain as we look. at the end. to have additional funds that come from the program. It's worth noting again that the budget of expenses is not to exceed $150,000. And that is to park bikes. and that the projected budget in terms of revenue is $250,000. So our expectation is to walk out of this with $100,000 profit, which the council would then redirect that money to where they want to spend those funds. We're nowhere near those numbers yet. But the positive is that we're heading in the right direction, and we're adding in a. Cash positive. So I'm like. the discussion on the Um, Airbnb and the snake chasing the tail. we're not chasing a tail here. We're actually making a profit each day and each of the first two weeks, and we imagine that's going to continue. shifting gears oh and just lastly we have asked Dr. Fotch as the chair of the pet and bike committee to and also to come to the meeting on July 21st to give us an update based on all of the activity downtown and the biking committee's recommendations and I imagine that |
| 03:41:28.06 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:41:45.17 | Adam Politzer | Deb Fotch will be here as well and if you have specific questions about the operation of the parking program she would be able to comment on that as with our chief and our Public Works director A couple other quick items on here worth noting and then a couple fun things on the list as well. You've seen and you approved tonight just another bundle of ADA work that's going on. There is a lot of activity. And I think, again, at the end of this, as much as it's been painful for us to do all this work, and do it so quickly. It's just another sign of how we're investing in our community, investing in capital projects, and something on our list of things to do and that we're actually getting done. So I'm proud of the work that the Public Works Department is undertaking. and doing it timely and trying to be uninterrupted to the residents and to the business community as we go through this work so just wanted to to make note of that last week I met with Leslie Alden and Ben Berto and Bill Price. to talk about the RBRA and just kind of set the stage for our working committee which is Vice Mayor Hoffman and Council Member Weiner. We will meet with them to start this discussion. They would like to come back to the Council in September with a proposed public workshop schedule. That's something that we'll talk with Council Member Weiner and Vice Mayor Hoffman to make sure that all of the important ingredients are put into into those workshops with the expectation that they'll then, after meeting with us, come back to the council in September and share the proposed workshops that they would like to hold in Sausalito. With the idea that if there is positive momentum from the community and the council supports, the recommendation is at mid-year for the council to make it a budget allocation to support what they proposed to us back in May but if the community doesn't support those actions well then our BRA as a body would be asked to change direction and work with our council in our community to find a project or an action that the community can stand behind so I think that we all agree from that from the council meeting in May that public workshops engaging our community, our residents, is the first step in this process, and so that's what's going to come forward when we meet with Councilmember Weiner and Vice Mayor Hoffman. The other subject that we talked about that I've also raised before is that we have to re-look at the cost formula. The city right now currently pays 35% of all expenses related to the RBRA operations and that decision happened back in the early 80s. And so our good friend here to my left. The city clerk did a little research and pulled the minutes and the reports that were generated back at that time, And it was very interesting reading and we've sent it to Councilmember Hoffman and to Councilmember Weiner. And we'll send it to the rest of the council so you all have the opportunity to be entertained. But the same arguments about the formula and how to come up with the right formula happened back then as we're having right now. One of the conclusions that I took away from that and that I shared with Mr. Berto and Leslie Alden and Bill Price was that there was an understanding that there was going to be a fee or a tax that we charge the marinas, the slips, and that they would get a benefit from that, and increase public safety in terms of police services, and increase fire protection in case someone had a fire on their home. So there'd be a fee that would cover that 35% shortfall that was being asked for the city of Sausalito to look at. There is easily eight options, looking at shoreline, looking at the number of slips, looking at disappear 20% split between all five entities. argument from Mill Valley saying that they shouldn't have to pay anything because they Have no explanation. activity on the on the Richardson's Bay. so it is interesting reading and it's a good starting point for us to relook at this formula that has us paying 35% and there's agreement there is agreement that And I believe Councilmember Weiner can comment on this, that RBRA has agreed that they need to also look into this and have a discussion And then we would hope that there would be a change in that formula which would also make as we look at whatever projects come forward Rather than paying 35%, we pay our fair share. And last on this, because I think it's important, even at this late hour, to point out as I pointed out to RBRA staff that we have a lot of costs that the other cities don't have. Our police department is actively working on the water. Our fire department is actively working on the water. The people that live on the water... as Jeff said the folks without homes Um, They