Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2009-08-05TOWN OF TIBURON Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon. Boulevard August 5, 2009 Tiburon, CA 94920 Regular Meeting - 7:30 p.m. Closed Session - 6:30 p.m. AGENDA TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION - (6:30 p.m.~ CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Section 54956.9(a)) Martha Company v. Town of Tiburon Bonander, et al. v. Town of Tiburon Town of Tiburon v. All Persons Interested, etc. Mostyn v. Town of Tiburon et al. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Collins, Councilmember Gram, Councilmember Slavitz, Vice Mayor Berger, Mayor Fredericks 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. PRESENTATIONS • Independent Campaign Expenditure Ordinance (League of Women Voters) • Jt. Recreation Committee Annual Report - (Director Cathleen Andreucci) CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless a request is made by a member of the Town Council, public or staff to remove an item for separate discussion and consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time. 1. Town Council Minutes - Approve minutes of July 1, 2009 meeting (Town Clerk Crane lacopi) 2. Town Council Minutes -Approve minutes of July 15, 2009 meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 3. Grand Jury Report - Approve response to Grand Jury Report, "Saving Major Crimes Task Force" (Town Attorney Danforth) 4. Taxi Regulation Program - Adopt resolution approving amendments to Taxi Regulation Program administered by the Marin General Services Authority JPA (Town Attorney Danforth) 5. Town Monthly Investment Summary - Adopt June 2009 report (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digest -July 17, 2009 • Town Council Weekly Digest -July 24, 2009 • Town Council Weekly Digest -July 31, 2009 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.ci.tiburon.ca.us. Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public. meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above address. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Town Council agenda. - 7-OWAI CCVIVC I L League of Women Voters of Marin County 4340 Redwood Highway, Suite F-0 108 San Rafael CA, 94903 June 6, 2009 Peggy Curran, Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd.. Tiburon CA 94920 Dear Peggy: DIGEST 'P• For the past year the League of Women Voters of Marin County has conducted a campaign to reduce negative campaigning in local elections, which effects the willing- ness of qualified individuals to run for elected office. As part of that effort, we have worked with the Marin County Board of Supervisors to create an ordinance that will require greater transparency of the individuals and organizations who fund independent expenditure Committees (IECs), the groups largely responsible for misleading and negative campaigning. During the past year the Board of Supervisors drafted and extensively researched a campaign reform ordinance to create greater transparency for independent expenditures. It was adopted at its June 2 meeting. Now we are anxious to present this ordinance to all of the towns and cities on Marin in hope that they, too will adopt a similar ordinance. We are also asking all elected officials and prospective candidates to sign a Fair Campaign Practices pledge. It is our belief that if all elected bodies in Marin are focused on fair and transparent elections, negative campaigning will be reduced. We would appreciate having a few minutes on your Council's agenda as soon as possible to present the ordinance and answer any questions that the Council may have. Please let us know when that might be possible. Attached is a copy of the ordinance and the Fair Practices Campaign Pledge. My email is: elissag57@comcast.net. Best regards, Elissa Giambastiani, Chair Campaign Reform Committee LWVMC ORDINANCE NO. 3519 ORDINANCE OF THE MARIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ENACTING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM FOR INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES; AND ALSO FOR PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE SECTION I. FINDINGS The Marin County Board of Supervisors finds as follows: WHEREAS, integrity in the political process is of paramount importance in County elections; and WHEREAS, in prior County elections, mailers by independent expenditures have, at times, contained misleading information and voters have not always been aware of who supports or opposes a campaign message; and WHEREAS, meaningful disclosure laws related to independent expenditures in County elections are essential to the political process because they ultimately affect the voters' ability to make informed choices; and WHEREAS, increased disclosure requirements for independent expenditures in County elections will ensure transparency of independent expenditures so that voters are provided information on contributors, contributions and expenditures in a timely manner, NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION II. Chapter 2.02 is hereby added to the Marin County Code as follows: Chapter 2.02 Disclosure and Reporting Requirements for Independent Expenditures. Section 2.02.010 Purpose: The purpose of this ordinance is to ensure transparency of independent expenditures so that voters are provided information on contributors, contributions and expenditures in a timely manner. Section 2.02.020 Intent: This ordinance is intended to supplement the Political Reform Act of 1974. Unless a word or term is specifically defined in this ordinance, or the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, words and terms used herein shall have the same meaning as defined or used in Title 9 of the California Government Code, in which the Political Reform Act of 1974 is codified, and as supplemented by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission as set forth in Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, as the same may be, from time to time, amended. Section 2.02.030. Definitions: The following definitions shall be used for the purposes of interpreting the provisions of this ordinance: Page 1 of 5 Ordinance No. 3519 (a) "County candidate" means any person who is a candidate for a county office as defined in section (d) below. (b) "County measure" means any local measure placed on the ballot by the County of Marin in an election which is governed by the Elections Code.. (c) "County election" means any primary, general, runoff, special or recall election. (d) "County office" means the office of county supervisor, assessor-recorder, auditor- controller, county clerk, treasurer-tax collector, district attorney, sheriff, and coroner. (e) "Elective county officer" means any member of the board of supervisors, the assessor-recorder, auditor-controller, county clerk, treasurer-tax collector, district attorney, sheriff, or coroner, whether appointed or elected. (f) "Individual" means a living person contributing funds. (g) "Independent Expenditure" means an expenditure made by any person or committee in connection with a communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or the qualification, passage or defeat of a clearly identified measure, or taken as a whole and in context, unambiguously urges a particular result in an election but which is not made to or at the behest of the affected candidate or committee. Section 2.02.040. Reporting of Independent Expenditures: (a) Disclosure of Payments for Independent Expenditures shall be as follows: (1) At any time, any person, including any committee, that makes or incurs independent expenditures that combine to $1,000 or more in support of or in opposition to any candidate for elective County office or any County measure as defined herein shall report to the Marin County Registrar of Voters office within twenty-four (24) hours by certified mail, fax or e-mail each time this threshold is reached. The form of notification is described in subsection (a) (2) and (a) (3) of this section. Additionally, all contributions of $100 or more shall be itemized in the report and shall be posted with the report immediately to the County's website. (2) The notification shall consist of a declaration made under penalty of perjury and signed by the person or officer and the treasurer of the group making the expenditure, specifying the following: (i) if applicable, each candidate who was supported or opposed by the expenditure; (ii) the amount spent to support or oppose each candidate or measure; (iii) if applicable, whether the measure was supported or opposed; and, (iv) the expenditure was not behested by the candidate or candidates who benefited from the expenditure. (3) In addition, the notification will include the date and amount of the payment, a description of the type of communication for which the payment was made or incurred, the name and address of the person making the payment, the name and address of the payee or committee, and a copy of the mailing or advertisement, or a copy of the script or recording of the call, transmission, or advertisement. The Marin County Registrar of Voters shall determine the reporting form to fulfill the notification requirement, Page 2 of 5 Ordinance No 3519 Section 2.02.050. Additional Requirements for Campaign Communications Funded By Independent Expenditures (a) Campaign communications funded by an independent expenditure supporting or opposing County candidates or County measures shall include the following disclosures: "This communication was not authorized by candidate _(name)_ for _(office)_" or "_(name) initiative proponent". (b) Campaign communications funded by an independent expenditure supporting or opposing County candidates or County measures shall include the names of the three largest contributors of $2,000 or more listed in order of their contribution amounts (the largest contributor listed first), city and state of residence. In the event that more than three donors meet this disclosure threshold at identical contribution levels, the first three highest shall be selected according to chronological sequence. If the committee can show, on the basis that contributions are spent in the order they are received, that one or more of the contributions received from the three highest contributors have been used for expenditures unrelated to the candidate or ballot measure featured in the communication, the committee shall disclose the contributors making the next largest cumulative contribution of $2,000 or more. The communication shall further include the following: "Additional information regarding the contributors of $100 or more to this committee can be found at www.marinvotes.org." The disclosure required by this section shall be presented in a clear and conspicuous manner as to give the reader, observer or listener adequate notice as follows: (1) For printed campaign communications that measure no more than twenty-four inches by thirty-six inches, all disclosure statements required by this section shall be printed using a typeface that is easily legible to an average reader or viewer, but is not less than 10 point type in contrasting color to the background on which it appears.. For oversize printed campaign communications, all disclosure statements shall constitute at feast five percent of the height of the material and be printed in contrasting color. (2) For video broadcasts including television, satellite, internet, telephone and cable campaign communications, the information shall be both written and spoken either at the beginning or at the end of the communication, except that if the disclosure statement is written for at least five seconds of a broadcast of thirty seconds or less or ten seconds of a sixty second broadcast, a spoken disclosure statement is not required. The written disclosure statement shall be of sufficient size to be readily legible to an average viewer and air for not less than five seconds. (3) For audio, telephone call or radio advertisement campaign communications, the disclosures shall be spoken in a clearly audible manner at the same speed and volume as the rest of the telephone call or radio advertisement at the beginning or end of the communication and shall last at least three seconds. The requirement shall be satisfied by using the words "on behalf of immediately followed by the name of the candidate or committee that pays for the communications. Page 3 of 5 Ordinance No 3519 (c) For purposes of this section, "campaign communication" includes any of the following campaign related items: (1) More than 200 substantially similar pieces of campaign literature distributed within a calendar month, including but not limited to mailers, flyers, facsimiles, pamphlets, door hangers, e-mails, campaign buttons 10 inches in diameter or larger, and bumper stickers 60 square inches or larger; (2) Posters, yard or street signs, billboards, super-graphic signs and similar items; (3) Television, cable, satellite and radio broadcasts; (4) Newspaper, magazine, internet website banners and similar advertisements; or, (5) 200 or more substantially similar live or recorded telephone calls made within a calendar month. (d) For purposes of this section, "campaign communication" does not include: small promotional items such as pens, pencils, clothing, mugs, potholders, skywriting or other items on which the statement required by this section can not be reasonably printed or displayed in an easily legible typeface; communications paid for by a newspaper, radio station, television station or other recognized news medium; and communications from an organization to its members other than a communication from a political party to its members. Section 2.02.060. Enforcement of Chapter (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Marin County Code, any person who knowingly violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be liable as set forth in Section 1.04.270. (b) In addition to the penalty set forth in subsection (a) of this section, any person who intentionally or negligently violates any section of this chapter shall be subject to an administrative fine for a sum of $5,000 for each violation, or up to 3 times the amount of the communication, whichever is greater. In imposing the administrative fine, the Registrar of Voters shall issue a notification of violation setting forth the violation and the amount of the fine. (c) Any person subject to an administrative fine pursuant to subsection (b) of this section shall have the right to request an administrative hearing within forty-five days of the issuance of a citation for a civil violation of this chapter pursuant to the authority granted to the board of supervisors by Government Code Section 25845, subdivision (1). To request such a hearing, the person requesting the hearing shall notify the Marin County Administrator's office in writing within forty-five days of the issuance of the citation. The Marin County Administrators office shall refer any request for a hearing to an administrative law judge. The administrative law judge shall conduct an evidentiary hearing on the matter within ninety days of the request for the hearing unless one of the parties requests a continuance for good cause. The administrative law judge shall render a decision within thirty days of the conclusion of the hearing. Either party may appeal the decision