Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2016-08-17TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Tiburon Town Council August 17, 2016 Special Meeting — 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting — 7:30 p.m. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Doyle , Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember O'Donnell, Vice Mayor Fraser, Mayor Tollini 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. CLOSED SESSION Public Employee Performance Review: Government Code Section 54957 Title: Town Manager ADJOURNMENT — to regular meeting REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Doyle , Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember O'Donnell, Vice Mayor Fraser, Mayor Tollini 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. Grand Jury Report - Authorize Town response to Grand Jury Report on Citizen Complaints (Town Manager Chanis) 2. OPEB Investment Strategy - Authorize proposed investment strategy for Other Post Employee Benefits (OPEB) (Town Manager Chanis/ Director of Administrative Services Bigall) 3. Route 8 Bus Service - Authorize letter in support of continuation of Route 8 bus service to Tiburon Peninsula (Town Manager Chanis) ACTION ITEMS 1. Trestle Trail Project - Update on Trestle Trail Project; consider request by proponents to install temporary signage and track at Blackie's Pasture for fundraising purposes (Town Manager Chanis) 2. Appeal of Encroachment Permit - Consider appeal of denial of an Encroachment Permit for the installation of a security gate in Town right -of way at 1860 Mountain View Drive (Public Works Department) AP No. 059-042-11 Applicant: John Merten, Studio Green Owner: MV 1860 LLC 3. Well Permits - Review of Tiburon's Water Well regulations (Chapter 13F of Town Code) for possible amendment (Community Development Department) 4. Bicycle Education and Safety - Direct Parks Open Space & Trails Commission to formulate a Bicycle Safety Training Program (Community Development Department/ Department of Public Works) TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER REPORT WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digests - August 5 & 12, 2016 ADJOURNMENT 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, www.townoftiburon.org. 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 OF TIBURON LATE MAIL POLICY (Adopted and Effective 11/7/2007) The following policy shall be used by the Town Council and its standing boards and commissions, and by staff of the Town of Tiburon, in the identification, distribution and consideration of late mail. DEFINITION "Late Mail." is defined as correspondence or other materials that are received by the Town after completion of the written staff report on an agenda item, in such a manner as to preclude such correspondence or other materials from being addressed in or attached to the staff report as an exhibit. IDENTIFICATION OF LATE MAIL All late mail received by Town Staff in advance of a meeting shall be marked "Late Mail" and shall be date-stamped or marked with the date of receipt by the Town. Late mail received at a meeting shall be marked as "Received at Meeting' with a date -stamp or handwritten note. POLICY For regular meetings of the Town Council and its standing boards and commissions: (1) All late mail that is received on an agenda item prior to distribution of the agenda packet to the reviewing authority shall be stamped or marked as "Late Mail" and shall be distributed to the reviewing authority with the agenda packet. (2) All late mail received on an agenda item before 5:00 PM on the Monday prior to the meeting shall be date-stamped and marked as "Late Mail" and distributed to the reviewing authority as soon as practicable. Such mail shall be read and considered by the reviewing authority whenever possible. If the Monday, or Monday and Tuesday, prior to the meeting are a Town -recognized holiday, the deadline shall be extended to the following day at Noon. (3) Any late mail received on an agenda item after the deadline established in paragraph (2) above shall be date-stamped, marked as "Late Mail" and distributed to the reviewing authority as soon as reasonably possible, but may not be read or considered by the reviewing authority. There should be no expectation of, nor shall the reviewing authority have any obligation to, read or consider any such late mail, and therefore such late mail may not become part of the administrative record for the item before the reviewing authority. These provisions shall also apply to special and adjourned meetings when sufficient lead time exists to implement these provisions. If sufficient lead time does not exist, the Town Manager shall exercise discretion in establishing a reasonable cut-off time for late mail. For controversial items or at any meeting where a high volume of correspondence is anticipated, Town staff shall have the option to require an earlier late mail deadline, provided that the written public notice for any such item clearly communicates the specifics of the early late mail deadline, and the deadline corresponds appropriately to any earlier availability of the agenda packet. Pursuant to state law, copies of all late mail shall be available in a timely fashion for public inspection at Tiburon Town Hall,1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting August 17, 2016 Agenda Item: CC- / STAFF REPORT To: From: Mayor and Members of Town Council Town Manager Chanis Subject: Consideration to Approve the Town's Response to the Marin County Grand Ju s Report, Law Enforcement Citizen Complaint Procedures: The Grand Ju His A Few Complaints Reviewed By: • BACKGROUND On June 16, 2016, the Marin County Grand Jury issued a report called Law Enforcement Citizen Complaint Procedures: The Grand July Has A Few Complaints. The report reviews the citizen complaint procedures used by Marin's law enforcement agencies. The Grand Jury focused its investigation on the ease of fling a citizen complaint and the procedure for reviewing any outcome. The report seeks the Town to respond to seven (7) Findings, and fourteen (14) Recommendations. The response must conform to the format required by Penal Code section 933.05. The Town drafted a written response to the Grand Jury Report which is attached hereto for the Town Council's review. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council review and approve the attached response to the Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report, Law Enforcement Citizen Complaint Procedures: The Grand July Has A Few Complaints. EXHIBITS • Draft Response to Grand Jury • Grand Jury Report Prepared By: Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney To\v\ 0.PTIM . p.O Pa,r 1 of 1 RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM Town of Tiburon Report Title: Law Enforcement Citizen Complaint Procedures Report Date: June 16, 2016 Public Release: June 25, 2016 Response By: Greg Chanis FINDINGS • We agree with the findings numbered: F1 • We disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7 RECOMMENDATIONS • Recommendations numbered R3, R4, R5, R6, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13 have been implemented. • Recommendations numbered R1, R2, R7, R14 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Date: Signed: Number of Pages Attached: 5 GREG CHANIS, TOWN MANAGER August 18, 2016 The Honorable Kelly V. Simmons Judge of the Marin County Superior Court Post Office Box 4988 San Rafael, CA 94913-4988 Re: Mr. John Mann, Foreperson Marin County Grand Jury 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275 San Rafael, CA 94903 Response to Grand Jury Report Law Enforcement Citizen Complaint Procedures Dear Honorable Judge Simmons and Mr. Mann: This letter explains in detail the Town of Tiburon, including the Tiburon Police Department's, response to the Grand Jury Report dated June 16, 2016. The Report directs the Town to respond to Findings Nos. 1-7 and Recommendations Nos. 1-14. 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: Marin County law enforcement agencies have procedures for Citizen Complaints that could act as deterrents to participation in the complaint process. Town's Response to Finding 1: The Town agrees with this finding. Finding 2: Some Marin County law enforcement agencies employ procedures and admonitions that have been held to be unconstitutional. Town's Response to Finding 2: The Town disagrees partially with this finding. The Town has no personal knowledge of the practices of other law enforcement agencies within the County, however, the Town is not aware of its procedures to be held as unconstitutional. Finding 3: Some Marin County law enforcement agencies' complaint procedures require face-to-face contact with law enforcement officers, which may deter citizens from using the Citizen Complaint process. OAK #4814-5231-21 17 vl August 18, 2016 Page 2 Town's Response to Finding 3: The Town disagrees partially with this finding. The Town has no personal knowledge of the practices of other law enforcement agencies within the County, however, the Town does not require face-to-face contact in order to proceed with submitting a Citizen Complaint. Finding 4: Not all Marin County law enforcement agencies provide written policies, procedures and Citizen Complaint forms in English and Spanish. Town's Response to Finding 4: The Town disagrees partially with this finding. The Town has no personal knowledge of the practices of other law enforcement agencies within the County, however, the Town does provide Citizen Complaint forms in both English and Spanish. Finding 5: Not all Marin Cozmty law enforcement agencies accept and investigate anonymous Citizen Complaints. Town's Response to Finding 5: The Town disagrees partially with this finding. The Town has no personal knowledge of the practices of other law enforcement agencies within the County, however, the Town accepts and will investigate anonymous Citizen Complaints. Finding 6: Information about and access to the Citizen Complaint procedure is difficult to find on Marin County law enforcement agency websites. Town's Response to Finding 6: The Town disagrees partially with this finding. The Town has no personal knowledge of the practices of other law enforcement agencies within the County, however, the Town understands that it may be difficult to obtain a Citizen Complaint fonn on the Town's website, and will be making the necessary improvements to ease submittals. Finding 7: Marin County law enforcement agencies do not publish the number, the nature or the disposition of Citizen Complaints. Town's Response to Finding 7: The Town disagrees partially with this finding. The Town has no personal knowledge of the practices of other law enforcement agencies within the County, however, the Town does not publish the nature or the disposition of the Citizen Complaint. OAK 148I4-5231-2117 vl August 18, 2016 Page 3 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1: Every Marin County law enforcement agency should have a clear andfull description of the law enforcement agency's policy and procedures for handling Citizen Complaints on its website that is accessible by a direct link from the law enforcement agency's home page to a clearly identified "Citizen Complaints " folder. Recommendation 2: All Marin County law enforcement agencies should accept the filing of Citizen Complaints online. Recommendation 3: A clear andfill description of the law enforcement agency's policy and procedures along 1i'ith forms for filing Citizen Complaints should be available to the public in the lobby of each law enforcement agency. Recommendation 4: Written policies and procedures, as well as Citizen Complaint forms, should be available to the public in English, Spanish and other languages appropriate to the community. Recommendation 5: Marin County law enforcement agency personnel should be trained in the agency's Citizen Complaint policy and procedures in order to fully describe them to members of the public. Recommendation 6: All public facing law enforcement personnel should present an open and welcoming attitude to any inquiry about the Citizen Complaint process. Recommendation 7: No policy, procedure or form