Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2015-08-19TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA Tiburon Town Council August 19, 2015 Regular Meeting - 7:30 p.m. Closed Session - 7:00 p.m. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION (7:00 p.m.) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL --ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: Three potential cases CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fraser, Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember O'Donnell, Vice Mayor Tollini, Mayor Doyle ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this time. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes. CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless a request is made by a member of the Town Council, public or staff to remove an item for separate discussion and consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time. 1. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of July 1, 2015 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of July 15, 2015 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 3. Town Investment Summary - Accept report for month ending June 30, 2015 (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) 4. Town Investment Summary - Accept report for month ending July 31, 2015 (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) 5. Solar Panel Permits - Adopt ordinance amending Chapter 13 (Building Regulations) of the Town Code establishing streamlined review procedures for small, residential roof -top solar energy systems (Director of Community Development Anderson) 6. Grand Jury Response - Authorize Town response to Grand Jury report on Civic Openness in Negotiations (COIN) (Town Manager Curran/ Town Attorney Stock) 7. Transportation Funding - Adopt League of California Cities model resolution urging support of sustainable funding source for transportation infrastructure (Councilmember Fredericks) ACTION ITEMS 1. Appointments to Boards, Commissions & Committees - Consider appointment of Council representative to MCCMC ad hoc committee on Sea Level Rise (Town Manager Curran) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 25 Gilmartin Drive Precise Plan (PD #28) - Consider request to amend the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan to expand the primary building envelope on Lot 3 (Community Development Department) Owners: Darol and Tara Ryan Applicant: Mohamad Sadrieh AP No. 055-253-30 Seasonal Rental Units - Consider amendments to Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code to prohibit seasonal rental units (Community Development Department) - Introduction and first reading of ordinance 3. Zoning Text Amendments - Consider amendments to Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code that would modify provisions regarding interpretation of Zone Boundaries vis a vis Public Streets and Highways; clarify the separation of fences for purposes of height measurement and modify certain provisions with respect to processing of permits for Wireless Communications Facilities: Town -initiated amendments (Community Development Department) - Introduction and first reading of ordinance 4. Fee Schedule Amendments - Recommendation to adopt revised fee schedules for the Community Development Department and Public Works Department to reflect newly - created permit and review processes (Director of Community Development Anderson) TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS • Discussion of proposed freeway ramp metering at the Tiburon Boulevard and Highway 101 interchange (see July 13-17 Digest memo) — Mayor Doyle TOWN MANAGER REPORT WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digests — July 17, 24 & 31, 2015 • Town Council Weekly Digests — August 7 & 14, 2015 ADJOURNMENT - in memory of fonner Building Official, Dean Bloomquist GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435- 7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere -Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's website, v,=ww.ci_tiburon.ca.us. Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability -related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above address. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Town Council agenda. TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Doyle c. - . e r- _ . ar meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesd., ,July 1, 2015, Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Tollini PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes, Director of Community Development Anderson, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi Prior to the regular meeting, the Council interviewed a candidate (Victoria Fong) for the Heritage & Arts Commission, and also met briefly with a previous candidate, Kenna Norris. INTERVIEWS - 7:15 p.m. (Heritage & Arts Commission) • Victoria Fong ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY There was no closed session. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Maria Bordeleau, St. Hilary School Principal, told the Council about the recycling programs and "green initiatives" being undertaken by the school. She said that their Ecology Council and parent volunteers were working hard on these initiatives, such as trash reduction and composting. She said that additional funds were needed to purchase recycling cans for classrooms and lunch areas, and she asked that the Town consider giving a portion of its Zero Waste Grant Funding to the school to support these efforts. Following Ms. Bordeleau's speech, three children addressed the Council and asked for their support. rncil Minutes #xx -2015 July 1, 2015 Page 1 Mayor Doyle thanked the speakers for bringing the matter forward to the Council. On another matter, Sara Klein, coordinator and one of the organizers of the Hawthorne Terrace undergrounding effort, informed the Council that they had 70 signatures on their petition which represents 62% of the property owners in the proposed district, and had raised $145,500. She said that the undergrounding effort would remove poles on Rock Hill Drive, as well as other area streets, and would include five poles on the Town's multi -use path. Ms. Klein said that the organizers had met with Town staff several times and the current direction to the neighbors was to raise $300,000 in order to fund full engineering plans. She said that fundraising was seen by some in the district as "risky" because of previous efforts that had not come to Tuition. She asked how the Town might make this easier for the homeowners, in order to proceed. Town Manager Curran complimented the Hawthorne organizers and said that they had approached the task with intelligence and diligence. She acknowledged that fundraising was a tough task and that undergrounding was an expensive undertaking. She said that it was prudent to go into a district vote with really good information. Curran said that one of two courses, under Town policy, was to have a vote based on a preliminary assessment rather than final engineered plans. She said that full plans would minimize the risk undertaken by the homeowners. Curran said that staff would continue to work with the organizers on a course of action. Curran noted that Ms. Klein had also raised the question of whether there was a way for the Town to participate in the undergrounding project. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Town Council Minutes — Adopt minutes of June 3, 2015 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. Town Council Minutes — Adopt minutes of June 17, 2015 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 3. Commendation for Tarun Sanghvi — Adopt resolution commending Building Permit Technician Tarun Sanghvi for his years of service to the Town upon the occasion of his retirement on June 30, 2015 (Director of Community Development Anderson) 4. Stewart Drive Storm Drain Project — Award of contract for Stewart Drive Storm Drain Rehabilitation Project to Cratus Inc., and construction management contract to Green Valley Consulting Engineers (Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes) 5. Tiburon Police Association Contract — Approve Memorandum of Understanding with Tiburon Police Association, dated July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2018, and authorize Town DRAFTager to execute the agreement (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) Town Council Minutes tixx -2015 Judy 1, 2015 Page 2 6. Service Employees International Contract — Approve Memorandum of Understanding with Service Employees International Union, dated July 1, 2015 through June 2018, and to authorize the Town Manager to execute the agreement (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) 7. Management and Unrepresented Employee Contracts — Adopt resolutions a) adopting an amended Management Recognition and Incentive Compensation Program for FY 2015-16; and b) adopting an amended Unrepresented Employees Recognition and Incentive Compensation Program for FY 2015-16 (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) Councilmember O'Donnell said that he would abstain from voting on the June 3 minutes (Consent Calendar Item No. 1). Vice Mayor Tollini made a correction to Item No. 2 (June 17, 2015 minutes); page 3, paragraph 4, noting that the City of Sausalito said that they would participate "in the community outreach project" (and delete previous sentence). MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 7, as amended. Moved: Fraser, seconded by Fredericks Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSTAIN: O'Donnell, Item No. 1 ACTION ITEMS 1. Appointments to Town Boards and Commissions _ Consider appointments to fill vacancies on Heritage & Arts Commission (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) Council said that both candidates — Victoria Fong and previous applicant, Kenna Norris — would make terrific additions to the commission. Councilmember Fredericks noted that they brought unique talents and experience to the job, as well. MOTION: To appoint Victoria Fong and Kenna Norris to the Heritage & Arts Commission. Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Fredericks Vote: AYES: Unanimous Councilmember Fraser said that now that the vacancies on the commission were closed to being filled, it would be a good time to schedule a workshop with the commissioners to talk about future projects and community events. 2. Mill Valley Refuse Service Rate Increase Application — Consider approval of rate increase application (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 July 1, 2015 Page 3 Director Bigall provided the background for the rate application more fully stated in the written staff report. She also distributed a rate sheet comparison with other communities in Southern Marin served by Mill Valley Refuse Service (MVRS). Bigall said that on April 1, 2015, MVRS submitted an application for a base rate increase of 3.84% covering the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. She said the reasons stated in the application for the increase were a projected decrease in revenue from the sale of recyclable materials, coupled with increases in depreciation and interest expenses, worker's compensation, liability and auto insurances, JPA fees, and pension and health benefits. A subsequent submittal revised the rate increase application which lowered the projected insurance and pension expenses resulted in the requested increase of 3.47%, according to Bigall. Ms. Bigall said that every three years, at the expense of MVRS, the agencies served by the company (Belvedere, Tiburon, Mill Valley, Corte Madera and unincorporated areas of Southern Marin) can retain the services of an outside consultant to review the application to determine the accuracy of the calculations used by MVRS to justify the rate increase. She said the cities hired R3 Consulting Group, Inc. (R3) to review the base rate change application and related financial information for each agency. Based on this review, she said that R3 had determined the appropriate rate increase for Tiburon is 3.09%. She said that staff thinks this is consistent with what is allowed under the contract. In her report, Director Bigall also discussed some issues that have arisen since last year when the last rate increase application was approved. She discussed the new premium rate service of either $5 or $15 per month to have a can that is not at curbside (previously called "backyard service) picked up and returned to its non -curb location. She said this is a one-way charge. Bigall also noted that residents over age 70 or handicapped receive an exemption from the additional charges when the can is placed in a location that is visible from the street. She said that since the service was instituted last October, she had received a number of calls and noted that MVRS had worked hard and diligently to locate mutually agreeable areas for people in this category to locate their cans. She said the calls had tapered off and she had not received any in the last few months. The second issue raised over the past year by two residents, according to Bigall, was why the Town did not blend the hills v. flat area rates like the City of Belvedere did in December 2014. She said that if the Council wished to consider this, a new public rate hearing should be scheduled. She said it would be cost neutral to the Town. Bigall said that in Belvedere's case, those customers who were paying for a 32 -gallon can in the flat area saw their rates increase by 12.9% ($4.56/month) and those in the hilly areas saw their rates decrease by 11% (or $4.37/month). She said that MVRS would need time to calculate rates for Tiburon, if Council directed them to do so. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #ax -2015 July 1, 2015 Page 4 In conclusion, Director Bigall said that there is no cost to the Town in approving the requested [3.09%] rate increase. She said the Town would realize an increase of approximately $12,900 in franchise fees from the proposed rate increase. Jim Iavarone of Mill Valley Refuse Service said that Bigall had given a very comprehensive report and that he was there to answer any questions of Council. Council discussion and questions Councilmember O'Donnell asked about the lower rates proposed for Corte Madera and Strawberry. Iavarone said Corte Madera's smaller increase had to do with the anticipated revenue received from the new apartment complex. He said that Strawberry was lower because, like Corte Madera, it included a shopping center. He explained that commercial businesses, with trash pick-ups 2-3 times per week, went a long way in subsidizing residential services because they "dump quickly and easily" and have relatively low labor costs. O'Donnell also asked some questions about how depreciation and interest was stated in the application. He said that the purchase of 14 new trucks and depreciation of those trucks should work in favor of the company on its balance sheet. Iavarone argued that it was still a loss because the bond payments had to be made and the expenses recouped by the company; he likened it to the purchase of a new car which depreciates as soon as you drive it off the lot. Councilmember Fraser agreed with O'Donnell that depreciation was a "paper expense". Claudia Hays, MVRS finance representative, agreed with Iavarone that the depreciation must be taken over the life of the truck; O'Donnell continued to assert that it was not a cash expense, and therefore should not be used as a justification of a rate increase based on costs. Ms. Hays agreed that it was not a cash expense. But she said that accounting rules require the company to recognize the depreciation as an expense over 10 years. Town Manager Curran said that depreciation might be looked at as the "cost" of the trucks. Councilmember Fredericks added that while the company did not "buy" the trucks outright, and had financed them through bonds, it still had to pay for them. She said that the expenses stated in the report seemed reasonable to pay the cost of having our garbage collected. O'Donnell concluded that while the company can argue that the interest (on the bonds) is driving up its costs, the way it is stated in the rate application is incorrect. Fredericks asked if the independent auditor (R3) had reviewed this. Director Bigall said they had and that they had found the expense acceptable. Bigall noted that the Town expenses its acquisitions in the same manner, and said that the Town was only allowed to expense a capital cost over the life of the improvement, for example. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 July 1, 2015 Page 5 Councilmember Fraser said that the financial statements still seemed a little "foggy". Overall, he said that MVRS did a great job for the community but there were a few issues with the proposal: 1) the elderly [and people who cannot move their trash cans to the curb] now have to pay extra for trash service; 2) there are no cost-saving features listed in the proposal; and 3) the company should communicate better with the community about these changes and how to address them. As way of illustration, Councilmember Fraser said that his wife was injured trying to move a heavy can to the street. Fraser suggested that the added charge for backyard pick-up might be blended into the overall rates. lavarone addressed these issues. First, he expressed sympathy with Councilmember Fraser about the regrettable injury to his wife. But he said he was somewhat baffled by the public surprise (over having to pay extra for backyard garbage can service) because curbside service was the norm for recycling cans for 20-30 years. He said he had never heard a word [of protest] about the change to curbside service until the garbage cans had to be moved to the street. He said he thought that maybe it had something to do with the aging demographic, as pointed out by Councilmember Fraser. However, Iavarone said that the company had assisted people with getting their cans to the curb for years; he said, for recycling services, they go out to the residence and look for a reasonable distance that will work for the parties — for instance, whether to leave the cans just outside a gate, or the like. He said they had done the same for trash cans since instituting the curbside service for garbage. As for cost -savings (Item No. 2 raised by Councilmember Fraser), he said that the answer to the question, why don't we offer something cheaper, is curbside service. He said that this is the most economical way to provide service and that his company was almost the last to institute it in Marin (he said that Sausalito still offers backyard pick-ups). Other cost savings had been accomplished by the company through consolidation of routes, according to Iavarone, but curbside service is what allows them to consolidate the routes. If the company has to reverse that, he said, it would be a step backwards. lavarone also said that the company had instituted the exemption program as a way to address the issues of elderly or disabled customers, and that the only thing required by them was that the can be visible and within 25 feet of the streets. Councilmember Fraser asked him to double the efforts in education, to get the word out. Iavarone said that the rate and service changes were announced in the company's newsletters, in the bill inserts, and on their website. He asked whether there was an expectation that they go door-to-door. But on another note, he said that the traditional way to cut costs were through reducing costs by recycling and composting more. He said that this had been successful and that many customers are now using 35 or even 20 -gallon cans as opposed to 45 -gallon cans, which used to be the norm. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 July 1, 2015 Page 6 Iavarone also said that the company had recently received a Zero Waste Grant and had hired R3 to do a study on what more could be done in this area [waste reduction]. He said they would learn from this and apply the knowledge to the franchise. Mr. Iavarone went on to describe the rate structure for "on premise" and "on premise plus" service to the Council. He noted that blending these premiums would result in higher rates for all customers. Vice Mayor Tollini asked Iavarone to consider more outreach to those who don't fall under the exemptions category (disabled and over 70 years of age). Mayor Doyle said that there was a perception in the community that rates had gone up but service had gone down. He, too, said how difficult it was to get cans up and down steep driveways in his neighborhood. He asked how a rate increase could be rationalized when nothing else [service - wise] was changing. Iavarone said that if the company reverted to its old pick-up model, that is, picking up all three types of cans, without curbside service, it would change the game and the rates. Councilmember Fredericks pointed out that there were 2700 customers in the Tiburon community and of these, only 48 paid for the extra service, according to the report. She asked if there was a "silent majority" that was not represented. Councilmember Fraser said that for some customers, the increase represented a lot of money; for others, they were not even aware of the increases. Mr. Iavarone said that every situation was unique and that they had come up with solutions on a case-by-case basis. Fraser asked him to try to be as inclusive as possible. Councilmember O'Donnell said that this was a great business to be in, whereby you can total up your costs, add your profit margin, and have no competition. Iavarone said the latter was not true; he said if the company really had a monopoly, they would have six more guys working in Tiburon. He also said that they had many times consolidated routes to cut costs, along with other measures. Councilmember Fraser said that he would like to see clearly what the company was doing to take costs out of the system and quantify them; and to hear more about getting costs in line through the use of technology, and the like, in order to make the service more cost effective. He acknowledged that this is difficult to address in a labor-intensive business; but he said he would like to hear more about this, in future. Councilmember Fredericks said that she had recently observed the weekly pick-up on her street, and that she had timed the pick-up by MVRS workers for six houses to 169 seconds, including taking time to talk to one of the residents. She said that the workers were amazing. DRAFT Town Council Minutes ##rx -2015 July 1, 2015 Page 7 Fraser agreed that they did good work. Vice Mayor Tollini again asked for increased outreach efforts. Mayor Doyle said their brochure stated that "we're here to help". Councilmember O'Donnell said that he wished there was more competitiveness, which he said results in keeping costs in line. He mentioned the success of Marin Clean Energy as an example of using competition to moderate rates. Councilmember Fredericks asked staff whether the R3 audit was an audit of internal accounting, or an audit of the reasonability of the rate increase. Town Manager Curran said it was both; that the audit looked at industry comps and indicators, as well as internal numbers. O'Donnell said it would be better if there was an index used in negotiating, such as the CPI, or the like, to create more certainty for the ratepayer. He said that evergreen contracts are a mistake; that a price structure should accompany a contract. Fredericks asked for a summary of the evergreen clause, and whether there were non -predicable regulatory controls that could play a role in contract costs. Director Bigall said that the 2011 contract with Mill Valley Refuse Service was for a 10 -year term, with two five-year renewals. She said the reasoning for an evergreen clause is that the franchisee needs assurances of a revenue stream (in order to be viable). Councilmember O'Donnell and company representatives entered into a brief discussion about whether more recycling actually lowers costs or if the company makes a profit in increased volume (minus labor costs). Public Comment Mayor Doyle opened the hearing to the public. There was no public comment. Mayor Doyle closed the public hearing. MOTION: To adopt the resolution approving the MVRS rate increase of 3.09% for FY 2015-16. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Tollini Vote: AYES: Doyle, Fredericks, Tollini NAYES: Fraser, O'Donnell 3. Downtown Revitalization — Discussion and direction regarding approval of, and funding for, mid-day closures of Main Street on four consecutive Wednesdays this July and August for "Summer Days on Main" (Vice Mayor Tollini/Councilmember Fraser/ Town Manager Curran) DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 July 1, 2015 Page 8 Vice Mayor Tollini led the discussion and said that the idea had been conceived in talking with merchants to help increase foot traffic in downtown on weekdays. She said she hoped that "Summer Days on Main" would bring more locals downtown to lunch and shop, and that the businesses would have coordinated promotions. She said that there would be music and activities for children, as well. Councilmember Fraser said that the proposal was backed by the Chamber and that logistical support would be provided by The Ranch, with assistance from Town staff. Councilmember Fredericks said it was a great idea and that she was glad it was supported by the merchants. Councilmember O'Donnell also expressed his endorsement. Mayor Doyle opened the item to public comment. Roger Felton, Parking Manager for Zelinksy Properties, said that Friday Nights on Main (FNOM) "kills" the parking at the Main Street lot. He asked that the Council take this into consideration, and perhaps put out signage directing traffic to the lot, while the street is closed. He said the events would not do anything for Ark Row, either. Councilmember Fraser said that the logistical details were still being worked out. Vice Mayor Tollini said that they were trying to get Ark Row involved in the four Wednesdays, as well. Councilmember O'Donnell said that he noted a full parking lot during the last FNOM. O'Donnell also said that the Town might be supportive of a new entrance to that lot, from Juanita Lane. He said this would provide a more integrated feeling to Main Street and Ark Row. Fraser concurred and expressed his support of the idea, as did the Mayor. There being no further comment, Mayor Doyle closed the item to public comment. MOTION: To approve the proposal and funding for Summer Days on Main. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Doyle Vote: AYES: Unanimous PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Cypress Hollow Landscape & Lighting District (LLD) — Hold annual protest hearing and consider adoption of resolution to continue the LLD assessment for fiscal year 2015-16 (Director of Public Works Barnes/Director of Administrative Services Bigall) Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes gave the staff report and described the improvements that are funded by the annual homeowner's assessment. He said that based on the 1998 joint resolution transferring the jurisdiction of the Cypress Hollow Landscape and Lighting DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 July 1, 2015 Page 9 District (LLD) to the Town, the Town has maintenance responsibility for three sites within the district: 1. The 25 -foot sanitary sewer easement landscape and irrigation on the east boundary; 2. Entry landscaping and the 30 -foot storm drainage easement on the southwesterly boundary and irrigation system; and 3. Ownership and maintenance of the park site. He said that has been no change in the amount of the assessment since 1998, which is $378 per year. He also noted that the assessment was used to bank funds for the next capital project that might be needed, but he said he did not anticipate a need to raise the assessment for 10 years. Councilmember O'Donnell said that someone who spoke at last year's hearing said that the district was supposed to sunset in 25 years. Engineer Barnes said that yes, the property owner had been told that by someone but that it was not, in fact, the case. O'Donnell said that since Cypress Hollow had been annexed, and was part of the Town, was it fair to continue to assess that neighborhood. Town Manager Curran said that continuation of the agreed-upon property assessment was prudent policy, but that if the Town Council wished to reconsider it, it could do so. She said that if this action was taken, other homeowner's groups might come to the Town for funding for private amenities, such as medians or roadways, within their neighborhoods, as well. Councilmember Fredericks said that if the LLD were to sunset, would it create a precedent for maintenance of private roadways, for instance. The Town Manager said it would not bind the Council. O'Donnell said that in the absence of any protests, there did not seem to be a need to debate or discuss the continuation of the district. Vice Mayor Tollini said that the assessment was similar to a homeowner's association fee and did not seem to be problematic. Mayor Doyle opened the public hearing. There was no public comment, or protests received. Mayor Doyle closed the public hearing. MOTION: To adopt the resolution approving continuation of the district for FY 2015-16. Moved: Tollini, seconded by Fraser Vote: AYES: Unanimous DRAFT Town Council Minutes #.t -2015 July 1, 2015 Page 10 TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Fredericks said that State funding of transportation funds for infrastructure maintenance and operation of transit systems continues to face shortfalls. She said that previously, cap and trade agreement dollars seemed a likely source but no money was allocated in the current State budget from this source. She said that government continues to emphasize the need for generating funding at the local level and she described local projects which could be leveraged to receive funds. At a June 22 workshop, Fredericks said that many had identified the need for better bus service, and that it would be useful to communicate the importance of the Yellow Bus school bus service. She also noted that relieving congestion in the 580 corridor was a priority. Fredericks suggested that everyone go to the TAM website and take the "wish list" survey on allocation of transportation dollars. On another matter, Councilmember O'Donnell asked whether the monthly sire test could be rescheduled from the 4`h of July so as not to alarm residents on a national holiday. Town Manager Curran and Chief Cronin said they were in communication with Fire Chief Pearce about this. TOWN MANAGER REPORT Town Manager Curran said that the next step in recruitment of the new Town Manager was to send out an RFP for a search firm and review the responses. Council directed her to move ahead with the recruitment, as stated. WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digests — June 19 & June 26, 2015 Accepted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Doyle adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m. FRANK X. DOYLE, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK DRAFT Town Council Minutes tixx -2015 July 1, 2015 Page 11 CALL TO ORDER Vice Mayor (Acting Mayor) Tollini c order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesda Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: CC -2_ lar meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Tollini Doyle Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes, Director of Community Development Anderson, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi Prior to the regular meeting, at 7 p.m., the Council interviewed an applicant for the position of Town Historian: INTERVIEWS (Town Historian) • David M. Gotz The Council also met in closed session, beginning at 7:15 p.m., to discuss the following: CLOSED SESSION • Mittelman Settlement - Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation (Govt. Code Section 54956.9) Mittelman v. Town of Tiburon, Marin Superior Court CIV 1404795 ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY Vice Mayor Tollini said the Council had met in closed session and she read the following statement into the record: "I am pleased to report that the Town Council voted 4-0 and 1 absent to approve a settlement in two actions currently pending: Mittelman v. Town of Tiburon et al and Mittelman v. McElreath, e Nos. 1500356 and 1404795.) The litigation arose from the Town approving an ouncil Minutes #xx -2015 July 15, 2015 Page 1 application for a permit to build a fence. The settlement occurred at mediation at a very early stage of the case before any court proceedings. Pursuant to the settlement, the Mittelmans and the McElreaths have agreed upon a landscaping buffer, instead of a fence, that will be planted on both sides of their adjoining properties located at 20 Rowley Circle and 515 Hilary Drive. Pursuant to Town permit application requirements, the Town's modest attorney's fees will be paid by the applicants. The Council directs the Town Manager to execute the settlement on behalf of the Town. In addition, I have been asked to read the following joint statement by the McElreath and Mittelman families: "We are pleased to have reached an amicable resolution of our disputes. ' Tollini said the Town was pleased, as well. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Pamela McConnell -Douglass, 43 -year resident, spoke briefly, expressing her concerns about fire safety hazards which she said needed to be addressed. PRESENTATION • Recognition of outgoing Town Historian, Branwell Fanning Vice Mayor Tollini read the Town's resolution commending Branwell Fanning for his exemplary service as Town Historian. Fanning said that he and his wife had not planned to ever leave town, and that that while their new home is quite good, nothing can replace Tiburon. Councilmember O'Donnell thanked Fanning for his service and said that he exemplifies the history of the Town. In fact, he said he was the living history of its incorporation and time since. He commended Bran for all the books he had written about Tiburon's history and the history of our area. Councilmember Fraser said that when he first ran for office, he listened to the stories of those who had served before him; he said that the Town owed Bran Fanning a debt of gratitude for "putting us on the map". Councilmember Fredericks said that Bran Fanning's work gives us pride in what the Town is and what it can be. She said that was the value of preserving history — that if you don't know the history of a place, you also won't know where it's going. Vice Mayor Tollini thanked Bran for his work and said that he was indeed an inspiration. Town Manager Curran said that Bran had really helped her "connect" with the Town and the people in it when she was fired. She also commended him for his noteworthy articles in the DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 July 15, 2015 Page 2 Town's newsletter about the history of the town. She said they always exceeded expectations and were well -crafted and very useful. Director of Community Development also thanked Fanning and noted that he had written the brief history of Tiburon for the Town's General Plan. At the conclusion of the presentation, Vice Mayor Tollini moved directly to Action Item No. 1. 