| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:26.02 | Unknown | Radio Sausalito would like to thank Joan and Stuart Emery of Belvedere for their generous donation, which is vital to our broadcast signal. Thanks, Joan, and thanks, Stuart. |
| 00:00:37.83 | Unknown | . |
| 00:00:41.58 | Dave Reddler | Hi, this is Dave Reddler inviting you to join me on Radio Sausalito each Wednesday at noon and 8 p.m. for the best in jumping swings. Classic blues. Hot Jazz, Old and New. |
| 00:00:53.98 | Dave Reddler | Please join me every Wednesday at noon and 8 p.m. Radio Sausalito. |
| 00:01:01.19 | Unknown | Here's a public service announcement from Sausalito Beautiful and Radio Sausalito. Have you ever wondered if you can eat your flowers? Well, in some cases, you can. And what's more, many edible beauties are easy to grow right here in Marin. Join UC Master Gardener Janine Stilton on Thursday, June 27th at 7 p.m. in City Hall to learn which flowers are safe to eat and also the ones you'll want to avoid. |
| 00:01:19.04 | Winona Conocath | Sure. |
| 00:01:22.92 | Winona Conocath | Thank you. |
| 00:01:22.94 | Unknown | Tess, Tess. |
| 00:01:24.81 | Winona Conocath | Right. |
| 00:01:24.83 | Unknown | I don't want your safety. |
| 00:01:28.81 | Unknown | It's the podium mic. Check. |
| 00:01:29.86 | Unknown | Check. you That's a free talk about Marin's Edible Flowers with Janine Stilton, leader of the Edibles Guild. Thursday, June 27th at 7 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. For more information, check out MarinMG.org. |
| 00:02:29.21 | Unknown | you Thank you. . you . . . Thank you. |
| 00:02:45.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:54.03 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. But if... Should we send council members? |
| 00:03:48.92 | Unknown | Third, you ready? Good afternoon, this is the regular city council meeting. Beginning with our closed session, we're going to call to order the roll call, please. |
| 00:04:02.37 | Unknown | Councilmember Cox. Thank you. |
| 00:04:03.81 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:04:03.82 | Unknown | HERE. |
| 00:04:03.91 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:04:04.03 | Unknown | Thank you. Council member Hoffman? . |
| 00:04:05.76 | Vicki Nichols | Here. |
| 00:04:06.42 | Unknown | Councilmember Withey? Mayor Burns. |
| 00:04:09.75 | Unknown | Here noted that Vice Mayor Susan Cleveland-Knowles is in route and will join us while we're in closed session. Is there any public comment on closed session items that are not, or on any closed session items? Any items on closed session, any public comment? Seeing none. We will adjourn to closed session to discuss D1, conference with labor negotiations, D2, public employment, and D3, conference with legal counsel. Back at 7. |
| 00:04:50.55 | Unknown | Uh, |
| 00:05:00.39 | Unknown | Night. And stars above that shine so bright The mystery of their fading light that shines upon our caravan. |
| 00:05:22.43 | Unknown | Sleep. |
| 00:05:24.35 | Unknown | Yes, sir. |
| 00:05:25.77 | Unknown | upon my shoulder as we |
| 00:05:26.04 | Unknown | upon my shoulder as we creak across the sand so I'm |
| 00:05:31.29 | Unknown | Across the sand so I may keep This memory of our caravan. |
| 00:05:46.56 | Unknown | This is so exciting. You, you're so inviting Resting in my |
| 00:06:04.18 | Unknown | Have a seat, everybody. We're going to get started here. |
| 00:06:10.50 | Unknown | Beside me here, beneath the blue Thank you. My dream of love is coming true. |
| 00:06:19.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:06:19.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:06:19.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:06:19.57 | Unknown | you |
| 00:06:19.63 | Unknown | you |
| 00:06:21.66 | Unknown | Within our desert caravan |
| 00:06:25.66 | Unknown | Serge, we good? Welcome everybody to the June 11th, 2019 City Council meeting. We can tell it's June 11th because it's hot. And if you came here to see which jackets Ray Withy and I are going to be wearing tonight, sorry to disappoint you, but it's just been too warm. We just, I'm going to start off with a Pledge of Allegiance. So let's go Sandra Bushmaker. Please lead us. |
| 00:07:04.49 | 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. |
| 00:07:04.72 | Unknown | I pledge allegiance. to the light. It'll be nice. |
| 00:07:19.96 | Unknown | Thank you. We just got out of a closed session. We have no closed session announcements. And I'm now going to be looking for an approval of agenda. Before I do, I just want to ask if the council would be good with changing 6B and 6C. That's putting general plan monthly update after the waterfront update. Does that sound good to anybody else? |
| 00:07:46.20 | Jill Hoffman | Move approval as amended. |
| 00:07:50.05 | Unknown | All in favor? Aye. |
| 00:07:51.13 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. |
| 00:07:53.07 | Unknown | of the agenda, we now have our special presentations. And coming up to see us is Laura Joss of the Golden Gate National Park, our superintendent. And she's going to give us an update on some key park projects. Welcome, Laura. Thank you. I see you. |
| 00:08:07.82 | Laura Joss | Thank you. Nice to see you. Thank you, Mayor Burns, council members. I'm really happy to be here. Thank you to the members of the public who are interested. I'm very cognizant of the heat in here tonight, so I won't belabor my comments. But my goal this evening is to formally introduce myself as General Superintendent of Golden Gate National Recreation Area. and provide updates about the great partnership we have with the city of Sausalito. I'm joined today by Charlie Strickfaden in uniform. He's our chief of communications and external affairs. And Steve Kuzurski, if you can wave Steve. Steve is the Fort Baker real estate project manager, affectionately known as the mayor of Fort Baker within the Park Service. |
| 00:08:52.15 | Unknown | I think that's it. |
| 00:08:54.12 | Laura Joss | I've spent my career in the National Park Service and was honored to be named Superintendent of Golden Gate in November of 2017. In my almost 30 years of service, my work at Golden Gate has been the most rewarding and the most challenging. Prior to this assignment, I worked in a variety of park and regional management positions, most recently as the Pacific West Region's Regional Director. I also served in leadership roles in the Park Services Intermountain Region for eight years. And I served as superintendent at Arches National Park, Deputy Superintendent of the Southeast Utah Group, and Superintendent of Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine, as well as Hampton National Historic Site in Maryland, and Chief of Cultural Resources at Yellowstone National Park. As you may know, Golden Gate is one of 419 units of the National Park Service. And the park itself contains about 82,000 acres in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties. We administer two other park areas, Muir Woods National Monument, Fort Point National Historic Site as well as the popular Alcatraz Island and In 2018, we had the highest visitation in the National Park Service out of any other unit. We had more than 17.5 million visitors. These visitors spent $1.2 billion, that's billion with a B, in communities near the parks. This spending supported 12,650 jobs in the local area and had a cumulative benefit to the local economy of $1.6 billion. Last fall, I was pleased to sign a memorandum of understanding with the city of Sausalito. And I thank former mayor Joan Cox and city manager Adam Pulitzer for their work on that. The MOU documents our collaborative efforts around planning for Fort Baker, area transportation, and other topics of mutual interest. This was an important way to document our great relationship and ensure communication between us moving forward. So in tonight's report, I'll give you a few updates by geographic areas of the park. In the Marin Headlands, we recently implemented an emergency agreement with PG&E to allow them to work on power line towers, which serve the city of Sausalito and the Marin Headlands. public safety closures of the Oakwood Valley Trail, the fire road area and adjacent trails were announced last Friday, and work commenced this week under a special use permit. PG&E has presented us with a proposal to replace towers while installing temporary poles along the Alta Fire Road on our eastern boundary. They plan permanent replacement of the temporary poles within two years. This is part of PG&E's wildfire mitigation plan. Also in the Marin Headlands, you've probably noticed, and we've seen a dramatic increase in visitation and traffic congestion, particularly on Consulman Road. and at the Golden Gate Bridge overlooks from the park. So last summer we piloted an experimental one-way traffic program through the Baker Berry Tunnel. It did reduce congestion, which had gotten up to three hours in some cases, three-hour delays in exiting the area. It allowed for safer traffic and ensured emergency egress and access. We utilized that pilot over the winter holidays, and it worked so well that we're implementing it again this summer. For this pilot, on weekends only, vehicle traffic will be one way westbound on Bunker Road, through the Baker Berry Tunnel and down Councilman. Bicyclists are not subject to these restrictions and may continue to ride in both directions. At Muir Woods National Monument, we celebrated our first anniversary of the Parking and Shuttle Reservation Program in January. That program has worked to reduce congestion in the parking lots, roads, and neighborhoods around the park. In addition, this summer starts the second year of our popular redwood renewal. landscape and salmon habitat restoration project at Muir Woods. And we've begun infrastructure improvements of water and wastewater treatment and bridge replacement. So those are some big projects that help us continue to allow for appropriate visitor facilities but continue wildlife habitat. In Sausalito, we appreciate that the city manager and communications director included us in the interagency response to the landslide incident in February. PARK STAFF WERE ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN THE INTERAGENCY TEAM. and within a short time, mobilize specialists to assist with assessment. Laser scanning of the slide and surrounding area was conducted by specialists from the U.S. Geological Survey to map the topography. NPS engineering and geomorphology specialist conducted assessments later in the month to aid stabilization discussions. We look forward to renewing our mutual efforts to develop and implement a repair plan. At Fort Baker, we continue to move forward on the redevelopment of this historic military area. As you know, Fort Baker is already home to Cavallo Point Lodge, the Bay Area Discovery Museum, the Marina Presidio Yacht Club, and U.S. Coast Guard Station Golden Gate. habitat restoration, trail enhancements, and infrastructure improvements have also been completed. This summer, staff will be working on a wildfire fuels reduction project at Fort Baker. And we're also pleased to announce a new formal agreement with Southern Marin Fire Wildland and Structure Fire Response. In April, we announced the request for qualifications for prospective partners to rehabilitate Fort Baker's historic boat shop and marina complex and to operate a waterfront community center at this site. The RFP responses are due in tomorrow, and those will include proposals for an event venue, food and beverage operations, restrooms, educational programs, and an optional public marina that would accommodate up to 60 boats. We do appreciate that on June, where is it here, June 17th. South Salido City Hall will host a public tabling session to see the RFQ responses here at City Hall. And we're also very pleased that you're going to put the responses on your website for the public to learn about. So as you can see from this report, we have a lot in common and have already accomplished a lot of great work. I do meet monthly with the mayor and vice mayor, and we plan to continue to work closely with the city and hope you will continue to reach out to the National Park Service with any other interests or joint projects you might have in mind. It's been a pleasure to provide these updates, and I appreciate your time tonight. |
| 00:16:24.52 | Unknown | Thank you, and on behalf of, if there's no questions, welcome. We should have had you do this a long time ago. You've met with all of us at various points, but it's so great to have you in our community with Steven. We're going to be hearing from you again next month, so thanks for the transparency, the communication, and what you're doing. Thank you. Great, we are now up to communications and this is the point of the meeting that we hear from the residents on items not on the agenda. This agenda is posted over here, we have a bunch of items tonight, so please, discussion of items not on the agenda. If you have something you'd like to say, please fill out a green card, bring it up to the surge, our city clerk. We'll give you three minutes. That is a max, not a goal. And first up, I have John Burke. Greg Baker, are you here? Greg? No, Greg? And then Sandra after John. |
| 00:17:26.03 | John Berg | Thank you. How are you all doing this evening? I'm John Berg. So, How can the City of Sausalito commission the agency of the Sausalito Police Department to expenditure grant funds outside the city limits? And why does the San Francisco Police Department apply for grant funds to facilitate vessel removal outside the city limits of Sausalito. There is a case of the city council commissioning its police force to spend state grant funds outside the city limits, removing vessels that the city has no jurisdictional authority The BCDC has basically failed in this project here. So, I'm not understanding how that can happen. I'm not sure. |
| 00:18:15.49 | John Berg | with the parents to |
| 00:18:30.76 | John Berg | So William Frask is a federalized law officer. Does this circumstance facilitate the agency of the Sausalito Police Department projecting marginal jurisdictional authority out beyond the boundary of Sausalito city limits? Has the Sausalito PD or Lieutenant Frask applied for or received granting of encroachment in the Federal Special Anchorage? Does the Sausalito Police Department have federal right of way to disembark from city waters, Sausalito City? These are questions that lay and loom like my mail. Anybody know where my mail is? My disfranchisement? These are questions that will be coming back to you soon. I appreciate your time very much, but we are behind you and we are not alone. |
| 00:19:23.53 | Unknown | Thank you. Sandra. |
| 00:19:30.14 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening, y'all. That's my little Texas twang in there. I just wanted to say good evening to staff and council. I'm here to talk about the mudslide task force that was suggested and discussed at the last meeting. your last meeting. And unfortunately about 1245 is when it came up. So it was a very late item and you didn't have enough time to discuss it. I want to support the mudslide task force with experts on that particular task force. I think the task force can be utilized to make recommendations to the council regarding geologic assessment and preventive measures for the future. I don't want to see the city of Sausalito be in a situation where it is negligent for not identifying Mud slide potential. and for not informing the residents and potential purchasers of property. what their risk is in this particular area. I would like to have you agendize this item. It is coming before the disaster preparedness meeting tomorrow night. And I am not speaking for the committee, although I have a sense that it will be referred right back to you. for discussion. Uh, But I want you to know that there is support for such an endeavor in Sausalito. We don't want to have a repeating situation like we've had. in 1982 and again this last year. Thank you very much. |
| 00:21:05.79 | Unknown | Thank you. Jeff Jacobs. |
| 00:21:17.47 | Jeff Jacobs | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. City Council. City staff and concerned residents. Thanks, too, to John Burke. The good news, which I'd like to give, Mr. Mayor, There won't be any bad news this time. John Burke has learned how to talk here. And I'm proud of that, not that I'm going to take any credit for it, it sounds like. It's like that when I say I'm proud, but The people who live on SAUSALITOS. Anchorage. say the top number would be 100. |
| 00:22:09.07 | Jeff Jacobs | doesn't seem like very many people compared to the thousands who live in Sausalito. |
| 00:22:19.97 | Jeff Jacobs | In... Long Island on Montauk. It was the same number of people. proud fishermen. Scallops. And lobsters. They were put out of business. along with many, many, many fisheries On the east and west coast, on the Great Lakes on the flooded Mississippi. Why did this happen? And more importantly, how can it stop happening now? The reason was there, from reading a book called Men's Lives by Peter Mathiason, who spent a lot of time here in Marin, is that they became Montauk Long Island became resort communities. The fishermen fought back. Ultimately, they were gone, the same way that the herring fishery, the oyster fishery, Even the salmon fishery and lobster fishery some years is gone here. And Outside the gate. What can we do as mariners? to deal with this. Well, first of all, we go to our leaders and we find out what their motives are. for wanting to turn a working waterfront into a resort. Are they making money off of this? So that is why I brought up Jill James Hoffman not filling out her Form 700 report. which can be enforced by a private party All she has to do is say that she owns Quartzy Wine Company. That private party, when they sue her, and I now have sued Schoonmacher's, they take that wine company, Jill, James Hoffman. |
| 00:24:17.19 | Unknown | Great, thanks Jeff. |
| 00:24:17.44 | Jeff Jacobs | Conflict of interest can no longer be tolerated here or in any other community. We are not going to let the earth be destroyed because of it. |
| 00:24:21.71 | Unknown | THANK YOU. Great. Hey, Greg. Greg Baker, I have one for you. Greg? |
| 00:24:31.16 | Unknown | Greg. I have a card for you already. |
| 00:24:35.78 | Greg Baker | Thank you. The Press. All right. Okay, my name is Greg Baker, and I got some questions. I haven't heard the Chief's report, So I don't know, but I'm curious about things like the fact that I know what the anchor outboats look like. And they're not going to pass surveys, so I don't see how the Yacht Harbor will take them in. The fact that they most are terrible. |
| 00:24:58.28 | Unknown | you're doing it. Are you referring to the item we're going to hear later tonight? |
| 00:25:01.75 | Greg Baker | I beg your pardon? |
| 00:25:02.31 | Unknown | Are you referring to the item we're going to hear later tonight, the waterfront item? |
| 00:25:05.43 | Greg Baker | I guess. I don't know. I'm confused. |
| 00:25:07.17 | Unknown | Well, we're hearing this later tonight. |
| 00:25:09.33 | Greg Baker | Okay. |
| 00:25:09.82 | Unknown | If you want to finish your time and not speak later, since you've already started, |
| 00:25:13.94 | Greg Baker | Okay, well, let's, let's, I don't need to, I'll speak. |
| 00:25:15.89 | Unknown | Or do you have anything else other than the waterfront? |
| 00:25:18.14 | Greg Baker | No. |
| 00:25:18.49 | Unknown | Okay. Let's do it later. Thanks, Greg. |
| 00:25:24.28 | Unknown | Any other items not on the agenda, seeing none, we'll close public communications and bring it up here for action minutes of the previous meeting. Zah. 14th. |
| 00:25:45.33 | Jill Hoffman | I'll move approval of the action minutes for May 14. |
| 00:25:48.40 | Unknown | Second. All in favor? Aye. That passes 5-0. Now's the time for council member committee reports. Who would like to start on a brief stuff tonight? Good. |
| 00:26:04.38 | Ray Withey | Thank you. So since the last city council meeting, One of the things that I did was attend a town hall at Willow Creek Academy with regard to the status of the schools. And I actually sat on the panel with other members of the community, the Willow Creek Academy the school, Tara Seekins, the Willow Creek Academy Board President, Kurt Weinheimer, myself as a city council representative, Jennifer Conway, As a parent community representative from Willow Creek Academy and Terry Harris from the Marin City. community development. Terry Green. I'm sorry, Terry Green. |
| 00:26:44.30 | Unknown | Agree. |
| 00:26:46.77 | Ray Withey | I think it's Terry Harris Green, right? Sorry, so I feel like it was a very productive meeting. The main meeting was it was an informational and also to bring the communities, different stakeholders from the community together to talk about what's going on with our school district and the proposed budget that's going to defund Willow Creek to the tune of about $1.2 million. The most impactful, I think a powerful part of that meeting, and other council members were there too and you're welcome to chime in. was the statements by Terry Harris-Green about the path forward. As a member of the Marin City community and her comments included, the two communities need to make amends and they need to come back together and they need to figure out a path forward. for the sake of the kids that are in the district and priority should be the quality of the education that's provided to the kids and that should be the driver. And she actually suggested and advocated for one school, and that that one school be Willow Creek Academy, and that all of the kids go to Willow Creek Academy as one way to address the segregation that was alluded to in the Attorney General's report that has accumulated over time between the two schools and the racial majority. of African Americans that's at MLK. as opposed to the more mixed racial makeup of Willow Creek Academy. And so she... I thought those were incredible statements, incredibly brave on her part to chart the path forward. And I so appreciate her making those comments. She said perhaps we need to integrate some members from the school community at MLK. We need to change the name of the one school from Willow Creek Academy to something else. But the major point was, one school with the very generous budget that we have for our school, make it the best school in the state. And she said several times, that is a program I can get behind. And I echo that, I believe that is a program that we can all get behind in Sausalito, and I think that is a great way forward. And I understand that the parent communities of the two schools are working together with other leaders in the community to make that happen. One of the meetings I went to, if anybody else wants to chime in on that, you're welcome. |
| 00:29:18.68 | Unknown | I don't, but thank you for being there. I witnessed it and we'll just say the same, but that was great to see you up there. |
| 00:29:24.36 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 00:29:24.38 | Susan | Yeah, thanks. I'll just add that the... Sausalito Marin City School District is scheduled to approve the budget on June 20th. It has not changed, so it is likely to result in a $1.2 million reduction of the Willow Creek budget. And I think one other kind of alarming but salient point that was made at that meeting was by the head of school and the board president that there are enough reserves to continue the current educational program at Willow Creek for one more year if that budget is reduced by that amount, but after one year. |
| 00:30:06.33 | Ray Withey | Thank you. you |
| 00:30:06.68 | Susan | it was. |
| 00:30:07.02 | Ray Withey | or not. And this is the school, Willow Creek Academy, 80% of the kids in the district attend Willow Creek Academy. And Joan, did you have something you wanted to add on this item? |
| 00:30:19.31 | Jill Hoffman | I was just going to mention that Terry Green also mentioned the possibility of an oversight body in the wake of a possible consolidation into one school. |
| 00:30:29.01 | Ray Withey | Yeah. |
| 00:30:29.45 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 00:30:29.53 | Ray Withey | you |
| 00:30:29.67 | Unknown | you You guys are going to be there at the 20th? |
| 00:30:32.52 | Ray Withey | Either the 20th, there's a meeting also this Thursday night. |
| 00:30:34.68 | Unknown | Do you want to have a direction from us formally? You know our direction, you speak for us at that as a task force and say something on behalf of our council? |
| 00:30:43.36 | Ray Withey | I'm happy to do that. I'm not entirely sure my calendar is clear, but happy to do that. |
| 00:30:49.65 | Unknown | We can't get into details on that, but... . |
| 00:30:51.35 | Jill Hoffman | No, so the position that Jill and I have been taking is the same as what Terry Green stated, which is that the board needs to represent all the schools that attend within the district, all of the kids that attend school within the district. |
| 00:30:51.37 | Unknown | No. |
| 00:30:51.76 | Ray Withey | you |
| 00:31:04.41 | Unknown | Amen. said that. |
| 00:31:05.34 | Jill Hoffman | So. |
| 00:31:05.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:31:05.41 | Ray Withey | So. Thank you. And advocate for transparency with the Attorney General's report as well. |
| 00:31:09.16 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:31:09.17 | Unknown | as well. I'll bring this up again at future agenda items and see if we have further discussion. |
| 00:31:12.97 | Ray Withey | And Susan. I'm going to go ahead and Thank you. |
| 00:31:15.67 | Susan | Yeah, I just wanted to know if the subcommittee had any further recommendations for other action. |
| 00:31:22.25 | Ray Withey | We don't at this point, I think we will. We will in the near future. |
| 00:31:27.53 | Jill Hoffman | So we've been continuing to meet with people. We've met with representatives of Willow Creek, of Bayside MLK. We've met with the mayor of Mill Valley. We've met with other community leaders. So we are continuing to meet with various stakeholders in order to align on a recommended path. |
| 00:31:44.98 | Unknown | All right. We have one meeting left before their budget discussion, so if we want to have that future agenda items, if you want to throw something on there for next week. Okay, let's do that. Which is going to be a tight meeting anyway, so it'll be quick, but if it's just a single, here's what we need to say at that meeting, let us know at that time. |
| 00:31:50.60 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 00:31:50.92 | Ray Withey | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:31:51.68 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:31:51.70 | Ray Withey | which is going to be |
| 00:31:53.45 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:31:53.47 | Ray Withey | QUICKLY. Let us know at that time. Yeah, we'll work on that. Okay, and the next meeting that I attended was, Council Member Cox and I attended a waterfront meeting with all of the social |
| 00:31:57.42 | Unknown | . |
| 00:32:09.06 | Ray Withey | all the Sausalito marinas, or not all of them, but most of the marinas in town to talk about the safe harbor. I thought that was a very productive meeting, mostly unanimous support from the marinas in town to support the program, which I think is great. very positive comments from them on our efforts to remove some of the abandoned and otherwise abandoned boats in our own waters. And so tremendous support and effort on that front and success. With regard to Bridgeway Marina, we had a meeting on that to review Um, the path forward and hopefully come back to the city council within the next. Adam, what's it optimistic? In the next six months, maybe? No, too optimistic. Much sooner than that. We said in July. Okay, great. In July. So maybe in July, hopefully, fingers crossed. In July. With an update, yeah. With an update, you may recall the issue with the Bridgeway Marina is that they have some underwater lots and a lot on the end of the peninsula. |
