| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:12.06 | Jill Hoffman | Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, May 17th, 2016 City Council meeting in Sausalito, California. Lily, could you please take the roll call? |
| 00:00:22.64 | Lily | Council member Theodorus. Present. Council member Weiner. Present. Council member Pfeiffer. Here. Vice Mayor Withey. |
| 00:00:24.33 | Ray Withey | President. |
| 00:00:25.83 | Unknown | President, |
| 00:00:26.24 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 00:00:29.27 | Ray Withey | here. |
| 00:00:29.95 | Lily | Mayor Hoffman. |
| 00:00:31.16 | Jill Hoffman | THE PEOPLE WHO ARE Item D1 will be discussed in closed session. Is there any public comment on this closed session item? See no one approaching the podium. City Council adjourns for closed session to consider the following conference with legal counsel, existing litigation pursuant to CGC section 54956.9A, Terraces Home Owners Association claim. |
| 00:01:32.44 | Lily | Councilmember Pfeiffer. Right here. Chancellor Member Theodorus. |
| 00:01:37.27 | Unknown | Present. |
| 00:01:37.91 | Lily | Councilmember Weiner? Present. Vice Mayor Withey? Here. Mayor Hoffman? |
| 00:01:38.85 | Unknown | President. here |
| 00:01:53.13 | Unknown | I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:02:08.94 | Unknown | Thank you. you Thank you. you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:02:20.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:21.90 | Unknown | Thank you. That's right. Anybody else comment on the first session? |
| 00:02:31.21 | Unknown | So moved. |
| 00:02:33.69 | Linda Pfeiffer | Second. |
| 00:02:35.40 | Unknown | I'll see you next time. |
| 00:02:35.43 | Linda Pfeiffer | I know. |
| 00:02:35.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:40.60 | Unknown | you Presentations of Mayor Announcement. I have no, I believe we don't have any special presentations tonight. I don't know. Um, Item number two, the Invitations. This is the time for the City Council to hear from citizens regarding matters that are not on the agenda. Except for very limited situations, State Hall, Council is taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning items of business that are not on the agenda. However, the city council may refer matters to the agenda, to city staff, or direct the subject of the agenda as a future meeting. Please make sure that the completed speaker's part of turning this particular to the new elected speaker in the session. Do we have any people who like to speak to matters |
| 00:03:28.42 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, it is now. Did you want me to start over? No one wants that, yes. |
| 00:03:33.33 | Cassandra Fimwright | Hi, I'm Cassandra Fimwright from Marin County Dog. I am here with the support of Joe Ruff and Rob Beaton of the Sausalito Dog Park. If I may, I'd like to read a letter that the Mill Valley City Manager wrote to the superintendent of the GGNRA. Okay. Dear Superintendent Lenhurtz, I'm writing to express the city's concern regarding the proposed GGNRA's draft rules for dog management. We appreciate and support the GGNRA's attempt to balance the needs of various user groups, including protection of visitors, natural resources, shorebirds, and other wildlife. We also value the multiple ways the National Recreation Area serves the people of the Bay Area, providing much-needed recreation and enjoyment of the outdoors for people and their pets. While we support the GGNRA's mission as stewards of the public lands, the City of Mill Valley has concerns with the sweeping scope of proposed new dog regulations. These proposed regulations would result in significant reductions to unleash access throughout Marin County and sharply limit off leash dog activities to a section of Rodeo Beach only. We would welcome an opportunity to discuss this issue with you, your staff, and explore how we might work together to find a more moderate and balanced approach. A few of the salient issues of concern to the city of Mill Valley include the proposed rules would present significant reductions in both on-leash and off-leash areas in Marin County, potential impact to traffic and parking in Mill Valley and Southern Marin lack of GIS analysis of location of frequent users and which areas will be most convenient to members of the public and path of travel negative impacts to city parks fields dog runs and open spaces by virtue of increased use restriction of areas available to dogs will result in a reduction of recreational use by people. Lack of direct evidence-based empirical data informing proposed regulations. Reduction of available recreation areas will negatively affect the city's health and wellness initiatives, including healthy parks, healthy people. GGNRA is not a traditional national park, but a unique recreation area with an urban interface and GGNRA's responsiveness to the public concerns and feedback has not reflected on the level of interest and concern. The city of Mill Valley is deeply concerned about potential impacts to its public parks, athletic fields, and our popular dog park from those seeking alternatives to the GGNRA restricted areas. We would like time to work with you to moderate the proposed changes and regulations and identify realistic mitigations and to the anticipated negative impacts that these changes will have to local recreation spaces within the county of Marin. In their current form, the new regulations will drastically reduce access to public lands throughout the Bay Area and push dogs and their owners into already overcrowded city parks with over 80,000 acres of public lands. It seems entirely reasonable for the GGNRA to continue to allow dogs in less than 250 acres of recreational areas currently designed for this use. With a few thoughtful and well-considered adjustments, all might achieve a practical and reasonable solution. Sincerely, James C. McCann. |
| 00:06:35.14 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:06:35.77 | Cassandra Fimwright | Thank you. |
| 00:06:35.94 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:06:35.97 | Cassandra Fimwright | Thank you. |
| 00:06:36.05 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to speak to matters not on the agenda? |
| 00:06:39.82 | Linda Pfeiffer | Mayor Hoffman, I have a point of clarification for the last comment, public comment. Was there a request to council? Was it to put that on the agenda to make a vote on that? What you just said, I guess you were making a statement, a comment, but there was no request. You have to get up to the podium. There was no request to council, so I just wanted to understand what you were asking us to do. |
| 00:06:58.63 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:06:59.04 | Unknown | I'm gonna get up to the podium. |
| 00:07:05.23 | Cassandra Fimwright | Sure. I would urge the council tonight to examine the potential impacts of this plan and what it will do to Sal Salido and hopefully write a similar letter. |
| 00:07:16.54 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:07:20.47 | Linda Pfeiffer | And one more point of clarification, what is the timeframe for this? Because we can't do it tonight |
| 00:07:25.02 | Cassandra Fimwright | that's not on the agenda. Public comment for the GGNRA dog plan regulations ends May 25th. Thank you. |
| 00:07:36.11 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Any other people want to speak to matters not on the agenda? Nope, see no one. Moving on to the action minutes of the meeting from May 3, 2016. Do we have any comments, or would anybody like to move to approve the minutes as submitted? |
| 00:08:00.04 | Unknown | So moved. Second. |
| 00:08:02.54 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? Thank you. |
| 00:08:03.38 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:08:03.67 | Jill Hoffman | Aye. Moving on to item four, consent calendar. Removal from items to the consent calendar 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 below. 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 specific items be removed from the consent separate actions. order to request an item be pulled you must have completed a speaker's card and turn it into the city clerk Items will only be removed from the consent calendar by a vote of the council. Items removed from the consent calendar will be discussed later on the agenda when public comment will be heard on any item that was removed from the consent calendar. Do we have any public comment regarding requests to remove items from the consent calendar? See none. Do we have any comments or motions from the council regarding the consent calendar? |
| 00:09:05.97 | Linda Pfeiffer | Mayor Hoffman, I would request, I guess, a pulling, or if my question could be addressed regarding consent calendar item B, adopt ordinance 1235. |
| 00:09:20.47 | Jill Hoffman | How about if you state your question and we'll see. |
| 00:09:23.03 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:09:23.07 | Jill Hoffman | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:09:23.50 | Linda Pfeiffer | my question was it was my understanding that the um the motion included um a an adjustment to the ordinance of a 30 days duration instead of the 90 days um with extensions of a total state of 180 days and yet in the resolution that i'm seeing, it states the old duration. And so the other comment was, and I don't know if this is as important since we left it with remaining, I guess, three potential sites, but that we had moved to have a 23-bed, one-site option as opposed to two sites at 20 beds each. And that's also not part of the resolution. So that was my point of clarification. |
| 00:10:18.87 | Lily | Councilmember Pfeiffer, I can address those questions. Thank you. So since the lowering of the maximum number of days from 90 to 30 and increasing the number of beds from 20 to 23 was not considered by the Planning Commission, those two items need to go to the Planning Commission for consideration before the council can consider them themselves. So the motion at the last meeting was to adopt the amendments with the removal of the site those four sites and then send the other two items on to the Planning Commission for consideration |
| 00:10:20.46 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:10:53.09 | Linda Pfeiffer | If Planning Commission rejects those two items, does it still come back immediately to council? you |
| 00:10:59.02 | Lily | Yes. |
| 00:10:59.47 | Linda Pfeiffer | you So in other words, we will- |
| 00:11:01.46 | Lily | We will. You'll get a recommendation from the Planning Commission one way or the other. And the council can then amend the ordinance as you see fit. |
| 00:11:09.38 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay, okay. So I guess I would request a roll call vote on this because my vote to approve was dependent on those two changes. I think those two changes are very important. And I'm fine, I guess I feel like I'm approving an ordinance that I don't support as written unless those changes are made. So I guess I should have voted no and waited for it to come back with those addendums. |
| 00:11:45.89 | Jill Hoffman | So should we move this into later in the agenda? |
| 00:11:48.66 | Unknown | Well, we might be able to clarify. Isn't it? written. It's not in the resolution I might seen it that we had moved to 23 beds and 90 to 30 days and Yeah, and I saw it in the... |
| 00:12:00.19 | Unknown | you |
| 00:12:02.86 | Unknown | Agenda. |
| 00:12:02.99 | Lily | Agenda. It's in the minutes as a motion, as a part of the motion to direct the Planning Commission to review those two items. But the council can't take action on those two items until the Planning Commission's provided a recommendation. And staff has provided the council with a schedule of when the planning commission will hear those items, when the council will hear the amendments. |
| 00:12:24.30 | Jill Hoffman | So would we have to, if we're, we're, we're voting on the second reading of those portions of the ordinance today. that we could and then Are we going to have to amend that ordinance? And then are we going to have to have two readings of the ordinance after that? Then. I'm just trying to save us. |
| 00:12:43.20 | Mary Wagner | If I may, Madam Mayor, I think that the council felt that it was important to modify the overlay zone to remove the sites that were identified by the council and to not hold off on that. And that, as we discussed at your last meeting, you're statutorily and under your zoning ordinance required to send changes back to the planning commission that they hadn't previously considered. |
| 00:12:44.99 | Jill Hoffman | So, you know, you've got to be |
| 00:13:04.62 | Mary Wagner | So the council's motion was to move forward with the changes that you had approved, the changes to the overlay zone to remove the four sites and the other modifications, and then to send those other two questions back to the planning commission. |
| 00:13:17.49 | Linda Pfeiffer | Just a point of clarification, I don't understand why the motion wasn't to make those adjustments in terms of the vision of what the council wanted as opposed to |
| 00:13:29.14 | Mary Wagner | Well, we could have held off on the entire ordinance, but you directed us not to do that. You wanted the planning, you wanted to separate the things that you wanted to put in place immediately, or, you know, with second reading in 30 days, to direct the two changes that had to go back to the Planning Commission for their further consideration, 30, 90, and the 2023 issues back to them and that you gave first reading with that direction. |
| 00:13:54.48 | Linda Pfeiffer | Well, I think the council majority wanted to do it, but it was my understanding that we were voting on the ordinance that we wanted to with those changes. And that was what my interpretation was. And if I was in error, then I would just like to call a roll call vote for the second reading and I will vote accordingly. |
| 00:14:15.95 | Unknown | Well, hold on, because I'd like to be clear. I think we're doing a second reading of the ordinance, but in our minutes, it says that we approved it with those subject to those caveats about changing the days and such. Can we have the second reading subject to the same caveats and move forward? Why don't we do that? Because we want to get through the second reading. We will have to amend again, but I agree with Council Member Pfeiffer that we should be clear about this. So can we, can we do that and have a resolution with a second meeting, uh, reading and with the, the, the caveats that we have clearly stated in our minutes about the, uh, moving from 20 to 23 beds, uh, the stay from 90 to 30 days. Mm-hmm. |
| 00:14:55.01 | Linda Pfeiffer | So, so if I could restate the, the recommended motion, um, I would, I would move to adopt, uh, give second reading to big title only ordinance number 1235 in ordinance city council. So still modify 1028. Oh, eight Oh regarding management plan, annual compliance review standard for emergency shelter, emergency shelter overlays on immense zoning ordinance back to remove MLK, uh,K, school district, city hall and then the corporation yard from the emergency shelter overlay zone and to |
| 00:14:55.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:15:29.27 | Linda Pfeiffer | change the duration to 30 days, and to designate 23 beds for Wednesday. |
| 00:15:36.66 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:15:36.76 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:15:36.80 | Mary Wagner | Madam Mayor, if I may, if the council wants to do that, You can't give second reading tonight because the planning commission has not considered those two things. I would direct your attention to your minutes. Page three of five. and the motion that was made where you directed you know, put into effect the changes that were identified and directed the Planning Commission to review an amendment to the ordinance to increase the number of beds from 20 to 23 and decrease the allowed length of stay from 90 to 30 and provide a recommendation to the City Council. That was the motion. But if you want to change that now. you can, you can, change it, but you cannot take action tonight on the 30 the 90 to 30 and the 20 to 23 because it has not been considered by the planning commission and it's a revision to your zoning regulations |
| 00:16:24.49 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 00:16:25.35 | Mary Wagner | And, but, |
| 00:16:25.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:16:26.59 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:16:26.61 | Unknown | Can we adopt the language the way we did it? last session and is in the minutes. that we have the second reading and direct the Planning Commission and review the amendment ordinance to increase that. Sure. Can we do it? So can would you be comfortable with taking exactly the language we have in our minutes, which really adopted the ordinances with the additional language and direct the Planning Commission and review an amendment? That's what we had agreed upon five Oh last time. So yeah. |
| 00:16:37.66 | John | Sure. |
| 00:16:51.32 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah, so. |
| 00:16:53.29 | Unknown | And that would get us through the second reading, and then also we would... |
| 00:16:53.68 | Jill Hoffman | I. |
| 00:17:00.77 | Jill Hoffman | Because the alternative. |
| 00:17:00.85 | Unknown | the alternate reiterate the direction of the Planning Commission. |
| 00:17:03.37 | Jill Hoffman | And the alternative would be that we wouldn't do the second reading tonight, that the whole thing would sort of go back to the Planning Commission, and then it would come back to us. |
| 00:17:10.08 | Mary Wagner | And then it would come back to us. The Planning Commission's already given you a recommendation on those other modifications, which is why you were able to take that action. Yeah, but... |
| 00:17:14.03 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Yeah, but if we wanted to do it all at once so that we wouldn't have to do second readings and things like that. |
| 00:17:19.46 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:17:19.48 | Ray Withey | But, Madam Mayor, why do you want to do it all at once? At this point, if you don't take action tonight, which is just one vote, then you're sending it back to the Planning Commission to come back for a first reading and then a second reading, which you have to do anyway. |
| 00:17:19.65 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 00:17:32.98 | Jill Hoffman | Right. Well, just so that it's clear, so that we don't have this piecemeal. We promised the people. |
| 00:17:33.81 | Ray Withey | Just so that it's clear, so that we don't have this piecemeal. We promised the public last time that we would remove these four sides. Oh, we're still doing that. No, you're not. Well, yes, we are. Not unless you vote tonight, you're not. |
| 00:17:39.71 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, we're still doing that. No, you're not. Well, yes, we are. Well, we wouldn't be doing it tonight, but we'd be doing it the next time it comes back. |
| 00:17:47.59 | Ray Withey | Well, as long as the public know that you're delaying that, that's fine. |
| 00:17:50.46 | Unknown | Oh, well, okay. No, it'd be a long delay, by the way, it'd be a long delay because it's going to take go to the planning commission. I highly recommend that we, we agreed last time and just have the second reading but with the caveat that it's going to go to planning commission and then we, |
| 00:17:51.73 | Jill Hoffman | No. |
| 00:17:52.84 | Ray Withey | two years by the way you'd be a |
| 00:17:56.17 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:17:56.91 | Unknown | that you're going to be |
| 00:17:56.98 | Ed Votch | Thank you. |
| 00:18:03.15 | Unknown | This way we don't have any loose ends. And we've done what we promised the public. |
| 00:18:05.26 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. I- I think it's fine if we go ahead and do what, you know, the second reading tonight, but with Tom's, you know, addition of the language so that it's clear. And then we set a certain deadline. Yeah. |
| 00:18:16.28 | Ed Votch | you know, |
| 00:18:20.28 | Jill Hoffman | that it will come back to us from the planning commission no later then. |
| 00:18:24.53 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, there's a statutory deadline already, and I can look that up for you if you like. I mean, once you send something to the Planning Commission for a recommendation, if they don't make a recommendation, it automatically comes back to you within that time frame. So I don't know the date it's scheduled for the Planning Commission. Lily might know. June 22nd. So we could bring that back to you in July. |
| 00:18:43.94 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay, so it is for one vote, and I did vote in the affirmative thinking that those two important elements were included, and if they're not, I would just like to make a motion to remove the City Hall and the Corporation yard and to reduce the duration to 30 days and to change the beds to 23 beds and one site. |
| 00:19:14.25 | Linda Pfeiffer | It's okay if there's no second, I just want it on the record that that is where I'm, that's what I would approve. Well, and well, |
| 00:19:21.50 | Unknown | And well, and I would I don't know if that's a motion, but what I would submit or make a motion is that we have we take item 4B, the second reading of the ordinance is stated in item 4B and add the language and direct the Planning Commission to review an amendment to the ordinance to increase the number of beds from 20 to 23 and decrease the allowed length of stay from 30 90 days to 30 days and provide a recommendation to the City Council. |
| 00:19:26.52 | Linda Pfeiffer | I hope that's good. |
| 00:19:26.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:19:27.04 | Unknown | We should. |
| 00:19:27.41 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:19:46.78 | Unknown | Exactly. |
| 00:19:46.92 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:19:47.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:19:47.69 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:19:48.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:19:49.35 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, all in favor of that amendment? Aye. |
| 00:19:50.71 | Unknown | I can't. |
| 00:19:51.04 | Unknown | I'm going to go. |
| 00:19:51.10 | Linda Pfeiffer | Bye. So this is a question. |
| 00:19:53.18 | Jill Hoffman | You want to pose? Oh, roll call. I'm trying to get it |
| 00:19:56.57 | Unknown | Thank you. concerned about. |
| 00:19:57.50 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:19:57.55 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay, so so we are so I just want to clarify this we're sending this to the Planning Commission and it's coming back and We're we're going to be looking at those two items at that point and that there's a statute a time statute So this is not going to be a six-month thing. This is going to come back Within a few weeks for us to vote |
| 00:20:20.55 | Unknown | for us today. you Bye. |
| 00:20:22.29 | Jill Hoffman | You said it was on the City Council, sorry, it was on the Planning Commission for June 21st? |
| 00:20:28.24 | Unknown | I believe it's June 22nd. |
| 00:20:28.72 | Jill Hoffman | So we... |
| 00:20:29.04 | Lily | I mean, |
| 00:20:29.22 | Jill Hoffman | I believe it's June 22nd. |
| 00:20:30.42 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:20:30.69 | Jill Hoffman | June 22nd. Okay. All right. So we have a city council meeting June 28. So supposedly we would be able to hear that on had the first three on June 28. And we'll be able to have the second reading in July. |
| 00:20:41.07 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. Madam Mayor, we have notice periods as well to bring that amendment back to you. I think the first time we could bring it to be your first meeting in July. |
| 00:20:51.52 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Because it's a change. |
| 00:20:51.97 | Mary Wagner | Because it's a change to your zoning ordinance, there's statutory notice requirements as well. |
| 00:20:55.67 | Jill Hoffman | So that's July 12th. So that would be July 12th, and then the second reading July 26th, before we leave for our break in August. I think that would be great. Let's stick to that schedule then. |
| 00:21:08.36 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay. Thank you. I'm concerned because I'm going to just vote no because I really thought that those two elements were part of what we were all voting on. And I didn't know it was stipulated on Planning Commission approval. |
| 00:21:25.23 | Unknown | And by the way, just to be clear, this second reading does remove the sites. It just doesn't, we have to go back to the planning commission on the changing of beds and time. |
| 00:21:33.92 | Linda Pfeiffer | I want to remove those sites. Thank you. |
| 00:21:36.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:21:36.99 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:21:37.03 | Unknown | way we do. |
| 00:21:37.90 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so the point we're at right now is we've had a vote on Tom's amended language. We voted on it. Do we need to have a roll call vote? Roll call vote please. |
| 00:21:45.14 | Unknown | We voted on it. |
| 00:21:51.91 | Unknown | This is on item 4B. Yep. |
| 00:21:54.15 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:21:54.29 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 00:21:54.44 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 00:21:55.17 | Unknown | Not to be. |
| 00:21:56.28 | Lily | Councilmember Weiner. |
| 00:21:57.56 | Unknown | you |
| 00:21:57.58 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:21:58.17 | Lily | Councilmember Pfeiffer. |
| 00:21:59.45 | Linda Pfeiffer | No. |
| 00:22:00.82 | Lily | Councilmember Theodorus. |
| 00:22:01.97 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 00:22:02.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:22:02.05 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:22:02.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:22:02.19 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 00:22:02.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:22:03.35 | Lily | Vice Mayor Withey. |
| 00:22:04.28 | Ray Withey | Yes. |
| 00:22:05.46 | Lily | May it happen. Yes. Carries for one. |
| 00:22:08.45 | Ray Withey | I move to approve the consent calendar items for A, C, D, E, F, and G. Second. |
| 00:22:16.82 | Jill Hoffman | All in favor? Aye. |
| 00:22:17.66 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:22:19.42 | Jill Hoffman | Moving on. To item five, public hearing, none. Moving on to item six, pension and OPEB presentation. |
| 00:22:39.03 | Jill Hoffman | John, you're welcome to leave your jacket off. It's rather warm in here today. |
| 00:22:43.62 | Unknown | Yeah, John, things might get real hot. I give you my dispensation to leave off your jacket. |
| 00:22:43.65 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, John, things make you... I give you my dispensation to leave off your jacket. |
| 00:22:51.11 | Unknown | Thank you. You might want to take your tie off, too. |
| 00:22:55.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:22:55.04 | John | No. Just so you know, it is hereditary. I have to wear a tie. |
| 00:22:56.95 | Unknown | Thank you. It is heretic terror. |
| 00:22:58.08 | Unknown | I have to wear a tie. |
| 00:23:00.62 | John | Thank you. |
| 00:23:07.80 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:23:12.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:23:12.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:23:23.42 | John | Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council, I always try to remind myself that it's really my honor to be speaking to you all on this topic. So thank you very much for having me here. That's kind of beginning intro comment number one and intro comment number two. I've said this before at the risk of getting myself in serious trouble. I would absolutely encourage you all to interrupt and ask questions as we go. My guess is you all will do that without me offering, but I'm offering nonetheless. We're going to go through some of this information relatively quickly. I will leave it up to you to slow me down if you think I'm going a little too fast. Some of the items I think of as background information. So for example, the first two slides talk about definition of terms. I'm gonna wait until we get to the numbers to define the terminology. But so slides one and two are for your reference, if you will. Uh, The slide three and four go through CalPERS recent changes. Some of this we've talked about before. Some of this has a bigger impact than others. One item that had a noticeable impact, and you're going to see part of the reason why your contribution rates are expected to go up, is CalPERS is doing something that I actually have been encouraging clients to consider in the past, and that is, you know, a couple of years ago, I used to say your contribution from CalPERS is kind of like a minimum payment on a credit card. If you don't pay more than that minimum amount, then you will not be paying down the unfunded liability. CalPERS has really changed that. So this particular item, we really are now projecting that, assuming the assumptions are met, your unfunded liability will be paid off on all of your plans. The challenge, of course, with that is it will take a long time to pay that unfunded liability off. So comment number one is this contribution policy change really has a very positive impact. So positive means that you're going to be paying your unfunded liability off, but unfortunately, the negative associated with that is your contribution rates will be higher. You're going to see that very noticeably. So that's change number one. Change number two is CalPERS went through an assumption study. The big deal associated with that assumption study is the single biggest change they made was not just recognizing that people are living longer. Kind of done that in every study that they've made over the past several years. Certainly every study I've looked at. But what they are now doing is building into the numbers and expectation that mortality will continue to improve. So that's actually a big, big deal. In my opinion, that's absolutely the right approach. I don't think it's too conservative by any stretch of the imagination. So that's the big change you're going to see again. And then the third item really did not have a particularly big impact on the city. The city's plans are in risk pools. They sort of redid the way they're doing the risk pools, and that had a very modest positive impact on the cities. In other words, very slightly lower rates. We had some clients where this had a very large increase in rates. You all really don't fall into that category. And then the fourth thing, the single biggest issue going into the future is CalPERS is going through what they refer to as a risk mitigation strategy. Here's really what they're doing is over a long period of time, they are reducing the investment mix in terms of high volatile investments, so less equities, more bonds, if you will. But the nature of that is that also means the investment return assumption will be decreased over time. And if you take a look at slide five, so slide five, I'm sorry, is kind of an ugly looking slide but here's what I'd like you to focus on. If CalPERS on average gets the rate of return that we expect, we think they're going to reduce the investment return assumption, the discount rate if you will, from seven and a half down to six and a half over the next 20 years, the way they're doing that is in a year when they have a good investment return, they are taking some of that good investment return off the table in terms of reducing your contribution rate and buying down, if you will, the more conservative investment mix. It's going to be a very slow process. It will not be as smooth as what you see here. It will be kind of fits and spurts, if you will. But we think in the long run, they'll get from that seven and a half to six and a half over that 20 year period. If investment return is better than expected, they'll get to that six and a half quicker. If investment return is not better than expected, worse than expected, they'll get to six and a half a little bit later. |
| 00:29:09.11 | Ed Votch | John. |