come and they use our facilities to bathe, to change, to relax be at the library to use the internet all the services and the impacts are on our property, not on Belvedere's, not on Tiburon's. not on Mill Valleys and definitely not on the County of Marin. So Those are real costs. They're real maintenance costs that are attributed to that. And that also has to be looked at You also have heard from the police department that we work with the county Marin Health and Human Services to provide health services to the people that live on the water that need attention and need support so again those are real costs that take time away from our officers take time away from our maintenance staff I'm doing other things but they're actually cleaning up. and dealing with And then, unfortunately, there's a small percentage, but it's a real percentage. of criminal activity that affects our shoreline and not the shorelines of Belvedere Tiburon and Mill Valley and Um, in the county that also have to be addressed. We need to look at the total costs of the impacts the Anchorage and the bay and in Richardson Bay and not just look at some of the in some of the practical costs that are being discussed right now so our working group will start that discussion and we'll come back to Council we believe in September that's the target with some workshops being scheduled for October and November Thank you. and then some action by the Council at the end of the year and the first of the year ultimately come February at mid-year budget you'll look at taking some actions based on what comes from the community so thought it was worth spending a little bit time reporting on that the two fun things is that Lily Shin Singh our administrative services analysts is getting married and I think you all are aware of that and I am a big supporter of marriage being married for 23 years coming on And I think that I'm excited for her and her as her fiance to be husband to be Jack. They've bought a home. She obviously is a huge contributor to our city. and has worked very effectively with city staff and the community and the council Thank you. So we're excited for her, she's getting married. Um, uh, on 7-Eleven, not at 7-Eleven. and so they wanted a meaningful date and 7-eleven will be another one of those real popular dates just like the other ones that we've seen in the past. The last two you guys are all aware of, but it's also worth noting because our last meeting of this before we take a break in August is July 21st, but we are expecting the retirement of our administrative services director, Charlie Francis, At the end of July, maybe trickling into the beginning of August, he's committed to making sure that he leaves the department with all its loose ends tied up as best as possible. We'll be bringing on an interim director. It hasn't been finalized, but it's someone that I'm familiar with that was the finance director for a city in the peninsula and eventually was a assistant city manager and also had the responsibilities |
| 03:50:10.90 | Unknown | you know, |
| 03:50:35.71 | Adam Politzer | of finance very well respected Thank you. Charlie has vetted him. and then I have obviously approved So we look to bring this gentleman on at the end of the month. We'll send out a notice to you when it becomes official. and identify who it who it is the other person that is anticipated to retire in the very near future is also my friend to my left who will be celebrating her 42 plus years with the city as their grand marshal at the 4th of July event But we'll have celebrations for both of these too. and one is going to be larger celebration than the other. Charlie doesn't like celebrations and he doesn't like that type of attention so We'll probably have a small gathering for Charlie and a large gathering for Debbie. and have some fun with both of those. I think that you've all received emails from Mike Langford regarding Fourth of July and due to his staffing challenges that he has We have vehicles for everyone that needed a vehicle. We understand who's going to be riding in those vehicles, so hopefully size of the car accommodates your wishes. Um, But do ask that you guys, he'll provide decoration and materials for you to decorate. but it's asking for you to put on the ribbons and bows and Thank you. bring a group of folks, maybe encourage all these kids that came tonight to come and help you. But it should be a great event. The parade shaping up nicely. The weather shaping up to be spectacular. The day starting with the parade, you know, this this amazing tradition of Sausalito. And again, I think I've shared this many times before. If we do nothing, there'll be a parade through town. there'll be a keg at Dunphy Park Thank you. and Eugene will play. it's just you know the town loves to celebrate 4th of July so the parade the picnic, the music, tug-of-war, egg egg toss. And then the party shifts down in the evening at 6 o'clock down to Gabrielson Park. where there's music and just a real sense of community And then the least expensive fireworks show, anywhere in the world. But it still draws the ahs and oohs and cheers. for all of 25,000 which all comes from the community and their in their donations. Again, we would love to encourage Belvedere, if they're listening, and to everyone if they're listening that benefit from the view. anyone that lives out on the Anchorage that would like to contribute. We still accept. donations and the funny thing is, Some people wait to see the show to send us their check. And if it's cloudy, we get a little bit less. When it's clear, we get a little bit more. So that ends my report, happy to answer any questions that you folks have from me. |