1. Appointments to Town Boards and Commissions — Consider appointment to fill Town Historian vacancy (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) The Town Clerk gave a brief staff report. She said there was one applicant for the position of Town Historian, David Gotz. She noted Gotz' prior service to the Town as a Heritage & Arts Commissioner, and said he currently served as the Landmark's Society Archivist. Councilmember O'Donnell said that Gotz would have big shoes to fill but said there was no better person to fill them. MOTION: To appoint David Gotz to the position of Town Historian. Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Fredericks Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Doyle • Marin Climate Energy Partnership (MCEP) - "Resilient Neighborhood Program" Tamra Peters introduced her program which she said helps cities and towns implement their Climate Action programs. In her power point presentation, she described the "Resilient Neighborhood Program" and showed how small groups of neighbors, co-workers, or other social groups, can team up to find ways to reduce carbon emissions on a local area level. She said this creates community resilience (and helps people prepare for) disasters and climate change, such as wildfire, droughts and storms, as well. She said the program was fun, free, and rewarding. provided a link to her website, www.resilientneighborhoods.org for more information. Councilmember O'Donnell said that Marin Clean Energy had applied to the PUC for energy efficient grant funding; he wondered whether MCEP had made any comments on these proposals. Ms. Peters said that the Resilient Neighborhood Program was more community-based but that they did work with MCE, as well. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Commendation for Branwell Fanning - Adopt resolution commending Branwell Fanning for his many years of service to the Town as Town Historian (Town Manager Curran) DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 July 15, 2015 Page 3 2. Commendation for Cindy Rodriguez — Adopt resolution commending Police Department Secretary Cindy Rodriguez for her many years of service to the Town upon the occasion of her retirement (Chief of Police Cronin) 3. League of California Cities Voting Delegate — Confirm appointment of voting delegate for annual League of California Cities annual conference in San Jose (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 3, as written. Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Fredericks Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Doyle ACTION ITEMS 2. Shoreline Park Policy — Consider revisions to the Town's policy for special events in Shoreline Park (Director of Community Development Anderson/Town Manager Curran) Director Anderson gave the oral report. He said that the Town Council had adopted its Shoreline Park policy (entitled, "Use of Shoreline Park — Special Events") in 2004. He said the policy, among other things, limits the number, extent, and location of events in Shoreline Park to preserve it for primarily passive recreational uses and to limit conflicts with nearby residences. Anderson said the Policy has been continuously implemented since its adoption, with two to three recurring special events being held each year (RCP Tiburon Mile Swim, Classic Car Show, and one variable event). He said that in 2013, the Town Council allowed the Dreyer Foundation to install the first "Art by the Bay" exhibit, which complied with the Policy's goals, but not all of its specific provisions. At that time, he said, Art by the Bay was considered a one-time occurrence. Director Anderson stated that in May 2014, the Town of Tiburon held its 50th Anniversary celebration using Shoreline Park and other venues. The use of Shoreline Park for this celebration also did not comply with several provisions of the Policy, according to Anderson, but was recognized by all as a highly special and unusual community event unlikely to be duplicated for many years. He said that "Art by the Bay" was proposed again for 2014 and the Town Council approved the second event at its September 17, 2014 meeting, noting that Shoreline Park was a favorable location for temporary art exhibits given the Town's on-going efforts to promote the downtown as a visitor's destination. At that meeting, Anderson said that staff recommended the Policy be reviewed for possible amendments and the Council indicated that the Policy should be revised to allow such art installations. (Anderson also noted that "Art by the Bay" has since been reformulated as an every -other -year event and will not be held in 2015.) DRAFT Town Council Minutes iixx -2015 July 15, 2015 Page 4 Since late 2014, Anderson said that Town staff and the Council's ad hoc Downtown Committee, comprised of Mayor Doyle and Councilmember Fraser, have been working on a revised policy in consultation with the Point Tiburon Bayside Homeowners Association. He said the Council Committee recommends a revised Shoreline Park Policy for consideration of adoption by the full Council. He described the proposed changes below: 1. The number of annual events has been increased from four to five and the restriction of no more than one event in any 30 -day period has been removed. 2. Art exhibitions are clarified to count as events. Art exhibitions, with Council permission, may have a 45 -day duration including set-up and take-down. Art exhibits on display for more than 72 consecutive hours shall generally be limited to the western third of Shoreline Park (the portion nearest Main Street). 3. The Town Manager is given discretion to determine whether an event of a limited amount of time constitutes a "special event" subject to the Town's Special Events Permit Policy. 4. The proposed Policy would allow special events on Fridays in addition to the current weekends and holidays. 5. Special events held on Friday and Saturday nights could continue until 10 p.m., and until one hour after sunset on other days of the week. Under the current policy, all events must end at dusk. The 8:00 a.m. start time for events would not change. 6. The Policy contains an Exception section that: a) Allows limited latitude for the Town Manager regarding logistical and certain other considerations; and b) Provides the Town Council with the authority to grant an exception to any aspect of the Policy after holding a public meeting. 7. The provision that limits placement of temporary structures (including exhibited art) and music amplification to Ferry Plaza has been removed. 8. A graphic has been added to depict Shoreline Park's boundaries, replacing the written description in the current policy. Director Anderson said the Bayside Association has maintained a keen interest in the Policy and in Town actions relating to Shoreline Park over the years and the Town has extensively consulted Association Board of Directors representatives during the Shoreline Park Policy amendment process. At the conclusion of the most recent meeting with Bayside Board representatives on July 9, Anderson said it appears that there is general agreement with and acceptance of the provisions of the proposed policy amendments. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 July 15, 2015 Page 5 He recommended that the Town Council hear comments from interested parties, deliberate on the proposed revised policy, and consider adoption. Vice Mayor Tollini opened the hearing to public comment. C. Jay Key, resident of Point Tiburon for over 20 years, said when the [Shoreline] park was dedicated there were specific parts of it that would be open to the public. He said that the Point Tiburon homeowners were not "worried" about the policy's [proposed] increase to five events, but said it was important to note that there were already many more events that take place there every year, such as weddings, and [crowds of] people who come to watch the fireworks, tall ships, and other events in on the Bay. He said that even activities such as the relocation of the Gallows Wheels to the Depot, can have an effect. By way of example, he said there were concerns raised during the recent sale of Bran Fanning's Point Tiburon unit about the impacts of the relocation of the Gallows Wheels. Mr. Key asked whether the new Town Manager would understand the relationship between the Town and the homeowners that had been developed over the years, and whether they would understand the issues. He said that "we want to work with you, but as time goes on, people forget." He said that the Council would not want some of these activities in front of their homes, and asked that they take this into consideration. Pamela McConnell -Douglass said that the City of Sausalito is packed with tourists every weekend. She wondered how our downtown businesses would sustain themselves without this type of revenue. There be no further public comment, Vice Mayor Tollini closed the hearing. Council discussion Councilmember Fraser, member of the ad hoc committee, thanked Point Tiburon board member Hank McWhinney and his colleagues for working with the Town to craft the language and compromises contained in the revised policy. He said that it reflects the Towns' commitment to honor and to do what is best for the community, and he recommended adoption. Councilmember Fredericks asked several questions for clarification. First, she asked what "discretion" was afforded the Town Manager (in revision No. 3 above). Town Manager Curran said that the Town's Special Event Permit Policy defines how public property can be utilized to stage events. She said her discretion would be limited to the "logistical" aspects of this policy. Fredericks said that the discretion, then, would not be to approve an excess of the maximum number of events allowed. Curran agreed. Secondly, Fredericks asked why the 30 -day interval was being removed (revision No. 1 above). Town Manager Curran said it seemed to be an arbitrary limit and one that did not serve a real DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 July 15, 2015 Page 6 purpose. She said the total number of annual events staged in that location (five in the revised policy) seemed to be more important to the reviewers. Councilmember Fredericks asked whether the proposed revision would allow two late-night events within one 30 -day period. She also asked whether this took into account [amplified] music that went until 10 p.m. She said that the residents of Old Tiburon had found amplified music at Friday Nights on Main to be disturbing when the bands was staged closer to the Ferry landing. Town Manager Curran said that the committee had, during its review, considered an ending time of 11 p.m. for one or two events. Fredericks said that if the goal was to attract people to the downtown area, then this did not meet that goal; they would instead be out on Shoreline Park late into the evening. Fredericks said she would like to have the Council consider an earlier end time to amplified music, under the revised policy. Councilmember O'Donnell said that if you excluded the winter months, five events did seem like a large number over an eight-month period. He asked for a better description for what constituted an event — and whether a kid's birthday party or the like is considered a 'special event'. Town Manager Curran said "no" to the latter, as the Town did not issue special event permits to applicants to stage private parties in its parks; she said public park use is on a first-come, first- served basis. She did acknowledge that events do have a cumulative effect. Councilmember Fraser asked the manager to restate the three events that are currently permitted at Shoreline Park. Town Manager said they are the RCP Tiburon Mile, the Classic Car Show, and art show ("Art by the Bay"). Councilmember O'Donnell said he would be supportive of some sort of compromise in the number of allowed events. He also said the town should mindful of the growing number of bicyclists coming into town, especially on weekends, and said there was a need to manage the "exit process" better. Councilmember Fredericks continued to ask for a limitation to the number of events that were allowed to have amplified music until 10 p.m. Vice Mayor Tollini said that really, with the three recurring events, that left two that would go late at night. She said she would love to see more people in the downtown area later in the evening. Councilmember Fraser agreed with the Vice Mayor. He also said that the proposed revisions had captured the thoughts and issues expressed, while at the same time updating the policy. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 July 15, 2015 Page 7 Councilmember Fredericks proposed limiting the number of permitted late night events with amplified music to one per year; and at the most, two. She said if people wanted to hear music, they could also attend Friday Nights on Main. Councilmember Fraser suggested leaving the decision to the discretion of the Town Manager. He said added that none of the three recurring events now go until 10 p.m. Councilmember Fredericks said she could not support that idea. Vice Mayor Tollini added that the Town Council has a vested interest in the hiring of the new Town Manager, and that if there were problems with the execution of the policy, the Council would want to be informed about them. The Council continued to discuss a possible compromise, with Councilmember O'Donnell suggesting that three of the five events could have amplified music. MOTION: To adopt the revised policy, as further amended to allow only 3 of the 5 permitted events (all permitted events can go until 10 p.m.), to have amplified music played as late as 10 p.m. Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Fraser Vote: AYES: Fraser, O'Donnell, Tollini NAYS: Fredericks ABSENT: Doyle PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Solar Panel Permits — Recommendation to introduce and pass first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 13 (Building Regulations) of the Town Code establishing streamlined review procedures for small, residential roof -top solar energy systems (Director of Community Development Anderson) Council waived presentation of the staff report due to the non -controversial nature of the item. However, Council did have some questions. Councilmember Fraser asked if the maximum legal limit of a building was 30 feet, did that mean that the solar panels could not be placed atop a building of that height. Anderson said that a [height] variance would be needed and therefore it would not be eligible for expedited processing. However, he also said that he had seldom seen a need for rooftop variances; that most homes simply have a peak on the roofline that reaches 30 feet and therefore, the panels would be below that height in elevation. He also pointed out that there were exceptions for certain items, such as chimneys, that exceed 30 feet. DRAFT Town Council Minutes ibc -2015 July 15, 2015 Page 8 Vice Mayor Tollini opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. Vice Mayor Tollini closed the public hearing. MOTION: To read ordinance by title only. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Doyle Vice Mayor Tollini read, "An ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon amending Chapter 13 (Building Regulations) to provide an expedited, streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar systems." MOTION: To pass first reading of the ordinance; to waive second reading and set the ordinance for adoption on consent calendar at the next regular meeting. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Tollini ABSENT: Doyle TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS Vice Mayor Tollini invited everyone to come downtown to the first of the "Summertime on Main" events on Wednesday, July 22. TOWN MANAGER REPORT Town Manager noted that the next regular meeting, August 5, would be cancelled due to several Council absences. WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digests — July 3 & July 10, 2015 Accepted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Vice Mayor Tollini adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. ERIN TOLLINI, VICE MAYOR DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 July 15, 2015 Page 9 ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2015 July 15, 2015 Page 10 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Administrative Services Department Investment Summary —June 2015 Town Council Meeting June17,2015 Agenda Item: CG 3 BACKGROUND Pursuant to Government Code Section 53601, staff is required to provide the Town Council with a report regarding the Town's investment activities for the period ended June 30, 2015. ANALYSIS Agency Investment June 2015 Amount Interest Rate Maturity Town of Tiburon Local Agency Fund (LAIF) 523,004,718.21 0.299% Liquid Housing note to Town Manager $ 800,000.00 0.260% Based on Contract Money Market (Bank of Marin) $ 100,000.00 0.10% Liquid Total $23,904,718.21 The total funds invested at the end of the prior month were $24,404,718.21; therefore the Town's investments decreased by $500,000 over May 2015. FINANCIAL IMPACT No financial impact occurs by accepting this report. The Town continues to meet the priority principles of investing — safety, liquidity and yield in this respective order. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to accept the Investment Summary for June 2015 Prepared By: Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting June 17, 2015 Agenda Item: CCZit - STA} REPORT To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: Mayor and Members of the Town Council Administrative Services Department Investment Summary — July 2015 BACKGROUND Pursuant to Government Code Section 53601, staff is required to provide the Town Council with a report regarding the Town's investment activities for the period ended July 31, 2015. ANALYSIS Agency Investment July 2015 Amount Interest Rate Maturity Town of Tiburon Local Agency Fund (LAIF) S21,695,530.30 0.320% Liquid Housing note to Town Manager $ 800,000.00 0.260% Based on Contract Money Market (Bank of Marin) S 100,000.00 0.10% Liquid Total $22,595,530.30 The total funds invested at the end of the prior month were $23,904,718.21; therefore the Town's investments decreased by $1,390,187.91. This decrease is consistent with prior years as the Town pays large, one-time annual expenses related to insurance premiums, JPA dues, and assessment district debt service the first month of the fiscal year. FINANCIAL IMPACT No financial impact occurs by accepting this report. The Town continues to meet the priority principles of investing — safety, liquidity and yield in this respective order. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to accept the Investment Summary for July 2015 Prepared By: Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting August 19, 2015 Agenda Item: cc STAFF REPORT To: From: Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Subject: Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13 (Building Regulations) of the Municipal Code Establishing Streamlined Review Procedures for Small Residential Roof -top Solar Energy Systems; File MCA 2015-06; Town -initiated amendment Reviewed By: BACKGROUND The Town Council held first reading of this ordinance following a public hearing at its meeting on July 15, 2015, and waived additional readings. The ordinance now comes to the Town Council for consideration of adoption. PROCEDURE This is a consent calendar item. The Council's motion to adopt this item on the consent calendar will constitute a motion to confirm the waiver of second reading from the previous meeting and adopt the ordinance. Each Councilmember's vote on the motion to approve this item on the consent calendar will constitute the equivalent of a roll call vote and will be recorded within the ordinance. Should any Councilmember choose to vote differently on this item than other items on the consent calendar, then the vote on this item should be taken separately from other items appearing on the Consent Calendar such that individual votes may be properly recorded. Should the Council wish to discuss the item, it must be removed from the Consent Calendar and voted upon separately. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council approve the adoption of Ordinance No. 560 N. S., a draft of which is attached as Exhibit 1, as part of the Consent Calendar. EXHIBIT 1. Draft Ordinance No. 560 N. S. Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 1 ORDINANCE NO. 560 N. S. DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING CHAPTER 13 (BUILDING REGULATIONS) TO PROVIDE AN EXPEDITED, STREAMLINED PERMITTING PROCESS FOR SMALL RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR SYSTEMS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS. A. The Town Council seeks to implement Assembly Bill No. 2188 (Chapter 521, Statutes 2014) through the creation of an expedited, streamlined review and permitting process for small residential rooftop solar systems. B. The Town Council wishes to advance the use of solar energy by its citizens and businesses. C. The Town Council seeks to meet the climate action plans goals that it has adopted for the town. D. The Town Council recognizes that rooftop solar energy provides reliable energy and pricing for its residents and businesses. E. The Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 15, 2015 and has heard and considered all public testimony on the proposed Ordinance. F. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the adoption of this Ordinance have been followed. G. The Town Council finds that the actions made by this Ordinance are necessary for the protection of the public health, safety. H. The Town Council finds that adoption of these amendments is consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan. The Town Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15268 (ministerial actions), 15305 (minor alterations to land use limitations), and 15061(b)(3) (general rule) of the CEQA Guidelines. It can be seen with certainty that the proposed amendments will have no significant adverse effect on the environment. SECTION 2. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 13. Title IV, Chapter 13, Article VII is hereby added to the Tiburon Municipal Code to read as follows: Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 560 N. S. DRAFT Effective --/--/2015 Pagel 1 EXHIBIT NO. Article VII. Expedited Permit Process for Small Residential Rooftop Solar Systems 13-24 Purpose and intent. The purpose of this article is to provide an expedited, streamlined solar permitting process that complies with the Solar Rights Act and AB 2188 (Chapter 521, Statutes 2014, California Government Code Section 65850.5) in order to achieve timely and cost-effective installations of small residential rooftop solar energy systems. This article encourages the use of solar systems by removing unreasonable barriers, minimizing costs to property owners and the town and expanding the ability of property owners to install solar energy systems. This article allows the town to achieve these goals while protecting the public health and safety. 13-25 Definitions. As used in this article: A. "Association" means a nonprofit corporation or unincorporated association created for the purpose of managing a common interest development. B. "Common interest development" means any of the following: 1. A community apartment project. 2. A condominium project. 3. A planned development. 4. A stock cooperative. C. "Electronic submittal" means the utilization of electronic email or submittal via the Internet or facsimile. D. "Reasonable restrictions" on a solar energy system are those restrictions that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance, or that allow for an alternative system of comparable cost, efficiency, and energy conservation benefits. E. "Restrictions that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or decrease its efficiency or specified performance" means: 1. For water heater systems or solar swimming pool heating systems: an amount exceeding ten percent of the cost of the system, but in no case more than one Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 560 N. S. DRAFT Effective --/--/2015 page 1 2 thousand dollars, or decreasing the efficiency of the solar energy system by an amount exceeding ten percent, as originally specified and proposed. 2. For photovoltaic systems: an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars over the system cost as originally specified and proposed, or a decrease in system efficiency of an amount exceeding ten percent as originally specified and proposed. F. "Small residential rooftop solar energy system" means all of the following: 1. A solar energy system that is no larger than ten kilowatts alternating current nameplate rating or thirty kilowatts thermal. 2. A solar energy system that conforms to all applicable state fire, structural, electrical, and other building codes as adopted or amended by the town, and all applicable health and safety standards. 3. A solar energy system that is installed on a single- or two-family dwelling. 4. A solar panel or module array that does not exceed the maximum legal building height as defined by the town. G. "Solar energy system" means either of the following: 1. Any solar collector or other solar energy device whose primary purpose is to provide for the collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy for space heating, space cooling, electric generation, or water heating. 2. Any structural design feature of a building, whose primary purpose is to provide for the collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy for electricity generation, space heating or cooling, or for water heating. H. "Specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, and written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. 13-26 Applicability. Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 560 N. S. DRAFT Effective --/--/2015 Page 1 3 A. This article applies to the permitting of all small residential rooftop solar energy systems in the town. B. Small residential rooftop solar energy systems legally established or permitted prior to [insert the effective date of this ordinance] are not subject to the requirements of this article unless physical modifications or alterations are undertaken that materially change the size, type, or components of a small rooftop energy system in such a way as to require new permitting. Routine operation and maintenance or like -kind replacements shall not require a permit. 13-27 Solar energy system requirements. A. All solar energy systems shall meet applicable health and safety standards and requirements imposed by the state, the local fire district, and the town. B. Solar energy systems for heating water in single-family residences and for heating water in commercial or swimming pool applications shall be certified by an accredited listing agency as defined by the California Plumbing and Mechanical Code. C. Solar energy systems for producing electricity shall meet all applicable safety and performance standards established by the California Electrical Code, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and accredited testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities Commission regarding safety and reliability. 13-28 Applications and documents. A. All documents required for the submission of an expedited solar energy system application shall be made available on the town website. B. Electronic submittal of the required permit application and documents by email, facsimile, or the Internet shall be made available to all small residential rooftop solar energy system permit applicants. An applicant's electronic signature shall be accepted on all forms, applications, and other documents in lieu of a wet signature. C. The town's building division shall adopt a standard plan and checklist of all requirements with which small residential rooftop solar energy systems shall comply to be eligible for expedited review. Town ofTiburon Ordinance No. 560 N. S. DRAFT Effective —/--/2015 Page i 4 D. The small residential rooftop solar system permit process, standard plan(s), and checklist(s) shall substantially conform to recommendations for expedited permitting, including the checklist and standard plans contained in the most current version of the California Solar Permitting Guidebook adopted by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. E. All fees prescribed for the permitting of small residential rooftop solar energy systems must comply with Government Code Sections 65850.55, 66015, and 66016, and with Health and Safety Code Section 17951. 13-29 Permit review and inspection requirements. A. The building official shall implement an administrative, nondiscretionary review process to expedite approval of small residential rooftop solar energy systems. The building division shall issue a building permit, the issuance of which is nondiscretionary, on the same day for over-the- counter applications or within one to three business days for electronic applications upon receipt of a complete application that meets the requirements of the approved checklist and standard plan. B. The building official may require an applicant to apply for an administrative small rooftop solar energy system use permit if the official finds and determines, based on substantial evidence, that the solar energy system could have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety. Such determinations may be appealed to the planning commission, whose decision shall be final. C. Review of the application shall be limited to the building official's review of whether the application meets local, state, and federal health and safety requirements. D. If an administrative use permit is required, the town may deny such application if it makes written findings based upon substantive evidence in the record that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid, as defined, the adverse impact. Such findings shall include the basis for the rejection of the potential feasible alternative for preventing the adverse impact. Such decisions may be appealed to the planning commission, whose decision shall be final. Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 560 N. S. DRAFT Efective --/--/2015 Pagel 5 E. Any condition imposed on an application shall be designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon health and safety at the lowest possible cost. F. "A feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact" includes, but is not limited to, any cost-effective method, condition, or mitigation imposed by the town on another similarly situated application in a prior successful application for a permit. The town shall use its best efforts to ensure that the selected method, condition, or mitigation meets the conditions of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 714 of the Civil Code defining restrictions that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or decrease its efficiency or specified performance. G. Town approval of an application for small residential rooftop solar energy system shall not be conditional on approval by an association or common interest development governing body or architectural review committee. H. If an application is deemed incomplete, a written correction notice detailing all deficiencies in the application and any additional information or documentation required to be eligible for expedited permit issuance shall be sent to the applicant for resubmission. I. Only one inspection shall be required and performed by the building division for small residential rooftop solar energy systems eligible for expedited review. The local fire district may require a separate inspection. J. The inspection shall be done in a timely manner and should include consolidated inspections. K. If a small residential rooftop solar energy system fails inspection, a subsequent inspection is authorized but need not conform to the requirements of this article. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 560 N. S. DRAFT Effective —/--/2015 Pagel 6 SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of adoption, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its adoption a copy of the ordinance shall be published, with the names of the members voting for and against it, at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon. This ordinance was read and introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on July 15, 2015, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on August 19, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: FRANK X. DOYLE, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. .560 N. S. DRAFT Effective --/--/2015 Page 1 7 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting August 19, 2015 Agenda Item: cr-- STAFF REPORT To: From: Mayor and Members of the Town Council Office of the Town Manager Subject: Recommendation to Approve Response to Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report of June 1, 2015 Entitled The Need for Labor Negotiation Transparency Reviewed By: BACKGROUND On June 1, 2015, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury issued a report entitled The Need for Labor Negotiation Transparency, which proposes agencies adopt a formal negotiation process called Civic Openness in Negotiations or COIN, for short. The Town is required to respond to Grand Jury reports by indicating its agreement or disagreement with the report's findings and recommendations. The attached letter to the Grand Jury, which was prepared by Town Attorney Benjamin Stock, Administrative Services Director Heidi Bigall and Town Manager Peggy Curran, offers the required responses. Overall, the letter posits that adoption of the report recommendations report would impose a lengthy and costly process on the Town without providing commensurate public benefit. Staff believes the Grand Jury's recommendations are more suitable for consideration by much larger agencies than the Town of Tiburon. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact associated with this response to the Grand Jury. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Town Council authorize the Town Manager to sign and send the attached response to the Marin County Civil Grand Jury. Exhibits: 1. Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report of June I, 2015: The Need for Labor Negotiation Transparency 2. Response Letter to Marin County Civil Grand Jury 3. Letter dated June 25, 2015 from Marin Professional Firefighters Prepared by: Peggy Curran 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 The Need for Labor Negotiation Transparency SUMMARY During the 2014-2015 Marin County Grand Jury investigation leading to its 2015 report, Pension Enhancements: A Case of Government Code Violations and A Lack of Transparency, the Grand Jury learned that negotiations between Marin County, and the cities and towns therein, and their respective unions (hereafter collectively referred to as the "Parties") are conducted in private, without transparency, and removed from the scrutiny of the Marin community. Although Marin County residents pay taxes to support decisions made by the Marin County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and the City and Town Councils, (hereafter collectively referred to as "Employer(s)"), there are numerous times when no transparency into the background of those decisions is made to the public. The Grand Jury learned that the public is notified of a negotiated tentative labor agreement only when the agenda. which schedules consideration of the agreement, is posted—some three to four days prior to the Employers' public meetings. This is also the meeting at which the Employers vote to approve or disapprove the agreement. Prior to the agenda posting, little or no detailed information is made public about the terms of the tentative agreement or what it will cost. Without this information, there is no full public disclosure of the terms and cost of an agreement during the negotiation process and prior to its being voted upon. With no transparency, the public is excluded from input until it is too late for a reasoned public dialogue. During its investigation, the Grand Jury also learned that various California cities and Orange County adopted a formal negotiation process, Civic Openness In Negotiations (COIN), which allows for community review of not only what is being negotiated, but also what a tentative agreement will cost to implement. One key element of the COIN process is the stipulation that the Employer hire an experienced, independent Lead Negotiator for all negotiations. This requirement precludes any city or county employee from negotiating terms that may benefit that employee, thus avoiding any conflict of interest. The common elements of the COIN process are as follows: 1. The Employer hire an experienced, independent Lead Negotiator for all negotiation of wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency 2. The Employer hire an independent auditor to assess the fiscal impacts of each provision in the current labor contract. This fiscal impact is made available for public study. 3. After each proposal is accepted or rejected by either of the Parties, it is publicly disclosed (generally on the Employer's website). The costs for the implementation of the proposal are verified by an independent auditor and also publicly disclosed. 4. Seven days prior to the Employer's public meeting, the final tentative agreement is made public (generally on the Employer's website), including all associated costs, which are independently verified. 5. After seven days, the final tentative agreement is placed on two consecutive Employer's public meeting agendas: at the first meeting, the agreement is a discussion item; at the second meeting, the Employer votes on the agreement. The Grand Jury recommends that the Employers adopt an ordinance implementing the COIN process to ensure transparency and prior public review of all proposals and final tentative labor agreements. BACKGROUND During the 2014-2015 Marin County Grand Jury investigation leading to the 2015 Grand Jury report, Pension Enhancements: A Case of Government Code Violations and A Lack of Transparency, the Grand Jury learned that labor negotiations in Marin County and the cities and towns therein are conducted without transparency, and are thereby removed from the scrutiny of the community. During this time, the Grand Jury also learned that various California cities and Orange County had adopted a transparent negotiation process, Civic Openness in Negotiations (COIN), which allows for community review of tentative proposals being negotiated and also what those proposals will cost if accepted or rejected. As a result, the Grand Jury decided to investigate whether a more transparent negotiation process might be appropriate for Marin County and its cities and towns. APPROACH The Grand Jury interviewed representatives of the Orange County Management of Government Affairs, various Marin County officials directly involved with labor contract negotiations, and officials from Costa Mesa who are engaged in the implementation of COIN. Orange County and Costa Mesa COIN ordinances were reviewed along with numerous websites of various cities and counties involved in the use of COIN. Additionally, Grand Jury members attended multiple Marin County Board of Supervisors meetings at which the public brought COIN to the attention of the Board of Supervisors. Grand Jury members also attended the April 28, 2015, BOS meeting where COIN was agendized for discussion; they later viewed the video of the meeting and read the staff report relating to COIN as presented at that meeting. June 1, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 2 of 10 The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency DISCUSSION The Need for Civic Openness in Labor Contract Negotiations (COIN) Although Marin County residents pay taxes to fund decisions made by the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils, often there is no transparency into the background of those decisions. One specific area that lacks transparency is labor negotiations between the Parties. In general, the public is notified of the Parties' tentative agreements only three to four days prior to the Employers' public vote; it is only then that the meeting agenda is posted for public view. Prior to the agenda posting, little or no detailed information is made public about the terms of the tentative agreement or what it will cost. In sum, there is no transparency before the vote on the tentative agreement. This short time period (three to four days) gives the residents of Marin little time to review the tentative agreement in order to provide input at an Employers' public meeting—the meeting at which the tentative agreement is presented for approval. Furthermore, the public receives no information regarding any proposal made by either Party or the associated costs of those proposals, which leads to the question: What should be disclosed to the residents of Marin and when? COIN Started In Costa Mesa The Grand Jury learned that a newly elected Costa Mesa City Council had discovered the financial strain placed on their city by their unfunded pension liabilities. This discovery, coupled with the realization that opaque labor negotiations had created an environment devoid of public oversight, review or input, motivated the Council to adopt a more transparent process for all labor negotiations. Accordingly, the City of Costa Mesa adopted a COIN ordinance in September of 2012, the first municipality in California to do so. Subsequently, Beverly Hills, Fullerton and Rancho Palos Verdes also adopted variations of COIN, as did Orange County (Appendix A)1. For all these entities, the principal objective of the COIN process is to allow the public to review and to provide input during negotiations. One person interviewed stated, "...it occurred to the Council that the public's full understanding of what they are being asked to pay for is good governance." Learning this, the Grand Jury investigated various existing COIN ordinances and procedures to determine what the COIN process might mean for Marin Country and its cities and towns. 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. June 1, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 3 of 10 The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency What COIN Is: Key Components The common elements of the COIN process are as follows: 1. The Employer hire an experienced, independent Lead Negotiator for all negotiation on wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. This requirement precludes having a city or county employee negotiate terms of an agreement that could directly benefit such employee. 2. The Employer hire an independent auditor to assess the fiscal impacts of each provision in the current labor contact. This fiscal impact is made available for public study. 3. Labor contract negotiations begin. 4. After each proposal is accepted or rejected by either Party to the negotiation, the proposal is publicly disclosed (generally on the Employer's website). The long-term and short-term costs of the proposal are verified by an independent auditor and also publicly disclosed. 5. Negotiations conclude with a final tentative agreement. 6. Seven days prior to the Employer's public meeting, the final tentative agreement is made public (generally on the Employers' website), including all associated costs that are independently verified. 7. Following these seven days, the final tentative agreement is placed on the following two consecutive Employer's public meeting agendas: at the first meeting, the tentative agreement is a discussion item; at the second meeting, the Employer(s) vote on the tentative agreement. The above process is used in a number of municipalities. For more details see Appendix A. What COIN Is Not: Misconceptions The Grand Jury learned that there are many misconceptions about the COIN process, as follows: Misconception #1: The public negotiates. COIN does NOT involve the public in actual negotiations, nor does it disclose what occurs at the negotiation table. Fair-minded taxpayers recognize that such an attempt would lead to an unproductive bargaining environment at best and would likely evolve into intractable positions by both sides that would prevent a constructive outcome. June 1, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 4 of 10 The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency Misconception #2: Negotiations are held open for public observation. In none of the cities or Orange County are COIN negotiations open for public view or public participation. Negotiations occur in private, but the decisions on proposals are made available for public review. Misconception #3: COIN slows down the negotiation process. The Grand Jury has learned that, during the first round of negotiations using the COIN process, there is a learning curve, since COIN provides a new framework within which to operate. However, after learning the new process, those interviewed noted that negotiations proceeded in a timeframe similar to prior negotiations. Misconception #4: Not all types of negotiation methods can adapt to the COIN processes. The COIN process is about transparency and not about the negotiation method. Commonly used negotiation practices, such as interest -based or adversarial, can still be the norm while using the COIN process. The COIN process is about the transparency of decisions made during negotiations that lead to a tentative agreement — the agreement that is recommended to the Employer for approval. It is through the COIN process that the public is made aware of the terms and associated costs of tentative agreements well before they are adopted, thereby giving taxpayers opportunity to provide timely public review and input. FINDINGS F1 . The residents of Marin County pay taxes to support decisions made by the Board of Supervisors and City and Town Councils; however these residents have minimal opportunity to provide input into labor negotiations. F2. The COIN process can be implemented without affecting the manner in which tentative agreements are negotiated but which nevertheless will ensure public awareness of the terms and cost of those agreements in advance of their being adopted. F3. The COIN process mandates transparency in government decision-making, allowing residents to be informed and to participate in public discussion of how their tax dollars are spent. RECOMMENDATIONS RI. Marin County Board of Supervisors and each City Council and Town Council in Marin County adopt and implement a COIN ordinance prior to June 1, 2016, or prior to the next round of negotiations, whichever comes earlier. June 1, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 5 of 10 The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency R2. Marin County Board of Supervisors and each City Council and Town Council in Marin County adopt and implement a COIN ordinance which includes, but is not limited to the following: 1. Hire an independent, experienced Lead Negotiator to negotiate all labor agreements. 2. Hire an independent auditor to determine the fiscal impact of each provision in the current contact, and make this analysis available for public review. 3. Make public each proposal, after it is accepted or rejected by either Party, and publicly verify the costs of that accepted or rejected proposal by an independent auditor. 4. Make public seven days prior to a Board or Council meeting the negotiated tentative agreement and the fiscal analysis thereof, which are to be independently verified. 5. After seven days, place the final tentative agreement on the following two consecutive Employer's public meeting agendas: the first meeting is for discussion of the tentative agreement; the second meeting is for a vote by the Employer to approve or disapprove the tentative agreement. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows: From the following governing bodies: • Marin County Board of Supervisors: All Findings and Recommendations. • City Council of Belvedere: All Findings and Recommendations. • Town Council of Corte Madera: All Findings and Recommendations. • Town Council of Fairfax: All Findings and Recommendations. • City Council of Larkspur: All Findings and Recommendations. • City Council of Mill Valley: All Findings and Recommendations. • City Council of Novato: All Findings and Recommendations. • Town Council of Ross: All Findings and Recommendations. • Town Council of San Anselmo: All Findings and Recommendations. • City Council of San Rafael: All Findings and Recommendations. • City Council of Sausalito: All Findings and Recommendations. • Town Council of Tiburon: All Findings and Recommendations. June 1, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 6 of 10 The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. June 1, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 7 of 10 The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency APPENDIX A Summary of "COIN" Requirements Adopted by City/ County 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 Independent Negotiator Yes Yes May be Waived by Council Yes Yes Executive Employee Involved in Bargaining Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pre -Negotiation Economic Analysis (Baseline) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Each Accepted or Rejected Proposal plus the Economic Analysis made public Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Proposals Verified Independently Yes Yes Yes May be Waived by Council Yes Tentative Agreement an Agenda Item on 2 Meetings Prior to Adoption Yes Yes Yes Meetings must be 2 Weeks Apart Yes June 1, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 8 of 10 The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency APPENDIX B 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 impact is available for pubic study. � After each proposal is accepted or rejected by either Party it is publically disclosed (generally on the Employers' website). BIBLIOGRAPHY 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; Seven days prior to the Employers' public meeting, the final tentative agreement is made public (generally on the Employers' website). including all associated costs, which are independently verified. The Tong -term and short-term \� associated costs of the proposal are verified by an independent auditor and also publically disclosed. "02 Transparency and Accountability in Labor Negotiations - Laserfiche WebLink." - Laserfiche WebLink. Accessed April 27, 2015. http://docs. cityoffullerton.com/weblink8/2/doc/5 44710/Page 1.aspx. "Beverly Hills Ordinance 13-0-2657." December 18, 2013. Accessed April 15, 2015. http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/fi les/851941061213138018/ 13-0- 2651.pdf. June 1, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 9 of 10 The Need For Labor Negotiation Transparency Brouillette, Mathew. "At Last Scrutiny for Public Union Deals." Wall Street Journal (New York), May 21, 2015, Opinion sec. A growing movement is opening labor negotiations so taxpayers can see how their money is being spent. City Council of Costa Mesa. City Council. COIN ORDINANCE - Ordinance No. 12-7. Accessed April 13, 2015. http://www.costamesaca.gov/ftp/chartercommittee/agenda/2014/2014-01- 22/coin.pdf. Johnson, Nels "Open Labor Talks Spurs County Review." Marin Independent Journal (San Rafael), April 30, 2015. Accessed April 30, 2015. http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20150430/open-labor-talks-plan-pits- pension-critics-unions. "Minutes, Rancho Palos Verdes City CounciI." May 7, 2014. Accessed April 30, 2015. http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/minutes/2014_Minutes/city_counc i1/20140506_CC_MINS.pdf. Nicholson, Angela. Discuss the Civic Openness (COIN) Ordinance Enacted in Costa Mesa. CA. Report. Marin Board of Supervisors Meeting, April 28, 2015. Orange County Board of Supervisors. Ordinance No 14-005. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Series 21. Orange County: Board of Supervisors, 2014. http://cams.ocgov.com/Web_Publisher/Agenda07_15_2014_files/images/0005 14-000844A.PDF. "Search or Watch a Meeting." — Marin County Board of Supervisors Public Comment. March 03, 2015. Accessed May 22, 2015. http://www.marincounty.org/depts/bs/meeting-archive. "Search or Watch a Meeting." Marin County Board of Supervisors, April 28, 2015. Electronically Published April 29, 2015. Accessed May 20, 2015. Http://www.marincounty.orWdepts/bs/meeting-archive. June 1, 2015 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 10 of 10 August , 2015 The Honorable Faye D'Opal Judge of the Marin County Superior Court Post Office Box 4988 San Rafael, CA 94913-4988 Mr. Jack Nixon, Foreperson Marin County Grand Jury 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275 San Rafael, CA 94903 Re: Response to Grand Jury Report June 1, 2015 The Need for Labor Negotiation Transparency Dear Honorable Judge D'Opal and Mr. Nixon: This letter explains in detail the Town of Tiburon's response to the Grand Jury Report dated June 1, 2015. The Report directs the Town to respond to Findings Nos. 1-3 and Recommendations Nos. 1-2. The Findings involve conclusions of fact that the Town has little or no independent basis to evaluate. In responding to these Findings, the Town assumes that the information in the Report is correct and relies on that information. FINDINGS Finding 1: The residents of Marin County pay taxes to support decisions made by the Board of Supervisors and City and Town councils; however these residents have minimal opportunity to provide input into labor negotiations. Town's Response to Finding 1: The Town does not agree that Tiburon residents have minimal opportunity to provide input into labor negotiations. Tiburon is a small town in Marin with 40.5 FTE employees, with 19.1 FTE belonging to a labor association and bargain collectively. The other employees are unrepresented. Mandatory subjects of bargaining include wages (and other forms of compensation, i.e. fringe benefits), hours and working conditions. Current labor agreements, salary schedules and the Town's budget outlining personnel costs are available for review by the public at Town Hall or on the Town's website. Additionally, labor negotiations in Tiburon always begin by being placed on a Town Council closed session agenda; this serves to notify the public that discussions are commencing; the public has always and will always have the option to address the Council at any public meeting about labor negotiations and labor relations. If the public, in anticipation of future labor negotiations, wishes to provide input to the Council on these matters they are welcome to do so during the Oral Communication (public comment) period at any Town Council Hon. Faye D'Opal Mr. Jack Nixon August _, 2015 Page 2 meeting. Proposed labor agreements are always placed on the Town Council agenda and public comment is always taken prior to Council consideration. Finding 2: The COIN process can be implemented without affecting the manner in which tentative agreements are negotiated but which nevertheless will ensure public awareness of the terms and costs of those agreement in advance of their being adopted. Town's Response to Finding 2: The Town does not agree that the COIN process can be implemented without affecting the manner in which tentative agreements are negotiated, nor does the Town find any evidence in the Grand Jury's report to support this assertion. In Tiburon, the negotiation process is not lengthy. The Town Manager and Director of Administrative Services first meet with the Town Council in a noticed closed session. The Director of Administrative Services then conducts meetings with the bargaining unit representatives to seek agreement on terms. Pausing during negotiations to call for an independent audit of a proposal then circulating that proposal for public discussion even if it has already been rejected by one side or the other is a significant change and would affect the timing and tone of labor negotiations. Finding 3: The COIN process mandates transparency in government decision-making, allowing residents to be informed and to participate in public discussion of how their tax dollars are spent. Town's Response to Finding 3: The Town agrees that the COIN process does provide for transparency, and with transparency, residents potentially would participate in public discussions on the information presented through that process. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1: Marin County Board of Supervisors and each City Council and Town Council in Marin County adopt and implement a COIN ordinance prior to June 1, 2016, or prior to the next round of negotiations, whichever comes earlier. Recommendation 2: Marin County Board of Supervisors and each City Council and Town Council in Marin County adopt and implement a COIN ordinance which includes, but is not limited to the following.: 1. Hire an independent, experienced Lead Negotiator to negotiate all labor agreements. 2. Hire an independent auditor to determine the fiscal impact of each provision in the current contract, and make this analysis available for public review. Hon. Faye D'Opal Mr. Jack Nixon August , 2015 Page 3 3. Make public each proposal, after it is accepted or rejected by either Party, and publicly verify the costs of that accepted or rejected proposal by an independent auditor. 4. Make public seven days prior to a Board or Council meeting the negotiated tentative agreement and the fiscal analysis thereof which are to be independently verified. S. After seven days, place the final tentative agreement on the following two consecutive Employer's public meeting agendas: the first meeting is for discussion of the tentative agreement; the second meeting is for a vote by the employer to approve or disapprove the tentative agreement. Town's Response to Recommendations: The Grand Jury's recommendation that the Town of Tiburon adopt a COIN ordinance attempts to address a perceived lack of transparency regarding the Town's labor negotiation process and the fiscal impact of the resulting labor agreement. Transparency in government is an ideal and goal shared by the Town's elected officials. While we appreciate and agree with the Grand Jury's position that information regarding the negotiation process and employee compensation should be easily accessible by the public, we believe the Town already provides sufficient notice and an opportunity to comment when tentative agreements have been reached, and makes available detailed cost information regarding current and anticipated labor costs. Therefore we believe the recommendation that Tiburon adopt a COIN ordinance and incur the costs associated with its implementation is not warranted. Town's Response to COIN Ordinance Provisions 1. Hire an independent, experienced Lead Negotiator to negotiate all labor agreements. The Director of Administrative Services represents the Town in negotiations with the Tiburon Police Association and S.E.I.U. Local 1021 and in discussions with other employees about compensation or working conditions. The Director does not benefit from any salary or benefit increases negotiated by the Tiburon Police Association and the S.E.I.U. Local 1021, nor from any increases that may be granted to unrepresented employees. There is no conflict and no need to hire an "independent, experienced Lead Negotiator". The Director, who also serves as the Town's Finance Director, has significant experience in both determining the costs of labor agreements and in their negotiation. 2. Hire an independent auditor to deternzine the fiscal impact of each provision in the current contract, and make this analysis available for public review. Hon. Faye D'Opal Mr. Jack Nixon August , 2015 Page 4 The fiscal impact of the current labor agreement with the Tiburon Police Association and the S.E.I.U. Local 1021, as well as the cost of salaries and benefits for unrepresented employees, is outlined in detail in the Town's annual operating budget. Department budgets include employees' salaries, as well as line item detail (cost) for each Town paid benefit (health premiums, retirement, specialty pay, uniform allowance, etc.). The Town's budget, labor agreements and salary resolutions are available on the Town's website, as are the comprehensive annual audits and actuarial reports identifying the Town's pension liabilities. The Town does not need to hire an "independent auditor" to determine the fiscal impact of each provision in the current contract and would find that additional cost an unnecessary and undue public expense. 3. Make public each proposal, after it is accepted or rejected by either Party, and publicly verify the costs of that accepted or rejected proposal by an independent auditor. 4. Make public seven days prior to a Board or Council meeting the negotiated tentative agreement and the fiscal analysis thereof which are to be independently verified. Labor negotiations are an iterative process in Tiburon where proposals and counter proposals are exchanged and discussed in a fairly informal way until a tentative agreement is reached. This can happen in as little as one or two meetings if both sides have clear authority from those they represent. The tentative agreement is then presented to the Town Council (at a regular Town Council meeting) for their consideration along with a staff report that includes a statement as to the total cost of the proposal. The Finance Officer, who does not benefit from the outcome, prepares this cost analysis and is responsible for its accuracy. The Town does not need to hire an independent auditor to cost out the tentative agreement. Pursuant to state law, the tentative agreement, staff report and all other agenda materials are made public at least 72 hours before the council meeting. However, it is often the case that reports are completed before that deadline and when that occurs, it may be possible to provide a longer review period. 5. After seven days, place the final tentative agreement on the following two consecutive Employer's public meeting agendas: the first meeting is for discussion of the tentative agreement; the second meeting is for a vote by the employer to approve or disapprove the tentative agreement. The Tiburon Town Council holds regular meetings twice a month. At those meetings, discussion of any and all agenda items is welcome. If concerns are raised by the public that suggest additional time is needed to fully analyze the proposal, the Town Council has the discretion to continue the item to the next meeting. To require that a tentative labor agreement be placed on two consecutive agendas would unnecessarily extend the review and approval process and is not warranted. Hon. Faye D'Opal Mr. Jack Nixon August , 2015 Page 5 The Tiburon Town Council reviewed and approved this response on August 19, 2015 at a duly noticed and agendized public meeting. If you have further questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, MARGARET A. CURRAN Town Manager cc: Town Council Town Attorney Local 1775 June 25, 2015 .iNR'ZUZOT£llLOYLRL gh£1"LG�hEE'Z1 / J Mayor Frank Doyle Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon CA 94920 Margaret Curran Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon CA 94920 Margot Plant, President Tiburon Fire District 1679 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Fire Chief Rich Pearce Tiburon Fire District 1679 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, Ca. 94920 Re: Concerns Over Proposed Civic Openness in Negotiations (COIN) Dear Mayor Doyle, Ms. Curran, Ms. Plant, and Chief Pearce: We write on behalf of the Marin Professional Firefighters, IAFF Local 1775, to express our concern over the Marin Grand Jury's recommendation for local government agencies to adopt Civic Openness in Negotiations ("COIN"). We believe that, in considering COIN, all impacts must be considered and weighed, including the numerous harmful and costly effects COIN will have on the municipality's finances and labor -relations with its public servants. Furthermore, ongoing legal challenges to the implementation of COIN in other jurisdictions and the likely unlawfulness of certain "outsourcing" provisions in COIN caution against adoption. Additionally, we believe that COIN—which is championed by ultra -conservative anti - labor extremists from Orange County—is inconsistent with the values of the public we serve here in Marin County. The true purpose of COIN is to undermine the collective bargaining process and prevent labor and management from working collaboratively in the workplace in a manner that ensures that we hire and retain personnel best able to provide services to the constituents of the municipality. PROBLEMS PRESENTED BY PARTICULAR COMPONENTS OF COIN: 1. COIN's requirement that the municipality retain and compensate an outside professional negotiator is both wasteful and unlawful. At a time when municipalities county -wide voice a desire to eliminate unnecessary expenditures and waste, the adoption of COIN would require the retention of a highly - paid private -sector professional to perform a collective bargaining function that municipality management personnel are capable of performing and always have P.O. Box 15 • Fairfax, CA 94978 • Phone (415) 459-4058 • Fax (415) 459-8009 Affiliated with International Association of Fire Fighters • California Professional Firefighters • AFL-CIO June 25, 2015 Re: Concerns Over Proposed Civic Openness in Negotiations (COIN) Page 2 performed. Yet there is no basis to believe that those management personnel have been unable to effectively bargain on behalf of the municipality. Furthermore, such outsourcing of this basic municipal function would appear to violate numerous provisions of the Government Code that expressly limit the authority of a municipality, district, or city to outsource only "special services and advice in financial, economic, accounting, engineering, legal, or administrative matters." (See Gov. Code § 53060; see also Gov. Code §§ 31000 and 37103.) These statutes have been construed as prohibiting private contracting unless it is for identified "special services" and employees of the public entity are incapable of performing them. (Costa Mesa City Employees' Assn. v. City of Costa Mesa (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 298.) 2. COIiV improvidently requires the municipality to hire an independent auditor to assess the fiscal impact of every single bargaining proposal This component of COIN implicates the same fiscal and legal concerns raised above. It would exponentially increase the length and cost of collective bargaining for a number of reasons. First, on its face, it would require a municipality to retain and compensate a private sector auditor on a lengthy and ongoing basis over many months of bargaining. Incurring such unnecessary costs is not only fiscally irresponsible, but is also unlawful under the statues referenced above, because municipality employees already perform this function. Second, requiring a full fiscal impact analysis of every single proposal would dramatically increase the length of bargaining, which under normal circumstances lasts several months. On any given day of bargaining, numerous proposals are traded back and forth. Requiring the parties to wait for an independent auditor to assess each proposal as it is passed would exponentially increase the length of negotiations from several months to possibly a year or more. This, in turn, would exponentially increase the costs associated with collective bargaining, because the municipality would be paying the private negotiator and outside auditor for the duration. Third, we believe this requirement, and the associated disruptions and delays in the bargaining process, would violate the municipality's bargaining obligations under the MMBA. Specifically, Government Code section 3505 requires that that parties "shall have the mutual obligation personally to meet and confer promptly upon request by either party and continue for a reasonable period of time in order to exchange freely information, opinions, and proposals, and to endeavor to reach agreement on matters within the scope of representation ...." The stunted, intermittent process that will result if COIN is implemented is the very antithesis of what is required by section 3505. 