of the administrative law judge pursuant to the requirements set forth below in subsection (d). Page 4 of 5 ordinance No 3519 (d) The person upon whom a civil fine is imposed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section may appeal the decision of the administrative law judge. The county may also appeal the decision of the administrative law judge.. No appeal can lie unless the party filing the appeal has first properly requested and obtained a hearing as set forth under subsection (c) of this section. The appeal must be filed within twenty days after service of the final decision issued by the administrative law judge pursuant to California Government Code Section 53069.4, subdivision (b).. The procedures outlined in Government Code 53069.4 shall apply. (Ord. 3462 § 1 (part), 2006) Section 2.02.070. Severability and Preemption If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are severable. The civil fines and fees imposed by this chapter do not preclude other potential civil actions or criminal prosecution under any other provision of law. Section 2.02.080. Enforcement of Chapter This ordinance shall be and is hereby declared to be in full force and effect as of thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage and shall be published once before the expiration of fifteen days after its passage, with the names of the supervisors voting for and against the same, in the MARIN INDEPENDENT .JOURNAL, a newspaper of general circulation published in the county of Marin. (Ord. 3462 § 1 (part), 2006) PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin held on this 2nd day of June, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: SUPERVISORS Susan L. Adams, Steve Kinsey, Charles McGiashan, Judy Arnold, Harold C. Brown, Jr. NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE PRESIDENT, BOA 54F SUPERVISORS ATTEST: CLERK Page 5 of 5 Ordinance No. 3519 ii[LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MARIN COUNTY FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES PLEDGE* I BELIEVE: • Voters benefit when candidates discuss the issues rather than engage in personal attacks. • Negative campaign tactics distort the truth and increase voter apathy. • Negative campaign tactics damage the election process and, ultimately, our democratic system of government. • Negative campaigning discourages qualified people from running for public office. THEREFORE I PLEDGE: • that my campaign for public office will be free of misrepresentations of the facts or of the positions or arguments of opposing candidates, without giving up the right to fairly criticize the records, policies, positions, statements, or tactics of the opposing candidates. • that my campaign will be free of statements that are misleading because of omission of the essential facts or of inferences that are not true. • that my campaign will be free of personal character attacks, whispering campaigns and anonymous mailers, emails or telephone calls. • that my campaign will be free of appeals to negative prejudices based on race, gender, religion, national origin, physical health, age or sexual orientation. • that my campaign will immediately and publicly repudiate any methods, tactics or statements against a candidate by groups supporting my candidacy that are not in accord with these guidelines. • that my campaign will identify those responsible for my campaign advertising and literature. Signature Date *Based on the California Fair Campaign Practices Code. The names of elected officials and candidates signing the pledge will be publicized through the League of Women Voters Marin County's media outreach. Please sign and mail the pledge to League of Women Voters of Marin County, 4340 Redwood Highway, Suite F 108, San Rafael, CA 94903 CC-/ TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Frederic ca led the gular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesd , July 1, 2009, Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Berger, Collins, Fredericks, Slavitz, Gram Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Administrative Services Bigall, IT Coordinator Monterichard, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi Prior to the regular meeting, the Council met in closed session, beginning at 6:00 p.m., to discuss the following: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Section 54956.9(a)) Bonander, et al. v. Town of Tiburon Town of Tiburon v. All Persons Interested, etc. Mostyn v. Town of Tiburon et al. Sylvia v. Town of Tiburon; Town of Tiburon v. Sylvia Esposito/Malasky v. Town of Tiburon CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Section 54956.9(b)) Martha Company LIABILITY CLAIMS (Section 54956.95) Name of Claimant: Bob Schoenfeld Agency claimed against: Town of Tiburon DRAFT Town Council Minutes #10 -2009 July 1, 2009 Page I ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY Mayor Fredericks said that there was no action taken in closed session to report. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. PRESENTATION Update on Marin Energy Authority - (Dawn Weisz) Ms. Weisz gave a powerpoint presentation and oral report to the Council to bring them up to date on actions taken by the Marin Emergency Authority (MEA) and related news. She said that an RFP had been issued by the authority in May to interested power suppliers. Responses to the RFP were due in the Fall, according to Weisz, at which time MEA would begin developing contracts. The earliest date for provision of service by the authority would be Spring 2010. She said that it was still to be determined if the Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) portion of the project would move forward. Vice Mayor Berger asked whether PG&E would respond to the RFP. Ms. Weisz said that they had told MEA that they were not interested in responding. In other news, Ms. Weisz said that MEA was well positioned to develop grant proposals through the Federal Recovery Act (stimulus package) which encouraged renewable energy. She said examples of the grants being sought by the authority were for solar panel installations on carports and other structures. She said that ABAG was developing a (solar energy) program for private homeowners, to use property taxes to fund solar installations, and that there was also a model called SEED (Solar Energy Efficiency District) that had been successful in Palm Desert. These districts provide private funding for solar installations, according to Weisz. She said that three local banks in Marin were interested in this type of investment. Ms. Weisz described the governance of MEA through its nine-member board, and said that recruitment of an Executive Director would move forward later in the year if the CCA program moved forward. Weisz reported that the cities of Novato, Larkspur, and Corte Madera had not joined the Marin Energy Authority Joint Powers Agency. When asked why by the Council, she replied that she thought it was a result of confusion and misinformation about certain issues. She said that one area of misinformation had to do with the perceived liability that might be borne by the cities if they joined. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #10 -2009 July 1, 2009 Page 2 Mayor Fredericks asked Ms. Weisz to comment on the liability issue. Ms. Weisz said that the joint powers authority had been developed with a "firewall" protection between the energy service providers and the cities. She said that legal counsel had written this into the agreement, but that it was also State law, that the debts and liabilities of the JPA were not those of the cities. She said that the indemnification language was clear. She also noted that one test (court) case had upheld this opinion. Weisz said that the rate payers were ultimately responsible for the debts and liabilities of the MEA. She said one example of this was the bankruptcy of PG&E and the passing on of the costs of reorganizing to the rate payers. Councilmember Collins asked about the risk of long-term contracts, for instance, if 100,000 rate payers out of an initial 200,000 "opted out" of CCA to go back to PG&E. He asked how these contracts would be paid if there were not enough rate payers to absorb the costs. Ms. Weisz said that the energy service provider (ESP) would wait until the "opt out" period was over before buying up all its sources *of energy. Collins asked what would happen if this occurred after the lock-in period. Weisz said that the CPUC was exploring all aspects of this question. She said that what was clear is that PG&E is the provider of last resort, and must take back customers, but said that a bond would need to be set aside for contingencies at the beginning of the CCA operation for its protection. Councilmember Slavitz asked about the failure of a CCA in the East Bay. Ms. Weisz said that it was not a failure; rather, she said the authority determined that the start-up costs for the CCA were too high and chose not to move forward. She said this was a result of a different customer base than MEA's, a different business plan, etc. She said that it was not due to the liability issue. Councilmember Slavitz noted that the San Joaquin power authority was also pulling out of the CCA. Ms. Weisz acknowledged that this was so and said that this was a result of the inability to reach agreement on the liability language in the contract with PG&E. She said that PG&E had required "joint and several" liability in its contract which was a deal breaker. She said that the San Joaquin authority only had one supplier and that the supplier could not guarantee a rate of return (5%) that was acceptable to the authority. Weisz said that the MEA was seeking at "at or below" [PG&E] rate of return from its suppliers. She added that the Board would determine the final rates of return based upon the bids received. Ms. Weisz said the Board had two committees-an Executive and Technical Committee. She said the Technical Committee was comprised of people with great depth of experience in the technical, legal and finance areas of energy. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #10 -2009 July 1, 2009 Page 3 Councilmember Collins asked whether PG&E had entered into some sort of agreement with the City of Larkspur. Ms. Weisz said that PG&E was offering a "partnership" with the city; she said that a similar proposal had been circulated to the County of Marin last year. She said this agreement offered to help pay for certain staff positions, and that there had been discussion of "green tariffs" at a 10-15% premium rate for 100% participation. Mayor Fredericks asked how this would work, and whether a customer could buy energy solely from renewable sources. Ms. Weisz said that it would not be a direct purchase, but would be similar to buying a carbon offset, or credit, to fund new, renewable sources of energy. Council asked about the "off-ramps" to participation in Community Choice Aggregation (CCA). Ms. Weisz said that theoretically the CCA program would not move forward if there was a lack of bids or contracts for energy suppliers. She said that before the year end, each participating Council would vote whether or not to sign the CCA contract(s). Councilmember Slavitz asked if that meant a city would opt out of all the MEA programs, not just CCA. Ms. Weisz said that was correct, that the JPA was set up this way in order to preserve the integrity of the decision-making body. However, she said that alternatives were being explored, along the lines of a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement like the Marin Map, in which the JEPA charged a fee for service which would remain in effect even if the agency (city) pulled out. Councilmember (and Tiburon MEA Boardmember) Collins pointed out another off-ramp: He said that ratepayers could pull out even if an agency did or did not pull out. Slavitz asked whether the CCA program was still being funded by the County of Marin. Ms. Weisz said that of the initial $500,000 promised by the County, $330,000 had been allocated. She said that MEA would ask for more funding in August to continue exploring CCA. Vice Mayor Berger asked whether the state budget crisis affected the programs in any way. Ms. Weisz said that County funds were not general fund expenditures and that most of the grant funding received was federal. Slavitz commented about a newspaper article concerning home windmills for energy production. Ms. Weisz said that they were not as efficient as the "big" windmills (that can produce up to two megawatts of power) but said hat they were now available to homeowners, and were popular in places like Germany. She said that SEED programs could be used to underwrite windmills, as well as solar panels, and that the County was looking at its codes to accommodate this kind of installation. The Council thanked Ms. Weisz for her report. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #10 -2009 July 1, 2009 Page 4 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of June 17, 2009 meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. Paradise Drive Prezoning Project - Adoption of Ordinance Prezoning Unincorporated Territory in the Paradise Drive Area of the Tiburon Planning Area near the Southeastern end of the Tiburon Peninsula (Director of Community Development Anderson) 3. Heritage & Arts Commission Annual Report - Accept report (Town Manager Curran) 4. Town Investment Summary - Accept May 2009 report (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 4, above. Moved: Slavitz, seconded by Berger Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSTAIN: Gram (June 17 minutes) TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Fredericks noted the upcoming League of California Cities "summit" on governance and reform which will take place in Sacramento on July 16 & 17. She said that she was planning to attend and could represent the Town; however, she asked if anyone else was interested in serving as a delegate to the meeting. There were no volunteers. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT Town Manager Curran reported receipt of a $314,000 grant from TAM for the improvements to the Lyford Drive parking area. She said that the project would be coming to Council for approval in the future. In addition, Curran said that a $35,000 grant for vegetation management (Prop. 84 funds) had been received. Both this and the previous grant resulted from applications submitted by Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen on behalf of the Town. The Town Manager also said Director Bigall had applied for and received a $5,000 California Waste Management grant for recycling and related programs for the Town. Ms. Curran said that as a result of a recent mailer, there had been a 73% increase in the subscribership to the Town's electronic newsletter, Tiburon Talk. She said that many of the respondents had also sent in requests for a paper copy of the newsletter, as well as supplying the town with their emergency contact information. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #10 -2009 July 1, 2009 Page 5 Mayor Fredericks asked if this information would interface with the MEANS emergency notification system. Town Manager Curran said that the information provided was being entered into the MEANS database; she also said that the TENS system was still in place, that is, the system that automatically dials numbers in a specific geographic area when there is an emergency. WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digest - June 19, 2009 • Town Council Weekly Digest - June 26, 2009 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fredericks adjourned the meeting at 8:33p.m. ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK DRAFT Town Council Minutes #10 -2009 July 1, 2009 Page 6 ,~~c ~ TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Fredericl e lar meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesda , July 15, 2009 'n Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CAT,T. PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Berger, Collins, Fredericks, Gram Slavitz Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Director of Community Development Anderson, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen, Police Lieutenant Hutton, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi Prior to the regular meeting, the Council met in closed session, beginning at 7:00 p.m., to discuss the following: CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Section 54956.9(b)) Martha Company ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY Mayor Fredericks said there was nothing to announce. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS David Barker, Lagoon View Drive, asked the Council for a clearer schedule and more public outreach concerning the Marin Energy Authority. He said that he had attended the initial hearing on the matter, in which the Council was told that there would be a number of "off ramps" and that there would be a lot of opportunity for public input. He said that there had been very little discussion since that time. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #11 -2009 July 15, 2009 Page I Mr. Barker said that he had attended the June 17 Council meeting, in which an MEA presentation was scheduled, and was told that the matter would be continued until the July 15 meeting. Now, he said he discovered that the presentation had actually taken place on July 1. Mr. Barker said that he continued to have concerns about the undertaking. He said that he had been to the MEA website and had discovered that that an RFP had been sent out. He said that he thought there should be adequate review of the proposal and that the concept of entering the energy market entailed considerable risk. Mr. Barker told the Council that since the ratepayers would only have an "opt out" instead of "opt in" decision, it placed even more of a burden on the Council to make sure that the public was informed. Councilmember Collins, Town Council representative to MEA, invited Mr. Barker to attend the public board meetings and technical advisory committee meetings. Mayor Fredericks also invited Mr. Barker to visit the Town's website to look for agenda items pertaining to MEA. Mr. Barker said That he had done that. Town Manager Curran said that there had been some rescheduling of agenda items and said that she regretted that Mr. Barker did not know of the July 1 presentation date. PRESENTATION Street Smarts Marin Program - (Deborah Cole, Parisi Associates) Ms. Cole said that "Street Smarts Marin" was a traffic-calming program that had been introduced in eight cities and towns in Marin and was made available through funding from the Transportation Authority of Marin, in connection with the Safe Routes to School and Non- Motorized Transportation programs. Ms.Cole said the program consisted of placing signs and banners on school properties and public roadways. She showed some slides of actual sign installations with messages that target certain "bad behaviors"-speeding, red light running, right of way violations, and distracted drivers, as well as violations of rules of the road by bicyclists. She said that Street Smarts Marin was a "social change" program, and not unlike the changes surrounding the introduction of seat belts and recycling. She said that the idea was to raise awareness in the first year, to influence behavior in the second year, and to change behavior in the third. Ms. Cole said the program had started in Corte Madera, Larkspur, and Mill Valley, and would expand to Ross Valley, Tiburon and Belvedere in the Summer of 2009. She said that all of the schools in Tiburon would receive banners for placement on their properties, in time for the start DRAFT Town Council Minutes #11 -2009 July 15, 2009 Page 2 of the new school year in August. She said the program would run from August 24 through October 8, 2009, and possibly again in the spring. Ms. Cole asked for questions and comments from the Council. Mayor Fredericks commented that she had some banners she had seen in other jurisdictions sometimes came loose and flapped in the wind. She also said that there seemed to be too much information on some of the signs to read. She also said that the message especially needed in Tiburon was to encourage bicyclists to "share the road" with pedestrians. Ms. Cole said the Tiburon Public Works and Police Departments had offered valuable input into the local implementation. She also commented that there was a specific sign for bicycle awareness that stated, "Same Road/Same Rules" to get the message across that bicyclists need to follow the same rules of the road (as drivers of cars) and yield to pedestrians. Town Manager Curran asked if there had been any "backlash" in other communities to the proliferation of signs ( "sign pollution") and whether people were aware that their placement was temporary. Ms. Cole said that the signs had been favorably received; she also said that the program was flexible in nature and that the signs could be taken down at the request of the Town. Mayor Fredericks asked if anyone from the public wanted to comment. There was no public comment. The Council thanked Ms. Cole for her presentation. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 2008-09 Streets Improvement Project - Approve award of contract for 2008-09 Streets Improvement Project to Ghilotti Bros., Inc. (Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen) 2. Street Smarts Marin Program - Approve implementation of program (Department of Public Works) 3. Revisions to MCSTOPPP JEPA - Approve updated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) for the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) and authorize execution (Department of Public Works/Office of the Town Attorney) 4. Tribute to Amy Belser - Approve tribute to retiring Sausalito City Councilmember Amy Belser (Town Manager Curran) DRAFT Town Council Minutes #11 -2009 July 15, 2009 Page 3 MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 4, above. Moved: Berger, seconded by Gram Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Slavitz ACTION ITEMS 1. League of California Cities - Consider appointment of delegates to represent the Town of Tiburon at the following conferences: a) Local Government Summit on Governance and Fiscal Reform (Sacramento) - July 17- 1852009; b) League of California Cities Annual Conference (San Jose) - September 16-18, 2009 Town Clerk Iacopi gave the report concerning appointment of Town delegates to two upcoming League events. MOTION: To appoint Alice Fredericks as delegate to the Local Government Summit. Moved: Berger, seconded by Gram Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Slavitz MOTION: To appoint Miles Berger as voting delegate to the League Annual Conference. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Collins Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Slavitz MOTION: To appoint Alice Fredericks as the alternate voting delegate to the League Annual Conference. Moved: Gram, seconded by Collins Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Slavitz PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Cypress Hollow Landscape & Lighting District (LLD) - Consider protests and adoption of resolution for continuation of the assessment for Cypress Hollow LLD (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) Director of Administrative Services Bigall gave the report. She said that assessment notices had been mailed to all property owners in the Cypress Hollow Landscape & Lighting District and that to date, no written protests had been received. She noted that the Town had not raised the levy since 1999. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #11 -2009 July 15, 2009 Page 4 Ms. Bigall recommended that the Mayor open the public hearing, hear any public protests, and consider adoption of the resolution to continue the Town's administration of the district. Mayor Fredericks opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. Mayor Fredericks closed the public hearing. MOTION: To adopt resolution continuing the Cypress Hollow LLD for FY 2009-10. Moved: Gram, seconded by Berger Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Slavitz TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS None. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT • Request from Golden Gate Bridge & Highway Transportation District and Blue and Gold Ferry for Letter to California PUC regarding Sausalito ferry service Town Manager Curran circulated a draft letter she had prepared for the PUC which discussed the potential impacts of disruption of ferry service to the Town if Red & White fleet took over the Sausalito run from Blue & Gold, and requesting an opportunity for public input. Council concurred with the idea advanced by Blue & Gold and others of requesting more time to consider the application, and a public hearing on the matter. In addition, Councilmember Gram suggested that mention be made in the Town's letter of the Red & White petition to take over the Alcatraz run from Blue & Gold Fleet several years ago, to address the issue of potential "cherry picking" of routes and resulting impact. WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digest - July 3, 2009 • Town Council Weekly Digest - July 10, 2009 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fredericks adjourned the meeting at 8:03 p.m. in honor of Ark editor and long-time Belvedere resident, Barbara Gnoss. ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR DRAFT Town Council Minutes #11 -2009 July 15, 2009 Page 5 ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK DRAFT Town Council Minutes #11 -2009 July 15, 2009 Page 6 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Mayor and Members of the Town Council Office of the Town Attorney Town Council Meeting August 5, 2009 Agenda Item: C,._11 3 C Recommendation to Approve Response to Grand Jury Report Marin County Major Crimes Task Force On June 3, 2009, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury issued a report entitled "Saving Marin's Major Crimes Task Force." The report describes the history and accomplishments of the Task Force. The report further describes the challenge of staffing and funding the Task Force in the current economic climate. The report recommends that the Sheriff's Department, the California Highway Patrol and the San Rafael and Novato Police Departments provide investigators for the unit and that the County and all Marin municipalities fund the Task Force pursuant to the joint powers agreement that created it. ANALYSIS The Report concludes with eight findings and three recommendations. The Grand Jury has requested that Marin cities and towns each respond to Findings 1 through 7 and Recommendations 1 and 2. Under State law,' the Town Council must review and approve the responses, which are due to back to the Grand Jury on or before September 3, 2009. 1. Grand Jury Findings. Under § 933.05 of the Penal Code, the Town is required to either state that it (a) agrees with the finding; or (b) disagrees wholly or partially with the finding. In the latter case, we must include an explanation of the portion of the finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons therefore. The draft letter, attached as Exhibit A, sets forth the Town's proposed responses to each finding. The Town agrees with most of the findings, at least insofar as they pertain to the Town and/or come within staff's knowledge. Finding 1: This finding states that the Marin Major Crimes Task Force ("Task Force") has been in successful operation since 1977, focusing in recent years on drug-related crimes in the county. The Town partially agrees with this statement. The report documents the initiation and recent i See Cal. Penal Code § 933. focus of the Task Force and provides statistics as to the results. However, the report does not provide a context for these results, thus the Town cannot determine the extent to which the Task Force has reduced overall crime in the county. Finding 2: This finding describes the Task Force's historical and current funding and staffing sources. Based on the info-nation in the report, the Town agrees with this finding. Finding 3: This finding states that law enforcement officials believe that half of all property crimes committed in Marin are attributable to the sale and use of drugs. Based on the information in the report, the Town agrees with this finding. Finding 4: This finding states that cities are having increasing difficulty funding the Task Force, with San Rafael having withdrawn its financial support and Novato announcing its planned withdrawal. Based on the information in the report, the Town partially agrees with this finding. According to page 1 of the report, Novato has reconsidered its withdrawal. Finding 5: This finding states that the withdrawal of Task Force funding by communities would impede drug enforcement in Marin County. Based on the information in the report, the Town agrees with this finding. Finding 6: This finding states that the Task Force is a much-needed unit that benefits the entire county. Based on the information in the report, the Town agrees with this finding. Finding 7: This finding states that the reduction in the number of sheriff's deputies and the inclusion of investigators from other agencies, as well as the California Highway Patrol would provide a sound solution to the funding issue. Based on the information in the report, the Town partially disagrees with this finding. This solution would reduce the financial burden of the Task Force on the sheriff's office by shifting costs to the CHP and other agencies. However, it would not reduce the overall cost of the Task Force. Accordingly, it would not solve the funding issue for those participating agencies that are already having trouble staffing and funding the Task Force. The Grand Jury has not asked the Town to respond to any other findings. 2. Grand Jury Recommendations. In responding to the Grand Jury's Recommendations, Penal Code § 933.05 requires the Town to report one of the following actions: (a) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (b) The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timetable for implementation. 