| 00:32:58.69 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. No, too optimistic. Thank you. |
| 00:33:00.40 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:33:00.77 | Adam Politzer | Okay, great. With an update, yeah. |
| 00:33:15.21 | Ray Withey | that faces the water that's next to Dunphy Park. So what we're trying to do is work on a swap of parking on our street, that isn't really a street but it's next to those lots in exchange for Let me know if I need to stop with this, but so those lots would either revert to or they would be retired environmentally as underwater lots. So we're working on that plan and moving forward and hopefully we'll have that wrapped up. or at least not wrapped up. But be able to come back to the City Council with a recommendation soon. Great. Which is exciting. Okay, thank you. |
| 00:33:53.45 | Unknown | Right. Thanks, Jill. Good work. |
| 00:33:59.36 | Unknown | Yeah, very briefly with regards to MCE and your electric bills. PG&E is likely to have a rate increase on July 1st. If it doesn't happen, it will happen on September 1st. Marine Clean Energy is proposing to, at the same time, increase its rates. That is, its readjusted rate schedule, so the actual dollars or cents per kilowatt hour will be adjusted. But the board will decide, will agree next week. The executive committee has already agreed that the marine clean energy rates, MCE rates will be 0.3% below PG&Es, maintaining the cost saving that, sorry, 3% lower than PG&Es in terms of the generation rate. So maintaining the very slight discount that it's been offering. But there will be a very slight rate increase on the electrical bill. you Thank you. Susan? |
| 00:35:22.01 | Susan | Yeah, on May 30th, I attended the Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Directors meeting. we release the annual budget for a 30-day public comment period and also put forward a policy on the use of measure a and measure a funds so those can be found on the tam website and i will attend the sustainability commission meeting on thursday that's at 6 30 here in city hall |
| 00:35:53.97 | Unknown | Jones. |
| 00:35:54.63 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks. Councilmember Withy and I attended a general plan advisory committee meeting on June 4. In which we heard from the Sustainability Commission and the Planning Commission and further delved into important features of the economic analysis of the Marin ship. Which we will be bringing back to council as a business item this evening for further discussion and direction. On June 6th, I attended the ABAG General Assembly meeting, Association of Bay Area Governments General Assembly meeting. It was good. that we attended because we had one person over the quorum required in order to vote on the annual budget. So we adopted the annual budget. Um, Councilmember Hoffman and I, as part of the Waterfront Committee, also hosted a meeting for the anchor outs on June 6, which we had transmitted flyers and emails. Unfortunately, it was not very well attended, but we had information available again for them about our Safe Harbor Program. Councilmember Hoffman and I attended a meeting with the Marin City Council and Mayor's Council of Women on June 7, which was a great opportunity to share goals and dreams for the futures of our respective towns. I'm and then Councilmember Hoffman and I both attended the Call of the Sea event on June 8 and the Festo do Santo on June 9. |
| 00:37:33.32 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah, they were great. |
| 00:37:37.60 | Ray Withey | I also attended the Marin Community Foundation presentation in Marin City. No, in San Rafael. The program was on Golden Gate Village in Marin City and the historic designation of that as a district. And the efforts, it was incredibly fascinating. And it's all online, apparently you can watch it. It's on YouTube. |
| 00:38:00.30 | Jill Hoffman | You put. |
| 00:38:01.03 | Ray Withey | Yeah, it was a panel made up of Lewis Jordan, Royce McElroy, and the the proposed management group that may come in to manage, take ownership of the, the ideas that are going to take ownership of the Golden Gate Village and then manage it privately. And so anyway, it's a fascinating discussion. I didn't know that it had been listed as a National Historic District, which is, Very interesting. based on the Frank Lloyd Wright connection for the design of the village. So anyway, if you want to have an interest in that and want to find out more information, it was a really nice presentation. |
| 00:38:41.95 | Unknown | Great, thank you. I don't have anything specific as actual committees that I attended, though I attended a lot of meetings on both the hospitality and the other item telecommunications that we'll be hearing different parts of tonight. So closing council member committee reports. Moving to consent calendar items, I have one public comment on consent items. If there's any others, please. Fill it out and bring it up. But we will take public comment now on items on the consent calendar. It looks like there are four items. And Jesse, you are speaking to item 5C. |
| 00:39:21.45 | Jesse Taylor-Vermont | you Hi, my name is Jesse Taylor-Vermont, I'm project manager for Downtown Streets team as well as Marin Mobile Care. And council members, mayor, city staff, community members, I just want to thank you for supporting our initial pilot with Marin Mobile Care here in Sausalito. We think it's been very successful. I don't have any large data updates since our last meeting, but we continue to share information with the city. But one thing I did want to share tonight was recently we did have a success through, you know, one of our guests was connected with our case manager through the showers. And unfortunately, they had to spend, the guests had to spend some time in jail. But the case manager was able to connect with that person in jail and connect them to other services. They were trying to reconnect with the housing service in San Francisco, and so with the support of the case manager and the advocacy of the case manager, they were able to reduce their jail time and immediately be transferred into housing where they were transferred today, I believe. So we have some housing successes already starting up, so we're happy to step into the next round after the pilot of continuing services. So thank you. |
| 00:40:43.48 | Unknown | Well, that's a very nice public comment, Jesse. |
| 00:40:43.94 | Jesse Taylor-Vermont | Nice public comment, Jesse. I'm open to any questions as well. |
| 00:40:46.08 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, may I ask a question? |
| 00:40:46.99 | Jesse Taylor-Vermont | We'll be right back. |
| 00:40:47.06 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you for that. May I ask a question? Yes. One of the important aspects of the mobile shower, aside from the service that it provides to the community, is it is an outreach tool for us to reach those in need of services. |
| 00:40:48.54 | Jesse Taylor-Vermont | Yeah. |
| 00:41:04.39 | Jill Hoffman | tool for that is our VI SPADAT survey. And I noticed that the number of VI SPADAT surveys completed is still significantly less than the number of individual showers provided to unique individuals. And I wonder if we can continue our effort to utilize that outreach tool, because it directly ties into other efforts that we're making to assist people on our waters and on our waterfront. And if perhaps we can seek ongoing updating from you regarding the success of continuing to collect that data, |
| 00:41:07.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:41:45.26 | Jill Hoffman | and B, continuing to encourage the Marin Department of Health and Human Services to add as a criterion to the eligibility for housing the challenges of waterfront living. |
| 00:42:02.30 | Jesse Taylor-Vermont | So, yeah, I can speak to some parts of that. So, one, you know, development. I'm not sure if you're aware, but there's been a by name list, which, you know, agencies and health services come together to better organize around who needs what services. And so within that, we're able to track through HMIS, one of our data systems. We've been able to add who is staying on a vessel versus on land, so that is giving us more accurate information and with that overlay of who is staying on a vessel versus on land, combined with all the other information that we track it gives us a much clearer picture of where to target as well as you know the the vi spdat survey itself can sometimes be a little invasive especially if it's someone's first encounter or they're not trusting of services or just the society. Sometimes people take some real warming up in order to get to that point where they give us a complete name and, you know, willing to take some of the either HMIS survey or VI-SPDAT survey. So it is a continued thing that we do every single day we're out there. It's not something we ever give up on because we've seen the success that comes out of it. And I'm excited to see what results happen from the by name list, which has been a process that initially was done in San Rafael, and it's being done here in South Salido, as well as the workings, hopefully, up in the rest of Marin as well, to really kind of coordinate better amongst all the agencies from the Marin City Health and Human Services to us, and making sure that there's not overlap and we're not missing any of the gaps. |
| 00:42:06.47 | Jill Hoffman | THE CITY IS A |
| 00:44:07.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:44:07.97 | Jesse Taylor-Vermont | I hope that answers the question. Thank you. |
| 00:44:09.93 | Ray Withey | Yes. Sorry, I have a follow up on this. Jesse, thanks for coming. Yeah. Great job, great success, the program, I think. Thank you. It's on the consent calendar to extend it, I guess, move out of the pilot program, yeah. What's a good reporting schedule for you? Can you report to us monthly or quarterly? |
| 00:44:31.46 | Jesse Taylor-Vermont | Quarterly would be ideal. We can do monthly, but quarterly would help out staff time quite a bit. |
| 00:44:33.37 | Ray Withey | Okay. |
| 00:44:38.40 | Ray Withey | Yeah. Yeah, are you guys okay with that quarterly reporting? |
| 00:44:41.37 | Jesse Taylor-Vermont | court or court. |
| 00:44:42.38 | Ray Withey | Yeah, currently reporting to us. No, quarterly reporting from the mobile showers, the stats that are coming from that. So it could be from the police. |
| 00:44:48.44 | Jill Hoffman | So it could be from the police, not just from Jessie. So our police department could report as they have been doing. |
| 00:44:51.32 | Ray Withey | Yeah. |
| 00:44:51.78 | Jesse Taylor-Vermont | I'm sorry. Thank you. |
| 00:44:52.35 | Ray Withey | THE FAMILY. |
| 00:44:52.81 | Jesse Taylor-Vermont | . Well, so I give all the reports funneled through the police department. you If you want it continued monthly, then it would still be coming from me. |
| 00:45:04.70 | Ray Withey | If you guys are doing it monthly now, that's great. |
| 00:45:04.97 | Jesse Taylor-Vermont | How are you guys? |
| 00:45:06.61 | Jill Hoffman | That's great. Thank you. |
| 00:45:08.54 | Ray Withey | I THINK QUARTERLY IS FINE. Chief, what do you want? Is that okay? Quarterly? |
| 00:45:13.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:45:13.46 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:45:13.58 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:45:14.78 | Ray Withey | Thank you. He said yes. Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's fine. |
| 00:45:18.93 | Unknown | Thanks, Jess. |
| 00:45:19.24 | Jesse Taylor-Vermont | Okay, thanks. Lastly, I just want to thank city staff and the Sausalito Police Department, including Lieutenant Bill Frasch, just for the coordination. We spent a lot of time, so thank you on helping make the pilot really successful from maybe not day one, but day two, so thank you. |
| 00:45:19.51 | Ray Withey | Bye. |
| 00:45:19.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:45:19.55 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 00:45:19.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:45:39.10 | Jesse Taylor-Vermont | All right, thank you guys. |
| 00:45:39.89 | Unknown | Thank you. Great report. So we have four other items, or three other items, four items total. Is there any other concern, questions, poll, recusals, anything? Motion. |
| 00:45:48.88 | Unknown | I move adoption of the consent calendar items 5A through D. |
| 00:45:53.68 | Susan | Second. |
| 00:45:55.95 | Unknown | Susan got it in first. |
| 00:45:56.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:45:56.85 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 00:45:56.97 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:45:57.02 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 00:45:57.09 | Unknown | Thank you. I heard it, it was kind of like a tie, but maybe it was the microphone. |
| 00:46:01.37 | Jill Hoffman | She's closer to you. |
| 00:46:03.14 | Unknown | All in favor? Aye. That passes 5-0. |
| 00:46:04.22 | Jill Hoffman | Aye. |
| 00:46:08.41 | Unknown | Business items. We are now ready for our business items. First up is our budget. Fiscal year 2019-20 study session presented by Julia Carter, Assistant City Manager, Administrative Services Director. |
| 00:46:30.24 | Julia Cargill | Good evening. |
| 00:46:34.80 | Julia Cargill | I'm Julia Cargill, your Assistant City Manager and Administrative Services Director, and the item before you tonight is fiscal year 2019-20 budget study session. We will discuss the program options for the upcoming year. And third, items we are going to talk about today. is briefly to discuss the budget process itself timeline and methodology. Then we'll talk about fiscal year 19-20 base budget, and we'll walk you through the based budget revenues and expenditure assumptions that we used for the budget in developing the budget. will highlight the major items that included as part of the base, and the biggest part of the discussion will be the fiscal year 2019-20 Recommended budget. which we grouped, all the requests were grouped in three distinct categories. So the category one, includes the new CIP projects, These items were briefly discussed by you at the last council meeting. meeting presented to you on 5-28-2019. We are bringing forward the funding sources for the new projects. And we'll walk you through this when we get to this point on the agenda. Then the second category is the department requests. And These items included in attachments three and four to your staff reports. And finally, category number three. all the budget requests that came from our community partners and city committees. And these items are also listed on your attachment three to the staff report. And finally, we'll just say what the next steps for the budget adoption. So just before we To dive into the budget itself, just a few words on the budget timeline and way we are in the process. Tonight we are holding our last budget study session. So at the end of this meeting, we will take your direction to develop the final budget for the fiscal year 1920. And we will bring it forward for the formal adoption at the next meeting next Tuesday. |
| 00:48:53.21 | Julia Cargill | Now very briefly, just to remind you, you've seen the slide before as part of our introduction to the budget as a first study session. Just to touch base on the methodology that we used for the budget. Please keep in mind that our prime objective was to make as few changes to the budget as possible, since we're in the second year of the two-year cycle. So if you wanted to. stay close to originally adopted fiscal year 1920 as we could. Having to say that, we did make some additions and changes. So we, as a step one, we established the base budget. at the current level of services. We developed the base budget revenues and assumptions. talk about them separately. We determined the this year's surplus. And then we develop the decision packages. for additions to the budget. That's what we presented to you today. And when we asked departments to develop the decision packages, we asked them to rank. their decisions in the order of their priorities. then, All these decision packages or requests from departments went to the city manager for prioritize them citywide, And, For your presentation, they are presented in the order of city manager's priority. We picked seven of them and they're being recommended to be added to the fiscal year 19-20 recommended budget. And the last step, we are presenting all these recommendations to you for approval and direction. |
| 00:50:39.03 | Julia Cargill | Again, before we get into the details. Let's look at the highlights for the fiscal year 19-20 recommended budget. you can see that the increase revenues outpace the increase in expenditures at the revised budget level. And this suggests that little tidbits of the statistics, you can see that fiscal year 18-19 revised I'm sorry, general fund revenues are going up at 6%. And again, that's before the factory in the transfers. and the general fund expenditures. are going up by 3.9, a little bit less than 4% again, before the transfer. So we're giving you apples to apples comparison. as it compares to the device. As we compare, General. the operating revenues to operating expenditures. We have a surplus of 488 and we will talk about it in a little bit. But at the same time, I want to highlight that we are drawing down the general fund reserves quite significantly. this year, and again, we'll talk about it in details as well. But because this additional transfers that are coming out from the general fund balance they have. one time nature. We consider this budget still structurally. balanced. despite the fact that it may appear that the expenditure exceed the revenues as a total number. |
| 00:52:22.98 | Julia Cargill | Now let's look. Let me... present the same numbers a little bit differently. You saw on the previous slide the total general fund expenditures of 20.2 million, so that's a combination of this. total operating expenditures, transfers to fund capital program and the one time expenditures to the to cover a deficit in the workers' compensation fund. |
| 00:52:55.72 | Julia Cargill | So again, when we compare the revenues of 18.5 million to the operating expenditures of 18 million, You can see. this structural surplus, again, comparing to operating expenditures, to operating revenues. At the same time, the item in red, it's very important to highlight that we are using the reserves of 1.7 million, not close to this number, 1.65. |
| 00:53:27.80 | Julia Cargill | Now let's talk a little bit about the base budget. |
| 00:53:34.50 | Julia Cargill | Again, the general fund revenues projected to increase by 6.5% over the revised I'll highlight some of the key revenue categories, the property tax is projected to increase by 2% over the adopted budget. This is based on the information we received from the county. The sales and use tax. increased by 2% over the revised. But. You can see that originally adopted 19, 20 was pretty much spot on. We only added half percent compared to adopted. And again, this information is provided by our sales tax consultant. Avenue or Form of Immune Services. the COT revenue support. We built in 4% increase over the revised and a little bit over 7% over the adopted. to capture the full year impact of the increased rate that was passed by the voters in November. We also recognize that we might be a little bit conservative here. We have probably a little bit of cushion here, 70,000, but we feel comfortable enough to leaving these numbers right now until we get a little bit better. occupancy. data and seasonality of the TOT revenues. And the business license tax Also, it's projected to go up because of the new rates that are going into effect. as of July 1, 2019 for new businesses, and January 1, 2020 for existing businesses. We originally left The adopted budget of one million because we saw the increase, After revisiting this assumption, we realized that we probably have a little bit of flexibility to increase this revenue, actually quite a bit of flexibility 500,000 to this figure. to bring it to the 900,000 originally estimated increase that was presented. during the around November of 2018. We will make this change for the budget adoption next Tuesday. Sorry. |
| 00:55:56.82 | Unknown | Sorry, I'm sorry, that's just a little cloudy for me. So it will be made next Tuesday, so it's not reflective of the 488. |
| 00:56:03.20 | Julia Cargill | It's not reflected in the budget right now, we just reviewed these numbers after the stuff report was published. So just keep in mind that the revenues will go up by this number. |
| 00:56:15.54 | Jill Hoffman | So will that result in an increase in the structural surplus? |
| 00:56:19.60 | Julia Cargill | Yes. |
| 00:56:19.93 | Jill Hoffman | So it will go from 446 to 946. |
| 00:56:23.99 | Julia Cargill | At the structural level, but it will also reduce your use of fund balances. Because remember, you're drawing down on the fund balances. We included a little bit more details on the revenue projections in the staff report. I would be happy to answer questions, but most of them based on department feedback, some internal, external sources and analysis of the trends. And this is pretty much, these are your general fund revenues. Again, you can see how each category is recognized. And one item is important to recognize that the sales tax includes measure O. And you can see it's close to 1.3 million that is included in rolled into the sales tax number. |
| 00:57:17.22 | Julia Cargill | Now let's talk a little bit about the base budget expenditure assumptions. |
| 00:57:25.10 | Julia Cargill | In your packets, this, Expenditures are rolled into four distinct categories. personnel expenditures. show only 1% increase over the adopted budget. Well, pretty much, and this is actually the error we corrected in the budget. So what we did, we looked at the salaries and benefits projections, we felt comfortable enough that we have It's sufficient now if we didn't make any changes to the salaries and benefits. And just this. highlight the salaries and benefits include funding for 74 full-time positions. city wide, the built-in, Employee Pension Contribution Rates via factor in all the salary step increases for all employees who are eligible for But again, the item in red. we did not make any assumptions for the new MOU provisions due to the contract negotiations that we are currently in. Then the second category, is the contract services. We are showing only, well, we went through the through this category in great details as part of the mid-year budget when we adjusted fiscal year 18-19. So we carried over most of the assumptions and most of the adjustments that we made for the budget. And you can see that the impact is only 2% over the revised budget. So it's pretty much factors captures in the inflationary increases for some of the contracts, plus some of the year-to-date previously approved items that we built in there. in this category. The materials and supplies are showing slight decrease over the revised And just to items to remind you again, the portion of the item number two, the merchant fees that we added at as an adjustment for the fiscal year 1819, We're carrying over this this item for the New Year's budget And we removed some of the reductions actually due to removal of some of the one-time expenses related to maintenance in Parks and Recreation Department. Thank you. |
| 00:59:46.85 | Jill Hoffman | Question. So this shows a 2.4% reduction over the revised fiscal year 2018-19. But it's a 13.49% increase over our adopted budget for 19-20. |
| 01:00:07.10 | Julia Cargill | That is correct. And the reason for this is because we had to make the same adjustments to the fiscal year 1920 in many accounts as we discussed as part of the adjustments for the fiscal year 18-19, as we went through this as part of the mid-year. |
| 01:00:29.39 | Jill Hoffman | but If it's a 13.49% increase over the adopted, 2019-20 budget, that indicates the 2019 budget adopted was quite a bit less than. Oh, I see. It's because The 2019-20 was close to the initial 18-19. And this is being compared to the revised 1819. |
| 01:00:51.98 | Julia Cargill | Right, because this captures all the adjustments that we've made as part of the revised to create the better base for the budget. |
| 01:00:52.62 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 01:01:03.04 | Julia Cargill | And the final category are the transfers, and most of the changes are going to be in this category, and we'll go over this in a little bit more detail. just, key highlights, this category includes transfer to pension trust and workers' compensation expenses. That's combined, they're about $610,000. and we also included additional transfers to work as compensation and general liability funds to cover the deficit and clear negative balances, as we discussed during the mid-year and at the Finance Committee meeting. And again, we'll go over this a little bit more. |
| 01:01:43.62 | Julia Cargill | That's the same numbers we just discussed, and this is our general fund expenditures comparing to the adopted and the base budget. And you can see the majority of the changes are in the transfer category. if you compare base budget over the adopted. everyone understand what's included in there. We prepared this next slide that shows general fund transfers out. So you can see the first box indicates the capital transfers. And you can see. what general fund, how general fund supports our CIP program. So 5,000, the is going to sewer fund to offset some of the sewer related work. We have transferred to transfer to the CIP program to the general capital fund. The measure always being transferred to the capital fund as well, and just keep in mind for the measure O, I just want to highlight that we actually reducing this transfer by about 410,000 32,000 this year because that's how we tie it to the specific funding sources for the CIPs. We do recognize that this funds are earmarked for the capital improvement projects. So we want to make sure to highlight that we will revisit these additional funds to fund the CIP program. projects at midyear when we have a little bit better sense of what other projects could be funded and when the new public works director comes on board. then the, The box below includes operating transfers, and that's where the biggest difference is, frankly. You can see all the blank items in the adopted budget that are not included. and we are putting them back in on the budget, whether they were admitted or it's a new direction what we're asking you to. to approve today. Two portions of it, pension contribution of 209 and the transfer to workers' compensation fund to cover the annual expense for fiscal year 1920. We added those as part of the base and the other two items pretty much covering the workers' compensation and general liability requirements. negative balances that we again discussed as part of the mid-year and And it surfaced during the audit as well. |
| 01:04:27.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:04:31.12 | Julia Cargill | So just to summarize what we said before, these are the three major or significant items that we included in the base. We did include all the CIP projects for previously approved CIP projects. That's about 2.4 million, and they're listed in your attachment number two. in the top box of the attachment. So you've seen this attachment before. It's a carryover from the previous meeting. we just build it in as a base budget because we already reviewed and originally approved the projects. as part of the last year's budget. Keep in mind, again, and read that the new projects we listed them in the recommended project. So the nine projects that are in the second box of the attachment, They just appear to be in the different columns. It's a recommended budget. Another significant item included in the base is we discussed the contribution to the pension trust. amount was strictly taken from the budget adoption presentation on June 26, 2018, so we didn't make any changes here. And in the transfers category, the major item is the two transfers that we discussed to general liability and workers' compensation funds. Between two of them, it's about 1.3 million transfers of this one. |