3. COIN Would Unlawfully Impair the Free Flow of Discussions and Proposals Other provisions of COIN would require that the municipality publish all offers and counter-offers communicated in bargaining, regardless of whether agreement has been reached on such matters or whether they remain under consideration. A rule of June 25, 2015 Re: Concerns Over Proposed Civic Openness in Negotiations (COIN) Page 3 mandatory publication will necessarily discourage and inhibit the free flow of information, opinions, and proposals, in violation of the bargaining obligation reflected in Government Code section 3505 (see above). Indeed, the federal courts have held that it is unlawful for an employer to insist on a bargaining procedure that would have "a tendency to inhibit the free and open discussion necessary for conducting successful collective bargaining." (NLRB v. Bartlett -Collins Co. (10th Cir. 1981) 639 F.2d 652.) This is because "[t]he proceedings may become formalized, sapping the spontaneity and flexibility often necessary to successful negotiations." (Id.; see also Latrobe Steel Co. v. N.L.R.B. (1980) 630 F.2d 171.) We believe it is obvious that a rule of mandatory publication implicates these concerns and is, consequently, unlawful. Prudence COUNSELS AGAINST ENACTING COIN UNTIL LEGAL CHALLENGES ARE RESOLVED As you are presumably aware, so-called COIN ordinances have been adopted in other jurisdictions, including Orange County. The Orange County COIN is currently being challenged by the Orange County Employees Association before the Public Employment Relations Board ("PERB"), which is the California State agency charged with construing and enforcing California's labor -relations statues. These include the Meyers-Milias- Brown Act ("MMBA"), which governs municipalities. (Gov. Code § 3500 et seq.) Prudence cautions against enacting COIN until PERB has addressed its legalities in a ruling on the Orange County ordinance. A wait-and-see approach will avoid costly litigation and potential liabilities in the event it is found to be unlawful. And this is the approach that has been recommended in other jurisdictions considering COIN, including the City of Yorba Linda and the Orange County Fire Authority. (See enclosures.) COIN CANNOT BE ADOPTED WITHOUT COMPLETING BARGAINING AND IMPASSE PROCEDURES The MMBA, particularly Government Code section 3507, requires municipalities to bargain in good faith prior to implementing any rules or regulations governing the collective bargaining process. In a recent decision, PERB construed this obligation as requiring advance notice that is sufficient to allow the parties to engage in meaningful bargaining until they reach agreement or impasse. (IAFF, Local 1319 v. City of Palo Alto (2014) PERB Decision No. 2388-M.) And in the event an impasse is reached, this would initiate the statutory impasse procedures including a formal hearing before a factfinding panel. (Gov. Code § 3505.4.) June 25, 2015 Re: Concerns Over Proposed Civic Openness in Negotiations (COIN) Page 4 CONCLUSION In summary, we believe there are many reasons not to move forward with adoption of COIN. These reasons are financial, legal, and pragmatic. At the very least, we believe that all of the considerations identified in this letter should be disclosed to the public, reviewed by legal counsel, and carefully weighed before any step is taken to adopt COIN. Robert Briare, President Marin Professional Firefighters IAFF Local 1775 Nick Gabbard, President Dan Peters, 7T'i•ent Corte Madera Firefighters Association Novato Prof-gsiony) Fir ers Association '"7/ Dan Trimble, President Kentfield Association of Professional Firefighters Tom Timmer, President Larkspur Professional Firefighters Scor, President oss alley Firefighters Association Robert Winner, President San Rafael Firefighters Association Mike Triblet, President J Marin County Fire Department Firefighters So Association olden, President Joh M Ba a, P -sident rinwood Professional Firefighters arin Professional Firefighters can Riddle, President Mill Valley Firefighters Association gcott rban, President Tiburon Firefighters Association STAFF REPOR II CITY OF YORBA LINDA DATE: TO: FROM: City Attorney's Office JANUARY 6, 2015 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PREPARED BY: TODD LITFIN SUBJECT: COIN ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATION Review update on the pending legal challenge to the County of Orange's COIN ordinance and provide direction to City staff pertaining to further City action on a potential City of Yorba Linda COIN ordinance. BACKGROUND At the December 16, 2014, City Council meeting, the City Council discussed issues pertaining to the potential adoption of a "Civic Openness In Negotiations" ordinance — commonly referred to as a COIN ordinance. Currently, COIN ordinances have been adopted by Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Beverly Hills, Palos Verdes and the County of Orange. Although potential COIN ordinances have different specific requirements, in general they are intended to increase government transparency by requiring public disclosure of certain aspects of labor negotiations with public employee unions. Of particular concern to the City Council was the status of any litigation pertaining to the adoption of a COIN ordinance by other jurisdictions. In regards to the County of Orange's adoption of a COIN ordinance, this past autumn the Orange County Employees Association ("OCEA") filed an unfair labor practices charge with the Public Employment Relations Board ("PERB"). OCEA's complaint alleges that: 1) the County failed to "meet and confer" with the union prior to adopting the COIN ordinance as required by law; and 2) the COIN ordinance disrupts and undermines the statutory collective bargaining process, interferes with the legal rights of both exclusive representative and bargaining unit employees, and unilaterally imposes conditions inconsistent with the purpose and intent of state law (as contained in the Meyers-Milias- Brown Act ("MMBA")). The PERB review process includes an initial mediation and, if settlement is not reached, an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge. The decision of the administrative law judge is appealable. The process could take 6- 12 months, and potentially longer if appealed. COIN ORDINANCE Page 12 The Orange County Fire Authority ("OCFA") at its November 20, 2014, Board of Directors meeting also analyzed whether to proceed with its own COIN ordinance. For the City Council's reference, the OCFA staff report is attached hereto. At the meeting, the OCFA Board decided, on the motion of Director Spitzer, to hold off on adopting the COIN ordinance based upon the currently pending PERB complaint and revisit the matter upon the resolution of the legal challenge. ANALYSIS If the City Council so desired, it could provide direction to staff to draft for Council review a COIN ordinance or an ordinance that adopts certain discrete aspects of COIN ordinances. However, due to the wide breadth of the OCEA's legal challenge to the County of Orange's COIN ordinance, any modifications to the current collective bargaining process could trigger a legal challenge from the City's employee unions. Due to the legal uncertainties pertaining to the outcome of the current PERB complaint against the County of Orange, the safest course to avoid any potential litigation would be to wait for the resolution of the County of Orange matter and then proceed (or not proceed) within the parameters of such newly -established precedent pertaining to the legality of COIN ordinances. ATTACHMENTS 1. OCFA Staff Report and Attachments pertaining to COIN ordinance. Approved by: Mark Pulone City Manager Certified as to Fiscal Impacts: David J. Christian Finance Director/Assistant City Manager DISCUSSION CALENDAR - AGENDA ITEM NO. 14 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING November 20, 2014 TO: Board of Directors, Orange County Fire Authority FROM: David Kendig, General Counsel SUBJECT: Civic Openness In Negotiations Ordinance S ummary: At the October 23, 2014, meeting of the Board of Directors, Director Spitzer requested that an item be agendized for the November meeting to discuss whether the Authority should adopt a "Civic Openness In Negotiations," or "COIN," ordinance modeled after the County's recently adopted COIN ordinance. This staff report responds to that direction. Recommended Action: Defer further action on this matter until after a ruling is issued in the Orange County Employees Association's Unfair Practice Charge filed with the Public Employee Relations Board in connection with the County's COIN Ordinance. Background: Civic Openness In Negotiations -- or COIN — is the name given by other local public entities that have recently adopted or considered adopting ordinances requiring public disclosure of certain aspects of labor negotiations between public entities and recognized employee organizations. The professed goal of the ordinance is to increase transparency by requiring public disclosure of various aspects of labor negotiations as they occur. Currently and historically, labor negotiations with representcd labor groups have occurred in private and the resulting agreements have generally been approved by public entities in closed session pursuant to state public meeting laws. Currently, there are five enacted COIN ordinanccs, implemented by the following agencies: the County of Orange, and the cities of Costa Mesa, Beverly Hills, Palos Verdes, and Fullerton. MeyersMilias-Brown Act The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) is set forth in Government Code sections 3500 et eq. It governs labor-management relationships within California local governments. The MMBA requires the governing body of a local public agency to meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of a recognized employee organization. The MMBA requires, if an agreement is reached, that the parties prepare jointly a written memorandum of understanding of the agreement that would then be presented to the governing body for approval. The Ralph M. Brown Act The Ralph M. Brown Act (the `Brown Act"), codified as Government Code sections 54950 through 54963, is California's open public meeting law. The Brown Act establishes broad public Discussion Calendar — Agenda Item No. 14 Board of Directors Meeting November 20, 2014 Page 2 access rights to the meetings of legislative bodies. However, it also recognizes that under certain limited circumstances there is a legitimate governmental interest in closing some discussions to the public, Examples of such statutorily -authorized closed session topics include labor negotiations. See Government Code section 54957.6. A legislative body may meet in closed session with its labor negotiator regarding labor discussions with employee organizations over the areas of negotiation required by the MMBA (i.e. wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment). During such closed sessions, the legislative body may approve a memorandum of understanding that sets out the binding agreement betweenthe public entity,employer and the employee organization. Thus, historically, public entities' labor negotiations were handled by a negotiator, sometimes specifically retained by the public entity for the limited purpose of negotiating labor agreements, and terms negotiated between the public entity and the labor organization would be discussed by the entity in private. An MOU with a represented group is ordinarily approved in closed session as well, though the agency may approve the agreement in open session, as occurred during the October 23 approval of the MOU with the firefighters' organization. Under the standard approach, only after the parties have completed negotiating a final MOU does the public agency disclose the terms of the agreement to the public. County of Orange's COIN Ordinance On August 5, 2014, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved a COIN ordinance (Attachment 1). The County COIN ordinance is similar in structure to the first COIN ordinance adopted by the City of Costa Mesa; however, the County ordinance differs from Costa Mesa's in some material respects. A summary comparison of the Costa Mesa Ordinance, along with other COIN ordinances adopted in Beverly Hills, Palos Verdes, and Fullerton, is provided for your Board's reference (Attachment 2) The County ordinance calls for the following key elements: 1. The retention of an independent labor negotiator to represent the County in labor negotiations. (Under the County Ordinance, this requirement may be affirmatively waived by a majority of the Board.) 2. A fiscal impact analysis, similar in structure to that required by Costa Mesa, and prepared by the County Auditor -Controller, is required to be performed and presented to the Board at least ten (10) days before a proposal to the employee organization regarding negotiation of an MOU or any term or condition of employment therein. 3. The County must report out of closed session the content of any prior offer or counteroffer that was presented by either the County or the employee organization during negotiations. Discussion Calendar — Agenda Item No. 14 Board of Directors Meeting November 20, 2014 Page 3 4. Board members are also required to report out in open session any communications they have had with representatives of an employee organization. Disclosure is also required of communications by staff members of Board members. 5. Prior to the adoption of an MOU, the County must publicly disclose the proposed MOU and hold two (2) Board meetings where public discussion and comment are allowed, 6. Disclosure is also required of additional information in open session regarding negotiation sessions, including list of names of participants and dates, length, and Location of negotiation sessions. (This is not addressed in the Costa Mesa ordinance.) Other Considerations In addition to the options and alternatives in the County Ordinance and the city ordinances described in Attachment 2, there are other options and provisions in a COIN ordinance that the OCFA Board may want to consider either including or excluding. For example, COIN ordinances can approach publication requirements differently_ Publication requirements - and Board meeting frequency - can affect how quickly an agency can make revisions if changes are requested by the Board. Changes in negotiated provisions can be more readily accomplished if a Board of Directors meets weekly than if they meet only monthly. ACCOC Publication On a related note, the Association of California Cities Orange County (ACC -OC) recently published guidelines (Attachment 3) in response to requests from its members for cities to use when negotiating with bargaining units, "with commitment to transparency and accountability." The Contention that Agencies Must Meet and Confer Prior to Adopting COIN Ordinance. One issue that was raised during the discussion of the County ordinance is whether meet and confer is required under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act prior to adopting the COIN ordinance. The Orange County Employees Association (OCEA) has since filed an Unfair Practice Charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) requesting that the PERB determine the County violated PERB Regulations and the MMBA when it adopted the COIN Ordinance and to require the County to rescind its COIN Ordinance (Attachment 4). Although that case has been briefed, it can take months or years before a final determination from the PERB is received. In light of that pending challenge, the Board may wish to consider whether to defer action on a COIN ordinance until the PERB determines whether an obligation exists to meet -and -confer prior to adopting such an ordinance. Discussion Calendar — Agenda Item No. 14 Board of Directors Meeting November 20, 2014 Page 4 Options The Board has several options, including: A. Direct General Counsel to prepare a COIN ordinance modelled after the County ordinance; or B. Direct General Counsel to prepare a COIN ordinance, but that differs from the County's ordinance in certain respects to be identified by the Board; or C. Defer further action on this matter until after a ruling is issued in the OCEA Unfair Practice Charge filed with the Public Employee Relations Board in connection with the County's COIN Ordinance (staffs Recommended Action); or D. Receive and file this report (e.g. take no further action). Impact to Cities/County: None. Fiscal Impact: If a COIN ordinance is adopted that requires audit reports of future labor negotiation proposals, there would be some unknown additional cost to the Authority for professional services necessary to prepare such reports. Staff Contact for Further Information: David Kendig, General Counsel dkendig a,wss-law.com (714) 415-1083 Attachments: 1. County COIN Ordinance 2. Summary Comparison of COIN Ordinances 3. ACCOC Labor Negotiation Strategies Principles 4. OCEA Unfair Labor Practice Charge 5. Memo from Supervisor Spitzer dated November 10, 2014 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting August 19, 2015 Agenda Item: STAFF REPORT To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: Mayor and Members of the Town Council Office of the Town Manager Recommendation to Adopt Resolution in Support of Transportation Funding BACKGROUND Councilmember Fredericks, who serves on the League of California Cities Transportation Policy Committee, has brought forward a model resolution urging the Governor and the California Legislature to provide a new source of sustainable funding to address the poor condition and deferred maintenance of California's aging infrastructure (streets, highways, and bridges). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council consider adoption of the draft resolution in support of a sustainable source of funding for the State's transportation needs. 