4 ~ -y (c) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury Report. (d) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. o Recommendation 1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Task Force continue to function, with investigators being supplied from the Sheriff's Department, the CHP, the Novato Police Department, the San Rafael Police Department and supplemented by the three-member probation enforcement team. The Town will not implement this recommendation because it is not reasonable. The Town has no power to require the named law enforcement agencies to supply investigators to the Task Force, nor does the Town have personnel available to provide to the three-member probation team. o Recommendation 2: The Grand Jury recommends that the County and all municipalities support the Task Force by funding the joint powers agreement. The Town has implemented this recommendation. The Town's budget for fiscal year 2009-2010 includes $48,500 to support the Task Force. The Grand Jury has not asked the Town to respond to any other recommendations. RECOMMENDATION The Town Council should review and approve the Town's proposed response to the Grand Jury's Report of June 3, 2009. EXHIBITS Proposed Response to Grand Jury Report Grand Jury Report of June 3, 2009 Prepared By: Ann R. Danforth, Town Attorney Office of the Town Manager (415) 435-7383 August 6, 2009 The Honorable Verna Adams Mr. Jeff Skov, Foreperson Marin County Superior Court Marin County Grand Jury Post Office Box 4988 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275 San Rafael, CA 94913-4988 San Rafael, CA 94903 Re: Response to Grand Jury Report April 13, 2009 Marin's Homeless Dear Honorable Judge Adams and Mr. Skov: This letter explains in detail the Town of Tiburon's response to the Grand Jury Report dated April 13, 2009. The Report directs the Town to respond to Findings Nos. 1 - 7 and Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2. These findings and recommendations involve a number of agencies other than the Town. The Town does not have sufficient information to evaluate the Report's accuracy with respect to these other jurisdictions. The Findings also 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. Lastly, the Recommendations require action by agencies and individuals that are outside the Town's control. Accordingly, this letter is intended only to apply to the Report's recommendations insofar as they pertain to the Town. FINDINGS Finding 1: This finding states that the Marin Major Crimes Task Force ("Task Force") has been in successful operation since 1977, focusing in recent years on drug-related crimes in the county. The Town partially agrees with this statement. The report documents the initiation and recent focus of the Task Force and provides statistics as to the results. However, the report does not provide a context for these results, thus the Town cannot determine the extent to which the Task Force has reduced overall crime in the county. Finding 2: This finding describes the Task Force's historical and current funding and staffing sources. Based on the information in the report, the Town agrees with this finding. Response to Grand Jury August 6, 2009 Page 2 of 3 Finding 3: This finding states that law enforcement officials believe that half of all property crimes committed in Marin are attributable to the sale and use of drugs. Based on the information in the report, the Town agrees with this finding. Finding 4: This finding states that cities are having increasing difficulty funding the Task Force, with San Rafael having withdrawn its financial support and Novato announcing its planned withdrawal. Based on the information in the report, the Town partially agrees with this finding. According to page 1 of the report, Novato has reconsidered its withdrawal. Finding 5: This finding states that the withdrawal of Task Force funding by communities would impede drug enforcement in Marin County. Based on the information in the report, the Town agrees with this finding. Finding 6: This finding states that the Task Force is a much-needed unit that benefits the entire county. Based on the information in the report, the Town agrees with this finding. Finding 7: This finding states that the reduction in the number of sheriff's deputies and the inclusion of investigators from other agencies, as well as the California Highway Patrol would provide a sound solution to the funding issue. Based on the information in the report, the Town partially disagrees with this finding. This solution would reduce the financial burden of the Task Force on the sheriff's office by shifting costs to the CHP and other agencies. However, it would not reduce the overall cost of the Task Force. Accordingly, it would not solve the funding issue for those participating agencies that are already having trouble funding the Task Force. The Grand Jury has not asked the Town to respond to any other findings. RECOMMENDATIONS • Recommendation 1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Task Force continue to function, with investigators being supplied from the Sheriff s Department, the CHP, the Novato Police Department, the San Rafael Police Department and supplemented by the three-member probation enforcement team. The Town will not implement this recommendation because it is not reasonable. The Town has no power to require the named law enforcement agencies to supply Response to Grand Jury August 6, 2009 Page 3 of 3 investigators to the Task Force, nor does the Town have personnel available to provide to the three-member probation team. • Recommendation 2: The Grand Jury recommends that the County and all municipalities support the Task Force by funding the joint powers agreement. The Town has implemented this recommendation. The Town's budget for fiscal year 2009-2010 includes $48,500 to support the Task Force. The Grand Jury has not asked the Town to respond to any other recommendations. The Tiburon Town Council reviewed and approved this response on August 5, 2009 at a duly noticed and agendized public meeting. If you have further questions on these responses, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, MARGARET A. CURRAN Town Manager cc: Town Council Town Attorney Town Director of Community Development 2008-2009 MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY Saving Marin's Major Crimes Task Force June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury SUMMARY For more than 30 years, the Marin Major Crimes Task Force has worked as a specialized undercover unit comprised of highly trained investigators who focus on drug-related crimes throughout the county. The Task Force assists local law enforcement agencies in major investigations and arrests. The results of its investigations are impressive. In 2007 and 2008, the Task Force made 119 arrests and seized drugs with a street value of $8.5 million. It confiscated handguns, rifles, shotguns and automatic weapons, along with approximately $451,000 in suspected drug money. Law enforcement officials are convinced that reducing drug traffic in the county also reduces property crimes such as burglaries of homes, stores, cars and schools. They believe about half of these crimes are drug-related. Funding of the Task Force is accomplished through a joint powers agreement between the county and its municipalities, and is supplemented by a share of funds from property seized during drug arrests. When the Grand Jury began looking into the operation of the Task Force in the fall of 2008, there was a distinct possibility that the unit might be disbanded or severely cut in size. The City of Novato was facing a budget crisis and had decided to withdraw in order to cut costs. San Rafael had withdrawn its support in 2003 for similar reasons. Without funding from the two largest cities in the county, costs for the remaining communities would be prohibitive. In recent years, the Task Force has included six investigators, a field supervisor and a lieutenant, all supplied by the Sheriffs Department. The staffing has been supplemented by an independently funded three-member probation enforcement team that monitors high-risk narcotics offenders who are on probation. That team includes one sheriff's sergeant, one deputy sheriff and a San Rafael police officer. Recently the Sheriff has proposed reducing the number of Task Force members his department contributes. Additionally, Novato has reconsidered its withdrawal from the Task Force and plans to assign a police officer to the unit. Novato's participation is subject to city council approval. The Sheriff proposes to reduce his department's staffing by two investigators and one sergeant. He suggests that the investigators be replaced by one officer supplied by the California Highway Patrol and another by the Novato Police Department. These steps would result in a 9 percent reduction in the current costs for the balance of fiscal year 2009 and a 38 percent reduction in costs for all jurisdictions for the new fiscal year, which begins July 1, 2009. June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 1 of 10 Saving Marin's Major Crimes Task Force Additionally, the City of San Rafael has been crunching the numbers to determine if it could contribute an investigator and financial support to the unit. If it did contribute, the Task Force would require less funding by the other municipalities and the county. In April 2009, the county-wide committee that oversees the Task Force approved the Sheriff's plan, which now needs to be approved by members of the joint powers agreement. Those approvals should be acted upon before the start of the new fiscal year on July 1, 2009. The Grand Jury recommends that the cities, towns and County of Marin move forward with these proposals to reorganize the Task Force and reduce its cost while maintaining the essential elements of its drug-fighting mission. The San Rafael Chief of Police has told the City Council that he cannot spare an officer for the Task Force and that, if the city were to rejoin the joint powers agreement, its contribution should be purely financial. The Grand Jury believes that the City of San Rafael, by not participating in the-Task Force joint powers agreement, is not fulfilling its responsibility in the overall major crime-fighting effort in the county. As it stands now, San Rafael benefits from the efforts of the Task Force without contributing its share. BACKGROUND The Major Crimes Task Force was formed in 1977 at the recommendation of the Marin County Police Chiefs' Association. It was a cooperative effort linking Marin's I I municipalities and the county in a joint powers agreement to provide a central investigative unit capable of crossing jurisdictional boundaries in the detection, apprehension and prosecution of highly mobile criminals. The Task Force was intended to supplement the efforts of local law enforcement by providing expertise, investigative assistance and the ability to conduct undercover operations. The Task Force works under the direction of an oversight committee comprised of city managers, county officials, police chiefs and an appointed citizen. The committee meets quarterly. Prior to July 1993, officers from the various participating agencies staffed the Task Force. Since then, it has been staffed exclusively by sheriff s personnel. Salaries of Task Force personnel are funded by participating municipalities and the county based on a formula keyed to population and assessed values of property. For example, Novato in 2008 provided $193,849 while Fairfax provided $25,738. The size of the Task Force has fluctuated over time, but typically it has averaged five to six investigators, a sergeant and a lieutenant. Representatives from the California Highway Patrol and federal agencies have been added when needed. June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 2 of 10 Saving Marin's Major Crimes Task Force The focus of the Task Force over the years has evolved to narcotics investigations because, as one Task Force member said, "Drugs are a fundamental part of most criminal behavior, and our quality of life is impacted by drug-related crime." He said that all neighborhoods are affected by the drug trade, adding, "Drug users need money for their habit and frequently will focus on the more affluent neighborhoods to commit burglary, auto theft and robberies." METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury interviewed sheriffs personnel, chiefs of police, mayors and members of the oversight committee. Members of the Grand Jury rode with Task Force investigators to observe their operations. The Grand Jury searched the Internet and local newspapers for articles to track Task Force operations, major cases and arrests, and drew upon the statistical information regarding criminal activity from local law enforcement agencies. DISCUSSION The objectives of the Task Force are to: • Provide investigative assistance to local law enforcement agencies. • Coordinate drug enforcement investigations with local, state and federal agencies. • Reduce drug trafficking by targeting dealers and suppliers. • Detect, apprehend and prosecute individuals involved in major crimes. The mission of the Task Force is to ensure "that the citizens of Marin shall live in a narcotic-free community." Financial contributions from the county and municipalities pay for the operation of the Task Force. Fifty percent comes from the county, and 50 percent from other participating jurisdictions. In fiscal year 2009, the total amounted to $1.2 million, an increase of approximately $100,000 from the previous fiscal year. Some of the operating costs are funded by seized assets of those arrested in drug-related investigations. The Marin Superior Court determines whether seized assets and property can be turned over to the Task Force. State law allows some money and property seized in drug investigations to be turned over to law enforcement agencies for use in crime-fighting activities. Some of the qualifying offenses include possession of narcotics for sale, sales and transport of narcotics and manufacturing of drugs. Monies are distributed only after a conviction for a qualifying offense, and if a judge orders the distribution. Should a case be settled for a non- qualifying charge or if there is no conviction, the assets must be returned. In some years, seized assets were a key aspect of the funding of the Task Force. Generally, however they have been an unreliable source. Forfeiture funds distributed to the Task Force totaled $27,809 in 2006 and $1,011 in 2007. June 3, 2009 Mann County Civil Grand Jury Page 3 of 10 Saving Marin's Major Crimes Task Force The following chart shows how asset forfeiture funds have fluctuated from year to year: tide as 1999 2) 4 $ 1,750 42- - 2001 17 7 5,958 22 : 14 56, 2003 3 7 8 675308 200 µ . 2 - 2 2005 30 _ _9- 9,957 2006 .8 1_ . ~7 80 9 2007 3 17 , . 