| 00:29:31.99 | Linda Pfeiffer | John, you invited us to jump in. Please do. Thank you very much. So you may recall a few years ago I wanted to do just that. I wanted to pay more than what we were doing. And it's my understanding that the actuaries, CalPERS actuaries, is it |
| 00:29:34.61 | John | Please do. |
| 00:29:35.28 | Ed Votch | Thank you. |
| 00:29:50.82 | Linda Pfeiffer | had they recommended to CalPERS that the discount rate right now should be 7.25? No. Did they? No, they didn't? No. |
| 00:29:59.16 | John | No. No. Well, let's go back. What they are saying is, let me say it like this. They think what I'll refer to as the 50% confidence level number is 7.5. The chief actuary recommended that there is a margin, but he also said that he would not be uncomfortable with the 7.5 discount rate. So depending upon the language you use, you could interpret that to mean they're recommending 7.25. But they are certainly comfortable with the 7.5. |
| 00:30:40.82 | Linda Pfeiffer | So as you know, the return rate or the discount rate rated return has not been robust. And what is the cost to, if we look at, I know right now we only have the 2014 numbers, but if we look at 2015, it was like 2 point something percent return. Right. Last year or this year so far, it's even worse. It's like 0.5 percent. your documents showed 17 point something percent return right last year or this year so far it's even worse it's like 0.5 percent your documents showed a 17 million or so unfunded pension liability what is what would be the unfunded pension liability you know with the current |
| 00:30:49.65 | Unknown | That's right. |
| 00:31:02.73 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:31:23.96 | Linda Pfeiffer | rated return that we're seeing how much it will happen. |
| 00:31:26.59 | John | How much it will happen. So I don't have those numbers in front of me. But when we get to the unfunded liability slide, I'll be able to estimate that for you. But if you want us to give you something a little better than that off the top of my head estimate, we have those numbers. I just don't have them with me. |
| 00:31:29.76 | Linda Pfeiffer | different. |
| 00:31:48.96 | Linda Pfeiffer | Then I have one more question about these percentages. This, what we're looking at, this graph, Does this that the pace we're seeing where the discount rate goes from 7.5 to a more realistic I guess six point something I still think that's unrealistic but Is this assuming a rosy scenario? Is this assuming is it? Is it assuming they're getting that 7.5% each year? |
| 00:32:20.30 | John | Well, let me tell you what we did, because just so you know, these are our projections, not CalPERS projections. I'm going to apologize in advance for the, if I can use the term, the wonkiness of this next statement, because it's going to sound a little like gibberish, but I'm going to try after I kind of say it from a technical point. What I'd like to do then is try to take that and translate it to English, if you will. So what we did to do this projection, and oh, by the way, to project the city's contribution, what we did was we looked at the CalPERS investments. We agree with CalPERS that a long-term assumption of what I'll call a 50% confidence level assumption is really close to the 7.5%. But what we did to project these is we understand and would encourage the council to recognize that there is significant volatility in that rate of return. So what we have here are what we refer to as a stochastic analysis. And here's what that means. We took our capital market assumptions, the rate of return, we think, and with the volatility and the standard deviation that varies based on the investment mix at CalPERS, and we did a thousand simulations under that. So what you see that green line is the average of reduction in the discount rate for those thousand simulations. And what you also see is if you look above the green line, you see solid squares. Those solid squares represent a poor, what we call a 75 percent, 75 percent of our thousand simulations resulted in a investment return greater than those solid lines and the hollow square bullet represent a 25% of our simulation resulted in a higher rate of return. |
| 00:34:53.85 | Linda Pfeiffer | So I'm just curious, could you have done a trailing 10-year average to get that average? |
| 00:35:01.22 | John | We certainly could have done that. That would not be what we would recommend. And the reason we would not recommend that is if you look, for example, at the last 10 years, there was a big downturn in the investments, arguably a correction in the market. We think that building that into a 10-year average would understate the expected return. So we would, we really recommend and we feel very comfortable doing it the way we did. So we would not do it on the basis of just looking at the last 10 years. |
| 00:35:01.41 | Linda Pfeiffer | Is that relevant? I'm going to be... |
| 00:35:47.95 | John | Okay. |
| 00:35:48.03 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay, so I'll withhold my comment on that. |
| 00:35:50.60 | John | Thank you. |
| 00:35:50.70 | Linda Pfeiffer | I mean, I'll wait until comment period to comment on that. |
| 00:35:58.28 | John | Slide 6, you know, there are a couple of really important slides here. Slide 6 happens to be one of those. And what you really see on slide 6 is we put a solid black line for CalPERS' current 7.5% investment return assumption. And then what you see is investment return going back to June 30 of 94 on an annual basis and what you see is all there are virtually no years where the actual return was close to that assumed rate of rate of return of seven and a half so you see significant volatility from one year to the neck. So crummy return early in that process, exceptional, crummy, exceptional, and included in that projection. If you go back over that period of time, what you really see are two significant downturns, the dot-com bubble in the very early 2000s for three years where the investment return was below the assumed rate and then the recession in 2008-2009. What you also see here though is the last two years, so June 30, 15 actual return, 2.4 compared to the assumed rate of return, a noticeable loss. And then when you go to estimated return at June 30, 16, what we've done is taken actual return through the end of March and then projected that out to June 30, 2016, and to get an expected return of 0.5. So we have a high expectation that the return at June 30, 16 is not going to be particularly good. So that'll be two bad years followed by, excuse me, following two good years, and that kind of is the pattern of the investment returns. |
| 00:38:11.27 | Linda Pfeiffer | John? Yep. So I guess when I'm looking at this, is it factored in the impact of compounding? Because we can have an exceptional year, but that doesn't offset the unexceptional year where it went down. Yes. Because of compounding, right? It's actually a bigger hit and it takes longer. |
| 00:38:28.24 | Ed Votch | Thank you. |
| 00:38:28.28 | John | Yes. |
| 00:38:34.34 | John | Yeah, if they're equal, you end up a little farther behind. If you have a poor year followed by a good year, then those two do not offset each other. Absolutely right. So these are the annual rates in each particular year. If you really did this on a compounded basis, you'd probably get to an average return over this period of time, not very far from the assumed rate of return of 7.5. I'm not suggesting that that indicates that's what it's going to be in the future. I am suggesting that that kind of historically, they're very similar to their current assumptions. |
| 00:39:17.91 | Unknown | So just to be clear, so over the last 20 years, you're saying it's roughly 7.5 as an average return? |
| 00:39:22.34 | John | Yeah, I'd have to go back and look. I'm just kind of doing that off the top of my head. I think that's right. |
| 00:39:33.33 | Linda Pfeiffer | So I guess I'm concerned when I hear this estimate because I know we're including the bubble years, and a lot of people are looking at this and saying, well, the taxpayers are on the hook, you know, if we are behind and we're $17 million behind right now for a little town That's pretty amazing And so should we really be looking at those bubble years should be should we a lot of people are Concerned that we're on kind of this credit bubble right now with government life support just basically that they don't see a big boom coming again like in the 90s, which are included in the 20 year. So I guess I'm just a little nervous about this time range and using this as the snapshot in time to say, oh, we're making that 7.5%. |
| 00:40:37.47 | John | So I fully understand that. |
| 00:40:40.48 | Linda Pfeiffer | I mean, if we were making that 7.5%, would we have that much of an unfunded pension liability? |
| 00:40:46.40 | John | you're gonna see in another couple of slides what we think your rates will go to if CalPERS does not meet that 7.5% rate of return on average. So you will see where those rates are projected to go. So what I try to tell folks is, from you know the council certainly has control over what it might want to set aside to to anticipate those poor returns and to the extent that you don't think they're going to be there then what that really means is you certainly could set aside more money but you will also hear me say I don't So my pretty strong opinion is that if CalPERS does not get that rate of return, you really need to look at where the rates are going to go and then make a conscious decision as to whether or not you think your budget will be able to handle that. I don't think it necessarily means you should panic by any stretch of the imagination. So when we get to the projection of the rates, that's really what you would hear me say is look at where the rates are going to go under the on average on our thousand simulations and then decide how conservative you want to be relative to those numbers. I will also tell you if investment return continues to be poor, you have, you all have taken some steps to set money aside to mitigate those future rates. So, I think you are absolutely moving in the right direction to do that. And we'll talk a little bit kind of about that later. So in lots of ways, I think you all are doing what you should be doing in terms of preparing yourself for these rates perhaps not being met, if you will. |
| 00:43:06.92 | Unknown | John, may I? |
| 00:43:08.84 | John | Thank you. |
| 00:43:08.98 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:43:09.58 | John | Thank you. |
| 00:43:09.97 | Unknown | If you look, I mean, we've had the last two years are bad years, and then there were four out of five good years, and that starts back in about 2010. My question and maybe you will address this when you go into the unfunded liabilities, but if looking historically, It seems to us that the unfunded liabilities seem to be going up and they should be. going up and down if you look at this chart. So I'm a little, will you address that later? Is that something you'd address now? |
| 00:43:32.86 | John | Well, I'll be happy to answer. So for me, one of the things that historically I was worried about was exactly what you're talking about, and that is that the unfunded liability not really going down even with good investment return and really going up. And the primary reason, there really was one primary reason for that and that was that the contribution was not sufficient to take care of interest on the unfunded liability. And so when that happens, That means that your unfunded liability is going to go up even in a good year. And so. Um, That goes back to my comment to folks that they really should be paying more. And so what you're going to hear me say is I think that historically that's been a problem. The unfunded liability, I still think, is going to get worse before it gets better. You'll see that in some projections, but I think that now CalPERS is on a path, and that path will be slow and steady, but it's the right path. So if I was having this conversation a couple of years ago, I hope you heard me say they really are not on the right path. You need to pay more. You need to set more money aside. And so I feel much more relaxed, if you will, about that than I did a couple of years ago. It doesn't mean that everything necessarily will be guaranteed to be rosy. We're not saying that at all, but we are saying that we think they're on the right path. It will take a long time. You all could do some things to mitigate that, but I think as time goes by, you will see that unfunded liability gradually come down. The problem is, It's not short term that that's going to happen. It's really going to be a long term. |
| 00:45:49.93 | Unknown | Another question. On the last two you show 15 and projected 16. Yeah. One of the frustrations for me was that CalPERS seem to put out their numbers two years late. Now, have they changed or are you projecting in some way? These are our projections. So these are not CalPERS? |
| 00:46:04.71 | John | These are not CalPERS. Yeah, just so you know, June 30, 15, that's the actual reported investment return. So that's from their June 30, 15 financial statement. So that information is there. When CalPERS project your rates, they take that into account. We have done the calculation for June 30, 16, and we have built that into the projection of the of the rates. So when we get to the unfunded liability, I'll try to quantify for you the impact of both 15 and 16 on your unfunded liability. |
| 00:46:46.16 | Unknown | Yeah. Okay. Thank you. |
| 00:46:49.77 | John | Okay. |
| 00:46:50.98 | Unknown | It's... |
| 00:46:52.89 | John | So slide seven. So I actually have this slide for all three of your plans. This is your miscellaneous plan. What's fascinating to me is two things are happening. Number of active employees are declining from 63 to 48, and then the number of retirees increasing from 57 to 84. So you have 84 retirees compared to 48 active employees. Now, just to be clear, all 84 of those, you all are only responsible for the service rendered while people worked at this city. All 84 of those are not 30-year career employees. Probably an average service is about 10 to 15 years for those retirees. Some 30 years, some two years. So you really get to kind of an average of about that 10 to 15-year period. Nonetheless, that's a large ratio of people in benefit payment to active employees. And where that really shows up is on slide eight. So your total actuarial liability at June 30, 14, $30.6 million. Of that 30.6, less than a third of it. is for active employees. Two thirds of it is for people who are not working at the city anymore. A large portion of that is for people who have already begun their benefit payments. You see a category there called inactive. Those are folks who used to work at the city, not working at the city anymore, but they have not yet commenced retirement benefits. They might be working at other cities, for example. But that ratio, that portion of the liability for actives is indicative of a city that's been around for a long time and a smaller liability for current actives compared to retirees. So what this also shows is an unfunded liability for your miscellaneous plan of about 6.1 million, very rough number. We think two years later, at June 30, 16, that 6.1 would probably be about two, two and a half million higher than the 6.1. And all of that is because of the investment. Yes, really the investment return June 30, 15 and June 30, 16. So if the council would like, we can do something more precise, but I think that kind of gives you a feel for that, if you will. So slide 10 happens to be the numbers from the June 30, 2014 valuation. You all actually have three benefit tiers. You have your what I'll call legacy benefit tier, tier one. That's the two and a half at 55 benefit formula. You all implemented a second tier, two at 55. And then PEPRA, in the interest of full disclosure, I probably am the only one in the state that refers to the PEPRA formula as 2.5 at 67. I do that because the benefit factor increases to 2.5 percent. If you retire at age 67, everybody else refers to that formula as the 2 percent at 62 formula. We think, I think the two and a half at 67 is a little more descriptive of the benefit formula than the two at 62. But what we've done is that if you look at that left-hand column... What we've done is sort of mushed those three tiers together to get you a combined contribution rate for all three. So the 19.6% is the contribution rate for all payroll for the 16, 17 year. and the dollar amount and the contribution is, dollar amount of the contribution is 817,000. You're gonna see that number when we project it out into the future. That number will grow very noticeably over the next several years. |
| 00:51:40.20 | Linda Pfeiffer | I have a quick question on the PEPRA column. It was my understanding we didn't have many employees in that column here. I mean, I don't know if it makes a difference, but I mean, you're talking about averaging it all. |
| 00:51:41.35 | John | Sure. Thank you. |
| 00:51:49.87 | John | Oh. |
| 00:51:53.72 | John | So averaging it all. Yeah. June 30, 14. I'd have to go back and look. I just I'm sorry. I don't I don't remember. |
| 00:52:03.93 | Linda Pfeiffer | I guess. Adam? Do you know how many fall in the pepper columns? |
| 00:52:10.60 | Adam Politzer | Of the 48 employees, I would guess maybe 15. |
| 00:52:10.63 | Linda Pfeiffer | I thought it was really small. Thank you. That was small. |
| 00:52:18.24 | Adam Politzer | Several police officers, library, all of community development, our finance director. Our PEP. |
| 00:52:25.46 | Linda Pfeiffer | RPEPRA? 15. Okay. Good. Okay. Thanks. Thanks. |
| 00:52:27.96 | Adam Politzer | Okay. |
| 00:52:32.94 | Linda Pfeiffer | 15 out of 40. |
| 00:52:34.29 | John | Slide 11 is really the assumptions we're using to do the projection. What I'd like to do is kind of talk a little bit about this. So we show those projections on slides 12 and 13. Slide 12 is the contribution rate. What you really see here are three lines, what I'll call the light orange line. that is the normal cost rate. Normal cost rate varies based upon the benefit formula. You see that as a percentage of pay gradually coming down. The reason it's coming down is because we have an expectation that you're going to hire people either in tier two, the 2 at 55 formula, or the 2.5 at 67 formula. So that will get you to lower contribution rate gradually over time. And then you see that red line or the darker orange, whatever color you think that is, you see that's the payment on the unfunded liability. You see a steady increase on that. The reason that's going up is because CalPERS is gradually phasing you into paying enough to begin to reduce the unfunded liability. So there's really two reasons for that increase. Reason number one is gradually phasing you into paying that unfunded liability. Reason number two are the most recent investment losses, June 3015 and June 3016. And you see the green line, which is really the sum of those two lines. So let me also point out, you see rates above the green line and below the green line that those rates above the green line with the solid squares represent in our projection, about 25% of our projections end up with rates above that. 75% project rates below those numbers. And so to the extent that you were a little worried, if you will, about where the rates were gonna go, you might want to look to rates above the green line for budgeting purposes. So nonetheless, we think that green line represents what our projections show as contribution, that's sort of an expected contribution. Slide 13 shows the dollar amount The dollar amount going from an 817,000 in the 16-17 fiscal year, really more than doubling to 25-26. There's two reasons why that is going up so dramatically over that period of time. Reason number one is you're now beginning to make a payment that takes care of more than interest on your unfunded liability. That's number one. And reason number two is CalPERS amortization is designed to be a level percentage of pay, which is an increasing dollar amount. So you have a dramatic increase in the amount that you will have to budget. And again, if you look at the 25, 26 year, if you were worried about that, you budget a little bit more than the $1.6 million that we have here. |
| 00:56:17.28 | Linda Pfeiffer | So, John, just to clarify for folks watching, the green line is actually the red line and the peach line added up. So you add up 448 and 333 and you get 781. That's correct. In the green line. That's correct. |
| 00:56:28.55 | Ed Votch | Thank you. |
| 00:56:28.60 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:56:32.19 | Unknown | That's correct. That's correct. |
| 00:56:34.34 | Linda Pfeiffer | And the green line, the middle of the green line, represents if Caltrans made their 7.5% discount rate of return. Thank you. |
| 00:56:50.64 | John | On average. That's right. |
| 00:56:50.84 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. on average well again i i take exception to the the snapshot in time you've taken yeah but so that's if i look at that green line and i don't i see that as the best case scenario um and so really we're looking at you know let's see and this is just for miscellaneous and so you That's right. Okay. And whenever we can. So really we're looking at, you know, let's see, and this is just for miscellaneous. And so you. That's right. Okay. And whenever we, CalPERS misses that discount rate of return on their investments, we or the taxpayers, we eat that. That has to come back and it is, you know, smoothed out, but it is wrapped into our payments and we also pay interest on that. That has to come back and it is smoothed out, but it is wrapped into our payments and we also pay interest on that. |
| 00:56:59.02 | John | Yeah. |
| 00:57:18.26 | Unknown | That's right. |
| 00:57:41.62 | Linda Pfeiffer | That's correct. |
| 00:57:41.67 | John | That's correct. Okay. Of course, the opposite of that, when they |
| 00:57:46.04 | Linda Pfeiffer | Well, yeah, the opposite is true as well, but I'm, again, when the taxpayers are on the hook, I tend to want to look at the more conservative, you know, because we're at 0.5% return, I guess, right now. Yeah. |
| 00:57:55.52 | John | than you. |
| 00:58:01.68 | John | Yeah, we've taken the 0.5 into account in the projection of those numbers, just so you know. |
| 00:58:10.19 | Linda Pfeiffer | And this is just for miscellaneous employees. It doesn't include fire and police. That's correct. |
| 00:58:12.62 | John | Yeah. That's correct. Okay. That's correct. And then, so in the interest of full disclosure, my eyes are probably not good enough to be able to read those contribution rates. Having said that, what this is is a long-term projection of the city's contribution rate. You really see a steady contribution increase until you get to the early 30s. And then rates we think will stabilize, and then you will see a drop in the rates what's really going on there with that drop in the rates is calpers determines your contribution based on components of the unfunded liability so when something happens in a particular year it has its own amortization piece if you will and what's going on here is a large portion of the unfunded liability is going away in that 36 37 fiscal year so you see a big drop in the rates what I would encourage all of my clients to do is think about the rates as sort of targeting where that drop is going to happen and worry about volatility more before that happens than after that happens. Let me also mention, you also see a blue line there. That blue line is where we think your contribution rates would have gone if CalPERS had not implemented their risk mitigation strategy. So you see substantially lower. It's very hard to see with this graph, but you would also see much, much more volatile contribution rates. This graph really does not make that clear, but it is absolutely the case. Much more volatility, particularly for a population that is becoming more and more mature. The slide 15 is a projection of the funded ratio, and what you really see here is a reduction in the funded ratio over the next couple of years because of recent investment return, and then a very slow but gradual and steady increase over time, so the market Only thing that I would be a little worried about is that it will take you, if CalPERS gets that assumed return, it will take a long time for you to get to 100% funded. What you also see here is you get to 100% funded if investment return is particularly good, and you get there much, much later if investment return is poor. So if investment return is poor, definition of poor is by and large low single-digit rate of return. You get to about a 80% funded ratio if investment return is good. You get to a much higher, and the definition of good is by and large, low double-digit rate of return. So that was the miscellaneous plan. If we look at police safety, 21 active employees back in 2002, 18 at June 30, 14, 35 retirees, increasing to 57 retirees. The thing that's most important about police safety is much, much more common for your retirees to be at or close to full career employees. When you hire a police officer, much, much more likely they're going to stay with you. They don't all do, but a large, much larger portion of those 57 are closer to full career. So what that means, particularly when we look at the liability, is your actuarial liability, the value of benefits due to service that's already been rendered, very similar in magnitude to the miscellaneous plan, 31.2, $5.8 million for active employees. So you're sitting right about, oh, somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of your liability, a little bit less than that, rests with your retirees and inactive employees. So you see a very large liability for people who haven't worked here. What that means is your safety plan, your police safety plan is going to be more volatile than your miscellaneous plan because you have more liability, more assets relative to payroll than you do for your miscellaneous plan. Unfunded liability, 7.3. We think, again, that's probably going to go up by a very similar number, $2 to $2.5 million at June 30, 16. So again, we did the same thing. Safety contribution rate, much higher than miscellaneous. You're sitting at about 49% of pay. That's about a million dollars for your contribution. When we project that out into the future, you all have a drop in your rates in the 24, 25 year. You have a base that is really being paid off over that period of time. So what happens is you see your rate rapidly going up to high 60s. But the reason it's high 60s is because you have a component of your rate that is really being paid off. And so your rate then drops to low 50s, if you will. So you get to that high 60, you have a drop in your rate about 16, 17 percentage points, so you get to contribution rates still very high, low 50s, if you will. |
| 01:04:37.89 | Ray Withey | John, thank you. Does this reflect that sharp drop, the payoff of the side fund? Yeah, that's right. And the accumulation of that payoff? |
| 01:04:45.06 | John | Yeah, that's right. And the accumulation of that. That's right. Yeah. That's right. And so you can see the dollar amounts. You're sitting a little over 900,000 in the 15, 16 year, a million in 16, 17, increasing to 1.7 million in that 23, 24 fiscal year, but out in 25, 26, still substantially higher than what your current dollar contributions are,1.4 million. And again, you see the volatility around that could certainly be higher than the 1.7 that we show, could certainly be lower, we think, than the 1.2. Long-term projection, you really see, again, that sort of spike up in your rates, the drop. Your rates will continue to go up, by the way, after they drop, will level off and then sort of begin to come down over time. So you're going to see, I think, a fair amount of volatility. And again, if I was worried about volatility, I really think the volatility is in those early years before your rate drops. |
| 01:06:01.86 | Jill Hoffman | So, John, can you go back? Yep. Sorry, 24. So we're looking at, and this is conservatively you're projecting for out to the year, it looks like 2021. Yes. Or maybe 22, 23. That's 74.2% of. |
| 01:06:03.60 | John | Yep. |
| 01:06:14.67 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 01:06:22.28 | Jill Hoffman | what is gonna be paid for. |
| 01:06:22.89 | John | is gonna be paid for. You mean the, so let's go, I can read this one. |
| 01:06:27.14 | Jill Hoffman | THIS. Just explain what that 72.4% is. |
| 01:06:28.61 | John | So, yeah, what we think is we think of that 74.2 when we did our simulations, our thousand simulations, 75 percent of them resulted in a contribution rate below that. So you would hear me say, notwithstanding council's concern, but you would hear me say, I think there is a 75% chance your rates will actually be below that 74% out there in the 23, 24 fiscal year. So I wouldn't say that's a worst case scenario. I would say that that would be indicative of a poor investment return over the next several years. |
| 01:07:16.48 | Jill Hoffman | I had a question, I guess this is a follow-up question too, because you're using, are you basing that on the 7.5% projected return, or are you giving a range there? |
| 01:07:24.26 | John | Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, we're giving a range. So that green line represents an average return of seven and a half. The solid squares sort of represent that poor investment return, average return in the short run of low single digit rates of return. |
| 01:07:27.38 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 01:07:46.05 | Jill Hoffman | So I was, I'm looking at, maybe I'm confused and it's quite likely, but... On your slide six, investment returns, and you kind of give your graph of percentages, but I'm looking at CalPERS rolling 10-year average investment returns, and it doesn't look like we've hit 7.5% since 2007. |
| 01:08:03.56 | John | Oh, I think that's right. |
| 01:08:04.93 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so we're- |
| 01:08:05.20 | John | I think that's right. We're not doing our projections on that basis. Okay. |
| 01:08:08.88 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so when we talk about projections and what we're, you know, I think it's a folly to say that we're looking at our projections and basing them on 7.5% return because this graph to me is very confusing because it looks like that we've gone up and down since 2000. Well, I know, but if you look at 2000 on your graph right there, 2010 and 2011, it looks like it went way up. But we're still not up to 7.5% in 2008. |
| 01:08:27.05 | Ed Votch | You have. |
| 01:08:34.98 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:08:39.66 | Jill Hoffman | 2012 and 2011. No, let's be clear. |
| 01:08:41.43 | John | No, let's be clear. So let me be clear. The 7.5% assumption is what CalPERS' current assumption is. If you go back to what the assumption was back in the late 90s, early 2000s, it was higher than 7.5%. |
| 01:08:44.31 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not going to be a good one. |
| 01:08:56.99 | Jill Hoffman | This is irrelevant to me. I just care about the actual returns. This shows. |
| 01:09:02.49 | John | This shows the annual actual return. |
| 01:09:05.43 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 01:09:05.88 | John | Thank you. That's what the line with the solid green squares shows the actual return going back to 94 fiscal year. |
| 01:09:18.65 | Linda Pfeiffer | I have a follow-up question to that. So in your prior slides, you were looking at different scenarios for the payment plan. I'm concerned with the unfunded liability. Right now, you had just presented the unfunded liability for miscellaneous the unfunded liability for I think it was police right what was it for fire were you leaving got to that you haven't gotten there yet okay all right I just I'm and we've got 2.5 for miscellaneous 2.5 |
| 01:09:34.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:09:35.01 | Ed Votch | I'm sorry. |
| 01:09:47.09 | Unknown | That's right. |
| 01:09:49.67 | Ed Votch | you |
| 01:09:49.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:09:49.89 | Ed Votch | I got it. |
| 01:09:50.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:09:50.18 | Ed Votch | that. |
| 01:09:53.23 | John | Okay. |
| 01:09:59.83 | Linda Pfeiffer | In addition to police, just to be clear. |