for handling Citizen Complaints should have any language based in whole or in part on California Penal Code Section 148.6 and/or California Civil Code of Civil Procedure Section 47.5, nor should a complainant be required to acknowledge that they have read and understood such language. Recommendation 8: A person li'ho initiates a Citizen Complaint should not be required to verify or certify the contents of the complaint form. Recommendation 9: The identification of the complainant should not be required on the form. Recommendation 10: The signature of the complainant should not be required on the form. Recommendation 11: Anonymous Citizen Complaints, and complaints initiated by minors, should be accepted and investigated in accordance with the agency's procedures. OAK #4814-5231-2117 vl August 18, 2016 Page 4 Recommendation 12: Members of the public who desire information regarding a law enforcement agency's policy, procedures and Citizen Complaint forms should not be required to discuss their involvement, identity or situation before the materials are provided. Recommendation 13: All Marin County law enforcement agencies should incorporate within their policies and procedures an appeal process that allows the complainant to appeal the disposition to an entity outside of the law enforcement agency. Recommendation 14: Marin County law er forcenrent agencies should publish on their websites and annually update the number, nature and disposition of Citizen Complaints. Town's Response to Recommendations: Recommendation 1: This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented by November 1, 2016. Recommendation 2: This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented by November 1, 2016. Recommendation 3: This recommendation has already been implemented. Recommendation 4: This recommendation has already been implemented. Recommendation 5: This recommendation has already been implemented. Recommendation 6: This recommendation has already been implemented. Recommendation 7: This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented by November 1, 2016. Recommendation 8: This recommendation has already been implemented. Recommendation 9: This recommendation has already been implemented. Recommendation 10: This recommendation has already been implemented. Recommendation 11: This recommendation has already been implemented. Anonymous complaints are always investigated assuming there is sufficient detail to conduct a meaningful investigation. Recommendation 12: This recommendation has already been implemented. OAK #4814-5231-2117 vl August 18, 2016 Page 5 Recommendation 13: This recommendation has already been implemented. Any decision is appealable directly to the Town Manager. Recommendation 14: This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented by November 1, 2016. The Tiburon Town Council reviewed and approved this response on August 17, 2016, 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, GREG CHANIS Town Manager cc: Town Council Town Attorney OAK #4814-5231-2117 vl 2015/2016 MARI/1 COUNTY CIVIL GRAtiIJ JURY Law Enforcement Citizen Complaint Procedures Crab r . r/.7 r r Report Date: June 16, 2016 Public Release Date: June 23, 2016 o .. • •• •• T COUNTY OF MARIN • • • • N4 -0 • •• • . 2015-2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Law Enforcement Citizen Complaint Procedures .Th e Grand SUMMARY Marin County's Civil Grand Jury undertook an investigation into the Citizen' Complaint procedures that are currently used by Marin's law enforcement agencies. The Grand Jury focused on procedure accessibility, comprehensiveness and clarity. Questioning authority and its representatives can be intimidating and is made more so by opaque and inaccessible policies and procedures. The Grand Jury learned that lodging a complaint with any of Marin County's ten law enforcement entities can be confusing, time consuming and discouraging. The California statute (CPC §832.5) that was enacted over forty years ago requires that Citizen Complaint procedures be established by law enforcement agencies. The Grand Jury discovered that Marin County's law enforcement agencies interpret and apply this statute in various and inconsistent ways. To maintain full public trust, an effective law enforcement complaint process depends on fair and transparent procedures. Through its investigation, the Grand Jury learned that the courts, law enforcement organizations, civil rights advocates and educational institutions all concur that open communication between law enforcement agencies and citizens is essential. An improved and uniform complaint process would provide greater credibility and effectiveness to the Citizen Complaint process. While demonstrating law enforcement's commitment to protect and respect the community it serves, a clear and consistent set of procedures would build a better foundation for interactions between law enforcement and the public. The Grand Jury recommends that every law enforcement agency in Marin County have a clear and complete description on its website and in its lobby, in both English and Spanish, of the department's policy, procedures and forms for filing a citizen complaint. Law enforcement personnel should be trained in and be able to fully describe the process and forms to any inquiring person and direct that person to the appropriate location of the information. Preserving confidentiality and anonymity when requested should be an option (via website and in person) for all complainants. The term "Citizen Complaint" has been questioned insofar as the term implies that non -citizens, e.g. undocumented immigrants, non-residents or visitors, cannot avail themselves of statutory protections against law enforcement misconduct. See for example, 2012-2013 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report: "Law Enforcement Public Complaint Procedures." It has been suggested that the term "Public Complaint" is more appropriate; however, "Citizen Complaint" has taken on a more common use and meaning in this context and that term will be used throughout this Report. Citizen Complaints BACKGROUND Marin County's Police and Sheriff Departments ensure the safety and security of their citizens and the dedication of these law enforcement agencies and the devotion of their officers cannot be overstated. Yet, there are times when questions arise regarding interactions between law enforcement and the public. While police misconduct in Marin may be infrequent, policies and procedures are necessary and legally required for citizens to be able to raise concerns regarding peace officer conduct. When law enforcement and citizens interact, they are not in positions of equality. Because of a peace officer's authority, there is a power differential from the moment he or she comes into contact with citizens. While this power difference may be necessary for officers to do their jobs, a citizen should have a way to complain about those instances where, whether intentionally or unintentionally, a peace officer is viewed or is thought to overstep their authority, role, or behaves inappropriately. Incidents between a peace officer and the public may not rise to the level of illegal conduct, but situations involving hostility, rudeness, intimidation, unfairness, threats and unnecessary verbal or physical force reduce the effectiveness and reputation of law enforcement. A fair and consistent complaint process holds peace officers accountable to legal, ethical and community standards and expectations. According to David J. Brent, "... the search for a system that will at once be responsive to both the public's need for accountability and the responsibility of the police to regulate themselves is basic to the efficient functioning of the police department as a necessary component within society."2 In the same journal article, Brent's analyses of interactions between law enforcement personnel reveal that: "...citizens feel that the police do not interact with them in a manner that is responsive to the realities of their daily lives, while the police are unwilling to open the process by which their actions are ultimately examined and regulated to the scrutiny and participation of the citizen."3 2 David J. Brent, Redress of Alleged Police Misconduct: A New Approach to Citizen Complaints and Police Disciplinary Procedures, 1 1 University of San Francisco Law Review 587 (1977) 3 Ibid. June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 2 of 15 Citizen Complaints METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury used the following sources of information for its report: California Law The Grand Jury reviewed statutes pertaining to the Citizen Complaint process under California law. It also reviewed the legislative history of the enactment of those laws. Literature Review The Grand Jury performed extensive research into investigations conducted by other California grand juries, as well as other organizations and groups on the topic of Citizen Complaints. The Grand Jury also reviewed the operations of the San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints. Law Enforcement Websites The Grand Jury conducted a review and analysis of the websites of all ten Marin County law enforcement agencies. Policies and Procedures The Grand Jury reviewed all Marin County law enforcement agency policy and procedure manuals.4 All law enforcement agencies in Marin are required by law to have policies and procedures. Although access is available to citizens, policy and procedures manuals are not generally easy for citizens to find. Police and Sheriff Department Site Visits Members of the Grand Jury undertook, as private citizens, multiple in-person visits to each Marin County law enforcement agency to seek out and obtain information regarding that agency's Citizen Complaint procedures. The following law enforcement agencies were visited: • Belvedere Police Department • Novato Police Department • Central Marin Police Authority • Ross Police Department • Fairfax Police Deparhnent • San Rafael Police Department • Marin County Sheriff's Department • Sausalito Police Department • Mill Valley Police Department ■ Tiburon Police Department Police Chief and Sheriff Interviews The Grand Jury interviewed each of the Marin County Police Chiefs5 as well as the County Sheriff. During these interviews, no information was requested or obtained regarding the identity of any peace officer who was the subject of a Citizen Complaint.6 4 Many law enforcement agencies utilize some version of the standard for policies and procedures prepared by Lexipol Law Enforcement that provides customizable, state -specific law enforcement policy content and integrated policy training 5 The Acting Chief of the Novato Police Department was interviewed. 