1 J)l I 43 1 4 961 2009* - 9 - - 3 , _~-11500" - to date Approximately While Marin County has a relatively low crime rate, property crime is a continuing problem. The California Department of Justice reports that in 2006, the latest year for which statistics are available, Marin County had 196 robberies, 1,354 burglaries of homes and businesses, and 822 thefts from motor vehicles. There were 27575 incidents of petty theft (under $400 value), and 1,199 incidents of grand theft (more than $400 value). Police chiefs interviewed by the Grand Jury estimated that about half of the property crimes were drug-related. Drug use in Marin County According to police, marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin and other illicit drugs have been popular in Marin for many years, affecting people of all ages. The Task Force in 2007 and 2008.seized 3,670 marijuana plants and 67 pounds of processed marijuana; 5.25 pounds of methamphetamine; 5,655 tablets of ecstasy; 12.6 pounds of cocaine; 4,499 doses of LSD; 265 tablets of OxyContin; and a small amount of GHB, the date rape drug. See the Glossary at the end of this report for a brief description of drugs confiscated in Marin. Although most of the Task Force's work is concentrated on low- and mid-level drug dealers, some of the operations have produced very large results. During late 2007 and early 2008, the Task Force was involved in a narcotics case that started in West Marin and ended in the Modesto-Turlock area. That multi jurisdictional investigation yielded more than 100 pounds of methamphetamine, three vehicles, five handguns and $60,000. It resulted in 21 arrests. The street value of 100 pounds of uncut methamphetamine is $4.5 million. June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 4 of 10 Saving Marin's Major Crimes Task Force Arrests of dealers often uncover evidence of other crimes. One investigation ended with the arrest of a Novato couple for street sales of OxyContin. A search of their residence yielded 150 oxycodone pills (the generic form of OxyContin), a quarter pound of marijuana, and $4,000 in cash. The couple's four children were removed from the dwelling by Child Protective Services due to the presence of the drugs. Early this year, the Task Force obtained a search warrant for a condominium in Novato where a known dealer lived. In addition to items listed in the warrant, the officers found computers and other electronic equipment stolen in burglaries from schools and homes throughout the county. A Task Force spokesperson said that during searches related to drug investigations it is not uncommon to recover stolen property, including automobiles and auto parts, as well as evidence of such other crimes as mail theft. In December 2007, the Task Force first encountered a relatively new drug known as Molly, which is a form of ecstasy. This drug, growing in popularity among Marin's young adults, alters one's perception. The Task Force has made six arrests in the county for possession of Molly, which sells for as much as $27000 per ounce. A sheriff's spokesperson told a reporter that Marin appears to be the focus of the Molly business in the Bay Area. Task Force investigations during 2007 and 2008 resulted in 71 search warrants, 119 arrests, $450,952 in seized cash, and seized drugs with a total value of $8.4 million. A number of handguns, rifles, shotguns and fully automatic weapons were also seized. A valuable weapon against crime Statistics alone do not show many of the benefits of drug enforcement, such as the impact on property crimes. Frequently when the Task Force serves a search warrant, it finds stolen property and evidence of other crimes. The Grand Jury repeatedly heard that if there were no Task Force, the county would see an increase in property crimes and more narcotics activity, including more open-air sales of drugs. An official from a small police department, who has been in Marin law enforcement for more than 30 years, views the Task Force as an "insurance policy" for his town. From his perspective, the Task Force is essential because his department does not have the staffing to attack major crime. If there were a major investigation to be conducted, he would call on the Task Force. The Task Force also provides educational value to the community. Its members frequently speak about Marin's drug problem at schools, homeowner association meetings, parent/teacher sessions and other forums. Their presentations include displays of confiscated drugs whose appearance is probably unfamiliar to most Marin residents, as well as candid discussions of the ways these substances affect the lives of users, from long-time addicts to young, middle class experimenters. June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 5 of 10 Saving Marin's Major Crimes Task Force Efforts to reorganize the Task Force In 2003, San Rafael, the largest city in Marin, opted out of the Task Force, and removed itself from the joint powers agreement. This was done largely because of the rising cost of participating in the Task Force. Novato, facing a $2.2 million deficit in its city budget, decided in early 2009 to follow San Rafael's lead and withdraw from Task Force funding. In an interview with the Grand Jury, a member of the Task Force Oversight Committee said that the economics of the Task Force operation had become untenable and that scaling down the number of officers and returning to a multi juri sdictional staffing approach might be the best solution to maintaining the unit. He said that without San Rafael and Novato participating, there would be no way the other cities and towns of Marin could pick up the cost. In an effort to maintain the Task Force and make it more affordable for the various jurisdictions, the Sheriff proposed a reduction in the number of his personnel in the unit. At the same time, the California Highway Patrol offered to donate an officer to the Task Force. With this reorganization and the inclusion of a Novato officer would come a 9 percent cost reduction to the municipalities for the remainder of fiscal year 2009 and a 38 percent reduction for the next fiscal year. This led officials in Novato to reconsider participation in the Task Force, by contributing one investigator to the team. In addition to this basic staffing, the Task Force would continue to be augmented by the three-member probation enforcement team. The Grand Jury learned that San Rafael officials had been considering a similar contribution of one investigator. However, the San Rafael police chief told the City Council in April that he could not spare an officer for assignment to the Task Force. If San Rafael were to rejoin the joint powers agreement, its participation should be strictly financial, he said. The Grand Jury believes that the City of San Rafael should see the importance of re- joining the Task Force, since much of the county's drug-related activity occurs in that city. One Task Force member told the Grand Jury that most of Marin's drug activity occurs in the cities of San Rafael and Novato. San Rafael should participate and share the costs involved in fighting drug-related crime. Where is the Task Force headed? On April 13, 2009, the Task Force Oversight Committee adopted a 2009-2010 budget that represents more than a one-third reduction from the current budget. The committee also approved the Sheriff's restructuring plan. In addition, the Novato Police Department has agreed to supply an investigator-subject to approval by the City Council. Novato's cash contribution would be reduced to approximately $39,000. June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 6 of 10 Saving Marin's Major Crimes Task Force The Oversight Committee's recommendation now goes to all participating law enforcement agencies for approval, then to local governmental bodies and the Board of Supervisors for budget approval. Staffing of the 2009-2010 Task Force would include a sheriff s lieutenant, a sheriffs sergeant (who would oversee the Task Force and the probation enforcement team), three sheriffs deputies, one Novato officer and one Highway Patrol officer. The Oversight Committee told the Grand Jury it hopes the City of San Rafael will rejoin the Task Force. That would further reduce the costs to the other governmental bodies. The Task Force appears to be moving forward. The Grand Jury recommends that each community in the county shoulder its share of responsibility for_ the Task Force, both through staffing and funding. Economic times are difficult; but placing funding of the Task Force high on the priority list is important, since all communities benefit from its investigative services. We recommend that each city and town council, as well as the Board of Supervisors, approve the Sheriffs proposal in order to retain the effectiveness and existence of the Task Force. FINDINGS The Grand Jury finds that: Fl. The Marin Major Crimes Task Force has been in successful operation since 1977, focusing in recent years on drug-related crimes in the county. F2. At first, the Task Force was staffed with investigators supplied by the participating law enforcement agencies. More recently, the staff has come solely from the Sheriffs Office, while funding has come from municipalities and the county. F3. Law enforcement officials believe that half of all property crimes committed in Marin are attributable to the sale and use of drugs. F4. Due to budget constraints, cities are having increasing difficulty. funding the Task Force, with San Rafael having withdrawn its financial support and Novato announcing its planned withdrawal. F5. The withdrawal of Task Force funding by communities would impede drug enforcement in Marin County. F6. The Task Force is a much-needed unit that benefits the entire county. F7. The reduction in the number of sheriffs deputies and the inclusion of investigators from other agencies, as well as the California Highway Patrol would provide a sound solution to the funding issue. June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 7 of 10 Saving Marin's Maior Crimes Task Force F8. Since 2003, the City of San Rafael has not financially supported the operation of the Task Force, even though much of the county's drug crime occurs within its jurisdiction. RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury recommends that: Rl. The Task Force continue to function as a cohesive unit, with investigators being supplied from the ranks of the Sheriff's Department, the California Highway Patrol, the Novato Police Department, the San Rafael Police Department and supplemented by the three-member probation enforcement team. M. The County and all municipalities support the Task Force by funding the joint powers agreement. R3. The City of San Rafael return to its participation in the Task Force REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses from the following: • The Marin County Board of Supervisors, all cities and towns, and the Sheriff to Fl, F211 F3, F4, F5, F67 F7, and RI and R2. • City of San Rafael to all Findings and Recommendations. The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be conducted in accordance with Penal Code Section 933 (c) and subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. California Penal Code Section 933 (c) states that "...the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body." Further, the Ralph M. Brown Act requires that any action of a public entity governing board occur at a noticed and agendized public meeting. The Grand Jury invites a response from: • The Mann County Major Crimes Task Force Oversight Committee to all Findings and Recommendations. The Marin County Chiefs of Police Association to all Findings and Recommendations. June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 8 of 10 Saving Marin's Major Crimes Task Force GLOSSARY This glossary is intended to inform the reader about drugs found in Marin County, as well as the effects the user may experience. Cocaine is a highly addictive central nervous system stimulant extracted from the leaves of the coca plant. In its most common form, cocaine is a whitish crystalline powder that produces feelings of euphoria when ingested. It is also known as "coke," "blow," "C," "flake," "snow" and "toot." It is most commonly inhaled through the nose or "snorted," but can be dissolved in water and injected. Crack is a smokable form of cocaine that produces an immediate and more intense high. It comes in off-white chunks or chips called "rocks." Little crumbs of crack are sometimes called "kibble & bits." Crystal Meth is a form of methamphetamine. Crystal Meth is almost instantly addictive. See Methamphetamme. Ecstasy is a hallucinogen and produces stimulant effects like amphetamine. It is also called MDMA and "the feel-good drug." Mostly found in pill form, ecstasy eliminates anxiety and suppresses the need to eat and sleep. GHB (Date Rape Drug) is a degreasing solvent or floor stripper mixed with drain cleaner. GHB is a clear liquid that looks like water. Large doses can lead to death. Heroin is white or dark brown in color, odorless, and a bitter crystalline compound derived from morphine, and is highly addictive. It is three times as potent as morphine. It is injected intravenously for its fastest effect on the brain. It is a central nervous system depressant and produces a dreamlike state of warmth and well-being. Heroin produces both physiological and psychological addictions. Ketamine is an odorless, tasteless drug that is found in liquid, pill or powder form. It distorts sounds and sensations and makes users feel detached from reality. Sensations range from feelings of floating to being separated from the body, which in some cases have been described as near-death experiences. Khat are leaves from East African trees chewed for their stimulating effects such as euphoria, and can produce mild to moderate psychological dependence. Marijuana is a member of the cannabis sativa family and is also known as Indian hemp. Marijuana is a somewhat weedy plant, and is also called "weed," "pot" and "grass." The narcotic ingredients allegedly have stimulating effects. After smoking, the user often has a feeling of well-being. Excessive amounts of the drug can lead to hallucinations and disorientation. June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 9 of 10 Saving MariWs Major Crimes Task Force Methamphetamine is a central nervous system stimulant used both medically and illicitly. It can be taken orally, intranasally (snorting), by injection or by smoking. Effects can include chest pain, changes in vision, fast or irregular heartbeat, and loss of contact with reality. Molly is a form of ecstasy. It is commonly known as a drug that is one molecule shy of ecstasy, and produces altered senses of time, perception and self-esteem. Oxycontin is a narcotic (Oxycodone) analgesic used to treat patients who have moderate to severe pain that requires continuous treatment for an extended period of time. It is a central nervous system depressant and must legally be obtained with a physician's prescription. 