| 01:10:00.86 | John | I think just to be clear, I think what I said was two to two and a half for each of those. Now, again, I can give you something more precise, but that's just kind of off the top of my head. |
| 01:10:02.72 | Linda Pfeiffer | I think what I said. |
| 01:10:12.32 | Linda Pfeiffer | I'm sorry. OK? OK? Fine. |
| 01:10:20.47 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 01:10:21.33 | John | Okay. |
| 01:10:21.56 | Linda Pfeiffer | you Thank you. I have a question, but I'm going to wait until you present the fire. you Okay. |
| 01:10:29.94 | John | So at some point in time, it might be valuable to talk about the 7.5 and why we think it's a reasonable long-term assumption. So let's maybe wait until we've talked about FIRE, and I'd be happy to have that conversation. Um, |
| 01:10:59.87 | John | So slide 27 is FIRE. Of course, what has happened with FIRE is you've gone from 19 employees back in 2002 to no employees at June 30, 14. So you really have all of your liability rests with people who no longer work at the city because you've contracted out. So what you really see is of your 22.4 million, none of it is for active employees because you don't have any active employees. And what that really means is all of it is for people who no longer work at the city. So when you look at your $3.8 million unfunded liability, we think that is all associated with people who are no longer rendering service to the city. So CalPERS will, of course, require that that be paid off. A very rough idea of the impact of that is probably about a $1.7 to $2 million increase in that number at June 30, 2016. Again, we can give you something more precise. That's just a rough number. payment on that unfunded liability to $300,000 in the 16-17 fiscal year and we are, because you have no payroll, there is no of course contribution as a percentage of pay, but you see your dollar payment going from about 300,000 in 1617 to about 769,000 projected in 25,000. 26, if investment return is poor, that number will be higher. If it's good, it will be lower than that. |
| 01:12:58.08 | Linda Pfeiffer | So John, sorry, I was going to write that down. The unfunded liability for fight for fire was the 3.8. Okay, thank you. |
| 01:13:06.79 | John | 3.8 and then add 1.72 to that. |
| 01:13:07.77 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 01:13:17.59 | John | long-term dollar projection. We really are projecting your unfunded liability to begin to approach 100%, but we think it will take more than 30 years for that to happen. |
| 01:13:35.91 | John | So, slide 35 and 36, look at your contribute your normal cost rate for tier one, tier two, and tier three, the two and a half at 55, two at 55, and 2.5 at 67 formula. So the total normal cost for your two and a half at 55 formula, 18.8. Half of that, if you think of that as a a target which is really what PEPRA asks you to do it does not mandate it for tier one and tier two gets to 9.4, current employees are paying 8.1. And then under tier two, your target rate, 8%. Their current employees are paying 7.1. Both of those are slightly above the statutory member contribution. And then safety, similarly 28.5, 28.3, excuse, 28.3, excuse me, is the total normal cost. Half of that would be about 14.2. Members are currently paying 9.6. And then again, for tier two, 25.4 is the total normal cost. Half of that 12.7. Current members are paying 9.6. Both of those represent a six-tenths of a percent rate, greater than the statutory 9% amount. And then you all have set money aside in a, what I think of as an irrevocable supplemental pension trust under Internal Revenue Code Section 115. You all have about $686,000 for a pension component of that. You have $665,000 for your OPEB liability. That's as of March 31. We think that $686,000 could easily be used to mitigate contribution volatility. And so what we've done is set up an example. If the city uses the supplemental pension trust to keep the police safety rates from exceeding a specified contribution rate, so for example, how much of that would you need to use to keep the city's rates from not being higher than 60% of pay? So in other words, setting it at 60% of pay, again, assumes CalPERS earns very modestly below that 7.5% return. The supplemental pension trust earns 5% on average, no other gains and losses. So what we would suggest is something like this, where you set your rate, budgeted rate. And so what you would do is amounts that were in excess of 60, you would pull out of the trust. You would look at a component of that, apply it to your police safety. And so we think if you set aside of your $600,000 plus, we think if you set aside $334,000, CalPERS gets that assumed return. The supplemental trust earns 5%, a more conservative investment mix. Then what we think will happen is the trust will, you'll begin to draw on the trust in the June 30-21 fiscal year. and then we think you will draw on that trust so that you have no money left in the trust at June 30-24. Of course, if investment return is better than expected, that'll last a little bit longer. If it's worse, it'll be used up quicker, but what we would encourage the city to do is to think about your trust in a manner like this, and then every year or two, adjust your projections. So we think what you all have done is absolutely what all refer to as a little ahead of what other folks are doing. I'm kind of a fan of what you've done. And the reason for that is that if you really go back to this graph, it allows you really to limit the budget impact for police safety, just as an example. |
| 01:18:28.14 | Ray Withey | John, I just wanted to make clear, let's make sure I understand it before, that you're just using this as an example. You've set 60% as... Say it again, please. You're using this as an example of how the trust can be in. There's no magic to the 60%. You're just using it as an example. So the real issue is for us in the use of the trust, which we discussed at length last year when you were here. That is right spot on. Is that it's about the management of the volatility that could put pressure on our future budget projections. And 60% of this being an example. That's right. Is that correct? That's correct. |
| 01:18:34.62 | John | Yeah. |
| 01:18:40.76 | John | Say it again, please. of how the trust can be used. That's absolutely correct. |
| 01:18:56.76 | John | That is right spot on. |
| 01:18:58.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:19:04.76 | John | Yeah. |
| 01:19:05.20 | Unknown | to the news. |
| 01:19:08.84 | John | That's right. Is that correct? That's absolutely right. That's really the conversation. You all have gone through the process of setting money aside. I think you ought to come up with a policy of how you use that. And that policy should think about, will you put more money in or not? If so, how will you put it in? And when do you begin to take it out? I think. putting money in without, I think you need to think about when you're gonna use that money. If you put it there and you never use it, then I, you know, but now, you know, you've put it in. That's absolutely a first step, but I think you need to do exactly what you just said. Think about that and maybe direct staff to come back with recommendations. |
| 01:20:03.10 | Unknown | John, but on that, I mean, part of the idea is that we're putting money away, and when CalPERS... |
| 01:20:04.31 | John | Thank you. you |
| 01:20:09.39 | Unknown | you know, falls down or has problems. So we can't necessarily project it. Some of it is somewhat of a rainy day fund, but you seem to be recommending against that and using it because some of us may think, well, you get it up to three or four, five million dollars just to see. And of course, if it ever gets too big, you can always start paying it down. But there's some value. It's like anything else to have more than your projections saved. |
| 01:20:22.97 | Ed Votch | Yeah. |
| 01:20:23.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:20:32.31 | John | Yeah, just to be clear. So I think that's an excellent point. I really think there are two reasons folks begin to put money aside in these trusts. Reason number one is to reduce the unfunded liability and the recognition of the unfunded liability. I think that for me, I think that is a laudable idea. |
| 01:20:32.37 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:20:59.24 | John | but this is a personal bias that I have. I think setting money aside to take care of the unfunded liability without using it to actually pay a portion of your contribution is not what I would do. I don't want to tell you that's wrong, because it's not wrong by any stretch of the imagination. I just think it is, better. because your rates are going to be volatile. I think it is better to set it there, use it for a rainy day fund, but recognize that really part of the rain is going to come from normal growth in your contribution rates. So part of the pain is not just poor investment return. Part of it is because your rates are going to go to very high numbers in a short period of time. |
| 01:21:52.48 | Linda Pfeiffer | of time. So so John just to to jump in and kind of clarify that I guess doing the numbers and adding it all up it looks like our if you look at the adjustments for 2015 and 2016 we're looking at an unfunded pension liability of 22.9 million. And roughly. And I'm looking at in 2005, 2006, our CalPERS payment was roughly $1,068,000. And just five years later, we're at almost $2 million. We're at $1,935,000, right? So that's an $867,000 increase. And in addition, if I look at the projections here, in what I would call a best-case scenario, because I think we're kind of in a deflationary spiral economy right now, a best case where CalPERS gets 7.5% return. In the year 2025, which is really just, in my opinion, around the corner, we're looking at an annual payment of almost $4 million, $3.852. And that's kind of a best case. So, you know, in my opinion, with that 7.5% average return. so yeah yeah, I just wanted to confirm the numbers that I'm documenting here. |
| 01:23:45.35 | John | I'm sorry. I haven't gotten back, but those sound like the right numbers. Okay. I'm wondering if the council would like me to talk about the 7.5% assumption. |
| 01:23:47.68 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thanks. |
| 01:23:57.56 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, but I have a question first. The interest on the trust fund that we set aside, we did that a year ago about. What's the interest rate that we've been earning on that trust fund? |
| 01:24:10.72 | John | So I have not looked at your historical returns. I would guess that your rate of return was modest because all returns have been modest. But I would also guess that it has been better than what CalPERS has earned, but probably not much better. |
| 01:24:32.91 | Jill Hoffman | Well, this is my concern about the... you know, about the trust fund is that, you know, we're putting aside this money at a rate of whatever it is, some modest rate, whatever it is this year that we, I'm sure we can find that out and post that on our website residents can know. But we're getting charged at 7.5% for the unfunded. And let me just go over this because I don't see a summary chart anywhere in your materials. So the total actuarial liability as of June 30, 2014 for Sausalito for our pensions is $84 million. Okay. |
| 01:25:00.94 | Ed Votch | That's right. |
| 01:25:11.08 | Jill Hoffman | But our market value of the assets is $67. The difference is 17.2 million. |
| 01:25:17.29 | John | Yeah, that makes sense. I think that's right. |
| 01:25:18.27 | Jill Hoffman | I think that's right. So the unfunded part. So people ask me what this means, this unfunded means, and that's what that means. The unfunded part is when CalPERS doesn't make their 7.5% interest projection, we get a bill for that. inexplicably, we get a bill for that. The taxpayers are paying for that. And that's growing every year. So every year that we don't make 7.5 percent... |
| 01:25:35.97 | Ed Votch | And that's what I'm saying. |
| 01:25:41.54 | Jill Hoffman | That unfunded liability grows. And even in years, based on what you said today, even in years where we do make 7.5%, That liability continues to grow because of interest on that unfunded liability. You know, the taxpayers are in this ridiculous position of constantly chasing this unfunded pension liability. And what we struggle here in the city council is how do we sort of fumble around and manage with that? One of the one of the things we've done is the. is a trust fund, but the trust fund you know, is providing us with some stability But... But the cost of that is enormous because the trust fund is not making... not making up that percentage difference when we don't hit 7.5 And the interest earned on the trust fund is far below 7.5. So the cost of that trust fund and the money that we put in that trust fund continues to lag. You know, next time, when you come to do the pension liability next time, I would request that you do a summary page for us, so that it's very clear that we see what the, for all the funds, and I appreciate the way that you've broken them out, but I don't see anywhere here that there's a summary page, and it's very confusing for people that aren't an expert in this area, myself included. Isn't anyway, I have a follow up. |
| 01:27:04.23 | John | Thank you. |
| 01:27:04.24 | Linda Pfeiffer | I have a follow-up question. |
| 01:27:06.29 | John | Thank you. |
| 01:27:06.42 | Jill Hoffman | That was my. |
| 01:27:07.05 | John | you |
| 01:27:07.10 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:27:07.11 | John | Thank you. |
| 01:27:07.13 | Jill Hoffman | West. |
| 01:27:07.47 | John | Do you mind if I ask a question? Yeah, of course. I wasn't sure whether you were or were not asking me a question in that, but if you would like me to respond to that, I'd be happy to. |
| 01:27:07.99 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, sure. Thank you. |
| 01:27:10.77 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:27:19.06 | Jill Hoffman | You'd like me to respond to that. Well, the beginning of the question was, how come we don't know the interest that we've earned on this trust fund that we set aside last year? |
| 01:27:30.33 | John | Let's be clear. I mean, that's. Let's be clear. |
| 01:27:30.86 | Jill Hoffman | I mean, that's. |
| 01:27:32.97 | John | Thank you. everybody should understand from that slide six that CalPERS investment return is going to be volatile. You can see the history of it. What you are hearing me say is that if you are going to set money aside to mitigate the volatility, you should not try to mirror the volatility that CalPERS already has. Now, I really want everybody to understand I'm an actuary. I'm not an investment advisor. So please, please don't take this as investment advice. What I will tell you is that if it were up to me, if this was my decision, I would invest that supplemental trust more conservatively because it will mitigate the volatility. And so no question about that. So that's comment number one. So I don't know how your assets are invested. I should have looked at that. I did not. But for me, it's the right thing to invest it more conservatively. What that means is when CalPERS investment return is crummy, you will do a better job of preserving principle. And when it's good, you will earn a lower rate of return than CalPERS. But you're going to have less volatility in those numbers. |
| 01:28:56.72 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, since he's responding to my question, I'm going to respond to that. So I understand that, and I don't argue with that. Okay. But the fact is, and the – |
| 01:29:01.73 | John | Okay. |
| 01:29:05.02 | Jill Hoffman | the result of that is that even though we have the trust fund is not a fix-all. It's just, it's just a, um, you know, it's just a something for us to try to provide some sort of, stability, but we're still falling behind. And the pension debt is still growing, even though we have this trust fund, which is concerning. |
| 01:29:18.16 | John | Yeah. |
| 01:29:24.80 | John | What I would like the council to do is go back and think about the answer, one of the comments that I made earlier. Absolutely want you to remember this because I think this is crucial. the reason your unfunded liability is growing in the short run is because of two bad investment years. No question about that. But your unfunded liability did not come down when years were good. Why? Because the contribution CalPERS was asking you to make was not sufficient. What CalPERS is doing is changing that. So even with a poor investment return, I think you will begin to see your unfunded liability come down. So that's, I absolutely want you to think about that, but you will not see that happen in the short run. You will see it happen very gradually over a long period of time. |
| 01:30:24.13 | Ray Withey | John, I'd like to clarify one thing because the premise of the mayor's question was that, in a sense, you're never going to catch up. But isn't the whole purpose of the actual increased rates that CalPERS is asking for is specifically to actually fund those unfunded liabilities? Yep. |
| 01:30:24.92 | John | like, |
| 01:30:45.51 | John | Yeah. |
| 01:30:45.83 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:30:47.03 | John | That's right spot on. That's absolutely right. |
| 01:30:48.34 | Linda Pfeiffer | So... So, Mayor Hoffman? Yeah. And it's just kind of ironic that I was arguing this very point about two years ago wanting to pay more for that reason and had no support. But my question is that is it a bit ironic that we're hearing all of this justification as to why the 7.5% discount rate that CalPERS is telling us is justified. And yet, when it comes to our own investment for supplement in this irrevocable trust, we're told to basically do what the Stanford study recommended, which is to look at the conservative returns Thank you. |
| 01:31:39.68 | Unknown | Yep. |
| 01:31:40.05 | Linda Pfeiffer | And, I mean, I just, to me, it shows that it's more realistic, especially with taxpayers on the hook, you know, for CalPERS to be looking at that lower rate of return now, and they're not doing it because it would bankrupt, like, the city's. |
| 01:31:42.51 | Unknown | All right. |
| 01:31:51.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:31:59.62 | John | With all due respect, I think if you're saying that my recommendation for 5% in a supplemental trust is consistent with the Stanford study, you're wrong. |
| 01:32:13.85 | Linda Pfeiffer | No, I wasn't saying that. I misunderstood then what you were saying. Okay. What I was saying, we're talking about rate of returns. And the Stanford study said that the 7.5 rate of return by CalPERS is mighty optimistic and that they were saying that CalPERS should use a far lower rate of return in terms of projecting what they would really be earning on their investments. |
| 01:32:15.34 | John | I misunderstood then what you were saying. |
| 01:32:41.61 | John | So I think what the Stanford study said was a little bit different than that, at least the way that I read it. I think what they said was the 7.5 in terms of measuring the obligation is too high because it does not adequately reflect the volatility or the risk associated with that. I respectfully disagree with their study. I would be very happy any time they wanted to have a debate on this because what every, let's talk about the seven and a half because what I hope you haven't heard me say, I'm not trying to justify it, I'm trying to explain why we think it is a reasonable long-term assumption. And so with your permission, I'd like to explain that. |
| 01:33:36.40 | Linda Pfeiffer | That's fine, but before you explain, I do want to clarify that what you just said is basically what I said, which is the Stanford study said the 7.5% rate of return was too optimistic for CalPERS, and that Stanford was saying they should use a lower discount rate. I think it was tied to the Treasury. |
| 01:33:50.86 | John | Thank you. |
| 01:33:54.58 | John | to the Treasury. My recollection of the Stanford study is they're not saying that the investments are not going to earn that. I think what they are saying is you ought to use a lower return to measure the obligation. That's quite those are two different. |
| 01:34:10.24 | Linda Pfeiffer | Well, okay. Well, that's what I meant. I mean, that the discount rate was basically two, it was not the rate that Stanford would use. They would go much lower than that because of the risk to taxpayers. |
| 01:34:12.48 | John | I mean, |
| 01:34:24.55 | John | Thank you. So I am a fan of full disclosure, a big fan. with all due respect to the folks who put that study together. I shouldn't say it quite like this, but if I were a Stanford alum, I would be ashamed of that study. Here's why. The people funding that study are folks who want to get rid of defined benefit plans. So they are coming at it not from an independent point of view. So that's kind of my initial comment. What they were recommending was that public sector plans, from an accounting perspective, disclose information the same way that private sector plans disclose that. So let's talk about what that means. If you are a private sector employer and you have a defined benefit plan, you are required. The accounting standard does not require you to invest it conservatively, but it requires you to measure it on what I will refer to as a settlement basis. What you would have to pay for the obligation if you went out and bought annuities to take care of that. And the reason the accounting standard does that is because there is a certainty that pretty much every private sector employer at some point in time is going to go out of business. So the accountants believe that it is imperative that you tell your shareholders what that risk is. That's why the accounting is required to be that on the private sector side. The accountants, by the way, say something substantially different on the public sector side. What they are saying is it's not very likely, in fact, maybe extremely unlikely that the city of Sausalito will go out of business and you will have to settle your obligation. So they are asking that you determine that liability on an ongoing basis. Now, I happen to believe that the ongoing measurement using a 7.5% discount rate, while maybe not quite as conservative as I would like it to be, I think it is reasonable to use. And here's why I think it's reasonable. The 7.5%, you cannot look at it as 7.5 by itself. It really is the sum of two numbers. Component number one is inflation. Component number two is the real rate of return above inflation. So the inflation that CalPERS uses, which, by the way, impacts their projected actuarial liability because it projects salary increases as well, is 2.75%. So when you pull that out of the 7.5, you get to a real rate of return of 4.75. When you look back historically and you look at equities and you look at bonds, that 4.75 real rate of return above inflation is not high. So if you, just for sake of argument, if inflation were 1 instead of 2.75, quarters, then what CalPERS is really saying is they're going to get five and three quarters rate of return in the long run. So it's all contingent on that inflation return in terms of a long-term projection. So what happens is people look at the seven and a half in a vacuum without pulling out the inflation component if you talk with investment advisors, which is who I will absolutely always defer to. |
| 01:38:36.88 | Linda Pfeiffer | So John, I appreciate Oh, I thought I could jump in, but go ahead. You can. Please do. Yeah. OK, well, first of all, your comment that the Stanford study was done by people who wanted to get rid of defined. |
| 01:38:42.78 | Unknown | No, that's just that. |
| 01:38:43.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:38:44.15 | John | Yeah. |
| 01:38:44.17 | Unknown | THE FAMILY IS NOT ABLE TO |
| 01:38:44.24 | John | Thank you. |
| 01:38:44.25 | Unknown | You can. Please do. |
| 01:38:53.01 | John | What I think I said, and this is absolutely clear, the people who finance that study are organizations that have a history of making it clear they would like to move away from defined benefit to a defined contribution. So what that creates is what I refer to as an independence issue. |
| 01:39:18.80 | Linda Pfeiffer | But John, isn't it correct that the Constitution guarantees a defined benefit to public employees? |
| 01:39:28.50 | John | California Constitution? Yeah, and so, you know, I mean this. What the California, so I'm going to not refer it necessarily to the California Constitution, because I don't think that's. Or the federal. Let me finish. There is a California Supreme Court ruling that says for your current employees, the benefit that they were offered when they're hired, they're allowed to continue. That's substantially different than saying what you would offer to new hires. And so all I'm telling you is the folks who financed that study. |
| 01:39:29.83 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah, and so, you know, I mean, this. |
| 01:39:39.94 | Linda Pfeiffer | Or the federal, with the federal. |
| 01:40:09.66 | John | had a bias and the people who put together the study came up with a support of that bias so i would be very happy to have that conversation with the stanford folks but i look at that as anyone would and that is that there is and what i refer to as an independence issue so the money supporting that is |
| 01:40:32.32 | Ed Votch | So I'm just... |
| 01:40:34.89 | John | is creates a issue relative to the independence of the people who are generating that. So we're looking at increase in |
| 01:40:44.77 | Linda Pfeiffer | So we're looking at increase in annual... |
| 01:40:49.11 | Jill Hoffman | and, Thank you. |
| 01:40:50.11 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:40:50.34 | Jill Hoffman | Last question. |
| 01:40:51.03 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:40:51.19 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:40:51.42 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay. So, I mean, Sacramento, Stockton, Vallejo, you know, Pacific Grove, we're seeing, you know, cities throughout California grappling with bankruptcy because of these pensions. And there was a Marin County and City Special Task Force that I contributed to about three years ago, and the conclusion was that the pension system was unsustainable, as it is. And when you look at all the bankruptcies, I have to concur. And when I look at the fact that we're a small town of 7,200 with a $22 million unfunded pension liability, with the kind of, you know, increases in annual payments of up to 400% from 2005 to 2025, it gives me great concern. So I guess I thank you for your opinion and your explanation, but yeah, I still- We're still in the question period, so- |
| 01:41:53.30 | Unknown | We're still in the question period, so we're really far into comments, so I'd appreciate it. All right. I'm going to go way back as it's taken, but back to the mayor's comments, and if I take you out of context, it's really my question. She mentioned we have an irrevocable trust in somewhat less than a million dollars and invested conservatively, And yet there's a spread between what we owe CalPERS, and why wouldn't we just take that money and just pay it down? I think there's implicit in here, because it's important to understand the distinction, and I guess the question is, why would we put in an irrevocable trust where we make a very small percentage now versus paying off our liability |
| 01:41:54.97 | Unknown | We're really far away. |
| 01:41:55.72 | Linda Pfeiffer | All right. |
| 01:41:55.73 | Unknown | to comment. So I'd appreciate it. |
| 01:41:56.97 | Linda Pfeiffer | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:41:57.05 | Linda Pfeiffer | All right. |
| 01:41:57.98 | Unknown | WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO |
| 01:42:31.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:37.01 | Ed Votch | Thank you. |
| 01:42:37.03 | John | Thank you. |
| 01:42:41.03 | John | helpers. I'll tell you why I would do it. I would leave it up to you as to whether or not that's really what you want to do. I can tell you what I would do. And the reason has everything to do with the question of sustainability. So for me, sustainability is not with all due respect to the order of magnitude of your unfunded liability, because what you're hearing me say is that CalPERS is now moving in the direction of giving you contributions that will pay that down. I hope you've heard me say that more than once. And so what I would do if I were you is look at where those contribution rates are going to go and come up with a business decision as to whether or not I could afford it. Because in point of fact, if I could afford it, you don't need a supplemental trust. But if I were worried about the volatility, if I were worried that the investment return at CalPERS might be worse than I was projecting, that's the reason to set that money aside. So when you look at this particular graph, what you're hearing me say is your rates for police safety are going to drop. And so what I would want is something that would tide me over until those rates drop. And so for me, I would look at the Supplemental Pension Trust as a way to do that. And what you're hearing me say is, I think you have, if we go back to this, I don't know whether 60% is the right rate to set here. Could be 55, it could be 65. But as an example, if you came to the conclusion that from a budget standpoint, 60 was all you could afford, and you do the same thing relative to miscellaneous, what you do is you say, okay, if the rates get above 60, we're gonna begin to pull money out, and that will tide us over to the point when the rates drop. So that's, for me, The reason to not do it is because, number one, I, meaning the council, has control over how that money is used. I am a little worried about the investment volatility of the CalPERS investment return and monies in your supplemental trust. Absolutely, you should not expect it's going to earn less, but you should absolutely also expect it will be substantially less volatile. So I think the odds are it will be there to mitigate those rates. So if you gave me power, I can kind of tell you probably wouldn't do that. But if you did, you would hear me say, I think this absolutely hits on the issue that I'm hearing the council is worried about, which is, gee, maybe that seven and a half, maybe the rate of return is not going to be there. And if it's not going to be there, I think you are better off having control over that money and having control over how you use it than you are if you give it to CalPERS. So that's my two cents. |
| 01:46:05.97 | Unknown | That's worth a follow up on that. But just I understand that. And but let's if you assume, let's say we decided, you know, we're going to do very well. And, you know, we're yeah. And we're going to be able to cover all these. We have other cushions and such. Would it would it be a better economic decision to pay pay it off to CalPERS now and and get that spread? Or you're saying it's better to have it your revocable trust mainly as something to smooth out these fluctuations. I'm going |
| 01:46:14.56 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:46:32.30 | John | I'm going to so apologize for this answer before I even say it. There is one other issue that the irrevocable trust helps you with, and that is, heaven forbid, you get to the point where you have assets greater than your actuarial liability. So you get to a point where you are more than 100% funded. the crazy part when that happens, you can't use that difference to pay your contribution rate down. Your rate, based on the law, does not allow CalPERS to charge you less than the normal cost rate. We believe, we also think you ought to confirm this with counsel to make sure that counsel counsel agrees with me but we think because you have flexibility you would actually be able to use that money in the supplemental trust and get a little more bang for your buck with it now having said that that's a very it's a scenario that you don't have to worry about for several years. But the more you give to CalPERS, the sooner that happens. And I will just tell you I'm a little, I am worried about that. I'm probably one of two people in the state that's worried about that, but I am worried about that. And so that's another reason in my mind to put the money aside. I will also tell you, you should plan on using it. You should not just put it there and park it there. Because if you did that, you absolutely will end up with a higher unfunded liability than if you gave it to CalPERS in the long run. So I think you should use it. I think you should use it based on when you think your rates are higher than what you can afford. If you think you can afford those higher rates, I probably wouldn't park money in a supplemental pension trust. |
