Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2015-06-05TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of June 1-5, 2015 TIBURON Correspondence, Notices and other Information 1. Letter - May 27 - Thank you letter - Re: Resolution/Richard Collins 2. Letter - June 3 - Comment on Proposal to Ban Short Term Rentals 3. Letter - June 3 - Zelinsky Park and Library Expansion Agendas and Minutes 1. Agenda - May 18 - Tiburon/Belvedere Library REGIONAL, NOTICES AND AGENDAS Correspondence, Notices and other Information 1. Notice - May 26 - Vacancy: SF Bay Restoration Authority 2. Letter - May 29 - Bay Area Rescue Mission 3. Letter - June 1- Grand Jury Report: The Need for Labor Negotieii Transparancy 4. Notice - SF State Estuary Conference, Sept. 17-18, 2015 5. Notice - League of CA Cities - 2015 Annual Conference, Sept. 30 -Oct. 2 Agendas and Minutes 1. Agenda - June 4 - Richardson Bay Regional Agency 2. Agenda - June 10 - San 5 District * Council Only A CHRISTOPHER AND JUDITH ARMSTRONG Members of the Tiburon Town Council: Re: Comment on Proposal to Ban Short Term Rentals EST c RFCEIV _: AIN 032015 TOWN 1 ANAGERS OFFI[;e TOWN OF TIBURON We, Chris and Judy Armstrong, have resided at 2160 Vistazo East Street for nearly three decades. Bruce and Pascal Powell have been our next door neighbors for the past fourteen years. During those periods of time when Bruce (a former commodore of the Corinthian Yacht Club) and his wife, Pascal, have been out of country on their boat, they have from time to time rented their home under strict self-imposed guidelines to protect their own property interest and to preserve good relations with their neighborhood. There has never been an occasion when the Powell home has been rented that either of us has had reason to complain or to be concerned. Having somebody in residence next door is not only not a problem for us; it enhances our sense of security on a quiet cul-de-sac potentially attractive to person bent upon doing mischief when nobody is seen to be in residence. Bruce and Pascal are advising the Town that, if they should be barred from renting their home on a short term basis during the intervals when they are travelling, they would be forced by economic circumstance to sell. For the Town to precipitate such action by the Powells would have the effect of further destabilizing what is an owner maintained "right or way" for which the Town has never accepted the responsibilities which it commonly accepts in respect of most Tiburon residential streets and roadways. The Town does not maintain that portion of Vistazo East upon which the Powells and others reside; the Town has never installed a storm sewer to capture storm runoff on such portion of Vistazo East; and neither the Town nor Sani District 5 accept any responsibility for the function of the "private" sewer line that serves the homes on this right of way plus one home on Centro East. Bruce and Pascal do their share to maintain the right of way thus assuring that vehicular traffic may pass to and from (a) a vacant property long for sale on the up slope side of the street for $1.7 million, (b) a home at the end of the cul-de-sac whose owner has been an absentee landlord for the entire three decades we have owned 2160 Vistazo East, and (c) an additional home near the end of the cul-de-sac which was functionally unoccupied for 25 years and which, since its somewhat recent sale, has been the subject of desultory and sometimes very noisy renovation by the new owners. It is urged upon the Town Council by some that "long term renters" are good but "short term renters" are bad. The experience of Vistazo East proves the opposite. In addition to maintaining a reasonable portion of the right of way, Bruce and Pascal contribute generously (more than their share) to the maintenance of the private sewer line and have worked diligently with us to create and maintain drainage channels to redirect the flood of waters from the Ridge Road homes which otherwise pour across our properties and into the backyards of Centro East homes on account of the absence of a storm sewer system on Vistazo East. By contrast, the absentee owners of properties on Vistazo East, including the property with a long term renter, do not contribute to the maintenance of either the right of way or the drainage or the private sewer system notwithstanding that they and their real estate agents make regular use of the right of way. What public good will the Town Council have accomplished if it drives the Powells out of their home and they are replaced by another new owner who has no personal attachment to Vistazo East Street and who is interested only in either speculative redevelopment or long term rental in hopes of property appreciation? We urge that the Town Council take a more nuanced view of the short term rental situation, that it ramp up its licensing requirements for all rentals, that it deal with the limited number of reported abuses by imposing monetary fines on the property owners who (or whose tenants) are engaged in anti- social conduct and by revoking their licenses to rent, and that it not, in response to some vocal editorializing by what we suspect is a small minority of Tiburon residents, impose overbroad prohibitions on an already overregulated citizenry with the counterproductive consequences adverted to above. Yours sincerely, c Christer 5. and Judith R. Armstrong DI F Memo to the Town of Tiburon Dear council members, It has come to my attention that the Town of Tiburon is considering the question of whether to continue to allow short-term rentals. As a resident with a permit for such rentals, I wish to explain my case. My wife and I and our two sons have been residents of Tiburon since the 1990s, and my father and his second wife, a resident of Tiburon since the 1960s. Unlike many of my neighbors, I'm not a wealthy person, but am of modest means. We have always dreamed of extended travel to see the world, but this was always an unaffordable luxury out of our financial reach. However, thanks to the possibility of renting our house on a short-term rental, this has made it possible for us to travel, keeping our home and our belongings intact, and still be able to return to our Tiburon home whenever we wish to. None of this life -enriching experience would have been possible without offering our house as a short-term rental. A long-term rental would never work, since such tenants would need 30 or even 60 days notice to move out, and would have to be evicted in case of nonpayment of rent, which is of course very complicated, since our house is full of all of our personal property. And a long-term rental (30 days or more) would mean that we couldn't return to our house again when we wanted to. I would also point out that the short-term rentals provide much needed additional income for families that are on a fixed income trying to make ends meet. It would be a shame if we had to sell the house where we expect to retire because this additional income was cut off. Unlike a few irresponsible short-term rental owners in Tiburon, we have taken great care to be respectful of our neighbors and to make sure that our rental guests don't cause any disturbance. For example, we have a very strict policy of 5 person maximum occupancy. And we have a very strict policy to NOT ALLOW PARTIES, WEDDINGS, OR COMMERCIAL EVENTS OF ANY KIND. In short, we have taken every precaution to ensure that our guests shall not annoy our neighbors. Now, to address the issue at hand regarding short-term rentals in Tiburon: I would strongly suggest that the Town not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I am appalled by the irresponsible few homeowners who have shown disregard for their neighbors by renting their houses out for large and disruptive parties. This, however, should not be a reason to abolish all legal short-term