Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TC Agenda Packet 2017-09-19
TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Fraser cal e re u ar me ting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesda , August 16, 2017 ' Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulik, O'Donnell ABSENT: COLNCILMEMBERS: Thier PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Community Development Anderson, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes, Management Analyst Creekmore,Town Clerk Stefani ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ken Jones,of 350 Marin climate action group spoke in support of the Town changing the municipal accounts to Marin Clean Energy's option to go "deep green", or using 100 %renewable energy. Councilmember Fredericks said she wanted to bring a senate bill to the Council's attention that would require schools to begin no earlier than 8:30 a.m., and asked the staff and the legislative committee to write a letter in concern about the impacts of this bill. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-I. Town Council Minutes—Adopt minutes of July 19,2017 special and regular meetings (Town Clerk Stefani) CC-2. Various Streets Overlay Project—Award project design and construction management contract to Coastland Engineering (Department of Public Works) CC-3. Investment Summary — Adopt report for month ending June 30, 2017 (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) CC-4. Sugarloaf Slide Repair Project—Authorize Town Manager to award project and use funds from Annual Drainage Improvement Program (Department of Public Works) Mayor Fraser requested Item No. CC-4 (Sugarloaf Slide Repair Project) be removed for discussion. Town Council Minutes 416-2017 DRAFT August 16, 2017 Page 1 MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Items 1-3, as written. Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Fredericks VOTE: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulik, O'Donnell ABSENT: Thier CC-4. Sugarloaf Slide Repair Project—Authorize Town Manager to award project and use funds from Annual Drainage Improvement Program (Department of Public Works) Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes gave the Council some background on the project. He said there had been a debris slide, and a subsequent landslide from an adjoining property on Sugarloaf Drive. He said the slide(s)had affected a high voltage utility line as well. Director Barnes showed a conceptual plan to stop the movement of debris, and to repair the slide damage. He said the project was fully designed and is out for bid. Barnes said the purpose of this proposal was to ensure the bid could be awarded and work could commence before the winter rains begin. Because the next Town Council meeting will likely be cancelled, staff is requesting authorization for the Town Manager to award the project so as to not delay construction further. Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked if staff is reaching out to potential bidders. Director Barnes said they are advertising through regular channels,and sending emails and making calls to potential bidders. Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment. There was none. MOTION: Authorize Town Manager to approve award of contract for Sugarloaf Slide Repair project and authorize Town Manager to approve expenditures for the project. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell VOTE: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulik, O'Donnell ABSENT: Thier PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. Traffic Mitigation Fee Update—Consider adoption of Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update Report and updated traffic mitigation fees (Community Development Department) Director of Community Development Anderson said traffic mitigation fees for new developments have been in place and updated periodically since 1980, most recently in 2007. Following the Circulation Element update in 2016,the Town retained the firm of Nelson/Nygaard to prepare the fee analysis upon which future traffic mitigation fees would be based,as required by state law to justify the fees charged. He said the report calculates each development's financial responsibility based on the proportional share of traffic impact to each affected intersection or improvement. Anderson added that this is a Town Council Minutes #16-2017 DRAFT August 16, 2017 Page 2 similar methodology as to what was used in past years, but takes into account various factors that have changed since the last study in 2006. Director Anderson reviewed the details of the new fees,and concluded his report by introducing the representative from Nelson/Nygaard available to answer technical questions. Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked how Tiburon's fees compare to other local municipalities. Director Anderson said the immediate adjoining cities to Tiburon do not have these fees, but some larger cities in Marin County do. He said their fees are not as high. Councilmember Fredericks asked about the feasibility of merging the two separate accounts into a single mitigation account. Director Anderson said the fee no longer needs to be split between intersections outside the Town boundaries that are affected by Tiburon traffic and those within Town boundaries. Fredericks expressed concern that this might limit our ability to fund projects, but Director Anderson said any project listed in the General Plan was eligible for this funding. Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked about the types of developments these fees apply to.Anderson said the fees apply to development projects that generate new traffic, such as developing an empty lot. Councilmember Kulik wondered if it was fair to use a single-zone methodology to assess all developments in the same way.Patrick Siegman,principal at Nelson/Nygaard said the methodology is fair because it assigns the fees on a"per trip"basis.He believed the Town's previous methodology with several zones was overly complex,especially considering the normal margin of error in traffic studies, and this methodology is much easier to understand. Mayor Fraser wondered why other traffic mitigation measures (like the school bus program)could not be used as a benefit,or if there was a way for an offset against the fees,because the community has put in great efforts to reduce traffic. Anderson did not believe there could be a correlation between efforts made by the Town and residents to reduce traffic and these fees that require developers to pay for the share of traffic they contribute to the community. Fraser also questioned the fairness of assessing fees for traffic mitigation projects that may never actually happen.He suggested beginning to apply the fees for projects once they are actually planned for and funded. O'Donnell commented that there are both multi-million dollar projects and lower-cost projects on the list that can utilize these funds. Director Anderson added that the Town has been collecting these fees for decades, and several smaller projects listed in the Circulation Element are likely to receive funding from these fees before the large projects envisioned get funded.He said this money helps to fund improvements that can be done in the near future. Town Council Minutes#16-2017 DRAFT August 16, 2017 Page 3 Fraser said he agreed with the concept,but did not believe it was fair to use unfunded larger projects that might not happen as justification for raising the fees. Fredericks asked if the fees would serve to create a pool of funds to allow the Town to do these projects on an ongoing basis to work toward an overall plan of traffic and roadway improvements. Anderson agreed, and said staff gives an annual report to the Council on the use of these funds. Kulik asked if the funds accruing may have a future purpose that we may be unaware of at this time. Anderson said they may, if a certain traffic improvement becomes important, it can be added to the Circulation Element and would then be eligible for the funds. He said it was a worthwhile fee. Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment. There was none. Mayor Fraser said he was not in favor of the report as written,but would be if the methodology for calculating the fees was different. MOTION: Adopt report and adopt resolution establishing updated traffic mitigation fees. Moved: Fredericks, O'Donnell VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Kulik, O'Donnell NAYS: Fraser ABSENT: Thier ACTION ITEMS AI-1. Interpretive Signage on Old Rail Trail/Richardson Bay — Consider proposal from Richardson Bay Audubon Society to install interpretive signage along Old Rail Trail (Department of Public Works) Town Manager Chanis said the Richardson Bay Audubon Center has requested to install five high- quality interpretive signs focused on the natural history of Richardson Bay along the Old Rail Trail. He said this proposal was approved unanimously by the Parks,Open Space and Trails Commission. Chanis showed a depiction of the locations of the signs, and said the proposal also requests the removal of two old signs in poor condition. Gaylon Parsons, representing Audubon, said the society strongly supports the installation of these signs. She said they complement the work Audubon has done in the area for decades, and said she hopes this project will inspire local interest in the Richardson Bay sanctuary, which she said is a fundamental ecosystem in California. Paige MacLeod,also representing Audubon,said the goal of the proposal was to install signage that is in keeping with the style of the signs already there. Ms. MacLeod said the purpose of the signs is to engage and connect the local community with the natural habitat, and to educate the community about the local natural history and the annual closure of Richardson Bay. She showed examples of what the signs will look like, and reviewed the content of each of the five signs. Town Council Minutes#16-2017 DRAFT August 16, 2017 Page 4 Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment. There was none. Councilmember Kulik praised the signage and said he recalls seeing the signs on his first visit to Blackie's Pasture and found the historical value inspiring.He said he hopes this project sparks some community interest in the local environment. Vice Mayor O'Donnell also praised the project,and said he was pleased the old signs were coming down. Councilmember Fredericks said signage like this offers an emotional connection to your environment and community. She thanked the group for their proposal. MOTION: Approve sign concept and direct staff to proceed with installation. Moved: Fredericks, Kulik VOTE: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulik, O'Donnell ABSENT: Thier AI-2. Right-of-Way Restoration Standards — Consider approval of street restoration standards and provide direction on slurry seal standards (Department of Public Works) Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes said the Town Council approves standards for street restoration for non-moratorium and moratorium roadways. He said any cuts in the road(such as those from encroachment permits or utility cuts) will damage the road, no matter how good the standards are.Director Barnes said the Marin Public Works Association had approved standards for non-moratorium roadways only and said staff believes this standard is appropriate for adoption in Tiburon. He reviewed the details of those standards. Director Barnes said the Council still needs to adopt standards for moratorium roadways(roadways that have not been paved in the last five years).For those roadways,Director Barnes recommended adoption of the same standards, with several modifications. He said staff is also looking for direction from Council regarding the requirement to slurry seal trench patches,which restores the aesthetics of the road and rejuvenates the pavement adjacent to the patches. He said this is a good requirement for large projects,but slurry sealing small patches does not necessarily improve the life of the patch; it would be solely aesthetic. He said staff has received complaints about the patchwork look of local streets and complaints that recently slurry sealed are cut into again soon after repair. He asked the Council for direction on whether the extra cost and burden on encroachment permittees is worth the aesthetic benefit. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said he was pleased with the proposed standards,and added he believes the aesthetics of the slurry seal is important. He believed that those tearing up the street can be held to a higher standard, and can slurry seal the road. He said these were important standards that should be enhanced further with the addition of the slurry seal. Town Council Minutes#16-2017 DRAFT August 16, 2017 Page 5 Mayor Fraser agreed that some entities should be held to a higher standard, but expressed concern over the increased cost because the benefit is only aesthetic.He supported the standards without the slurry seal addition, and wanted to better understand the costs associated with the trench standards. Director Barnes said the new trench standards are more robust,and require more asphalt.He said he has heard feedback that it is more expensive,but he believes the costs are due to initial mobilization costs. Of the costs to slurry seal the road, he said the mobilization costs are very high. Councilmember Fredericks wondered if the standards apply to private roads. Director Barnes said they do not because they are not maintained or owned by the Town, and that is a very small percentage of roads in Tiburon. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said there were two different entities to consider:utility projects and property owner maintenance. Director Barnes agreed, and added the distinction between large and small utility projects, and homeowner initiated projects. Councilmember Kulik asked about the difference in cost between slurry seal solutions. Barnes said repairing small patches is inexpensive, and estimated the alternative to be ten thousand dollars. Kulik also inquired if the cheaper, small-patch technique could be improved with more regulation. Director Barnes said it might prevent tracking to put more manpower toward keeping cars from driving through the freshly completed patches. Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment. There was none. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said the Council should trust the engineer's judgement on the best way to do things, and said many larger projects already require the larger scale slurry seal. He said he would support the proposal. MOTION: Adopt resolution to accept proposed standards. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell VOTE: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulik, O'Donnell ABSENT: Thier AI-3. Electronic Correspondence and Records Retention Policies—Consider adoption of three(3)new policies applicable to Town elected and appointed officials,and Town Hall staff including: Social Media Policy, Records Retention Policy, and Use of Personal Accounts and Electronic Devices for Town Business Policy(Town Clerk Stefan) Town Clerk Stefani introduced the Social Media policy,and said this policy outlines guidelines for designated staff members conducting business on Town-operated social media sites. She said the policy prohibits employees from using personal social media accounts to conduct Town business,but does not impose significant restrictions on elected and appointed officials. Town Council Minutes#16-2017 DRAFT August 16, 2017 Page 6 She said the purpose of the Records Retention Policy is to implement effective records management practices at Town Hall, including day-to-day records management and direction on retention of records received via email. She highlighted the process for destroying and converting records in the regular course of business,and introduced the practice of the automatic deletion of emails from email systems after a period of six months. She said the policy would require staff to store and file records received via email properly in a subject matter folder, so those records are well organized and accessible if a request for public documents is received. The Town Clerk introduced the third policy by first acknowledging that any correspondence or records pertaining substantively to Town business that is stored or exchanged on personal accounts or devices is disclosable to a public records request. She said this policy, in order to streamline the response process for requests for those documents,will require Town elected and appointed officials to utilize a Town-issued email address for Town business. She said the policy also attempts to protect their privacy on their personal accounts. Councilmember Fredericks asked for clarification about what is considered "Town business". Town Attorney Stock explained the need for a Use of Personal Accounts and Electronic Devices policy came from a California Supreme Court case ruling that elected and appointed officials' emails that substantially relate to Town business are public record.However,what is deemed"substantially related"would be determined on a case-by-case basis.He said if a Council-adopted policy is in place stating the elected and appointed officials conduct Town business on a Town-issued email address, the ruling allows for more flexibility in that Town officials with responsive records may search their own accounts and devices, and sign an affidavit that they have acted according to the policy. He added many entities already have a policy in place requiring elected and appointed officials to use a separate email address.He also said another reason to conduct business in this manner is because it makes the staff's job easier when responding to Public Records Act requests because the staff can conduct one search across all emails to capture as many responsive documents as possible. Fredericks said this policy is difficult for elected and appointed officials. She said having lived in the community for a long time, the distinction between a social meeting and a business meeting is not always clear. She believed public officials should be able to search their own devices for responsive records, and added she recently did this for her position on another board, and it was acceptable. Stock explained the ruling requires a staff member to assist in the search the official's private account for responsive records, and does not give the flexibility for self-monitoring. However, the ruling does allow officials to search their own accounts if a policy has been adopted requiring officials use Town-issued accounts,which are accessible by staff if necessary.He said the adoption of a policy like this one would prevent the heavy burden on staff to request access to the official's private email account. Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked if Tiburon is the first municipality in the area to consider these three policies. Stock replied that most cities already have Social Media and Records Retention policies. Town Council Minutes#16-2017 DRAFT August 16, 2017 Page 7 O'Donnell commented the section of the Records Retention Policy that would require staff to file emails in a subject matter folder on the server could dramatically change how staff handles email communication, and has the potential to create sloppy filing. He also expressed concern over staff forgetting to do their email filing, and those emails then getting deleted. Stock said many cities have a similar policy in place in which emails get deleted after a certain period of time.He said each agency needs to decide on an appropriate retention period,and include it in the policy to ensure no loss of critical data. He said this was an important policy consideration because it trains the user to decide on the value of an email and consider how to appropriately file incoming messages,just as they would with a letter received in the mail. Mayor Fraser asked if the Council was able to not adopt the Personal Accounts and Electronic Devices policy, and continue operating as they currently do. Stock said there would be increased exposure to a Public Records Act request lawsuit. O'Donnell asked about the consequences if a public official were to inadvertently not use the Town- issued email address. Stock said the adoption of the policy is meant to protect against those inadvertent mistakes. O'Donnell continued by saying he was not sure this is a valid policy to pursue. Fredericks agreed, and said she believed the requirement to use a Town-issued email address seemed like an unnecessary extra step. Stock said it also imposed an extra step on staff to request access to the email accounts of any public official who may have responsive records. O'Donnell said he did not see the value the Use of Personal Accounts and Electronic Devices policy was providing the Town,as all elected and appointed officials are quite diligent and conscious of the laws and standards and have been trained on such matters. Councilmember Kulik asked how large of a behavior shift the Records Retention Policy section requiring staff to file emails on the server would impose on the staff. Town Manager Chanis said it would be a behavioral shift, and staff has already met on the matter several times.He pointed out that many staff members already organize their emails in this manner, so the only shift would be organizing them on the Town server,rather than within the email program. Fredericks asked if emails filed on the Town server will also be subject to deletion after the agreed upon retention period. Chanis said those would not be; only the emails stored within the email program would be automatically deleted.He added that the emails saved on the server will be emails individual staff members have actively chosen to save. Councilmember Fredericks asked about the difference between searching the server and the email program for correspondence, and why there is an advantage to doing it this way. Stock replied that the advantage is searching through significantly less emails,which takes up a lot of IT and staff time to find and define responsive documents. Town Council Minutes#16-2017 DRAFT August 16, 2017 Page 8 O'Donnell believed a responsible time frame could be imposed. He said there are many projects, however, that go on a lot longer than six months. Chanis replied the staff has had discussions on an appropriate time frame.He said staff members do already maintain project files for long projects on the server for relevant correspondence. Mayor Fraser said the consensus seemed to be that the Council is satisfied with the Social Media and Records Retention Policy, but does not want to change public official email interactions with the Town and did not wish to adopt the Use of Personal Devices and Electronic Accounts policy. Fraser then asked how many public records requests have been received. Town Clerk Stefani estimated four requests in the last six weeks, and prior to that it had been several months since the Town received one. Fredericks asked if any of those requests were for public official emails. Stefani said they were not. Stock suggested adoption of the Social Media policy, and to give staff direction on an appropriate deadline for email retention.He said he would revise the Personal Accounts and Electronic Devices policy based on comments made. Kulik said there may be an argument for shorter retention because it will force the behavioral shift; he said changing the mindset immediately will drive active retention. Stock said staff wanted a longer retention period. O'Donnell suggested email retention for one year. The rest of the Council agreed. Town Attorney Stock said he would bring the revised Records Retention Policy back for Council review at a later date. MOTION: Adopt Social Media Communications Policy. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell VOTE: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulik, O'Donnell ABSENT: Their TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS None. TOWN MANAGER REPORT Town Manager Chanis said a few words to recognize the recent death of Mr.Branwell Fanning,one of the "Founding Fathers" of the Town of Tiburon. DI-1. Discussion on scheduling additional interviews for open seats on Boards and Commissions Town Council Minutes#16-2017 DRAFT August 16, 2017 Page 9 The Town Manager,the Town Clerk and the Town Council discussed scheduling a special meeting in the next several weeks for the purpose of conducting interviews for current vacancies on Town boards and commissions. The Town Clerk said she would coordinate date options based on Councilmember availability in the next several weeks. WEEKLY DIGESTS Received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. in honor of Branwell Fanning. JIM FRASER, MAYOR ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes#16-2017 DRAFT August 16, 2017 Page 10 TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Fraser ca e sp~ ecial meetin If the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesd , August 30, 2017, in To Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulik PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes, Director of Administrative Services Bigall ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Mayor Fraser said the purpose of this meeting is for bond counsel to provide information to the proposed Hawthorne Undergrounding District property owners,to review next steps,and to give the property owners an opportunity to ask questions.The Mayor turned the meeting over to bond counsel Sam Sperry, and the Council left the dais and joined the audience. INFORMATIONAL MEETING REGARDING PROPOSED HAWTHORNE UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT 1) Presentation by Advisory Bond Counsel and Assessment Engineer Regarding Draft Preliminary Engineer's Report 2) Public Comment on the matters described in the Special Meeting Notice (Government Code Section 54954.3). No discussion or action taken. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Town Council Minutes#17-2017 DRAFT August 30, 2017 Page I JIM FRASER, MAYOR ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes #17-2017 DRAFT August 30, 2017 Page 2 TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING—6:00 P.M. On September 12, 2017, the Town Council held a special meeting as follows: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Thier, Vice Mayor O'Donnell, Mayor Fraser ABSENT: Councilmember Kulik CLOSED SESSION 1) Conference with Legal Counsel—Anticipated Litigation Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph(2) of Subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9: (1 Potential Case) ADJOURNMENT—to special meeting SPECIAL MEETING 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Fraser called the special meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Kulik, Councilmember Thier, Vice Mayor O'Donnell, Mayor Fraser PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis CONSENT CALENDAR CC-1. Special Vacancies — Adopt resolution allowing Town Council to appoint individuals from existing pool of applicants for unplanned vacancies on Town boards & commissions MOTION: Councilmember Alice Fredericks Town Council Minutes#18-2017 DRAFT September 12, 2017 Page 1 Moved: Councilmember Holli Thier VOTE: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Their, Kulik INTERVIEWS FOR VACANCIES ON TOWN BOARDS & COMMISSIONS The Town Council interviewed the following applicants for various vacancies on the Planning Commission, Design Review Board and Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission: • Daniel Amir, 22 Juno Road • Angela McInerney, 60 Mount Tiburon Road • Leonor Noguez, 346 Karen Way • Bruce King, 139 Hacienda Drive • Isaac Nikfar, 515 Hilary Drive • Jeff Tsai, 1 Blackfield Drive • Suzanne Kim, 20 Mateo Drive ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser adjourned the meeting 9:15 P.M. JIM FRASER, MAYOR ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes#18-2017 DRAFT September 12, 2017 Page 2 i TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard September 20, 2017 Tiburon,CA 94920 Agenda Item: CG sTA11-P REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Administrative Services Department Subject: Investment Summary—July 2017 Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Pursuant to Government Code Section 53601, staff is required to provide the Town Council with a report regarding the Town's investment activities for the period ended July 30, 2017. ANALYSIS July 2017 Agency Interest Investment Amount Rate Maturity Town of Tiburon Local Agency Investment $23,754,084.22 1.051% Liquid Fund (LAIF) Money Market(Bank of $ 100,000.00 0.15% Liquid Marin) Total 1 $23,854,084.22 The total invested at the end of the prior month was $24,250,164.40, therefore; the Town's investments declined by $396,080.18 from June 2017. FINANCIAL IMPACT No financial impact occurs by accepting this report. The Town continues to meet the priority principles of investing— safety, liquidity and yield in this respective order. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to accept the Investment Summary for July 2017 Prepared By: Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting Se x mcber 19, 2017 E . 1505 Tiburon Boulevard l Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: CC - ` a, STAFF REPORT , To: Mayor and Members of Town Council From: Office of the Town Manager Subject: Approve Town's Response to Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled: Public Engagement in Marin-A Pathivay to Inclusive r o a ra race Reviewed By: a BACKGROUND On June 26, 2017, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury issued a report entitled: Public Engagement in Marin-A Pathway to Inclusive Governance. The report, attached as Exhibit 1, identifies several findings and makes several recommendations. The report requests the Town respond to all twelve of the report's recommendations. Town staff has drafted a written response (Exhibit 2), which is attached for the Council's review. The response must conform to the format required by Penal Code section 933.05. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council review and approve the response letter and authorize the Town Manager to sign and forward the letter to the Civil Grand Jury. EXHIBITS 1. Civil Grand Jury Report entitled: Public Engagement in Marin-A Pathivoy to Inclusive Governance 2. Draft Response Letter to Civil grand jury report entitled: Public Engagement in Marin-A Pathivay to Inclusive Governance Prepared By: Lea Stefani,Town Clerk EXHIBIT NO. 2016-2017 MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY Public Engagement in Marin A Pathway to Inclusive Governance Report Date: June 15, 2017 Public Release Date: June 26, 2017 r riZa i 1 7 • #r r ## COUNT'` OF MARIN # t Marin County Civil Grand Jury Public Engagement in Marin A Pathway to Inclusive Governance SUMMARY Last year's Grand Jury released a report entitled "2015-2016 Web Transparency Report Card" which rated the information quality of local agencies' websites. This year's jury decided to go a step further and look at how well our cities, towns and the County engage with the public. We first surveyed each of the agencies to learn about their public engagement strategies and their_,perceived effectiveness. We then surveyed residents of our municipalities and unincorporated areasto get a "snapshot"view of their experience with their local government's engagement. Finally, we looked at the reporting of local issues by local media. We found that public engagement in Marin takes different forms depending on where you live. In addition, while every agency is making efforts to engage, some have more political will, more resources, and/or a more active public to make that happen. Public engagement may take many forms,but all have the goal of enabling more inclusive governance. The following report provides an overview of current public engagement throughout Marin and suggests methods of improvement for our 11 municipalities and the County. With this report, the Grand Jury hopes to illuminate a pathway,to inclusive governance, inspiring both our local government and the public they serve. BACKGROUND "Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions."1 —Barack Obama Many terms describe public involvement in government decision making: community or civic engagement,community participation, and public participation. In this Report, we define public engagement (PE) as: A broad range of methods through which government agencies provide the public with more and better information about, and meaningful opportunities to influence, government decisions. Public engagement is not new.Z However, effective public engagement calls upon agencies to go beyond minimum statutory requirements, such as the Ralph M. Brown Acta 1 Obama,Barack"Transparency and Open Government."Federal Register.21 Jan.2009 -- _ Nalbanian,John."Facilitatin-,Community, Enablm,z Democracy NeN Roles for Local Government Nlanavers."Public Administration Review.November/December, 1999.. 3"Gov-54950.5 Ralph M. BroNyn Act." Cali/irrnia Legislative Infonnation. Public Engagement In Marin for public meetings and the California Public Records Act`' for keeping and providing public records. PE is important for local government agencies as well as the public they serve. Today, agencies throughout California are applying a variety of PE strategies and practices to address issues ranging from land use and budgeting to housing and public safety. They are discovering that successful engagement of residents in decision making can bring several benefits:s ■ Improved agency decision-making and actions, with better impacts and outcomes in More community buy-in and support for agency decisions, with less contentiousness in Faster project implementation with less time and expense in revisiting or reversing decisions m Better identification of the public's values, ideas and recommendations in More informed residents about issues and local agencies ■ More civil discussions and decision making ■ More trust in each other and local government ■ Higher rates of community participation and leadership development' Effective PE may now be more important than ever. "Disparities in education, health, economic opportunity, and access to affordable housing and justice continue to increase, and the resources available to confront those challenges have not kept pace with expanding needs."6 Marin's municipalities and the County of Marin face increasingly significant issues needing public support for resolution, such as the lack of affordable housing and unfunded post-retirement liabilities. Building partner-like relationships between these agencies and their communities through PE may provide the support our agencies need. Marinites want to be engaged, as noted in the County's 5 Year Business Plan for 2015-2020.7 However, a December 2016 Marin Independent Journal Editorial, favorably commenting on the County's goals for 2017, concluded by stating: The list ofgoals or New Year's resolutions deserved more public attention and involvement before they were approved as political marching orders, but maybe fixing that flaw will make the list for- 2018.8 Local government efforts at public engagement often occur as one-time activities focused on one immediate and controversial issue. However, local governments that"embed" a capacity to regularly consider, design, use and improve their PE practices may be better able to successfully assess the need for PE in particular instances and shape the best responses, since no one set of PE strategiesworks for everyone.9 Those local governments often have written PE plans guiding their public engagement efforts. In Marin, Mill Valley, Novato, San Rafael, and the County have formal PE plans. (See Appendix A for definition of"PE Plan.") a"Goy 6251 California Public Records Act."California Legislative Information. 5"Wh rt is Public Lngageni ut_&Why.Should I do it?"Instawe for Local Government.2016. 6 Barnes,Melody&Schmitz,Paul."Couunuuity Lngauement_N9atters(vow More Than Feel)."Stanford Social Innovation Review.Spring 2016. -- 7"County of Marin 5 Year Business Plan.2015-2020."County of A9arin.October 2015. s"Count v lists legislative owls for 2017."Alarin Inde endent Journal.31 Dec.2016. 9"Three Orientations of Local Government to Public FnL iaemcnt. Institute.for•Local Government. 2016. 1"Embedchna Public End i�emcnt m I-Deal Government."h7stitule for Local Government.Accessed 2017. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 2 of 61 Public Engcigement In Marin Since public engagement is important especially now, we undertook this study to see how Marin's municipalities and the County view their own public engagement, what the public's view is, how the news media perceives PE in Marin, and to make suggestions for improving PE in our municipalities and the County. METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury followed the methodology outlined below. Literature Review. We analyzed literature from respected sources in California, nationwide and internationally to identify best practices in public engagement. These sources include the following: ■ Institute for Local Government, an affiliate of the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties and the California Special Districts Association ■ The Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership at Pepperdine University, a co-author of reports with the Institute for Local Goverment ■ Public Agenda, a New York based nonpartisan nonprofit organization and co-author of reports with the Institute for Local Government and The Davenport Institute ■ National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation, a Pennsylvania based organization ■ International Association for Public Participation, a Colorado based international association that seeks to improve public engagement ; Public Engagement Plan Review. We reviewed public engagement plans, ordinances and resolutions in Marin and other California cities and.counties. Grand Jury Report Review. We reviewed The Wilt Cup/Tam Ridge Residences: How Did It Come To Pass?10 and the response. _Public Engagement Information Request to Marin Agencies. We prepared a Public Engagement Information Request and distributed':it to Marin's I 1 municipalities and the County of Marin to gather their views on public engagement opportunities. (See Appendix A: Public Engagement Information Request.) Thehnformation Request included questions regarding the best practice strategies for implementing public engagement principles formulated by the sources listed above.11 SF Bay Area cities that have used such strategies and principles in public engagement plans include Oakland and Menlo`Park.12 Public Engagement Survey to Marin Residents. We also prepared a survey for Marin residents to gather the public's views on engagement in their municipalities and the County. (See Appendix B: Survey of Residents of Unincorporated Marin County and Appendix C: Survey of Residents of Marin Cities`& Incorporated Towns.) The public survey adapts concepts from a California joint reportissued by the Institute for Local Government, The Davenport Institute for Public "Will Cup_Tam Rid ie Residences: Ilo\� leu]h(onl l o Piss?"Marin County Civil Grancl,lany.24 June 2015. "Princi)Lles of Local Gov ernntenI Public.Lnea gement."Institute forLocal Government.2015.;"Core Principles for Public -- - -- Engtremcnt."National Coalition/br Dialogue&Deliberation. 1 May 2009.;"Core V tlucs tol the P1 tcticc of Public Parti6pation."International Association forPublic Participation.2008. 12"Oakland C itv Council Resolution No.84385 Resolution Establishing The City of Oakland's Budget Process"1 ransparencv and Public. Palticlpahoil_Policy."City gl'Oaklancl.21 May 2013 City of Menlo Park, Engagement Plan."City of Nlenlo ...... - Park.2011-12. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 3 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin Engagement and Civic Leadership, and Public Agenda.11 The Grand Jury circulated this survey through the cooperation of news and social media and some agencies. News Media Review. We reviewed Marin Inclependent Journal articles on public engagement in Marin. The Independent Jounial has served Marin readers for more than 150 years, often shining the light on local government and public engagement.14 Attendance at Public Meetings. Finally, the Grand Jury attended public meetings of Marin municipalities and the County. 13 Bevond Business as Usual:Leaders C,tlifornia's Civic Organizations S_ek New\Vays to Engage the Public in Local Governance."Public Agenda.2013. 14`"`Stutshine week'cclebrttes the}wbhc �right to know."Maria Indepenelonf Journal. 15 March 2017. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 4 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin DISCUSSION Using the concepts of public engagement (PE), the Grand Jury took a snapshot of 12 government agencies and the public to get an idea of not only how these agencies view their own PE efforts, but also how the public perceives these efforts. We started by surveying Marin's 11 municipalities and the County ("the agencies") in the form of an online Information Request containing questions pertaining to PE attitudes,practices and approaches. Each agency was given 21 days to respond during which time we were available to answer questions from respondents. To assess how the people of Marin feel about public engagement, we developed and disseminated two online Public Engagement Surveys designed to capture information from residents of both cities and towns and the unincorporated areas of Marin. These surveys were announced through the Marin Independent Journal, The Ark Newspaper, Marin Post,Point Reyes Light, and the private social networking service for neighborhoods,Nextdoor. As was the case with the agencies, the surveys were open for 21 days and we were available to answer questions from respondents during that time. The questions in both surveys were identical and provided opportunities for both multiple-choice and narrative responses. It is important to remember that the people who responded to the public survey were self-selected. However, they were willing to share their thoughts to give us a window into what some of our public is thinking. Four hundred fifty-one (45 1)public responses were received and reviewed, after culling duplicates. Overview: Agency Public Engagement Information Request Responses Viewed in aggregate, Marin agencies' responses to our request(see Appendix D: Summary Agency Views of Public Engagement) showed: ■ Benefits. Agencies mostly agreed on these PE benefits: improved decision making; more community buy-in; better identification of the public's values, ideas and recommendations; more informed residents; more civil discussions; more trust; faster project implementation; and higher rates of participation. ■ A Formal PE Plan. Four of the 12 agencies reported having a plan. ■ InclusivePlanning Use. Agencies all agreed on the use of PE for these areas: parks & recreation, land use &planning, transportation &infrastructure, housing, and budgeting. ■ Transparency Strategies. Agencies all used: newsletters by email, newsletters on website, community news on website, and draft budgets online. ■ Improving Authentic Intent. Agencies mostly: summarized complexity, used clear and simple language, and meaningful and timely information. ■ The PE Culture. All agencies rated their culture as excellent or good in these areas: PE improves decision-making, views the public as partners, gives public fill consideration, and proactively contacts and engages with community. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 5 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin ■ Breadth of Participation. All agencies "regularly" or"sometimes": build and nurture relationships, distribute information regularly, provide timely information, and welcome community participation. ■ Informed Participation. All agencies "regularly" or"sometimes": proactively post issues on their website and use other communication platforms. ■ Accessible Participation. All agencies "regularly" or"sometimes": have meetings that are broadly accessible in terms of location/time/language and deliver presentations in alternative living locations for the elderly. Not surprisingly, all of the agencies are aware of the importance of public engagement, agree on its many benefits, and view themselves as having a good PE culture. Opinions varied as to what constitutes effective PE. A recurring theme in response to the Information Request was "one size does not fit all."As a result, some agencies especially the smaller ones do not feel the need for a formal PE Plan. Instead, they are comfortable taking their cues from the communities they serve, reacting to issues as they-come up and engaging mostly through their websites, newsletters, and public meetings. Others may have budgeting and other resource concerns to contend with before they can consider developing a plan. With the exception of the City of Sausalito, those with populations under 10,000 do not intend to develop any formal PE Plan at this time. However, the Grand Jury suggests that agencies do not need to start their public engagement efforts by crafting a formal PE Plan. Instead, an agency can gather their existing engagement strategies in a simple document(which we'refer.to as PE Guidelines), which can evolve over time with community input. The process of creating the Guidelines does not need to be expensive nor take a lot of resources. These Guidelines can also avoid the need to reinvent the wheel each time a public engagement issue arises, and provide flexibility in the event of employee retirement or turnover.15 Elements of such Guidelines can be found in checklists and tables contained in San Luis Obispo's Public Engagement and Noticing Manual 16 and Seattle Office for Civil Rights' Inclusive Outreach And Public Engagement Guide.17 Larger municipalities such as Novato and San Rafael, who have completed formal PE plans, encompass much larger geographic areas with greater, more diverse populations. With a larger public to serve and contend with, it makes sense for these municipalities to develop and make use of formal PE Plan to achieve effective, meaningful, and consistent communication. Appendix E ("Platforms Used to Engage The Public")reflects some of the tools and platforms Marin's cities/towns and the County are using to disseminate information to the public. While each agency makes use of standard, expected methods of communication, such as public meetings and notices, website and email, most have also embraced what have become popular and relatively 15 Medford,Marlena."Silos Arc Good for Grain Not Puhhc Enea2ement."Peak Democracy. 14 Dec.2016. 16"Public Ln i cement And Notic ii M mtml."01v af1San i is Obispo.Nov.2015. 17"Inclusive Outreach And Public 1=nfleIL,cnlcIII G11idC."Seattle Office fin-Civil Rights.Apri12 009(Rev.01/11/12). June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 6 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin essential social media platforms like Twitter and texting. This represents an expansion from the minimum requirements of The Brown Act,which guarantees the public's right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies. Moving beyond these requirements is an essential strategy of effective, modern day PE. Overview: Comparing Public Engagement in Marin with the San Francisco Bay Area In 2013, Public Agenda published Testing the Waters 18 and Beyond Business As Usual.19 These reports contained the results from surveys of 900 local officials and 500 leaders of civic and community-based organizations throughout California, exploring "the attitudes of California's ` local officials toward public participation in local governance."The reports concluded that, "These officials believe that the current models for including the public in local decision makingfall to meet the needs of both residents and local officials."20 Although our sample size was significantly smaller (12 Marin vs. 206 Bay Area officials) than the Testing the Waters survey, we found similarities: Testing the Waters Testing the Writers Grand Jury Survey Question 206 Bay Area Respondents 12 Marin Agencies Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied 72% at least"somewhat satisfied" 751%, at least"somewhat satisfied" are you with the level of public participation in local government decision making in your community? Thinking about significant public 4%input from experts 81/o input fi-om experts decisions that you've been involved 60%;=input also from stakeholders& 421M, input also from stakeholders& with,which best describes how this interest groups interest groups process typically works? 36%u input from broad cross section 50% input from broad cross section In the past year, how often have you 100% at least once 75% at least once seen a public decision made with considerable input from a broad cross section of the community?, is Hagelskamp,Carolin and Immerwahr,John and Hess,Jeremy."Iestinl,the Waters:Cali Cornia's Local Officials Experiment_with NelvY NVaysa to 1n g*e thC.Public."Public Agenda.2013. __ 19 Hagelskamp,Carolin and Immerwahr,John and}less,Jeremy."f _ond Business As Usual: Leader~of(alitoini is Civic --- ---- Or,y tnization,Scck Nevv Ways to Engage the Public in Local Government."Public Agenda. 2013. 20 Hagelskamp,Carolin and Immerwahr,John and Hess,Jeremy."Testing the Waters:C ahni fora"s Local Officials F viper anent with Neiv- Ways to F ii i�ie the Publ ic."Public Agenda. 2013. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 7 of 61 Public Engagemenl In Marin Likewise, our sample of 451 Marin residents vs. 125 Bay Area civic leaders (from Beyond Business As Usual) also showed similarities: Beyond Business as Usual Beyond Business as Usual Grand Jury Survey Question 125 Bay Area Respondents 451 Marin Residents Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied 7% Very satisfied 20% Satisfied are you with the efforts made by 49% Somewhat satisfied 31% Somewhat satisfied most local public officials to include 22% Somewhat dissatisfied 18% Somewhat dissatisfied the public in government decision 15% Very dissatisfied 24% Dissatisfied making? One way for local officials to engage 21%Never 33%Never with the public is through public 32% 1-2 36% 1-2 hearings and comments at council, 46% 3 or more 31% 3 or more board or commission meetings. In the past 12 months,how many times have you personally attended such a meeting? As far as you are aware, do your 72%, Email 59%Email local public officials REGULARLY 32% Social Media 43% Social Media use the following for communication 73% Website 79% Website and outreach to the public? Overview: Resident Responses to Public Engagement Survey The total number of responses by residentsof our`cities, towns, and unincorporated areas of Marin was 451, as shown below: Number of Public Engagement Survey Responses Belvedere(0) Corte Madera(10) Fairfax(16) Larkspur(9) Em Mill Valley(22) Novato(201) Ross(4) San Anseimo(19) San Rafael(78) Sausalito(5) ' Tiburon(3) Unincorporated Marin(84) 0 60 120 180 240 Number of Survey Responses June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 8 of 61 Public Engcrgernent In Marin Details: Individual City, Town, and County Snapshots Since each agency has its own philosophy of what effective PE is, and how to achieve it, the following discussion highlights each town or city and the County on its own merits. Each municipality's snapshot contains the following information: ■ Background. Demographic overview of the municipality using Bay Area Census" data. ■ View from the City (or Town or County). Excerpts from the agency informational requests (see Appendix A). ■ Views from the Residents. Highlights from the public surveys (see Appendices B and Q, representative comments from residents, and a "by-the-numbers" synopsis: o On average how many public hearings,meetings and/or workshops do you attend each year? ("Meeting Attendance") o Are you interested in becoming more engaged in the decision making process? ("Engagement Interest') o How satisfied are you with the efforts to include the public in government decision malting? ("PE Satisfaction") o Please rate how the agency is doing in the following areas of public engagement ("Detailed PE Issues") ■ Agency is making more of an effort to engage awide variety of people in government decision making("Making an effort") ■ Agency engages the public in ways that are broadly accessible in terms of location, facilities,time,and language("Broadly Accessible") ■ Residents have ample opportunity to participate in agency's government decisions ("Ample Opportunity") ■ Agency provides the public with the information it needs,and with enough lead time,to effectively engage in the decision making process("Effectiveness") ■ Agency gives full considerationto public input before making government decisions("Tull Consideration") ■ Agency regularly informs residents of follow-up,progress,outcomes,and impacts concerning decisions made based on public involvement("Regularly Informs") ■ Agency builds relationships with community-based groups and interested residents that are broadly reflective of the public it serves("Relationship Building") ■ Agency regularly uses clear and simple language in communications("Clear&Simple") o Which tools are used to engage and communicate with the public? ("PE Tool Awareness") ■ View from the,Media. Illustrative PE issues covered by the press in recent years. Studies show a positive relationship between newspaper readership and civic engagement.22 Most of the featured stories are from The Marin Independent Journal(IJ), Marin's major news source. Some of the stories recapped in this section are success stories. Some are not. The Grand Jury suggests that all are instructive for the benefits of effective public engagement. ■ Summary. A brief comparison of views expressed by the agency, residents, and media. 21 "Bay Area Census."Meoopolitan Transportation Coinni ssion and Association of Bap Area Governments. 22 Shaker,Lee. ._Citizens' Civic Ln aaement."Political ConTmnnication Jonrncrl.Volume 31,2014-Issue 1, 30.1an.2014. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 9 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin ............. OEM=,! Belvedere has the smallest population of all Marin cities and towns at just 2,068 residents with a median family income of$181,800. It has the highest percentage of residents over 65 years at 31.6%, and the smallest percentage of children under 5 years at just 4.6%. However, Belvedere is in the average range of families with children under 18 at 24.2%. View from the City Belvedere does not have, and does not plan on adopting, a formal PE Plan. Nor is PE a part of any one job description within the agency. When asked why they had no plans to adopt a PE Plan, Belvedere responded, "As a small city, PE processes can often be accomplished more easily and informally compared to larger cities. At this time, we feel our current PE processes garner a sufficient amount of public engagement such that formalizing a plan is not necessary at this time." As we heard from other small-scale communities in Marin, size matters when it comes to spending agency resources on developing a full-scale PE Plan and hiring PE-specific personnel. In addition, because of the very nature of their close-knit communities, municipalities like Belvedere feel that active public engagement tends to happen organically. Indeed a visit to Belvedere's website confirms that the deer issue and its follow-on study, is featured prominently on a new webpage where all reports, information, public correspondence, and a video-recorded community forum are catalogued regarding this issue.23 Views From the Residents There were no respondents to our survey to provide information or insight regarding resident views of PE efforts in Belvedere. View from the Media A long-running issue in Belvedere concerns what some residents say is an out of control deer population. With the community divided over what, if anything, to do about it, they continue grappling with solutions as the City Council works to hear public input. In August 2016 the IJ reported that, "...the council agreed the deer issue needs to be addressed, and it voted unanimously to confront community concerns by calling for a forum in which they will invite wildlife experts to participate in a panel." That this is an issue that merits debate "was evident by the turnout," said the 11.24 Summary Since Belvedere is a very small community, the city reports no need for a formal PE Plan. Based on media reports, Belvedere residents are engaged primarily in an on-going, issue- by-issue basis. 23„ Cwicnt lssucs bcfoic tL;City Council."Cit),of6elvedere. 24 Rodriguez,Adrian."Bek cdcre dccr issuc to be subLc_c.t of fonzut"Marin Independent Journal.9 Aug.2016. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 10 of 61 Public Engagemenl In Marin ......._.. ......... ...... Corte Madera's population is 9,253 with a median family income of$141,140. Although only 16% of the residents are over 65, certainly not the highest percentage in Marin, Corte Madera has been recognized by the World Health Organization as a member of the Global Network of Age- Friendly Cities self-identifying as "Age-Friendly Corte Madera."2s Corte Madera and its neighboring city, Larkspur, often called"the Twin Cities," share a police department with San Anselmo (the Central Marin Police Authority) and is currently in discussion with Larkspur regarding merging fire departments. View from the Town Corte Madera does not have and has no plans to adopt a formal PE Plan. According to the town, "Public engagement is an expectation as a Town. We follow best practices for engaging the public and disseminating information. We also hire employees that understand the importance of this expectation." Extending outreach through webcasting, Facebook, Nextdoor, texting and mobile apps, Corte Madera has also created an effective transparency portal on their website.26 The town also regularly assesses their PE efforts for effectiveness, asking participants for feedback and advice pertaining to their PE experience. Views From the Residents Ten Corte Madera residents responded to our survey. By the numbers: Meeting Attendance 70% have attended at least one meeting annually` Engagement Interest 70% want to be engaged more PE Satisfaction 60% are at least"somewhat satisfied by efforts Detailed PE Issues Increased effort, advance information,and informs are ranked worst PE Tool Awareness Website and social media are most familiar 2s`•Ori Missi1.on Statement."A e F i ndl y Corte Madera.Accessed 28 Apr.2017. 26"Transparency Portal."The Town of Corte Madera. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 11 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin The quotes below are some of the responses to our invitation for general comment. However, it must be noted that given the small number of responses, these views are not necessarily representative of the greater public's views: Town has an outstanding website, a weekly online newsletter, email notices of hearings and uses Nextdoor to distribute information. lVe wonder where the tax$$goes, as many updates and repairs are shoddily done; especially with the heavy weather and damage to many roadside areas. Corte Madera is generally open with its communication. Some people are just not interested in participating. View from the Media The road to completing Corte Madera's Tam Ridge apartment complex has been a rocky one. A March 2017 IJ editorial27 citing progress on the project stated, "There have been some important lessons learned along the way, including that it is better to make slue that the public is informed about and encouraged to engage in the decision making process than having to deal with the public fall-out.' Because of its controversial development history, this same article reported that, "The building has also reinvigorated public interest in local planning decisions, as residents have gotten a look at what can happen when they aren't paying attention." In another development debate, plans to rebuild a major Corte Madera hotel has run up against public opposition over the paving of a pond that currently sits on the intended expansion site. After vetting the plan in what the U in April 2017 called "marathon meetings," most recently one with a "heated, four-hour standoff," the issue continues to be debated.2s Summary The town reports good PE efforts and has no plans to create a formal PE Plan. y Residents who responded to our survey are generally positive, although "advance information" and "informs" were rated negatively. This view is perhaps part of the difficulties reported in the media. The Marin IJ reported on two on-going controversies in Corte Madera highlighting the recognition that early and on-going involvement in community issues is crucial. � I'i o_ ss on Corte M(adeut ap ar tme.nt complex N�elcome."Maria Independent Joan r�a126 Feb.2017 ''Rodriguez,Adrian."Corte Mi de i-a Ihotel plan Mods through_pon(I debate."Marin Independent Jorrrna/.4 Apr.2017 June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 12 of 61 Public Engagement In Marie �iP d'd The town of Fairfax has a population of 7,441. Nearly 27% of the residents are families with kids under 18, and 4.5% have kids under five. The Town of Fairfax website describes Fairfax as "...an environmentally conscious community situated in the heart of central Marin County and is considered the most progressive of Marin's 11 incorporated cities."The site further states, "The Town has ordinances preventing chain stores; take-out styrofoam food packaging and plastic bags and is in the process of updating its General Plan with a goal of retaining its small town character.-29 View from the Town Fairfax does not have a formal PE Plan, nor does it intend to create one. While Fairfax "actively engages the community for input on major land use, projects, and/or policy issues," the town finds that"different approaches are needed for different issues/projects. "As an example of rigorous, ongoing public discourse requiring time and resources, Fairfax cited, "One land use issue [that] has been in discussion for four years." After gathering community input via a community workshop and online forums, the town recently changed direction regarding plans for their Town Center. In addition,public online forum discussions surrounding the issue of medical marijuana cultivation led to a more informed decision. Views from the Residents Sixteen residents responded to our survey. By the numbers: Meeting Attendance 68.8% have attended at least one meeting annually Engagement Interest 68.8% want to be engaged more PE Satisfaction 43.8% are at least"somewhat satisfied"by efforts Detailed PE Issues Advance information,full consideration, and informs are ranked worst PE Tool Awareness Website and surveys are most familiar 29"About Fairfax_California."Town(#Fairfax. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 13 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin Below are some responses to our invitation to make general comments: I wish that the Town would post on Facebook or have a blog as part of their website to post updates about ongoing issues. The more controversial items on the meeting agenda are scheduled at the end of the town meetings, so you inay have to stay 4 hours to be heard. 1've seen instances of the town council making decisions before the public is heard... The Town of Fahjax government operates in secrecy and with complete disregard for the interests of its citizens. There is an imperial and dismissive air to Town officials. They do not care at all what residents think and completely disregard vievvs contrary to their oivn. View from the Media The Fairfax Town Council has reacted to the undoing of a 2014 rezoning decision by proposing a new district exclusively for senior housing in hopes of building community support for the affordable senior housing project known as Victory Village. A March 2016 IJ article reported that, "Opponents to the rezoning gathered more than 1,000 signatures on a petition forcing the council to backtrack and undo the zoning change." Opposition for this latest zoning proposal has been vocal, but support for Victory Village is also being voiced. According to the IJ, "The project has the full support of the Marin Organizing Committee, a group of 16 civic organizations, including churches and synagogues, which has championed the cause of addressing Marin's affordable housing shortage."30 In a related issue, a former Fairfax council member posted a letter on behalf of a concerned citizen's group to The Marin Post. The letter, addressed to the Town's mayor and council, appeared under the headline "Fairfax residents ask Town to preserve public engagement and transparency in planning decisions."31 Summary Fairfax reports having no PE Plan with no intent to develop one. The town believes different approaches to engage the public are needed for different kinds of issues. The resident response to our survey indicates a wish for increased efforts in PE by the town. Less than half the respondents to our survey were somewhat satisfied with the town's efforts and the majority expressed the desire to become more involved. This view was also expressed by residents in a letter addressed to the Town and subsequently posted to The Marin Post. 30 Halstead,Richard."Fairfax tries new tonin„ tacl_-oil senior housing_c_omplex.”Dltarin hzdependeol Journal.6 Mar.2017. 31 "Fairfax uit ix ie5xicnri ask ro��n to preserve public en r iticnOcnt and tumsharenr� m planum 7 decisions."The Marna Post. 1 Feb. 2017. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 14 of 61 Public Engagement In Maria ....... _ Larkspur's population is 11,926, making it the fifth largest municipality in Marin. The median family income is $115,360. Along with Belvedere and Sausalito, more than 21% of its residents are over 65, which gives these three cities the highest percentage of older adults in all Marin. Larkspur and Corte Madera are often referred to as the "Twin Cities," in part because of their close proximity to one another. The Twin Cities share a local community newspaper (Twin Cities Times), are currently in negotiation regarding a merger of fire departments, and have consolidated police departments with San Anselmo forming the tri-city "Central Marin Police Authority." View from the City Larkspur does not have a formal PE Plan. Engagement opportunities are made available in multiple ways beyond the public meeting, including use of tools such as Facebook, Twitter and texting. Larkspur states that they view their public as partners, and give full consideration to public input before making decisions. PE is an assigned duty of one or more staff members and the City of Larkspur "makes every effort to engage the public in its processes. Views from the Residents There were nine responses from Larkspur residents to our survey. By the numbers: Meeting Attendance 88.9% have attended at least one meeting annually Engagement Interest 66.70/o want to be engaged more PE Satisfaction 33.3% are at least"somewhat satisfied"by efforts Detailed PE Issues Broad accessibility, advance information,and full consideration are ranked worst PE Tool Awareness Website and email are most familiar The quotes below are some of the responses to our invitation for general comments. It must be noted,however, that given the small number of responses, these views are not necessarily representative of the public's views: 1 haven't used the Larkspur Web Site. I don't think I get information that 1 need to know[about] what is going on in the Citp hall Meetings or general infbrmation about[what] is going on about town. Only ifl go to the City and ask a particular questions is when I find out what is going on about that one thing, Staff(city manager) wants to control information presented at rrreetings. Often will not release contribution to board meetings before the date. A recently started email newsletter firom the City Manager is excellent. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 15 of 61 Public Engagement In Matin View from the Media In February of 2017, an IJ editorial noted that public protests prompted Larkspur to reverse its decision (which was already being implemented) to reduce traffic lanes on a heavily-traveled, short stretch of Magnolia Avenue at a cost of thousands of dollars to taxpayers. While the City approved the lane change, it did not"get much public attention until locals noticed the [rerouting] lines painted on the road." The Editorial noted this "deserved more effective front-end attention" and"That attention might have saved taxpayers $50,000, a cost that should serve as a reminder for future projects.„32 In January 2017, after almost a year without progress, Larkspur announced in the IJ that they , were again moving on plans for a new library and community center. With a strategy involving a committee to explore funding for and cost of operating the library, city officials expected to receive a presentation in the spring about work done to date. Planning for the project had slowed due to changeover in key staff. Residents "have expressed that maintaining the city's small-town character is important to them” and one councilman stated, "We will arrive at the right solution when we've eliminated all the wrong ones. That's how the design process works."" However, by March 2017, it was reported "Unfortunately, city staff then and now lacked a vision of what the community needed or had any idea how to finance it. With leadership missing, altruistic community volunteers unaccustomed to compromising due to conflicting agendas will inevitably stumble about unfocused and struggle to fornuzlate financially viable plans."34 Summary Larkspur has no formal PE Plan and no intent to develop one, although the agency does report utilizing multiple tools to engage the public. With only nine responses from the public,'the Grand Jury makes no inferences. A Marin IJ editorial noted one particularly difficult issue in which the town reversed a decision (already partially implemented) because of public protest. The editorial noted that in the future "...more effective front-end attention" could be fruitful. 32«Larkspur rescindsylai-,nolia lane ehanae."Marin h?dependcnt Jom-ncrl. 1 Feb.2017. 33 Rodriguez,Adrian."Laikspur renews focus on plan fbr l�h�ai}'.,conuuunit hub."Marin Independent Journal22 Jau.2017. 34 Spotswood,Dick.'1 arksptir limps along with_libr ary plan_"Marin Independent Journal. 25 Mar.2017. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 16 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin According to 2010 census data, Mill Valley has a population of 13,903. This makes Mill Valley the third largest city in Marin. The median family income is $167,000. Of the 6,084 households, 30%have children under 18. Similar to San Rafael, Mill Valley shares its zip code with a number of unincorporated areas including Strawberry, Tam Valley, Almonte, Homestead Valley and Alto. View from the City Mill Valley has a formal PE Plan. Adopted in June of 2014, their Strategic Communications Plan is "...designed to identify goals and strategies to effectively communicate with community, members, drive the development of internal communications policies, and improve the overall effectiveness of the City in meeting the needs of the community."35 As identified in the Communications Plan, a "Communications Group"—comprised of a Community Engagement Supervisor (newly established position as a result of the Plan), Communications Specialist (part-time contract service provider), and the Assistant to the City Manager—was established to implement communication goals. Mill Valley now has an active Community Engagement Supervisor who reports to the Assistant to the City Manager. In addition, Mill Valley has a convenient transparency portal on its recently revised website.36 With two-way communication defined as a priority, Mill Valley has been busy with many significant PE processes over the past 24 months, including: community workshops, regular email newsletter updates, liaisons with the business community, outdoor tabling and tent events, and door-to-door interactions. As a result of increased involvement of the public, more decisions are based on community support and, in one instance, such efforts "galvanized a neighborhood." Views from the Residents We received responses from 22 residents of Mill Valley. By the numbers: Meeting Attendance 86.4% have attended at least one meeting annually Engagement Interest 59.1% want to be engaged more PE Satisfaction 72.7% are at least"somewhat satisfied"by efforts Detailed PE Issues Full consideration and builds relationships are ranked worst PE Too] Awareness Website, email,and direct mail are most familiar Of the 22 respondents who completed our survey, not all responded to our invitation for general comments. However, some of those responses are below: 11V City inanager does a yeoman's job of sending out MV Connect and his Nervsletler on a regular- basis,pzttting a positive spin on mosl subjects, even the less savory subjects. 1 think that the decision making process about who should serve on committees should be more transparent. More advanced notice is needed about meaty agenda items. Agendas come out Thursday for Monday meetings. Not enough time to inform and engage citizens and businesses. Would like on 3'"St>>te!ic Conununic rtions Plan."Cit, of Mill Valley.June 2014. ........ ...... 36 a-. I i ansparencv."CihV of Nlill Valley.Accessed 28 Apr.2017, June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 17 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin annual and six month published calendar r-vith topics. Mill Valley communication and decision making too centralized in City Manager. Council member hosts table at Litton[sic]Square monthly---Rotates--for citizen input etc. Great effort by them. J see council members in town and they are very approachable and take time to stop and answer questions or make suggestions or provide contact information. 90%of what they do is for show and to avoid legal challenges, not because they actually want to hear any dissenting opinions. View from the Media Settlement of a lawsuit alleging failure to preserve and protect the city's recreational and emergency evacuation routes was contingent upon approval at a March 20, 2017 Mill Valley City Council meeting. The lawsuit was filed against Mill Valley's city manager in October 2016 by a former city planning commissioner and longtime trail advocate. The IJ reported that, "News of the lawsuit ignited citizens, who formed a committee to put pressure on city officials to correct what they say has been years of neglect." As a result, "The City Council in January approved a nine- point action plan to address concerns about the protection and preservation of the paths. The city has since resolved more than 10 complaints of encroachments through a crackdown in enforcement." Mill Valley's mayor was quoted as saying, "This action is an example of the Mill Valley City Council listening to the community and taking deliberate and thoughtful action to directly resolve concerns.„37 Mill Valley has taken action in responding to acts of hate and anti-Semitism in their community by adopting a resolution, "reaffirming its commitment to respect, tolerance and compassion—with a plan to appoint a `task force' committee to reinforce the effort,” stated the Marin IJ in an April 18, 2017 article. The "resolution package" includes "an action plan to audit existing community programs in an effort to ensure that the city is offering services, policies and programs with the same intent and commitment to tolerance and respect." Further, "Community members were excited that the council was discussing these issues of intolerance." The task force will likely include those who live and work in Mill Valley.38 Summary v Mill Valley has a robust PE Plan and website and has made two-way communication a priority. The City has a highly-engaged public that mostly views council members favorably,but thinks issues could be communicated earlier and better. The IJ reports quick responses to high-profile citizen concerns. 37 Rodriguez,Adrian."Mill Valley settles steps,lanes and paths lawsuit."Marin Independent Journal. 18 Mar.2017. --- — 3F Rodriguez,Adrian."Mill Valle•council promotes respect and tolerance to quell hate episodes."Marna h7dependent Jonrnal. 18 Apr.2017. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 18 of 61 Public Enga;ernent In Marin Elm= Novato is Marin's second largest city with a population of 51,904. The median age of its residents is 43 years with 15.7% over 65. Novato has the second largest concentration of Hispanic or Latino residents at 21.3%, behind San Rafael with 30%. The median family income is $97,000/year.39 Nearly half of the city's employees live within Novato, an important issue for many Marin cities and towns where affordability is often a challenge. View from the City As the second most populous municipality in Marin,Novato has a PE Plan (dated 2015-2016)`' which has not been formally adopted. They also employ a Public Communications Coordinator who is specifically tasked with public participation and engagement. For Novato, "effective communication means improving public access to timely, accurate, and helpful information about the City and its services; providing a variety of easy, accessible, and meaningful ways to engage with the City; and promoting transparency in the City's decision-making process and outcomes of key citywide issues affecting the daily lives of our Novato community. ,40 The City has a history of being engaged and active in civic discussion. However, they have recently broadened their reach by recognizing and utilizing the changing technology landscape to inform and engage the public. Facebook, Twitter, texting, webcasting, e-newsletters, and Nextdoor are among the newer platforms Novato is using to expand their outreach. Views from.the Residents Of the total number of responses to our survey by city and town,just over 50% (20 1) were from Novato, by far the largest response to our survey. By the numbers: Meeting Attendance 65.2%have attended at least one meeting annually Engagement Interest 68.7% want to be engaged more PE Satisfaction 50.7% are at least"somewhat satisfied"by efforts Detailed PE Issues Full consideration, advance information,and ample opportunity are ranked worst PE Tool Awareness Website and email are most familiar Some of the views expressed by Novato residents were: A few Council members in Novato are excellent in answering questions, etc. City staff in some areas however, have already made their decision before public engagement. The public engagement is a mandatory formality only. One has to be very civic minded to follow all that is going on in the City and where the information is. I get lost trying to find which place has the information I need- and often would prefer a 'layperson's summary rather than legalize[sic].It's o full time job (exhausting!) trying to keep up with what is happening and 1 have only focitsed on the things 1 am involved with and rely on others to spread the word on something that requires additional attention. j"I i5t of Cnlitoini;l_lo rooms by mcome." Wikipedia Accessed 28 Apr.2017. 40"Commumcatimis&C ommruuty Enaar emew Plan."Citta of Novato.2015-2016. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 19 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin Public conunzmication engagement efforts are improving online (Nextdoor.con7 for example). That said I would hope that the intention of the public engagement efforts are genuine and that City trutly wants to hear fi-om its taxpayers and residents. More often than not it seems that the community is being "engaged"so that the City can check that box off without really caring about Citizen opinion. Would like to see more communication and outreach in Spanish to engage our Spanish-speaking population 1 would like to be able to provide feedback online instead of having to attend in person a meeting (at a time I usually can't attend) in order to provide feedback. The city is misleading in its very few and limited attempts at noting the public. It's usually after the.Jacl news and only vet y few members of the community seem to know what's going on. plenty of opportunity is given, not much taken due to citizen inertia. Sometimes people who have not taken the opportunity to voice their opinions at the onset of a proposal will later become very vocal about quashing it. You can bring a horse to water. View from the Media IJ Editorials in January and November 2016 discussed the dissatisfaction of Novato residents concerning the City's decision-making process preceding installation of solar panels over the parking lot at the Hamilton pool. This led to a resident's lawsuit and increasing costs. The City apologized for not doing a better job of involving neighbors in the decision-making process—a dialogue that the IJ commented, "should have taken place long before the city installed [the panels]."41 Novato subsequently submitted an article for publication in the IJ stating its commitment to public engagement and transparency.42 Six weeks later, the IJ commented that the City had used unclear language ("bureaucratese") in titling a City Council agenda item.43 In April 2017, the IJ complimented the City of Novato for agreeing to engage residents concerning proposals to develop three city-owned sites at Hamilton.44 Summary Many of the responses from the public echoed the issues reported in Views From the Media. While the City of Novato has been increasingly using more communication tools, it appears that the City could better engage the public earlier on topics that are likely to be controversial. 41 "solar panclti a test lot-Novato s leaders."Marin 14 Jan.2016.;"1s Novato legal clash worth the cost`?" Marin Independent.burial.20 Nov.2016. 42"Novato is leading_,on community cn"a"'eincnt and transparency."Marin Independent Journal. 14 Dec.2016. 43"Novato-should have delavcd TA�yI tax vote."Marin Independent Journal.30 Jan.2017;"Novato,TANI display mast_eiy of' bttreaucratese."A4arin Independent Journol.31 Jan.2017. 44"A little time would be well invested in I Iamilton."Marin Independent Journal.3 April 2017. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 20 of 61 Public Bnga,ement In Marin ...... ...... ... &�y I wfE 6 ris The town of Ross has a population of 2,415 with a median family income of$200,800. Ross is the second smallest municipality in Marin. It has by far the smallest percentage of renter-occupied housing units at 14%, indicating the vast majority of residents own their own homes. Ross has the largest percentage of families with kids under 18 at 43% and, along with Belvedere, has the highest percentage of residents with bachelor's degrees in Marin at 82%. With the national average at 22%, Ross is clearly a highly-educated community. View from the Town Ross also does not have and does not plan to adopt a formal PE Plan. The rationale for not adopting a plan mostly revolves around engagement as it currently happens in this very small town: Towns and cities that are small-scaled in size and resources generally conduct business in a somewhat more organic fashion that naturally relies on active citizen engagement to accomplish the public's business.Even if there is no adopted Plan, towns become acutely aware of issues that matter to their community, the stakeholders and others who are impacted, and the formal and informal methodologies to inform, consult, and/or engage. As such,public engagement principles and practices become naturally embedded into operations. Much of the PE that goes on in Ross is centered on land use decisions. As such, Ross fostered a process conducive to dialogue and collaborative problem solving that offered early opportunity for feedback regarding creation of their Advisory Design Review group and procedure. Other recent PE processes conducted in Ross include extensive community engagement regarding improvement to Winship Bridge (one public meeting was held at the bridge itself), and a survey about short- term rentals that generated significantly more public participation and comment than previous Town Council meetings or public workshops. View from the Residents There were four respondents to our survey and no comments regarding resident views of PE efforts in Ross. View from the Media At a meeting of the town council in July of last year, Ross, like other Marin municipalities, addressed the issue of whether short-term rentals should be operating unregulated in their town. At the time, with no regulations or definitions on residential use, the town's municipal code was unclear regarding permitted use. But unlike other cities or towns, Ross--which operates on a much smaller scale—has no hotels so has not collected transient occupancy taxes. The discussion started in January 2015,but according to the IJ, "The council put off making any formal decision due to a lack of rental activity."Nevertheless, the Ross planning manager stated, "There is merit in fine-tuning some of our definitions."And not surprisingly, "Residents are on both sides of the issue."Plans for a future meeting on the issue was announced.`S `"Rodriguez,Adrian."Ross considers short-term rental re alations."Marin Independent Jorn nal. 12 July 2016. June 15,2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 21 of 61 Public Engagement Jn Maria During a `°two-hour, impassioned debate" at a packed Town Hall in Ross in December of 2016, officials decided to go forward to restore a town-owned house instead of tearing it down to make way for a park designed for preschoolers. Residents on both sides of the issue attended and even though there was "overwhelming support for the park", the IJ reported that the Town Council voted 4-1 to restore the house, which could bring the town $10,000 to $20,000 annually in rental income. It was suggested that, "the council form a committee of parents that could study options for the conceived playground elsewhere. The council felt that might be the best approach."-'(' Summary v Ross considers itself too small for a formal PE Plan, addressing and reacting to issues as necessary. The Grand Jury did not receive enough responses from residents to make any relevant observations. Ross may be small, but issues can be seen as "big"when it comes to public engagement. 4r'Rodriguez,Adrian."Ross nature pack nixed to iestore_��orkforcc house."Marin Independent Journal.9 Dec.2016. T _. .. .... _......_. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 22 of 61 Public Engagement In Maria i San Anselmo has a population of 12,336 with a median family income of$122,800. As with other areas in Marin, parts of San Anselmo are unincorporated, including Sleepy Hollow and an area at the end of San Francisco Boulevard. Six percent of San Anselmo's population is less than 5 years old and 13.5% are over 65. View from the Town San Anselmo does not currently have a PE Plan,but says they intend to design a "Public Engagement Guide" this year, formalizing and instituting a "guide for use by staff that will be modified as new methods of reaching the public are created, discovered or changed." San Anselmo stated, "We want people to become involved, ask questions,provide feedback and be part of the decision-making process. We feel that making the effort to get the community involved is integral to our work." The town already makes use of many modern platforms such as Facebook, Twitter,webcasting, texting, and Nextdoor as well as workshops and surveys. However, San Ansehuo's responses to our Information Request indicate that these tools are not necessarily used to collect community feedback regarding their PE processes. Views From the Residents There were 19 responses from San Anselmo residents. By the numbers: Meeting Attendance 57.9% have attended at least one meeting annually Engagement Interest 78.9% want to be engaged more PE Satisfaction 52.6% are at least"somewhat satisfied" by efforts Detailed PE Issues Full consideration, advance information,and clear language are ranked worst PE Tool Awareness Website, e►nail,and surveys are most familiar Some of their responses to our invitation to make general comments are below: At all levels staff attempts citizen input to significant and small issues effecting[sic] residents. San Ansehno refitses to do anything about the flooding other than purchase expensive buildings and let them sit there. They do nothing about cleaning the creek and spend all of our money on consultants saying in 5 years they will do something. Language for town council meetings are dense, not accessible. By the time an item reaches Town Council it seems a decision has already been made and the input at the meeting is disregarded. It's a two way street: citizens must make an appropriate effort to slay informed. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 23 of 61 Public Engagement In R7arin View from the Media Flooding and how to deal with it continues to be a major concern in Ross Valley. Over 100 people showed up to a "scoping session"held in February of this year to consider the environmental impacts of a major flood prevention program that residents say, "could undermine their livelihood," according the Marin U. Several San Anselmo merchants at the meeting maintained that some of the [plan's] "structural modifications" would mean "the possible loss and relocation of beloved businesses." One resident stated, "County officials should be more clear in their presentations and that when addressing a building,rather than numbering it as one, two or three, it should be called by the business it represents." Other residents voiced anxieties over the plan that ranged from concern for coho and steelhead salmon populations to the safety and effectiveness of detention basins. The county capital planning and project manager has "heard the frustration" and "staff has been working to keep up the pace on communicating and making progress. We are trying to take this as a watershed community wide approach and everyone's participation is going to be really important."47 Summary y San Anselmo has no PE Plan to guide them yet. Community feedback could be better prioritized. Public wants to be engaged more. Clear and advance information would help to achieve this. The media echoes what the public says. 4' Rodneuez.Adrian."Debate continues over Ross Valle floodr)lan_"Marin IJ. 17 Feb.2017. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 24 of 61 Public Engagement In Matin ......... San Rafael is a city and the county seat of Marin. According to the 2010 census, San Rafael has a population of 57,713 which makes it the largest municipality in Marin. The median family income is $96,000. Although parts of Santa Venetia, Lucas Valley, Marinwood and other unincorporated areas have a San Rafael address and zip code, residents of these areas responded to our survey as residents of unincorporated Marin. If all residents with either 94901 or 94903 zip codes were included in San Rafael census data, the total would be over 70,000 or almost 25% of Marin's total population. San Rafael is nearly 71% white with the largest Hispanic or Latino population in Marin at about 30%, or 17,000 people as of 2010. View from the City The City of San Rafael has the largest population of any municipality in Marin. Assuch, in January of 2015 they adopted a formal PE Plan: the Commarnity Engagement Action Plan.48 To get there, though, they first conducted a survey and held community workshops. Goals included demystifying local government, engaging earlier, and enhancing their technological tools. San Rafael's plan calls for considering the hiring of a Public Information Officer or Communications Coordinator. The city states that "...our commitment to robust community engagement continues—we recognize the value that [such] engagement brings to civic discourse and decision-making." San Rafael's newly-adopted Community Engagement Action Plan was put to use right away. Key tenets from this plan were developed into a specific communications plan 49 that addressed ongoing efforts to rebuild two fire stations and establish a new downtown public safety center. Members of the public and key stakeholder groups were involved from the outset and information has been made available via email,Nextdoor, YouTube, and open house events at the fire stations. The Grand Jury commends San Rafael for receiving the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership's highest award (Platinum) for public engagement in 2016. Further evidence of San Rafael's public engagement efforts can be seen on their"Engage and Connect"website page.50 48"Communit�En a<�ement Action Plan."Cite gfSan Rnfael. 1 SunUjl F iciLties Comnnnuc rtions Plan."Citp o/San Ralbel. ;o.: Fnzaee and Connect."City of San Rafael.Accessed on 28 Apr.2017. June 15,2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 25 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin Views from the Residents A total of 78 San Rafael residents responded to our survey. By the numbers: Meeting Attendance 66.7% have attended at least one meeting annually Engagement Interest 78.2% want to be engaged more PE Satisfaction 56.4% are at least"somewhat satisfied"by efforts Detailed PE Issues Informs, full consideration,and advance information are ranked worst PE Tool Awareness Website, email,surveys, and social media are most familiar There was a mix of views on the City's efforts to engage the public, including a'number of respondents who felt the City was not responsive or made decisions prior to fully'engaging the public. Some of their responses are noted below: With the drop in daily newspaper readership we don't really know what's on the city council agenda, though I suppose you can go to the city's website and it should he there. A lot of announcements about what civic meetings are going on where and ivhen are posted by neighbors on the nextdoor.corn website. Council demonstrates openness to community input. Staff have worked well with Gerstle Park neighborhood on many topics. I observe a sense of pride in the Ivork staf f do. They sometimes reach out but do not listen. The process seems designed to support decisions already made. Feel used and manipulated Seems decisions take forever to he made...also how the place works seems stacked against the regular people. Only those who know what`s what in the civil domain can get things done. But Fin trying to speak out. Need to create more awareness of communication channels. View from the Media The IJ has commended San Rafael's outreach inviting residents to become involved in fire station designs and public input for the redesign of Albert Park.s2 Marin H's February 2016 editorial had this to say about the fire station project: San Rafaelis holding the door i-vide open jor the pzthlic to get involved in the design of Jiro stations those laxpcwers are paying for. Instead of keeping all of those decisions limited to the agendas 01'117 C Cite Council and irs boards, the city has posted architects'drenvings of proposed changes online and held open hou,ws at the sites before Wednesday's meeting of the city Design Review Board. The process is an invitation to local residents to be part of the process. It was noted that instead of relegating public outreach to the background since the tax was approved, the City has made an effort to keep residents engaged in the decision making. 51 " icomment_-----.. ,l . . City I-tall seeks public on San Rafael fire stations."Mrn-n�h�d��end�nr Joan-nol. 15 Feb.2016.;"C its I kiI I sects public comment on San R rficl tae tititions."AllarinlndependentJovrnal. 15 Feb.2016. sz Rodriguez,Adrian."San Rafrcl�s Albert Park_redesion near Final hurdles."Marin IndependenrJonrnal.20 March 2017. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 26 of 61 Public Enga ernent In Marin After two years and multiple public meetings, San Rafael's City Council is expected to consider an upgrade to Albert Park. Gathering over 60 responses suggesting improvements for the park, the City determined that the play area was in need of an update. After hearing support for the project, and in concert with a citizen's group's efforts toward park cleanups, the City Council allocated $250,000 in funding. If the commission approves the plan, construction could begin by the end of the year. Summary San Rafael has a PE Plan, created in part with information from the community, that is utilized for effective PE. There is already a high level of engagement by the public,but interest in engagement is even higher. The public is calling on the City to listen more. Media reports good efforts on the part of the City and its residents,resulting in action. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 27 of 61 Public Engagement In Marh7 ............. ............. ........ ._._ Sausalito has a population of 7,061 and a median family income of$180,900. Owner-occupied and renter-occupied homes are nearly equal at 50.8% and 49.2% respectively. Twenty-one percept of Sausalito's population is over 65 and 4.3% are under 5. There are over 400 houseboats in Sausalito 53 (many of which are outside the city limits) and although the resident population is relatively small, weekends and vacation times bring thousands of tourists to the town, impacting the community in multiple ways including traffic, commerce and bicycle safety issues. View from the City Although currently without a formal PE Plan, Sausalito says it intends to adopt one. According to the town, "Sausalito is proud to have a highly engaged population of well-educated and active community members."They describe their PE process as "...on a project-by-project basis [where] individual community outreach plans are created to ensure that the public is provided with more and better information and is afforded all opportunities to influence public decisions." An example of this approach is the ongoing Ferry Landing project where "The public engagement process has resulted in the City challenging the originally-proposed design in order to tailor the project appropriately." Since early 2015, when the City Council approved a public review process regarding this project, Sausalito has provided many opportunities to engage their residents. These included holding a number of stakeholder meetings; two public hearings; the installation of an exhibit in City Hall; and an on-the-water buoy demonstration to give the public a visual representation of the dimensions of the project. The City states, "Although the project is still ongoing(currently pending a lawsuit), the public,engagement process has resulted in the City challenging the originally-proposed design in order to tailor the project appropriately." According to the official Nextdoor page of the City of Sausalito,54 the city librarian now also serves as Director of Communications for the City of Sausalito. 53 Carber,Kristine."Ploatin<g through life Sausalito houseboat community xaill show off its one-ol-a-Lind dwc1lings on Sunday." SFGae.4 Oct.2003. 54"Ci of Sausalito."Nextdoor.Accessed 28 Apr.2017 June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 28 of 61 Puhlic Engagement In Marin Views from the Residents There were five respondents to our survey and one comment regarding resident views of PE efforts in Sausalito: The history of Sausalito contains repeated episodes ofcitizens becoming engaged only after becoming aware oj'a decision (or near decision), with slaff maintaining that "we held xxx hearings and surveys months (or years) ago"to justify the action. City agendas and packets come out on the Friday afternoon (late) before the next Tuesday's meeting, leaving little time to review or mount participation. Important issues have been decided late at night, or at midday during the work week, or during sumrnerlwinter vacation periods. Often the same people, or people with special interests, are appointed to committees/comrnissioru.s. Staff and Council have long made overtures and efforts to include "stakeholders": ie nonresident tourists, bicyclists, development interests, non-resident property and business owners- whose voices and interests can hijack the decision making process. View from the Media n A Superior Court judge has ruled against the Golden Gate Bridge district in its attempt to get parts of a Sausalito lawsuit over a planned $11 million ferry terminal thrown out." Filing the lawsuit last September, Sausalito alleged the bridge district is violating a 1995 lease agreement that requires city approval for"major alterations"to the ferry landing. In 2014 the district proposed that a new dock replace the current, aging float, "which will not meet future federal rules for accessibility." Residents claimed that the proposed larger design "didn't fit the waterfront character of the small town and would only encourage more people—including tourists on bicycles - to crowd the area. Others said the new dock was a needed safety improvement."The district is expected to challenge the legal grounds of the case on May 4, when another hearing will take place. * In December 2016 Sausalito became the first city in Marin to approve an age-friendly action plan aimed at seniors. The city's Age-Friendly Task Force crafted the plan with the hope that sonic elements could be included in the general plan. They began meeting in April 2013 and created a survey "to determine how Sausalito would be accessible and inclusive for its older residents." Along with transportation and housing, "social participation, respect, social inclusion, civic participation, employment, communication, information along with community support, health services and safety are other topics addressed in the action plan."s6 Summary Sausalito intends to adopt a PE Plan. Currently, PE is conducted on a project-by-project basis. The Grand Jury did not receive enough responses from residents to make any relevant observations. " Sausalito is attempting to put the city's interests first in the face of change. They recognize their aging population. 55 Prado,Nhil Saustltto~cores Ic�ol,�icioi� in term-(lock cispute."Marin IndependentJorirnal. 25 April 2017. 56 Prado,Mm-k. Sausilit�as5c� fust suitor action pk ui...iu c ountv."Marin Independent Journal. 20 Dec.2016. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 29 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin Tiburon has a population of 8,962 and a median family income of$170,000. Twenty-one percent of its residents are over 65 and one-third are families with children under 18. View from the Town Tiburon does not have and has no plans to adopt a formal PE Plan since, "At this point, a demonstrated need has not been established."With knowledge of"principles of effective public relations and interrelationships with community groups and agencies, private businesses and firms, and other levels of government" as a stated essential qualification of the town manager, Tiburon has incorporated elements of PE into at least one job description.57 One of Tiburon's most active community issues is that of residential building design and review. A significant PE process recently completed M Tiburon was their Building and Planning Forum, a public discussion led by an outside facilitator. The forum provided an opportunity for residents, contractors and architects to hear"a brief review from staff on the Planning and Building process in Tiburon and then have an opportunity to ask questions." This resulted in the town making several immediate changes to their processes and studying several other potential future changes. Views from the Residents There were two respondents to our survey and no comments regarding resident views of PE efforts in Tiburon. View from the Media The Marin IJ reported in April that a neighborhood group in Tiburon has proposed removing a grove of 42 trees along Tiburon Boulevard, most of them on town property.58 They say the trees are a fire and safety hazard and have offered to pay for their removal. Some opponents,however, think that an underlying motive of the plan is to open up bay views for homes on the hillside. In a similar attempt to get the trees removed in 1996, "Residents tried to get the Town Council to weigh in, but they failed to produce a plan that would be paid for by the homeowners." The current proposal for the grove was to be aired at an upcoming Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission meeting at Tibtn-on's Town Hall. More than 50 letters and petitions on both sides have been submitted to the town. -k A plan to improve bicycle routes is expected to find its way to Tiburon's Planning Commission and Town Council by June. "The plan is part of a 5200,000 grant-ftmded push by the Transportation Authority of Marin. The goal is to develop multimodal-friendly communities countywide that improve safety—and to identify gaps in bicycle and pedestrian connectivity with neighboring towns and cities," said the Marin 1J M April.'`' While the plan is aimed at making the roads and paths safe for everyone, accommodating children is a specific goal. But some who live on a particular stretch of what is part of The Bay Trail are concerned that the plan will encourage even more bikers, who "run through frequently M droves...and [the road] has become dangerous," 5 7 ,Tow-n Manager."Torun gf Tiburon. Sep. 1994. ss Rodriguez,Adrian."Tiburon tree killingprkinz. lan has nciglibois ba ��Mann Independent Journal.23 April 2017. 59 Rodriguez,Adrian.`Tiburon's bike and pedestr i to draft plan sti_lS debate m cr thn 1 i til route."Marin Independent Journal.3 ...-..._ .- April 2017. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 30 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin according to one resident. Officials have attempted to compromise with the residents by proposing signage and "slow zones." Summary The Town of Tiburon does not think there is a need for a formal PE Plan. Planning and design issues are a recurring topic of engagement. The Grand Jury did not receive enough responses from residents to make any relevant observations. The media reports additional issues of importance to residents that are addressed attown meetings. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 31 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin Marin is the fourth-smallest county in California by land area. It has a population of 252,409 with a median family income of$120,000. Census data from 2010 shows 72.8% of Marin's population is white, 15.5% Hispanic or Latino, 5.4% Asian and 2.6% Black or African American. Like many California cities and counties, the Hispanic or Latino population has increased over the years, going from 4.2% in 1980 to 15.5% in 2010. Age distribution is consistent with average demographics in Marin towns and cities with: ■ Children under 5 = 5.5% ■ Age 5 to 17 = 15.2% ■ Age 18 to 64 =62.6% • Over 65 = 16.7% According to an article in the Huffington Post, "An estimated 54 percent of adults 25 and older in Marin have a bachelor's degree and 22.5 percent have an advanced degree, more than in any other California county and among the highest rates nationwide, according to new survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau."60 The average number of adults in the U.S. with at least a bachelor's degree is 22%. View from the County In January of 2012 Marin County adopted the County of Marin_Public Communications Plan.61 With a clear vision, mission and strategy, the plan speaks to specific strategies and actions. As stated on the first page, "The County's approach to public communications is grounded in its mission statement and input from Board of Supervisormembers, community partners and staff." The County's mission statement, which appears both on the County website and in their Plan, is "...to provide excellent services that support healthy, safe and sustainable communities; preserve Marin's unique environmental heritage; and encourage meaningful participation in the governance of the County by all."An ongoing commitment to public engagement is also stated in the County of Marin 5 Year Bzisiness Plan 2015-2020, which among other things focuses on being a responsive government.62 Clearly, PE is important to and actively practiced by our county representatives and employees. However, some of the County's PE processes differ in scope from the individual cities and towns discussed above. Because of the size of their constituency, PE efforts are executed and spread out among supervisorial districts, departments, and agencies embedded within Marin's government. Therefore, Marin County discourages posting information in more than one location on their website. As a strategy that may effectively serve a single city or town, the County feels doing so only serves to sow confusion when navigating their intricate site. Likewise the question of whether or not(and how) an agency publishes a regular newsletter is more complicated for the County. With many different departments as well as the Board of Supervisors and their respective districts reporting to the public, multiple newsletters get curated and distributed,most of them online. The County commented that, "Above all, a resident's level of involvement in a County decision- making process greatly depends on that resident's personal investment in that topic or issue."In G0 Jason,Will ;Marin n uncd,CaIifornia's most edu educated cot A4orin Independent Journal.21 April,2013 61 "CountV 0f u1-M-ill Public COnlillWllCa1601is Plan."County of Allarin.Jan.2012. 62<i-� County of.Mai in 5 Year Business Plan 201S2020.-COMM'ofAdurin.Jan.2012. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 32 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin addition, the County said, "...decisions made by the Board of Supervisors tend to garner higher rates of engagement from the public." The County cited its recent engagement process around medical cannabis dispensary bids as very successful. "Using targeted neighborhood outreach via Nextdoor.com combined with traditional outreach tactics (media outreach, mailers, etc.), residents in those potentially affected communities have been very engaged in the various public meetings held around the County and have been submitting relevant public feedback through the appropriate comment channels (letter and email)." Views from the Residents A total of 451 residents of both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County responded to our survey. By the numbers: Meeting Attendance 43.2% have attended at least one meeting annually Engagement Interest 55.9% want to be engaged more PE Satisfaction 37.3% are at least"somewhat satisfied" by efforts Detailed PE Issues Informs,full consideration;and advance information are ranked worst PE Tool Awareness Website, email,and social media are most familiar Some of the views expressed by County residents were," The county continuously selects Unincorporated Marin for any regulation that is likely to be opposed by the cities. This singles out,Unincorporated Marin for all the bad or trial regulation instead of working with the Incorporated areas to make sure everyone is served consistently. The time of the Board of Supervisor meetings is challenging for those of us who work!Please consider making them at a later- time during the day. Thank you! I get most of mr' County update's on Nextdoor, and appreciate the notif cations and information. Ifl didn't subscribe to the Marin IJI doubt that I would have much real information on actions under consideration by the county. Perhaps better outreach to the public is in order. Three minutes before the Board of Supervisors is inadequate. There should be extensive workshops in all locations of the County, not just in southern Marin County. County'is in a tough place. They are the City Council to the unincorporated areas but for those who have a Citi• Council...outreach fi-om the County is not as vital. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 33 of 61 Public Engagement Jn Marin View from the Media Since the U's December 2016 article urging the County to obtain more public involvement in setting annual goals, recent articles note that the County has begun public meetings with residents in the Ross Valley Flood Control District63 and launched an Open Data Portal.64 In addition, two County supervisors called for public input and discussion regarding the effects of climate change on Marin by announcing three public meetings on the subject. "There will be no progress without public engagement," stated the authors in an April 2017 submission to the Marin Independent Journal. Officials again had their say in the IJ in March, stating, "We believe now is the time to step up and get more fully engaged, right here, where we live. Civic engagement. At the local level. Serving our neighborhoods and cities and towns. Attending a city or town council meeting or a Board of Supervisors meeting may not be glamorous but it matters. Or, attend a local flood control zone meeting—you can learn a lot about what we're doing and what needs to be done to protect our future. Call or email your elected officials we want to hear from you and we can do our jobs better if you're in touch with us."66 Summary Marin County has both a formal PE Plan and a S Year'Business Plan that focus on public communication and government response, respectively. Engagement efforts are relatively more complex at the county level. Less than half of survey respondents repotted having attended at least one meeting per year but over half say they want to be engaged more. PE satisfaction is low. Reports in the IJ show the County is making efforts to encourage the public to engage more and is creating opportunity to do so. 63 Rojas,Raul Public puticipalion an imhortant1)�1ii_offlood_control plannii�z."MarinlndependentJournal. 15 Feb.2017. ea"Minn laLlnchcS online 11-o\c of public dare."Mann Independent Journal.20 Feb.2017. 6'Scars. Kate and Connolly. Damon."Mum Voicc I he county moves forward with climate action."Marin Independent Jou-nal. 17 Apr.2017. — 66 Scars. Kate and Fryday,Josh "'Malin \oice: cwtic,is important to you= tiV to cn a'-'e locally."Marin Independent Journal. 11 Mar.2017. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 34 of 61 Public E gogement In Marin Sharing Our Data As stated in our public PE surveys, "The Marin County Civil Grand Jury is seeking your input. The information provided will be treated confidentially by the Grand Jury for its research and report: Your name and email will not be shared with anyone, and your responses will not be attributed to you." With the rise of the Open Data Movement(examples include: Data.gov, the Data Foundation, OpenGov, Marin County's Open Data Portal, and the City of Sausalito's Budget Transparency Tool), we wanted other organizations--including future grand juries-- to be able to leverage our public data. Therefore, we are sharing all the public survey responses (removing all personal'` identification) in two spreadsheets (one for Unincorporated Marin and one for the towns and cities of Marin) online here: https://goo.gl/hdWGf8. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 35 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin CONCLUSION Public engagement is at the heart of inclusive governance. It should be the responsibility of each agency to give full consideration to public input before making decisions that affect the community-at-large. The Grand Jury agrees with agency leaders that public engagement need not be a "one size fits all" strategy; it should vary based on the needs of the community. Whatever engagement approach an agency chooses, we believe that simply having good intentions to engage is not sufficient — each agency should formally state its public engagement plan or guidelines. A published statement (in the form of a municipal resolution, for example) would ensure that the staff, the public, and community-based organizations work to solve common problems using transparent processes. In fact, the process of developing and publishing such a statement is another opportunity to understand the needs of the community. Agencies should also collaborate with community-based organizations (CBOs) to;help reach traditionally disenfranchised groups. Such groups are often unaware of issues likely to affect them until last-minute decision-making. Collaboration with civic leaders and CBOs can increase both the amount and quality of public engagement. Consistent public engagement is a goal that requires agency commitment and adaptation. Public engagement is not something done to simply"calm the public"over controversial issues. PE must be used early and effectively to build trust, achieve community buy-in and support for agency decisions with less contentiousness. The PE Plan or Guidelines should be revisited often to ensure that it continues to "work" for everyone. Otherwise, PE becomes just another box that an agency must check-off rather than a beneficial experience for all involved. A filndamental premise of engaging the community is providing clear, consistent, easily available modes of communication. Many of the residents responding to our survey reported being unaware of available resources for obtaining and communicating information. Over a quarter of respondents reported not knowing whether their local government agencies provided any avenues at all to engage the public. It is important that the public understands the availability of these avenues and whether agencies are doing what is needed to make it known that such avenues exist. Equally important is the participation of the people of Marin in the public engagement dialogue. Residents frequently become involved in their community when a specific issue arises that is of particular interest or consequence to them personally. When that issue is resolved, how active or concerned or even interested do they remain in other areas of their community? At its most effective, public engagement is a path to inclusive governance. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 36 of 61 Public Engagennent In Marin FINDINGS F1. Having a formal PE Plan or PE Guidelines in place helps to foster better and faster community involvement. F2. Not everyone conducts PE in the same way. F3. Agencies' perception of the need for PE is in response to a controversy, not an ongoing process. F4. Smaller municipalities do not necessarily have the need, the budget or the will to develop a formal plan. F5. Larger municipalities recognize the need for a formal PE Plan. F6. Some agencies are close to having a PE Plan; it wouldn't take too much effort to formalize one or to develop PE Guidelines. F7. All Marin agencies agree that PE is important, and all are engaged to some degree. F8. There is a disconnect between how agencies rate their PE efforts and how the public views their efforts. F9. Most agencies believe they are doing a good job of PE.; F10. Marinites want to be engaged more. F11. The public perceives a need for more and better engagement opportunities, including follow-up. F12. Only a few municipalities have an employee dedicated to PE. F13. Building relationships between civic leaders and community-based organizations contributes to the inclusion of traditionally disenfranchised groups, increasing the amount and quality of PE—and providing support for the agencies. F14. Marin agencies are using various and multiple modes of technology to engage the public, but the public isn't necessarily aware of this. F15. Moving beyond the minimum requirements of The Brown Act is essential for modern day PE. F16. Marin agencies and their public are statistically comparable to the Bay Area in terms of PE satisfaction and involvement levels. FIT PE is a two-way street, requiring vigilance on the part of the public as well as the agencies who serve them. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 37 of 61 Public EngageMew hi M07-ill RECOMMENDATIONS RL Each agency without a formal PE Plan should develop either a PE Plan or PE Guidelines tailored to the needs of their public and publish the results. R2. Each agency should obtain input from the public in the planning and design or update of its plan/guidelines. R3. Agency managers should regularly share their PE Plans and "lessons learned" with their counterparts in other Marin agencies. R4. Each agency should provide early and ample opportunity for PE in the form of proactive engagement in order to ensure that the public is aware of all their-PE opportunities. R5. Post-engagement, each agency should follow up with the public, informing them of the results of projects and issues. R6. Each agency should create an easy-to-find area on their website dedicated to describing current community issues and explaining how the public can get involved. R7. Each agency should make PE a required responsibility of at least one staff person and publicize that responsibility. R8. Each agency should offer regular PE professional development to its staff. R9. Each agency should develop meaningful and ongoing partnerships with their local co nmunity-based organizations. R10. Each agency should include on all written communications the social media platforms they use. RI 1. Each agency should communicate and emphasize to the public the importance of participation in PE. R12. Each agency should publish an annual report describing the effectiveness of their PE efforts. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 38 of 61 Public En ageinent In Marin REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal code section 93 3.05, the grand jury requests responses as follows: From the following governing bodies: ■ City of Belvedere (R1-R12) ■ City of Larkspur (R1-R12) ■ City of Mill Valley (R2-R12) ■ City of Novato (R2-R12) ■ City of San Rafael (R2-R 12) ■ City of Sausalito (R1-R12) ■ County of Marin (R2-R12) ■ Town of Corte Madera (R 1-R 12) ■ Town of Fairfax (R1-R12) ■ Town of Ross (R1-R12) ■ Town of San Anselmo (R1-R12) ■ Town of Tiburon (R1-R12) 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 Brown Act. Note:At the time this report was prepared information was available at the websites listed. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed.Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury.The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 39 of 61 Public Engagement 117 Marin APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency Public Engagement Information Request Reruired A.Public Engagement(PE):Abroad range of methods through which government agencies provide the public with more and better information about,and meaningful opportunities to influence,public decisions. B.PE Plan:A formal,written plan or policy that a government agency makes easily accessible to the public it serves and outlines the methods through which it provides the public with moreand better information about,and meaningful opportunities to influence,public decisions. C.Community-Based Organization(CBO):A group of individuals organized by and for a particular community of people or entities based on shared interests and/or attributes. Members may include various stakeholders,such as the public,advocacy groups,businesses and business leaders. D.Transparency Portal:Art easy to find agency website location containing or providing access to anticipated information the public needs from all agency departments. E."You"or"Your":The agency responding to this survey Name of Responding Agency Your Name Your Email June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 40 of 61 Public Engagement In Nloi-in APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.Please state whether you agree or disagree that each of the following is a potential benefit of effective PE: Agree Neutral Disagree Improvec agency dosis ion-m a king and actions,with Y1"1 +, 0 better impacts ane outcomes '0 0 More community buy-in and support for agency p' decisions,with less coule.tlousness 0 Better identification of public.'s values,ideas and /^�} recommendations 0 4�'� 0 More informed residents--about issues and about `� �`' local agencies 0 0 p'�'�—+` More civil discussions and decision-making 0 0 0 Faster project implementation with less need to revisit {-w1 Y^., again. 0 0 0 More trust in each other and In local government 0 0 0 Higher rates of community participation and rt leadership development 0 2.Do you have and follow a PE Plan? 0 Yes 0 No 3a.When did you formally adopt your PE Plan? If your agency does not have and follow a PE plan,please enter NIA 3b.When did you last review and update your PE Plan? If your agency does not have and follow a PE plan,please choose N/A 0 Within the last year 0 Within the last 3 years 0 Within the last 5 years 0 N/A 3c.Do you have a commitment to review and update your PE Plan periodically? If you do not have and follow a PE Plan,please choose N/A. 0 Yes ( No 0 N/A June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 41 of 61 Public Engagement 177 Marin APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4.If you do not have a PE Plan,do you intend to design one? If you already have a PE Plan,please choose NIA 0 Yes 0 No t dt N/A 5.If you do not intend to design a PE Plan,please state why. If you already have or intend to design a PE Plan,please enter N/A 6.Have you adopted a resolution demonstrating a commitment to effective PE? 0 Yes 0 No "The planning and design of a public engagement process includes input from appropriate local officials as well as from members of intended participant communities. 7.Have you developed a current database or contact list of potentially interested residents and CBOs in order to engage them in your PE processes? 0 Yes n No 8.Did you(or will you)obtain input from CBOs and other members of the public in the planning and design of your existing(or potential)PE Plan?.R. If you do not already have or intend to design a PE Plan,please choose WA. 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 42 of 61 Public Ei7gc�,-einent h7 Allariii APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9.Please state whether you agree or disagree that each of the following is an area for application of PE: Agree Neutral Disagree NIA Parks&Recreation 0 0 0 0 Land Use Planning 0 0 0 0 Transportation&Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 Law Enforcement 0 0 0 0 Housing 0 0 0 0 Homelessness 0 0 0 0 FlectorMiVoting 0 0 0 0 Budgeting 0 0 0 0 H-IIh/S.cjai3,.rvicr,s Delivery 0 0 0 0 Education 0 0 0 0 Immigrant orlegrationMelated Issues 0 0 0 0 Pensions&Other Po,stemployment Benefits 0 0 0 0 A'There is clarity and transparency about public engagement process,sponsorship,purpose,design,and how decision makers will use the process results. ..........................................................................I............................................................................................................................................ June 15, 2017 Marin, County Civil Grand Jury Page 43 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10.Please check any and all of the following strategies that you use to improve transparency in your PE process: Use Dont Use Publish a newsletter regularly 0 Distribute that newsletter by USMail 0 Distribute that newsletter by Ernail \} Distribute that newsletter through'Nebsite 0 0 Maintain a webs Re page where recent community news can ,�^ti be accessed (y l `.1 Offer opportunities to the public you serve to view draft budgets online and engage in the budgeting process Yourwebsite includes a Transparency Portal(see Definition °Z above) 0 Accept online public records requests 0 0 Regularly post frequently requested public records on your website tt A primary purpose of the public engagement process is to generate publicviews and ideas to help shape local government action or policy,rather than persuade residents to accept a decision that has already been made. 11.Do you have any communications that contain"government-speak,""legalese"or similar jargon that most people would have trouble understanding? Yes 0 No 12.If so,are you considering revision of these types of communications in order to make them more understandable? If not,please choose N/A 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 44 of 61 Public Engci ement In Marin APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13.Please check any and all of the following strategies that you use to improve the authentic intent of your PE process: Regularly Use Sometimes Use Don't Use PE is an assigned responsibility in the job description of one onmore of yourstaff 0 0 0 members Within Ute past 24 months,staff members and/or elected officials of your agency have received training in how to Identify and apply the r-y... most effective PE strategies to the range of L..JJ. 0 issues that affect your agency and the public - you serve. Summarize complex communications into key points. Use clear and simple language in your written {" and verbal communications 0 Distribute meaningful and timely information to allow public views and ideas to shape actions 0 0 0 and policies 14.Please rate the culture within your agency with respect to PE on the following: Excellent Good Needs Improvement Thinking of PE as a method for improving decision-making rather than being the 0 0 0 same as public relations Viewing members of the public as ' py: partners rather than clients L,J`...1 0 Giving full consideration to public input �, f^y before making decisions 0 '°•.�` Making proactive efforts to contact and engage community members in order to L_. i reach a broad spectrum of people, 0 including those not typically"engaged 15.Please describe a significant public engagement process that you completed during the past 24 months,including whether the process resulted in a more informed and/or better decision. 16.In your experience,what circumstances have prompted the public you serve to become broadly engaged in your decision making process? :7 The public engagement process includes people and viewpointsthat are broadly reflective of the local agency's population of affected residents. June 15; 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 45 of 61 Public Engageinew In Ma/-in APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17.Please check any and all of the following strategies that you use to broaden participation in your PE process: Regularly Use Sometimes Use Dont Use Build and nurture relationships with key individuals and CBOs that are broadly } reflective of the public you serve Regularly distribute information and solicit input an issues of potential irnpnrtance,to 0 '�,.('`� 1 such key individuals and CBOs Provide participants in your PE process with timely information and/or access to ,� expertise consistent with the work you 0 request them to do Your PE process reflects,honors and ,�-y welcomes the community t^a^+ Deliver PE presentations in high schools �°s, and community college 0 t..ir'1 ' i Participants in the public engagement process have information and/or access to expertise consistent with the work that sponsors and conveners ask them to do. 18.Please check any and all of the following strategies that you use to improve informed participation in your PE process: Regularly Use Sometimes Use Dont Use Your website includes information that the public needs in orderto understand issues, 0 0 0 prior to agency decisions on those issues Such proactive information is available in ;..t^ more than one place on your website 0 Such proactive information is communicated on other platforms beyond your website i 0 You have adopted and implement a procedure for timely identifying,collecting and r+, O r-+� distributing the information necessary for an `•1 0 effective PE process CBOs and other members of the public receive the information they need,and with ,meq ,.�^; ,�^v enough lead time,to participate effectively in t....l' 0 a,,,,,+ your PE process Public engagement processes are broadly accessible in terms of location,time,and language,and support the engagement of residents with disabilities June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 46 of 61 Public E g(.rgeinenl In Morin APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19.Please check any and all of the following strategies that you use to improve accessibility in your PE process: Regularly Use Sometimes Use Dont Use Your website incorporates a"translate"function ,� allowirg visitors to read your site in languages 0 } other than English Key print communications are translated into languages other than English and distributed or 0 0 0 made available to the appropriate residents and community community groups Use PE processes lha1 are broadly accessible in 0 0 ,r^ terms of location,time and language Use PE processes that support the engagement of residents with disabilities 0 0 0+, Deliver PE presentations in alternative living -�, rl locations for the elderly �J 0 /y Offer multiple ways,beyond attending public �+ meetings,for contributing input and feedback 0 '. (D 0 during the PE process. The public engagement process utilizes one or more discussion formats that are responsive to the needs of identified participant groups,and encourages full,authentic,effective and equitable participation consistent with process purposes.This may include relationships with existing community forums. 20.Please check any and all of the following strategies that you use to improve the process of effective PE: Regularly Use Sometimes Use Don't Use Work with universities and community partners to organize training programs for OBOs,residents and neighborhood leaders 0 0 0 so that they can gain the skills and experience needed for effective PE, Use local facilitators to help organize and run community dialogues and surveys to solicit resident input on key community issues. Independent and impartial people -, moderate PE processes t j 0 Residents participate in the setting and defining of agendas 0 0 0 With input from residents,you identify and -y ,y use kcal experts as participants t.✓ You follow through on the input provided f: and make known to participants and the public how that input influenced your. 0 0 0 decisions or actions June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 47 of 61 Public Enge�qement In Marin APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd) .................................................................................................................................................I.................................................................. 21 a.Please check any and all of the following ONLINE platforms that you use to engage and communicate with the public Use Dont Use Public website 0 0 Wobcasfing 0 0 P.celbook 0 Online Neiohborhood sites(such as NexlDoor)' 0 0 Twitter 0 0 Text 0 0 Email 0 0 Mobile apps 0 0 Online forums 0 0 21 b.Please check any and all of the following PRINT platforms that you use to engage and communicate with the public Use Don't Use Public notices 0 0 Press releases 0 0 Direct mail 0 0 Newspaper ads 0 0 Magazine ads 0 0 ...................................................I............................I.......................................................... ................................................................ June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 48 of 61 Pfrblic Engagemew In Mai-in APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21c.Please check any and all of the following IN-PERSON INTERACTIVE platforms that you use to engage and communicate with the public' Use ublic'Use Don't Use Public hearings 0 0 Town Hall meetings - 0 0 Other large-action forums 0 0 Snail face-to-face discussions 0 0 Personal interactions(such as visits,speeches,in-person0 0 informational exchanges) Focus groups 0 0 Workshops a 0 21d.Please check any and all of the following UNIDIRECTIONAL platforms that you use to engage and communicate with the public Use Don't Use Surveys 0 0 Polls 0) 0 Local access television 0 0 Telephone message 0 0 21 e.Please describe any other communication methods you use: ;d The ideas,preferences,and/or recommendations contributed by the public are documented and seriously considered by decision makers.Local officials communicate ultimate decisions back to process participants and the broader public,with a description of how the public input was considered and used.Sponsors and participants evaluate each public engagement process with the collected feedback and learning shared broadly and applied to future engagement efforts. 22.Do you regularly inform residents of follow-up,progress,outcomes,and impacts concerning decisions made based on public involvement?* 0 Yes No June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Pagc 49 of 61 Public Engagement In Maria APPENDIX A: Information Request From Agency (cont'd) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23.Do you regularly assess your PE efforts for effectiveness and the public's satisfaction?" CJ Yes l j No 24.Do you regularly ask participants for feedback and advice concerning their PE experience? 0 Yes 0 No 25.Do you periodically evaluate and adjust your PE strategies with the collected feedback and your experience? 0 Yes 0 No 26a.Please provide the URL or hardcopy of your PE Plan See Definition above for PE Plan.If you have a hardcopy,please either scan the document and email to grq-adAqry-yucUl�@marincouQly.org or mail to:Marin County Civil Grand Jury•3501 Civic Center Drive,Room 275•San Rafael,CA 94903 26b.Please provide the URL or hardcopy of your resolution As described in item 6.if you have a hardcopy,please either scan the document and email to cirandiurv-audit(wmarincountv.oro or mail to: Marin County Civil Grand Jury•3501 Civic Center Drive,Room 275•San Rafael,CA94903 26c.Please provide the URL or hardcopy of your newsletter Ir applicable,pie ase provide the URL or hardcopy of your newsletter(either scan the newsletter and email to urandiurv- audtQpmarinc4unty,prg or mail to:Marin County Civil Grand Jury•3501 Civic Center Drive,Room 275•San Rafael,CA 94903) 26d.Please provide the URL of your Transparency Portal See Definition above for Transparency Portal.If applicable,please provide the URL of your Transparency Portal June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 50 of 61 Public Ejig(gemew In Maria APPENDIX B: Survey of Residents of Unincorporated Marin County k V Public Engagement Survey For Residents Of Unincorporated Marin County The Marin County civil Grand Jurf is seeking your input"rhe information provided will be heated confidentially by the Grand Jury for its research and report:your name and email will not be shared with anyone,and your responses will not be attributed to you. Public engagement is a general term used for a broad range of methods through which covernment agencies provide the public with more and bettern infoaabon about,and meaningful opportunities to iniluance,government decisions.This survey respectfully requests your views on public engagement in the County of Marin. If you have any questions about this survey,please contact:GrandJury@MarinCounty.org Required Your Name Your Email 1.On average how many County public hearings,meetings and/or workshops do you attend each year? 00 01-2 0 3 or more 0 Don't know 2.Are you interested in becoming more engaged in the decision making process of the County? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Don't know June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 51 of 61 Public En cWemenl In Marin APPENDIX B: Survey of Residents of Unincorporated Marin County (cont'd) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.How satisfied are you with the County's efforts to include the public in government decision making? 0 Satisfied 0 Somewhat satisfied 0 Somewhat dissatisfied f j Dissatisfied 0 No opinion 4.Please rate how the County is doing in the following areas of public engagement: Poor Fair Satisfactory Very Good rxcellent Dun Knovr County is making more of an effort to engage a widevariety 11 so`people in government � ✓ 0 decision making. County enoages the public in ways that are broadly /' accessible in terms of 0 d 0 0 0 { location,facilities,time,and language. Residents have ample oppoounily to participate in , County's government decisions. County provides the public with the information it needs, �'} and with enough lead time,to 0 0 0 'tip 1J effectively engage in the declslon making process- County gives full consideration to public input before making 0 0 0 0 01 0 government decisions.. County regularly informs residents of follow-up, progres s,outcomes,and r'y t �} ;. impacts concerning decisions lJ �� made based on public involvement. County builds relationships with communfty-based groups and imerested residents that O 0 0 l/'�� 0 are broadly reflective of the public it serves. County regularly uses clear � �•, and simple language in 0 0 0 0 v 0 communications. June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Pau 52 of 61 Public Engagement h7 Mai-in APPENDIX B: Survey of Residents of Unincorporated Marin County (cont'd) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5.Does the County use the following to engage and communicate with the public? Yes No Don't Know Direct mail �' r' 0 0 Website i_,; �s 0 Email -�, 0 Social media (, Newsletter 0 (-? 0 Surveys 0 (� 6.Please provide any additional feedback on the County's public engagement efforts June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand.luny Page 53 of 61 Public Engagement M Marin APPENDIX C: Survey of Residents of Marin Cities & Incorporated Towns hA Public Engagement Survey For Residents Of Marin Cities& Incorporated Towns The Marin County Civil Grand Jury is seeking your input.The information provided will be treated confidentially by the Grand Jury for its research and report:your name and email will not be shared with anyone,and your responses will not be attributed to you. Public engagement is a general term used for a broad range of methods through which oovernmem agencies provice the public with more and better information about,and meaningful opportunities to influence,government decisions.This survey respectfully requests your views on public engagement in your city or incorporated town,and the County of Marin. If you have any questions about this survey,please contact:GrandJury@ MarinCounty.org Requited Your Name Your Email Your City or Incorporated Town of Residence Choose 1.On average how many city or town public hearings,meetings and/or workshops do you attend each year? 00 01-2 j 3 or more 0 Don't know June 15, 2017 Matin County Civil Grand Jury Page 54 of 61 Public Engagement In Nlarh? APPENDIX C: Survey of Residents of Marin Cities & Incorporated Towns (cont'd) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.Are you interested in becoming more engaged in the decision making process of your city or town? 0 Yes {7 No 0 Don't know 3.How satisfied are you with your city's or town's efforts to include the public in government decision making? 0 Satisfied 0 Somewhat satisfied 0 Somewhat dissatisfied 0 Dissatisfied 0 No opinion June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 55 of 61 Public E»gagement M Mm-iu APPENDIX C: Survey of Residents of Mai-in Cities & Incorporated Towns (cont'd) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4.Please rate how your city or town is doing in the following areas: Poor Fair Satisfactrsy Very Good Lxcellent Dont Know Your city/town is making more of an effort to engage a wide ;• variety of people in 0 0 0 0 0 government decision making. Your cityjt wu engages the public in ways that are broadly �^* accessible in terns of L...�; 0 0 0 0 0 location,facilities,time,and language. Residents have ample opportunityto participate in f- �-. rte i--. your city's/town's government �- i °-,-+` �s L- decisions. Your cityitown provides the public with the information it needs,and with enough lead { C; time,to effectively engage in the decision making process. Yourcity/town gives full consideration to public input :~ before making government 0 �_ 0 C> 0 decisions. Your city/town regularly informs residents of follow- pp,progress,outcomes,and impacts concerning decisions t i 1 0 0 Cl) 0 made based on public involvement. Your city/town builds relationships with comruunity� based groups and interested -t r- i residents that are broadly �-J r-ti 0 10) 1") 0 reflective of the public it sales. Your city/town regularly uses clear and simple language in O 0 0 0 0 0 communications. 5.Does your city/town use the following to engage and communicate with the public? Yes No Dant Know Direct mail 0 Website 0 0 0 Email 0 0 �$/'''�\yj \r Social media 0 0 0 Newsletter 0 0 0 Surveys 0 0 0 Jame 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 56 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin APPENDIX C: Survey of Residents of Marin Cities & Incorporated Towns (cont'd) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6.Please provide any additional feedback on your city's or town's public engagement efforts yea: a o D 7.On average how many COUNTY public hearings,meetings and/or workshops do you attend each year? 00 0 1-2 3ormore 0 Don't know 8.Are you interested in becoming more engaged in the decision making process of THE COUNTY? 0 Yes `j No 0 Don't know 9.How satisfied are you with THE COUNTY'S efforts to include the public in government decision making? 0 Satisfied 0 Somewhat satisfied 0 Somewhat dissatisfied t '" Dissatisfied U No opinion June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 57 of 61 Public Enoa; Public Engagement In Nla11n APPENDIX D: Summary Agency Views of Public Engagement Benefits of PE Agree Neutral Disagree Improved decision making 12 0 0� More community buy-in 10 2 0 Better identification of public's values 11 1 01 More informed residents I I 1 0 More civil discussions 9 3 0; Faster project implementation 7 3 2 More trust 11 1 0 Higher rates of participation 10 2 0' PE Plan Yes No Have and follow a PE Plan 4 8 PE Area for Use Agree Neutral Disagree N/A Parks& Recreation 12 0 0 0 Land Use& Planning 12 0 0 0 Transportation& Infrastructure 12 0 0 0 Law Enforcement 10 1 0 1 Housing 12 0 0 0 Homelessness 8 2 - 0 2 Electoral/Voting 10 1 .'0 1 Budgeting 12 0 0 0 Health/Social Services Delivery 5 2 0" 5 Education 5 2 01 5 Immigrant Integration/Related Issues 7 1 0 4 Pensions&OPEB 10 1 0 1 Strategies Used Use Don't Newsletter 12 0 Newsletter by Mail 5 7 Newsletter by Email 12 0 Newsletter on Website 12 0 Community News on Website 12 0 Draft Budgets Online 12 0 Data Transparency Portal 8 4 Online Public Records Request 10 2 Freq.Requests on Website 7 5 June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 59 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin APPENDIX D: Summary Agency Views of Public Engagement (cont'd) Improve Intent Strategies Regularly Sometimes Don't Use Use Use In Job Description 6 4 2 Received Training 5 5 2 Summarize Complexity 10 2 0 Clear Language II I 0 Timely Communication 12, 0 0 Rate the PE Culture Excellent Good Needs Improvement Improves decision-making 6; 6 0 Public as Partners 6, b 0 Full Public Consideration IO; 2 '0 Proactive&Wide 6 ' 0 How Broaden Participation Regularly Sometimes Don't Use Use Use Build and Nurture Relationships10 2 .0 ' Regularly Distribute Information $ 4 0 Timely Information 9 3 0 Welcoming IJ,,., l 0 ' In HS & Colleges 2 4 6 June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 60 of 61 Public Engagement In Marin APPENDIX E: Platforms Used to Engage The Public Technology Platforms Agencies Using Webeasting Corte Madera,Larkspur,Mill Valley,Novato, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Sausalito, Tiburon, County of Marin Facebook Corte Madera, Larkspur,Mill Valley,Novato, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Sausalito, Tiburon, County of Marin Twitter Larkspur, Mill Valley,Novato, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Sausalito, Tiburon, County of Marin Texts Belvedere, Corte Madera,Larkspur,Mill Valley,Novato, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Sausalito, Tiburon, County of Marin Mobile Apps Corte Madera,Mill Valley, San Rafael, Sausalito,Tiburon, County of Marin Online Forums Fairfax,Novato, Sausalito, County of Marin Platforms All Agencies Use ✓ Websites ✓ Public Notices ✓ Public Hearings ✓ Nextdoor ✓ Press Releases ✓ Town Hall Meetings ✓ Emailing ✓ . Direct Mailing ✓ Small face-to-face discussions & personal interactions ✓ Workshops ✓ Surveys June 15, 2017 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 61 of 61 EXHIBIT NO. RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM Town of Tiburon Report Title: Public Engagement in Marin-A Pathway to Inclusive Governance Report Date: June 15, 2017 Public Release: June 26, 2017 Response By: Town of Tiburon FINDINGS ■ We agree with the findings numbered: No response required. ® We disagree with wholly or partially with the findings numbered: No response required RECOMMENDATIONS ® Recommendations numbered_R3, R4, R5, R7, R8, R9, and R11®have been implemented. ® Recommendations numbered: —R10 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. ® Recommendations numbered: require further analysis. ® Recommendations numbered: _111, R2, R5, R12_ will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. Date: Signed: Number of pages attached:_ 1 Office of the Town Manager Town of Tiburon September 19, 2017 The Honorable Kelly Simmons Mr. Jay Hamilton-Roth, Foreperson Judge of the Marin County Superior Marin County Civil Grand Jury Court 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275 Post Office Box 4988 San Rafael, CA 94903 San Rafael, CA 94913-4988 Red Response to Grand Jury Report Public Engagement in MarinA Pathway to Inclusive Government Dear Honorable Judge Simmons and Mr. Hamilton-Roth: This letter explains in detail the Town of Tiburon's response to the Civil Grand Jury Report dated June 15, 2017. The Report directs the Town to respond to Recommendations Nos. 1-12. RECOMMENDATIONS and RESOPONSES Recommendation 1. Each agency without a formal PE Plan should develop either a PE Plan or PE Guidelines tailored to the needs of their public and publish the results. Town's Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. As stated in the Grand Jury report, the Town does not currently have a formal Public Engagement Plan, and has no plan to develop one in the near future. CA Penal Code 933.05(b)(3) allows a response indicating a recommendation requires further analysis, which in Tiburon's case may occur at some point in the future with regard to the development of a formal Public Engagement Plan, or set of guidelines. however,PEN 933.05(b)(3) also requires the analysis be conducted within 6 months from the publication of the grand jury report, or before December 15, 2017. The analysis of this issue will likely not occur within that timeframe Recommendation2. Each agency should obtain input from the public in the planning and design or update of its plan/guidelines. Town's Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. As stated in the Grand Jury report, the Town does not currently have a formal Public Engagement Plan, and has no plan to develop one in the near future. However, if at some point the Town chooses to develop a PE Plan, or set of guidelines, as discussed in the response to Recommendation .1,public input will be a key component of its development. 1 Recommendation 3. Agency managers should regularly share their PE Plans and "lessons learned"with their counterparts in other Marin agencies. Town's Response: This recommendation has already been implemented. As stated in the Grand Jury report, the Town does not currently have a formal Public Engagement Plan, and has no plan to develop one in the near future. However, Managers from all Marin municipalities'meet on a monthly basis to discuss a wide variety of topics, including experiences in engaging the public on a range of issues important to our communities. Recommendation 4. Each agency should provide early and ample opportunity for PE in the form of proactive engagement in order to ensure that the public is aware of all their PE opportunities. Town's Response: This recommendation has already been implemented Although Tiburon does not have a formal Public Engagement Plan, or set of guidelines,staff strives to provide residents ample opportunity to participate in the decision-making process and provide input and feedback on a broad range of issues. Recommendation 5. Post-engagement, each agency should follow up with the public, informing them of the results of projects and issues. Town's Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. As stated in the Grand.jury report, the Town does not currently have a formal Public Engagement Plan, and has no plan to develop one in the near future. However, if at some point the Town chooses to develop a PE Plan, or set of guidelines, as discussed in the response to Recommendation 1, developing and implementing strategies to provide feedback and post-engagement communication to the public will be considered. Recommendation 6. Each agency should create an easy-to-find area on their website dedicated to describing current community issues and explaining how the public can get involved. Town's Response: This recommendation has already been implemented The homepage of Town's website includes a prominent section called `Tiburon News . Here, residents will find comprehensive information on current issues and projects, as well as information on how to get involved or voice their opinions on these matters. Recommendation 7. Each agency should make PE a required responsibility of at least one staff person and publicize that responsibility. Town's Response: This recommendation has already been implemented As stated in the grand jury report(page 30), the Town has incorporated elements of Public Engagement as one of the essential functions in the job description for Town Manager. Recommendation 8. Each agency should offer regular PE professional development to its staff. Town's Response: This recommendation has already been implemented. The Town currently provides funding in every department budget for training andlor professional development, and we encourage staff to seek diverse training opportunities that will allow them to improve the level of service we offer our residents In addition, we strive to provide staff targeted information on customer service and public engagement. This includes resources available through the Institute for Local Government, City Management Foundation and International CitylCounty Management Association. Recommendation 9. Each agency should develop meaningful and ongoing partnerships with their local community-based organizations. Town's Response: This recommendation has already been implemented. Town elected officials and stafffoster and maintain strong relationships, and actively participate on numerous issues and projects with a variety of community based organizations. These include the Tiburon.Peninsula Chamber of Commerce,Rotary Club(s), Tiburon Peninsula Foundation,Belvedere Community Foundation, The Foundation for Reed Schools, Tiburon Peninsula Soccer Club, Tiburon Green Team, Tiburon Open Space, Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society,Belvedere-Tiburon Library Foundation, Tiburon Romberg Center,Richardson Bay Audubon and Destination Tiburon In addition to these organizations, Town elected officials and staff engage with numerous Homeowners Associations on a range of issues. Recommendation 10. Each agency should include on all written communications the social media platforms they use. Town's Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. CA Penal Code 933.05(b)(3) allows a response indicating a recommendation requires further analysis, which in Tiburon's case may occur at some point in the future. However,PEN 933.05(b)(3) also requires the analysis be conducted within 6 months from the publication of the grand jury report, or before December 15, 2017. The analysis of this issue will likely not occur within that timeframe. The Town does not currently actively utilize social media platforms. However, on August 16, 2017, the Tiburon Town Council adopted a comprehensive Social Media Policy, which provides a framework for the use of social media platforms. If in the future, the Town begins to use social media platforms,staff will include this information on all written communication. Recommendation 11 . Each agency should communicate and emphasize to the public the importance of participation in PE. Town's Response: This recommendation has already been implemented. As stated previously, the Town does not currently have a formal Public Engagement Plan, and has no plan to develop one in the near future. However,staff and elected/appointed Town officials are committed to engaging our residents to the greatest extent possible. This engagement occurs both formally, through extensive outreach and noticing on individual issues as they arise, and informally, by meeting with and engaging residents on a variety of issues every day. Recommendation 12. Each agency should publish an annual report describing the effectiveness of their PE. Town's Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted, or is not reasonable. As stated in the Grand Jury report, the Town does not currently have a formal Public Engagement Plan, and has no plan to develop one in the near future. However, if at some point the Town chooses to develop a Public Engagement Plan, or set of guidelines, as discussed in the response to Recommendation 1, consideration will be given to requiring an annual report as part of that process. The Tiburon Town Council reviewed and approved this response on September 19, 2017, at a duly noticed and agendized public meeting. If you have further questions on this matter,please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, GREG CHANIS Town Manager cc: Town Council Town Attorney 'o TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard September 19,2017 Agenda Item: CC- ; Tiburon,CA 94920 To: Tiburon Town Council From: Greg Chanis, Town Manager Subject: Recommendation to Adopt Resolution of Intent to disestablish the Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District Reviewed By: BACKGROUND The Town created the Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District("TTBID") in 2007 to fund a marketing program to promote tourism. The TTBID raises funds by imposing assessments on the lodging establishments in the Town, creating a revenue stream to help market the Town as an overnight destination for visitors. The state law governing the TTBID is the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, Section 36500 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code (the "Act"). Between 2007 and 2013, the Town directed the TTBID funds to the Marin Convention and Visitor Bureau(MCVB) for use in a countywide program. Concluding this use of the TTBID funds was not providing sufficient benefit to their establishments, in 2013 the hotels requested the Town terminate the contract with the MCVB, and explore options for utilizing the funds in a more effective way. With the support of the hotels,the Town formed Destination Tiburon in 2014. Destination Tiburon was incorporated as a public, non-profit benefit corporation to act as a tourism bureau, with the mission to `Promote Tiburon as a world class destination'. Since 2014, and in consultation with the hotels, Chamber of Commerce and other interested parties,the Town has directed TTBID funds, along with a portion of the Town's Transient Occupancy Tax,to Destination Tiburon for the development of a marketing program. Although the TTBID has provided a steady stream of revenue to fund Destination Tiburon, collecting and managing the assessments associated with the TTBID creates additional administrative burdens and costs, and limits the activities Destination Tiburon can engage in on behalf of the hotels. Therefore,the hotels, with the support of the Board of Directors of Destination Tiburon(The Board), have requested, Pursuant to Section 36550 of the Streets and Highways Code, that Town Council begin the process for disestablishment of the TTBID. The hotels and The Board believe, considering Destination Tiburon's role in managing the TTBID Program, such services could continue to be provided to the Town Hotels if funding was provided under alternative arrangements, including but not limited to direct contributions to Town Council Meeting January 18,2017 Destination Tiburon from the hotels, and others, for such services. Letters from both hotels requesting disestablishment of the TTBID are attached as Exhibit 1. A Resolution indicating the Town's intent to disestablish the TTBID is attached for Council consideration as Exhibit 2. If adopted by Council,the required Public Hearing on this matter will be scheduled for October 18, 2017 at 7:30 p.m. REC0MMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Adopt the attached Resolution of Intention to disestablish the Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District. 2. Set the date for a Public Hearing on this matter for October 18, 2017 at 7:30p.m. Exhibit: (1) Resolution of Intention (2) Letters from hotels Prepared By: Greg Chanis, Town Manager 1O\-v''\o» iT11;t 1Zov EXHIBIT NO. � RESOLUTION NO. -2017 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO PARKING AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA LAW OF 1989 TO DISESTABLISH THE TIBURON TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS,the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, Section 36500 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code, authorizes cities to establish parking and business improvement areas for the purpose of promoting tourism; and WHEREAS, in 2007, the Town formed the Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District("TTBID"), to levy an assessment on lodging establishments within the Town's borders at a rate of a one percent(1 %) of gross room rental value and provide lodging-related and visitor services; and WHEREAS, in 2010, at the request of the Town's two lodging establishments,the Lodge at Tiburon and the Water's Edge Hotel (collectively, "Town Hotels"),the Town increased the TTBID assessment to two percent(2%)of gross room rental value; and WHEREAS, on January 18, 2017,the Council adopted Resolution No. 03-2017, declaring its intention to levy the TTBID assessments, setting a public hearing on February 1, 2017 to consider any protests and directing related actions; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2017, following public hearing,the Council adopted Resolution No. 06-2017 levying assessments to pay for all improvements and activities within the TTBID, specifically lodging-related and visitor services; and WHEREAS,the assessment fees collected on behalf of the TTBID by the Town has enabled the Town over the years to finance and administer marketing programs to promote mid- week and off-season overnight lodging business,to promote the Town as an overnight tourism destination, and to fund projects,programs, and activities that benefit lodging establishments within the TTBID, including management and visitor services; and WHEREAS, Destination Tiburon, a nonprofit organization is currently provides all TTBID Program services; and WHEREAS, only the Town Hotels are currently assessed to fund the TTBID Program; and WHEREAS, approving TTBID assessments on a yearly basis, collecting and managing such assessments creates administrative overhead to the Town and Destination Tiburon; OAK#4816-1649-9788 v2 WHEREAS, a decrease in administrative overhead and commensurate cost savings would result if TTBID Program services are financed and operated via a method other than a business improvement area under the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989; and WHEREAS, in light of Destination Tiburon's role in managing the TTBID Program, such services could continue to be provided to the Town Hotels if funding was provided under alternative arrangements, including but not limited to direct contributions to Destination Tiburon from the Town Hotels for such services; and WHEREAS, the Town Hotels have indicated that they support dissolution of the TTBID and would prefer to pursue alternative arrangements; and WHEREAS, Section 36550 of the Streets and Highways Code sets forth the process for disestablishment of a business improvement area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby resolves, determines, and finds as follows: SECTION 1. The Town Council declares its intent to disestablish the TTBID, as identified in Resolution No. 03-2017, passed on January 18, 2017, and Resolution No. 06-2017, passed on February 1, 2017. SECTION 2. Any tangible assets acquired with assessments levied for the TTBID, and any remaining revenues, shall be refunded in in the manner set forth in Section 36551 of the Streets and Highways Code. SECTION 3. On October 18, 2017, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Town Council shall hold a public hearing on the disestablishment of the TTBID in the Town Council Chambers located at 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920. SECTION 4. The Town Clerk is directed to give notice of a public hearing on the aforementioned matters in accordance with California Streets and Highways Code Section 36523. Notice of the public hearing shall be given by publishing the resolution of intention in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town once, for at least seven days before the public hearing. Notice of the public hearing shall be given by mailing a complete copy of this Resolution of Intention by first-class mail to each business owner assessed within the District, within seven days following the Town Council's adoption of this Resolution of Intention to Disestablish the TTBID. PASSED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon held on September 19, 2017,by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: OAK#4816-1649-9788 Q ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JAMES FRASER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK OAK#4816-1649-9788 v2 EXHIBIT NO. THELODGE AT TIBURON August 11, 2017 Mr, Greg Chanis Town Manager Town of Tiburon Sent via email:gchanis@townoftiburon.org Dear Tiburon Town Council, We understand the Tiburon Town Council will be considering disestablishment of the Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District (TTBID) in the near future. On behalf of the Lodge at Tiburon, I am writing today in support of this action and respectfully ask the Tiburon Town Council to adopt staff's recommendation to disestablish the TTBID as soon as is practical. Regards, Jim Gerney Regional Vice President r lodge attiburon.com 1651 TIBURON BOULEVARD,TIBURON,CALIFORNIA 94920 i T415.435.3133 F 415.435.2451 Greg Chanis From: Justin Flake <jflake@marinhotels.com> Sent: Friday,June 30, 2017 4:47 PM To: Greg Chanis Cc: Jim Gerney(Jim.Gerney@metwestterra.com); Mayor Jim Fraser Subject: BID Protest Dear Greg, Please accept my letter in protest of the Tiburon BID. Waters Edge Hotel is no longer interested in contributing to it. Will you please confirm that this letter is sufficient? Thank you. Sincerely, Justin Flake General Manager Marin Hotels Acqua * Mill Valley Inn * Waters Edge Acqua (415) 380-0400 WEH—(415)789-5093 MVI— (415) 389-8354 www.marinhotels.com MVI—165 T hrockmorton Ave. Mill Valley,CA 94941 WEH—25 Main St. Tiburon, CA 94920 i Town Council Meeting TOWN OF TIBURON g ' 1505 Tiburon Boulevard September 19,2017 Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: (2 C-- STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Public Works Subject: Recommendation to Authorize Town Manager to Award the Trestle Trail Proj ec Reviewed By: BACKGROUND In April 2016, the Town Council considered a plan by The Tiburon Peninsula Foundation(TPF) to construct a concrete walkway on the top of the historic trestle berm to increase public accessibility and appreciation for Tiburon's railroad history. The project plans and specifications have since been completed, with the final design unanimously approved by Town Council at the April 19th, 2017 Council Meeting. Bids on the project were due September 12, 2017. The Town received three bids for the project, with the bid results as follows: Alta Engineering Group - $269,615 Ghilotti Bros - $365,748 Oak Grove Construction - $161,560 ANALYSIS The lowest responsive and responsible bidder was determined to be Oak Grove Construction. Staff is recommending the contract be awarded to Oak Grove Construction in the amount of $161,560. Staff is also recommending that contingency funding of 15%be added to the project cost, as well as an additional $10,000 for professional surveying and geotechnical engineering services. This would bring the total project cost to $195,794. FINANCIAL IMPACT The 2017/18 CIP included an allocation of$180,000 for this project. The total in the CIP is made up of$40,000 from Measure A Gas Tax funds (Town contribution), and $140,000 from private donations (including a$10,000 contribution from the City of Belvedere). Because the total project cost including contingency and professional services is $196,000, a budget amendment in the amount of$16,000 is required, with this additional amount coming from private donations. The Town is in receipt of all project funds as described above, including this additional $16,000, and staff is prepared to move forward with this project. TOWN of Tx URON PAGE I of 2 Town Council Meetin August 16,2011 RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the budget amendment in the amount of$16,000 to account for project contingency and professional services during construction. 2. Authorize the Town Manager to approve the award of a contract for the Trestle Trail Project to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. Prepared by: Dmitriy Lashkevich,Associate Engineer TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting September 19, 2017 a 1505 Tiburon Boulevard p ` Tiburon CA 94920 Agenda Iterr, �® t STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Mayor Fraser Subject: Recpgnition of Steve Hahn s Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Following decades of public service, and 22 years of service to the Town of Tiburon, Sergeant Steve Hahn has announced his retirement from the Town of Tiburon Police Department. Steve Hahn has demonstrated his abilities as a leader, a friend and a coworker, and has performed his duties with the Tiburon Police Department skillfully and heroically. He will surely be missed amongst staff and Tiburon residents alike. The Council will be honoring Sergeant Hahn at tonight's Town Council meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1) Adopt the attached resolution commending Sergeant Steve Hahn for 22 years of service to the Tiburon Police Department and congratulating him on his retirement. Exhibit: 1) Draft Resolution Prepared By: Lea Stefani,Town Clerk TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 1 RESOLUTION NO. 27-2017 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON COMMENDING SERGEANT STEVE HAHN UPON HIS RETIREMENT FROM THE TIBURON POLICE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, Steve Hahn began his public service in 1974 when he joined the US Army, becoming a member of the elite 3rd Infantry Regiment, the "Old Guard", the US Army's ceremonial unit and escort to the president. Following his military service he worked as a police officer and training officer at other, less distinguished,police departments; and WHEREAS, Steve has served the Town of Tiburon with distinction for 22 years, rising through the ranks to the position of Sergeant while demonstrating exceptional ability and dedication as an officer, supervisor and detective, as well as carrying out common, everyday duties in a fair and impartial manner and equal parts skill and aplomb, and on more than one occasion, performing acts of heroism that helped saved lives; and WHEREAS, while Steve will be greatly missed by his co-workers and the Tiburon community he will thankfully remain a part of the Police Department family, through his service as a reserve officer, his friendships with others in the Department and, in retirement, will no doubt someday achieve the same degree of success at golf that he achieved as an Officer and Sergeant in the Tiburon Police Department; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby thank and commend Sergeant Steve Hahn for his 22 years of distinguished service to the Town of Tiburon, and appreciation for his ongoing and valued role as part of the fabric of the Tiburon community. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on September 19, 2017. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JIM FRASER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK EXHIBIT NO. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.27-2017 9/19/2017 1 ` TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard September 19, 2017 Tiburon,CA 94920 Agenda Item:Al - STAFF REPORT 1 , • To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Clerk Subject: Appointments to Fill Vacancies on Town Boards, Commissions and Committees: Planning Commission and Parks, Open Space and Trails Co fission Reviewed By: 1 BACKGROUND Since June 2017, there have been several special vacancies on Town Boards & Commissions. The vacancies were each formally announced at Town Council meetings, advertised for in the Ark, on the Town of Tiburon website and in posted notices at the Library and Town Hall. Tonight, the Council will consider filling one vacancy on the Planning Commission and three vacancies on the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission. The Planning Commission has had one vacancy since June 22, 2017, following the appointment of David Kulik to the Town Council, and his subsequent resignation from the Planning Commission. Staff accepted applications for the position until July 27. Four applications were received: Daniel Amir, Roy Crumrine, Jack Ryan and Jeff Tsai. Jack Ryan subsequently withdrew his application. The three remaining applicants were interviewed on September 12 and 19 (tonight). The individual appointed will serve the remainder of Mr. Kulik's term, until 2021. The Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission currently has three vacancies. Holli Thier resigned from the Commission on June 22, 2017 following her appointment to the Town Council. Peter Winkler and Michael McMullen resigned from the Commission (on June 26 and August 30, respectively) following a Council-adopted change in residency requirements for POST. Following the first two resignations in June, staff advertised for and accepted applications for the two open seats on POST until July 27. Five applications were received: Bruce King, Angela McInerney, Isaac Nikfar, Leonor Noguez and Jim Wood. The applicants were interviewed on September 12 and 19 (tonight). Mr. McMullen's resignation from POST was received after the close of the application period for the two existing vacancies on POST, but before the appointment process or interviews began. On September 12, the Council adopted a motion allowing the Council to fill Mr. McMullen's seat on POST from the already existing pool of applicants. For that reason, the Council will consider making appointments to all three empty seats on the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission tonight. Please note that each of the three POST vacancies have occurred at different points of the individual terms of office (see figure below). Appointees to special vacancies serve out the remainder of the existing terms of office, so the Council should identify to which seat they are appointing each individual. Staff would also like to point out that those appointed to Councilmember Thier's and Mr. Winkler's seats will be eligible for automatic reappointment, because they will have held the seats for less than two years. Commissioner Resigned Term Expires Holli Thier 6/2017 2/2018 Peter Winkler 6/2017 2/2019 Michael McMullen 1 8/2017 2/2020 Update on Other Special Vacancies The Design Review Board has had one vacancy since June 1, 2017, following the resignation of Mike Tollini. Staff accepted applications for the position until July 14. The Council interviewed the only applicant (Stephen Wanat) on July 19. Because only one application was received before the deadline, staff has reopened the application period and will continue to solicit applications for this vacancy until September 28, 2017, and schedule interviews as appropriate. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Consider making appointment(s) to Planning Commission and/or Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission; or 2. Continue the item and direct staff to continue to accept applications and schedule interviews for the vacancies at an upcoming Council meeting. Exhibits: 1) Planning Commission Applications 2) Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission Applications Prepared By: Lea Stefani,Town Clerk ......------- __ _.. Exhibit 1 : Planning Commission Applications 1. Daniel Amir 2. Roy Crumrine 3.Jeff Tsai ~ y� &� ^��y ����^�� —� ' � ��A� ��w,� ��xro." RE -.MVE E D Date:July 25",2017 JUL 25 2017] /o: TNTIORK Town Council r--------LOWr0N_QF 11 B U RON TownofTibumn Fax:415-435-2438 From: Danie|Amir 415-726-5900 Council, Please find attached the application for the planning commission position. Let me know if you need any additional information. | amlooking forward tnhearing from you soon. Instructions and application to Serve on a Town ]Board, Commission or Committee The Town Council considers appointments to various Town boards, commissions and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In an effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town,by completing both pages of this form and returning it to Town Hall, 1.505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon CA 94920, or fax it to (415)435-2438. Copies of the application will be forwarded to the Town Council and an informal interview will be scheduled when a vacancy occurs.Your application will remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one(1)year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Diane Crane Iacopi Town Clerk AREAS OF INTEREST Please Indicate Your Area(s)of Interest in Numerical Order (#I Being the Greatest Interest) #.� PLANNING # PARKS& OPEN SPACE _j_DESIGN REVIEW # RECREATION it HERITAGE &ARTS _A_DISASTER PREPAREDNESS _1_LIBRARY # MARIN COMMISSION ON AGING # BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 PERSONAL DATA Only computer-generated or typewritten copy will be accepted; Attach separate pages,including resumes and cover letters,if'necessary. NAME: Daniel Amir MAILING ADDRESS: 22 Juno Road TELEPHONE: Home:4157265900 Work:<li xere> Fax No. <# Here> PROPERTY OWNERS'ASSOC. (If applicable)<Enter xere> TIBURON RESIDENT:(Years) 9 DATE SUBMITTED:7/2 5/17 REASONS FOR SELECTING YOUR AREAS OF INTEREST I am interested in being involved in having an impact on the planning of our town to the benefit of all residents. Tiburon has an amazing character and potential and I would be keen in contributing my time to further enhance this. APPLICABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE I have the following qualifications: 1) Experience in town government.2 am currently a commissioner on the heritage and arts commission ( 6 years; including Chair) . I am aware of the requirements and the dealings of a town commission and enjoy volunteering. 2) I am the Neighberhood president of Belveron Cast Neighborhood Association and have been involved in various planning decisions and interaction with town council/planning commission/DRB and police department in matters related to out neighborhood. 3) Involved in town work groups on - "main street farmers market" and other -----------_---------- --M-----------------Town Hall Use----------- Date Application Received: Interview Date: Appointed to: (Commission,Board or Committee) (Date) Date Term Expires: Length of Term: 2 Daniel L. Amir Tel:415-726-5900 daniel_amir@yaboo.com SUMMARY Experienced director and senior executive with deep finance and strategy expertise and proven ability to deliver results. Background includes deep knowledge of public and private technology companies and an extensive network in the investment community.Experienced in the areas of financial services,education,semiconductors and IoT. DIRE,CTORSIIIPS WOLF CONNECTION(2012-PRESENT) Board Director and Treasurer. Wolf Connection is a non-profit that focuses on providing education and life skills for at-risk groups thru collaboration with wolves.Head of the Finance and Audit Committee. HERITAGE AND ARTS—TOWN OF TI13U ON(2012-PRESENT) Commissioner. Heritage and Arts Board is responsible for all decisions and events surrounding art and heritage sites in the town of'1'iburon.Active director and Chairman of the commission in 2014-2015. :MEETYL(2013-2015) Board Director Advisor. Meetyl is a SaaS Technology start-up that developed a platform that connects investment firms to public companies for management corporate access.Advised the CEO on strategy which led to successful sale to Glass Lewis. EXPERIENCE DSP GROUP, San Francisco,CA 2016-Present Corporate [rice President far Business Development,Investor Relations and Strategic Accounts m Lead corporate development department for DSP Group, a publicly traded semiconductor company on the NASDAQ (NASDAQ:DSPG).Duties including M&A,strategy and investments.Member of the executive management team. m Responsible for DSP Group Investor Relations efforts.Revamped Investor Relations strategy that resulted in an increase of sell side coverage by 50%,buy-side meetings by 30%and trading volume by 40%in 2016, a In charge of developing the company strategy while working closely with the CEO and DSP Group Board of Directors. ® Responsible for US strategic accounts for our HDClear voice processor product line, Increasing penetration into key accounts leading to new designs and sales growth. LADENBURG THALMANN&CO, San Francisco,CA 2014-2016 Managing Director- Technology • Principal technology analyst focused on growth companies in the Hardware technology space.Focused themes include:IoT, Solid State Storage,Telecom,Data Center,Media storage and Machine-To-Machine. ® Built out the technology franchise of the firm that includes putting a team together of analysts and bankers. Introduced the firm to 40 new clients and managed those relationships;Top performing analyst at the firm. ® increased revenues for the department by >10% in 2015 thru a combination of additional banking transactions in the hardware space and increasing trading commissions. LAZARD LLC,San Francisco,CA 2007-2014 Managing Director—Semiconductors,Materials and Mobile ® Lead technology analyst with a focus that includes mobile, memory, communications, Storage and data center names. Authored industry research reports in areas of IoT,servers,storage,networking,LEDs,smartphones and home connectivity. ® Positioned in the top quintile of commissions,non-deal roadshows and vote generating analysts at the firm. Strong mutual fund and hedge fund relationships in the US and in Europe. o Frequently quoted and interviewed for the Wall Street Journal,Bloomberg,CNBC,Reuters,Barron's,Dow Jones and other. • Talent Management:Responsible for recruiting associates/analysts for the technology sector within the research department. UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO(USF),San Francisco,CA 2012-Present Adjunct Professor—Finance(Part time) ® Adjunct professor for the USF School of Management. Taught courses on Corporate .Finance, Project Management and Organizational Behavior and Leadership. • Ranked consistently in the top quintile of USF professors based on student reviews. WRHAMBRECHT&CO, San Francisco,CA 2004-2007 Dice President—Mobile,Semiconductors and Telecommunications ® Top Producing and performing analyst at WRH for two years in a row.Ranked#1 Hardware analyst and#2 sell side analyst on Wall Street in Zacks investment research"2006 Best on the Street"analyst survey with a stock return of 70%. ® Initiated and structured a joint venture deal between WRHambrecht and Leader Group in Israel to generate corporate finance opportunities which resulted in a significant increase in revenues for the banking franchise. BEAR STEARNS,San Francisco,CA 2003-2004 Junior Research Analyst 0 Authored research reports, financial analysis and position papers on Hardware and component sectors. Assisted Senior Analyst on all matters of research--financial modeling,channel checks,writing,presentation and communication. JPMORGAN 1.3&Q, San Francisco,CA 2000-2001 Corporate Finance Associate ® Identified and analyzed strategic opportunities and financing alternatives for technology clients.Topics included analysis of regulatory issues in cross border M&A transactions,and minority investment considerations. MINISTRY OF FINANCE,Jerusalem,Israel 1996-1998 Director—European and International Organizations Desk ® Led trade deficit study between Israel and EU that examined trade gap in the high tech and financial services industries. m Coordinated the Israeli response on financial services for the negotiations at the WTO and Free Trade Talks with Europe. ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCE—AIR FORCE NON COMMISSIONED OFFICER 1990-1993 EDUCATION -- MBA,UCLA—Anderson School of Business,Los Angeles,CA-Finance 2000 MA,Hebrew University,Jerusalem,Israel —International Relations(Europe focus) 1998 BA,Hebrew University,Jerusalem,Israel—Economics and International Relations 1996 ADDITIONAL s Selected as a Nippon Fellow for the Salzburg Seminar for world young leaders in 1999. ® Active Licenses:Series 7,63,86,87 ® Fluent in Hebrew and Clarinet Player, 2 - Roy Cr�r�rine, PERSONAL DATA Only computer-generated or typewritten copy will be accepted; Attach separate pages, including resumes and cover letters, if necessary. NAME: xoy Crumrine "1'/8 Stewart Drive MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Home:L/J-OUL4 Work: 279-6024 Fax No. <# Here> We live witnin 'Tiburon Knolls PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (If applicable) TIBURON RESIDENT: (Years)24 DATE SUBMITTED: 7/26/17 REASONS FOR SELECTING YOUR AREAS OF INTEREST As a 24 year resident, and an avid reader of the Ark, I would like to contribute to Tiburon's future. My children are now 18, and 16, and I am at a point in my career where I have more free time to devote to serving. APPLICABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE My first choice is the Planning Commission. At UC Berkeley, I got an A in Architecture and was strongly encourage by my Professor to pursue that Career. Instead, I went into Business, passing the CPA exam in College; and later becoming a CPA with Price Waterhouse (now PWC) . For fun, I got my real estate license. This later came in handy when I worked for Syufy Enterprises, a major commerial real estate developer. I'm fluent in Spanish, and I'm always striving for win-win situations; which I hope to bring to the Planning Commission. Thank you. ----------------------------------------------Town Hall Use------------------------------------------------- Date Application Received: Interview Date: Appointed to: (Commission,Board or Committee) (Date) Date Term Expires: Length of Term: 2 R, , IVE- -D-- JUL 2 7 2017 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF 118URON Instructions and Application to Serve on a Town Board, Commission or Committee The Town Council considers appointments to various Town boards, commissions and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In an effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both pages of this form and returning it to Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon CA 94920, or fax it to (415)435-2438. Copies of the application will be forwarded to the Town Council and an informal interview will be scheduled when a vacancy occurs. Your application will remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Diane Crane Iacopi Town Clerk AREAS OF INTEREST Please Indicate Your Area(s)of Interest in Numerical Order (91 Being the Greatest Interest) #1 PLANNING #9 PARKS & OPEN SPACE #z DESIGN REVIEW # RECREATION —74 # HERITAGE & ARTS DISASTER PREPAREDNESS 13 LIBRARY # MARIN COMMISSION ON AGING # BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 Tiburon Planning Commission Roy Crumrine Application Additional Information In addition to the information provided in my application and cover email, I'd like to mention the following: I actively follow via the ARK,the local events and issues related to the town. After we purchased our house on Stewart Drive in 1993, 1 spent many hours at the library reading all the issues of the ARK prior to October 1993 to get a better understanding of the community we decided to call home. I either bought or checked out all the Landmark Society books on the history of the Town, Belvedere, and the history of the Tiburon Peninsula. Not only has this historical knowledge made me feel more connected to our town; but,over the years, it has enabled me to share the history with the young Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, and with newer residents of the community. Over the years, I have occasionally attended Council, Design Review Board, and Planning Commission meetings. Since I submitted my application for the Planning Commission in July, I would have liked to have attended a more recent Planning Commission meeting; but, as of today(September 9`"), they have all been canceled. So,to bring myself more up to speed, I have also read the last 2 years of agendas and minutes. Throughout my career, currently Controller for Thunder(an advertising technology company),or my volunteer activities, I like to be prepared and ready to get to work. Hopefully, I won't have to use the skills; but, several years ago, I participated in one of the first CERT training classes held in town. Now that my Boys are older, I have more free time. Since the Town and Real Estate have always been strong interests of mine, I'd like to serve on the Planning Commission. As both a CPA and having previously earning a real estate license, I am familiar with both real estate and legal terminology,and codes and ordinances. I would like to think that my more than 30 years of business experience would help lead to positive outcomes, and hopefully win-win situations for all parties involved. Personally,from reading all the minutes, I like the fact that the Planning Commission has a hand in making decisions that impact the economic development of the town; on top of being involved with residential matters. Again, I think my business experience,from retail,to start-ups,to multinational corporations could be helpful to the commission. Thank you, Roy Crumrine PERSONAL DATA Only computer-generated or typewritten copy will be accepted; Attach separate pages, including resumes and cover letters, if necessary. NAME: Jeff Tsai MAILING ADDRESS: 1 Blackfield Dr., 4359, Tiburon, CA 94920 TELEPHONE: Horne: Work:415-243-1104 Fax No. PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (If applicable) Del Mar Neighborhood Association TIBURON RESIDENT: (Years) 4.25 DATE SUBMITTED: July 27, 2017 REASONS FOR SELECTING YOUR AREAS OF INTEREST Please see Attachment A. APPLICABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE Please see Attachment B. ----------------------------------------------Town Hall Use------------------------------------------------- Date Application Received: Interview Date: Appointed to• (Commission,Board or Committee) (Date) Date Term Expires: Length of Term: 2 EKED JUL 2 7 2017 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIRURON Instructions and Application to Serve on a Town Board, Commission or Committee The Town Council considers appointments to various Town boards, commissions and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In an effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's governmental process and activities, the Council heeds to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both pages of this form and returning it to Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon CA 94920, or fax it to (415)435-2438. Copies of the application will be forwarded to the Town Council and an informal interview will be scheduled when a vacancy occurs. Your application will remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Diane Crane Iacopi Town Clerk AREAS OF INTEREST Please Indicate Your Area(s)of Interest in Numerical Order (#I Being the Greatest Interest) #i PLANNING PARKS & OPEN SPACE DESIGN REVIEW RECREATION HERITAGE & ARTS DISASTER PREPAREDNESS LIBRARY MARIN COMMISSION ON AGING BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 Jeff Tsai Tiburon Planning Commission Application July 27, 2017 Page 1 of 2 Attachment A As a Tiburon taxpayer,resident, and public-school parent, as well as a long-time public servant, I am deeply invested in the advancement our town. Serving the community, whether through my career positions or volunteer work, has always been a passion of mine. And I would like the opportunity now to directly serve our Town through the Planning Commission. I believe my broad public sector experience---working in California government, as well as in multiple capacities in the federal government—and knowledge from substantive oversight board positions prepare me well for duty as a Planning Commissioner. Tiburon Father,Husband, and Homeowner/Resident. My wife, daughters, and I have set our roots down in Tiburon. My family and I have resided in Tiburon for a little over four years. We have continuously lived in the Del Mar neighborhood,and we are members of the Del Mar Neighborhood Association. My wife, Shelby, is a working mom who dedicates a tremendous amount of time in the leadership of the Reed Schools Foundation. And our two kids are proud public-school students—Ella (Bel Aire, Fourth Grade) and Charlotte(Reed, Kindergarten). As the parent to very young children,my view of the world is oriented to the future. In the years to come, I want to be there to help set T iburon's future and care-take its continued success for its residents—from our oldest to our youngest. We are active in our Tiburon community and value the life we have built here in the Town. But enjoyment of the Town and its offerings doesn't come without work from the people who live here. I believe the Planning Commission is an excellent forum for me to make a contribution. Career Public Service. As Special Assistant Attorney General, I served for over two years on former California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris' senior executive team. For every policy decision in which I participated and advised the Attorney General, our key priorities were always the same: ensuring that we were benefiting the public and that our actions complied with the law and the interests of justice. Through this experience, I gained tremendous insight into the workings of California state government and the intricacies of policy and state law. This insight should be a valuable tool for the Planning Commission as it balances long-term strategy for the Town's continued development with the requirements of municipal, county,and state law. I also have served as federal prosecutor. I prosecuted large-scale white-collar frauds which regularly implicated taxpayer funds. My training as an investigator helps me ask the right questions and think critically about the uniqueness of factual situations and their application to the law. Board Experience. Although public service(2000-02 and 2005-15)has been the calling for much of my career, I have also gained incredible experience serving in various 1 Jeff Tsai Tiburon Planning Commission Application July 27, 2017 Page 2 of 2 relevant volunteer fiduciary positions. I currently serve as an appointed member of the Marin Healthcare District's Citizens Bond Oversight Committee, which is responsible for overseeing the faithful expenditure of Measure F bond funding for the re-build of Marin General Hospital. I also serve as a board director of the Chinese Historical Society of America, a San Francisco-based organization dedicated to preserving the history of Chinatown and the contributions of Chinese-Americans to this country's growth and development. I have also previously served in various relevant professional and personal organizations. For example, I have been an active member of the audit committee of the Olympic Club of San Francisco(2013-16), the national board of directors of the University of Texas Alumni Association(2013-16), and the Council of the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice Section(2013-16). As I look towards more public service opportunities that allow me to contribute to my immediate community, I am confident that my past experiences serving alongside other board members will serve me well and immediately as a Planning Commissioner. 2 Jeff Tsai Tiburon Planning Commission Application July 27, 2017 Page I of 2 Attachment B Current Employment Partner(2015-Present) Alston&Bird LLP (San Francisco) www.alston.com Public Service Special Assistant Attorney General (2013-15) Office of California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Trial Attorney(2011-13) Public Integrity Section, U.S. Department of Justice Senior Counsel to the Assistant U.S. Attorney General(2010-11) Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice Assistant U.S. Attorney (2005-10) Southern District of Florida(Miami) Judicial Law Clerk to U.S. District Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore(2000-02) Southern District of Texas (Houston) Volunteer Service Citizens Bond Oversight Committee Marin County Healthcare District Board of Directors Chinese Historical Society of America Board of Directors (2013-16) The University of Texas Alumni Association Audit Committee(2013-16) The Olympic Club Professional Leadership Senior Fellow Activities Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security&Law The University of Texas at Austin Fellow American Bar Foundation Editorial Board, Criminal Justice Magazine American Bar Association(Criminal Justice Section) 1 Jeff Tsai Tiburon Planning Commission Application July 27, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Distinctions Outstanding Young Texas Ex Award(2014) The University of Texas at Austin Special Achievement Award(2010) U.S. Department of Justice F.B.I. Director's Recognition Award (2007, 2009) Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice 2 Exhibit 2: Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission Applications I. Bruce King 2.Angela McInerney 3. Isaac Nikfar 4. Leonor Noguez 5.Jim Wood rue.e, King E ' V D Lea Stefani FF-. From: Bruce King <bking@caa.com> 12! 21 2017 Sent: Friday,July 21, 2017 9:52 AM _ _ To: Lea Stefani 1')!,'i�1 I( {{ Subject: Application for Parks, Open Space and Trails Co TOb�'i`�i 1FliGi�c;UN- Attachments: Parks and Open Space Application.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Lea, I respectively submit my application for one of the open positions on the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission. My family moved to Tiburon moved two years ago. I am a Certified Public Accountant, and have worked for Creative Artists Agency, a Theatrical, Literary and Sports Agency for 42 years. Over these years, I have transitioned from less accounting to more administration. As a result, my administrative responsibilities allowed me to relocate and work from home. My wife, Erin, is a wonderful mother, Del Mar volunteer and a triathlete. We have boy/girl twins (Jackson and Amelie) entering the 81" grade at Del Mar. Our move and transition to Tiburon has been spectacular. We have all made many new friends and appreciate living in such a special community. Working from home allows me a great deal of flexible time, and I am interested in exploring volunteer opportunities. I became aware of the Commission based on conversations regarding the Hacienda Trail. The Parks, Open Space and Trail Commission seems like a very good fit with my interests, background and experience. On a side note, I was introduced to the Town of Tiburon in the mid-70's. My girlfriend's grandparents owned and operated the Marin Convalescent Hospital, and I drove them home from Southern California many times. It was a surprise and a coincidence that we bought a house on the same street as the hospital and the grandparent's home. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Bruce King RIM[. IVIS PERSONAL DATA Only computer-generated or typewritten copy will be accLee TO VN CQ� Attach separate pages,including resumes and cover letters,if .TOWN OF 1 1[311i��N NAME: Bruce E. King MAILING ADDRESS: 139 Hacienda Drive, Tiburon, CA 94920 TELEPHONE: Home:818-517-475PWork: 424-288-2110 Fax No. 14/A PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (if applicable)<Enter Here> TIBURON RESIDENT: (Vears)2 DATE SUBMITTED:July 21, 2017 REASONS FOR SELECTING YOUR AREAS OF INTEREST I am exploring opportunities to volunteer. My wife is triathlete(Ironwoman) . We have 12 year old boy/girl twins entering the 8th grade at Del Mar. They have volunteered for many programs including coastal clean-up. We take advantage of the trails and paths, and bicycle safety is important to us. The Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission seems like a good fit for me. APPLICABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE I am a Certified Public Accountant. While I began my career as a Business Manager, for the past 42 years I have worked for Creative Artists Agency. CAA is a Theatrical, Literary and Sports Agency. From a staff of seven when the company started business in 1975, CAA now employs a staff of almost 2,000 worldwide. My experience runs from financial, insurance, security, human resources, facilities and travel to the design, implementation and construction of our various offices both domestically and international. I understand how to evaluate issues, solve problems and make decisions. HallUse -»..-------------------------------- Date Application Received: Interview Date: Appointed to: (Commission,Board or Committee) (Date) Date Term Expires: Length of Term: 2 Instructions and Application to Serve on a Town Board Commission or Committee The Town Council considers appointments to various Town boards, commissions and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In an effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town,by completing both pages of this form and returning it to Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon CA 94920, or fax it to (415)4352438. Copies of the application will be forwarded to the Town Council and an informal interview will be scheduled when a vacancy occurs.Your application will remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one(1)year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Diane Crane Iacopi Town Clerk AREAS OF INTEREST Please Indicate Your Area(s)of Interest in Numerical order (#1 Being the Greatest Interest) # PLANNING #1 PARKS& OPEN SPACE „DESIGN REVIEW # RECREATION # HERITAGE & ARTS # DISASTER PREPAREDNESS _,,M„„,,,,,,,,,LIBRARY # MARIN COMMISSION ON AGING # BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 2 -Ari OL ftnernty PERSONAL DATA {PLEAS;PRINT 0R TYPE ARE S I J M E MAY BE ATTACHED AS WEJA, NAME: Angela McInerney MAILING ADDRESS: 60 Mount Tiburon Road, Tiburon CA 94920 (9 14)486 8398 E-mail address (optional): angeiamcin3rney@mac.com TELEPHONE: Home: 914486839 Work: Fax No. F PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC.(ifNpplicawe) R'i(o, n fi b a ron TIBURON RESIDENT.': (Years)4 DATE SUBMITTED: 7/10/17 REASONS FOR SELECTING YOUR AREAS OF INTEREST 1 would like to be on th POST committee sa that I can help preserve the besTofi Tiburon w i e wor rng to make it an even better place to live. Becoming involved on 5-- local levelmeans I can help affect positive change in our community. APPLICABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE -Safe outes to 9cRool team leaaer for Reea ana Melire 9chools2616-present -Developedcomprehensive proposaffor sustainable and ongoing Bicycle, Pedestrian, Motorist Satety Education Program, Fall -Devloped interactive presentation tor Jiburon and Belvedere Police Chiets to presen c Bel ire Students- February 2017 -Worked across many different groups & orginzations to increase bicycle safety in 1bwn ----------------------------------------------Town Hall Use .._... ......................................... Date Application Received: Interview Date: Appointed to: (Date) Date Tenn Expires: Length of Terna: 7 TOWN OF TIBURON COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committee throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies.In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town,by completing both sides of this form and returning it to Town Hall. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1)year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk AREAS OF INTEREST Indicate Your Area(s)of Interest in Numerical Order (#I Being the Greatest Interest) PLANNING 1 PARKS,OPEN SPACE & TRAILS DESIGN REVIEW RECREATION HERITAGE & ARTS DISASTER PREPAREDNESS LIBRARY COMMISSION ON AGING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OTHER S:dcrane%omm.app 1 _Ang_ e (_a McInerney 60 Mount Tiburon Road, Tiburon CA 94920 angelamcinerney@mac.com 914-486-8398 Education Boston University, School of Education, Boston MA 2001 Master of Arts in Teaching, Science Education Magna cum Laude & Pi Lambda Theta Grand Valley State University, Allendale MI 1997 Bachelor of Science, Health Sciences Magna cum Laude PARI Divemaster 2000 Experience CEO McInerney Family 2003-present Duties include, but are not limited to: Manage household operations for three properties. Budget and allocate appropriate expenditures. Coordinate appointments, teams, classes, social engagements and school activities. Coordinate education curriculum. Guide and oversee emotional development and counseling. Supervise and manage multiple renovation projects-- budget, design, and contractors. Chef and Nutritionist- research, plan, purchase and prepare meals. Chauffeur - both local and long distance. Nurse- manage daily care for minor cuts and abrasions, Head of maintenance and repair. Coordinate multiple moves across country. Safe Routes to School Task Force 2016 - present Team Leader, Bel Aire and Reed Schools. Work with local officials, engineers, police, and schools to encourage and educate students and parents. Work to create a healthy lifestyle for kids, safer routes to school and a cleaner environment for everyone. Westchester Children's Museum 2010 - 2013 "Museum Without Walls" Volunteer. Developed and implemented curriculum. South River Riverkeeper Alliance 2001- 2004 Volunteer. Developed and implemented curriculum. High School Biology Teacher 2000 - 2003 Developed curriculum for Marine Biology and Human Anatomy & Physiology. Reasons for Interest in _p nin_g_Town Council: I would like to join the Tiburon Town Council so that I can help preserve the best of Tiburon while working to make it an even better place to live. I think I would be an excellent representative on the Town Council. As a scientist, I was trained to study facts and research problems. As an educator, I was taught to work with my team and to step back and listen as well as lead. I am honest, hard working, dedicated, and a creative problem solver. I have a passion for Tiburon and I would be honored to have the opportunity to serve on Town Council. There are several reasons I would like to volunteer. First, becoming involved on a local level means that I can directly help affect positive change in my community. I can be close to the programs and people that I am working to help, and I can see the direct results and efforts of our labor. I have had the fortune to live in some pretty amazing places, but Tiburon takes the cake by far. I am eager to invest my time and energy in our town and community. Secondly, I think that the Tiburon Town Council could use some diversity with both age and gender. Tiburon is losing a great asset with Erin Toilini relocating to the East Coast and I think at least one of the vacant seats should be filled with another woman. In her book, "Broad Influence", Jay Newton Small researched what happens when the percentage of women in a group reaches a critical mass (20% or more). Newton-Small found that when this happens, women tend to be more collaborative, they look for win-win situations, and they listen. Filling a vacant seat with a woman will ensure that Tiburon Town Council retains the current 20% female ratio. I am also interested in serving so that I can meet even more citizens of Tiburon. Similar to how several current council members have met with me, I look forward to meeting many different people who live in Tiburon. There are many young families moving into town. More families means more impact on the schools, roads, and traffic. There are challenges such as cost of living/ affordable housing, transportation, and safety. Tiburon also has an aging population. How can we assist the elderly and address their needs as well? These are just some of the issues I look forward to meeting with people and working on. I would like to join Town Council so that I can learn how the town government works. For me, what started as an interest in bicycle and pedestrian safety and education, has expanded into an interest and investment in what happens in all sorts of different aspects of Tiburon government. When I am involved and informed, I can better understand how all the departments are connected and work with them to solve problems. I would like to serve because Tiburon has some challenging issues that need to be analyzed. I'm interested in emergency preparedness and making sure that our community and resources are ready for a natural disaster or other emergency. I would like to work with and address the environmental and climate issues that we are facing. There are other issues such as McKegney field, utility projects, housing development, open space conservation, as well as path and trail mapping. I would love to see a vibrant downtown that encourages residents to enjoy the area while respecting the near-by residential homes. I would like to work on the long term planning and vision for Tiburon. I look forward to working through Tiburon's problems as well as embracing the things that bring us together and make us a community such as Friday Nights on Main, the Farmer's Market, Shoreline Park, Library and Blackie's Pasture events. Thank you for taking the time to consider my application. Sincerely, Angela Mc erney Local Involvement: Coordinated International Walk to School Day October 5, 2016 Worked with schools, law enforcement, and town officials to encourage walking, biking, busing or car poling to school. Significant increase in students biking to school on October 5, 2016 Normal bikes at reed -10 -> increased to 50 Normal bikes at Bel Aire - 25-35 4 increased to 100 Normal bikes at Del Mar -100 -> increased to 150 Developed comprehensive proposal for a sustainable and ongoing Bicycle, Pedestrian, Motorist Safety Education Program Fall, 2016 Presented to POST Commission November 29, 2016 Working with POST Commission to further develop a sustainable, ongoing bicycle, pedestrian, motorist safety education program Fall 2016- present Developed an interactive presentation for Tiburon and Belvedere police chiefs to present to Bel Aire Students February, 2017 Coordinating National Bike to School Day May 10, 2017 Working with schools to coordinate messaging and encourage and educate students. Reaching out to local officials, police, professional cyclists, and parents to participate and support the event. Coordinating volunteers and recruiting donations. National Bike to School Day is May 10, we are expecting even more bikes than in October. Worked with RUSD to update district website RUSD did not have all transportation options listed on the school website. I worked with local web developer and the school web developer to add safety information and resources to the website. Working to develop route maps for Bel Aire School Reached out to Police chiefs, engineers, DPW, and cycling and bicycle experts to develop suggested routes. Worked with Student Council to fill in gaps on steps, lanes and paths. RUSD PTA member Room Parent 2015-2016 Managed weekly class and PTA updates Fulfilled 10-15 volunteer positions a week. Coordinated class parties and end of year celebration. Room Parent 2016-2017 Managed class and PTA updates Coordinated class parties and end of year celebration. Round Hill Road Safety Improvements Worked with Town Officials, engineers, police and other parents to improve safety for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists on Round Hill and Mount Tiburon Road. We were able to stripe the road differently after the slurry seal, and install botts' dots as well as a speed monitoring sign. Recently, two speed advisement signs (Curves ahead, 20 MPH) were installed as a result of our efforts. Other Volunteer commitments: RUSD schools: Volunteer commitments change weekly. With three children, I try to get into the classroom and support the students and teachers as much as possible. NARAL: Cosponsored movie screening in Tiburon, CA. Indivisible: Member of Tiburon Indivisible group. Background: There are people who pride themselves on how many generations their family has lived somewhere. It is quite an accomplishment and it gives them a depth of understanding and knowledge that can only be garnered from decades of stories and experiences. I take pride in that I have lived so many different places in my life. Growing up in the Mid West, I was raised in a family with solid family values. It can be challenging and stressful to move, but it is also a chance to reboot and recreate. Rather than my newness to Tiburon as a detriment, I see it as a positive. I can take the lessons from past cities to create my best self, which happens to include a new interest in local politics. I met my husband when we were in elementary school and we were best friends all through school. We dated through college and upon graduation, I told him that I would move anywhere with him, as long as it was West of the Mississippi. Of course, West of the Mississippi really only meant two places: Colorado or California. Nevertheless, our first city was Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In Pittsburgh, I learned not to judge a book by the cover. I moved there somewhat unwillingly, but I quickly embraced our quirky neighborhood. I really enjoyed being able to walk to work, restaurants and shops. I was shocked by the number of trees and trails and I am forever grateful to the great people we met while we were there. After Pittsburgh we moved to Sydney, Australia. In addition to learning a foreign language (G'day, mate), I learned a lot about being self sufficient, taking care of others and caring for the environment. I also learned about loss and heartache, as well as staying calm in dangerous situations. Boston was a challenging city to live in. I learned a lot about being an "outsider". As you may know, Boston is pretty infamous for being insular and difficult to break into the community. I learned that it's much nicer to be welcoming and friendly than cold and prickly. In addition, my professors challenged me to let go of traditional teaching methods and to embrace a progressive philosophy of education. As a teacher, it can be uncomfortable to "give up control" to the students. However, when adults get out of the way, students often show us just how incredibly capable they can be. Annapolis, a charming city on the Chesapeake Bay, taught me about history and the environment. The destruction of the famous oyster beds overtime led to a decimation of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. I worked to educate and advocate for oyster and Chesapeake Bay health. As a high school science teacher I was tested by my drive to create and perfect my own content and curriculum as well as conform to educational standards. In Chicago I learned the strength of the human body and spirit. I was challenged to discover my capacity to handle pain, stress, and sleep deprivation. I also learned that asking for support and help is key to success in difficult situations. New York tested what our family values. With Hurricane Sandy on course to destroy our community, I calmly evacuated knowing that absolutely everything that was important to me.was in the car- our three healthy kids, my husband, two dogs, and,an emergency kit. We left behind family photos, computers, videos, clothing, jewelry, art..."everything". Friends kept asking me "How could I just leave the house and everything behind?" Perhaps it was easier to leave all the physical "stuff" behind because a few years prior I had already done the hard work of tackling my own mortality and determining what is important to me. I found that material possessions could be replaced, but family could not. In 20101 was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. it was frightening at first, but we found the right doctors, support, and care. By 2011, 1 was, and still am, cancer free. Last, and certainly not least, brings us to Tiburon. Tiburon's physical beauty is obvious. Tiburon is truly the gem of Marin County, but what I think makes it truly special and unique are the people that live and work here. I have met amazing parents through the schools and sports teams. Through my advocacy work I have met many interesting people who truly care about our community and the people in it. I find advocacy work very rewarding, and I admit that there have been challenging times that have tested my resolve. 'Nevertheless, I find myself returning to advocate because I think it is important to stand up for what is right and to help those who don't have a voice. I have enjoyed working to affect positive change and I hope that I am able to help even more by joining Tiburon Town Council. � 01 saQc�N�k�.►� PEW ASONAL ISA I'A (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPES —A RESUMI MAY III'- A I'ACt]]-11)AS WILL) I MAILING ADDRESS: / E-mail address (optional): ,,-- TELEPHONE: home: %` Work ; >'f Fax No. PROPER'IT OWNERS ASSOC. (If opplioibte) I'II31.1RON RESIDENT: (Yc acs> i' DATE ST1I3MI'I"I'EI�> REASONS FOR SELECTING YOUR AREAS OF INTEREST APPLICABLE QUALIFICATIONS" AND EXPERIENCE w.. I / ».»..»a,.....»....».,.,p»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»».....,»».....,...n....fown Hall Use ,.,,.... »»»»..»..»..»,...»,.»»»»....»»..__ ................ Date Application Received: Interview Date: -- 11-1-----l- Appointed to: ._. _ .____. ___ �.___-_------------ (Date) (Date) Date'i'erm Expires: Length of Term: ------------ 0 TOWN OF 'TIBURONN COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committee throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies.In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both sides of this form and returning it to Town Hall. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (f) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk AREAS OFINTEREST Indicate Your Area(s)of Interest in Numerical Order (#I Being the Greatest Interest) PLANNING PARKS, OPEN SPACE & TRAILS DESIGN REVIEW RECREATION HERITAGE & ARTS DISASTER PREPAREDNESS LIBRARY COMMISSION ON AGING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OTHER S;dcrane%omm.app 1 Ms. Lea Stefani, Town Clerk June 26, 2017 Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Ms, Stefani; Attached is my application and resume to fill one of the upcoming vacancies on the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission, Tiburon is a wonderful town and I feel very fortunate to live here with my wife and three children. Asking for your appointment to the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission is my way of trying to give back to and serve the community in Tiburon. Community, service and a longstanding commitment to our Parks, Open Space and Trails are what brought our family to Tiburon and I would be honored to have the opportunity to continue preserving and improving Tiburon everyone and work with a team of dedicated volunteers and staff who are deeply committed to doing the same. Since moving to Tiburon In 2012, 1 have enjoyed serving Tiburon pack 48 Cub Scouts(as Den 3 Leader) and Coaching Youth Sports(Soccer, Basketball, Baseball and Softball). Giving back to the community through scouting allowed me to jump right into the experiencing first-hand the amazing Parks, Open Space and Trails that we enjoy on a day-to-day basis. Biking/walking/running the path, hiking the St. Hilary Open Space and Ring Mountain, trekking to the summit of Mount Tiburon, walking to a friend's house on the network of interconnected trails are among the unique ways our family has enjoyed some of what the Town of Tiburon have created and preserved. Through volunteering at Reed and Bel Aire, where my children attend school, coaching and being a Scoutmaster I have had the opportunity to meet and interact with many of the town's parents, residents and leading members of the community. I've heard from folks in the community on issues like the Martha Property as well as the Paradise Park restoration among other issues. It is experiences like these that drew me to seek this appointment and I'd love to work more closely with the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission to create opportunities to partner with the community to service and maintain the amazing resources that we as a community enjoy. I work in technology at Google on large-scale Enterprise solutions for Advertising Agencies. I hold post-collegiate Certifications in Advanced Project and Portfolio Management from Stanford and Executive Education in Business from Duke University. These experiences and demonstrated work on behalf of the community in Tiburon make me a great candidate to serve on the Tiburon Town Council, I ask for your support and I commit to always in the best interests of the people and community of Tiburon. Please feel free to contact me with any questions on my mobile phone at(408)499-5045. Very Truly Yours, Isaac Nikfar IJaC.IL NiI\fa,C -- R::a5u irie 515 Hilary Drive,Tiburon, CA 94920 Last Updated June 26, 2017 S i_i rn rn m y: Consistently high-performing Business Leader, currently working on the DoubleClick AdExchange within Google's DoubleClick Platforms Team,currently focused on selling and evangelizing DoubleClick's AdExchange Media Solutions(Display/Video/Mobile)to Ad Agencies(Publicis,WPP, IPG and Independent Agencies) in the US, 14 years of relevant work experience in management, sales and sales management and am able to set a product and sales vision as well as execute with both existing products and with new product launches,a market maker. I have become a recognized sales leader, Subject Matter Expert and a key contact Globally within Google, both on the DoubleClick Buy-Side and previous roles within DoubleClick's Sell-Side. In addition to the broad goals of driving massive revenue growth for Agencies Buying on AdX, I have been tasked with Special Initiatives specific to launching programs to Accelerate revenue within key areas of DoubleClick's Advertisers business. In a previous role within LPS, I was tasked with driving the commercialization and sales efforts of AdX Games, DFP integration with YouTube,Video Ad Network Optimization and increasing Preferred Deals and Private Exchange/Auction in AdX Video. Previously,in the same role, I was commercialization and sales lead across PBS for DoubleClick's Audience Management/Data Platform (DDP)and grew the platform from inception to over$4MM ARR within 12 months. Sales managers, Directors, Product Managers, my current and previous managers in addition to co-workers would be happy to speak to my ability to think strategically, execute and lead(both thought leadership and team leadership)as well as my track record. Gr:os l _ E)x)ei ie nce: February 2014-Present Team Lead, DoubleClick AdExchange Agency Team, Platform Demand Channels(PDC) Responsibilities: • Manage primary agency relationships from C-level to Group Account Director down to specific account teams including Media Planners and Buyers representing the DoubleClick AdExchange across 3 of the Big 6 Agency Holding Companies: Publicis,WPP, IPG along with Independent Agencies. Lead sales presentations and quarterly reviews for key accounts. • Manage Pod (1 AE and 2 AMs)-including managing to sales quota,all internal reporting, developing and implementing sales initiatives and career development. • Created GTM Initiatives with high impact(e.g.Always-On which drove>$100M in Programmatic Direct Revenue and became the foundational standard for all DBM clients launching Programmatic Deals, Health &Safety/INvalid Traffic for Agencies) • Evangelize"Programmatic Buying" both internally and externally • Lead Strategic Initiatives: Build and coordinate with Sales Finance for team Business Plans, Dashboards and Operating Plans • Build and maintain a strong knowledge of the Programmatic Media space and AdX October 2009-February 2014 Senior Account Executive-Video/Audience Specialist, Large Partner Sales(LPS)V Responsibilities: • Close Deals: >30 DFP Video deals in 2013 accounting for>67%of all DFP Video business(32Bil annual impression RR)and >45 AdX Video Deals accounting for 95%of all AdX Video Impressions(5Bil impression ARR) Drive the Programmatic Video strategy and sales for PBS • Craft Google's Video story,Value Proposition, Objection handling and Sales Deck Proactively monitor AdX Video revenue, oversee account optimization meetings and Best Practices/client education meetings. • Represent Sales in cross-functional commercialization meetings for Video products • T rain/Educate the PBS Account Management Team on Platform and Monetization products February 2008-October 2009 Account Executive- Platform and Monetization New Business, PBS Americas Responsible for prospecting,cold calling, presenting and closing major new business deals(NPL) which did not have an existing relationship with DoubleClick/Google.Was consistently a top performer,with several quarters as the#1 rep on the Americas team. Over$5mil in Platform Bookings over the 6 quarters in the role(avg>$800k/quarter in Platform Bookings)and 26 new AdX Deals signed. Pre-Goo le Experience: January 200.4-February 2008 Director of Sales-Zedo, Inc. Started as Account Executive at Zedo, Inc., and Ad Serving company competing with DoubleClick's DFP. Company revenue was <$1 mil/year. Closed significant new business deals with major publishers and post-sale grew the existing book of business. Consistently overacheived/contributed >50%of all company revenue and in 2007,was promoted to Director of Sales reporting to the CEO and junior Executive within the Company Executive Leadership Team with sole global responsibility over all revenue and a sales team of 5 reps located in Mumbai, London and San Francisco.Grew Ad Serving Revenue to>$7mil and personally accounted for 83%of total revenue. Selected projects: • Created and developed the Zedo Ad Network prior to leaving for DoubleClick. Pitched CEO a business plan for creating an ad network with direct ties into core ad server. Started publisher development and interviewing candidates for Ad Sales prior to joining DoubleClick. • Pivoted Ad Serving Sales and Product Strategy to focus on social media,ad networks and gaming publishers(high volume/low sophistication),which led to a significantly increased close rate(>75%),accelerated revenue(grew Zedo revenue 1 Ox over 4 years),client satisfaction/retention(increased from 20%to 60%)and greater sales efficiency. Key client wins over DoubleClick included Glam Media,Tagged.com, IMVU,XFire, Undertone, and Dedicated Media. Other Pre-Google Experience(Pre-January 2004)can be detailed as needed. :du("_�t1'011 Executive Business Academy, Duke University, 2017 Mini-MBA Style Program over 12 months with 4 week-long sessions covering 4 Stages of Company Growth • Survival:Start-ups and Small businesses o Focus on new businesses: how decisions are made, how investment is secured,and how to keep a new business up and running. • Growth & Profitability: Small-Medium Sized Businesses o In depth look at managing a business; looking at financials and marketing strategies, and exploring how to build trust-based relationships with our clients. • Multi-Product/Region Expansion: Medium-Large sized businesses o How larger companies move toward expansion,by understanding the business case and models needed to be successful, and the practice to make it happen. + Turning Point: Large Sized Businesses o In depth look multi-layer decision making. How companies made choices to keep them growing, status quo, or moving into the downward spiral. SCPM,Advanced Project Management,Stanford University,2011 • Google sponsored professional development program • Elected for track focused on strategy and finance B.S., Business Administration,San Francisco State University/Chico State,2004 + President, Iota Kappa Chapter of Sigma Nu Fraternity + Loose-Head Prop,Varsity Rugby Division I • Vice President,SFSU CHapter of the American Marketing Association • College Radio Disc jockey, KSCU 93.3 The Underground Sound q- QnorNo ue PERSONAL DATA (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE-A RESUME MAY BE ATTACHED AS WELL) NAME: LEONOR NOGUEZ MAILING ADDRESS: 346 Karen Way, Tiburon, CA 94920 E-mail address (optional): yosoynora gmai .com TELEPHONE: Home: 960-4404 Work: Fax No. PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC. (If applicable) TIBURON RESIDENT: (Years)14 DATE SUBMITTED:July 26, 2017 REASONS FOR SELECTING YOUR AREAS OF INTEREST se ecte t e indicated areas of interesfbecause I believe that I have ideas, time an experience that I can contribute to enhance the work of the indicated commissions. am particularly interested in the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission because enjoy and regularly use our parks, open space and trails. I am also committed to protecting and preserving these areas sot at they can be enjoyed and available to everyone. APPLICABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE am Chair for the Marin County Personnel Commission. Prior tot at, I was a Deputy City Attorney tor San Francisco working in the litigation section. Prior tothat, was a Public Defender for San Francisco representing indigent defendants. Before I went to law school, I waste Director of Administration tor a non-profit, neighborhood base mediation program that taught conflict resolution skills to San Francisco residents. was responsible for grants management, personnel policies, budgeting and panning. ----------------------------------------------Town Hall Use------------------------------------------------- Date Application Received: Interview Date: Appointed to: (Date) Date Term Expires: Length of Term: 2 =W—NC—t TOWN OF TIBURON COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committee throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies.In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both sides of this form and returning it to Town Hall. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (I) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk AREAS OF INTEREST Indicate Your Area(s)of Iuterest in Numerical Order (#1 Being the Greatest Interest) PLANNING XXX PARKS,OPEN SPACE & TRAILS DESIGN REVIEW RECREATION 7XX —HERITAGE & ARM'S XXX DISASTER PREPAREDNESS LIBRARY COMMISSION ON AGING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OTHER S:dcrane%omm.app 1 Leonor Noguez 346 Karen Way Tiburon,CA 94920 (415)960-4404(cell) 1 yosoyno►-a@gmail.com APPOINTMENTS Marin County Personnel Commission, San Rafael,CA January 2016-present,elected Chair July 2017 EMPLOYMENT San Francisco City Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA Deputy City Attorney,August 1995 to May 2013 Litigation Section-1998-2013. Represented the City in personal injury cases. Litigated bail forfeiture matters including appeals and represented the Department of Human Services in affirmative litigation including cases in bankruptcy. Advised the Court and court staff concerning bail forfeiture law. Code Enforcement-1996-1998. Assigned to Code Enforcement to develop the unit to aggressively pursue litigation. Litigation Section-1995-1996. Represented the City in both state and federal court cases including dangerous conditions and civil rights. San Francisco Public Defender's Office, San Francisco,CA Deputy Public Defender,October 1991 to August 1995 Felony Attorney. Represented indigent persons charged with misdemeanor and felony crimes. Responsible for all aspects of criminal defense from arraignment, through preliminary hearings to trial and sentencing. Marin County District Attorney's Office Law Clerk, Family Support Division 1990 Worked up cases and prosecuted delinquent parents to recover child support payments. Appeared in court as a certified law student. Honorable Daniel M. Hanlon, San Francisco Superior Court Law Clerk, 1989 California Land Title Company of Marin Escrow Bookkeeper, 1985-1986 Community Board Program Director of Administration, 1980-1984 Emporium/Capwell Sales Manager, 1979-1980 EDUCATION University of San Francisco, School of Law,J.D. 1990 University of San Francisco, BA Government 1979 BAR MEMBERSHIP Admitted to the California State Bar in 1991 LANGUAGES Fluent Spanish, Conversational French 5Sim Wood ,PERSONAL DATA (PLEASE PRINT ORTYPE, A RESUME MAY BE XrrACBED AS WELL) NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: E-mail address (optional): P A141ax-( Work: Fax No. TELEPHONE: Home: PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC. (if applicable) IT IBURON RESIDENT: (Years) DA E SUBMITTED- REASONS TOR SELECTING YOUR ARL;AS OF INTEREST tot- /X1 7 0 A.PPLICABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE' ---------- 14A,lp TZ 6) ----------------------------------------------Town Hall Use------------------------------------------------- Date Application Received: —Interview Date: Appointed to: (Date) Date Term Expires: Length of Term: 2 TOWN OF TIBURON COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committee throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both sides of this form and returning it to Town Hall. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (I) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk AREAS OF INTEREST Indicate Your Area(s)of Interest in Numerical Order (#1 Being the Greatest •fiterest) i i PLANNING PARKS, OPEN SPAC>,. & TRAILS DESIGN REVIEW RECREATION HERITAGE & ARTS DISASTER PREPAREDNESS LIBRARY COMMISSION ON AGING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OTHER S:dcrane%omm.epp 1 Town Council Meeting l" TOWN OF TIBURON g September 19, 2017 1505 Tiburon Boulevard P Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: A ,L � STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Public Works Subject: Consider financial contribution and MOU with County to Study westbound Tibur Boulevard widening project to relieve traffic congestion at the Hig aye O 1 interchange Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Traffic congestion on the Tiburon Peninsula, as well as into and out of Mill Valley, is significantly impacted by the configuration and limitations of the Tiburon Boulevard/E. Blithedale Avenue/Highway 101 interchange. The interchange and the approaches cross multiple jurisdictions (Marin County, Mill Valley, Caltrans) and impact others (Tiburon and Belvedere). Numerous meetings have occurred over the last few years, hosted by Supervisor Kate Sears and attended by Mayor Jim Fraser, Councilmember Alice Fredricks and staff. The meetings bring all parties to the table to discuss traffic congestion solutions and funding strategies. Recent discussions have been guided in part by an extensive traffic study conducted by Mill Valley that identified options for short and long-term improvements and the impact each would have on congestion and travel time. One pinch point that affects traffic in all directions is the light at Redwood Frontage Road. Currently, to go from Redwood Highway Frontage Road northbound, to northbound 101, a car must be in the far-right lane. Traffic flow at this signal could be substantially increased by allowing two lanes from the Redwood Highway Frontage Road to enter the northbound 101 on ramp. Enhancing this movement would increase traffic flow in all directions. Two separate but related projects must be completed to make this improvement. 1. Widen westbound Tiburon Boulevard from just east of North Knoll Road to just west of the US 101 northbound on-ramp entrance (see attached map). This improves the flow by: a. Allowing two lanes of traffic from Redwood Highway Frontage Road northbound, to northbound 101. b. Separate and increase flow from eastbound Tiburon Blvd onto northbound 101 and eastbound Tiburon Blvd. c. Separate right turns and through traffic on Redwood Highway Frontage Road southbound. 2. Widen the northbound 101 on-ramp. Unless this is done, the improvements on Tiburon Blvd will have no effect. Cars will need to go from two lanes to one lane on the ramp, creating a back-up. 'TOWN F TIRURON PACEI OF l own("ouncil Mectin Sep crnber 19,2016 Caltrans had previously indicated that the widening of Tiburon Boulevard would likely be beyond what it would be willing to fund. The ramp project, estimated to cost $1.5 —2 million, is in preliminary design and will be proposed by Caltrans for the California Transportation Commission's next round of funding. At a recent meeting of the jurisdictions involved, Caltrans offered to request funding for a larger project that would include the Tiburon Boulevard widening, provided that the County and cities could fund the PEER(a Caltrans preliminary engineering study) for the widening of Tiburon Boulevard. While State funding is by no means guaranteed, the jurisdictions feel it would be wise to move forward on the PEER. The County has agreed to manage the PEER project and to pay half its cost with the other half of the cost coming from Mill Valley, Tiburon and Belvedere. In discussions between elected officials and staff of the municipalities, we have tentatively agreed, pending approval of all jurisdictions, to share the cost based on population. The study is estimated to take about 18 months to complete. If there is a way to combine this project with the current Caltrans ramp effort, the County will provide the funding to Caltrans to complete the study. Recently, Caltrans has indicated that they are seeking to include the widening of Tiburon Blvd into their plans to widen the ramp. Caltrans has not put this in writing. It is possible that Caltrans could have 65%plans for the combined project by the end of the calendar year. If that is the case, the work anticipated under the MOU will not be needed. The MOU allows that the money allocated for this MOU could be passed to Caltrans, if it helps them proceed forward. Conversely, if Caltrans is not moving forward, the agencies party to the MOU will begin the PEER independent of Caltrans. Regardless, the direction will be decided in close cooperation with all agencies participating in the MOU. Council's approval tonight will allow both flexibility and responsiveness. The City of Belvedere approved the MOU on September 11, 2017. The City of Mill Valley approved the MOU on September 5, 2017. In the past, when discussing the ramp at this intersection, Council has noted that improving the connection from 101 to 580 should be a top priority. According to the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM), improvements are anticipated in the near term that should alleviate some of the congestion related to the move from northbound 101 to eastbound 580 (Richmond/San Rafael Bridge). A third eastbound lane will be added to the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge and is expected to open in 2017. TAM and the City of Larkspur are jointly working on enhancements to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard intended to improve eastbound traffic flow to the bridge. The timing of this work is anticipated to coincide with the work on the bridge (i.e. to be completed in 2017). Work on the connection at Bellam Boulevard in San Rafael will follow. These improvements do not obviate the need for improvements at the 101/Tiburon Boulevard interchange. FINANCIAL IMPACT TOWN OFTIBURON PAGE 2 OF Sept cinber 19,2016 The County has agreed to serve as the lead agency for preparation of a PEER. This report secures permits and engineering design for the project and is anticipated to cost approximately $350,000. In order to move this project forward, a cooperative cost sharing agreement will be needed. The project funding commitment is $175,000 from the County, $14,700 from Belvedere, $98,000 from Mill Valley, and $62,300 from Tiburon for a total Project fund allocation of$350,000. The Town of Tiburon has about $190,000 in our Planning Area Mitigation Fund. These funds are collected from developers to pay for traffic improvements needed to accommodate the traffic from the development and must be spent on specific (or equivalent)projects listed in the mitigation fee documents. One project listed in the traffic mitigation fee documents is enhancing the intersection at Tiburon Blvd and Redwood Highway Frontage Road. In short, the Town has received money specifically to be spent on this intersection and has sufficient money to cover the Town's share of this study. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Approve a budget amendment to fund the Memorandum of Understanding with the County in the amount of$62,300 from the Planning Area Mitigation Fund. 2. Approve the Memorandum of Understanding with the County in the amount of$62,300. Exhibits: 1. PEER MUO between County and Tiburon 2. Tiburon Blvd MOU Exhibit A Prepared by: Patrick Barnes,Town Engineer TOWN OF TiOURON PAGE 3 Off= EXHIBIT NO. d MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF MARIN AND THE TOWN OF TIBURON REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS AT TIBURON BOULEVARD (HIGHWAY 131) AND US 101 THIS Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), made and entered into this _th day of 2017, by and between the COUNTY OF MARIN, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY", and the TOWN OF TIBURON, hereinafter referred to as "TOWN", both in the State of California, collectively the ("PARTIES"). For good and valuable consideration the PARTIES agree as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS. A. The primary purpose of the Permit Engineering Evaluation Report (PEER) is to document the engineering rationale for Caltrans' decision in permit action. B. Caltrans is developing a ramp metering project on the northbound on-ramp from Tiburon Boulevard (Highway 131) to US 101. The PARTIES would also like to develop a travel lane along Tiburon Boulevard (Highway 131) from North Knoll Road onto the northbound US 101 ramp to facilitate vehicle storage and movement, and to include pedestrian and bicycle improvements thru the project area. C. In order to timely evaluate the addition of a westbound travel lane and other bicycle and pedestrian operational improvements on the north side of Tiburon Boulevard (Highway 131) as shown in Exhibit "A", the County of Marin, City of Belvedere, the City of Mill Valley and the Town of Tiburon have agreed to fund a PEER, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT". D. The PROJECT funding commitment is $175,000 from the County, $14,700 from Belvedere, $98,000 from Mill Valley, and $62,300 from Tiburon for a total Project fund allocation of $350,000. E. The Project shall be completed within 18 months of execution of this MOU. F. The County of Marin will receive the contributions from the Cities and Town and manage completion of the PROJECT that is estimated under $3,000,000 to build. G. The PARTIES acknowledge and agree that the sole purpose of this MOU is for the PARTIES to collaborate for the completion of a PEER, fund the PEER analysis, and to evaluate the feasibility of the PROJECT. The PARTIES also acknowledge that, currently, COUNTY has not committed to any action other than collaborating on the necessary PROJECT preliminary engineering. Page 2 of 6 H. Once the PEER is approved and funds are identified the County of Marin may move forward with the project under an encroachment permit. I. Caltrans District 4 is currently evaluating the incorporation of the project as part of the Tiburon Boulevard northbound US 101 ramp metering work, and is pursuing competitive funding through their Department processes. If contributing the $350,000 to Caltrans by County increases the competitiveness of their request and secures funding for the project, County will enter into an agreement with Caltrans and forego preparation of the PEER. J. The COUNTY is in the process of scoping the PROJECT in preparation for the start of the environmental phase. The PROJECT is currently expected to result in a Categorical Exemption. Should the PROJECT result in a higher level Environmental Document, the PARTIES will need to reevaluate the scope, schedule and fund allocation of this agreement at that time. K. The PARTIES agree that the analysis needed to evaluate next steps include the items listed below and hereinafter will be referred to as "ANALYSIS": 1. Permit Engineering Evaluation Report (PEER) 2. Environmental document — Provide scope of work with a detailed project description including associated environmental studies and mitigation. L. The Board of Supervisors and the Town Council wish to enter into this MOU and collaborate for the completion of engineering analysis to define the scope of a construction project. M. The PARTIES understand and acknowledge that further ANALYSIS may be necessary before operational improvements can be made to Tiburon Boulevard and any final TOWN or COUNTY decision on the PROJECT would need to be approved by Caltrans. N. The PARTIES understand and acknowledge that should the PROJECT be acceptable and meet the needs and requirements of the PARTIES and Caltrans, additional agreements may be needed between the PARTIES to undertake the full scope of the PROJECT for implementation. O. TOWN will reimburse COUNTY for the cost of any ANALYSIS for work that occurs under this agreement in an amount not to exceed $62,300. P. It is agreed that the formula herein will not be the basis for local contributions towards design or project implementation. An equitable formula will be developed should locally funded construction be pursued. S:\Administration\Town Council\Staff Reports\2017\09.19 drafts\MOU with County\PEER MOU with Tiburon 080917.docx Page 3 of 6 SECTION 2: TOWN RESPONSIBILITIES: A. TOWN Shall: 1. Promptly reimburse COUNTY for labor costs associated with the ANALYSIS, not to exceed the amounts specified in Section 1 D. 2. Work with COUNTY staff to ensure that TOWN'S requirements and concerns regarding the PROJECT feasibility are addressed in the ANALYSIS. TOWN shall address, to the satisfaction of COUNTY, all comments submitted by COUNTY concerning these ANALYSIS. TOWN shall review, submit edits, comments, corrections and either accept, require modifications, or reject all engineering studies in a timely manner. 3. TOWN shall indemnify, hold harmless, release and defend COUNTY, its Board of Supervisors, and the officers, agents and employees of the COUNTY from any and all liability, actions, claims, damages, costs or expenses, including attorneys' fees and the costs and expenses of suit which may be asserted by any complainant, arising in any respect, out of TOWN's negligent or intentional acts or omissions in performance of its work under this MOU. B. COUNTY Shall: 1. Procure a consultant and manage the completion of this PROJECT. 2. Make available its staff to provide TOWN status updates and other information needed to facilitate completion of the ANALYSIS. 3. Prepare and submit to TOWN invoices for COUNTY labor costs and consultant costs associated with the ANALYSIS on a monthly basis. 4. Work with TOWN to provide all necessary information for the evaluation of the ANALYSIS, and recommend further studies should they be indicated in order to fully assess the PROJECT. Should additional unforeseen studies be identified, this MOU shall be modified accordingly. 5. Communicate with TOWN clearly, early and throughout the process regarding COUNTY's concerns and potential TOWN requirements that could be associated with the PROJECT implementation should feasibility be indicated as a result of the studies to be conducted under this MOU. 6. COUNTY shall indemnify, hold harmless, release and defend TOWN, its Board of Directors, and the officers, agents and employees of TOWN from any and all liability, actions, claims, damages, costs or expenses, including attorneys' fees and the costs and expenses of suit which may be asserted by any person, arising in any respect, out of the COUNTY's negligent or intentional acts or omissions related to performance of its work and studies undertaken under this MOU. S:\Administration\Town Council\Staff Reports\2017\09.19 drafts\MOU with County\PEER MOU with Tiburon 080917.docx Page 4 of 6 C. The County Public Works Director is hereby declared to be the authorized COUNTY representative in administering this MOU. The Town Public Works Director is hereby declared to be the authorized TOWN representative in administering this MOU. Either Party may change its designated representative by providing written notice of the same to the other Party. D. Miscellaneous: 1. Agreement Binding: The terms and provisions of this MOU shall extend to and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, and administrators or to any approved successor, as well as to any assignee or legal successor to any party to this MOU. 2. Merger: This writing is intended both as the final expression of the agreement between PARTIES hereto with respect to the included terms and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1856. No modification of this agreement shall be effective unless and until such modification is evidenced by a writing signed by both PARTIES. 3. Cooperation: The PARTIES pledge cooperation during the completion of the ANALYSIS necessary to evaluate the scope of work for operational improvements. 4. No Third Party Beneficiaries: Nothing contained in this agreement shall be construed to create and the PARTIES do not intend to create any rights in third PARTIES. 5. Invalidity of Particular Provisions: If any term, covenant or condition of this MOU or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is determined to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this MOU or the application of such term, covenant or condition to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each term, covenant and condition of this MOU shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 6. No Waiver: The waiver by any Party of any default under this MOU shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this MOU. 7. Time is of the Essence: Time is of the essence with respect to the performance of every provision of this MOU for which time or performance is a factor. 8. Mediation: SAAdministration\Town Council\Staff Reports\2017\09.19 drafts\MOU with County\PEER MOU with Tiburon 080917.docx Page 5 of 6 A. Any dispute or claim in law or equity between the PARTIES arising out of this MOU, if not resolved by informal negotiation between the PARTIES, shall be mediated by the PARTIES. Mediation shall consist of an informal, non-binding conference or conferences between the PARTIES and the mediator jointly, then in separate caucuses wherein the judge will seek to guide the PARTIES to a resolution of the case. The PARTIES shall agree to a mutually acceptable mediator. B. If mediation is unsuccessful, the PARTIES may avail themselves of any other remedies. 9. Applicable Law: This MOU shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 10.No Presumption Regarding Drafter: The PARTIES acknowledge and agree that the terms and provisions of this MOU have been negotiated and discussed between the PARTIES and their attorneys, and this MOU reflects their mutual agreement regarding the same. Because of the nature of the negotiations, and discussions it would be inappropriate to deem any Party to be the drafter of this MOU. Therefore, no presumption for or against validity, or as to any interpretation hereof, based upon the identity of the drafter, shall be applicable in interpreting or enforcing this MOU. 11.Assistance of Counsel: Each Party to this MOU warrants as follows: A. That each Party had the assistance of counsel in the negotiation for, and the execution of, this MOU and all related documents; and B. That each Party has lawfully authorized the execution of this MOU. 12.Section Headings: The section headings contained in this MOU are for convenience and identification only and shall not be deemed to limit or define the contents of the sections to which they relate. 13.Counterparts: This MOU may be executed in multiple counterparts each of which shall be deemed an original MOU and all of which shall constitute one and the same MOU. 14.Entire Agreement: This MOU contains the entire agreement between the PARTIES regarding TOWN's and the COUNTY's collaboration on the completion of the STUDIES to evaluate the feasibility of operational improvements. 15.Amendments: This MOU shall only be amended by an instrument in writing executed by both PARTIES. SAAdministration\Town Council\Staff Reports\2017\09.19 drafts\MOU with County\PEER MOU with Tiburon 080917.docx Page 6 of 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES hereto have executed this Memorandum of Understanding by their duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. MARIN COUNTY BOARD TIBURON OF SUPERVISORS President, Board of Supervisors Town Manager ATTEST: ATTEST: By: By: Deputy Clerk Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: County Counsel Attorney for the Town SAAdministration\Town Council\Staff Reports\2017\09.19 drafts\MOU with County\PEER MOU with Tiburon 080917.docx EXHIBIT NO. t � 4a sF, t' k � I qq r. a. I rtf Irl M' jf 7 v ts& 2 "u yak, 3 E� -�. � '�'' `�'`• fib`, a ilI a Project Location �9General Se e e of Work SPP The project limas are on Tiburon Boulevard ti (Highway 131) ,from just east of .North moll O O � Road to just west of the IIS 101 northbound on-ramp entrance. The project will perform ' preliminary engineering for the addition of a �LL travel lane along with bicycle and pedestrian improvements, while also analyzing intersection m geometric upgrades, signal modification, and ADA enhancements as needed at the North Redwood Frontage Road and Tiburon Boulevard in tersec tion. VICINITY MAP W W so= /♦�pryer j COUNTY OF P�1,- RIN Exhibit "A" DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MOU Scope of Work & Concept Plan 3501 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94913 Tiburon Boulevard Traffic Flow Improvements SCALE 1" = 120' PAGE NUMBER APPROVED 20 0 120 240 7,x1/17 RSB RG 1 of 1 DATE DRAWN CHECKED e TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Special Meeting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard September 19,2017 Tiburon,CA 94920 Agenda Item:Al- e To: Mayor and Members of Town Council From: Town Manager Town Attorney Subject: Hawthorne Undergrounding District-Consideration of Preliminary Engineers R., o Reviewed By: BACKGROUND In 2016, property owners on portions of Rock Hill Drive, Hawthorne Drive, Hilary Drive,Hilary Court, Mira Vista Court, Del Mar Drive, Palmer Court and Tiburon Boulevard submitted petitions to form a utility undergrounding district("The District"). A boundary map of The District is attached as Exhibit 1. Pursuant to the attached certificate from the Town Clerk, attached as Exhibit 2, more than five property owners owning lands constituting more than one- half of the area of all assessable lands within the Proposed Undergrounding District signed petitions as required by State law. In addition, the Town Engineer determined property owners of more than 60% of the parcels to be included in the District, as required by the Town's 'Policy and Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts' (The Policy), signed petitions requesting that the District be formed. The Policy is attached as Exhibit 3. In addition to the petitions,the Town also received subscription deposits from some of the property owners that signed petitions. The total amount of subscription deposits received was $151,750. Subsequently, one property owner who moved out of the District requested, and received, a refund of their$1,000 deposit, resulting in a net amount of deposits remaining of $150,750. During this time,the Town issued a Request for Proposals for engineering services related to the proposed project. 5 proposals were received, with 2 finalists ultimately being invited for interviews by an interview panel. This panel was comprised of 2 Town staff members and 4 project proponents. After conducting the interviews,the panel unanimously recommended Harris and Associates be named District Engineer for the project On January 4,2017,the Tow Council unanimously passed Resolution No. 01-2017 (Exhibit 4) which, in addition to indicating Town's intent to form the District, did the following: ® Approved the Preliminary Boundary Map for the Assessment District • Appointed Stradling, Yocca,Carlson and Routh, and Samuel Sperry as Bond Counsel(s) for the Assessment District • Appointed Harris and Associates as Assessment Engineer for the project. OAK#4844-8871-4556 v1 I ow n Coto it Spcckd Mectin<w SepVC111 cr 19,2016 e Directed the Assessment Engineer to prepare a Preliminary Engineers Report with certain information including the following: o Preliminary plans and specifications for the improvements. a An estimate of the costs of the improvements. o The proposed assessment to each of the parcels within the District based on the direct and special benefit received by each parcel from the improvements o The assessment diagram depicting the boundaries of the District and the parcels to be assessed Following the approval of Resolution No. 01 2017,project proponents asked the Town to hire a financial advisor to consult on this project. The Town subsequently issued a Request for Proposals for this service, interviewed interested firms and ultimately engaged with Sperry Capital to act as a Municipal Financial Advisor on this project, as well as other matters related to Town finances. DISCUSSION The draft Preliminary Engineer's Report(The Report) for the District has now been released,and is attached as Exhibit 5. Information on how to access The Report, along with other information related to the project, was provided to property owners of record by notices dated August 16, 2017 and August 22, 2017. The Policy requires Bond Counsel to provide advice and information to all interested property owners within the District about the assessment process and their rights and responsibilities. In addition, The Policy specifically requires Bond Counsel hold at least 2 meetings for the purpose of advising the property owners. The first of these meetings occurred on February 13, 2017, and the second, which was required to occur prior to Town Council considering adoption of The Report, occurred on August 30, 2017. At the meeting on August 30,property owners in The District were provided the following: An update on the status of the project, a review of their rights and responsibilities in the process, and a presentation by the Assessment Engineer regarding the overall cost estimate for the project and assessment methodology used in arriving at the individual proposed assessment amounts included in The Report. The meeting was well attended with approximately 75 people filling Council Chambers to hear the presentations,ask questions and provide comments. Many of the questions and comments received at the August 30 meeting related to the cost estimate included in the Report. In an effort to provide additional information regarding the estimate, staff has developed a detailed analysis of the estimating associated with the project. The cost estimate analysis is attached as Exhibit 6. Subsequent to the August 30 meeting,the Town has received a high volume of written correspondence related to this project. Councilmembers have been provided electronic copies of all correspondence received to date, and these correspondences are part of the administrative record for this project. In addition, electronic copies of all correspondence are available on the Town's website at the following link: I OWN til 1�)11 RON OAK#4844-8871-4556 v1 I-own Council Special X"Iectill"), S(.,ptcmbcr 19,201() District Any future correspondence received on this matter will be provided to Councilmembers as it is received, and the information on the website will be updated periodically to include this new information ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS An Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration(IS/MND) was prepared for this project, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). The IS/MND was released for public comment on April 5,2017. A copy of this report is available for viewing at Tiburon Town Hall and is also available for viewing or for downloading at the following link: htti)://www.townoftiburon.ori/DocurnentCenter/V iew/1503 The public review period for the IS/MND ended on September 18, 2017. During the review period, the Town received one comment via the State Clearing House. That comment letter was from Caltrans. In addition,the Town sent notification to the relevant Native American Tribes as required, and received a request for consultation from the Graton Rancheria Tribe. RECOMMENDATION After hearing a presentation from staff and the Assessment Engineer and receiving public testimony on this item, Council will have the following options: I. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and direct staff to prepare the necessary Resolutions to: Approve the Preliminary Engineer's Report, and set the date for the required Public Hearing and submission of ballots in support of or in opposition to the formation of the District. These Resolutions would be considered by Council at a future meeting. 2. Direct staff to conduct additional analysis,to provide additional information, or take further actions prior to bringing the item back for consideration by Council 3. Reject the Report and abandon the project. EXHIBITS 1. Proposed Boundary Map for Proposed Undergrounding District 2. Town Clerk's Certificate 3. Town of Tiburon Undergrounding Policy 4. Resolution No. 01-2017 5. Preliminary Engineers Report 6. Staff Cost Estimate Analysis Prepared By: Greg Chanis,Town Manager )\\'N 01- 11131 IZON 1'14? ol OAK#4844-8871-4556 v1 °s 32 3f a 1.FILED INTHE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK,TOWN OF el yyBl TIBURON, THIS_DAY OF_,2017. ❑ 27 � w TOWN CLERK 2a � w 'w QS6 pw:1g a` aP 4n \ 0 2.RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN ENGINEER,TOWN OF 35 zs TIBURON,THIS-DAY OF .2017. is ❑ws is 3] 4T4014R BR Q ® ® TOWN ENGINEER EE❑ ^sc r s]a O b ❑O a �,,a 4� TOWN OF ❑as 82 fiB st q a le 3.AN ASSESSMENT WAS LEVIED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL ON THE sQ ° LOTS,ASSESSMENT PIECES,AND PARCELS OF SAND SHOWN ON THIS IED st Q ❑ ® a ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM. SAID ASSESSMENT2017; HEWAS LEVIED ON THE_DAY OF_,2017;THE ASSESSMENT s B4 53 52 m Mq O G ds zo t9 1B DIAGRAM AND THE ASSESSMENT ROLL WERE RECORDED IN THE ❑ ❑ m °A 9u g Q 21 ❑ OFFICE OF THE TOWN ENGINEER,AS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF xaAm ae a3 sa m 25 1B STREETS,OF THE TOWN OF 71BURON ON THE—DAY OF 1 B5 �gR 2017. REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE ASSESSMENT 9 ❑ ❑ ❑ ROLL RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN ENGINEER FOR n ]3 THE EKACT AMOUNT OF EACH ASSESSMENT LEVIED AGAINST B] ® es ]4 ]s ]s 2 13 ❑ ,s EACH PARCEL OF LAND SHOWN ON THIS ASSESSMENT sa ec a 1 1, ❑ m DIAGRAM. w 0 ❑ � BN° eM � � ❑]e ]] M B 0 ❑ s y ❑ m m ❑ >a C D sa � " � 6tl � w � ❑ >4 � TOWN CLERK J. B] el W,plrW� 89 ED®p ,oto ® ® 0 ❑ .o " , " m 2a 4.FILED 7N15—_DAY OF_,2017,AT THE HOUR OF go 9E TRIMoh >m O'CLOCK—.M.IN BOOK—OF MAPS OF 9] O0 aw ASSESSMENTIN THEOOFFICE COMMUNITY OF THE COUNTY RECOIRDERAOFPAGE THE Bt a p1pN COUNTY OF MARIN,STATE OF CALIFORNIA. se gfiaK sn a® ggp 95� 11 1 ® OB�afB 0 TDm W 94 EgCOUNTY RECORDER, COUNTY OF MARIN " mw ® ® t®2 PR(N'oM BOUMANES OF ® t, HAWTHOr E TONACE o UPOERIGROM W STTUCT ® w tt TOWN OF T®URON,COUNTY OF NIAM STATE OF CALFOHPIIA h®d e E°sEM NOTES M.*q GRAPHIC SCALE 1VJmd6 ®e® /e® ASSESSMENT DISTRICT u_� QQ� (� maya BOUNDARY REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE TO THE MAPS OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR OF I7�IIS Q MSS®N6tAH PARCEL LINE THE COUNTY OF MARIN FOR A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE LINES AND DIMENSIONS OF ANY 1401 W9bw Pecs Rd,C—d CA.90.520 (IN FEC=) KX ASSESSMENT NO. PARCELS SHOWN HEREIN,WHICH MAPS SHALL GOVERN FOR ALL DETAILS CONCERNING THE LINES weerenarrh.mm(925)827-0900 s inch.Lm a AND DIMENSIONS OF SUCH PARCELS. exn w JUNE 22,2017 1 1 e EXHIBIT NO. CERTIFICATE OF TOWN CLERK AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF PETITIONS FOR TOWN OF TIBURON ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2017-1 (HAWTHORNE UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT) I, Lea Stefani, Town Clerk of the Town of Tiburon, do hereby certify that I have examined the petitions submitted by the owners of certain parcels of land within the proposed Town of Tiburon Assessment District No. 2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) (the "District"). In accordance with Streets & Highways Code Section 5896.7 I have checked the petitions submitted to me and determined that petitions have been submitted by more than five owners of assessable land within the proposed District, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, who own lands constituting more than one-half of the area of all assessable lands within the proposed District. Dated this 7th day of December, 2016. Lea Stefani Town Clerk of the Town of Tiburon EXHIBIT INTO. f- C-I EXHIBIT NO. TOWN OF TIBURON POLICY & PROCEDURES FOR THE FORMATION OF UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING.ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS Town Policy The Town of Tiburon strongly supports the undergrounding of overhead utility wires and poles(see Town Council Resolution No. 2996, adopted February 2, 1994). Undergrounding of overhead utilities improves public safety under fire, earthquake and high wind conditions; reduces utility company maintenance costs for tree trimming to maintain overhead lines and equipment;and results in improved visual characteristics. General Overview These policies describe the basic considerations and actions required to relocate and to finance such relocation of overhead utility lines underground. The policies are provided to guide property owners in achieving undergrounding of utilities in their neighborhoods and to help the Town Council,Town Staff and Town consultants in assisting in such efforts. Specific figures regarding estimated costs for undertaking this effort and ultimately implementing a specific project are not presented herein since they vary depending on the size, location of the proposed district and economic factors. A separate Frequently Asked Questions brochure(available at Town Hall or at www.tiburon.org)may provide a range of answers to those types of specific non-policy questions. The procedures, events and steps described below are governed by California State law and guidelines of California Public Utilities Commission(regulating the Pacific Gas&Electric Company (PG&E)and other utilities)about the physical and financial requirements for utility undergrounding projects.The Town must comply with these laws and regulations while taking appropriate actions to coordinate the project from its inception to its completion. To provide for financing and to enforce connections to the underground system,the undergrounding districts will be special assessment districts established by the Town under State law. Unless contributions are available from other sources,property owners should know that 100%of the cost of the underground project will be borne by the property owners in the district.If available,funds from PG&E and other utilities will be applied to help reduce the costs, but there is no assurance of such availability. The proponents of a proposed district must submit a written petition to the Town showing the support by owners of at least 60% of all of the parcels in the prospective district. The Town will supply examples of petitions and instructions on its signing. Along with the petition, the required TOWN OF TIBURON POLICY & PROCEDURES FOR THE FORMATION OF UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING.ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS Town Policy The Town of Tiburon strongly supports the undergrounding of overhead utility wires and poles(see Town Council Resolution No. 2996, adopted February 2, 1994). Undergrounding of overhead utilities improves public safety under fire, earthquake and high wind conditions; reduces utility company maintenance costs for tree trimming to maintain overhead lines and equipment;and results in improved visual characteristics. General Overview These policies describe the basic considerations and actions required to relocate and to finance such relocation of overhead utility lines underground. The policies are provided to guide property owners in achieving undergrounding of utilities in their neighborhoods and to help the Town Council,Town, Staff and Town consultants in assisting in such efforts.Specific figures regarding estimated costs for undertaking this effort and ultimately implementing a specific project are not presented herein since they vary depending on the size, location of the proposed district and economic factors. A separate Frequently Asked Questions brochure(available at Town Hall or at www.tiburon.org)may provide a range of answers to those types of specific non-policy questions. The procedures, events and steps described below are governed by California State law and guidelines of California Public Utilities Commission(regulating the Pacific Gas&Electric Company (PG&E)and other utilities)about the physical and financial requirements for utility undergrounding projects.The Town must comply with these laws and regulations while taking appropriate actions to coordinate the project from its inception to its completion. To provide for financing and to enforce connections to the underground system,the undergrounding districts will be special assessment districts established by the Town under State law. Unless contributions are available from other sources,property owners should know that 100%of the cost of the underground project will be borne by the property owners in the district.If available,funds from PG&E and other utilities will be applied to help reduce the costs, but there is no assurance of such availability. The proponents of a proposed district must submit a written petition to the Town showing the support by owners of at least 60% of all of the parcels in the prospective district. The Town will supply examples of petitions and instructions on its signing. Along with the petition, the required subscription deposit for district formation costs (see discussion below) and an informal boundary map showing the parcels proposed to be included must be provided. Upon receipt of a satisfactory petition, deposit and informal map, the Town will begin the process of district formation. The Town will retain the District Engineer for the assessment district,along with Bond Counsel and the bond Underwriter. The District Engineer (with the assistance of Town staff and bond Underwriter) will prepare an estimate of all of the costs of the project. Those costs will include construction cost estimates(based on information from the utilities)and an allowancefor the Town's administrative costs calculated to reimburse the Town for the work of Town staff on the project and bond issuance costs and deduct any possible contributions. An Advisory Services fund is`also established to allow project proponents and opponents to obtain legal advice and information from the Bond Counsel regarding the assessment process and their rights and responsibilities. That net cost will be apportioned or"assessed"to each of the parcels in the district based on how. each parcel is:specially benefited from the undergrounding work.Under Proposition 218,the District Engineer is responsible for defining the special benefit each parcel'receives and may take into account a variety of factors in defining that benefit.` The method of allocating special benefit may vary from district to district depending on the conditions of and the improvements)needed for each such district. Under State law,the Town Council must hold a public hearing and conduct an assessment:ballot to seek approval of the assessment part of the district. This approval requires an affirmative majority approval (based on dollars assessed) by property owners returning ballots. If approved,the Town may proceed with the assessment and the district. The assessment may then be paid in cash or allowed to"go to bond"or be financed at tax-exempt municipal bond rates for 20-25 years.Bonded assessments are collected on the County tax bill.The assessment is not a personal obligationof the property owner and it passes with the title to the property assessed, like regular taxes. The Bond Counsel and Underwriter prepare documents needed for the bonds: The costs of individual service connections to the underground facilities are borne by each property owner and are typically not included in the assessment. If possible, a small amount of bond funds may be available on a per-financing basis,at the request of property owners(first come-first served) to help finance connections. The actual amount available will depend on the size of the project and the estimated amount of bond financing available and will vary with each project. The entire process may take at least 12 to 24 months (assuming no legal actions/challenges). The duration of the process may also be affected by utility company financial conditions and staffing priorities. Policy &Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts Page 2 of 9 Procedural Events & Steps for District Formation This section outlines the process of forming a special assessment district for utility undergrounding:. in Tiburon. 