| 01:06:00.78 | Julia Cargill | Do you have any questions on the base budget, or should we just roll to the- |
| 01:06:03.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:03.77 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:06:03.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:06:03.97 | Ray Withey | Bye. |
| 01:06:04.02 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 01:06:04.10 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:06:04.20 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 01:06:04.44 | Ray Withey | question. |
| 01:06:04.66 | Unknown | to do. |
| 01:06:04.71 | Ray Withey | here. Yeah, I have a question on this slide with regard to Contribution to the pension trust of 209. $5,533 per council approval during budget adoption. on June 26, 2018. There was also an approval of $775,000. for... last year into the pension trust fund that I emailed you about earlier today. And so that still has not been made, correct? |
| 01:06:36.03 | Julia Cargill | Uh... |
| 01:06:36.57 | Ray Withey | The 775,000. |
| 01:06:37.28 | Julia Cargill | The transfer hasn't been made yet, but it will be made before the end of the year. So that's- The end of the fiscal year or the calendar year? Fiscal year, no, no, that's probably June. |
| 01:06:41.47 | Ray Withey | The end of the fiscal year or the calendar year? So, So the next three weeks? |
| 01:06:45.95 | Julia Cargill | Next couple of weeks, yeah. |
| 01:06:47.00 | Ray Withey | Can I ask why wasn't that transferred earlier? I mean, we approved the, I mean, the mistake was discovered, I think, before it was presented to the city council in April, on April 30th. That was three months ago. No. Is there a reason for that? |
| 01:07:01.29 | Julia Cargill | Thank you. No. Is there a reason? Well, first of all, you approved the mid-year adjustments on May 14. So the authority we had since May 14, so you're right. |
| 01:07:05.43 | Ray Withey | Oh, yeah. |
| 01:07:10.30 | Ray Withey | No, but we approved it. last year. It was approved in June of 2018. It should have been done much earlier, and you discovered it much earlier than what was presented to the city council. you So I'm just asking just why hasn't that been done yet? |
| 01:07:22.18 | Julia Cargill | Yes. |
| 01:07:26.98 | Julia Cargill | If you may remember, as part of the mid-year, we discussed how the certain transfers were not included in the budget. So in order for me to make a payment, I need to see the 775 in the appropriation account on the expense category. And we did this as part of the mid-year budget adjustments. When we approved the mid-year budget adjustments to actually include this item in the expense category. That was done on May 14. |
| 01:07:54.68 | Ray Withey | Okay, May 14th. Okay, well it's June 11th and you're still not going to do it until- |
| 01:07:58.74 | Julia Cargill | to do it until working on the budget. |
| 01:08:00.39 | Ray Withey | June 30th. |
| 01:08:01.45 | Julia Cargill | that that's what actuaries will do. |
| 01:08:04.66 | Unknown | It's basically the mortgage is due June 30th. It's not due June 30th. |
| 01:08:06.67 | Ray Withey | It's not due June 30th, it was due a year ago. |
| 01:08:08.42 | Julia Cargill | No, no, it's due June 30th. |
| 01:08:09.79 | Ray Withey | June 30th. No. No. |
| 01:08:11.19 | Julia Cargill | No. Yeah. |
| 01:08:12.69 | Ray Withey | Listen, we have the whole purpose of the $775,000 investment was to capture the gains that were made in the stock market and exponentially increase our safety position. With regard to fluctuating pension. debt. That wasn't done, so all of the gains that have happened, even between May 15th and June 30th, we've lost those. In addition to all the gains we would have made, from July 1st of last year had this occurred at any point in that time. That's a substantial amount of money that's lost from the city of Sausalito and the people of Sausalito. So I'm not understanding why there's further delay and it's not going to be done even from between now and June 30th. |
| 01:08:57.32 | Julia Cargill | Well, we will get this done as soon as we can. So as soon as we'll get through this budget item, we will get to the operating expense as part of the year end. |
| 01:09:08.19 | Jill Hoffman | So you're saying it's going to happen after our next council meeting? It's not going to happen tomorrow or the next day? You're going to wait until after next June 18 to make that transfer? |
| 01:09:08.23 | Julia Cargill | So you're saying. |
| 01:09:08.58 | Winona Conocath | Thank you. |
| 01:09:17.24 | Julia Cargill | We can definitely look into this, what's involved. We can contact the trust and we can look into this. |
| 01:09:25.79 | Unknown | Thank you. Any other questions on this part? All right, Ely, what do you have next? |
| 01:09:28.04 | Julia Cargill | Thank you. |
| 01:09:32.29 | Julia Cargill | So the second category all the main category that we want your input on today is the fiscal year 1920 recommended budget. So as I mentioned before, we captured all the requests in three categories, with category one being additions to the CIP program, Again, you've seen the list of this project on May 28th. Today we are bringing you additional funding sources how these projects will be funded and we'll talk about it a little bit more. It's about 2.6 million altogether. The category two includes seven department requests. Again, we have a slide for that as well. It's about 219,000. from general fund, the general fund type of categories. The good news is most of them will be one time in the nature the category three includes funding from requests from seven community partners or city committees and again that's 295,000 altogether. Out of all this request, keep in mind that the general fund budget increased by 431,000 because of all these groups, and that includes additional allocation of measure or funds of 55,000. |
| 01:10:56.70 | Julia Cargill | Now let's look a little bit closer into category one. Again, these are our CIP additions. We presented this list to the Finance Committee. Well, actually, we took your direction at the last meeting to bring forward the funding sources, which we've done here, and we discussed at the Finance Committee level. As you can see, most of the funds are outside of general fund, we using FEMA federal and state grants as a some of the, well, most of the month-slice related expenses, but we recognize that some of this cost will be upfront by the city, and for that we're using the city's disaster assistance fund, you can see that we using 575,000 of the this of this fund for the purpose of this project. We have some Grant funds included for the gate six project that's supposed to be for fully grant-funded program for the city. We increased the storm drain master plan project by 2500. Again, the cost increase was presented to you last at the council meeting, we put it in the general fund because that regional source of funding source was in general fund. And we are just trying to be consistent here. But again, that's negligible cost to the general fund. And MLK improvements, we've talked about the improvements themselves. uh, the last meeting, And we added the guardrail annual replacement program at 50,000, which will be funded by guest tax. |
| 01:12:46.18 | Julia Cargill | Again, all of these projects are included in attachments. Thank you. |
| 01:12:49.86 | Jill Hoffman | Can I ask a question on that? Thank you. |
| 01:12:51.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:51.95 | Unknown | . |
| 01:12:52.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:52.31 | Unknown | you |
| 01:12:52.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:52.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:52.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:52.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:52.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:52.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:12:52.97 | Unknown | you |
| 01:12:53.03 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, yes, so if you go back to the prior slide, you're listing this 2.6 million as a general fund. |
| 01:12:53.05 | Unknown | for sure. |
| 01:12:53.93 | Julia Cargill | you |
| 01:13:02.45 | Jill Hoffman | expenditure in the budget. Okay, if you go back to the prior slide, that's what's confusing me. So you're saying, what is being added to the budget? Category one, funding for nine new projects, you're asking us to add 2.6 million to the budget. But in point of fact, because of FEMA and other grant funding, we're actually only adding a net of roughly five or 600,000 to the budget. So I don't understand structurally how this works. |
| 01:13:33.60 | Julia Cargill | Well, let me... Typically, if you have a robust five year CIP program, you would identify and fund each project at the project level. So the line item of outside sources will be funded in the project as a third-party sources, and that's what we are showing here. But you're correct. We are not budgeting 2.6 million because we you're not using city resources for 2.6 million. So from the structural general ledger perspective, we are not putting 2.6 million on the funds. |
| 01:14:07.76 | Jill Hoffman | So how much are we actually budgeting of this 2.6 million? It's 2.6 million minus 1.175 minus 710 at least. |
| 01:14:20.40 | Unknown | Those are incomes, yeah. |
| 01:14:21.34 | Jill Hoffman | Right, so it's essentially two million less than what this is showing. |
| 01:14:27.65 | Julia Cargill | Well, I think this is correct way of looking at this because you can see the total cost of the project and that's important. As far as how much money city is using, if you look at each individual source, you can see which ones are outside, which ones are city funds. And for the outside grants, only two columns would be. |
| 01:14:37.31 | Winona Conocath | Thank you. Right. |
| 01:14:46.94 | Julia Cargill | through it. sources. But I think it's very important for the public to see what the total cost of the project is. But it's not the cost to the city. |
| 01:14:55.70 | Jill Hoffman | But it's not the cost to the city of the project. |
| 01:14:58.84 | Julia Cargill | Well, |
| 01:14:59.06 | Jill Hoffman | The cost to the city is... a fraction of this amount. I think it's important for the public to know that we're not spending 2.6 million, we're spending 2 million less than that. |
| 01:15:13.94 | Unknown | Well, I think, yeah, there's a bigger budget, right? I mean, we have a $25 million budget when you do all the transfers ins and outs and capitals and stuff. the 2.6 that we asked to show where the capital improvement money was coming from. |
| 01:15:26.53 | Jill Hoffman | So I have one more question related to this. In an earlier slide, you said we have 1.7 million in reserves. |
| 01:15:27.10 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:15:27.12 | Unknown | We are. |
| 01:15:34.38 | Jill Hoffman | It was in red. |
| 01:15:35.36 | Julia Cargill | Thank you. |
| 01:15:35.46 | Jill Hoffman | It was... |
| 01:15:36.03 | Julia Cargill | . That's a use of reserves for the current fiscal year. |
| 01:15:45.70 | Jill Hoffman | It says use of reserves, yeah, 1.7 million. is that use of reserves include this 2.6 million? |
| 01:15:53.70 | Julia Cargill | No. |
| 01:15:54.80 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 01:15:55.42 | Julia Cargill | This is only channel fund. We are talking about channel fund here. |
| 01:15:58.93 | Jill Hoffman | But that I thought this next is also general fund. You have three categories. |
| 01:16:03.30 | Julia Cargill | You know. |
| 01:16:05.24 | Jill Hoffman | in, |
| 01:16:06.68 | Julia Cargill | The three categories for the budget asks include city wide requests. They use different funding sources for the recommended budget. And in the slide, |
| 01:16:16.14 | Winona Conocath | Okay. |
| 01:16:22.59 | Julia Cargill | Here in the blue, I said out of these three categories, only 431 will be used out of general funds. So out of 2.6 million that you can see on the next slide, Between all three categories, only 435 has been allocated to general fund. And that includes the 55,000 of measure O. |
| 01:16:45.35 | Adam Politzer | If I can interject and maybe help here from my conversation earlier today with Councilmember Cox, I think you may be referring to the undesignated fund balance. And our question that Councilmember Cox asked, when we get reimbursed, Would that go back to the undesignated fund balance? What how do we get credit for that money? Where would that money show up if we're spending the money? this year to cover the costs until FEMA reimburses, where would we see that money come back into the budget? |
| 01:17:20.17 | Julia Cargill | Well, that's correct. When we get reimbursement, it will increase the city fund balances. It will be what? Increase the city fund balances. So once we receive the reimbursement, we will factor it in into fund balance structure. So you will see this revenue received. |
| 01:17:24.57 | Unknown | It will be what? |
| 01:17:33.94 | Jill Hoffman | So right now we're showing an artificial expenditure within our various fund balances that we know we're not actually going to have a net expenditure. |
| 01:17:44.79 | Julia Cargill | So I may need help from an interim public works director here, but I believe what was discussed at the last meeting, we identified some of the expenditures that you can see at City Disaster Assistance Fund. That's what we need to upfront. And these are city funds and they are budgeting them. Yeah, let me, let me. |
| 01:18:02.62 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, let me, let me. Sorry, Yulia, let me just interject. |
| 01:18:05.29 | Julia Cargill | Okay. |
| 01:18:05.31 | Jill Hoffman | And I do apologize, I did send this question in earlier, but I only got this presentation this morning and so I just have not been able to fully absorb the information and I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse. No need to apologize. |
| 01:18:18.00 | Adam Politzer | No need to apologize. It's a good question and I'm glad that you're asking it. We don't see it as an artificial dollar amount. It's as the public works described at a council meeting before. This is real money that we're going to spend out of the city's budget. It's coming out of the disaster. whatever the disaster fund is labeled. and then it will be reimbursed. So the fund balance will go down, and then when we get the money back, But for accounting practices, we're tracking the money so folks can see. that this project is we're writing checks and we're spending money to make these improvements with the understanding that we'll be reimbursed up to 94 percent of what we spent. |
| 01:19:02.11 | Jill Hoffman | So if we are going to reflect these expenditures on the output side, are we similarly reflecting the revenues or the monies we expect to come in from FEMA and from grants on our revenue side? |
| 01:19:20.23 | Julia Cargill | Well, and that's what That's not how the city has done it in the past, but what you're describing is the way to do it. Yes, and is that what you've presented to us? |
| 01:19:28.40 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, and is that what you've presented to us tonight? Yes. So you have presented to us- |
| 01:19:31.42 | Julia Cargill | Yes. That's why you presented the total cost. |
| 01:19:35.64 | Jill Hoffman | Right, so in the earlier slides when you showed total revenues, those included the monies we expect to come in from FEMA and from grant funding. |
| 01:19:45.06 | Julia Cargill | we did not factor in FEMA revenues in the budget. |
| 01:19:48.70 | Adam Politzer | because it's not coming in yet. So we're using the disaster fund to cover those costs. And in a later budget, the money will come back. |
| 01:19:56.50 | Jill Hoffman | So my point is that That money is an expectation. And we're not accurately reflecting our financial health, in my humble opinion, by enunciating expenditures and not similarly enunciating expectations for reimbursement for those expenditures. |
| 01:20:20.59 | Unknown | That's the point. |
| 01:20:20.71 | Jill Hoffman | That's the point. Let's clarify. Thank you. |
| 01:20:22.97 | Unknown | I'm ahead. |
| 01:20:30.77 | Julia Cargill | Should we continue discussing this? No, no, we're going to. |
| 01:20:31.83 | Unknown | Yeah. No, no, we're going on. |
| 01:20:34.92 | Julia Cargill | So the category two, includes the department requests, and this is 219,000 All together, as I mentioned before, there's seven requests listed in order of city manager's priority. The number one item on the list is upgrade of the city's financial system to the iCloud subscription-based We... The system is very outdated and it will eventually, like in the nearest future, the Spring Boot will stop supporting it. We estimated this total cost for the project to be a little bit over 40,000, but we already have 25,000 in the IT. Um, a strategic plan capital project that we are going to use for project for the upcoming year, so we're only asking about 15 and a half thousand to supplement The second item on the list is upgrade to |
| 01:21:34.71 | Unknown | These are all on our forms that you gave us. It's all in your forms. Yeah, let's just go with that. |
| 01:21:36.46 | Julia Cargill | It's all in your forms, yes, it's all included. In the forms you can see it in the attachment. 4 in all the details. |
| 01:21:41.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:41.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:41.90 | Unknown | . |
| 01:21:41.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:41.97 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:21:44.36 | Julia Cargill | So then the category three additions, this request we received from different committees and our community partners like Cicely the Beautiful, and again, this list is in your attachment number three, uh, What we did here, we added the funding sources. We included it in the budget, but you can see as far as the funding sources. portion of it will be a general fund, but the bulk of it will come from the measure O in gas tax. all the Requests from Sassalida Beautiful are being proposed to be funded from measure O, and that's the 55,000 additional allocation of measurable funds that I had on the previous slide. And again, I included the same note stating that we are not fully using Measure O for capital this year, we will revisit and re-evaluate at mid-year. |
| 01:22:42.06 | Unknown | Clarified question. |
| 01:22:43.91 | Susan | So last week when we discussed, we had the presentation from the PBAC, there were three projects in this bottom line. There was the update to Coloma, the Bridgeway Pilot, and then there was the Red Zone project, and I don't see that reflected here. |
| 01:23:02.73 | Adam Politzer | There was no dollar amount technically for that. That was an enforcement discussion. And then if we needed to, |
| 01:23:09.36 | Susan | I thought there was a $20,000 item next to that on the slide. |
| 01:23:15.42 | Adam Politzer | i don't recall that but based on the presentation the it's enforcement it's enforcement of our of our red zone and creating uh locations for zoning so i don't think that that's a from my understanding it's not 20 000 cost it's it's design it's identifying locations uh downtown that would either re-establish loading zones that have been changed into parking or into parklets or paint it red for accessibility issues. So we'll continue to work with PBAC and our traffic engineers and look at that. But there is no money at this moment to study that. |
| 01:23:29.09 | Winona Conocath | Thank you. |
| 01:23:57.51 | Susan | Okay, it had, just like the other two, it had an associated cost with it. |
| 01:24:03.78 | Jill Hoffman | And I was not clear that, did we give direction to add all three of these items to our budget? Because, I am concerned about one of these in particular that was brought to the council several years ago and received very negative feedback at that time. So I was not clear last week that we had given direction to add these line items to our budget. |
| 01:24:35.52 | Adam Politzer | We took the broad consensus of the direction the council gave to come forward, identifying funding to support these and bring it back to council, but we took it with broad consensus. Obviously, the council tonight can remove items if there isn't consensus. |
| 01:25:01.07 | Julia Cargill | So before I conclude the presentation, A few words on the budgetary reserves, and again, we are back to channel fund only. So this slide is for the channel fund. |
| 01:25:11.48 | Jill Hoffman | This is the slide I was referring to earlier with the undesignated fund balance. So I'm sorry I misspoke earlier. |
| 01:25:11.52 | Julia Cargill | THIS IS THE |
| 01:25:17.85 | Julia Cargill | Okay. |
| 01:25:18.86 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 01:25:19.01 | Julia Cargill | Yes, exactly. |
| 01:25:19.47 | Jill Hoffman | Exactly. |
| 01:25:21.17 | Julia Cargill | So you can see the significant drop a drop in the designated fund balance. in general fund, but again, the nature of the, use of fund balances one time. So we still believe that this, even though it's becoming significantly lower than the city had in the past, it's still |
| 01:25:34.69 | Winona Conocath | even though. |
| 01:25:40.12 | Julia Cargill | within the acceptable norms. And the. and the use of fund balance is one time which makes us structurally balanced. The big difference why this number is going down this year is because of the transfer to risk management funds and the CIP. And all together, when we factor in all the uh, And in general fund balance as compared to the operating expenses of general fund, we're at about 43%, which is again within the healthy norms. for most of the communities. I think most of the cities still have a policy of at least 20 percent reserve, which we exceed the GFOA norms for that. And just very briefly, that's what the budget would look like across all funds. This is kind of. summary table between all the fund categories. You can see individual information on each individual fund balance in your attachment six, so that will probably provide a little bit more. |
| 01:26:45.55 | Winona Conocath | You mean you're not? |
| 01:26:49.29 | Julia Cargill | information to you. Overall, I'll be happy to answer any questions on that attachment if needed. Just before we conclude, uh, This meeting concludes our council study session on the subject, so we welcome your direction for the final budget. And once we receive it, we bring forward uh final budget resolution for adoption at the next meeting. |
| 01:27:15.28 | Unknown | Okay, let me ask a question just to clarify for everybody here. presented a structural surplus outside of all the funds and transfers. We have a structural surplus right now. $488,000 that you reported earlier, which let's just say is kind of, park. |
| 01:27:37.64 | Julia Cargill | As operating expenditures compared to operating revenues, yes. |
| 01:27:40.64 | Unknown | And that may go up a little bit more when we... when you tinker that I'm not sure what we're talking about. |
| 01:27:47.07 | Julia Cargill | Technically, it will go up a little bit more. You're right. But it will not eliminate the use of fund balances. OK. Because we have a large amount that we are using for this upcoming year. |
| 01:27:49.55 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:27:53.05 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:27:58.06 | Unknown | Okay, and within all of that expenditures, we've already included... from attachment three the 295 thousand dollars that is part of the community partners committees and the 219,000 from departments but have not included attachment five which is another five hundred six thousand dollars of um unfunded department requests |
| 01:28:25.51 | Unknown | That's correct. |
| 01:28:27.86 | Unknown | So currently on the board, which we're going to talk about, and I kind of want to structure how we talk about that, and how we process through that, where we're looking at those Animals. |
| 01:28:38.52 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 01:28:40.06 | Unknown | Before we get there to that discussion, we're going to have public discussion, but also is there any more structural questions that we had for the budget? |
| 01:28:44.47 | Jill Hoffman | QUESTIONS. Yes, in your staff report on page ten, you list four challenges that the city may face in the future. And none of these challenges is monetized. So you list unfunded liabilities and a revision in the way that Gatsby requires us to report our OPEB. contributions, uncertainties with the next you list the uncertainties with the CalPERS retirement assumptions. I thought that the work we did last June, accounted for ongoing changes in the CalPERS retirement assumptions. So I thought we already mitigated that risk through the process that we undertook last June. But please tell me if you think I'm wrong. Three, federal and state budget challenges and potential threat to local governments as the city's various capital projects are expected to be funded by grant awards. And four, the possibility of another recession and making sure the city is equipped for an economic downturn. So you are advising us of these challenges to our future. What is your recommendation about what we do in terms of our reserves or our surplus in order to ensure that we are guarding and funding against the economic value of these challenges. |
| 01:30:07.20 | Julia Cargill | Well, let me break your question in several parts. I think they're called challenges for a reason, because there are too many variables in this complex issues, and not all of them are driven by the city. So that's why we need to continually monitoring and re-evaluating each one of them. and the, the second portion of it as far as of the reserves, you're already doing what you've been doing. You've been pretty conservative as far as allocating some of the, sorry, back to the slides, some of the reserve policy and some of the categories that you have set aside. either as a designation of the general fund, or the, well, you're unfunded, and designated fund balance is still pretty healthy, even at that million-dollar mark. It's still in the healthy zone. I you, we can Continue getting more information on all of these items. Study some of them in more details, like a pension, issue, for example, so that's one of the recommendations we didn't make any changes to you. strategy this fiscal year. But I think it would be wise to revisit and look into this a little bit more detail. for this current fiscal year. So when we go into discussion for the new two year budget cycle, we'll pretty much validate and evaluate how your strategy. is sound given all the additional information that we have both from person. and from return on investments from course and every other perspective. |
| 01:31:46.18 | Unknown | Do you have follow up on that answer? Or do you have more questions? Cause I want to spread our questions around. |
| 01:31:46.92 | Julia Cargill | Yeah. |
| 01:31:47.22 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry. |
| 01:31:48.23 | Julia Cargill | All right. |
| 01:31:48.25 | Jill Hoffman | No, follow up on this. So with respect to the first, which is the GASB 74 and 75. This is not new this year. This was in place, this was addressed in our CAFR. And so, . What monetary impact do you see the change in accounting requirements, how do you see that affecting our budget for this year? We did not receive a note for having not done it properly last year. |