rentals. Certainly those persons, such as myself, who have bothered to acquire a permit, have demonstrated civic responsibility and shouldn't be punished for the actions of a few irresponsible bad actors. The issue of short-term rentals in Tiburon is not going to go away. By banning them, the Town will simply be driving them underground. The Town of Tiburon will be in a much better position to regulate this activity, by issuing permits, and by regulating the actions of the permit holders to ensure that they act as good citizens. Our next-door neighbors, Chris and Judy Armstrong, have been fully supportive and understand that this activity offers a net benefit to the community, because our house would otherwise sit vacant and possibly neglected for much of the year while we travel. And of course, they realize that we have been careful and respectful of our neighbors. I sincerely ask the Town of Tiburon to continue to allow short-term rentals for those homeowners that have secured permits. Sincerely Bruce M. Powell 2180 Vistazo East DIGEST Town of Tiburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 • ‘vww ei.tiburon.ca.us June 3, 2015 Mrs. Laleh Zelinsky Main Street Properties 130 Main Street Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Zelinsky Park and Library Expansion Dear Laleh: Per your request, this letter is to clarify the intent of the Town regarding Zelinsky Park. Upon the generous donation of land by the Zelinsky family for Town Hall and the Library many years ago, the Town agreed to install a memorial to honor the family in the vicinity of the flood plain behind the buildings (see attached February 26, 1996 letter from Mayor Nicky Wolf). This was accomplished and became Zelinsky Park, an area of approximately 15,000 square feet including paths and landscaping, situated behind the parking lot and adjacent to the marsh area. Per approved plans, the Library will expand onto the existing parking lot between the current Library building and Town Hall. Parking will be removed from that location and also from behind Town Hall. A substitute parking lot will be built to the rear of the Library and accessed off Mar West Street. The plan includes a modest repositioning of Zelinsky Park to accommodate these changes as well as to connect it to the new pedestrian plaza and promenade between the Library and Town Hall and to take advantage of the space that will be freed up behind Town Hall. The relocated Zelinsky Park will be slightly larger than its predecessor. More importantly, it will be much better situated. Rather than being isolated behind a parking lot, Zelinsky Park will become a featured element of the public outdoor spaces of this new civic center area. It will also be part of a seamless pedestrian experience that will start at the new plaza along Tiburon Boulevard, continue via a wide promenade between 1 Frank X. Doyle Mayor Erin Tollini Vice Mayor Jim Fraser Councilmember Alice Fredericks Councilmember Emmett O'Donnell Councilmember Margaret A. Curran Town Manager the buildings and then connect to Zelinsky Park and the marsh beyond with its view of Old St. Hilary and the open space. Please accept this letter as assurance that the Town will continue to honor its commitment to maintain a memorial to the Zelinsky Family in this area. We are pleased that the Park will not only remain, but be bigger, more beautiful and more readily available for all to enjoy. Best regards, Ficot7 &-e..2.-A-i----- Peggy Curran Town Manager cc: Mayor and Town Council Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development Debbie Mazzolini, Belvedere -Tiburon Library Director 2 TOWN OF TIBURON PERSONAL Edward Zelinsky Barbara Abrams c/o Main Street Properties P.O. Box 1043 Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Ed & Barbara: 1155 TIBURON BOULEVARD • TIBURON • CALIFORNIA 94920 • (415) 435-7373 FAX (415) 435-243X February 26, 1996 Your continued generosity in donating property to the Town of Tiburon for the new community library and Town Hall is gratefully acknowledged and very much appreciated- On behalf of the Town Council, Staff and Tiburon community, I extend our sincere thanks and appreciation. It is also my pleasure to confirm the Town's intention to install in the very near future a plaza to appropriately recognize the many contributions of the Zelinsky family to the Town of Tiburon. The plaza will be specifically dedicated to the memory of your parents, Fred and Juanita Zelinsky. It will be designed to compliment the entire site and will include benches for the public's enjoyment. Thanks again for these wonderful gifts and for your continued commitment to our community. dlc Sincerely, Nicky Wolf, Mayor AGENDA BELVEDERE-TIBURON LIBRARY AGENCY Monday, May 18, 2015 6:15pm Belvedere -Tiburon Library 1501 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL OPEN FORUM DIGEST 4-'! This is an opportunity for any citizen to briefly address the Board of Trustees on any matter that does not appear on this agenda. Upon being recognized by the Chair, please state your name, address, and limit your oral statement to no more than three minutes. Matters that appear to warrant a more lengthy presentation or Board consideration may be agendized for further discussion at a later meeting. STAFF, BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Chair's report — Ronald Helow, BTLA Chair - (2 minutes) 2. Library Director's report — Deborah Mazzolini, Library Director (10 minutes) 3. Belvedere -Tiburon Library Foundation report (5 minutes) 4. Report on Financial Statement April 2015 (5 minutes) 5. Committee reports (5 minutes) CONSENT CALENDAR — 2 minutes The purpose of the Consent Calendar is to group items together which generally do not require discussion and which will probably be approved by one motion unless separate action is required on a particular item. Any member of the Agency may request removal of an item for discussion. 6. Approval of minutes of April 20, 2015 7. Approval of warrants dated April, 2015 TRUSTEE CONSIDERATIONS The purpose of Trustee Considerations is to list items for discussion and potential action. 8. Consideration of Library Fine policy for DVD checkouts. 9. Consideration of Library closure on July 3 and July 4, 2015 for Independence Day. COMMUNICATIONS & ANNOUNCEMENTS 10. Monthly calendar 11. Schedule of FY 2015 meeting dates NOTICE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The following accommodations will be provided, upon request, to persons with a disability: agendas and/or agenda packet materials in alternate formats; special assistance needed to attend or participate in this meeting. Please make your request at the office of the Administrative Assistant or by calling (415) 789-2660. Whenever possible, please make your request three days in advance. 1. ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS ""r Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area May 26, 2015 Frank Doyle Vice Mayor Town of Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920-2530 Dear Vice Mayor Doyle: The Bayside Cities/Counties seat on the Governing Board of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority is vacant and will be filled following a nomination process. The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority is a regional government entity, created in 2008 with the enactment of AB 2954, with jurisdiction extending throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, charged with raising and allocating resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. It is governed by a board consisting of seven voting members appointed by the Association of Bay Area Governments. More information is available at www.sfbayrestore,org. Those eligible for appointment to the Governing Board are elected officials of a city or county that touches the San Francisco Bay. If you would like to be considered for appointment, send a letter of interest to ABAG President Julie Pierce, Association of Bay Area Governments, 101 8t1i Street, Oakland, California 94607. Include a statement about your interest in serving on the Governing Board, a description of your experience with wetlands restoration, and your experience working at a regional level or other related collaborative efforts. Please submit your letter of interest by June 5, 2015, for consideration by the ABAG Executive Board at its meeting on July 16, 2015. Sincerely Ezra Rapport Executive Director Cc: Julie Pierce, ABAG President Ted Lempert, Governing Board Chair Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, California 94604-2050 (510) 464-7900 Fax: (510) 464-7985 info@abag.ca.gov Location: Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakland, California 94607-4756 ti•;SI ABAG i*. May 29, 2015 The Honorable Frank Doyle Mayor of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 XIYAREirl Rescue Mission Changing Lives for a Brighter Tomorrow ..; /qc Dear Mayor Doyle, It is an honor and privilege to announce that on September 25, 2015, the Bay Area Rescue Mission will be celebrating its 50th Anniversary. Since our founding in 1965, the Rescue Mission has become a formidable San Francisco Bay Area provider of compassion and care for the homeless and impoverished. In its infancy, the Rescue Mission offered twelve beds and thirty-five meals for homeless men every day. Today, after 50 years of service, the Bay Area Rescue Mission has provided 21,998,100 meals and more than 2,565,648 bed -nights of shelter for homeless and hungry men, women and children. However, in addition to meals and shelter, the Bay Area Rescue Mission also offers personal life -transforming care as well. From short-term emergency housing to long- term live-in programs that includes job skills training, life -skills mentoring, bible studies, in-depth counseling, and help with legal and medical needs, the Bay Area Rescue Mission is truly a life -changing help to men, women and children in great need. The impact of the Rescue Mission on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in desperate need who have come through our doors seeking and finding spiritual and physical help is tremendous. It is our hope that you would kindly acknowledge our faithful service to the Greater San Francisco Bay Area Community and beyond with a letter of commendation as well as your presence at our 50th Anniversary Banquet in September. Your support of our privately funded not for profit organization would be a real blessing. We look forward to hearing from you. Please accept my sincere thanks on behalf of the homeless and hurting people we help every day at the Bay.�x1 •.e Mission. r Sincerely, Rev. John . • r�erson Preside CEO Bay Ay a Rescue Mission Joh p BayAreaRescue.orq 510.621.8500 (mobile) 510.215.4878 (office) Rev. John M. Anderson, President/CEO Mailing Address: PO Box 1112 Richmond, CA 94802 www.BayAreaRescue.org BOARD OF DIRECTOR' Andy Santamaria, Chairman Brian Stripling, Vice -Chair Matthew Henry, Secretary Art Reimers, Treasurer John Anderson, President/CE • Dale Cross Charles "Jerry" Hammer C.N. "Gus" Petsas Walt Rogers Men's Center 200 Macdonald Ave. 510.215.4868 Center for Women & Children 224 Macdonald Ave. 510.215.4860 Food Pantry & Distribution Center 123 Macdonald Ave. 510.215.4887 Transitional Living Cent. 257 3rd Street, Richmon King's Club Youth Program 2112 Macdonald Ave. 510.215.4552 Biblical Studies & Education Center 2112 Macdonald Ave. Business Office 2114 Macdonald Ave. 510.215.4555 ` s for a 13rg4 r�, U o <,'965 4 T; -_.11niv_vrsa,� '-.. Date: June 1, 2015 Mr. Frank Doyle, Mayor Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Nozlneutam 01dd0 Sd3JVNW NMO! gL0Z 0 Nnr /eie CI3A130311 Marin County Civil Grand Jury RECEIVED JUN 0 3 2015 Re: Grand Jury Report: The Need for Labor Negotiation Transparency Report Date: June 1, 2014 Dear Mr. Doyle: TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OFTIBURON Enclosed please find an advance copy of the above report. Please note that Penal Code Section 933.05(f) specifically prohibits any disclosure of the contents of this report by a public agency or its officers or governing body prior to its release to the public, which will occur on June 4, 2015. The Grand Jury requests that you respond in writing to the Findings and Recommendations contained in the report pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05 (copy enclosed). The Penal Code is specific as to the format of responses. The enclosed Response to Grand Jury Report Form is provided for your use. Governing bodies should be aware that the comment or response from the governing body must be conducted in accordance with Penal Code section 933 (c) and is subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. The Brown Act requires that any action of a public entity governing board occur only at a noticed meeting for which an agenda has been provided. The Penal Code is also specific about the deadline for responses. You are required to submit your response to the following recipients within 90 days of the report date: 1 hard copy to: The Honorable Judge Faye D'Opal Marin County Superior Court P.O. Box 4988 San Rafael, CA 94913-4988 1 hard copy to: Foreperson Marin County Grand Jury 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room #275 San Rafael, CA 94903 Responses are public records. The clerk of the public agency affected must maintain a copy of your response. Should you have any questions, please contact me as 415 518-3183(c), nixongrand@gmail.com, or at the above address. Sincerel Jack Nixon, F 2014-2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275, San Rafael, CA 94903 Tel. 415-499-6132 2014/2015 MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY The Need for Labor Negotiation Transparency Report Date: June 1, 2015 Public Release Date: June 4, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury 1 2 3 The Need for Labor Negotiation Transparency 4 5 6 SUMMARY 7 During the 2014-2015 Marin County Grand Jury investigation leading to its 2015 report, 8 Pension Enhancements: A Case of Government Code Violations and A Lack of 9 Transparency, the Grand Jury learned that negotiations between Marin County, and the 10 cities and towns therein, and their respective unions (hereafter collectively referred to as 11 the "Parties") are conducted in private, without transparency, and removed from the 12 scrutiny of the Marin community. Although Marin County residents pay taxes to support 13 decisions made by the Marin County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and the City and Town 14 Councils, (hereafter collectively referred to as "Employer(s)"), there are numerous times 15 when no transparency into the background of those decisions is made to the public. 16 17 The Grand Jury learned that the public is notified of a negotiated tentative labor 18 agreement only when the agenda, which schedules consideration of the agreement, is 19 posted—some three to four days prior to the Employers' public meetings. This is also the 20 meeting at which the Employers vote to approve or disapprove the agreement. Prior to 21 the agenda posting, little or no detailed information is made public about the terms of the 22 tentative agreement or what it will cost. Without this information, there is no full public 23 disclosure of the terms and cost of an agreement during the negotiation process and prior 24 to its being voted upon. With no transparency, the public is excluded from input until it is 25 too late for a reasoned public dialogue. 