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 Civil Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation. June 3, 2009 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 10 of 10 TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting August 5 2009 f- 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: 0-1 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Mayor and Members of the Town Council Office of the Town Manager Recommendation to Adopt Revised Taxi Regulation Program 4 ~ The Town of Tiburon is a member of the Marin General Services Authority ("JPA"). In 2005, the Town delegated its authority to regulate the operation of taxi cabs to the JPA. However, under Section 11-2 of the Town's Municipal Code, the Town Council must adopt the Taxi Regulation Program ("Program"). On May 14, 2009, the JPA adopted a revised Program to update its enforcement provisions. Accordingly, JPA staff requests that the Council adopt the revised Program for application in Tiburon. ANALYSIS The amendments' primary effect is to revise the enforcement tools available to the JPA. Previously, the JPA enforced the Program by administrative citations. As amended, enforcement would largely involve suspension or revocation of permits to operate a taxi cab. The amendments also add provisions for the JPA to investigate complaints of violations. Lastly, the Program will now utilize, as a last resort, recent legislation allowing the permitting authority to suspend telephone service of a person or company operating a taxi cab service in violation of the law. The amendments also clarify the appeal process and requirements for reporting the results of drug and alcohol tests. FINANCIAL IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to approve the attached Resolution approving the amended Taxi Regulation Program. Exhibits: Draft Resolution with Amended Program Prepared By: Peggy Curran, Town Manager TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 1 RESOLUTION NO. XX-2009 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBUORN ADOPTING THE MARIN GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (MGSA) TAXICAB REGULATION PROGRAM AS REVISED FOR TAXICAB PERMITS AND REGULATION WITHIN THE TOWN OF TIBURON WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon is a member of the Marin General Services Authority; and WHEREAS, the Town has delegated to the Marin General Services Authority its authority under Government Code § 53075.5 to regulate the operation of taxi cabs; and WHEREAS, the Marin General Services Authority has established a Taxicab Regulation Program, as revised by action of the MGSA on May 14, 2009, as set forth on the attached as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Tiburon Municipal Code Section 11-2, the Taxicab Regulation Program shall be adopted by separate resolution of the Town Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby adopts the Marin General Services Administration Taxicab Regulation Program, as revised as set forth in Exhibit "A" , attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of , 20091 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Alice Fredericks Mayor of the Town of Town Clerk of the Town of Tiburon MARIN GENERAL SERVICES AUTHORITY TAXI REGULATION PROGRAM (As Revised MGSA Board Resolution 2008-01, Board Resolution 2008-05, and Board Resolution 2009-01, February 12, 2009, Board Resolution 2009-05, May 14, 2009) A. DEFINITIONS As used herein the capitalized terms shall have the following meanings: 1. "Agency" shall mean and refer to each entity which is a member of the MGSA, however, the term "Agency" specifically shall not include the Marinwood Community Services District or the Bel Marin Community Services District. 2. "Area of Jurisdiction " means the jurisdictional boundaries or each Agency. 3. "Call Log" shall mean a record prepared by the Company of all trips made by the Company's Drivers showing date, time and place of origin, and destination. 4. "Company" means any entity operating a Taxicab business, including without limitation, a natural person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation or public entity. 5. "Company Permit" means a valid permit issued by the MGSA authorizing a Company to operate Taxicabs in the Area of Jurisdiction of each Agency. 6. "County" means the County of Marin. 7. "DMV" means the California Department of Motor Vehicles. 8. "Driver" means a person who operates a Taxicab. 9. "Driver Permit" means a valid permit issued by the MGSA authorizing a person to operate a Taxicab pursuant to the terms and requirements of the Program. 10. "Executive Officer" shall mean the Executive Officer of the MGSA or his/her designee. 11. "MGSA" shall mean the Marin General Services Authority or successor entity. Regulafions.FIN"T 1 X08 12. "Revoked Permit" shall mean any Company, Driver or Vehicle Permit suspended by the Executive Officer. It is unlawful to operate a taxi in any manner with a revoked permit. A driver or company must apply anew under the new fee schedule to obtain a permit after revocation. 13. "Program" means the rules and regulations set out in this MGSA Taxi Regulation Program as the same may be amended from time to time. 14. "State" means the State of California. 15. "Suspended Permit" shall mean any Company, Driver or Vehicle Pen-nit suspended by the Executive Officer. It is unlawful to operate a taxi in any manner with a suspended permit. To reinstate a suspended permit requires the payment of $1,000.00 for a Company Permit, $100.00 for a Driver's Permit, or $100.00 for a Vehicle Permit. 16. "Taxicab" shall mean a motor vehicle regularly engaged in the business of carrying passengers designed for carrying not more than eight persons, excluding the driver. 17. "Vehicle Permit" shall mean a valid permit issued by the MGSA authorizing a vehicle to be utilized as a Taxicab pursuant to the terms and requirements of the Program. B. COMPANY PERMIT 1. Company Permit Required. No Company shall operate or permit a Taxicab owned or controlled by it to be operated as a vehicle for hire within the Area of Jurisdiction of any Agency without having first obtained a Company Permit from the MGSA. 2. Issuance of Company Permit. The Executive Officer shall issue a Company Permit upon full compliance by the Company with all of the following requirements unless one or more basis for denial set forth in Section 3 of this Section B exists: a. Submission of a complete Company Permit application, including a list of all vehicles to operated as Taxicabs under the Company Permit and for which Vehicle Permit applications shall be submitted; and b. Submission of a copy of the Company's drug and alcohol policy which must include at a minimum that employment or an offer of employment for any Driver is conditioned upon an acceptable drug and alcohol test meeting the requirements of these regulations and of California Government Code Section 53075.5 or successor statute; and KegttiatiefiS+ jN,8k4:: 2 -11,1-13198 C. Submission of evidence of insurance in full force and effect which meets the following minimum requirements: i. Automobile liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000.00) for injury or death of one or more persons in the same accident and for injury to or destruction of property resulting from the operation or maintenance of any Taxicab; and ii. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California; and iii. The liability policy referred to in subsection i above is to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (A) The MGSA and each Agency, its officers, elected and appointed officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds; and (B) Coverage shall not be reduced, terminated or canceled, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the MGSA; and iv. Insurance is to be placed with insurers licensed to do business in the State of California with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than "B+", in the event that an insurer's rating is reduced below "B+" (a "Rating Event") Company shall have ten (10) business days from the date that the rating actually drops below "B+" to present the Executive Officer with a written schedule of events detailing the steps Company will take to obtain replacement insurance which meets the requirements of this Program, notwithstanding the foregoing, such replacement insurance shall be otained by Company within sixty (60) days of the Rating Event or Company shall cease operating until such complying insurance is obtained; and v. The Executive Officer may require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications at any time; and vi. At least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of current policies a Company shall submit a letter from its insurance carrier(s) indicating that the carrier is processing Company's request for continuance of coverage or new coverage and that the carrier believes that such coverage will be continued/issued; and vii. As soon as it is received by the Company but in no event later than the date of the expiration of current policies a Company shall submit insurance binders evidencing insurance coverage for the policy period subsequent to the expiration of the current policies; and I] eg ,1 at FIT A T 3 11,113,108 viii. No self insured retention shall be allowed and deductibles shall not exceed Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2500.00); and d. Submission of proof of current DMV registration for each Taxicab listed in the Company Permit applicant; and e. Prior to the issuance of the initial Company Permit (but not upon renewal) every owner, partner or principal officer of Company shall have: Department; and submitted to fingerprinting by the County Sheriff's ii. successfully cleared a background check performed by the County Sheriff's Department; and f. List of every Driver authorized to operate the Taxicab(s) identified in the Company Permit application (the list of Drivers noted herein, shall not be considered part of the Company Permit, but as information for use of MGSA in the administration of these Regulations); and g. The rates of fare proposed to be charged by the Company; and h. Payment of all applicable fees including without limitation the Company Permit application fee and Taxicab Permit application fee. i. As a condition to the receipt of a Company Permit, the Company must submit for approval by the Executive Officer an indemnification agreement, executed by an authorized representative of the Company, agreeing to release, indemnify, hold harmless and defend with counsel reasonably acceptable to the Executive Officer, the MGSA, including every Agency which is a member thereof, and their respective elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers harmless against and from liability and/or claims of any kind arising out of the Program and/or the operation of Taxicab(s) including, without limitation, claims for personal injury or death or loss or damage to property. 3. Basis for Denial of Company Permit. The Executive Officer shall deny the issuance of a Company Permit in the event that any owner, partner or principal officer of applicant: a. b. Permit; or c. Section 290; or Regulatiens.FINAL Is under the age of 18 years; or Falsifies material information on an application for a Company Is a registered sex offender pursuant to California Penal Code 4 Section B.3.; or d. Is on formal probation or parole for any offense outlined in this e. Has at any time been convicted (or pled guilty or nolo contendere) in any state, the District of Columbia, and/or in any federal proceeding for any of the following: murder; robbery; pandering; pimping; crimes related to the sale or transportation of controlled substances; and/or crimes involving the use of a weapon; or f. Within five (5) years of the application been convicted of (or pled guilty or nolo contendere) in any state, the District of Columbia, and/or in any federal proceeding or had any final administrative determination of a violation of any statute, ordinance, or regulation reasonably related to the same or similar business operation which would have resulted in suspension or revocation of the Company Permit under these Regulations. 4. Requirements Following Issuance. A Company which has received a Company Permit shall comply with all of the following during the term of the Company Permit: a. Company shall maintain the insurance required pursuant to Section B.2.c. of these Regulations in full force and effect during the term of the Company Permit; and b. Company shall notify the Executive Officer of any information or fact(s) that would cause any of the information set forth in the Company Permit Application to no longer be true and correct; and c. Company shall provide the Executive Officer with written notice within 72 hours in the event that any of its Drivers are terminated or are otherwise no longer authorized to operate a Taxicab identified in the Company Permit; and d. Company shall notify the Executive Officer if it desires to add a Driver who shall be authorized to operate a Taxicab listed in the Company Application after such Driver has obtained a Driver's Permit. e. Company shall notify the Executive Officer of any new address for Company within forty eight (48) hours of Company occupying said new address. f. Company shall annually submit a written certification, the form of which will be provided by MGSA that certifies that the company operations comply with all the provisions of its Company Permit. 5. Term and Renewal. a. A Company Permit shall remain in effect for a period of one (1) year from issuance unless sooner suspended or revoked. Permits for which an application was filed prior to effective date of this latest amendment to these regulations (November 13, 2008) shall remain in effect for a period of five (5) years from date of application. b. In order to renew a Company Permit prior to the expiration of an existing Permit, Company must submit a completed application for renewal no less than thirty (30) days, nor more than sixty (60) days, prior to the expiration of the Company Permit. Upon submission of a completed application for a renewal of a Company Permit, provided that the Company is in compliance with all of the provisions of these Regulations and provided further that the existing Company Permit is not otherwise suspended or revoked in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations, the existing Company Permit shall remain in effect until the later to occur of (i) such time as the application for renewal is either granted or denied; or (ii) the expiration of the existing Company Permit; at which time the existing Company Permit shall automatically be of no further force and effect. 6. Appeal. A Company may appeal the denial or non-renewal of the issuance of a Company Permit in accordance with the provisions of Section F of these Regulations. 7. Transfer. Company Permits are not transferable or assignable. C. DRIVERS PERMIT. 1. Driver's Permit Required. No person shall operate a Taxicab within the Area of Jurisdiction of any Agency without having first obtained a Driver's Permit therefore. 