| 01:32:23.72 | Julia Cargill | So let me backtrack a little bit when we When I started in December, we were tasked with closing the year, and that was the last year, 17, 18. As part of this work, we completed actuarial valuation for the OPEB. And that's brand new piece of information that you didn't have as part of the budget discussion. So what we did for this current year's budget, actually reviewed and when I discussed the OPEB Actuarial Determined Contribution, that's what they renamed it to ADC for the year. I wanted to make sure that we update the budget with this new actual distribution number, which we did. So I built it in the budget, and I described it in the staff report as well. So that number is current now. As far as the long-term review of the liabilities, that's a much bigger project that we can undertake right now is the second year of the two year budget cycle. |
| 01:33:24.39 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, but for this year, so the unfunded OPEB liability is not a challenge for this year since you have already I'm not sure. calculated it and included it in our budget. |
| 01:33:37.40 | Julia Cargill | Well, it is a challenge because it's going up every year. Okay, but it's not a challenge. |
| 01:33:40.65 | Jill Hoffman | But it's not a challenge for this year. It's funded for this year. |
| 01:33:43.30 | Julia Cargill | IT'S A CLEAR. |
| 01:33:43.56 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:33:43.62 | Julia Cargill | Thank you. |
| 01:33:43.64 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:33:43.68 | Julia Cargill | Bye. |
| 01:33:43.71 | Unknown | . |
| 01:33:43.76 | Julia Cargill | AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT. |
| 01:33:44.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:33:45.31 | Jill Hoffman | It's something we have to consider for future years, right? Or do you think we need to do more this year to address that challenge? |
| 01:33:48.82 | Julia Cargill | or do you think |
| 01:33:54.32 | Julia Cargill | Well, I believe when I listed it in conclusion, I said that as a future, Yes, but you don't say |
| 01:33:59.06 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, but you don't say... future in 2025. The future can be starting July 1. |
| 01:34:08.40 | Adam Politzer | So if I can interject again, Mr. Mayor, just I think what Yulia and I have discussed, more recently as we look forward to the next two year budget cycle is for several of these categories, not just OPEB or pensions, but across the board, we need to recalibrate all of them and we need to have a schedule, which we didn't discuss last time. of how often do we need to recalibrate so that we make the adjustments up or down and also look at our own present conditions to confirm that that we can maintain that schedule so that we think that this is the right time we've cleaned up this budget we have a good foundation underneath us we're healthy we're recommending a path forward And then during this next process, it's an opportunity to recalibrate, be it sewers, be it capital projects in general, OPEB pension. There's many items that I think we would want to look at. Totally agree. |
| 01:35:05.10 | Unknown | Totally agree. Let Ray do one and then Jill's going to do one and we're going to kind of move around here. We had to kind of process this out. |
| 01:35:10.82 | Unknown | Yeah, this isn't a question, this is a response. if that's allowed to Council Member Cox's questions. And in particular, so the first thing is, I think on the, you asked a question about two or three was in connection with the pensions, right? |
| 01:35:34.51 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:35:34.76 | Unknown | Thank you. So, You need to be doing this every two years in connection with the resource allocation plan. And I think what- |
| 01:35:40.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:35:40.05 | Jill Hoffman | Absolutely. Which we have. |
| 01:35:43.94 | Unknown | Right. |
| 01:35:44.48 | Jill Hoffman | This implies to me that we've- |
| 01:35:44.55 | Unknown | This implies Let me finish my commentary, okay? And so, yeah, I don't think it implies that at all. I don't think those words imply that at all. I think Yulia's trying to present future challenges for the future. I don't think she's saying it's challenges for this year's budget. Is that correct? |
| 01:35:47.34 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 01:35:54.07 | Jill Hoffman | I don't think. |
| 01:35:54.62 | Winona Conocath | Thank you. |
| 01:36:05.22 | Julia Cargill | Is that correct? Absolutely correct. Okay, so with that clarification. |
| 01:36:07.37 | Unknown | Okay, so with that clarified, with that clarified, I think on the, |
| 01:36:09.61 | Julia Cargill | Then I'm good. |
| 01:36:13.42 | Unknown | not on the pension, on what CalPERS could do. Remember, we've taken a very, very conservative actuarial model of future cash flows that Bartlett and associates did in which, and it's not surprisingly, that this year's total salary and benefits projection isn't much off from what we projected it would be, right? But it's got to get redone because that needs to get done every year. Bartell did a really conservative Monte Carlo simulation of this. And with the lowering of the discount rate and assumed a return of only 6%. That's right. So we modeled into the previous projections very, very conservative modeling of, and I didn't want that point to get lost because it doesn't. |
| 01:37:01.77 | Unknown | That's right. |
| 01:37:15.19 | Unknown | She doesn't know all the history yet. |
| 01:37:18.61 | Jill Hoffman | That's the point I'm making is that we did a 20 year model. So to say that we are still facing uncertainties with CalPERS retirement assumptions. |
| 01:37:27.98 | Unknown | We are. |
| 01:37:29.11 | Jill Hoffman | We are, but we have already modeled and planned for certain eventualities. |
| 01:37:35.99 | Unknown | We modeled so we can spend that money at that time. |
| 01:37:39.03 | Unknown | even, |
| 01:37:39.25 | Unknown | Yeah, that's not the model we're stuck to. |
| 01:37:39.60 | Unknown | Yeah, that's not the model we're stuck to in 20 years. |
| 01:37:41.04 | Unknown | Remodeled. |
| 01:37:41.93 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:37:42.03 | Unknown | strategy changes on the first contact with the enemy, right? Chill. |
| 01:37:49.66 | Unknown | and then you're next. |
| 01:37:51.53 | Ray Withey | So, Julia, on the staff report, that we were presented with on page three under the sections 2019 base budget general fund review assumptions. |
| 01:38:08.77 | Ray Withey | Four assumptions in that that are projections. In other words, you're taking a guess as to what the revenue's going to be, I guess. So the property tax revenue, you assume a 2% increase over the adopted budget. But in the PowerPoint, it just says, revenue sources up by 2%. So is the budget based on some of these assumed increase? Or projections in revenue, or are they actual revenue that we've already accounted for? |
| 01:38:48.94 | Julia Cargill | Well, these revenues are projections. So this is the best guess we have at the time. And to come up with these projections, we're using different sources for different things. So you mentioned sales tax and property tax, those numbers We validate them by the county and the sales tax consultant. And that's what we are presenting to you based on all the information then reporting to us on a corollary basis. And so these are not our numbers. Some of the numbers you see in the staff report, yes, these are our best guesses at the time based on the trends and the internal analysis. |
| 01:39:26.95 | Ray Withey | So in the staff report under property tax, you assumed a 2% increase. Under use and sales tax, you state the local sales will increase by approximately. Under transient occupancy tax, you say projected 4% TOT. Revenues for fines projected to increase by 67,000. |
| 01:39:53.47 | Ray Withey | But you These are projections. But... These are just based on data, we don't know if this is going to happen or not. The most conservative path would be, we're not going to base it on projections of increases, we're just going to flatline it. |
| 01:40:09.30 | Julia Cargill | No, we are being moderately conservative in our assumptions. And that's what I mentioned in some of the, like TOT for example, we are being conservative here. So I can tell you right now that chances are we are going to get a little bit more budget and I would be much more comfortable reporting it to you at mid year saying that we were conservative in assumptions. |
| 01:40:29.91 | Ray Withey | Does the TOT still include a certain number that's related to illegal short term rentals that you're hoping to collect? Because I saw that I watched part of the Finance Committee report and that was reflected and discussed in the Finance Committee, but it's not in the staff report and it's not in your. |
| 01:40:46.83 | Julia Cargill | It is actually included in the staff report on the same page. I think it's a bullet point. |
| 01:40:47.69 | Ray Withey | slides. |
| 01:40:53.52 | Julia Cargill | Uh... It was the second from last, so we actually did include- |
| 01:40:58.48 | Ray Withey | The page numbers are off. The page numbers from? The staff report that was online and the staff report that we have today are different. So you're looking at what? The one we got today, top of page four. |
| 01:41:07.74 | Julia Cargill | when we go. Bye. Yeah, I can just answer the question. So we did include about 18,000 in the TOT revenues from the STRs in the budget. 18.1, I believe that's the number. |
| 01:41:22.66 | Ray Withey | And that's in the first bullet point on page four? |
| 01:41:26.51 | Julia Cargill | It's a second to last bullet on the revenue. |
| 01:41:30.34 | Ray Withey | Okay. |
| 01:41:32.45 | Julia Cargill | Sure. |
| 01:41:32.85 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:41:32.89 | Julia Cargill | that's. |
| 01:41:32.90 | Jill Hoffman | THE FAMILY. the city has started to |
| 01:41:33.91 | Ray Withey | Yeah, from unauthorized short term rentals. |
| 01:41:34.30 | Julia Cargill | Thank you. |
| 01:41:34.39 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. |
| 01:41:36.36 | Ray Withey | So have we actually collected any revenues from illegal short term rentals? |
| 01:41:41.05 | Julia Cargill | Not yet, we're in the process of it. We identify it and we are doing outreach to the property owners. |
| 01:41:48.06 | Unknown | So I'm going to pass, if you have more methodology questions on how the budget gets put together, just like how, we'll get back to those. Susan? Okay. Nothing, Joan, you're next. |
| 01:41:54.59 | Jill Hoffman | Nothing. Joan, you're next. I'm good. |
| 01:41:57.08 | Unknown | So you're clear. Are you clear with any questions? All right, you get the next one, Jill. |
| 01:42:04.83 | Ray Withey | I think that's it for right now. Okay. Thanks. |
| 01:42:06.92 | Unknown | Thanks. Thanks. |
| 01:42:07.41 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:42:09.93 | Unknown | certification. |
| 01:42:10.30 | Ray Withey | THE FAMILY. Thank you. |
| 01:42:13.50 | Unknown | I just wanna make sure we clarify for people sitting here in our audience, could you go to the, and I'm talking about the additions that we discussed last week and that are now built into the budget. So, It's not a good thing. This category one, CIP projects, let's skip that. I'm referring mainly to the request from the community partners category three, which is our attachment, whatever it is. Right. So unless we decide to take them out tonight, they're in the budget, right? |
| 01:42:45.14 | Joe Silverman | Yeah, three, three. Thank you. |
| 01:42:47.64 | Julia Cargill | There you go. |
| 01:42:48.50 | Joe Silverman | . |
| 01:42:56.35 | Julia Cargill | I'm already in the budget, yes. |
| 01:42:57.24 | Unknown | Yes. Okay, so that everybody understands that unless we take them out, they're in the budget, right? |
| 01:43:01.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:43:01.92 | Julia Cargill | Bye. |
| 01:43:02.03 | Unknown | That's fine. |
| 01:43:02.27 | Julia Cargill | Right. |
| 01:43:02.57 | Unknown | Thank you. . |
| 01:43:02.90 | Unknown | But... |
| 01:43:02.96 | Unknown | But now here's my dilemma. We have a lot of people here who want to talk about money that we've already said we're going to expend. |
| 01:43:08.19 | Unknown | I know. That's where I |
| 01:43:09.55 | Unknown | And so that I get us out of here by 1 AM, I prefer to have a comment that some things are in, but some things I may want to have discussion. And if we get to the discussion part after we've had public comment, and then we discuss to take it out. |
| 01:43:25.78 | Unknown | Always a dilemma. |
| 01:43:26.37 | Unknown | Uh-huh. That's what I was going to do. You should turn your mic on. So I was going to ask if there's anything that, and frankly, if we want to have discussion on these items that we have seen on attachment three and five, or which ones we are going to accept right now, and then open to public comment. |
| 01:43:49.18 | Jill Hoffman | So I'm inclined to remove the pilot. project for the PBAC. from Detachment 3. until we've done more community outreach. |
| 01:44:00.95 | Unknown | That's on the 60 and 250? |
| 01:44:04.39 | Jill Hoffman | It's the $25,000. At our last meeting I said- |
| 01:44:07.88 | Unknown | Oh, just the pilot, okay. |
| 01:44:08.88 | Jill Hoffman | Just the pilot. But keep in the 60. Keep in the 60. |
| 01:44:09.35 | Unknown | But keep in the 60s. |
| 01:44:12.74 | Jill Hoffman | At the last meeting I said I wanted to seek other grant funding for that as well, since that's MCBC has lots of- |
| 01:44:19.37 | Unknown | Okay, so that's gonna have discussion later. |
| 01:44:21.08 | Jill Hoffman | Yep. |
| 01:44:21.60 | Unknown | Yeah, but remember, we're not approving the project. Right. |
| 01:44:24.71 | Jill Hoffman | I agree. |
| 01:44:25.38 | Unknown | We're just putting it in the budget. |
| 01:44:27.09 | Jill Hoffman | I'd rather put money in for trees or something than for this at this point. |
| 01:44:30.14 | Unknown | Well, we've got a lot of money in for treatment. |
| 01:44:31.76 | Jill Hoffman | I know. |
| 01:44:33.38 | Unknown | Anything else that you see on this list that we're going to be talking about discussion? open for discussion later. |
| 01:44:42.02 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:44:43.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:44:43.35 | Adam Politzer | Okay. Yes, I'm sorry. I just want I need to reiterate what Councilmember Withey just said and and Councilmember Cox and I also had this conversation. It's much harder to put money into the budget than it is to defund the project. So I think that it's important that we are not approving the project. |
| 01:44:47.08 | Unknown | Please help me out here. |
| 01:44:47.98 | Winona Conocath | Thank you. |
| 01:45:04.23 | Adam Politzer | And even with the trees, we would like to see We're approving the dollar amount, but we'd like to confirm how those trees are going to be planted on Caledonia or downtown, but there's a process to that. but we are approving the dollar amount and the council can always defund a project based on community outreach. and in the future, |
| 01:45:26.98 | Unknown | but. Thank you. I'm going to open it up now to public comment. If you have an item on here that was just approved, you might want to be very brief. If you have an item, and I see some other people in the back. If you have an item you want to talk about, you can fill out a green card and submit it up here. I have two cards now, Carol and Ravel and Lisa Cilino. I said that wrong. |
| 01:45:50.11 | Suzanne Whitebro | Thank you. |
| 01:45:50.50 | Carolyn Revell | Thank you. |
| 01:45:52.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:45:53.72 | Carolyn Revell | I'm sorry. |
| 01:45:54.23 | Dave Reddler | Yeah, I say bye. |
| 01:45:56.29 | Carolyn Revell | Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. I've heard what you've said, and we're a little bit unsure whether we should say anything at all. We understand. Thank you. We're delighted that our projects, 20,000 for Caledonia Street, 25,000 to be matched on MLK, and 10,000 for staff work to implement tree planting on downtown Bridgeway. Those are our requests. We see that they're up in your item category three for funding. We don't want to, whatever the word is, gild the lily or talk too much. So is it correct that you understand why we want the trees? Yes. And we're happy to answer any questions if that's appropriate, but we don't want to talk too much. |
| 01:46:04.44 | Winona Conocath | Thank you. |
| 01:46:31.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:46:32.01 | Unknown | Yes, I think we're- |
| 01:46:36.08 | Unknown | Thank you. Yes, I think we're good. |
| 01:46:38.47 | Carolyn Revell | Yes, we're good. |
| 01:46:39.60 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:46:42.64 | Unknown | Wendy Richards, Meg Fawcett. in that order. |
| 01:46:53.32 | Unknown | Thank you. Could you clarify, is the economic development program already approved before? |
| 01:46:58.82 | Unknown | It's in this items that we've not had further discussion on. |
| 01:47:02.66 | Unknown | Further discussion, thank you. So I would like to speak out against that. I think it should be removed from the budget. as a resident and a independent business person, I am suddenly subject to the new quote business license tax. You actually in that ballot measure removed The fixed tax on home-based businesses. Now we are in a gig economy and suddenly many, many people in this city who work from home and for business purposes need to have a corporate entity in order to get insurance, in order to get contracts. Those people like myself are suddenly subject to attacks on our gross revenues. It's highly regressive. We live in a country where we're taxed on income, not on gross revenues. And that means every dollar that is up there comes out of my pocket, the pocket of my dentist, the pocket of my chiropractor, the people who are not here. So no, I don't want city employees to tell the chamber how to make a better economy for heaven's sakes. That's what business is about. So please do not spend our hard earned tax dollars. On an economic study, we're in a booming economy, we're going to have a recession. I mean, you were talking earlier about risks and Eula was saying, well, she couldn't figure out those risks. Well, we have to. I'm a business person. I have to fund my own retirement. I don't get Social Security at 55. I face those risks every day. I stay healthy. Guess what? When you stay healthy, you live longer. Guess what? You have to fund your retirement longer. Guess what? If the market doesn't produce returns, we cut back. But the process doesn't even ask the question, where are we cutting? The process that Yulia presented said we're going to do zero-based budgeting, but we're starting with where we already are, that's not zero. And then we go ask what more people want. I want to know what less people want. You send out a flyer for Monday's meeting saying you're going to increase the sewer rates because you can't pay for it without having essential city services compromised. Where's that analysis? Where's the cuts? Those aren't essential city services. Don't tell me I'm going to pay another $300 flat rate just to use my toilet when it's going to go for who knows what. And meanwhile, the water district's gonna make me pay another $165, and the feds have taken away deductibility. Where's my cost of living increase? I'm here speaking for a lot of people. There are a lot of home-based businesses, small businesses, veterinarians, doctors, And, That's not why we're here living in Sausalito to give our money away. Thank you. |
| 01:49:58.88 | Unknown | Thank you. Make faucets. |
| 01:50:06.02 | Unknown | I just want to say thank you for including Pickle Law Courts in the base plan and for approving the request of Saucy-do-Beautiful. |
| 01:50:16.94 | Unknown | Thank you, Meg. Any other public comment? Sybil, you getting up? Come on up. Just start. |
| 01:50:28.11 | Unknown | Thank you City Council members, Mayor, I just want to thank you for Um, the additional funds for MLK Park Pickleball in the department budget. And the South Street of Beautiful Request for Trees in MLK Park, which is I think very important for making that park really a wonderful destination for the community. So thank you so much. |
| 01:50:54.48 | Unknown | Thank you. Sybil. Any other public comment? Thank you all. And keep fanning. Don't stop fanning. Trust it. It's getting up here. So keep going. I'm going to close public comment and bring it up here for our final comments. |
| 01:51:10.16 | Jill Hoffman | I have one more question. |
| 01:51:10.40 | Unknown | I have one more question. Thank you. For Yulia, bring her up. |
| 01:51:13.28 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, so several meetings ago we talked about lighting at Dunphy Park. Is that included in this list of projects? And why not? |
| 01:51:24.94 | Adam Politzer | Because it was limited to just the Bocce courts and the cost to do the entire park was significant. And so we didn't pursue it at this time. So I- And looked at it as a potential phase in at the next year's budget. |
| 01:51:33.89 | Jill Hoffman | So I, |
| 01:51:38.66 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, I have meetings there and I find it, dangerous and scary because of the lack of lighting. So I think that's- |
| 01:51:47.49 | Unknown | Do you have meetings at Dunphy at the Bocce Court? |
| 01:51:48.82 | Jill Hoffman | at the bocce court? No, at the Galilee. and at the cruising club. |
| 01:51:56.99 | Adam Politzer | So thank you, you're reminding me of the conversation I had with our division manager, Lauren and Bertis. Right now, from the cruising club to the sidewalk at Bridgeway is lit, so you'll go the direct path won't be through the park to Litho Street. You'll come back out towards Napa through the parking lot. That will all be lit and safe. |
| 01:52:20.01 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:52:20.48 | Adam Politzer | We were looking at extending lights and those are also going to create barriers, trip hazards, and impact the nature of the open park by putting in ballards that would have had to be at three feet height and would have been significant cost. So we postponed that discussion but confirmed that there is safe walking from the Cruising Club and Galley Harbor, Cass Gidley to Bridgeway. |
| 01:52:40.86 | Jill Hoffman | OK, thank you. That clarifies that for me. |
| 01:52:43.84 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 01:52:43.87 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor. |
| 01:52:45.34 | Unknown | Yes, right. I have a council member with you. |
| 01:52:47.68 | Unknown | No, race is fine. THE END OF THE END OF THE I think it's, we're going to have to go through, right, each of the, or not necessarily each of them, but... the items the category three editions the category two editions we haven't actually confirm them or do you just want to do it all in one thing? How do you want to do that? Thank you. |
| 01:53:16.88 | Unknown | I will have a tree through my window if we remove $25,000 for MLK. Based on the process I've already committed to. But I'm not sure what other Thank you. |
| 01:53:26.81 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:53:26.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:53:26.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:53:26.88 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:53:26.93 | Unknown | Because I'm OK with them all. |
| 01:53:28.20 | Unknown | you |
| 01:53:28.25 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:53:28.30 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:53:28.44 | Unknown | want to make |
| 01:53:28.98 | Unknown | I do too, but I want some general discussion from us on any of these, because I think they set a precedent in the conversation as well. |
| 01:53:35.81 | Jill Hoffman | So I have one more. question. So we received a Lengthy letter from Sonya Hansen at 620 p.m. this evening while we were in closed session that criticized us for spending money on our hospitality and not spending money on the safety of our health. And I know that our city manager reached out to Chief Tubbs, so can you just speak, is that okay for him to speak to that, please? |
| 01:54:06.67 | Adam Politzer | So Chief Tubbs was able to respond to my email, I forwarded Sonia's email. And Measure U is going to generate a million dollars in the budget that the Southern Marin Fire District is approving for starting July 1. In that million dollars, they have roughly $400,000 for vegetation management. There's training and education also in that budget. They have not yet specified how they're going to divide out the money between the three communities that Measure U covers. But the chief is scheduled to come and present to us in the very near future and he'll be able to provide that update. But there is significant money available for vegetation management. There's also a discussion in terms of our risk management on hillside and assessing our future landslide liability and exposure. And so our new public works director, which we hope to have on board by early July, mid July. We'll work on that together and we'll come back to the city if we need to put additional funds in there to address that safety issue. |
| 01:55:12.28 | Unknown | Can I also just mention that Sonya set up a really great meeting, but unfortunately she wasn't able to attend. Sandra Bushmaker did, and it was with Jill. Fred Fillier and Scott Barnes of Mill Valley. We walked Cypress Ridge. her point of concern, which all of our areas are, but they demonstrated a process and a vegetable movement symbiotic relationship between DPW, Southern Fire District, Mill Valley, that was impressive. And it made us feel like that, and then they've already committed to the funds for the buffering of that spot there between the residences. So I think a lot of her concerns were answered in that meeting, though she wasn't able to attend. And then we can talk about hospitality later, which I'd like to do. |
| 01:56:01.46 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, I was not aware of that meeting, so I appreciate the fact that the city's undertaking efforts to address those. Well, the fire districts are, and that wasn't. |
| 01:56:07.38 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:07.40 | Ray Withey | Well, the first thing is, |
| 01:56:07.73 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:56:07.75 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 01:56:07.85 | Unknown | concerns. |
| 01:56:08.43 | Ray Withey | And that wasn't. |
| 01:56:09.25 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:56:09.81 | Ray Withey | Can I weigh in on that for a second? Yeah. Yeah, I have to say it was a good walk and a good exploration up there with the fire departments and the information that we had. But I think Sonia's point is that even though the fire district has and is going to be giving us funds to look at vegetation management, |
| 01:56:10.69 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 01:56:27.34 | Ray Withey | The city's needs to be doing more than that, and the concern is that that budget is not enough in order to implement a plan, on Sonya's part, to protect us from fire danger in a more holistic manner, understanding the city's responsibility. And in keeping with the grand jury report that came out that said the cities are not doing enough to protect themselves. In addition to the fire district. So I think that's what Sonia's point was. And a concern that she's discussed with me. Um, I hope that we agendize, as we discussed during that walkabout with the fire department, agendize a report from the fire department as to what specifically they're going to be doing in Sausalito and when they're going to be doing it. There's a schedule for chippers that are going to come and things like that. But also discuss a more, also a holistic approach to what the city will also be doing with regard to our public areas and areas that we own. |