1. Move to adopt the draft Resolution; and 2. Direct staff to send copies to Governor Brown and the Town's elected representatives in the State Legislature. Exhibits: Prepared By: 1. "Fix Our Roads" Fact Sheet 2. Resolution Diane Crane lacopi, Town Clerk TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 1 Problem: California lacks adequate funding to fix crumbling roads, highways, bridges and transportation infrastructure. California's network of roads and highways are critical to our quality of life and economy. Yet the condition of our deteriorating network of roads is staggering: • Our crumbling roads cost motorists nearly $600 a year per driver for vehicle maintenance. • California has the second highest share of roads in "poor condition" in the nation. • 58% of state roads need rehabilitation or pavement maintenance. • California has 6 of 10 cities with the worst road conditions in the nation. • 55% of local bridges require rehabilitation or replacement. • Nearly 7o% of California's urban roads and highways are congested. • Without additional funding, 1/4 of local streets and roads will be in failed condition by 2024. Stable, Accountable Funding Our state lacks adequate funding to address these critical deficiencies: • Local streets and roads face an estimated shortfall of $78 billion in deferred maintenance and an annual shortfall of $7.8 billion. • CalTrans faces a $5g billion backlog in deferred maintenance and an annual shortfall in the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) of $5.7 billion. Solution: A responsible, accountable solution to fix our roads. A broad coalition of cities, counties, labor, business, public safety and transportation advocates has formed to meet the Governor's call to address California's chronic transportation infrastructure funding shortfall. During the 2015 special session on transportation, we support the following priorities: 1. Make a significant investment in transportation infrastructure. If we are to make a meaningful dent that demonstrates tangible benefits to taxpayers and drivers, any package should seek to raise at least $6 billion annually and should remain in place for at least 10 years or until an alternative method of funding our transportation system is agreed upon. 2. Focus on maintaining and rehabilitating the current system. Repairing California's streets and highways involves much more than fixing potholes. It requires major road pavement overlays, fixing unsafe bridges, providing safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians, replacing storm water culverts, as well as operational improvements that necessitate, among other things, the construction of auxiliary lanes to relieve traffic congestion choke points and fixing design deficiencies that have created unsafe merging and other traffic hazards. Efforts to supply funding for transit in addition to funding for roads should also focus on fixing the system first. 3. Invest a portion of diesel tax and/or cap & trade revenue to high-priority goods movement projects. While the focus of a transportation funding package should be on maintaining and rehabilitating the existing system, California has a critical need to upgrade the goods movement infrastructure that is essential to our economic well-being. Establishing a framework to make appropriate investments in major goods movement arteries can lay the groundwork for greater investments in the future that will also improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 4. Raise revenues across a broad range of options. Research by the California Alliance for Jobs and Transportation California shows that voters strongly support increased funding for transportation improvements. They are much more open to a package that spreads potential tax or fee increases across a broad range of options rather than just one source. Additionally, any package should move California toward an all - users pay structure in which everyone who benefits from the system contributes to maintaining it - from traditional gasoline -fueled vehicles, to hybrids, alternative fuel and or electric vehicles, to commercial vehicles. Our coalition supports: • Reasonable increases in: o Gasoline and diesel excise taxes. o Vehicle registration and vehicle license fees. • Dedicating a portion of the cap and trade revenue paid by motorists at the pump to transportation projects that reduce greenhouse emissions. • Ensuring existing transportation revenues are invested in transportation -related purposes (i.e. truck weight fees and fuel taxes for off-road vehicles that are currently being diverted into the general fund). • User charge for electric and other non-fossil fuel powered vehicles that currently do not contribute to road upkeep. 5. Equal split between state and local projects. We support sharing revenue for roadway maintenance equally (50/50) between the state and cities and counties. Funding to local governments should be provided directly (no intermediaries) to accelerate projects and ensure maximum accountability. 6. Strong accountability requirements to protect the taxpayers' investment. Voters and taxpayers must be assured that all transportation revenues are spent responsibly. Authorizing legislation should: • Constitutionally protect transportation revenues for transportation infrastructure only. Time and again (Prop 42, 2002; Prop 1A, 2006; Prop 22, 2010), voters have overwhelmingly supported dedicating and constitutionally protecting transportation dollars for those purposes. We strongly support protections that prohibit using transportation dollars for other purposes. • Repay existing transportation loans and end ongoing diversions of transportation revenues, including approximately $85o million in loans to the general fund and the annual loss of approximately $140 million in off-highway vehicle fuel taxes. Strong accountability requirements to protect the taxpayers' investment (Continued). • Establish performance and accountability criteria to ensure efficient and effective use of all funding. All tax dollars should be spent properly, and recipients of new revenues should be held accountable to the taxpayers, whether at the state or local level. Counties and cities should adopt project lists at public hearings and report annually to the State Controller's Office regarding all transportation revenues and expenditures. Local governments should also commit to ensuring any new revenues supplement revenues currently invested in transportation projects. Both Caltrans and local governments can demonstrate and publicize the benefits associated with new transportation investments. • Caltrans reform and oversight. To increase Caltrans effectiveness, provide stronger oversight by the state transportation commission of the programs funded by new revenues and establish an Inspector General office to provide accountability. Reduce Caltrans administrative budgets through efficiency reviews with all savings to be spent on road improvements. • Expedite project delivery. More should be done to streamline project delivery, including but not limited to: o Establishing timelines for actions required by state agencies and eliminating other permit delays. o Increased implementation of alternative delivery systems that encourage more investment from the private sector. o Reforms to speed project completion. 7. Provide Consistent Annual Funding Levels. Under current statute, the annual gas tax adjustment by the Board of Equalization is creating extreme fluctuations in funding levels -- a $900 million drop in this budget year alone. A transportation funding package should contain legislation that will create more consistent revenue projections and allow Caltrans and transportation agencies the certainty they need for longer term planning. While this change would not provide any new revenue to transportation, it would provide greater certainty for planning and project delivery purposes. DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XX -2015 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON URGING THE STATE TO PROVIDE NEW SUSTAINABLE FUNDING FOR STATE AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE WHEREAS, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. has called an extraordinary session to address the immense underfunding of California's transportation infrastructure; and WHEREAS, cities and counties own and operate more than 81 percent of streets and roads in California, and from the moment we open our front door to drive to work, bike to school, or walk to the bus station, people are dependent upon a safe, reliable local transportation network; and WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has participated in efforts with the California State Association of Counties, League of California Cities, and California's Regional Transportation Planning Agencies to study unmet funding needs for local roads and bridges, including sidewalks and other essential components; and WHEREAS, the resulting 2014 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, which provides critical analysis and information on the local transportation network's condition and funding needs, indicates that the condition of the local transportation network is deteriorating as predicted in the initial 2008 study; and WHEREAS, the results show that California's local streets and roads are on a path of significant decline. On a scale of zero (failed) to 100 (excellent), the statewide average pavement condition index (PCI) is 66, placing it in the "at risk" category where pavements will begin to deteriorate much more rapidly and require rehabilitation or rebuilding rather than more cost-effective preventative maintenance if funding is not increased; and WHEREAS, if funding remains at the current levels, in 10 years, 25 percent of local streets and roads in California will be in "failed" condition; and WHEREAS, cities and counties need an additional $1.7 billion just to maintain a status quo pavement condition of 66, and much more revenue to operate the system with Best Management Practices, which would reduce the total amount of funding needed for maintenance in the future; and WHEREAS, models show that an additional $3 billion annual investment in the local streets and roads system is expected to improve pavement conditions statewide from an average "at risk" condition to an average "good" condition; and WHEREAS, if additional funding isn't secured now, it will cost taxpayers twice as much to fix the local system in the future, as failure to act this year will increase unmet funding needs for local transportation facilities by $11 billion in five years and $21 billion in ten years; and WHEREAS, modernizing the local street and road system provides well -paying construction jobs and boosts local economies; and WHEREAS, the local street and road system is also critical for farm to market needs, interconnectivity, multimodal needs, and commerce; and WHEREAS, police, fire, and emergency medical services all need safe reliable roads to react quickly to emergency calls and a few minutes of delay can be a matter of life and death; and WHEREAS, maintaining and preserving the local street and road system in good condition will reduce drive times and traffic congestion, improve bicycle safety, and make the pedestrian experience safer and more appealing, which leads to reduce vehicle emissions helping the State achieve its air quality and greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals; and WHEREAS, restoring roads before they fail also reduces construction time which results in less air pollution from heavy equipment and less water pollution from site run-off; and WHEREAS, in addition to the local system, the state highway system needs an additional $5.7 billion annually to address the state's deferred maintenance; and WHEREAS, in order to bring the local system back into a cost-effective condition, at least $7.3 billion annually in new money going directly to cities and counties; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON strongly urges the Governor and Legislature to identity a sufficient and stable funding source for local street and road and state highway maintenance and rehabilitation to ensure the safe and efficient mobility of the traveling public and the economic vitality of California. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the TOWN OF TIBURON strongly urges the Governor and Legislature to adopt the following priorities for funding California's streets and roads. 1. Make a significant investment in transportation infrastructure. Any package should seek to raise at least $6 billion annually and should remain in place for at least 10 years or until an alternative method of funding our transportation system is agreed upon. 2. Focus on maintaining and rehabilitating the current system. Repairing California's streets and highways involves much more than fixing potholes. It requires major road pavement overlays, fixing unsafe bridges, providing safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians, replacing storm water culverts, as well as operational improvements that necessitate the construction of auxiliary lanes to relieve traffic congestion choke points and fixing design deficiencies that have created unsafe merging and other traffic hazards. Efforts to supply funding for transit in addition to funding for roads should also focus on fixing the system first. 3. Equal split between state and local projects. We support sharing revenue for roadway maintenance equally (50/50) between the state and cities and counties, given the equally -pressing funding needs of both systems, as well as the longstanding historical precedent for collecting transportation user fees through a centralized system and sharing the revenues across the entire network through direct subventions. Ensuring that funding to local governments is provided directly, without intermediaries, will accelerate project delivery and ensure maximum accountability. 4. Raise revenues across a broad range of options. Research by the California Alliance for Jobs and Transportation California shows that voters strongly support increased funding for transportation improvements. They are much more open to a package that spreads potential tax or fee increases across a broad range of options, including fuel taxes, license fees, and registration fees, rather than just one source. Additionally, any package should move California toward an all -users pay structure, in which everyone who benefits from the system contributes to maintaining it — from traditional gasoline -fueled vehicles, to new hybrids or electric vehicles, to commercial vehicles. 5. Invest a portion of diesel tax and/or cap & trade revenue to high-priority goods movement projects. While the focus of a transportation funding package should be on maintaining and rehabilitating the existing system, California has a critical need to upgrade the goods movement infrastructure that is essential to our economic well- being. Establishing a framework to make appropriate investments in major goods movement arteries can lay the groundwork for greater investments in the future that will also improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 6. Strong accountability requirements to protect the taxpayers' investment. Voters and taxpayers must be assured that all transportation revenues are spent responsibly. Local governments are accustomed to employing transparent processes for selecting road maintenance projects aided by pavement management systems, as well as reporting on the expenditure of transportation funds through the State Controller's Local Streets and Roads Annual Report. 7. Provide Consistent Annual Funding Levels. Under current statute, the annual gas tax adjustment by the Board of Equalization is creating extreme fluctuations in funding levels — a $900 million drop in this budget year alone. A transportation funding package should contain legislation that will create more consistent revenue projections and allow Caltrans and transportation agencies the certainty they need for longer term planning. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon this day of , 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: FRANK DOYLE, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting August 19, 2015 Agenda Item: STAFF REPORT To: From: Mayor and Members of the Town Council Office of the Town Manager Subject: Recommendation to appoint a Council representative to the MCCMC ad hoc Committee on Sea Level Rise Reviewed By: BACKGROUND In May of 2014, Belvedere Councilmember Claire McAuliffe brought a proposal to the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers (MCCMC) to form a committee to study sea level rise. McAuliffe and co-chair Diane Furst said the committee would keep the group apprised of programs, policies and other resources that towns and cities might use to address this collective issue. On May 6, 2015, the Town Council heard a report from District 3 Supervisor Kate Sears about sea level rise. Supervisor Sears urged cities and towns to become involved in a proactive manner to address the issue, as well, when thinking about future planning for local infrastructure and the like. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council consider appointment of a Council representative to the MCCMC ad hoc Committee on Sea Level Rise. Prepared By: Diane Crane Iacopi, Town Clerk TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 1