6 On February 19, 2016, California State Senator Mark Leno introduced SB 1286 amending Section 832.5 to provide for open public inspection of a peace officer's personnel files relating to the full investigation of a Citizen Complaint, findings, discipline or corrective action taken pursuant to the Public Records Act. June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 3 of 15 Citizen Complaints DISCUSSION Legal Requirements regarding Citizen Complaints: California Penal Code §832.5 The California legislature addressed the Citizen Complaint process when, in 1974, it enacted California Penal Code §832.5. This statute requires all law enforcement agencies in the state to develop procedures for dealing with Citizen Complaints about the conduct of peace officers. Each department or agency in this state that employs peace officers shall establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against the personnel of these departments or agencies, and shall make a written description of the procedure available to the public. The legislature did not provide detailed procedures for law enforcement agencies. The intent of the legislation was to provide the public with a mechanism by which the behavior of peace officers could be reviewed, evaluated and, when appropriate, corrected. This is to ensure that officers, while acting under the authority of law, do not engage in conduct that would violate the individual rights of the citizenry. Website Reviews The Grand Jury reviewed each law enforcement agency's website to determine what information it contained on the topic of Citizen's Complaints. The statutory mandate that each law enforcement agency make available to the public a written description of the procedure it employs is straightforward. This mandate can easily be satisfied by making the explanation of the procedure clear, simple and easily located on the website. To assure the availability of the Citizen Complaint information, an explanation of the complaint procedure should be provided on the law enforcement agency's website. There should be no need to physically come to the law enforcement offices to obtain information on the process or any necessary forms. The website should provide for online initiation of a Citizen Complaint, a complete description of how the complaint will be investigated and a final determination of its disposition. The Grand Jury reviewed each website for the following: • Ease in finding the topic of Citizen Complaints • Availability of the written complaint procedure • Availability of the Complaint Form • Versions of both documents in English and Spanish languages • Ability to file the Complaint Form electronically • A description of the disposition process • A description of the appeal process • A statistical record of past complaints Although all Marin County law enforcement agencies have a website available to the public, there is wide variance among law enforcement agencies in ease of use, availability of forms, multilingual versions, etc. Some websites are difficult to navigate resulting in time-consuming June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 4 of 15 Citizen Complaints frustration. Such websites are not always intuitive or the information is buried and difficult to find. Some websites have no information at all about Citizen Complaint procedures. The Fairfax Police Department's website, for example, has a general description of the Citizen Complaint procedure, however, the actual complaint form must be obtained by a personal visit to the police station. San Rafael initially had no information on the website regarding a complaint process or how to file a complaint. (Since the Grand Jury's inquiry, the San Rafael Police Department has amended its website.) Some law enforcement websites do have a Citizen Complaint form available, but a full and simple explanation of the complaint investigation process may not be in the same location. On -Site Visits Grand Jury members visited all Marin County law enforcement agencies as private citizens to find out how to file a complaint. It became clear during those visits that CPC §832.5 is interpreted by Marin law enforcement agencies in many different ways. There was wide variance not only among law enforcement agencies, but also as to how different Grand Jury members were received by the same law enforcement agencies on different days. In some cases, staff had to search a file cabinet to find written procedures or forms. Other agencies had a description of the complaint process and complaint forms in both English and Spanish displayed and available in their lobby. A few law enforcement agencies did not know whether or not the information was available on their agency's website. Some law enforcement personnel (officers and staff) were quite knowledgeable and professional regarding Citizen Complaint procedures. In other instances, members of law enforcement were unaware of the details of their own agency's Citizen Complaint process and in some cases inaccurate information was provided. The Grand Jury believes that statutes such as California Penal Code §823.5 requiring adherence to Citizen Complaint procedures were enacted to reduce those instances where fear and intimidation may result in the underreporting of legitimate criticisms of law enforcement personnel. For example, in addition to the complexity of the filing procedures, it can be intimidating and a distinct disincentive when a potential complainant is asked by law enforcement officers or staff (actual questions encountered by Grand Jurors during site visits): • "What's the officer's name?" • "Do you want to speak to the officer's supervisor?" • "Only the chief handles complaints." • "Are you a resident of this community? Only residents can file complaints." • "Do you want to leave your name and number and someone will get back to you?" • "What is your name and address?" • "What's the nature of your complaint?" Such responses to inquiries as noted above on the part of law enforcement might be understood as an effort to resolve a problem before a complaint is brought. They could also, however, have a June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 5 of 15 Citizen Complaints discouraging effect on a member of the public who seeks to know what his or her rights are and what to expect if they bring a complaint. Questions such as those above can result in underreporting of complaints. Fear of reprisal, lack of confidence in the complaint process and difficulty finding out how to complain can also contribute to underreporting. Interviews with Police Chiefs During in-person interviews with each police chief, acting chief and the County Sheriff, the Grand Jury members inquired about each law enforcement agency's complaint procedures and about how that information was shared with the public. The Chiefs were asked the following: • Are policies, procedures and complaint forms in multilingual versions available on their agency's website? Is the complaint information available in the police department's lobby (or elsewhere accessible to the public) without the individual having to request it? • Does a Citizen Complaint have to be made in person? • Does a complainant have to identify himself, place of residence or citizenship? • Can the complaint be made anonymously? By minors? By third persons? By non- citizens? • What are complainants advised regarding making false claims? • When and how do you inform the complainant of the resolution of the complaint? • Do you keep records of complaints and their resolution? If so, where? How long are they retained? • Are records of Citizen Complaints available to the public? The Grand Jury found that there was considerable inconsistency between the chiefs' and Sheriffs understanding of how their own agency deals with the public and what the Grand Jury members actually experienced upon visiting each agency. During interviews, it became evident that chiefs and the Sheriff were often unaware of how Citizen Complaint inquiries were dealt with by the officers and staff in their respective law enforcement agencies. Significant discrepancies between policy and actual practice were commonly found during the Grand Jury's research. Policies and Procedures The Grand Jury reviewed each law enforcement agency's policies and procedures manual and found that all ten have information pertaining to Citizen Complaints. With the exception of the Sheriff, all Marin County law enforcement agencies utilize some version of the Lexipol-prepared Policies and Procedures, which provides customized state -specific policy content and integrated training. June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 6 of 15 Citizen Complaints Filing a Complaint All Marin County law enforcement agencies comply with California Penal Code §832.5 in that they have a written Citizen Complaint policy. There is, however, inconsistency in the way in which the procedures are presented to the public. While a law enforcement agency may acknowledge its legal responsibility to have a prompt and unbiased procedure for filing and investigating Citizen Complaints, there is not always a clear explanation of how those procedures actually work. Requiring the potential complainant to journey through a maze of law enforcement officials and management staff may be a deterrent to an individual pursuing a legitimate complaint. Some examples of inconsistent and confusing policy and procedure instructions are: The Mill Valley Police Department describes its investigation this way: "The Department member taking your complaint or inquiry will put you in contact with the on -duty Watch Supervisor as soon as possible. If, after talking with the Watch Supervisor, you still feel you have a valid complaint and some action should be taken by the Department, the Watch Supervisor will notify the Division Commander who will then direct an investigation into your complaint and advise findings to the Chief of Police." The Mill Valley Police Department's policy also indicates: "If you feel your inquiry is not handled satisfactorily by the Watch Commander, you are encouraged to talk to the Division Commander." The Sausalito Police Department explains that "Generally, your complaint will be investigated by a command level officer, assigned by the Police Chief' or "assigned to a special investigator". The Tiburon Police department indicates that the Officer's supervisor or a special investigator will investigate the complaint. The San Rafael Police Department states that a "Citizen Complaint will be reviewed by the Chief of Police. It will then be assigned to an investigator." The Marin County Sheriff's Department states that "Minor complaints may be referred to the officer's supervisor, however, major complaints will be refereed to the on -duty watch commander or bureau commander." The Central Marin Police Department states its policy as follows: "Officer complaints require that you sign a statement acknowledging that it is a crime to make a false complaint against an officer. If the inquiry appears to be based on a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge of acceptable or desired conduct, procedure or practices, the department member taking your complaint may offer an explanation, or he/she will put you in immediate contact with the On -duty Watch Commander. After an explanation is offered, and you believe the Police Authority should still take some action, you will be referred to the supervisor of that unit or employee. If the supervisor is off duty, you will be referred to the On -Duty Watch Commander, who will assist you with your complaint. The supervisor will forward your complaint to his/her Division Commander who will review the complaint and forward it to the Chief of Police for his review and direction to ensure a thorough and objective investigation is done." June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 7 of 15 Citizen Complaints These complaint procedures appear to the Grand Jury to create a number of serious hurdles for a citizen to overcome. In some cases, repeated law enforcement interactions and recounting of the same complaint seem to be required before an investigation is undertaken. Climbing a ladder of authority, such as described above before an investigation is initiated, can be a discouraging process making it less likely that a resident will pursue the filing of a complaint. When information is relayed from one level of authority to another, the effect could be the same as the "telephone game" in which the final account of the complaint could be diluted or altered with each successive description. This process is more complicated when foreign language difficulties, concerns regarding citizenship status and apprehensiveness in dealing with law enforcement are present. Communication Between the Public and Law Enforcement Communication between law enforcement and the public regarding Citizen Complaint procedures is an essential step in the effectiveness of any Citizen Complaint program. The unfortunate reality is that many individuals in the community are apprehensive about interacting with law enforcement. News reports, electronic media, casual discussions and past experiences may create founded or unfounded suspicion of the police or Sheriff. This may be the case when the member of the public is an undocumented immigrant or does not use English as his or her primary language. Fear of miscommunication, being misunderstood, or being reported to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) can inhibit a person from complaining about the conduct of law enforcement even if their rights have been