| 01:57:24.26 | Unknown | Okay, well since we're in that discussion, let me add, because we have an audience and people at home. If you're waiting for cities and governments and fire districts to remove stuff before you do it in your own yard, you're making a grave mistake. The message to the community is if you have a yard, clean it up. That's the bottom line message. The fire district, measure you, the state, the county's working on, everybody's working on programs and there's going to be a lot of conversation and we all have to do stuff and the city has to do stuff. Don't let that take the burden away from individual property owners cleaning their property like now. Because that's the biggest fire danger that we're going to face when something comes from this way up the hill. You hit a lot of private properties before you hit any state lands or city lands. And that's the way the prevailing warm winds go, is up that hill. public. Get on your private property, because these discussions scare me in that we're waiting for the city to do something. |
| 01:58:16.96 | Unknown | Yeah. Can I add one thing that I think is people are forgetting here? is that, and I've read the grand jury report, Most cities have their own fire departments. And so when they're saying that the city should do this, they're talking about the city's fire department plus holistically looking at it. I agree. We happen to be part of a district in which the district is providing that service to us. Including a big portion of our share of measure, you. But I agree, from a strategic perspective, we should be asking what else needs to be done. So I'm agreeing with you, council member, as well. |
| 01:58:59.68 | Ray Withey | Council member. Okay, can I also, I think we need some clarification on the citywide economic development program that we had a presentation from last city council meeting. It's still here in our line. But I think we need to clarify. My understanding is to this point, the city's only funded this. the whole thing in the amount of $10,000 was paid for the website. |
| 01:59:31.06 | Unknown | The city has put in $10,000 from the website before. The city has budgeted $50,000 from last year that's noted here. And we have an additional $150 on the board and And that's for the hospitality development conversation that we had, and I could talk about it further. |
| 01:59:51.09 | Ray Withey | Well, I think there's some confusion, especially on There's confusion. Do you want to clear that up? |
| 01:59:54.13 | Unknown | There's confusion. |
| 01:59:54.92 | Unknown | you |
| 01:59:55.09 | Unknown | That'd be my... I think the confusion is the following. Thank you. Perhaps in not the most tactful manner. The city council rejected the proposal that was presented. This isn't to fund that proposal. This is to actually start putting money aside for future proposals that the city and the hospitality committee, the business development committee, Together we collaborate on something that for downtown, for Caledonia Street, for whatever. You know, and so, Any responsible city. should be funding economic development. All cities that do fund economic development have a better quality of life for their residents. |
| 02:01:03.52 | Unknown | As we're on that topic now, and I completely agree, obviously. I didn't open this up to the hospitality committee that would like to maybe speak. on it, but, uh-huh. Oh. But The discussion we've had since then is exactly that, it's to create maybe a different I'm not sure. operation for that. Still, and so people aren't concerned about, none of this ever talks about increasing bodies on the street in June and July. In fact, this last meeting that we had, we specifically looked at a very nice TOT style graphic that says, here's where we're lacking business and here's where we have a lot of business. Let's fill this gap in the areas that we're lacking the business. Economic development, hospitality, heads in beds, more services for our businesses. All of our businesses, all of our little businesses, big businesses. The more we can even out business, the companies or the small moms and pops that struggle in January and February have a better shot of being here in July and August and vice versa. So the more that we can streamline and make a consistent business operation for people that invest in our community as business owners. the more opportunity for the residents to have great businesses. So that's the direction of that group now, and you're right, this is just a placeholder that presentation's done it's out the window that whole thing is gone we're starting fresh with a that this council will hear |
| 02:02:32.32 | Unknown | any other comments. I'm not. then motions. |
| 02:02:37.48 | Jill Hoffman | Well, I do have one comment. I would like us to find and add money to our budget for our disaster preparedness as a city. So I recognize the Southern Rhin Fire is focusing on vegetation management, chippers, education seminars. But we've talked about things such as geologic mapping. Thank you. And this is something I've had on my agenda for years. And so I would like to see us identify some funding for that effort. I think we as a city need to let our residents know that this is a top priority for us. For me, it's every bit as important as trees. I was going to propose that we take the 25,000 allocated for PBAC, a pilot design services, but that's coming from the gas tax. And the gas tax is not going to help us with geologic mapping, so I'd like to figure out |
| 02:03:31.70 | Winona Conocath | Thank you. |
| 02:03:31.72 | Unknown | Thank you. AND THE FAMILY IS |
| 02:03:39.09 | Jill Hoffman | where we could find some monies to invest in the safety of our hillsides and town for our residents. |
| 02:03:52.02 | Unknown | Well, I would regard that as basic infrastructure, so I don't see why Measure O shouldn't be able to pay for that. |
| 02:03:57.57 | Jill Hoffman | All right, and Yulia let us know that we were not transferring everything that we had in Measure O over. So I would like to make the bold proposal that we actually transfer more Measure O funds over to our general fund and that we invest those monies as deemed appropriate by our public works director in conjunction with our city manager and with Southern Marine Fire in whatever efforts they deem most beneficial. But for me, that would include geologic mapping. |
| 02:04:29.35 | Unknown | And again, this is a placeholder, so do you want to suggest- Yeah, a placeholder. Suggest a- $50,000. |
| 02:04:32.45 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, a placeholder. So just a- $50,000. |
| 02:04:34.86 | Unknown | Thank you. out. I remember as I got educated this last week, I've spent five hours with staff going through the budget, by the way. The one thing, the discipline that I've learned, and Yulia I'm sure will comment on it, is that she's reluctant to move specified, to move monies into the capital fund, into the capital fund until we actually have a real dollar amount, a project identified? Now, maybe planning is a good enough project definition for you to be at want to transfer it, but that's the question I think I'd like to ask you. How you would handle that? It's very amorphous at the moment. We're going to use measure O money for this initiative, but we don't have anything yet described. |
| 02:05:36.93 | Julia Cargill | Right. So I just want to clarify why I'm reluctant to do this in the first place. The city of Sassalila has only one main capital project fund. So the revenue sources, come from all kinds of different sources. So when we don't have specific project on the books, the money by default are being put in the reserves in this specific fund. So I am comfortable creating the project and allocating funds to the specific projects because we can trace it back. but I'm not so comfortable commingling and putting money in reserves from measure ore or gas tax or any specific designated revenues without the project attached. So I hope that clarifies the reasoning behind it. |
| 02:06:24.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:06:24.43 | Julia Cargill | But if you create the project today, we will definitely |
| 02:06:24.60 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:06:27.86 | Julia Cargill | included in the total budget resolution. |
| 02:06:30.44 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, I mean if you look at the 2.6 million that we're spending, we're spending from our disaster fund, $575,000 for slide repairs. So I believe that it is a worthwhile investment for us to invest in preventative efforts so that we're not having to spend money on clean up, instead we're spending money to prevent. |
| 02:07:00.14 | Unknown | What was the dollar amount? |
| 02:07:01.44 | Jill Hoffman | 50,000 is what I'm asking for. So can we generate. |
| 02:07:04.38 | Unknown | So can we generally agree on that and then let our staff to come back in next week's budget- That would be fine with me. With how to deal with it? Yeah. You're not going to stop a slide with $50,000. |
| 02:07:10.45 | Jill Hoffman | That would be fine with me. Yeah. No, but we're going to, I just want us to invest and make sure that we have money so that when we put this on a future agenda item for a disaster for whatever, |
| 02:07:14.96 | Unknown | Bye. Okay. |
| 02:07:26.13 | Jill Hoffman | this effort we're going to undertake, we have some monies available to invest in this important effort. |
| 02:07:31.75 | Unknown | City Manager, how do we... use this list of unfunded department requests. Is that something then if things start going wildly great and expenditures drop and revenues go up, you start pulling from this list first? Or how do we kind of utilize these things? Or what's that sideline list we can put things on? |
| 02:07:51.20 | Adam Politzer | I don't recommend that we make any adjustments before mid-year. And we will bring projects case by case forward based on this list and other things that come up from the community that haven't been anticipated. But I think what we're recommending is that as we start the budget process, you know, and the strategic plan, obviously it's going to be tied plan. You know, there's a lot of work that's going to happen late this fall, early this winter in preparation for the next two-year budget. And then we would address that at that point in time. As we go through these various staffing changes, we'll reevaluate the structure of the departments to see if there's efficiencies that we can create or if there's needs for additional staffing in terms of contract support in some of those cases. But we don't recommend any change based on the information you've received tonight. But we put that information before you in case there's something on that list that you don't agree with the city manager on and think that it should be funded. You would make that case up to your fellow council member and make the decision to move it off that list and to fund it. We aren't recommending you do that. We don't think it's necessary at this time. Thank you. |
| 02:09:08.71 | Unknown | Any other comments? I have some general comments. All right, let's make them. Let's get them going. General comments. Let's do that. On this stuff. On this stuff. No, I don't have any on this stuff. |
| 02:09:11.12 | Adam Politzer | All right, let's make them. |
| 02:09:15.98 | Unknown | Thank you. On this stuff, no, I don't have anything on this stuff. |
| 02:09:20.42 | Unknown | Yeah. You have like scientific things you wanted to get out on. I'm ready for a motion any time unless you want to stand here. Do we need them? I'll sit here and look at you. |
| 02:09:25.37 | Winona Conocath | Yeah. |
| 02:09:25.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:09:25.69 | Winona Conocath | I'm going to be. |
| 02:09:28.18 | Unknown | We're not passing a budget, we're giving direction. |
| 02:09:28.27 | Jill Hoffman | We're not passing a budget, we're giving direction tonight. So is everyone in agreement with the recommendation for the 50,000 that you'll find that? Yes. Okay. And I continue to object to the 25,000 for the pilot project, but I recognize we're not committing to spend that money, we're budgeting that money, and that it will take further action to make a commitment to spend that money. |
| 02:09:30.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:09:35.93 | Winona Conocath | Yeah. |
| 02:09:35.95 | Unknown | Yeah. Okay. |
| 02:09:54.43 | Unknown | Great. then we're good. |
| 02:09:56.94 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 02:09:58.02 | Unknown | That item is closed. Thank you. |
| 02:10:04.45 | Unknown | Now in all this, I have to find my agenda, so hold with me for just a second. General, oh no, we switched. So now we're doing water. |
| 02:10:10.76 | Unknown | Yes. Are we taking a break? |
| 02:10:13.14 | Unknown | I'm not sure. |
| 02:10:13.31 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:10:14.25 | Unknown | Really five quick because really quick because |
| 02:10:16.68 | Jill Hoffman | We have Tammy here from the |
| 02:10:17.68 | Unknown | Do you need, because we have somebody here, do you need to take a break? |
| 02:10:18.83 | Jill Hoffman | from the Ritter Center. |
| 02:10:21.71 | Unknown | Go quick, quick, quick, quick, go. Do you need to take a break? |
| 02:10:21.93 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:10:22.00 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:10:22.03 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:10:24.82 | Unknown | Oh, I know. |
| 02:10:25.36 | Unknown | I know, but... |
| 02:10:26.23 | Unknown | I guess somebody did. I think. I am. |
| 02:10:33.62 | Unknown | Back in. |
| 02:10:38.03 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 02:10:42.20 | Jesse Taylor-Vermont | you Thank you. |
| 02:11:13.91 | Jeff Jacobs | I'd say it's just one time. Yeah. So we got to. and possibly can get a chance by 90%. See what you've done? You picked the red side. |
| 02:11:24.99 | Unknown | I'm not going to decide on that one. |
| 02:11:27.14 | Jeff Jacobs | you I'm going to see you. |
| 02:11:28.79 | Unknown | Thank you. you |
| 02:11:29.82 | Jeff Jacobs | Cheers. I saved my birthday. I want to take you love on that one. I didn't say that one. I didn't wish on that one. |
| 02:11:33.95 | Unknown | you |
| 02:11:53.39 | Jeff Jacobs | Thank you. |
| 02:11:54.64 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Amen. Thank you. |
| 02:12:05.76 | Jeff Jacobs | Thank you. . |
| 02:12:34.16 | Jeff Jacobs | Thank you. So, the anchorage. Thank you. |
| 02:12:55.97 | Unknown | you |
| 02:13:21.63 | Jeff Jacobs | I'm just going to go. |
| 02:14:48.17 | Unknown | Bye. you |
| 02:15:35.01 | Unknown | All right, we're back. |
| 02:15:39.82 | Unknown | And next up. Item 6C, if you weren't here earlier, we switched 6B and 6C. So we're now hearing 6C, which is our waterfront update safe harbor approval. Chief of Police John Rohrbacher is presenting. |
| 02:15:54.03 | John Rohrbacher | Hi, good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the Council. Before we begin the management update about the waterfront, I just wanna make a couple of introductions. First, I'd like to introduce Tammy White. Can you just stand for just one second? And so Tammy is the whole care person director for Ritter Center, one of our new partners in our efforts to provide a better life for the anchor outs. And thank you for being here, Tammy. Also, I just want to acknowledge that Janet is here from Pelican. We spent some quality time together last week with Janet and other marina operators discussing the options of having members of the Anchor Out community move into some of the marinas. So I just thank you, Janet, for being here. All right, moving on. |
| 02:16:45.18 | John Rohrbacher | So now we have a name. We are naming our project Safe Harbor. Actually, we can't take credit for the name. Mark Shotwell from Ritter Center came up with the name, but it's stuck. It sounds great. And, but again, it's about our pilot program concept empowering anchor outs towards an independent life. So again, this is the same slide I used in April, just, it seemed like just short of two months ago. I'm hoping that the information that we provide will... offer you an opportunity to have some discussion and provide us some direction if needed, and then approve for us to continue our efforts on our pilot program. |
| 02:17:31.85 | John Rohrbacher | So we have a goal. Our goal is to create reentry housing for the anchor outs. It's really that simple as a goal statement. |
| 02:17:42.81 | John Rohrbacher | I wanted to acknowledge our partners now. We didn't have such an inclusive list when we were here before you in April. So new to the list is the Ritter Center. I think I might have mentioned that, but we had not firmed up our partnership going forward with them. We now have a partnership going forward with the Sausalito Chamber of Commerce and with the different marina operators so with everybody we have started to put some meat on the bone for this project going forward and we're very excited about it So I want to talk about the Ritter Center first. It's a big part of what we are trying to do. We acknowledge that we in the city and specifically the police department We are by no means qualified to do case management or person care and we have reached out to the Ritter Center to be our partner providing the management services needed for people that we hope will move into the marinas |
| 02:18:55.57 | John Rohrbacher | the marinas and there are eight of them that have agreed to take at least one boat and and provide a slip for a period of six months to 18 months for the pilot program. When we were here last, we talked about the program being just six months, but as we've learned more as we go along, Progress for people who are willing to move into the slips might take more than that, and our partners with the Ritter Center are suggesting that we, not artificially limit ourselves to just six months. So our partnership going forward is six to 18 months for the pilot program. The Chamber of Commerce is willing to work with us to help find work. there's a strong connection between success in transitioning from homelessness to getting out of poverty by having a job and being able to work. And one of the beliefs that we have is that in talking to people who have expressed interest in being part of this program is that if they did not have to spend so much time and effort in their life every day just to survive, that they'd be happy to have a job and be able to make some money and work towards their own independence. And so this is another big part of our pilot program, and we're happy to welcome the Chamber of Commerce to help us with that part about finding jobs for people. |
| 02:20:36.91 | John Rohrbacher | So in addition to those partnerships, we are, we are, of course have to talk about money. And we are, working on KESH grant funding. KESH stands for the California Emergency Solutions and Housing Grant Fund. The city manager and I have attended all the required meetings to participate in the county's Homeless Policy Steering Committee to get their approval for us to receive those funds. And there's a formula for that. I have another slide on that a little bit later. That's a big part of what we wanna do. The Marin County Health and Human Services has been terrific for us to work with. They've been very patient with us as we learn many things about this part of what we want to do that we had no prior real knowledge about. We are going to need to keep our thoughts forward about additional money, and including some of these from maybe the Marine Community Foundation or Sierra Club, the federal HUD vouchers, Homeward Bound, Veteran Services, no specifics yet. It's just so that you know we are not Blind to the fact that this is not free. And then of course we would look at other federal, state and county funding sources. So here's a look at what the budgets could look like. And we put together three different looks at this. In the, if we were just doing a six month budget only, the slip rentals, which is a combination of the actual rental of the slip and the separate liveaboard fee. We are estimating that that's approximately $1,000 per month per slip. So for a six month program, that's $48,000. The Ritter Center funds are a figure that we have worked out with Ritter Center. No contracts, of course, have been signed yet for that. we know that there will be some issues with insurance and inspections of the boat so we put in a contingency fund or actually labeled a fund for that and a contingency fund and looking at what a six-month budget could cost of ninety three thousand five hundred dollars so the 12-month budget basically not quite doubles it but we because we left in the same thing for the can the miscellaneous insurance and inspections for that same time period because really it's just a one-time cost in the beginning and for a total of $177,000. The 18 month budget starts to stretch a little bit and amounts to $260,000. Revenue sources look like this. The available cash funding that the county of Marin is gonna receive from the state of California is $289,000. I love. program that we are proposing. and the steering committee for Marin County has approved, makes us eligible for 60% of that. So we could be in line for $173,000 towards our budget for either the 6 or 12 or 18 month plan. We asked previously for the city to provide some seed money from the Tidelands funds in the amount of $25,000. So we feel comfortable that we are looking at being able to have in the bank, for the program, $198,000. So that doesn't get us to the 18-month program, but it does get us up to the 12-month program. And so that's a summary of what that looks like. |
| 02:24:40.38 | John Rohrbacher | The other piece that we want to bring forward as a thought, because it comes up when we were talking to people about this program, is that If we enjoy some success and we think that we're gonna, that this could possibly be expanded and to meet the needs of everybody on Richardson's Bay, not just those within Saucyutal Waters. So we're looking forward to a potential of a partnership with RBRA at some point in the future, but certainly we are not looking at that right this minute. But so we would like to be able to create a model that works and see that it generates interest and then be able to fold some other activity into that at some point. But in the beginning, we are, frankly, thinking just for ourselves about it being a socialita program. |
| 02:25:36.30 | John Rohrbacher | So what we're looking for is your approval to continue to work with our partners and to secure all the different things that are required for this pilot program. We have not signed any contracts with anybody yet. We just went ahead and enclosed in the package several of the different types of contracts or slip agreements that come from our partners with the marinas marinas and Some of them included like their their rules and and such So that we could just provide that to you. That's just for information We've filled out nothing yet with anybody about those but just so you would have that information available So what we are hoping for tonight, after questions, answers, or discussion, that you receive and file this report that you direct us to keep working and moving forward with what we're doing and that we would report back to you when you come back after the August break and we would report back to you in September. So that's just an overview of what we're doing. I'm happy to provide more detail if you have questions for me. |
| 02:26:49.56 | Unknown | And that's what we're going to open up to right now. Any questions for the chief? And then we'll go one at a time. |
| 02:26:52.93 | John Rohrbacher | Thank you. |
| 02:26:52.95 | Jill Hoffman | So although we've identified eight slips in the various marinas. Is it our intention to ramp up more slowly than that? So we might start with two or three as we get started. And is it our intention to actually go ahead and finalize and sign agreements largely in the form attached to our staff report so we can get going on this over the summer? |
| 02:27:16.69 | John Rohrbacher | the summer so um you know we we know that it's unlikely that we will just have eight people on day one that are willing to do this it's a big step there's a lot involved and we're asking a lot of people to trust us and so we are we are happy to prove ourselves with a slow start and you know that's that will work fine for us we We included all those different forms because that's essentially the format of them. And unless you had a particular disagreement about any of them, we are likely just to use them as written. The one from I'm not sure. Ritter Center that Mark Shotwell provided that's one agreement that he has or Ritter Center has with the county of Marin we would in large part just put in the city of Sausalito and the Ritter Center to form that contract but he wanted us to see what a working contract looked like and it's a little bit different uh you know amount of money of course but he offered that as something so we didn't have to create something from scratch and so we would probably just move with that as well and not recreate something unnecessarily Other questions? |
| 02:28:30.59 | Susan | I do. |
| 02:28:31.19 | John Rohrbacher | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 02:28:31.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:28:31.80 | Susan | So I also emailed you about this, but our last meeting on this issue, while I think this is generally a terrific program, I expressed great concern about the condition that if someone chose to try to move to a marina and move off the water but is unsuccessful that they will be not permitted to move back to Sausalito waters and I see that I just want you to confirm that that's still a condition that you're recommending. |
| 02:28:59.75 | John Rohrbacher | It is, and I'm happy to add a little bit to that and explain it. We felt that way before we even worked with the Ritter Center that we would Expect that people would commit to doing this and not just try and take advantage of a situation But after you raised that at the last meeting we added in that We felt that if in any way shape or form that we the city of Sausalito failed in our efforts That we would certainly would not penalize anybody that took that chance and trusted us to provide that opportunity. So if they came forward, Leto failed in our efforts that we certainly would not penalize anybody that took that chance and trusted us to provide that opportunity. So if they came forward and moved off the water and we failed, we would put them back. But in addition to that, in our further conversations with Mark Shutwell, the Ritter Center Director, is that There's two pieces is they believe and so do we that there needs to be real life consequences associated with the program like this. However, and it's a really big, however, is that the Ritter Center model like others in that business is more success and they and it's why we would partner with somebody like that because they have the tools and the experience and the skills to see people through these types of programs. And so Director Shabo is in agreement with our you know, if they just quit and don't want to work, then we're not going to allow people to go back. But they're not really willing to accept that happening. That's not their work model. So does the Ritter Center |
| 02:30:30.25 | Susan | So does the Ritter Center have other similar real life consequences for their homeless support services? |
| 02:30:37.37 | John Rohrbacher | I didn't hear the first part of that. Thank you. |
| 02:30:38.85 | Susan | I said, so does the Ritter Center have such serious consequences in their homeless programs, their homeless supportive services programs for people who return? who are not able to succeed in housing and return to the street. |
| 02:30:54.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:30:54.18 | Susan | I mean, I just, I'm not familiar with this model, and it seems like, in this particular case, seems like such a severe consequence. |
| 02:30:54.19 | Unknown | I mean, I just... Thank you. |