2. Issuance of Driver's Permit. The Executive Officer shall issue a Driver's Permit upon submission by the Driver of all of the following requirements unless one or more basis for denial set forth in Section 3 of this Section C exists: a. A fully completed Driver's Permit application signed by an authorized representative of a Company holding a Company Permit; and b. A valid permanent California Class C driver's license; and c. Evidence of compliance with the mandatory controlled substance and alcohol testing certification program, as set forth below: i. Drivers shall show proof from a drug testing company approved by the Executive Officer that the Driver tested negative for each of the controlled substances specified in Part 40 (commencing with Section 40.1) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, before employment. Drivers must also test negative for alcohol. Drivers must show proof of negative tests for these controlled substances and Deg lafie s'FIN A T 6 11/13/08 b for alcohol as a condition of Permit issuance or renewal. Drivers may be also be subject to random drug and/or alcohol testing during the term of his/her Permit. As used in this section, a negative test for alcohol means an alcohol screening test showing a breath alcohol concentration of less than 0.02 percent. All test results shall be reported to the Executive Officer or his/her designee; and ii. Procedures shall be substantially as in Part 40 (commencing with Section 40.1) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, except that the Driver shall show a valid California driver's license at the time and place of testing. Requirements for rehabilitation and for return to duty and follow up testing and other requirements and shall be substantially as in Part 382 (commencing with Section 382.101) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. iii. A test consistent with subsections c. i. and ii. performed in a jurisdiction outside of the County shall be accepted as meeting the same requirement as a test performed within the County. Any negative test results shall be accepted for one year as meeting a requirement for periodic permit renewal testing or any other periodic testing if the Driver has not tested positive subsequent to the negative result. However, an earlier negative result shall not be accepted as meeting the pre-employment testing requirement for any subsequent employment or any testing requirements under the program other than periodic testing. iv. In the case of either a Company employee or a self- employed independent Driver, the test results shall be reported directly to the Company and the Executive Officer, who shall notify the taxicab leasing company of record, if any, of positive results. V. All test results are confidential and shall not be released without the consent of the Driver, except as authorized or required by law. vi. Self-employed independent drivers shall be responsible for compliance with, and shall pay all costs of, this program with regard to themselves. The Company shall be responsible for compliance with, and shall pay all costs of, this program with respect to their employees and potential employees, except that an operator may require employees who test positive to pay the cost of rehabilitation and of return to duty and follow up testing. vii. Upon the request of a Driver applying for a permit, the Executive Officer shall give the Driver a list of consortia certified pursuant to Part 382 (commencing with Section 382.101) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations that the Executive Officer knows offer tests in or near the County. d. Fingerprints taken by or on file with the County Sheriff's Department; and Deg l+t; ""s ~ IN A T 7 H/13/08 e. A cleared background check performed by the County Sheriff's Department; and f. Two current 2" by 2" professional quality color photos (passport photos) of the applicant. g. Payment of all applicable fees including without limitation the background check fee and the Driver Permit application fee: 3. Basis for Denial of Driver's Permit. The Executive Officer shall deny the issuance of a Driver's Permit in the event that the applicant: a. Is under the age of 18 years; or Permit; or b. Falsifies material information on an application for a Driver's C. Does not possess a valid Class C California Driver's License; or d. Fails the drug and/or alcohol test required hereunder. Upon testing positive for drugs and/or alcohol the applicant shall not be eligible to reapply for a Driver's Permit for a period of six (6) months from the test date; or e. Is a registered sex offender pursuant to California Penal Code Section 290; or section 3; or f. Is on formal probation or parole for any offense outlined in this g. Has at any time been convicted (or pled guilty or nolo contendere) in any state, the District of Columbia, and/or in any federal proceeding, for any of the following: murder; robbery; pandering; pimping; crimes related to the sale or transportation of controlled substances, except for offenses involving marijuana; and/or crimes involving the use of a weapon; or h. Within five (5) years of the application been convicted of (or pled guilty or nolo contendere) in any state, the District of Columbia, and/or in any federal proceeding, of reckless driving, driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DUI), a violation of California Vehicle Code Sections 2800.1 (pertaining to flight from peace officer), Section 20002 (imposing duties on the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting only in damage to any property), Section 20003 (imposing duties on the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury or death) or any corresponding substitute sections or similar sections of the Vehicle Code of another state; vehicular manslaughter; and/or California Penal Code Sections 240, 2411 242, or 243 pertaining to assault and battery or any corresponding substitute sections or Aeg„t. tiers FIN A T 8 1 b/13/08 similar sections of the Penal Code of another state, the District of Columbia, and/or a federal entity. 4. Term and Renewal. a. A Driver's Permit shall remain in effect for a period of five (5) years from issuance unless sooner suspended or revoked. A Driver's Permit shall be automatically suspended upon the revocation or suspension- of the Driver's Class C Drivers License until such time as the Driver presents evidence to the Executive Officer that the requisite Driver's License has been reinstated and is in full force and effect. b. In order to renew a Driver's Permit, the Driver must submit a completed application for renewal no less than thirty (30) days, nor more than sixty (60) days, prior to the expiration of the Driver's Permit. Upon submission of a completed application for a renewal of a Driver's Permit, provided that the Driver is in compliance with all of the provisions of these Regulations and provided further that the existing Driver Permit is not otherwise suspended or revoked in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations, the existing Driver Permit shall remain in effect until the later to occur of (i) such time as the application for renewal is either granted or denied; or (ii) the expiration of the existing Driver Permit; at which time the existing Driver Permit shall automatically be of no further force and effect. C. The Driver's Permit shall be automatically void upon termination of Driver's employment with the Company listed in the Driver Permit application and the Driver's Permit shall be returned to the Executive Officer upon such termination. d. Driver shall notify the Executive Officer in writing of any new address for Driver within forty-eight (48) hours of Driver occupying said new address. e. If, for any reason, the Executive Officer gives notice to a Driver that his/her Driver Permit has been revoked or not renewed, said Driver shall immediately return his/her Permit to the Executive Officer. Failure to do so shall be grounds for the Executive Officer to refuse to issue a new Permit to said Driver. 5. Appeal. A Driver may appeal the denial or non-renewal of the issuance of a Driver Permit in accordance with the provisions of Section F of these Regulations. 6. Transfer. Driver's Permits are not transferable or assignable. D. VEHICLE PERMIT. 1. Initial Vehicle Inspection. Prior to the use and operation of any vehicle as a Taxicab under the provisions of these Regulations, certification similar to that required under Section D. 3 below shall be submitted indicating that the vehicle has been thoroughly examined and found to comply with all the standards established in the California Vehicle Code or successor statute. Kegttlatten 9 -13/98 2. Issuance of Vehicle Permit/Renewal. Upon meeting the initial inspection requirements set forth in Section D.1 above and upon payment of any and all applicable fees, a non-transferable Vehicle Permit shall be issued for each approved Taxicab. The Vehicle Permit shall remain in effect for a period of one (1) year. No Vehicle Permit shall be renewed unless and until the inspection requirements set forth in Section D.3 below are met and any and all applicable fees have been paid. The Vehicle Permit must be displayed in the Taxicab at all times during its operation. 3. Annual Inspections. The Company holding a Vehicle Permit shall annually submit a written certification, the form of which will be provided by MGSA, which certifies that the subject vehicle complies with all the standards established in the California Vehicle Code or successor statute. 4. Vehicles Must Be Kept in a Clean and Sanitary Condition. Every vehicle operating under these Regulations shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and free of offensive odors. 5. Designation of Taxicabs. Each Taxicab shall bear on the outside of at least one door on each side of the vehicle, in painted letters not less than five inches nor more than seven inches in height, the name of the Company; and, in addition, may bear an identifying design approved by the Executive Officer. No vehicle shall be licensed whose color scheme, identifying design, monogram, or insignia to be used thereon shall, in the opinion of the Executive Officer, conflict with or imitate any vehicles already operating under a permit issued pursuant to these Regulations, in such a manner as to be misleading or tend to deceive or defraud the public; and provided further, that if after a license has been issued for a Taxicab hereunder, the color scheme, identifying design, monogram, or insignia thereof is changed so as to be, in the opinion of the Executive Officer, in conflict with or imitate any color scheme, identifying design, monogram, or insignia used by any other person, owner or operator, in such a manner as to be misleading or tend to deceive the public, the permit for such Taxicab or Taxicabs shall be suspended or revoked 6. Revocation of Vehicle Permit. The Executive Officer may revoke any Vehicle Permit in the event that the vehicle that is the subject of the permit does not meet the requirements of these Regulations. The determination of the Executive Officer may be appealed in accordance with the provisions of Section F. hereof. E. TAXICAB OPERATION. 1. Rates of Fare. Every Taxicab shall have a rate card setting forth its rates of fare displayed in such a place as to be in view of all passengers. Such card shall be in a form approved by the Executive Officer. No rates of fare shall be either adopted or changed until a complete schedule thereof has been filed with the Executive Officer. Reg lati""".FINAT 10 1 11 1 //113 o08 2. Receipts. The Driver of any Taxicab shall upon demand by the passenger render to such passenger a receipt for the amount charged on a receipt which shall bear the name of the owner, driver number, amount of meter reading or charges and date of transaction. 3. Taxicab Service. All Companies and Drivers shall answer all calls received by them for services as soon as they can do so and if the services cannot be rendered within a reasonable time they shall then notify the prospective passengers how long it will be before the call can be answered and give the reason therefore. 4. Call Logs. Every Company shall maintain daily Call Logs. The form of the Call Log shall be approved by the Executive Officer. Every Company shall retain and preserve all Call Logs in a safe place for at least the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the Call Log is created, and said Call Logs shall be available to the inspection by the Executive Officer upon demand. 5. Taxicab Meters. Every Taxicab operated under this section shall be equipped with a taxicab meter and the Company shall keep such meter accurate at all times. The Company shall file an annual "certificate of inspection" from County Department of Agriculture. Upon discovery of any inaccuracy of the meter the Executive Officer is authorized to remove or cause to be removed from service any such vehicle equipped with such meter until the meter shall have been repaired and accurately adjusted. F. APPEAL OF PERMIT DENIAL/NON-RENEWAL. The Executive Officer's decision to issue or not issue any permit under these Regulations is discretionary. In the event a Company Permit or Driver Permit is denied or not renewed, the applicant, Company or Driver shall be notified in writing of the proposed adverse action and the reason(s) therefore (the "Notice of Adverse Action"). No later than ten (10) calendar days following the date on the Notice of Proposed Action the applicant, Company or Driver may submit a written appeal to the MGSA Board on the form provided by the Executive Officer which shall include the basis for such appeal together with the payment of any and all applicable fees. Failure to file a timely Notice of Appeal shall constitute a waiver of the right to appeal. An appeal is not timely filed if the applicable fees are not paid concurrently with the submittal of the appeal. Within forty-five (45) days following the date on the Notice of Appeal a public hearing shall be held before the MGSA Board on the proposed action. The MGSA Board shall conduct the hearing as a closed session consistent with Government Code § 54956.7 when necessary. The decision of the MGSA Board shall be issued within thirty (30) days of the date of the hearing and such decision shall be final. The MGSA Board may issue the permit only if it finds that the issuance of the permit will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the County of Marin. The Company or Driver whose Permit application has been denied shall not operate a taxicab pending an appeal of such denial. A Company or Driver may operate a taxicab pending appeal of a non-renewal or appeal of revocation, unless cause for such non-renewal or revocation is among those listed in Section B.3 or C.3 as appropriate. R °g„ tiers FIN A T 11 1 14 G. REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE PROGRAM 1. Issuance of Compliance Order. Provided that there is no immediate danger to health or safety, the Executive Officer may issue a "Compliance Order" to any Company or Driver that fails to comply with any of these regulations or for any of the following: application; or a. Providing false or inaccurate information in any Permit b. Allowing a Taxicab to be operated by a Driver who does not hold a valid Driver's Permit; or c. A refusal by the Company or a Driver of the Company to accept a call anywhere in the corporate limits of an Agency at any time when such Company has available Taxicabs; provided, however, that a Company or a Driver may refuse to accept a call for service when the Company or Driver reasonably determines that there is a threat to the health or safety of the Driver; or License; or d. A revocation or suspension of a Driver's California Driver's e. A failure to cooperate with any law enforcement personnel of any Agency or the California Highway Patrol. 2. Contents of Compliance Order. Each Compliance Order shall be in writing and shall include, without limitation, the following information: a. The date of the violation(s) and, if different, the date of service of the Compliance Order. b. The name, address, and other identifying information of the Company and/or the Driver. C. A description of the violation(s), including citation to the section(s) of the Regulations violated. d. An order requiring correction of the violation(s) within ten (10) days of the date of the Compliance Order, or within such other reasonable time as the Executive Officer may determine, and notifying the Company and/or the Driver that a fine may be due or the applicable permit may be suspended or revoked if correction is not made before the expiration of the correction period. D o..ul tions.FIN A T 12 % e. An order prohibiting the continuation or repeated occurrence of the violation(s). 