compromised. While most citizens understand and believe that law enforcement is dedicated to protecting and serving the community, there is, in some instances, an inescapable public uneasiness with law enforcement and this is as real as life. The Grand Jury concludes that a written description of the complaint procedure should, at minimum, contain the following elements: • Where the complaint form can be found • How the complaint will be investigated ■ How the final determination of the complaint will be disseminated ■ What appeal process, if any, exists if the complainant is not satisfied with the determination During their interviews, every Chief and the Sheriff stressed that law enforcement wants to keep lines of communication open with the public and the Grand Jury supports that objective. Therefore, a citizen's request for information about Citizen Complaints should be responded to by providing the necessary forms and descriptions of the procedures in a clear, informed and respectful way without any defensiveness or attempt to deflect, intimidate or otherwise discourage the potential filing of a Citizen Complaint. California Penal Code §148.6 and the Complaint Form California Penal Code §148.6 previously stated that potential complainants acknowledge that they could be criminally prosecuted for bringing a false complaint against a peace officer. CPC §148.6, June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 8 of 15 Citizen Complaints however, was determined to be unconstitutional when the United States Supreme Court declined to overturn a United States Court of Appeal (9th Circuit) ruling to that effect. Unfortunately, the Grand Jury found that such warnings remain in some complaint forms and policy information concerning Citizen Complaints used by Marin County law enforcement agencies. The requirement that a person who brings a Citizen Complaint against a peace officer must acknowledge and sign the information advisory is no longer valid. There should be no language in the complaint form or anywhere else that implies potential penalties for making false claims. Advisories that threaten prosecution or other penalties can be a deterrent to filing a Citizen Complaint. During the legislative session in which discussions for and against the passage of AB 1732 (Section 148.6) were held, the argument in opposition to its passage made this clear: "...this legislation will have a chilling impact on the filing of police misconduct complaints by members of the public. Many persons are now afraid to speak up and are intimidated from filing legitimate complaints of police abuse, by among other things, threats by the officer to sue the victim for libel. If this bill becomes law, the first thing that will happen to victims of police abuse when they go to a police station to file a citizen complaint is an admonishment that they can be jailed if their allegations are not true. We should encourage the filing of police abuse reports, not impose additional roadblocks to chill the process."7 As of this writing, the Citizen Complaint form provided by the Central Marin Police Authority still includes the Language of Section 148.6 and carries its warning even further by asking the citizen to read, understand and sign off on California Civil Code §47.5. This language alerts the citizen that filing a Citizen Complaint may have civil as well as criminal consequences. To access the Citizen Complaint procedure from the Sausalito Police Department website, one is first directed to a screen containing the entire boldface information advisory from Section 148.6, including the threat of prosecution. The Citizen Complaint form itself contains an admonishment, albeit without the sentence threatening prosecution. The_MiII Valley Police Department's Citizen Complaint form, for instance, requires that the complainant sign a verification of the complaint's contents. Sworn statements are not required to initiate the Citizen Complaint process. Requiring an oath may discourage honest people who may be reticent regarding how their complaint will be handled by the system as it potentially raises a fear that the citizen could be prosecuted for bringing the complaint, particularly in cases in which a complaint is not sustained. The Grand Jury concludes that requiring a complainant to sign their name in acknowledgement that they "read and understand" any Penal Code language in connection with their Citizen Complaint may, in itself, create fear about entering into the entire complaint process. 7 Assem, Coin. on Public Safety, analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1732 (1995-1996 Reg. Sess.) June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 9 of 15 Citizen Complaints Anonymity Anonymity is not the same as being unwilling to participate in the investigation. One can be interviewed and participate in the investigation without revealing his or her name, address or other identifying information. Requiring a complainant to produce or state his or her identification and sign their name to a complaint form in order to file a Citizen Complaint can be intimidating. This requirement could raise the fear that the complainant's identity and residence may be targeted for retaliation because a complaint is brought against a specific peace officer. A complainant may believe that their name and address could subject them to other kinds of law enforcement contact, such as nuisance traffic stops, other ticketing activities or even reluctance on the part of peace officers to respond to a complainant's calls for assistance. An even greater fear for an undocumented complainant might be a concern about their immigration status, which might outweigh their willingness to file a complaint. Those for whom English is not their first language may also be reluctant to file a complaint since their difficulty in communicating the facts may exacerbate their fear and reluctance to report. In one instance, upon visiting a police station, a Grand Jury member found that Citizen Complaint information was not provided to him because he was not a resident of that law enforcement agency's jurisdiction. Asking a person where they live can be intimidating, may imply that residency is required in order to file a complaint and might be perceived as a loss of anonymity. Another law enforcement agency required that the person asking about the Citizen Complaint process sign into the police log or meet personally with an officer. To counter these roadblocks to filing a Citizen Complaint, the Grand Jury believes that a citizen should be able to file a Citizen Complaint anonymously, thus helping to reduce any possible reticence in following through. Some Marin County law enforcement agencies acknowledge that they welcome anonymous complaints. They state, however, that such complaints would be very difficult to investigate and make law enforcement's response to the complainant impossible. Personal identification, verifications and signatures thwart anonymity. The Grand Jury concludes that there is no justifiable reason to require the signature, name and address of the complainant on the Citizen Complaint form. These forms should clearly indicate that the name, address, telephone number and signature of the complainant are "OPTIONAL". Citizens who may be reluctant to complain of a violation of their rights should be able to avail themselves of the Citizen Complaint procedure to focus attention on alleged improper law enforcement conduct. This objective also holds true for third parties who observe police misconduct yet do not want to become embroiled in a process to address another person's rights. Law enforcement's interaction with minors is somewhat more problematic. While many law enforcement agencies in Marin County indicate that they will accept and investigate complaints from minors, some require that the minor's parent or guardian sign the complaint form or appear in person with the minor to file the complaint. June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 10 of 15 Citizen Complaints The Investigation, Disposition and Appeal Process The Grand Jury reviewed the policy and procedure manuals for every Marin County law enforcement agency regarding the Citizen Complaint investigation, disposition and appeal process. Investigation Most law enforcement agencies state in their policy and procedures that the complaint will be assigned to an investigator, but no description is provided as to how an investigation will be conducted. Will the investigator speak to the complainant? Will the investigator interview any witnesses or discuss the matter with the officer involved? If it comes down to a "he said, she said" scenario, will the complainant ever be believed over the officer? Further review of the policy and procedure manuals indicates that the investigation into a Citizen Complaint should be completed within one year. If that is not possible, the assigned investigator or supervisor must ensure that the delay is warranted and communicate that to the complainant. Finally, the complainant should be provided with written notification of the disposition within 30 days after a determination has been made. An explanation to the public of what an investigator will investigate, the time frame involved and other potentially complicating issues should be provided to the complainant. Disposition There are four potential classifications: • Unfounded: the investigation finds that the alleged act did not occur or involve law enforcement agency officers and/or staff ■ Exonerated: the investigation finds that the alleged act did occur, but was justified, lawful and/or proper ■ Not sustained: the investigation finds there is insufficient evidence to sustain the complaint or fully exonerate the member is Sustained: the investigation discloses sufficient evidence that the act occurred and that it constituted misconduct Once again, the Grand jury found information for the public regarding the disposition of a Citizen Complaint to be lacking in both content and consistency among the various law enforcement agencies. Appeals The Grand Jury also concluded that Citizen Complaint procedures should provide some mechanism for the citizen to appeal the results of an investigation. As noted above, a citizen must be notified in writing within 30 days of the disposition of his/her complaint. An appeal process as part of a law enforcement agency's Citizen Complaint procedure could be helpful in short - June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 11 of 15 Citizen Complaints circuiting the need for further legal action. Consequently, the Grand Jury concludes that Citizen Complaint procedures should include some mechanism for the citizen to appeal the result of the investigation if the citizen disagrees with the disposition. Ideally, the appeal should include a review by a body outside of the law enforcement agency. For example, the Novato Police Department allows a complainant to appeal the results to the City Manager. The City Manager, after reviewing the complaint, may forward the complaint to the Police Advisory and Review Board for further review or investigation.8 Training, Compliance and Awareness As noted above, all Marin County law enforcement agencies comply with the requirements of California Penal Code Section 832.5, yet there is inconsistency in how policies and procedures are presented to the public. As a result of the Grand Jury's site visits, website reviews, interviews with police chiefs and Sheriff and reviews of the policy and procedure manuals, it became clear to the Grand Jury that an important component missing in the Citizen Complaint process was consistent training of all law enforcement officers and other personnel. The lack of uniformity in training may explain the inconsistencies. This difference in knowledge of the process may account for some inconsistencies in communicating the policies and procedures to the public. The Grand Jury believes that law enforcement personnel, staff and volunteers should receive regular training on the Citizen Complaint process. Personnel should know how to quickly locate and access written complaint procedure instructions and be able to provide a citizen with whatever forms are needed at the time of inquiry. In addition, all personnel should be welcoming and open to accepting complaints. Law enforcement agency employees should also be familiar with where such materials are located on the law enforcement agency website. Clear and accessible communication with the public, whether in person, by phone or via website regarding anonymity, investigative procedures, disposition and the appeal process should all be part of law enforcement personnel training programs. Transparency and Reporting Complete transparency regarding the number of complaints and their disposition is also essential to maintaining a climate of trust between law enforcement and the public. Even though the number of complaints received by many Marin County law enforcement agencies tends to be few, they should regularly report to their governing bodies the number of complaints received, the general nature and their disposition. At a minimum, this reporting should be on an annual basis and should also be available online. 