| 02:30:57.16 | Unknown | you |
| 02:30:57.22 | John Rohrbacher | and... |
| 02:30:57.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:30:58.02 | John Rohrbacher | I'm sorry. |
| 02:31:02.04 | John Rohrbacher | Yeah. course there's a little bit of difference of between the water and land and trying to reestablish somebody back in the water but as we are learning from speaking with them is that they're used to people having some challenges with a big move like this. And they use the example of if somebody in our program was not having a really great success at a particular Marina, they would look for a better fit for them at a different Marina. Or if it was an issue of being more time and more service or something that they would provide. All right. I think it's another way of looking at it. They would look at it as a failure if we were not able to make this happen. And that's just the way Ritter Center looks at it. That they're dedicated towards success and they're used to setbacks. So it's not that a initial setback and you're immediately kicked out and you go back on the water or you can't go back on the water. You know, he agreed that we should keep that in there because it's part of, you know, one of their operating principles. It has to be real life consequences, but consequences shouldn't be handed out simply because people struggle. And we know that there could be struggles for people and they're very patient about, working towards that success. I don't know if I'm able to really satisfy your concern because we don't, the idea is not just to do all this work and then have people you know, just leave the program. Our whole goal is to help people see this to the very end for themselves. |
| 02:32:45.05 | Jill Hoffman | Mr. Mayor, may I expand on that slightly? |
| 02:32:48.08 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:32:48.77 | Jill Hoffman | So I was privileged to participate with the Chief and with Mark Shotwell on a couple of conference calls as well. First of all, he has 85% success rate with his program. No, I'm not questioning Ritter House's success. But the fact that he comes to us with a track record of success of 85% is evidence of his commitment that the clients with whom he participates do not fail. And we did talk about other alternatives, so that if a client is placed with one marina and is struggling with that marina, it's possible to move them to a different marina. So they wouldn't just simply get kicked out of the first marina that they failed to succeed with. Other options would be explored before |
| 02:33:01.74 | Susan | No. That's a question. |
| 02:33:36.13 | Jill Hoffman | a decision was made that there is not an adequate level of cooperation for the program to succeed. |
| 02:33:46.00 | Adam Politzer | I had one more comment and it goes back to what Chief Robacher stated at the beginning and I think Councilmember Cox mentioned earlier too. We're not looking to start with eight people right in the middle of this program. We want to start with a high rate of success and look and evaluate working with the Ritter Center and evaluating who first starts the program. And as Councilmember Hoffman and Councilmember Cox is a working committee working with the chief and I and Ritter, we recognize after our conversations with the marinas, we don't want to fail out the gate and have the marina say we're out. Then the program folds, period. So we really want to have success and then tied with the chamber of commerce, we do want to have people be employed that are looking for employment or looking for additional employment, assuming they have jobs, an opportunity for additional employment. So we want this first phase of the project to be successful. We can come back to council and share our feedback. But we are not anticipating, especially with the commitment from Ritter, And you know that that we don't want people to fail so evaluating those first two or three people that are in the program So that they are set up to succeed is what our initial phase of this project is comprised of |
| 02:34:59.79 | Ray Withey | Thank you. |
| 02:35:00.22 | Adam Politzer | Chill. |
| 02:35:01.31 | Ray Withey | So, and as we talked about last time, this is a voluntary program. This is a program that is a pilot program, I'm not aware of anybody or any other community. And so this is an innovative project that we have put together that the chief and that Adam has worked to do. a lot of hours to bring this team together. And partnering with the Ritter Center, and this is for people specifically who have indicated that they're living on the water because they have no other place to go. And they have difficulty finding employment and being self-sufficient because they spend so much time just trying to survive out on the water, in other words, carrying water back and forth and fresh water and transiting back and forth their boat. This is a program where the pilot program where we're trying to encourage them and encourage self-sufficiency and let them have access to these programs in a new and an innovative way. It's voluntary, and so, and Susan, to your question, if it doesn't work out, they don't lose their boat. They just lose part of their legacy status, I suppose you could say, in Sausalito waters. So if they have a boat and they can sail it and they want to hoist their sail and not participate in the program, they're perfectly free to do that. |
| 02:36:35.95 | Unknown | Any other questions for the chief? Thank you. I'm going to open up to public comment. And I have Greg, Greg come on up. Any other public comment that would like to speak on this item? Fill out a card and bring it to the city clerk. |
| 02:36:56.77 | Unknown | Right up here, Greg, and then we'll all hear you. |
| 02:37:01.14 | Unknown | And thank you for waiting. |
| 02:37:02.32 | Greg Baker | I'm Greg Baker and you've seen me before. Chief, one question here. Is this for just Sausalito or is this the whole Richardson's Bay? |
| 02:37:11.74 | Unknown | I don't know. And then do you have other questions, and we can answer them all, Greg. |
| 02:37:17.14 | Greg Baker | come on. Thank you. |
| 02:37:17.61 | Unknown | Is that your only question? |
| 02:37:17.66 | Greg Baker | Is that your question? I have some other things I want to say. Okay. I have a question for the Chief before I say anything. |
| 02:37:20.56 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:37:23.55 | John Rohrbacher | So I'm happy to repeat that because we had talked about a little bit earlier in that we are going to focus on our own waters first. And then we're hoping that we are able to produce a successful model that we can then share with others. And in fact, I have that on one of my slides. So thank you for asking. |
| 02:37:42.38 | Greg Baker | Thanks, Greg. Let's see here. I'm the old guy in the Anchorage. And for some reason I didn't hear about this, and they say they put it here and there now. Everybody comes and talks to me. They want to know what's going on. And I couldn't tell him anything. I think it's an interesting idea. I see a lot of problems. You can't herd cats. These people are all independent. A lot of them work. A lot of them make good money. Um, I'm retired. I'm not going to leave my boat except maybe in a body bag. I said something about handcuffs, but that was a joke. I'm not sure. I like, like I say, it sounds like it might be a good idea. I mean, if it can work, but the people As a man who stood up here from the whatever services he was with. said he can hardly get people's first names. AND I THINK IT'S A since they're not available. You have to go out and chase them down. Um, Unfortunately, Everybody is also not real stable. And if there's not People say, oh, you know, they're making drugs out there. No. They probably knew it was some. Because I'm on a hill, too. So it's... It's really an awkward situation, and I've seen this for, what, 50 years? I used to live off strawberry. hand. There were no houses there. It was beautiful. And I love to live out there and I don't want to leave. I've got a nice boat, I'm putting an engine in it, I raised my goddaughter who's now 14 and just graduated from Little Creek. And she swims, she sails, she surfs, and she loves the boat. That's going to be her boat when I go. So, I got a lot invested in this community. At one point I was involved with the disaster program that was a pilot model for the United States. Sausalito had that good a disaster program. So, you know, I'm not new to Sausalito. That's enough. Thank you. |
| 02:39:49.18 | Unknown | Thanks Greg. Appreciate it. Glad we got your question asked. Suzanne Whitebro. |
| 02:39:59.24 | Suzanne Whitebro | Good evening, council managers. Thank you for letting me speak. I think this is a fabulous program, and I'm just so happy that These people that have had such a hard winter will have the opportunity to volunteer and participate in this program. I just have a couple of questions, being a mariner myself. And some of the people that are out on these boats, because they have nowhere to live, are not mariners. And I'm wondering about if the Ritter Association. who have done so well with homeless people and gotten them jobs and integrated them into our system, if they have ever dealt with boats before. Thank you. I see that the slip fee is $1,000 per boat. Well, normally when you put a boat in a slip, it's by the foot. So each case would be an individual case with each harbormaster, and that might be something to be considered. And the boats might not be in the best of condition. I live on a boat that has the bilge pump going every five minutes. And, you know, so maybe there should be an attention drawn to also the maintenance of these alternate living spaces to be able to maintain the boats so that these homeless people that are trying to integrate themselves into our community will also not have to face like disasters. If they come up, if the pump doesn't work any longer, electricity cuts out or whatever. So just looking to to add another dynamic to this program and being a mariner just to consider that we really need to live on boats and the more, um, live aboards possible in the harbors, the better, because that is limited to 10% per harbor. And I think that the harbormasters are absolutely willing to participate at $1,000 a slip. I mean, that's a great fee for a slip. Usually it should be per foot. And so it's just to draw attention to that everybody gets a fair shake. Thank you so much. |
| 02:42:10.14 | Unknown | Thank you. Jeff Jacobs. |
| 02:42:32.72 | Jeff Jacobs | A person can live on a boat. Sammy. I wanna direct this especially towards you. They cannot sale an apartment or house though. |
| 02:42:47.82 | Jeff Jacobs | The Anchorage of Sausalito is a community and I'm sure Tammy knows this as well as I do, |
| 02:42:58.10 | Jeff Jacobs | We do not destroy a community. We have so much of a problem in the USA, not only with the conflict of interest, among our leaders, making money off the decisions, |
| 02:43:14.26 | Jeff Jacobs | $1,000 for a marina here being rewarded. Tammy, I'll tell you this, after a demonstration we did when Schoonmarkers closed their dock, They have 15 days now to answer their summons. The people out there are already independent. Much more so, than many of the posh and wealthy people of the Hill. The idea that we would take either the creme de la creme or the bottom of the barrel, depending on how a person would look at it. And tell them. That they, after this program, cannot come back to Sausalito and a community is destroyed and a bunch of people with problems become even lonelier. I don't know if you've ever looked at the communities of Schoonmacher's Marina which has however many liveaboards or sneaker boards and Pelican and all of them really except for Bridgeway Marina and Gate 5 and 6 and all of that. The houseboat's there. Most of the marinas do not have what we would call a community. It is a guaranteed failure. to take somebody away from what already is a struggling community without Dunphy Park, where we gathered and got water and cooked food, even though there was so much problems there, I won't lie about that. There will be very little cooperation if none with THE PROVISIO THAT the anchor outs will not be allowed in Sausalito waters anymore. We know what that is. It's divide and conquer. We've had enough of that in the United States of America, I would think. that what I'm doing with Jill James Hoffman. is about something that will be good for her soul when she can declare the truth. And so that's why I'm saying what I'm saying. This is my truth. |
| 02:45:24.12 | Unknown | Thanks. Any other public comment? Seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it up here for our comments. Who would like to go first? Susan. I'll start. |
| 02:45:35.47 | Susan | So I really want to thank everyone, Chief, City Manager, our Waterfront Committee, Council Member Hoffman, Council Member Cox, for all the hard work and all of our partners. |
| 02:45:46.95 | Unknown | Excuse me. Jeff. |
| 02:45:48.42 | Susan | Mr. Jacobs, Ritter House, the chamber, and everyone that's come together to make this program happen. So I'm really thrilled about it. I think it's great. I think, as Jill said, it is voluntary. And as I said at an earlier meeting, this isn't a program for everyone. But hopefully there will be people interested. I, as I said in my questions, I am still just really distressed by the proposed condition. I think I am all for consequences, but this one just seems disproportionate to the possibility that someone just cannot make a marina work for them for whatever reason. I also... I think one of our issues that we have is building trust, and we've talked a lot about that. And I think you, Councilmember Cox, mentioned that earlier, that we have issues even getting people to connect with the system, to take the VI spadat, to kind of be willing to engage. And I think that if we're going to approach this program, that we need to build trust with the community and to show results without a threat of a very severe consequence. So I would like to hear more from the executive director of the Ritter Center. I did talk to Tammy during the break. I don't think she was apprised of this conversation. So I'm open to learning more, but I just feel that this is a much too significant consequence for a pilot program before we've shown success and trust. But otherwise, I am fully supportive, and I really do appreciate all the hard work that has gone into this. |
| 02:47:43.25 | Unknown | John. |
| 02:47:45.56 | Jill Hoffman | So I think a pilot program is precisely the place to test the best approach you can come up with. And to identify whether or not it's workable. And at this early stage in embarking on a pilot program, I would be inclined to rely upon the advice of the experts who have dealt with similar situations before. So my inclination would be to follow the good advice of our professional partners about how we should structure this program. The good news is this is June, we hope to get this started this month or early July, The police chief tells me and Adam tell me I'm pushing too hard, but I do want to get it started as soon as we can. Which means that we can come back in September with some initial results. And we can share whether people are meeting success, what the challenges are. Do we have too much interest? Do we have not enough interest? Do we need to narrow our net, spread our net wider? So at this point, I would like for us to take a leap of faith and trust in the advice from our professional partners and on this program in the manner they recommend with the knowledge that because it's a pilot program, we can tweak it as we move forward. |
| 02:49:13.85 | Unknown | Right. |
| 02:49:18.66 | Unknown | I'm not sure. Obviously, I mean, this is a super program and I don't know how anybody could object to it. But I understand a lot that from the Anchor Out community that, yeah, Jeff, there's a community there, I'll give you that. There is a community there, but there are also people who need help. And there are people who really don't want to be there. There's a lot who do, I acknowledge, but there are some who don't and that really need some help in transitioning to something different than that community. But I've also been thinking, I was just thinking tonight as I was listening to this, I mean, thank goodness we do have expert partners, because I can imagine the social issues of someone coming off of the anchorage and joining a, having a slip in a harbor, The social issues and pressures are going to be really enormous. And I've, you know, I'm a bit slow on the uptake on some things. I'm not, I'm just not a sociologist, you know. I don't think like that, but as I was listening to this, I realized that There's going to be some major challenges, and thankfully we've got a professional partner. I think we need to keep a really open mind about what happens when it fails, somebody fails. I hope the program doesn't fail, but if somebody fails for this. and I have a lot of, yeah, sympathy, but I have a lot of I wouldn't yes sympathy but I'm have a lot of agreement with count of our vice mayor's position on this I think this needs to be I would say we keep an open mind and we look at everything on a case-by-case basis I would be my suggestion |
| 02:51:48.12 | Ray Withey | So first, let me respond to a couple of the questions about the slip fees and conditions of the boats and things like that. To be clear, our estimate is $1,000 a month, but that's based on varying feet, right? So Tammy, you're right, it is per foot, but they have varying cost. So for our cost purposes, we just estimated $1,000 per slip. We had very productive meetings with the Marina operators about the condition of the boat. So that of course is, I've gotten some questions about that. That's something that we're looking at. What for the selected boats in this pilot program, very small start. Thank you. what we may have to do to a boat to make it A, insurable and B, amenable to electricity. safe water at the slip. So these are things that we have considered and have been part of our discussion. And Ray and Susan, to your point about returning to the water, I'm not, and I was thinking kind of the same thing, this is a pilot program. We need to have consequences on the advice of our partner of the Ritter Center. But how that plays out in actuality as we move through this pilot program, I'm not entirely sure what that end And I think we do have to look at it on a case by case basis. But the point is to help people transition off the water. That is into supportive services in a way that the Ritter Center are the experts in. And so this is what they do on a, this is what they do. I mean, this is like the, we're very, very lucky to have them as a partner. I think with that caveat and with that sort of mindset moving forward, I hope that you have that commitment for me to approach that issue as we move forward. And do it in a way that's sensitive to the people and their boats because I appreciate that too. |
| 02:53:47.13 | Carolyn Revell | . |
| 02:54:02.13 | Jill Hoffman | I do want to say that this program did not evolve out of a void. So this program evolved because the city manager and I have been sitting down and meeting with various members of the Anchor Out community for over nine months. on a piecemeal basis, one by one, sometimes two at a time. the program evolved from a request from Anchor Routes, who said I'm sick of spending 24 seven surviving on the water. I used to be on a slip, I got kicked off my slip, the rent got tripled, and I would love to go back to having a slip. And if I get a slip, I can get a full time job. And if I'm not spending 24 seven bringing water, carrying waste, battening down the hatches, avoiding the chill, avoiding the waves, making sure I stay anchored, then I actually can spend some time being productive. This did not come out of nothing, this came out of a request for help that we then put our heads together to figure out what we could do to help. And I just do want to take the opportunity to say thank you. personally to our partners, to the Ritter Center. to the police department, to the city staff, to the chamber of commerce, to the anchor out community who has engaged with us in putting this program together, to the marina operators. This is a holistic program and it will not succeed without the participation of all of our various partners and stakeholders, so thank you. |
| 02:55:45.22 | Unknown | Thank you, and thank you for your comments. You've taken everything I wanted to say, especially the thanks to the people who have made this work. Regardless, I don't really have any notions of where this may go. I appreciate that people want to watch it as it goes. There was an inaction for 50 years and now there's an action. And bottom line, that's a win. I mean, you guys took action where there had been nothing. Nobody has done anything. That's what this dais should do and you guys did it and you're representing us in that. And so for that, you got my vote, you got my support. And then you employed great staff, great company, great process, all that along the way. Make it work, it's awesome, we'll provide the policy needed, come back when needed, whatever else goes. But you took a long, long, nationally known problem and created an action in one of the first solid actions. We've taken other actions on some other areas and debris has been a phenomenal one as well. But this is attacking homelessness as well as the Anchorage. It was action and I think that goes a long way. So, thank you and congratulations. take it the motion was to not take a motion direction direction |
| 02:56:56.92 | Winona Conocath | but to give directions. |
| 02:56:59.96 | Unknown | which I think we should change as recommended action. So any other comments you need the staff needs? Move forward. Receive and file. Thank you. |
| 02:57:09.41 | Jeff Jacobs | I hope Susan makes a motion that they describe the ban to toss into the body. |
| 02:57:15.53 | Unknown | Next up we have the general plan monthly update. Lily Willen, let's go with Whalen, Community Development Director. |
| 02:57:36.90 | Unknown | God, that one's in my ear. |
| 02:57:41.33 | John Rohrbacher | Watch out you. |
| 02:57:42.80 | Lily Willen | Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members. At this late hour, I have a PowerPoint presentation for you this evening on this update. If you want me to just take questions, I could do that too. It's your preference. |
| 02:57:56.49 | Unknown | Give a quick run through, really quick. Okay, sure. |
| 02:57:59.32 | Lily Willen | Okay, sure. So the last progress report on the general plan update was provided on April 23rd. And since that time, the general plan advisory committee or the GPAC has held two meetings. that kicked off a series of stakeholder meetings with city boards and commissions, and then additionally, Um, There are five total GPAC meetings that have been designated for discussion with city boards and commissions regarding general plan policy issues. And so we've had two of those. So on May 21st, we heard from Sauceleta Beautiful and the Business Advisory Committee. And then on June 4th, we heard from the Planning Commission and the Sustainability Commission. And then a summary of the focus of these bodies' presentations has been provided in the monthly update. Additionally, at both the May and the June meetings, the GPAC received information regarding the revised work plan for M group. Including the council direction that the new economic analysis for the Marin ship be a residual land value analysis. with three scenarios or alternatives. Additional direction from the council was that M group and the economic firm EPS. integrate GPAC input into those the development of the alternatives for that economic analysis. So then on June. Fourth, a presentation of the refined analysis was given to the GPAC at their meeting. And there was discussion at that GPAC meeting about the three alternatives and the analysis itself, but no new recommendations given in the form of a vote of the GPAC was made at that meeting. So this table is the table that was shared with the GPAC at that June 4th meeting regarding the alternatives. So the first alternative is looking at a residual land value analysis without changes to existing regulations in the Marinship. but with property owners making improvements to their properties within the existing zoning regulations. The second alternative is looking at a residual land value analysis with changes to land use, land uses that are allowed in the Marin ship including new uses which would be office and research and development, retail and service commercial and live work residential. But no changes to the development intensities and what we mean by development intensities is the floor area allowed on those parcels. There was discussion at the GPAC level about the appropriateness of looking at residential and retail uses in particular. And then there was also discussion at the GPAC level about the scope of the analysis, looking at the W or the Waterfront District Zone. But there were no new recommendations given in the form of a vote of the GPAC for the council to consider with regards to the analysis. And then the third alternative, Looks at a residual land value analysis with changes to the development intensities on those parcels, but not changes to the allowed uses. So looking towards next steps, the next three GPAC meetings will be dedicated to continuing the board and commission visioning sessions with the GPAC. and that includes parks and rec, Commission, the Community Safety Disaster Preparedness Committee, the Hospitality Business Development Committee, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, and the Historic Preservation Commission. |
| 03:01:24.46 | Unknown | I see that. |
| 03:01:25.40 | Lily Willen | And then the discussion will culminate in a summary of potential recommendations to move forward with for the GPAC based on what the various groups have been presenting and the GPAC discussions that have taken place with those groups. The discussion would take place at the GPAC on July 17th. And then following that discussion, the council would be provided with any GPAC direction at the next monthly update. And then lastly, we have calendared some dates for the marinship discussion that we'll be having. So the first date is the marinship workshop, which will be held on Saturday, September 7th. And then that will be followed by a GPAC meeting on September 17th, and then a council meeting on September 24th. And that concludes my update, and I'm available for any questions. |
| 03:02:17.55 | Unknown | Questions for Lily on any of this? We wanted this non-consent and we got a consent item. Any questions? Okay. Is there any public comment? Any comment from the public on this item? Seeing none, any suggestions or comments for Lily or the GPAC that you just have to get off your chest and say anything you want to direct towards them? |
| 03:02:42.30 | Ray Withey | I do have one question on the Marinship workshop on September 7th, is that a hard date? Yeah, okay, thank you. |
| 03:02:48.09 | Jill Hoffman | What day? Hard. |
| 03:02:49.67 | Ray Withey | Not going to move. It is hard for me. Do you have a location and time? |
| 03:02:49.91 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not going to move. It is hard for me. Is it at Thank you. |
| 03:02:54.00 | Lily Willen | We're hoping We're still figuring out the location and the time, but we're looking at Bay Model, Spinnaker, any other suggestions you may have. |
| 03:02:57.03 | Ray Withey | Sorry. |
| 03:03:03.04 | Ray Withey | The usual. Okay, thanks. |
| 03:03:07.14 | Unknown | Great. Thank you, Lily. Received and filed. Unless you had a comment, Ray. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to close you off. |