26 27 During its investigation, the Grand Jury also learned that various California cities and 28 Orange County adopted a formal negotiation process, Civic Openness In Negotiations 29 (COIN), which allows for community review of not only what is being negotiated, but 30 also what a tentative agreement will cost to implement. One key element of the COIN 31 process is the stipulation that the Employer hire an experienced, independent Lead 32 Negotiator for all negotiations. This requirement precludes any city or county employee 33 from negotiating terms that may benefit that employee, thus avoiding any conflict of 34 interest. 35 36 The common elements of the COIN process are as follows: 37 1. The Employer hire an experienced, independent Lead Negotiator for all 38 negotiation of wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency 1 2. The Employer hire an independent auditor to assess the fiscal impacts of each 2 provision in the current labor contract. This fiscal impact is made available for 3 public study. 4 3. After each proposal is accepted or rejected by either of the Parties, it is publicly 5 disclosed (generally on the Employer's website). The costs for the 6 implementation of the proposal are verified by an independent auditor and also 7 publicly disclosed. 8 4. Seven days prior to the Employer's public meeting, the final tentative agreement 9 is made public (generally on the Employer's website), including all associated-= 10 costs, which are independently verified. s; 11 5. After seven days, the final tentative agreement is placed on two- consecutive 12 Employer's public meeting agendas: at the first meeting, the agreement is a 13 discussion item; at the second meeting, the Employer vptes on tle'agreement. 14 The Grand Jury recommends that the Employers adopt an -ordinance implementing the 15 COIN process to ensure transparency and prior public,rev ew of all proposals and final 16 tentative labor agreements. = = 17 BACKGROUNDir .,. A.!:\ 4 tl 18 During the 2014-2015 Marin County Gran'dtju r jnvestigation leading to the 2015 Grand 19 Jury report, Pension Enhancements: A4Gase of Government Code Violations and A Lack 20 of Transparency, the Grand Jury 1e}arn d tliat•1'abor negotiations in Marin County and the 21 cities and towns therein are conduct .d:without transparency, and are thereby removed 22 from the scrutiny of the community. Diuring this time, the Grand Jury also learned that 23 various California cities and`bra ge,County had adopted a transparent negotiation 24 process, Civic Opennessmegatiations (COIN), which allows for community review of 25 tentative proposals liingnegotiated and also what those proposals will cost if accepted or 26 rejected. As a result, the Grand Jury decided to investigate whether a more transparent 27 negotiation process rriight be appropriate for Marin County and its cities and towns. 28 29 APPROACH:_, 1 30 The Graad;Jury interviewed representatives of the Orange County Management of 31 Go 'erne ent Affairs, various Marin County officials directly involved with labor contract 32 negotiations, and officials from Costa Mesa who are engaged in the implementation of 33 COIN. Orange County and Costa Mesa COIN ordinances were reviewed along with 34 numerous websites of various cities and counties involved in the use of COIN. 35 Additionally, Grand Jury members attended multiple Marin County Board of Supervisors 36 meetings at which the public brought COIN to the attention of the Board of Supervisors. 37 Grand Jury members also attended the April 28, 2015, BOS meeting where COIN was 38 agendized for discussion; they later viewed the video of the meeting and read the staff 39 report relating to COIN as presented at that meeting. 40 May 28, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 2 of 10 The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency 1 DISCUSSION 2 3 The Need for Civic Openness in Labor Contract Negotiations (COIN) 4 5 Although Marin County residents pay taxes to fund decisions made by the Marin County 6 Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils, often there is no transparency into 7 the background of those decisions. One specific area that lacks transparency is labor 8 negotiations between the Parties. In general, the public is notified of the Parties' 9 tentative agreements only three to four days prior to the Employers' public vote; its only 10 then that the meeting agenda is posted for public view. Prior to the agenda potty ,Rifle 11 or no detailed information is made public about the terms of the tentative agreement or 12 what it will cost. In sum, there is no transparency before the vote on the tentative 13 agreement. 14 15 This short time period (three to four days) gives the residents of ar little'time to 16 review the tentative agreement in order to provide input at an E' ployers' public 17 meeting—the meeting at which the tentative agreement isir sentedfor approval. 18 Furthermore, the public receives no information regarding any proposal made by either 19 Party or the associated costs of those proposals, which11eds:t_Q4fhe question: What should 20 be disclosed to the residents of Marin and when? + 21 COIN Started In Costa Mesa s 22 The Grand Jury learned that a newly elctedoSA Mesa City Council had discovered the 23 financial strain placed on their city b$heir,nniunded pension liabilities. This discovery, 24 coupled with the realization that opaque labor negotiations had created an environment 25 devoid of public oversight, review or input, motivated the Council to adopt a more 26 transparent process for all lallpfXlegOiations. Accordingly, the City of Costa Mesa 27 adopted a COIN ordinancet September of 2012, the first municipality in California to 28 do so. 29 Subsequently, Beverly bills, Fullerton and Rancho Palos Verdes also adopted variations 30 of COIN, as didAOrange'County (Appendix A)1. For all these entities, the principal 31 objective of°lhe COIN process is to allow the public to review and to provide input during 32 negotiatioOne person interviewed stated, "...it occurred to the Council that the 33 pubfie srffull understanding of what they are being asked to pay for is good governance." 34 tng this, the Grand Jury investigated ated various existing COIN ordinances and Lear$z 35 procedures to determine what the COIN process might mean for Marin Country and its 36 cities and towns. 37 1 Orange County Employee Association has made an unfair practice charge to the Public Employment Relations Board concerning how COIN was adopted, not the implementation of COIN. This is not yet resolved. May 28, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 3 of 10 The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency 1 What COIN Is: Key Components 2 The common elements of the COIN process are as follows: 3 1. The Employer hire an experienced, independent Lead Negotiator for all 4 negotiation on wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. This 5 requirement precludes having a city or county employee negotiate terms of an 6 agreement that could directly benefit such employee. 7 2. The Employer hire an independent auditor to assess the fiscal impacts of each 8 provision in the current labor contact. This fiscal impact is made a �v`' ailable=for 9 public study. `=>` 10 3. Labor contract negotiations begin. 11 4. After each proposal is accepted or rejected by either Party to :the negotiation, 12 the proposal is publicly disclosed (generally on the Employer's website). The 13 long-term and short-term costs of the proposa14 verified by an independent 14 auditor and also publicly disclosed. � ? T 15 5. Negotiations conclude with a final tentative agreement. 16 6. Seven days prior to the Employef public;meeting, the final tentative 17 agreement is made public (genelyonsthe Employers' website), including all 18 associated costs that are indpendently verified. 19 7. Following these seven ayss, the final tentative agreement is placed on the 20 following two consecutive Eifnployer's public meeting agendas: at the first 21 meeting, the tentati$e':_agreement is a discussion item; at the second meeting, 22 the Employer(g))ote-on the tentative agreement. 