8 Novato City Resolution 43-00 June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 12 of 15 Cilizen Complaints CONCLUSION In a report entitled Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve,9 The United States Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services wrote: °`It is imperative to not only have procedures in place for fairly and impartially accepting, processing, and investigating complaints concerning allegations of employee misconduct but also to inform all police employees and the public of that process. ... 'An accessible, fair, and transparent complaint process is the hallmark of police responsiveness to the community' ... It is incumbent on the police department to make its citizens aware that a complaint process exists, how to file a complaint, and how the agency processes and investigates complaints." The Grand Jury believes that the majority of Marin County law enforcement members operate within the rules of their profession, and recognize and respect the rights of citizens. However, the need for a well-defined procedure for addressing those instances when that is not the case has been affirmed by the results of the Grand Jury's investigation into the Citizen Complaint process. Clear communication between Marin County law enforcement agencies and the citizenry regarding the Citizen Complaint process is essential for it to be successful, beneficial to law enforcement and not intimidating to the public. FINDINGS Fl. Marin County law enforcement agencies have procedures for Citizen Complaints that could act as deterrents to participation in the complaint process. F2. Some Marin County law enforcement agencies employ procedures and admonitions that have been held to be unconstitutional. F3. Some Marin County law enforcement agencies' complaint procedures require face-to-face contact with law enforcement officers, which may deter citizens from using the Citizen Complaint process. F4. Not all Marin County law enforcement agencies provide written policies, procedures and Citizen Complaint forms in English and Spanish. F5. Not all Marin County law enforcement agencies accept and investigate anonymous Citizen Complaints. F6. Information about and access to the Citizen Complaint procedure is difficult to find on Marin County law enforcement agency websites. F7. Marin County law enforcement agencies do not publish the number, the nature or the disposition of Citizen Complaints. 9 U.S, Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Standards and Guidelines for Internal Affairs (2009) June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 13 of 15 Citizen Complaints RECOMMENDATIONS R1. Every Marin County law enforcement agency should have a clear and full description of the law enforcement agency's policy and procedures for handling Citizen Complaints on its website that is accessible by a direct link from the law enforcement agency's home page to a clearly identified "Citizen Complaints" folder. R2. All Marin County law enforcement agencies should accept the filing of Citizen Complaints online. R3. A clear and full description of the law enforcement agency's policy and procedures along with forms for filing Citizen Complaints should be available to the public in the lobby of each law enforcement agency. R4. Written policies and procedures, as well as Citizen Complaint forms, should be available to the public in English, Spanish and other languages appropriate to the community. R5. Marin County law enforcement agency personnel should be trained in the agency's Citizen Complaint policy and procedures in order to fully describe them to members of the public. R6. All public -facing law enforcement personnel should present an open and welcoming attitude to any inquiry about the Citizen Complaint process. R7. No policy, procedure or form for handling Citizen Complaints should have any language based in whole or in part on California Penal Code Section 148.6 and/or California Civil Code of Civil Procedure Section 47.5, nor should a complainant be required to acknowledge that they have read and understood such language. R8. A person who initiates a Citizen Complaint should not be required to verify or certify the contents of the complaint form. R9. The identification of the complainant on the Citizen Complaint form should be optional. R10. The signature of the complainant should not be required on the form. R11. Anonymous Citizen Complaints, and complaints initiated by minors, should be accepted and investigated in accordance with the agency's procedures. R12. Members of the public who desire information regarding a law enforcement agency's policy, procedures and Citizen Complaint forms should not be required to discuss their involvement, identity or situation before the materials are provided. R13. All Marin County law enforcement agencies should incorporate within their policies and procedures an appeal process that allows the complainant to appeal the disposition to an entity outside of the law enforcement agency. R14. Marin County law enforcement agencies should publish on their websites and annually update the number, nature and disposition of Citizen Complaints. June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 14 of 15 Citizen Complaints REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code §933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows: From the following governing bodies: • The Cities and Towns of Belvedere, Corte Madera, Fairfax, Larkspur, Mill Valley, Novato, Ross, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Sausalito and Tiburon: F1 — F7 and R1 — R14 The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be conducted in accordance with California Penal Code §933(c) and subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act. From the following individual: • The Marin County Sheriff: Fl — F7 and RI — R14 The Grand Jury invites the following individuals to respond: ■ The Police Chiefs of Belvedere, Fairfax, Mill Valley, Novato, Ross, San Rafael, Sausalito, Tiburon and Central Marin Police Authority: F1 — F7 and R1 — R14 At the time of publication of this report all website information was accurate as published. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation. June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 15 of 15 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting August 17, 2016 Agenda Item: STAFF REPORT To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: Mayor and Members of the Town Council Administrative Services Department Recommendation to Approve the Investment Policy Guidelines for Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Post -Employment Benefits Trust gr, and the PARS Post -Retirement Health Care Trust Program BACKGROUND At the regular meeting of May 4, 2016, the Town Council unanimously authorized participation in both the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Post -Employment Benefits Trust Program, and the PARS Post -Retirement Health Care Trust Program. This action created two separate mechanisms by which the Town could pre -fund a portion of unfunded OPEB actuarial liabilities or pension liabilities. The Staff Report from the May 4 meeting is attached as Exhibit 1, which provides detailed information on this action. Over the years, the Town has set aside funds in the General Fund OPEB GASB 45 reserve to offset its OPEB unfunded actuarial accrued liability. As of June 30, 2016, the Town has accumulated $1,252,018.92 in this reserve, while the OPEB unfunded liability is estimated at approximately $3.63 million. ANALYSIS Part of the recommendation from the May 4 meeting was that the Council Budget Committee and Staff would work with PARS to develop an investment policy for the trust funds for the full Council's consideration. In late May, the Town Manager and Director of Administrative Services had an initial meeting with Andrew Brown, Investment Executive with HighMark Capital Management. On August 3, the Budget Committee and Staff met with Andrew Brown to review investment strategies. HighMark Capital Management offers five investment strategies that range in asset allocation and risk tolerance. Each investment strategy also has an option of being actively or passively managed. Active management comes with higher fees (approximately 60 basis points), with no assurance this approach will outperform passively managed accounts in the long run. The Budget Committee evaluated the investment strategies and determined that a passively managed "Balanced" Strategic Asset Allocation is the most appropriate to meet the Town's investment objectives. This strategy provides potential for growth in principal and income on the long-term horizon. Based on this decision, the attached Investment Guidelines Document (Exhibit 2) was developed for Town Council's consideration. 1 n n Cclund 11 .Atigw 117. 2016 The following table summarizes the recommended Strategic Asset Allocation Ranges, which are detailed in the Investment Policy: Strategic Asset Allocation Ran ' es Cash 0-20% Policy: 5% Fixed Income 30-50% Policy: 35% Equity 50-70% Policy: 60% The purpose of the investment policy guidelines is to facilitate communication and confirm the Town's investment objectives for the Trust. It also helps maintain a long-term perspective when market volatility is caused by short-term market movements. The policy also details the Program Trustee, the Investment Manager and the Budget Committee's roles and responsibilities. During the August 3 meeting, it was also discussed whether the Town should invest the full amount of funds available in the General Fund OPEB GASB 45 Reserve all at once or over a period of time. The Budget Committee ultimately decided that 25% of the fund holdings should be remitted to U.S. Bank on September 1, October 1, November 1 and December 1. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact for approving the Investment Policy Guidelines. Once funds are transferred to the trust they cannot be diverted to other purposes other than expenses related to Other Post -Employment Benefits. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Move to approved the Exhibit 2, Investment Policy Guidelines for the Town's 115 Irrevocable Exclusive Benefit Trust, and 2. Authorize the transfer of $313,004.73 on or about September 1, October 1, November 1 and December 1, for a total of $1,252,08.92, as recommended by the Council Budget Committee Exhibits: 1. May 4, 2016 Staff Report 2. Investment Guidelines for Town of Tiburon Irrevocable Trust 3. Summary of PARS Investment Strategies Prepared By: Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services Tip\V\ 01'1 IB1 `I:i?