| 01:48:30.79 | Jill Hoffman | So, John, I'm going to follow up just on the total numbers for unfunded liability that we're at as of 2016 today. So it looks like from 2015, if we missed it by 5%, and I'm just using 6 million, that we have another 3.35 million in unfunded liability added to the 17. and in 2016 we missed by about 7 percentage points so that, and again I'm going to use 3.35 million in unfunded liability added to the 17 and in 2016 we missed by about seven percentage points so that and again i'm going to use the 2014 number 67 million so we have another 4.69 million which brings us now in 2016 today of about 25 million in unfunded pension debt does that sound about right |
| 01:48:52.70 | Ed Votch | and |
| 01:49:14.03 | John | Yeah, I think my guess is a little bit lower than that, but I think that's certainly within shouting distance. |
| 01:49:19.77 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Okay, thanks. If anybody, if you have a final question, let's ask it and then let's move on to comments unless anybody has an objection to that. Yeah, I actually do. Have you got through your presentation? I have. Oh, yeah. That's a good question. Thank you. Yes, Councilman Theodore's excellent question. |
| 01:49:33.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:49:33.91 | Linda Pfeiffer | Bye. |
| 01:49:33.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:49:33.94 | Linda Pfeiffer | Oh, yeah. THE END OF THE END OF THE THE END OF |
| 01:49:35.75 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:49:36.07 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:49:36.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:49:36.15 | Linda Pfeiffer | in Europe. question. |
| 01:49:39.02 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:49:39.05 | Linda Pfeiffer | Well, I have a question related to Sausalito's budget, and I'm regarding the percentage spent on pensions and salaries. It was a question that Mayor Hoffman had sent, and Melanie, you had responded with, and would this be the good time to ask that question? Should I wait till the budget session? Should I ask it now because we're talking about Pensions? I think we're talking about Pensions. Anybody have an objection to that? |
| 01:50:11.64 | Charles Melton | because we're talking about pensions. I think we're talking about pensions. Anybody have an objection to that? I'm happy to respond. I just want to put in a caveat real quick, as those numbers, especially for the budget and the outlying years, are still in discussion. They're going to move between now and next week. |
| 01:50:15.93 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:50:17.63 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay. |
| 01:50:17.95 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:50:19.49 | Linda Pfeiffer | Bye. |
| 01:50:19.60 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 01:50:24.78 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay. So when I looked at this email, and just for the viewers, the question was, what percentage of the budget were we spending on pensions? And so you responded with an email that included pensions and OPEB, which is other post-employment benefits like medical and also the Salaries so total compensate. Oh, no, you didn't include OPEB, right? You just had total compensation So salaries and pensions. Is that correct? Correct. Okay, so um |
| 01:51:03.55 | Charles Melton | Correct. |
| 01:51:08.47 | Linda Pfeiffer | I guess when I looked at that though, The, were you, when I look at this percentage of the budget, was that the percentage of the, I guess what I'm looking at is we've got this budget with a lot of money coming in, and I think it totals like $39 million, right? And so, but of that $39 million, a lot of that is spoken for, right? Correct. We've got, cop funds those are for the parks we can't use you know um i don't know the sewer bonds we can't those are for sewers we can't use tide fundal money we can't use the etc you get the picture so what I'm curious about is what we're left with in terms of the available money that is unspoken for, that's left over, and what percentage of that remaining money, and you don't have to answer that now, but perhaps when we cover the budget, you can come back to it. I'm interested in understanding what percentage of that is eaten up by specifically pensions. And the other question would be the salaries would be a separate one. So thank you. That will be there for next week. |
| 01:52:41.34 | Charles Melton | That'll be there for next week. |
| 01:52:42.60 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 01:52:43.41 | Jill Hoffman | Since we're talking about that, I posed an email question. The total compensation, it might be good if we post this information as well with this section on the city website. With regard to 2015-16, if you add up salaries, CalPERS employer contribution, CalPERS employer contribution, UAAL, which includes Medicare workers' compensation, unemployment, the cafeteria plan, which is what the cafeteria plan is. |
| 01:53:17.50 | Charles Melton | The UAAL is that unfunded accrued liability. Okay. That's what we pay regardless of the number of employees that we have on staff at any given time. |
| 01:53:25.65 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. And then the cafeteria plan is? Health care. |
| 01:53:28.84 | Charles Melton | and all insurances. |
| 01:53:30.32 | Jill Hoffman | And then other benefits are? |
| 01:53:31.96 | Charles Melton | Medicare, that's where the Medicare workers comp unemployment. |
| 01:53:33.30 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, that's the other one. Oh, sorry. Okay. All right. So then when I added this up, or when you look over here at your percentages of the budget for 2015-16, 17.5% was for salaries. And I added up all the other ones, and it was 13.4% for all those other four categories. Okay. And if you look at 2016-17, on your graph, 24.2% of of that number goes to salaries and the rest of that is 17.9%, meaning the other employer contributions for pensions health care benefits, et cetera. And the final one was 2017-18. the percentage of that number, 52% total of the budget was going toward employees. Of that, 28% was for salaries. and 23.9% were for pensions and other healthcare costs. Is that... |
| 01:54:34.35 | Charles Melton | Is that there's two factors at play here that I need to break out. And I think Council Member Pfeiffer has given me a great opportunity to provide you additional information that will make this clearer. This is all in. So when you see this drastic increase in the percentage, you're seeing the drastic drop off. |
| 01:54:35.63 | Jill Hoffman | How does it play? |
| 01:54:51.63 | Charles Melton | and that the capital projects are all funded in the first year. they're reflected in the first year budget. So as I can equalize that out for you, it'll make it clearer and we'll look at it as strictly percentage of operating budget and that'll make it much easier When you have large capital investment going on, it distorts it. So you have the capital activity, which increases your total budget, and fluctuates drastically. And then you also have the actual activity related to the pension system and to employees. So I will break those both out for next week's meeting. |
| 01:55:24.30 | Unknown | While we're on this topic then, even though I think we're off topic, |
| 01:55:25.02 | Charles Melton | on this. |
| 01:55:25.36 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:55:29.02 | Ray Withey | uh, Melanie, in sort of percentage of total budget is a meaningless number to me. So, you know, salaries as a percentage of total budget is a meaningless number, right? What's meaningful in my view is what is the total benefits, what is the total percentage of salaries that total salary and benefits are equal to and to show that number properly it should be excluding the previous the paying for the right retirees that should be a separate line item because what I think the mayor is getting to is to make the case next week that our labor costs are too high and again that's |
| 01:55:41.81 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:56:15.92 | Ray Withey | probably where we're going so let's make sure it's broken out so that we fully understand what our labor costs are. |
| 01:56:21.32 | Charles Melton | This is misleading because total compensation implies active employees with the UAAL in there, which is traditionally how it's been reported. historically how most systems report as a percentage of payroll, it's actually distorted because you have to pay that whether you have zero employees. |
| 01:56:38.60 | Unknown | So I'd like to see those numbers without that distortion, if you would, next week. Thanks. |
| 01:56:42.82 | Jill Hoffman | You're right, but I think you still have to include it in there. I mean, you have to include the pension debt. in that you can break it out however you want to further down, but the total number's still got to be there. |
| 01:56:52.77 | Charles Melton | I mean, it has to be included in the budget no matter what. |
| 01:56:55.90 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 01:56:56.37 | Charles Melton | Thank you. |
| 01:56:56.39 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay. All right, so do we have any other questions for Melanie before we move on to comments on pensions? Okay. Okay, thank you, Melanie. Thank you for that. That was a late-breaking request. Thank you, John. Okay, yeah, comments. Oh, public comments, sorry. Public comment on pensions. No one? Come on. All right. Okay, anybody want to kick us off? Thank you. |
| 01:57:25.68 | Unknown | Yeah, go ahead. I'm just going to use mine. Actually, can I use mine as a question to John again? Is what we've gone through everything and we appreciate you coming back year after year. This is a problem that we've had recognized for a number of years now and we tried different things |
| 01:57:30.54 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:57:40.24 | Unknown | What would you say, what else can we do other than, or what would you recommend we do other than what we're doing now to address both our unfunded liability and future pension costs? |
| 01:57:51.84 | John | I would absolutely when I got to the end of the fiscal year if if you had any budget surplus in a good year you might What I would do is I would have a council resolution That would say a portion of that not all of it probably but a portion of it should be set aside to pay down the unfunded liability you could I Depending upon what you wanted to do, you could say, well, okay, we're going to take that, pay it directly to CalPERS, or we're going to take it and put it in the supplemental trust. So that's one thing I would do is absolutely look at one-time surplus. So that would certainly be a very positive thing. On the other hand, though, I might do, we have clients who look at that surplus and say a third of it should go to one-time projects, a third of it should go back to building up city reserves, a third of it go to pay down the unfunded liability, something like that. So that's probably, I think, the single biggest thing. You may actually already be doing this, and I may not know about it, but I would do something like that. |
| 01:59:11.57 | Ray Withey | Actually, sort of not quite a comment, but a follow-on to Councilmember Theodorus's question. Perhaps this is for Melanie or Adam or someone. Did we not last year discuss a recommended contribution amount? I'm using the word incorrectly. Supplemental addition to the trust fund on an annual basis. Did we project something or not? |
| 01:59:40.72 | Adam Politzer | That's what we discussed, and I was actually looking at the staff reports from last year, and that's what was written in the staff reports. Now, when we finished the budget, I don't know if, in fact, we made those contributions, but we can go back and look at that and confirm. But that may be intent. |
| 01:59:54.08 | Ray Withey | Okay. Confirmed. But that was the intent. We could look that up and talk about that as well. Sorry, Jim. |
| 01:59:59.95 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:59:59.99 | Unknown | No. |
| 02:00:00.07 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Was that your comment? That was, no, that was, |
| 02:00:02.97 | Unknown | question. |
| 02:00:03.61 | Jill Hoffman | All right. Okay, now I'm trying to move us into comments. Are you guys done with your question? Oh, thank you, Tom. |
| 02:00:03.66 | Unknown | All right. |
| 02:00:09.98 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. comments? I have nothing. Comment? Thank you. |
| 02:00:15.22 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah, I have something to say. Yeah, so like I said, I contributed to the MCCMC, Marin County and Cities Pension Reform Task Force about, I guess it was about three years ago now. And the finding from that pension reform task force was that the current pension system is not sustainable. No one was saying that defined benefit plans should go away. It was more about, you know, there's a problem when a public administrative official can retire at 55 with a six-digit pension and all medical paid for the rest of their lives, in which that can be longer than the time that they worked even. It's very hard to... And then there are a lot of people who get Cal persponsions that are very reasonable and are not these big fat cat pensions but the problem is the fat cat pensions that that's what's bankrupting the system a lot of California cities are going under with that and I when I look at how small Sausalito is and the fact that we're looking at a roughly $22 million unfunded pension liability, the fact that we're looking at an annual pension payment that's going to climb by 400% by 2025, you know, up to like 4 million a year, that's just unsustainable. So I'm very concerned about that. I remember a time when the discount rate of return with CalPERS was 7.75. And I remember at that time arguing that that was really unreasonably high. And at that time, there was all sorts of explanation about why 7.75 was fine. And then suddenly CalPERS dropped it to 7.5. And suddenly now I'm hearing all of this justification about why 7.5 is fine. I still think it's way too high. I think it's artificially set that way so that because anything less would be sticker shock to cities and all the cities would go under. Why? Because the higher annual payment would bankrupt a lot of cities. So, you know, when I look at this and I look at the rate of return and I look at the current economy all I can say is it's my fiduciary duty to make a promise to the public employees who work for Sausalito that we are going to honor our promises one of the ways I need to do that is fully understand that if I go into agreements that are really, really high and unreasonable with employee raises, that that is really going to hurt our ability to pay them in the future because we are looking at higher pensions, higher OPEB, and so forth. So in 2015, these high salaries were passed. I was very concerned about it I'm still looking forward to an actuarial assessment on the impact of those salaries going forward. Thank you |
| 02:03:51.85 | Ray Withey | I will keep my comments very brief. Let's not misunderstand. The pension liability issues are serious, and we've been saying that for quite a bit of time. I believe that nearly all of the issues that need to be resolved about the future increasing the sustainability of the pension programs need action at the state level. And to try and do something individually as a city would inject way too much risk that would be far greater than the risk that's actually embedded in the actual pension costs of the future. So the state made a significant progress in 2013 in getting a new regime in place. CalPERS has made attempts, and I think John and I can, might have slightly different views on the, how effective their attempts have been, but I think their attempts have been to figure out regimes, so to pay down the liabilities. And that's in place. |
| 02:04:30.32 | Unknown | the risk. |
| 02:05:04.43 | Ray Withey | The question is, can we put strategies in place to mitigate the volatility? Last year, I asked John a specific question, which was, isn't the volatility the major risk factor here? At least last year, he sort of nodded and said, yes, that is, and he's saying yes now. So the real issue is, in terms of conservative expectations of future amounts that we would have to pay, in our long-term financial plan, can we afford it? If we can, we've got big trouble. If we can, then we're trying to find out ways to, again, smooth it out, make it less volatile so that it can guarantee to be incorporated into our long-range forecast. So my view is pressure still on in terms of working on this is primarily a state issue to work on with local jurisdiction support. And meanwhile, we'll do those things that are necessary to actually try and protect our future. And with regards to the cities have gone bankrupt, yes, some cities have gone bankrupt. And let's not forget, let's not be naive in thinking the reason they've gone bankrupt is a tactical maneuver in their labor negotiation contracts. |
| 02:06:21.04 | Jill Hoffman | So... Mm-mm. With regard to the comment from the vice mayor that I'm going to be looking at this for our labor costs coming up in our budget, he's absolutely right. And so one of the things we have to get a handle on and that our residents need to understand is the unfunded pension liability – and the way it's just going to keep growing. And so that part of it, we're having an extremely hard time getting a handle on, which is what all the actuarials about But the other side of it is what can we do as a city going forward to efficiently and fearlessly look at ways that we can cut our pension liability and labor costs going forward because we, The more raises we give the more employees we hire it's only going to add additionally to this labor cost This unfunded pension liability and our pension liabilities as a whole and that's why I insist that when we had when we talk about these costs as Melanie did tonight You have to add everything in there. You have to add the pension liability in there. You have to add the unfunded pension liability, the pension liability for employees that are retired. That's part of our operating budget, and it's just going to be keep getting to be a bigger portion of our percentage of our operating budget. And the fact that it that the fact that it goes from 31 percent to 51 percent from the proposed budget in 2017-18, It gives me no comfort that this is because of the capital improvements that we're doing. It means that it's 50%. And it's rising. 50% of our operating budget is for personnel costs. That, to me, is a red flag and an indicator that we need to do something different and fearlessly, like I said, look at this and how we're operating going forward. You know, as I said, I want Sausalito to be the most efficient, the smartest, the best operated town. in California, and I see no reason why we can't be, but we have to be, make some tough choices going forward in the next few months. So. I think that's it for comments. |
| 02:08:24.16 | Linda Pfeiffer | I have a rebuttal, Mayor Hoffman. Thank you. That was really well put. I did want to say, just for the record, I remember back in 2012 or 2011, the then Saucedo City Council said that, oh, we can't do anything. Our hands are tied. It's all about the state. We've got to wait until Sacramento does something. Well, then what happened in 2012? Governor Brown came forward with his 12-point pension plan, and he said, please, cities, please support this. And I wanted to support it, and I brought it up here. It was hard to even get it on the agenda. And then when it came before the agenda, the council said, well, now we need to pick this apart. We need to, you know, some of this applies. We need to localize this. So I guess one of my concerns is that as leaders and looking at this unsustainable pension plan, we can't decide it's going to be a Sacramento problem and then when Sacramento takes leadership, suddenly decide, well, no, we have to localize this. You know, we need to take a stand and move forward. Every time the Marin County grand jury said implement COIN, take a pioneering approach, pursue what we can. I drove to Sacramento to support Governor Brown. I was there when he called the current pension situation a Ponzi scheme. |
| 02:09:49.24 | Jill Hoffman | I think the timer. Okay. I'm sorry. I was waiting for the timer to go off. By the way, I have released an important word up here. Okay. Okay. I think we're done with comments. |
| 02:09:51.79 | Linda Pfeiffer | I'm sorry, I was waiting for the timer to go off. |
| 02:09:54.26 | Unknown | by the way. |
| 02:09:54.66 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 02:09:54.68 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:09:54.69 | Linda Pfeiffer | Bye. |
| 02:09:54.74 | Unknown | you |
| 02:09:54.91 | Linda Pfeiffer | It should be 32nd. |
| 02:09:57.02 | Unknown | up here. |
| 02:10:01.04 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 02:10:01.44 | Unknown | going to have the last say. |
| 02:10:01.80 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. I think we're finished with this item on the agenda. We're gonna take a five minute break and then we'll come back and we're gonna talk about budget development process. |
| 02:10:17.90 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, we're resuming our meeting and we're rocketing to item 6B, budget development process. |
| 02:10:27.04 | Charles Melton | Thank you, Melanie Purcell, Administrative Services Director. I have a very, very brief report. Main event is next week. next Tuesday at the council special meeting. on the budget. Just wanted to give you an update real quick. The Finance Committee held another meeting just discussing the capital projects. A lot of input was received from citizens who were in attendance with requests to prioritize beautification and public safety, specifically noting those areas. Projects were reviewed to determine status, timeline, funding, looking at a six-year budget as well as a six-year plan, so making a distinction between a plan or program in which you have operating at impacts analysis brief descriptions as well as a six-year plan. So making a distinction between a plan or program in which you have operating at impacts analysis, brief descriptions, as well as more of a cash flow presentation of funding, and then budget, which would actually have appropriation style budgeting. So feedback was received, and additional information from the finance committee that will all be included in your packets for next week. the path forward. Finance Committee meets tomorrow to review the full budget operating detail Department video presentations will be online by this weekend, and those include just brief presentations by each department on the status of the strategic plan goals and highlights of their budget. Presentation to the council for the complete budget, like I said, main event, May 24th at 7 p.m. public meeting for The initial review, any clarification of items will be at the first June meeting. And then the adoption should be pretty straightforward at the second meeting. On July 1st, we celebrate. |
| 02:12:03.52 | Jill Hoffman | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:12:07.59 | Jill Hoffman | So, okay, excellent work. So tomorrow the Finance Committee meeting, we're meeting at 1 o'clock? Correct. Okay, and that's an open meeting, Branagh meeting. Every public is welcome to come. And I also point out that on the notes, the Finance Committee meeting notes for April 26th and May 5th are attached to tonight's agenda. item 4e in on the consent calendar and if you scroll through there there are notes and charts for some of the issues, a little bit that we touched on today with regard to... Um, salaries and benefits and things like that. So for those interested, and really delving into the budget. um, you're welcome to go and look at that item on the Consent calendar and join us tomorrow at the Finance Committee meeting. Any public comment on Melanie's? Oh, sorry. Yeah, oh sorry, questions, sorry, questions. Sorry, John. Yes, yes you may. |
| 02:13:10.73 | Unknown | Thank you, Melanie. The video presentations, are they gonna have their department budgets? You said highlight, I mean, but are we gonna be able to, |
| 02:13:19.94 | Charles Melton | There's two pieces. |
| 02:13:20.38 | Unknown | Some part of with with their budgets themselves, we can look at it line by line as well. |
| 02:13:23.59 | Charles Melton | They actually will be presenting slideshows for you in the actual video, and then the slideshows themselves, the PowerPoint slides, will be online as well. |
| 02:13:34.02 | Unknown | include the their budgets for each department this specific all the numbers okay |
| 02:13:36.41 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 02:13:36.47 | Charles Melton | Right. |
| 02:13:36.53 | Adam Politzer | And staffing. Okay. |
| 02:13:38.24 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:13:39.62 | Adam Politzer | Not necessarily. So when we give budget presentations, As you remember, last year, Charlie did it, or two years ago, Charlie did it. the. Public Works is a slideshow of the highlights. It's really the. the main topic items. It's not the line by line item like you see in the notes of every single capital project where every maintenance contract It's again the high level discussion what the action next Thursday will be to then when you have specific questions on line items, questions that are in the attachments. today on the Capitol client items. This is the opportunity to ask those questions. Just for clarification, But the deep dive will be next. Thank you. next Tuesday. What we are eliminating next Tuesday is each one of the departments getting up there, which we Did traditionally. three, four, or five years ago, we would have all these presentations and then the administrative services director, would go through these details. It's meant to streamline next next Tuesday for just the deep dive information. but to give the public an opportunity to kind of still hear those presentations from each of the department heads. |
| 02:14:57.79 | Unknown | No, I understand that, but what I'd like to do when I review the videos is have the source material, the exact budget for that. And is there a way that we can be, so when community development gives their presentation, they're not going to go line by line, but I'd like to have their budget, their portion of the budget to be able to review as well, or anything that's relevant to it. |
| 02:15:16.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:15:16.89 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 02:15:16.91 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:15:17.04 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. So if we're successful tomorrow at the Finance Committee, then in less than 24 hours, Melanie will make the changes, and then this will be part of the packet that goes out to the Council on Thursday night or Friday morning, depending on how much information has to be changed. |
| 02:15:26.98 | Ed Votch | and then, |
| 02:15:39.30 | Adam Politzer | And so you would be able then to listen to the presentation and then go to the staff report and the attached material and go through each of the department's budget. but it may not correlate with what they're saying. It may not, they may not be getting into that level of detail. |
| 02:15:54.84 | Jill Hoffman | OK. Any other questions? Any public comment? |
| 02:15:59.82 | Unknown | Yeah, I didn't know we're going quick. This is great. I do have another question. Okay. So and you guys are on the Finance Committee and you get to get a little more right I do on the staff report it says so there are no new projects being proposed some are being restructured and retimed is that correct? But that means no new capital improvement projects. So now there's quite a few |
| 02:16:03.04 | Jill Hoffman | This is great. Thank you. |
| 02:16:21.00 | Charles Melton | No, there's quite a few that are already established and have been ongoing in conversation. So it's nothing clear or completely new. It's things that have already come before the council in various forms over the last few years. |
| 02:16:23.95 | Unknown | Thank you. No. |
| 02:16:27.04 | Ed Votch | Thank you. |
| 02:16:33.38 | Charles Melton | That's reference. Now, there are some definitely restructurings, retiming, things like that, and we'll go into those details. But we really emphasized making sure that we caught everything up from the last plan in the last year to make sure that we had the full array. |
| 02:16:49.01 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:16:50.88 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah, so I guess I would like clarity at some point, not tonight, but a revisit of the city civic center beautification. I'm seeing $65,000 and then $55,000 and then $100,000 for fiscal year 2017-18, another $100,000 for 2018-19, another $100 another hundred thousand for I just like to I Know we had a presentation, but I I don't recall you know how that was broken into phases and what that it's changed Yeah, it has changed okay, so I'd be interested in and in that and and |
| 02:17:25.21 | Charles Melton | It's changed a lot. |
| 02:17:33.98 | Linda Pfeiffer | The other thing, because, yeah. I guess the other question, I had seen somewhere 4.7 million contribution. Was that the COP? |
| 02:17:53.86 | Charles Melton | That was the original budgeted amount back last June. when you adopt the budget into the capital improvement fund, general capital improvement fund from the COPs. That was all changed in the amended budget when we came back to you in March. |
| 02:18:03.93 | Linda Pfeiffer | in the amenities. |
| 02:18:07.78 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay, alright. Yes, so yeah, go ahead. |
| 02:18:13.66 | Unknown | Yeah. I do have another question. I mean, following on our budget pension discussion is the Finance Committee and or staff going to come with a proposal to look at any budget surplus. Hopefully we have some I don't know that there will be but an application tie there are irrevocable trust or to unfunded liabilities. Is that being considered at this stage? |
| 02:18:29.16 | Charles Melton | You're right. |
| 02:18:35.02 | Charles Melton | We'll be bringing information to the Finance Committee to talk about it. I think the preference would be to have a more structured fund balance policy discussion later on in the summer, early fall, so that you can really focus on the policy implications rather than trying to jam it into the middle of the budget discussion. I'm not sure. it's not going to be a major player in this particular budget. but definitely would prefer to have a fully vetted policy. |
| 02:19:03.66 | Linda Pfeiffer | And, oh, go ahead. And just to reiterate, too, can we get a breakdown on, you're going to give us a breakdown on the funds that are dedicated to specific uses that we have no flexibility in terms of, you know, it has to go for, you know, certain expenditure. And then also I'm interested in the measure of sales tax funding that, you know, we're clear in terms of how we are budgeting for that specifically. Okay. |
| 02:19:42.60 | Unknown | Can we, I think we discussed before that we can send staff questions, all these specific questions offline and, and, and we're free to, and I think we're encouraged to, to, to send any of these specific questions and, and staff would bring them to us and we would discuss, discuss them when we discuss the full budget. |
| 02:19:53.25 | Ed Votch | Thank you. |
| 02:19:53.39 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 02:20:02.08 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah, I I'm I'm fine with that. It's it's just that these are not these are not questions that I'm expecting Also an answer, you know to tonight It's just and I what the reason I'm asking is just to get clarity because I've had residents, you know asked me this and So if there's some reason we can't get a Clarity on the measure of sales tax Breakdown I just like to get that on the record. That's all |