| 03:03:14.41 | Unknown | Well, I'm trying to decide. you Yeah, because we're trying to move these meetings along, right? I want to just add a little tiny bit of color on, I saw the questions that were asked of one of us for clarification. And what does it mean that the GPAC has not reached a consensus? Other than some very specific issues on less controversial items, I don't believe the GPAC will be reaching a consensus from here on in on anything. It's a bit of a broad exaggeration, but you know what I mean. We've picked a group of people that have very different views. And I think when things come back to us for policy discussions We will have heard the pros and cons from the community, right? There's not going to be a consensus, so I think that's something that we've just got to And I think some GPAC members, and they're getting there. are a little surprised, and I think it's right that I... they're surprised that we have rightly taken control of policy. you know, and that's some getting they're used to, I think. And so I think... you know, Councilmember Cox has been emphasizing that it is the City Council that makes policy. And so we're here, you're there as an advisory capacity and we want to hear all the points of view. This economic analysis needs a bit of tweaking, but it's already started. I mean, Ashley with EPS, you know, the way you build these things, it's one big, complex, multidimensional spreadsheet, basically. And she's got a lot of coding to do and inputs to do. So as we're tweaking things, we're not slowing her down. It's just she's going to be changing a few of the inputs. And so, is some of the land uses that we've described, office, R&D, that's a particular land use? It's not really what we're after, but it's the closest that you can get in terms of the increased FAR numbers that will fit into our model. These are the kind of nuances that we're dealing with, you know. and Councilmember Cox and I as the liaisons to GPAC are also having periodic calls with the team there and with Ashley to help as she refines her process going forward. So we'll see how it goes. I'm sorry for delaying us by three minutes. But I just want to add a bit of color. Would you say, Lilly, that that's about what's going on? |
| 03:06:00.50 | Winona Conocath | with the |
| 03:06:03.25 | Lily Willen | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:06:03.52 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:06:03.55 | Lily Willen | Thank you. |
| 03:06:03.65 | Unknown | three minutes that's a good question |
| 03:06:04.73 | Susan | Bye. |
| 03:06:05.90 | Unknown | That's what we needed. |
| 03:06:11.38 | Lily Willen | That's accurate. Right. |
| 03:06:12.70 | Unknown | you |
| 03:06:12.77 | Susan | So, and that's helpful. I was the council member who had that question. And I think more my question was that the staff report from the M group, it seemed to indicate that because there was no consensus, everything had just stopped. And that the economic analysis was not going forward. So that was my question. So what? We don't have consensus. I mean, that's not a crisis. And then I think my other comment was just, I think it's great that these boards and commissions are presenting, but I also feel like recommendations, your information gathering phase is over and that it's in the visioning phase. And so hopefully those recommendations, |
| 03:06:26.00 | Winona Conocath | Yeah. Right. Right. Yes. Thank you. |
| 03:06:52.79 | Susan | and information are being actually turned into forward looking visions and so that question was answered. |
| 03:07:01.05 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, because we do have that on our calendar. |
| 03:07:03.36 | Susan | Yeah. So those were my... So thank you, Council Member Withey, for the additional clarification. And yeah, it was really... I was just mostly concerned that some economic analysis had stuck. |
| 03:07:05.11 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 03:07:14.31 | Unknown | Yeah, yeah. Anything you... |
| 03:07:16.98 | Jill Hoffman | I endorse what council member Withey said. I think some of our GPAC members got caught up in monikers like retail. When really they were trying, the EPS was trying to distinguish categories without applying specific labels. The labels were really placeholders more than issue specific labels. And so I think that hearing the feedback from the GPAC and hearing concerns and things that they would like to see reviewed is useful feedback for EPS and to the extent that they're able to do that within the parameters established by the city council, they will. And if they need further guidance or refinement, they can rely on the city council liaisons to provide that to them. So I'm confident that this process is moving in the direction that the city council has asked. |
| 03:07:16.99 | Unknown | I, I, |
| 03:08:14.59 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. THE END OF THE END OF THE Seeing others, thank you, Lily. Next up, we have our first public hearing of the evening and our only public hearing of the evening, 7A, Introduction of a Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance. Matthew Weintraub is going to present. And as Matthew's getting his things ready, I see some new faces, welcome. The way we do it is if you want to talk to us, we're going to have a public comment after Matthew's presentation. We have some green cards there, you can just fill out your name and information and we'll hear from you in public comment after. Matthew's going to talk to us about something that's fairly technical. So let's have any really strong clarifying questions like hey, what does that mean at the time? But anything else will hold until after his presentation. But you might hear some things that seem fairly unique. As we get into this technical area take it away Matthew |
| 03:09:06.70 | Matthew Weintraub | Thank you, good evening Mr. Mayor and Council Members. Matthew Weintraub, Contract Senior Planner. This evening the item before you is an introduction of an updated wireless telecommunications facilities ordinance. Quick overview, the existing Sausalito Municipal Code contains Chapter 10.45, which is standards and criteria for wireless communication facilities, last amended in 2003. The zoning ordinance amendment before you renames the chapter Standards and Criteria for Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. Its purpose is to update the standards and criteria to comply with changes in federal and state law. On January 22nd, the council referred the project to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation. May 15th, the Planning Commission studied the zoning amendment and recommended adoption to the council. And May 28th, the city council continued the item to this evening. the project is exempt from CEQA action. So the zoning ordinance amendment, the purpose and intent of the chapter is to provide a uniform and standard set of guidelines and criteria for the orderly development and siting of wireless communication facilities, to avoid or minimize land use conflicts related to land use compatibility, visual resources, public safety, and environmental impacts. In September 2008, the FCC issued the small cell order, which is basically the impetus for this zoning amendment update. It basically furthered the ongoing efforts of the FCC to accelerate wireless service development. It includes deployment of new 5G wireless technology, which is essentially the small cell antennas that we're discussing. |
| 03:11:00.05 | Matthew Weintraub | So the wireless facilities zoning update will ensure that local regulations are in compliance with federal and state law, including the small cell tower amendment, and it will proactively enact policies and procedures to maintain as much local control over the permitting process as possible. You have two attachments in your staff reports. One is the zoning amendment with changes and the other is a clean copy. And you also have a draft resolution establishing the new fees. |
| 03:11:36.50 | Matthew Weintraub | So just to review what the federal and state laws are that govern essentially what local jurisdictions can do. Under federal law, there is no effective prohibition of wireless service. In other words, local jurisdictions cannot prohibit wireless service or wireless service facilities. Telecom companies can file objections to governments that do effectively prohibit or in one way or another obstruct applications. Cities cannot regulate based on health or environment. So, in other words, cities may not deviate from the FCC's defined safety parameters for for wireless facilities and the FCC does regulate thermal impacts but does not regulate electromagnetic magnetic fields and the city may not use aesthetic concerns as a pretext to regulate for health concerns So the federal law, also in federal law, is the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creations Act. Essentially applies to existing wireless towers that require cities to ministerially approve requests for wireless co-location, removal, et cetera. It also defines what substantial change is and requires cities to follow appropriate actions for substantial change. and cities also provides rules for how to process applications in terms of incomplete items and time limits. Under California state law, the public utilities code states that a city must allow wireless facilities in the public right-of-way. Cities may regulate based on aesthetics, and they may require discretionary permits. Cities maintain the ability to exercise reasonable control over the time, place, and matter of construction within the right-of-way. Also under government code, code fees must be reasonable cities may not unreasonably limit the term of any permit city may require a performance bond but not an escorted deposit and city may not require that all wireless facilities be limited to sites by a particular party so there are several various rules that are in place the city has to play by. The most recent FCC action was the small cell order in 2018. It essentially lowered the bar for what is considered effective prohibition by cities. So cities need to only show that it materially inhibits wireless service to be considered an effective prohibition. New federal deadlines for processing city permits are also established, in other words, a shot clock is established. Spacing or buffer zones between facilities is allowed for aesthetic purposes, but the spacing requirements, again, cannot materially inhibit service. And Sausalito does have defined preferred locations and less preferred locations, which I'll cover in a little more detail. So also under the small cell order, there are defined permit fees, which are basically defined as safe harbor fees that are recommended. Cities may impose aesthetic requirements on wireless facilities as long as those aesthetics are requirements are standardized, published, and reasonable. and the cities may require undergrounding of utilities except for those antennas that are required to be above ground. |
| 03:15:24.49 | Matthew Weintraub | So Sausalito's review requirements for wireless telecommunication facilities, this is under the existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance. Conditional use permits and design review permits are required for all wireless telecommunication facilities. Concealment is required for all those facilities, and they must also meet the zoning code provisions for the zone within which they are located. The ordinance does set out preferred locations, and in this order, the most preferred location is an industrial zone. The next preferred is a public institutional zone, and following that are commercial, waterfront, central commercial, and shopping center zones. The ordinance also lays out less less preferred locations those are in order of preference neighborhood commercial mixed residential and commercial open area public recreational and parks and lastly residential the ordinance does state that wireless telecommunication facilities are very strongly discouraged from locating within residential areas or at schools except in exceptional circumstances. So the ordinance essentially prioritizes the areas within which the city can approve telecommunication wireless facilities. Also, for any facility proposed in a less preferred location, an alternative site analysis must be done and a minimum of three alternative sites must be evaluated. Um, Also, the ordinance and the next two items are new for the proposed ordinance. Preferred support structures are provided in order of preference. So first, preference is co-location with existing facilities. Next would be roof mounted. Following that is building mounted. And last would be new freestanding wireless towers or poles. There are also special considerations or conditions for facilities located in either the public right of way to ensure that no obstructions occur And also, in or on historic buildings, landmarks, or districts. Similarly to residential districts, wireless facilities are very strongly discouraged from historic properties. And if they are located on historic properties, they are subject to the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. |
| 03:17:49.43 | Matthew Weintraub | So the Planning Commission study and recommendation included five points, essentially, that the continued maintenance of wireless facilities is important to ensure adequate life safety protection. The zoning ordinance amendment should include cross references to the city's trees and views ordinances. The city should explore the requirement of having all non antenna improvements be placed underground. The use of public right of way should be carefully considered under the zoning ordinance, and the city should continue to monitor the fees for small cell facilities to ensure that they are appropriate. All these planning commission recommendations have been addressed and incorporated into the proposed ordinance before you. Staff has made several small changes since the planning commission saw this, primarily entirely in the area of definitions this. The areas of the area Each antenna associated with the deployment should be no more than three cubic feet. And continuing with the definition, Um, All wireless equipment associated with the structure is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume, and some other notations as well. Um, And also in the area of clarifying and correcting definitions, these two terminologies, actually the same definition was listed for both. And so the correction was made to list the correct definition for each of those terms. So that is included in your ordinance. As far as fiscal impact and in terms of establishing the fees for the small cell wireless facilities, the FCC does provide that fees must be reasonable, which essentially eliminates a city's ability to raise revenue. So the FCC has ordered these safe harbor amounts, which are reflected in the ordinance. So staff's recommendations are to conduct a public hearing on the proposed zoning ordinance amendment, to introduce and read by title the ordinance, to continue the second reading to June 18th, which is next week, to authorize a summary of the ordinance to be published five days in advance of the second reading, which would occur on Thursday, and to adopt a resolution to establish fees for small cell wireless facilities located in the public right of way. And that concludes my presentation. I'm available to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. |
| 03:20:41.90 | Unknown | I have one I'll start off with, Matthew. One of the changes that you've had since the Planning Commission, which was on the definitions, and it's the second to last slide. The facilities do not result in human exposure to radio frequency radiation. Does that kind of fall under the health requirement that we couldn't use as a standards. |
| 03:21:08.12 | Matthew Weintraub | Yes, thank you. So that refers to the human exposure to radiation that is in excess of the standards established by the FCC. So the FCC is basically referring to its own definition for what is a safe facility. So they're basically saying that a small cell antenna meets the FCC's requirements for emissions. |
| 03:21:31.86 | Unknown | Then by them stating that, are they leaving the door open that there is, health issues. to be concerned with. |
| 03:21:44.45 | Matthew Weintraub | That has not been stated by the FCC the FCC has not regulated Any type of electromagnetic radio frequency it has simply made the statement that It would it would not be in excess of Safety standards within the government. Okay |
| 03:22:01.78 | Unknown | Okay, I'm just asking because there must be some loophole and I don't want to look for it. I think we have a great code here and I think we have a great ordinance that you've written. But other communities have found some way to exclude residential and maybe it just hasn't been challenged yet as the feedback we've gotten from that question. Hence I asked. |
| 03:22:24.33 | Unknown | Um, I am vaguely familiar with this issue, vaguely to somewhat familiar with this issue. In my role with the League of California Cities, Sacramento is always introducing new bills to loosen the regulation and take away local control. And which is the mission of the League of California Cities, so by definition I have no choice but to become familiar. But I want to turn this on its head a little bit and ask the question, has the... 5G service providers. Are you aware of any analysis of Sausalito to actually determine what would be required to give coverage? I'm thinking of an equity issue here. Coverage to every resident in the city who wants 5G access. |
| 03:23:26.70 | Matthew Weintraub | I'm not aware of such a study. |
| 03:23:28.42 | Unknown | Right, I mean the providers must have it. And so my question was, are we going to be faced with the fact that on the hills you're going to need it? |
| 03:23:39.40 | Unknown | If you just pretty much do a 300 foot radius type thing and place it around. |
| 03:23:41.09 | Unknown | Yes. Yeah, so that's the question, because the way I'm reading this is, because there's going to be a whole bunch of residents for which this is a real concern. And there's another bunch of residents who are going to say, When can I, I want to make sure my 5G access is the fastest possible that I can get. And that's the balancing act that we're going to be facing. And so based on that, How are we going? What is going to presumably a lot of very detailed technical information is going to be provided for a service provider to say, you've got a dead spot here on some neighborhood. We need to put this in residential. no matter how much fuss and issue is created, By the law, we would have to put it there. |
| 03:24:46.08 | Jill Hoffman | Well, if they provided three, so they, when, because the residential is leased, |
| 03:24:50.25 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:24:50.60 | Winona Conocath | Thank you. |
| 03:24:52.25 | Jill Hoffman | preferred, they'd have to go through. do a feasibility analysis to show that they buy three different sites. So there is a process that they have to go through. And in many of our residential neighborhoods, we do already have existing facilities. Susan and I know this from our time on the Planning Commission. |
| 03:24:56.59 | Winona Conocath | It's a show. |
| 03:25:13.01 | Jill Hoffman | Although residents are not happy, co-location is one of the preferred options in the ordinance. So that if there already is a tower or a site, near a residential neighborhood, the priority is to co-locate on that existing site before looking to establish a new site in a neighborhood. And the ordinance also recommends to the extent possible undergrounding, which I think is also a positive direction. Well, yeah. But I agree, Ray, we can't fully escape unless studies- |
| 03:25:50.51 | Unknown | Well, I would argue nor should we want to. If residents want access to 5G, they should get it. |
| 03:25:58.98 | Jill Hoffman | I think we, valid or not, we have to respect those. No, I understand. |
| 03:26:03.16 | Unknown | I know I am. |
| 03:26:05.10 | Jill Hoffman | ordinance for aesthetic reasons does that to the extent possible. |
| 03:26:10.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:26:10.82 | Susan | That's a good question. |
| 03:26:11.87 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 03:26:12.92 | Susan | so i just wanted to probe the issue of the fees a little bit more so i'm not sure why but our online staff reports tonight don't have any page numbers but under subsection e Thank you. of the California or FCC small cell order 2018. It says application and use fees and it says that the FCC order provides that application and use fees must be reasonable and then that's it and then. It says this eliminates a city's ability to raise revenue from the use of right of way. actually think of reasonable as eliminating an ability to raise revenue. I mean, you can have a reasonable lease fee. So this is essentially the lease of the public right of way. And under Prop 26 and other California state laws, it's the fee for the use of government property. It's not a regulatory fee. It's not something that we would be charging to just recover our staff time, necessarily. So is there some other provision of law that restricts us further? Because I don't, I mean. This is our public right of way, and we are giving up our space in the public right of way. And so these fees seem very low. |
| 03:27:35.64 | Unknown | I think that's exactly To your point that they have limited the fees for use of right of way. A question came up earlier about what about our existing leases at other city facilities. This doesn't impact those, but for the 5G deployment, the FCC has created these safe harbor amounts that you can charge for use of your right of way. I think to avoid a situation where you charge an amount that makes it infeasible for the provider. |
| 03:28:08.69 | Susan | So does it say something else other than must be reasonable? |
| 03:28:13.08 | Unknown | I think the safe harbor provision was further clarification, but I'd have to go back and look at that for you. |
| 03:28:18.85 | Susan | And do other cities in Marin have higher fees? I don't know the answer to that. |
| 03:28:25.87 | Unknown | The way I read it is we'd be legally challenged above and |
| 03:28:30.26 | Susan | I mean, there's legally challenged and then there's risk that we're willing to take. I mean, I don't know. I mean, they look generally awful. They're a massive aesthetic impact. And, you know, I mean, I don't. So anyway, I would. |
| 03:28:51.79 | Unknown | I have a further- Be interested in other people. |
| 03:28:52.25 | Susan | I'd be interested in other people's thoughts on that. |
| 03:28:57.89 | Unknown | Is the prohibition for the downtown historic district, is that in our current code? Is that why there's no cell service downtown? |
| 03:29:10.24 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:29:13.09 | Jill Hoffman | Although we've talked about considering a way to utilize our new parking lot to create some service opportunities. |
| 03:29:25.81 | Unknown | What is our relationship with MGS as far as the pulls on Bridgeway and setting the fee for the use of the right of way on those? Don't they control that? |
| 03:29:36.85 | Adam Politzer | Yeah, MGS owns the polls. There was discussion last year, I'm no longer on the MGS board that's served by the city managers, but the discussion last year was the original proposal that MGS was going to take all the money, and the city managers objected to that, so the last proposal was 50-50. But that's been tabled. |
| 03:29:58.40 | Unknown | Okay, so we might get 50% of the fee. |
| 03:30:06.74 | Unknown | Any other questions before we open up public comment? Did I get some cards? Oh, I'm sorry, yeah. Bring him up and we'll give him to Serge here and then you can go ahead |
| 03:30:27.31 | Unknown | And then speak clearly in the microphone, because we want to record these, and you have three minutes, and you are, Winona? Thank you. |
| 03:30:35.73 | Winona Conocath | Good evening, I'm Winona Conocath and I live on 16 Rose Court. My husband and I consider ourselves rational individuals. We do not wear tinfoil hats. This item came to my attention when I observed a man wearing a hard hat, inspecting the utility poles in my block. He said he was gathering data to be used for re-engineering the poles for 5G, for Verizon's 5G. Dear Sausalito fellow residents, These new close proximity microwave radiation antennas, which they call small cells, will be so close to all our homes. They have much higher EMF radiation because they're smaller in size, in wavelength, than we are usually exposed to. It is not what it does to my view because these small cells are not small. It is its proximity that poses higher risk We are not opposed to 5G per se, If businesses on Bridgeway want 5G, if the police department, fire department, city hall have budgets to acquire 5G ready equipment, then we do not oppose 5G for them. But even California firefighters are exempt from the forced placement of towers on their stations because of health concerns. I talked to my neighbours, some live three blocks away, No one knew the city has been holding hearings on wireless infrastructure, because it doesn't say 5G on it. If they read it in the Sausalito currents, they did not understand what they were reading. There is no demand for a smart city or Internet of Things lifestyle in my neighborhood. No one in my neighborhood is eager to buy a 5G ready cell phone or TV. VR system, AR system, drone, or autonomous car. We are mostly baby boomers who are satisfied not using all the features of our current PDAs. Majority do not know what 5G is. The council spent months educating the community on the portable showers, Why not spend time educating residents on 5G and what it will possibly look like when deployed in a utility pole close to them? We have read that the county of Marin and town of Fairfax have joined the legal battle against the FCC. Yes, the FCC has your hands tied, but so are the hands of San Anselmo, Ross, Mill Valley, San Rafael, Fairfax, and Petaluma. Their city councils adopted ordinances to protect residential areas. Some ordinances established a 500 foot setback for residential districts, a 1,500 foot buffer from each small cell pole. or require public notices to those within 500 feet of a proposed device Having a residential area in less preferred priority is not enough. There is always that possibility of a lawsuit, but the telecoms want our business. The telecoms do not want to be the bad guys. Until such time that information and effects of 5G are available, when 5G has history, please protect us. Please, no 5G antennas in residential areas and school yards. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:33:49.52 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. May I ask a question? Will you please read the list of cities again that have successfully resisted this? |
| 03:33:57.25 | Winona Conocath | They still have the threat, I cannot say they have successfully resisted. |
| 03:34:01.91 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 03:34:02.24 | Winona Conocath | They have done an urgency ordinance. Okay, so Marin, Fairfax. |
| 03:34:04.45 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so Marin, Fairfax, but who else? |
| 03:34:06.67 | Winona Conocath | Thank you. I'm sorry, it's Ross. |
| 03:34:08.49 | Jill Hoffman | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:34:09.89 | Winona Conocath | San Anselmo. |
| 03:34:10.90 | Jill Hoffman | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:34:11.29 | Winona Conocath | Thank you. Mill Valley. Senator of Elf. Fairfax and Petaluma. |
| 03:34:16.40 | Jill Hoffman | Fairfax and |
| 03:34:17.30 | Winona Conocath | I got a loop. |
| 03:34:19.12 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:34:19.73 | Winona Conocath | And the county of Marin is actually fighting the FCC. |
| 03:34:22.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:34:28.01 | Unknown | Is there any other public comment? Oh, hey, Vicki, there's one behind you with a card. He's coming up. just puffing up. |