1. PreliminM Meetings Interested Property Owners meet with Town Staff to discuss the process and procedures,and to have questions answered and concerns addressed.This would typically include,representatives. ofthe Department of Public Works and the Town Manager.The project proponents would also be encouraged to hold a neighborhood meeting to discuss the-proposed.proiect,:solicit input, answer questions,etc.and schedule an informal presentation before the Town Council to solicit informal support for the proposed project. These are some of the most important steps in successfully creating a district. This document, along with the,FAQ..brochure should be distributed to all property owners whose participation is to be solicited.Proponents should also arrange a site walk with the prospective District Engineer to develop ballpark estimates of preliminary costs associated with creating the District.This will help refine the estimate of the total ;amount.of subscription deposit funds that will be submitted to the Town along with petitions of interest as described below. 2. Petition of Interest Proponents of the proposed district circulate Petitions of Interest among all Property Owners.of the prospective district. 3. Informal Boundary Map As part of the Petition process,the Property Owner proponents prepare an informal boundary map showing the area proposed to be the district based upon the results of the circulated petition. The Town and District Engineer will review this map and may suggest changes, as required to satisfy utility companies' requirements and requests of other„adjacent Property Owners. Property Owner Proponents may wish to distribute the informal boundary map. Property .Owner,Proponents may also request a `boundary walk' with the.affected,utility companies to better refine the project boundary. It should be noted that the utility companies (particularly PG&E)may require a deposit before they will attend a boundary walk. 4. Subscription Deposits When obtaining Petitions, Property Owner Proponents should also raise subscription deposit funds for preliminary design engineering and construction cost estimates and legal advisory services. Funding must be sufficient to secure engineering cost estimates from electric, telephone, and the cable franchise provider and to pay the advance costs required to retain the District Engineer. Policy &Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts Page 3 of 9 The District Engineer will prepare complete technical plans and drawings for review by the utilities,and establish final cost estimates for the construction bidding process. Plans must contain detailed information on trench size and location, and the location of equipment within the trenches. Such drawings are usually ordered and directed by the District Engineer. Such costs may range from$900 to$1,700 per Property Owner Proponent and will depend on the size of the district, complexity of the project, the costs for the preliminary services required to establish the district.. Recently, PG&E and SBC (formerly Pacific Bell)have required full deposits up front before they will proceed with engineering support for a proposed district.The utility companies develop engineering drawings and technical specifications for design oftheir particular underground facilities, which are then incorporated into composite drawings by the District Engineer. It is the composite drawings'which are ultimately used for construction bidding purposes. If the district is formed and issues bonds,it will refund or credit these funds to the Property Owner Proponents in proportion to their contributions. As further described in the following section,the Property Owner Proponentsare also required to raise funds for Legal Advisory services. In accordance with a recently adopted Settlement Agreement, this amount is to be $100 per Property Owner Proponent, up to a maximum of $10,000 for the entire district. Accordingly,the total subscription deposit necessary to form an assessment district may range between$1,000 and$1,800 per Property Owner Proponent.If for any reason,the district is not formed, and/or fails to issue the bonds, the Property Owner Proponents will receive only the amount of their contributions that have not been spent. 5. Filing the Petition of Interest Subscription Deposit and Boundary Map The Petitions may be submitted to the Town when Property Owners representing at least 60% of the total number of parcels to in the proposed district have signed -and the Subscription Deposits(see above)and the informal boundary map are ready. Staff will check the Petition to be sure that there the necessary signatures from the required percentage of properties and that the Subscription Deposit and boundary map are in order. 6. First Council Meeting-Resolution of Intention At the first Council meeting, the Council adopts the Resolution of Intention to Make Acquisitions and Improvements which formally begins the assessment process. 7. Consultants With the Resolution of Intention,the Town will appoint: Bond Counsel,the District Engineer, and the Underwriter. The District Engineer prepares the estimates of costs, the proposed assessment of the costs to each parcel in the district, the formal maps of the district and the plans and specifications for the construction work.The plans may be preliminary at this stage. In accordance with State law, the assessment of costs to each parcel in the district will be Policy &Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts Page 4 of 9 developed by an analysis of the special benefit that each property owner receives from the improvements funded by the assessment. All of the above information is summarized in the "Engineer's Report" for the district. The-Underwriter is responsible for helping to estimate the costs of the bonds,and in.pricing, selling and delivering the bonds to the bond market: The Underwriter is paid,only from the bond issue and only if bonds are issued. Bond Counsel directs ;all legal proceedings to establish. the district including Council resolutions,notices,forms of documents and instructions,including the levy of the assessments and issuance of bonds. Except for the Advisory Services to Property Owners below, Bond Counselis paid only if the bonds are actually issued. , Bond Counsel also provides advice and information(the"Advisory Services")to all interested Property Owners within the proposed district(whether they support or oppose the;project)about the assessment process and their rights.and responsibilities. ■ All Property Owners shall be provided with notice of their right tomeet with Bond Counsel, and this notice shall include written materials that describe the assessment process and their rights and opportunities to be heard during the process. ■ Bond Counsel shall hold at least 2 meetings for the purpose of advising the Property Owners: The I" meeting as soon as practicable following Town appointment of Bond Counsel and the 2°d-second meeting shall be before Town Council votes to preliminarily adopt the Engineer's Report for the district. ■ To the extent;that Advisory Funds are available, Bond Counsel shall -be available to provide brief follow-up telephone consultation to,affected Property Owners. ■ In the event the Advisory Fund is insufficient to provide all.of the Advisory Services described in this section, Bond Counsel shall provide Advisory Services in the following order of priority: (1)written materials describing the process; (2) meeting with Property Owners. prior to adoption of the draft Engineer's Report; (3) meeting following retention of Bond Counsel; and (4) telephone consultation. ■ The Town Attorney has sole discretion to supervise Bond Counsel's provision of Advisory Services to ensure,so far as practicable,that such services are fairly allocated between all affected Property Owners. Policy &Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts Page 5 of 9 8. Second Council Meeting-Preliminary Approval The District Engineer prepares and files the following items with the Town Clerk: ■ The Engineer's Report containing estimates of total assessment district costs,including costs for District Engineer, utility company engineering, Bond Counsel, Underwriter Advisory Fund, constructioncontract and Town administration. Construction cost estimates will include a breakdown of each property owner's individual service connection cost. ■ Map of Proposed Boundaries and Assessment Diagram for the district Plans & Specifications for Project, The Town Council adopts: ■ Resolution Preliminarily Approving District Formation/Boundary Map, Engineer's Report, and Directing Actions with Respect Thereto;and ■ Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Calling for Bids for Construction (If the plans and specifications are still preliminary,this step may be deferred--until after the Assessment District is officially formed and the final plans are prepared by the District Engineer). 9.` After Second Council Meeting Immediately following the Second Council Meeting,the Town Clerk,in coordination with the District Engineer and Bond Counsel, takes the following actions: ■ Mails Notices of Proposed Assessments and Ballots to Property Owners at least 45 days prior to the Public Hearing; ■ Records Map of Proposed Boundaries of the District; and ■ Ceard-inate"Aiblication of call for construction bids (if appropriate). 10. Informational Workshop In the 45-day period after Item 9, Town Staff and the consultants hold a Workshop about the project and the proposed financing. 11. Construction Bids Under the State Public Contract Code and the Chapter 3A of the Tiburon Municipal Code, Town solicits contractor bids for construction. Typically,the bid period is 30 days, with bids received about two weeks before the public hearing and ballot. After the bid-opening, the District Engineer and Town Staff determine the lowest responsible bid and adjust the proposed assessments if warranted.This step may be deferred until after Item 17 if preliminary plans and specifications are used for district formation. Policy&Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts Page 6 of 9 12. Third Council Meeting-Public Hearing and Ballot At a Council meeting held at least 45 days following mailing of the Notice of Proposed Assessments, the Town Council will: ■ Hold a.public hearing-to solicit any comments for or against the assessment ■ Close the public hearing and call for the tabulation of ballots The Town Clerk opens and counts ballots. Ballots are weighted on dollars assessed (for example,if all assessments are the same,each property owner has one vote). Only valid ballots actually received by the end of the hearing are counted. Unsigned, unreadable or unmarked ballots are not valid. If more than 50 percent of the ballots cast are against, the proceedings must be abandoned. If a majority approving vote is received, and the Council concurs, Council then adopts: Resolution Adopting Engineer's Report,Confirming Assessments and Directing Actions with Respect Thereto This resolution levies the assessment and directs recordings and filings for the assessment lien and directs the cash payment period. This resolution also has provisions establishing completion time requirements for individual service connections. 13. Immediately After 12 above: The Town Clerk, District Engineer and Bond Counsel, takes the following actions: ■ Files and Records Assessments,Notices of Assessment and Assessment Diagram; ■ Publishes Notice to Pay Assessments; and ■ Mails Notices to Pay Assessment to each Property Owners (include the deadline date for completing individual service connections). 14. Cash Payment Period Property Owners have a minimum 30-day period to pay cash for their assessments or any portion. At the end of the 30-day period,the exact amount of bonds to be issued is determined based on the remaining, unpaid assessments. After the cash payment period: ■ The Administrative Services Director completes the List of Unpaid Assessments; and ■ The Bond Purchase Agreement and Preliminary Official Statement are filed with the Town Clerk. `- Policy&Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts Page 7 of 9 Property Owners must also decide whether to contract with the Contractor performing the District work or hire their own contractor to perform individual service connection work on their property. 15. Fourth Council Meeting-Bonds At a Town Council Meeting after Item No. 14 above, Town Council adopts: ■ Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Bonds; and ■ Resolution Authorizing Execution of the Construction Contract. This step may be deferred until after Item 17 if preliminary plans and specifications need to be finalized by the District Engineer. 16. After Item 15 The Administrative Services Director and Underwriter price the bond issue, and the Town executes the following: ■ Bond Purchase Agreement (sells bonds); and ■ Preliminary Official Statement(describes bonds for market) 17. Bond Closing Approximately 2 weeks after Item 16, the bonds are delivered to Underwriter in exchange for the purchase price under the Bond Purchase Agreement. This, along with the cash payments, provides the funds for to pay for the underground project and its related costs. 18. Execution of Construction Contract The Town executes the Construction Contract with the selected bidder. Construction work would typically commence within a few weeks of contract execution. Town staff makes progress payments to the Contractor as with any public works contract. Construction duration will depend on the size and complexity of the project, but typically lasts 60 to 90 days. 19. Utility Coordination Upon completion of construction, the Town coordinates with the utilities to connect all properties to the new underground system. This process may take several weeks or more depending on the scheduling requirements of each utility company. Each property owner is responsible for connecting his or her property to the newly undergrounded facilities. The Town's contractor is usually required to offer service connection work at established costs. However,each owner may chose his or her own contractor or other provider for the individual service connection work. Policy &Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts Page 8 of 9 20. Work Completed After all connections are completed,the utilities will remove the overhead system. Town pays final bills and costs, including any remaining legal and administrative costs incurred by the Town for the project. If there is any surplus remaining,the Council may take action to provide any further improvements needed to complete the project and/or distribute any surplus as provided by law. Policy &Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT NO. RESOLUTION NO. 01-201.7 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913 AND TO ISSUE BONDS PURSUANT TO THE IMPROVEMENT BOND ACT OF 1915 TO UNDERGROUND ALL EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED TOWN OF TIBURON ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2017-1 (HAWTHORNE UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT) AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon (the"Town") has previously adopted Town Council Resolution No. 2996 supporting the undergrounding of overhead utility wires and poles and has adopted Policy and Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts (the"Policies"); and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Policies, the owners of certain parcels of land have submitted petitions (the "Petitions")to the Town requesting the formation of an assessment district in order to underground all of the overhead utility wires, poles and other facilities providing utility service to the area within the proposed assessment district; and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has reviewed the Petitions and in accordance with Streets and Highways Code Section 5896.7 has presented to the Town Council a certificate as to the sufficiency of the Petitions to the effect that petitions have been submitted by more than five owners of assessable land within the proposed assessment district, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, who own lands constituting more than one-half of the area of all assessable lands within the proposed assessment district; and WHEREAS, the Town Engineer and Director of Public Works (the "Town Engineer") has reviewed the Petitions and determined that the Petitions show support for the proposed assessment district by the owners of at least sixty percent(60%) of the parcels within the proposed assessment district; and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to adopt this resolution in accordance with the Policies and the provisions of Streets and Highways Code Section 10200, which is a part of the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (the "1913 Act"), declaring its intention to make acquisitions and improvements to underground all electric, telephone and cable facilities,remove poles, overhead wires, guys and anchors and complete appurtenant work thereto as further described in Section 3 hereof(the "Improvements") and to order the formation of an assessment district to pay the costs thereof under and pursuant to the provisions of the 1913 Act;and WHEREAS, the proposed assessment district, if it is formed, is to be known and designated as the Town of Tiburon Assessment District No. 2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) (the "Assessment District");and WHEREAS, the proposed boundaries of the Assessment District are shown on a map which indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory proposed to be included in the Assessment District, which map has been prepared by Harris & Associates (the "Assessment Engineer") and designated "Town of Tiburon Hawthorne Undergrounding District Proposed Boundary Map" (the "Map"),which Map is on file in the office of the Town Clerk;and WHEREAS, the Town Engineer, with the assistance of the Assessment Engineer, is competent to make and file with the Town Clerk the report with regard to the Improvements, which report is required by the 1913 Act to be made and filed;and WHEREAS, the conversion of overhead electric utility distribution system facilities to underground, including connection to existing overhead electric utility distribution lines where the surface is restored to the condition existing prior to undergrounding, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and its implementing guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) (the "Guidelines")pursuant to Section 15302(d)of the Guidelines; and WHEREAS, in order to finance the cost of the Improvements the Town Council intends to consider issuing bonds secured by the assessments to be levied on property in the Assessment District pursuant to the Improvement Bond Act of 1915, being Division 10 (commencing with Section 8500)of the Streets and Highways Code (the"1915 Act"); and WHEREAS, before issuing bonds, the Town Council is required, under the 1915 Act, to adopt a resolution declaring its intention to do so; NOW, THEREFORE, The Town Council_ of the Town of Tiburon does hereby find, order and resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The above recitals,and each of them,are true and correct. SECTION 2. In accordance with the Policies, the Town Council hereby appoints Harris & Associates as the Assessment Engineer and the firm of Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation and Samuel Sperry as bond counsel for the Assessment District. SECTION 3. The Improvements generally include the undergrounding of existing electric, telephone and cable facilities, including the removal of poles, overhead wires, guys and anchors and the installation of new underground service connections and new streetlights and appurtenant work therewith within the area shown on the Map. The Map is hereby approved as the preliminary boundary Map for the Assessment District. The Improvements will be designed and constructed to the standards required by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E") and other utility providers. The Town will inspect the work to ensure conformance to Town standards and specifications where applicable. Once completed, the underground facilities will become the property and responsibility of PG&E and such other utility providers. Each owner of property located within the Assessment District will be responsible for arranging for and paying for work on his property necessary to connect facilities constructed by the public utilities in the public streets to the points of connection on the private property. Conversion of individual service connections on private property is not included in the work to be done by the Assessment District. Failure to convert individual service connections on private property may result in a recommendation to the Town Council that the public utilities be directed to discontinue service to that property or that other actions be taken in accordance with applicable laws to convert such individual service connections. Overhead facilities cannot be removed until all overhead service has been discontinued. SECTION 4. The Town Council hereby finds and declares that the public interest and necessity require the acquisition and construction of the Improvements, and any portion of the costs of the Improvements to be assessed against parcels within the Assessment District will be of direct and special benefit to such parcels. The Town Council hereby declares its intention to order the conversion of the existing overhead electric and communication facilities to underground locations, and the acquisition of the Improvements, to make the expenses thereof chargeable upon the area included within the Assessment District, and to form the Assessment District. SECTION 5. The Town Council further declares its intention to levy a special assessment upon the land within the Assessment District in accordance with the respective special and direct benefit to be received by each parcel of land from the Improvements. SECTION 6. The Town Council finds and determines that before ordering the acquisition of the Improvements it shall take proceedings pursuant to the 1913 Act and pursuant to Part 7.5 of the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931, Streets and Highways Code Section 2960 et seq. (the "1931 Act"). SECTION 7. The Assessment Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to make and file with the Town Clerk a written report with regard to the 1913 Act (the "Report"), which Report shall comply with the requirements of Section 10204 and Section 2961 of the Streets and Highways Code and Article XIIID of the California Constitution and shall contain the following: (a) Plans and specifications for the improvements; (b) A general description of works or appliances already installed and any other property necessary or convenient for the operation of the Improvements, if the works, appliances or property are to be acquired as part of the Improvements; (c) An estimate of the cost of the Improvements, and the cost of land, rights of ways, easements, and incidental expenses in connection with the Improvements, including the cost of registering bonds, and a determination of the portion of the costs that represent a general benefit and the portion of the costs that represent a direct and special benefit to each of the parcels within the Assessment District; (d) A diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the Assessment District, the boundaries of any zones within the Assessment District and the lines and dimensions of each parcel of land within the Assessment District as they existed at the time of passage of this resolution (each subdivision to be given a separate number on the diagram); and (e) A proposed assessment of the total amount of the cost and expenses of the proposed Improvements that confer a direct and special benefit upon the several subdivisions of land in the Assessment District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received by such subdivision, respectively, from the Improvements (the assessment shall refer to the subdivisions by their respective numbers assigned as provided in (d)above). (f) A proposed maximum annual assessment upon each of the several subdivisions of land in the Assessment District to pay costs incurred by the Town and not otherwise reimbursed which result from the administration and collection of assessments or from the administration or registration of any associated bonds and reserve or other related funds. In addition, the Report shall contain the information required by the 1931 Act as set forth in Streets and Highways Code Section 2961(b), including: (a) The total amount, as near as may be determined, of the total principal sum of all unpaid special assessments and special assessments required or proposed to be levied under any completed or pending assessment proceedings, other than the proposed assessments to be levied with respect to the Assessment District, which would require an investigation and report under the 1931 Act against the total area proposed to be assessed; and (b) The total true value, as near as may be determined, of the parcels of land and improvements within the Assessment District which are proposed to be assessed. Total true value may be estimated as the full cash value of the parcels as shown upon the last equalized assessment roll of the county. Alternatively, total true value may be determined by other reasonable means, including, but not limited to, by adjusting the value shown on the last equalized assessment roll to correct for deviations from market value due to Article XIIIA of the California Constitution. SECTION g. Notice is hereby given that serial or term bonds to represent unpaid assessments and to bear interest at a rate not to exceed 12 percent per annum will be issued in the manner provided in the 1915 Act to represent the unpaid assessments and the last installment of such bonds shall mature a maximum of 30 years from the second day of September next succeeding 12 months from their date. The principal amount of such bonds maturing or becoming subject to mandatory prior redemption each year shall not be an amount equal to an even annual proportion of the aggregate principal amount of the bonds, but rather(except as specifically otherwise provided by the Town Council in connection with the sale of such bonds), shall be an amount which, when added to the amount of interest payable in each year, will be a sum which is substantially equal in each year, except for the moneys falling due on the first maturity or mandatory prior redemption date of the bonds which shall be adjusted to reflect the amount of interest earned from the date when the bonds bear interest to the date when the first interest is payable on the bonds. Such bonds shall be serviced and collected by the Town Treasurer or by such registrar and/or paying agent(s) as this Town Council may from time to time designate. SECTION 9. Following the acquisition of the Improvements and the payment of all incidental expenses in connection with the formation of the Assessment District and the issuance of bonds pursuant to the 1915 Act, any surplus remaining in the improvement fund established for the Assessment District shall be used as determined by the Town Council as provided in Section 10427 of the Streets and Highways Code. SECTION 10. The provisions of Part 11.1 of the 1915 Act, providing an alternative procedure for the advance payment of assessments and the calling of bonds, shall apply. SECTION 11. Except as specifically otherwise provided for herein, the Improvements shall be made and ordered pursuant to the provisions of the 1913 Act. SECTION 12. The Town Council hereby determines that the Town will not obligate itself to advance available funds from its treasury to cure any deficiency which may occur in the bond redemption fund established for the Assessment District. SECTION 13. The public interest will not be served by allowing the property owners to take any contract to be let for the construction of the Improvements, and no notice of award of contract shall be published. SECTION 14. It is hereby determined that the bonds proposed to be issued in these proceedings may be refunded. Any adjustment to assessments resulting from such refunding shall be done on a pro rata basis as required pursuant to Section 8571.5 of the Streets and Highways Code. Any such refunding shall be pursuant to the provisions of Division 11.5 (commencing with Section 9500) of the Streets and Highways Code, except that, if, following the filing of the report specified in Section 9523 and any subsequent modifications of the report, the Town Council finds that all of the conditions specified in Section 9525 are satisfied and that the adjustments to assessments are on a pro rata basis, the Town Council may approve and confirm the report and any, without further proceedings, authorize, issue, and sell the refunding bonds pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 9600) of Division 11.5 of the Streets and Highways Code. Any such refunding bonds shall bear interest at the rate of not to exceed twelve percent (12%) per annum, or such higher rate of interest as may be authorized by applicable law at the time of sale of such bonds; and the last installment of such bonds shall mature on such date as will be determined by the Town Council in the proceedings for such refunding. SECTION 15. It is in the public interest and more economical to do certain work on private property to eliminate any disparity in level or size between the Improvements and private property and to add the actual cost of such work to the assessment of the property to which such work was done; provided that no work of this nature shall be performed until and unless the written consent of the owner of property is first obtained. SECTION 16. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 10110, the Town intends to enter into agreements with PG&E and the other utility providers, and any agreement between the Town and PG&E, or any other public utility, for the ownership, management, or control of the underground electric, telephone and cable facilities to be installed in connection with the Improvements,would benefit any current or future residents of the Assessment District. SECTION 17. Pursuant to Section 15302(d) of the Guidelines, the undergrounding of the Improvements will have no significant effect on the environment and is categorically exempt from CEQA. The Town Clerk is directed to cause a notice of exemption to be posted as required by law. SECTION 18. The Town Council hereby waives the requirement in the Policies for the appointment at this time of an underwriter for the Assessment District (the "Underwriter") and determines that delaying the appointment of the Underwriter to a later date in the proceedings will not adversely affect the proceedings as the Town will be engaging a municipal advisor to assist it in estimating the costs of issuing the bonds for the Assessment District. SECTION 19. All inquiries for any and all information relating to these proceedings, including information relating to protest procedures, should be directed to: Greg Chanis Town Manager 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, California 94920 (415)435-7373 SECTION 20. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. SECTION 21. The Town Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED,APPROVED,and ADOPTED on January 4,2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell,Tollini NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None JIM FRASER,Mayor ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, Town Clerk EXHIBZ'I' E ✓ s v2� Y '���%�sada � �� PRELIMINARY Assessment District No. 2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Prepared under the provisions of the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 Forthe TOWN OF TIBURON County of Marin, California August 8, 2017 an Harris & Associates ME DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only-Costs are not finalized Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction and Certifications............................................................................................ 1 PART I Description of Improvements...........................................................................7 PARTII Cost Estimate.................................................................. ...............................8 PART III Method of Assessment Spread and Assessment Roll.....................................9 Exhibit 1 - Assessment Roll.............................................. .............................22 Exhibit 2 - Debt Limit Valuation............. .................... ......... ........................26 PART IV Annual Administrative Assessment....."..........................................................27 PART V Boundary Map and Diagram of Assessment District..................................28 PART VI Description of Facilities..: ........: ................... ......... ..................................29 Right-of-Way Certificate... ......... ................... .............................................30 Certification of Completion of Environmental Proceedings ............................31 APPENDICES A. Assessment Calculations B. Assessment Diagram DRAFT--- For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 1 AGENCY: TOWN OF TIBURON PROJECT: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2017-1 TO: TOWN COUNCIL ENGINEER'S "REPORT" PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 2961 AND 10204 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE The purpose of this Assessment District is to provide financing to underground power,telephone and cable facilities along Delmar Drive, Hawthorne Drive, Maravista Court, Palmer Court, Rock Hill Road,and portions of Hilary Drive and Tiburon Boulevard within the Town of Tiburon. The proposed underground utility improvements will provide conversion to an upgraded utility system and will enhance neighborhood aesthetics, safety and reliability. The construction of these improvements will conform to existing Town of Tiburon, Pacific Gas and Electric, AT&T and Comcast Communications standards. The proposed improvements are of special and direct benefit to the properties within the boundary of the proposed assessment district to the extent described herein. Pursuant to the provisions of Article XIIID of the State Constitution, Part 7.5 of the "Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931", being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of tile State of California,and the"Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of said Code, and the Resolution of Intention, adopted by the Town Council of the TOWN OF TIBURON, State of California, in connection with the proceedings for Assessment District No. 2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District)(hereinafter referred to as the"Assessment District"), 1, K. Dennis Klingelhofer, P.E., a Registered Professional Engineer and authorized representative of Harris &Associates, the duly appointed Assessment Engineer, herewith submit the "Report"for the Assessment District, consisting of six (6) parts as stated below. PART I This part contains the preliminary plans and specifications which describe the general nature, location and extent for the proposed improvements to be constructed, and are filed herewith and made a part hereof. Said plans and specifications are on file in the Office of the Town Engineer. PART II This part contains an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements, including capitalized interest, if any, incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith as set forth herein and attached hereto. DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only I Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 2 PART III This part consists of the following information: A. A description of the method of assessment spread; and B. The general benefit which is determined to result from the proposed improvements which has been excluded from the assessment, and the proposed assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the proposed improvements upon the several subdivisions of land within the Assessment District, in proportion to the special benefits to,be received by such subdivisions from said improvements, which is set forth upon the assessment roll filed herewith and made a part hereof; and C. The total amount, as near as may be determined, of the total principal sten of all unpaid special assessments previously levied and special assessments required or proposed to be levied under any completed or pending assessment proceedings.. other than that contemplated for the Assessment District, which would require an investigation and report under the "Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931" against the total area proposed to be assessed; and D. The total true value, determined from the latest Assessor's roll, of the parcels of land and improvements which are proposed to be assessed. PART IV This part contains the proposed maximum annual administrative assessment to be levied upon each subdivision or parcel of land within the Assessment District to pay the costs incurred by the TOWN OF TIBURON, and not otherwise reimbursed, resulting from the administration and collection of assessments, from the administration and registration of any associated bonds and reserve or other related funds, or both.. PART V This part contains a map showing the boundaries of the Assessment District, and a diagram showing the Assessment District, the boundaries and the dimensions of the subdivisions of land within said Assessment District, as the same'existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution of Intention. The Boundary Map and Assessment Diagram are filed herewith and made a part hereof, and part of the assessment A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram is included in this Report as Appendix B. PART VI This part shall consist of the following information: A. Right-of-Way Certificate B. Environmental Certificate DRAFT-- For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017.1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 3 Certificate of Assessment Engineer WHEREAS,on January 4,2017 the Town Council ofthe TOWN OF TIBURON,State of California,did, pursuant to the provisions of the 1913 Act"Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code,of the State of California(the"1913 Act"),adopt Resolution No. 01-2017 (the "Resolution of Intention") declaring its intention to provide for the installation and construction of certain public improvements,together with appurtenances and appurtenant work in connection therewith, in a special assessment district known and designated as TOWN OF TIBURON ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO.2017-1 (HAWTHORNE UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT)(hereinafter referred to as the"Assessment District")-,and WHEREAS,said Resolution of Intention,as required by law,did direct the Engineer of Work to make and file a "Report", consisting of the following as required by Suction 10204 of the Act: A. Description of Improvements; B. A general description of works or appliances already ainstalled and any pother property necessary or convenient for the operation of the''iinprovement, if the works appliances, or property are to be acquired as part of the improvement; C. Cost Estimate; D. Assessment Diagram showing the Assessment District and the.subdivisions of land therein; E. A proposed assessment of the costs and expenses of the works of improvement levied upon the parcels within the boundaries of the Assessment District; F. The proposed maxii-n ml annual assessment'to be levied upon each subdivision or parcel of land within the Assessment'District to pay the costs incurred by the Town and not otherwise reimbursed resulting from the administration and collection of assessments or from the administration and registration of any associated bonds and reserve or other related funds. For particulars, reference is made to the Resolution of Intention as previously adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, 1, K. Dennis Klingelhofer, RE., the authorized representative of HARRIS & ASSOCIATES, pursuant to Article XIIID of the California Constitution and the 1913 Act, do hereby submit the following: I. Pursuant to the provisions of law and the Resolution of Intention, I have assessed the costs and expenses of the works of improvement to be performed in the Assessment District upon the parcels of land in the Assessment District specially benefited thereby in direct proportion and relation to'the special benefits to be received by each of said parcels. For particulars as to the identification of said parcels, reference is made to the Assessment Diagram (the "Diagram"), a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. All parcels specially benefitted by the works of improvement have been included within the Assessment District. 2. As required by law,the Diagram is attached hereto, showing the Assessment District, as well as the boundaries and dimensions of the respective parcels and subdivisions of land within said Assessment District as the same existed at the time of the passage of said Resolution of Intention, each of which subdivisions of land or parcels or lots respectively have been given a separate number upon the Diagram and in the Assessment Roll as defined below. DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017.1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 4 3. The subdivisions and parcels of land with the numbers shown on the Diagram as attached hereto correspond with the numbers as appearing on the Assessment Roll as defined below. 4. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that bonds will be issued in accordance with Division 10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Improvement Bond Act of 1915"),to represent all unpaid assessments,which bonds shall be issued in one or more series, each with a term not to exceed the legal maximum term as authorized by law,THIRTY-NINE (39) YEARS from the 2nd day of September next succeeding twelve (12)months from their date. Said bonds shall bear interest at a rate not to exceed the current legal maximwn rate of 12% per annum. 5. By virtue of the authority contained in said 1913 Act, and by further direction and order of the legislative body, I hereby reconnnend the following assessment to cover the costs and expenses of the works of improvement for the Assessment District based on the costs and expenses as set forth below: As Preliminarily As Approved Confirmed Estimated Cost of Construction: $9,028,275 Estimated Incidental Expenses: $1,785,112 Estimated Financing Costs: $1,639,233 Estimated Contribution for General Benefit: ($25,823) Estimated Total to Assessment: $12,426,796 For particulars as to the individual assessments and their descriptions, reference is made to Part III, Exhibit (Assessment Roll) which describes the assessment to be levied upon each parcel based upon the special benefit which it receives from the improvements to be funded by the assessments. 6. Under the Resolution of Intention,the requirement of Division 4 of the California Streets and Highway Code shall be satisfied with Part 7.5 of said Division 4, for which the following is presented: a. The total amount, as near as can be determined, of the total principal amount of all unpaid special assessment and special assessments required or proposed to be levied under any completed or pending assess►rnent proceedings, other than contemplated in the instant proceeding is: s0 DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017.1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 5 b. The total amount of the principal sum of the special assessment (the `Balance of Assessment") proposed to be levied in the instant proceedings is: $12,426,796 c. The total amount of the principal sum of unpaid special assessment levied against the parcels proposed to be assessed, as computed pursuant to paragraph 1, above, plus the principal amount of the special assessment proposed to be levied in the instant proceedings from paragraph 2, above is: $12,426,796 The total true value, as near as may be determined, of the land and improvements for the parcels which are proposed to be assessed in the instant proceedings,as determined by the full cash value of the parcels as shown upon the last equalized assessment roll of the County of Marin, is: $141,425,336 This report does not represent a recommendation of parcel value, economic viability or financial feasibility, as that is not the responsibility of the Assessment Engineer. EXECUTED on 2017. HARRIS & ASSOCIATES K. DENNIS KLINGELHOFER, P.E. R.C.E.NO. 50255 ASSESSMENT ENGINEER TOWN OF TIBURON COUNTY OF MARIN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris & Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 6 This report is submitted on ) 2017. HARRIS & ASSOCIATES K. DENNIS KLINGELHOFER,P.E. R.C.E.NO. 50255 ASSESSMENT ENGINEER TOWN OF TIBURON COUNTY OF MARIN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Preliminary approval by the TOWN COUNCIL of the TOWN OF TIBURON, CALIFORNIA, on the day of 2017. TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON STATE OF CALIFORNIA Final approval by the TOWN COUNCIL of"the TOWN OF TI,BURON, CALIFORNIA,on the day of 12017. TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON STATE OF CALIFORNIA DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017.1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 7 Part I Description of Improvements The following provides adescription of tile public improvements proposed to be constructed, installed or acquired under the provisions of the Act as shown on the Preliminary Plans on file in the office of the Town Engineer. The project includes the construction of the public improvements, including all planning, design, construction administration and general administration services,the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, the acquisition of licenses, franchises and permits and the construction of all auxiliary work necessary and/or convenient to the accomplishment thereof, in accordance with the final plans and specifications to be approved by the Town of Tiburon prior to the start of construction. The construction of the public improvements may be phased as necessary and convenient for the Town of Tiburon. Phasing will be undertaken in a manner that results in'a complete and functional portion of each system described below. The following improvements are proposed to be constructed and installed in the general location referred to as the Town of Tiburon Assessment District No. 2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) (the "Assessment District") and will include: I. Construction of mainline underground power, telephone and cable conduit, with appurtenant manholes,pull boxes and surface-located transformers and like structures. 2. Construction of service conduit and appurtenances to property line. 3. Installation of new conductor within said conduit and underground structures by the utility companies. 4. Installation of replacement street lights. 5. Removal of existing overhead power,telephone and cable wires, poles and streetlights. The improvements will be designed'by PG&E, AT&T, Comcast, and the Town of Tiburon (joint trench). The Town of Tiburon will inspect the work to ensure conformance to Town ordinances,rules, warrants, regulations, standards and specifications where applicable. Each owner of property located within the Assessment District will be responsible for arranging for and paying for work on his or her property necessary to connect facilities constructed by the public utilities in the public streets and alleys to the points of connection on the private property. Conversion of individual service connections on private property is not included in the work to be funded by the Assessment District. The estimated time for completion of the undergrounding of the utilities is 36 months after the formation of Assessment District. Construction is estimated to begin approximately 24 months after the formation of the Assessment District. Property owners will be required to provide necessary underground connections within 120 days of the completion of the underground facilities. DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017.1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 8 Part II Cost Estimate Town of Tiburon Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) 123 Parcels High Level Estimate JOI NT TRENCH CONSTRUCTION COSTS $4,718,001 30%construction contingency $1,415,400 UTI I LI TY COST(PG&E,AT&T and Comcast) PG&E $2,385,171 AT&T $121,517 Comcast $138,185 ENVI RONMENTAL MITIGATION Contingency $250,000 Total Construction Lost: $9,028,275 LESS CONTRIBUTIONS FOR GENERAL BENEFIT General Benefit related to the undergrounding of the existing ($25,823) overhead utilities adjacent to the Old Rail Trail Credits: ($25,823) INCIDENTAL EXPENSES Design Engineering and Assessment Engineering $600,000 Construction Management(8%of construction cost) $722,262 Town Administration $100,000 Legal Advice to Property Owners, $10,000 Underwriter**' $136,350 Bond Counsel $90,000 Financial Advisor $60,000 Rating Agency $30,000 Payi ng Agent $9,000 Financial Printing,Registration and Servicing $10,000 Fi l i ng Fees $2,500 Incidental Contingencies $15,000 Total Incidental Expenses: $1,785,112 Total Construction and Incidental Expenses: $10,787,563 FINANCING COSTS(Estimate) Bond Reserve** $893,177 Funded Interest $746,055 Total Financing Costs: $1,639,233 TOTAL AMOUNT TO ASSESSMENT: $12,426,796 Source:Hawthorne Undergrounding District Initial Study " Source:Sperry Capital DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris & Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.20171 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 9 Part III Method of Assessment Spread and Assessment Roll Since the improvements are to be funded by the levying of assessments,the"Municipal Improvement Act of 1913"(the"Act")and Article XIIID of the State Constitution require that assessments be based on the special benefit that the properties receive from the works of improvement. Section 4 of Article XIIID provides that only special benefits are assessable and the local agency levying the assess►nent must separate the general benefits from the special benefits. It also provides that parcels within a district that are owned or used by any public agency,the State of California,or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the agency can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit.In addition, Section 4 requires that a parcel's assessment may not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Neither the Act nor the State Constitution,specifies the methodor formula that should be used to apportion the costs to properties in any specialassessment district proceedings. The responsibility for recommending an apportionment:of the costs to properties which specially benefit from the improvements rests with the Assessment`Engineer, who is appointed for the purpose of making an analysis of the facts and determining the correct apportionment of the assessment obligation. In order to apportion the assessments to each parcel within the boundaries of the assessment district in direct proportion with the ,special benefit which it will receive from the improvements, an analysis has been completed and is used as the basis for apportioning costs to each parcel within the Assessment District. The approval of the assessments rests with the Town Council. The Council renders its decision after hearing testimony and evidence presented at a public hearing and tabulating the assessment ballots, which are mailed to all record owners of property within the Assessment District. Only ballots delivered to the Town Clerk prior to the close of the public hearing are tabulated. The Council's findings must include whether or not the assessment spread has been made in direct proportion to the estimated special benefits received by each parcel. The following sections set forth the methodology used to apportion the costs of the improvements to each parcel. SEPARATION OF GENERAL AND SPECIAL BENEFIT Under Article XIIID, ,only special benefits may be assessed, and it is the responsibility of the Assessment Engineer to identify, quantify, and exclude general benefits from the assessment that is apportioned to parcels in proportion to the special benefit they will receive from the improvements. As stated in the "Proposition 218 Guide for Special Districts" prepared by the California Special Districts Association, the requirement that a public agency separate the general benefits from the special benefits helps ensure that the special benefit requirement is met. As defined in Article XIIID, "special benefit"means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large. DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only I Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017.1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 10 The benefits associated with the undergrounding of overhead utilities are related to increased reliability, improved neighborhood aesthetics, enhanced safety and the removal of obstructions to view within the Assessment District and potentially for areas outside of the Assessment District. The specific location and nature of the undergrounding project will determine if the benefits are a"general benefit" or provide a"special benefit"to parcels within the Assessment District, or a combination of both. GENERAL BENEFIT Because of the localized nature of the improvements within the Assessment District and the small number of parcels that will be impacted by the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities along roadways providing ingress/egress to the parcels within the District, the Assessment Engineer has determined the benefits described in the following section represent special benefits that are conferred oil parcels within the Assessment District, and that there are no "general benefits" that will be conveyed to parcels outside the boundaries of the Assessment District, or to the public at large associated with the undergrounding of the overhead utilities within the Assessment District except as described in the findings below: • Aesthetics Benefit. The Assessment Engineer has determined that there are no aesthetic benefits which represent general benefit or benefits to the public at large. This is based upon the fact that the majority of tile utility poles and overhead facilities that will be undergrounded are located along the local streets within the Assessment District that provide ingress/egress to parcels within the District. Those local streets are not used by "through traffic" to reach destinations that are outside the District. The removal of the overhead utilities and poles will provide an aesthetic benefit.for the parcels within the District which the Assess►nent Engineer has determined represents a;special benefit to parcels within the District. In addition to the removal of tile existing overhead utilities on the local streets within the District,there are also overhead lines on several utility poles which will be removed that are located adjacent to the Old Rail Trail at the rear of the parcel owned by the Belvedere Tennis Club, and several poles that are near Tiburon Boulevard but away''from the edge of the pavement The Assessment Engineer has determined that the removal of those poles does not provide an improvement in aesthetics that would;represent a general benefit to the community or the public at large. The existing utilities do not,impact aesthetics for park visitors related to views of the bay since they are located on the opposite side of the trail. For traffic on Tiburon Boulevard the existing utilities;are generally located almost one hundred feet to several hundred feet from the edge of pavement,,and are largely screened by the tennis club's facilities which are located between Tiburon Boulevard and the existing utilities. The removal of the existing overhead utilities near the Old Rail Trail will not result in increased usage of the Richardson Bay Linear Park by visitors who had not previously used the park because of the visual blight caused by the existing overhead utilities, or result in increased traffic along Tiburon Boulevard because of improved views looking towards the bay. While the Town has identified its desire to remove all the poles along the Old Rail Trail and Tiburon Boulevard,the Assessment Engineer has determined that the undergrounding of those utility poles does not provide a general benefit to all parcels within the Town or to the public at large based upon the requirements of Proposition 218. The Assessment Engineer's review of studies completed by a number of organizations and public entities found that the DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 11 undergrounding of utilities did not provide an economic benefit to parcels not within the Assessment District or the community at large. The studies found that the cost of undergrounding utilities was many times the value or economic benefit to the community,that the benefit to the public at large was not quantifiable, and that there was no economic benefit to the community related to increased business expenditures or tourism as a result of the undergrounding. • Enhanced Reliability Benefit. The Assessment Engineer has determined that there is no general benefit that will be conveyed to parcels outside of the Assessment District, or to the public at large related to enhanced reliability. This is based upon industry data that shows there is little difference in the total "out of service" time (the total service interruption time for all outages measured by the frequency of service interruptions and the time to repair) for customers served by overhead systems versus those served by underground utilities. While the undergrounding of an existing overhead utility generally results in a reduction in the frequency of service interruptions, the time to restore service in an underground utility Is longer due to the difficulty in identifying the location of system outages and the time required to complete repairs. Because of this, the total "out of service" time is comparable for overhead and underground utility systems. The result is that parcels outside of the District will not see a reduction in "out of service" time as a result of the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities within the Assessment District. In addition to looking at "out of service" time, the ability of the utility to restore service to parcels outside of the Assessment District in the event of damage to the utilities (whether overhead or underground)within the District was also reviewed. Based upon redundancies in the system and PG&E's operation of the distribution system,power could be restored to parcels outside of the Assessment District prior to the repair of the damaged utilities within the Assessment District.. Existing facilities outside of the District could be used to feed power to parcels outside of the Districtwhile repairs are being made. For example, although the utility lines located adjacent to the Old Rail Trail are part ofPG&E's distribution system that provides power to downtown Tiburon, if one of those utility poles were damaged, PG&E could restore power to parcels outside of the Assessment District, including the downtown area, by "switching" power to restore service to parcels outside of the Assessment District prior to the completion of repairs. 'Similarly, if parcels outside the District are affected by a portion of the existing overhead facilities within Hilary Drive being damaged as a result of a vehicle hitting a utility pole, PG&E could restore power to those parcels prior to the completion of repairs. Finally, ifaportion ofthe'overhead utilities within Rock Hill Road,north of Hillary Drive were damaged, no parcels outside the Assessment District would be impacted. Since the ability to restore service to parcels outside of the District is not improved as a result of undergrounding the utilities within the District, there is no enhanced reliability benefit to parcels outside of the Assessment District from undergrounding the existing overhead utilities within the District. ■ Removal of Obstructions to View. The Assessment Engineer has determined that the two(2) parcels that are owned by the Town of Tiburon which are outside the boundaries of the Assessment District will not receive a benefit from the relocation of the overhead utilities adjacent to the Old Rail Trail on those parcels. This is based upon the Assessment Engineer's determination that the overhead utilities that are located on the Belvedere Tennis Club's parcel DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only I Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 12 do not obstruct views towards the bay for park users since they are located in the opposite direction. In addition, since there is no development currently on those parcels or that would be allowed in the future that would benefit from the removal of obstructions to view from the existing utilities since the parcels are within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. ■ Safety Benefit. The safety benefit related to the undergrounding of the overhead facilities within the Assessment District is a result of the removal of the fixed obstructions (existing power poles, guy wires and related facilities) from the right-of-way,;and the mitigation of the potential delay by emergency responders that will neither cross downed power line nor set up equipment if an overhead utility line is in the way until it has been de-energized. In addition, the threat to structures or property being damaged by downed utility lines and poles caused by earthquakes, high winds and other unforeseeable events is reduced by;the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities. The Assessment Engineer has determined that there is a general benefit to the public at large related to the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities located adjacent to the Old Rail Trail. The relocation and undergrounding of the utilities adjacent to the Old Rail Trail will provide increased safety to those using Richardson Bay Lineal Park by removing the risk of injury from coming in contact with downed utilities and the removal of the fixed obstructions that are located in proximity to the trail. Based upon a street frontage of 75 feet for a typical residential parcel,the 590 linear feet of overhead utilities adjacent to the Old Rail Trail is the equivalent of the frontage for:7.85 residential parcels. A total of 3.925 benefit points have been assigned for the general benefit which represents 50% of the benefit that would be assigned to the equivalent number of residential parcels since there are no structures that could be damaged by;downed utility poles or lines, or utility could not be damaged by vehicles hitting autility pole. A contribution of$25,823 will be required to offset the general benefit related to the safety benefit associated with the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities along the Old Rail Trail. SPECIAL BENEFITS While the courts have foundthata general enhancement of property value does not constitute "special benefit"(Silicon Valley Taxpayers'Assn v. Santa Clara Cnty. Open Space Authority) if an assessment district is narrowly drawn so that parcels that benefit in way that is particular and distinct from parcels outside of the district, or the public at large they are deemed to receive a special benefit. Specifically, the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities adjacent to parcels and the installation of new street lights on the streets which provide ingress/egress to each parcel provides a particular and distinct benefit to those parcels that is not realized by other parcels or to the public at large. The courts have found that the characterization of a benefit(special vs. general)may depend on whether parcels within a district receive a direct advantage from the improvement based upon their proximity to the improvement, or receive an "indirect, derivative advantage resulting from the overall public benefits of the improvement"(e.g., general enhancement of the district's property values). There are four (4) types of special benefit that parcels may receive as a result of the proposed undergrounding of the existing overhead utility facilities (power, telephone, street light and cable facilities)with underground facilities. DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017.1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 13 ■ Aesthetics Benefit. All of the parcels within the Assessment District will specially benefit from the removal of the overhead wires and utility poles serving the parcels within the boundaries of the Assessment District, including the removal of guy wires and other support structures related to the overhead facilities. The improvements will enhance the aesthetics of the streetscape by removing the physical and visual impediments related to the existing overhead utilities within the right-of-way along the local streets, and will improve the visual environment for properties within the Assessment District. In addition, the removal of the overhead utilities within the Assessment District will bring the area surrounding each parcel closer to current development standards which require that all utilities be placed underground. This will increase the desirability of the parcels within the Assessment District to a potential purchaser when compared to a similar parcel served by overhead wires and utility poles. • Enhanced Reliability Benefit. As discussed in the general benefit discussion, while the frequency of service outages may be reduced as a result of installing the existing overhead facilities underground, the time to restore service in the event of an outage will increase. As a result, the "out of set-vice"time is expected to be similar. Howeverthe installation of all new wires and new equipment installed underground within the Assessment District will reduce the frequency of service interruptions to parcels within the District due to the increased reliability of the upgraded facilities. In addition, the technology used in modern underground systems allow the utility to minimize the -number of parcels impact by an outage. Parcels which have not already undergrounded their service will also see a reduction in outages related to damagesto their individual service lines which will be required to be replaced to connect to the new underground services. As a result, each parcel within the Assessment District will receive a special benefit related to enhanced reliability from the undergrounding ofthe'existing overhead utilities within the Assessment District that is not received by parcels outside of the District. ■ Removal of Obstructions to View.The removal of the existing overhead utilities will provide a special benefit to parcels within the Assessment District that will vary in proportion to the impact the existing overhead utilities and poles have on the view from within structures or from outdoor living areas. The special benefit will also vary based upon the view-shed impacted by theexisting overhead ut]lities. The removal of obstructions from the existing overhead utilities which will enhance view of Richardson Bay from parcels within the Assessment District (Primary View Shed or Primary View) will receive a greater special benefit than the enhancement of views of adjacent areas surrounding the parcel (Secondary View Shed or Secondary View). • Primary View/Property Enhancement. The location of a parcel in relationship to the existing overhead utilities and view towards Richardson Bay has a direct impact on the parcel's visual aesthetics and view enhancement it receives from the removal of the existing overhead utilities. • Secondary View/Property Enhancement. The location of a parcel in relationship to the existing overhead utilities and view away from the Richardson Bay has a direct impact on the parcel's visual aesthetics and view enhancement it receives from the removal of the existing overhead utilities. DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only ( Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 14 ■ Safety Benefit. The undergrounding of the overhead facilities within the District will specially benefit parcels in two ways from a safety perspective. The first relates to the elimination of the threat to structures or property including any occupants within from being damaged or harmed by downed utility lines and poles caused by earthquakes, high winds and other unforeseeable events. The second relates to the removal of the fixed obstructions from the right-of-way and the potential delay by emergency responders that will neither cross a downed power line not- set orset up equipment if an overhead utility line is in the way until it has been de-energized. As described in the Methodology section below, not all parcels receive these benefits to the same extent based upon their location in proximity to the existing overhead utilities. To establish the special benefit each individual parcel within the Assessment District receives in relation to the other parcels within the Assessment District, a Benefit Point system is used. Each parcel of land is assigned benefit points in proportion to the estimated special benefit a parcel receives relative to the other parcels within the Assessment District from the utility undergrounding activities. The parcels within the Assessment District are almost entirely developed for residential use. Benefit points have been assigned to each residential parcel based upon its current use and the benefit which it receives from the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities as discussed below. ■ District Aesthetics Benefit. All residential parcels within the.Assessment District that have their primary ingress/egress along streets where the existing overhead utilities adjacent to their parcel frontage(along either side of the street)will be undergrouncled will benefit equally from the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities. Each parcel which has existing overhead utilities adjacent to its frontage is assignedone (1) benefit point for each existing or potential dwelling unit which could be constructed on the parcel. Those parcels where the existing overhead utilities do not front the parcel butwhich receive utility services from the existing overhead utilities within the Assessment District and must use the street(s) where the existing utilities will be undergrounded will receive 50% of the benefit assigned to parcels where the existing;overhead utilities front the parcel since they are impacted to a lesser degree by the existing overhead utilities. Since the streets within the Assessment District do not provide access to areas which extend beyond the boundaries of the Assessment District and since the overhead utilities in the Assessment District are not generally visible from areas that are outside of the Assessment District there is no aesthetic benefit for parcels that are not within the Assessment District boundaries. ■ Safety Benefit. Parcels within the District will benefit from the elimination of potential property damage from downed utility lines and poles, the removal of the fixed obstructions from the right-of-way, and the mitigation of the potential for delay by emergency responders that will neither cross a downed power line nor set up equipment if an overhead utility line is in the way until it has been de-energized. Each parcel that has its point of ingress/egress along a street which has overhead facilities that will be undergrounded is assigned one (1) benefit point for each existing or potential dwelling unit which could be constructed on the parcel. Parcels that are served by utilities which have been undergrounded including utility services to the parcel but which must use streets within the Assessment District for ingress/ and which DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only I Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017.1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 15 would be impacted by downed wires or poles in the existing overhead utilities that are to be undergrounded are assigned one-half(1/2) a benefit point since they receive a reduced benefit because structures or occupants would not be damaged from downed utility lines and poles, but do receive a special benefit related to the mitigation of potential for delays by emergency responders as a result of the downed utility lines. ■ Enhanced Reliability Benefit. All parcels within the District that receive services from the existing overhead utilities or which would be impacted by a service outage of the existing overhead utilities within the District will specially benefit from the,enhanced reliability of service due to having all new wires and equipment and having such new equipment underground, and the intelligent technology which minimizes the number of parcels impacted by a service outage. Each parcel is assigned one(1) benefit point for each existing or potential dwelling unit which could be constructed on the parcel. Parcels that are served by utilities which have been rnndergrounded immediately adjacent to the parcel but which tie into existing overhead utilities that will be undergrounded and which would be impacted by,a service outage in the existing overhead utilities that are to be undergrounded are assigned one-half(1/2) a benefit point since they receive a reduced benefit. ■ Removal of Obstructions to View. The removal of obstructions to view includes both Primary View Sheds (looking towards the Richardson Bay) and Secondary View Sheds (looking away from the Richardson Bay). Residential parcels may receive a special benefit related to its primary view, its secondary view, or both its primary view and its secondary view based upon its location and the location of the existing overheard utilities that will be undergrounded. The level of benefit a parcel receives is based on the following view shed definitions. Primary View Shed is defined as the view from within the dwelling unit or outside living areas looking towards Richardson Bay which may be impacted by the existing overhead utilities. o High(LQ). The Primary View Shed includes views of Richardson Bay from within the dwelling or from outside living areas. The current view of the Bay is significantly',obstructed by the presence of the existing overhead utilities located adjacent to the parcel and will be improved by the removal and undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities. o Medium (0.5). The Primary View Shed includes views of Richardson Bay from within the dwelling or from outside living areas but the existing overhead utilities are not located within the roadway which is adjacent to the parcel. The current view is partially obstructed by the presence of the existing overhead utilities and will be improved by the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities. o Low (0.25). The Primary View Shed includes a view of Richardson Bay from within the dwelling or from outside living areas and current view is minimally obstructed by the presence of the existing overhead utilities that are visible but not located on the street(s) immediately adjacent to the parcel and the view will be minimally improved by the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities. DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 16 o None (0.0). The Primary View Shed may or may not have a view of Richardson Bay from within the dwelling, however, the existing overhead utilities that will be undergrounded are not within the view shed. Secondary View Shed is defined as the view from within the dwelling unit or outside living looking towards the existing overhead utilities that will be undergrounded but which are not looking towards Richardson Bay. o High (0.5). The Secondary View Shed from within the dwelling or from outside living areas is significantly obstructed by the presence of the existing overhead utilities adjacent to the parcel and will be improved by the removal and undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities. o Medium (0.25). The Secondary View Shed is partially obstructed from within the dwelling or frorn outside living areas by the presence of the existing overhead utilities which may or may not be adjacent to the parcel and will be:improved by the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities. - o Low (0.125). The Secondary View Shed is minimally impactedby the existing overhead utilities that will be undergrounded from within the dwelling or from outside living areas as result of the elevation or existing vegetation which significantly blocks the `viewof the existing overhead utilities that will be undergrounded,or the distance from within the structure or from outside living areas to the overhead utilities is so. great that the existing'overhead utilities minimally impact views. o None (0.0) The Secondary View Shed does not have a view of the existing overhead utilities that will be undergrounded from within the dwelling or from outside living areas as result of the elevation or existing vegetation which blocks any view of the existing overhead utilities that will be undergrounded. Exceptions There are several parcels within the Assessment District which are not developed or planned for residential use. Each of those parcels has a conditional use permit which allows the continued use of the parcel as itiscurrently developed, and no change in use is likely to occur which would alter the special benefit the parcel receives. The methodology used to assign benefit points relative to the non- residential use parcels is explained below. 1. St. Hilary Catholic Church and School A.N. 16, 17 & 23 (Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 055-253-22, 055-253-21 & 039-151-52) is developed as a parish and school-site owned by the Archdiocese of San Francisco and encompasses roughly 7.62 acres. The main entrance to the school is on Rock Hill Road, which is being undergrounded,and there is a second entrance on Hillary Drive which is also being undergrounded. Both the church and school receive utility service from Rock Hill Road. Because this property is developed as a church and school site, the special benefit which it receives is not the same as a residential parcel based on its use. DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 17 a) Aesthetics Benefit. Schools and churches are treated differently than residential parcels when determining the aesthetic benefit they receive as a result of the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. Unlike residential parcels, parcels developed for religious or school use are not more desirable to a potential purchaser as a result of the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities. This is a result of the limited number of parcels that may be on the market and as a result there is not a direct impact on the desirability of a parcel where the utilities have been undergrounded compared to a similar parcel which is served by overhead utilities. However,some special benefit can be attributed to the property from improved aesthetics. The special benefit received by a typical residential parcel is related to the undergrounding of the overhead utilities that are adjacent to the parcels frontage. A typical residential parcel within the Assessment District '.has an average frontage of approximately 75 feet which provides ingress/egress to the parcel along the streets where the utilities will be undergrounded and is assigned one (.1)benefit point. While most of the parcel area does not directly abut the streets where the existing overhead utilities will be undergrounded, these parcels do have frontage at two (2) separate locations that provide ingress/egress to the parcels where the existing utilities will be undergrounded. Two (2) benefit points are assigned for aesthetic benefit. b) hnproved Safety Benefit. The school and church property receives an improved safety benefit fi-om the undergrounding project which will remove the fixed obstructions along the streets which provide access to the property and the potential for delay by emergency responders that will neither cross a downed power line nor set'up equipment if an overhead utility line is in the way until it has been de-energized.-The structures on these parcels will not benefit from the elimination of potential property damage from downed utility lines and poles since the existing overhead utilities are not located near any existing or potential future structures. Since the primary benefit for these parcels is related to the removal of the fixed obstructions along the streets used for ingress/egress and the reduction in the potential delay by emergency responders, the benefit to these parcels is related to a residential property Rased upon the number of trips generated per day which would use streets within the Assessment District. Based upon an average of 10 trips per day for residential parcels and an average of 2.7 trips per student per day(estimated enrollment of 276 students),these parcels are the equivalent of 74.5 equivalent dwelling units. Since these parcels do not benefit from the elimination'ofpotential property damage or injury to occupants due to the location of the improvement on these parcels in relationship to the location of the existing overheadutilities they receive a reduced benefit related to the removal of the fixed obstructions and the reduction in potential delays by emergency responders. The safety benefit is reduced by 75% rather than the 50% for a residential parcel since the hours of use or occupancy are less than for residential parcels. A total of 18.625 benefit points are assigned for the safety benefit. c) Enhanced Reliability Benefit. Residential parcels are assigned one(1)benefit point for each electrical service to structures on the parcel. As there are five (5) independent structures on the property sewed by the existing utilities, the enhanced reliability benefit is considered for each of the structures and is then added together. The combined enhanced reliability benefit for these parcels is 5 benefit points. DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only I Harris & Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 18 d) Removal of Obstructions to View. The location of the existing overhead utilities which will be undergrounded do not impact the primary or secondary views from the structures or outside use areas there are no benefit points assigned for this benefit factor. 2. Community Congregational Church of Tiburon A.N. 33 (Assessor's Parcel Number(APN)039-111-21) is a church site and encompasses roughly 4.87 acres. The main entrance to the site is at the upper end of Rock Hill Road, which is being undergrounded. The church receives utility services from the existing overhead utilities Rock Hill Road that will be undergrounded. Because this property is developed as a church, the special benefit that it receives is not the same as a residential parcel based on its use. a) Aesthetics Benefit. Churches are treated differently than residential parcels when determining the aesthetic benefit they receive as a result of the Undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. Unlike residential parcels,parcelsdeveloped for religious use do not see an increase in marketability to a potential purchaser as a result of the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities. This is a result of the limited number of parcels that may be on the market and as a result there is not a direct increase in the desirability of a parcel where the utilities have been undergrounded compared to a similar parcel which is served by overhead utilities. However, some benefit can be attributed to the property from improved aesthetics, and it seems reasonable to attribute the benefits to that of a single family residence. The special benefit received by a typical residential parcel is related to the undergrounding of the overhead utilities that are adjacent to the parcels frontage. A typical residential parcel within the. Assessment District has an average fi-ontage of approximately 75 feet which provides ingress/egress to the parcel along the streets where the utilities will be undergrounded and'is assigned one (1)benefit point. Therefore, based upon the frontage of this parcel in relationship to the adjacent single family residential parcels three (3)benefit points are assigned to this parcel for aesthetic benefit. u) hnproved Safety Benefit. The church property receives an improved safety benefit from the undergrounding project which will remove the fixed obstructions along the streets which provide access to the property and the potential for delay by emergency responders that will neither cross a downed power line nor set up equipment if an overhead utility line is in the way until it has been de-energized. The structures on this parcels will not benefit from the elimination of potential property damage from downed utility lines and poles since the existing overheadutilities are not located near any existing or potential future structures. Since the primary benefit for these parcels is related to the removal of the fixed obstructions along the streets used for ingress/egress, the benefit to these parcels is related to a residential property based upon the number of trips generated per day. Based upon an average of 10 trips per day for a typical residential parcel and an average of 5.0 trips per 1,000 sq. ft. per day for houses of worship and quadruple that rate for days of assembly (estimated useable building area of approximately 12,500 sq. ft.),this parcels is the equivalent of 9 residential units. Since the benefit received by this parcel is only related to the removal of the fixed obstructions and the reduction in potential delays for emergency responders. The safety benefit is reduced by 75% rather than the 50% for a residential parcel since the hours of use or occupancy are less than for residential parcels. A total of 2.25 benefit points is assigned for the safety benefit. DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only I Harris & Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017.1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 19 b) Enhanced Reliability Benefit. As there is a single structure on the property served by the existing utilities, the Enhanced Reliability Benefit is considered to be the same as for a single family home and 1.0 benefit point is assigned. c) Removal of Obstructions to View. The existing overhead utilities do not impact the primary or secondary views from the structure or outside use areas and no benefit points have been assigned for this benefit factor. 3. Belvedere Tennis Club A.N. 109 (Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 055-201-36) is a tennis club and encompasses roughly 3.61 acres. The main entrance to the site is located on Tiburon Boulevard, which has already been undergrounded. The tennis club receives utility services from the existing overhead utilities which are located within Richardson Bay Lineal Park, which is adjacent to the rear of the property. The benefit points assigned to this parcel are based upon the proposed relocation of the point of utility service from the existing overhead facilities at.the rear of the parcel to a location adjacent to Tiburon Boulevard. In addition, th'e Sanitary District has an easement on the parcel and has a small building which houses a pump station for the Sanitary District. Because this property is a not used for residential uses, it has different levels of benefit based on how it is used. a) Aesthetics Benefit. Non-residential uses on a parcel are treated differently when determining any aesthetic consideration. Since the ingress/egress to the parcel is off of Tiburon Boulevard and there are no overhead utilities adjacent to the parcel along Tiburon Boulevard it will receive no aesthetic benefit from the utilities being undergrounded. In addition as there is no requirement for vehicles to use streets where the existing overhead utilities will be undergrounded to access this parcel,zero(0)benefit points are assigned for the aesthetics benefit. b) Improved Safety Benefit. This property receives an improved safety benefit from the relocation.of the existing,overhead utilities at the rear of the property to new underground facilities within/adjacent to tile Tiburon Boulevard public right-of-way. Based upon a street frontage of 75 feet for a typical residential parcel, the 590 linear feet of overhead utilities along the rear of the parcel adjacent to the linear park is the equivalent frontage for 7.85 residential parcels. While the potential for damage to the Tennis Club's facilities exist from downed wires or poles from the existing overhead utilities, the benefit is less than for residential uses since the improvements which would be damaged would be limited to fencing andancillary structures around the tennis courts. Since the parcel will not benefit from the removal of the fixed obstructions along the streets within the District and the potential for delay by emergency responders that will neither cross a downed power line nor set up equipment if an overhead utility line is in the way until it has been de-energized, the safety benefit is reduced by fifty percent(50%)which results in the assignment of 3.925 benefit points for the improved safety benefit. c) Enhanced Reliability Benefit. There are two (2) services on the property served by the existing utilities, the enhanced reliability benefit is based upon the number of services and 2.0 benefit points are assigned. In addition, there is a pump station owned by the DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017.1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 20 Richardson Bay Sanitary District that is located within an easement on A.N, 104 (Belvedere Tennis Club) that is served by the existing overhead utilities. The undergrounding of the existing utilities serving the pump station will provide enhanced reliability. One (1) benefit point has been assigned for the enhanced reliability benefit for that use. d) Removal of Obstructions to View. The existing overhead utilities which are adjacent to the parcel along the Linear Park Trail impact the views of Richardson Bay from the clubhouse and outside use areas. Based upon a street frontage of 75 feet for a typical residential parcel, within the Assessment District, the 590 linear feet of overhead utilities adjacent to the linear park is the equivalent of the frontage for 7.85 residential parcels. A total of 1.963 benefit points have been assigned. This represents 20% of the total benefit points that would be assigned to the equivalent number of residential parcels since the Assessment Engineer has determined that special benefit received by the parcel will be significantly less than a residential parcel with a similar impact to its primary viewshed. This is based Upon a finding that the undergrounding„of the existing Utilities will have a much smaller impact on the desirability of the parcel to a potential purchaser when compared to the impact that the undergrounding of the existing utilities has on residential parcels. Vacant Properties For purposes of calculating the benefit received from the utility undergrounding project, a vacant parcel is considered developed to its highest potential and connected to the system. The following is a brief discussion of the vacant property within this District. For A.N. 24, Assessor's Parcel Number(APN) 039-111-55) a map to sub-divide this parcel into two (2) parcels has been submitted to the Town and the parcel has a high potential for residential development. Since it is likely that two (2) residences will be constructed on the parcel once sub- division has been approved,benefit points are assigned to this parcel based upon the future subdivision of the parcel for residential use. Since the new parcels will obtain utility services fi-om the existing Utilities located on Via Pariso, no benefit points will be assigned for the enhanced reliability benefit. Benefit points have been assigned to this parcel for the aesthetics, improved safety and primary view enhancement benefits based upon the level of development (2 residential units) that would be permitted as described in the previous section. Properties Excluded''from Assessment In addition to the parcels described above, there are three (3) parcels within the boundaries of the District that do not receive a special benefit from the undergrounding project and therefore have not been assigned benefit points. The reasoning is as follows: 1. A.N. 55B (APN 055-183-30) is a sliver parcel that cannot be developed and, as such will not benefit from the improvements. 