\ 1': c 2 of TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting May 4,2016 Agenda Item: STAFF REPORT To: From: Mayor and Members of the Town Council Department of Administrative Services Subject: Recommendation to Authorize Participation in the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Post -Employment Benefits Trust Program for Prefunding OPEB and Pension Liabilities Reviewed By: BACKGROUND The Town of Tiburon provides post -employment benefits to retirees who meet plan eligibility requirements. Under the Town's contract with Ca1PERS, employees who retire from the Town at age 50 or later with at least 5 years of service are eligible for a Ca1PERS pension. All eligible retirees, irrespective of their date of hire, are entitled to the minimum Ca1PERS medical benefits, which is $125 in 2016. This amount increases annually and the benefit continues for the life of the retiree and for the life of a surviving spouse. In addition to the above, retirees with 15 or more years of Town service are eligible to receive a monthly medical allowance based on the premium charged by Ca1PERS for the Kaiser single person coverage. This benefit does not apply to Management/Mid-management employees hired after July 1, 2009, Police employees hired after July 1, 2010, or SEIU employees hired after July 1, 2011 (the pool for this benefit has been closed). The benefit amount that is earned at retirement is based on the schedule below, and does not increase as medical premiums increase and does not pass on to an employee's surviving spouse. 15-19 years of service: 20-24 years of service 25+ of service 50% of Kaiser Single Rate 75% of Kaiser Single Rate 100% of Kaiser Single Rate The Town currently has 14 employees receiving this benefit at an annual cost of $88,581.12, and 12 employees left who are eligible for this benefit upon retirement. ANALYSIS In 2004, the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB), the organization that sets generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for public sector entities, issued a statement (GASB 45) that requires public employers to produce actuarial valuations for their OPEB, and to report these liabilities in their financial statements. Under GASB regulations, how to handle OPEB funding is at the agency's discretion. �Ial` 4, 2010 Up to this point, the Town has paid the amount required for retiree medical benefits in a given year on the pay-as-you-go basis. In addition, the Town has set aside funds in the OPEB GASB 45 General Fund Reserve. The funds held in this reserve do not earn interest, and are not eligible to be considered in reducing the Town's OPEB unfunded liability because they are not held in an irrevocable trust. There is currently $1,246,159 in the OPEB GASB 45 reserve, and based on the most recent analysis, the Town's unfunded liability for OPEB benefits will be approximately $3.63 million based on a 4% discount rate. The 4% discount rate is the scenario used for agencies that only contribute OPEB costs in the amount of the actual payments on behalf of retires (pay-as-you-go), which the Town currently employs. It is a financial management best practice, and consistent with the Town's financial goals to reduce long term liabilities and GFOA considers it "best practice" to prefund OPEB benefits (2012). Staff believes that entering into a trust agreement to prefund OPEB liabilities will lower long term liabilities and produce savings in the long run. Prefunding OPEB costs in an irrevocable trust will also allow the Town to use a higher discount rate when performing its next actuarial valuation in 2017. It is estimated that a 1% increase in the discount rate could lower the Town's OPEB unfunded liability by 10-12%, or $360,000 to $435,000, based on a $3.63 million liability. A 6.0% discount rate would still be considered moderately conservative when perfonning the next actuarial, and could reduce the Town's current unfunded liability from $3.63 million to approximately $2.75 - $2.9 million. While not a requirement of GASB 45, prefunding the Town's OPEB obligation and placing it in an irrevocable trust provides certain benefits: • Once placed into a trust, the funds cannot be diverted to other purposes, nor is it subject to claims by creditors or State takeaways. • Trust assets can be managed for investment purposes to achieve a higher rate of return, thus lowering the Town's future liability. There is investment flexibility with Section 115 Trust compared to restrictions on general fund investments. • It is fiscally prudent to prefund retiree obligations while accrued during active service, preventing the increase of the Town's unfunded obligation and pay-as-you-go costs. • Prefunding is less expensive for the Town over the long run since more of the unfunded liability will be paid for by investment dollars. There are surprisingly few choices when it comes to companies that provide trust services for OPEB pre -funding. Staff reached out to the California Employers' Retirement Benefit Trust (CERBT) and Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) for proposals to provide trust services. After reviewing the information provided, the main difference between the two companies comes down to fees charged, number of investment strategies provided, requirement on timing of OPEB Actuarial, and additional services provided. CERBT is overseen and administered by the Ca1PERS Board of Administration and currently charges an annual fee of 10 basis points on the assets under its management. This fee can be increased at any time. CERBT has three asset allocation strategies with the most conservative allocation averaging 24% in equities and the most aggressive with 57% in equities. CERBT requires an actuarial valuation be performed every two years, at an approximate cost of $5,000 per valuation. 3 i,\,v N t.'r T1131 `1\11N Page 2 of 4 1 O\VI! l...(31111LlJ ,vtecliiir; \t.tV 4, 2016 PARS is a private for-profit company that contracts with US Bank for trustee services and HighMark Capital Management for Investment Management services. PARS charges 25 basis points for their trust administration/consulting fees with additional fees ranging between 24 — 32 basis points for contracted trust/investment management fees, for a total maximum fee of 57 basis points. The fee that would be charged is fixed for the next two years. PARS has actually reduced fees over the past six years due to economies of scale of their multi-employer trust. PARS provides more flexibility with 5 asset allocation strategies (active or passive) and the ability to customize the portfolio. The most conservative portfolio has a minimum of 5% invested in equities, with the most aggressive at 75% equities. PARS allows for tri -annual actuarial valuation reports. PARS also provides an option, at no additional cost, to make OPEB payments directly to retirees, therefore relieving the administrative duty from Town staff. This option is not available with CERBT. PARS also provides an option for establishing an account within the same trust for prefunding unfunded pension liabilities. There are currently no other options for prefunding our Ca1PERS pension unfunded liability except lump -sum payments to CaIPERS. This pension prefunding option with PARS gives us the ability to set aside reserves in the same trust (sub accounted for separately from OPEB) and lower Net Pension Liabilities (NPL) for GASB 68 reporting. There are no costs to establish a trust fund with either administrator. Fees are only charged once funds are place with the administrator to manage. The pros of contracting with CERBT are lower management fees (ten basis points versus 49-57 basis points). However, CEBRT has under -performed PARS in their three investment options over the past three years, net of all fees. Of course, this past performance does not guarantee future results. Two of CERBTS investment options do not have a five year history at this point to compare results. The pros in contracting with PARS would be diversification of investments as Ca1PERS would not also be managing these funds (PERS currently manages approximately $27 million in Town pension assets). Only this PARS Trust has a Private Letter Ruling (PLR) from the IRS which allows for prefunding of OPEB or Pension or Both liabilities. PARS will directly make payment to retirees who are eligible for monthly medical allowance payments (currently 14 employees). For an agency our size, PARS only requires an actuarial valuation be performed every three years as opposed to CERBT every two years. PARS does provide more investment options than CERBT and does allow for customization of investment options. PARS has a frill service approach including a local dedicated Portfolio Manager who will make a recommendation on our investment strategy, take on the fiduciary responsibility to manage our assets, assist with our investment policy, conduct annual reviews and has cell phone access for questions. This agenda item is recommending, though the Council Budget Committee, that the Town Council authorize participation in the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Post - Employment Benefits Trust. Though staff was looking only at establishing an OPEB Irrevocable Trust only, there is no cost to open either Trust Fund and the Town could consider pre -funding pension liabilities through this trust as opposed to directing additional payments to Ca1PERS in the future. Once this combination trust is established, PARS will work with the Town, through the Budget Committee, to determine the best strategic asset allocation policy for the investment of the OPEB GASB 45 Reserve funds. TOWN OF Ti fil K N t'.1,,c 7, of 4 t (1' fl ''.'!ccud!g May 4, 2OJ6 FINANCIAL IMPACT Establishing the Pension Trust Fund has no direct cash impact. Funding the Trust Fund will have a cash impact as funds will be withdrawn from the OPEB GASB 45 General Fund Reserve and transferred to the irrevocable trust. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This item does not meet the definition of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to adopt the following resolution: 1. Resolution authorizing participation the in PARS Post -Employment Benefits Trust Program, to be administered by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) and U.S. Bank, as Trustee, appointment the Town Manager as the Town's Plan Administrator, and authorizing the Town Manager to execute the documents to implement the Program Staff will meet with the Budget Committee and PARS representatives to determine the best strategy for our OPEB GASB 45 Reserves based on needs and objectives, and bring the recommendation back to the full Council for approval. If we invest these funds prior to June 30, 2016, we can receive credit for the investment against our Net OPEB Obligation in the FY 2015- 16 annual audit. Exhibits: 1. Resolution authorizing participation the in PARS Post -Employment Benefits Trust Program, to be administered by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) and U.S. Bank, as Trustee, appointment the Town Manager as the Town's Plan Administrator, and authorizing the Town Manager to execute the documents to implement the Program 2. Administrative Services Agreement Prepared By: Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services -[ol\\'\ Oi'TtBI,RON P-!gc 4 of 4 HIGHMARK® CAPITAL MANAGEMENT Investment Guidelines Document Town of Tiburon 115 Irrevocable Exclusive Benefit Trust August 2016 Investment Guidelines Document Scope and Purpose The purpose of this Investment Guidelines Document is to: • Facilitate the process of ongoing communication between the Plan Sponsor and its plan fiduciaries; • Confirm the Plan's investment goals and objectives and management policies applicable to the investment portfolio identified below and obtained from the Plan Sponsor; • Provide a framework to construct a well -diversified asset mix that can potentially be expected to meet the account's short- and long-term needs that is consistent with the account's investment objectives, liquidity considerations and risk tolerance; • Identify any unique considerations that may restrict or limit the investment discretion of its designated investment managers; • Help maintain a long-term perspective when market volatility is caused by short-term market movements. Key Plan Sponsor Account Information as of June 2016 Plan Sponsor: Town of Tiburon Governance: Town Council for the Town of Tiburon Plan Name ("Plan") Town of Tiburon Post -Employment Retirement Healthcare Plan Account Value: $1.2 million est. August 2016 Trustee: US Bank Contact: Sue Hughes, 949-224-7209 Susan.Hughes@usbank.com Type of Account: GASB 45/Other Post -Employment Benefits Trust ERISA