23 The above process is used in ainumber of municipalities. For more details see Appendix 24 A. 25 What COIN Is Nok Misconceptions 26 The rraud Jury learned that there are many misconceptions about the COIN process, as 27 fo1.ows:C=='s. = --- 28 Misconception #1: The public negotiates. 29 COIN does NOT involve the public in actual negotiations, nor does it disclose what 30 occurs at the negotiation table. Fair-minded taxpayers recognize that such an attempt 31 would lead to an unproductive bargaining environment at best and would likely evolve 32 into intractable positions by both sides that would prevent a constructive outcome. 33 May 28, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 4 of 10 The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency 1 Misconception #2: Negotiations are held open for public observation. 2 In none of the cities or Orange County are COIN negotiations open for public view or 3 public participation. Negotiations occur in private, but the decisions on proposals are 4 made available for public review. 5 Misconception #3: COIN slows down the negotiation process. 6 The Grand Jury has learned that, during the first round. of negotiations using the COIN 7 process, there is a learning curve, since COIN provides a new framework within whi h to 8 operate. However, after learning the new process, those interviewed noted that. 9 negotiations proceeded in a timeframe similar to prior negotiations. • 10 Misconception #4: Not all types of negotiation methods can adapt toothe<,CO 11 processes."'�• 12 The COIN process is about transparency and not about the negotiation method. ,r• 1� 13 Commonly used negotiation practices, such as interest-base"d`or adversarial, can still be 14 the norm while using the COIN process. :* , 15 The COIN process is about the transparency of decisions made during negotiations that 16 lead to a tentative agreement — the agreement tbatlrecommended to the Employer for 17 approval. It is through the COIN process tithe -Public is made aware of the terms and 18 associated costs of tentative agreementswell before they are adopted, thereby giving 19 taxpayers opportunity to provide time131 publi;:review and input. • 20 FINDINGS 21 Fl. The residents of Marin �,ouniy.pay taxes to support decisions made by the Board of 22 Supervisors and Cit l own Councils; however these residents have minimal 23 opportunity to provide iipiit into labor negotiations. 24 F2. The COIN props* can be implemented without affecting the manner in which Z5 tentative:•agreerents are negotiated but which nevertheless will ensure public 26 awareness, of the terms and cost of those agreements in advance of their being 27 adopted. 28 F3. he..CON process mandates transparency in government decision-making, 29 ,,-- ,allovvmg residents to be informed and to participate in public discussion of how 30 '..,..their tax dollars are spent. • 31 32 RECOMMENDATIONS 33 Rl. Marin County Board of Supervisors and each City Council and Town Council in 34 Marin County adopt and implement a COIN ordinance prior to June 1, 2016, or 35 prior to the next round of negotiations, whichever comes earlier. May 2B, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 5 of 10 The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency 1 R2. Marin County Board of Supervisors and each City Council and Town Council in 2 Marin County adopt and implement a COIN ordinance which includes, but is not 3 limited to the following: 4 1. Hire an independent, experienced Lead Negotiator to negotiate all Iabor 5 agreements. 6 2. Hire an independent auditor to determine the fiscal impact of each provision in 7 the current contact, and make this analysis available for public review. 8 3. Make public each proposal, after it is accepted or rejected by either Party,_and, 9 publicly verify the costs of that accepted or rejected proposal by an independent 10 auditor. 11 4. Make public seven days prior to a Board or Council meeting th negotiated 12 tentative agreement and the fiscal analysis thereof, which are beindependently 13 verified. 14 5. After seven days, place the final tentative agreement on t R(.efollowing two 15 consecutive Employer's public meeting agendas: ,the firstpeeting is for 16 discussion of the tentative agreement; the secod meetig'is for a vote by the 17 Employer to approve or disapprove the tentative 'agreement. 18 4• j'd Zi 19 REQUEST FOR RESPONSES r„>>44,,; j' ,N,' 20 Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05lthe Grand Jury requests responses as follows: 21 From the following governing bodies: wiy 22 • Marin County Board of Supervisors: All Findings and Recommendations. 23 • City Council of Be lvedere: t All Findings and Recommendations. 24 • Town Council of:C.orte Madera: All Findings and Recommendations. 25 • Town Cguneil`of Fairfax: All Findings and Recommendations. 26 • City4uncil of Larkspur: All Findings and Recommendations. 27 ■ Council of Mill Valley: All Findings and Recommendations. 28 •' • citTauncil of Novato: All Findings and Recommendations. 29 '�, KTown Council of Ross: All Findings and Recommendations. { 30 • I. Town Council of San Anselmo: All Findings and Recommendations. 31 • City Council of San Rafael: All Findings and Recommendations. 32 • City Council of Sausalito: All Findings and Recommendations. 33 • Town Council of Tiburon: All Findings and Recommendations. 34 May 28, 2015 Marin County CMI Grand Jury Page 6 of 10 The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency 1 The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or 2 response of the governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda 3 and open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 445, --- ;4 "- =.r ,7a A_ 1.-4-0:,) .' May 28, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 7 of 10 The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency 1 APPENDIX A 2 Summary of "COIN" Requirements Adopted by City/ County 3 4 Requirement Costa Mesa Beverly Hills Fullerton Rancho Palos Verdes Orange County Applies to all negotiations between the Parties. Yes Yes Must include Salary Changes Yes Yes A Independent Negotiator Yes Yes May be Waived by Council Yes , ' , /. Yes Executive Employee Involved in Bargaining Yes Yes Yes .., TeS ' : . • .."'''•'-,,, . Yes Pre -Negotiation Economic Analysis (Baseline) Yes Yes Yes i'' s. ---Yes , Yes Each Accepted or Rejected Proposal plus the Economic Analysis made public Yes Yes ...,. • .., A`'‘Yes . ';'- ‘• l'''.- ) , ,, . Yes Yes Proposals Verified Independently YesA -,i174 -•::.„ 5' Yes May be Waived by Council Yes Tentative Agreement an Agenda Item on 2 Meetings Prior to Adoption <:. Yes ••4:.., . .: , _Yes Yes Meetings must be 2 Weeks Apart Yes 5 g „,;• 47' 6 7 8 9 10 11 May 28, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 8 of 10 The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency 1 2 3 APPENDIX B 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE COIN PROCESS The Employer hires an experienced, independent, Lead Negotiator for all negotiation on wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. The Employer hires an independent auditor to assess the fiscal impacts of each provision in the current contact. This fiscal nipact is available for pubic study: At the second Employers' public meeting a vote is taken by the Employer. After seven days, the final tentative agreement is placed on the following two consecutive Employers public meeting agendas: meeting one is a discussion item- _ After each proposal is accepted or - rejected by either Party it is:publically disclosed (generally on the Employers' website). Seven days prior to the Employers' public meeting, the final tentative agreement is made public `(generally on the Employers' website), including all - associated costs,wlchdare independently verified. The long-term and short-term.;. associated costs of the proposal are verified by an independent auditor and also publically disclosed: May 28, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 9 of 10 The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY 2 "02 Transparency and Accountability in Labor Negotiations - Laserfiche WebLink." - 3 Laserfiche WebLink. Accessed April 27, 2015. 