| 03:34:40.67 | Vicki Nichols | This is Vicki Nichols. I'd like to speak as an individual and actually the co-chair of the writer of this ordinance in early 2000 or so. And it's kind of stood the test of time. We were on a committee with the carriers, so they often suggested some of the language in here. And... suggested to us that they would have to prove where they needed coverage. So that's why this is written. When there's alternative sites, there was a lot of strategy to this, the way these were prioritized. I agree with the last speaker as an individual, and I wasn't aware how noticing would be done. I'm familiar with San Francisco. I have a client there that she's had one proposed right in front of her window. I also am very aware of the limit by the FCC of Raising a health issue when you read the document this big which we did years ago. It's right there so I feel that we have been hogtied by the FCC here I'm with Susan. I would I don't want to put the city at any risk, but I think the fees are very low for what they're getting and the I believe the technology depending on the type of production of the cells can cause repeat repetition needed for every three or five hundred feet so downtown If you're even talking in the historic district, that could be We don't even have polls that close together down there. So does that necessitate this? I agree again with the speaker before about the noticing and the there are ways to not feel helpless without putting the city at risk here. but there's a lot of opposition to this. And the fact that they're now admitting They are not even measuring for EMF. It's heat what they're measuring for so I think when we start seeing a I'll be careful what I say. There are a lot of studies done in Europe on this issue. |
| 03:36:57.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:09.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:09.57 | Unknown | All right, we're gonna get one each. |
| 03:37:13.35 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE Thank you. . Thank you. |
| 03:37:14.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:14.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:16.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:16.10 | Unknown | Here. |
| 03:37:16.98 | Unknown | Anybody else have green cards, please bring them up and hand them to the front desk here. My name is Alden. |
| 03:37:22.03 | Unknown | I'm a resident of Sausalito with my wife, and I'm very concerned about the health issues. I agree with the other previous speakers because the FCC just says, like you saw in one of those slides, that they only consider the heat or radiation so you don't get burned in front of the antenna rather than the EMF. And I doubt very much that that statement can stand because we are here to protect our residents and if there's a health issue i think we should carefully look into that and don't just say we cannot do anything because it's an fcc requirement besides there i i'm missing kind of the proposal where those antennas are going to be mounted, how close together they will be, and also the requirements to have these antennas mounted on their existing power poles. I think we are striving towards to underground our electricity supplies rather than now put more poles into the neighborhood. That's all I want to mention. Thank you. |
| 03:39:03.14 | Unknown | Thank you. Hey, old man. |
| 03:39:06.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:39:08.25 | Unknown | So? |
| 03:39:08.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:39:08.58 | Unknown | Okay. So. |
| 03:39:09.98 | Unknown | you |
| 03:39:10.06 | Unknown | Come on. Thank you. |
| 03:39:19.73 | Hilda Dallitschow | My name is Hilda Dallitschow. I'm Paul's wife. I live in South Salito on Johnson Street. I'm also very concerned about this 5G at first. I'm not going even to use it, so I'm not interested in 5G. But secondly, and my most concern is my health, the health issue. I have read a lot about it and there are a number of reasons why we should really be careful before we install anything like it. Like, of course, cancer. Everything, of course, causes cancer. But also other health issues and it might especially affect older persons. it could be. And before we install, before Sausalito installs or gives permission for the 5G, I would really like to see more to be done about the health issues, which really concern me very much. Also, I don't want to see this mounted on a power pool, which is right across from our street. Of course, as I can only repeat, it's a health issue. But secondly, how does it look? I mean, is this a big box or? it probably disturbs very much the aesthetics of the neighborhood. So I am very, so far I'm against it. And I would really like to see more to be done to ask all these questions, residents of South Salito in the residential area have. Thank you. |
| 03:40:54.18 | Unknown | Thank you. Joe Silverman. Are there any other speakers? That's it. That's the crowd. Lily, anything? |
| 03:41:03.66 | Joe Silverman | Hi, Joe Silverman, Sausalito resident on Boakley Avenue. I have an initial concern. I know that it's extremely likely that the public interest in this is far, far in excess of the representation in this room tonight. And I don't know why that is, but I think that it deserves some thought. Um... |
| 03:41:39.67 | Joe Silverman | I don't exactly understand also where we are as a city in terms of the amount of care and investment we've put into understanding how to fully navigate this on our own behalf. Clearly you've referenced that within our community there's going to be a full range of interest and lack of interest and concern on the issue. But I think that |
| 03:42:19.25 | Joe Silverman | From what I understand other municipalities and counties are doing, it looks like there's a lot of consultation and outside resource that has been brought in. to help navigate to the point that a lot of them have gotten to. And I just wonder is there any plan in place or any conversation about us hiring, an experienced team who has participated in taking on protecting cities and having more of a say on how they want things to go on their residents behalf. Can anybody, has there been any conversations with anybody outside yet to brought in on that? I hope that that becomes part of our city's mission to consult legal experts in this field as well. Um, |
| 03:43:23.54 | Joe Silverman | That's it for now. |
| 03:43:25.08 | Unknown | Thank you. Again, any other public comment? I think everybody's done. So seeing none, we'll bring it up here. |
| 03:43:31.59 | Jill Hoffman | Can I ask one more question? |
| 03:43:32.69 | Unknown | One more question. Yeah, I've got it. |
| 03:43:34.04 | Jill Hoffman | Mary, is there a deadline for us to enact our, to update our wireless? Okay, I see the answer, you don't have to answer. Thank you. It's already passed. Yeah. Yeah. |
| 03:43:50.07 | Unknown | Um, |
| 03:43:50.71 | Unknown | It went into January 1. |
| 03:43:52.11 | Unknown | So rather than actually getting it anecdotally, although I'm sure it's accurate, I must admit, I'd like to have a much more complete understanding as to what all the other jurisdictions are doing. Exactly. And what is the nature of the ordinances that they've passed? |
| 03:44:04.26 | Jill Hoffman | Exactly. That's why I asked for their name. And what is the nature of the challenge by the county of Marin? |
| 03:44:12.12 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:44:12.48 | Jill Hoffman | So I'd like to understand what their challenge is, what it's based on. |
| 03:44:19.38 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:44:19.40 | Ray Withey | I agree, and to get whatever reports they have with regard to studies they've done, if they're willing to share and things like that. |
| 03:44:25.81 | Jill Hoffman | And I also think we have to do a better job of noticing our public that we're undertaking this ordinance. Even though we're not allowed to. to edit it based on anything other than aesthetics. I think that it's our job to at least hear from our public and weigh their concerns and take whatever steps we can to address them. |
| 03:44:50.77 | Unknown | So the FCC's- I'm sorry. Sorry, no, my question, I'm sorry for- Yeah, go ahead. |
| 03:44:50.99 | Jill Hoffman | So the FC No. I'm trying |
| 03:44:56.94 | Unknown | Are we in a situation where Um... if we don't pass an ordinance that actually puts the local control that we are trying to get into effect, we will be silent and therefore, essentially |
| 03:45:19.00 | Jill Hoffman | We're abdicating. We're abdicating. |
| 03:45:19.84 | Unknown | We're abdicating and therefore this could be an important way to protect at the moment. So I don't think they're mutually exclusive. |
| 03:45:25.68 | Jill Hoffman | So I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Urgency ordinance as other jurisdictions have done to preserve our rights while we undertake this additional effort. |
| 03:45:34.03 | Unknown | I don't think that one is the other. We can still, I think a lot of your concerns are perfect concerns for the FCC and your federal leaders. Those are very valid. There's a steamroller coming at us, and if we don't, we can either get out of the way, put up a barrier, but join the fight. I think we should join the fight if that's a concern. We should still protect ourselves with an ordinance like this that I think is better than the ordinances I've read from the other communities, frankly. I think we've done a really good job. I think we've done a little deeper dive, and we're putting ourselves in, not putting ourselves in harm's way with an aggressive ordinance that FCC is going to stomp on. Because they are, and it's not FCC, FCC and the telecommunications companies have not stopped. They did it on the state levels, they're doing it in corporate world, and they're doing it on the federal level. We have HR 530, that is our one maybe slowdown. But other than that, we have an onslaught, and they're not going to stop until they've got their 5G rolled out. And Doreen Gennard, just a quick story, was telling me about French Polynesia. They're putting in there as quick as they can go. Obviously, less regulation. But there's no stop to this train. I think we take very smart, responsible steps along the way, and this is one of them. But I think your comments are very valid and we should continue that as well. They're not mutually exclusive process. |
| 03:47:04.85 | Unknown | I still don't understand. What is the point of putting an urgency ordinance in place when you can always change an ordinance? I've never understood this. It's almost like smoke and mirrors. |
| 03:47:19.59 | Jill Hoffman | An urgency ordinance forces you to come back within a certain period of time to address it. |
| 03:47:23.79 | Unknown | Well, if you got the discipline to come back once you got the facts. |
| 03:47:26.83 | Jill Hoffman | fact have the discipline to do that yeah |
| 03:47:31.64 | Ray Withey | Well, we could just set a tentative schedule, right? So this is the first reading. We need to schedule a second reading at some point. In the interim time, we can gather the information from the other municipalities as we see fit. you Um, change our outreach efforts? I mean, that's so July, come back in July and look at it again or- |
| 03:47:56.97 | Jill Hoffman | But the issue with not adopting something is we're then subject to the de facto. By adopting something more tailored, we better protect the city while we undertake these other steps. |
| 03:48:08.71 | Ray Withey | Well, the issue is, and especially the people that are concerned about the notice, the next city council meetings next week. And then our next one is in July, then we don't have another one until September, or sorry, last week in August. |
| 03:48:20.66 | Jill Hoffman | The recommendation is to continue the second reading to June 18, to next week. |
| 03:48:20.69 | Ray Withey | So. |
| 03:48:24.71 | Jill Hoffman | To have the second reading June 18 adopt this ordinance, which better protects us than how we are protected if we do nothing. |
| 03:48:31.85 | Unknown | All right. |
| 03:48:32.32 | Jill Hoffman | AND THEN implement a schedule and amend as we see fit. There is one. |
| 03:48:38.56 | Susan | I'm in favor of moving forward tonight to avoid being in a worse position than we're in now and scheduling a hearing in August or whenever staff thinks is appropriate and has information about other jurisdictions and if we want to, if we see something we like better. or a more aggressive position or something like that, we can take that then. But I'm not hugely concerned if we put it off either. But I would prefer to move forward tonight. |
| 03:49:00.92 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:49:01.02 | Jill Hoffman | I do appreciate it. |
| 03:49:09.31 | Unknown | And I encourage you all to watch the other council meetings in Piedmont's as well. And you're not gonna hear anything different at our meeting that you didn't hear at all theirs. I mean, |
| 03:49:19.74 | Jill Hoffman | I do have one recommendation on the ordinance itself. So on- on 1045.110 Be. Two. E. We have the less preferred locations are listed in order of preference from most to least preferred. And E is residential. And it says wireless communications facilities are very strongly discouraged from locating within residential areas. So Mary, again, I see you looking puzzled. It's 10.45 point. Okay. You're there. Okay, all I recommend is where in the very beginning of the parenthetical, we add the phrase for aesthetic reasons, comma. |
| 03:50:14.16 | Susan | of motion. |
| 03:50:15.54 | Unknown | Could I just have one clarification of the vice mayor's comment? When you said come back in August, you're not saying come back in August for a second reading. You're saying do the second reading next week, but come back with more information in August. |
| 03:50:29.40 | Susan | Right, I'm saying we'll adopt the ordinance. I mean if we vote we'll adopt it today have the second reading next week but have a firm commitment to get the information requested by council members about other jurisdictions ordinances legal actions lobbying efforts and that we'll do that this summer or whenever staff is ready And then if we feel the need to amend what we've done, we'll do that. But if we don't act, we'll be in a more vulnerable position, as I understand it. |
| 03:50:59.92 | Unknown | more. |
| 03:51:03.62 | Susan | than we are now. |
| 03:51:06.49 | Unknown | It's a bit like the cannabis thing, where we had to do something, right? |
| 03:51:08.29 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 03:51:08.31 | Unknown | Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Mayor, if I may ask a point of clarification on the language that Councilmember Cox wanted added in. I'm still looking for it. Yeah. Matt or Lily could weigh in as well. So I understand the direction, but I think that the aesthetic limitation is for the 5G, small wireless facility installation. So this regulation applies to all wireless facility installations. So I'm asking, I think, if with respect to the 5G, that that's the restriction that parenthetical is meant to cover. |
| 03:51:13.00 | Unknown | YES. |
| 03:51:17.51 | Unknown | I'm still looking for it. |
| 03:51:18.88 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:51:33.24 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:51:45.52 | Jill Hoffman | But I think that we already utilize this parameter as we examine other. Just from my experience on the planning commission, we did look at aesthetics. As because we're precluded for other types of towers as well from looking at health issues. So we were focusing on aesthetics, we picked. open, you know, a field isolated and blocked from nearby residential homes. |
| 03:52:17.35 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:52:17.78 | Jill Hoffman | do. |
| 03:52:18.04 | Unknown | I think it narrows it too much? That was the conversation, just that if it's potentially too limiting. |
| 03:52:21.97 | Lily Willen | It is. |
| 03:52:25.65 | Lily Willen | Mr. Mayor, can I also ask a point of clarification regarding the noticing? So what I'm hearing is that staff will come back in August or September timeframe, whenever we're able. |
| 03:52:26.02 | Unknown | Can I also see? |
| 03:52:26.53 | Winona Conocath | Thank you. |
| 03:52:26.65 | Unknown | Yes. Please. Thank you. |
| 03:52:35.39 | Lily Willen | provide you the information that you've requested. as a, Business item information item and then seek direction at that point Would you like noticing of all residential neighborhoods for that business item? At that point, just so the noticing is going to cost the city on the amount of $2,000 to $3,000 for that. So I just want clarification on at what point are we doing that level of noticing. |
| 03:52:52.02 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 03:52:59.42 | Unknown | I'll turn that over. What are we looking to do here? |
| 03:53:02.47 | Jill Hoffman | I think we should hear information about how other municipalities have dealt with it, then come back with a future business item about how we intend to deal with it that would be noticed to the general public. |
| 03:53:16.43 | Susan | if we take further action. |
| 03:53:18.05 | Jill Hoffman | If we take further action. So I think we need to hear how viable objections are, how other municipalities have dealt, weigh that, and then if we want to revise the ordinance, we should give notice to the public. |
| 03:53:32.37 | Unknown | Do you want staff to do the work to find out what other communities have done? Yes. Which? Yes. I mean, I just. |
| 03:53:35.65 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:53:35.66 | Susan | THE END OF THE |
| 03:53:35.93 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:53:37.10 | Susan | I mean, and just to be clear to the public, we notice every meeting and every item what the community development director is talking about is special individualized mailed notice to residents and residential districts correct so every meeting and every item will be noticed it's just whether we do that additional |
| 03:53:57.87 | Unknown | Every CPU would be noticed when we actually get to this point as well. Correct, CUP. |
| 03:54:00.92 | Susan | Correct. |
| 03:54:01.45 | Unknown | C-U-P. |
| 03:54:01.99 | Susan | Right. Thank you. |
| 03:54:02.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:54:04.72 | Unknown | What was... What was in last week's current currents on this, if anything? |
| 03:54:12.43 | Adam Politzer | It didn't list this as one of the five articles that we lead the current with, but it's listed. We highlight the council reports and we have links to each of these reports, including this one. |
| 03:54:20.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:54:20.91 | Susan | Yeah. |
| 03:54:20.99 | Unknown | Okay. Okay. |
| 03:54:24.70 | Susan | And was mail notice done for this? Mm-mm. |
| 03:54:33.02 | Jill Hoffman | Mary, are you okay with the, okay. So then I move we introduce and read by title only an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Sausalito amending Sausalito Municipal Code Chapter 10.45 to update wireless telecommunications facility standards and criteria. as amended through our verbal direction. That we continue the second reading to June 18, 2019 for adoption. That we authorize a summary of the ordinance to be published five days in advance of the second reading and 15 days after its adoption. And that we adopt a resolution to establish fees for small cell wireless facilities located in the public right of way in the form. attached as attachment to. And that we adopt the direction that we've discussed this evening for further at least for further hearings on this matter. |
| 03:55:28.00 | Ray Withey | Second. We have a second. Sorry. Second. Second. |
| 03:55:28.51 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 03:55:28.66 | Unknown | We have a second. Okay, sorry. Okay. in the fourth second. Any other comment? |
| 03:55:39.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:55:39.17 | Unknown | you |
| 03:55:39.22 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:55:39.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:55:39.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:55:39.49 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 03:55:39.90 | Ray Withey | I. |
| 03:55:40.01 | Unknown | Aye. Aye. That's 5-0. Aye. |
| 03:55:43.00 | Ray Withey | Sorry, before we move on, Adam, can we include this in the currents though? The action that we've taken tonight is going to be on the consent calendar, I suppose, next week. But why we took this action and that our concern is that we do want to find out more information. Just sort of synopsis of what our discussion was here. So that people kind of know what's going on. |
| 03:56:02.34 | Unknown | discussion-wise here, so that people can know what's going on. |
| 03:56:06.00 | Ray Withey | Thanks. |
| 03:56:06.78 | Unknown | you |
| 03:56:12.01 | Jill Hoffman | I think this was your answer. Bye. |
| 03:56:15.40 | Unknown | Alright, we're winding down here. |
| 03:56:16.55 | Jill Hoffman | He brought another. |
| 03:56:18.08 | Unknown | We are up to our city manager reports, city council appointments and other business items. Is there any public comment on items 8B through 8E? Any public comment on these items? Seeing none, we will start with the city manager information for council. |
| 03:56:34.91 | Adam Politzer | I have no additional items to share with the council, other than I was with Ray Withey, Council Member Withey on most of those budget meetings, as with Joan Cox, who also had several discussions with staff on the budget. |
| 03:56:54.01 | Unknown | Thank you. Any questions for the city manager? Appointments to boards, commissions, and committees. And you see on here we have one item that is the CSDPCA, the Community Safety Disaster Preparedness Committee. We have an opening, we actually have two vacancies now since we've created the expansion. And we've had Jane Kendall, who we interviewed previously for GPAC. She expressed interest in this. She's actually had experience with a role in Katrina. So I am bringing her forth and I'm going to nominate her to fill one of those vacancies. Amy Cromosta, I asked if she could be available for consideration to move from alternate to vacant, and she would not. She sees a difficulty in her schedule for now, so she'd like to stay in alternate. So I'm going to make a nomination for one and then we are still vacant and we'll continue to seek applications as search goes forward. So I nominate Jane Kendall to full member of the C S D P. |
| 03:58:01.66 | Susan | So should we second it or just do the roll call? He just has to say are there any other nominations and then- |
| 03:58:03.60 | Unknown | I'll just ask to say, are there any other nominations and then... Thank you. Any other? Seeing none. All of them each. |
| 03:58:08.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:58:08.08 | Susan | Yeah. All the... |
| 03:58:13.38 | Unknown | Aye. Aye. Aye. |
| 03:58:16.40 | Susan | you |
| 03:58:16.45 | Unknown | Congratulations, Jane. |
| 03:58:17.32 | Susan | I think she'll be great. |
| 03:58:18.40 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:58:18.42 | Unknown | Future agenda items. We're gonna look at your school district. |
| 03:58:24.11 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. And I think that the land side ferry landing improvements are supposed to be on June 18th. although it doesn't show here yet. |
| 03:58:38.96 | Unknown | We didn't talk about that. Is that confirmed? |
| 03:58:39.83 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 03:58:39.85 | Susan | Yeah. |
| 03:58:39.87 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:58:39.89 | Susan | BRIDGE. |
| 03:58:40.16 | Jill Hoffman | THE FAMILY. |
| 03:58:40.24 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 03:58:40.27 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:58:40.43 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 03:58:40.49 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:58:40.54 | Susan | talked about. |
| 03:58:41.03 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:58:41.05 | Susan | that |
| 03:58:41.59 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:58:41.61 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 03:58:42.25 | Unknown | think? Yeah. |
| 03:58:43.73 | Adam Politzer | It's working. |
| 03:58:44.14 | Unknown | on it. |
| 03:58:44.34 | Adam Politzer | Okay. All right. |
| 03:58:46.42 | Jill Hoffman | And then this evening, Yulia pointed out that our measure of, well, first of all, there was the request from Sandra Bushmaker to agendize the formation of a committee for disaster preparedness or for mudslide, Response. So I'm just reminding us that that was a request for a future agenda item. |
| 03:59:08.00 | Unknown | OK. Yes, and where we were was the task, we brought that up here, Jill brought it up, the CSDP to talk about, they can refer it back to us. Perfect. |
| 03:59:18.33 | Jill Hoffman | Disaster. Okay. |
| 03:59:23.52 | Jill Hoffman | I would like to list for a very future agenda item, consideration of renewing Measure O, which is our only capital improvement plan funding source, and I would like to see this council renew that just as we did for measure A, even though it has not yet expired. The city manager talked about adopting a long range capital improvement plan. As a part of that process, I would like us to consider probably, I don't even know that we could get it on the ballot this year, but next year to have on our ballot a renewal of Measure O. |
| 04:00:02.44 | Ray Withey | When does it remind me? |
| 04:00:03.40 | Jill Hoffman | It's just for a future agenda. |
| 04:00:04.80 | Ray Withey | When does Measure O expire? 2022? 2025. |
| 04:00:07.48 | Susan | Thank you. |
| 04:00:07.50 | Jill Hoffman | by 2020. |
| 04:00:07.97 | Susan | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 04:00:08.18 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:00:08.97 | Ray Withey | Okay, five years. Thanks. Thank you. |
| 04:00:11.60 | Susan | Is it originally how long was that? |
| 04:00:11.62 | Unknown | Thank you. So we're halfway through. |
| 04:00:15.60 | Susan | Yeah. |
| 04:00:17.07 | Unknown | The end? Yeah. you halfway through. It was adopted in 2014. November 2014. Right. And started collecting money in 2015. So it's a bit early, but |
| 04:00:23.26 | Winona Conocath | 2014. |
| 04:00:25.03 | Unknown | STARTING. |
| 04:00:25.56 | Winona Conocath | Bye. |
| 04:00:30.79 | Unknown | Thank you. But the discussion, and I didn't want to get into the discussion, but |
| 04:00:35.12 | Unknown | It's got to happen. |
| 04:00:36.27 | Unknown | Yeah, we have other a lot of things coming down the pike as far as issues on ballots. Yeah, I think it's a great. |
| 04:00:41.13 | Susan | Yeah, I think it's a great discussion to have. THAT'S ALL I HAD. |
| 04:00:48.84 | Unknown | Right. Next up, other reports of significance? Anything? Anything you got to get off your chest? Maybe just want to tell the audience, |
| 04:00:52.47 | Susan | anything? |
| 04:00:55.56 | Winona Conocath | THE OTHER THING. |
| 04:00:57.69 | Unknown | Seeing none, we are adjourned before 11 o'clock. |
| 04:01:00.17 | Jill Hoffman | Yes, that's awesome. Congratulations. |
| 04:01:00.76 | Unknown | That's it. |
| 04:01:00.98 | Unknown | Awesome, congratulations. |
| 04:01:03.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:01:03.36 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:01:03.44 | Unknown | Thank you. sweating like a picture. |
| 04:01:05.28 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
Sandra Bushmaker — In Favor: Supported forming a mudslide task force with experts to assess geologic risks and recommend preventive measures, urging council to agendize the item. ▶ 📄
Jeff Jacobs — Against: Discussed waterfront development impacts on fisheries, alleged conflict of interest by Jill James Hoffman, and emphasized need to address such issues. ▶ 📄
Greg Baker — Neutral: Attempted to comment on anchor-out boats and yacht harbor concerns but was redirected to a later agenda item without completing remarks. ▶ 📄