Status: Not subject to ERISA investment Manager: US Bank, as discretionary trustee, has delegated investment management responsibilities to HighMark Capital Management, Inc. ("Investment Manager"), an SEC -registered investment adviser Contact: Andrew Brown, CFA, 415-705-7605 Andrew.brown@highmarkcapital.com Town of Tiburon - Other Post -Employment Benefits Trust Investment Guidelines Document — HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 5/25/2016 - ARB) 2 Investment Authority: Except as otherwise noted, the Trustee, US Bank, has delegated investment authority to HighMark Capital Management, an SEC -registered investment adviser. Investment Manager has full investment discretion over the managed assets in the account. Investment Manager is authorized to purchase, sell, exchange, invest, reinvest and manage the designated assets held in the account, all in accordance with account's investment objectives, without prior approval or subsequent approval of any other party(ies). Investment Objectives and Constraints The goal of the Plan's investment program is to generate adequate long-term returns that, when combined with contributions, will result in sufficient assets to pay the present and future obligations of the Plan. The following objectives are intended to assist in achieving this goal: • The Plan should earn, on a long-term average basis, a rate of return equal to or in excess of the target rate of return of 6.0%. • The Plan should seek to earn a return in excess of its policy benchmark over the long- term. • The Plan's assets will be managed on a total return basis which takes into consideration both investment income and capital appreciation. While the Plan Sponsor recognizes the importance of preservation of capital, it also adheres to the principle that varying degrees of investment risk are generally rewarded with compensating returns. To achieve these objectives, the Plan Sponsor allocates its assets (asset allocation) with a strategic, long- term perspective of the capital markets. Investment Time Horizon: Anticipated Cash Flows: Target Rate of Return: Investment Objective: Risk Tolerance: Long-term Distributions are expected to be modest in the early years of the Plan. 6.0% annual target The primary objective is to maximize total Plan return, subject to the risk and quality constraints set forth herein. The investment objective the Pian Sponsor has selected is the Balanced Index Objective, which has a dual goal to seek moderate growth of income and principal. Balanced The account's risk tolerance has been rated moderate, which demonstrates that the account can accept average, or moderate, price fluctuations to pursue its investment objectives. Town of Tiburon - Other Post -Employment Benefits Trust Investment Guidelines Document — HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 5/25/2016 - ARB) 3 Strategic Asset Allocation: The asset allocation ranges for this objective are listed below: Market conditions may cause the account's asset allocation to vary from the stated range from time to time. The Investment Manager will rebalance the portfolio no less than quarterly and/or when the actual weighting differs substantially from the strategic range, if appropriate and consistent with your objectives. Security Guidelines: Equities With the exception of limitations and constraints described above, Investment Manager may allocate assets of the equity portion of the account among various market capitalizations (large, mid, small) and investment styles (value, growth). Further, Investment Manager may allocate assets among domestic, international developed and emerging market equity securities. Total Equities Strategic Asset Allocation Ranges Cash Range Fixed Income Equity 0-20% 0%-15% 30%-50% 50%-70% Policy: 5% 0%-20% Policy: 35% Policy: 60% Market conditions may cause the account's asset allocation to vary from the stated range from time to time. The Investment Manager will rebalance the portfolio no less than quarterly and/or when the actual weighting differs substantially from the strategic range, if appropriate and consistent with your objectives. Security Guidelines: Equities With the exception of limitations and constraints described above, Investment Manager may allocate assets of the equity portion of the account among various market capitalizations (large, mid, small) and investment styles (value, growth). Further, Investment Manager may allocate assets among domestic, international developed and emerging market equity securities. Total Equities 50%-70% Equity Style Range Domestic Large Cap Equity 20%-50% Domestic Mid Cap Equity 0%-15% Domestic Small Cap Equity 0%-20% International Equity (incl. Emerging Markets) 0%-20% Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) 0%-10% Fixed Income In the fixed income portion of the account, Investment Manager may allocate assets among various sectors and industries, as well as varying maturities and credit quality that are consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the portfolio. Total Fixed Income 30%-50% Fixed Income Style Range Long-term bonds (maturities >7 years) 0%-20% Intermediate-term bonds (maturities 3-7 years) 15%-50% Short -Term bonds (maturities <3 years) 0%-15% High Yield bonds 0%-8% Town of Tiburon - Other Post -Employment Benefits Trust Investment Guidelines Document — HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 5/25/2016 - ARB) 4 Performance Benchmarks: The performance of the total Plan shall be measured over a three and five-year periods. These periods are considered sufficient to accommodate the market cycles experienced with investments. The performance shall be compared to the return of the total portfolio blended benchmark shown below. Total Portfolio Blended Benchmark 32.00% S&P500 Index 6.00% Russell Mid Cap Index 9.00% Russell 2000 Index 4.00% MSCI Emerging Market Index 7.00% MSCI EAFE Index 2.00% Wilshire REIT 27.00% BC US Aggregate Index 6.75% ML 1-3 Year US Corp/Gov't 1.25% US High Yield Master II 5.00% Citi 1 Mth T -Bill Asset Class/Style Benchmarks Over a market cycle, the Tong -term objective for each investment strategy is to add value to a market benchmark, The following are the benchmarks used to monitor each investment strategy: Large Cap Equity S&P 500 Index Growth S&P 500 Growth Index Value S&P 500 Value Index Mid Cap Equity Russell Mid Cap Index Growth Russell Mid Cap Growth Value Russell Mid Cap Value Small Cap Equity Russell 2000 Index Growth Russell 2000 Growth Value Russell 2000 Value REITs Wilshire REIT International Equity MSCI EAFE Index Investment Grade Bonds BC US Aggregate Bond High Yield US High Yield Master II Security Selection Investment Manager may utilize a full range of investment vehicles when constructing the investment portfolio, including but not limited to individual securities, mutual funds, and exchange - traded funds. In addition, to the extent permissible, Investment Manager is authorized to invest in shares of mutual funds in which the Investment Manager serves as advisor or sub -adviser. Town of Tiburon - Other Post -Employment Benefits Trust Investment Guidelines Document — HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 5/25/2016 - ARB) 5 investment Limitations: The following investment transactions are prohibited: Direct investments in precious metals (precious metals mutual funds and exchange -traded funds are permissible). • Venture Capital Short sales* • Purchases of Letter Stock, Private Placements, or direct payments • Leveraged Transactions* • Commodities Transactions Puts, calls, straddles, or other option strategies* • Purchases of real estate, with the exception of REITs • Derivatives, with exception of ETFs* *Permissible in diversified mutual funds and exchange -traded funds Duties and Responsibilities Responsibilities of Plan Sponsor The Budget Committee of the Town of Tiburon is responsible for: • Confirming the accuracy of this Investment Guidelines Document, in writing. • Advising Trustee and Investment Manager of any change in the plan/account's financial situation, funding status, or cash flows, which could possibly necessitate a change to the account's overall risk tolerance, time horizon or liquidity requirements; and thus would dictate a change to the overall investment objective and goals for the account. • Monitoring and supervising all service vendors and investment options, including investment managers. • Avoiding prohibited transactions and conflicts of interest. Responsibilities of Trustee The plan Trustee is responsible for: • Valuing the holdings. • Collecting all income and dividends owed to the Plan. • Settling all transactions (buy -sell orders). Responsibilities of investment Manager The Investment Manager is responsible for: • Assisting the Budget Committee with the development and maintenance of this Investment Policy Guideline document. • Meeting with Budget Committee at least annually to review portfolio structure, holdings, and performance. • Designing, recommending and implementing an appropriate asset allocation consistent with the investment objectives, time horizon, risk profile, guidelines and constraints outlined in this statement. • Researching and monitoring investment advisers and investment vehicles. • Purchasing, selling, and reinvesting in securities held in the account. • Monitoring the performance of all selected assets. • Voting proxies, if applicable. • Recommending changes to any of the above. Town of Tiburon - Other Post -Employment Benefits Trust Investment Guidelines Document — HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 5/25/2016 - ARB) 6 • Periodically reviewing the suitability of the investments, being available to meet with the committee at least once each year, and being available at such other times within reason at your request. • Preparing and presenting appropriate reports. • Informing the committee if changes occur in personnel that are responsible for portfolio management or research. Acknowledgement and Acceptance I/We being the Plan Sponsor with responsibility for the account(s) held on behalf of the Plan Sponsor specified below, designate Investment Manager as having the investment discretion and management responsibility indicated in relation to all assets of the Plan or specified Account. If such designation is set forth in the Plan/trust, IM/e hereby confirm such designation as Investment Manager. I have read the Investment Guidelines Document, and confirm the accuracy of it, including the terms and conditions under which the assets in this account are to be held, managed, and disposed of by Investment Manager. This Investment Guidelines Document supersedes all previous versions of an Investment Guidelines Document or investment objective instructions that may have been executed for this account Date: Plan Sponsor: Town of Tiburon Date: Investment Manager: Andrew Brown, CFA, Senior Portfolio Manager, (415) 705-7605 Town of Tiburon - Other Post -Employment Benefits Trust Investment Guidelines Document — HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 5/25/2016 - ARB) 7 0 W 1— v W 0 1z W r/ W 0 Balanced Capital Appreciation 60.00% 75.00% 01116 co a7 'CO G 2 o S ,n OF>. a +°+ 7.1exi LS vi V C 2 o U o m 01116' wO H C O U O lr1 to a) z 0 w Fixed Income o \ o o 0 O O O to u7 1-(1 u L O N m oo N I O o O 4 O O O M4.13 cn N n 0o o Ln o Ln ul 0 u) N o N I n * cD m o 0 0 0 U1 O u1 O O O m .-I N 0 0 0ye.0 uu I III OI O O N O N ri Large Cap Core Mid Cap Core Small Cap Core ro 4-, w International Emerging Markets A' \ ON in 0 c E m u E v +' X o mow -C Intermediate Term Bond d O 0 L 0 O O u to o* Ln 1• rm-1 ai Expected Return Expected Standard Deviation O a a a) 0 1-6 Et a)oa) (0 a a) 0 • C C m, Nocs 7a) a) ca Q N al � O >. W O o p C 0. ma N p -m .9 en o O C N )a O O 7O 0 .0 O to 2 m '... � N'O co ((j O O N CD. N m V O c LCCO E N U y of m 1) O(5 coN N t6 N c E o c o (0 (U 3 0 ui N a) C E E E)aOO U N yJ-,' ea.) C �a cfl C 0.00 O Ec?(15 y U O a) E co -o 'c E. c tpj O 0 a l rn C O O O N a O. N C 0 o O c fa a) Q) Cas cc) -O a) N C C_ 0' = O N f -tc C ja C 0- h C U C a-ryo Td= .2v at U 0'n 8-0.