| 03:53:17.52 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Yes, I have a couple questions. So on RBRA, have we seen progress in reducing the number of, you know, the anchorage right now? Because as you know, it's exploded in recent years. You talked about costs, you know, and services. But what about reducing those numbers? I mean, has RBRA reported on any strategies regarding enforcement? |
| 03:53:42.95 | Adam Politzer | I don't have any new information from what they reported to us back in May and you know so I don't think there's any more, I don't think there's any new strategies that they have developed Um, |
| 03:53:56.45 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And they're not going to move forward with this mooring field idea, which, as you know, I oppose, until there is public outreach and community workshops and all sorts of hearings with respect to that, correct? |
| 03:54:09.02 | Adam Politzer | think there's agreement amongst everybody in this room okay that's the case |
| 03:54:11.61 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. Thank you. |
| 03:54:12.67 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 03:54:12.75 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | All right, thank you. Oh, one more question. Sorry. Um, bike staging. So you talked about all the money that's coming in from charging for bike parking. Um, that is money that's going to pay the ambassadors. Um. What about getting the bikes out of town? I mean, it seems to me that we have set up a potentially conflicting situation where Some folks are making money with the bike parking, but getting them out of town would not make money, but it would be something that would benefit the residents. So I know that at least one business has approached city staff with respect to getting a permit and pursuing. So can you comment on that? You did last time, and you said you were moving forward with talking with them and dialogue. Have we had any traction on that? |
| 03:55:09.34 | Adam Politzer | We have not had any traction on that. We've asked for additional information, which we haven't received. But the bike and ped committee, they were scheduled to have this meeting earlier this month and it was postponed. But they are going to be the initial vetting because there's more than one individual or that are interested in providing the service. They are going to host a meeting to hear the various ideas. They're going to put forth in advance some of the requirements that they are going that they are recommending that the city consider. |
| 03:55:47.36 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:55:50.73 | Adam Politzer | Once they hear from that and they feel that there are one or two vendors that would be pursuing then they would make that recommendation to the to the Council My understanding is that Dr. Faj, |
| 03:55:59.14 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:56:01.45 | Adam Politzer | we'll be talking about this on July 21st |
| 03:56:05.24 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | talking about this to the council because I mean summers you know rapidly progressing and halfway over and I'm concerned that we are going to lose a window of opportunity to start to vet the bike staging at the same time we're doing this pilot for the ambassador program. |
| 03:56:22.24 | Adam Politzer | and that may be that may be true we don't know but our intent and it's the intent that we stated when we launched the bike parking was that when we look at a bike return program we were going to do that in the end of July, the beginning of August, because we need it As Dr. Fats says before, crawl before we walk, walk before we we jog, jog before we run. And so we've just got past the crawling and we're now walking. And we hope by the end of July, we're in the position to introduce another component And the individual that came to the council saying that this is what he'd like to do. if he's still interested in launching a program in cooperation with the city, the city We'll give him that opportunity assuming that he meets the requirement. |
| 03:57:13.08 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, I guess, and you mentioned that you'd asked for information and it hasn't been forthcoming. Can I ask what kind of information you requested? |
| 03:57:21.35 | Adam Politzer | We asked for a business plan, he gave to council, he sent to all the council members a one page sheet, I really didn't talk about what he was charging, how it was operated, you know, how, if he had permission, agreements already in place for the rental companies which rental company says he have agreements to pick up someone else's property bring it back to them and when are they going to do it they do it in the middle of the day which we said would cause more chaos Are they going to do it in the evening? Who's on the other end that's going to receive it? Where is the staging Where's the staging of someone wanting to return their bike going to take place so it doesn't cause more activity down there? So there's a lot of details that we were asking for as an operational plan which we haven't received. |
| 03:58:02.90 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | That we were asking for. Okay, I guess I'm a little puzzled because I had asked those questions of this individual, and I had gotten answers. So I guess he just hasn't documented it yet. So thanks. I'll let them know. And he's met with the cat. |
| 03:58:18.37 | Adam Politzer | And he's met with the captain and he's had very fruitful discussions with the captain and the captain has asked him to come back with further documentation and that has not happened as of yet |
| 03:58:30.03 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay, thank you. |
| 03:58:32.56 | Adam Politzer | Any other questions? |
| 03:58:33.35 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:58:33.64 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 03:58:33.76 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:58:33.78 | Adam Politzer | you |
| 03:58:33.79 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Public comment? Seeing none. All right, we'll move on to council member committee reports. Any reports? Thank you. |
| 03:58:43.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:58:43.82 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:58:45.42 | Councilmember Withey | There was a meeting of the ABAG Marine delegates yesterday evening. Council Member Pfeiffer and I attended. It's just ongoing progress towards commentary on the Plan Bay area revisions for 2017. I don't know if you have anything you want to add, Linda? |
| 03:59:08.17 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I think what I would add is that one of the things we talked about, which was kind of tertiary to this, was a move with MTC towards decoupling parking from land use. I guess that there's been a 200-unit senior housing complex that was approved in Berkeley with no parking. Now this was hearsay at the meeting but I mean if that's true that's pretty amazing to me. And they're actually looking at and they're also looking at and I forget the term Ray maybe you remember it a paid parking preference policy that they're encouraging cities to pursue where evidently all parking would be charged or something. I mean, it's just, it's amazing to me. And so one of the things that we talked about was the need to communicate to ABAG and to MTC that, you know, in... In an urban area of high density like San Francisco... you know, maybe there are different standards, but in a suburban area like Marin, those types of policies don't make any sense. You know, we need allocation for parking. We need to require developers to allocate places for parking. So anyway, I just wanted to comment on that. |
| 04:00:36.36 | Jill Hoffman | I have a report on that. Very landing progress, as we announced at our last council meeting, a meeting of Sausalito stakeholders in the Golden Gate Bridge District which was called by our County supervisor Kate Sears was held on Saturday. June 27th at the Bay model was an all day meeting. That was open to the public. Um, Invited as shareholders for Sausalito was myself and Vice Mayor Hoffman, Planning Commissioners Werner and Pierce. hlb member sasha rich richardson public works director jonathan goldman and 14 other sausalito residents all of whom had participated in the various hearings before the planning commission and the hlb and the city council many of whom had expertise in engineering and architecture where there was a emphasis on that as well as two members of the golden gate bridge, including their general manager, Dennis Mulligan. The all-day meeting went very well. What was discussed was essentially the issues that were brought up at our planning commission and HLB meetings, but they were discussed in a more focused manner. The tone was, I'd say, productive and civil. I think understanding of the issues were was was advanced. The takeaway was that the Golden Gate Bridge District was to go back and take a look. And we had various issues that were raised and come back with detailed technical responses to what can be done. And what couldn't be done and review some of the alternatives No future meeting. date. was set for any future stakeholder meetings but a significant statement was that the Bridge District announced that they were withdrawing their BCDC application. There'll be no meeting on July 16th. to go forward with the project in any way, they would resubmit. and obviously with a new plan. I want to thank everyone who participated and I want to thank everyone who wanted to participate. We couldn't we had a certainly a magic number around in the 20s and in certain representation. So we appreciate everyone. And I think the other thing to remember, this is a way to hopefully a path forward to some settlement. But people need to understand nothing will get handled regarding our written consent without coming back to this council at a full public hearing with with public input. So vice mayor, would you like to add anything? |
| 04:03:03.46 | Jill Hoffman | No, I think that was a good synopsis. I think it was a productive day, and thanks to everybody who participated and spent their Saturday at the Bay Mall. |
| 04:03:13.33 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I just want to comment, Tom, that I think you said nothing would happen without a full public hearing, but I think we need the full public review process. You know, I mean, if some design comes out of this, I don't know the process. I haven't been involved in it, but, you know, I think it's important that we have that full vetting, that process. I also think that there should have been two HLB members there, personally. And the other comment I would make is that it's my understanding that someone showed up, a citizen showed up to videotape the process, and he was initially met with resistance resistance he was able to videotape it after all but he was told like five times that that this was you know not expected so anyway I just think it's important that we're making it open to the public let's truly make it open to the public and and allow that sort of thing to to move forward Thank you. |
| 04:04:18.03 | Jill Hoffman | That was not my understanding and certainly the person videotaped it. There is no magic number. I note that your comment on going through some full process, I'm not sure what you mean, but certainly that remains to be seen. Certainly it's going to come to this council. |
| 04:04:33.32 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | I'm talking about planning commission review. |
| 04:04:34.51 | Jill Hoffman | I understand, but we'll HLB review that your that your request at this point. We'll see. We're far away from from that at this stage. And, um, |