4 http://docs.cityoffullerton.com/weblink8/2/doc/544710/Pagel .aspx. 5 "Beverly Hills Ordinance 13-0-2657." December 18, 2013. Accessed April 15, 2015. 6 http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/851941061213138018/13-0- 7 2651.pdf. 8 Brouillette, Mathew. "At Last Scrutiny for Public Union Deals." Wall Street Journal 9 (New York), May 21, 2015, Opinion sec. 10 A growing movement is opening labor negotiations so taxpayers Fan see how 11 their money is being spent. ." , `' .. , a 12 City Council of Costa Mesa. City Council. COIN ORDINANCE - Ordinance No. 12-7. 13 Accessed April 13, 2015. y, i.-�; w 14 http://ww.costamesaca.goy/flp/chartercommittedagenda/2014/2014-01- 15 22/coin.pdf. Ak ,_ ) r� 16 Johnson, Nels "Open Labor Talks Spurs County ?;view,"Marin Independent Journal 17 (San Rafael), April 30, 2015. Accessed April 30, 2015. 18 http://www.marinij.com/general-news/10E150430/open-labor-talks-plan-pits- 19 pension -critics -unions. � N.-„,. r.,, ' 20 "Minutes, Rancho Palos Verdes Cid} Council{" May 7, 2014. Accessed April 30, 2015. 21 http://www.palosverdes.coin(\pv/citycouncil/minutes/2014_Minutes/city_counc 22 i1/20140506_CC_MS.pdf. �r 23 Nicholson, Angela. Disciiss-he`Civic Openness (COIN) Ordinance Enacted in Costa 24 Mesa. CA,., eport. Marin Board of Supervisors Meeting, April 28, 2015. 25 Orange County,.Boartof.Supervisors. Ordinance No 14-005. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Series 21. 26 Orange County: Board of Supervisors, 2014. 27http:// 3ams.ocgov.com/Web_Publisher/Agenda07_15_ 2014_ files/images/0005 284-000844A.PDF. 29 "Se cr watch a Meeting." — Marin County Board of Supervisors Public Comment. '30:. March 03, 2015. Accessed May 22, 2015. 31 %`� http://www.marincounty.org/depts/bs/meeting-archive. 32 "Search or Watch a Meeting." Marin County Board of Supervisors, April 28, 33 2015. Electronically Published April 29, 2015. Accessed May 20, 2015. 34 Http://www.marincounty.org/depts/bs/meeting-archive. 35 May 28, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 10 of 10 FORM FOR RESPONDINGTO GRAND JURY REPORT Report Title: The Need for Labor Negotiation Transparency Report Date: June 1, 2015 Public Release Date: June 4, 2015 Response by: September 4, 2015 FINDINGS • I (we) agree with the findings numbered: • I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed; include an explanation of the reasons therefor.) RECOMMENDATIONS ■ Recommendations numbered have been implemented. (Attach a summary describing the implemented actions.) ■ Recommendations numbered have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. (Attach a timeframe for the implementation.) ■ Recommendations numbered require further analysis. (Attach an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.) • Recommendations numbered will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. (Attach an explanation.) Date: Signed: Number of pages attached Response Form RESPONSES TO GRAND JURY REPORTS SUMMARY OF PENAL CODE 933.05 Penal Code 933.05(F) states the grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two (2) working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. Penal Code 933.05 also provides for only two (2) acceptable responses with which agencies and/or departments (respondents) may respond with respect to the findings of a Grand Jury report: 1. The respondent agrees with the finding. 2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the findings, in which case the respondent shall specific the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. Penal Code 933.05 provides for only four. (4) acceptable responses with which agencies and/or depai irnents (respondents) may respond with in respect to the recommendations of the Grand Jury. 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be in the future with a timeframe for implementation. 3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis, with a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency/department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six (6) months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury Report. 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with a detailed explanation therefore. However, if a finding and/or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency/department head, the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department heal shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency/department. Penal Code 933 states that the governing body of the public agency shall respond to the presiding judge within 90 days, and that an elected county officer or agency head shall respond to the presiding judge within 60 days. California Penal Code Sections Penal Code 933 (c) [in part] No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. Penal Code 933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two (2) working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. t .J 71,L� RICHARDSON'S BAY REGIONAL AGENCY Special Meeting Thursday, June 4, 2015 5:30 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. Sausalito City Council Chambers 420 Litho Street Sausalito, CA PUBLIC COMMENT IS INVITED CONCERNING EACH AGENDIZED ITEM PURSUANT TO THE BROWN ACT. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE (3) MINUTES. AGENDA 5:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL 1. Request to change the date of regularly scheduled RBRA meetings 2. Minutes of May 7, 2015 Meeting 3. Review and amend 2014-15 budget lines to reflect additional revenues and expected expenditures 4. Review and consider amendments to RBRA budget for 2015-16 5. Public comments invited concerning items NOT on this Agenda (3 -minute limit) 6. Staff comments 7. Board member matters NEXT MEETING: Tentatively planned for July 9, 2015. Board members please review your calendars and advise Staff as to your availability. A COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET IS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING ON THE RBRA WEBSITE http://rhra.ca.R-m ' , AND AT THE SAUSALITO CITY LIBRARY. TO RECEIVE AN ELECTRONIC MEETING NOTICE, PLEASE EMAIL REQUEST TO DON ALLEEAT tlallee@aco.rnarin.ca.us Marin County Community Development Agency, 3501 Civic Center Dr. Room 308, San Rafael, CA 94903 Cell 415/971-3919 bprice@co.marin.ca.us RICHARDSON'S BAY REGIONAL AGENCY MEMORANDUM May 28, 2015 TO: RBRA Board FROM: Ben Berto, RBRA Clerk SUBJECT: June meeting Board members: Staff is taking the somewhat unusual step of requesting two back-to-back monthly RBRA Board meetings in order to address financial matters. As most of you have heard by now, at their May 7 meeting the Sausalito City Council declined for the time being to support RBRA's requested anchorage program and budget, citing the need for more public outreach before committing to any particular program. Insofar as an agency such as the RBRA functions as a coalition of the willing, and Sausalito is sorting out their priorities, the Anchorage Sub -committee and Staff are recommending in the attached report that the RBRA Board approve the amended anchorage budget and work program, which will allow necessary anchorage program work to proceed. The second financial item concerns the needs to incorporate into RBRA's budget financing for the high level of vessel abatement and State reimbursement of the same. Staff has exceeded the RBRA's current budget in both revenues and expenditures, and the requested budget amendment does not cost member agencies anything. This meeting is once again noticed as a Special Hearing, insofar as the RBRA Board did not formally change the agency's public meeting dates in order to allow Boardmembers the opportunity to determine whether holding RBRA meetings on the second (not first) Thursday of alternating months fit into members' schedules. Insofar as the request Staff sent to your Board regarding whether there were any conflicts did not uncover any, the attached resolution reflects the change in the regular meeting date to second Thursdays. See everyone next Thursday. 