2. A.N. 115B (APN 055-201-32) is a sliver parcel that cannot be developed and, as such will not benefit from the improvements. DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017.1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 21 3. A.N. 1 1713 (APN 055-201-25) is a sliver parcel that serves as a private roadway to serve A.N 117A (APN 055-201-02) and it cannot be further developed. As such, this parcel will not receive a benefit frorn the improvements. ASSESSMENT APPORTIONMENT The special benefit received by parcels within the Assessment District has been weighted according to the betterment received by them based upon a weighting of the benefits as shown below: District Aesthetics Benefit 20% Safety Benefit 10%` Enhanced Reliability Benefit 10% View Enhancement 60% The weighting shown is based upon the judgement and experience of the Assessment Engineer, a field review of the parcels within the Assessment District by the Assessment Engineer, public testimony and by the confirmation of this report by the Town Council based upon the absence of a majority protest. The amount to be assessed to each parcel within the Assessment District that receives a special benefit has been apportioned to each parcel in proportion to the benefit points assigned to the parcel as a percentage of the total benefit points for each benefit factor. The general benefit derived fioinn the iinnprovernents as calculated in this -report have been removed from the total amount to be assessed. The assessment on each parcel does not exceed the costs of the proportional special benefit conferred on the parcel. There are no publically owned parcels within the boundaries of the Assessment District. Incidental Expenses and Financial Costs have been assessed to the entire Assessment District on a pro rata basis relative to the total construction cost allocations. The assessment to be levied upon each parcel is shown in Exhibit 1. The individual assessment calculations are provided in Appendix A. DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 22 Exhibit 1 Assessment Roll Assessor's Total True ExistingAssessments as Assessments Value-to-Lien Asmt No. 1 Preliminarily as Confirmed Parcel Number Value Liens Ratio Approved and Recorded 1 055-222-06 $891,025 NA $115,320.53 7.7 :1 2 055-222-05 $943,299 NA $115,320.53 8.2 :1 3 055-222-04 $569,407 NA $85,418.72 6.7 :1 4 055-222-03 $1,470,469 NA $40,566.99 36.2 :1 5 055-222-07 $2,807,810 NA $85,418.72 32.9 :1 6 055-222-08 $2,083,330 NA $100,369.62 20.8 :1 7 055-222-09 $111,812 NA $160,173.26 0.7 :1 8 055-222-10 $315,064 NA $160,173.26 2.0 :1 9 055-222-11 $686,834 NA $100,369.62 6.8 :1 10 055-222-12 $690,576 NA $115,320,53 6.0 :1 11 055-222-13 $115,951 NA $70,467.81 1.6 :1 12 055-222-14 $453,520 NA,,:- $70,467.81 6.4 :1 13 055-222-15 $1,810,744 NA $70,467.81 25.7 :1 14 055-222-18 ;;$683,785 NA $70,467.81 9.7 :1 15 055-222-19 $1,353,2641 NA $70,467.81 19.2 :1 16 055-253-22` $825,935,' NA $97,448.21 8.5 :1 17 055-253-21 $731,592 NA $97,448.21 7.5 :1 18 .055-221-01 $1,123,091 NA $100,369.62 11.2 :1 19 055-221-02' .. $587,922 NA $100,369.62 5.9 :1 20 .' 055-221-03 $128,609 NA $100,369.62 1.3 :1 21 055-221-04 $111,812 NA $100,369.62 1.1 :1 22 055-221-05 $163,250 NA $100,369.62 1.6 :1 23 039-151-52; $7,827,681 NA $72,031.15 108.7 :1 24 039-151-55. $62,187 NA $111,073.05 0.6 :1 25 039-151-47 $2,638,220 NA $70,467.81 37.4 :1 26 039-151-37 $271,819 NA $100,369.62 2.7 :1 27 039-151-54 $3,905,666 NA $95,708.41 40.8 :1 28 039-151-24 $1,539,079 NA $160,173.26 9.6 :1 29 039-151-23 $1,178,254 NA $160,173.26 7.4 :1 30 039-151-22 $2,996,295 NA $100,369.62 29.9 :1 DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris & Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 23 Assessor's Total True Existing Assessments as Assessments Value-to-Lien Asmt No. 1 Preliminarily as Confirmed Parcel Number Value Liens Ratio Approved and Recorded 31 039-151-21 $2,334,059 NA $160,173.26 14.6 :1 32 039-111-22 $1,323,805 NA $160,173.26 8.3 :1 33 039-111-21 $830,641 NA $94,166.02 8.8 :1 34 039-152-04 $1,853,708 NA $70,467.81 26.3 :1 35 039-152-03 $2,342,604 NA $70,467.81 33.2 :1 36 039-152-02 $376,745 NA $70,467.81 5.3 :1 37 039-152-01 $2,590,984 NA $70,467.81. 36.8 :1 38 055-211-32 $1,425,058 NA $95,708.41 : 14.9 :1 39 055-211-31 $3,689,175 NA $95,708.41 38.5 :1 40 055-211-17 $2,834,626 NA $95,708.41 29.6 :1 41 055-211-16 $915,179 NA $110,659.32 8.3 :1 42 055-211-15 $1,083,077 NA $190,075.07 5.7 :1 43 055-211-02 $1,503,439 NA $175,124.16 8.6 :1 44 055-211-03 $1,491,162 NA $175,124.16 8.5 :1 45 055-211-04 $322,758 NA $160,173.26 2.0 :1 46 055-211-05 $1,372,745 NA $175,124.16 7.8 :1 47 055-211-06 $1,094,841 NA $100,369.62 10.9 :1 48 055-211-07,. $1,978,690; NA $100,369.62 19.7 :1 49 055-211=08 $199,573NA $100,369.62 2.0 :1 50 055-183-28 $643,971 NA $100,369.62 6.4 :1 51 055483-27'' $1,584,315 NA $100,369.62 15.8 :1 52 055-183-26 $1,309,013 NA $100,369.62 13.0 :1 S3 055-183-25 $869,577 NA $70,467.81 12.3 :1 54 055-183-24 $1,285,564 NA $70,467.81 18.2 :1 55A * 055"183-23 $703,975 NA $85,418.72 8.2 :1 55B * 055-181-30; $1 NA $0.00 0.0 :1 56 055-183-29 $959,584 NA $85,418.72 11.2 :1 57 055-183-21' $167,188 NA $85,418.72 2.0 :1 58 055-183-20 $2,912,644 NA $85,418.72 34.1 :1 59 055-183-19 $1,143,532 NA $100,369.62 11.4 :1 60 055-183-18 $216,242 NA $100,369.62 2.2 :1 61 055-183-17 $190,283 NA $100,369.62 1.9 :1 62 055-183-16 $483,174 NA $100,369.62 4.8 :1 DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris & Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 24 Assessor's Total True Existing Assessments as Assessments Value-to-Lien Asmt No. 1 Preliminarily as Confirmed Parcel Number Value Liens Ratio Approved and Recorded 63 055-183-15 $628,098 NA $70,467.81 8.9 :1 64 055-183-14 $1,367,902 NA $70,467.81 19.4 :1 65 055-183-13 $1,116,930 NA $115,320.53 9.7 :1 66 055-182-11 $1,203,974 NA $115,320.53 10.4 :1 67 055-182-12 $173,527 NA $115,320.53 1.5 :1 68 055-182-13 $754,734 NA $115,320.53 6.5 :1 69 055-182-14 $778,406 NA $115,320.53 . 6.7 :1 70 055-182-15 $1,355,266 NA $115,320.53 11.8 :1 71 055-182-16 $1,001,081 NA $115,320.53 8.7 :1 72 055-212-01 $1,363,987 NA $115,320.53 11.8 :1 73 055-212-02 $111,812 NA $115,320.53 1.0 :1 74 055-212-03 $1,504,600 NA $115,320.53 13.0 :1 75 055-212-04 $818,570 NA $115,320.53' 7.1 :1 76 055-212-05 $1,250,723 NA $115,320.53 10.8 :1 77 055-212-06 $85,921 NA $100,369.62 0.9 :1 78 055-212-07 $409,352 NA $100,369.52 4.1 :1 79 055-212-08 $1,192,408 NA $100,369.62' 11.9 :1 80 055-212-09,;' $1,690,525, NA $100,369.62 16.8 :1 81 055-212-10 $125,905 NA $100,369.62 1.3 :1 82 055-191-01 $409,670 NA $160,173.26 2.6 :1 83 055-191-02 $2,092,251 NA $160,173.26 13.1 :1 84 055-191-03 $1,689,533z NA $160,173.26 10.5 :1 85 055-191-04 $203,495 NA $100,369.62 2.0 :1 86 055-191-05 $1,542,164 NA $100,369.62 15.4 :1 87 055-191-06 $131,232 NA $100,369.62 1.3 :1 88 055-191-07 $1,239,528 NA $100,369.62 12.3 :1 89 05519108' $2,284,359 NA $160,173.26 14.3 :1 90 055191-09 $1,484,560 NA $100,369.62 14.8 :1 91 055-191-10 $549,150 NA $100,369.62 5.5 :1 92 055-191-11 $2,819,402 NA $160,173.26 17.6 :1 93 055-191-24 $1,708,726 NA $115,320.53 14.8 :1 94 055-191-13 $127,347 NA $115,320.53 1.1 :1 95 055-191-14 $1,541,496 NA $115,320.53 13.4 :1 DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 25 Assessor's Total True Existing Assessments as Assessments Value-to-Lien Asmt No. , Preliminarily as Confirmed Parcel Number Value Liens Ratio Approved and Recorded 96 055-191-15 $134,405 NA $115,320.53 1.2 :1 97 055-191-16 $148,531 NA $85,418.72 1.7 :1 98 055-191-17 $364,917 NA $85,418.72 4.3 :1 99 055-191-18 $766,002 NA $115,320.53 6.6 :1 100 055-191-19 $145,497 NA $115,320.53 1.3 :1 101 055-191-20 $960,800 NA $115,320.53 8.3 :1 102 055-191-21 $170,841 NA $115,320.531- 1.5 :1 103 055-191-22 $1,286,885 NA $115,320.53 : 11.2 :1 104 055-191-23 $107,906 NA $115,320.53, 0.9 :1 105 055-213-01 $834,164 NA $115,320.53 ` 7.2 :1 106 055-213-02 $978,575 NA $115,320.53 8.5 :1 107 055-213-03 $1,049,313 NA $115,320.53 9.1 :1 108 055-213-04 $1,183,495 NA $115,320.53 10.3 :1 109 055-201-36 $2,246,216 NA $302,189.81 7.4 :1 110 055-201-14 $563,603 NA $25,418.03 22.2 :1 111 055-201-35 $155,348 NA $20,282.99 7.7 :1 112 055-201-34 $1,294,497 NA $35,904.7$= 36.1 :1 113 055-201-09, $1,682,597: NA $35,233.90 47.8 :1 114 055-201-33 $320,802NA $35,233.90 9.1 :1 115A * 055-201-31 $1,005,553 NA $35,233.90 28.5 :1 115B * 055-201-32 $1 NA $0.00 0.0 :1 116.''"" 055-201-01 $4,367,962 NA $70,467.81 62.0 :1 117A *' 055-201-02 $108,709 NA $50,855.69 2.1 :1 117B * 055 201 25 $965 NA $0.00 0.0 :1 118 055-171-12 $1,848,821 NA $50,855.69 36.4 :1 119 055171-11;. $265,359 NA $55,516.90 4.8 :1 120 055-171-13 $3,566,704 NA $40,565.99 87.9 :1 Total $141,425,336 $12,426,795.68 11.4 :1 'Value shown on the Mari n County Assessor's Office,Property Assess me nt Rol I for Tax Year 203 6-17. DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris & Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017.1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 26 Exhibit 2 Debt Limit Valuation A. ESTIMATED BALANCE TO ASSESSMENT $12,426,796 B. UN PAI D SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS $0 TOTAL A&B $12,426,796 C. TRUE VALUE OF PARCELS '$1.41,425,336 ** AVERAGE VALUE-TO-LIEN RATIO 114 : 1 * Unpaid Special Assessments shall consist of the total principal sum of all,',unpaid special assessments previously levied or proposed to be levied other than in the instant proceedings. ** True Value of Parcels means the total valise of the land and iiiiprouements as estimated and shown on the last equalized roll of the County or as otherwise reasonably calculated. This report does not represent a recommendation of parcel'Value,, economic viability or financial feasibility, as that is not the responsibility of the Assessment Engineer. DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 27 Part IV Annual Administrative Assessment A proposed maxin-uun annual administrative assessment shall be levied on each parcel of land and subdivision of land within the Assessment District to pay for necessary costs and expenses incurred by the TOWN OF TIBURON, and not otherwise reimbursed, resulting from the administration and collection of assessments, from the administration or registration of any bonds and reserve or other related funds, or both. The maximum assessment is authorized pursuant to the provisions of Section 10204(f)of the Streets and Highways Code and shall not exceed fifty do,llars,( 0)per parcel per year, subject to an annual increase based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), during the preceding year ending in January, for all Urban Consurners in the San Francisco-pakland,San Jose areas. The exact amount of the administration charge will be established each year by the` 6Wn Engineer. The annual administrative assessment will be collected in the same manner and iia the.same installments as the assessment levied to pay for the cost of the works of improvement. DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 28 Part V Boundary Map and Diagram of Assessment District A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram is provided as Appendix B. Full-sized copies of the Boundary Map and Assessment Diagram are on file in the Office of the Town Clerk, of the Town of Tiburon. As required by the Act, the Assessment Diagram shows the exterior boundaries of the Assessment District and the assessment number assigned to each parcel of land corresponding to its number as it appears in the Assessment Roll contained in Part III Table 1. The Assessor's Parcel Number is also shown for each parcel as they existed at the time of the passage:of th Q Resolution of Intention and reference is hereby made to the Assessor's Parcel Maps of the County of Marin for the boundaries and dimensions of each parcel of land. DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only I Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 29 Part A Description of Facilities Section 10 100 ofthe Act provides for the legislative body of any municipality to finance certain capital facilities and services within or along its streets or any public way or easement. The following is a list of proposed improvements as allowed under the Act to be installed, or improved under the provisions of the Act, including the acquisition of required right-of-way and/or property. For the general location of the improvements to be constructed referenced is hereby made to,the Plans and Specifications described in Part I of this report. The following improvements are proposed to be constructed,and installed in the general location referred to as the Town of Tiburon Assessment District No. 2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) and will include: 1. Construction of mainline underground power, telephone 'ad cable conduit, with appurtenant manholes, pull boxes and surface-located transfooiwrs and'like structures. 2. Construction of service conduit and appurtenances to'-property line. 3. Installation of new conductor within said conduit and unclexground structures by the utility companies. 4. Installation of replacement street lights. 5. Removal of existing Overhead power,telephone and cable wires,poles and streetlights. The improvements will be designed by PG&E, AT&T, Comcast, and the Town of Tiburon (joint trench). The Town of"Tiburon,w ill inspect the work to ensure conformance to Town ordinances, rules, warrants, regulations, standards and specifications, where applicable. Each owner of property located within the Assessment District will be responsible for arranging for and paying for work on his or her property necessary to connect facilities constructed by the public Utilities in the public streets and alleys to the points of connection on the private property. Conversion of individual service connections on private property is not included in the work to be funded by the Assessment District. The estimated time for completion of the Undergrounding of the utilities is 36 months after the formation of Assessment District. Construction is estimated to begin approximately 24 months after the formation of the Assessment District. Property owners will be required to provide necessary underground connections within 120 days of the completion of the underground facilities. DRAFT--- For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017.1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 30 Right-of-Way Certificate STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MARIN TOWN OF TIBURON The undersigned hereby CERTIFIES UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the following is all true and correct. That at all time herein mentioned, the undersigned was, and'DOW is, the authorized representative of the duly appointed TOWN ENGINEER of the TOWN OF TIBURON, CALIFORNIA. That there have now been instituted proceedings unde'rthe.provisions,of Article XIIID of the California Constitution, and the "Municipal Improvements Act oft; 13," being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the coil structiozx,of certain public improvements in a special assessment district known and designated as ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. XXXX-XX (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"). THE UNDERSIGNED STATES AND CERTIFIES AS FELLOWS: All easements or right-of-way necessary for the constructions and installation of the public improvements of the Assessment District either hav ,been obtained or are in process of being obtained and will be obtained and in the possession of the affected utility company, the Town, the County of Marin or the State of California prior to commencement of the construction and installation of such public improvements. EXECUTED this day of 2017, at TOWN OF TIBURON, CALIFORNIA. TOWN ENGINEER TOWN OF TIBURON STATE OF CALIFORNIA By: DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris & Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Page 31 Certificate of Completion of Environmental Proceedings STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MARIN TOWN OF TIBURON The undersigned, under penalty of perjury, CERTIFIES as follows: I. That I am the person who is authorized to prepare and process all envirom»ental documentation as needed as it relates to the formation of the special Assessment District being formed pursuant to the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913" being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special Assessment District known and designated as the TOWN OF TIBURON ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2017-1 (HAWTHORNE UNDERG,ROUNDING DISTRICT) (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"). 2. The specific environmental proceedings relating to: this Assessinent District that have been completed are as follows: CEQA compliance review: The proposed project is subject to CEQA review. An Initial Study has been prepared. Since the undergrounding of the utilities in their present aligninent could have a significant effect on the environment, a revision to the project has been made'or agreed by the project proponent to relocate the existingutilities so that there will not be a significant effect. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is being prepared for approval and certification by the Town. 3. 1 do hereby certify that all environmental evaluation proceedings necessary for the formation of the Assessment District have been completed to any satisfaction,and that no further environmental proceedings'are necessary. EXECUTED this day of 2017, at TOWN OF TIBURON, CALIFORNIA. By: TOWN OF TIBURON STATE OF CALIFORNIA DRAFT-- For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.20171 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Appendix A Appendix A Assessment Calculations Assessor's Primary Secondary Primary 5 dry Aesthetics Safety Reliability Primary Secondary Aesth t Safety i R liahility Total Asmt No. Parcel No. View View View View I Benefit { Beneft B eft Vew V Benefit Benefit i Benefit Assessment Property Address (AN) (APN) TypeType Enhancement Enhancement- F.Cor 1 F—r Factor Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment Amount 700 HAWTHORNE OR 1 055-222-06 Medium Low 0.500 1 0.125 1 1.000 1.000 1000 559,604::..� 514,9Si k $20,973 59,322 ! 510,270 $115.321 710 HAWTHORNE DR �� 2 055-222-05 Medium Low 0.500 0.125 1.000 I 1.000 1.000 559,804 $14,951 j $20,973 59,322 510,270 5715,321 730 HAWTHORNE DR 3 055-222 04 Low Low 0.250 j 0.125 1.000 ( 1000 .::1000 529,902 $14,951 520,973 $9,322 J_ $10,270 585,419` ...... _. .-.. .._.__ _._ ___ __ _... 74171BURON BLVD 4 055-22203 N N _0000 0.000 1000 i 1000 { "1000 $0 i $0 $20973 59322 $10270 $40567 t ` ._... 757 HAWTHORNE DR 5__ OSS-222-07 -—L L w 0.250 0.125 Co.1. 1000 1000 $29,902 r $14,951 ' $20973 : $9,322 $10 270 $85,419 735 HAWTHORNE DR j 6 055-222 08 M d 1 _ um Non 0.500 0.x00 1.000 i 1.000 1000 $59,804 I $0 $20973 $9,322 $10,270 $100,370 725 HAWTHORNE DR 7 055-22209 High N 1000 0.000 1.000 5000 1000 5119607 t $0 1 ::520973 59,322 110,270 1160,173 ...... ... ..... ....J .. ... .... ...__._ .... ..._. '. .....__ ... __.. .. ..._._. ...... .. ....... 731 HAWTHORNE DR 8 05522210 High N 1000 0000 1.000 j 1000 1000 $119607 1 $0 M $20973 $9322 $10270 5160173 _....._.. ___._... ........ ._.__.. ....__r ..... .__ _._. ......... .___. ___ 705 HAWTHORNE OR i 9 055-222-11 Medi None 0.500 1 O.00D 1.000 ( 1.000 :1000 $59,804 $0 $70973 $9,322 $10170 5100370 700 HILARY DR —� 10 055-22212 Medium Low osoD ! 0,125 1.000 1000 �µ :1.000 $59,804 $14,951 $20,973 $9,322 $10,270 $115,321 730 HILARY DR j Ili 055-22213 NoneM drum 0.000 i D.25D 1.000 1.000 1 1.D00 $0 $29,902 $20973 $9,322 $10,270 $70,468 720 HILARY DR 1 12 055-222-14 Nor. Medium 0000 0.250 1.000 1.000 0 50 $29,902 $20973 $9322 $10,270 $70468 730 HILARY DR WI 13. OSS-222-15 N Med, m 0 000 0.25D 1.000 1 000 1,000 $0 $29,902 $20,973 59,322 510,270 57D,468 .._.. _..-.. 740 HILARY DR 14 055-222-18 None M d um 0.000 D.250 1000 1.000 I 1.000 $0 $29,902 $20,973 $9,322 111,171 $70 458 _._ .... -_ ._.. ....... _..-.. _._. . .,.. ..... - _.-_..._ E__ _ ....,... _. _... .... .. _ 750 HILARYDR 15 05522219 N Md 0000 0.250 1.000 5000 j 1000 50 $29902 $20973 $9,322 I $10270 $70468 _._ ._... ._ ------ _._ _ __..._..... 761 HILARY DR 16 - 05525322 None None 0.000 0.000 I 1.000 6000 i :.7000 50 $D $70973 5'5.935 $10540 S97,448 _._ _ --------- 761 HILARY DR 17 055-25321 N N e 0000 0.000 1.1700 6.000 2.000 W 4 ... .... .. ._..... ...._.. ....-. _. _... ._._.._... ......... .... ..___.._.. .._. ---- .._ 50 $D 520973 a5935 520540 $97648 ]4S HILARY DR 18 055-22101 Medum .None 0.500 0.000 1.000 11.000 1000 I 1 559,804 $0 $20973 $9,322 $10,270 5100,370 735 HILARY DR 19 055-221-02 Medium Non, 0.500 0.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 $59,804 $0 $20973 $9,322 I $10,270 5100,370 ]2S HILARY DR 20 055-22103 Med— Nae 0500 .0.000 1000 1 1000 1.000 $59,804 $0 $20973 $9,322 $10,270 510(),370 _...__._..- J___.__ «-._.._ _ 715 HItARY DR 21 055 221 04 Medium Nor, 0,500 0.000 1,000 1.000 1000 559,804 $0 1 $20,973 59,322 1 510,270 $100,370 . 705 HILARY DR 22 055-221-05 Medium None 0,500 0.000 1:000 1 1.000 1 1.000 SS9,804 50 $20973 $9,322 1 $10,270 5700,370 765 HILARY DR 23 __ 039-15152 None None _ 0000 0000 0.000 6.625 1 1.000 $0 50 50 ! 561,761 $10,270 $72,031 24 039-151-55 Low None 0.500 j 0.000 2,000 1 1.000 0,000 559,804 $0 $41,947 59,322 SO 5111,073 146 ROCK HILLRD 25 039-15147 How None 0.250 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 $29,902 $D 520,973 $9,322 $10,270 570,468 ........... 149 ROCK Hi LL RD 26 039-151-37 Medium Nnne 0.500 0:000 1.000 1000 1 1.000 $59,904 i $0 111,171 59,322 510,270 5100,370 1.. ._ ...__J ._.__.... -. ..._.... r.. .....-.... 150 ROCK HILL RD 1 27 039-15154 M,h,um t No e 0.500 0.000 ' 1.000 0,500 1.000 559,804 $0 $20973 54,661 $10,270 $95,709 154 ROCK HI LLRD 1 28 03915124 Hg N c 1000 0.000 1.000 1000 I 1000 5119,6D7 $0 $20,973 59,322 $10,270 5.60,173 _. __. _. __._... 160 ROCK Hili RD 29 039-15123 High None _:000 0.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 $119,607 50 $10,973 $9,322 $10770 5160,173 _.. ......_.. __....__.. ..__.__.. __........... .__..-..-- .....__ ... ........._.... -------------- _ .. _...._.-_..� _.. ... .. ...___._ ....-... t.... __.._........ ._...___ ....._....._._. .. _........... 166 ROCKHILLRD 30 03915122 Medi Um_ None 0500. 0.000 t 1.000 1,000 ! 1.000 559,804 1 50i $20,973 59,322 $10270 5100,370 168 ROCK HILL RD 31 039-15121 High None i.000 0.000 1.000 1000 1.000 $119607 $0 1 $20,973 $9,322 $10,270 S160,173 170 ROCK HILL RD _ 32 039-111-22 High None 1.000 0.000 1000 1000 1.000 $119,607 $0 $20973 $9,322 510,270 $160,173 145 ROCK HILL RD 33 039-11121 Nonc Norio OD00 0.000 3.000 2.250 I 1000 $0 50 $62,920 $20,975 $10,270 $94,166 159 ROCK HILL RD - 34... 039152 04 Nmro Medium 0000 0.250 1.000 1.000 1.000 50 1 $29,902 $20,973 $9.322 $10 270 570,468 155 ROCK HILL RD 35 039-152-03 None Med'Um 0.000 0.250 1.000 1.000 1.000 $0 $29,902 520,973 $9,322 $10,270 $70668 DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only � Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Appendix A Assessor's Primary Secondary Primary i Secondary Aesthetic Safety Reliability Primary ! secondary Aesthetics Safety Reliability Total Asmt No. Parcel No. View View V ew View Benef t Benefit i Benefit V V ew i Benef t Benef t Benefit Assessment Property Address (ANS ! (APNI Type Type Enhancement I Enhancement Factor Factor Factor Assessment Assessment Asses ent Assessment Assessment Amount 115 ROCK HI LL RD ! 36 T 039-15202 hm,.eI_ medium 0.000 0.250 1.000 1.000 1.000 $0 -'$29,902 i $20973 0 59,322 1 $10270 $70,468 105 ROCK HILL RD 37 039-152-01 None Med I um 0.000 0.250 1.000 1 1000 1000 $0 $29,902 $20 973 $9 322 $10,270 $70 468 .__. .....-. ..._.. .._. .. .. ... kkk 50 DELMAR DR 1 38 OSS 211 32 M d N.- 0.500 ! 0.000 1 000 j 0,500 1 000 f 1 ..... . ........ .._..._I ........ !- .._ $S9 R04 ...-.._._$0 ........$20 973 $4,661 510,270 .- - $95,709 -. ...... _ .. n._...._ .._...-_. ..... ..__._.......__ ... _._._._..___ 40 DELMAR DR 39 055-211-31 M d' N 0.500 0.000 1.000i $59,804 i $0 $20,973 S4,661 1 $10,270 $95,708 30 DELMAR DR i 40 1 055-211-17 MedlIum None 0.500 0.000 1.000 i 0,500 1,000 $59,804 W $0 f $20,973 11,611 1 $10 270 59S,708 ....... _... -.__.. ....... _ ..... .. ...... ...._._ ...._ 1. ..... _ _ _ 20 DELMAR DR 1 41 1 055-211-16 Med' L 0.500 0.1 - 1 000 0.500 1.000 $S9,304 $14 951 $20,973 SC 661 ' $107 270 5110 659 ..._ .. _... ._._ .... .. .. _ .___ ..... _ 1. ..... i f ... 93 ROCK HILL RD ! 42 055-211-1S High Medium 1.000 0.250 1.000 1 1000 1 1.000 $119,607 f $29,902 t $20 9]3 I 59 322 ! $10,270 1111,171 499 HIlARY DR e3 055-21102 Hgh lw 1.000 0.125 1.000 1.000 1000 $119,601 $14,951 t $217973 59322 510270 $ 75,124 i� _ 697 HILARY DR 44 055-211-03 High Low 1.000 iWW 0.125 IDDO 1.000 1.000 $119,607 k $14,951 ,..$20973 0 $9322 $117270 $175124 695 HILARY DR 45 05521104 High None 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1,000 : $119,607 I $0 '$20973 i $9,322 $10,270 $160,173 ........ ......, r., I _ 693 HILARY DR 46 05521105 High _ Lw 1.000 0.125 11 1.000 1 1.000 1000 $119,607 t�� $20973 +` $9,322 (� $10,270 V $175124 691 HIIARY DR ! 47 055 211 06 Medium Nonc 0.500 j 0.000 1.000 1 1 000 1000 V V V Y- -- 0 -1-- $59,804 $0 $20973 $9,322 $10270 $100370 689 HILARY DR 48 105521107 Medium N e 0.500 0.000 1.000 1 1.000 1000 $59,804 50 120973 $9,322 $10,270 5100370 687 HILARY DR 49 055 211 08 Medium N 0.500 0.000 1.000 2.000 v100D $59,804 $0 120973 $9,322 $10,270 $100,370 .....- .. _-_ .._.. .. .........__-.-. _ .......... 685 HILARY DR so 05518328 Md-um N 0500 0.000 1000 1 1000 1000 '. `$59 $C,804 $20973 $9,322 $10,270 $100,370 683 HILARY DR 51 055-18377 Med,um e 0.500 0000 1:000 ..1000 1.000 $59804 $0 $20973 ! $9322 $10770 5100,370 __ ... - 681HILARY OR 52 1 055-183-26 Medium None 0.500 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 $59;804 $D $20973 $9,322 $10,270 $100,370 4 MARAVI STA CT 3 1 055-18325 None M d- m 0.000 0.250 1000 1,000 1,000 50 $29,902 $20973 59,322 $10270— $70468 12 MARAVISTA CT 54 1 055-18324 None Me d'u m 00000250 1000. 2000 1000 50 $29,902 20973 9.322 $70,65.. $ $10 270 4 14 MARAVISTACT i SSA055-183-23 Low Low 0.250 0.125 1.000 1,000 1.000 $29,902 514,951 $20973 $9,322 $10,270 585419 14 MARAVI STA CT SSB' 1 OSS-18330 N c N . 000 1 0.000 $D $D + $0 ;._ - $0 $0 SO No" 0000 a.000 0000 0 L____ -- --- - -- — -- - - — — — ------i-- - 20 MARAVI STA CT 56 1 055-18329 Lo L 0250 t :0125 1.000 1.000 1.000 $29902 $14,951 $20,973 1. $9,322 ! $10,270 $85419 24 MARAVI STA CT 57 055-18321 Low Low : 0.250 0.125 1.040 1.000 1.000 $29,902 i $14,951 $24,973 $9,322 $$30,270 $85419 -_.._..-_ .._..._. 27 MARAVISTA CT 58 055-183-20 lowLow 0,250 :0.125 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 $29,902 $14,951 $20973 $9,322 $10,270 $85,419 25 MARAVI STA C 59 055-18319 M d- N e 0.500 0:000 1.000 .1000 1.000 $59,804 $0 $20973 $9,322 $10,270 5100,370 ..._ __ ___....._ .____._�...-,._ _ __.-.. ....__.. ...... ...._.._ 21 MARAVI STA CT 60 055-183-18 M d N— 0:500 I 0.000 1.000 i 2.000 � 1000 559,804 $0 i $20973 ! 59,322 i $10,270 5100,370 I 17 MARAVI STA CT 61 055-18317 Med Noe 0.500 I OD00 1.000 1.000 i lo00 $59,804 $0 $20,973 j 59,322 $10,270 5100,370 I «� 13 MARAVI STA CT 62 055-13316 Medium None 0.500 1 0.000 1.000 1000 t. 1000 $59804 $0 520,973 59,322 510,270 5100370 .."_.i ...._..... ...._._._ ..._ _.__ ......... _..._. .._.. .- _...._..._ l .._._.... ....__.. 9 MARAVI STA CT 63 055-183-is None M dum .0.000 0.250 1.0001000 1 1000 50 $29,902 $20,973 $9,322 1 $10,270 $7046R ........ ....... SMARAVISTACT 64 05S 183-14 Nonc Medium OD00 0.250 ,... 1.000 1000 1.000 $0 4 $29,902 $20,973^ $9,322 $10,270 $70468 —_- 1MARAVISTACT 65 05518313 MC'um Low 0500 0.125 1.000 1000 1.000 559,804 $14,951 520,973 1 $9,322 $10,270 $._5,322 478 HILARY OR 66 055-18211 Medium low 0.500 0.125 1.000 t 1.000 1.000 $59,804 $14,951 $20,973 $9,322 $10,270 511.5,321 680 HILARY DR 67 055-18772 M'dium Low 0.500 0.125 1,000 1 1.000 1,000 $59,804 , $14,951 520,973 $9,327 $10270 S.In,321 682 HILARY OR 68 ! 055-182-13 Med um Low 0:500 0.125 1.000 1.000 1.000 $59,804 514,951 520,973 $9,322 $10,270 5..5,321 684 HILARY DR 69 _ 055-13214 Mdium Low 0.500 0.125 ! 7.000 j 1.000 j 1.000 $59,804 ! 514,951 $20,973 1 S9,322 $10270 $11521 636 HIIARV DR 70 ~-055-182-15 Medium Low 0.500 1 0.125 li 1.000 ! 1.000 1.000 $59,804 $14,951 520,973 $9,322 $10,270 $115,321 DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only � Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Appendix A Assessor's Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Aesthetic j Safety E Reliability Primary Secondary Aesthetics j Safety j Reliability Total Asmt No. Parcel No. View View View View Benefit Benefit J Benefit View View Benefit I Benelt Benefit Assessment Property Address JAN) JAPN) Type Tye Enhancement I Enhancement Factor FaRor Factor Assessment ::�. '.Asse55ment Assessment I Assessment Assessment Amount 688 HILARY DR 71 055-18216 M�di.mLow 0.500 0.125 1.000 1.000 ` 1.000 $59804 1 $14,951 r $70973 i $9,322 $10270 $115,321 .... -_. ... ...... .._._. .....- .-. E. ..... .] ._ 690 HILARY DR 1 72 i DSS-212-01 Medium e Low 0,500 I 0.125 I 1 000 1.000 J 1 000 $59,804 $14 951 $C 973 $9,322, j $10,270 $115,321 . ...... ... .... - .... .-.1-:1-Il- ....-- 692 HILARY DR j 73 05521202 Md L 0,500 0.125 1.000 1.000 i 1.000 $59,804.. $14,951 $20973 $9322 $10270 $115,321 ...... = ..... 4 .... ..._.. .. 694 HILARY DR 74 05521203 Md o L 0500 0125 1000 1.000 J 1000 $59804 $14,951 4 $0973 $9322 $10,270 5115,321 ...... _.) ..... .. . _ I_ - -1 ._�. .-- ... __..... 696 HILARY DR 75 055-212-04 Medium t 0. ( 0,121 ` 1.000 I 1.000 1 000 $59,804 $14,951 $0,973 I 59,322 r $10,270 5115,321 ... ...... T -._ ...... ._.. .. _ .. ... . F.... 3ROCK HILL RD 76 05521205 Md L 0.500 0.125 1.000 1.000 ! .'1000 $59804 $14951 $-0,973 $9,322 j $10270 $115,321 _.-. .. ... .. .... ...... ._ .. ....... ..__._.._... ..... .. _ ......_...._ . .......... ._....... .... ...... _ f ... 699 HAWTHORNE DR V� i 77 1 055-21206 Medium None 0.500 0.000 1.000 {( 1.000 1.000 $59,804 $0 $20973 $9322 ( $10270 $100370 I 697 HA..... EOR 78 I 055212-07 Med' m N e 0.0 u ' S 0 0.000 j 1.000 I 1,000 1.000 $59,804 $0 $ 0973 1 $9,322 $10,270 5 100,370 695 HAWTHORNE DR 79 1 055-21208 Medium _ N e 0.500 i, 0.000 1.000 E 1..000 1.000 $59,804 1 $0 ..$20973 I $9,322 $1D,270 $100370 693 HAWTHORNE DR 80 055-212-09 Mcd'um None 0.5000 coo ( 1.000 E 1000 1 000 $59,804 $0 $20,973 $9,322 $10,270 5100 370 691 HAWTHORNE DR 81 OSS-21210 Medium None 0.500 0.000 1 1.000 ` 1000 ` 1000 $59,804 f $0 $20,973 $9,322 510,270 $100370 ....... .. .__ 689 HAWTHORNE DR ( 82 05519101 High N 1.000 li 0000 ! 1.000 1 10 `-:1000 $119,607 $0 $20,973 $9,322 $10,270 $160173 687 HAWTHORNE DR 83 OSS-191-02 _High N Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017.1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Appendix A Assessor's Primary Secondary Primary Secondary ( Aesthetics Safety Reliability Primary Secondary I Aesth t Safety M Reliability Total Asmt No. Parcel No. View View View V law Benefit Benefit Be neft V ew V w ! Benefit Benefit Benefit Assessment Pro ert Address (AN) (APN) T e Type Enhancement Enhancement FaRor FaRor Factor Assessment Assessment ` Assessment Assessment Assessment Amount 696 HAWTHORNE DR 107 1 055-213-03 Medium Low 0.500 0.125 1.000 1.000 1.000 $59,804 i $14,951 1 520,973 $9,322 $10,270 $115,321 698 HAWTHORNE DR 108 055-21304 Mad!— Low 0.500 0.125 1.000 1.000 I 1000 $59,804. $14951 j 520973 $9,322 $10270 $115,321v 700 TIBURON BLVD _ 109 OSS-201-36 Lo N- 1.963 0.000 0.000 3.925 3.000 $236 789 $0 ` $0 536 591 11 $30,8111 $102,19D R PALMER CT 110 - 055-201-14 None None 0.0000.000 0.500 o.soo 1 D00 $0 T $0 M 510,487 $4,661 $10,270 $25,418 4 PALMER CT 111 055-20135 None None 0.000 0.000 0.500 O.Soo :0500 W $0 $O�T $lops? I - i $4,661 $5,135` S20,283 2 PALMER CT 112 OSS-20134 None None 0.000 ) 0.0001000 0.500 ' 1000 $0 $0 $20973 $4,661 $10270 $35905 9 PALMER CT 1 113 OS -201-09 _ N L 0 000 0.125 0.500 0.50D' 0.500 $0 i $14 9S1 SIO,487 $4,661 $5,135 $35 234 _. 7PALMER CT 114 - 05520133 N Low 0000 0.125 0500 0.500 I 0500 $0 + $14,951 , St0,487 $4,661 $5,135 535,234 _. ._.__.._._._ ......... . ._ __..__,.. �......_._ _�. .__., y._.__...�. .-,�_._._..___ .__ _ ..__.W i..._. 1 ... S PALMER CT 115A' 055-20131 None low 0.000 j 0.125 0.500 0,500 �. 0,500 $0 $14,951 510487 $4,661 55,135 $357.34 5 PAI MER CT 1158 055-20137 None N ne 0000 0.000 0.000 0.000 i 0.000 50 $0 $0 $0 50 SO I 1 � i _ 3 PALMER CT 16 055-20101 No,eM'dwn, O.ODO 0.250 1.000 1000 ! 1 $29,902 $20,973 $9.322 $10,270 S70,468000 $0 �.._. __.. _ ....__.._..__..._._.._ ...................... -.__.-_..__ .. _.......... _ ........... ....-..._..-. ID 50MMER5 CT 117A' 055-20102 None Low 0.ODD 0.125 1.000 0.500 1,000 $0 ! $14,9sl $20,973 $4,661 $10,270 550,856 i 10 SOMMERS CT 1176' 055-201-25 None None 0.000 0.000 O.00D 0.000 0000 $0 $0 $0 $D $D $0 ...- r_........ i ...:. .......... 660 TIBURON BLV] 118 055-171-12 None low 0.000 �'� 0.125 1.000 ; 0.500 1,000 $O 514,951 $20,973 $4,661 $10,270 $50,856 654 TIBURON BLVD 055171-11 Nonc Low O,ODD 0.125 1.000 + 1000I.oOD $f, $14,95. 52'1973 59,322 $10,270 $55,517 650 TIBURON BLVD 120 1 055-17113 None None 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 50 $O $20,973 59,322 $10,270 540,566 Totals: 123 Parcels 8-1511 anter sce Below 52.713 9.625 ! 118.500 133.300 121.000 56,304,858 $1,151,220 $2p85,359 $1,242,680 $1;242,678 $12,426,796 [nrnssessm¢�,Numners SSAF 558.1151.11158.1:d 117111179, View Tvice high Medium Low None Total Pro)ect Cost: $6,304,858 $1,151,220 $2,485,359 $1,242,680 $1,242,680 $12,426,796 fa ez tl¢ncexcin-esnUn perces. pe ern,n-npt eAcs:ne•'csn¢efi the Primary View 100% 50% 25% 0% Share of Pro)eet Cosh 60% 20% 10% 30% 100% Sa+eiy R-N,antl;he ac.11,1li'v 9111(.:each set pfpa sces s,relicdxscne par Secondary View 50% 25% 13% 0°% Share of View Assessment: 84.6% 15.4% DRAFT- For Review Purposes Only Harris &Associates Town of Tiburon August 8,2017 Assessment District No.2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District) Preliminary Engineer's Report Appendix B Appendix B Assessment Diagram J 1,FILET;IV THE 1;FFlGE CF THE T,✓AN.'.'lE Y TAl: F J^' - i^-•��❑x' - .rr"" i '� t ''� ,�`'w VOUN'-ix THL, :F ..1:. TOWN�LEI� \ \ i� t�❑ T' + ` 1Lf'dt('EG IN THE li�T E C, HE TP ENCIII E1,l-,-JF TI4UW,'r. THIS \\,/ j ,_ � ®.-1 a❑ /J! -1 " I � �i — 7sN E•.,aNEEN \,�f/ ! f - --�SSa ❑ .%' `,./� ❑ ;o r I �a Q �\6� �. yi'E n?ss 7F -_._._.I ter'/ _✓ . �-�-,/- ❑' y/ EE i / .,�, F/ */' ❑ ( 'C� ©�. \` 1 ❑�' ac AN [,E VENT LE ID T E T N,L C1 THE �.\,\ I ! L T IEE AND EL F-AlH 401THI /J1/ S v..._./ '� ❑ ❑`\ ❑ O ❑ .*,/ -1 A E+E T FI 1. M. a E -Ert tE'IE 11 i/ / \ E �❑ ❑}�❑ ` _ ❑ L 1, 6 i ❑ 1 THE 1.1 v F 7 THE J flG.. Vx HF H A" 61 N7 4. ❑ ❑'' # T E RLL E?`•E E 1EN ,v THE }\ ❑ OFFICE F THE E TQ EI TIDI C THE S E 'T!L"HT ,F �\ �"/� 4l.Y- `� _ t. -•=' f 21 ❑ Yv i n�- i l� TFEEf" OF THE TFDt Of Tll FAN THE ^.F REFO*Er E ;E TO THE \E IE:7 r LL 7ECOrME7,U. THE 0FFV.E nF-,HE TT rt Co EER Fn2 I i� / !. „r `Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑T ❑ a O, ❑� -�—""}' j 4 'E FAACT AM 'N7 F EACH E,NEnT LEAEL 0AI,,;,T -.� \�,.:l I ❑ F I❑ ❑ ❑ ..r. ~ S EACH? . .EL„F LAtiZl SHOWN..?N THI.,.SN,.E:...uE\T i r ' I❑ , \ . /�❑ m S I �..1._. � �❑� ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑' o Y% A�, � /J•/ \\f \ ❑ ` El TQW,t,LERK - -- -IEi El o_i 1i 1Z _ } k!' d EI THIS I—Cl AT THE (: ' L 4 V 6JUKF +t. F y\ ,{ \ / ❑� -x +'►„w�`�� — AS E.E EJT 0'OH Zi T IrJ'JT '—,'TD GE '' h"H� `\N\\\ iy //O //� \ � �� —' -,-^— -y/o"` i ..-"�� �-.✓'-~~ I THE OFFICE�F THE rJ*fI'Y nE...HDEF'.CF THE �\ \\ lJ� /9 ❑\ i P'' .^n.rev' ,---}`�~ FMT!.,F FA `TATE .F C4LIFCRNIA ,4r _ E E] a„+-�i .✓'- �` CP NT'FZIORDE1. .-F ,4 /�:.," PROPOSED BOUNDARES HAVYTF1WilE OF TOWN OF 71KIN 4 COLWY of MAFM STATE OF CALWOFMA LEGEND: NOTES: CRAIyFIIC S`A",F, Isi s E nlelAE®�I-1 ASSE VENT EISTRICT rn ro [IOU\LV+N'Y RE34ETlCE E HEREDY MADE TO THE VAPS 01 REC,JRD IN THE OFFCE OF THE A_E SC=R OF LJ�^1S O AppOAlwi�yp PARCEL LINE THE C04NT1 OF"Ai. F R A DEFWLED £5 RI.TI l OF THE LINEA AND VMEKSI VS F--W Harris�C��Ass Associates (� 'x❑`,( ASSES_UE T NJ, ''ARI-ELS H Y.yN HE EIM CH WHIWM ISM LL.NERV F✓T IL LET4Ls OCIlo RNI'xG THE INC; I i tmh=I,a k AND C IA+.ENH4ZNG OF$L-CH IzARCELS. JUKE 22., 20'7 DRAFT— For Review Purposes Only Harris& Associates EXHIBIT NO. Staff Analysis of Hawthorne Undergrounding Project Estimate This attachment to the Hawthorne Undergrounding staff report addresses the engineer's estimate for the proposed Hawthorne undergrounding project. It is important to note the District Engineer is responsible for the estimate, and they have used their best professional judgement in its development. However, staff notes that at the August 30, 2017 meeting with residents, there were a number of questions and concerns raised about the estimate that staff believes were not adequately addressed. Therefore, staff is providing Council the following analysis to provide additional, more detailed, information regarding many of the questions, observations and objections the residents voiced at the August 30, 2017 meeting. This report will discuss the following items in order: I. Understanding Estimating Accuracy—an overview 2. A discussion of the differences in the May 2016 estimate and the August 2017 estimate. This includes details in how the August 2017 estimate was created. 3. A discussion of contingency and whether the estimate is too conservative. 4. A look at the overall estimate, the bottom line, to determine if it is reasonable. 5. Summary & review Understanding Estimating Accuracy In order to better understand the engineer's estimate, it is useful to understand, in general,the estimating process, and resulting expected accuracy at various estimating levels. The AACE (formerly American Association of Cost Engineering) are the industry professionals regarding cost estimating and total cost management. Their Recommended Practice No. 56R-08 provides an approximate representation of the relationship of specific design input data and project design maturity to the estimate accuracy and methodology used to produce the cost estimate. Table 1 below provides the expected accuracy corresponding to various levels, or maturity, of project design and their associated estimating methods. TABLE 1 Estimate Maturity of Typical purpose of Typical estimating Expected Class Project estimate method Accuracy Design Class 5 0%to 2% -30/o to +50/o Functional area or Square Foot factoring, 0 0 concept screening judgment, or analogy or Schematic designParametric models Class 4 1%to 15% concept study assembly driven models -20%to +30% 0 o Design development, Semi-detailed unit costs o 0 Class 3 10%to 40/o feasibility with assembly level line -15%to +20/o items Class 2 30% to 75% Control or bid/tender, Detailed unit cost with -10%to +15% semi-detailed forced detailed take-off Class 1 65% to Check estimate or pre Detailed unit cost with -5%to +10% 100% bid/tender, change order detailed take-off 1 It is important to note that the stated variation does not include variation due to changes in the scope, or"scope creep". The expected accuracy is the typical variation after the application of contingency. Historically, this level of accuracy provides an 80% confidence level that the actual cost will fall within the bounds of the low and high ranges. In addition to the maturity of project design, estimate accuracy is also driven by factors such as the technical complexity of the project,the availability of appropriate cost reference information and the inclusion of appropriate contingency. May 2016 vs. Current August 2017 Estimate Included in the Preliminary Engineers Report. One comment echoed a number of times at the August 30, 2017 property owners meeting was in regard to the large difference between the following two estimates: 1. An estimate developed by Harris and Associates in May 2016 that was used to inform petitions. (May 2016 Estimate) 2. The 35% Design Estimate developed in August 2017 and used in the Preliminary Assessment Engineer's Report (August 2017 Estimate) To better understand this difference, it is important to understand the history of this project, particularly regarding the difference in maturity level of project design used in the two estimates. May 2016 Estimate Proponents of the project first approached staff in early 2015. At this time, staff indicated a rough cost estimate to use would be $1,000/lineal foot of trench. Based on this, the proponents developed the initial petitions and included a project cost estimate of$6.3M. This was based on the proponents estimate the project would require approximately 6,300 lineal feet of trench. By Feb/March 2016 the proponents had collected approximately 75 petitions that included the $6.3M figure, and recognizing this number exceeded 60% of the parcels in the proposed district, were prepared to move on to the next step in the process. Subsequently staff determined that, in addition to the requirement that petitions from 60% of the parcels in the proposed district be submitted, the petitions submitted would also have to represent over 50% of the land area. The former being a requirement of Town policy, with the latter required under State Law. At this point, the petitions gathered did not meet the land area requirement, meaning the proponents still needed additional petitions to meet the minimum requirements. It was also clear at this point the estimate of 6,300 lineal feet of trench was inaccurate, and at a minimum, the project would include approximately 7,400 lineal feet of trench. After consulting with Bond Counsel, it was determined any new petitions should include a revised cost estimate, and property owners who had signed the earlier petitions, with the $6.3M cost estimate, would be mailed a notice alerting them of the revised cost estimate when it was available. This was an informational notice only, and did not require the individuals to resign petitions. To obtain a revised estimate for these required petitions, the Town agreed to pay Harris &Associates for a very high-level estimate of probable project costs. It is very important to note at this point there was no actual design, only a proposed district boundary and an estimate of the trench length, (using the definitions in Table 1 above, this estimate was a Class 5 Estimate). 2 Harris provided a line item estimate of the Joint Trench Construction Costs for the project based on recent bid results for an actual project in Belvedere, with these results adjusted for the increased estimated size, and associated unit costs, of the proposed Hawthorne Project. The next part of the estimate involved utility costs and incidental costs. Back in 2007, Harris had completed a Preliminary Assessment Engineer's Report (2007 Report) for an earlier attempt to form an undergrounding assessment district, which included a portion of the current proposed Hawthorne Undergrounding District. The construction portion of the estimate from above was 55% higher than the construction portion of the estimate in the 2007 Report. Therefore, estimates for unknown line item costs, like utilities and incidental expenses, were taken from the 2007 Report and increased by 55%. Some project costs were better defined. This included design costs and estimated financing costs. Ultimately, this resulted in the May 2016 Estimate totaling $8,870,000. Over the next couple of months, the project proponents were able to gather approximately 8 additional petitions. This was enough to meet the 50% land area requirement previously discussed. On January 4, 2017, Council unanimously approved a Resolution of Intent to form the District, appointed Harris and Associates as District Engineer, and authorized the preparation of the Preliminary Engineers Report. Estimate Included in Preliminary Engineers Report (August 2017) In the Preliminary Engineer's Report, the Hawthorne design is at the 35% design level although, unlike many design projects at 35%, there has been no geotechnical study done on the site. Notwithstanding this issue, a more detailed estimate was possible, with unit costs taken from recent Belvedere undergrounding bid documents and other undergrounding projects in Piedmont and other jurisdictions. Still, this is at best a Class 3 estimate as defined in Table 1 above. The expected accuracy of a Class 3 estimate is -15%to +20%. The expected accuracy is the typical variation in low and high ranges after the application of contingency. This level of accuracy typically provides an 80% confidence level that the actual cost will fall within the bounds of the low and high ranges. Based on a more advanced level of design and additional cost information from other projects, the August 2017 Estimate included in the Preliminary Engineers report totals approximately$12.45M. Differences Between the May 2016 and August 2016 Estimates Having discussed how the estimates provided by Harris in May 2016 and August 2017 were produced, this next section looks at the differences between the estimates. There is a 40% overall difference between the May 2016 estimate and the August 2017 estimate. This section will discuss: 1. Scope Change and inflation 2. Differences in individual construction line items. 3. Differences in total construction costs. 4. Differences in incidental expenses, particularly construction management. 5. Differences in financing costs. Scope Change and Inflation As the project has developed from May 2016 to August 2017, there have been three differences in the project scope and its timing that affect the cost estimate. These are the length of the trench, environmental mitigation and inflation. As described below these changes would be expected to increase the cost of the May 2016 estimate by a total of 20%. 3 Length of trench The estimated length of the trench for construction increased by 10%. This is largely due to PG&E placing the end pole further way from the project than anticipated resulting in additional trenching in Tiburon Blvd. at perhaps the most expensive place to trench in the entire project. Environmental Mitigation Cost There were no environmental mitigations costs included in the May 2016 Estimate. At the time, there were no environmental mitigations costs anticipated. However, once design began it became apparent that there were cultural resource concerns. This has been confirmed by Tiburon receiving our first ever request for consultation by the Graton Rancheria for a construction project. This increased the cost by $250,000. This is euivalent to 3.8% of the total construction cost in the May 2016 Estimate. Inflation When Harris submitted their original proposal, it was based on construction in the summer of 2017, and the estimate provided in May 2016 assumed that same construction timeframe. If the project moves forward, construction is now anticipated in 2019, adding two years of inflation at 3.1 percent per year, or a total of 6.2%. Differences in individual construction line items Joint Trench Construction Costs The joint trench construction cost (cost for trenching infrastructure work done by the Town's Contractor), including contingency, increased by 8%. This is despite an increase in trench length of 10% and an inflation increase of 6.2% as discussed above. PG&E Costs The estimated cost of PG&E work increased substantially, from $704,530 to $2,385,171. The PG&E cost in the August 2017 estimate by Harris is nearly 240% more than the PG&E cost in the May 2016 estimate by Harris. The May 2016 estimate was based on a factored increase of PG&E costs proportional to the increase in joint trench construction cost from the 2007 Hawthorne Terrace Preliminary Engineering Report referenced earlier in this document. The estimate in the 2007 Hawthorne Terrace Undergrounding Assessment Engineer's Report which was transferred to the May 2016 estimate was an early design estimate provided by PG&E. Historically, PG&E has had difficulty in accurately estimating projects in the early design phase. In the 2003 Del Mar project, PG&E estimated the cost at $452,375. That project did not move forward at the time, but was re-initiated in 2010, with the district downsized by 26 percent. PG&E requested an additional payment in the amount of$1,515,000. This was 334%higher than the original PG&E estimate, even though the 2010 district was 26% smaller. In the recent Town initiated Rule 20B project along Tiburon Blvd. completed in 2015, PG&E repeatedly provided an estimate of$135,137 for its portion of the project. However, once 100% plans were received by PG&E the cost was increased to $318,811, about 235% higher than the 4 estimate provided earlier in the design process. Partly as a result of these experiences in Tiburon, PG&E will no longer provide cost estimates at this level of design. As mentioned above, the April 2016 estimate factored the 2007 PG&E provided number by 55%. This 2007 PG&E cost was similar to the Del Mar cost. If PG&E made the same level of error in the 2007 Hawthorne District estimate as they did in the Del Mar District, then the true cost of the 2007 Hawthorne District would have been$1,972K. Adding 55% to this would result in a cost of$3,058K for the PG&E work. The August 2017 Estimate, based on the 35% design, includes estimated quantities for the major electrical components. Therefore, a more detailed estimate was possible than in the May 2016 estimate. Although PG&E would not provide an estimate, they did provide actual unit costs for various components and labor costs per linear foot of trench for the Del Mar project and actual labor inflation costs. Using these actual costs and inflation rate and applying them to the 35% design for the Hawthorne project, Harris provided an estimate of the PG&E costs. This was not a linear estimate (e.g. factoring by length) rather, it was a semi-detailed unit cost estimate, which AACE states is typical for this level of design. As noted above, this estimate is nearly 240% more than the earlier estimate,just as the preliminary Del Mar costs were about 235%more than the early PG&E estimate of costs for that project. At the August 30, 2017 informational meeting, several speakers asked if Harris had looked at the costs in of the latest Belvedere project to inform PG&E estimate for Hawthorne, which they had not. Harris has subsequently obtained these costs from PG&E. The labor cost per linear foot in the Belvedere project was much greater than in the Del Mar project. Applying this per lineal foot PG&E cost to the 2017 Estimate would increase it by an additional $990,000. In Belvedere, the ratio of utility costs to joint trench construction cost for the Lower Golden Gate Assessment District, Mid-San Rafael Assessment District, and Pine Avenue Assessment District were 38%, 62% and 36% respectively, or an average of 45.3%. In the August 2017 estimate, the ratio of total utility cost to joint trench construction cost is 43%. In summary: 1. The April 2016 estimate was done without design and by factoring PG&E provided costs in the 2007 Hawthorne Report. 2. The 2007 Hawthorne report PG&E number was similar to the Del Mar PG&E number, which was later found to be low by 334%. Taking this into account would result in a PG&E estimated cost of$3,058K. 3. The August 2017 costs were based on actual unit costs of material and labor and inflation rates provided by PG&E for Del Mar and applied to the 35% Hawthorne design. This resulted in a cost of$2,385K. 4. Using actual PG&E unit and labor costs for the latest Belvedere project and applying them to the 35% design results in an estimated cost of$3,375K. 5. Total utility costs of 43% are in the ball park compared to other projects. AT&T Costs The estimated cost of AT&T work increased from $77,327 to $121,517. The AT&T estimate in the May 2016 was based on a factored increase proportional to the increase in joint trench construction in the 2007 Report. 5 The estimate in the August 2017 Estimate was provided by AT&T. Comcast costs The estimated cost of Comcast work increased from $77,327 to $138,185. The Comcast estimate in the May 2016 Estimate was based on a factored increase proportional to the increase in joint trench construction in the 2007 Hawthorne Terrace Preliminary Engineering Report. The estimate in the Preliminary Engineer's Report was provided by Comcast. Differences in Total Construction Costs The above section discussed individual line item differences in the construction costs. This section combines much of the information above, and discusses the overall construction costs in the May 2016 Estimate and the August 2017 Estimate. Total construction costs in the August 2017 Estimate used in the Preliminary Engineer's Report are $9,028,275. The total construction costs used in the May 2016 estimate was $6,517,944. This is an increase of about 38%. Table 2 below provides a more detailed breakdown of the construction costs, as well as comparison of these costs between the 2 estimates. Table 2 May 2016 Engineer's Report Estimate Estimate Increase Joint Trench with Contingency $5,658,760 $6,133,402 $474,642 PG&E $704,530 $2,385,171 $1,680,641 AT&T $77,327 $121,517 $44,190 Comcast $77,327 $138,185 $60,858 Environmental Mitigation $0 $250,000 $250,000 Total Construction Cost $6,517,944 $9,028,275 $2,510,331 Incidental expenses Total incidental expenses used in the August 2017 Estimate are $1.78M. The total incidental expenses used in the May 2016 Estimate was $1.33M million. This is an increase of about 34%. This is commensurate with the percentage increase in construction costs discussed above. At the August 30th information meeting, a specific question was asked regarding construction management costs, and whether they were too high. The construction management costs in the May 2016 were taken from the 2007 report, factored for the 55% increase in construction costs. The construction management costs in the 2007 report were estimated at about 6% of construction costs. When doing a more detailed estimate at 35% design, Harris looked at other projects they had recently worked on and increased the construction management costs to 8% of construction. Staff notes that the ratio of actual cost of construction management to actual cost of construction on the Del Mar Undergrounding project and Lyford Cove Undergrounding project was 10.3% 6 and 9.6% respectively, an average of 10%. This is greater than the 8%used by Harris in the August 2017 estimate. The California Multi-Agency CIP Benchmarking Study (Dec 2016) indicates for projects of this size completed between 2011 and 2015, the total construction management cost of projects averaged about 17% of the total construction cost, over double the amount included in the August 2017 Estimate. Financing Costs Financing costs included in the May 2016 estimate totaled $1.02M, with that figure rising to $1.64M in the August 2017 Estimate, an increase of approximately $620,000, or 60%. The financing cost figures in the Engineers Report were furnished by Sperry Capital, the Town's Municipal Financial Advisor on this project. As noted in the Staff Report for this agenda item, the Town hired a Financial Advisor for this project at the specific request of project proponents. Contingency—Is the Estimate Too Conservative? This report has discussed the origin of the May 2016 and August 2017 estimates and the differences between them. People have questioned whether the 30% construction contingency included in the Engineers Report is too conservative (too high). The contingency at this point in the design must cover three things: 1. Estimating accuracy due to the level of design (discussed previously in this memo). 2. Bid contingency, which covers the bidding climate and number of bidders. 3. Contingency during construction. Estimating accuracy due to the level of design As noted above, the August 2017 estimate is based on a 35% design without a geotechnical report. At best, this is a Class 3 estimate as defined in Table 1 above. We would expect the August 2017 estimate to be accurate within a range of-15%to +20% of the estimate, 80% of the time after the application of a reasonable contingency. Bid contingency (Predicting the number of bidders) The cost estimate assumes a reasonable number of bidders. Competitive Bidding is receiving responsive bids from at least five (5) or more General Contractors and three (3) or more responsive bids from Major Subcontractors or Trades. Without Competitive Bidding, Contractor bids can and have increased by 100%. Table 3 Number Percentage of Bids Differential 1 +25 to 100% 2 - 3 +10 to 25% 4 - 5 0to +10% 6 - 7 Oto -10% 8 or more -10 to -20% 7 In short, if we do not get 4 to 5 bidders, we can expect costs might go up another 15%. We would need the contingency to cover this cost plus a contingency for costs during construction. The Town received six bidders for the Del Mar undergrounding. However, the Lyford Hygeia undergrounding, received two bids the first time and three bids the second, after the supplemental assessment. On the last undergrounding project completed by the Town, from Mar West to Lyford, there was only one bidder. During the last year, both local municipalities and Caltrans have noted numerous bids coming in at 20% over engineer's estimate due to the bidding climate. It is uncertain whether this bidding climate will continue. Contingency During Construction (Based on Past Projects) The Town of Tiburon has had supplemental assessments on the past two undergrounding projects. The Supplemental Preliminary Engineer's Reports for the last two neighborhood undergrounding projects used a 23% contingency. This estimate and contingency level was based on full 100% design and bid numbers. The actual change order rate after award for the joint trench construction for the Del Mar project was 28%. The actual change order rate after award for the joint trench construction for the Lyford project was 19%. This is an average of 23.5%. Is a 30% contingency reasonable? As stated above, the contingency at this point in the design must cover three things: 1. Estimating accuracy due to the level of design. Based on the above the appropriate contingency for this could be about 20%. 2. Estimating the bid. This factor has to do with bid climate and the number of bidders, as discussed above. If the bidding climate is the same as for the Lyford Hygeia project, we can expect an increase of+10%to +25%. 3. Contingency during construction. The last two undergrounding projects have had supplemental assessments. At the time of the supplemental assessments, the projects had 100% design and had been bid. The contingency used at that point in the Assessment Engineer's Report was 23%. The actual change order rates for those projects averaged 23.5%. To determine whether a 30% contingency is reasonable, perhaps we can consider a level of contingency for each of. 1) level of design, 2) bid climate, and 3) construction that would equal 30%. The below discusses contingencies of 5% for design level, 10% for bid contingency and 15% for construction contingency. 1. Estimating accuracy due to the level of design: 5%. Using a 5% contingency provides one quarter of the 20%variability in a class 3 estimate. 2. Estimating the bid: 10%. In the table 3 above, the bid contingency for 2-3 bidders and 4- 5 bidders meets at 10%. In the past year, there have been numerous reports of projects coming in at 20% over estimate or greater. This contingency would be half that value. 8 3. Contingency during construction: 15%. Normal contingency used in construction projects in Tiburon is 15%. This is lower than the actual change order rate for the last two undergrounding projects which averaged 23.5%. Is the Overall Cost Estimate Reasonable? The report has looked at the origins of the May 2016 estimate and the August 2017 estimate as well as differences between them. During the above discussion, a number of line items for the August 2017 estimate were discussed and how they were developed. In addition, the report has discussed whether the 30% contingency on the 35% design used for the August 2017 estimate is too high. This section of the report takes a higher 10,000®foot view of the August 2017 estimate and asks whether the bottom line is reasonable. This will be done by discussing two things: 1. Cost per linear foot 2. Comparison with the estimate in the 2007 Hawthorne Terrace Preliminary Engineer's Report Cost per linear foot There have been complaints that the per linear foot cost of$1,317 is much higher than averages. We note that early in the project the Town stated that cost would be at least $1,000 per linear foot but also stated, and provided written information to the proponents showing that, the San Francisco DPW stated that"As a point of reference only, in 2009 the estimated cost for undergrounding residential neighborhoods is $1,360 per linear foot of trenching." Staff notes that inflation from 2009 to 2019 is 45% (ENR Construction Cost Index; the Caltrans Fisher index is greater). Comparison with the 2007 Hawthorne Terrace estimate As noted that previously, there was a Preliminary Assessment Engineer's Report done for the Hawthorne Terrace area in 2007. That District did not move forward as proponents felt the costs were excessive. The Hawthorne Terrace Boundary was 89 of the 120 parcels in the current Boundary. The 2007 district did not include the western part of Hawthorne Drive, Palmer Court or the Belvedere Tennis Club. It did not include the poles along the Old Rail Trail or any trenching in Tiburon Blvd. The 2007 Hawthorne Terrace District was the third of three districts in Tiburon active at that time. The 2007 Hawthorne Terrace District Preliminary Engineer's Report had the advantage of data from bid openings for the two previous districts. The total cost of the 2007 Hawthorne Terrace District was estimated at $5.6M estimated for construction in 2008. It had 4,840 feet of mainline (center of street) trench. The current project has 7,540 feet of mainline (center of street) trench. That is a factor of 1.56. The inflation rate from ENR CCI for 2008 to 2019 is 50% (2008=8310; 2017 = 11696; plus 3.1% for next two years to 2019). Similarly, the inflation rate for Caltrans projects using the Fisher index results in an inflation increase of 57%. Just looking at these very simple parameters, $5.6*1.56*1.50= $13.1 million. 9 The 2007 Hawthorne Terrace District had 89 parcels compared to 120 parcels in the current district, a ratio of 1.35. Again, using the cost of$5.6 million and an inflation factor of 50%, the adjusted cost for the current district,just looking at parcel differences would be ($5.6M*1.34*1.5) = $11.3 million. These simple comparisons might be considered low for three reasons: 1. This assumes trenching in Tiburon Blvd is the same cost as other roads (it is likely more expensive) 2. It ignores the additional $250,000 in environmental mitigation costs. 3. It ignores the fact that the 2007 report used PG&E costs similar to Del Mar which PG&E later stated in 2010 were low by a factor of 3.3. This alone would add over $1 M to the cost. In summary, the current estimate is similar to the previous Hawthorne Terrace District Estimate in 2007, adjusted for the size of the district and inflation. Summary This report has looked at a number of things, including comparing the May 2016 estimate to the August 2017 estimate. What matters at this point is whether Council believes the August 2017 estimate is a reasonable estimate of the actual costs of construction with a reasonable contingency. In this regard, a brief summary of the above might be useful. We discussed how the August 2017 estimate was created: 1. Joint trench construction costs were based on the 35%plans for the Hawthorne District and actual unit bid prices from a recent job in Belvedere as well as undergrounding bids in Piedmont and other projects. 2. PG&E costs were based on the 35%plans for the Hawthorne District and actual unit costs for PG&E items and labor costs per linear foot of trench for the Del Mar project, with labor inflation all provided by PG&E. A check estimate that used unit costs from a Belvedere undergrounding project would increase the cost. 3. AT&T and Comcast estimates were provided by these companies. 4. Incidental costs were based on actual contract amounts and historic needs. Construction management was 8% of total construction cost, less than the actual percentage in both the Del Mar and Lyford Cove Undergrounding Districts and half of the CIP Benchmarking Study. 5. Financing costs per provided by Sperry Capital. We have discussed whether the 30% contingency is reasonable for a 35% level design and looked at contingency standards for level of design, bid risk and contingency during construction. We have compared the total costs in the August 2017 estimate to experience in San Francisco and the Preliminary Engineer's Report for the 2007 Hawthorne Terrace Project. 10 Tiburon Town Council September 19, 2017 AI-4: Hawthorne Undergrounding Citizen Correspondence Public Review Copy: Please Do Not Remove Requests for Copies: Lea Stefani, Istefani@townoftiburon.org Citizen Letters in Support Dear Town Council, We,lack Ryan and Sara Klein, are the property owners of 757 Hawthorne Drive within the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. We have lived here with our two daughters for seven years and are active participants in the neighborhood and community. From the very beginning,we have been big supporters and proponents of this project and have spent a considerable amount of our time pursuing the formation of this undergrounding district. Despite the fact that we have unobstructed views of Richardson Bay from nearly every room and outdoor entertaining space of our property and that we are already undergrounded to the pole,we believe that this is a very worthy project that would be transformative for the entire neighborhood as well as the Town. However,we believe that the assessment engineer's report as well as construction cost and PG&E cost estimates contain major flaws and should not be approved by the Council until these errors are remediated. Our major concerns are as follows: Overall Cost The$4 million increase from Harris's 2016 estimate is the result of invented excessive contingencies and inflation padding. It is worth noting that the joint trench number was virtually unchanged year-over-year excluding the superfluous inflation estimates. Harris confirmed in the public meeting that this report was an attempt to produce the highest possible cost to the district.This "contingency epidemic" methodology is supported by neither industry standards nor California state law. Furthermore, as finance professionals with over 35 years combined experience in financial markets,we find the use of non-market rates in the financing cost estimates unjustifiable.The table below details some of the objectionable contingencies and illustrates how they act to further inflate the cost of the entire project. Construction Management Underwriter Contingency Contingency Contingency Financing Cost Interest Base Cost Amount on Base Cost (8%) (1%) (7.12%) Reserve(6.0%) Total Revocable Rock(from Joint Trench) $900,619 $270,186 $93,664 $12,645 $90,931 $82,083 $1,450,127 Inflation(from Joint Trench) $279,455 $83,837 $29,063 $3,924 $28,215 $25,470 $449,963 Environmental $250,000 0 $20,000 $2,700 $19,416 $17,527 $309,643 PG&E Contingency(30%) $459,877 $36,790 $4,967 $35,716 $32,241 $569,591 PG&E 4 Years of Inflation $251,093 $20,087 $2,712 $19,501 $17,604 $310,997 PG&E 2 More Years of Inflation $141,278 $11,302 $1,526 $10,972 $9,905 $174,983 Interest Rate Contingency on$9.2 mil(2.5%) $274,830 $229,025 $503,855 Total $2,282,322 $354,022 $210,908 $28,473 $479,582 $413,854 $3,769,159 Significant(Von-Compliance with Terms Outlined in the Contract The property owners were owed (per Project Task Order, Section B, Item L)meetings prior to the creation of the assessment methodology so that neighbors could have input into the process. It is similarly described elsewhere in Section B in Understanding,Approach, and Scope as an interactive process with the neighbors. Instead, Harris created a report without ever meeting with the neighborhood or considering anything the neighbors had to say.There was one original kickoff meeting with Sam Sperry on February 17th where Dennis Klingelhofer handed out a one page sheet that referred to a sample methodology. We never saw him or heard from him again until nine months later when the assessment report was released to the property owners. It is impossible to believe that he visited properties on an individual basis. Note that in the Project Task Order"Cost"table,the second biggest line item charges for 96 hours of"Field Review, Research, and Data Collection." Moreover,the contract stipulates for Harris to be paid $9,380 for"Utility Coordination" and to "evaluate estimated costs from utilities" (see Project Task Order, Form B Costs table, Items F& G). The estimate for PG&E costs nearly tripled between 2016 and 2017 implying that the engineer had no idea how to estimate PG&E costs.At Harris'own admission, they arrived at the current PG&E estimate by extrapolating unit costs from the 2012 Del Mar project and adding inflation compounding. In what professional arena is linear extrapolation a 60-hour, $9,380 endeavor? Section 1, Paragraph C of the Master Agreement states: "All work performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall be done in a skillful and professional manner in accordance with all applicable legal requirements and shall meet the standard of quality ordinarily to be expected of competent professionals in Consultant's field of expertise." From what we all heard at the public meeting on Wednesday August 30th,the idea that Harris applied a sufficient degree of thoroughness or professional expertise to the product did not resonate with property owners. General Benefit Despite the fact that no poles or roads were moved in the intervening year,the general benefit changed from 10%-15%to 0.2%between 2016 and 2017. In the public meeting on August 30th, the engineer was not able to answer the question as to why it changed. He claimed that in 2016 he didn't know that the poles weren't on Tiburon Blvd, yet the document he created for the town in 2016 contradicts that statement. The Impact Study report dated August 7, 2017 goes to great lengths to discuss how much scenic beauty is valued by the town and refers to the prioritization of undergrounding utilities along the Old Rail Trail in the Town's General Plan(see pg. 17 Section I Aesthetics).The Initial Study further characterizes the general nature of the benefit in the following three sections: 1. "Implementation of the project... would also provide enhanced views from areas located adjacent to the project area, including the Middle Ridge Public Open Space northeast of the project area." (page 18,Section I"Aesthetics", Discussion Point a, c.) 2. "Implementation of the project would further enhance the contiguous nature of the town with a more unified appearance." (page 59, Section X "Land Use and Planning", Discussion Point a.) 3. "...the removal of the aboveground utilities would enhance views from the Old Rail Trail, and therefore may attract larger crowds that would utilize the existing trail system both within the project area and the connecting Richardson Bay Linear Park." (page 68, Section XV "Recreation", Discussion Points a and b.) Curiously, Harris directly contradicted itself in the Preliminary Engineer's Report released the very next day,August 8,2017 in quantifying the General Benefit. In the first subsection entitled "Aesthetic Benefit", Harris says: "The Assessment Engineer has determined that there are no aesthetic benefits which represent general benefit or benefits to the public at large." The report continues in the same section: "The removal of overhead utilities near the Old Rail Trail will not result in increased usage of the Richardson Bay Lineal Park..." Finally, it is inconsistent to say that there is no aesthetic benefit to trail users because the poles are on the bay side of the trail when the homeowner assessments include an aesthetic benefit to property owners regardless of which side of the street they are on relative to the poles. Furthermore,the fact that the poles are not on the bay side of the trail is irrelevant. All trail users walk/ride parallel to the bay and are equally exposed to the poles at all times. Moreover, the report dismisses the possibility that traffic on Tiburon Blvd merits general benefit consideration because the poles are"generally located almost one hundred feet...from the edge of the pavement." At the same time,however,the engineer assigned a "Medium" primary view benefit to the even numbered houses in the 600-block of Hawthorne Drive. Yet, according to the engineer,the general public that drives on Tiburon Blvd,which is even closer to these poles, somehow can't see them because they are 'largely screened by the tennis club." Assessment Methodology Putting aside the fact that the engineer didn't work with neighbors at all in determining the assessment methodology,the methodology itself is overwrought and experimental.The only other instance the engineer cited for having used this methodology is being held up now specifically by peer review questioning the validity of the methodology. We see two significant flaws in the methodology: 1.) The engineer provides no justification for using the geometric escalation of the benefit points. This math essentially implies that proportionality cannot be linear, which we know to be false. 2.) In assigning benefit points for the Secondary View,the engineer determined that zero properties should be rated "high". In fact, a full 87%of parcels received either"low"or "zero" secondary view impact ratings. If the impact is so insignificant,why did the engineer bother creating a secondary bucket to overcomplicate the formula? Lack of Professional Rigor in Preparing the Report We heard Harris use the phrase "professional opinion" repeatedly at the meeting on August 30th but the engineers never once pointed to any professional rigor to back up the opinion. A prime example of the lack of professional rigor is the PG&E guess work. Harris claimed in its interviews that one of its competitive advantages was that Mr. Colicchia had worked for PG&E and knew how to estimate utility company costs,The PG&E cost nearly tripled between 2016 and 2017 purely on the basis of speculation. Is this really how professional engineering companies do estimating? In conclusion,we understand that this is roughly the twentieth iteration of the report since it was first submitted in June to Town staff. However,we believe it is far from a realistic product. We urge the Council to remember that this is a residential neighborhood that raised$151,750 from proponents and submitted signed petitions representing nearly 70%of the parcels to move forward with an $8.4 million project. We hope the Council acts in the best interest of the neighbors and the Town and directs Harris to make wholesale changes to the preliminary engineering report. Regards, Sara and Jack The following property owners have asked us to add their endorsement to this letter: Elena and Mike Stephens 687 Hawthorne Drive Ken and Chris Well 686 Hilary Drive Daryl Smith 669 Hawthorne Drive Kamran and Ory Shirazi 3 Rock Hill Drive David and Julie Flaherty 155 Rock Hill Drive Peter and Marie Snoek 691 Hawthorne Drive Carol and John Berg 675 Hawthorne Cristen and Arif Fazal 25 Mara Vista Ct. Jennifer and Noel Isaac 20 Del Mar September 14, 2017 RECEIVED Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. SEP 14 2017 Tiburon, CA 94920 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON Dear Town Council Members, My wife and I are retirees who relocated to Tiburon from New York eight years ago to live closer to my daughter and grandchild. We fell in love with the community and the sweeping views of the San Francisco skyline, Sausalito and Richardson Bay that can be seen from many areas of the Town. Several years ago I learned that neighbors were interested in undergrounding the utility poles in the Hawthorne Terrace area and became actively involved in that endeavor. While views are a hallmark of living in Tiburon, my wife and I experienced first hand the improved safety and reliability benefits afforded by undergrounding utility wires at a former address in New York. Recent weather extremes throughout the country have only heightened our appreciation for undergrounding utility lines. The financing of Harris & Associates Preliminary Engineer's Report was made possible by countless volunteer hours and individual subscriptions paid for by Hawthorne Terrace area neighbors totaling some $150,000. However, the report that was produced is flawed by compounded contingencies, high inflation rates and unsubstantiated estimates. One such example is the PG&E guesstimates derived without input from PG&E or even data from recent undergrounding projects. Overall, the lack of specificity in the report is not what the community expected. Council should reject the Preliminary Engineer's Report report as it is currently written. A year ago Harris & Associates came up with a general benefit of 10% to 15% based upon the utility poles along the pathway. These utility poles adjacent the Old Rail Trail are blights on an otherwise pristine walkway enjoyed by all. The Preliminary Engineer's Report lists the general benefit at a mere .002%. Harris & Associates should restore the general benefit to their original finding. While few, if any, in our neighborhood support the findings in the Preliminary Engineer's Report in its current form, the goal of eliminating the utility poles is, in my opinion, something that the majority of residents find desirable. My wife and I and many local residents look to Council to come up with a plan to make it realistically possible to underground utility lines in the Hawthorne Terrace Undergrounding District. Sincerely, e�d Christ e Weil 686 Hilary Drive Greg Chanis From: Carol Berg <carolbergc@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday,September 14, 2017 8:33 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: hawthorne under grounding Dear Town Council: We write in support of the Hawthorne Undergrounding project but with our concern over the recently released engineer report. While we are not as familiar with individual details, it is clear that Harris Company does not want this job. The 4 million dollar increase over a short time is absurd. The excess contingencies seem redundant and completely out of line. Their assessment that under grounding adds no aesthetic value to the community is outrageous. They failed to even acknowledge that under grounding can seriously impact safety of our neighborhood and community in the event of a disaster. For those who would choose to finance the work through a tax assessment, the additional tax burden would be overwhelming and make the homes in this neighborhood un-sellable. We urge you to take a stronger look at the report/costs structure as well as the Harris company and help us to achieve a workable solution. Many of us have spent a great deal of time not to mention a great amount of money to make this project a reality. We appreciate your time. Carol and John Berg 675 Hawthorne Drive Greg Chanis From: Daniel Ferst <danferst@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:17 AM To: Greg Chanis Cc: Itsdoo - Mc PvP Subject: Support for Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding Town of Tiburon, We live at 678 Hilary Drive and are in full support of the proposed undergrounding project. There are real safety benefits for these types of projects as well as the obvious aesthetic enhancements. The residents of Tiburon and neighbors on Hawthorne and Hilary Drive in particular pay high taxes each year which should be used directly for projects such as this. Each year property taxes fluctuate based on school bonds, road-work, utility work, etc. and in an effort to keep up with the current times the proposed undergrounding project should move forward. There has been great support for this project already and this is proven by the impressive fact that our residential neighborhood already raised $151,750 and submitted signed petitions from almost 70%of the parcels.The current estimates that reflect an $8.4 million project cost need to vetted, but the sooner we get this project started the better as there are true escalation factors for rising construction labor and material costs that should be considered (the longer we wait,the higher the cost). It's 2017 and home-owners started getting vocal about the increasing desire to have utilities installed underground in the 1960's and prior. See link about the rules of electric and communication undergrounding in the State of California that was adopted in October of 1967. "The Commission, on June 22, 1965, noting that the increasing demand for underground electric and communication facilities in California has brought about substantial increases in the construction of such facilities,and that it appeared it may be desirable, pursuant to Sections 761,768 and 8056 of the Public Utilities Code,to establish by general order rules governing the construction of underground electric and communication lines to promote and safeguard public health and safety, instituted this investigation." http://docs.epuc.ca.gov/published eneral order 52-591 htm GO 128 _. Rules For Construction Of Underground Electric ... docs.cpuc.ca.gov state of California rules for construction of underground electric supply and communication systems. prescribed by the. public utilities commission Undergrounding is a requirement for most new projects in California and this has been the case for many years. We recently sold our home in Mill Valley that was located on Dolan Ave which was part of a development in the 1980's. One of the conditions for the developers of this neighborhood was to install the utilities underground because of proven health and safety benefits. I Per the web-link below..."Fallen overhead high voltage electric power lines pose a serious risk of l ctr c�,,itfi ti ' 'es. Every year thousands are injured or killed by downed power lines;those who are injures are left with painful electrical burn injuries and indescribable pain and suffering." htti):/ downtownIalaw.romJfaIlen-power-line-electrocution-attorneyJ Downed Power Line Injury Attorney I Electrocution Lawsuits downtown lalaw.com Downed Power Line Injury Attorney I Electric Company Liability and Lawsuits It's time to make another positive change for one of our neighborhoods in Tiburon. Please help the residents of our community by offering your support for this undergrounding project. Thank you, Daniel Ferst Daphne Hooker 678 Hilary Drive Tiburon 2 Citizen Letters Against From: Klingstrom To: Patrick Barnes Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding Project Date: Thursday,August 31,2017 11:52:13 AM To Date Aug, 31 2017 Director of Public works and City Council I have been keeping an open mind regarding this Project until I read all the online information and attended the meeting yesterday Aug, 30. It is now clear to me that I cannot afford this cost and that I will be forced to move if it is approved. I do not think it is fair that I have to move because other people wants a better view. Please consider to cancel the Project. Thankyou Arne Klingstrom 692 Hawthorne drive Email klingstrom()aol.com RE�;EIVED SEP 11 2017 9/3/2017 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON To Whom it may concern, My name is Caroline Maskell,and I have resided at 115 Rock Hill Drive for 42 years.The purpose of this letter is to inform the Town of Tiburon board members,and anyone else that is associated with the Hawthorne undergrounding project,that I am adamantly opposed to the proposed plan. I am 81 years old,and was widowed in 2003. For the past 20 years, I have been living on a fixed income. The financial burden of this project on me will be extremely heavy. I am not in any position to spend over$70,000 on a project that does not positively impact me. I see no need to move everything underground. I attended the meeting on this subject last week,and please know that I will be voting'No'at the September 2017 meeting when we vote officially. Thank you for your consideration and time. Caroline Maskell Patrick Barnes From: Robert Chandler <robertchandler33@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 8:00 PM To: Patrick Barnes Subject: Hawthorn Undergrounding District Address 695 Hilary Drive Tiburon Ca 94920 Cell 415-450-5237 We have lived here 39 years. Dear Mr. Barnes P.E. Director of Public Works,Town of Tiburon We will vote no on any undergrounding of utilities. I attended the meeting of 8-30-17 about subject. I was astonished to learn our improvement is rated at$160,173.This amount is more than I paid for my house in 1978. My yearly payment for my portion of the 30 year bond at 4-1/2% interest is$ 10,834 per year.The bond is most likely not tax deductable. I live on social security and a modest pension. I do not have the money to pay an additional $10,834 plus my real estate taxes. I would have to sell my house.Would somebody buy my house with an additional bond debt of$10,834 annually if the buyer could buy somewhere else in Tiburon? Buyer would not have to pay this annual bond debt elsewhere? I think not. Also, my view of Richardson Bay would not be improved at all. I am accessed at the high level of primary view type. Trees block my view.This is not a fair assessment. I do not want to sell my Tiburon home of 39 years because I can't pay the bond fee and improve the view of a few others. Please take my position in consideration and put a stop to making people sell their homes.Stop this careless project! Respectfully submitted, Gloria and Robert M.Chandler Please forward to Council Members. 1 Patrick Barnes From: Karina Houghton <karina.houghton@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 3:56 PM To: Patrick Barnes Subject: Tiburon under grounding Hawthorne Terrace I oppose the under grounding wholeheartedly. It is much too expensive, cost prohibitive. Sincerely, Karina Karina Andrews Houghton 415 203 4300 (US) karina.houghton(fgmail.com 1 Patrick Barnes From: Patrick Barnes Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 1:46 PM To: Dennis Klingelhofer Cc: Jasmine Cuffee;jshamp@hotmail.com Subject: Request to view home for assessment in Hawthorne Dennis—At the meeting on August 301h, you stated that you were willing to go to homes to look at the assessments. I received a call today from Sharon Hampton at 730 Hawthorne, 415-307-2960, ishamp@hotmail.com. She wishes to set up an appointment for you to visit her home and explain her assessment. I believe that her total assessment is about $85K. Patrick Barnes, PE Director of Public Works/Town Engineer 415-435-7388 1 Patrick Barnes From: sara klein <sklein1234@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:48 AM To: dennis.klingelhofer@WeAreHarris.com Cc: Greg Chanis; Patrick Barnes Subject: 757 Hawthorne Drive Follow-up Hi Dennis, I am following up on the email that I sent last Wednesday about the primary viewshed benefit points assigned to 757 Hawthorne Drive.You assigned .25 primary view benefit points to our property indicating our views of Richardson bay are obstructed.As you can see from the attached photos,we have unobstructed Richardson Bay view throughout our property. Since you never visited our property I'm assuming that you just assigned the points based on the map on the Town's website that erroneously shows a pole on our property line in our driveway. I am attaching a picture or our entry and driveway and can send a survey that clearly shows that that pole is in the driveway of 730 Hawthorne Drive and is located several feet outside of our property line.The map should be corrected to reflect this. I expect to receive either a reply to this email or a phone call confirming that you are acting to resolve this error.At the public meeting, you did say that neighbors should call you if we had concerns about our individual assessments. Please reply or return my call from Friday. Thanks, Sara Klein 1 a�= �r:t r i t j; 2 £Y ¢ 4 av 'fT L9 � � t F , : t f x All , ' x: M { psi Tr �' S s 2 ' II T �} fi St t 3 Patrick Barnes From: Ellen Chiang <ellen@rocketmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 1:13 PM To: Patrick Barnes Subject: Hawthorn Undergrounding District Mr. Barnes, The purpose of this email is to declare my vote of NO on this undergrounding of utilities project. I vehemently oppose this project and the assessment of$180,000.00 to my property. What drug was the assessor on when my property became a "high level of primary view type" when there is no view to begin with. Not every home in Tiburon enjoys a water view. This project does not improve my view nor does it enhance the quality of life. The yearly portion of the 30 year bond is unaffordable, and will greatly decrease my property value. Frankly, this entire project is a waste of time and resources. I suggest all interested parties for this undergrounding project should ban together and carry the entire cost thus leaving their neighbors alone. This has harbored resentment among the neighbors and should seize immediately. Best Regards, Ellen Chiang 693 Hilary Drive 1 Lea Stefani From: Patrick Barnes Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 5:08 AM To: Lea Stefani; Greg Chanis Subject: Fwd: Hawthorne Undergrounding District Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: Resent-From: Proofpoint Essentials <do-not-replya_,maildistiller.com> From: Mike Pautler <2mikepautlerngmail.com> Date: September 5, 2017 at 2:46:39 PM PDT Resent-To: <pbarnesna,townoftiburon.org> To: <town a,townoftiburon.org>, "gchanis(a�townoftiburon.org" < chanis a,townoftiburon.org>, "pbarnestownoftiburon.org" <pbarnesa,townoftiburon.or > Subject: Hawthorne Undergrounding District I attended the open meeting on the Hawthorne Undergrounding District on August 30, 2017. 