3. Correction of Violation. If the Executive Officer determines that all violation(s) specified in the Compliance Order have been corrected within the time set forth in the Compliance Order, no further action shall be taken against the Company and/or the Driver regarding the violations. If all violation(s) specified in the Compliance Order are not corrected within the time set forth in the Compliance Order, the Executive Officer may suspend or revoke any permit issued to a Company and/or Driver. The Executive Officer may pursue additional civil remedies or may also refer the matter to an Agency for any additional civil or criminal remedies. 4. Immediate Revocation. When a violation of these Regulations poses an immediate danger to health or safety, the Executive Officer may suspend or revoke any Permit issued to a Company and/or Driver. 5. Contents of Suspension or Revocation Decision. Each Suspension or Revocation Decision shall be in writing and shall include, without limitation, the following information: a. The date of the violation(s) and, if different, the date of service of the Compliance Order. b. The name, address, and other identifying information of the Company and/or Driver. C. A description of the violation(s), including citation to the section(s) of the Regulations violated. d. The penalty imposed for the violation. e. A brief description of the appeal hearing process; including a statement that the Company and/or Driver has the right to contest the Suspension or Revocation Decision by requesting a hearing per these regulations within ten (10) calendar days of the date of service of the Suspension or Revocation Decision. f. The name and signature of the Executive Officer. 6. Separate Violations. Each violation of these Regulations whether after the expiration of any correction period set forth in a Compliance Order or otherwise constitutes a separate violation for every day such violation continues. Regulafiens.FINAL 13 1143/08 7. Notices. All notices, including Compliance Orders, shall be served on the Company and/or Driver in accordance with the following provisions: a. Notices may be mailed by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. Simultaneously, the same notice may be sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid. If a notice sent by certified mail is returned unclaimed, service by first- class mail shall nevertheless be effective if that mail is sent to the address of record for the Company or Driver. b. Service of any notice in accordance with these requirements may be proven by declaration or affidavit. Service is complete upon deposit with the United States Postal Service. 8. Request for Hearing. Any Company and/or Driver may contest a suspension or revocation by requesting a hearing within ten (10) calendar days from the suspension or revocation order. The hearing request must be in writing, specifying in detail the basis for contesting the Suspension or Revocation Decision. The Company and/or Driver requesting the hearing shall deposit the amount of $500.00 for a hearing regarding a Company permit, and $100.00 for a hearing regarding a Vehicle or Driver Permit. Failure to file an appeal request in accordance with this paragraph shall constitute a waiver of the Company's and/or Driver's right to contest any matters set forth in the Suspension or Revocation Decision. 9. Holding Hearing. The hearing shall be held within thirty (30) days of receiving a hearing request that complies fully with paragraph 5 above. The party requesting the hearing shall be notified of the time and place of the hearing at least ten (10) days before the hearing date. Either the Company/Driver or the MGSA may request a continuance of the hearing to a mutually agreeable date, but in no event may the hearing begin later than sixty (60) days after the MGSA receives a hearing request. 10. Conducting Authority. The Board of the MGSA shall hold any hearing. Alternatively, the Board may request that the Executive Officer designate a Hearing Officer to hear and decide appeals of Suspension or Revocation Decision. 11. Hearing Procedure. On the date and at the time and place set forth in the notice of hearing, the Conducting Authority shall conduct an orderly hearing and shall accept evidence on which persons commonly would rely in the conduct of their business affairs. Formal rules of evidence need not apply. The party contesting the Suspension or Revocation Decision shall have the opportunity to testify, under oath, and to present evidence, including witnesses, who shall be under oath, concerning the alleged violation. Any other interested party may also present evidence. The Conducting Authority shall limit the evidence to that which is relevant to establishing or refuting the violation alleged in the Suspension or Revocation Decision. If the Company/Driver or any other interested person fails to attend the scheduled hearing, that person shall have waived any right to present evidence on the matter. The Suspension or Revocation Decision and any other reports submitted by the Executive Officer shall constitute prima facie evidence of the facts recited in those documents. The Conducting Authority may take the matter under Regtd +;""".FIN A T 14 11/13/08 consideration, may continue the hearing, and may request additional information from the Executive Officer or from the Company and/or Driver. On the basis of a preponderance of the evidence, the Conducting Authority shall determine whether to affirm or dismiss the Suspension or Revocation Decision. The Conducting Authority shall make findings based on the record of the hearing, and shall issue a final written decision based on those findings. The written decision shall be served upon the Company and/or Driver. 12. Appeal. Any person aggrieved by an administrative decision of a Conducting Authority may obtain review of that decision by filing a petition for review in the Marin County Superior Court, according to the requirements of Government Code Section 53069.4. 13. Complaint against business that advertises or operates taxicab transportation service for hire; Sufficiency of complaint; Investigation. (a) Upon receipt of a complaint containing sufficient information to warrant conducting an investigation, the MGSA shall investigate any business that advertises or operates taxicab transportation service for hire. A complaining party shall give MGSA sufficient information in the view of MGSA to warrant an investigation. The MGSA shall provide an "Investigative Request Form" to a complaining party with the criteria for a complaint. Pursuant to this investigation, the MGSA shall do all of the following: (1) Determine which businesses, if any, are required to have in effect a valid taxicab certificate, license, or permit as required by ordinance, but do not have that valid authority to operate. (2) Inform any business not having valid authority to operate that it is in violation of law. (3) Within 60 days of informing the business pursuant to paragraph (2), institute civil or criminal proceedings, or both, under its regulations or refer this matter to an Agency within which the business operates. (b) For purposes of this section: "Advertises" means any action described in subdivision (b) of Government Code § 53075.9. 14. Termination of telephone service utilized by taxicabs operating without proper authority; Enforcement by local agencies; Notice; Timely protest; Hearing (a) Pursuant to and within the authority of Government Code § 53075.8, the MGSA enacts the following regulations. (b) For purposes of this section, a telephone corporation or telegraph corporation, or a corporation that holds a controlling interest in the telephone or telegraph corporation, or any business that is a subsidiary or affiliate of the telephone or telegraph corporation, that has the name and address of the subscriber to a telephone number being used by a unauthorized taxicab operator shall provide the MGSA, or an authorized officer or employee of the MGSA, upon demand, and the order of a magistrate, access to this information. A magistrate may only issue an order for the purposes of this subdivision, if the magistrate has made the findings required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (f). D °gul tians.FIN A T 15 11/13/08 (c) (1) In addition to any other remedies that may be available by law, if the MGSA determines that a taxicab transportation service has operated within the County of Marin in violation of a city or county ordinance adopted under Government Code Section 53075.5 or the Marin General Services Authority Taxi Regulation Program, the MGSA may notify the taxicab operator that the MGSA intends to seek tennination of the operator's telephone service. The notice shall be sent by certified mail to the operator at the operator's last known mailing address. If the MGSA is unable to determine the operator's mailing address, the MGSA shall post the notice for at least 10 calendar days. (2) The notice shall contain sufficient information to identify the taxicab transportation service, to inform the taxicab operator of the alleged violations of the ordinance or regulations, and the procedures for protesting the allegations contained in the notice. (d) The taxicab operator, within 10 calendar days of the date of the notice, may contest the allegations contained in the notice by filing a written protest with the MGSA. The MGSA shall schedule a hearing on the protest within 21 calendar days of receiving the protest. (e) The Board of the MGSA, or any person or persons as may be designated by the Board, shall hear the protest. The MGSA shall have both the burden of providing that the use made, or to be made, of the telephone service is to hold out to the public to perform, or to assist in performing, services as a taxicab transportation service, and that the telephone service is being, or is to be, used as an instrumentality, directly or indirectly, to violate, or assist in violating, the applicable ordinance or regulation. The taxicab operator, or his or her designated representative, shall be allowed to present evidence to answer or refute any allegations presented to the MGSA. The Board or designated person may continue the hearing from time to time. Within 10 calendar days of the close of the hearing, the MGSA shall issue a written decision to uphold or reject, in whole or in part, the allegations contained in the notice. If the MGSA upholds the allegations in whole or in part, the written decision shall state either that the allegations are sufficient to justify seeking termination of the taxicab operator's telephone service, or that the allegations are not sufficient. M (1) If the MGSA does not receive a timely protest, or, after a protest hearing held pursuant to subdivision (e), the MGSA has determined that the allegations are sufficient to justify seeking termination of the telephone operator's telephone service, the MGSA may seek termination of the taxicab operator's telephone service as provided in this section. (2) A telephone or telegraph corporation shall refuse telephone service to a new subscriber and shall disconnect telephone service of an existing subscriber only after it is shown that other available enforcement remedies of the MGSA or its member agencies have failed to terminate unlawful activities detrimental to the public welfare and safety, and upon receipt from any authorized officer or employee of the MGSA of a writing, signed by a magistrate, as defined by Sections 807 and 808 of the Penal Code, finding ge_ulations.FIN ^ r 16 % that probable'cause exists to believe that the subscriber is advertising or holding out to the public to perform taxicab transportation services in violation of the applicable ordinance or regulation, or that the telephone service otherwise is being used or is to be used as an instrumentality, directly or indirectly, to violate or assist in violation of the laws requiring a taxicab operator to have valid operating authority. Included in the writing of the magistrate shall be a finding that there is probable cause to believe that the subject telephone facilities have been, or are to be, used in the commission or facilitation of holding out to the public to perform taxicab transportation services in violation of the applicable ordinance or regulation. (g) The telephone or telegraph corporation, immediately upon refusal or disconnection of service in accordance with paragraph (2) of subdivision (f), shall notify the subscriber in writing that the refusal or disconnection of telephone service has been made pursuant to a request of the MGSA and the writing of a magistrate, and shall include a copy of this section, a copy of the writing of the magistrate, and a statement that the customer of the subscriber may request information from the MGSA concerning any provision of this section and the manner in which a complaint may be filed. (h) The provisions of this section are an implied term of every contract for telephone service and a part of any application for telephone service. Applicants for, and subscribers and customers of, telephone service, have, as a matter of law, consented to the provisions of this section as a consideration for the furnishing of the telephone service. (i) As used in this section, the terms "person," "customer," and "subscriber" include the subscriber to telephone service, any person using the telephone service of a subscriber, an applicant for telephone service, a corporation, a limited liability company, a partnership, an association, and includes their lessees and assigns. 0) As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) "Telegraph corporation" has the same meaning as specified in Section 236 of the Public Utilities Code. (2) "Telephone corporation" has the same meaning as specified in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code. 15. Other Remedies. The remedies set forth in this section are not exclusive. Each Agency has the authority to enforce the provisions of the Program within its jurisdictional boundaries in accordance with the applicable provisions of its own Municipal Code. 16. Amendment. The MGSA retains the right to amend this Program and the regulations set forth herein at any time. 1? eg l atio„s 1~ TAT A T 17 11/13/08 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Mayor and Members of the Town Council Administrative Services Department Investment Summary - June 2009 Town Council Meeting August 5, 2009 Agenda Item: CC- S' Pursuant to Government Code Section 53601, staff is required to provide the Town Council with a report regarding the Town's investment activities for the period ended June 30, 2009. ANALYSIS Agency Investment Amount Interest Rate Maturity Town of Tiburon Local Agency $1695729669.29 1.377% Liquid Investment Fund (LAIF) CDARS (Bank $ 2,5069667.54 0.60% August 6, 2009 of Marin CDARS (Bank $ 2,0059711.75 0.60% August 6, 2009 of Marin Money Market $ 2509000.00 1.20% Liquid Bank of Marin Total $2193359048.58 Redevelopment Agency Local Agency $9829343.73 1.377% Liquid Investment Fund (LAIF) FINANCIAL IMPACT No financial impact occurs by adopting the report. The Town continues to meet the priority principles of investing - safety, liquidity and yield in this respective order. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to accept the June 2009 investment summary Exhibits: Prepared By: None Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services c.. i