| 02:20:31.76 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, any other questions? |
| 02:20:32.55 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. Mayor Hoffman, I'd like to respond back to Councilmember Theodore's question about the irrevocable trust and if we're looking at any surplus. I think that just to make sure that the tone is on the same page here, we're continuing to aggressively fund capital projects. And one of the things that we know significantly changed in the middle of last year was ADA. So between ADA projects continuing to aggressively fund streets and other capital projects, that's still the emphasis. The other emphasis that we have continued to look at and evaluate, and I think the numbers have moved forward and it was in the notes of the last budget discussion that we had with police, was looking at some of the crime prevention tools, like license plate readers and body cameras, one-time funding, one-time cost. expenses. And so similar to what John Bartel just said, if we had a policy that said, You had. a surplus. A third goes to one-time funding capital, whatever you want it to be. But right now, because of how aggressive we've been with capital projects, this last year, and then the combination of the lawsuit with ADA. we're not anticipating having a surplus. So if you wanted to change directions from that position that we've had for eight years to aggressively go after capital and get our streets fixed and deal with all the other important infrastructure projects, you know, well then you could do that. But I think as Melanie and the Finance Committee has talked about briefly, in the outer years, we should have some very healthy years and that those policies will then be very effective. |
| 02:22:36.09 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. Do we have any public comments? See no one approaching. City Council discussion. |
| 02:22:45.29 | Unknown | I'll have at it next week. |
| 02:22:47.03 | Jill Hoffman | Next time. Yeah, right. |
| 02:22:50.67 | Ray Withey | Yeah, let me just give you a perspective. You know, the budget process has been a bit different this year. We've had a lot less meetings, which is thankful. And it's a finance committee. And I haven't seen the rolled-up budget yet. So we are going to see probably the first draft of that tomorrow. And what I'm expecting, I don't know if by May 24th, but I'm hoping by May 24th. in the first draft of the rolled-up budget, or one quick go- Finance Committee before it's presented to Council is also going to be, I'm hoping, a listing and a quantification of the issues that are up for discussion that that really need to be decided upon, and that we are going to have to vote on here. So we're going to see the budget three times. We're going to see May 24th, and we're going to see it twice in June, if I'm right. I'm right. Yeah. And so, you know, during those times, we're going to have to say, no, we're not funding that. Yes, we are funding that. And that's what we're going to be facing in the |
| 02:24:00.92 | Jill Hoffman | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:24:05.57 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Anyone else? |
| 02:24:07.15 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah, so my comment is that, you know, I think it's important for the council to feel free to really do a deep dive with some of these line items. Specifically, I know I've had taken exception to this Turney Street Gangway for multiple reasons, as well as one of the things that I think should be a very high priority is the lighted crosswalks downtown. And I guess one of the questions I've had is that we allocate money towards these projects, and yet we've only got so so many staff and so they don't get done and um so what good is it to be allocating money towards it and just rolling that balance forward if you know i mean if if we can't get this done in that fiscal year then just let council know I guess my, and I don't know if there's some way we can get clarity on workloads. I know at some point that this, you know, unexpected things pop up and projects take longer, and I completely understand that. But I, I mean, I look at, for example, the lighted pedestrian crosswalk as something that could save lives. And I know of people who have been seriously injured downtown with speeding cyclists going through the crosswalks. There's no, you know, light there. And yet it never happens. So this is something that I think is a high priority for me. and so that's what I'm going to be looking at at the budget too is looking at the things that I have argued that should be a very a high priority for me. And so that's what I'm going to be looking at at the budget too, is looking at the things that I have argued that should be a very high priority on the list, and also looking at the costs of the pensions and salaries with respect to the general fund. And then of course the measure O sales fund, sales tax revenue. |
| 02:26:12.70 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks. So the what we've tried to do on the finance committee this year is to make it more transparent to the community, invite people to come in. post things. and have more of a preview to the city other city council members about what we're looking at and how the budget is going to go so hopefully it'll go a little bit smoother and a little bit more efficiently maybe than it has in the past i would expect robust discussion amongst the council members as always so anyway thank you melanie and that concludes this section of our agenda and we're moving on now to item. On to item 6C, our chief has a presentation, I believe. |
| 02:27:22.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:27:37.36 | John Robacher | Good evening, everybody. My name is John Robacher. I'm your chief of police. I'm going to talk about the management plan update, but before I do that, I want to introduce a few people who are here in the audience. First is Dr. Ed Votch, your chairperson of your pedestrian bike advisory committee. Tom Riley, who's also on that same committee, but also serves as the chairperson for the Sausalito Plus nonprofit. and Jeff and Helena Sears are here. They own Blazing Saddles. Carolyn Horgan is here, and she owns Blue and Gold Ferry. Just to make sure everybody knows everybody else. and Last but not least, Lieutenant Stacy Gregory. She's my second in command on all things related to parking. And this kind of falls under that. So she backs me up if I need it. All right, so that being said, And by the way, I want to point out that they're all here because they care. We may not all have the same idea on every given day. And you hear a little bit about that coming up. But I found that working with all of them, they're here and they're involved because they care. So, that being said... Why are we here? So just a quick background on this. just for the history, I was here in March, and presented the congestion management plan to you at that time. and it was also the first reading of the amendment to the municipal code city ordinance 1232. We made some changes in that. And there was a second reading in March, and then one month later that became law. That was a basically actually an improvement in the section that allowed us to impound in place improperly parked bikes and then charge a $25 release fee. It also amended the hours of the downtown bike enforcement sections from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. That was intended to give the local residents an opportunity to use all the areas of downtown without any fear of having their bikes locked in place. So I have a few other slides, but I don't really want to get into them yet. I'd really like to sort of start with a THE FAMILY IS A head on of why are we really here? and why this meeting tonight. And it's because there's a lot going on And we're not settled yet. And I'd hope that by now we would be settled in place with our plan that we talked about back in March. And a lot of the same players are here in the room. but, an agreement about how we're gonna proceed is really not in place yet. And so as a result, This is just another snapshot. I would like that tonight would have been All the agreements are in place moving forward and we'll come back with a report later. but we're not ready so we're gonna have another report hopefully at the end of this some recommending that you ask us to come back in a month and provide an update on where we are So I think it's important to just describe what we're doing downtown about the bikes. So there's really two pieces to it, but they're certainly interrelated. The first is getting people you know, down into the downtown from their trip down Alexander and getting them into the parking area safely and then have them pay for parking in the parking corral. and SoftSuitel Plus does that for us. They did that last year under a pilot program. They did a really nice job. and you the Council approved that happening again this year. that part is set okay in that the parking fee is set at $3. We had some thought, it was my suggestion that and I'm not ready to give up on it yet, but we had a thought that we would be able to offer parking at a discount of $2 with the support of the bike rental companies, so that more people would be inclined to park in the corral and less people would park illegally. Now that being said, it's just some math involved that probably there'd be less money coming in if we were charging $2 instead of $3, that's a third less. But on the other hand, there was a lot of people that parked illegally last year. And that's my concern, that's my number one concern is the illegally parked bikes and the safety around that congestion. So the thought is that if people parked, the ones that parked illegally, were willing to park for $2, we'd make up some of that loss of the a $2 to $3 discount. We've not implemented that yet. The machines are set at $3, and Saucyut Plus is collecting that at the moment. The second half of this is the cueing of the bicycles and the riders to get back on the ferries to get back to San Francisco. And that's the part where we are at an unfinished state. At this point, is for review last year and the year before the Chamber of Commerce agreed to act as the pass through for money collected from the bicycle rental companies and Blue and Gold Ferry to pay for the workers who cued the riders onto the ferries. This year, the chamber was asked if they could not be involved in that. So, Oswego Plus offered to do that same work. for the Ferry District, because the Ferry District has the responsibility for the queuing of the bicycle riders onto the boats. |
| 02:33:28.13 | John Robacher | where the unfinished business is related to how much money is being charged for parking, the $3 parking, and the possible $2.00 discount fee. without some supplemental money. the chances are we wouldn't come close enough that we would like to be sure of to, break even on the cost of parking the bikes. So several alternatives were offered One includes, of course, the free boarding passes, a queuing pass at a $2 rate, a queuing pass at a $5 rate, and the funds from those had... not necessarily earmarked by anybody, but they had certainly some intent about what they could be used for. We looked at the $5 boarding pass for instant queuing. not the right words, but close enough, as a way to help bridge that financial gap between the money lost by offering the discount for parking which would hope to lead to less congestion management. So you can see there's a lot of moving pieces here in this and a lot of people involved moving around all those moving pieces. at this particular moment, I can take that back. A couple weeks back, Saucedo Plus, who was starting to run the queuing using some funds collected by the chamber last year and were left over for this year, started that process. Thank you. But as those funds were running out, an alternative method of cueing the riders came up from the ferry district Blue and Gold and the bicycle rental companies that did not involve any more monetary contributions, but involved contribution of their service. And I think attached to your package tonight is a late letter that arrived from Jim Swindler from Golden Gate, very describing what steps they took a few weeks ago to start the process of adding more boats, four more boats on the weekend days, and blue and gold adding more as needed. the addition of a captain's mate, on the vessel itself to take care of the deckhands and the boarding of the bicycles. and then two more people on the actual ferry dock itself. plus the line working on the little finger pier all the way to the edge where the boats come in, which would hold more people. and reduce the congestion on our sidewalks, and then and collecting tickets early and doing some pre-boarding work, some things that were suggested last year. At the moment, that's what's being done. and the workers in the queue line are being provided by the bike rental companies. So that's where we are. and it just started really in the last few weeks. I'd really like to take a look at it for a longer period of time before saying that's meeting our needs, not ready to put. Our police department blessing on it just yet. IT'S A NEW idea. AND It seems to be working pretty well for the first couple of weekends on a weekend in A few Saturdays ago they boarded 1,200 bikes and the line was very short, if at all, and they did a nice job with it. But it needs a little bit more time. I'd like to see it when it's not just the Saturday and Sunday, but when there's more people here throughout the week, even though I think the weekends are typically our busiest time. So that's where that stands. And I'm sure you might have questions for me. I could go through the rest of my slides real quick first, if you don't mind. |
| 02:37:25.44 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 02:37:30.57 | John Robacher | So this is just some of the summaries that come out of your staff report saying that you know, the The management program is already in place. and |
| 02:37:38.77 | Ed Votch | Thank you. |
| 02:37:39.67 | John Robacher | You approved the closure of Tracy Wade, so we took care of that. And Saucyutu Plus and Ambassador Program are managing that. and providing a lot of assistance to our visitors. users are able to bring their bike in the parking corral, It's safe. They pay three bucks. and We have some discounts available for groups and also if there's young kids in the crowd, they don't pay at all. residents of course either parts going fine too This year we collected our first money on March 31st was kind of a big deal to us. We really were aiming for earlier in the year Last year it wasn't until mid to late June that we were able to collect our first money. which was much later than we wanted this year. We really wanted to get a better start. just a point that I'm glad it was March 31st rather than April 1st so we could say we collected money in March. So that's already in place and DepVotts provided some detail on bike counts and some of the revenue that's coming in already. Some of that is here. and they're counting a particular time of day every day for a six hour block, and that's the number, 3,525 bikes, a little bit more than last year, 1%. And, uh, |
| 02:39:15.99 | John Robacher | Of those, this is how many tickets were sold, and in the month of April alone, we took in over $22,000 in revenues. and there's been very little illegal bike parking but I'm not gonna say there's been none because that can't be true. But there's been a lot less than there was last year, but we also haven't reached our peak season time yet. But I'm going to take a little victory while we get one. And it's been a lot less. I wish it was zero, but that's actually not the case. So, Leader, this is what I would like. I would like you just to receive and file the report. and tell me to come back in a month and give you an update. But I'm not going to get off that easy. I'm sure you have questions. But I put that up just to be optimistic. And I have backup. So if I can't answer your question, hopefully somebody else here can. So go ahead. |
| 02:40:06.82 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay, thank you. I don't know if this is a question for you or Ed Fotch with the Bicycle Pedestrian Committee, but there was a time when doing things with the sidewalk and putting, I mean, I saw a huge plastic red banner that says Saucel Plus staked in the ground. There was no one around it. and I mean, there was a time that there was some sort of review, and I've seen things drawn on sidewalks, like no bikes. There was a time when we had design review in terms of what happened to the town, in terms of things like that. And I was just wondering, have those changes in the ambiance of Sausalito, have they gone through any kind of design review? Did the Planning Commission vet them before they were implemented? |
| 02:41:16.41 | John Robacher | I actually don't know and maybe Adam can bill me out and throw a lifeline |
| 02:41:22.18 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, no, those are temporary signs, so those and most signage, directional signs, aren't required to go to the Planning Commission. But when it's temporary, they don't go at all. |
| 02:41:32.31 | Linda Pfeiffer | But when it's temporary. Temporary, well, you know, I'll reserve my comment for the comment period. I have a couple more questions, but I'll let the rest of the folks ask questions before I jump in. |
| 02:41:47.65 | Unknown | Yes, it's good to hear that the illegal bicycle parking is down. And I take it. Can you opine on what might be the reason why it's down? Is it just early in the season or are there signs or what would you say? |
| 02:41:48.88 | Linda Pfeiffer | I'm not sure. |
| 02:42:02.97 | John Robacher | Thank you. Well, I think we just can't discount good luck. And so that's a factor we're happy to take. The other is is that the ambassadors are doing a pretty awesome job of intercepting the bicyclists as they come into town, providing them information up to the point of when they see them look like they're going to put their bike in front of something they shouldn't. If they see them there as politely as they can, saying, hey, that's actually not really where you should park. move on down to the bike corral, and, But that actually triggered some other reaction which I can explain later. I don't know how much it helps, but I personally kind of like it, is the crew from Saus Vito Plus came up with the idea of having a... Thank you. a bicycle that they actually put against something, put the, the impound chain around it, the cable, And then they hang a sign on it saying impounded. I look at that, that's kind of like the head on the stake right there in front of the fort saying, don't come this way. I'm hoping that has some effect. I always get sort of a chuckle out of seeing that every time I see it put out. I think it sends the message that we want to send. It'd be nice to have more than one, but at some point it takes a lot of effort. But that's what it's gonna look like when we start cabling up bikes. And so far we haven't had to. And they've parked a lot of bikes. you know, up to 600 and some bikes on some of the busy days. So a lot of bikes are coming into the corral. So I think it's a combination of things, but I have to say, we're gonna get busier. And we'll really be tested at that point. |
| 02:43:44.94 | Adam Politzer | John, sorry, Councilmember Theodore. John, can you also... |
| 02:43:45.23 | John Robacher | target. |
| 02:43:48.86 | Adam Politzer | comment on what the bike companies have done in terms of information and specifically the app. |
| 02:43:52.50 | John Robacher | Yes. Yes, and so, in our meetings in the spring, trying to come up with ideas, and we've met many times with all these good folks here about things that we can do, and I met with the bike companies and rental companies and asked them, please, we really need their cooperation to help with their customers having a good time in Sausalito. We want them to be safe and also enjoy their time here and not parked their bikes illegally and so the information companies like Blazing Saddles and the others are putting out in their brochures have, you know, directions in them about where to park up to including what Blazing Saddles did was they created an app for the smartphone. that has you know a lot of directions and and even a was about how to get into sauce lego in even a particular little window that when you tap on the the routes into saucy to say that parking is available near the fairies for a small fee And so I think a combination of all those efforts are helping reduce that as well. Thank you. |
| 02:45:09.33 | Unknown | a follow on then seeing that we're doing well with the illegal parking. Why do we need to reduce our $3 fee to $2 fee to encourage that? We don't do that on parking and saying, if you don't park illegally, we're going to give you a discount on your your parking lot fee. So why would we need to do that when we're We're implementing ways to enforce illegal parking and it's good communications. Great. I think it's great that we have informing the bike companies are informing their passengers. So they they get told and and I don't understand why we have a discount we |
| 02:45:41.04 | John Robacher | We are, you know, we brought it up as an idea to consider to help with the congestion management. And We haven't implemented it yet. It's not necessary yet. Some of the things that we had in mind, we really weren't going to probably put in place until June. That could be one of them. But because you granted us, specifically me, the authority to make decisions on the fly, and of course I do that in consultation with Adam about setting the price point which you gave to him to do, Last year, than We're holding that as something that could help us. there isn't really a final answer. The one part I like about having that flexibility is if it's not working this weekend or next weekend, then we're not doing it the following weekends. Or if we don't need it, we're not doing it yet. There sure were a lot of people that parked where they shouldn't last year. And it's a little early in the season. we would like them to park in the parking crowd. And so if we can, entice them to do that and it costs a little bit less. Again, we'd have to pay a lot of attention to the numbers of that because we're giving up a dollar per bike, but on the other hand, we're going to be collecting $2 more per person that parked illegally last year. but we don't have hard numbers on how many did each. And so we don't know that. So it's not our... you know go to right this minute but I'd like to really hang on to that I haven't given up on the fact that you know, it could be a really good thing for us. Because at the end of the day, I'm really, I know the numbers matter and the money matters and all that, but I really have to focus on what I think is the safety and the congestion management issues. And if that gets people into the bike corral, then that's a good thing. But again, I'm not, you know, saying I'm not paying attention to what that costs and the revenue and the expenses and such. |
| 02:47:41.19 | Jill Hoffman | Chief, can you remind us, what were the contribution numbers, dollar numbers last year from outside sources to help us manage the bike congestion downtown. |
| 02:47:52.31 | John Robacher | So... |
| 02:47:52.40 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:47:52.52 | John Robacher | Well, last year when I was talking to, and Depvotch would have the exact numbers, and she's not here, but Una, When I talked to her last year preparing information for this year, She told me to use and said that the number of $60,000 was a safe number to use for the cash contributions from the bike rental companies and Blue and Gold Ferry. But she knows, you know, Una passed all that on to DepVauch. |
| 02:48:15.01 | Ed Votch | Thank you. |
| 02:48:15.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:48:15.16 | Ed Votch | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:48:19.97 | John Robacher | by which company and how much and all that. I actually don't know that detail. |
| 02:48:26.55 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. And we haven't received that this year. We have not. |
| 02:48:28.97 | John Robacher | We have not. |
| 02:48:29.41 | Jill Hoffman | you We have not received that this year. Okay. And this is a question for the bike and ped committee. I understand there was a resolution passed last night. Can one of you or somebody speak to that about what that resolution was? Go ahead. |
| 02:48:54.63 | Unknown | Do you have your own thumb? Do I want to off my slide? |
| 02:48:57.18 | Ed Votch | Don't even hit this. |
| 02:48:57.99 | Unknown | Do you need it? We had two things I have on there if you want. |
| 02:49:04.99 | Ed Votch | I'll just fly without Annette. Ed Foch, Chairman, Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee. So specifically to answer your question, Mayor Hoffman, last night we passed a resolution that said that the Pedestrian and Bicycle Committee feels strongly that the 2,000 square feet of city waterfront that's used exclusively for the purposes of hewing bikes for the ferry, not for the use |
| 02:49:06.41 | Unknown | All right. |
| 02:49:34.05 | Ed Votch | of parking and revenue generation and not for the use of the enjoyment of members of the city public. should be compensated at least by the ferry vendors. who use the property, essentially year round, and that further that they should be responsible for the financial impact of managing the thousands, tens of thousands, actually now hundreds of thousands of bicyclists that will be using that property on an exclusive basis this year and the parallel that I would point out is that three years ago, actually just over that, Tracy Way was closed for the exclusive use of bike parking. The city lost revenue from car parking but now generates this year between $200,000 and $250,000 for bike parking. So they're compensated for the use of that space. the 2,000 square feet of actual waterfront property in the city of Sausalito that you would never think as a city council lease to anyone is now used exclusively for the ferry vendors. And you could argue for the bike vendors, but they're there for the ferry. And for the city to get no compensation for that space, And to further have to take on the responsibility of the bike queuing in that space, seems completely unfair and frankly irrational. And I'll make a sub point. which is, It's one thing for, there's an old saying, There's saying and there's doing. FOR SEVERAL YEARS, And the ferry companies and the bike vendors collaborated. to manage the bike queue. It's worked so well you had to create a pedestrian and bike committee who spend MONDAY NIGHT EVERY MONTH MANAGING the thing that they apparently succeeded in solving. And when they don't manage the cue, because they can't figure out how to keep it. 3,000 people who are waiting for ferries on an average day, sometimes 4,000 to 5,000, when they can't manage that, it spills out onto our sidewalks, onto our parks, and onto our streets. And so now we have the, The ambassador is handling that, and then we have this very specific issue of the bike queuing, And the thought that we would turn that over to the people who failed in the first place to me, is incomprehensible. So I'll back up and say the resolution was very specific that the city should be compensated for the fair market value of the space that is used exclusively for fairy bike. parking and queuing. And that in addition to that, they should be compensating the city the cost of managing that queue, not just in the space of those 2,000 square feet, but elsewhere out into the community. and I I sent that to you today and will be sending that. It was a unanimous vote, so happy to discuss that, but that was Pardon for going on, but that's sort of the little bit of the color associated with it. |
| 02:52:52.76 | Jill Hoffman | Can you tell us or explain a little bit about You know, the bike, the bike queuing system that Saucelio plus I recall presented to us I think it was at the early May or the meeting where you guys presented your plan to us and we said, great, That sounds good. And part of it was parking and the other part was the bike queuing plan. just to refresh kind of what we approved from the city council perspective. |
| 02:53:22.35 | Ed Votch | So, |
| 02:53:22.41 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:53:23.57 | Ed Votch | Thank you. Just to widen the lens slightly. This year, based on the plan that we approved last year, the pedestrian and bike committee, there'll be 50 to 55 ambassadors trained. Hopefully we'll get a deluge of volunteers to further support that to help us put up 12 ambassadors a day starting on the north end of town going through the downtown. |
| 02:53:51.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:53:53.22 | Ed Votch | Say it again. I'm sorry, through the south end of town going to the downtown. Thank you. Some of those are really just dedicated to efficiently parking bikes on Tracy Way. Others are dedicated to trying to keep bike visitors from parking and cabling to parking meters, trees, slow-moving pedestrians, and anything else that they'll park their bikes to. Others are on the south end of town. kind of identifying the fact you're coming into town There's folks here. this isn't the wild, wild west, all those sort of moving pieces. And then very specifically last year, there was consensus I think broad consensus. that the ambassadors could do a better job of managing the bike queue in the 2000 square feet that is sort of highlighted there. in light blue. because they had Management. training. Insurance. scheduling. I mean, it was... kind of being run like a proper thing and not sort of a, Someone gives something and then the chamber, and just to be fair to the what was there before. We started from nothing three years ago. we'd be having a different conversation. It was three years ago when we were sort of, but we are now, I think, at the point where we sort of say, gee, we ought to have something that's, you know, pretty buttoned up. And the plan we provided was, that the ambassadors would take on the responsibility of the ferry queuing, THE FAMILY IS And, order of magnitude. 3,000 people a day during the hot summer months are trying to get out, and there's only capacity for about 1,500. So the supply demand mismatch is staggering. which is why there's such a mess in the downtown. There's various answers to that, but one of them is don't have a thousand people queuing on the streets and the sidewalk. And so one of the things the ambassador PROGRAM. not. the ferry district not the bike banders not The Chamber came up with is a program where people got a queuing number, could go enjoy town and wouldn't have to stand on the sidewalk that stretched line stretched up to Spinnaker. That's what we proposed. That's what you approve. There were fees associated with that. That was a first proposal. in October, then again approved in November. was pretty much the plan The Finance Committee looked at a plan based on the Fees associated with that and the costs associated with that And then roughly 10 days to two weeks ago, As I understand, there was in essence a coup d'etat in which, Some combination of the ferry vendors and the bike vendors said, Don't worry about it. We'll handle it. I don't think it was in those words. But in essence, as I understand from Deb, because I happen to be downstairs, and just to be clear, I've resigned from the Solicelito Plus board and Tom's resigning from the pedestrian bike committee because we need a little distance here. So let me just speak on behalf of the pedestrian bike committee. The plan we PROPOSE THAT YOU APPROVE UNILATERALLY, the ferry and bike companies decided wasn't the right plan. So they... called. This is Jim Swindler called Deb and essentially said, Stand down. we're taking over. and She said, boy, I didn't know too much about that. And I just tonight read... This piece that's in your packet that I guess came from the Golden Gate Ferry District I have to say that the plan seems to me don't worry the bike companies are going to staff the queuing line Really? I mean, so the people who are creating the problem are now, that didn't solve it for the last three years are now going to take over. I've just got a bunch of questions about that. Who's training them? who's insuring them, Who's managing them? Who's scheduling them? I'm really not looking for extra work. But the reason I volunteer my time on this is to fix a problem. not to read. watch the problem over and over again. So I have to say that I find this a stunningly depressing turn of events. And just one more point for you Consider this year there'll be 500,000 tourist bikes, order of magnitude, that come into Saucelid. And we didn't have accounting. in medical school. but I'm pretty sure the ferries are making $10 a head. on each of those 500,000, that's $5 million. That's $5 million that didn't exist 10 years ago. The bike rental companies, I think on average, are making $30 per head. that it would be $15 million, but just let's sandbag it down to $12 million. What they have offered in the past is essentially $50,000 for 500,000 bikes. That's 10 cents. PER BIKE. to manage these people in Sausalito. That's a really thin budget. So I mention that in that context because Saucelido Plus just in valet parking will make five times what the ferry vendors and the bike vendors combined were contributing and thought was solving the problem, which was solved so well that I have to spend every third Monday night with my colleagues. wrestling with these challenges. So I think that Handing this back. to the folks who I think three years ago, great, thanks for stepping up, is a three year step backwards And our suggestion not only is the resolution Thank you. to be adequately compensated for the space that the ferry companies certainly are usurping from the city and be compensated for managing the control but, for gosh sakes, let's not move backwards and hand it Back to the people who, frankly, I'll just say this one last thing, and this is not meant to be pejorative. All the people who come up with these plans and say, don't worry, we're taking it over, I don't see him on Saturday, and I don't see him on Sunday. These are Monday morning report quarterbacks who say, oh boy, it sounded like it was pretty damn tough in Saucelito this weekend. And you know, right, it was and they weren't here. And we are. Thanks. |