1 am not a resident of the proposed district. I have been a Tiburon taxpayer, homeowner, and a member of St Hilary Catholic Church for over 17 years I have a few questions and a recommendation. How is the Town's time and expense of the project estimation, formation etc being reimbursed? It was evident at the meeting that considerable time is being spent on this Project by you, the Town Council, employees and consultants. Who is paying for all this? How is the Town assured that litigation will not emerge from this proposed formation. The Town paid a hefty sum for the Del Mar mess and the previous Town Manager assured me that the Town had learn a valuable lesson to avoid future litigation. Given the outpouring of opposition at the meeting if the Town Council approves the ongoing work towards the formation of the district, litigation could be near and expensive. Will the issuance of the proposed revenue bonds in any way diminish the bond issuance capacity of the Town, impact our credit rating or tarnish our reputation in the capital markets? Safety concerns was noted as a significant benefit of the project. However the transformers etc would still be above ground and subject to causing harm to residents and visitors who maybe nearby when they explode just as they do when on the poles. If the power lines are taken down PG&E will no longer be trimming trees along the street to protect the power lines. Without their maintenance trees will grow higher leading to more costs to the homeowners, more disputes over the Town infamous tree/view ordinance and more potential of trees falling on people and property. i At the meeting the consultant stated that he believed that 60% of the benefit of spending more than $12 million was to enhance views. A much cheaper alternative approach to enhance the views would be to cut down more trees and improve landscaping. The Engineer's Report allocates a portion of the project cost to St Hilary primarily based on a very arbitrary assignment of value from increased safety. Clearly we all desire a more safe environment for our Town. However, to argue that undergrounding would provide a substantial safety improvement to the Church and School is a reach. The power lines on the St Hilary campus have been undergrounded for years. Assessing the School and Church an additional $267,000 is ridiculous. The Church made not be able to vote for Town Council members but the members do. I would recommend that the Town Council vote to stop the project when they take their upcoming vote. Mike Pautler 17 Seafirth Road z E=TOWNWOF Town of Tiburon SEP Patrick Barnes Town of Tiburon, Town Engineer 1505 Tiburon Blvd.Tiburon, CA BURON Proposed Undergrounding District Hawthorne Terrace, Palmer Court and Surroundings Specifically: 680 Hawthorne Drive,AP 055-191-19 Dear Mr. Barnes, I have not been able to attend the informational meetings. I am sending this letter to request a reassessment of my property located at 680 Hawthorne Drive. My property is below Tiburon Blvd and below Hawthorne Drive yet I am assessed for view enhancement. I believe that the "judgement and experience of the Assessment Engineer" needs to be reconsidered and my parcel does not receive any view enhancement where there is none. In fact-your documents show that the two adjoining properties at 676 and 678 Hawthorne Drive (which have higher elevations) are given a lower view enhancement assessment. The documents shared show that these two properties are assessed at$85,419 while my property is assessed at$115,321 and this just cannot be the case if you look at the topography and my property. In addition to being lower, my property is obscured by many large trees along Tiburon Blvd, along Palmer Court as well as by the Belvedere Tennis Club. I need to know who will address my concerns. In fact, primary view and secondary view should be considered none for my property (Appendix A August 8, 2017 document). Please contact me on my cell at 415-517-0912 or by email: colleen@mahoney- architects.com Sincerely, Colleen Mahoney TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council RECEIVED TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard SEP 13 2017 Tiburon, CA 94920 TOWNWN®F TIUU®NANAGERS ICE FROM: Dominic and Margaret Di Mare 692 Hilary Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 My wife and I are both senior citizens and have resided at 692 Hilary Drive for the past 56 years. We live on a fixed income that will not support the cost of the undergrounding project and it would put an unwanted, unwarranted, and stressful burden on us. We want you to know that we are totally against the proposed undergrounding project. Dominic Di Mare Septembre 5, 2017 RECEIVED SEP 132017 TOWN MANF [: ` TOWN OF TVT i ���5 September 10, 2017 Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon,CA 94920 Re: Hawthorne Terrace Undergrounding District Dear Council Members: We have received the preliminary Engineer's Report for the proposed undergrounding and overwhelmingly reject the estimated assessment.Although I'm sure the spirit of the committee who organized the effort worked in good faith, I doubt anyone expected the costs of the project to be so inordinately and enormously expensive.The costs have increased by 40% in just one year. By the time the project gets underway,who knows what the cost might be. Each resident has to weigh a cost/benefit analysis. In our case, I find the upside to$115,000 assessment un-compelling.The argument of safety and reliability seems like stretch,at best. Clearly,enhanced views will benefit some residents. My question to them is, "Although I am sensitive to your view issues,why should all parcels underwrite costs of undergrounding your poles and wires? Did they not exist at the time you bought your home?" It is my hope that the council reject the undergrounding as proposed. sp t I , James W. Newman Diane M. Newman September 11, 2017 From: Hilary Dr. Residents, Tiburon To: Greg Chanis, Town Manager 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA Dear Mr. Chanis: Please be advised that we the residents of Hilary Dr., Tiburon STRONGLY AGAINST undergirding, cannot afford double property tax, we hope you make a right decision to ignore this project, most of us lived in this town more than forty five (45) years, we do NOT wish to bring the lawsuit against the Town of Tiburon. Respectfully, The Hilary Dr., Residents, Tiburon RECEIVED September 7th, 2017 Tiburon Town Council SEP 11 2011 1505 Tiburon Boulevard TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE Tiburon, CA 94920 TOWN OF TIBURON Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council, I attended the special information meeting that was held on August 3oth concerning the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. As we were encouraged to do, I am writing to let you know of my opposition to moving forward with this project based on the assessment presented by Harris Engineering. Please note that I am not a resident of the proposed District,but I am a member of the Belvedere Tennis Club and a parishioner of St. Hilary Church so I will be economically impacted by the assessments imposed on both of these organizations if the project goes ahead. Based on the presentation that the Harris Engineering representatives made last week and their cost estimates it appears that they simply do not have adequate data from PG&E to make an accurate and reliable estimate of the cost of this project. Their estimates have absolutely no credibility given the huge variance in numbers from just one year ago for reasons that seem to be based largely on the desire to create a greater cushion for error. My great fear is that their estimate will prove to be completely inadequate once the project commences and the costs to the two organizations that I am affiliated with will be further assessed vast amounts of money. At the very least, I ask that you not move forward with the next steps of this project based on the assessment as it stands now. At best, I ask you to move to table the entire project. I will actively encourage the other members of BTC and my fellow parishioners at St Hilary to voice their opposition to the project and vote "no"when solicited for input. Thank you for your service to our community. Si cerel , tk Kirsty lis 1 Tara Hill Road Tiburon, CA 94920 415.272.8035 ReCEIVED September 12th ,2017 SEP 13 2017 GERS Town of Tiburon TO TOWN OF TIBURONICF Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon,CA 94920 RE: Special Meeting August,30th,2017—Harrison Associates- Draft Preliminary Engineer's Report Proposed Estimate of cost per household for Proposed HAWTHORNE UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT No: 2017-1 Representing Harrison Associates—Project Manager, Sam Rocco—Presenting Engineer -Assessment Engineer—Sam Klinghoffer—Presenting Engineer Town of Tiburon Representatives -Town Manager,Greg Chanis - Bond Attorney for the Town of-Tiburon,Sam Sperry To: The Town of Tiburon Mayor, Jim Fraser Vice Mayor-Emmett O'Donnell Tiburon City Council Members: Councilmember—Holli Thier Councilmember-Alice Fredricks Councilmember—David Kulik My husband Jonathan S.Wu and myself,Margaret Millson-Wu,are jthe owners of 50 Delmar Drive,Tiburon,CA. This property has been included in the Proposed property assessment from the Preliminary Engineer's report for the Proposed Hawthorne Undergrounding District. Jon and I attended the Preliminary informational meeting on August 30th at the tiburon Town Hall where the report was opresented by Harrison Associates. We were upset to see that if this project is passed we will be obligated to pay$95,708 over a 30 year period. WE LISTENED TO THE PRESENTATION ON August 30th and we do not concur with the criteria by which our assessment was based and are asking to be excluded from this project. The assessment apportionment was calculated(weighted) on the following parcel benefit criteria: District Aesthetic Benefit - 20% Safety Benefit -10% Enhanced Reliability Benefit -10% View Enhancement -60% Mr.Klinghoffer the Assessor for Harrison Associates agreed in February to come out and view our parcel as we feel we have no need for this undergrounding project as we already undergounded our utilities in 1999 when we built our home. He did not do so. We called and asked him to come out be�roe the next town meeting on September 19th. He came on Monday, September 11th. He stood my his assessment as is. We completely disagree with his assessment of our parcel.We do NOT feel our view is affected by the current status of the utility poles. The safety and reliability benefits were not addressed by concrete comparative facts in this report. We saw no financial partnership with PGE,the Town , ATT or Comcast in sharing the cost of this project. The cost is just passed to the property owners with an unlimited budget. WE ARE IN OPPOSITION OF THIS PROJECT. Historically,this Hawthorne Project was attempted before. The money given for that project some 10 years ago,was spent with no result. A new set of Hawthorne Terrace property owners gathered 60% of the owner signatures necessary to request the Town of Tiburon to levy a special assessment. On January 4th,2017,the Tiburon City Council passed the resolution of intent to do do this project.RESOLUTION NO:01-2017. Jonathan and I were not in attendance at this meeting. Please note ,we did not sign the petition for this action. We will be in attendance on September 19,2017. We hope the Town Council will see the fault in this current proposed budget of this Undergrounding Project. There seems to be little due diligence in it. Sincerely, � Margartet Millsopn-Wu Jonathan S.Wu 50 Delmar Drive Tiburon,CA 94920 415-596-9076 415-845-9076 Community Congregational Church Letters RECEIVED September 10, 2017 SPP 13 2011 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON TOWN OFTIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Under-grounding- District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, �- A� (101 ignature � mLe Add ess Town Zip Code RECEIVED September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council SEP 13 2017 TOWN OF TIBURON TOWN MANAGERSOFFICE 1505 Tiburon Boulevard TOWN of TIBUR®N Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, A sitaly, 1—/jU'C0 L_XJ Signature- Name 0 WSJ Address Town Zip Coe 7- MULBERG LAW FIRM Frank I. Mulberg—Brett D. Mulberg (Mailing Address) Attorneys At Law Tel: 415-388-0605 P.O. Box 909 Conf.Rm-655 Redwood Hwy. Fax: 415-388-6929 Mill Valley,CA. 94942 Mill Valley, California VED September 11, 2017 ° ' I VIA HAND DELIVERY SEP 11 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church of Tiburon—Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed; Objection to Preliminary Engineer's Report in its Entirety; Objection to Mitigated Negative Declaration. Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: We have been retained by the Community Congregational Church ("CCC") as to the above-referenced matter. CCC hereby objects to being included within the boundaries of the proposed Hawthorne Undergrounding District(the "District") and requests that it be removed from such District. CCC has also submitted its own letters from its board and congregants, regarding their position in this matter. Please include all letters as part of the administrative record for these matters. CCC is the owner of the parcel identified as number 145 in the Preliminary Engineer's Report (the "Report"), dated August 8, 2017. CCC is a relatively small, financially independent church (affiliated with the United Church of Christ but without any financial support), which operates on a modest breakeven annual budget. It is classified as an Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable organization. According to the Report, the proposed assessment on CCC is $94,166, which, over a 30-year bond repayment period, results in an approximate total which is double or triple the assessment. Similar to the position of St. Hilary Catholic Church and School, as further discussed in CCC's letter to the Town (submitted herewith), CCC has no interest in, and very little benefit, if any, derived from placing neighborhood overhead utility lines underground. Additionally, the approach taken by the engineer in quantifying, measuring, and apportioning special benefits to CCC is constitutionally flawed. The imposition of this improper assessment will undoubtedly Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON September 11, 2017 Page 2 cause significant detrimental long lasting financial harm to CCC, its operations and the charitable activities it engages in. My prior letter of August 29, 2017 to the Mayor and Town Council on behalf of St. Hilary Catholic Church and School sets forth in detail the many applicable legal issues. Those same arguments are applicable to CCC and are fully incorporated herein. Also, CCC intends to share any costs with St. Hilary associated with the preparation of the administrative record, to save all parties duplicative costs. Under these circumstances, CCC requests the Town remove it from inclusion within the boundaries of this District. Alternatively, CCC requests the Town consider affording CCC a significant discount or reduced nominal assessment amount, which is well within its discretion under the law. This reduction can be sustained on the basis that it is merely a proper adjustment to reflect the nonprofit charitable entity's limited benefit from the assessment. (See Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property(2009) 174 Ca1.App.4th 708. ("Dahms"). Consistent with this thinking is that a Section 501(c)(3) church is granted exemption under California law from real property tax assessments based upon its religious status. In Dahms, the City of Pomona formed a special assessment district to provide security, street maintenance and marketing, promotion and special events. One objection to that district was that the assessments for nonprofit organizations were "discounted" in that they were charged only 5% of what they would otherwise have had to pay. The Court of Appeal found that objection to be without merit in that there is nothing in Proposition 218 which prohibits discounting, or that any discounts be uniformly granted across all parcels in the assessment district. We look forward to further discussing these matters and in working together to achieve a reasonable solution which addresses our concerns. Very truly yours, Frank 1. Mule g cc: The Commu ' re ation hurch of Tiburon RECEIVED SEP 11 2011 Communitg Congregational Church TOWN CLERK 1+5 Rock Hill Drive, Tiburon, CA 94920 TOWNOFTIBURON 415-x-35-9105 FAX 415-455-4655 Cee rating t e Spirit in all Peop e, in all t ing5. September 11, 2017 Members of the Tiburon Town Council Mr. Patrick Barnes,Town of Tiburon Engineer 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 (hand delivered) Dear Council Members and Mr. Barnes: Please accept this letter as a request to remove the real property parcel of Community Congregational Church (CCC) from the Hawthorne Terrace Utility Undergrounding District unless there is a way to substantially reduce the $94,166 cost assessment allocated to CCC. Along with this letter, we have submitted signed letters from many of our concerned congregants (some of whom reside in Tiburon), concerning this matter. Our neighbor St Hilary made many fine points in their letter to Council dated August 30, 2017. As CCC is also a church/non profit, we will reiterate much of their logic in our letter, as we share their same concerns. It is not our intent to stop the district from undergrounding utilities. However, CCC operates on a tight budget as a non-profit provider of services to the community.The estimated cost of between $5,000 and $6,000 a year over 30 years to pay off the assessment would add up to$180,000 or more, which would cause significant and long-lasting financial harm to CCC. As a small,financially independent church, we do not receive monetary support from our larger denomination. Nor would we be able to recoup these expenses through increased donations from our members, many of whom are retired and/or on fixed income. In addition, we are quite dismayed by the notion that the final cost of this project may be significantly higher than currently estimated, in which case the district would levy a supplemental assessment(as has been done in the past). If this happens,the supplemental costs may be incurred at a time when the undergrounding project is in "midstream"and property owners would have no practical way to object. (Point of fact, we were assured that the prior estimate of$8.9 million was sufficiently padded to insure the project would not exceed that amount.) The stated goals of the district are improved resident views and look of the overall neighborhood, public safety,and increased reliability of utility service. When one looks honestly into this process, one can't avoid the conclusion that the main driving force is the view improvement goal with the increased property value that accompanies it.This is what people emphasize in their undergrounding discussions with each other and what real estate agents articulate when speaking to buyers and sellers of property. These benefits will be helpful for residential property resale and refinancing and increase the enjoyment of one's property day to day. They are wonderful benefits and it is right for people to pay for them if they want them. However, even the Preliminary Engineer's Report for this project admits that,the undergrounding of utilities does not increase the property value of a church. People who go to church do not decide to do so based on whether there are utility poles on the street the church is on. There is accordingly no benefit to CCC in this regard, nor do we even view wires and poles from our primary viewpoints on our property. CCC attracts members because it meets members' needs for spiritual enrichment,fellowship and community service. We do not receive any benefit from increased property value in the same way a residential parcel would. The Town is essentially asking for our congregants to shoulder the burden for a project that neither CCC nor any of its congregants realistically benefit from financially. Increased public safety and utility reliability are arguably more important societal goals than improved views and property values. However, realistically speaking, public safety and utility reliability do not appear to be threatened by the above-ground utilities that have been in our neighborhood since the community was built. We have not received any data from the town or the assessor on the safety and reliability of the current utility configuration, or comparative data for another community before and after undergrounding, so we have no basis on which to consider whether we would have any benefit related to safety or reliability from undergrounding of the utilities. Increased public safety and utility reliability are goals CCC supports, but we have been provided no evidence that undergrounding our neighborhood utilities will increase either public safety or utility reliability nearly as much as proposed in the Preliminary Engineer's Report. In fact, Mr. Klingelhofer states that "the total 'out of service'time is comparable for overhead and underground utility systems."The Report states that this is because the difficulty in identifying the location of system outages and the time required to complete repairs involving underground systems offsets the estimated increased number of times outages may occur with above-ground systems. From information shared and questions raised at the related Town Council meetings we have attended, it seems clear to us that the primary forces motivating many people to pursue utility undergrounding are improved views and increased property values,and increased public safety and utility reliability(with no evidence that they will actually be increased) is secondary. We first learned of the proposed undergrounding project about a year and a half ago,and have been opposed to it from the beginning. But other than not signing a petition to move forward,there did not seem to be a point in the process to register our concerns. However, the time now remaining after the announcement of the amount of actual dollars assessed to CCC(last month) until the time that the district and its assessment may be final is relatively short.Therefore, CCC has hired the Law Firm of Frank Mulberg to provide guidance during this critical time and to provide CCC with a voice experienced in these technical matters.The time to object to the amount of the assessment is rapidly elapsing. Therefore,the Mulberg Law Firm is providing a letter to the Town Council on our behalf. We hope you understand the concerns that motivated our reaction to the amount of assessment. We do not intend to create an obstacle to the continued progress of the district. We do respectfully request removal of the CCC parcel from the Hawthorne Terrace Utility Undergrounding District unless there is a way to substantially reduce the $94,166 cost assessment allocated to CCC. Speaking for the entire CCC Governing Board and Congregation,thank you for your consideration of our request. Ve ry truly yours, ichhorn Co-moderator Community Congregational Church September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church") and a resident of Tiburon. I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Since r y 1� Signaturerot) U ) r m Address , Q)CY) �_t� \-X,0 Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church") and a resident of Tiburon. I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, r A41 Signature ;;�� Name �0 �&(I`O c(a 0' Address 7"166e eh ayy Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Underaroundina District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church") and a resident of Tiburon. I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, 1�6 ignatu Name As,ss Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church") and a resident of Tiburon. I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, ��%W,3 \�a%QjN L 0 1 Si natur Name '],b V"%E� -t C� Address ( I ex Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church") and a resident of Tiburon. I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Signature Name Address x1,12 (4cb Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerel , Signature Nameq Addrel 1 C C �►. mkcx- Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, gnature Name Arm- �/l ����� Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincer I , Signatur Name Address Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Signature Name Address, Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Signature Name Address � ' Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, S`ignatur Name AddUa WTown L Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, V`1` y--O< V` 'CV-s 1" {� Sign ture Name Address CA J<_,c 1 ' 'G J Com: C� (05 Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Underctroundina District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, 9 Signature Name Address 1 I I Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, A Signature Name Address Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Underarounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Signature Name Address--a Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Under-grounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, 41i4"', J:�-/ - Signat9re Name y,/v L � C � �✓ 1l �yz Address( / L4?cL2? I CG 9�I lj—3 Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, 04,c� Si nature Name Address, /i n�� A � , 0 Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council. I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Sig V(lpt "z& Name A00ress Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undercirounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Signature ( Name � NLt ,ss (— Address Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, Which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, 4 Signature Name I q VLL1 Llin-cc Address cm Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Sig aturName Addr ss Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, �' / ®' Signature �} N13 ame 2 s zL Address �- Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Signatu Na e Ad tress _ Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Under-grounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, C. 1n 1 „ 0' Oct ;rte Sir ature Name 0 g \ ` Address Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Underciroundina District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, 222� ���. Z1� 1;�' �.'�€�:��,�}C.e O i-r�ti rpt� -C?_ e� Sriiggn ure) Name Address Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undercirounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Signature Name a� Address :_�r, « �Ic�l�r7 a rl C'cx, 9 2 9"a i Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be re ved from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from conc rned member of the congregation. Sincerely, i i t�taVYP Q Signatu , 1 Name 70 Address A SCJ Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, s Signature Name 5vo �. le l►4I o Jct - v� Address Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Signature Name .5nc) 5;, [—:Lc-- S10 T�>Y�, A dress +ree� �Yoc9 /90 Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Signature Name Address r 1)0,0 r c e;1 `�4c)`z f Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Signature Name 1lI�; V15.10- V1 V-Crntr'5 c1 Address Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, ignat � .� Name Ad ess y ),-�. G Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council, I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, s, Si natur Name Address Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Undo- SignatureName L k_G'1/L-6YiR Address�Vu _ Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, e r � Cr o Signatur / Name Add..ress Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council. I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Signature Name 1 �- �' Address Com-- � CIN 0-t L-C,Cl Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and-will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Signaturef --� Name Address Town Zip Code 7 September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Signature Name �.2 L/ .Z a�ly h'1D "L ?7 a:� Addr ss Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, ell Signature Name Address Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, c- �\ S --) _ �� Name Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Si fat�e ��� �, Name Address Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, G� Signature Name Address Town Zip Code `1 September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church") and a resident of Tiburon. I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, y°V�) L L Cz li Signature Name Address J � 49. Town Zip Code _ ' I) The Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute—San Francisco and Dept. of Ophthalmology, California Pacific Medical Center Phone: 1-415-209-9529 Mailing address: 664 Atherton Ave. E-mail: gus@ski.org Novato, CA, 94945-2605, USA www.gkKLoMIColenbrander -September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council MCEIVED TOWN OF TIBUROt 1505 Tiburon Boulevard SEP 1 3 2017 Tiburon, CA 94920 VMMAN AGERS 0;IF; TOWN 0HIBURON E: Hawthorne Undera�rounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: We are members of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). We wish to offer our support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposeot Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and the church's request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, and will derive no benefit from being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as members of the Church we oppose inclusion in this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from concerned members of the congregation. Sincerely, August Colenbrander b1 (J nne) Colenbrander September0Q 2u17 mayor and Merhbers of the'Tow C®unci/ Tc�l/Vl�l C)� T 8,UR0N II 1 595 Tiburon £ ouievard Tiburon, CA 9492Q »awtharne Under r+ undlnstrict. urch Abjection to CcarinenunityC®ngrega'tional Chbeinginc6uded within District, and Request to be Removed Dear n aybr and /Members of the Town Council: l a a ri ember of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). 1 wish to offer%rhy support in faubr of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding district (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project.' We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members, We caperate as a nonprofit ;charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond fepayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perforin, As a srryall independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily ab o`b these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of V are retired and/or on fixed income. e have no interest in, or benefit ,derived from; being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility linea unriergrond, Accordingly, as a member of the Church' 1 oppose this project, and request khat the'Curch be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter freirn a concerned member of the congregation, rncerely; Gail Lester Signature Dame 7 lir©adview I�riue Address , n Rafael ' 94991. Town Zip Code EC;`E I V E September 10, 2017 SEP 11 2017 TOWNOWN OB=TBBUB OFFICE Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church") and a resident of Tiburon. I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100-members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Signat'r1 e Name 9 Address SON CA 9(-Pq �-) Town Zip Code September 10, 2017 RECEIVED Mayor and Members of the Town Council S t; 2017 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevardk Tiburon, CA 94920 RIE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church") and a resident of Tiburon. I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, x/, f0i4,,-vr1 i �il� Cox/ Sign -F6re 5 � Name a Add re Town Zip Code i�1- September 10, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Hawthorne Undergroundina District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in'favor`of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,185.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial farm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church l oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Signature 1 Name Address Town Zip Code RECEIVED SEP 14 2011 September 10, 2017 TOWN MANAGERS urrdcL TOWN OF TIBURON Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1606 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, �v � �► L 0J� o°s Sign r �� Name e AI s C� (� Town "/Zip Code St . Hilary Letters MULBERG LAW FIRM Frank I. Mulberg—Brett D. Mulberg (Mailing Address) Attorneys At Law Tel: 415-388-0605 P.O. Box 909 Conf,Rm-655 Redwood Hwy. Fax:415-388-6929 Mill Valley,CA.94942 Mill Valley,California August 29, 2017 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Saint Hilary Catholic Church and School Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed; Objection to Preliminary Engineer's Report in its Entirety; Objection to Mitigated Negative Declaration; Request for Copy of District Record. St. Hilary Catholic Church and School ("St. Hilary") hereby objects to being included within the boundaries of the proposed Hawthorne Undergrounding District(the"District") and requests that it be removed from such District. Please include this letter objection as part of the administrative record for these matters. St. Hilary is the owner of parcels identified as numbers 16, 17, and 23 in the Preliminary Engineer's Report(the"Report"), dated August 8, 2017. It is classified as an Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable organization, which operates on a modest annual breakeven budget. According to the Report, the total proposed assessment for St. Hilary is a staggering$266,000, which, over a 30-year bond repayment period, results in an annual payment of$18,650, or an approximate total of$560,000. As a nonprofit church and school, St. Hilary has no interest in, and very little benefit, if any, derived from placing neighborhood overhead utility lines underground. Further,the approach taken by the engineer in quantifying, measuring, and apportioning special benefits to St. Hilary is constitutionally flawed. The imposition of this improper assessment will undoubtedly cause significant detrimental long-term financial harm to St. Hilary's church and school operations, and to its employees, students and parishioners. As set forth below, the assessment imposed on St. Hilary fails to comport with the substantive provisions of Proposition 218. In other words,the Report does not satisfy the Town's two-part constitutional evidentiary burden of proof demonstrating that (1) the project Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON August 29, 2017 Page 2 will confer special benefits on St. Hilary's property, and (2), that the amount of the assessment on St. Hilary's property is "proportional to, and no greater than,"the special benefits conferred on that property. (Art. XIII D, § 4, subd. (f).) • The Report's special benefit determinations as to St. Hilary are unsupported by the record. Instead, the engineer's determinations are based on arbitrary and self- serving conclusions. • The cost of St. Hilary's assessment far exceeds the proportional special benefit conferred on the property. (Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 4, subd. (a).) • The engineer's approach in quantifying, measuring, and apportioning special benefits to the property is flawed and unconstitutional. • The application of two special benefit points for aesthetics to the property is arbitrary and lacks evidentiary support. • The application of 18.625 special benefit points to the property for improved safety is arbitrary and lacks evidentiary support. • The application of five special benefit points to the property for improved safety is arbitrary and lacks evidentiary support. • The Report fails to properly identify, separate and quantify general and special benefits, based on solid, credible evidence. The Report is fraught with unreasonable and self-serving conclusion as to the Tiburon Boulevard area and related areas located around the Belvedere Tennis Club. The undergrounding project will confer substantial direct general benefits upon property owners and others outside the District. Such mischief only invites distrust between the Town and its citizens, and promotes a lack of integrity and transparency in this process. The formation of the District is fundamentally flawed in other material respects,as well: • In January, 2017, various property owners within the subject proposed district presented a petition to the Town to urge the creation of a utility undergrounding district. According to the Town, the petition satisfied its requirements of its policies and procedures, in that it reflected the support of at least 60 percent of all parcels in the proposed district as required by the Town. However, at that time, the Town of Tiburon, its agents, and the district proponents misrepresented and failed to disclose the approximate true cost of the project and related individual assessments. According to the Report, the total cost for the assessment project is now estimated to be $12,426,796—an approximate increase of over 100 percent Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON August 29, 2017 Page 3 from what property owners were initially informed. Had these property owners known the true facts, the 60 percent required threshold would not have been met. As it stands, the proponents' petition support presented to the Town was approximately 61 percent and barely passed the 60 percent the Town required for approval of the Resolution of Intent to form the District. • A conflict of interest continues to exist by having the advisory counsel represent the interests of both proponents and opponents of the District. This conflict violates the integrity and validity of the District, along with the Town's own undergrounding policies. The Town has not provided nor disclosed to proponents and opponents of the District their right to independent counsel, paid for by the Town, related to all matters concerning the District, including contesting assessments. • Improper information has been disseminated by the Town's agents for purposes of receiving support for petitions necessary for obtaining a Resolution of Intent as well as for seeking a voting majority for approval of assessments pursuant to the Engineer's Report—that assessments may be used as deductions to reduce a parcel owner's taxable income when filing income tax returns. It is for these reasons that St. Hilary requests the Town remove it from inclusion within the boundaries of this District. Alternatively, St. Hilary requests the Town consider significantly reducing its assessment to a nominal assessment amount, which is well within its discretion. Article XIII D leaves local governments free to impose assessments that are less than the proportional special benefits conferred—in effect, to allow discounts as to nonprofit entities such as churches. (Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property(2009) 174 Cal.AppAth 708, 716.) St. Hilary hereby requests that the Town provide it with a copy of the District Administrative Record to date and all related documents. We look forward to further discussing these matters and in working together to achieve a reasonable solution which addresses our concerns. Very truly yours, Frank 1. Mu rg cc; Saint Hilary Cath Church d School f' i t s � l wy ' rc f 761 Hilarjy Drive. Tiburon, C(diformn 94920 (415) 435-I1 2 1 AX(415)435-1862 iviviv.sthilarv.org oz ; August 30, 2017 y � f )t i i i f1 ! � Members of the Tiburon Town Council Mr. Patrick Barnes,Town of Tiburon Engineer t Dear Council Members and Mr. Barnes, Please accept this letter as a request to remove the real property parcels of St Hilary School and Church from the Hawthorne Terrace Utility Undergrounding District unless there is a way to substantially reduce the$266,927 cost assessment allocated to St Hilary. It's not St Hilary's intent to stop the district from undergrounding utilities. In fact years ago, St Hilary had already accomplished undergrounding on its campus at considerable cost. St Hilary School and Church operate on tight budgets as non-profit providers of services to the community. The estimated cost of between$15,000 and $18,000 a year over 30 years to pay off the assessment would cause certain years to be loss or larger loss years financially. What we have learned from our research of earlier undergrounding districts in the area is that the final undergrounding cost may be significantly higher than currently estimated, in which case the district would levy a supplemental assessment. If this happens,the supplemental costs may be incurred at a time when the undergrounding project is in "midstream" and property owners would have no practical way to object. This is concerning. The stated goals of the district are improved resident views, public safety and increased reliability of utility service. When one looks honestly into this process, one can't avoid the conclusion that the main driving force is the view improvement goal with the increased property value that accompanies it. This is what people emphasize in their undergrounding discussions with each other and what real estate agents articulate when speaking to buyers and sellers of property. These benefits will be helpful on property resale and refinancing and increase the enjoyment of one's property day to day. They are wonderful benefits and it is right for people to pay for them if they want them. St Hilary already has aesthetic benefits from its earlier undergrounding of utilities at its cost. Increased public safety and utility reliability are arguably more important societal goals than improved views and property values. However, realistically speaking, public safety and utility reliability do not appear to be threatened by the above-ground utilities that have been in our neighborhood since the community was built. One just needs think back over time about the number of instances in which utility equipment in our neighborhood caused damage to people or property. Have there been any such instances? Also one should think back about the number of times our utility services failed to be delivered to us when the identified cause was presence of local utility equipment above ground. Have there been any of these occurrences? Increased public safety and utility reliability are goals St Hilary supports, but common sense thinking leads to the conclusion that undergrounding our neighborhood utilities will not increase either public safety or utility reliability nearly as much as proposed in the Preliminary Engineer's Report by Harris&Associates (Mr. Klingelhofer). In fact, Mr Klingelhofer states that"the total `out of service'time is comparable for overhead and underground utility systems." The' Report states that this is because the difficulty in identifying the location of system outages and the time required to complete repairs involving underground systems offsets the estimated increased number of times outages may occur with above-ground systems. We have looked at reports from utility companies in other areas of the country where weather is often more harsh than it is in Tiburon;some of the utilities have stated that underground utilities have actually hampered the effort to get services back on line. St Hilary would contribute to the cost of actual improvements in public safety and utility reliability alongside its neighbors if those costs reasonably relate to those benefits, but we don't believe that the Report is convincing on that score. The "elephant in the room" is this: the primary forces motivating many people to pursue utility undergrounding are improved views and increased property values and secondarily increased public safety and utility reliability, but these latter goals will not likely be significantly advanced by the undergrounding. The Report should have put much more dollar weight on improved views and increased property values and quite a bit less on increased public safety and utility reliability because the Hawthorne Terrace utility undergrounding is not buying very much of an increase in public safety or in utility reliability. The undergrounding process has been proceeding, I believe, for more than two years. However,the time now remaining after the announcement of the amount of actual dollars assessed to St Hilary(this month) until the time that the district and its assessment may be final is relatively short. Therefore,St Hilary has hired the Law Firm of Frank Mulberg to provide guidance during this critical time and to provide St Hilary with a voice experienced in these technical matters. The time to object to the amount of the assessment is rapidly elapsing. Therefore,the Mulberg Law Firm has very recently sent the Town Council a letter. I hope you understand the concerns that motivated our reaction to the amount of assessment. We do not intend to create an obstacle to the continued progress of the district. We do respectfully request removal of the St Hilary parcels from the Hawthorne Terrace Utility Undergrounding District unless there is a way to substantially reduce the$266,927 cost assessment allocated to St Hilary. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Very truly yours, o b Father William E. Brown Pastor,St Hilary Church and School Lea Stefani From: Greg Chanis Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 5:19 PM To: Lea Stefani Cc: Stock, Benjamin L. Subject: FW: Proposed Undergrounding District - Tonight's Town Council Meeting Email comment on Hawthorne Undergrounding Greg Greg Chanis,Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon,CA 94920/(415)435-7383 -----Original Message----- From:Terry Hennessy [ma ilto:terrysiewelry@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday,August 30, 2017 4:02 PM To: Greg Chanis<gchanis@townoftiburon.org> Cc: Fr. William E. Brown<billbrown@stanfordalumni.org> Subject: Proposed Undergrounding District-Tonight's Town Council Meeting Hon Mayor Fraser and Councilmembers, As a member of St. Hilary Parish, I strongly object to including St. Hilary Church and School in the proposed undergrounding district. Members of the parish are residents and constituents of the Town Council,and to put this onerous debt on a few hundred parishioners is unthinkable. When we attend Mass on Sunday, we are inside the church and not viewing the scenery. Children are in classrooms during the day. Of what conceivable benefit is there to parishioners to have to pay$30,000 annually or an estimated $500,000 for a view they don't see? This is not a debt to be absorbed by the Archdiocese of San Francisco. This is a debt you would be imposing on your constituents. strongly urge you not to include St. Hilary Parish or Community Congregational Church in this District. They cannot afford this onerous debt. am unable to attend the meeting tonight, but will become actively involved in resisting any further efforts to include these two local churches in a government imposed debt. Sincerely, Therese "Terry" Hennessy Former Mayor of Tiburon 1 Greg Chanis From: Adrian Gordon <adriang@sthilary.org> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 10:04 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding--Please remove St Hilary Church & School from the District Importance: High Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires)from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have 132 been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Adrian J. Gordon 133 Greg Chanis From: Mike Ratiani <mike@ratiani.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 10:54 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Please exclude St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding District The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: My name is Michael Ratiani and I am a member of the St Hilary community. I've been a parishioner here for 20 years, and sent my daughter through St Hilary School. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. 130 -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Mike Ratiani +1 415 264 6453 131 Greg Chanis From: Dr. Hansjorg Muller <h.mueller@mbp-online.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 10:57 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Saint Hilary - Undergrounding of power lines The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's 128 report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Hansjoerg Mueller 129 Greg Chanis From: Chris Paloma Karas <9thpaloma@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 11:07 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: RE Assessment I am a resident of Tiburon for 30 years, parishioner of St Hilary Church and registered voter. town@town oft iburon.org The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own 126 utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Christine Karas Sent from Gmail Mobile 127 Greg Chanis From: Gary Hines <buildit2699@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 11:07 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: URGENT!!! St Hilary's Church The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community.. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. --The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received.. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. --The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual 124 evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to$18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Lisa O'Rourke & Gary Hines Del Mar Homeowners and St. Hilary Parishioners since 1966 Sent from my Whone 125 Greg Chanis From: Susan Zimmer <susanzimmer.ca@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 11:09 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: St. Hilary Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary parish and have sent our children to St. Hilary School. I find the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District to be a huge financial burden that the church cannot afford. There are three reasons why I object to this town requirement: (1) St. Hilary has already paid for this The benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "views cape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. Most importantly St Hilary has alreadypaid for under grounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners' I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. (2) Public Safety and Utility Reliability has not been proven The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). However, the Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to under grounding utilities. (3) Financial Burden This would pose a huge financial burden to the church and school which is an important member of the Tiburon community. Since St. Hilary has already contributed to this effort years ago, SHS should be exempt from this requirement Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Susan Zimmer 120 Greg Chanis From: Sandra Lisanti <sjlisanti@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 11:08 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Fwd: URGENT: please write to Tiburon Town Council members today! Please add our names to the list of supporters of St Hilary. Sandra and John Lisanti Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: William Brown <billbrown@alumni.stanford.edu> Date: September 7, 2017 at 10:49:11 AM PDT To: "Fr. William E. Brown" <billbrown@alumni.stanford.edu> Subject: URGENT: please write to Tiburon Town Council members today! Thursday, September 7, 2017 Dear parishioners, If you are willing and able to help us get out from under this terribly expensive burden, please copy and paste this letter and email it to: town@townoftiburon.org and add your own names and relevant data (e.g., 1 am a resident of Tiburon; or, 1 am a member of the parish; or, 1 send my children to Saint Hilary School,etc.). Time is of the essence, so please do this TODAY if you feel inspired to help Saint Hilary's in this time of need. As you have probably read,Saint Hilary's will otherwise be forced to pay between$266,000 and $500,000 for a project we neither want nor need. God bless, —Father Brown ................................................................ The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. 121 Greg Chanis From: Andrew Ginter <fatherginter@sthilary.org> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 11:16 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Undergrounding The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am the assistant priest at St. Hilary Catholic Church and live in Tiburon. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. --The$266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. --The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to$18,000 per 118 year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood wou►d have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Rev. Andrew W. Ginter St. Hilary Catholic Church 119 Greg Chanis From: Ingrid <ingridsimkins@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 11:20 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: undergrounding and effect on St. Hilary Church and School The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: We are members of the St Hilary community. With all due respect,we object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man- made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? We don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of $173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, we don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. We think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk 116 lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from very concerned persons. Sincerely, Ingrid and William Simkins 117 Greg Chanis From: Linda Woodrum <Ifwoodrum@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 11:26 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Undergrounding Objection The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of $173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain 114 any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Doug and Linda Woodrum St. Hilary parishioners since 1998 115 Greg Chanis From: Sally Shepard <sally@shepardpr.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 11:28 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community and a 51 year resident of Del Mar, so do recognize the advantage of undergrounding for homeowners. Our undergrounding project went through a long process due to a lawsuit, but the results have been gratifying. We reside on the "flats," but feel the addition of the undergrounding from the entrance on has enhanced our area. I do, though, feel that the inclusion of St. Hilary Church and the School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District is a major financial problem for the church community. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social, goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask 112 ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter. Sincerely, Sally Shepard 100 Avenida Miraflores Tiburon sally@shepardpr.com 113 Greg Chanis From: Lea Stefani Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 11:31 AM To: Patrick Barnes Subject: FW: URGENT!!! St Hilary's Church & Hawthorne Undergrounding Mayor and Council, Ms. O'Rourke has requested immediate distribution of her letter regarding the Hawthorne Undergrounding District. See below. This letter will also be included with other correspondence received ahead of the 9/19 meeting. Lea From: Gary Hines [mailto:buildit2699@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 11:26 AM To: Lea Stefani Subject: URGENT!!! St Hilary's Church & Hawthorne Undergrounding The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: We are members of the St Hilary community & Del Mar Homeowners since 1966. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the 110 properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Lisa O'Rourke & Gary Hines Del Mar Homeowners & St. Hilary Parishioners since 1966 Sent from my iPhone rrr Greg Chanis From: A. Dean Jones <adeanjones@prod igy.net> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 11:32 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: The Saint Hillary Community Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community and have been for 17 years. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of $173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with 108 $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Dean A. Dean Jones (415) 9-900 adeanjones@prodigy.net 109 Greg Chanis From: Tim Geraghty <tg53@ntrs.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 11:35 AM To: Greg Chanis Cc: Susan Geraghty (stgeraghty@comcast.net) Subject: Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. NTAC:'INS-20 The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: Our family has been living in Tiburon since 1999, and we are members of the St Hilary Catholic Church community. With all due respect, we object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push St. Hilary's School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man- made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing-, however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? 106 -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of $173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, we do not see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. We think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Susan and Tim Geraghty 6 Turtle Rock Court Tiburon, CA 94920 107 Greg Chanis From: Sheila Meagher <s.meagher@att.net> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 11:47 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man- made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of $173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such 104 a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned family. Sincerely, Ed and Sheila Meagher Sheila Meagher 415.987.1844 105 Greg Chanis From: Robert P. Herwick MD <rph9@me.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 12:18 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community and have been for nearly 50 years. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask 102 ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Robert P. Herwick MD rph9@me.com 103 Greg Chanis From: Stephanie Julian <stephaniegross@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 12:20 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Opposition to St Hilary assessment for under grounding September 7, 2017 The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man- made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of $173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The 100 report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Stephanie and David Julian (we are parents of Saint Hilary School 1st and 3rd graders and DO NOT want this to impact the quality of education offered to our children due to education funds going to pay for this) 101 Greg Chanis From: Jane M Pianucci <janempi1238@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 12:25 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. --The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. --The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. 98 Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Jane M. Pianucci 99 Greg Chanis From: Serge Dumont <sdumont47@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 12:29 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: St. Hilary Parish The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man- made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of $173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk 95 lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Jane and Serge Dumont, Parishoners 96 Greg Chanis From: Denise Sutherland <denise.sutherland@me.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 12:41 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Please do not subject St. Hilary to the financial burden on under grounding that will take away from our kid's education for YEARS to come Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: am a member of the St Hilary community as both a parent and parishioner. I write this email to support the St. Hilary effort to be excluded from the extremely costly burden the Town of Tiburon is considering levying against our small school and church. I have been a parent at St. Hilary for 8 years. Each year, the cost to give our children a faith based education rises due to outside factors, including increased health care costs for our teachers and staff, increased costs for utilities and supplies, and increased costs to do necessary maintenance and construction to keep our school clean and safe. On the issue of construction costs, one of the additional arguments to the list of excellent ones below is that the current levy is an estimate - we all know that the actual cost of the construction to underground, by the time it is approved and implemented, will cost likely 20 to 30% more than the estimate. That is the reality of construction for all projects. St. Hilary parents, parishioners and students are active, positive and respectful members of the Town of Tiburon. If you saw or participated in the Labor Day Parade you saw that St. Hilary school was a proud and prominent participant of it's "home town." I strongly urge you not to diminish the educational possibilities for these kids and their futures by demanding that current and future parents pay to upgrade the views of local residents and increase their property values. St. Hilary students and parents and the church will gain nothing from this huge financial obligation but it will take away from the educational offerings that St. Hilary can afford. St. Hilary needs to compete with the other local parochial and private schools in a competitive educational environment and to tax it so heavily will force it to make cutbacks that could seriously hurt its long term viability. I support the other arguments against the levy as well: -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man- made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing,- 93 hing;93 however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of $173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Denise Sutherland 94 Greg Chanis From: Sophie LAURY <sophie.laury@hotmail.fr> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 12:42 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Please remove St Hilary from the undergrounding district Importance: High September 7, 2,017 The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council, 1 am a member of the St Hilary Community and I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 years' period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask 91 ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Warmest regards, Sophie Laury de Saint Pierre 19 Circle Dr, Apt B Tiburon CA 94920 +1(415) 629-6710 92 Greg Chanis From: Kathleen Lederer <nutso1 @icloud.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 12:43 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Undergrounding at St. Hilary's Members of the Council, I'd like to add our names to those of others who are reaching out to you on behalf of St. Hilary's. Respectfully, we ask that that you consider and appreciate the points being made that argue against our inclusion in this undergrounding project and the subsequent assessment hardship that would place on the approximately 900 parishioners of St. Hilary's and the families of its students. In our opinion,the most compelling point of all is the fact that St. Hilary's has already paid for undergrounding utility lines several years ago. We urge you to recognize the unfairness of an additional assessment for work already completed and offering no additional benefit. Thank you in advance for your appreciation of our position. Kathy and Ed Lederer 308 Paradise Dr. Tiburon 90 Greg Chanis From: Mike/Helene Keran <mwkeran@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 12:46 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: We are parishioners of St. Hilary Church and live on Paradise Drive, 94920. With all due respect, we object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and thus, St Hilary has already addressed the issue of public safety. -- It seems the main benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view. minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. We don't see this assessment as being fair. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from two people of the St. Hilary community. Sincerely, Mike and Helene Keran 89 Greg Chanis From: Dan Pisenti <dpisenti@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 12:49 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. Dear Tiburon Town Council: Shame on you for attempting to steal money from the St. Hilary Catholic Church and School so that local neighbors can have clean sight lines, free of telephone poles. Clearly you have lumped the church and school into this project purely to extract funds from them. The church and school receive nothing of value from this project, and you know it. If the people who benefit from this project truly want you to go forward, they should be prepared to pay the full freight. Because of the extremely high level of abuse in this case, the church and school and its thousands of interested parties will have no choice but to litigate this matter, which will create greater ill will and increase costs for all involved. And we will ensure that your dishonest behavior is properly highlighted in the local media. Do the right thing, and quit taking advantage of people for whom you have such little regard. Dan Pisenti St. Hilary School Parent and Church Parishioner 58 South Knoll Road Mill Valley, CA 94941 88 Greg Chanis From: Stefanie M. Vasquez <smvasquez@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 12:56 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Please remove Saint Hilary from the Hawthorne undergrounding utility district Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. --The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. --Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. --The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would 86 have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Carlos & Stefanie Vasquez 40 Bayview Avenue Belvedere CA 94920 87 Greg Chanis From: Linda Hill <Ighill@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 12:57 PM To: Greg Chanis Cc: Mayor Jim Fraser; Vice Mayor O'Donnell; Councilmember Alice Fredericks; kulik.tiburon@gmail.com; Holli Thier Subject: Impact on St Hilary for Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District Importance: High The Tiburon Town Council 1505 "Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: First, let me say thank you for all you do in service to our Tiburon community. Second, thank you in advance for taking the time to read our comments that follow. We are members of the St. Hilary community and have been so since 1993. We have lived in Tiburon since 2000. In addition to practicing our faith at St. Hilary, our children were educated at St. Hilary School, involved in CYO athletics through St. Hilary with children from both the St Hilary community and beyond, and have been involved in service projects benefitting the entire Tiburon peninsula. We were shocked and dismayed upon hearing about the proposed assessment against St. Hilary, a non-profit entity. We can understand that the homeowners in the Hawthorne Terrace community now want undergrounding of their utilities, especially since St. Hilary was already forward thinking years ago when it paid for undergrounding its own utilities. We firmly object to the inclusion of St. Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District and ask that common sense prevail here. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward but without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration. Sincerely, Mike and Linda Hill 85 Greg Chanis From: Terry Hennessy <terrysjewelry@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 12:57 PM To: Greg Chanis Cc: Fr. William E. Brown Subject: Undergrounding of Utilities Therese M. Hennessy 7 Marsh Road Tiburon,CA 94920 Hon.Mayor James Fraser Hon.Town Council Members 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon,CA 94920 Re: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District Hon.Mayor Fraser and Town Council Members: As you are aware,I am a member of the St Hilary community.With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. The$266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. In actuality,the total 30 year cost would be closer to$500,000;a debt the Parish cannot afford. It would have a detrimental affect on providing scholarships to underprivileged school children,and maintaining an award winning scholastic program. Tuitions would probably have to be raised. Have you ever stopped to think how much money St.Hilary saves the Reed Union School District by providing education to hundreds of the Tiburon peninsula children. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago,and as such,St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Sincerely, Therese"Terry" Hennessy Mayor 1996-97 84 Greg Chanis From: Helen Rodriguez <rastastallion@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 1:19 PM To: Greg Chanis Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man- made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of $173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk 82 lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. My husband and I are senior citizens and are connections to St Hilary has sustained us greatly. We do no want the church to be burdened with this matter as their concerns and good work belong elsewhere. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Helen Rodriguez 83 Greg Chanis From: Ruth Ann6 <racawl@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 1:50 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Saint Hilary Parish The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. --The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. 80 -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Ruth Ann Cawley 81 Greg Chanis From: Thibault de Chatellus <tdechatellus@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 2:19 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Bd Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a resident of Tiburon and a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to$18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the 78 report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Thibault de Chatellus 23 Cecilia Ct Tiburon, CA 94920 79 Greg Chanis From: JDLaRocca@aol.com Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 3:08 PM To: Greg Chanis Cc: billbrown@alumni.stanford.edu Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: We are members of the St. Hilary Church community. With all due respect, we object to the inclusion of St. Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St. Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St. Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St. Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St. Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St/ Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man- made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St. Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St. Hilary property. St. Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St. Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St. Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. 76 -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St. Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of $173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St. Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St. Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St. Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St. Hilary, would not. Please remove St. Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from concerned persons. Sincerely, James & Patricia LaRocca 77 Greg Chanis From: Will Britten - GMAIL <wtbritten@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 3:18 PM To: Greg Chanis Cc: Fiona Britten Subject: Objection to St Hilary Church and School inclusion in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District September 7, 2017 The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: My family and I are members of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, we strongly object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man- made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of $173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or 74 enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned family. Sincerely, George (Hawthorne School), Ned (2nd grade at St Hilary School), Fiona & Will Britten 66 Peninsula Road, Belvedere CA 94920 75 Greg Chanis From: Kay Smith <kaysmith537@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 3:42 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: St. Hilary Parish and Undergrounding Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: We are residents of Tiburon and members of the St Hilary community. We object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man- made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? We don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of $173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, We don't see a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground 72 utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. We should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been undergrounded (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter. Sincerely, Kay and Roger Smith, 5 Wilkins Court kaysmith537@qmail.com 415.717.8051 73 Greg Chanis From: Tiwaporn Domngern <tdomngern@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 4:52 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Undergrounding Utility The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: l am a member of the parish, With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. 70 -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Tiwaporn Domngern 71 Greg Chanis From: Thomas Lapinski <pvtgrouptl@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 4:56 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: St Hilary Church and School 9.7.17 The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I have been a member of the St Hilary community for three decades. My son had been a student at St Hilary School in the 1990's. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between 68 undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Tom Lapinski 69 Greg Chanis From: Terese Payne <tpayne@microweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 5:28 PM To: Greg Chanis Cc: William Brown Subject: Inclusion of St. Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Underground Districe The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from Undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between 66 undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter-of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from concerned parishioners Sincerely, Terese C.Payne and Robert K.Payne(longtime Parishioners of St. Hilary's) 67 Greg Chanis From: Amy Curtis-McIntyre <amy.curtismcintyre@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 5:59 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Saint Hilary Parish and School Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man- made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of $173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne 64 neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this email. Yours sincerely, Amy Curtis-McIntyre 9 Linda Vista Avenue Tiburon, CA 94920 Amy Curtis-McIntyre e: amy.curtis-mcintyre@gmail.com c: 646-734-2700 65 Greg Chanis From: Dan Veto <danveto@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 6:47 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am an active member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I completely object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. --The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. --Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. --The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. 62 Finally, the incomprehensible and enormous increase in the estimate for the cost of the project should be a huge red flag for everyone involved. PLEASE remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Dan Veto 63 Greg Chanis From: Dorinda Sears <dorindasears@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 7:35 PM To: Greg Chanis Cc: Dorinda Sears Subject: Hawthorne UtilityProject and the egregious assessment proposed for St Hilary Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: We are members of the St Hilary community and residents if Tiburon. St Hilary paid for under-grounding its own utilities years ago. With all due respect, we object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. --The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. Again, St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. --The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, We don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. We think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne 60 neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Steve and Dorinda Sears 61 Greg Chanis From: KIRSTY ELLIS <kirstydellis@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 7:36 PM To: Greg Chanis Cc: Kirsty Ellis Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District feedback September 7th, 2017 Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council, I attended the special information meeting that was held last week concerning the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. As we were encouraged to do, I am writing to let you know of my opposition to moving forward with this project based on the assessment presented by Harris Engineering. Please note that I am not a resident of the proposed District,but I am a member of the Belvedere Tennis Club and a parishioner of St. Hilary Church so I would be economically impacted by the assessments imposed on both of these organizations if the project goes ahead. Based on the presentation that the Harris Engineering representatives made last week and the cost estimates they have presented it appears that they simply do not have adequate data from PG&E or the other utilities to make an accurate and reliable estimate of the cost of this project. Their estimates have absolutely no credibility given the huge variance in numbers from just one year ago—for reasons that seem to be based largely on the desire to create a greater cushion for error. My great fear is that their estimate will prove to be completely inadequate once the project commences and the two organizations that I am affiliated with will be further assessed vast amounts of money. At the very least, I ask that you do not move forward with the next steps of this project based on the assessment as it stands now. At best, I ask you to move to table the entire project. I will actively encourage the other members of BTC and my fellow parishioners at St Hilary to voice their opposition to the project and vote"no"when solicited for input. Thank you all for your service to our community. Sincerely, Kirsty Ellis 1 Tara Hill Road Tiburon, CA 94920 415.272.8035 59 Greg Chanis From: Deborah <debdevincenti@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 8:06 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Utility under grounding The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. --The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years.This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher.St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. --The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities.The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think 57 we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Deborah Devincenti Parish member Get Outlook for iOS 58 Greg Chanis From: Jane Dorn <dornjane@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 10:59 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Objection to inclusion on St. Hilary Church in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 September 7, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary School and Parish community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man- made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing 55 poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person and member of St. Hilary Parish and St. Hilary School and resident of Tiburon. Sincerely, Jane Dorn 4 Mira Flores Lane Tiburon, CA 94920 310-227-9031 56 Greg Chanis From: Tom Cochrane <tomcochrane@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 12:45 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Undergrounding and Utilities September 8, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: 1 am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The$266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability,the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary 53 for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Thomas A. Cochrane 54 Greg Chanis From: M Tuohey <meghantuohey@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 12:47 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Please remove St. Hilary School and Church from the Hawthorne UUD September 8, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council I am a member of the St Hilary community, my children go to SHS Monday-Friday and we attend church there on Sundays. I'm writing to object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility,outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. 51 Please remove St Hilary Church and School from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Please allow the District tomove forward without StHi|an/sinclusion. Thank you, MeghanTuohey o u- � Meghan FitzSera|dTuohey 200Spencer Ave Sausalito, CA 04865 4159902825 meqhan6��poppyrnedia.net 52 Greg Chanis From: Biruta Siepman <birutasi@aol.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 1:01 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding Plan September 8, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council I am a member of the St Hilary community; I am a member of St Hilary Church and Parish and my daughter attends St. Hilary School. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the 19 neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Mrs. Biruta Siepman 91 Black Log Road Kentfield, CA 94904 50 Greg Chanis From: Angella Kriens <angella.kriens@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 1:11 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District September 8, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council, I am a member of the St Hilary community and send my children to Saint Hilary School. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The$266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. 47 Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Angella Kriens 48 Greg Chanis From: Susan Lacerra <susan.lacerra@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 1:17 PM To: Greg Chanis Cc: Marie Bordeleau Subject: Please eliminate proposed town levy on St Hilary School September 8, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council, I am a resident of the Town of Tiburon and a member of the St Hilary community. With respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety(assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of,a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask 45 ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground(not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Please allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned parent and resident. Best Regards, Susan Susan V Lacerra St Hilary parent Resident of Tiburon (415) 226-8798 46 Greg Chanis From: Lynnette Widman <lynnette.widman@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 1:23 PM To: Greg Chanis Cc: Bob Widman Subject: Objection the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: Our family are members of the St Hilary community and we have one child at the school. This school and church's mission is to be a community anchor as well as serve those with lesser means and the underpriviledged and the exorbitant costs of this project will impact not only St. Hilary but the many causes they support and the wonderful education they offer. For these reasons and the reasons outlined below, where we don't see a compelling set of factors justifying this project, with all due respect, we object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially"when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary 43 for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned family. Sincerely, Lynnette Widman on behalf of all of us at the Widman household 44 Greg Chanis From: Redding, S <suzann.redding@wsj.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 1:26 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Concern re: Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District and its impact on St Hilary Community September 8, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council I am a member of the St Hilary Community (Parish and School). With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary 41 for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Suzann Redding Suzann Redding +1 415 887 8580 0: +1 415 765 8293 E: suzann.redding@wsj.com A:201 California Street, 10th floor,San Francisco CA 94111 0 42 Greg Chanis From: mark wilson <markwilson99@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 1:29 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District September 8, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council I send my child to St Hilary school. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires)from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary 39 for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Mark Wilson markwilson99@yahoo.com 415 2795212 40 Greg Chanis From: Jonathan/Pam Moe/Choy <choynmoe2@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 1:53 PM To: Greg Chanis Cc: Jonathan Moe Subject: Re: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council We are members of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, we object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires)from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms;St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? We don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety(assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, we don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. We think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. 37 Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned family. Regards, Jonathan Moe and Pamela Choy 38 Greg Chanis From: Ricardo Sunderland <Ricardo.Sunderland@egonzehnder.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 1:53 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District September 08, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council I am a resident of the Town of Tiburon and a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. 35 Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Ricardo Sunderland Partner Egon Zehnder Suite 3100 100 Pine Street San Francisco, CA 94111 USA T: +1 415 963 8540 F: +1 415 284 9370 M: +1 415 200 6690 ricardo.sunderland(a)egonzehnder.com www.egonzehnder.com .............�...._............m..._._..........................._._._._-._ W__ ._...... CON PIDI'sNTIALITY AND PRIVACY:This email and attachments are private and confidential.If you received them in error,please notify the sender and remove the e-mail and attachments from your system.All communications with us are subject to our t Iccuon_ic Communications Policy,our Code ofConduct on the Prow stimLoI�Pcrsonal Hata and _.... to any written agreement between you and us.Please see those policies for more information on confidentiality,privacy,risks inherent in e-mail and other communications issues. By comnnmicating with us via email,you agree to those policies. 36 Greg Chanis From: Andrea Concannon <andrea@concannon.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 2:00 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: ST Hilary School September 8th, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council I am [PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR STATUS FROM THE FOLLOWING CHOICES: a resident of the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District AND/OR a resident of the Town of Tiburon AND/OR a member of the St Hilary community]. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires)from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground(not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary 33 for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Andrea Concannon Sent from my Whone 34 Greg Chanis From: Alexia Cloutier <alexiacloutier@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 2:13 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District September 8, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground(not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary 31 for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Alexia Cloutier 32 Greg Chanis From: Scott Buchanan <sbuchanan@sainthilaryschool.org> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 2:48 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: underground utility Letter Template September , 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council I am Teacher at St Hilary School. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and,to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability,the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have 29 been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Scott C. Buchanan Scott Buchanan Saint Hilary School 765 Hilary Drive Belvedere-Tiburon, CA 99920 n _ r 30 Greg Chanis From: Robyn White <rporterwhite@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 2:52 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Objection to the inclusion of St Hilary Church & School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District September 8, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have 27 been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Robyn White 28 Greg Chanis From: Claire-Marie Laidley <info@laidleyfamily.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 3:12 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Undergrounding September 8th, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety(assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary 25 for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Claire-Marie Laidley 26 Greg Chanis From: Janice Russell <janiceru@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 3:41 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: St. Hilary Parish - special assessment for power pole under grounding I live and vote at 50 Harbor Oak Drive,#21, Tiburon, 94920. The idea that St. Hilary and the CCC should be assessed thousands of dollars because a group of wealthy residential property owners want a better view of Richardson's Bay is truly scandalous. The value and utility of these church properties will in not benefit in any material and quantifiable way from the under grounding of the power poles. Do we want to impose assessments on these churches to drive them out of our community? The cost/benefit analysis appear to be deeply flawed and irrational in application to these church properties. This is neither a life safety issue nor a needed infra-structure upgrade for this neighborhood. Please listen to the ordinary citizens of Tiburon who don't want to see this plan proceed. Thank you! Janice Russell 24 Greg Chanis From: Patricia Seid <patriciaseid@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 3:45 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Call to remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District September 8, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council I am a resident of the Town of Belvedere-Tiburon and a member of the St Hilary community. I am writing to explain the reasons why I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and should therefore be excluded from this project. St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to$18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to 22 repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of the content of this letter. Regards, Patricia Seid 23 Greg Chanis From: Vanessa Alexander <vanessa.wolf.alexander@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 4:05 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Saint Hilary and Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District September 8, 2017 Dear esteemed members of the Tiburon Town Council: My son is a student at Saint Hilary School and I write to you today to respectfully object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such on increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are negligible. Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing, however, logic follows that people who want on improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape"and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. 20 Respectfully yours, Vanessa Alexander 9 Blue Rock Court Corte Madera, CA 94925 21 Greg Chanis From: George Jackoboice <gjackoboice@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 4:30 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: St. Hilary/Hawthorne September 8, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary 18 for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, George and Jenny Jackoboice 19 Greg Chanis From: Edward Lynch <mr.edward.lynch@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 4:44 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Objection to the Hawthorne Utility Underground Letter September 8, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council, I am a member of the St Hilary community; both of my children attend the school. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary 16 for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Edward J. Lynch 17 Greg Chanis From: Tory O'Keefe <toryokeefe@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 4:47 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Objection to the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District Letter September 8, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council, I am a member of the St Hilary community; my two children attend St. Hilary School. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The$266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety(assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary 14 for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Tory O'Keefe 15 Greg Chanis From: Sabrina Clark <recruitingswc@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 6:23 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: St Hilary Church & School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council, I am a resident of the Town of Tiburon and a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety(assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability,the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. 12 Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Sabrina White Clark 2180 Mar East 13 Greg Chanis From: Sam & Sarah Bowen <jsambowen@mac.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 8:37 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District September 8th, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council We are residents of the Town of Tiburon and members of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The$266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires)from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety(assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability,the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the 9 neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter. Regards, James and Sarah Bowen 12 Venus Court Tiburon 10 Greg Chanis From: Paul Trudell <paul_mary_trudell@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 9:31 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: We are concerned members of St Hilary community The Tiburon Town Council Sept 8, 2017 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 We moved onto the Tiburon Peninsula and have lived at the same location since 1964. During these years we have been and continue to be members of St Hilary's parish. Our five children have attended St Hilary's school. When St Hilary's upgraded the school, they had their utilities undergrounded. They should not have to pay an assessment when their property has already been undergrounded. There is no benefit to undergrounding unless it is improvement of views by removing manmade structures and wires. There is no reason that they should have to pay to upgrade the views of the surrounding residents. As a practical matter, the people who would benefit from increased property values from the undergrounding by enhancing their view should pay for it. We are asking you to remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Paul and Mary Trudell 70 Rancho Dr., Tiburon, CA 94920 8 Greg Chanis From: Alexandra Jenkins <alexandra jenkins@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 10:40 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Please reconsider Saint Hilary's involvement in Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding September 8, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a resident of the Town of Tiburon and a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to$18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground(not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, 6 but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Cordially, Alexandra Jenkins 7 Greg Chanis From: Pamela Carey <pcarey@sainthilaryschool.org> Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 1:47 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. September 9, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council I am a member of the St Hilary community teaching music in the school and as Director of Music for the Parish.. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires)from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary 4 for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Pamela Carey Director of Music Saint Hilary Parish 5 Greg Chanis From: carol weiss <carolweiss37@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 3:41 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Terrace Undergrounding I am terrified that I will be faced with an assessment of$115,000, plus$5,000 to $10,000 in addition for a lateral connection. I find it hard to believe that this enormous cost might be charged to me. How is it possible that this can happen? For the people here that can afford to pay this, is it really fair to burden those if us whose income are modest? I have lived in this area since 1967. My children have all attended school here. I have been a conscientious citizen, paying my taxes, supporting our schools, maintaining my property with pride. Please do not support the under grounding plans as they are proposed. It is unconscionable to force those of us with limited income, to accept this burden or be forced to leave our community. Carol Weiss M 415/302-7529 3 Greg Chanis From: Phyllis Trieber <phyllistrieber@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 3:43 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Undergrounding Saint Hillary's Church ............................................I................... The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. --The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. --The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities 1 are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Mrs. Phyllis Marie Trieber Sent from my Whone 2 Greg Chanis From: Jill Coyle <jillscoyle@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 8:28 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: object to undergrounding the utilities September 10, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires)from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability,the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary 7 for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned parent of children who attend St. Hilary School. Regards, Jill Coyle s Greg Chanis From: lizbeth paterson <e1zunia_45@hotmai1.com> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 10:04 AM To: Greg Chanis Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: We are members of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. --The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. 5 Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Elizabeth Grabowski and Robert Paterson 35 Corinthian Ct. #32 Tiburon, Ca. 6 Greg Chanis From: Tina Kleinjan Setzer <tksetzer@mac.com> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 10:22 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Please Remove St. Hilary for Hawthorne Undergrounding District I ON September 10th, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council My name is Tina Setzer, I am a member of the Saint Hilary Community both as a parishioner and parent of a child who attends Saint Hilary School. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study ofHawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be 3 MEN! I lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented ifHawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Tina Kleinjan Setzer 4 Greg Chanis From: Hesson Family <hesson37@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 9:55 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District September 10, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council I am a member of the St Hilary community. I am a Marin resident, homeowner and I am active in my community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. I attended the meeting last week with the engineers and was thoroughly shocked by the inability for them to come up with an accurate estimate for this project. This exact work is done all over the state. The cost is based on lineal feet of project times cost per foot. If they can't come up with a number within 10% of actual cost, then they don't deserve to be managing a project of this size. +- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. 1 - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Christopher Hesson 415-269-1239 z Greg Chanis From: Rice, Kerry <krice@need hamco.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 7:30 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: St. Hilary School and Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St. Hilary community and with all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. 14 Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Kerry Rice Managing Director Equity Research Internet and Digital Media Needham & Company, LLC 535 Mission Street, Suite 2200, San Francisco, CA 94105 T: +1.415.262.4890 1 M: +1.415.205.5010 krice(oneedhamco.com 15 RE E_ LLEE �Mary E Fox 80 Milland Drive 1]Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-370-5489 tykefox0l@gmail.com UN Tiburon Town Council Members 1505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon, CA 94920 town 0)town o fti buron.org Re: St Hilary Church - $266,927 Utility Levy Dear Members of the Town Council, I'm a member of St. Hilary's parish, and I am distressed to learn that you are inclined to burden a church and its school with an obligation that only financially benefits surrounding homeowners. By this time, I'm confident that you have read Father Brown's detailed letter on this subject. I concur in all his points. I would add, however, and because Father Brown cannot, that the town's effort appears disingenuous, and has the distinct odor of prejudice and greed. So saddling a non-profit church and school is appalling in the extreme. Sincerely, -..�� Greg Chanis From: Joe Haraburda <joeh9476@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 11:03 AM To: Greg Chanis Cc: joeh9476@gmail.com;fatherbrown@sthilary.org; fatherginter@sthilary.org Subject: Letter to Town Council regarding Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District Importance: High Town Council Members, As a home owner, resident and member of St Hilary Parish I strongly object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District in Tiburon. The objection to the levy is that the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges. The Church office has presented its objection in detail which I have reviewed and strongly agree. Please remove St Hilary from the undergrounding district, move forward without the Church and School! Thank you for your careful consideration. Sincerely, Joseph J Haraburda 120 Solano Street Tiburon,California 94920 13 Greg Chanis From: brad oldenbrook <brad@ehllc.co> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 11:11 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: tax assessment to St Hillary September 11, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council I am [PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR STATUS FROM THE FOLLOWING CHOICES: a resident of the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District AND/OR a resident of the Town of Tiburon AND/OR a member of the St Hilary community]. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires)from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary it for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Brad Oldenbrook / Managing Partner L= / m 415.867.9595 485 Magnolia Ave, Larkspur, CA 94939 o 415.777.9595 f 415.329.1561 ww'w.edhilc-co 12 Greg Chanis From: Bryan Lin <bryanlin@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 1:40 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Oppose Undergrounding Plans September 11, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council, My name is Bryan Lin and I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? 1 don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety(assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary 9 for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. I respectfully request that you remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District thereby allowing the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Bryan Lin 10 Greg Chanis From: donald foree <dcforee@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:16 PM To: Greg Chanis Cc: William Brown Subject: Hawthorne Undergrounding Utiity District Dear Town Council Members, I write to you as a member of the St.Hilary community. As the sole source of the Church's financial support, each parishioner contributes weekly to the Mission of St. Hilary Church.That Mission is multi-purpose: to provide daily and weekend Church services, to officiate at weddings, to bury the dead, to educate children, to feed the hungry, to visit the sick, to shelter the homeless, to visit those in prison, to be a concrete sign in the community of social and moral values. For those existential reasons we all gladly contribute our money each week to St. Hilary. That Mission is a lofty and a noble one that has benefitted our community from the beginning. As you might guess, enhancement of views, as lovely as that may be, in light of our values, is way down on the list of our concern. This is, of course, obvious when one recognizes that there is no need for view enhancement from the Church property, and underground utilities already exist there. As to safety, a serious and important value to all of the community, life itself is always precarious and the incidences of electrical accidents appear to be quite infrequent. We were told at the Town Meeting that underground access is far more difficult than repairs on the poles. Offering safety as a reason for burying the power lines and other wires is like saying, "Don't drive on the freeway.You may get into an accident." Safety is not a strong arguing point I hasten to add that given all the services that St. Hilary Church provides are a huge contribution to the county, state and federal governmental agencies who, without the assistance from the Church, would fall on the shoulders of these agencies whose job it is to provide for the well being of its citizens.Just think of what would happen if all the religious institutions closed shop. And imposing a huge financial burden on St. Hilary Church could very well come close to seriously jeopardizing those services in order to pay for something the Church neither wants nor needs. To ask St. Hilary Church to pay upfront $266,927.57 or$500,000 over thirty years is simply wrong and immoral. It is not an expenditure we want to support! So, we join our fellow Tiburon citizens who at the last Meeting strongly opposed and decried the proposal submitted by the HUUD. Like so many of our neighbors who would find this monetary imposition to be very serious, if not impossible, and could necessitate selling their homes and moving from the community, we are against the proposal not simply because of the financial burden it imposes per se, and the unnecessary view enhancement it suggests to offer, but because that financial burden will seriously interfere with the Mission of our Church, and the very reason for its viability in our community. Sincerely, Mary and Don Foree 8 Greg Chanis From: Amy Lovelace <amylovelace1 @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 4:06 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: St. Hilary and the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District September 11, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council, I am a member of the St Hilary community- both parish and school. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability,the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary 6 for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Amy Lovelace 7 Greg Chanis From: mirriiclar@aol.com Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 7:32 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Undergrounding The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: We are members of the St. Hilary community. We are also residents of Del Mar. We object to the inclusion of St. Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. St. Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago! As did the residents of Geldert Court. The Church and School should be excluded from the Hawthorne assessment district just as Del Mar School and Geldert Court were from the Del Mar assessment district. Sincerely, Peter and Mimi Clarke 20 Geldert Drive Tiburon 5 Greg Chanis From: David Long <sfdlong@ix.netcom.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 5:45 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Please Remove Community Congregational Church from the Undergrounding District September 11, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I strongly support the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking$94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite distressing and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization,there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, nor do we derive any benefit from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, David C Long 333 Lowell Ave. 3 Mill Valley, CA 94941 4 Greg Chanis From: Carolyn Long <sfclong@ix.netcom.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 6:08 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Please Remove Community Congregational Church from Undergrounding District September 11, 2017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I strongly support the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking$94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite distressing and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of whom are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, nor do we derive any benefit from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, Carolyn E. Long 1 333 Lowell Ave. Mill Valley, CA 94941 2 Greg Chanis From: Gregg Siepman <gregg@dipseacapital.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:14 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: St. Hilary Assessment Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council, My Wife, daughter and I are members of the Saint Hilary Community. My daughter attends the school, my wife is a member of The Parent Advisory Board for the school, and I am the president of the St. Hilary Parish Pastoral Council. We also regularly attend Sunday mass and normally venture into Tiburon for brunch after Sunday Service. I am writing to communicate that I respectfully disagree with the inclusion of St. Hillary Church and School into the Hawthorne Utility Project. The proposed assessment of$266k is a cost that our Parish would have to endure without receiving any benefit. We are a non-profit that serves the greater community, and by placing this monetary burden on St. Hilary Church and School, our mission to serve the community would be greatly hindered. I understand why the community backing the proposal would like the utility infrastructure to be placed underground: their property values would most likely increase and they would economically benefit. St. Hillary receives no benefit- the Parish is not looking to ever sell its property. I therefore ask you to seriously consider removing our Parish from the proposed tax assessment and allow us to fulfill our Mission -one that benefits the Tiburon community. Sincerely, Gregg S.Siepman Chief Executive Officer Dipsea Capital, LLC 350 Bon Air Center, Suite 230 Greenbrae, CA 94904 office +1415 925-9022 cel! +1312 888-6120 t'zr_�.'.:.gg_@ d i ps_P_a_ca i�.i_ta.l.,.c.o.m 1 Saytlj. LeAvf4, RECEIVED Tel: 415-382-23 20 13 Bay Vista Drive SEP 12 2017 Mill Valley, CA 94941 t TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE Email: sharonlewi.s2@att.net TOWN OF TIBURON I i1c, —1 uwn Of-I-Ibw�wn 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 bur_ Ulm; Uuru,, I am a member of the St. Hilary Community With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St. Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. —1 0-e. n n — , 0 e I l 'Cd ugaI imi; EL 1-11iluty an' the land on which it Prop U c%/i L �Jl resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St. Hilary would receive from under grounding the utilities in the neighborhood. T T-1...... 04- TT71, .,,_:A A— �P'V_4. 'g-+: Unless St. 1-Inaiy palu uh—P/L00 927.57 otyll ation UP111.0ont, it would be pal u Uuring a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between$15,000 and$187,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments vvould likely rause, St. I-lilany Church and School to C.,,penilcncc a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St. Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St. Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. Conni-non scriso ;Y-Jicatcs Awad ncladj, ffl! of the benefit from under grounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and,to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires)from the landscape of the neighborhood.. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. is is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. Impractical terms, St. Hilary would nt receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood"views cape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St. Hilary property. St. Hilary paid for under grounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St. Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St. Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. ® The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St. Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173.631) and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between under grounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safey or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain and actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St. Hilary with$15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electric transformers will remain above ground after utility under grounding, and ifone should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think-we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities hadbeen underground(not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). a�oUtjiii liiac is ulaL Lit 1vwdi 1%;Fuai i�viiij gii� ii1g about t2 relationship etw en utility under grounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St. Hilary for under grounding tafE: 6.�LS.iB.e.foeus �w..a. 'vesa,.b,.��:%.,a..,,i:y ...<.an.e.d tio.. a.gaxa.e.ay i.`vx ea iriii� zaaxaei. s.nw vvvai �:rnnv6,aiu. vv hewld to a higher standard in stances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St. Hilary,would not. Please remove St. Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St. Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned parishioner. Greg Chanis From: Hector Lopez <hector.lopez@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 4:35 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: St. Hilary and the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District September 12, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council, I am a member of the St Hilary community- both parish and school. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. • The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. • Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. • Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and,to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures(poles and wires)from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape"and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such,St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. • The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are vera- worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to$18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability,the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the 1 neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility underground ng in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Hector Lopez 2 KRECEIVED Derek H. Webb P. 0. Box 1277 SEP 13 2011 Sausalito, CA 94965 TOWN 1OE BR9 URO September 8, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St. Hilary Parish and parent of a St. Hilary School student. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The$266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and,to a lesser extent, in the removal of man- made structures (poles and wires)from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms,St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "view scape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety(assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability,the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, f Dere . Web , I rt The Tiburon Town Council Sept 8, 2017 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 We moved onto the Tiburon Peninsula and have lived at the same location since 1964. During these years we have been and continue to be members of St Hilary's parish. Our five children have attended St Hilary's school. When St Hilary's upgraded the school, they had their utilities undergrounded. They should not have to pay an assessment when their property has already been undergrounded. There is no benefit to undergrounding unless it is improvement of views by removing manmade structures and wires. There is no reason that they should have to pay to upgrade the views of the surrounding residents. As a practical matter, the people who would benefit from increased property values from the undergrounding by enhancing their view should pay for it. We are asking you to remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your, - nsid�Jeration of this letter from a concerned person. �✓ G Paul and Mary Trudell 70 Rancho Dr., Tiburon, CA 94920 ReCEIVED Laura Haslem 14 Crescent Ave. SEP 1 1 2017 Sausalito, CA 94965 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON September 8, 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St. Hilary Parish and parent of a St. Hilary School student. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. - The$266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. - Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. - Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man- made structures (poles and wires)from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "view scape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. - The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety(assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability,the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Regards, Laura A. Haslem 415-706-0137 RECEIVED The Tiburon Town Council SEP 1 1 2017 1505 Tiburon Blvd. TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TURI'',`-� Tiburon_QA 9492Q Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. qt Hilary paid for underc�round,in� its own utilities wears ado, and as such, St Hilary ipaid-_ view improvements of other 1 roperty owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authoritv. ie -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement mprovement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Jeanne M. Dana 34 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon 94920 The Tiburu., .„ vv. Council 1505 'rihuron Blvd. ��ihuron_GA 94��.�0 ��E Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: SEP f 1 2011 1 am a member of the St Hilary community. TOS MANAGERS OFFIGE TOWN OF TIBURON With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. --The$266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the$266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. --Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures(poles and wires)from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape” and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. --The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to$18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. � �✓ ire 196a Sincere RECEIVED SEP 1 4 2011 �� Yo T�NN GER O'FICE Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council. OWN OF TIRURON I am [PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR STATUS FROM THE FOLLOWING CHOICES: a resident of the Hawthorne Utility Under_ _ roundin .District AND/OR aesident of the own of Tiburon qith�alldue�respoect, lo:bjiectto be �Hilcommunity . e inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between$15,000 and$18,000 per year which would total more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary Church and School is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood"viewscape" . and absolutely no improvement in value of, St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such; St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority.. The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public_ safety(assessed cost of$173,63_,1) and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile'social goals;however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility.reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any, actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The,report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with$15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability,the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of.accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground(not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability,but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. - Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, 9/11/2017 URGENT:please write to Tiburon Town Council members today!-pitbul104920@gmaii.com-Gmail Gmail More 31 of 2,052 Inbox(1,706) Starred Sent Mail SEP 4 2011 The Tiburon Town Council Anne 1505 Tiburon Blvd. T0VVN MAJM�4GE. S OFFICE 0 TOWN OF TIBURO R Tiburon CA 94920 No recent chats Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: Start a new one I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. --The$266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on q �t https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/15e5d76144aaO451 111 9/11/2017 URGENT:please write to Tiburon Town Council members today!-pitbuII94920@gmail.com-Gmail Gmail More 31 of 2,052 .... ._.__ -.. _._..1 0111 C3 IIIVIIIVVI VI LI IC JC I IIIQIy wrI If I ILII IIIy. ..__ ...... _. _..... With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. Inbox(1,705) Starred --The$266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on Sent Mail which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that Drafts (34) St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the$266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid A Anne during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between$15,000 and$18,000 per year adding up to more than$500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such No recent chats an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for Start a new one these payments are not very clear. --Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures(poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/l 5e5d76144aa0451 111 Greg Chanis From: carolyn biasotti <biasotti @prod igy.net> Sent: Thursday, September 14,2017 12.46 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: St. Hilary Church and School Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: My family are longtime parishioners of the St. Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St. Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. --The$266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St. Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the$266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and$18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St. Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St. Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St. Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. --Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and,to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures(poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms,St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood"viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St. Hilary property. St. Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago,and as such,St. Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St. Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. --The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St. Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631)and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with$15,000 to$18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding,and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability,the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St. Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St. Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary,would not. I Please remove St. Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St. Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned family. Sincerely, John and Carolyn Biasotti Sent from my Wad 2 Greg Chanis From: moni <mkbutze@aoi.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 1:52 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council, We are members of the St Hilary community. We object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $16,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000: These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood "viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? We don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very I worthwhile social goals; however, We don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not Likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. We should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from concerned members of the parish. Sincerely, David and Monika Butze 2 Greg Chanis From: Vicki Welisch <Vicki@national rice.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 1:56 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: St. Hilary Assesment The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. -- The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. -- Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between$15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than$500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. -- Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood"viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. -- The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory 1 basis for saddling St Hilary with$15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability,the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground(not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Vicki Welisch phone 415.308.6642 his rnesag. .rad any attachn erat may contain infoi Ytation that is proprietary, legally F;rivileged, confidential and/or>ubject to ccl3y!;ght belor,g,rj t„ Natooal Rice Coinpan.y oi,ils affiliates, ri,is is h1l''er-idei solely for the we of tho person(sl to whom it i�;addressed. If you erre not an intended ,ecipient, or the employe of agentn iesposiNe for delivery of this to the inter led recd �ent(s), you 'we h.-_rchy notified that any dissemination, distribution or colaying of this is stricdy prohibited, If you have received this message in en-or, please immediately notify the sender Mand I)er l a,he .tly delete tlhi�;and any copies. National Rice Company policies F...xpie .iy p!ol ibit e np loyc es froro ma k,ng dcafam atory or offensive statemmNts or infr-irrging any copyright:or any other legal right: by cornrnunication. National Rice Company will not accept any liability in reslJect Of SUC11"1 COlr"11TWIliUltloos„All tvansactloiis brokered by the._sei)doi-ate subject to the ten-lis of Its C.onfirmadolh of Sale. 201I0914- 01.5543 Ntrc2011.121.0-01. htnll 2 Greg Chani From: Margie Barry <Margie@fossandco.com> Sent: Friday,September 15,2017 7:08 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am o member of the St Hilory community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between $15,000 and $18,000 per year which would total more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary Church and School is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood Uviewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of $173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of $51 ,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of 2 accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary, if the homeowners vote for it. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Margie and George Barry September 15, 2017 The Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: Our family has lived in Tiburon since 1998 and we are parishioners at St. Hilary Catholic Church. I am writing to express my support for removing St. Hilary Church and School from the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. St. Hilary is a Catholic faith based community serving the Tiburon Peninsula and beyond. I believe we do an excellent job of tending to the faith needs of our parishioners and students, but we also live in service to the Gospel by serving people of all faiths (or no faith), whether through supporting St. Vincent de Paul (San Rafael dining room and more), our prison ministry at San Quentin and even through the CYO sports use of our gym (only about 20% of CYO participants belong to the parish). Our parish also supports efforts outside the county, including providing funds for relief efforts from recent hurricanes in Texas and Florida and the earthquake in Mexico. I could go on, but it's clear that we are always willing to do our share, or more, but this project doesn't make sense for St. Hilary. Having carefully read the Preliminary Engineer's Report, I don't agree that St. Hilary will receive anywhere near the benefit ascribed. The reality of this project is that it is about views. The report rational for allocating an aesthetics benefits doesn't make sense. As a practicing Catholic, my faith will not be impacted by this project. The report states that St. Hilary will not benefit from enhanced aesthetics, but then assigns a subjective value without justification. Just as the parish receives no benefit from view enhancement, we do not benefit from improved aesthetics. Additionally, the report makes a dubious connection between the cost of the project and the benefits. Just because the project will cost $12.4 million doesn't mean that St. Hilary is receiving $267 thousand of benefit. The real benefit to St. Hilary is essentially zero. In the interest of not being repetitive and saving you the time of reading a long letter, I also agree with the rational advanced by St. Hilary and I won't repeat them in this letter. Respectfully, Michael Bentivoglio 25 Vista Tiburon Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 cc: Rev. William Brown, Pastor P.S. —Thank you for serving our town ®your time and effort is greatly appreciated! Tiburon Town Council September 19, 2017 AI-4: Hawthorne Undergrounding Late Mail Public Review Copy: Please Do Not Remove Requests for Copies: Lea Stefani, Istefani@townoftiburon.org Citizen Letters in Support Gary Schoch 93 Rock hill Drives Tiburon,CA 949200 Phone:415-699-0786 LATE MAIL #A I F,mail:gum 11icolmlie rce@11w.coxu Date: 15-September,2017 Tiburon'Town Council Subject: Halanhorue"Terrace IJudergroundilhg Council Meeting Sept 19, 2017 Dear'Tiburon'Towu Cotuic•ii Members, My wife and I are owners of 93 Rock Hill Drive here in Hawthonie Terrace,and I can't believe bow time flies,but we've owned and lived iu our home,with our sonlames since 1998. From the beginning ot'the process and in fact years earlier, we were and still are propouents of power pole uudegTounding in our community. So to that eud,we spent a great deal of time to simply understand die process,work in it friendly way to discussion with our lielghbors,bear all arguments for and against and form what I believe is a vote yes or no rooted in facts. I have read carefully,the assessment work done by Harris and liunkly,after a collective $151,750 to construct this "estimate", I think you would have to agree that any estimate that has line items iu it that more than triple (PG&E)and fact that the delta betwecu die first estimate and this is so great,gives me little confideuc•e that I have enough information to vote oil sonhcdhihhg I really want done,one way or the other. Our whole reason to agree to this was to get.a real estimate. Ill our personal lives,wlhcn wauit work done,there is no way I would trust a firm to give me one price and then►months later,it's significantly more and as it turns out,it's more because it appears to be making flawed assumptious(i.e. PG&E costs)as opposed to working from real facts based on experience. Without question we want to proceed with this project,bill ouly based Harris,FIXING their deliverable and moreover,we are not payiug for the estimate to be fixed -as far its we are concerned,this is nota quality deliverable because it lacks<uly ability to Lust it and our house has the largest assessment of'the neighborhood-$191K-so I really need to have the figures known and I would assume,if you were laced with this dilemma yourselves,you would feel the same way. I also diink it's ridiculous that die towns general benefit.is not part of this proposal.We use the Old Rail Trail path all the time and our bike paths are filled with tourists oil bikes from Blazing Saddles and we know for a fact that our that die hxhpact Study report dated August 7, 2017 goes to great lengths to discuss how much scenic beauty is valued by die town and refers to the prioritization of*undcrgrounding utilities along the Old Rail Trail in the Town's General Plan (see pg. 17 Section I Aesthetics. For this reason,we find it to be unfair and inconsistent with the town's goals of beautification, to have the general benefit changed from 10%-15%to now 0.2%between 2016 and the estiniate now in 2017. How oil c:ardi was this changed justified? Finally, I think the assessment value given to safety is woefully inaccurate. As I've mentioned before,and others have said, `well we've never had an incident herc before" misses the point. 1. 1 don't.think I will leave a firee at my house - but I have to carry fire insurance. 2. I^ebruat,2017, tic power hole.Isere on Rock hill Drive outside St. 1-Iilary's driveway caught lire-at night - fire department and PG&E had to conic out and repair it in the heavy raids. 3. Tars go flying down Rock Hill at the St. pilary driveway which is directly across the street from ours, and is a violent S-Turn - 3 weeks ago a cat-lost control and slid into the curb - very close to (lie large power pole with the transforaners on it. A near miss 4. Our weather is chaxiging and the stornis arc much worse than before - we think s.dety has to be a biwer percentage in the assessment - at least 20-25% - I would also like to understand what otlier values Harris used on other projects to backup as evidence the reasons for the percentages used. 5. All new developments as I understand it, underground their utilities - so I atn vet,curious,and I have to presume,what etre the reasons this is true? I have to believe sedety and esthetics are the reasons, so if this I is true, spelt shouldn't we use the smile assumptions stew neighborhoods use? Pics below showing the s-turas and the fire (sorry it was very late and a little blurry) `1'herelbre, I am requesting that this town council please request Harris to go hack and deliver a real and valid estimate that is rooted ill real life experience so that we all have something to vote ort with confidence. More specifically,please do not stop this project unul such time We get amore accurate and trustworthy estimate. I would expect to get a RANGED estimate that.would show sav gut estimated MIN and MAX and that backup is provided oil that estimate From outer projects they have done and tltcir relercnces J case studies be included. Specifically, I1(;& .cost has got to be finned up and should use more than one data point, the Del Mai-project for it's assumptions. Further, Harris needs to be more clear as they appeared to be saying(Itis is the "worst case"estimate in tiro town ntceting a lew weeks ago estimate - the problem because Qte range is so oil',it's hard to trust this one way or the other. I Sincerely, f Gary Schoch 93 Rock Hill Drivc`l omi-oar CA. 94920 - 415-699-0786 Greg Chenix LAIE MAILa' &--q� From: Elena Stephens <elenastephens522@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 12:44 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Undergrounding District- Reject preliminary report&Approve biddable construction documents Dear Tiburon Town Council, We, Elena and Michael Stephens, support utility undergrounding efforts in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. Our family has lived at 687 Hawthorne Drive and has been actively engaged in our community since 2006. We love living in Tiburon and want to see Hawthorne Terrace make good on a third attempt to underground our dangerous and ugly utility poles. It is the right thing to do and we ask that you find a solution to keep our project on track. A solution would be achieved with a solid baseline of information. The preliminary engineering report does not provide enough accuracy. According to the staff report, we have a preliminary design at only 35% accuracy with built in buffers and inflation that distorts the truth in the numbers. Multi- million dollar decision making should require information at a substantially higher accuracy. You are able to approve town funding for complete biddable construction documents that would give us 85- 100% accuracy. Bidding results from these documents would provide the town and parcel owners an opportunity to vote with more certainty. Town Council please take fiscal responsibility. Reject the preliminary report® Approve town funding of biddable construction documents for real construction bids® Construction plans = Accurate decision making Thank you very much for your consideration, Elena and Michael Stephens Greg Chanis From: Jennifer Wang <jennifer@redwood-legal.com> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 9:10 PM To: Greg Chanis Cc: Ashley Anderson LATE MAIL #A1— Subject: Hawthorne Undergrounding Project Dear Town Council, We write in support of the undergrounding project for the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. With regard to the Harris report, it would be beneficial if the assessment range was not so large. The upper and lower ends of the range should be closer together. It seems somewhat arbitrary that certain homeowners were assessed over $150k and other homeowners were assessed less than$35k. While we realize that any system or methodology is bound to result in some homeowners feeling that they were incorrectly assessed a "high" number, a "flatter" assessment matrix would be more fair and not result in unusually high costs on certain homeowners. Rather than 6 categories of assessments, putting everyone in the middle 3 bands makes more sense. Further,the general benefit to the Town should be properly valued at a higher amount than is stated in the Harris report. All residents would benefit from the poles being undergrounded along the Bay trail-both as pedestrians, bicyclists and general motorists along Tiburon Boulevard. I assume that the Town helped to defray(or pay entirely)the cost of undergrounding the poles along other stretches of the Bay trail and don't see why the stretch near our neighborhood should be treated any differently. The broader trend with respect to overhead utility lines is that they are getting systematically undergrounded in neighborhoods all over the Bay Area. There is no reason to believe that the costs in the future will be lower than the costs today. For this reason,among others, please help our neighborhood move forward with this effort. Significant investments of time and money have already been dedicated to this effort and it would be an enormous shame to waste them. Thanks for all of your time and consideration. Best regards, Jennifer Wang&Ash Anderson 40 Del Mar Drive 1 Greg Chanis From: David King <dking68@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 9:45 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Undergrounding ProjectLATE MAIL # AA Dear Town Council, We, David Ding and Sarah Wilson, are the property owners of 735 Hawthorne Drive in Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. We have lived here with our daughter for seven years. (David also grew up in the Del Mar neighborhood, where he lived from 1968 to 1991.) We are strong proponents of the Hawthorne utility pole undergrounding project because we believe that it will improve the beauty and safety of our neighborhood. After all of the hard volunteer work that has been done on this project, we believe it would be a mistake to rush to approve the "first draft" report from Harris. We have numerous concerns with the Harris report, but our main ones are: 1. Harris did not hold meetings with neighborhood residents to solicit their input, as required by their contract. 2. Once the Harris report was issued, the neighborhood raised questions and concerns, and these have not been adequately addressed. 3. We cannot understand why the report recognizes no significant general benefit to the town. The shoreline path is one of our community's greatest assets, and the poles along it significantly mar the view from the path, from Tiburon Boulevard, and from other areas around town. 4. We do not understand how the estimated cost has increased by approximately 50%from the original estimate. While we understand that the original estimate and the Harris report can never fully capture the final cost, something has gone wrong when the two are so far apart. As residents who contributed to help pay for the report, we believe that we deserve a better product for our money. Regards, David King and Sarah Wilson t 735 Hawthorne Drive Go Chanis LAIE From: Jennifer Isaac <jsisaac@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 11:12 AM To: Greg Chanis Cc: Noel Isaac Subject: URGENT: Hawthorne Undergrounding Council Meeting, September 19th Importance: High September 18, 2017. Dear Town Council, We are writing to urge the Town Council NOT to approve the Hawthorne Undergrounding Draft Preliminary Engineer's Report at the meeting tomorrow, September 19th. We believe this current report includes major inaccuracies and flaws that should not be accepted by Town Council: - Hugely excessive cost inflations and contingencies are included that represent a 48% cost increase from the 2016 estimated $8.4 million to 2017 estimate $12.4 million: Harris should be directed to tie the cost estimates to the reality of the financial marketplace and current similar utility/project work - The general benefit of 10-15% has been removed, in direct contradiction to the Town's general plan: (a) If there is no general benefit to removing these poles, then why has the Town paid for undergrounding of many other poles alongside the Bay? (b) Our Undergrounding district includes 3 institutions heavily used by people living outside our district - driving through, and parking on our streets in many cases - in order to attend schools, weddings, funerals and other large scale events promoted by the Community Congregational Church, St. Hilary's and the Belvedere Tennis Club. How can there be no general benefit to improving the safety and reliabiity of the power supply through our neighborhood when in the recent past we have experienced rotten poles falling across our streets, and downed power lines lying in the street - if people are injured or killed by future such events, will the Town still be able to defend a 'no general benefit' decision? We have also endorsed the very detailed letter that the Council has received from Jack Ryan and Sara Klein. We urge Town Council to act in the best interests of Tiburon citizens and direct Harris to make wholesale changes to the preliminary engineering report which include realistic assessments and costs so the poles can finally be undergrounded in this neighborhood. Lastly, we would remind Town Council that neighbors' funds were spent by the Town during the last undergrounding effort in this neighborhood, with no reporting on that expenditure and no outcome. We trust this time the Town Council will be diligent and rigorous in pursuing a quality report, process and outcome for us, as we expect Town Council to do on all Tiburon matters. 1 Sincerely, Jennifer & Noel Isaac 20 Del Mar Drive, Tiburon Greg Chanis From: Jill Sideman <jillsideman@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 2:58 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne District Undergrounding L Affi"E MAIL #' Al± Dear Town Council: We are long-time owners of 14 Mara Vista Court in the proposed Hawthorne Undergrounding District. We have owned our property for 34 years and have been active supporters of Town of Tiburon activities such as the Landmarks Society, the Library Foundation,the Fire Department, and Blackies Pasture. Our street was originally included in the Del Mar Undergrounding District, but, much to our dismay,was dropped from that district as part of the lawsuit settlement. We were pleased to support this new attempt at undergrounding the utilities in the Hawthorne District, recognizing the Town's expressed support for undergrounding utilities along the Old Rail Trail and in other areas of the Town. We have reviewed the Preliminary Engineer's Report and conclude that the construction cost estimates,the PG&E cost estimates,and the assessment methodology are very significantly flawed, and that the Report should not be approved by the Council as is.We have also obtained the Staff Report for the September 19 Special Meeting, but have not had time to fully review it,due to its just having been issued; however,at first glance, it appears aimed at simply justifying a high cost estimate.We have the following comments: PROJECT LIMITS In the Harris contract document,the project limits were stated as 7,342 Linear Feet(LF). In the May 2016 cost estimate, the project limits had increased to 8,587 LF, and then,in Harris'August 2017 cost estimate,the project limits had increased again to 9,436 LF.This latest increase was attributed to PG&E's"placing the end pole further way from the project than anticipated resulting in additional trenching in Tiburon Blvd at perhaps the most expensive place to trench in the entire project" ( Exhibit 6 of the Staff Report, page 4). It is impossible to determine from Harris's Report where the pole has been placed and why increased trenching in Tiburon Blvd is necessary and where such trenching would occur. COST ESTIMATE ISSUES Excessive Contingencies:The joint trench construction cost estimate has increased due to the increased LF and a 30% contingency has been added. However,the basic cost estimate includes$900,000 in rock excavation that is deemed revocable,yet the 30%reflects this revocable number.This seems like double counting of contingencies. Indeed,the 30%contingency could be lower, more like 20 or 25%,given the$900,000 in the basic estimate. We recognize the effort put by the staff into providing Table 1 (Exhibit 6, page 1), although that table is incomplete in that it doesn't include the complete accuracy range for each class of estimate; using the complete table as shown in the AACE International Recommended practice document 56R-08,we can argue that for a Class 3 estimate class,which is the current estimate level recognized in the Staff Report(page 3),the expected accuracy range is-5 to-15% low and+10 to+20%high.Since there is already a$900,000 revocable cost in the basic estimate, why not be more realistic and use a 20%contingency instead of a 30%contingency?This would bring the contingency cost down to$943,600, resulting in a lower joint trench construction cost of$5,661,601.This lower cost would be reflected in lower estimates for Design and Assessment Engineering and Construction Management, since these are typically estimated as percentages of the construction cost. Environmental Mitigation Contingency:The Harris Report includes$250,000 for environmental mitigation contingency, without any explanation of where this number comes from.The Staff Report notes that cultural resource concerns were raised during design and that the Graton Rancheria had requested consultation. Please explain what concerns were raised and what the consultation involves. Nothing is provided in either the Harris Report or the Staff Report to justify $250,000. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND PROJECT PERFORMANCE In the Town's Project Task Order for Harris,specific services,number of hours,and costs are described.We have the following comments about some of these specific line items: The Task Order Item B shows 96 hours for Field Review, research,and data collection,for a total cost of$15,400. It's hard to believe that Harris's staff actually spent 96 hours looking at individual properties and doing data collection. The way in which assessment costs are allocated shows that Harris has little understanding of which properties might benefit and by how much, based on their locations in relation to views and utility lines. The Task Order Items F and G show 48 hours for Utility Coordination and Utility Cost Evaluation,for a total cost of$9,380. PG&E did not provide any real cost estimates, although, according to the Staff Report, it did provide some unit costs and other costs for the Del Mar project,which Harris then used to prepare a "semi-detailed unit cost estimate" (Staff Report, page 5). Harris then added in multiple year inflation costs.The whole PG&E estimate seems fraught with uncertainty. More effort should be placed in looking hard at this cost estimate and getting information from other projects. The Task Order Item L stipulates that Harris will hold a minimum of two meetings with residents to consider the assessment methodology,so that residents could have real and significant input to the methodology.To our knowledge, there was only one meeting,a kickoff on February 17, 2017, in which a single page sample methodology was shown.We were never contacted or invited to any other meeting with Harris.We consider this to be a violation of trust in the process. In the assessment methodology used in the Harris Report, benefits were assessed to each property apparently based largely on whether a utility line was directly in the street adjacent to the property and whether the primary view was toward the street or away from the street.This results in properties with very different views having the same assessment of benefit. Frankly,given the value of view property in this area, it seems like a much more careful analysis of the actual view benefit should have been made.The approach taken has resulted in properties for which the view will be less significantly enhanced (for example,a property that has utility lines above the street but whose primary view is under those lines)receiving higher assessments than properties for which the actual views will be more enhanced.An inherently poor view cannot be given the same benefit assessment as an inherently better view. GENERAL BENEFIT We are astonished that the Harris Report concluded that a tiny(0.2%)general benefit was assessed for the Town and its inhabitants and users of the Old Rail Trail. In 2016,the Town and the engineer were stating that the expected level of general benefit to the town would be 10-15%of the project cost.The Town's General Plan contains specific policies to protect open space views as well as bay front and scenic vistas of the water and distinct shorelines.The Environmental Impact Study notes these policies and how the Town has made undergrounding utilities along the Old Rail Trail a priority.The Impact Study notes the general benefit to the residents of the Town and the Old Rail Trail users as follows: enhanced views from areas adjacent to the project area, including the Middle Ridge Public Open Space(which is a very popular walking area for residents from all over the Town);enhanced views along the Old Rail Trail that may attract larger numbers of users along the length of the trail, not just within the project area. Indeed,the Impact Study notes that the project would result in a long-term beneficial impact.Taken alone,this contradicts the Harris Report The Harris Report states that the poles and wires along the Old Rail Trail are largely screened by the tennis club's facilities from traffic on Tiburon Blvd.This is simply not true!The poles and wires are very visible for any driver along Tiburon Blvd,especially coming out from the Town.Trail users certainly see the poles and wires even though they are not located on the bay side of the trail;to state otherwise is pure nonsense. 2 The Harris Report refers to "studies completed by a number of organizations and public entities" and states that Harris' review of these studies found that undergrounding of utilities did not provide an economic benefit to parcels not within the Assessment District or the community at large. However, no references were provided for any of the studies.This is sloppy reporting. We would also note that Hilary and lower Rock Hill are in fact used by through traffic especially when Tiburon Blvd is crowded, as it often is during the school year. Drivers and walkers using those streets do come from outside the District and will benefit from the utility under grounding. IN CONCLUSION We ask that the Town direct Harris to re-evaluate the points raised in our letter and, in particular,the issues of excessive contingencies, assessment methodology, and the general benefit.We understand that the Town had previously reserved$800,000 in the Capital Improvement budget for next year;could this be used as support of the general benefit which we believe this project will bring to the Town? Thank you for your consideration, Jill and Richard Sideman 3 Patrick Barnes From: Steven Kravitz <csisteve88@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 3:20 PM "E MAIL To: Patrick Barnes LP1 �1 v Subject: Hawthorne Undergrounding 1 To Mr. Barnes and other parties of interest: We own and reside at 662 Hilary Drive in the Del Mar Homeowners Association. From the start, we supported the undergrounding project in our neighborhood which was completed several years ago. For family reasons, we were required to relocate to Connecticut for eight years in the middle of the undergrounding process but paid our fair share and completed all of our requirements while away. We returned last year and were generally pleased with the improvements in our vicinity by way of safety and aesthetics. Unfortunately, our view and that of of our neighbors, the Nemzers, is negatively impacted by the last the telephone pole on Hawthorne Drive. When we initially voted for the undergrounding, we were told that this telephone pole on Hawthorne was to be included. Naturally, we were disappointed to find out upon our return that the telephone pole that sits almost directly in line with our view of the Golden Gate Bridge was eliminated from the Del Mar plan after the vote and without notice to us. We fully support the current effort to underground the Hawthorne utilities for the same reasons we supported the Del Mar undergrounding and hope you will make every effort to make things right for those that of us who have already paid for undergrounding but did not receive the full benefit and for the improvement of the entire Tiburon community.. Steve Kravitz and Valerie Montague 1 Patrick Barnes From: Marilyn Nemzer <mnemzer@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 4:20 PM To: Patrick Barnes Subject: Hawthorne Undergrounding To Mr. Barnes and other parties of interest: My husband, Ken, and I own and reside at 664 Hilary Drive in the Del Mar Homeowners Association. We fully support the Hawthorne Undergrounding project and hope it will go forward. Our view and that of of our neighbors, Steve Kravitz and Valerie Montague, is negatively impacted by the last the telephone pole on Hawthorne Drive. When we paid for our own district's undergrounding project several years ago, that pole was to have been included. But, as I'm sure you know, things changed and the poles on Hawthorne were not included in the undergrounding at that time. We do hope that finally we will get the view improvement we paid for. Thank you very much. Marilyn Nemzer Marilyn Nem=er Director,Global Book Exchange Member,Marin Count'Board of Education Rotary Club of Tiburon Sunset 415-435-4574 www.bookexchangeinarin.®r wwiv.facebook.com/globalbookexchangee www.thecaliforniastudy.of rRv 1 Greg Chanis _______ -L_ATE_MAIL # A i-q From: jon.lake@verizon.net HE Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 10:25 PM uE U01 To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Terrace Undergrounding ProjectTIESEDear Town Council, We are residents of the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood and proponents of the Hawthorne Terrace undergrounding project. When the Town contracted with Harris&Associates pursuant to the 11/3/2016 Master Agreement, Harris& Associates represented that"All work performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall be done in a skillful and professional manner in accordance with all applicable legal requirements and shall meet the standard of quality ordinarily to be expected of competent professionals in Consultant's field of expertise." The lack of specificity and arbitrary cost modeling presented by Harris&Associates in the draft preliminary engineering report("Draft Report") and the explanations provided by Harris&Associates' representatives at the Special Meeting on August 30, 2017 did not meet the"standard of quality ordinarily to be expected of competent professionals". Here are a few examples of where the Draft Report fails: 1. PG&E Costs For the PG&E and other utility cost numbers, Harris&Associates relies on costs from a different project in 2012 and adds a 30%contingency plus 18.8%inflation. It would seem that a more recent estimate of utility costs could be used instead of a very arbitrary number plus 48.8%padding. Have equipment costs risen 48.8%for highly commoditized electric transmission equipment? Have PG&E construction and maintenance salaries risen 48.8%since 2012? In addition,when asked whether PG&E was consulted to come up with utility costs,the Harris&Associates representative stated that PG&E would not provide an estimate. However, approximately$9,000 was charged to us for "Utility Coordination" and"Evaluate Estimated Costs from Utilities". 2. 30%contingency-We do not claim special experience with commercial construction projects. However,it is a budgeting rule of thumb that a standard contingency should increase when less is known about a project with uncertain parameters.A 30%contingency has been applied to both the utility costs and the construction (Joint Trench)costs here. This seems excessive,since the costs of both labor and materials for the digging of trenches for undergrounding projects are known quantities which can be extrapolated for this project.A 30%contingency would make sense for a project with unknown dimensions, unknown technologies and/or materials subject to scarcity. As it stands,the joint trench budget already includes a$900,000 rock contingency which is about a 20%additional contingency on the total Joint Trench cost by itself.Taken together,this puts the contingency on the Joint Trench portion, not including the hypothetical inflation, of 50%.Again, Harris&Associates should be able to provide a more realistic number for the Joint Trench portion without relying on arbitrary contingency amounts. 3. General Benefit number-There is an unsupportably tiny amount attributed in the Draft Report to the general benefit, while the report from 2016 and the presentation that was given at Town Hall contemplated a 10-15%general benefit. The removal of the general benefit amount is entirely inconsistent with Harris&Associates cost assessment methodology for the Hawthorne Terrace residents. We believe that the Draft Report should not be accepted as-is, and should be redone to address the many questions that have been raised about its accuracy and assumptions. More detailed and well-founded information will benefit all members of the community.Thank you for your continued time and effort. Sincerely, Jon and Linda Lake Greg Chanis From: pearsoncom@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 2:05 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Letter to Town Council for 9/19 Hawthorne Hearing September 19, 2017 Tiburon Town Council Tiburon, CA Dear Council Members: We are Ian Pearson and Julie Collins, and for the last 21 years have resided in our house at 170 Rock Hill Drive—inside the proposed Hawthorne Undergrounding District. We raised our children here and have been active in Town, neighborhood, and charitable activities throughout our nearly 30 years in Tiburon. We strongly support the Hawthorne Undergrounding District—and have done so through both the petition and request for earnest money. (This is in addition to the 4-figure check we wrote several years ago in an earlier, unsuccessful attempt to underground this neighborhood.) We are writing to voice our wholehearted support for the letter submitted to the Town earlier by two of our Hawthorne Undergrounding leaders, Sara Klein and Jack Ryan. Their letter responding to the Preliminary Engineer's Report raises issues and concerns that we share: • The stated cost of the project is so far above earlier estimates that it calls into question the credibility of both. The Report might have gone a long way toward explaining this huge discrepancy, but instead—in contrast to the painstaking detail evident in other sections of the Report—the financial methodology here often seems vague, speculative, outdated, arbitrary, or unexplained. Given that finances are the heart and soul of this project, that's a shame. ® The extraordinarily high contingency costs seem unrealistic and without credible precedent, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much justification in the Report for them. Do they square with contingencies required in earlier, successful Town undergrounding projects? Or for that matter,with standard practice across the engineering field in general? ® In the Safety section of the Report, attention is consistently paid to the danger of poles toppling onto structures, but missing for the most part is consideration of the far more dangerous threats: electrocution and fires caused by downed lines. In Oakland Hills, no one was killed by a toppling pole but downed lines electrocuted two people, including a fire marshal. In last month's Houston hurricane, downed lines killed 3 people and possibly 6. By overlooking these real threats, the Engineer's Report raises doubts about its methodologies(and not insignificantly, fails to identify a sizeable Safety General Benefit that the Town reaps from buried lines.) In ways large and small, this Report demonstrates an inconsistent and sub-standard degree of due diligence. It leaves us wondering, Is this all we get for our money? Would the Town accept this Report if it was paid for with the Town's money? We feel we and the Town deserve better. We hope you send this Report back to the drawing board. Thank You, Ian and Julie 1 LATE MAIL #, Dear Members of the Council, 4� - I am writing to you again to urge you to take action that will ultimately result in the poles being undergrounded in the Hawthorne Terrace Neighborhood and along the Old Rail Trail. This letter serves as a response to the staff report that was issued Friday afternoon after the submittal of our original letter. To reiterate, I am very much in support of the project, but do not believe the current wildly speculative cost estimates give property owners confidence that they can make an informed economic decision. I am attaching original source documents that were excluded from the staff report, and providing a response to a few sections of the staff analysis. Town staff's analysis appears to act primarily as a justification of Harris'strategy of assigning the "highest possible cost"to the district. The cost analysis prepared by the staff, in several instances omits any actual analysis. The staff report places a disproportionate amount of emphasis on the 2007 preliminary report, although that project never moved past the preliminary phase, had a different boundary map, was never peer reviewed by an outside engineering firm and never went out to bid. Nevertheless, the staff report refers repeatedly to this 10 year-old report as if it was an accurate representation of the cost of a completed construction project on which to base a comparison. Our subscription deposits purchased a new report which was supposed to be comprised of engineering design work with supportable assumptions. My primary problem with the staff report is that it fails to address many of the most financially impactful questions raised by property owners: 1.) The staff report ignores the frequently asked question of the inclusion of 1,637 CY of rock excavation that is revocable into the joint trench estimate. This contingency equals $900,619 and represents 20% of the joint trench base cost estimate. Lyford and Del Mar undergrouding contained 77 CY and 64 CY respectively. There is nothing in the staff report or the Harris engineering report that cites any relevant evidence that 1,637 CY is a reasonable estimate for our project. We were told that a geotech report would reduce this contingency only incrementally without any justification as to why it was so high to begin with. 2.) The staff report ignores any discussion of the change in general benefit calculation between the 2016 and 2017 Harris report. This is of material concern to all property owners, proponents and opponents alike. 3.) The discussion of the financing cost provides no analysis, instead just states that a financial advisor was hired at the request of proponents. The proponents still believe that hiring a financial advisor and obtaining a bond rating will lead to cost savings when we ultimately issue the bonds. Hiring a financial advisor will also help the Town in fulfilling its fiduciary responsibility to the assessment district. However, the "analysis"of the financing cost increase does not identify the interest rate assumptions being used in the Harris report, nor does it provide an explanation for why those rates are so far above current market rates. A true analysis would, at a minimum, contain a comparison of the current market interest rates to the rates in the Harris report and identify the difference as a contingency.A more sophisticated analysis would completely discredit the double counting of inflation by the inclusion of future inflation expectations in the construction estimates without acknowledgement that inflation expectations are factored into interest rates in the bond market. Instead, what we are left with is an undisclosed contingency piled on top of other excessive contingencies. The current market rates are easily obtainable with either a google search or just by calling the town's financial advisor. The rates used in the Harris report are 7.19%for the bond reserve and 6% for the funded interest. The current market rate for Single-A rated 30-Year municipal bonds is around 3.25%. We asked the financial advisor for an analysis calculated closer to the rates where our bonds would be issued today. The analysis is attached and shows a savings of $500,000 to the assessment district. The following original source documents that form the basis of the assumptions used in the Harris assessment report have been excluded from the staff report. Property owners raised many questions referencing these documents both at the August 30th meeting as well as in the individual letters recently submitted to the Town. I am including them for your review: 1.) The joint trench 2.) The PG&E estimate 3.) The 2016 Harris document that discusses the 10%-15% general benefit 4.) The financial advisor's estimate of the financing cost at the market rate I urge the Council to reject this preliminary engineer's report and work towards a solution that ultimately results in the undergrounding of our utility poles at the lowest possible cost to the district. Sincerely, Sara Klein 757 Hawthorne Drive TOWN OF TIBURON HAWTHORNE UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT HIGH LEVEL COST ESTIMATE 8/7/17 BASE BID ITEMS 120 Parcels ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION EST.QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 0.00 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION 0.01 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION 1 LS $ 234,000.00 $ 234,000 1.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1.01 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS $ 312,000.00 $ 312,000 2.00 STREET LIGHT FOUNDATIONS AND CONDUIT 2.OA REMOVE EXISTING STREET LIGHTS 6 EA $ 600.00 $ 3,600 2.01 STREET LIGHT FOUNDATION 6 EA $ 3,140.00 $ 18,840 2.02 2-INCH DIAMETER STREET LIGHT CONDUIT 370 LF $ 6.30 $ 2,331 2.03 STREET LIGHT SPLICE BOX 6 EA $ 630.00 $ 3,780 3.00 UNDERGROUND UTILITY EARTHWORK 3.01 24"x62"TRENCH 6968 LF $ 130.00 $ 905,892 3.02 18"x56"TRENCH 878 LF $ 120.00 $ 105,408 3.03 24"x62"TRENCH CALTRANS 1589 LF $ 140.00 $ 222,432 OVEREXCAVATION OF TRENCH DUE TO 3.04 UNSUITABLE BEDDING MATERIAL 50 CY $ 350.00 $ 17,500 3.05 SHORING AND TRENCH SAFETY 1 LS $ 21,000.00 $ 21,000 3.06 ROCK EXCAVATION REVOCABLE 1637 CY $ 550.00 $ 900,619 3.07 DE-WATERING 1 LS $ 10,470.00 $ 10,470 4.00 PAVEMENT WORK TOWN OF TIBURON HAWTHORNE UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT HIGH LEVEL COST ESTIMATE 8/7/17 HMA SURFACE RESTORATION INCLUDING 2" 4.01 MILL PER MARIN COUNTY STDS 944 TON $ 200.00 $ 188,712 MINOR CONCRETE(SIDEWALK, CURB& 4.02 GUTTER) 348 SF $ 25.00 $ 8,700 5.00 i STRIPING&PAVEMENT MARKING 5.01 STRIPING&PAVEMENT MARKING 1 LS $ 10,470.00 $ 10,470 REMOVE YELLOW TRAFFIC STRIPE AND PAVEMENT MARKING AND LEAD 5.02 COMPLIANCE PLAN 1 LS $ 16,050.00 $ 16,050 6.00 UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC SYSTEM PG&E 6-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT(PRIMARY)(1 6.01 SPARE, 1 USED) 13937 LF $ 12.60 $ 175,604 6-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT(PRIMARY)(1 6.02 ISPARE, 1 USED)Caltrans 3178 LF $ 13.60 $ 43,215 6.03 4-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT SECONDARY 15694 LF $ 10.50 $ 164,783 4-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT(SECONDARY) 6.04 Caltrans 3178 LF $ 11.50 $ 36,542 6.05 3-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT SERVICE 2320 LF $ 7.40 $ 17,168 4'6"x 8'6"x 7'D E-7 PRIMARY ENCLOSURE 6.06 FULL TRAFFIC 8 EA $ 13,610.00 $ 108,880 4'6"x 6'6"x 6'D E-6 PRIMARY ENCLOSURE 6.07 FULL TRAFFIC 20 EA $ 13,085.00 $ 261,700 6.08 6'x 6'PAD MOUNT CAPACITOR BANK 1 EA $ 4,250.00 $ 4,250 24"x 36"x 30"D E-3 SECONDARY SPLICE BOX 6.09 FULL TRAFFIC COVER 37 1 EA $ 2,620.00 $ 96,940 24"x 36"x 30"D E-3 SECONDARY SPLICE BOX 6.10 FULL TRAFFIC COVER Caltrans 3 EA $ 2,880.00 $ 8,640 17"x 24"x 18"D E-2 SECONDARY SPLICE BOX 6.11 FULL TRAFFIC COVER 60 EA $ 1,050.00 $ 63,000 7.00 " UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE SYSTEM AT&T 7.01 2-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT SERVICE 4579 LF $ 6.30 $ 28,848 7.02 4-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT 9706 LF $ 10.50 $ 101,913 7.03 4-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT Caltrans 900 LF $ 11.50 1 $ 10,350 TOWN OF TIBURON HAWTHORNE UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT HIGH LEVEL COST ESTIMATE 8/7/17 7.04 30"x 48"x 36"D T-4 VAULT 43 EA $ 3,140.00 $ 135,020 UNDERGROUND CABLE TELEVISION > 8.00 COMCAST 8.01 1-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT SERVICE 4237 LF $ 4.20 $ 17,795 8.02 2-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT 12303 LF $ 6.30 $ 77,509 8.03 2-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT Caltrans 300 LF $ 7.30 $ 2,190 48"x 30"x 12"D B-48 TV-SPLICE BOX W/1-10" 8.04 EXTENSION FULL TRAFFIC COVER 13 EA $ 3,140.00 $ 40,820 48"x 30"x 12"D B-48 TV-SPLICE BOX W/1-10" 8.05 EXTENSION FULL TRAFFIC COVER Caltrans 1 EA $ 3,455.00 $ 3,455 17"x 30"x 18"D B-36 TV-VAULT(FULL TRAFFIC 8.06 COVER) 9 EA $ 2,620.00 $ 23,580 13"x 24"x 18"D B-30 TV-VAULT(FULL TRAFFIC 8.07 COVER)Caltrans 22 EA $ 1,570.00 $ 34,540 TOTAL BASE BID= $ 4,438,546 PROJECTED INFLATION May 2017 TO May 2018 AT 3.1% = $ 137,595 PROJECTED INFLATION(May 2018 TO May 2019 AT 3.1% = $ 141,860 TOTAL BASE BID+2 YEARS PROJECTED INFLATION= $ 4,718,001 30%CONTINGENCY= $ 1,415,400 GRAND TOTAL $ 6,133,402 BASE BID ITEMS 120 Pa PG&E UTILITY COSTS NOM ITEM DESCRIPTION ITEQTY UNIT 0.00 MOBILIZATION DEMOBILIZATION MOBILIZATION/DEMOBIL 1 Ls $ 80 6% of construction 0.01 IZATION ,680 less traffic control 1.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1.01 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS $ 107,574 8% of construction less mob/demob STREET LIGHT 2.00 FOUNDATIONS AND CONDUIT REMOVE EXISTING 2.OA 6 EA STREET LIGHTS 2.01 STREET LIGHT 6 EA FOUNDATION 2-INCH DIAMETER 2'02 370 LF STREET LIGHT CONDUIT 2.03 STREET LIGHT SPLICE 6 EA BOX 100 UNDERGROUND UTILITY EARTHWORK 3.01 24"x62" TRENCH 6968 LF 3.02 18"x56" TRENCH 878 LF 3.03 24"x62" TRENCH 1589 LF CALTRANS OVEREXCAVATION OF 3.04 TRENCH DUE TO 50 CY UNSUITABLE BEDDING MATERIAL 3.05 SHORING AND TRENCH 1 LS SAFETY 3.06 ROCK EXCAVATION 1637 CY REVOCABLE 3.07 DE-WATERING 1 LS 4.00 PAVEMENT WORK HMA SURFACE RESTORATION 4.01 944 TON INCLUDING 2" MILL PER MARIN COUNTY STDS MINOR CONCRETE 4.02 (SIDEWALK, CURB & 348 SF GUTTER 5.00 STRIPING & PAVEMENT MARKING 5.01 STRIPING & PAVEMENT 1 LS MARKING REMOVE YELLOW TRAFFIC STRIPE AND 5.02 PAVEMENT MARKING 1 LS AND LEAD COMPLIANCE PLAN a or Dasea on Del Mar project. Del Mar had 7250 hours at $176 per hour equals UNDERGROUND $1 ,276,000. That 6.00 ELECTRIC SYSTEM $ 423,375 44.87 (PG&E) value divided by 28,437 feet is $44,87/foot. Hawthorne has 9436 LF of main line trnnrh Primary conductor 6-INCH DIAMETER material is $7.81 per 6.01 CONDUIT (PRIMARY) (1 #### LF $ 435,386 foot times 4 wires SPARE, 1 USED) perfoot Primary conductor 6-INCH DIAMETER material is $7.81 per 6.02 CONDUIT (PRIMARY) (1 3178 LF $ 99,268 SPARE, 1 USED) Caltrans foot times 4 wires perfoot Secondary 6.03 4-INCH DIAMETER #### LF $ 105,932 conductor material CONDUIT (SECONDARY) is $2.25 per foot time 3 wires per foot Secondary 4-INCH DIAMETER conductor material 6.04 CONDUIT (SECONDARY) 3178 LF $ 21 ,449 is $2.25 per foot Caltrans time 3 wires per foot Secondary 3-INCH DIAMETER conductor material 6.05 CONDUIT (SERVICE) 2320 LF $ 15,660 is $2.25 per foot time 3 wires per foot 4' 6" x 8' 6" x 7'D E-7 Subsurface three 6.06 PRIMARY ENCLOSURE 1 EA $ 8,800 phase transformer is (FULL TRAFFIC) $8,800 each 4' 6" x 8' 6" x 7'D E-7 Splicebox - no PRIMARY ENCLOSURE 2 FULL TRAFFIC) equipment 4' 6" x 8' 6" x 7'D E-7 Switch is $16,000 PRIMARY ENCLOSURE 5 $ 80,000 FULL TRAFFIC each 4' 6" x 6' 6" x 6'D E-6 Subsurface single 6.07 PRIMARY ENCLOSURE 16 EA $ 68,800 phase transformer is (FULL TRAFFIC) $4,300 each 4' 6" x 6' 6" x 6'D E-6 Switch is $16,000 PRIMARY ENCLOSURE 3 $ 48,000 FULL TRAFFIC each Assume a capacitor 6' x 6' PAD MOUNT 6.08 CAPACITOR BANK 1 EA $ 38,000 costs as much as an interruptor switch 24" x 36" x 30"D E-3 SECONDARY SPLICE 6.09 37 EA BOX (FULL TRAFFIC COVER 24" x 36" x 30"D E-3 SECONDARY SPLICE 6'10 3 EA BOX (FULL TRAFFIC COVER) Caltrans 17" x 24" x 18"D E-2 6.11 SECONDARY SPLICE 60 EA BOX (FULL TRAFFIC COVER UNDERGROUND 7.00 TELEPHONE SYSTEM AT&T 7.01 2-INCH DIAMETER 4579 LF CONDUIT SERVICE 7.02 4-INCH DIAMETER 9706 LF CONDUIT 7.03 4-INCH DIAMETER 900 LF CONDUIT Caltrans 7.04 30" x 48" x 36"D T-4 43 EA VAULT 8.p0 UNDERGROUND CABLE TELEVISION (COMCAST) 8.01 1-INCH DIAMETER 4237 LF [: CONDUIT SERVICE 802 2-INCH DIAMETER #### LF CONDUIT 8.03 2-INCH DIAMETER 300 LF CONDUIT Caltrans 48" x 30" x 12"D B-48 TV- SPLICE BOX W/ 1-10" 8.04 13 EA EXTENSION (FULL TRAFFIC COVER 48" x 30" x 12"D B-48 TV- SPLICE BOX W/ 1-10" 8.05 EXTENSION (FULL 1 EA TRAFFIC COVER) Caltrans 17" x 30" x 18"D B-36 TV- 8.06 VAULT (FULL TRAFFIC 9 EA COVER 13" x 24" x 18"D B-30 TV- 8.07 VAULT (FULL TRAFFIC 22 EA COVER) Caltrans TOTAL BASE BID 2013 = $ 1,532 924 30% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY = $ 459,877 BASE BID + CONTINGENCY = $ 1,992,801 4 YEARS OF INFLATION PER $ 251,093 JULY ENR CCI (May 2013 to April 2017) AT (12.6%) PROJECTED INFLATION (May $ 69,561 2017 TO May 2018) AT (3.1% ) PROJECTED INFLATION (May $ 71'717 2018 TO May 2019) AT (3.1%) $ 2,385,171 TOTAL PG&E ESTIMATE (2019) Assessment Methodology Overview and General Benefit Analysis Hawthorne UdlityWnderground\ng District Town ofTiburon Prepared by: Harris&Associates In developing the assessment methodology for the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District,the special benefit to be received by parcels within the district will be similar to the special benefit received by parcels inthe other utility undergroundingdistricts,and will bebased upon: • improved aesthetics, m safety, and * reliability. The specific formula that will be used to quantify the special benefit received by parcels will be developed during the preparation of the Assessment Engineer's Report to quantify the special benefit each parcel will receive from the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities. it will likely be more complex than the assessment methodology developed for prior districts within the Town for several reasons, but will take into consideration such factors as; • impact of the existing overhead utilities on viewshed toward the bay from the parcel and impacts onsecondary vievvshed(s), w impacts oftopography relative toprimary and secondary viexxshed from each parcel, ° proximity of the existing utilities including poles to be removed to the parcel, • improved aesthetics within the neighborhood,and the visual environment, • improved safety related to the reduced risk of downed power lines as a result of natural disasters, and the proximity of the existing overhead utilities to each parcel and likely impact on the parcel axaresult ofdowned power lines. • increased system reliability as a result of the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities. HDVVSVeF, before the special benefit received by parcels within the assessment district can be apportioned, Proposition 218 requires that any General Benefit be identified and that it be quantified, Since a portion of the utilities to be undergrounded in this district include existing overhead utilities on poles located adjacent toTiburon Boulevard, as well as several pole that are adjacent to the Shoreline Park trail on to Richardson Bay and several pole which provides electrical service to the Richardson Bay Sanitary District's pump station(as shown on the attached map of the proposed assessment district). The under8roundin8ofthe existing overhead utilities and the removal ofthose poles will provide abenefit to the community at large(General Benefit) in addition to the special benefit to parcels within the proposed assessment district. To quantify the General Benefit,an analysis of the benefit received by the public at large(General Benefit) versus the benefit received by particular parcels (Special Benefit) will be made for each of the factors identified above. For example, the General Benefit related tosystem reliability might bequantified by looking at the total parcels served by the existing overhead facilities (including parcels outside of the district boundaries which would be impacted by service interruption related to the existing overhead facilities) in comparison to the number of parcels within the district boundaries. The General Benefit related to improved safety could be quantified based upon the reduction in risk of injury or death related to downed power lines on lands used by the pubic (General Benefit) in comparison to private property (Special Benefit). The General Benefit related to improved aesthetics would be related to the economic benefits associated with the improvement of the viewshed on public rights-of-way/publically owned lands in relationship to the economic benefits associated with the improvement of the xiewshed on private property based upon proximity, primary orsecondary v|evvshed, and other related factors. The exact method for identifying and quantifying the General Benefit will bedeveloped during the preparation of the Assessment Engineer's Report. Based upon the fact that 9 of the approximately 40 existing utility poles to be removed will most likely have some percentage of General Benefit associated with them, the portion of the overall project coots that is associated with General Benefit could be in the range of 18-1SY6 +/' and that costs could not be apportioned to parcels within the district. Aug 15,2017 12:23 pm Prepared by Sperry Capital Inc. (Finance 7.009 MMWD:'1'IBU120N 1"r113IIAWTH) Page 2 BOND SUMMARY STATISTICS Tiburon Hawthorne AD Tiburon Hawthorne AD Dated Date 09/01/2017 Delivery Date 09/01/2017 Last Maturity 09/02/2047 Arbitrage Yield '3.997577% True Interest Cost(TIC) 4.079719%) Net Interest Cost(NIC) 4.091735% All-In TIC 4.311416% Average Coupon 4.037017% Average Life(years) 18.275 Duration of Issue(years) 12.454 Par Amount 11,910,Ooo.00 Mond Proceeds 11,91 0,o00.Oo Total Interest 8,786,893.03 Net Interest 8,905,993.03 Total Debt Service 20,696,893.03 Maximum Annual Debt Service 685,060.00 Average Annual Debt Service. 