- cod=as 0.E t co nC'0 c N CO CO > 0 } > a m ama c ztaE� t 0 c p O N O E O "O" O man Q WC a 3 U c a) C N co o r 0 > > p o 0.U a 0 Lu m0 a0) m,� c 0. .c 0 x I- c.) w O m 0 O E m 'D a a7 C cu a a) U a) Q W O a) a la c 0 a ascu 0) a a) 7 O U 0) a a) m a) co a) a) D_ a) a) V) a3 U a) CO co0O c m E m l0 0 M c 0 a y a `) m fA DISCLOSURES L O) ii N Q) L Q) C O N Q) 2 E u) 0)a in' 15 co O O a0) C a) a) c6 O a) ill U 0 0 0 Y u) ;C u1 as L it a C Q) Q) c •L .0) a3 u) N N _43 C o C a a) c L >. .c • a7 +n E a) al 0 ,o N o 0 111 cn m30� O `i°) cx Q°CD Q O) (L6 ca t m �' c 7 C '�- w o N 0 E °- O L ca Ca 06 N m iD >T ` T p CO N O O 'YwQ i TT,O N O w 0 a Q) O °ao 0 �— a) c W C W O> a •p L a) Q) C L 2 L C _> c6 o f cu o 0 m °� SwF (O o a 15 u) E ca o°Oc �—° �Cam oa (1) 4-- -p a) Qn EUaoc mw 6a , L Q) O.O O 01 E 7 c U N V N U c .CO+ O. 3 4) a) a C O d yami ca E 0o >,� a ,`n o c ->a)a mN p0)�E� a m 3 o- c a o o.to. ca "El ... O� `0v= 7 N x �� -a c�wa ID L o 0 N �o.-cm_•o Z' ai cN a`ai o= E.�, a) 4) _u) m `° m 0i o •° •vm°)rnmac.'o.CI°a)�No2-Co.aa) o mm 9, O _ L Cco O a _ a c 0 O C fn . O a)N U C t - I -•C co N c >' aO) °U.._' �3 L ca) a)0 -c) m m m a) -.2 •o o ac0_c 0 Nay_ -wo1Es)to�aj2.1)i N fli N Cma OT o0 u -• -Oa pQ) a) = a U O o) a) O) N N 'CN W W C cO_ C- O co C1 °cO y a) N u) Q•s at 0 17)0 c�Y_ Q) OV U ON rOO° U)U >, a N c c � ma N Eo amu ��o oroOuEE.2 22 m a.L° 6000Q�vcv�� 0) 2umm o 42 ii Ec(oC•mm E cacnEmoO��O N a)ON.m''y 'Li)" U .c,7E2- c �N :: oc.) as c rn2 '2 --2 m 4`otoEL a) Emea a N oa as v m = cca cu z.34 en _c 0 ta ti) C 0 t -> 7 c u) 0 a .°., • N 4-• N .T, U .0 41 ai a o a) a L �, E u) N= u) 0) 4-• C a) fa .� H Q a N a] O O°- o E c `� L a) f6 o c c CO •a o I- E aE o as o 0° 3 mit 'VCa (i) a a)•5 uj=a)o� �0 m o> Ca ai m m c Nm0? ? o ° aE vN aim ca oN o o m o V.., C mTm0 O L> v15,W 2C -aL@° h'. N C uL. a) ° L 7) . ° ° N C USr.' DQC > a) .0 L i 4-c, aj> , C o co c,N (0 15 o�cm� yo- °a)oinfp_`°o caE )E c 3 a a C •O to 7 a3 -C ° a) ) a) 0 0 w -Q C +_� tllC O E a :--. .� a) O a 'U O a is Q7 ,- N L a) el. ia), C U O 0., t#,?, a) a) 0 ��o> a) amo>-cocH o,nE °o c ca v,.°) NU m .i ct �v a) v o c L a) 0 7 a m o =o o a >+ O x E in yT QoQ t!jcm m 1-a) cac w o0 = m. o E L r7) 0D0 6a) v C a) co c c° o Ea Qa) a) O c CD _a ui a o w 00 T� L = V3 � L r O N N� a) "--' 7 a) a) 3 ul E a 0 E O V Q C aS Q` U 2 C cam: y OL w O C a3 - U E 8 v E N} _ .0 O �- 0 a) >+ O Q v, a d1 7 m w= N O t) 0 ,_ ? N Q m N Q T CO r7) a) 0 U 0 tyi) Q) N CtS o+ o o a) vi c6 c oho o)- a m. v, m E O° U y a) c Q) N L Q) M y. a O C a) ° a Q U Q a CD 03 m m N ° rnN y N m'f'r - ° rq E o°o > ° �c a w L o a) m a: a) fl ° c EQ gc a)0= m as x o-L))a >_ o x oa L c as c a) o•.- O• CD CO C Q) O U [L4 T Q) N O a Ll. CO�' n •a O O .a C O m O N E .c> ,U ` E; °L scVooEa7)) -13 y w c7) kom m o m o m E �o w m�0 ca v- n Q,y v,°L co E-v)a (Da) ...c°-: Q O m o.0 co � aC7 o No ca a�m o 15 Tu. oLaca ro�o E 0 0 >) 2- N-ta�'�Hy m v1°o`er m ° 0 'L a) a tr) �L o a 0 > Ci6 O °-C ° 1E °N -OV) 42 i5 12Xo ON �OQca' > a O C C N T Y E C° O •2 C O, 12" a U) TU c i a) a) 'p omoaa x EI 5 ` m E E o Q a) 0 iva)0a) a -o ! rn rno ma)D w La (1) (i) Ea v) i.2 ° aacL E° moV)�0xaTa)a)c0ao oCn � we>a)aoao0 O > ° Ca T O N0iL N'CNaN o L? UU (LayNm0T. ui a Uo.t00a) a) .0 oTN0-O a) 21.4E' ,c) ag m o o o � � `om E X c 0NcEw �mZ'o5�Q;� cv L> Ea) m c ms o m0L 0 - ..ca) E o•E.U CN O esv�°) `n�> ov O L Cat .3oina.�•- = u) 1N o > C O 7` r ma °cn "> E F- aiaam Oc=YQ N °) 0 a) 2 2Q a 2 6i4- $ a ao co o x 0 cc W— 0.0 U CV M j- 1.0 W V o C aU . . . . © HighMark Capital Management, Inc. 2015. AD rights reserved. N TOWN OF TIBURON ;w 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting August 17, 2016 Agenda Item: CC -3 STAFF REPOR To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Manager Subject: Bu Route 8: Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District Reviewed By: • /3' BACKGROUND Earlier this year, on January 20, 2016, the Council heard a presentation by the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (District) on the District's proposal to eliminate its Route 8 bus service to San Francisco. Route 8 serves residents of Belvedere, Tiburon and Mill Valley, carrying them to the San Francisco Financial District (and home) during commute hours. According to the District, Route 8 has had low ridership for many years. At the December 2, 2015 and January 20, 2016 Town Council meetings, some residents and Route 8 riders spoke against the elimination of the route, and said the alternative proposed by GGBHTD—using the Tiburon Boulevard shuttle (Route 219) to reach Highway 101 to pick up San Francisco -bound buses—was neither convenient nor feasible. A petition from riders of Route 8 was submitted to the Council. After hearing the report and public testimony, the Council said it would be useful if the District continued to study the feasibility of keeping the current route based on testimony of current ridership, and encouraged further study. Councilmember Fredericks, who is also a Director of the Bridge District, reported at the June 1, 2016 Town Council meeting that the study revealed the outbound ridership to be improved and consistent with the testimony received by the Council. She noted, however, that the numbers counted on the return trip were not as robust. The District's Transportation Committee will now consider a final recommendation on the future of Route 8 at its August 25, 2016 meeting. The City of Belvedere has sent a letter to the Committee Chair recommending the preservation of Route 8. A copy of the letter is attached to this staff report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council direct staff to send a letter in support of the continuation of Bus Route 8. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 Town Council N erifnS :August 17. 2016 Exhibits: 1. Letter from Belvedere Mayor Claire McAuliffe to General Manager Dennis Mulligan, dated December 14, 2015; 2. Letter from Belvedere Mayor James Campbell to Committee Chair Brian Sobel, dated August 10, 2016; 3. Draft Letter from Tiburon Mayor Tollini to GGBHTD. Prepared By: Diane Crane Iacopi, Town Clerk TOWN OF Tii;i IRON 1' ge 2 or 2 Claire McAuliffe, Mayor December 14, 2015 DENNIS MULLIGAN GENERAL MANAGER GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE HIGHWAY & TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT PO BOX 9000, PRESIDIO STATION SAN FRANCISCO CA 94129-0601 RE: City of Belvedere Support for keeping GGBHTD Bus Route 8 Dear Mr. Mulligan, Belvedere is pleased that GGBHTD is studying the feasibility of taking over the Blue & Gold Fleet's commuter ferry service in Tiburon. We are concerned, however, with the suggestion that GGBHTD may redirect funds from Bus Route 8 to achieve this objective. Eliminating a viable public transportation option is counterproductive to the statewide goal of encouraging use of public transit and reducing carbon emissions. Currently, Bus Route 8 provides an alternative means of transportation from a single -occupancy vehicle for commuters in Belvedere and surrounding areas travelling to San Francisco. With a bus stop located inside Belvedere city limits at Beach Road and San Rafael Avenue, access to this service is within walking distance of most Belvedere neighborhoods. The City supports affordable and varied commuter transportation options between the Tiburon Peninsula and San Francisco, as well as transit options that ease congestion on local streets and roads. In fact, this year the City is subsidizing expanded school bus service on the Tiburon Peninsula, to encourage ridership at all grade levels and reduce peak hour traffic congestion on Tiburon Boulevard. As we have learned from our school bus project, in order to maximize the use of public transportation by consumers the service must be convenient, affordable and easy to use. Eliminating Route 8 would reduce options for residents and may also have the effect of exacerbating commute hour traffic congestion on Tiburon Boulevard. The City requests that, as you investigate providing ferry service in place of the Blue & Gold Fleet in Tiburon, you also prioritize maintaining the current bus routes serving our community. Sincerely, Claire McAuliffe Mayor kaLvit James Campbell, Mayor August 10, 2016 BRIAN M. SOBEL TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE CHAIR GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE HIGHWAY & TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT PO BOX 9000, PRESIDIO STATION SAN FRANCISCO CA 94129 RE: City of Belvedere's ongoing support for continuation of GGBHTD Bus Route 8 Dear Chair Sobel, The City of Belvedere has previously expressed our support for the continuation of the GGBHTD's Bus Route 8. We understand that on August 25, 2016, the District's Transportation Committee will be voting on whether to terminate Route 8 or continue its operation. We would like to take this opportunity to respectfully request your committee vote for the route's continued operation. Last December, our City Council heard public comment from many of our residents who use Bus Route 8 and rely on it as their primary mode of transportation for their commute to work. At that time, the City Council affirmed their support of the bus route as an essential component of the affordable and varied commuter transportation options between the Tiburon Peninsula and San Francisco, as well as a transit option that eases congestion on local streets and roads at a time when the City is also actively involved in expanding and improving school bus service on the Tiburon Peninsula to encourage ridership and reduce peak hour traffic congestion on Tiburon Boulevard. We believe that the ridership numbers of Bus Route 8 substantially meet the criteria of the Transportation Committee's requirements for continued operation of the line and demonstrate the importance of the route in many of our and our neighboring communities residents' daily commute. The continued operation of Route 8 is especially important given the recent curtailment of several feeder buses formerly operated by Marin Transit which were once a possible alternative to limited access to Highway 101 during commute hours. The City of Belvedere appreciates the public support of our two local Marin representative on the Committee, Supervisor Kate Sears and Tiburon Council Member Alice Fredericks, and requests the support of the remaining Committee members in maintaining this vital bus route serving our community, Sincerely, James Campbell Mayor DRAFT August 17, 2016 BRIAN M. SOBEL TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE CHAIR GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE HIGHWAY & TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT PO BOX 9000, PRESIDIO STATION SAN FRANCISCO CA 94129 RE: Town of Tiburon support for continuation of GGBHTD Bus Route 8 Dear Chair Sobel, Erin Tollini, Mayor We understand that on August 25, 2016, the District's Transportation Committee will be voting on whether to terminate Route 8 or continue its operation. We would like to take this opportunity to respectfully request your committee vote for the route's continued operation. Last December, our Town Council heard public comment from many of our residents who use Bus Route 8 and rely on it as their primary mode of transportation for their commute to work. In January of this year, the Town Council encouraged the District to further study the ridership numbers and explore opportunities to incentivize increased ridership. Based on the ridership numbers provided by the District for June and July 2016, we believe the ridership numbers of Bus Route 8 substantially meet the criteria of the Transportation Committee's requirements for continued operation of the line and demonstrate the importance of the route in many of our residents' daily commute. The route is also important to the District's mission to reduce congestion on Highway 101 access to the Golden Gate Bridge and the Bridge itself. The Town of Tiburon is committed to seeking ways to reduce traffic congestion on the Tiburon peninsula, as evidenced by its involvement in, and significant financial contribution to the school bus service known as the Yellow Bus Challenge. We request the support of the District's Transportation Committee in maintaining this vital bus route serving our community. Sincerely, Erin Tollini Mayor ct 3