| 03:00:39.64 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. I had a follow-up question for, not for you, Dr. Fosh, but for Mary, and this is about Jim Swinerton's, I'm sorry, Swindler. My apologies, Jim, if you're watching. About his memo that he sent, he noted that there's four additional trips between two and 645 on Saturday and Sundays, and that blue and gold is providing extra trips, I understand blue and gold is here so I might I might ask her about that as well. But with regard to our lease, Aren't we, isn't the city supposed to be consulted when additional trips are added to that ferry landing? I could be wrong, but I just saw this, so I would have looked it up myself. |
| 03:01:25.25 | Mary Wagner | Um, Mayor Hoffman, I believe that it's the change of vessel, but not the scheduling. I can look at that for you. I don't have the lease in front of me right now. Okay, thanks. My recollection is that it's the vessel, not the schedule, and that it's, |
| 03:01:35.98 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thanks. |
| 03:01:42.29 | Mary Wagner | that the city does not have input on the actual scheduling. |
| 03:01:46.66 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, you might be right. It seems to me, though, that's an important thing that we want to look at if we're looking at four. I mean, I'm not... saying this necessarily a negative way because I went the congestion down in that area. This is what this is all about. But, you know, if we're having four additional trips and we're having additional trips just from the Golden Gate and we're also having additional trips from Blue and Gold, I mean, that's that's a very there's a very big policy issue that we want to look at as as a city. So Okay, does any of the council members have any questions from the chief or anybody so far? |
| 03:02:24.53 | Linda Pfeiffer | I have a question. A couple questions. Yeah, I'm fine with additional trips if it reduces the congestion. It was a good question, though, about the lease. So my question, I guess, Ed, I can't comment on the draft resolution because it wasn't in the staff report of the material. So I'm just seeing it, you know, off the top of my head. I guess I have issues with, I mean, right now, Sauce Little Plus, as a private nonprofit, is generating income off Tracy Way, a public asset, and now it's extending to the waterfront, 2,000 square feet. It's, from what I understand, you're proposing. So we're looking at additional city public assets. So I just have some questions that I need to kind of mull over before I can ask intelligent questions on this. But I guess one of the things you mentioned is that Tom has taken over Sauceludo Plus. And so was Tom on the pedestrian and bicycle committee? No. |
| 03:03:31.64 | Unknown | But... |
| 03:03:40.94 | Ed Votch | He will be until next month. |
| 03:03:43.22 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay, so he was on the pedestrian. How many people on the pedestrian and bicycle committee are also affiliated with Saucedo Plus? |
| 03:03:51.77 | Ed Votch | The three founding members were Patricia Pigman, Tom, and me. So let me, first of all, I'm not aware that there's a difference between a public and a private not-for-profit. You're either not-for-profit or you're not not-for-profit. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mary. Secondly, let me answer your previous question. |
| 03:04:08.26 | Linda Pfeiffer | I'm sorry, I was referring to the public asset, which is the road, you know, generating income for, you know, SoftSoodle Plus, which is a non-profit. |
| 03:04:22.20 | Ed Votch | No, actually my revenue for the city and the city comp and the city pays comp for their expenses and right distinction. I was trying to make is saying a private not for profit is that was just |
| 03:04:22.22 | Linda Pfeiffer | No, actually, it generates revenue. and the city pays their expenses and the |
| 03:04:36.48 | Linda Pfeiffer | That was just me stumbling over my words. |
| 03:04:38.25 | Ed Votch | Thank you. So let me answer the previous question that you had. There's now a banner on the south end of town that says Sawzudo Plus Bike Information, which is not on city property, and which went through the National Park Service review process. And so it's there during hours of operation of sauce. |
| 03:04:57.37 | Linda Pfeiffer | I'm not real. Okay, so that's NPS land. Okay. |
| 03:05:00.02 | Ed Votch | Okay, so that's... Yeah, it's a NPS permit. But just to be clear, Thank you. The purpose of that is to let people know that unlike some a short number of years ago, it's not the wild, wild west here. There are actually people on the streets monitoring where you park, where you ride, and giving information. I mean, it's not meant to be a police state. So that's the purpose. The second question that you posed was about bike decals which the Pedestrian and Bike Committee suggested strongly, The reason for that is that if you ever spend any time watching a bicycle, especially one of the visitors, they're not looking at the street signs, of which we have a plethora in this town. They're looking at the ground in front of them. And I would argue that the dramatic reduction in bike riding on the sidewalk is a direct result of the decals that now say no bike riding on the sidewalk. And I would further say, because I know quite a number of them on the south end of town, The seniors on the south end of town are thrilled to see those decals. No one wants decals on anything, and certainly no one wants any more signs, but they're damn sure they don't want any more bikes on the sidewalk. But if you have other ideas of how to reduce the number of bikes in the sidewalk, we are way open to listening to those ideas. |
| 03:06:24.06 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah, I yeah, I live across the street from from that and I'm sure you appreciate it with it Well, I still I still see the bikes and I the sidewalk my question had to do with design review With respect to you know before those things were were put in but you've answered the question you've said that the the |
| 03:06:27.48 | Ed Votch | Well, then I'm sure you appreciate the decals. Thank you. |
| 03:06:43.44 | Linda Pfeiffer | Banner is actually on NPS land. and that the bike decals on the sidewalks were Evidently just not subject to design review. I mean, I respectfully feel like there there there should have been some review on that |
| 03:06:59.63 | Ed Votch | I would say that would be a public works issue because frankly we have no budget and frankly no authority except to recommend things to you folks. |
| 03:07:08.98 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, other questions before we move on to public comment? |
| 03:07:12.54 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah, I'm sorry, Ed, I do have one more question. It was my understanding when you proposed the express service that, I mean, I didn't recall at that time that proposal being coupled with a discount in bike parking. So now I'm hearing that, I mean am I just is my memory foggy? Was that presented in conjunction with reducing the three dollar to two dollars? |
| 03:07:46.02 | Ed Votch | No, your memory is exactly correct. There was no quid pro quo, and there was no suggested connection between those two, and frankly, the $2 discount was not part of the pedestrian and bike committee recommendation. |
| 03:08:04.36 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay, thank you. |
| 03:08:06.74 | Mary Wagner | about it. Madam Mayor, with respect, may I with respect to your earlier question on the scheduling, the lease actually provides that the district expressly has the right to determine the schedule as well as any other use by any vessels without seeking approval from the city. |
| 03:08:06.76 | Linda Pfeiffer | about him. With respect to your earlier question on |
| 03:08:10.67 | Ed Votch | Thank you. |
| 03:08:11.21 | Linda Pfeiffer | Uh-huh. |
| 03:08:20.63 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. So, I have one for the one last question about the queue, maybe. So the bike queue. So the thought was that Sausalio Plus was going to take over the bike queue that had previously been. run or managed by the ferry companies, but it wasn't working particularly well. Nobody really wanted to do it this year, and so Sausalito Plus said, It works better if we take it off. We take it over and manage it. And then the thing about, and Ed or Tom, you can answer this, the THE DEMOCRATS ARE The fees for the queue were are meant to help the bike bike riders self-regulate themselves on what ferry they take. So if they have a priority, I mean, I think that's what the whole idea for the queuing and the fees for the queuing. If I have that right or wrong. |
| 03:09:14.51 | Ed Votch | So if you grant me a little bit of latitude here, three years ago, there was no There was some management of the bike queuing line, but it was mainly tell people where to stand. And the line regularly during the warm weather months, not just Saturday and Sunday, Monday through Friday, in the warm weather months, extended up Tracy Way, around the corner, and up Harbor a long ways toward Spinnaker. There were two problems with that. Number one, citizens of SOS, they don't have the use of the sidewalk when they're jammed with bikes and folks. And number two, our guests, the bike visitors stand in line for hours at a time. Oftentimes the ferry come and take fewer bikes than their capacity, as was the case, frankly, last Thursday when I was there, when they took 50 bikes, when their capacity is 150, because they're running behind schedule. That's not unusual. That is duriguer for them, because they have to stay on schedule, and there's no one helping manage the bikes, and we've talked about this quite a bit. |
| 03:10:22.38 | Jeff Sears | That's right. |
| 03:10:34.30 | Ed Votch | Sausalito Plus last year suggested a queuing program where instead of people having to stand in line, they give a queuing number and they can come and get into the queue when their number was called. Prior to that, there was a system for saying, you can get on the 320 ferry or the 440 ferry. That was extremely complicated for a lot of reasons. I won't go into it, but it didn't work particularly well. I'm not sure. In order to have a system where you give people a number that says you're in boarding group three or five or seven or nine like Southwest Airlines, You have to have. Cueing passes, you have to manage that, and you have to have some kind of a system that lets people know when their number's been called without them standing there. Because if they have to stand there, you've accomplished nothing. AND SO THERE WERE video cameras and QR codes and substantial expenses to running such a program. And we weren't sure if it was going to work, but it actually worked pretty damn well. So the theory was, well, it's working well. It is a service to bike visitors. It's not free to provide, so we should be charging some reasonable amount for the service that we're providing. The default is huge lines parks full sidewalks full Horrible experience for the bike. visitors, lousy experience for the folks in town. So it was less about even the fair market value of the service and more about underwriting the cost of not just managing the 250 people in the queue, but managing the 500 to 1,000 people who are behind the queue in various parts of Sausalito, with a piece of paper saying I'm in group number 29. They're only calling group 14, so I should just have another drink. and wait for my number to be called. the bike committees reason to suggest that the city should be charging for this very valuable service that we were providing and had proven was effective in calendar year 2015. |
| 03:12:44.25 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thanks. Okay, any other questions in line of mind? Nope. All right. We're going to move on to public comment. Is there, yes? |
| 03:12:56.42 | Tom Riley | Hello, my name is Tom Riley, 60 Atwood Avenue, chairman of Sausalito Plus, the nonprofit operating the ambassador program, basically as a contract to the city. And one more month as a member of the pedestrian and bicycle committee. The, first off, the Ambassador Program is off to a great start. We're two months in. We submitted a budget based on our experiences last year to of what it would take to operate the Ambassador Program. and what we expect the revenues from the valley parking to be. Our expenses are right on target after two months, slightly favorable. And our revenues are actually the revenues that the city has generated through valet parking are right on target, slightly below budget, but the two combined that were right on target. They give me good confidence. We learned a lot last year. about what it takes to operate the Ambassador Program. Now our recommendations for this year were to add additional ambassadors. We have ambassadors at the south end of town where we want to greet visitors to our town, tell them about the rules in town, tell them that there's parking available, not to ride on the sidewalks. We at the big turn at Alexandron to second, we like to stage someone to avoid accidents and reduce the number of fire trucks that go to that intersection. At Richardson and Bridgeway, we have ambassadors to keep the bicyclists off the sidewalks and also remind them about bike parking. At the downtown area, we like ambassadors to protect pedestrians crossing the sidewalks and to stop bicyclists from locking their bikes illegally. And then of course we run the queuing program. And this year we also recommended operating the the queuing area, not the corral, but the queuing area as well. All of that based on our experience is how we need to address the bicycles coming into our town to improve the life for all of our residents, to improve the experience, and to improve safety. The Ambassador Program is not here to reduce bicycles, it's to deal with the bicycles coming into town. Now a lot of our focus is to get them on the ferries quicker and get them out of town. faster. Our recommendation says that this is about a $284,000 expense for the full year to staff these ambassadors. Most of these ambassadors are part-time employees. Many of them are volunteers. We try to get as many volunteers as possible, but that's our projection. |
| 03:15:41.71 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:15:41.84 | Tom Riley | the Our projection for the $3 valet which is funds that go to the city. is projected at about $234,000 of revenue. And therefore, we have recommended alternative ways to generate additional funding. Thank you. And the additional funding came in the suggestion of priority boarding, priority queuing fees. We believe, you know, if we don't do those, we'd like to see additional funding from the ferries or to cover these additional costs, because these are costs the cities are bearing. The Ambassador Program is a nonprofit. Those. Those of us that are operating it are doing it just for the benefit of our city. We'd like to see additional revenues come in so that we can run an effective Ambassador Program to deal with the volume of bicycles. Thank you. |
| 03:16:38.74 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Any other public comment? |
| 03:16:46.69 | Carolyn Horgan | Hi, my name is Carolyn Horgan. I'm the president of Bloom-Gold Fleet. I just wanted to clarify something. |
| 03:16:51.99 | Unknown | I'm sorry, you're the president of? Blue and Gold Fleet, San Francisco. |
| 03:16:53.88 | Carolyn Horgan | THE END OF Thank you. Francisco |
| 03:16:55.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:16:56.02 | Carolyn Horgan | And I just want to clarify something. We were, the bike companies and Blue and Gold, we're all on board. to give Sausalito Plus the same amount of money that we contributed last year to the chamber to hire people to manage the dock. But what we didn't agree with was the $5 fee. And I have, I mean, I'm not a great public speaker, so I've written some things down. And I'd like to read them so I can explain to you what our position is and some ideas we have that we think might be. better. to solve the problem. It's the $5 fee that I think we and the bike companies and Golden Gate all have a problem with. So I'm Carolyn Horrigan and my president of Blue and Gold Fleet. and a 40-year veteran of water transit and ferry service in San Francisco Bay. Bloom Gold has been operating ferry service from Sausalito to Fisherman's Wharf For about 20 years. And we plan to do so for years to come. I want to acknowledge our partners and friends at the Golden Bridge GATE BRIDGE DISTRICT. and the ferry companies with whom we collaborate on a daily basis. particularly in Sausalito where we share the responsibility of moving passengers and bikes between Sausalito and San Francisco. We are currently working together at the dock to provide the resources necessary to assist in managing the passengers and coordinating with the staff who is managing the bicycle in the queuing parking lot. As the council is aware, There are different ideas on how to manage the exponential increase in bike traffic, particularly during peak summer and weekend periods. So from Blue and Gold's perspective, what we can, what we think should be done, we have a plan which can be implemented immediately. Use existing technology to improve boarding. Blue and Gold has developed an online reservation system that would allow passengers to make a reservation for a predetermined departure time. We have showed this system. to Chief Roebacher and City Manager Pulsar and both had a positive response. The benefits, it's free, it's accessible to all, it can be promoted online and through our partners at bike rental companies and even on board our boats. The online priority boarding system will help prevent long lines from forming as passengers will be confident that they'll have a seat on the ferry. And if the online system shows that a particular boat is at capacity for passengers and bikes, visitors can opt for a different time. Another benefit to the online system, if Blue and Golden Gate know a particular boat is close to capacity, we can work together to potentially redeploy other boats in the system to handle the overflow. We try to do this now, but it would be more likely if we had real data from a reservation system rather than relying on anti-dotal information from the ferry landing. We want to increase, we agree, the ambassadors are great, and we want to increase the number Can I continue? Of ambassadors. The ambassador program has been successful and does serve to improve the customer experience and help passengers navigate |
| 03:19:53.60 | Ed Votch | All right. |
| 03:20:01.90 | Carolyn Horgan | bike parking and boarding areas. to assist with the additional ambassador staffing Blue and Gold is willing to make an un-vegetted contribution of $5,000 to Sausalito Plus for the ambassadors. We do not believe, however, that the $5 priority boarding fee proposed is equitable. A day in Sausalito with bike rental, a ferry ride and refreshments can run into three figures for families. Adding an additional fee seems onerous given the fact that we have a new free reservation option available today. which can accomplish the same goal and more. Paying $5 just puts a passenger in front of the line It does nothing to mitigate overcrowding waiting times at the ferry landing. Blue and Gold is committed to being part of the overcrowding solution, and we have demonstrated through ongoing discussions with the Chief of Police, Sausalito Plus, the City of Sausalito, the Chamber, our colleagues at Golden Gate, and the bike companies. We are willing to share our technology, make additional investments, and continue constructive conversations. Thank you. |
| 03:21:06.15 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Any other public comment on this matter? |
| 03:21:14.53 | Jeff Sears | Hello, Jeff Sears, Blazing Saddles. |
| 03:21:15.63 | Ed Votch | Thank you. |
| 03:21:17.23 | Jeff Sears | I'd really like to thank the ferry companies that have really stepped up this last month. In the history that I've been in this business, I've never seen such an increase in service that they've provided that has really decreased any type of demand issues at the dock. Thank you. Last Saturday was one of our busiest days this year, and we did not have one complaint from any customer or call that they were concerned or discouraged about their wait in line. This really is a supply and demand issue regarding the ferry return and the volume of bikes returning and the congestion at the ferry terminal. and if the ferry companies are able to continue this type of supply, I really feel that 2016 will be much better than even last year. I really liked Tom's tone. It was very positive on moving forward. I really feel like that's somebody we could work with that type of attitude. Many things that were said tonight regarding the boarding system that was used last year, that was actually developed by |
| 03:22:24.78 | Ed Votch | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:22:37.24 | Jeff Sears | an employee of Golden Gate Transit, two years ago, and it really has worked well. And it's really a first-come, first-served system that is very equitable and democratic, unlike a $5 fee to be able to move in front of the line that, as Mrs. Horrigan said, does not actually mitigate the problem. There will still be a large line. So we really feel that the $5 express boarding fee will only create more animosity for folks that are waiting line if there is a line and will not will not be a positive way to move forward I really feel that the $3 parking fee it seems that it's working really well and it's being very well received by the public. Last year when that was proposed, I thought that, personally, I thought that was going to be too high and I didn't think that riders would take to it, but it seems to be well accepted. I think it's great leaving the option open to go for $2 if necessary as an experiment if that could pick up the volume and fill up the lot. But it's really great to be able to adjust it as the chief recommended and have that ability to do that. |
| 03:22:48.97 | Ed Votch | Democratic. |
| 03:24:02.17 | Jeff Sears | Blazing Saddles would be glad to supply staff for the line, helping, as we have in the past years, to improve the flow. And we feel that we have a good experience in doing that in the past and have proved ourselves and can do a really good job, like some people in the audience have contested. Thank you. |
| 03:24:22.82 | Ed Votch | Like, |
| 03:24:28.83 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Any other public comment? Thank you. |
| 03:24:36.16 | Ed Votch | Ed Fotch to Alexander by committee, a couple things. First of all, as to how things are moving so far this year, it's great that we haven't had a lot of problems. It's May. July and August is where the rubber meets the road. This is Candyland right now. Secondly, the real fundamental question seems to me is who's in charge of our town? Are we in charge of our real estate or is someone else in charge of our real estate? Are we managing our problem? Everyone who gets up and says sort of, oh, well, gee, here's how I think it ought to work. Thank you. It's our town. It's us guys here, and we're here on Saturday and Sundays when it hits the fan. A classic example, not to get way into it, is the idea of taking a situation where you have an extra thousand people who want to get on a ferry and then saying, oh, and by the way, in parallel, we're gonna let people make a mobile reservation. Most people in private enterprise, I've been there for a while, when they see excess demand, they create more supply. They focus on getting more people on the boats and charging for them, not creating a reservation system that forces ambassadors to say, oh, all you people have been standing here for two hours, get out of the way, because Johnny Rocket has a mobile reservation. And that's exactly what happens when you take some technology and you try to apply it to a problem like this. We have masses of people. One of the things that Tom Riley suggested, and I really hope you take us up on this, is next month let's all meet down there at 3.30 on a Saturday, and we'll see how good these plans stack up. because it's pretty bad down there. And that's what the residents are complaining about. It's tough stuff. Lastly, not unlike your pension discussion earlier, We've got a budget. for the worst case scenario, not the best, by the way, if anyone can guarantee 5% to 7% on my retirement plan, Let me know. The reason they say economists have a sense of humor is they use decimal points in their projections. Come on. We have to budget for the worst case scenario, not for hopes and not for prayers, and we can no longer abdicate the responsibility for managing all those people in that queue to a bunch of people. who can't give you a plan that says, here's how many people, here's how they're trained, here's how they're insured, here's how they're staffed. Here's the backup plan, and when it doesn't work and it spreads out into time, into town, here's who we call. when Tracy Way and El Pertel and Bridgeway are jammed with people. My strong recommendation is that you follow the plan from the pedestrian and bike committee any of the The folks from the ferry vendors and the folks from the bike vendors want to contribute, that's wonderful. But $50,000 is this much? And the plan you approved in the finance committee is nearly five times that. Thank you. |
| 03:27:39.35 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay. Any other public comment on this matter? it. It's unprecedented, but we'll hello. If it's quick. I don't get as |
| 03:27:48.56 | Tom Riley | Hello. Hello. Thank you. you Oh, I don't get to make another comment. Thank you. |
| 03:27:52.04 | Jill Hoffman | 10,000. No, no, it's all right. No, go ahead. Go ahead. |
| 03:27:55.85 | Tom Riley | Thank you. To the fair companies, we should be always collaborating. Microphone. We should always be. Up here. Hello. |
| 03:27:59.33 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, microphone. |
| 03:28:01.05 | Ray Withey | Yeah. |
| 03:28:01.07 | Jill Hoffman | up here. |
| 03:28:01.46 | Ray Withey | you |
| 03:28:01.51 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Up here. |
| 03:28:02.35 | Tom Riley | Up here. To... |
| 03:28:03.13 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. You're addressing us. |
| 03:28:04.81 | Tom Riley | Okay. Hello, Tom Riley. We will continue to collaborate with the ferry companies, the bike companies. The fact of the matter is I firmly believe it's going to cost us $284,000 to run an effective ambassador program. I don't think that should come out of city coffers. The funds should come from the bicyclists or those who also benefit from them. We're doing our best to make sure that there's income going to the city to cover those costs. And that's my thought. So, you know, if we can find ways to cover those costs with the ferry companies, and I don't think $5,000 will cover the cost that we need beyond the valet parking. So we, part of the priority boarding was another way of getting funds to do that. We'll happily take more funds and not charge priority boarding. Quite frankly, if someone will give us $284,000, we can give free bike parking, and really make our city a lot better. So I'll complete there. Thank you. |
| 03:29:07.59 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. All right, any other public comment? None. |
| 03:29:11.40 | Adam Politzer | Madam Mayor, I just want to respond to a couple things that were said. And first to Blue and Gold's comment from Carolyn. |
| 03:29:13.29 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 03:29:18.61 | Adam Politzer | There was a meeting that was scheduled, and Carolyn actually called for the meeting because of the $5 fee, and Jim Swindler and Carolyn were both to be there, and they weren't able to make it. Some things came up in their schedules. But they did send Blue and Gold 10 representatives, and for the first time I got to see their reservation system that they were proposing through the app, and I think it was pretty generous to say that I had a positive reaction because I think the two young men that were there would feel quite differently what that's fine go back and tell them that they didn't give you a very good answer but What I told them is that what they were proposing was incomplete and that it actually caused bigger problems by people making reservations without actually paying for the tickets. So when you go buy a movie ticket online, you're actually buying the ticket. You're buying the four o'clock show. and you're getting actual tickets. They were also proposing a program that made reservations for only 50 people. We're telling the ferries that they've got to take 150 people minimum per for departure so that we are pulling people off of the land. So there was actually a lot of discussion at that meeting If you have a solution that's better than what we have now, and this is to Ed Fotch's point, then we're all ears. But what was being proposed wasn't that. Now, tonight, I appreciate hearing from Jeff Sears that they're supportive of the $3 because all last year, all we heard was that we weren't going to support it. And that was going to fail and I think halfway through the season to Again, Jeff's credit. And to Deb Foccher's credit, There was recognition that it was working. And Blazing Saddles, again to Jeff's credit, stepped up and was working with Deb, and I think we saw a lot of good chemistry there on how we were moving bikes into town and trying to deal with the problem that will create it. But what the chief is asking for tonight and what I am asking the council to consider, because I have 100% confidence in our chief, that if you give us extra time and also hearing from Sausalito Plus tonight from Tom, I think we will reach resolution. We have a big question and Ed pointed out, it's not what's going on in May, it's not what happened in April. Is this sustainable? And the investment of $50,000 to support what the chamber did last year with Sassilil Plus was willing to do this year. is a much cheaper investment and, and confirming that you're going to manage the queue. and the boarding system From 11 o'clock when people start showing up, to seven o'clock when people are leaving. in July and August and specifically And that's a huge expense. that I'm understanding based on what we received today at one o'clock is what the district is prepared to do in collaboration with Blue and Gold. The $5,000 gift that was just proposed is meaningless. Based on what Tom Riley just shared, we have a budget that's in the neighborhood of $280,000. The reason why we're talking about a $5 fee is to make sure that we cover the costs of providing the discount. If we no longer need to provide the discount, which is what I heard tonight, then we'll go back and rework those numbers because that's what Dr. Fotch and Deb Fotch were concerned about. If we reduce the fee, where are we going to have the revenue to offset what we know as additional expenses by starting in March and running later into the fall, at least through October. Saucer Plus has recommended that this is a year-round program. At least let's get to the end of the prime season. and see where we are financially. But we are asking the council for their consideration to allow the chief to continue to work with the various leaders in this group And see what we can move forward. There are some new information that I I didn't receive either Just as councilmember Pfeiffer suggested the information that was presented last night in the resolution And I think that conversation Needs a little bit of time to explore and understand So, you know that can be direction that the council gives the staff is to work with dr. Fudge and the bike and ped committee to explore and you know, the value of the space that's before you on the screen here. I'll end my remarks there, but I just wanted to clarify a few things. Thank you. |
| 03:33:47.68 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Council remarks. Yes? Go ahead. |
| 03:33:55.93 | Unknown | Well, Three, four years ago, we opened up Tracy Way. In the first year, we didn't charge anything. And we saw... how that actually added to the safety feature. Then the following year we went into a chip system. colored ship that allowed you to get on the ferry. That system was okay. It worked, but it was only working as good as the amount of ferries that were coming in to take out the people. Still didn't, the lines didn't go down. It's just that there was more order, so someone that came over at 2.30 in the afternoon found out that they wouldn't be able to get maybe on the six o'clock ferry. So they took their bikes and rode back. Then last year we went into the number system. It was okay, same thing, long lines. This year here, the tackle that I noticed, is the extra ferries. You put on four plus, that's four Golden Gate and one blue and gold. And you're looking at an additional 750 bikes. I know I hear the word one vessel came over and only took 50. Well, that's two exceptions that I look at. Number one, during the week, you'll always see the golden gate. even no matter what, has to get over and adds the extra boat on. Because you're commuters that are screaming at the other end. So by having that additional. Ferry, they get over. And they were able to get the commuters maybe 10 minutes late. The other is a blue and gold will come over from Tiburon, and it's very limited to how many you can put on. That will take place. during the week and Saturday. The idea of the $3 to the $2 was that we really wanted the bike companies to communicate with the bikers, the rentals, to tell them the rules of Sausalito, not riding on the sidewalk. parking in designated bike racks. All right. So, The idea was to entice them that if you had this coupon from the bike company, You saved a dollar. The $3 is a nice idea. First of all, it's a location. . It's like this gas station down the street. How many people go to it? Not too many, because the price is too high. Same thing. when they came into town. Because it isn't one bike, it's four bikes average. that are coming in. So they're looking. And they're saying, well, That's a little too much. $10 is tolerant and that's why we had the problem of all the bikes packing all over the place last year. AND we might see it again. Because we're not into June yet. And we'll see if they can tolerate paying that. The other thing that the council made open was we had Bank of America. We used that for many years and we could put in approximately 150 bikes controlled in there. So that also could be added to The 600, because you have approximately 34, you have approximately 40 bike racks on Tracy Way. and where the police cars are. Then you add another 12, so you're up to handling about 750 bikes. What has changed this year here is by the additional adding of those boats There is no chips there is no numbers and yet every person that wanted to get on that ferry that wanted to get on there was able maybe not the time that they wanted to but they all got on that boat those vessels So the idea of four extra boats is going to make a tremendous difference. As far as the queuing goes, they now have learned that, and Blue and Gold showed them the way with that, because Blue and Gold, when you get on, you don't have to buy your tickets first. You just get on the boat. Well, Golden Gate works a different system. They mean that you have to have your ticket to get on. But now they smartened up and now they'll go along and they'll get the first 75 bikes that are in line and they're all. accounted for. The idea is to get the bikes on as quick as possible. All right? Other than seven minutes, it should take four minutes to put on approximately 75 bikes. I've timed it. I've been there. All right? So we will see in time on June, when June comes, if that works. But I know one thing. They'll add on. Their attitude now is because they're ticked. Their attitude, they'll add on as many. Vessels as it takes to be able to get those people out of there. So. As far as the queuing goes, I think, I think the chief should Guide us in what we do. And we'll look at this in another few weeks. and see how we go. The reservation system, I really, I got my reservations about that. Because I think if you really run this like clockwork and you get approximately 150 bikes minimum on each ferry, you're not going to have the bike. It shows it now. Thank you. We haven't had it. |
| 03:39:30.46 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. We haven't had it. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. |
| 03:39:33.74 | Unknown | I haven't had said anything all night, so I might as well use up all my time now. |
| 03:39:36.08 | Jill Hoffman | I did. I gave you a little extra time there. Yes, other comments? |
| 03:39:44.25 | Linda Pfeiffer | So, you know, no secret, I've said this before, I'm very concerned about the number of rental bikes that we see increasing every year. Sausalito is a small town. 30,000 plus bikes in April alone, a 1% increase. You know, if we see that every year, I mean, it's just, it's not, it just can't continue. We're just too small to handle all of these bikes safely. Just today, I was going down the road on Bridgeway, and there must have been 35 bikes riding, rental bikes, all in a cluster. And they were completely, they swallowed the entire road. Cars were, thank goodness for the safety lane, because cars were able to maneuver, you know you know safely around them but they were wobbling and they you know they should be coached go go single file go single file of course you know our public works put those shero signs right in the middle of the road which is completely insane and sends a mixed message those should be off to the side people should just be coached and know that they should they should ideally be safe right in this is a new street they haven't been there they're tourists go single file and go slowly and don't block traffic The other thing is that so, so Sausalito Plus, I can't, and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Committee, I can't comment on your draft resolution because I'm just seeing it tonight as is the public. It wasn't part of the staff report. I will say that I would like, I was disappointed. I'm not seeing from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Committee strategies for reducing, suggestions for reducing the number of bikes. Or, you know, I mean, I see a lot of mitigation measures, et cetera, but as we've learned that these numbers are just going to keep increasing and we just can't redesign and reconfigure our entire waterfront to accommodate rental bikes. We're not the United States of rental bikes here in Sausalito. So I'm very concerned about that. I know that we talked about bike staging. I know that at least one rental bike company was open to bike staging picking them up and taking them back by truck I know we had an entrepreneur I think last year or so who even invested in a truck to cart the bikes away and could not get traction with the pedestrian bicycle committee I think I'd like to see some strategies with that move forward. I thank the bridge district and the ferries for adding services. I think that's very important. And with regards to Saucydo Plus, one thing I requested was that Sa Sossito Plus release their numbers in terms of who they paid, you know, as employees last year. You're a nonprofit. You're a city providing a city service for the public, and that is something that, you know, public services do do. They open their books. And there was no request for proposal, so there was no competitive bidding on that. It seems to me that Saucydo Plus should do that for transparency. So those are my comments, and I'll withhold my comment on the resolution until I get some more information on it. Thank you. |
| 03:43:26.85 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:43:29.99 | Unknown | Sure. Um, thank you, chief. And you have one tough job. And thanks, Tom, and Ed, and all of you for you know, everyone works on this very hard. There's over the last few years, I mean, all of our staff, everyone in this room, spends a lot of time on dealing with our bike issues. And I want to thank, thank everybody. And we've made progress. I just want to start off that I honor the chief's request to come back in a month. I know it's all going to be solved. So we all just maybe we'll just have cake and ice cream and we won't have to worry about anything. Just a few things as we go along. One of them is the queue, the bike and pet committee, essentially their resolution was that the ferry company is responsible for the queue and they need to pay for its management. And that's basically what it boils down to. And I think that's very important for us to do. I know there's some fervent disagreement about how that should be done, but I think we've got to keep make it very clear that the ferry company going a ferry has to manage these lines and I think there's a lot of I'd like to see in some of these these are new steps they've taken not only have they brought in the boats which really is is a key to all of it but they've also if you look at Jim Swindler's report and I haven't seen seen in action, but they've taken some of the suggestions of putting more people to disembark and embark. And I think who's going to be helping them whether it's us, leader plus or their own, I think that needs to work be worked out among among all of you. I think the illegal bikes, I think we've got to have our enforcement plan in place. It sounds like we're getting there. I think we now know that $3 works. I'm not sure that we need to incent anybody to do that. I mean, everyone needs to cooperate. It's pretty basic to advise people about that. And we also have seen, and I really appreciate Tom giving us the budget. It's $284,000, so we need that money. I do think that we need to, Suss Little Plus needs to work with staff. We have to find a way and soon to say, are we going to make that budget or do we have to make some changes? Because there's both the revenue and expense side to every budget. So we have to take a look at that. And so I'm hoping I know there's a lot and everyone's been working on a lot. And I'm looking forward to seeing what other resolutions we get in the next month. |
| 03:46:01.25 | Ray Withey | Yeah, very briefly, I will respect the staff's desire, chief's desire to wait till next month before making extensive comments. Just a couple of thoughts, so I heard a lot tonight about supply and demand, and in the abstract and in the unconfined way, landscape universe supplying demand could work at an item, but it can't work here. And the reason it can't work is you have a limited downtown, as Council Member Pfeiffer has indicated, it's of a particular size, it's not gonna be reconfigured to any, essential extent, and therefore it can only accommodate so many ferry riders. In particular, it can only accommodate so many ferry riders with bikes. Our physical size can only accommodate a certain size. Therefore, I will be actually asking in the future that the Bike and Ped Committee Thank you. considered taking on an additional mission, which is to actually look at both the pedestrian and the bicycle congestion and ask the question not only how to mitigate it, but how to reduce it. and to go from mitigation to reduction. Um, I also believe, but I'm not sure it's actually particularly a subject of the bike and peg committee, but they made it so, so that's great. I do think that this needs to be solved, this 2,000 square feet of currently used space to queue ferry bike patrons. That has, over the years, just crept up on us, and the space has been used, modified again with everybody's good intentions to try and reduce the crowding and whatever but in the end it's a fair company's responsibility to make sure that our streets are not congested as they're boarding their their vessels |
| 03:48:12.49 | Jill Hoffman | Well, you know, I'm not pleased that we're back here. We've talked about this for nine months and everybody was invited to the table. We had a pretty clear plan and then all of a sudden, two weeks out, the ferry company decides are not going to support the plan. It's been in action for the last nine months. So You know, that's irritating to us here in Sausalito who worked very hard and who have thought about this for a long time, about the congestion and who are building on the successes from last year. that someone at the 11th hour, some companies who are imposing their business plans on the citizens of Sausalito are coming up with these ideas These. hopes and dreams that perhaps something's going to work out where we have very clear facts from last year about what worked and what didn't work in the plan forward. I'm also not pleased that businesses that are making $12 million conservatively from the bike companies and $3 million conservatively from the ferry companies on these extra bikes that are being imposed on Sausalito are nattering about $60,000 that they contributed last year that all of a sudden they decided to withhold again at the 11th hour telling us they're going to withhold this money. So... I'm not pleased that we're here at this point. I'm not pleased that this isn't. settled. It seemed like we had a good plan that everybody was on board and now all of a sudden We're fumbling around. down on the most congested part of our waterfront. And I do look at that. 2,000 square feet. that's been taken from the city, that's been taken from the public as revenue generating just like Tracy Way was revenue generating, and we had to close that to manage the bikes. that this area also has been taken from the city and the residents. So the idea is that Saucyoplus pays for itself. The idea is that citizens and the residents of Sausalito don't have to pay to manage somebody else's business plan businesses that are imposing their burden on our town and frankly the businesses that aren't registered here and don't pay taxes here. So this is, you know, Saucy-O-Plus is our method to pay for managing this congestion and you know the budget that was presented was so that it would pay for itself so that the Sa plus the efforts of socio plus would be paid for by itself Now we're looking at a shortfall. It's May. It's May 17th We're like two weeks out from one of our busiest weekends, and we're still kind of fumbling around with this. You know, I respect the chief. I hope that we come up with a plan. The plan is this. either The ferry companies allow us to manage. I think the best and most effective thing is for Saucyoplus to manage the ferry line. I think that's clear. Last year, you have to have a concerted effort. You have to have. one voice, one management plan down there on our waterfront. either Either we make the revenue from the plan that was presented nine months ago that no one said anything about until two weeks ago, And I'm giving myself an extra minute. And, no, to be clear, it's not $5 to get in line. It's $5 if you want to. You're still going to get on a ferry. You're still... maybe you're going to get on a ferry earlier because they're getting more ferries in which is fantastic. Let's do it. Maybe we don't need the extra $5. But then, um, or the ferry companies, if they're so incensed about this extra $5 that they're not even paying that the, that the bike riders are going to have to pay if they want to, to get to the front of the line, if they're so incensed about that, then they can make up the shortfall with the budget that was from previous years. So, um, I would hope. that we don't see you again. I would hope that you all get together and work this out and that you don't come back in a month and that we're done with this and that we move forward. And those are my comments. Thank you. |
| 03:52:08.67 | Linda Pfeiffer | I just want a little quick comment on that. You know, this, again, I'm looking at all of this and hearing all this. A lot of it was not covered in the staff report, so I did not, I was not clear that there was, you know, quite that much of a tension in everything. The, I like the idea of innovation. if there are online systems that are going to make this smoother and better for everyone including Sauce Lidl Plus, so be it. If it's, you know, if there are risks involved, you know, I just think that this needs to be fleshed out a little bit more. Folks need to talk and come back to us with a little bit more information because, you know, I don't have the data I need to really weigh in on that. |
| 03:52:55.81 | Jill Hoffman | So. |
| 03:52:56.09 | Linda Pfeiffer | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:52:57.04 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Okay, we're finished with this item, moving on. Item number 6D. adopt a resolution requesting action by ABAG and MTC related to support a merger option and rescission of resolutions. And I'll start it off. |
| 03:53:15.13 | Unknown | I'll leave. |
| 03:53:15.85 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 03:53:15.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:53:15.94 | Lily | So this item is a discussion tonight on the proposed merger of ABAG and MTC. As the ABAG delegate, Vice Mayor Ray Withey needs the council's weigh-in and input. And so he is going to lead this issue off. |
| 03:53:37.87 | Ray Withey | Thanks, Lily. Could you put up the slides? That'd be great. |
| 03:53:46.11 | Ray Withey | So I'm going to make a. feeble attempt to explain this. And I'm not gonna go into as much, look, We've got a staff report here. I want to give you some background to the staff report. There was 13 attachments to it. And I'm sure you've read all of them very thoroughly. If I'm going to direct you to anything, it's attachment Well, attachment 13, given a background, is actually pretty helpful. The actual merger study by management partners, which I think is attachment 6. I may not be right, but I think it is. Is it, Lily? Yeah. Is worth looking at. And what we did was pull some slides from the management partners report, which I'm going to use here. And then finally, and I think actually increasingly one of the more important things, if you're really interested in digging into this, is Redetachment 11, which is the actual executive, the staff report from the ABAG staff to its executive committee. Okay, let's back up. What's going on? |
| 03:54:56.70 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:54:58.94 | Ray Withey | you ABAG is the Association of Bay Area Governments. It is a council of governments. It is our region's council of governments, which is specifically charged to administer the statutory functions of allocating the RHNA allocation among other ancillary functions. So it has a planning staff and so on on a bag used to be regarded by a lot of people who are focusing on local control many years ago rightly to say bag was a regional agency nobody was listening to the locals you know and over the years local jurisdictions together with a bike staff have worked pretty hard to have ABAG evolve into at least more of a organization that listens to all points of view. And in particular, moving towards planning strategies that worked for both small jurisdictions and large jurisdictions, especially with the allocation of RENA numbers. ABAG is not a rich agency. And in fact, it is financially struggling. And part of the issues here are related to the finances of ABAC, which are just too complicated to go into. I'm not prepared to go into because I haven't studied them. Okay. Except there are different narratives, whether you're looking from the MTC side or from the ABAC side, is to the extent of those financial problems. Part of the issue is MTC staff is not unionized. ABACs are. There's different pension liabilities associated with each organization and hence the whole issue around any attempt to consolidate is is fraught with problems. Now, back ABAG, the state back in, I'm going to get the date wrong, let me make up a number, 2007, Linda, you probably know off the top of your head, was when the state passed SB 375. Was it later? 2009. |
| 03:57:14.08 | Linda Pfeiffer | 2009 |
| 03:57:15.43 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:57:15.49 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 03:57:15.59 | Unknown | right? |
| 03:57:15.68 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:57:15.92 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 03:57:16.03 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 03:57:16.08 | Linda Pfeiffer | Actually, it was late 2008, but I think it was, I could be wrong about this, but I think it was implemented in 2009 because it was, I ran for, I ran for council because of that. |
| 03:57:16.32 | Ray Withey | It actually... |
| 03:57:16.90 | Unknown | with you. |
| 03:57:26.26 | Ray Withey | Okay, well. One of the reasons. Thanks. So I was only two years off. |
| 03:57:27.26 | Linda Pfeiffer | One of the reasons. |
| 03:57:33.97 | Ray Withey | What the SB 375 did was basically come forward with the sustainable strategies, I've forgotten the lingo, that basically linked transportation with land use planning and forced ABAG and MTC to work together on this planning document that was called Plan Bay Area, which was adopted in 2013. What's MTC? MTC is actually an arm of the state that is called a Metropolitan Planning Organization. And that's very different from ABAC. It's not a council of governments. It's an MPO whose main job is to distribute money, to distribute in particular state transportation money, as well as any federal grants and so on. As an aside, part of the reason why this is becoming increasingly politically charged, in my opinion, is that of course transportation funding is the big issue in Sacramento right now. Everybody's talking about transportation funding. Everybody's trying to grab a piece of transportation funding. So transportation funding is at the moment driving a lot of the emotions around this. In recognition of the fact that there was this, we have these two organizations that have to work together for planning. It didn't go too well through 2013 into 2014 and its implementation. So MTC and staff in their wisdom decided, and that's not a criticism, decided that we would be better off with one planning agency and one agency. As an aside, in every other region in the state of California, it's only in the Bay Area that we have these two organizations. Everywhere else in California the council of governments and the Metropolitan Planning Organization are one institution with different statutory functions. We're the only ones, right? And there's clearly a waste of resources, and I think there's a general recognition that one agency needs to be formed. However, back last fall, MTC staff recommended to its executive board, following some internal discussions, that the best solution would be for MTC to basically take the ABAC planning staff and the whole of the future Plan Bay area and regional planning work, yes, would be coordinated by one agency, but that agency would be MTC, which would now control the planning functions in general of APAC. So MTC, and the final piece, background piece you need to know, is that MTC is a provides funding to ABAC. through a funding agreement so that ABAC can fulfill its statutory rights. Basically, last year, MTC taught ABAC on July 1, 2016, we're cutting off your funding. We recommend that the MTC pass a resolution that the best solution is to combine planning staffs and will MTC take over. That's resolution, I can't remember what it is, 4210, which everybody's arguing about and was passed and was accepted by the ABAC Executive Board. Basically, what was agreed upon in that resolution, and I'm sorry for the late hour and this is going on, but you need this background to make any sense of this. What Resolution 4210, again, if I got the number right, basically says is we'll temporarily fund you a bank. to July 1, 2016. But in the meantime, We're agreeing that we'll jointly fund a merger study and ask the question, what is the best option for us to proceed in as some sort of unified agency? And by the way, if we can't reach agreement, yes, your funding is going to get cut off. And yes, we are taking over the planning staff. So basically, ABAG was presented by MTC with an offer they couldn't refuse, right? An ultimatum, which and that is the basically the premise around which the consultant was hired to produce the options presupposed the existence of resolution 4210 and they could not operate outside of those constraints. Okay, so with that background, the management partners, which was the consulting firm selected, basically analyzed, looked at the problem, looked at a range of options, and presented in a report, which is I think attachment six, six, of their full report. Now, To take a lot of sort of fluff off the table, we need to just focus on really the MTC resolution. We need to focus on option four and option seven and a quick look at option six. And I'm going to give you, I'm trying to give you a balanced view rather than my personal view of what we should go on. Okay, so what the consultants came forward. If we could just go to the next slide, Lily. This actually just shows you, and here's the danger with these, is you're going to want me to try and explain this. And of course, this is where I'm going to fall short in coming up with the nitty-gritty details of this. But this shows in diagrammatic form between ABAG and MTC what happens if nothing happens. So this is the effect of Resolution 4210, which is transfer of ABAC planning staff, it then being controlled by MTC, and ABAC sort of evolving into a shell organization that with no money has to deal with resilience, which I can't remember what that is actually right now, but could look look it up and the Bay Trail and other non-planning functions that would remain with ABAC so that's the default thing because of the sort of gunning your head status this is what is going to happen July 1st if nothing happens Now, management partners came back and actually recommended an option that MTC rejected. And the option that the consultants came back with, I got these in the wrong order, Lily, so if you could jump to option six. The, what, again, you know, this is for more future study than for trying to really get your arms around tonight. What the consultants came back with was basically, okay, ABAG and MTC, there needs to be a full merger We need to create a joint planning function immediately. Because part of the issue is that both organizations are very concerned that unless they can get this planning coordinated properly, they're already working on Plan Bay Area 2017. And I will tell you in a minute why this is so important with Plan Bay Area 2017. Um, lost my train of thought. Okay got it back. Alright so the consultant said look you need a new agency. The best option here is to create a new agency. that integrates the functional responsibilities of the MPO, that's MTC, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the COG. the council of governments, that's ABAC. So a new agency needs to be formed. But in the meantime, we need to coordinate planning functions so there will be an effective sort of transient merger, short-term merger until the new entity can be created, okay, with the various moving around of staffs and the various short-term things you can see up there. MTC rejected it. Period. And what they fundamentally rejected it was that they fundamentally do not want to create a new regional agency. They're quite happy with MTC as it is, and with MTC control and ABAC. That's what they want to do. Now, two other options that were sort of there are options four, which Again, you can go into the details, but that basically says you need to create a new agency. You need to create a new government model, but right now everything else stays the same until you've done that. And so there's no timeline, there's no commitment to do it, there's just, a sort of status quo. And even though it moves towards what some folks have been arguing for, a new agency, it's a bit wishy-washy in that it provides absolutely no time frame and certainly provides no path. And so... MTC has rejected that one. I mean if they rejected option six, they're certainly rejecting this one. So what is on the table at the moment for MTC is an option seven. And our option seven is Well, we're not gonna create a new agency. It's all gonna be done under MTC. will merge the two organizations functionally, everything will actually be administered at the staff level by MTC, but ABAC, General Assembly, and Executive Board can exist to fulfill their functions. But it's all going to be through the MTC staff and the MTC Executive Director. Okay. All this sounds like you've got a bunch of people sitting around the table arguing about options and who can tell the difference between them. Here's the best way to look at it. And this actually was expressed at the last General Assembly I went to last month by a council member from Burlingame, I think, who used to be a venture capitalist. And he said, listen, I've been in a lot of M&A transactions. And M&A transactions fall into two types, a takeover or a merger, a real takeover or a real merger. And basically MTC is insisting on a takeover, essentially a hostile takeover, and ABAG is trying to move towards a merger. That's basically the way to look at it. Option four is a merger. Option seven is a hostile takeover. Okay? That's a way, a little extreme, but it's a way of looking at it. Option 6, which was sort of flatly rejected by MTC, which is a merger of options 4 and 7, because it says, let's get the planning functions working together now, but let's commit to an agency, a new agency, which was option 6 and the consultant's proposal. So we're at this situation where on Thursday there's a new, there's a special General Assembly Court of ABAC. And what ABAC is trying to do, what the General Assembly is trying to do, is to have its executive committee reconsider signing up to this deal, signing up to the original... Thank you. MTC resolution, but also don't go down the path which MTC has decided. They want to aggressively pursue option seven, the hostile takeover. And they're putting all kinds of niceties around it, making it all feel good. But in the end, that's what it is. Why does it matter? We're going to talk about some other options. Nothing to do with these seven options. There's another set of options. What are they? Well, those initial planning and documents for Plan Bay Area 2017 are being prepared right now, jointly by ABAG staff and MTC staff. MTC are complaining that ABAC wants to have all these smaller local communities, to have a say. And that's not their MTC style at all. You know, they don't like that. The staff don't like that. So there's friction, and that's part of that friction was what brought this to the table last year in the first place. So what the General Assembly is trying to do is to get its executive committee to sit back down and say, look, You need to reevaluate these options. Seven is not going to work. In general, we're not sure. We think four is better, but it's got its weaknesses. Well, I said point to attachment 11 is the staff report from Ezra Rapoport, the executive director of ABEC. And they have come back and said, look, what you really need is the best of option four and the best of option seven, and we really need the executive committee to move towards solving the thing now, the immediate planning functions, but commit to a future new regional agency and governing model. And that's what's up for debate. Now, The staff report you got, I mean, I didn't write it. The staff report that you got was actually prepared by the mayor of Novato, Pat Eklund. And tonight, Mayor Eklund is actually having this exact same discussion with her council to try and get a resolution passed. As is usual, Sausalito and Novato seems to be the only two cities who actually managed to get things up on their city council agenda. We don't necessarily need to, but I thought it was important to do so because on Thursday, I'm walking into a General Assembly, and I've got to vote on something. Right. And I wanted to get a sense from the council of what we should, what we should be, how we should be pursuing. We took Pat's, Mayor Eklund's staff report, and she's putting out there that we should vote definitely in favor of option four and a couple of other ancillary resolutions that try to force the hand. Lily's just put this up there as to what the resolution was proposed. It's all very well and good, except what's going to happen on Thursday is almost certainly going to be the crafting of a new, the crafting of some sort of hybrid option. So it would be extremely unhelpful, I think, for Sol Solito if you instructed me that I must go in and vote for option four, because option four is going to be modified on Thursday. just like it would be almost certainly not sensible to say go and you vote for option seven because I know option seven is going to be modified so what we want to do is what I'd like to propose is that the the sense of this is that we take the good bits from option four the good bits from option seven, an attempt to put them together on Thursday by the General Assembly to force its executive committee to move to that and potentially cause the conflict with MTC in order to get beyond this gun at the head sort of negotiating style. Both borders are controlled by large cities and large counties. ABAG less so than MTC. So it would be very interesting at the General Assembly whether, I think from what I can tell, there may very well be a majority of the cities at ABAG who would go for some hybrid option. But to get anything past the General Assembly to affect the Executive Board, you also need a majority of the counties. There's nine counties in the region. It's going to be tough to get more than three of them, I think. So the Executive Board of ABAG, and this actually, I'm not trying to say ABAG's the most functional organization here either, Their executive committee plus their attorney is currently saying, well, I'm not sure we've got to listen to the General Assembly. So it's like, wait a minute. You call the General Assembly, which controls the executive committee, and the executive committee is saying, we're not sure we're going to listen to you? So that's the sort of dynamic that's going on there that, you know, is going to create for a very fluid meeting on Thursday. So anyway, that's sort of like where it is. I think that... |
| 04:15:23.31 | Unknown | or serve good luck. |
| 04:15:25.26 | Ray Withey | Well, I mean, I want sort of, do we need to, do you want to pass resolution, number one? If you do, |
| 04:15:25.28 | Unknown | Well, |
| 04:15:32.84 | Ray Withey | I'd like some flexibility in it. Um, Two and three are sort of ancillary requests. Let's jump to three. Three requests that the A-Bank representative for Marin Citizen County Marin that Basically, ABAC resolution 1215 is rescinded. What's that? simply a resolution that the ABAC Executive Committee passed saying they agree to the MTC Resolution 4210. So unfortunately, ABAC executive committee has partially tied its own hands by already passing a resolution saying they support MTC's resolution. So I think item three is a really good idea. You want to do that because it takes leverage weight. With regards to number two, Here, A-Bag's stepping a little bit out of its lane, I think, because... We can also decide, do we want to try to jump ahead and try and give our opinion to the MTC representative from Marin, who's supervisor Steve Kindred. to try and force him to vote for the ABAG's preferred option coming out of Thursday's meeting. . is terms up in June, I mean, you can decide whether that's a useful, particularly useful resolution or whether it's just making a political point. So I think the council, I'd like the council to actually show support for the ABAG staff here in sort of moving towards a sensible merger of the two entities that neither option 4 or option 7 works but the best of each is brought together and moved forward so that's I think that's where I'm coming from I've tried to lay it out as best I can |
| 04:17:44.62 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Does anybody have any questions on this? |
| 04:17:48.97 | Linda Pfeiffer | . |
| 04:17:49.02 | Jill Hoffman | THEIR HANDS OF THE |
| 04:17:49.41 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 04:17:49.48 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:17:50.96 | Linda Pfeiffer | I have a comment for discussion and... |
| 04:17:55.40 | Ray Withey | Linda's the alternate. So has been quite involved in these discussions. Yeah. |
| 04:17:58.76 | Linda Pfeiffer | discussion. Yeah, alternate, and I'll just jump in, and if it's okay, I'll just weigh in on this. So, all due respect to point three with resolution 1215, if you viewed the video clip where this was passed by the ABAG General Assembly, it was really kind of a snuck-in thing. People didn't even have copies of it, and it was like, oh, well, you'll get copies of it. It was very foggy. I was there. I was there. Well, then you know what I'm talking about. And so I don't blame them at all for, you know, they didn't realize exactly what was happening in that vote. |
| 04:18:28.16 | Ed Votch | I was there. |
| 04:18:29.03 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 04:18:29.24 | Ed Votch | So, you know, |
| 04:18:40.46 | Linda Pfeiffer | And so as for number two, I mean, so that's why number three is there. They want to resend it for obvious reasons. And number two, resolution 4210, I believe what that resolution says is that if ABAG and MTC don't pick, have kind of consensus on which merger option they're going to pick, MTC is going to terminate their planning grant to ABAG on July 1st, and ABAG will basically cease, the planning will cease to exist. That's correct. Basically. So it's kind of like the sudden death boom is 4210. So here you have the ABAG General Assembly. They're totally into council of governments, one city, one vote. What little local control we have filtering through in that they're hanging on to. And they mistakenly, in my opinion, mistakenly, if you watch the video, I think it was just kind of slipped in there. And so naturally they want to rescind it. And of course, I believe that our representative to MTC Steve supervisor Steve Kinsey should be you know held to what you know the city's you know messages to him as our representative hey we don't support 4210 we don't support this sudden death you know yankin a bag way |
| 04:19:19.56 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:19:19.76 | Ed Votch | So, |
| 04:20:10.59 | Ray Withey | Yank an ABAG way. I wouldn't disagree with you on that, Linda. I think the ABAG resolution 1215 was a little, was rushed and I think most of the people who voted it didn't know what they were voting for. You didn't even have a copy of the paper in front of you. But MTC resolution 4210 was discussed at length over multiple meetings. Every supervisor, every member of MTC who voted for that knew exactly what they were voting for. |
| 04:20:24.75 | Linda Pfeiffer | You didn't even have a copy of the paper in front of you. |
| 04:20:38.38 | Linda Pfeiffer | knew exactly what they were voting for. No, no, no. I didn't say they didn't understand 4210. Oh, I'm just talking about the ABAG in 1215. But in terms of two in Resolution 4210, the point there is that Steve Kinsey represents us. I mean, he represents our cities. He represents the cities of Marin County. And the quest there, it's not a political statement. It's very important. It's a sending a message to Supervisor Kinsey that he represents the wishes of the cities and county of Marin with respect to this matter. And I would add that it's interesting that there's a meeting going on right now tonight which we could not attend nor could Mayor Pat Eklund because she's in a meeting too at council tonight in San Rafael where Steve Kenzie is, it's my understanding, hosted by Mill Valley Council Member Stephanie Milton Peters, where Steve Kenzie is presenting, I guess, my understanding is his rationale for option seven. Now, I could be wrong about that's my understanding. And it's a shame that we can't attend that. |
| 04:20:43.41 | Ray Withey | I understand 42.10. |
| 04:20:44.69 | Unknown | . |
| 04:21:54.33 | Unknown | I believe that's correct. |
| 04:21:55.30 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah, and we can't attend that. We can't be there to present, you know, another view. So, you know, I think we need to move definitively and decisively on two, yes, and three, yes, and number one, yes. A very strong message. We support option four. Absolutely. Now, respectfully, regarding the comment about your hands getting tied, Ray, I think that It's my understanding that, and I've had, over the years, I've had conversations with other council members with respect to what happens as a representative, you know, on one of these agencies. And I think that if we vote and support option four strongly then you can share that and say this is where we were coming from. We want a council of governments agency and in the last meeting know, plan B's if this doesn't happen. I respectfully think that any of the perceived shortcomings regarding option four, like a timeline or something, that's all in the implementation. That can all be fettered out. And my concern is that the strategic play here is going to be, oh, let's go with option seven and just tweak it and just make changes to it and then it'll be okay. And I don't see option seven being okay at any level. Option seven |
| 04:23:49.44 | Ray Withey | It is. Option seven is sort of, to be honest, the only, option six, which the management partners proposed, is like option four and seven combined. with different monies involved because of different staff moving around, but we don't need to worry about that. Option four is basically even the ABAC staff are actually not recommending. They say that option four has to be coupled with an immediate agreement to work together on how to merge the planning agencies to get the job done. So even the ABAC staff are saying that. And quite frankly, I think just sort of coming in to the general delegation of which, you know, let's get real here. I'm one vote out of 101 so you know the the point I'm trying to make is that already the ABEC staff real here. I'm one vote out of 101. So, you know, the point I'm trying to make is that already the ABEC staff are advising their executive committee that option 4 won't work. So I just, that isn't going to carry. I'm not hearing that. If you're going to tie my hands by saying you've got to vote for option 4 and |
| 04:24:49.51 | Unknown | What? |
| 04:25:03.11 | Linda Pfeiffer | I'm not hearing that. |
| 04:25:09.85 | Ray Withey | You know, whereas a good option comes up on the table and I have to vote against it because I've agreed here to vote for option four. That's what I mean by timing. Okay. |
| 04:25:15.79 | Linda Pfeiffer | What I mean by okay, sorry, I'm quoting from the a bag executive board quote option for in a bags staff's view is is the best option for the Bay Area. The new government's model, blah, blah, blah. I know they go on in the report to talk about, you know, elements of shortcomings and recommendations for, you know, making things stronger. They refer to option seven is feasible, but requires substantial work prior to implementation if the option is selected. I mean, they're trying to be diplomatic in saying, you know, that there are different alternatives here, but my feeling and certainly my sense from Mayor Eklund and certainly some of the other city representatives, ABAC delegates, is a strong preference for option four. And that is, in my opinion, what we should go for. Not some, unforeseen tweaking around option seven which in my opinion I've looked at option seven I've reviewed it I don't see how on any circumstance option seven local control wins On any level |
| 04:26:41.90 | Ray Withey | Well, except for the fact that unless a compromise option proposal is agreed upon, there'll be no agreement. Well, no. And therefore, resolution 4210 applies. And they are out anyway. And they get option four. |
| 04:26:49.85 | Linda Pfeiffer | Well, no. Well, no. And they get option seven. |
| 04:26:57.88 | Ray Withey | Yeah, effectively. |
| 04:26:59.38 | Linda Pfeiffer | Well, no. My point is that we talked about that. What happens if option four doesn't go through? And there were strategies discussed. So we won't get into that discussion here, but there were strategies discussed. I don't think it's the end of the game. I know that there is strong support for option four in the meeting that we were at on Sunday afternoon, and I think we should go for that and send a very strong message. And usually... |
| 04:27:30.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:27:30.77 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:27:30.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:27:30.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:27:30.89 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:27:33.34 | Linda Pfeiffer | I'm sorry, I'll just add one thing. |
| 04:27:34.30 | Unknown | add one thing down to let's vote on. Yeah. Well, I want to we're going in circle. I want to |
| 04:27:37.15 | Linda Pfeiffer | I think we're going in circles. I want to make one more statement about something that I heard up here. I think it's important to stress that MTC, as you heard, it's a state-chartered transportation agency, and we would be giving land-use planning decisions, including RENA and all of this stuff, this state agency regionally that has absolutely no accountability to the cities and that usually in in the state of California if you look at other structures for transportation usually that is the the MPO, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, is nested within, inside. It's a smaller group nested within the Council of Governments. So anyway, option four creates a Council of Governments, and that's important. |
| 04:28:31.52 | Unknown | Let me know. me that's important what options do you feel comfortable with in other words going forward yeah do you want to just go in with Ford do you feel that you're just strapped or what flexibility do you need to feel comfortable that you're not strapped and you okay |
| 04:28:39.47 | Unknown | And that's... |
| 04:28:51.15 | Ray Withey | Okay. Where I think we're going to, where the discussion's going to go on Thursday is to craft a hybrid option. What Council Member Pfeiffer, if we take her approach, is I would have to vote against any hybrid option. Because it's not option four. |
| 04:29:12.02 | Linda Pfeiffer | No, I mean, I'm if if if option four, I mean, you know, The council can provide guidance, can make a vote, and this has happened in the past, where the council has voted their preferred option, and then the representative has gone, and within the parameters of knowing that option four and the spirit of an agency that is a cog, a cog by definition, and that is the framework that you work with. If they add things to option four or whatever, you go with the guidance that the council wanted option four. I've never seen, I have yet to see, I mean, I've seen very strategic decisions made by certain representatives on this council without a council vote which um i very much disagreed with um regarding land use by the way and transportation so you know i'm i'm not |
| 04:30:17.78 | Ray Withey | Again, option four creates a new regional agency and governance model, but it does nothing to solve the problem now. I'm sorry. It's an aspiration. It's not because there's no timing. And it doesn't solve the planning functions now. |
| 04:30:26.63 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 04:30:26.96 | Unknown | It's a |
| 04:30:27.42 | Ed Votch | to be a good one. |
| 04:30:27.55 | Unknown | What do you mean? I don't know. |
| 04:30:35.79 | Linda Pfeiffer | Well... Thank you. |
| 04:30:36.23 | Ray Withey | Payback's running out of money. |
| 04:30:38.24 | Linda Pfeiffer | The first step for option four is they get together and they create an implementation plan. That's pretty clear. |
| 04:30:48.36 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so, okay. If you could put the recommendations back up there. |
| 04:30:48.68 | Unknown | So, |
| 04:30:49.04 | Unknown | You could put the recommendations. I mean, I would I mean, let's focus up. Let's focus up. |
| 04:30:52.36 | Jill Hoffman | Let's focus up here on what we're going to do tonight. So we have three things or nothing. Or you could choose. Or he is described. |
| 04:30:53.76 | Unknown | you THE FAMILY. We have two different. |
| 04:31:00.51 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 04:31:00.53 | Unknown | Or you could choose to. Or we decide not to. At his discretion. |
| 04:31:04.27 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 04:31:04.56 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:31:04.58 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 04:31:04.59 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:31:04.61 | Linda Pfeiffer | I think we're in agreement with two and three. That's pretty straightforward. |
| 04:31:08.39 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. It seems like it. |
| 04:31:11.87 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 04:31:12.04 | Linda Pfeiffer | So I can I make the motion to I moved I moved to I moved to request the MTC representative for the Marin cities and County of Marin to immediately request that MTC resend in votes to support rescinding MTC resolution 4210. and, number three, request the ABAG representative for the Marin Cities and County of Marin to immediately request ABAG representative for the Marin Cities and County of Marin to immediately request ABAG to rescind and vote to support rescinding ABAG resolution 1215 |
| 04:31:12.41 | Unknown | I know I everybody on two and three. you. Two or three, yeah. I moved to... Sort of. |
| 04:31:46.72 | Ray Withey | So I'll second that, and I think we got council consensus. That's two and three. Two and three. We've got to come back to one. |
| 04:31:49.26 | Jill Hoffman | That's two and three. |
| 04:31:51.19 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 04:31:51.22 | Jill Hoffman | I got it. |
| 04:31:51.68 | Linda Pfeiffer | back. |
| 04:31:51.98 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, so now what do we do about one? So- |
| 04:31:52.98 | Linda Pfeiffer | Okay, all in favor. Bye. |
| 04:31:54.14 | Ray Withey | Bye. |
| 04:31:54.65 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. Well, first of all, I'd like to make the motion for one, because this is what Mayor Eklund asked us to put on our agenda. So I move to support option four, as shown in the attached management partners report, and request that both the Association of Bay Area Governments, ABAC, and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, MTC, representatives for the Marin cities and counties of Marin, vote for option four. |
| 04:32:23.08 | Unknown | And, I would add that we would direct our representative to do so, but if option four obviously was not going to succeed, that the representative had the authority to vote for a measure that was represented as close to option four as possible and that would meet their general goals of this council. |
| 04:32:46.32 | Linda Pfeiffer | I respectfully do not accept that amendment. Then we'll vote. |
| 04:32:52.22 | Ray Withey | So I will second Councilmember Theodore's motion. |
| 04:32:52.39 | Linda Pfeiffer | So I will... |
| 04:32:58.58 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so we vote on the amendment first? The amended motion first. |
| 04:32:59.04 | Ray Withey | So we vote on the. |
| 04:33:02.20 | Unknown | I'm going to have a minute motion. |
| 04:33:03.06 | Lily | I don't have... |
| 04:33:03.31 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 04:33:03.36 | Linda Pfeiffer | HUNTER. |
| 04:33:03.55 | Unknown | them. |
| 04:33:03.63 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 04:33:03.83 | Lily | . |
| 04:33:03.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:33:03.99 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 04:33:04.02 | Jill Hoffman | the second, third. |
| 04:33:04.04 | Linda Pfeiffer | I don't have a second for mine. |
| 04:33:04.91 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 04:33:04.93 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. |
| 04:33:04.95 | Unknown | I didn't get a second for mine. |
| 04:33:07.56 | Linda Pfeiffer | I didn't get a second for mine. And I just want to clarify that we are actually sending, I mean, it would be, in my opinion, better that we didn't even have this on the agenda. If we're sending in our representative with this hybrid thing. Because it's basically playing into the hands of walking out with option seven. Yes it is. No. Yes it is. It's a hybrid option seven that's going to be political window dressing. That's my opinion. |
| 04:33:28.74 | Ed Votch | Thank you. |
| 04:33:28.78 | Unknown | No. |
| 04:33:30.53 | Unknown | It's a hybrid option. that's going to be political window dressing. That's my opinion. Council Member Withy never said he was in support of that. It's absurd. |
| 04:33:36.13 | Ray Withey | So, I think we need to recognize that fundamentally, I believe, and I believe that Sol Soledo should be pushing very hard to create a new regional agency, which is the body of option four. However, the short-term financing and planning work needs to get worked out. And therefore, option four, if it has any chance of passing, it's got to be amended to actually provide for that short-term planning function. That's the only amendments I think you need. So let's just vote and get on with it. |
| 04:33:54.15 | Ed Votch | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:33:55.03 | Unknown | How was it? |
| 04:33:58.63 | Ed Votch | Thank you. |
| 04:33:58.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:33:58.71 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 04:33:58.85 | Ed Votch | Thank you. |
| 04:34:13.58 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 04:34:14.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:34:14.15 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 04:34:14.44 | Unknown | We're voting on my motion, I think. |
| 04:34:17.54 | Jill Hoffman | Council Member Theodore's amended motion, I believe, is what we're voting on. Yes. And we've had a second. |
| 04:34:22.94 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 04:34:22.96 | Lily | Thank you. |
| 04:34:22.98 | Linda Pfeiffer | Yeah. |
| 04:34:23.04 | Lily | you |
| 04:34:23.20 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 04:34:23.21 | Lily | you |
| 04:34:23.23 | Linda Pfeiffer | you |
| 04:34:24.70 | Jill Hoffman | Second. |
| 04:34:25.05 | Lily | by Vice Mayor Withey. |
| 04:34:26.96 | Linda Pfeiffer | Is there a second for my motion on the option four? I'll second. Okay. Okay. |
| 04:34:33.44 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so we're gonna vote for Thank you. |
| 04:34:37.03 | Lily | Councilmember Theodorus first. |
| 04:34:38.18 | Jill Hoffman | Councilman Theodorus' motion first. |
| 04:34:40.88 | Lily | And I just want to mention for the record, there's no one in the public for public comment. Oh, thank you. So for Councilmember Theodorus' motion. OK. |
| 04:34:44.68 | Jill Hoffman | Oh, thank you. |
| 04:34:49.98 | Jill Hoffman | Uh, Maduro. |
| 04:34:50.97 | Lily | Yes. OK. Councilmember Weiner. |
| 04:34:53.32 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 04:34:54.55 | Lily | Councilmember Pfeiffer. No. Council member Theodorus. |
| 04:34:57.81 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 04:34:59.26 | Lily | Face Mary with you. |
| 04:35:00.42 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 04:35:02.38 | Lily | Mayor Hoffman. No. Thank you. |
| 04:35:05.08 | Jill Hoffman | Carriers 3-2. Okay, moving on to our next item on the agenda. Is it... you you |
| 04:35:14.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:35:14.60 | Jill Hoffman | I believe it's city manager reports. |
| 04:35:14.73 | Unknown | of the |
| 04:35:14.90 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:35:16.37 | Unknown | City manager reports? You're going to wait until the midnight hour. |
| 04:35:18.94 | Jill Hoffman | I'm going to wait until the midnight hour. I'm sorry. My apologies. |
| 04:35:22.56 | Adam Politzer | There's not much to add. The mayor and I attended a meeting that was hosted by Senator McGuire related to RBRA. Working group met this afternoon. Not a whole lot of progress reviewing a proposed baseline budget. We really do need to have this item, at least an update from the chief and Bill and Bill Frost come to council meeting in the very near future to at least give the rest of the council an update on all the activity that both the mayor and I have been involved and then also council member Weiner our be raised next board meeting is a week from Thursday And there's the potential that they would force the vote. which they tried to do at the last meeting. And a Status quo budget which we're in for ninety four thousand only requires a majority vote. of RBRA. to force us to pay if they try to increase The budget. which is what we're talking about in enhanced enforcement budget, then it requires all five members of our Bureau to vote affirmative for that action to take place. So we're not heading in a very good direction in either case there. So I think an update from staff would be appropriate. at a council meeting soon. And then obviously during the budget process, we need to consider a variety of options, including going on our own. and what that would cost and what that would take. So that's really all that I wanted to. |
| 04:37:03.71 | Linda Pfeiffer | Adam, are you speaking into the microphone? It sounds very soft, and I can't hear very well. |
| 04:37:10.02 | Adam Politzer | Speaking right into the microphone. |
| 04:37:11.19 | Linda Pfeiffer | You are? I don't... |
| 04:37:12.94 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 04:37:12.98 | Linda Pfeiffer | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:37:13.04 | Adam Politzer | Getting old. The fans are probably a little bit of a fan. |
| 04:37:13.06 | Linda Pfeiffer | Getting old. The fans are... Uh... Oh, it's the fans up here. I've got fans going. |
| 04:37:20.47 | Adam Politzer | But we'll bring that item through the agenda setting committee, and there'll be a bit of a discussion about it tomorrow during the budget process at 1 as we move forward. The rest of the stuff is what you heard tonight with bikes. That obviously has occupied a ton of time. more recently. |
| 04:37:39.18 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:37:40.70 | Adam Politzer | and then and then budget. is the rest of the time. Happy to answer any questions from Council. |
| 04:37:47.67 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, I see no questions. Council member committee reports. We got our ABAC report. Anybody else? Going once. Moving on. Appointments to boards and commissions. Reappointment of Peter Montane to second term to trees and views committee. |
| 04:38:11.38 | Jill Hoffman | Any city council? |
| 04:38:12.97 | Linda Pfeiffer | questions on that. So it's my understanding it wasn't I don't think it was clearly stated. I made the assumption that member Montagne has moved out of Sausalito. |
| 04:38:32.00 | Lily | Different item. So this is the Trees and Views Committee. Peter Montang is up for his second term. Oh, I'm sorry. And would like to continue to start. |
| 04:38:38.47 | Linda Pfeiffer | Oh, I'm sorry. I'm confusing him with someone else. Okay. Okay. So this is a reappointment. Okay. Okay. Good. Yeah. |
| 04:38:44.25 | Jill Hoffman | KAYLEE. |
| 04:38:45.40 | Linda Pfeiffer | you |
| 04:38:45.45 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Any public comments? See no one, none of the public present. Moving on to council discussion. Any? No, let's begin it. No? |
| 04:38:54.56 | Linda Pfeiffer | I have future agenda items, did you? |
| 04:38:57.10 | Jill Hoffman | We're still on Peter. Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. |
| 04:38:58.93 | Linda Pfeiffer | Oh, okay. Yeah. I've had some residents express interest in applying to trees and views as well. But I mean, yes, reappoint Peter, but will there be other other two openings yeah that's what i thought so just a heads up i i gave uh her lillian and adam's email address so yeah |
| 04:39:21.48 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:39:21.56 | Linda Pfeiffer | Thank you. |
| 04:39:21.70 | Jill Hoffman | Do you need a motion on this? No? Okay, we're reappointing them. |
| 04:39:27.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:39:27.28 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:39:27.33 | Unknown | you |
| 04:39:27.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:39:27.55 | Unknown | vote. |
| 04:39:27.71 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We owe. |
| 04:39:28.80 | Unknown | Yeah, yeah. |
| 04:39:31.03 | Jill Hoffman | Oh yes, all in favor? Aye. Very good, thank you. Thank you, future agenda items. |
| 04:39:31.45 | Unknown | All in favor? |
| 04:39:37.76 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 04:39:37.81 | Linda Pfeiffer | So we, sorry. Yeah, go ahead. So we implemented a new parking system. I've heard a couple of residents' complaints about its user friendliness or lack thereof. So maybe it's time to have a brief presentation on how that's going and... get clarity on the user friendliness of it. The second agenda item is I would really like, even as a higher priority perhaps, the Southern Marin Fire District to present just an update really briefly. I'm okay if it's a special presentation, but I just like to hear from them. And then third, the GGNRA, we just heard about, I guess, dog regulations. And there's a deadline of May 25th. I don't know if we meet before then. Do we have another meeting next week? We have a special meeting. So we could potentially perhaps put that on. And then. Ha ha ha. |
| 04:40:37.67 | Ed Votch | week. |
| 04:40:48.57 | Linda Pfeiffer | And then the third... The other one is the one I've mentioned before, the ban on leaf blowers, which I don't see right now on the future agenda list. And the fourth one is the Lincoln Butte property, open space Sausalito. We are going full steam ahead with the fundraising. And we would like to get it on the May 21st agenda to move forward with the the city's motion for the donation of the city property for that for open space so wildlife habitat |
| 04:41:29.00 | Unknown | Do they have the money? |
| 04:41:30.66 | Linda Pfeiffer | I'm saying we're really close, and I think, not May 21st, I'm sorry, I keep doing that, June 21st, that that's our goal, basically. Thank you. to have that. |
| 04:41:49.90 | Jill Hoffman | Ready to go. Anybody else have future dinner items? |
| 04:41:49.91 | Linda Pfeiffer | ready to go. |
| 04:41:53.98 | Jill Hoffman | No, other reports of significance? No, thank you very much, we are adjourned. |
| 04:42:03.94 | Adam Politzer | Are we adjourning? |
| 04:42:05.42 | Jill Hoffman | Oh gosh, I'm sorry. Okay, we are not adjourned. We are adjourning in honor of Angelo DeMonte, who passed away recently. Angelo ran Molly Stones for a number of years and was a beloved member and bright light in our community, and we're sorry that he's not with us any longer. Thank you. Thank you for reminding me. |