689,832.56 Underwriter's Hees(per$1000) Average Takedown O 10.000000 Other Fee Total Underwriter's Discount 10.000000 Bid Price 99.000000 Par Average Average Bond Component Value Price Coupon Life Serials due 09/02/2018 -09/02/2038 6,340,000.00 100.000 3.687% 11.619 Term due 09/02/2042 2,490,000.00 100.000 4.180% 23.085 Term due 09/02/2047 3,080,000.00 100.000 4.240/0 28.087 1'1,910,000.00 18.275 Citizen Letters Against Mr. and Mrs ® James H. Hampton 730 Hawthorne Dr® 8 L ri i 2ull Tiburon, CA 94920 1 1 TOWN-CLERK L Tiburon Town Council AT Ali Tn m()f:T1Q1 10, 1505 Tiburon Blvd. L ATE MAIL # T wNnPT1Q11Df)K1 Tiburon, CA 94920 September 18 , 2017 To Tiburon Town Council, Addressing the Preliminary Engineer ' s Report, we object to an assessment of $29, 902 for Primary View Enhancement based on removal of the closest pole to us along the bike path. That pole is far enough away ( far right) from our living room windows that it is not in our primary view area, which is toward San Francisco and the Golden Gate Bridge. At his visit to our property on 11 September, Mr® Klinghoffer, agreed that we should not be assessed for that pole' s removal ® My husband and I have lived at 730 Hawthorne Dr. , Tiburon, since 1980 and reared our three children here® We are retirees now living mostly on fixed income® With seven grandsons ranging in age from one-years old to seventeen years, reserves are hopefully going toward their post secondary educations ® we live frugally with the goal of paying for some of their educational costs very much on our minds ® The two attempts to impose unneeded and unwanted expense on us to underground utilities have been met with our hard resistance® We feel that undergrounding is not a necessity in Tiburon but may be in places with many tall trees such as Virginia or parts of West Marin. Winter blizzards, ice storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes that bring down power lines and poles frequently are other considerations in many parts of this country, and State governments would be wise to consider using State taxes for public utility undergrounding in areas with those climatic conditions ® To go to the immense expense of undergrounding in Tiburon (blessed with a relatively benign climate) for largely aesthetic reasons, however, is not a good use of money® While our neighborhood quibbles over this very expensive project, Tiburon Blvd® , Beach Rd® , the US Post Office parking lot, Cove Shopping Center and other areas of Tiburon are subject to flooding at high tide and during periods of intense rainfall . That problem has been here for decades and goes unaddressed. Weather science tells us our planet is warming, glaciers are melting, and sea levels are slowly rising. Studies show that our coast and bay shoreline are at increased risk of inundation as time goes by. Raising our roads and/or building sea walls are real NNEDS, but I have not heard from either our Tiburon Town Council or County Board of Supervisors about how and at what cost present and future flooding will be addressed. Please address what is truly relevant and put to rest the Hawthorne Undergrounding District which is an unneeded large drain on our economic resources . Thank you for your consideration of our ideas . Sincerely, James and Sharon Hampton LATE MAIL #Al-q Town of Tiburon Town Council Robin McNally 682 Hilary Dr. Tiburon, CA 94920 September 14, 2017 Re: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding To Whom it May Concern; I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposal to underground the utilities in my neighborhood. As a resident of this neighborhood for 23 years and a single woman, I have worked hard to balance my budget and maintain my home to the best of my ability. The cost of living has risen and my earning capability is diminishing as I advance in years. I am working towards living on a fixed income and will not be able to afford an additional "mortgage-like" payment imposed by the undergrounding project. While I understand the aesthetic benefit of the pole removals, the cost to implement it is exorbitant. There have been very few power outages in the years I've lived here so the claims of safety concerns seem to be overstated. It seems unfair that long time residents that are not able to afford the additional expense should be forced to pay for neighborhood improvements requested by wealthier households. In addition, it seems that the town would benefit by the beautification of the area and should participate in the financing of the project. The escalations of the costs have been astronomical which could lead me to have to sell potentially at a reduced price due to the disclosures that I would have to make in regards to the assessment. Please consider the plight of the long term residents when making decisions that may affect their financial security and well being. Best Regards, Robin McNally 9, Q, c 4- Gf J/I j A (0- -31 -3,AAK rn. �(-hzlft -3m Od 51 C\:�.l Q 13 y 4-au ol. HCl -3" 1 A C A-V IM J-d (4-F b j ein bl-ivgllvN 31VI 14. u".) 41 yc�f r ix (Af c)an OL IIQ cc- T (tsvi-v (/- - rt.k SEP 18 2017 Con '---ToVV-N CLEIRK RE E NVIE",-D LATLE, �',OAIL # Al-� F SEEP 19 2017 F7 Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, ---- Tiburon,CA 94920 Hawthorne Undergrounding District September 19, 2017 Dear Council Members, I attended the Town meeting on August 30th to discuss the preliminary engineering report,prepared by Harris and Associates.I had also been one of the many residents who invested money for the compilation of the report.This money has been wasted. The report does not serve the function for which it was intended. The objective for the report was to provide residents with a robust and thorough analysis of the costs and individual assessments upon which each property owner could make a reasoned economic decision as to whether to proceed with the project on its merits. The report has numerous flaws and inconsistencies.For example,the overall increase in expected costs from approximately$8.5 million to approximately$12.5 million required detailed analysis,supporting data,comparison with precedents, reasoning for the level of contingencies presented and careful explanation of the individual line items that remained subject to the greatest uncertainty.The report, as presented,and the verbal explanation for the deviation from the initial estimate were shoddy and lacking a minimum level of detail. All of the residents with whom I have spoken understand that there exists an element of uncertainty regarding cost estimates of this type. However the result, after the time and effort expended on the report,is a complete lack of an agreed economic foundation upon which residents can make their respective arguments in favor of or against the project. As the Council considers the best path forward to achieve a fair outcome to this process,the inadequacies of the Harris report are,I believe,a central issue on which the Council must focus its attention. Yours faithfully, Jonathan Turner Greg Chanis From: Linda Wishart <lindawishes@yahoo.com> I Sent: Wednesday,September 13, 2017 7:11 PM � To: Greg Chanis Cc: Greg Chanis SEP 19 2011 Subject: Vote NO on Hawthorne Undergrounding Project TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Members: Please do not vote to approve the preliminary engineer's report on the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding Project that is missing very important information.After listening to the comments at the August meeting,consider that this will be a hardship for many residents who are on a fixed income in their senior years and also on young neighbors who are beginning their families. Please, do not vote to accept this report. Thank you, Linda Wishart 680 Hilary Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 i Community Congregational Church Letters LATE MAIL # Ak- RECEIVED September 10, 2017 SEP 182017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON TOWN OFTIBU 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: Community Congregational Church Objection to being included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: I am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the "Church"). I wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us, the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, 5&4., P.�� ?CA+ r �'G U 0 Signature N me ga"ky Aw. Address St . Hilary Letters Patrick Barnes From: William Brown <billbrown@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 9:40 AM To: Patrick Barnes Subject: Wrong date on letter(19 vs. 20 Sept.) " q"E MAIL # 81 1 LA Sunday, September 17, 2017 AH Dear Pat, Thanks for your patience as we deal with this ongoing stressful issue. I don't mean to be a pest, but the letter the public can find at http://www.townoftiburon.org/DocumentCenter/View/1502 has not been replaced and still informs people that the Town Council meeting will take place on September 20, in the second to last paragraph of your letter. Maybe this is not important, but I wanted to let you know just in case you want to update that letter from August 16 and avoid any confusion for the public. I am very grateful to you and your colleagues for helping us all understand what is going on, how much it will cost, and listing the letters pro and con on your website as well. My own research on this topic has revealed that other communities have gone through similar growing pains, especially, for example, when homeowners find a transformer moved from the power pole down to their front yard: http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/local/transformer-boxes-will-make-somebody- unhappV/vdwszNlOhd0EC2EWPVHzLP/ http://www.lodinews.com/news/article 7a08446e-41ef-11e3-8323-0019bb2963f4.html http://sduptownnews.com/boxed-in-taimadge%E2%80%99s-complaints-about-utility-undergrounding-motivate-others- to-take-action/ I don't remember these transformer boxes being mentioned before our fun-packed meeting on August 30, but since then I've been doing some reading and now realize that WHOEVER ends up having the transformers boxes on their property will have their noses out of joint. Many thanks, 1 " Father Brown Father William E. Brown Pastor St. Hilary Church &School 761 Hilary Drive Tiburon,CA 94920 Church Office:(415)435-1122 Direct Line:(415)937-5520 www.sthilarV.org www.facebook.com/St.HilaryChurchinTiburon www.sainthilaryschool.org www.facebook.com/sainthilaryschool "See everything, overlook a great deal, correct a little." Pope Saint John XXlll(1881-1963) 2 Greg Ch-an-is From: Lydia Velasco-Mayock <lyvelascom@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 1:26 PM To: Greg Chanis PA- Dear Subject: Exclusion of St Hilary of the Hawthorne Districtwo Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a former resident of the Town of Tiburon AND a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. The$266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. Unless St Hilary paid the$266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between$15,000 and$18,000 per year which would total more than$500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years.This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary Church and School is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses,especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and,to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures(poles and wires)from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however,logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms,St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood"viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago,and as such,St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety(assessed cost of$173,631)and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding,and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability,the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary, if the homeowners vote for it. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Lydia Velasco-Mayock LCSW PPSC 2 LATE MAIL #_Al,�_ a memoer of me of rittury cummurtttyl. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and th resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would recei eXrormi° undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obi t' g� t, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the SW 0 between $15,000 and $18,000 per year which would total more than $500,000. These pa-y&MUM 6M& cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial numbJPWRFWT Wrs. This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary Church and School is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures(poles and vires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood"viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary. Jje�_j4A"- Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, LATE MAIL # AH 9 ( 13 11 SEP IB2011 TOWNTWN 0 Ti 3U ON � �is t,�.6'n� �Tl.�W�t ��u►�c.,( � . °` ���► � l � yes �. � p - AA9 dJ�Zq cv 0capo �Je�+ 4o 46. 1 cl u�s ovo� 5� . �c� �c �oal I 1-04kv rv�e., � � q us- MK(ovia pe-l'� qeja.r ate. ++a .! neo 1'e. �qn# 5�•t�,�j�uf c d. s u.r cu.c.c.s 0.5 p Yaai , `� � �t�� MLtc-kUt s a vn_ lncQG�eI '• .�.. . S o s u cc-t 4 . wcr�h au Aa r4i,�m CL ':'> -<"- t4A- I ea54-1 r•O+ Cm lhi true 6� • as �Ol �L)6.4 rLXl f`e �� U�> \ L t 1; S d a, u i 1 (340 � r v rove vuuv�- - � 0 Lov ers CLoe scn,-4- s ee vn tr , cq�er 5-���.�-c�. i n i�.s�ice. � �'��� `finis . ��►�.v1 � R I Ag S-�- far , LADv wkd Vic+m4oQ8 . OLA� COOS din . LATE MAIL # Aj_q RECEIVED September 18, 2017 1 SEP 18 20177 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: _�,059-COF-Iff— TOWN OF TIBURON I am a member of the St. Hilary community, and I am writing you about the inclusion of St. Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. The proposed $266, 927. 57 to be levied against St. Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St. Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. Unless St. Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation up front it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest. The loan would burden the Church and the School roughly $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St. Hilary Church and School to experience a huge financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years it would take to pay off the loan. St. Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses. Common sense would indicate that nearly all of the undergrounding benefit would be in the improvement of views from properties, and to a lesser extent, in the removal of manmade structures from the landscape of the neighborhood. People who want to improve the value of their property should pay for it. St. Hilary would not receive any improvement in value of their property. Years ago St. Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago. As such, St. Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St. Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? Please remove St. Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District and allow the District to move forward without St. Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Al4tZ_ Ann Hunt, 33 Juno Road, Tiburon Member of St. Hilary Parish for 44 years. All three of my children attended St. Hilary School from 1St grade until 8th grade. LATE MAIL #Ak-' EOVE- S E P 18 2017 Mr. and Mrs . James H. Hampton 730 Hawthorne Dr. TOWN CLERK Tiburon, CA 94920 GOWN OF TV Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 September 16 , 2017 To Tiburon Town Council, As longtime members of St. Hilary Parish and as 37-Year resident homeowners within the very recently formed Hawthorne Undergrounding District, we agree with the St. Hilary Parish and School request to be excluded from the Hawthorne Undergrounding District. We see the assessment of $266 , 000 ( approximately $560 , 000 over 30 years ) as an undue burden placed on a non-profit with very little benefit accruing to the safety, reliability of service, and aesthetic experiences of those living on or visiting the campus . It is a very safe campus with fabulous views already due to campus-wide undergrounding paid for by parishioners . The majority of St. Hilary' s assessment has to do with safety, presumably from a falling pole. I think the risk assessment is way overblown. Loss of power during storms is very unusual in this area, unlike West Marin where falling trees are far more common, disrupt power transmission, and sometimes bring down a pole. I have never heard of falling poles in our area in 37 years of residence on Hawthorne Dr. I don 't think the risk of pole problems justifies the high safety assessment. About twenty years ago I complained about a leaning pole at the head of my driveway, and PG&E responded immediately with pole replacement and guy wires to stabilize the pole. Vigilance and prompt reporting to PG&E of potential problems is essential . In addition, a projected increase in property value for a church and school property is academic if the property is not sold. Residences within the District may see an increase in value and benefit when the home is sold, but St. Hilary Church and School are there for the long term and not scheduled for sale. The supposed benefit to property value is lost if the property is not sold. Please listen to the objections of their attorney, Frank I . Mulberg, and grant St. Hilary Church and School ' s request to be relieved of inclusion in the District. Thank you. Sincerely, James and Shar6n Hampton Tiburon Town Council September 19, 2017 Al-4: Hawthorne Undergrounding Late Mail Public Review :Copy:. Please Do Not Remove Requests for Copies: Lea Stefani, lstefani@townoftiburon.org Citizen Letters in Support Gary Schoch one 93 hock Hili Drive•Tiburon,CA 949200 Phone:415-699-0786 LATE' MAIL #A I &Mail;gman4comxnerce mc.COm Date: 15-September;2017 Tiburon Town Council Subject: Hawthorne Terrace Undergrounding Council Meeting Sept 19,2017 Dear Tiburon Town Council Members, My wife acid I ar e'owrrcis of 93 Rock Hill Drive here in Hawt ome Terrace,mid can't believe how time flies,but we've owned and lived in our home,with our son James since 1998. From the beginning of the process and in fact years earlier, we were acid still are proponents of power pole undergrounding m our community. So to that end,we spent a great deal of time to simply understand the process,work in a friendly.Kay to discussion with our neighbors,hear all arguments for and against and form what I believe is a vote yes or no rooted in facts. I have read carefully, the assessment work done by Harris and frankly,after a'collective $151,750 to construct this "estimate" I think you would have to agree that anyestimate that has line items iii it that more than triple (PG&E)and fact drat tie telt?[between tie first estimate?aid L:rs is so great,gives ane little conf idencr that I have enough information to vote on sometli I really want done,'one way or the other. Our whole reason to agree to this was to get a real estimate.In our personal lives,when want work done,there is no way I would host a firm to give me otic price acrd then months later,it's significantly more and as it tunas;out,it's more because'it appears to be making flawed assumptions(i.e.PG&E costs)as opposed to workiing from real facts based on experience. Without question we want to proceed with this prgiect„but only based Harris,FIXING their deliverable and moreover,we are not paying for die estimate Co be fixed -as far as we are concern d,this is,riot a quality deliverable because it lacks any ability to trust it and our house has the largest assessment of the neighborhood-$191K-so I really need to have the figures known and I would assume,if you were f-ued with this dilemma yourselves,you would feel the same way. I also think ies ridiculous;that the towns general..beriefit is not part of.this,proposal-We use the Old Rail Trail path all the time and our bike paths are filled with tourists on bikes from.Blazmg Saddles and we know for a fact that our that the Impact Study report dated August 7,;2017 goes to great lengths to discuss how much scenic beauty is valued by the town and refers to die prioritization of undergrounding utilities along the Old Rail Trail in the Town's General Plan (see pg. 17 Section I Aesthetics. For this reason,we find it to be unfair and inconsistent with the town's goals of beautification,to have the general benefit:changed from 10%-15%to now 0.2%between 2016 and die.estimate now in 2017. How on earth was this changed justified? Finally, I think the assessment value given to safety is woefully inaccurate. As I've mentioned before,and others have said, `well we've never had an incident here before"misses die point. 1. I don't think I will have a fire at my house '-but I have to carry fire insurance. 2. February 2017, the power pole here on Rock Hill Drive outside St. Hilary's driveway caught fire at night - fire department and PG&E had to come out and repair it in the heavy rains. 3. Cars go flying down Rock Hill at the St. Hilary driveway which is directly across the street from ours,and is a violent S-Tuna - 3 weeks ago a cru-lost control mid slid into lie curb -very close to the large power pole with (lie transformers on it. A near miss 4. Our weather is changing and the stores are much worse than before -we think safety has to be a bigger percentage in the assessment - at least 20-25% - I would also like to understand what oilier values Harris used on other projects to backup as evidence the reasons for die percentages used. 5. All new developments as I understand it,underground their utilities so I am very curious,and I have to presume,what are the reasons this is true? I have to believe safety and estlhetics are the reasons, so if this is true, then shouldn't we use the same assumptions new neighborhoods use? Pics below showing the s-turn and the fire (sorry it was very late and a little blurry) "Therefore,I am requesting that this town council please request Harris to go back and deliver a real and valid estimate that is rooted in real life experience so that we all have something to vote on widi confidence. More specifically,please do not stop this project until such time we get a more accurate and trustworthy estimate. I would expect to get a RANGED estimate that would slhow say an estimated MIN and MAX mud that backup is provided on that estimate from odher projects they have done and their references j case studies be included. Specifically,PG&E cost has got to be fumed up and should use more dhan one data point,die Del Mar p1-03CCL for ht's assumptions. Further, Harris needs to be more clear as they appeared to be saying d»s is die "worst case"estimate in die town meeting a few weeks ago estimate- the problem because die range is so off,it's hard to trust this one way or the other. Sincerely, Gary Schoch 93 Rock Hill Drive'Tiburon CA. 94920 - 415-699-0786 2 GregLAIE Chanis MAIL 9 A - From: Elena Stephens <elenastephens522@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 12:44 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Undergrounding District-.Reject preliminary report&Approve biddable construction documents Dear Tiburon Town Council, We, Elena and Michael Stephens, support utility undergrounding efforts in the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. Our family has lived at 687 Hawthorne Drive and has been actively engaged in our community since 2006. We love living in Tiburon and want to see Hawthorne Terrace make good on a third attempt to underground our dangerous and ugly utility poles. It is the right thing to do and we ask that you find a solution to keep our project on track. A solution would be achieved with a solid baseline of information. The preliminary engineering report does not provide enough accuracy. According to the staff report, we have a preliminary design at only -5% accuracy with built in buffers and inflation that distorts the truth ni the numbers. Multi- million dollar decision making should require information at a substantially higher accuracy. You are able to approve town funding for complete biddable construction documents that would give us 85- 100% accuracy. Ridding results from these documents would provide the town and parcel owners an opportunity to vote with more certainty. Town Council please take fiscal responsibility. Reject the preliminary report. Approve town funding of biddable construction documents for real construction bids. Construction plans = Accurate decision making Thank you very much for your consideration, Elena and Michael Stephens i Greg Chanis From: Jennifer Wang <jennifer@redwood-legal.com> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 9:10 PM To: Greg Chanis LATE Cc: Ashley Anderson ! Ai + Subject: Hawthorne Undergroundmg Protect Dear Town Council, We write in support of the undergrounding project for the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. With regard to the Harris report, it would be beneficial if the assessment range was not so large, The upper and lower ends of the range should be closer together. It seems somewhat arbitrary that certain homeowners were assessed over $150k and other homeowners were assessed less than$35k. While we realize that any system or methodology is bound to result in some homeowners feeling that they were incorrectly assessed a "high" number,a "flatter" assessment matrix would be more fair and not result in unusually high costs on certain homeowners. Rather than 6 categories of assessments, putting everyone in the middle 3 bands makes more sense. Further,the general benefit to the Town should be properly valued at a higher amount than is stated in the Harris report. All residents would benefit from the poles being undergrounded along the Bay trail-both as pedestrians, bicyclists and general motorists along Tiburon Boulevard. I assume that the Town helped to defray(or pay entirely)the cost of undergrounding the poles along other stretches of the Bay trail and don't see why-the stretch near our neighborhood should be treated any differently. The broader trend with respect to overhead utility lines is that they are getting systematically undergrounded in neighborhoods all over the Bay Area. There is no reason to believe that the costs in the future will be lower than the costs today. For this reason, among others, please help our neighborhood move forward with this effort. Significant investments of time and money have already been dedicated to this effort and it would be an enormous shame to waste them. Thanks for all of your time and consideration. Best regards, Jennifer Wang&Ash Anderson 40 Del Mar Drive 1 Greg Chanis From: David King <dking68@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 9:45 AM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Undergrounding Project LATE MAIL # Ai. Dear Town Council, We, David Ding and Sarah Wilson, are the property owners of 735 Hawthorne Drive in Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood. We have lived here with our daughter for seven years. (David also grew up in the Del Mar neighborhood, where he lived from 1968 to 1991.) We are strong proponents of the Hawthorne utility pole undergrounding project because we believe that it will improve the beauty and safety of our neighborhood. After all of the hard volunteer work that has been done on this project, we believe it would be a mistake to rush to approve the "first draft" report from Harris. We have numerous concerns with the Harris report, but our main ones are: 1. Harris did not hold meetings with neighborhood residents to solicit their input, as required by their contract. 2. Once the Harris report was issued,the neighborhood raised questions and concerns, and these have not been adequately addressed. 3. We cannot understand why the report recognizes no significant general benefit to the town. The shoreline path is one of our community's greatest assets, and the poles along it significantly mar the view from the path, from Tiburon Boulevard, and from other areas around town. 4. We do not understand how the estimated cost has increased by approximately 50%from the original estimate. While we understand that the original estimate and the Harris report can never fully capture the final cost, something has gone wrong when the two are so far apart. As residents who contributed to help pay for the report, we believe that we deserve a better product for our money. Regards, David King and Sarah Wilson z 735 Hawthorne Drive Greg Chanis LAIF MAIL # I- 1�4. From: Jennifer Isaac <jsisaac@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 11:12 AM To: Greg Chanis Cc: Noel Isaac Subject: URGENT: Hawthorne Undergrounding Council Meeting, September 19th Importance: High September 18, 2017. Dear Town Council, We are writing to urge the Town Council NOT to approve the Hawthorne Undergrounding Draft Preliminary Engineer's Report at the meeting tomorrow, September 19th We believe this current report includes major inaccuracies and flaws that should not be accepted by Town Council: - Hugely excessive cost inflations and contingencies are included that represent a 48% cost increase from the 2016 estimated $8.4 million to 2017 estimate $12.4 million: Harris should be directed to tie the cost estimates to the reality of the financial marketplace and current similar utility/project work; - The general benefit of 10-15% has been removed, in direct contradiction to the Town's general plan: (a) If there is no general benefit to removing these poles, then why has the Town paid for undergrounding of many other poles alongside the Bay? (b) Our Undergrounding district includes 3 institutions heavily used by people living outside our district - driving through, and parking on our streets in many cases - in order to attend schools, weddings, funerals and other large scale events promoted by the Community Congregational Church, St. Hilary's and the Belvedere Tennis Club. How can there be no general benefit to improving the safety and reliabiity of the power supply through our neighborhood when in the recent past we have experienced rotten poles falling across our streets, and downed power lines lying in the street - if people are injured or killed by future such events, will the Town still be able to defend a 'no general benefit' decision? We have also endorsed the very detailed letter that the Council has received from Jack Ryan and Sara Klein. We urge Town Council to act in the best interests of Tiburon citizens and direct Harris to make wholesale changes to the preliminary engineering report which include realistic assessments and costs so the poles can finally be undergrounded in this neighborhood. Lastly, we would remind Town Council that neighbors' funds were spent by the Town during the last undergrounding effort in this neighborhood, with no reporting on that expenditure and no outcome. We trust this time the Town Council will be diligent and rigorous in pursuing a quality report, process and outcome for us, as we expect Town Council to do on all Tiburon matters. Sincerely, Jennifer & Noel Isaac 20 Del Mar Drive, Tiburon 2 Greg Chanis From: Jill Sideman <jillsideman@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 2:58 PM To: Greg Chanis LATE MAIL Subject: Hawthorne District Undergrounding # All Dear Town Council: We are long-time owners of 14 Mara Vista Court in the proposed Hawthorne Undergrounding District. We have owned our property for 34 years and have been active supporters of Town of Tiburon activities such as the Landmarks Society, the Library Foundation,the Fire Department,and Blackies Pasture. Our street was originally included in the Del Mar Undergrounding District, but, much to our dismay,was dropped from that district as part of the lawsuit settlement.We were pleased to support this new attempt at undergrounding the utilities in the Hawthorne District, recognizing the Town's expressed support for undergrounding utilities along the Old Rail Trail and in other areas of the Town. We have reviewed the Preliminary Engineer's Report and conclude that the construction cost estimates,the PG&E cost estimates, and the assessment methodology are very significantly flawed,and that the Report should not be approved by the Council as is.We have also obtained the Staff Report for the September 19 Special Meeting, but have not had time to fully review it, due to its just having been issued; however,at first glance, it appears aimed at simply justifying a high cost estimate.We have the following comments: PROJECT LIMITS In the Harris contract document,the project limits were stated as 7,342 Linear Feet(LF). In the May 2016 cost estimate, the project limits had increased to 8,587 LF,and then,in Harris'August 2017 cost estimate,the project limits had increased again to 9,436 LF.This latest increase was attributed to PG&E's"placing the end pole further way from the project than anticipated resulting in additional trenching in Tiburon Blvd at perhaps the most expensive place to trench in the entire project" ( Exhibit 6 of the Staff Report, page 4). It is impossible to determine from Harris's Report where the pole has been placed and why increased trenching in Tiburon Blvd is necessary and where such trenching would occur. COST ESTIMATE ISSUES Excessive Contingencies:The joint trench construction cost estimate has increased due to the increased LF and a 30% contingency has been added. However,the basic cost estimate includes$900,000 in rock excavation that is deemed revocable,yet the 30%reflects this revocable number.This seems like double counting of contingencies. Indeed,the 30%contingency could be lower, more like 20 or 25%,given the$900,000 in the basic estimate.We recognize the effort put by the staff into providing Table 1 (Exhibit 6, page 1), although that table is incomplete in that it doesn't include the complete accuracy range for each class of estimate; using the complete table as shown in the AACE International Recommended practice document 5611-08,we can argue that for a Class 3 estimate class,which is the current estimate level recognized in the Staff Report(page 3),the expected accuracy range is-5 to-15%low and+10 to+20%high.Since there is already a $900,000 revocable cost in the basic estimate,why not be more realistic and use a 20%contingency instead of a 30%contingency?This would bring the contingency cost down to$943,600,resulting in a lower joint trench construction cost of$5,661,601.This lower cost would be reflected in lower estimates for Design and Assessment Engineering and Construction Management, since these are typically estimated as percentages of the construction cost. Environmental Mitigation Contingency:The Harris Report includes$250,000 for environmental mitigation contingency, without any explanation of where this number comes from.The Staff Report notes that cultural resource concerns were raised during design and that the Graton Rancheria had requested consultation. Please explain what concerns were 1 raised and what the consultation involves. Nothing is provided in either the Harris Report or the Staff Report to justify $250,000. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND PROJECT PERFORMANCE In the Town's project Task Order for Harris,specific services, number of hours,and costs are described. We have the following comments about some of these specific line items: The Task Order Item B shows 96 hours for Field Review, research, and data collection,for a total cost of$15,400. It's hard to believe that Harris's staff actually spent 96 hours looking at individual properties and doing data collection. The way in which assessment costs are allocated shows that Harris has little understanding of which properties might --benefit-and-by how-much,based-on-their--locations in-relation-to views and utility lines.- -The Task Order Items F and G show 48 hours for Utility Coordination and utility Cost Evaluation,for a total cost of$9,380. PG&E did not provide any real cost estimates, although, according to the Staff Report, it did provide some unit costs and other costs for the Del Mar project,which Harris then used to prepare a"semi-detailed unit cost estimate" (Staff Report, page 5). Harris then added in multiple year inflation costs.The whole PG&E estimate seems fraught with uncertainty. More effort should be placed in looking hard at this cost estimate and getting information from other projects. The Task Order Item L stipulates that Harris will hold a minimum of two meetings with residents to consider the assessment methodology,so that residents could have real and significant input to the methodology.To our knowledge, there was only one meeting, a kickoff on February 17,2017, in which a single page sample methodology was shown.We were never contacted or invited to any other meeting with Harris.We consider this to be a violation of trust in the process. In the assessment methodology used in the Harris Report, benefits were assessed to each property apparently based largely on whether a utility line was directly in the street adjacent to the property and whether the primary view was toward the street or away from the street.This results in properties with very different views having the same assessment of benefit. Frankly,given the value of view property in this area, it seems like a much more careful analysis of the actual view benefit should have been made.The approach taken has resulted in properties for which the view will be less significantly enhanced(for example,a property that has utility lines above the street but whose primary view is under those lines)receiving higher assessments than properties for which the actual views will be more enhanced.An inherently poor view cannot be given the same benefit assessment as an inherently better view. GENERAL BENEFIT We are astonished that the Harris Report concluded that a tiny(0.2%)general benefit was assessed for the Town and its inhabitants and users of the Old Rail Trail. In 2016,the Town and the engineer were stating that the expected level of general benefit to the town would be 10-15%of the project cost.The Town's General Plan contains specific policies to protect open space views as well as bay-front and scenic vistas of the water and distinct shorelines.The Environmental Impact Study notes these policies and how the Town has made undergrounding utilities along the Old Rail Trail a priority.The Impact Study notes the general benefit to the residents of the Town and the Old Rail Trail users as follows; enhanced views from areas adjacent to the project area, including the Middle Ridge Public Open Space (which is a very popular walking area for residents from all over the Town); enhanced views along the Old Rail Trail that may attract larger numbers of users along the length of the trail, not just within the project area. Indeed,the Impact Study notes that the project would result in a long-term beneficial impact.Taken alone,this contradicts the Harris Report The Harris Report states that the poles and wires along the Old Rail Trail are largely screened by the tennis club's facilities from traffic on Tiburon Blvd.This is simply not true!The poles and wires are very visible for any driver along Tiburon Blvd,especially coming out from the Town.Trail users certainly see the poles and wires even though they are not located on the bay side of the trail;to state otherwise is pure nonsense. 2 The Harris Report refers to "studies completed by a number of organizations and public entities" and states that Harris' review of these studies found that undergrounding of utilities did not provide an economic benefit to parcels not within the Assessment District or the community at large. However, no references were provided for any of the studies.This is sloppy reporting. We would also note that Hilary and lower Rock Hili are in fact used by through traffic especially when Tiburon Blvd is crowded, as it often is during the school year. Drivers and walkers using those streets do come from outside the District and will benefit from the utility under grounding. IN CONCLUSION We ask that the Town direct Harris to re-evaluate the points raised in our letter and, in particular,the issues of excessive contingencies, assessment methodology, and the general benefit.We understand that the Town had previously reserved$800,000 in the Capital Improvement budget for next year; could this be used as support of the general benefit which we believe this project will bring to the Town? Thank you for your consideration, Jill and Richard Sideman 3 Patrick Barnes From: Steven Kravitz <csisteve88@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 3:20 PM LATE To: Patrick Barnes MAIL #AL Subject: Hawthorne Undergrounding To Mr. Barnes and other parties of interest: We own and reside at 662 Hilary Drive in the Del Mar Homeowners Association. From the start, we supported the undergrounding project in our neighborhood which was completed several years ago. For family reasons, we were required to relocate to Connecticut for eight years in the middle of the undergrounding process but paid our fair share and completed all of our requirements while away. We returned last year and were generally pleased with the improvements in our vicinity by way of safety and aesthetics. Unfortunately, our view and that of of our neighbors, the Nemzers, is negatively impacted by the last the telephone pole on Hawthorne Drive. When we initially voted for the undergrounding, we were told that this telephone pole on Hawthorne was to be included. Naturally, we were disappointed to find out upon our return that the telephone pole that sits almost directly in line with our view of the Golden Gate Bridge was eliminated from the Del Mar plan after the vote and without notice to us. We fully support the current effort to underground the Hawthorne utilities for the same reasons we supported the Del Mar undergrounding and hope you will make every effort to make things right for those that of us who have already paid for undergrounding but did not receive the full benefit and for the improvement of the entire Tiburon community.. Steve Kravitz and Valerie Montague 1 Patrick Barnes From: Marilyn Nemzer <mnemzer@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 4:20 PM To: Patrick Barnes Subject: Hawthorne Undergrounding To Mr. Barnes and other parties of interest: My husband, Ken, and I own and reside at 664 Hilary Drive in the Del Mar Homeowners Association. We fully support the Hawthorne Undergrounding project and hope it will go forward. Our view and that of of our neighbors, Steve Kravitz and Valerie Montague, is negatively impacted by the last the telephone pole on Hawthorne Drive. When we paid for our own district's undergrounding project several years ago, that pole was to have been included. But, as I'm sure you know, things changed and the poles on Hawthorne were not included in the undergrounding at that time. We do hope that finally we will get the view improvement we paid for. Thank you very much. Marilyn Nemzer Marilyn Nemzer Director,Global Book Exchange Member,Marin County Board of Education Rotary Club of Tiburon Sunset 415-435-4574 www.bookexchanQeinarin.org wwwfacebook.cone%lobalbookexchange www.thecal i(orniastudy.of 1 LATE Greg Chanis MAIL # A -q------ From: jon.lake@verizon.net R E �E(l Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 10:25 PM V To: Greg Chanis Subject: Hawthorne Terrace Undergrounding Project SEP 19 2017 TOWN CLERK Dear Town Council, TOWN OF TIBURON We are-residents-of-the Hawthorne Terrace neighborhood and-proponents-of the Hawthorne Terrace undergrounding - project.When the Town contracted with Harris&Associates pursuant to the 11/3/2016 Master Agreement, Harris & Associates represented that "All work performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall be done in a skillful and professional manner in accordance with all applicable legal requirements and shall meet the standard of quality ordinarily to be expected of competent professionals in Consultant's field of expertise." The lack of specificity and arbitrary cost modeling presented by Harris&Associates in the draft preliminary engineering report("Draft Report") and the explanations provided by Harris&Associates' representatives at the Special Meeting on August 30,2017 did not meet the"standard of quality ordinarily to be expected of competent professionals". Here are a few examples of where the Draft Report fails: 1. PG&E Costs For the PG&E and other utility cost numbers, Harris&Associates relies on costs from a different project in 2012 and adds a 30%contingency plus 18.8%inflation. It would seem that a more recent estimate of utility costs could be used instead of a very arbitrary number plus 48.8%padding.Have equipment costs risen 48.8%for highly commoditized electric transmission equipment? Have PG&E construction and maintenance salaries risen 48.8%since 2012? In addition,when asked whether PG&E was consulted to come up with utility costs;the Harris&Associates representative stated that PG&E would not provide an estimate. However,approximately$9,000 was charged to us for "Utility Coordination" and "Evaluate Estimated Costs from Utilities". 2. 30%contingency-We do not claim special experience with commercial construction projects. However,it is a budgeting rule of thumb that a standard contingency should increase when less is known about a project with uncertain parameters.A 30%contingency has been applied to both the utility costs and the construction (Joint Trench)costs here. This seems excessive,since the costs of both labor and materials for the digging of trenches for undergrounding projects are known quantities which can be extrapolated for this project.A 30%contingency would make sense for a project with unknown dimensions, unknown technologies and/or materials subject to scarcity. As it stands,the joint trench budget already includes a$900,000 rock contingency which is about a 20%additional contingency on the total Joint Trench cost by itself.Taken together,this puts the contingency on the Joint Trench portion, not including the hypothetical inflation, of 50%.Again, Harris&Associates should be able to provide a more realistic number for the Joint Trench portion without relying on arbitrary contingency amounts. 3. General Benefit number-There is an unsupportably tiny amount attributed in the Draft Report to the general benefit, while the report from 2016 and the presentation that was given at Town Hall contemplated a 10-15%general benefit. The removal of the general benefit amount is entirely inconsistent with Harris&Associates cost assessment methodology for the Hawthorne Terrace residents. We believe that the Draft Report should not be accepted as-is, and should be redone to address the many questions that have been raised about its accuracy and assumptions. More detailed and well-founded information will benefit all members of the community.Thank you for your continued time and effort. Sincerely, Jon and Linda Lake z Greg Chanis From: pearsoncom@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 2:05 PM To: Greg Chanis Subject: Letter to Town Council for 9/19 Hawthorne Hearing September 19, 2017 Tiburon Town Council Tiburon, CA Dear Council Members: We are Ian Pearson and Julie Collins, and for the last 21 years have resided in our house at 170 Rock Hill Drive—inside the proposed Hawthorne Undergrounding District. We raised our children here and have been active in Town, neighborhood, and charitable activities throughout our nearly 30 years in Tiburon. We strongly support the Hawthorne Undergrounding District—and have done so through both the petition and request for earnest money. (This is in addition to the 4-figure check we wrote several years ago in an earlier,unsuccessful attempt to underground this neighborhood.) We are writing to voice our wholehearted support for the letter submitted to the Town earlier by two of our Hawthorne Undergrounding leaders, Sara Klein and Jack Ryan. Their letter responding to the Preliminary Engineer's Report raises issues and concerns that we share: • The stated cost of the project is so far above earlier estimates that it calls into question the credibility of both. The Report might have gone a long way toward explaining this huge discrepancy, but instead--in contrast to the painstaking detail evident in other sections of the Report—the financial methodology here often seems vague, speculative, outdated, arbitrary, or unexplained. Given that finances are the heart and soul of this project, that s a shame. • The extraordinarily high contingency costs seem unrealistic and without credible precedent; but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much justification in the Report for them. Do they square with contingencies required in earlier, successful Town undergrounding projects? Or for that matter,with standard practice across the engineering field in general? • In the Safety section of the Report, attention is consistently paid to the danger of poles toppling onto structures, but missing for the most part is consideration of the far more dangerous threats: electrocution and fires caused by downed lines. In Oakland Hills, no one was killed by a toppling pole but downed lines electrocuted two people, including a fire marshal. In last month's Houston hurricane, downed lines killed 3 people and possibly 6. By overlooking these real threats, the Engineer's Report raises doubts about its methodologies(and not insignificantly, fails to identify a sizeable Safety General Benefit that the Town reaps from buried lines.) In ways large and small, this Report demonstrates an inconsistent and sub-standard degree of due diligence. It leaves us wondering, Is this all we get for our money? Would the Town accept this Report if it was paid for with the Town's money? We feel we and the Town deserve better. We hope you send this Report back to the drawing board. Thank You; Ian and Julie i Citizen Letters Against __-__- Mr and Mr's . James H. Hampton -730 Hawthorne Dr. SLPI tU17 Tiburon, CA 94920 ' Tiburon Town Council # TO TOWN CLERK 1505 Tiburon Blvd. LATE MAIL WN OFTIBURON Tiburon, CA 94920 September 18, 2017 To Tiburon Town Council, Addressing the Preliminary Engineer' s Report, we object to an assessment of $29, 902 for Primary View Enhancement based on removal of the closest pole to us along the bike path. That pole is far enough away (far right) from our living room windows that it is not in our primary view area, which is toward San Francisco and the Golden 'Gate Bridge. At his visit to our property on 11 September, Mr. Klinghoffer, agreed that we should not be +assessed for that pole' s removal. My husband and I have lived at 730 Hawthorne Dr. , Tiburon, since 1980 and reared our three children here. We are retirees now living ;mostly on f d 1.xeincome. With seven grandsons ranging in age from one-years old to seventeen years, reserves are hopefully going toward their post secondary; educations . We live frugally with the ;goal of paying for some of their educational costs very much on our minds .' The two attempts to impose unneeded and !unwanted expense on us to underground utilities have been met with ' our' hard resistance. We feel that undergrounding is not a! necessity in Tiburon but L 'f maybe in places with 'many tali trees such as Virginia or parts of West Marin. Winter blizzards, ice storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes that bring down; power lines and poles frequently are other considerations in many parts of this country, and State governments would be wise to 'consider using State taxes for ;public utility undergrounding in areas with those climatic conditions . To go to the immense expense of undergrounding in Tiburon (blessed with a relatively benign climate) for largely aesthetic reasons, however, is not a' good use of money. While our neighborhood quibbles over this very expensive project', Tiburon Blvd., Beach Rd. , the US Post Office parking lot, Cove Shopping' Center and other areas of Tiburon are subject to flooding at high tide and during periods of intense rainfall . That problem has been here for decades and goes unaddressed. Weather science tells us our planet is warming, glaciers are melting, and sea levels are slowly rising. Studies show that our coast and bay shoreline are at increased risk of inundation as time goes by. Raising our roads and/or building sea walls are real NNEDS, but I have not heard from either our Tiburon Town Council or County Board of Supervisors about how and at what cost present and future flooding will be addressed. Please address what is truly relevant and put to rest the Hawthorne Undergrounding District which is an unneeded large drain on our economic resources . Thank you for your consideration of our ideas . Sincerely, James and Sharon Hampton LATS MAIL #Al -q Town of Tiburon Town Council Robin McNally 682 Hilary Dr. Tiburon, CA 94920 September 14, 2017 Re: Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding To Whom it May Concern; I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposal to underground the utilities in my neighborhood. As a resident of this neighborhood for 23 years and a single woman, I have worked hard to balance my budget and maintain my home to the best of my ability. The cost of living has risen and my earning capability is diminishing as I advance in years. I am working towards living on a fixed income and will not be able to afford an additional "mortgage-like" payment imposed by the undergrounding project. While I understand the aesthetic benefit of the pole removals, the cost to implement it is exorbitant. There have been very few power outages in the years I've lived here so the claims of safety concerns seem to be overstated. It seems unfair that long time residents that are not able to afford the additional expense should be forced to pay for neighborhood improvements requested by wealthier households. In addition, it seems that the town would benefit by the beautification of the area and should participate in the financing of the project. The escalations of the costs have been astronomical which could lead me to have to sell potentially at a reduced price due to the disclosures that I would have to make in regards to the assessment. Please consider the plight of the long term residents when making decisions that may affect their financial security and well being. Best Regards, Robin McNally LATE M i AH 17 H Rr2, IyUf rMS 19 fq4 f-P-,-r c c- U0.44-1 -1-v7 t"F-K-4D —7 2- VC-) PIZ clE -7 (p A6 r-p-t 'r- r2C ILO 1-319 -7 f c- TO v - �A LA Y-C.-O co So PA-A 1 6- V 9-0-e CU it,),tr S <r—rc t OIL (_j 9�7 2 �f I\:"-- 140-de �JDV" *w rte = L) oc M r-I L10,6 - IT-(-fLO '(90 0 TO 0 ()I- C C,t 'I 00 or rf+c- V-1 cov- TO b rL-r- v Ol C) - 9 Y'r� I P6— f C.cv-AT C-r-JE�r- oi�- 4o -)L - It, \:/cu 1c,( tjr -T4 SEP 18 2017 TOWN CLERK c con N 1 S TOWN OF TIB,URON LATE MAIL Al-� S—LOW—NOF I ® 9 2017 Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon CLERK TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon,CA 94920 Hawthorne Undergrounding District September 19, 2017 Dear Council Members, I attended the Town meeting on August 30th to discuss the preliminary engineering report,prepared by Harris and Associates.I had also been one of the many residents. who invested money for the compilation of the report.This money has been wasted. The report does not serve the function for which it was intended. The objective for the report was to provide residents with a robust and thorough analysis of the costs and individual assessments upon which each property owner could make a reasoned economic decision as to whether to proceed with the project on its merits. The report has numerous flaws and inconsistencies. For example,the overall increase in expected costs from approximately$8.5 million to approximately$12.5 million required detailed analysis,supporting data,comparison with precedents, reasoning for the level of contingencies presented and careful explanation of the individual line items that remained subject to the greatest uncertainty.The report, as presented,and the verbal explanation for the deviation from the initial estimate were shoddy and lacking a minimum level of detail. All of the residents with whom I have spoken understand that there exists an element of uncertainty regarding cost estimates of this type. However the result, after the time and effort expended on the report,is a complete lack of an agreed economic foundation upon which residents can make their respective arguments in favor of or against the project. As the Council considers the best path forward to achieve a fair outcome to this process,the inadequacies of the Harris report are, I believe,a central issue on which the Council must focus its attention. Yours faithfully, Jonathan Turner Greg Chanis From: Linda Wishart <Iindawishes@yahoo.com> RECEIVED Sent: Wednesday,September 13, 2017 7:11 PM To: Greg Chanis Cc: Greg Chanis SEP 19 2017 Subject: Vote NO on Hawthorne Undergrounding Project TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Members: Please do not vote to approve the preliminary engineer's report on the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding Project that is missing very important information. After listening to the comments at the August meeting,consider that this will be a hardship for many residents who are on a fixed income in their senior years and also on young neighbors who are beginning their families. Please,do not vote to accept this report. Thank you, Linda Wishart 680 Hilary Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 i Community Congregational Church Letters �1�-� LATE �_ RECEIVED September;10, 2017 SEP 182017 Mayor and Members of the Town Council ToONrimis TOWN OF TIBURON Wo 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Hawthorne Undergrounding District: CommunittCengregetional Church Objection to being -included within District, and Request to be Removed Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: am a member of the Community Congregational Church (the ``Church"). wish to offer my support in favor of the Church's decision to oppose the proposed Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District (the "District") and its request to be removed from this project. We are a small independent church with slightly more than 100 members. We operate as a nonprofit charitable organization on a modest breakeven budget. According to the information available to us the total proposed assessment on our Church is a shocking $94,166.02, which, over a 30-year financing bond repayment period, will result in a total sum which is double or triple that assessment amount. This situation is quite unsettling and will undoubtedly cause substantial and long lasting financial harm to our Church and the activities we perform. As a small independent charitable organization, there is no way for us to readily absorb these additional expenses or pass them on to our members, many of which are retired and/or on fixed income. We have no interest in, or benefit derived from, being included in this neighborhood project to place overhead utility lines underground. Accordingly, as a member of the Church I oppose this project, and request that the Church be removed from such. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned member of the congregation. Sincerely, ?c4+r U 0- mo_,� Signature AINpme v g .�• Address St . Hilary Letters Patrick Barnes' From: William Brown <billbrown@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 9:40 AM To: Patrick Barnes Subject: Wrong date on letter(19 vs.20 Sept.) Sunda LATEy, September 17, 2017 MAIL # AH Dear-Pat, - - - - - Thanks for your patience as we deal with this ongoing stressful issue. I don't mean to be a pest, but the letter the public can find at http://www.townoftiburon.org/DocumentCenter/View/1502 has not been replaced and still informs people that the Town Council meeting will take place on September 20, in the second to last paragraph of your letter. Maybe this is not important, but I wanted to let you know just in case you want to update that letter from August 16 and avoid any confusion for the public. I am very grateful to you and your colleagues for helping us all understand what is going on, how much it will cost,and listing the letters pro and con on your website as well. My own research on this topic has revealed that other communities have gone through similar growing pains,especially,' for example,when homeowners find a transformer moved from the power pole down to their front yard: http://www.paImbeachdailynews.com/news/local/transformer-boxes-will-make-somebody- ppyi vdvJSZivawuuvuCcuvvr;yI IcL.r/ http://www.lodinews.com/news/article 7a08446e-41ef-11e3-8323-0019bb2963f4.html http Hsduptownnews.com/boxed-in-talmadge%E2%a80%99s-complaints-about-utility-undergrounding-motivate-others- to-take-action/ I don't remember these transformer boxes being mentioned before our fun-packed meeting on August 30,but since then iI've been doing some reading and now realize that WHOEVER ends up having the transformers boxes" on their property will have their noses out of joint. Many thanks, 1 ti Father Brown Father William E. Brown Pastor St. Hilary Church &School 761 Hilary Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 Church Office:(415)435-1122 Direct Line: (415)937-5520 www.sthilary.org www.facebook.com/St.HilaryChurch[nTiburon www.sainthilaryschool.oM www.facebook.com/sainthilaryschool "See everything, overlook a great deal, correct a little." Pope Saint John XXIII(1881-1963) { 2 Greg Chanis From: Lydia Velasco-Mayock <lyvelascom@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 1:26 PM To: Greg Chanis ATE MAIL PA- Dear Subjct: Exclusion of St Hila of the Hawthorne DistrictwoL1 rY Members of the Tiburon Town Council: I am a former resident of the Town of Tiburon AND a member of the St Hilary community. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. The$266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. Unless St Hilary paid the$266,927.57 obligation upfront, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the School roughly between$15,000 and$18,000 per year which would total more than$500,000. These payments would likely cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial dumber of the 30 years.This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary Church and School is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses,especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and,to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures(poles and wires)from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a gUVI!tlllllg, IIVV11eVer, logit. IonvwS that people who wane airiiI9FJ1 VC1IIcnL In privpc1 ty VUIUc JIIVURA pay for it. In practical terms,St Hilary would not receive any improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood"viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago,and as such,St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety(assessed cost of$173,631)and enhanced utility reliability(assessed cost of $51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with $15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding,and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability,the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of large costs to St Hilary for undergrounding are quite real and will negatively affect St Hilary for a long time. The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners,including St Hilary,would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move forward without St Hilary, if the homeowners vote for it. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, Lydia Velasco-Mayock LCSW PPSC 2 LATE MAIL #Al- a memoer of me ac nitury uummutcctyi. With all due respect, I object to the inclusion of St Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District. The $266,927.57 proposed to be levied against St Hilary and th resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St Hilary would recet om° undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. Unless St Hilary paid the $266,927.57 ob�t tg t, it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest and would burden the Church and the S 1 0 between $15,000 and $18,000 per year which would total more than $500,000. These pay4 6M& cause St Hilary Church and School to experience a financial loss during a substantial numbdPWWTW90rs. '= This would drain St Hilary savings and likely push School tuition higher. St Hilary Church and School is a non-profit_organization which___cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses, especially when the expected benefits in return for these payments are not very clear. Common sense indicates that nearly all of the benefit from undergrounding Hawthorne utilities would be in the improvement of views from properties and, to a lesser extent, in the removal of man-made structures (poles and wires) from the landscape of the neighborhood. These two benefits translate into an increase in value of the properties in the neighborhood. This is a good thing; however, logic follows that people who want an improvement in property value should pay for it. In practical terms, St Hilary would not receive any. improvement in view, minimal benefit from removing poles and wires from the neighborhood"viewscape" and absolutely no improvement in value of St Hilary property. St Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago, and as such, St Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? I don't see this as a fair use of Town authority. The Town report from the hired engineer attempts to assign value to St Hilary for improvement in public safety (assessed cost of$173,631) and enhanced utility reliability (assessed cost of$51,350). Public safety and reliable utilities are very worthwhile social goals; however, I don't see such a strong connection between undergrounding Hawthorne utilities and improved public safety or enhanced utility reliability. The Town's report doesn't contain any actual evidence of a study of Hawthorne public safety or utility reliability and their connection to undergrounding utilities. The report contains only generalizations which are not a satisfactory basis for saddling St Hilary with$15,000 to $18,000 per year for 30 years. Electrical transformers will remain above ground after utility undergrounding, and if one should explode, injury to people and property would not likely be lessened. On the matter of enhanced utility reliability, the report itself admits that underground utilities are more difficult and time consuming to repair because of accessibility issues. I think we should ask ourselves if any of the utility outages that have been experienced in the Hawthorne neighborhood would have been prevented if Hawthorne utilities had been underground (not trunk lines outside the neighborhood). Bottom line is that the Town report is only guessing about the relationship between utility undergrounding in the Hawthorne neighborhood and true improvement in public safety and utility reliability, but the allocation of lornc. n..n�n +.. C'4 uitnr<� r r<n rlPrrrrnii"flinty am nll;tP rani anti xu*]l nt-cratiVPIV affPt`.t Ct 4i]Ary fnr a luno, time. Large costs to St halal y ivi uaiuvibiv�.�i.....fj ,<. � .. ...... ...... ..... ....b.,..._1J .. ...,, ... ... 1 --- » ____11 - -' The Town should be held to a higher standard in instances when certain property owners would receive very tangible benefits but other owners, including St Hilary, would not. Please remove St Hilary from the Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility District. Allow the District to move i forward without St Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter from a concerned person. Sincerely, LATE MAIL # AH 9 ( 131, . A` SEP 182011 TOWN MANAGERS 0P sic -��^ ( TOWN OF TIBUR6O ' 1.7 Ct6"OVI I(,, l,�t�l t�`�V►C 1 I :p wo &9 m �S ; '- CC'Q S� , 'T-1tal oo �'�d a. ►rto�rt..w��.,¢,r � s-�, }.-�+' Ic.�r C..In c�ts'�h ° ���► � t � res �.�#- � aAg d � c.) 0c o Jec+ 4o 46, 1 cj u tot/t D .s- . }-� gaol ►n ! aw4ko rVte.. *C c �' Q h�tD uta{- p� V►�I.4 �e o c..t„)2.J t.,-X LA.,.(,c� 0-f e �e.r ^_ �--c�.r a�cl. '�`I-�.I loss ® 9 � �f �►�00 4L. S S c.t_r.,� cL t h oU Sk6uA:4 Pet OA� c4 65%4 �, `� 3 ! t UoL mce�oe� 4 t.c7AP-rS Se..evil i nz ow s v d. ��. h�ld �. ' Iyer R a+4wrs, [�) dud - i In _C_E LATS MAIL # Al-H ID September 18, 2017 SEP 18 2017 Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council: TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON I am a member of the St. Hilary community, and I am writing you about the inclusion of St. Hilary Church and School in the Hawthorne utility undergrounding District. The proposed $266, 927. 57 to be levied against St. Hilary and the land on which it resides does not relate well to the benefits that the Town alleges that St. Hilary would receive from undergrounding the utilities in the neighborhood. Unless St. Hilary paid the $266,927.57 obligation up front it would be paid during a 30 year period with interest. The loan would burden the Church and the School roughly $15,000 and $18,000 per year adding up to more than $500,000. These payments would likely cause St. Hilary Church and School to experience a huge financial loss during a substantial number of the 30 years it would take to pay off the loan. St. Hilary is a non-profit organization which cannot readily absorb such an increase in expenses. Common sense would indicate that nearly all of the undergrounding benefit would be in the improvement of views from properties, and to a lesser extent, in the removal of manmade structures from the landscape of the neighborhood. People who want to improve the value of their property should pay for it. St. Hilary would not receive any improvement in value of their property. Years ago St. Hilary paid for undergrounding its own utilities years ago. As such, St. Hilary paid for the value it received. Why should St. Hilary now be required to pay for view improvements of other property owners? Please remove St. Hilary from the Hawthorne undergrounding utility District and allow the District to move forward without St. Hilary. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Ann Hunt, 33 Juno Road, Tiburon Member of St. Hilary Parish for 44 years. All three of my children attended St. Hilary School from 1st grade until 8th grade. LATE MAIL #Ak-q RIVED SEP 18 2017 Mr. and Mrs . James H. Hampton 730 Hawthorne Dr. TOVJN CLERK Tiburon, CA 94920 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon. CA 9492.0- September 16 , 2017 To Tiburon Town Council, As longtime members of St. Hilary Parish and as 37-Year resident homeowners within the very recently formed Hawthorne Undergrounding District, we agree with the St. Hilary Parish and School request to be excluded from the Hawthorne Undergrounding District. We see the assessment of $266 , 000 (approximately $560 , 000 over 30 years ) as an undue burden placed on a non-profit with very littic beZ'acfit acc ru_Lng to the safety, reliab.111ty of service, and aesthetic experiences of those living on or visiting the campus . It is a very safe campus with fabulous views already due to campus-wide undergrounding paid for by parishioners . The majority of St. Hilary' s assessment has to do with safety, presumably from a falling pole. I think the risk assessment is way overblown. Loss of power during storms is very unusual in this area, unlike West Marin where falling trees are far more common, disrupt power transmission, and sometimes bring down a pole. I have never heard of falling poles in our area in 37 years of residence on Hawthorne Dr. I don 't think the risk of pole problems justifies the high safety assessment. About twenty years ago I complained about a leaning pole at the head of my driveway, and PG&E responded immediately with pole replacement and guy wires to stabilize the pole. Vigilance and prompt reporting to PG&E of potential problems is essential . In addition, a projected increase in property value for a church and school property is academic if the property is not sold. Residences within the District may see an increase in value and benefit when the home is sold, but St. Hilary Church and School are there for the long term and not scheduled for sale. The supposed benefit to property value is lost if the property is not sold. Please listen to the objections of their attorney, Frank I . Mulberg, and grant St. Hilary Church and School ' s request to be relieved of inclusion in the District. Thank you. Sincerely, James and Sharon Hampton LATE MAIL # Dear Members of the Council, " I am writing to you again to urge you to take action that will ultimately result in the poles being undergrounded in the Hawthorne Terrace Neighborhood and along the Old Rail Trail. This letter serves as a response to the staff report that was issued Friday afternoon after the submittal of our original letter. To reiterate, I am very much in support of the project, but do not believe the current wildly speculative cost estimates give property owners confidence that they can make an informed economic decision. I am attaching original source documents that were excluded from the staff report, and providing a response to a few sections of the staff analysis. Town staff's analysis appears to act primarily as a justification of Harris'strategy of assigning the "highest possible cost"to the district. The cost analysis prepared by the staff, in several instances omits any actual analysis. The staff report places a disproportionate amount of emphasis on the 2007 preliminary report, although that project never moved past the preliminary phase, had a different boundary map, was never peer reviewed by an outside engineering firm and never went out to bid. Nevertheless, the staff report refers repeatedly to this 10 year-old report as if it was an accurate representation of the cost of a completed construction project on which to base a comparison. Our subscription deposits purchased a new report which was supposed to be comprised of engineering design work with supportable assumptions. My primary problem with the staff report is that it fails to address many of the most financially impactful questions raised by property owners: 1.) The staff report ignores the frequently asked question of the inclusion of 1,637 CY of rock excavation that is revocable into the joint trench estimate. This contingency equals $900,619 and represents 20% of the joint trench base cost estimate. Lyford and Del Mar undergrouding contained 77 CY and 64 CY respectively. There is nothing in the staff report or the Harris engineering report that cites any relevant evidence that 1,637 CY is a reasonable estimate for our project. We were told that a geotech report would reduce this contingency only incrementally without any justification as to why it was so high to begin with. 2.) The staff report ignores any discussion of the change in general benefit calculation between the 2016 and 2017 Harris report. This is of material concern to all property owners, proponents and opponents alike. 3.) The discussion of the financing cost provides no analysis, instead just states that a financial advisor was hired at the request of proponents. The proponents still believe that hiring a financial advisor and obtaining a bond rating will lead to cost savings when we ultimately issue the bonds. Hiring a financial advisor will also help the Town in fulfilling its fiduciary responsibility to the assessment district. However, the "analysis"of the financing cost increase does not identify the interest rate assumptions being used in the Harris report, nor does it provide an explanation for why those rates are so far above current market rates. A true analysis would, at a minimum, contain a comparison'of the current market interest rates to the rates in the Harris report and identify the difference as a contingency.A more sophisticated analysis would completely discredit the double counting of inflation by the inclusion of future inflation expectations in the construction estimates without acknowledgement that inflation expectations are factored into interest rates in the bond market. Instead, what we are left with is an undisclosed contingency piled on top of other excessive contingencies. The current market rates are easily obtainable with either a google search or just by calling the town's financial advisor. The rates used in the Harris report are 7.19%for the bond reserve and 6% for the funded interest. The current market rate for Single-A rated 30-Year municipal bonds is around 3.25%. We asked the financial advisor for an analysis calculated closer to the rates where our bonds would be issued today. The analysis is attached and shows a savings of $500,000 to the assessment district. The following original source documents that form the basis of the assumptions used in the Harris assessment report have been excluded from the staff report. Property owners raised many questions referencing these documents both at the August 30th meeting as well as in the individual letters recently submitted to the Town. I am including them for your review: 1.) The joint trench 2.) The PG&E estimate 3.) The 2016 Harris document that discusses the 10%-15% general benefit 4.) The financial advisor's estimate of the financing cost at the market rate I urge the Council to reject this preliminary engineer's report and work towards a solution that ultimately results in the undergrounding of our utility poles at the lowest possible cost to the district. Sincerely, Sara Klein 757 Hawthorne Drive TOWN OF TIBURON HAWTHORNE UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT HIGH LEVEL COST ESTIMATE 8/7/17 BASE BID,ITEMS ,920 Parcels ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION EST.QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE J sc - - t F c �, . �w��- - �.,, � -�, fn."s ;,..f,,,er "�t„� ': �i. ,s,{ *.rK,`fin-`-."d„y_3-Ss�sf. , ,isnTU` }TX a;,s"�-w ,s `t.:5"s"� "k Ji t`NONE �l. a �F` s1`s Y"l-5�'' h '` •�'g 'tt"ti: j,G""Y'3g�,�'2'u�`."-`y'[ "moi l.'�'`ak §'c- � R'r "�`"�",' w.,'�k"£ 4 ss IN f Q b� 1�1�Ofof 0.01 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION 1 LS $ 234,000.00 $ 234,000 .-RIM I `, v' vgg g ' ✓ e, ''� a','' jo, 3- -5�' �.� .ni ,fir. '�t Y�."�s+`+� y „'ri' h S. ,°.+�,4i bmf y�je�Sn��;p- gW'k.3",0F .4<`'f• �.� 4� �#y�4, ���� ,y. S '� d p^.x»c'Yz� � "'& 1.01 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS $ 312,000.00 $ 312,000 ,tz C'jx zF,`•.Z .. kg 'e`na;y -�i"rt Y+ f "� -wT "- := s r �a S r i�Q��� 2.OA REMOVE EXISTING STREET LIGHTS 6 EA $ 600.00 $ 3,600 2.01 STREET LIGHT FOUNDATION 6 EA $ 3,140.00 $ 18,840 2.02 2-INCH DIAMETER STREET LIGHT CONDUIT 370 LF $ 6.30 $ 2,331 2.03 STREET LIGHT SPLICE BOX 6 EA $ 630.00 $ 3,780 Mll em EUa1 Sc s 3.01 24"x62"TRENCH 6968 LF $ 130.00 $ 905,892 3.02 18"x56"TRENCH 878 LF $ 120.00 $ 105,408 3.03 24"x62"TRENCH CALTRANS 1589 LF $ 140.00 $ 222,432 OVEREXCAVATION OF TRENCH DUE TO 3.04 UNSUITABLE BEDDING MATERIAL 50 CY $ 350.00 $ 17,500 3.05 SHORING AND TRENCH SAFETY 1 LS $ 21,000.00 $ 21,000 3.06 ROCK EXCAVATION REVOCABLE 1637 CY $ 550.00 $ 900,619 3.07 DE-WATERING 1 LS $ 10,470.00 $ 10,470 =77v- -,�. N' ,cw fair a:; f:'z x ..,„. -?; .�v r EFn, `�i3a-='+ ' a TOWN OF TIBURON HAWTHORNE UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT HIGH LEVEL COST ESTIMATE 8/7/17 HMA SURFACE RESTORATION INCLUDING 2" 4.01 MILL PER MARIN COUNTY STDS 944 TON $ 200.00 $ 188,712 MINOR CONCRETE(SIDEWALK, CURB& 4.02 GUTTER) 348 SF $ 25.00 $ 8,700 'e5',,, a' ,ti"i _" ti2Y ?' �t .7� -2iti§^ ,pa -xY'..*a�'�'-.�.�i �^ar. j�h;� tz k �� it i�+ � c`�`'` ��' '�'�..33�'�I�.*7 nom•,-'„ � �r^t .���.. � - -z E.,.. e� -a �T�If'1N�,�t�?A�/E119�t�7�(4t1AR1��I?1�.�--�»��_��.. 5.01 STRIPING&PAVEMENT MARKING 1 LS $ 10,470.00 $ 10,470 REMOVE YELLOW TRAFFIC STRIPE AND PAVEMENT MARKING AND LEAD 5.02 COMPLIANCE PLAN 1 LS $ 16,050.00 $ 16,050 ,�f aKa WHO Ell 4 ,a +"2�i`� s- 3 ,w- 1118 aw y4;P,.,., .. ryd=. ,�. 6-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT(PRIMARY)(1 6.01 SPARE, 1 USED) 13937 LF $ 12.60 $ 175,604 6-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT(PRIMARY)(1 6.02 SPARE, 1 USED)Caltrans 3178 LF $ 13.60 $ 43,215 6.03 4-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT SECONDARY 15694 LF $ 10.50 $ 164,783 4-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT(SECONDARY) 6.04 Caltrans 3178 LF $ 11.50 $ 36,542 6.05 3-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT SERVICE 2320 LF; $ 7.40 $ 17,168 4'6"x 8'6"x 7'D E-7 PRIMARY ENCLOSURE 6.06 FULL TRAFFIC 8 EA $ 13,610.00 $ 108,880 4'6"x 6'6"x 6'D E-6 PRIMARY ENCLOSURE 6.07 FULL TRAFFIC 20 EA $ 13,085.00 $ 261,700 6.08 6'x 6'PAD MOUNT CAPACITOR BANK 1 EA $ 4,250.00 $ 4,250 24"x 36"x 30"D E-3 SECONDARY SPLICE BOX 6.09 FULL TRAFFIC COVER 37 EA $ 2,620.00 $ 96,940 24"x 36"x 30"D E-3 SECONDARY SPLICE BOX 6.10 FULL TRAFFIC COVER Caltrans 3 EA $ 2,880.00 $ 8,640 17"x 24"x 18"D E-2 SECONDARY SPLICE BOX 6.11 FULL TRAFFIC COVER 60 EA $ 1,050.00 $ 63,000 014 g go ONES wo I'llig 7.01 2-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT SERVICE 4579 LF $ 6.30 $ 28,848 7.02 4-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT 9706 LF $ 10.50 $ 101,913 7.03 4-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT Caltrans 900 LF $ 11.50 $ 10,350 TOWN OF TIBURON HAWTHORNE UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT HIGH LEVEL COST ESTIMATE 8/7/17 7.04 30"x 48"x 36"D T-4 VAULT 43 EA 3,140.00 135,020 8.01 1-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT(SERVICE) 4237 LF $ 4.20 $ 17,795 8.02 2-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT 12303 LF $ 6.30 $ 77,509 8.03 2-INCH DIAMETER CONDUIT Caltrans 300 LF $ 7.30 $ 2,190 48"x 30"x 12"D B-48 TV-SPLICE BOX W/1-10" 8.04 EXTENSION (FULL TRAFFIC COVER) 13 EA $ 3,140.00 $ 40,820 48"x 30"x 12"D B-48 TV-SPLICE BOX W1 1-10" 8.05 EXTENSION (FULL TRAFFIC COVER)Caltrans 1 EA $ 3,455.00 $ 3,455 17"x 30"x 18"D B-36 TV-VAULT(FULL TRAFFIC 8.06 COVER) 9 EA $ 2,620.00 $ 23,580 13"x 24"x 18"D B-30 TV-VAULT(FULL TRAFFIC 8.07 COVER)Caltrans 22 EA $ 1,570.00 $ 34,540 I TOTAL BASE BID= $ 4,438,546 PROJECTED INFLATION(May 2017 TO May 2018)AT(3.1%)= $ 137,595 PROJECTED INFLATION(May 2018 TO May 2019)AT 3.1% = $ 141,860 TOTAL BASE BID+2 YEARS PROJECTED INFLATION= $ 4,718,001 30%CONTINGENCY= $ 1,415,400 GRAND TOTAL $ 6,133,402 BASE SID ITEMS 120 Pa PG&E UTILITY COSTS NOM ITEM DESCRIPTION ITEQTY UNIT r MOB,ILIZATI.O ` zu ke, v' s ' " r 'z �aa ti k4 sX c- .,.r s. -:., wr MOBILIZATION/DEMOBIL 1 Ls $ 80 6% of construction 0.01 IZATION ,680 less traffic control 7_..00 FFII CC3NTR�JL 1 "ItMOB ;,�� l'F WN 1.01 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS $ 107,574 8% of construction less mob/demob ,rR�T`�11.7 W'tic x;2 5 r✓ , 3 `r t'w+.� � �, c-�' �s^'s f- ' S.. -�. `r 2.OA REMOVE EXISTING 6 EA STREET LIGHTS 2.01 STREET LIGHT 6 EA FOUNDATION 2.02 2-INCH DIAMETER 370 LF STREET LIGHT CONDUIT 2.03 STREET LIGHT SPLICE 6 EA BOX p 3.01 24"x62" TRENCH 6968 LF 3.02 18"x56" TRENCH 878 LF 3.03 24"x62" TRENCH 1589 LF CALTRANS OVEREXCAVATION OF 3.04 TRENCH DUE TO 50 CY UNSUITABLE BEDDING MATERIAL 3.05 SHORING AND TRENCH 1 LS SAFETY 3.06 ROCK EXCAVATION 1637 CY REVOCABLE 3.07 DE-WATERING 1 LS HMA SURFACE RESTORATION 4.01 944 TON INCLUDING 2" MILL PER MARIN COUNTY STDS MINOR CONCRETE 4.02 (SIDEWALK, CURB & 348 SF GUTTER 5 3 � 5.01 STRIPING & PAVEMENT 1 LS MARKING REMOVE YELLOW TRAFFIC STRIPE AND 5.02 PAVEMENT MARKING 1 LS AND LEAD COMPLIANCE PLAN FRI a or basea ,.0.11-1 on Del Mar project. Del Mar had 7250 IRA- x � �� � �� ��� - hours at $176 per hour equals �ND �ovD � $1 ,276,000. That 423,375 44.87 p � . value divided by 28,437 feet is Eg g � � $44,87/foot. Hawthorne has 9436 LF of main line Primary conductor 6-INCH DIAMETER material is $7.81 per 6.01 CONDUIT (PRIMARY) (1 #### LF $ 435,386 foot times 4 wires SPARE, 1 USED) perfoot Primary conductor 6-INCH DIAMETER material is $7.81 per 6.02 CONDUIT (PRIMARY) (1 3178 LF $ 99,268 SPARE, 1 USED) Caltrans foot times 4 wires perfoot Secondary 6.03 4-INCH DIAMETER #### LF $ 105,932 conductor material CONDUIT (SECONDARY) is $2.25 per foot time 3 wires per foot Secondary 4-INCH DIAMETER conductor material 6.04 CONDUIT (SECONDARY) 3178 LF $ 21 ,449 is $2.25 per foot Caltrans time 3 wires per foot Secondary 6.05 3-INCH DIAMETER 2320 LF $ 15,660 conductor material CONDUIT (SERVICE) is $2.25 per foot time 3 wires per foot 4' 6" x 8' 6" x 7'D E-7 Subsurface three 6.06 PRIMARY ENCLOSURE 1 EA $ 8,800 phase transformer is (FULL TRAFFIC) $8,800 each 4' 6" x 8' 6" x 7'D E-7 Splicebox - no PRIMARY ENCLOSURE 2 FULL TRAFFIC) equipment 4' 6" x 8' 6" x 7'D E-7 Switch is $16,000 PRIMARY ENCLOSURE 5 $ 80,000 FULL TRAFFIC) each 4' 6" x 6' 6" x 6'D E-6 Subsurface single 6.07 PRIMARY ENCLOSURE 16 EA $ 68,800 phase transformer is (FULL TRAFFIC) $4,300 each 4' 6" x 6' 6" x 6'D E-6 Switch is $16,000 PRIMARY ENCLOSURE 3 $ 48,000 FULL TRAFFIC) each Assume a capacitor 6.08 6' x 6' PAD MOUNT 1 EA $ 38,000 costs as much as an CAPACITOR BANK interruptor switch 24" x 36" x 30"D E-3 SECONDARY SPLICE 6.09 37 EA BOX (FULL TRAFFIC COVER 24" x 36" x 30"D E-3 SECONDARY SPLICE 6.10 3 EA BOX (FULL TRAFFIC COVER) Caltrans 17" x 24" x 18"D E-2 6.11 SECONDARY SPLICE 60 EA BOX (FULL TRAFFIC COVER E tee' 7.01 2-INCH DIAMETER 4579 LF CONDUIT SERVICE 7.02 4-INCH DIAMETER 9706 LF CONDUIT 7.03 4-INCH DIAMETER 900 LF CONDUIT Caltrans 7.04 30" x 48" x 36"D T-4 43 EA VAULT F . , 8.01 1-INCH DIAMETER 4237 LF CONDUIT SERVICE r8O 2-INCH DIAMETER #### LF CONDUIT 8.03 2-INCH DIAMETER 300 LF CONDUIT Caltrans 48" x 30" x 12"D B-48 TV- 8.04 SPLICE BOX W/ 1-10" 13 EA EXTENSION (FULL TRAFFIC COVER 48" x 30" x 12"D B-48 TV- SPLICE BOX W/ 1-10" 8.05 EXTENSION (FULL 1 EA TRAFFIC COVER) Caltrans 17" x 30" x 18"D B-36 TV- 8.06 VAULT (FULL TRAFFIC 9 EA COVER 13" x 24" x 18"D B-30 TV- 8.07 VAULT (FULL TRAFFIC 22 EA COVER Caltrans TOTAL BASE BID 2013 = $ 1,532 924 30% CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY = $ 459,877 BASE BID + CONTINGENCY = $ 1,992 801 4 YEARS OF INFLATION PER $ 251,093 JULY ENR CCI (May 2013 to April 2017) AT (12.6%) PROJECTED INFLATION (May $ 69,561 2017 TO May 2018) AT (3.1% ) PROJECTED INFLATION (May $ 71,717 2018 TO May 2019) AT (3.1%) $ 2,385,171 TOTAL PG&E ESTIMATE (2019) Assessment Methodology overview and General Benefit Analysis Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District Town of Tiburon Prepared by: Harris&Associates In developing the assessment methodology for the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District,the special benefit to be received by parcels within the district will be similar to the special benefit received by parcels in the other utility undergrounding districts,and will be based upon: • improved aesthetics, • safety,and • reliability. The specific formula that will be used to quantify the special benefit received by parcels will be developed during the preparation of the Assessment Engineer's Report to quantify the special bern2fit each parcel will receive from the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities. it will likely be more complex than the assessment methodology developed for prior districts within the Town for several reasons, but will take into consideration such factors as: • impact of the existing overhead utilities on viewshed toward the bay from the parcel and impacts on secondary viewshed(s), • impacts of topography relative to primary and secondary viewshed from each parcel, • proximity of the existing utilities including poles to be removed to the parcel, • improved aesthetics within the neighborhood, and the visual environment, • improved safety related to the reduced risk of downed power lines as a result of natural disasters, and the proximity of the existing overhead utilities to each parcel and likely impact on the parcel as a result of downed power lines. • Increased system reliability as a result of the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities. However, before the special benefit received by parcels within the assessment district can be apportioned, Proposition 218 requires that any General Benefit be identified and that it be quantified. Since a portion of the utilities to be undergrounded in this district include existing overhead utilities on poles located adjacent to Tiburon Boulevard, as well as several pole that are adjacent to the Shoreline Park trail on to Richardson Bay and several pole which provides electrical service to the Richardson Bay Sanitary District's pump station(as shown on the attached map of the proposed assessment district). The undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities and the removal of those poles will provide a benefit to the community at large(General Benefit)in addition to the special benefit to parcels within the proposed assessment district. To quantify the General Benefit,an analysis of the benefit received by the public at large(General Benefit) versus the benefit received by particular parcels (Special Benefit) will be made for each of the factors identified above. For example, the General Benefit related to system reliability might be quantified by looking at the total parcels served by the existing overhead facilities (including parcels outside of the district boundaries which would be impacted by a service interruption related to the existing overhead facilities) in comparison to the number of parcels within the district boundaries. The General Benefit related to improved safety could be quantified based upon the reduction in risk of injury or death related to downed power lines on lands used by the pubic (General Benefit) in comparison to private property (Special Benefit). The General Benefit related to improved aesthetics would be related to the economic benefits associated with the improvement of the viewshed on public rights-of-way/publically owned lands in relationship to the economic benefits associated with the improvement of the viewshed on private property based upon proximity, primary or secondary viewshed, and other related factors. The exact method for identifying and quantifying the General Benefit will be developed during the preparation of the Assessment Engineer's Report. Based upon the fact that 9 of the approximately 40 existing utility poles to be removed will most likely have some percentage of General Benefit associated with them, the portion of the overall project costs that is associated with General Benefit could be in the range of 10-15%+/-and that costs could not be apportioned to parcels within the district. Aug 15,2017 12:23 pm Prepared by Sperry Capital Inc. (Finance 7.009 MMWD:TIl3UR0N 1-TIBHAWTH) Page 2 BOND SUMMARY STATISTICS Tiburon Hawthorne AD Tiburon Hawthorne AD Dated Date 09/01/2017 Delivery Date 09/01/2017 Last Maturity 09/02/2047 Arbitrage Yield 3.997577% True Interest Cost(TIC) 4.079719% Net Interest Cost(NIC) 4.091735% All-In TIC 4.311416% Average Coupon 4.037017% Average Life(years) 18.275 Duration of Issue(years) 12.454 Par Amount 11,910,000.00 Bond Proceeds 11,910,000.00 Total Interest 8,786,893.03 Net Interest 8,905,993.03 Total Debt Service 20,696,893.03 Maximum Annual Debt Service 685,060.00 Average Annual Debt Service 689,832.56 Underwriter's Fees(per$1000) Average Takedown O 10.000000 Other Fee Total Underwriter's Discount 10.000000 Bid Price 99.000000 Par Average Average Bond Component Value Price Coupon Life Serials due 09/02/2018-09/02/2038 6,340,000.00 100.000 3.687% 11.619 Term due 09/02/2042 2,490,000.00 100.000 4.180% 23.085 Term due 09/02/2047 3,080,000.00 100.000 4.240% 28.087 11,910,000.00 18.275