02_Clerk 052815 mem fnl.doc RICHARDSON'S BAY REGIONAL AGENCY MINUTES OF MAY 7, 2015 HELD AT SAUSALITO CITY HALL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Kate Sears (Marin County); Thomas Theodores (Sausalito - Alternate); Erin Tollini (Tiburon); Ken Wachtel (Mill Valley); Marty Winter (Belvedere) ABSENT: Herb Weiner (Sausalito) STAFF: Bill Price (RBRA Harbor Administrator); Ben Berto (RBRA Clerk) ADDITIONAL: Leslie Alden (Aide to Supervisor Sears) Meeting called to order at 5:35 PM. Minutes of February 19, 2015 Meeting Minutes were approved. Review report of Harbor Administrator The Harbor Administrators report was accepted unanimously Prior expenditures The expenditure report was accepted unanimously. Review and Accept the Agency Audit for 2012 and 2013 prepared by Maher Accountancy Mr. Berto presented the Audit, noting that it was completed almost 1 year late. Chair Sears asked about the recommended need for more internal controls and Mr. Berto explained that this has been addressed and fixed during the most recent audit cycle. Member Tollini asked about the management estimate of allocation of salary and benefits pertaining to workload, and the depreciation recommendation which has now been accounted for. The Audit was accepted unanimously. Anchorage Management Subcommittee update John Gibbs, the facilitator from WRT, started out the update with an overview Powerpoint presentation on the Community Workshop held on May 16, 2015. Member Winter presented a report from the Anchorage Management Subcommittee outlined what had been accomplished in the workshop and ensuing recommendations, and Mr. Berto presented detailed anchorage program recommendations based on the unsustainable reality that is facing Richardson's Bay as the vessel numbers continue to increase. There were a number of comments from the general public regarding these recommendations. The work program options and budgets were brought back to the Board for discussion. Chair Sears noted that transient boaters were not represented in the Advisory Stakeholder Group, and 1 None Board Member Matters None The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 PM. NOTE: The next meeting of the RBRA is tentatively scheduled for June 4, 2015 at 5:30 PM at the Sausalito City Hall Chambers. 3 RICHARDSON'S BAY REGIONAL AGENCY - FY 14/15 requested changes W ADJUSTED AMOUNT 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 o eo 0 0 o 1- 0-) Lr) 0 Ln CD Ln 00 03 0) 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 a 0 o (3o 0 0 0 �t o Ln o rn cfl o 'n o V) E AWAF salvage; legal; salary; county management 1 additional requirements phone, fax, Internet, mobile, new computer Office; slips & dry storage; heavy equipment rental professional associations, continued education Harbormaster's Conference, mileage AWAF salvage match funds (now covered by in-kind match) 1 biennial audit I Patrol boat, pump -out boat maintenance updates and maintenance REQUESTED O 0 M 09 ff3 Legal ads RBRA Counsel Contractor cost REQUESTED REQUESTED 0 0 CO oi 69 CD N 1— 0) V69 fl 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 M 69 0 0 0 t c") 69 0 0 00 ' 0 0 0 N 69 0 0 L vJ "1 0 ID M0 69 0 W 69 0 0 CD 69 0 'OU 6 CD CD LO 14115 ACTUALS INTERGOVT REVS - STATE $405,298 1 $15,500 0 0 O M 69 000,0£$ 0 0 N 0 0 O N 67 0 0 O N 0 co C1 0 O O 00 L9 0 O CO 67 $467,548 DESCRIPTION MOORING WORKSHOP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSURANCE PREMIUMS COMMUNICATION RENTAL & OPER. LEASES PROF. DEVEL. EXPENSES TRAVEL & MEETINGS PUBLICATION OFFICE EXPENSES MAINT. & REPAIR - EQUIP C) Q 0 0 z Q J_ O WEBSITE DEV & ADMIN IBUDGET# PROFESS 5210100 5210500 5210700 5211200 5211300 5211400 5211520 5220100 5220200 5220600 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 a 0 o (3o 0 0 0 �t o Ln o rn cfl o 'n o V) E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 T 0) misc. reimbursement, disposal chargeback TMDL testing Solano Co. Labs 1 ,Estimated salary and benefits �CALRECYCLE / VTIP CDA Admin. expense AWAF salvage match funds (now covered by in-kind match) 1 biennial audit I Sewage pump -out services 1 updates and maintenance REQUESTED O 0 M 09 ff3 0 0 CO CD 69 RBRA Counsel Contractor cost REQUESTED 0 0 O O 69 0 0 CO oi 69 0 0 LD CA 69 0 0 O r- 69 5150,000 0 0 O O N N 69 CD N. N ..;1-69 69 0 69 0 0 N -- 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 O M +P. 0 0 N cry O N N N CD 69 IONAL. SERVICES BREAKOUT INTERGOVT REVS - STATE 0 0 LD M Cfl 0 O CD Ol ffl 0 0 O N 69 CV 0:) CD M V b9 0 O O O 00 69 CO r69 N N V 64 0 0 0 Ln CD 69 0 0 O C6 69 0 69 0 0 CD (fl 0 N O V yj MOORING WORKSHOP LEGAL RAPID RESPONSE PROGRAM LAB SERVICES SPECIAL APPOINTMENT ',PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1 CDA ADMIN 10% AWAF grant expenditures AUDIT WASTE AWEIGH PROGRAM OSPR SPILL RESPONSE TRLR WEBSITE DEV & ADMIN PROFESS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 T 0) misc. reimbursement, disposal chargeback CALREC 228K, DBW 21K, EPA Grant 8K, MCCSTOP 2K, OSPR 30K RBRA Member Dues; Mooring Workshop augment mooring rentals REQUESTED O 0 M 09 ff3 0 0 CO CD 69 0 0 0 m 69 O O O Gi c0 N 69. M +- 0 N co N 69 $566,813 14/15 ACTUALS O O M Ef3 0 O LO CD 69 O O O CT E9 0 O O O O N N £9 M O c-si Lf] N (fl M W r --- CO Beginning Balance INTEREST POOLED INVST SLIP RENTALS OTHER SALES & SERVICES INTERGOVT REVS - STATE INTERGOVT REVS - LOCAL I 1 4410125 1 4410225 0 O 71- v 1 4530527 N N CD 0 7 co a financial support, RBRA will not be able to take action to address the significant issues on the anchorage. RBRA has the primary responsibility for managing the Richardson's Bay anchorage. The Anchorage Management Sub -Committee and staff believe it is incumbent on the RBRA to provide those with a stake in the future of the anchorage the leadership and the programs to address its current problems in a sustainable manner. Citizens have repeatedly and consistently spoken out at many RBRA meetings, as well as at the March community workshop, of the need to expedite solutions to the growing problems in the anchorage. The Anchorage Management Sub -Committee is relying on the genuine interest that the Sausalito Council showed in moving forward to address anchorage issues. The Councilmembers expressed a desire to engage in a public consensus -building process, as briefly outlined at the Sausalito City Council meeting on May 19, 2015. This sentiment was supported by Mayor Theodores when he appointed Councilmembers Weiner and Hoffman to work with Sausalito staff to create a task force subcommittee for that purpose. RBRA Staff looks forward to working with Sausalito to accomplish a meaningful public process regarding management of the anchorage. A public process is a key component of the RBRA work program, exemplified by the previously proposed 21 -member stakeholder advisory committee. Recommendation: The RBRA Anchorage Management Sub -Committee continues to strongly support a budget that allows the anchorage management program to move forward. It therefore recommends the following FY '15-16 program: 1) $15K for legal advice related to local ordinance evaluation and possible revision, and to explore further program coordination and development with our public safety agency partners, and discussions with Sate Lands and BCDC to clarify their jurisdictional interest in RBRA's program activities. 