| 04:04:36.15 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | HLB review. |
| 04:04:43.22 | Jill Hoffman | so all that otherwise was noted. By the way, on the HLB... Even though there was no requirement, there was only one HOB member available for that Saturday, so we could not have two. Anyway, any other, did we ask for public comment on that? Okay. All right, moving on to future agenda. Okay, future agenda items. |
| 04:05:07.91 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Uh, bike staging. |
| 04:05:10.10 | Jill Hoffman | That will be on the 21st. |
| 04:05:11.54 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:05:11.59 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 04:05:11.60 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:05:11.62 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 04:05:11.67 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Well, |
| 04:05:13.33 | Jill Hoffman | bicycles in general on the 21st a bicycle report yes |
| 04:05:14.98 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. For a future agenda item, we received some correspondence about Cass Marina, Cass Gridley Marina, and the application to... have it be part of the Baywater Trail. I think that we want to put that on the July 21st. Yeah, agenda setting meeting, unless there's an objection. |
| 04:05:37.20 | Jacques Ullman (Public Commenter) | Let's talk about it. |
| 04:05:42.66 | Councilmember Pfeiffer | And of course, the grand jury report on coin. |
| 04:05:49.20 | Jill Hoffman | What? We may need to do that as well. Any others? Any other reports of significance? Now, we will talk about the Before we adjourn, we're going to adjourn to closed session again. Do we need to come back? So we can adjourn this meeting. And to note that the regular scheduling meeting of July, 7th was canceled. Our next meeting will be July 21st, our regularly scheduled meeting, and we will now adjourn. to close session and we will not come back tonight Good night, everyone. |
Heather Richard — In Favor: Spoke for park improvements, noting heavy use and deferred maintenance, and expressed confidence in Charlie Francis's creative solution. ▶ 📄
Susan Knowles — In Favor: Strong support for COPs and park funding, describing parks as in desperate need, and emphasized growing family population. ▶ 📄
Jeffrey Knowles — In Favor: Urged yes vote to fund parks as infrastructure for families, noting Sausalito can support all demographics and parks are key to keeping families. ▶ 📄
Kate Storer — In Favor: Brief statement supporting funding for parks and COPs as good business sense for Sausalito. ▶ 📄
Robert Woodrum — In Favor: Business owner and parent supporting parks investment; described Southview as a disaster, Dunphy as a homeless encampment, and Robin Sweeney as unsafe. ▶ 📄
John Flavin — Against: Opposed, believing the transaction illegal under Ordinance 1128, warning of lawsuits and calling it imprudent debt that burdens taxpayers. ▶ 📄
Doreen Gurnard — In Favor: Supported COPs after vetting, arguing it's a good time to invest in families and schools, and that complexity is not a reason to say no. ▶ 📄
Carol Peltz — In Favor: Former councilmember urged approval to improve parks purposefully and legally, making town more livable for all. ▶ 📄
Tom Hoover — In Favor: Argued for investing in children, stating the financing is vetted and excellent, and future uncertainty is no reason to avoid doing good now. ▶ 📄
Alice Merrill — In Favor: Expressed trust in Charlie Francis as a good steward of city money, and noted city has been maintaining smaller parks. ▶ 📄
Jacques Ullman — In Favor: Thanked staff for clear presentation, supported COPs, and suggested Dunphy Park funds could be used for studies and phased improvements. ▶ 📄
Ursula Leffingwell — In Favor: Friends of Dunphy Park member urged yes vote, noting parks need upgrades for safety and ADA compliance, and described long community efforts. ▶ 📄
Thomas Neumeier — In Favor: Parent and school board member emphasized family investment in town, low interest rates making it a good time to borrow, and need to move forward. ▶ 📄
Scott Jampol — In Favor: Parent and homeowner supported COPs, stating parks are unsafe and inadequate, and improvements benefit community and businesses. ▶ 📄
Diane and Bob Broadrob — In Favor: Parents spoke in favor, noting demographic shift to more children and daily use of Robin Sweeney Park, urging approval. ▶ 📄
Amy Nordstrom — In Favor: Mother shared personal story of son's injury at Robin Sweeney due to dilapidated conditions, strongly advocating for safety upgrades. ▶ 📄
David Holliman — In Favor: Echoed young families' frustration with poor infrastructure, noting high property taxes and need for change from obstructionist forces. ▶ 📄
Christine Scarpino — In Favor: Thanked council and staff, argued transaction makes sense and similar 1999 financing had no dispute, urging forward movement. ▶ 📄
Jack Knowles — In Favor: Child speaker asked for better parks to attract more people and improve community spaces for kids. ▶ 📄
Vicki Nichols — In Favor: Urged yes vote, thanking Charlie Francis, disputing legality concerns under 1128, and calling for more 'yes' decisions in Sausalito. ▶ 📄
Craig — In Favor: New resident supported COPs, noting strong sense of community at parks despite dilapidation, and recommending Sausalito to families. ▶ 📄
Shelby Van Meter — In Favor: Spoke about civic pride, economic viability, and legacy, urging yes vote to show community care and respect for residents. ▶ 📄
David Sudo — In Favor: Compared COPs to home improvement loan backed by revenue, noted Dunphy Park revenue potential from events if improved. ▶ 📄
Unknown (Jubileist) — In Favor: Generally opposed to debt but supported because paid by MLK leases; urged quick action and referenced Torah portion about dew and rain. ▶ 📄