2) $8K increase RBRA's rapid response budget (from $7K to $15K), to fully mobilize available resources in the event of major storm or storms this winter to deal with threatened/threatening vessels. 3) $28K to pay for an additional 8% of RBRA Clerk time (20% total) to reflect ongoing increased demands for his services (e.g. assisting Sausalito's task force with informational and other requests related to the public process, discussions with State agencies and law enforcement). Total funding requested this next fiscal year for the program activities identified above is $51,000. See the attached budget split sheet and revised budget total for each member jurisdiction's requested program share, and overall budget contribution, described there as Amendment 1. Option: The RBRA Board saw the many benefits of engaging the public at the March 14, 2015 community workshop. Recognizing that, the previous budget scenarios included funding for a Stakeholder Advisory Committee. A good opportunity exists for collaboration between the RBRA and Sausalito on a public process. Including funding for public stakeholder meetings and outreach in the RBRA budget would provide the w 0 Lu w LL 11 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O v 0 0 0 0 0 0 M In CO O N N V N O) 69 0964 EA HiE969Eft 69Eta69 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O) O— O O O O O O t• O CO 0 0 v O Ln CO -- O N O Ln ("0 Ln Ln N ti O O) M N h N N_ Ea 69- 64 Ki 64 Efa 64 Efa 69 64 Efl March community workshop expense (amendment) AWAF salvage; salary; legal; county management Contractor cost phone, fax, Internet, mobile Office; slips & dry storage; heavy equipment rental professional associations, continued education Harbormaster's Conference, mileage Legal ads towards biennial audit Patrol boat, pump -out boat maintenance updates and maintenance 0 -- o 0N') En i- 0 -3 0 Ea 0 1e(j� !A $392,958 $17,000 0 V N En 0 O (-.. 0.3 EnQ_ 0 LO u) 0 N N to 0 v N EA 0 CO ta 0 O 00 EA 0 0 I's) $458,508 14/15 ACTUALS 0 0 O O O N EA $386,472 0 0 0 N 64 O 0 7 N 69 O 0 0 r- M 69 O 0 CO EH O 0 N N En O 0 C' N En O (0 C') (c) M 0 Cr O En O O u.'� V l!] .4- 69 69 14/15 ADOPTED 0 O O O Efl69 O 0) N LnM _ CI" 69 $15,500 O O O 69 O 0 O O CO to O O 03 69 O 0 O „sr En O O O Nli E O Ln 09 4n O 0 O En O O CO 69 $477,548 DESCRIPTION LEGAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSURANCE PREMIUMS COMMUNICATION RENTAL & OPER. LEASES 1 PROF. DEVEL. EXPENSES 1 f TRAVEL & MEETINGS PUBLICATION OFFICE EXPENSES MAINT. & REPAIR - EQUIP OIL AND GAS I 4 Iw 0 ❑ Im 5210100 5210500 5210700 5211200 5211300 5211400 5211520 5220100 5220200 5220600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O) O— O O O O O O t• O CO 0 0 v O Ln CO -- O N O Ln ("0 Ln Ln N ti O O) M N h N N_ Ea 69- 64 Ki 64 Efa 64 Efa 69 64 Efl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N. M O O O co �- LO O O O v M d' co- co N- CO Ea- 69 69, E63 Et} 69 March community workshop expense (amendment) RBRA and outside Counsel Contractor cost TMDL testing Solano Co. Labs (Estimated salary and benefits (5% COLA) AWAF / VTIP CDA Admin. expense (3% COLA) AWAF salvage match funds (now covered by in-kind match) towards biennial audit Sewage pump -out services updates and maintenance 0 -- o 0N') En 15/16 PRJCTD Ea 0 1e(j� !A 0 u) M N . 0 0 O 10 en 0 0 N v En N 0r- in 0 0 O O r E» 1 0) 0 f r- .,.) 0 69 0 0 u7 cO 69 0 0 O 0) 69 0 0 O N- En $392,958 14/15 ACTUALS 0 0 O O O N EA $4,000 D v EA a N U E!3 0 O M En 0 (Ni co 69 $41,472 $0 00 O b3 O (fl Ln 69 N tO N CO CO 69 (PROFESSIONAL. SERVICES BREAKOUT 0 O O O Efl69 $8,5001 0 O 10 6) to $7,0001 N Lt)o 0) 69 O 0 O W 69 cD r- h N Cr 0 69 0 0 in c0 69 0 0 0 O En 0 0 in 69 N V EA (COMMUNITY WORKSHOP LEGAL RAPID RESPONSE PROGRAM LAB SERVICES SPECIAL APPOINTMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CDA ADMIN 10% AWAF grant expenditures I- ❑ 0 Q WASTE AWEIGH PROGRAM WEBSITE DEV & ADMIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N. M O O O co �- LO O O O v M d' co- co N- CO Ea- 69 69, E63 Et} 69 mooring rentals misc. reimbursement, disposal chargeback DBW 110K, EPA Grant 12K, MCCSTOP 4K RBRA Member Dues (20 percent increase) County funding for March community workshop (amendment) F- X0 CL CO t0 0 CO ul 0 0 O r- to ❑ 0 O (.6 69 O (.6 N , 0 -- o 0N') En Ea 0 1e(j� !A 14/15 ACTUALS O O N 69 0 0 0 r Ery O 0 CO v in O O O O O N lfl CO r O N Ln N EA M 0 (O 469 14/15 ADOPTED O O M EA O O in c0 69 O O 0 m En 0 0 O O O N EA ch 0 N In N 69. $10,000 $477,813 Beginning Balance INTEREST POOLED INVST I SLIP RENTALS ,OTHER SALES & SERVICES INTERGOVT REVS - STATE INTERGOVT REVS - LOCAL COMMUNITY WORKSHOP 1 4410125 In N 0 v v 1 4410410 1 4530527 1 4640322 0 Q) r � a NO_ r CO CD 10 0 Nu_ O �} O ai CO co -CO m L r U E - .- 69 V, d tN LC) CO O U) CO co CA O O r CO O w CO O co 0 0 0 r L r O N co' r CO CO M O U 0 LA- r N co N LC)CO N r r co >- m r u) O. O LO N O SOC) � O c3 2 yL. lC) 00 r 00 CO 0 ,a 0 N uj N (1) (0 � ,T- LO 0. ..— r N ( i RI U u- d Qc 64 v3 E Zco LC) CO CO C 0 co o co Tr 0 CO r 0_ 0_ 0_ 0_ 0 •t- 111 .67U in CD T N N CO O I_ r r N co r co Ne. 0 r c r r co pO 0IA O } In co r0 co co O F. G w �} r 0) M r -:3 CU O C'7 O CD Ni d' C3) r r N N 0) r CO N CO Cl. lb r N 1 r Q Q d} HL? 0 +) O 0 0 O O coNM- , CO CA N N r 0 Q -0 10 N O CD N. N17 O r r r N co o u7C ie Q. �' r N 0 O 1- U -0 1- < Q ti} y} K} 69 ER EF} N .Q E Cv E Z Z O o co 00� o o C3 o Ln oo CO pmw ? w o `� Z .... co Fc_ 0c aJ iT Z w Z J OU E -) OU w > z Q c m I-• a MILL B TIB_ SAU MAF SCENARIO #3: Base member contribution, plus all of above, plus public stakeholder group 15-16 two budget split scenarios fnl 052815 TIBURON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes, May 13, 2015 3. COMMUNICATIONS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2015 6:30 P.M., HEADQUARTERS FIRE STATION 1679 TIBURON BLVD. • V I ! - 2-- 4. 4. PUBLIC OPEN TIME for items not on the agenda This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons who want to address the Agency on any matter not listed on the agenda. The Ralph M. Brown Act prohibits discussion of items that are not duly placed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please Note: the Chair will allow time for public comment on each agenda item. 5. CLOSED SESSION A. Wages and Benefits (Government Code 54957.6) B. Personnel (Government Code 54957) 6. CHIEF'S REPORT A. Monthly Report B. Long -Range Planning Meeting C. Approve appointment of Rick Spaelti to Firefighter Trainee, Range 322, Step #1, $2,845/mo., effective June 16, 2015. 7. RESOLUTIONS A. Approve Resolution entering into an agreement with Moose Boats of Sonoma County for the purchase of an M2-38' fireboat, #2015-13 B. Approve Resolution requesting County of Marin to conduct consolidated elections and election services, #2015-14 C. Approve Resolution for extension of the Joint Powers Agreement for Hazardous Materials Spill Management, #2015-15 8. TREASURER'S REPORT A. Finance Committee — Directors Kirchhoff and Sears Finance Committee Meeting — Monday, June 8, 2015, 1530 hrs. Headquarters Fire Station, 1679 Tiburon Blvd. B. Approval of Warrants 9. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. MERA — Chief Pearce B. SMEMPS — Director O'Neill In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District office at 435-720o. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements. C. PERSONNEL — Directors Sears and Miller D. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE — Directors O'Neill and Kirchhoff 10. BOARD OF DIRECTORS 11. ADJOURNMENT NEXT REGULAR TFPD BOARD MEETING: July 8, 2015, 6:30 P.M. A complete agenda package is available for viewing at 1679 Tiburon Blvd. Copies of past TFPD minutes are available for viewing at the same location. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, ifyou need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District office at 435 -poo. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements.