HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2012-08-01TOWN OF T1.:BURON
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
AGENDA
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Council
August 1, 2012
Meeting time - 7:30 p.m.
Councilmember Doyle, Councilmember Collins, Councilmember Fredericks, Vice Mayor
O'Donnell, Mayor Fraser
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this
time. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended
discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to
the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future
Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Amendments to Town Code pertaining to Mobile Vending Vehicles - Consider
amendments to Title VI, Chapter 23 (Motor Vehicles and Traffic) of the Tiburon
Municipal Code prohibiting the parking or standing of mobile vendors on certain street
segments during certain hours (Chief of Police Cronin) - Introduction and first reading of
ordinance
2. 1501 &t 1505 Tiburon Boulevard: Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library Expansion Project -
(Director of Community Development Anderson; Planning Manager Watrous) -
continued from July 25, 2012
Review and Consider for Approval the Site Plan and Architectural Drawings for the
Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library Expansion Project, a proposal to construct 16,000
square feet of additions; File #S2012-07; Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency and Town of
Tiburon, Owners/Applicants; Assessor's Parcel Nos. 058-171-92, 93, & 94 and a portion
of 058-171-62;
A) Consider adoption of resolution approving the site plan and architectural drawings for
the project subject to the conditions set forth therein;
Consider authorizing the Town Manager to negotiate and execute an amendment
extending the 2007 Agreement to Convey Real Property between the Town of Tiburon
and the Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency involving approximately 16,000 square feet of
land located behind the existing Library building; Assessor Parcel No. 058-171-62
(portion)
B) Authorize Town Manager to negotiate and execute an amendment to the Agreement to
Convey Real Property to extend the fundraising deadline and add an exculpatory clause.
3. Amendments to Town Code pertaining to the Keeping of Chickens and Honey Bees
and other text amendments - Consider text amendments to Title VI, Chapter 20
(Animals) and Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Town
Code) (Director of Community Development Anderson) - Introduction and first reading of
ordinance - continued without hearing from Jul), 18, 2012
A) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Municipal Code
Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) by Making Various Text Amendments including but not
limited to adding, deleting and modifying definitions, adding a section regarding
reasonable accommodation [for the disabled], requiring site plan and architectural
review approval for demolition of structures, making amendments to requirements for
Temporary Use Permits, Tidelands Permits, vehicle gate setbacks, secondary dwelling
unit s and termination of nonconforming uses, and modifying affordable housing overlay
zone incentives consistent with the Tiburon General Plan;
B) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Municipal Code
Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) and Municipal Code Title VI, Chapter 20 (Animals) with
respect to Chicken and Honey Bee-Keeping Regulations and Miscellaneous other
Amendments
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless
a request is made by a member of the Town Council, public or staff to remove an item for
separate discussion and consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item,
please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time.
1. Major Crimes Task Force JEPA -Approve amendments to joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement (JEPA) to reflect current practices and language changes required by new
liability insurance carrier (Chief of Police Cronin)
2. Grand Jury Report on Shared Services -Approve response to the Grand Jury's Report
regarding Shared Public Services (Town Attorney Danforth)
TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
WEEKLY DIGESTS
• Town Council Weekly Digest - July 27, 2012
ADJOURNMENT
GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION
ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435-
7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and
inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to
Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's website,
www.ci.tiburon.ca.us.
Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate
alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including
auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in
public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing
address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and
preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the
meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above
address.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to
provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence
delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s).
TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA
While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda,
it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items
appearing on the Town Council agenda.
E TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Police Department
Office of the Town Manager
Town Council Meeting
August 1, 2012
Agenda Item: cc
Subject: Recommendation to Approve Revision of Marin Major Crimes Task Force
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
Reviewed By: ~
BACKGROUND
The Marin County Major Crimes Task Force has been in existence since 1977. It operates under a
JEPA entered into by the County of Marin and all Marin municipalities in 1995 (San Rafael
withdrew in 2003). In 2009 the agreement was modified to include the California Highway
Patrol.
The Task Force is a specialized unit staffed by members of the Sheriff's Department and allied
agencies. Its primary focus is the enforcement of statutes related to the trafficking, distribution,
manufacture and sale of illegal drugs. The Task Force is also available to assist local agencies in
major investigations.
The Task Force recently changed liability insurance carriers. The new carrier requires
modifications to the JPA. Some additional modifications reflecting changes that occurred over the
past few years have been incorporated into a new agreement.
ANALYSIS
Changes in the agreement are necessary to reflect current operating practices and language
changes required by the new liability insurance carrier. Those changes are:
Article 3 (Task Force) reflects the current makeup of the agency and the selection process
implemented after 1995. The new agreement permits assignment of personnel from all
agencies rather than just the "Designated Police Agency".
Article 4 (Fiscal Matters) has been modified to reflect the actual composition of the Task
Force; it relieves the County of funding responsibility for two thirds of the cost additional
personnel. Should the Task Force be expanded, the members of the JEPA would be
responsible for the additional expense. Costs would be allocated on the basis of the
established formula and expansion of the Task Force would require the Oversight
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2
Committee's approval. Should the Town object to expansion and/or the related costs, the
Town would have the option of withdrawing from the JEPA.
Article 6 (Withdrawal) has been modified. Under the old agreement a withdrawal letter
had to be submitted no later than six months prior to the end of the fiscal year to relieve
agencies of financial responsibility for the following year. The proposed language permits
submission of the letter at anytime. Financial responsibility will terminate six months
from submission of the letter.
Article 5 (Insurance and Indemnity) reflects changes required by the new insurance
carrier.
A copy of the 1995 agreement showing the deletions (strikeout) and additions (bold type)
incorporated in the new agreement is attached, along with a clean copy of the new agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Town currently budgets $37,600.00 annually for participation in this service. The proposed
agreement does not change the formula for determining the Town's contribution. The
contribution for FY 2012/13 is expected to remain the same.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
1. Move to approve a revision of the Marin Major Crimes Task Force Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement.
2. Authorize staff to execute the agreement on behalf of the Town of Tiburon.
Exhibits:
1. 1995 Marin Major Crimes Task Force JEPA showing proposed additions and deletions
2. Amended 1995 Marin Major Crimes Task Force JEPA
Prepared By:
Michael Cronin, Chief of Police
MARIN COUNTY MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
RECITALS:
1. The COUNTY OF MARIN (hereinafter "COUNTY") and the CITIES/TOWNS
OF BELVEDERE, CORTE MADERA, FAIRFAX, LARKSPUR, MILL
VALLEY, NOVATO, ROSS, SAN ANSELMO, SAUSALITO and TIBURON
have authority to perform law enforcement functions for their respective
communities and desire to help each other in the detection, apprehension and
prosecution of major crimes, including highly mobile criminal narcotic
trafficking, thus reducing major narcotic activity and combating its influence
throughout the County.
2. Said pa MEMBER AGENCIES are authorized to contract with each other
for the joint exercise of any common power pursuant to California Government
Code Sections 6500-6514.
3. Said Pa MEMBER AGENCIES are authorized to conduct activities in a
manner set forth in California Penal Code Section 830.1.
4. D^~fi°s befete MEMBER AGENCIES previously entered into a Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement in 1979 for the purpose of creating a Major Crimes Task
Force. That Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and its subsequent amendments
were repealed and replaced through the adoption of an updated Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement on July 1, 1985. That 1985 Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement and its subsequent amendments were repealed and replaced through
the adoption of an updated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement on October 10,
1995.That 1995 Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement is hereby terminated and
replaced through the adoption of this Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the July-August, 2009 Addendum to Joint
Powers Agreement with the CHP shall remain in full force and effect.
SAID PARTIES, MEMBER AGENCIES THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREE AS
FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1.1 Purpose.
(a) The purpose of this Agreement is the joint funding and policy direction of a unit
of peace officers and support personnel, herein called the "Task Force," to detect,
apprehend and prosecute major crimes including highly mobile criminal narcotic
33569
traffickers thus reducing major narcotic activity and combating its influence
throughout the County.
(b) It is understood by the parties to this Agreement that the Task Force will function
as an adjunct to the basic police services provided by the individual police
agencies and is not intended to supplant existing local police services. It will be
funded and staffed only to the extent that the general budgets of the member
agencies and supplemental funding sources are able and available.
Section 1.2 Creation of Atither-ityTask Force.
(a) There is hereby created a public entity to be known as the Marin County Major
Crimes Task Force Authority, herein called the "Authority." The Authority is a
public entity separate and apart from the member cities and county and shall
administer this Agreement.
(b) Exercise of the common powers of the parties hereto shall be subject to such
restrictions as may exist for each of them independently.
Section 1.3 Term of Agreement.
This Agreement shall be effective upon the date the Agreement is last executed by
the parties as attested by the signatures of the Mayor and Clerk of each city/town and of
the President of the County Board of Supervisors and shall continue in effect until
terminated as herein provided.
ARTICLE 2
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Section 2.1 Government Board.
(a) The Authority shall be administered by a Board of Directors consisting of nine
members, one to be a City Councilmember appointed by the Marin County
Council of Mayors and Councilmembers, one to be a member of the Marin
County Board of Supervisors appointed by the President of the Board of
Supervisors; two to be City Managers appointed by the Marin Managers
Association; one to be the Marin county Administrator; two to be Chief Law
Enforcement Officials appointed by the Marin County Police Chiefs Association;
and two to be residents of Marin County who are not members of any city council
or the Board of Supervisors, not the County Administrator and not a city manager
or chief law enforcement official in Marin County. One resident member shall be
appointed by the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers, and one
resident member shall be appointed by the Marin County Board of
Supervisors.
2
(b) Each appointing agency may appoint an alternate board member who may act in
the absence of a board member appointed by that agency. The Marin County
Administrator may designate an alternate who may act in his or her absence.
(c) The Board of Directors shall be called the "Oversight Committee." All voting
power of the Authority shall reside with the Oversight Committee.
Section 2.2 Terms of Office.
(a) The Marin County Administrator shall serve as long as he or she holds the
position of County Administrator. All other members of the Oversight
Committee shall serve terms of two years.
(b) The City Councilmember, one City Manager, one Chief Law Enforcement
Official and the resident appointed by the Board of Supervisors shall serve terms
beginning January 1 of even numbered years.
(c) The County Supervisor, one City Manager, one Chief Law Enforcement Official
and the resident appointed by the Marin County Council of Mayors and
Councilmembers shall serve terms beginning January 1 of odd numbered years.
(d) Members may be reappointed without limitation.
(e) All vacancies on the Oversight Committee shall be filled by the appointing entity
as soon as possible to complete the unexpired term of the Committee member
being replaced.
Section 2.3 Members of the Oversight Committee.
The Oversight Committee shall provide for regular meetings at a fixed date, time
and place. fixed by resolution of by laws, whie fepl r '"neeting shat be held at east
. All regular and special meetings shall be called, noticed and conducted in
accordance with the provisions of Section 54950, et seq., of the California Government
Code.
Section 2.4 Voting Procedures.
(a) A quorum shall consist of at least a majority of the voting members of the
Oversight Committee and shall be required for all meetings of the Oversight
Committee.
(b) All decisions and actions shall be by a majority vote of a quorum.
(c) Each member of the Oversight Committee shall have one vote.
3
Section 2.5 Bylaws.
The Oversight Committee may adopt, from time to time, such bylaws, rules and
regulations for the conduct of its meetings and affairs as are necessary for the purposes
hereof.
Section 2.6 Chairperson and Vice-Chaip2erson.
(a) The Oversight Committee annually shall elect a Chairperson and Vice-
Chairperson from among its members for one year terms beginning January 1.
The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall not serve more than two consecutive
one-year terms.
(b) The Chairperson shall sign all contacts on behalf of the Authority and shall
perform such other duties as may be unposed by the Oversight Committee.
(c) The Vice-Chairperson shall perform all of the Chairperson's duties in the
temporary absence of the Chairperson.
Section 2.7 Secretary.
(a) The Chief Law Enforcement Official of the designated policy agency, pursuant to
Section 3.1(a), shall serve as Secretary to the Oversight Committee. The
Secretary shall cause minutes to be kept of Oversight Committee meetings and
shall cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each member of the
Oversight Committee and to each member agency as soon as possible after each
meeting.
(b) The Secretary shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be filed with the Secretary
of State and the State of California pursuant to Section 6505.3 of the California
Government Code.
Section 2.8 Powers and Duties of the Oversight Committee.
Policy direction of the Authority shall be vested in the Oversight Committee. The
Oversight Committee shall have the duty and power:
(a) To review and determine the program priorities, policies, operational scope, size
and budget of the Task Force.
(b) To monitor and report to member agencies and appointing associations or
legislative bodies on operations of the Task Force.
(c) To monitor the operations and supervision of the Task Force by the Designated
Policy Agency to assure that the Task Force targets major crimes violators and
that incursions on civil rights and injury to innocent persons are avoided.
4
(d) To provide direction to the Designated Police Agency regarding Task Force
activity in a non-member municipality and regarding requests from the Chief Law
Enforcement Official of a member agency for assignment of all or part of the
Task Force to investigate a specific local problem.
(e) To designate the Controller/Treasurer of the Authority.
(f) To designate the police agency to serve as the Designated Police Agency under
this agreement
(g) To adopt such policies and regulations that in its judgment may be of value in
providing adequate direction for financial and administrative matters to carry out
the provisions of this Agreement.
(h) To enter into contracts for services as authorized in the Authority's budget.
(i) To establish policies and procedure for the allocation and use of asset forfeiture
funds consistent with applicable State and Federal law and with the purposes of
this Agreement.
ARTICLE 3
TASK FORCE
Section 3.1 Designation of the Task Force.
(a) The Task GV -See of this n gfeem°r+ shall b.e
mete-to-allew pefsennel ffem othef member pol ~ ; The Oversight
Committee shall designate the police agency of one of the MEMBER
AGENCIES as the Designated Police Agency under this Agreement. The
Task Force established pursuant to Section 1.1 of this Agreement shall be
comprised of personnel from the Designated Police Agency and personnel
from police agencies of such other MEMBER AGENCIES as the Oversight
Committee may vote to include as Task Force personnel. It is agreed by the
parties to this Agreement that the Designated Police Agency shall be one of the
following police agencies: Marin County Sheriff s Department or Novato Police
Department, since these two agencies are large enough and best suited to handle
the functions of a Major Crimes Task Force.
(
) Th
e C7 effHI
V
IrLtiVZ JI
lI
afe not 1118'1°Li.T to
LL to, L~`'
efk l\~
v Vi
plan
an seepe
of
e1Y1~iGZ11 ees T
C~"peffef e ri~LIIIGLTjT du
ties ' and
obligations of the
7
l
5
Section 3.2 Powers of the Task Force.
In carrying out the purpose of this Agreement as set forth in Section 1.1 herein, a
peace officer member of the Task Force shall be and is hereby deemed to have prior
consent, within the. meaning of Penal Code Section 830.1, of the Chief Law Enforcement
Official of each member agency, or the person authorized by the Chief Law Enforcement
Official, to exercise peace officer authority within the boundary of every party hereto,
and said peace officer is hereby empowered to act in the same manner and to exercise the
same powers as any peace officer of said party; and his or her actions shall be governed
by the laws of the State of California and the generally accepted practices and procedures
for law and enforcement of the designated police agency.
Section 3.3 Organization of the Task Force within the Designated Police
Ate.
(a) The Task Force shall be established as a separate organizational entity within the
Designated Police Agency, allowing for multi jurisdictional participation.
Separate budget, income and expense records, equipment inventories and fund
accounts for the Task Force shall be maintained by the City or County whose
police agency manages and supervises the Task Force.
(b) The Task Force shall not be used to supplant any service or service deficiencies of
the Designated Police Agency, but shall remain totally focused on its mutually
agreed upon countywide purpose.
Section 3.4 Assignment of Personnel to the Task Force.
(a) The Designated Police Agency shall have sole responsibility for selecting and the
right to select which of its own employees will perform Task Force assignments
and be members of the Task Force. The Designated Police Agency shall have
sole responsibility for disciplining and removing its own employees in
compliance with applicable policies and procedures of the Designated Police
Agency.
Should the Oversight Committee vote to allow personnel from another member
agency to participate in the Task Force, that member agency shall select its own
employee(s) to be members of the Task Force. The member agency shall have
sole responsibility for disciplining and removing its own employee(s) in
compliance with applicable policies and procedures of the member agency.
will vote e on the Celeetio remilnrly sehe`l"le`l •"ee+ing The O e ht
~r~r-LCrr+r1~~1~~~r.~Zr°~.Z.i~LV fint~ii u at c ~ n
" GCl' e y in the sel eet o„ of a Task 1 Vl ee m ember.
Committee YYill I
6
The Designated Police Agency shall consent to the selection of employees
from another MEMBER AGENCY to work on the Task Force. If consent is
denied the Oversight Committee shall vote on the proposed selection at a
regularly scheduled meeting. The Oversight Committee decision shall be
final.
(b) Personnel serving in the Task Force, while governed by the rules and regulations
of the designated City or County or member agency, shall be assigned to the Task
Force for reasonable periods of time in order that expertise is developed and
applied in accomplishing the purpose of this Agreement.
(c) Assignment of personnel to the Task Force shall not be subject to any
impacts of the regular operating budget of the designated police agency or
member agency, since funding for the Task Force is dedicated by action of all
member agencies.
Section 3.5 Operational Control.
Except as provided in Section 3.7, below, responsibility for the operational
control, direction and administration of the Task Force shall be vested in the Chief Law
Enforcement Official of the designated policy agency who shall be responsible for direct
supervision of the Task Force and shall provide coordination with and liaison to the
Oversight Committee as necessary to ensure that Authority priorities and goals are being
properly implemented.
Section 3.6 Exercise of Task Force Powers in Nonmember Jurisdictions.
The Task Force shall not operate in, assist or serve municipalities in Marin
County not signatory to this agreement except pursuant to direction of the Oversight
Committee. In providing such direction, the Oversight Committee shall consider
situations where an investigation commenced elsewhere cannot otherwise be concluded
without crossing the boundaries of a non-participating jurisdiction.
Section 3.7 Investigation of Specific Local Problems.
In the event that a request for assistance to a Member Agency is approved
pursuant to direction of the Oversight Committee, the Chief Law Enforcement Official
of the requesting City or County may assume overall supervision of Task Force members
so assigned solely with respect to Task Force involvement in that specific assignment.
Task Force employees so assigned shall remain under the agreed to supervision of the
Chief Law Enforcement Official of the requesting City or County for the duration of the
specific assignment approved by the Oversight Committee.
Section 3.8 Administrative Support for the Authority.
7
Administrative support for the Oversight Committee shall be provided by the
Designated Police Agency which shall include in its annual budget costs associated with
administrative support tasks including, but not limited to, meeting notices, preparation of
minutes, compliance with the Brown Act, office supplies for Authority business,
insurance, and an annual financial audit.
8
ARTICLE 4
FISCAL MATTERS
Section 4.1 Annual Budget.
The Designated police agency shall prepare annually and submit to the Oversight
Committee by April 1 of each year, a budget for the Task Force setting forth proposed
service levels, staffing expenses and anticipated grant funding or other outside funding
(including, but not limited to asset forfeiture funds) and the proposed amount of Net
Local Costs (total budget less grant funding and other outside funding) to be shared
among the parties. After review and any modification deemed necessary by the
Oversight Committee, said budget shall be adopted by the Oversight Committee and
submitted to the parties hereto not later than May 1 of each year, and shall be deemed
approved by the parties pursuant to their individual approval of their respective budget
allocations to the Task Force for the ensuing fiscal year.
Section 4.2 Member Contributions.
The contributions to be made by each party to this Agreement to fund the Net
Local Costs of the Task Force shall be based on the approved budget and shall be pro-
rated in accord with the following formula:
(a) The eentr4butions to be made b e party to this ^ gre SI nt to fund the Net
Laeal Costs of the Task For-ee shall be based on the appfeved btidget and shall b
pre rn4o~ in nr. i+n,rd with the fi~~~ewnnn T%/lryyll lln• A Minimum of fifty pefeent
of the `.~n4 eest of the 1~11rst six ~x (6) Task Fefee ~'nn~r ~i~ri.a e yees p'+~r~ plus n4+or~ attendant
(500%)
o
~nr~4 vov r.ov~non and ~n, +hirdn (2/3) n.f the r.n,n+ ef tip 4n *hroo (3) additional Task Fefe
,
omr~~eyoon phis n+4 ondnn4 expenses, fer n 4n+nl iini4 strength ef nine (9)
effipleyees, shall be beme by Mar-in ; A minimum of fifty percent (50%)
of the cost of the first six (6) Task Force employees plus attendant expenses,
shall be borne by Marin County; and the balance shall be borne by the
participating cities prorated on a formula giving equal weight to population, using
the most current annual State Department of Finance census data and the most
current total assessed valuation, as determined by the March 1 valuations
established each year by the Marin County Assessor's Office.
No change in the proportion of contributions specific in Subsection 4.2(a), above,
shall be effected except by the written amendment to the Agreement and signed
by all parties hereto. Nothing in this agreement mandates that Marin County must
have a specific number of Task Force employees.
Section 4.3 Controller/Treasurer.
The Oversight Committee shall designate the Controller/Treasurer of the
Authority who shall serve as depository and custodian of all Auther-ity Task Force funds
and who shall perform all authorities, duties and obligations set forth in Section 6505,
9
6505.5 and 6505.6 of the California Government Code. The designated
Controller/Treasurer shall be responsible for the establishment of procedures for the
disbursement of funds in accordance with the approved annual budget of the Auther-ity
Task Force and shall maintain and make available to the parties hereto complete records
of all income, disbursements and other financial information regarding the Authefity
Task Force. These responsibilities shall include maintenance of financial records,
cooperation in the preparation of an annual independent audit and preparation of reports
pursuant to any and all applicable regulations for any and all funds including asset
forfeiture and grant funds received by or on behalf of the Task Force.
Section 4.4 Funds and Accounts.
At a minimum, the Controller/Treasurer shall establish and maintain separate
funds and/or accounts for income and disbursements from the following sources:
Department of Treasury Asset forfeiture account; Department of Justice Asset forfeiture
account; member contributions (Task Force operating account).
Section 4.5 Investment.
The Controller/Treasurer is herby authorized to invest any and all funds received
by the Authority in any investment medium authorized for local government pursuant to
State law and in such investment media and in such limited amounts as may be
established in the written investment policy of his or her agency. Interest earnings shall
be credited to the appropriate Authority account pursuant to Section 4.4, above, and may
be used for any purpose consistent with authorized uses for which the principle amount
may be used.
Section 4.6 Procedure for Approval of Demands.
The Controller/Treasurer shall implement procedures as adopted by the Oversight
Committee, for the approval of all demands against the Authority.
Section 4.7 Property Records and Control.
(a) The Controller/Treasurer shall maintain an inventory of all capital equipment and
other property contributed for Task Force use by any party hereto or by any other
person or organization and of all capital equipment purchased with Task Force
funds, including, but not limited to, funds contributed by parties to this
Agreement, grant funds, and asset forfeiture funds.
(b) The Secretary shall have charge of, handle and have access to all records of the
authority, other than those financial records under the control of the
Controller/Treasurer, and of all physical properties of the Auther-ity Task Force.
10
Section 4.8 Bonding.
The Oversight Committee shall designate the respective amounts of the official
bonds of the Secretary and Controller/Treasurer and of such other persons who may from
time to time be designated by the Oversight Committee as having charge of, handling or
having access to any funds and/or property of the Atither-ity Task Force.
ARTICLE 5
INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY
Section 5.1 Gem. Indemnity
Wh
r
n
l
im
li
b
ilit
- d
i
f
th
fi
iti
f th
T
k F
e
e a
y e
a
,
a
y or
amage a
r-
ses
rom
e ae
v
es
o
e
as
ar-ee
the Task Fef
e
the
aftie
a
r
th
t r-
ib
ilit
f
i
ti
ti
d
e
,
p
s
g
ee
a
espens
y
or-
fives
ga
on
an
,
defense and pa~q:nen
d
id
d i
t of any e
thi
A
fi
laim, aetion, liab
l
ility, damage settlemen
t of award will b
ma
e as pfev
e
n
s
f
e
e.
The Task Force shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless MEMBER AGENCIES
and their employees, agents and elected officials, in connection with any and all
claims, lawsuits, liability, or damages arising out of Task Force activities.
Section 5.2 Liability Insurance.
(a)
ttm14 ll ot at least en e ~ 1M1tt1 /1 Y~illien d/lttllM[~ (~l1,nnn,nnn and an !]RltYelTl1+0 of at t011['.* I~HA
lllllll 1i
,~,;tt;,,r111ien a„tt.,,.~ dell fs iQ 4,000nn,00nn 0) will be maintained in i,-,n f,,,-,-.o at all +;,,vs, u ~„~.o,-;,,.~ at a
111
mIT1ZII'il ■im , the me I befsT an"a ltemamembers of the Oversight remm;++ee. A
General Liability insurance policy with a minimum combined single limit of
at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) and an aggregate of at least one
million dollars ($1,000,000) will be maintained in force at all times, covering,
at a minimum, the Marin County Major Crimes Task Force, all personnel
assigned to the Task Force or engaging in Task Force activities, all
MEMBER AGENCIES, and the members and alternate members of the
Oversight Committee, for any liability arising out of Task Force activities.
The policy shall include costs of investigation and defense as covered items. The
annual premium for said insurance will be made a part of and paid from the
annual budget of the Task Force.
(b) A public officials liability insurance policy with a minimum combined single
limit of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) and an aggregate of at least one
million dollars ($1,000,000) will be maintained in force at all times, covering, at a
minimum, the members and alternate members of the Oversight Committee. The
policy shall include costs of investigation and defense as covered items. The
11
premium for said insurance will be made a part of and paid from the annual
budget of the Task Force.
(c) Any deductibles included in the Law Enforcement Liability Insurance policy shall
be paid first from asset forfeiture funds, to the maximum extent allowed by
applicable State or Federal law. If use of asset forfeiture funds to pay the
deductible amount is prohibited by applicable law for the particular claim and/or
if available asset forfeiture funds are insufficient to pay the deductible amount
then the deductible amount shall be paid from the Task Force annual budget
and/or from Authority reserve funds as may be authorized for this purpose by the
Oversight Committee.
Section 5.3 Uninsured Claims and Losses.
Should the Taw Enfafe°m°„+ Task Force's General Liability ' ehey
lamer fail to cover any claims, losses or expenses arising from any and all activities
undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, or if such policy is not available for a premium
deemed appropriate by the Oversight Committee in relation to the budget of the Task
Force, then the Oversight Committee shall immediately notify in writing each of the
parties to this Agreement of the status of the insurance policy or lack of coverage and the
cost of claims, loss or expenses shall be apportioned among the parties to this Agreement
as provided in Section 5.5 herein.
Section 5.4 Workers Compensation Insurance.
Unless otherwise provided in the service agreement between the Designated
Police Agency and the Authority, the Designated Police Agency is solely responsible for
payment of any and all workers compensation claims and benefits for any employee of
the Designated Police Agency assigned to the Task Force.
defense, settlements an awaf s. Each MEMBER AGENCY is solely responsible for
payment of any and all workers' compensation benefits for an employee of the
MEMBER AGENCY assigned to the Task Force.
Section 5.5 Apportionment.
To the extent that any claim, action, liability, damage settlement or award is not
covered for any reason by insurance policies, the parties to this Agreement agree to pay
these costs as follows:
(a) First, from uncommitted asset forfeiture funds, to the maximum extent allowed by
applicable State or Federal law.
12
(b) Second, if the use of asset forfeiture funds is prohibited by applicable law for the
particular claim and/or if available asset forfeiture funds are insufficient then
payment shall be made from reserve accounts which may have been created for
this purpose by the Oversight Committee.
(c) Third, if there are insufficient funds in reserve accounts created for this purpose,
or if no such reserves have been created, then payment shall be made from
uncommitted reserves of the Authority. Such use of uncommitted reserves
require the specific authorization of the Oversight Committee for each individual
claim for which such reserves are to be used.
(d) Fourth, if there are insufficient funds in uncommitted reserves, then payment shall
be made from the annual budget of the Task Force. Unless an appropriation
already exists in the Task Force budget at the time payment must be made,
specific authorization of the Oversight Committee must be granted for each
individual claim for which Task Force budgeted funds are to be used. If
necessary, the Task Force shall by resolution transfer appropriations from
unencumbered balances, salary savings or any available expenditure account in
order to provide sufficient funds to pay these costs.
(e) Finally, after exhaustion of asset forfeiture funds, reserves and the annual budget,
the parties to this Agreement agree to pay remaining claims in proportionate
shares where each party will pay the same percentage of the total amount as its
percentage contribution to the annual budget. aeeef iN, to the faffl„'n set f6ft " "
Sa,..4ion 4.2(a) of this A~rw~oom ov~* di.r.v~nr the fni+nl ~~onr ~t~ha,n the a,~~or* n•i~»vir
to the 1.1 n11'1'l ri e V
Section 5.6 Exceptions.
The provisions of Sections 5.2, 5.3 and 5.5 of this Agreement, wherein the
Authority and its members agree to accept responsibility for claims not covered by
insurance, shall not apply undef the following : when liability is caused by a
negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee or agent of the Designated
Police Agency or the employee or agent of another MEMBER AGENCY while such
employee or agent is not involved in carrying out the provisions of this Agreement.
Section 5.7 Claims Handling.
13
the independent ela ms a ministfatef vv'hese duties shall inelude the is
shall be '
-C~7Ge
In the event of a dispute regarding whether or not an exception as
contemplated in Section 5.6 herein applies, the dispute resolution procedure set
forth in Section 8.3 of this Agreement shall be used.
Task Force Commander shall, upon receipt of a "notice of claim" naming the
Major Crimes Task Force, initiate the claims handling process. The notice
document will be forwarded to representatives of the Task Force's General
Liability Insurance Company designated by that insurance company (as of the date
of this agreement, claims shall be scanned and sent via email to:
publicentityclaims(iv,carlwarren.com) with copy to CHIA Risk Manager and
County Counsel.
In the event a claim may be reported to the County through either Risk
Management, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors or County Counsel, such claims
shall be directed to the specific designated County of Marin counsel for the Major
Crimes Task Force who shall proceed to notify parties and commence evaluation of
claim.
Designated County Counsel shall review information provided in the notice of
claim against the County of Marin and determine if the claim involves alleged
actions of the Major Crimes Task Force, in which case designated County Counsel
shall issue the standard County rejection letter, including a statement advising
claimant that in taking the actions alleged in the claim, the officers were acting on
behalf of the Marin County Major Crimes Task Force, not the County of Marin,
providing direction to claimant to present the claim to the Task Force for further
consideration.
Upon notice of a claim by either of the above means, Task Force Commander
shall conduct his standard investigation and forward his report with attachments to
Designated County Counsel. This report may be sent on to representatives
designated by the Task Force's General Liability Insurance Company (as of the date
of this agreement, Carl Warren) based on the criteria for claim reporting. If it is
not forwarded, it will be retained.
14
ARTICLE 6
WITHDRAWAL
Section 6.1 Notice.
Any party may withdraw from this Agreement by filing written notice of intention
to do so with the Oversight Committee. Nttee of intent towth ust be filed si x
dufation of the fiseal yeaf. The Committee, within fifteen (15) days of the filing of a"
of afly pafty ffem this Agfeeffient shall in tie mafmef aff-eet the fights a-fid obligations
hefetindef of the femaining . The rights and obligations of such party
hereunder shall terminate six months after the date of filing such notice. The
Committee, within fifteen (15) days of the filing of a withdrawal notice, shall mail a
notice thereof to all parties to this Agreement. Removal of any party from this
Agreement shall in no manner affect the rights and obligations hereunder of the
remaining parties.
Section 6.2 Rights and Obligations.
In the event of a withdrawal from this Agreement by any party, such party shall
not be entitled to the return of any funds contributed to the Authority, nor to any share of
asset forfeiture funds nor to the return in cash or in kind of any materials or supplies until
termination of this Agreement as herein specified. A party withdrawing from the
Agreement shall continue to be liable for its proportionate share of any liability incurred
during the period of this party's participation in the Agreement as set forth in Section 5.5
herein.
ARTICLE 7
TERMINATION
Section 7.1 Required Notice.
This Agreement shall be deemed terminated when the agencies representing Fifty
Percent (50%) or more of the population of Marin County file a notice of intent to
withdraw.
Section 7.2 Distribution of Assets.
Upon termination, all non-monetary assets held by the Task Force shall be
liquidated and the proceeds, combined with all monetary assets (including asset forfeiture
funds and any moneys received through State or Federal grants), shall be distributed to
the parties hereto in proportion to the contribution of the parties. as set faft h°r°ir
15
ARTICLE 8
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 8.1 Definitions.
Unless the context otherwise requires, the words and terms defined in this Article
shall, for the purpose hereof, have the following meaning herein specified:
(a) Agreement. "Agreement" means this joint exercise of powers agreement.
(b) AithefitY. `A b .
(c) Chief Law Enforcement Official. "Chief law enforcement official" means the
highest ranking police manager of a member agency. This is usually the Police
Chief of a city or town or the County Sheriff.
(d) Designated Police Agency. "Designated Police Agency" means the Novato
Police Department or the Marin County Sheriff's Department, whichever is
selected by the Oversight Committee to organize and operate the Task Force.
(e) Major Crimes. "Major Crimes" means illegal activities, primarily felonies such
as, but not limited to, narcotic trafficking, whose characteristics include such
features as high mobility, complex organization and widespread incidence
throughout the County and for which effective detection, apprehension and
prosecution are demonstrably enhanced by the removal of artificial jurisdictional,
organizational and geographic limitations that are likely to inhibit efficient
utilization of police resources and application of up-to-date police methods that
can be directed at such activities.
(f) Member Agency. "Member Agency" means Marin County or one of the cities or
towns which has signed this joint exercise of powers agreement.
(g) Net Local Cost. "Net local cost" means the amount of the annual budget of the
Task Force which is funded by contributions of the Member Agencies after the
amount of funding for the annual budget from any grants, use of asset forfeiture
funds, use of investment earnings and use of any other direct income generated by
the operation of the Task Force have been deducted.
(h) Oversight Committee. "Oversight Committee" means the governing board of the
joint exercise of powers authority established by this joint exercise of powers
agreement.
(i) Task Force. "Task Force" means the unit of peace officers and support personnel
which is created by this Agreement to accomplish the purpose of the Agreement.
16
Section 8.2 Legal Counsel.
Unless the Oversight Committee determines otherwise, the Marin County Counsel
shall serve as legal counsel to the Authority and provide all routine legal advice and
service including attendance at Oversight Committee meetings if necessary.
Section 8.3 Dispute Resolution.
Any dispute among the parties to this Agreement shall be decided by neutral
binding arbitration and not by court action, except as provided by California law for
judicial review of arbitration proceedings. In the event of such dispute, the parties shall
attempt, by unanimous agreement, to select a neutral arbitrator. In the event of their
inability to reach unanimous agreement on an arbitrator such dispute shall be submitted
to an arbitrator selected by the presiding judge of the Marin County Superior Court.
Section 8.4 Amendment.
This Agreement may be amended from time to fi' e «,it the N_ r-itte eense t
the parties her- upon recommendation by the Oversight Committee. Any amendment
shall require a written amendment to the Agreement approved and executed by the
MEMBER AGENCIES.
Section 8.5 Execution in Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hand the day and year below
written.
Dated:
CLERK
Dated:
CLERK
Dated:
COUNTY OF MARIN
BY:
CITY OF BELVEDERE
BY:
TOWN OF CORTE MADERA
17
BY:
CLERK
Dated:
TOWN OF FAIRFAX
BY:
CLERK
Dated:
CITY OF LARKSPUR
BY:
CLERK
Dated:
CITY OF MILL VALLEY
BY:
CLERK
Dated:
CITY OF NOVATO
BY:
CLERK
Dated:
TOWN OF ROSS
BY:
CLERK
Dated:
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO
BY:
18
CLERK
19
Dated:
CLERK
Dated:
CLERK
CITY OF SAUSALITO
BY:
TOWN OF TIBURON
BY:
20
MARIN COUNTY MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
RECITALS:
1. The COUNTY OF MARIN (hereinafter "COUNTY") and the CITIES/TOWNS
OF BELVEDERE, CORTE MADERA, FAIRFAX, LARKSPUR, MILL
VALLEY, NOVATO, ROSS, SAN ANSELMO, SAUSALITO and TIBURON
(hereinafter "MEMBER AGENCIES") have authority to perform law enforcement
functions for their respective communities and desire to help each other in the
detection, investigation and apprehension of major crimes, including highly
mobile criminal narcotic trafficking, thus reducing major narcotic activity and
combating its influence throughout the County.,
2. MEMBER AGENCIES are authorized to contract with each other for the joint
exercise of any common power pursuant to California Government Code Sections
6500-6514.
3. MEMBER AGENCIES are authorized to conduct activities in a manner set forth
in California Penal Code Section 830.1.
4. MEMBER AGENCIES previously entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement in 1979 for the purpose of creating a Major Crimes Task Force. That
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and its subsequent amendments were
repealed and replaced through the adoption of an updated Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement on July 1, 1985. That 1985 Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement and its subsequent amendments were repealed and replaced through
the adoption of updated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreements on October 10,
1995 and in 2009. Those Joint Exercise of Powers Agreements are hereby
terminated and replaced through the adoption of this Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the July-August, 2009 Addendum to
Joint Powers Agreement with the CHP shall remain in full force and effect.
MEMBER AGENCIES, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1.1 Purpose
(a) The purpose of this Agreement is the joint funding and policy direction of a unit
of peace officers and support personnel, herein called the Marin County Major
Crimes Task Force (hereinafter "Task Force"), for investigation, detection and
apprehension in connection with major crimes including highly mobile criminal
c,
C X~i,c,l<~ f
narcotic traffickers thus reducing major narcotic activity and combating its
influence throughout the County.
(b) It is understood by the parties to this Agreement that the Task Force will function
as an adjunct to the basic police services provided by the individual police
agencies and is not intended to supplant existing local police services. It will be
funded and staffed only to the extent that the general budgets of the member
agencies and supplemental funding sources are able and available.
Section 1.2 Creation of Task Force.
(a) There is hereby created a public entity to be known as the Marin County Major
Crimes Task Force, herein called the "Task Force." The Task Force is a public
entity separate and apart from the member cities and county and shall administer
this Agreement.
(b) Exercise of the common powers of the parties hereto shall be subject to such
restrictions as may exist for each of them independently.
Section 1.3 Terms of Agreement.
This Agreement shall be effective upon the date the Agreement is last executed by
the parties as attested by the signatures of the Mayor and Clerk of each city/town and of
the President of the County Board of Supervisors and shall continue in effect until
terminated as herein provided.
ARTICLE 2
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Section 2.1 Government Board.
(a) The Task Force shall be administered by a Board of Directors consisting of nine
members, one to be a City Councilmember appointed by the Marin County
Council of Mayors and Councilmembers, one to be a member of the Marin
County Board of Supervisors appointed by the President of the Board of
Supervisors; two to be City Managers appointed by the Marin Managers
Association; one to be the Marin County Administrator; two to be Chief Law
Enforcement Officials appointed by the Marin County Police Chiefs Association;
and two to be residents of Marin County who are not members of any City
Council or the Board of Supervisors, not the County Administrator and not a city
manager or chief law enforcement official in Marin County. One resident
member shall be appointed by the Marin County Council of Mayors and
Councilmembers, and one resident member shall be appointed by the Marin
County Board of Supervisors
2
(b) Each appointing agency may appoint an alternate board member who may act in
the absence of a board member appointed by that agency. The Marin County
Administrator may designate an alternate who may act in his or her absence.
(c) The Board of Directors shall be called the "Oversight Committee." All voting
power of the Task Force shall reside with the Oversight Committee.
Section 2.2 Terms of Office.
(a) The Marin County Administrator shall serve as long as he or she holds the
position of County Administrator. All other members of the Oversight
Committee shall serve terms of two years.
(b) The City Councilmember, one City Manager, one Chief Law Enforcement
Official, and the resident appointed by the Board of Supervisors shall serve terms
beginning January 1 of even numbered years.
(c) The County Supervisor, one City Manager, one Chief Law Enforcement Official,
and the resident appointed by the Marin County Council of Mayors and
Councilmembers shall serve terms beginning January 1 of odd numbered years.
(d) Members may be reappointed without limitation.
(e) All vacancies on the Oversight Committee shall be filled by the appointing entity
as soon as possible to complete the unexpired term of the Committee member
being replaced.
Section 2.3 Members of the Oversight Committee.
The Oversight Committee shall provide for regular quarterly meetings at a fixed
date, time, and place. All regular and special meetings shall be called, noticed, and
conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 54950, et seq., of the California
Government Code.
Section 2.4 Voting Procedures.
(a) A quorum shall consist of at least a majority of the voting members of the
Oversight Committee and shall be required for all meetings of the Oversight
Committee.
(b) All decisions and actions shall be by a majority vote of a quorum.
(c) Each member of the Oversight Committee shall have one vote.
3
Section 2.5 Bylaws.
The Oversight Committee may adopt, from time to time, such bylaws, rules and
regulations for the conduct of its meetings and affairs as are necessary for the purposes
hereof.
Section 2.6 Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson.
(a) The Oversight Committee annually shall elect a Chairperson and Vice-
Chairperson from among its members for one year terms beginning January 1.
The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall not serve more than two consecutive
one-year terms.
(b) The Chairperson shall sign all contracts on behalf of the Task Force and shall
perform such other duties as may be imposed by the Oversight Committee.
(c) The Vice-Chairperson shall perform all of the Chairperson's duties in the
temporary absence of the Chairperson.
Section 2.7 Secretary.
(a) The Chief Law Enforcement Official of the designated policy agency, pursuant to
Section 3.1(a), shall serve as Secretary to the Oversight Committee. The
Secretary shall cause minutes to be kept of Oversight Committee meetings and
shall cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each member of the
Oversight Committee and to each member agency as soon as possible after each
meeting.
(b) The Secretary shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be filed with the Secretary
of State and the State of California pursuant to Section 6505.3 of the California
Government Code.
Section 2.8 Powers and Duties of the Oversight Committee.
Policy direction of the Task Force shall be vested in the Oversight Committee.
The Oversight Committee shall have the duty and power:
(a) To review and determine that program priorities, policies, operational scope, size
and budget of the Task Force.
(b) To monitor and report to member agencies and appointing associations or
legislative bodies on operations of the Task Force.
4
(c) To monitor the operations and supervision of the Task Force by the Designated
Policy Agency to assure that the Task Force targets major crimes violators and
that incursions on civil rights and injury to innocent persons are avoided.
(d) To provide direction to the Designated Police Agency regarding Task Force
activity in a non-member municipality and regarding requests from the Chief Law
Enforcement Official of a member agency for assignment of all or part of the Task
Force to investigate a specific local problem.
(e) To designate the Controller/Treasurer of the Task Force.
(f) To designate the policy agency to run the Task Force.
(g) To adopt such policies and regulations that in its judgment may be of value in
providing adequate direction for financial and administrative matters to carry out
the provisions of this Agreement.
(h) To enter into contracts for services as authorized in the Task Force's budget.
(i) To establish policies and procedure for the allocation and use of asset forfeiture
funds consistent with applicable State and Federal law and with the purposes of
this Agreement.
ARTICLE 3
TASK FORCE
Section 3.1 Designation of the Task Force.
The Oversight Committee shall designate the police agency of one of the
MEMBER AGENCIES as the Designated Police Agency under this Agreement. The
Task Force established pursuant to Section 1.1 of this Agreement shall be comprised of
personnel from the Designated Police Agency and personnel from police agencies of such
other MEMBER AGENCIES as the Oversight Committee may vote to include as Task
Force personnel. It is agreed by the parties to this Agreement that the Designated Police
Agency shall be one of the following police agencies: Marin County Sheriff's
Department or Novato Police Department, since these two agencies are large enough and
best suited to handle the functions of a Major Crimes Task Force.
Section 3.2 Powers of the Task Force.
In carrying out the purpose of this Agreement as set forth in Section 1.1 herein, a
peace officer member of the Task Force shall be and is hereby deemed to have prior
consent, within the meaning of Penal Code Section 830.1, of the Chief Law Enforcement
Official of each member agency, or the person authorized by the Chief Law Enforcement
Official, to exercise peace officer authority within the boundary of every party hereto, and
5
said peace officer is hereby empowered to act in the same manner and to exercise the
same powers as any peace officer of said party; and his or her actions shall be governed
by the laws of the State of California and the generally accepted practices and procedures
for law enforcement of the designated police agency.
Section 3.3 Organization of the Task Force within the Designated Policy
Ate.
(a) The Task Force shall be established as a separate organizational entity within the
Designated Police Agency, allowing for multi juri sdictional participation.
Separate budget, income and expense records, equipment inventories, and fund
accounts for the Task Force shall be maintained by the City or County whose
police agency manages and supervises the Task Force.
(b) The Task Force shall not be used to supplant any service or service deficiencies of
the Designated Police Agency, but shall remain totally focused on its mutually
agreed upon countywide purpose.
Section 3.4 Assignment of Personnel to the Task Force.
(a) The Designated Police Agency shall have sole responsibility for selecting and the
right to select which of its own employees will perform Task Force assignments
and be members of the Task Force. The Designated Police Agency shall have
sole responsibility for disciplining and removing its own employees in compliance
with applicable policies and procedures of the Designated Police Agency.
Should the Oversight Committee vote to allow personnel from another MEMBER
AGENCY to participate in the Task Force, that MEMBER AGENCY shall select
its own employee(s) to be members of the Task Force. The MEMBER AGENCY
shall have sole responsibility for disciplining and removing its own employee(s)
in compliance with applicable policies and procedures of the member agency.
The Designated Police Agency shall consent to the selection of employees from
another MEMBER AGENCY to work on the Task Force. If consent is denied the
Oversight Committee shall vote on the proposed selection at a regularly scheduled
meeting. The Oversight Committee decision shall be final.
(b) Personnel serving in the Task Force, while governed by the rules and regulations
of the designated City or County or MEMBER AGENCY, shall be assigned to the
Task Force for reasonable periods of time in order that expertise is developed and
applied in accomplishing the purpose of this Agreement.
(c) Assignment of personnel to the Task Force shall not be subject to any impacts of
the regular operating budget of the designated police agency or member agency,
since funding for the Task Force is dedicated by action of all member agencies.
6
Section 3.5 Operational Control.
Except as provided in Section 3.7, below, responsibility for the operational
control, direction and administration of the Task Force shall be vested in the Chief Law
Enforcement Official of the Designated Police Agency who shall be responsible for direct
supervision of the Task Force and shall provide coordination with and liaison to the
Oversight Committee as necessary to ensure that Task Force priorities and goals are being
properly implemented.
Section 3.6 Exercise of Task Force Powers in Nonmember Jurisdictions.
The Task Force shall not operate in, assist, or serve municipalities in Marin
County not signatory to this agreement except pursuant to direction of the Oversight
Committee. In providing such direction, the Oversight Committee shall consider
situations where an investigation commenced elsewhere cannot otherwise be concluded
without crossing the boundaries of a non-participating jurisdiction.
Section 3.7 Investigation of Specific Local Problems.
In the event that a request for assistance to a MEMBER AGENCY is approved
pursuant to direction of the Oversight Committee, the Chief Law Enforcement Official of
the requesting City or County may assume overall supervision of Task Force members so
assigned solely with respect to Task Force involvement in that specific assignment. Task
Force employees so assigned shall remain under the agreed to supervision of the Chief
Law Enforcement Official of the requesting City or County for the duration of the
specific assignment approved by the Oversight Committee.
Section 3.8 Administrative Support for the Task Force.
Administrative support for the Oversight Committee shall be provided by the
Designated Police Agency which shall include in its annual budget costs associated with
administrative support tasks including, but not limited to, meeting notices, preparation of
minutes, compliance with the Brown Act, office supplies for Task Force business,
insurance, and an annual financial audit.
ARTICLE 4
FISCAL MATTERS
Section 4.1 Annual Budget.
The Designated police agency shall prepare annually and submit to the Oversight
Committee by April 1 of each year, a budget for the Task Force setting forth proposed
service levels, staffing expenses and anticipated grant funding or other outside funding
(including, but not limited to asset forfeiture funds) and the proposed amount of Net
Local Costs (total budget less grant funding and other outside funding) to be shared
7
among the parties. After review and any modification deemed necessary by the Oversight
Committee, said budget shall be adopted by the Oversight Committee and submitted to
the parties hereto not later than May 1 of each year, and shall be deemed approved by the
parties pursuant to their individual approval of their respective budget allocations to the
Task Force for the ensuing fiscal year
Section 4.2 Member Contributions.
The contributions to be made by each party to this Agreement to fund the Net
Local Costs of the Task Force shall be based on the approved budget and shall be pro-
rated in accord with the following formula:
a) A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the first six (6) Task Force
employees plus attendant expenses, shall be borne by Marin County; and the
balance shall be borne by the participating cities prorated on a formula giving
equal weight to population, using the most current annual State Department of
Finance census data, and the most current total assessed valuation, as determined
by the March 1St valuations established each year by the Marin County Assessor's
Office.
No change in proration of contributions specific to 4.2(a), above, shall be effected
except by the written amendment to the Agreement and signed by all parties hereto.
Nothing in this agreement mandates that Marin County must have a specific number of
Task Force employees.
Section 4.3 Controller/Treasurer.
The Oversight Committee shall designate the Controller/Treasurer of the Task
Force who shall serve as depository and custodian of all Task Force funds and who shall
perform all authorities, duties, and obligations set forth in Section 6505, 6505.5 and
6505.6 of the California Government Code. The designated Controller/Treasurer shall be
responsible for the establishment of procedures for the disbursement of funds in
accordance with the approved annual budget of the Task Force and shall maintain and
make available to the parties hereto complete records of all income, disbursements and
other financial information regarding the Task Force. These responsibilities shall include
maintenance of financial records, cooperation in the preparation of an annual independent
audit and preparation of reports pursuant to any and all applicable regulations for any and
all funds including asset forfeiture and grant funds received by or on behalf of the Task
Force.
Section 4.4 Funds and Accounts.
At a minimum, the Controller/Treasurer shall establish and maintain separate
funds and/or accounts for income and disbursements from the following sources:
8
Department of Treasury Asset forfeiture account; Department of Justice Asset forfeiture
account; member contributions (Task Force operating account).
Section 4.5 Investment.
The Controller/Treasurer is herby authorized to invest any and all funds received
by the Task Force in any investment medium authorized for local government pursuant to
State law and in such investment media and in such limited amounts as may be
established in the written investment policy of his or her agency. Interest earnings shall
be credited to the appropriate Task Force account pursuant to Section 4.3, above, and may
be used for any purpose consistent with authorized uses for which the principle amount
may be used.
Section 4.6 Procedure for Approval of Demands.
The Controller/Treasurer shall implement procedures as adopted by the Oversight
Committee, for the approval of all demands against the Task Force.
Section 4.7 Property Records and Control.
(a) The Controller/Treasurer shall maintain an inventory of all capital equipment and
other property contributed for Task Force use by any party hereto or by any other
person or organization and of all capital equipment purchased with Task Force
funds, including, but not limited to, funds contributed by parties to this
Agreement, grant funds, and asset forfeiture funds.
(b) The Secretary shall have charge of, handle and have access to all records of the
Task Force, other than those financial records under the control of the
Controller/Treasurer, and of all physical properties of the Task Force.
Section 4.8 Bonding.
The Oversight Committee shall designate the respective amounts of the official
bonds of the Secretary and Controller/Treasurer and of such other persons who may from
time to time be designated by the Oversight Committee as having charge of, handling or
having access to any funds and/or property of the Task Force.
9
ARTICLE 5
INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY
Section 5.1 Indemnity.
The Task Force shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless MEMBER
AGENCIES and their employees, agents and elected officials, in connection with any and
all claims, lawsuits, liability, or damages arising out of Task Force activities.
Section 5.2 Liability Insurance.
(a) A General Liability insurance policy with a minimum combined single limit of at
least one million dollars ($1,000,000) and an aggregate of at least one million
dollars ($1,000,000) will be maintained in force at all times, covering, at a
minimum, the Marin County Major Crimes Task Force, all personnel assigned to
the Task Force or engaging in Task Force activities, all MEMBER AGENCIES,
and the members and alternate members of the Oversight Committee, for any
liability arising out of Task Force activities. The policy shall include costs of
investigation and defense as covered items. The annual premium for said
insurance will be made a part of and paid from the annual budget of the Task
Force.
(b) A public officials liability insurance policy with a minimum combined single limit
of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) and an aggregate of at least one
million dollars ($1,000,000) will be maintained in force at all times, covering, at a
minimum, the members and alternate members of the Oversight Committee. The
policy shall include costs of investigation and defense as covered items. The
premium for said insurance will be made a part of and paid from the annual
budget of the Task Force.
(c) Any deductibles included in the General Liability Insurance policy shall be paid
first from asset forfeiture funds, to the maximum extent allowed by applicable
State or Federal law. If use of asset forfeiture funds to pay the deductible amount
is prohibited by applicable law for the particular claim and/or if available asset
forfeiture funds are insufficient to pay the deductible amount then the deductible
amount shall be paid from the Task Force annual budget and/or from Task Force
reserve funds as may be authorized for this purpose by the Oversight Committee.
Section 5.3 Uninsured Claims and Losses.
Should the Task Force's General Liability insurance policy fail to cover any
claims, losses or expenses arising from any and all activities undertaken pursuant to this
Agreement, or if such policy is not available for a premium deemed appropriate by the
Oversight Committee in relation to the budge of the Task Force, then the Oversight
10
Committee shall immediately notify in writing each of the parties to this Agreement of
the status of the insurance policy or lack of coverage and the cost of claims, loss or
expenses shall be apportioned among the parties to this Agreement as provided in Section
5.5 herein.
Section 5.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance.
Unless otherwise provided in the service agreement between the Designated
Police Agency and the Task Force, the Designated Police Agency is solely responsible for
payment of any and all workers' compensation benefits for an employee of the
Designated Police Agency assigned to the Task Force. Each MEMBER AGENCY is
solely responsible for payment of any and all workers' compensation benefits for an
employee of the MEMBER AGENCY assigned to the Task Force.
Section 5.5 Apportionment.
To the extent that any claim, action, liability, damage settlement, or award is not
covered for any reason by insurance policies, the parties to this Agreement agree to pay
these costs as follows:
(a) First, from uncommitted asset forfeiture funds, to the maximum extent allowed by
applicable State or Federal law.
(b) Second, if the use of asset forfeiture funds is prohibited by applicable law for the
particular claim and/or if available asset forfeiture funds are insufficient then
payment shall be made from reserve accounts which may have been created for
this purpose by the Oversight Committee.
(c) Third, if there are insufficient funds in reserve accounts created for this purpose,
or if no such reserves have been created, then payment shall be made from
uncommitted reserves of the Task Force. Such use of uncommitted reserves
require the specific authorization of the Oversight Committee for each individual
claim for which such reserves are to be used.
(d) Fourth, if there are insufficient funds in uncommitted reserves, then payment shall
be made from the annual budget of the Task Force. Unless an appropriation
already exists in the Task Force budget at the time payment must be made,
specific authorization of the Oversight Committee must be granted for each
individual claim for which Task Force budgeted funds are to be used. If
necessary, the Task Force shall be resolution transfer appropriations from
unencumbered balances, salary savings, or any available expenditure account in
order to provide sufficient funds to pay these costs.
(e) Finally, after exhaustion of asset forfeiture funds, reserves and the annual budget,
the parties to this Agreement agree to pay remaining claims in proportionate
11
shares where each party will pay the same percentage of the total amount as its
percentage contribution to the annual budget.
Section 5.6 Exception.
The provisions of Sections 5.2, 5.3 and 5.5 of this Agreement, wherein the Task
Force and its members agree to accept responsibility for claims not covered by insurance,
shall not apply when liability is caused by a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an
employee or agent of the Designated Police Agency or the employee or agent of another
MEMBER AGENCY while such employee or agent is not involved in carrying out the
provisions of this Agreement.
Section 5.7 Claims Handling.
In the event of a dispute regarding whether or not an exception as contemplated in
Section 5.6 herein applies, the dispute resolution procedure set forth in Section 8.3 of this
Agreement shall be used.
Task Force Commander shall, upon receipt of a "notice of claim" naming the Major
Crimes Task Force, initiate the claims handling process. The notice document will be
forwarded to representatives of the Task Force's General Liability Insurance Company
designated by that insurance company (as of the date of this agreement, claims shall be
scanned and sent via email to: publicentityclaimsgcarlwarren.com) with copy to CJPIA
Risk Manager and County Counsel.
In the event a claim may be reported to the County through either Risk
Management, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors or County Counsel, such claims shall
be directed to the specific designated County of Marin counsel for the Major Crimes Task
Force who shall proceed to notify parties and commence evaluation of claim.
Designated County Counsel shall review information provided in the notice of
claim against the County of Marin and determine if the claim involves alleged actions of
the Major Crimes Task Force, in which case designated County Counsel shall issue the
standard County rejection letter, including a statement advising claimant that in taking the
actions alleged in the claim, the officers were acting on behalf of the Marin County Major
Crimes Task Force, not the County of Marin, providing direction to claimant to present the
claim to the Task Force for further consideration.
Upon notice of a claim by either of the above means, Task Force Commander shall
conduct his standard investigation and forward his report with attachments to Designated
County Counsel. This report may be sent on to representatives designated by the Task
Force's General Liability Insurance Company (as of the date of this agreement, Carl
Warren) based on the criteria for claim reporting. If it is not forwarded, it will be
retained.
12
ARTICLE 6
WITHDRAWAL
Section 6.1 Notice.
Any party may withdraw from this Agreement by filing written notice of intention
to do so with the Oversight Committee. The rights and obligations of such party
hereunder shall terminate six months after the date of filing such notice. The Committee,
within fifteen (15) days of the filing of a withdrawal notice, shall mail a notice thereof to
all parties to this Agreement. Removal of any party from this Agreement shall in no
manner affect the rights and obligations hereunder of the remaining parties.
Section 6.2 Rights and Obligations.
In the event of a withdrawal from this Agreement by any party, such party shall
not be entitled to the return of any funds contributed to the Task Force, nor to any share
of asset forfeiture funds nor to the return in cash or in kind of any materials or supplies
until termination of this Agreement as herein specified. A party withdrawing from the
Agreement shall continue to be liable for its proportionate share of any liability incurred
during the period of this party's participation in the Agreement as set forth in Section 5.5
herein.
ARTICLE 7
TERMINATION
Section 7.1 Required Notice.
This Agreement shall be deemed terminated when the agencies representing Fifty
Percent (50%) or more of the population of Marin County file a notice of intent to
withdraw.
Section 7.2 Distribution of Assets.
Upon termination, all non-monetary assets held by the Task Force shall be
liquidated and the proceeds, combined with all monetary assets (including asset forfeiture
funds and any moneys received through State or Federal grants), shall be distributed to
the parties hereto in proportion to the contribution of the parties.
ARTICLE 8
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 8.1 Definitions.
Unless the context otherwise requires, the words and terms defined in this Article
shall, for the purpose hereof, have the following meaning herein specified:
13
(a) Agreement. "Agreement" means this joint exercise of powers agreement.
(b) Chief Law Enforcement Official. "Chief law enforcement official" means the
highest ranking police manager of a member agency. This is usually the Police
Chief of a city or town or the County Sheriff.
(c) Designated Police Agency. "Designated Police Agency" means the Novato Police
Department or the Marin County Sheriff s Department, whichever is selected by
the Oversight Committee to organize and operate the Task Force.
(d) Major Crimes. "Major Crimes" means illegal activities, primarily felonies such
as, but not limited to, narcotic trafficking, whose characteristics include such
features as high mobility, complex organization and widespread incidence
throughout the County and for which effective detection, investigation and
apprehension are demonstrably enhanced by the removal of artificial
jurisdictional, organizational and geographic limitations that are likely to inhibit
efficient utilization of police resources and application of up-to-date police
methods that can be directed at such activities.
(e) Member Agency. "Member Agency" means Marin County or one of the cities or
towns which has signed this joint exercise of powers agreement.
(f) Net Local Cost. "Net local cost" means the amount of the annual budget of the
Task Force which is funded by contributions of the Member Agencies after the
amount of funding for the annual budget from any grants, use of asset forfeiture
funds, use of investment earnings and use of any other direct income generated by
the operation of the Task Force have been deducted.
(g) Oversight Committee. "Oversight Committee" means the governing board of the
Task Force established by this joint exercise of powers agreement.
(h) Task Force. "Task Force" means the unit of peace officers and support personnel
which is created by this Agreement to accomplish the purpose of the Agreement.
Section 8.2 Legal Counsel.
Unless the Oversight Committee determines otherwise, the Marin County Counsel
shall serve as legal counsel to the Task Force and provide all routine legal advice and
service including attendance at Oversight Committee meetings if necessary.
Section 8.3 Dispute Resolution.
Any dispute among the parties to this Agreement shall be decided by neutral
binding arbitration and not by court action, except as provided by California law for
judicial review of arbitration proceedings. In the event of such dispute, the parties shall
14
attempt, by unanimous agreement, to select a neutral arbitrator. In the event of their
inability to reach unanimous agreement on an arbitrator such dispute shall be submitted to
an arbitrator selected by the presiding judge of the Marin County Superior Court.
Section 8.4 Amendment.
This Agreement may be amended from time to time upon recommendation by the
Oversight Committee. Any amendment shall require a written amendment to the
Agreement approved and executed by the MEMBER AGENCIES.
Section 8.5 Execution in Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hand the day and year
below written.
Dated: COUNTY OF MARIN
CLERK
Dated:
CLERK
Dated:
CLERK
Dated:
BY:
CITY OF BELVEDERE
BY:
TOWN OF CORTE MADERA
BY:
TOWN OF FAIRFAX
BY:
CLERK
15
Dated:
CLERK
Dated:
CLERK
Dated:
CLERK
Dated:
CLERK
Dated:
CLERK
Dated:
CLERK
CITY OF LARKSPUR
BY:
CITY OF MILL VALLEY
BY:
CITY OF NOVATO
BY:
TOWN OF ROSS
BY:
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO
BY:
CITY OF SAUSALITO
BY:
16
Dated:
CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
BY:
17
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
To:
From:
Subject:
Reviewed By:
BACKGROUND
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Office of the Town Attorney
Town Council Meeting
August 1, 2012
Agenda Item:
CC-
Recommendation to Approve Response to Grand Jury Report
Sharing Public Services
On June 1, 2012, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury issued a report entitled "Pre-Schoolers
Learn to Share - Can Local Governments?" The report describes different governmental agencies
providing public services in the County and concludes that these agencies should operate more
efficiently by increasing their efforts to share those services.
The Grand Jury has requested that Tiburon and the others towns and cities in Marin respond to
four of their six recommendations but did not request a reply regarding any of their findings.
The Grand Jury's recommendations are set out on pages 17-18 of the report, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
State law requires the Town to respond to the Grand Jury within 90 days of the report's
publication, i.e., by August 30, 2012. In responding to the recommendations, the Town must
report one of the following actions:
(a) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the
implemented action.
(b) The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the
future, with a timetable for implementation.
(c) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope
and parameters of an analysis or study and a timeframe for the matter to be
prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being
investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when
applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of
publication of the Grand Jury Report.
(d) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
ANAL NSIS
The Grand Jury recommends (in summary) that cities and towns in Marin do the following:
• Report out on opportunities for shared services (R2);
• Seek out entities to share in major capital expenditures (R3);
• Make it a priority to identify duplication of services and seek cost effective alternatives
(R4); and
• Assume the obligation to lead our citizens toward a changing paradigm of government to
be more cost effective (R5).
Tiburon has embraced the concept of shared services for many years. The Marin Managers meet
monthly and have been recently discussing several shared service ideas beyond what is already in
place. Tiburon is a participating member of numerous joint agencies and authorities ("JPAs),
addressing Countywide services such as emergency radios, telecommunications, transportation,
library systems, solid waste, and animal control services, to name just a few. In addition, Tiburon
has partnered with many other jurisdictions to find cost effective solutions to sharing services and
equipment.
Staff's proposed response to the Grand Jury includes agreement with their recommendations as
some are underway already, and some can be implemented in the future, as described in the
proposed response. One distinction is made in the proposed response from what is
recommended by the Grand Jury. Recommendation #2 asks for annual reports that identify "any
and all" opportunities for shared services, which would be an enormous list. The proposed
response suggests a more manageable task to "report on any changes in status regarding shared
services or any newly identified opportunities". Staff proposes that that report be included in the
annual budget report each year.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Recommends that the Town Council:
Review and approve the Town's proposed response to the Grand Jury's Report of
June 1, 2012.
EXHIBITS
Grand Jury Report of June 1, 2012
Proposed Response to Grand Jury Report
Prepared By: Ann R. Danforth, Town Attorney
2011/2012 MARIA COUATY CIVIL GRAnD JURY
PRE-fCHOOLERf LEARA TOfHARE
Can Local Governments?
Report Date - May 29, 2012
Public Release Date - June 1, 2012 ~
oo .~0 .000•i• •6r Do. •~rr i
PRE-SCHOOLERS LEARN TO SHARE
Can Local Governments?
SUMMARY
Who knows how many local government agencies exist in Marin County?
Certainly not the average citizen.
The Government section of the 2012 phone book lists the 11 towns and cities of Marin
County and the 30 or so main departments of the County government. Not listed is what the
Marin County Civil Grand Jury suspects are more than 50 special districts or Joint Powers
Authorities, not including 19 school districts. The County Tax Collector's office does not
know how many special districts there are, although they do know they support 153 taxing
entities who add charges to our tax bills.
Certainly not the Local Agency Formation Commission.
Since this agency is charged with monitoring the boundaries and governmental organization
of cities and special districts in our county, the Jury thought they would have the definitive
list, but they have no jurisdiction over the county's school districts and their website lists
only a subset of the total number of entities:
• 11 Cities or Towns
• County of Marin
+ 6 Community Service Districts
• 8 Fire Protection Districts
• 3 Water Districts
• 11 Sanitary and Sanitation Districts
• 2 Public Utility Districts
• 3 Joint Power Agencies
• 3 County-governed Special Districts (for transit, open space and flood control), and
• 16 County Services Areas.
At the website lafco.marin.org, there is an 85-page 2011 Directory of Marin County
governmental agencies. The director of the Local Agency Formation Commission stated that
its list is not definitive and that it is nearly impossible to know all the special districts that
operate in Marin. While the agency has identified 30 independently governed special districts
in Marin, it also pointed out that there is State enabling legislation for 28 different kinds of
special districts. The Local Agency Formation Commission does not list special districts that
are governed by the boards or councils of municipalities or the County of Marin. It is not the
Local Agency Formation Commission's charge, nor anyone else's, to track this information.
June 1, 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 1 of 19
....__P-RE-SCRO.O.LERS-LEARNT.OMARE-Can-"caJ.Goner-nments!
Certainly not the Marin County Civil Grand Jury.
The Jury has been both bewildered that no one knows how many government agencies there
are and shocked at the huge number of suspected governmental entities. No matter the exact
number, the Jury's investigation points out that there are too many organizations, most with
staff, management and a board of directors, that offer the same public services. These public
entities must all be financed, whether by property taxes, fees, parcel taxes, user rate
schedules, sales taxes or state monies. The bottom line is that all of them are funded primarily
by the citizens of Marin County.
The number of government -entities in Marin County has grown over the past 50 years. While
other more populous counties have simplified by forming one school district, one fire
department and one police department, Marin County has allowed these entities to
proliferate. Although Marin County has its own history and needs, the mandate to provide
cost-effective public services should be universal. Do we need all these governing entities?
Are Marie's residents best served by such a fragmented and costly system of governance?
In today's environment when government is trying to do more with less, "consolidation"
seems like the obvious way to eliminate governmental duplication. But remember: H.L.
Mencken wrote, "For every complex problem, there is one solution that is simple,
neut.....und wrong." The Jury has learned there are inherent complexities in any formal
government consolidation that make that kind of merger very difficult and/or take decades to
complete. Fortunately, while consolidation can be the end game, interim and long-term cost-
effective governance can be achieved by taking incremental steps, over time. Consequently,
this report focuses on -the interim strategy that some government managers have found
increasingly useful in these challenging times: sharing services.
Sharing of services, personnel, equipment or even insurance policies is a less threatening first
step in what may eventually become a partnership and, ultimately a merger or consolidation
once the benefits have been verified and the trust between key players has been established.
Building relationships, whether personal or organizational, is a step-by-step process. One
purpose of this report is to focus on the steps and conditions that can lead to successful
collaboration. The Marin County Civil Grand Jury hopes more of our Marin County
governmental entities will recognize and seize opportunities to cooperate, or in kindergarten
parlance, to share.
The challenge governing bodies face is to recognize mutual needs and plan to jointly meet
them. The result can be much more efficient governance and often reduced cost for cities and
citizens. A. case study about the Twin Cities/San Anselmo Police Departments in this report
shows that about one half million dollars can be saved by cities who collaborate. On the other
hand, the failure or refusal to consider sharing services can result in unnecessary and even
exorbitant cost increases for Marin residents. A Sausalito Fire Department/Southern Marin
Fire Protection District case study herein sheds light on this risk. Carried out thoughtfully,
sharing services can allow governing entities to realize significant cost savings while
maintaining or even improving the service levels expected by each community.
June 1, 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 2 of 19
_ PRE-SCHOOLERS. LEARN TO SHARE.-Con-Local -Governments?._
-
The Marin County Civil Grand Jury recommends that:
• The County immediately publishes on its website a list of all of the special districts and
Joint Powers Authorities and their contact information, to improve the public's awareness
of and access to all those taxing entities.
• City/Town Councils and the Marin County Board of Supervisors require annual reports
from their respective city managers or the County Administrator identifying opportunities
for sharing or consolidating services.
• Every local governmental entity, when facing major capital expenditures (e.g., facilities,
equipment, vehicles, or computer systems) seek other entities to share the use and cost of
the items.
• All government officials make it a priority to identify institutional duplication within
their sphere of influence and bring leadership, vision and openness to new, more cost-
effective alternatives.
• Public officials assume the obligation of informing and leading their citizens toward the
changing paradigms of government that result in more cost-effective government.
BACKGROUND
The towns of Marin County have grown from hamlets to sprawling developed areas.
Originally separated by ridges, waterways or sheer distance, the more populous
municipalities have all but merged along Highway 101, creating a "City-Centered Corridor",
as defined in the Marin County General Plan. Over time, to ensure the health, safety and
general welfare of its citizens, each city's array of public services has expanded to include at
least fire, police, planning/zoning, parks/recreation, libraries and public works/engineering
services. These services were provided by creating new municipal departments or by the
formation of special districts or Joint Powers Authorities ("JPAs"), as defined below.
Hereafter, the term "city" shall apply to towns as well.
While most citizens are familiar with municipal and county governments, few keep tab on
special districts and JPA's. As defined by the Marin.org website, special districts are usually
single-purpose units of government. The most common are school districts; other special
districts handle fire protection, sewers, water or wastewater treatment, or combinations of
services. The State Government Code offers this definition: `Special district' means an
agency of the state, formed pursuant to general law or a special act, for the performance of
governmental or proprietary functions, with limited geographic boundaries, including, but
not limited to, a school district and a community college district. " (California Government
Code Section 50075.5) Special districts are a form of local government, governed by an
elected board of directors, usually with five members from the areas served. They are
employed when neither the county nor local cities are willing or able to provide a service.
Examples of special districts are the Marin Municipal Water District and Bel Marin Keys
Community Service District.
Joint Power Authorities are created through Joint Power Agreements. "If authorized by their
legislative or other governing bodies, two or more public agencies by agreement may jointly
exercise any power common to the contracting parties... a joint powers agreement provides
for the creation of an agency or entity that is separate from the parties to the agreement and
is responsible for the administration .of the agreement... " (California Government Code
June 1, 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 3 of 19
- %-un-.wousu-itover-nments - .
Section 6500). JPAs are groups of public agencies working together to administer a shared
service over an area that exceeds their individual jurisdictional boundaries. They may add
another layer of government but they can streamline the provision of extraordinary services
such as light rail service. Typical Marin JPAs include the Central Marin Sanitation Agency,
Ross Valley Fire Service, and the Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin.
COSTS OF GOVERNMENT ESCALATE WMLE REVENUES STAGNATE
Along with the growth in the number and types of Marin governmental entities, the costs of
governing have grown as well. Every government agency must deal with, at least:
• Escalating pay scales
• Increasing pension costs
• Demands of organized labor
• Sharp increases in the number of retirees
• Bond and stock markets' volatility
9 Growing equipment replacement costs, and
• Aging infrastructure maintenance costs.
Meanwhile, numerous forces have reduced property tax revenues that municipalities and the
County depend upon:
• Since 1978, Proposition 13 has limited the increase in assessed value of real property to
2% per year, regardless of increasing market value, except with a change of ownership or
after major construction. The pace of home sales and construction has slowed
dramatically in recent years.
• The recession has led to an overall dampening of home values, the basis for property
taxes, which reduces revenues.
• The County allows a homeowner whose home's market value has diminished to petition
the County for a reassessment (downwards) of their home's value.
• The County and cities also obtain revenue from permit fees for new development and
new construction, both of which have dropped due to recessionary caution.
• There has been a reduction of the kinds and amounts of federal and state money being
handed down to local agencies.
DOING MORE WITH LESS
All levels of government share a seemingly impossible goal: to continue to provide services
with less revenue. At the same time, the economic downturn has increased the need for
public services, especially welfare-related services. Confronted with this dilemma, necessary
yet painful staff reductions have been implemented in most cities, placing added demands on
the remaining workforce.. Some cities such as Vallejo, California, have been forced to declare
bankruptcy to avoid untenable fiscal obligations. Cost saving measures have been the
primary focus of city councils and boards of supervisors when approving budgets in recent
years.
The same budgetary dilemma is shared by special districts and JPAs, although to a lesser
extent. Revenue sources for these entities are not exclusively tied to property taxes. In
addition to taxes; most rely on user fees collected from their constituents for the service
provided. These entities control their rate structure and the County applies their user fee to
June 1, 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 4 of 99
PRE=SCHOOLERS LEARN-TO-SHARRE=Can-Local-GoyernmeUts?
our tax bills. With few limitations or requirements, the special districts and JPAs can decide
to increase their rates. Nonetheless, special districts and JPAs do struggle with rising costs for
personnel, equipment, etc., and they have to balance assessing higher rates with public
tolerance for such increases. They too need cost saving strategies.
SHARING SERVICES: ACHIEVING ECONOMIES OF SCALE
One of the most promising strategies for governmental cost savings, sharing services, is the
subject of this report. Sharing services involves an evaluation by two or more governing
bodies of their common needs, goals and ways to jointly economize on service provision.
This may involve sharing equipment, personnel and/or workplaces and more. Sharing may be
best accomplished on a step-by-step basis, beginning informally or with a Memorandum of
Understanding', and without wholesale changes or overhauls of any department. It can be
initiated on a trial basis and tailored over time to meet the changing needs of each of the
jurisdictions involved.
Sharing is a less threatening first step in what may -eventually become a partnership and,
ultimately, a merger or consolidation once the benefits have been verified and trust between
key players has been established. Arranged marriages are foreign to our culture. Courtship
and serious dating are the accepted steps to our formal unions. Building relationships,
whether personal or organizational, is a step-by-step process. One of the purposes of this
report is to define those steps and how to recognize when they are most likely to be
successfully undertaken.
This report looks at both the obstacles and the opportunities for effective sharing of services.
Failing or refusing to consider sharing services can result in unnecessary and even exorbitant
cost increases for Marin residents. Carried out thoughtfully, sharing services can allow
governmental agencies to realize significant costs savings while continuing or even
improving service levels expected by each community.
METHODOLOGY
There is a wealth of literature on the proper organization of local governments. Public policy
think tanks, public administration departments of universities, and government entities
themselves are but a few who have produced studies on various types of governmental
consolidation or cooperation. The Marin County Civil Grand Jury reviewed major studies by
the states of New Jersey, New York and California? The Jury then concentrated on
researching the variety of governmental entities in Marin County.
`'A memorandum of understanding (MOU) is a document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement
between parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line
of action. It is often used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations
where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a
gentlemen's agreement.
2 New Jersey Government Consolidation and Shared Services Final Report, December, 2006; 21 s' Century
Local Government, Report of the New York State Commission on Local Government Efficiency &
(continued on next page)
June 1, 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 5 of 19
P-RI=SCI.OOLFRS-LEARN TQ-S gCaa-LocaUGover-n-meats?
The Jury met with the Local Agency Formation Commission -("LAFCO") to understand the
technical meaning and practice of "consolidation" and "annexation". The Jury learned ways
that governments can share services and reviewed successes and failures to do so. The Jury
interviewed the managers of several county and city agencies to learn what their problems
have been and where they see opportunities. The Jury performed archival research regarding
regulations governing consolidation. In addition, the Jury tracked ongoing, unresolved efforts
of Marin County agencies to either consolidate or share services.
DISCUSSION
When budgetary crises arise, cities, counties, special districts and JPAs face hard choices.
They must raise taxes or levy fees, eliminate or reduce services, reduce their workforce or
face bankruptcy. Since the 2008 recession, most government agencies have cut discretionary
spending to the barest of bones. The shared services scenario has become an option: figure
out how, with decreasing funds, to seamlessly continue to provide services by sharing
services with other jurisdictions. "Easier said than done."
OBSTACLES TO THE SHARING OF COSTS AND SERVICES
The obstacles to sharing services and/or consolidation are real and numerous. There are
employment issues; good government "mission" issues; jurisdictional control issues;
differing institutional cultural issues, and, perhaps the biggest obstacle of all: differing
funding sources and differing fiscal health. Following is a summary of the range of issues
faced when governments consider sharing personnel, equipment, operations and their goals
for governance.
Emvlovment Contracts
Government employees are ranked within a personnel or civil service system which governs
every phase of employment: their selection, employment, classification, advancement,
suspension, discharge and retirement. (State Government Code Section 45001) These
stipulations are combined with union contracts that have defined standards (in addition to
those in the State Government Code, Title 3) for things like wages, cost of living
adjustments, workload, overtime, seniority/promotion, health, safety and retirement
packages. Each governing agency must periodically re-negotiate these standards with the
unions. When two such entities consider merging their workforces, they have to synchronize
cost of living assumptions, job classifications and retirement requirements. A resulting pay
cut for one set of workers, or pay increase for the others, can be met with a great deal of
opposition.
As budgets tighten even further, personnel cuts loom after the more obvious cutbacks have
been made. Often an obstacle, such as two raid-career city fire chiefs, can become an
opportunity through attrition. For example, the managers of two separate departments
providing the same service might not want to merge if it would cost one of the managers
footnote 2 cont'd: Competitiveness, April 2008; State of California Growth Within Bounds, Report of the
Commission on Local governance for the 21 " Century, January 2000.
June 1, 2012 Maria County Civil Grand Jury Page 6 of 19
_ ERE-SCROOLEILS-L,E TO-SHARE=Gan-Local-Laver-nments-7
his/her job. However, if one of those managers were to retire or move on, role-sharing
between cities or the merger of two departments could be much easier.
Maintainine the Mission
Good government or "mission" issues stem from the expectations of decision-makers and
citizens. The mission or charter of each city is based on State Government Code that creates a
city and invests it with the obligation to look after the health, safety and general welfare of its
citizens. "Health, safety and general welfare" can and has been interpreted in a wide variety
of ways by the County Board of Supervisors, city. councils and citizens themselves. For
example, one police force may use catching a speeding teenager as a teachable opportunity
(for the offender); another department may stress ticketing as the best way to modify offender
behavior. Differing service emphases often depend upon the unique needs and nature of the
locality. For example, in Sausalito marine health and safety issues in Richardson :Bay are a
priority but police and fire staff in Fairfax have different needs.
Some expectations about the scope of government are historical. Many citizens want to be
assisted by police cars bearing their city logo because they have been able to rely on that
support in the past. Cities and, by extension, special districts and JPAs, as a rule are reluctant
to relinquish control over the services and facilities serving their citizens. Citizens hold their
key decision-makers accountable for their welfare. Public decision-makers do not want to be
taken to task at public meetings for matters they do not directly control. Small towns are
reluctant to ask or expect a neighboring city to look after them. Only when a city cannot
readily solve a problem by itself, or the costs of meeting the public's needs exceed available
funds, have cities sought to jointly solve their problems.
Local Control
Some expectations are emotional. Big government is categorically feared and local control is
categorically revered. Some citizens find that having the ear of a friend on the City Council is
comforting; it makes them feel important. Some council members believe they alone possess
the wisdom to decide how municipal services should be provided to their citizens. School
districts epitomize this preference. However well planned or fiscally warranted, for some
people change in long-standing practices equates to uncertainty, fear and loss of control over
matters that concern them. Opting to share services means opting to share control, a bitter pill
for some.
Some expectations are personal. Decision-makers who have contributed to their communities
and enjoyed years in the public limelight, as well as certain perks, are reluctant to disband the
board on which they sit. Their status as city fathers would be diminished. When it comes to
merging of departments, differing pecking orders at the staff level can also cause difficulties.
Some expectations are fiscal. A city that has frugally managed its resources is rarely inclined
to partner with a counterpart with fewer reserves. Similarly, an entity with large or looming
infrastructure improvements does not make an attractive partner.
June 1, 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 7 of 19
--RE-sCIIO.OLIERS LEA"-TO-SH-AREg-Can-Local-Gavernme
EXAMPLES OF GOOD GOVERNMENT
The citizens of each Marin County community have come to expect certain levels of service.
"Turn the tap on and the water flows. On Thursday, the garbage.gets collected. When it gets
dark, the street lights come on. " (The Little Hoover Commission report entitled "Special
Districts: Relics of the Past or Resources for the Future?", Report #155, May 2000) The
primary goal of every governmental entity is to maintain or improve those levels of service.
Despite the obstacles outlined above, this mandate has prompted consideration of more
creative, cost-effective ways of delivering services.
Since 1912, when Marin Municipal Water District began acquiring and incorporating into its
system 26 small private water companies, there have been a series of successful mergers,
consolidations and various contractual arrangements for sharing services. Most of them were
not one-step, wholesale mergers. The list below demonstrates that despite how hard it can be
for autonomous governments to relinquish absolute control, sharing is possible. Granted that
great effort went into the arrangements shown below, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury
believes that the list represents the low-hanging fruit; many more opportunities exist.
Each effort listed has to some degree reduced redundancies, improved service capacity,
unified authority, increased flexibility in staffing, enhanced coordination and/or reduced
costs. Cost savings have included substantial reductions in: special tax rates for residential
and commercial users, retirement costs, workers' compensation insurance costs, fire/liability
insurance costs, management personnel and/or duplicated equipment.
1979: The Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin ("SASM") was formed as a JPA to combine
the wastewater collection, treatment, water reclamation and disposal needs for Mill Valley,
Tamalpais Community Services District, Almonte Sanitary District, Alto Sanitary District,
Homestead Valley Sanitary District and Richardson Bay Sanitary District.
1980: The Town of Corte Madera and the City of Larkspur farmed the Twin Cities Police
Authority under a joint powers agreement that merged their police departments. Two
members from each council form the Twin Cities Police Council which develops Police
Authority policy.
1982: The creation of the Ross Valley Fire Authority led to the merger of the Fairfax Fire
Department, San Ansehno Fire Department, and Sleepy Hollow Fire Protection District into
the Ross Valley Fire Department in an effort to improve and expand fire service while
reducing the cost of providing service. Its board includes representatives from each entity.
1999: The Southern Marin Fire Protection District ("SMFPD")was established by the Marin
County Board of Supervisors as an independent special district, merging the Alto-Richardson
Fire Protection District and the Tamalpais Fire Protection District. The fire district
encompasses Tamalpais Valley, Almonte, Homestead Valley, Alto, Strawberry, part of the
town of Tiburon, Fort Baker and the Marin Headlands.
2005: Annexation of the City of Belvedere to the Tiburon Sanitary District transferred
responsibility for sewage collection from the City to the District. Belvedere residents vote in
elections for the Tiburon Sanitary District.
2006: The City of Sausalito Fire Department contracted with the Southern Marin Fire
Protection District for services that included providing a Chief and Battalion Chief to
Sausalito.
June 1, 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 8 of 19
- - P-RE SCROOLERS LEAR O-SliLA.RF an local over-..mpnta9
I
2008: The Marin Energy Authority was formed by the Marin Energy Authority Joint .
Powers Agreement signed by the County of Marin, the Town of Fairfax and the Town of
Tiburon to offer greener electricity. As of 2012, all Marin towns, cities and the County
belong to MEA and have seats on its Board of Directors.
2008: The county offices of the Auditor, Controller, Tax Collector and Treasurer were
combined into one Finance Department.
2009: The County undertook a Long-Term Restructuring Plan (dated January 2010) to
address serious, growing budget shortfalls through (among other things) consolidating
government services. Since then, the County Mediation Service Program was eliminated and
its services were transferred to the District Attorney's Office, at a savings of about $186, 000.
The County Coroner and the Sheriffs Office were also combined, with a $400,000 annual
cost savings.
2011-2012: Merger discussions were held between the Ross Fire Department (serving Ross)
and the Ross Valley Fire Protection Department (serving San Anselmo, Fairfax and the
Sleepy Hollow neighborhood) to improve staffing of fire trucks and for cost savings to San
Anselmo of $20,000-100,000 per year. This agreement to merge was reached in May 2012.
2012: A new Twin Cities Police Station opens to provide full police services for Larkspur
and Corte Madera. The station serves as the communications center for San Anselmo as well.
February 2012: Joint Powers Agreement approved for job-sharing between Corte Madera
and the Southern Marin Fire Protection District. Estimated savings are $135,000 for Corte
Madera and $60,000 for the District.
There are other concerted efforts underway in some sectors. Three proposals are in the
offing:
2011-2012: The City of Sausalito and LAFCO Boards voted to endorse the annexation of
the City's Fire Department to the Southern Marin Fire Protection District. This proposal
is going to a vote of the Sausalito citizens in June 2012. (See case study that follows.)
2012: LAFCO voted to initiate proceedings to merge the Alto, Almonte, Homestead Valley
and Richardson Bay sanitary districts that would realize costs savings (est. $200,000 per
year).
February 2012: County Director of Health and Human Services launched an effort to
consolidate the County's Alcohol, Drug and Tobacco, Mental Health and Public Health
divisions into one Community Health Services division.
Also, in March 2011, the Mann County School Districts published a report from their
county-wide Efficiency and Effectiveness Task Force that begins with this Charles Darwin
quote: "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one
most responsive to change." In that report, they recognized that "School district consolidation
requires grassroots efforts, significant community planning and coordination, and local voter
approval. Such efforts can take a decade or more to implement successfully." Nonetheless,
they supported more on-going collaborative efforts among local school districts, and
recommended this approach:
• Develop shared services goals and accountability measures for ongoing countywide
educational committees.
• Include goals for shared services in district strategic plans.
June 1, 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 9 of 19
--PRE-SCH.QOLERS LEARN-1O SHARE.-Can-Local-Cover-nments?-
Institute collaborative purchasing programs.
Develop and refine consistent financial analysis reports.
HOW MUCH SHARING MAKES SENSE?
At one end of the continuum is complete consolidation, annexation or a merger of
departments. At the other end of the continuum is a simple act such as a fire department and a
public works department agreeing to jointly own a bulldozer. Neither department needs one
often but, in certain circumstances, it is the essential tool. In between, there are numerous
mid-way solutions as evidenced from the examples above and the case studies that follow. As
contrasted below, consolidations or mergers tend to be permanent whereas the simpler acts of
jointly using resources can be based on a contractual agreement between two departments,
overseen by the cities' administrators. Once adopted, they usually have built-in time horizons
and escape clauses.
Formal annexation changes a jurisdiction's geographic territory, and therefore, its scope of
governance. Formal consolidation changes the scope of governance. Both involve complex
and different sets of public approval mechanisms overseen by the LAFCO. The role of
LAFCO is "discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open-space and prime agricultural lands,
efficiently providing government services, and encouraging the orderly formation and
development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances" (California
Government Code Section 56300). Pursuant to Sections 56300 et seq_, LAFCO may either
respond to or initiate a proposed annexation or consolidation. The state has delegated to each
LAFCO the power to review and approve, or disapprove with or without amendment,
proposed annexations, reorganizations, and incorporations. A city cannot adopt a local
ordinance which would allow its city voters to pass sole judgment on proposed annexation
proceedings.
Consolidation and annexation proposals require the support -of the governing bodies involved
and, when contentious, a vote of the affected citizens. A simple majority of the voters in one
of the affected jurisdictions can terminate the consolidation, even if the majority of the voters
in the other jurisdictions are in favor of the proposal. The case study below about the
proposed annexation of the Sausalito Fire Department to the Southern Marin Fire Protection
District illustrates some of the complexities of such an annexation process.
In contrast, sharing or cooperation is simpler. Two goveming councils can each vote to
cooperate for a service such as police protection, beginning with simple steps such as the
more cost effective joint purchase of squad cars and related radio dispatch equipment. Both
retain a share of the control over that service or resource allocation. This can be done on a
trial basis with a contract that must be reviewed and renewed as often as once a year.
Additional means of collaborating can be introduced once the two police forces get
accustomed to working together, and the details of staffing needs and hierarchies become
clearly understood. Also, the growing understanding of the strengths and needs of one's
counterpart allows for informed decisions about sharing.
June 1., 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 10 of 19
i
I
P-R.GSCHOO-LEPIS-L-E,4Rhi-T-O-SIU-P an Local over-nm ..t--?-
CASE STUDIES: WHAT WORKS, WHAT DOES NOT WORK, AND WHY
The Marin County Civil Grand Jury has outlined many of the obstacles that make any sort of
merger of governmental bodies difficult. In addition, the Jury has presented the recent history
of various successful prior Marin mergers. Nonetheless, Marin County's history illustrates
the conclusion reached by the State of California's year 2000 report of the Commission on
Local Governance for the 21st Century: "California agencies and institutions generally are
not inclined toward extreme or precipitous change"3 when it comes to any sort of
consolidation. That said, the sheer number of duplicate government entities providing similar
services in Marin is still mindboggling and offers extensive opportunities for creative service
sharing. As shown in the case studies below, government officials at all levels need to first
identify institutional duplication and then bring leadership, vision, creativity and openness to
new alternatives for sharing services.
While other governmental bodies in Marin County also have experience with cooperative
efforts, the report focuses on just three examples. The fire or police departments examined
represent distinct efforts to consolidate entities, share services, or share a department. The
case studies show similar but unique problems, with different but similar solutions. All the
examples are driven by the governments' common challenge of doing more with less.
One case study deals with the difficult process of formal annexation. Another study shows
how taking many small steps with multiple other agencies made sustaining a high level of
service possible on a reduced budget. The third demonstrates how sharing personnel and
facilities improved services for both departments and reduced cost for all parties.
Southern Marin Fire Protection District Annexation of Sausalito Fire Department:
Local Control vs, Cost Savings
Discussion of this formal annexation started over seven years ago. Operationally, the
Southern Marin Fire Protection District (SMFPD), which covers Tamalpais Valley,
Homestead Valley, Strawberry, Fort Baker and part of Tiburon, has managed and operated
the Sausalito Fire Department since 2006. In a contract that calls for sharing services and
costs, SMFPD provides a Chief and Battalion Chiefs for the Sausalito Fire Department.
Firefighters from the SMFPD and Sausalito departments train together and provide mutual
assistance. They now see each other as complementary not rival forces. Under consideration
this year is the formal annexation of the Sausalito Fire Department by the SMFPD.
Clarifying the Funding Sources
Central to this annexation proposal is whether it is fiscally sound for SMFPD and Sausalito to
allow the annexation to occur. The special district and the city fund their operations
differently. As a special district, the SMFPD funds fire services through parcel taxes from the
structures within the geographic area it serves. The city funds the Sausalito Fire Department
from its general fund.
3 State of California, Growth Within Bounds, Report of the Commission on Local Governance for the 21St
Century, page 7.
June 1, 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 11 of 19
..-P~U-SC-BOOLERS-LFA-RN-TO-SBL4M---Can-L-.gal-CGovemm .nts-? .
Initially, instead of using general fund monies, Sausalito considered paying for its share of
the fire services annexation by imposing a new $90 parcel tax on its citizens. Fearing public
opposition to a new parcel tax, Sausalito realized it was paying 55% of its general fund
monies for fire protection under its current contract with SMFPD. By contrast, under the
proposed annexation plan, the new cost for service would only require about 45% of their
general fund. It then became obvious that by continuing to use the general fund to finance the
annexation, the net effect for the City would be an approximate $600,000 annual savings. As
a result, the $90 parcel tax approach was abandoned.
The other alternative would be for Sausalito to re-create its own independent fire department.
However, the consultants brought in by both the City of Sausalito and the SMFPD pointed
out that reconstituting a fully staffed and equipped department with no support from the
SMFPD would cost the city $1.4 million more annually. The additional monies would have
to come from either cutting existing services or establishing a new $400 a year parcel tax on
Sausalito's citizens.
Momentum Stopped by the Fear of Losing Local Control
Three years ago, during hearings before the Sausalito City Council and the SMFPD board,
the vice president of the SMFPD board stated that continuing with the current arrangement
would not be an option because they believed that Sausalito had not been paying its fair share
for services rendered. At that time, the consulting firm told city officials that, given the
choice between starting their own fire department and annexation to the SMFPD, the merger
would be the better financial choice. In July 2011, the SMFPD board stated in a letter to
Sausalito officials that they would be willing to support the annexation but if the process
fails, "the district is not interested in continuing a contract for service, nor are we interested
in entering into a Joint Powers Agreement of any type."
In September, 201 J, the Sausalito City Council approved the annexation by a 3-2 vote. In
December 2011, the seven member board of LAFCO unanimously approved the annexation.
Both the City and LAFCO noted that, with annexation, Sausalito taxpayers' obligations for
fire protection would drop from 55% to 45% of their tax bills. The firefighters themselves
welcomed the official merger as the next logical step.
During that time period, opponents to the annexation who were not working closely with
city-hired financial consultants expressed their fear of losing local control. They claimed the
consultants' findings were tainted by a conflict of interest because both the City of Sausalito
and the SMFPD hired the same firm. Opponents further identified the possibility that some
firefighters might be able to double dip from SMFPD and Sausalito pension funds; a topic
they believed had not been thoroughly vetted. A spokesman for the opposition group claimed
that there are other alternatives to annexation or restarting a stand-alone department, although
they have not spelled out what those alternatives are.
Fueled by publicly expressed concern on the part of two city council members, a group of
concerned citizens of the City of Sausalito exercised their right to call for a public vote on the
proposed annexation, in June 2012. If it passes, it would overrule the Sausalito City Council
and LAFCO approvals and kill the annexation. In February of this year, these citizens
gathered 94 more than the 1,276 signatures needed to insure that this decision will be made
by Sausalito citizens. The Council then voted 3-2 to pay between $7,600 and $12,700 to
June 1, 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 12 of 19
PRE-SCROOLERS-LEA-RN-TO-SkLAR -C-an-Loeal- overi+rrE R*g-?-.._.
place the issue on the June 5, 2012 ballot. This lively political debate is about the cost of
local control and, after seven years of effort, the outcome will be decided by the voters of
Sausalito. They will decide if they want to pay the price for local control.
This process exists because the state government places a high value on the autonomy of
established government entities. It is with purpose that the state created LAFCO which
implements procedures as safeguards to protect against what in the business world is called a
"hostile takeover". What can be learned from this Sausalito tale is that building a sound fiscal
case is not always enough. It is equally important to build a consensus among all parties
involved. Communication among all the major players is necessary every step of the way:
discussion, planning And justification. If the staff or management of the departments
involved, or the governing boards involved, or the public can ask "ffhy didn't anyone tell me
about this?" the proposed change then becomes a political football.
Larkspur Fire Department: For oin Consolidation in Favor of Shared Services
Not only are there 13 fire agencies in Marin County, there are four types of fire agencies:
municipal, special district, joint power authorities and county. Most fire departments began
as volunteer organizations. As cities grew, they formed their own municipal departments.
Where there was no town yet established, a (special) fire district was formed to take care of a
specific local area. Some small adjacent communities likewise created a joint powers
authority to meet their mutual needs. For all other unincorporated areas, the County of Marin
retains the responsibility for fire service.
It has been said that, in the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) world of Marin, the two most
difficult political decisions to make are: to open a new fire station or to close an old fire
station. Behind this claim lie the obstacles that have crushed many a consolidation effort.
Since 1980, hardly a year has gone by without a fire agency doing an internal evaluation or
seeking an outside study on the feasibility of consolidating with a neighboring agency.
The operational concerns of having distinct agencies came into clear focus with the Oakland
Hills fire of 1991. Trucks from outside agencies rolled in for mutual assistance, but
discovered their pumps did not hook up to the hydrants. Some of the responding fire-fighting
vehicles were not able to navigate the narrow roads. Communication between agencies was
difficult because they used different radio systems and frequencies. Some fire-fighters were
better trained at urban blazes than the wild fire they were facing.
In 1980, Larkspur and the 12 other fire agencies in Marin were separate stand-alone entities.
There were 1.3 separate fire dispatch systems. Each agency had to provide an on-duty chief or
battalion chief 24/7. Ongoing training fell to individual departments. Each agency did its
own purchasing. All they shared was the belief that "we can take care of our own."
Gradually, however, the price of Marin's image as the land of local control started to bump
into the hard realities of local budget constraints.
Not for Lack of Tr, *
Since 1980, budget constraints and operational concerns have spurred multiple consolidation
efforts by the Larkspur Fire Department. These attempts at formal consolidation have failed.
In 1993, Larkspur, along with all of the other Southern Marin fire departments, discussed
June 1, 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 13 of 19
F-R cCH-O.OLE.RS-LEARN-TO-SHARE,--Gan-L- oeal-Goer-nments-?
consolidation but, one by one, the fire agencies dropped out of the talks. Subsequently, Corte
Madera, Larkspur, Kentfield, Ross, plus the rest of Ross Valley studied consolidation. Marin
LAFCO's evaluation deemed the proposal impractical since there were different kinds of fire
agencies (municipal, special districts, and JPAs) with different kinds of funding (general
fund, parcel taxes, set fees) that could not be readily reconciled. When Larkspur was forced
by budget cuts to trim personnel in the late 1990's, it once again looked into merging with
Ross only to run into political reality. Why would Ross, a town that was doing fine
financially, want to associate with Larkspur, a fiscally struggling city?
A Growing Variet~of Shared Services
Larkspur's 2011-12 budget of $3.8 million cuts fire department staff to 17 employees, a pre-
1980 level. There is one Administrative Chief Officer and 16 Engine Company personnel to
operate 24/7, with no support staff. Despite failing to enact a consolidation with other fire
departments, the Larkspur Fire Department still provides a high level of service because over
the years it has created a shared services approach to fire services, as described below:
• Today, there are two dispatch systems. Larkspur participates in one system with 10 other
fire agencies located along Highway 101 and the Sir Francis Drake Boulevard corridor.
The other dispatch system operates out of the Marin County Civic Center. The southern
Marin regional dispatch system has reduced redundant personnel costs and increased
service levels. It began as mutual aid dispatch and has become a more robust system
called "Automatic Aid". The computer system tracks where all agencies' emergency
equipment and personnel are at any given time. When a call comes in, the agencies act as
one to provide an emergency response. With Automatic Aid, resources from other
agencies are automatically dispatched along with local services. For example, if there is a
Larkspur call and a Larkspur truck is being used in a training exercise, a Corte Madera
unit is dispatched.
Seventy percent (70%) of the 1,500 emergency calls a year to which the Larkspur Fire
Department responds are for medical rescue. In 1980, the Ross Valley Paramedic
Authority ("RVPA"), an eight-agency coalition that includes Larkspur, was formed to
share paramedical resources. In addition, through a JPA, Larkspur shares the Corte
Madera ambulance to provide the fastest response capability within pre-identified areas
of Larkspur.
• A Battalion Chief is necessary to provide 24/7. operational supervision. To save personnel
costs, Larkspur by contract shares the cost and services of the San Rafael battalion chiefs,
at a fraction of the cost of staffing a full time position itself.
• The Central Marin Training Consortium ("CMTC") was jointly developed over the last
few years by Kentfield, San Rafael and Larkspur to reduce ongoing training costs. This
cooperation has not only increased the quality of training but has standardized it, so
mutual aid is seamless.
• Taking a lesson from the Oakland Hills fire, a working committee of North Bay Regional
Fire Agencies, of which Larkspur is a part, now selects fire engine design and equipment
such as air packs and fire hoses. Costs are reduced through group purchases and
equipment is standardized so that it is interchangeable.
Technology is being harnessed to offer even more shared services for cities like Larkspur.
A good example is the countywide Mobile Data Terminal Coalition. This group of Marin
June 1, 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 14 of 19
-----P-RE-S.CHOOLERS-LLEARNTT-O-SIIAltF.=.Can-Local-Goner-aments?
fire professionals has been responsible for the installation of mobile data terminals that
enables information to be shared among various fire agencies.
• The Larkspur Fire Department functions on an extremely lean operating budget yet
provides the high level of services its citizens have come to expect. With a mix of
necessity, willingness and vision, Larkspur Fire Department management has made this
possible by sharing many essential services with other agencies.
Twin Cities Police Authori and San Anselmo Police: Taldng Small Steps for Large
Savings
To the best of the Jury's knowledge, the Twin Cities Police Authority of Larkspur and Corte
Madera is the only example of a consolidation of two municipal police departments in the
State of California. Building on that merger, the Twin Cities Police Authority has begun to
share services with the San Anselmo Police Department as well. Like all police departments,
the leaders of these two police agencies were committed to maintaining or improving a high
level of service for their citizens. In addition, the city council of each jurisdiction instructed
its chief to explore regional approaches that might reduce costs. With lean-running
departments, the threat was that any future cuts would of necessity involve personnel cuts.
Fortunately, the Twin Cities Police Authority and the San Ansehmo Police Department found
a happy mix of necessity meeting opportunity at just the right time. The results have been
robust and measurable. By sharing services and personnel, both departments have improved
response time, maintained local service priorities and contained or reduced costs.
While recognizing that not every set of neighboring police departments has the same
circumstances, the sharing of policing services by these two agencies is a useful example of
what can be done when the time and opportunity are right. This did not occur all at once.
Through years of thoughtful communication, a series of incremental and cautious steps were
taken. In addition, the Twin Cities Police Authority seized new funding opportunities, for
example, applying for and receiving a federal grant expressly designated for regional
approaches to governing. These grant funds were used to purchase the computer equipment
for their new dispatch center.
A New Police Station
The Twin Cities Police Authority {"TCPA") had long since outgrown its police station in
Larkspur. Finally, in November of 2008, the Larkspur and Corte Madera voters approved a
bond to build a new state-of-the-art facility. Over the previous years, the San Anselmo Police
Department ("SAPD") and the TCPA had discussed an informal shared approach to policing
and had collaborated under several contracts. The new building project offered the
opportunity to try more substantial service sharing. For a trial period, while the new TCPA
headquarters was being built, San Anselmo would house the dispatch center for both
departments. In turn, the TCPA would share their detectives with the SAPD. Key to the
acceptance of this proposal was that, during the planning stage, the chiefs of each department
had been informing and seeking the opinions, approval and support of their own personnel.
The buy-in they received from the sworn officers of each department was critical to the trial's
success.
June 1, 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 15 of 19
- PR&SCHODLERS_LEARDLTO...SHARE.--.Can-Local-Oouernments?-.---.-_
As a result, the TCPA moved into the San Anselmo dispatch center in January 2010. As
anticipated, many of the processes and systems were very similar or duplicated. Dispatch
employees of both departments were cross trained enabling them to work for either TCPA or
SAPD. With only one center to staff, SAPD recognized they could reduce their staff from
four to three, while TCPA could go from five to four. Fortunately this reduction could be
realized by attrition rather than personnel cuts. Immediate savings were achieved by
reducing the need for overtime since now there were more personnel available than either
department had before. Additionally, the single center required only one division captain and
one dispatch supervisor.
A SAPD captain with experience in the construction and relocation of communication centers
was chosen to be the project consultant on the new TCPA dispatch center. Benefitting from
advances in technology, a state-of-the-art center was built. Utilizing mobile communication
units, GPS systems, and Wi-Fi equipped vehicles, the new command center tracks and directs
in real time both departments' personnel and equipment. This regional solution justified the
federal grant funds used to purchase the computer equipment for their dispatch center.
The initial trial of a joint dispatch center in San Anselmo ran so successfully that by July
2011, the chiefs of the SAPD and TCPA were able to put together memoranda 'of
understanding (MOUs) for each of their respective city councils. These MOUs asked for
approval to formalize the sharing of services with each other.
Clear-Cut Savines
In the San Anselmo MOU, the San Anselmo City Council approved combining the SAPD
and TCPA support services divisions into one division. The reorganization enables the two
entities to share services and costs in the following ways:
• Relocate the dispatch center to TCPA's new center.
• Share the cost of a division captain and a dispatch supervisor.
• Relocate evidence to the new TCPA facility's evidence department.
• SAPD/TCPA community service officers would work together as evidence and crime
scene investigation technicians.
• Combine the TCPA sergeant and three detectives with the two SAPD detectives. Both
departments improved their detective capability at no additional cost.
• Pool the reserve police officer units of both organizations enabling them to work patrol
shifts for both agencies to minimize overtime cost.
The fiscal impact for San Anselmo as listed in its MOU is:
$51,619 saved by sharing the employee cost associated with one police captain and one
dispatch supervisor.
• $113,313 saved by reducing the number of SAPD dispatchers from four to three by
attrition over 12-24 months.
• $25,000 saved over ten years in equipment and ancillary costs associated with running
the dispatch center.
• $50,000 saved in projected annual overtime costs.
June 1, 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 16 of 19
-----:...P12E--SCH.OOLERS-UARN TO-SHARE=Can-Local_Goxer-nm.ents? -
For their part, the TCPA submitted a similar MOU to the Larkspur and Corte Madera City
Councils in July, 2011. Outlining the same proposed shared services, the TCPA projected in
their MOU annual savings at $282,177:
• $61,177 saved from sharing the employee cost associated with one dispatch supervisor.
• $112,000 saved by sharing the employee cost associated with one support service captain.
• $79,000 saved by sharing a part-time administrative assistant with SAPD.
0 $40,000 saved by reducing the number of TCPA dispatcher from five to four.
• $10,000 cost (approximate) of eliminating a sergeant position but adding a new support
lieutenant position.
The MOUs were approved by all three -city councils. The new TCPA building opened in early
2012, ahead of schedule and under budget. The two police departments provide 2417
collaborative service to their communities. Each department keeps a station open to the
public from 8:00-5:00 pm, Monday through Friday for administrative services (e.g., records,
permits). The departments are saving significant dollars while offering improved response
time, better operational control and dispatch, more robust detective capabilities and more
flexible scheduling for employees.
FINDINGS
FI : There is no single source that can confirm the total number of government entities that
exist in Marin County. Even without an exact count, with over 30 departments in County
government, 11 municipalities, 19 school districts and countless specials districts and
JPAs, there are ample opportunities for sharing services, cooperation, collaboration or
consolidation.
F2: When it comes to defining the role of government entities, human nature and state law
favor the status quo. There are no easy mergers.
F3: The successful examples of shared services are the result of proactive, bottom-up rather
than top-down efforts by government employees to identify and evaluate services that
can be shared.
F4: It is sometimes easier to find the financial justification for sharing services than to find
the political will to do it.
F5: The various ways of sharing services can result in a wide spectrum of benefits from
maintaining services with a reduced budget, to improving service with the same budget,
or improving services and saving money. All are worth the effort.
F6: The case studies suggest that each situation is unique, and each arrangement for sharing
services has to be tailored to meet the specific needs of the sharing entities.
F7: Certain conditions dictate when an alliance will work. Sharing services is more feasible
when some or all of the following conditions exist:
Buy-in has been agreed to at the staff level, so that mutual respect can aid the
transition
Governing boards or councils are proactively involved in seeking regional
approaches
June 1, 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 17 of 19
PRESS..CH.O.OLERS_LEA.RN-T-O-SHAR E-Can-L-ocaLCover-nments?
• Management positions open up due to retirement or attrition, so that consolidation
will not costa leader a job
• Construction or remodeling of any government facility is contemplated
• Two or more entities are confronted with common major capital needs such as a
modern dispatch center, so the costs and efficiencies can be shared and,
• Incremental or small steps, such as cooperation, can be taken on a contractual, trial
basis.
F8: Rather than bringing in consultants to advise them how to share, similar departments can
often agree upon some ideas worth trying, evaluating and measuring their results.
F9: Federal grants are now available to support regional approaches.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Marin County Civil Grand Jury recommends that:
Rl: The County immediately publishes on its website a list of all of the special districts and
Joint Powers Authorities and their contact information, to improve the public's
awareness of and access to all of those taxing entities.
R2: City Councils and the Marin County Board of Supervisors require annual reports from
their city managers or county administrator that identify any and all opportunities for a
regional approach of sharing public services.
R3: Every local governmental entity, when facing major capital expenditures (e.g., new
facilities, equipment, vehicles, or computer systems) seek out other entities to share the
use and costs of the items.
R4: All government officials make it a priority to identify institutional duplication within
their sphere of influence and then bring leadership, vision and openness to new, more
cost-effective alternatives.
R5: Public officials assume the obligation of informing and leading their citizens toward the
changing paradigms of government that result in more cost-effective government.
R6: The Marin County Board of Supervisors requests that LAFCO presents a report to them
in November of each year (during budget preparation season) that (a) itemizes the
mergers, consolidations and additional MOD's for shared services enacted the previous
year within the County and (b) suggests other opportunities for cooperative governance.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses from the following
governing body;
• The Marin County Board of Supervisors: R1, R3, R4, R6
• All Marin City Councils: City of Belvedere, Town of Corte Madera, Town of Fairfax,
City of Larkspur, City of Mill Valley, City of Novato, Town of Ross, Town of San
Anselmo, City of San Rafael, City of Sausalito, Town of Tiburon: R2, R3, R4, R5
June 1, 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury T Page 18 of 19
PRF SCJROOLERS-.EARN TQSHAt, F - Can_Locai_Go_ver_nments2 _ . _ . .
Local Agency Formation Commission: Rb
The Marin County Civil Grand Jury invites responses from:
Independently Governed Special District Boards: Bel Marin Keys Community Services
District, Marin City Community Services District, Marinwood Community Services
District, Muir Beach Community Services District, Tamalpais Community Services
District, Tomales Village Community Services District, Bolinas Fire Protection District,
Novato Fire Protection District, Sleepy Hollow Fire Protection District, Southern Marin
Fire Protection District, Stinson Beach Fire Protection District, Tiburon Fire Protection
District, Marin Municipal Water District, North Marin Water District, Stinson Beach
County Water District, Almonte Sanitary District, Alto Sanitary District, Homestead
Valley Sanitary District, Novato Sanitary District, Richardson Bay Sanitary District, San
Rafael Sanitation. District, Ross Valley Sanitary District #l, Corte Madera Sanitary
District #2, Sausalito-Marie City Sanitary District, Tiburon Sanitary District, Bolinas
Community Public Utility District, Inverness Public Utility District, Marin/Sonoma
Mosquito & Vector Control District: R3, R4, Rs
The governing body or bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response
of the governing body must be conducted in accordance with Penal Code Section 933 (c) and
subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act.
California Penal Code Section 933 (c) states that "...the governing body of the public agency
shall comment to the presiding judge on thefindings and recommendations pertaining to
matters under the control of the governing body." Further, the Ralph M. Brown Act requires
that any action of a public entity governing board occur only at a noticed and agendized
public meeting.
Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 rewires that
reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or facts leading to the identity of any person who
provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions
of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Civil
Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand
Jury.
June 1, 2012 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 19 of 19
Office of the Town Manager
(415) 435-7383
August 2, 2010
The Honorable James R.
Ritchie Mr. Richard Treadgold, Foreperson
Marin County Superior Court Marin County Grand Jury
Post Office Box 4988 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275
San Rafael, CA 94913-4988 San Rafael, CA 94903
Re: Response to Grand Jury Report June 1, 2012
Sharing Public Services
Dear Honorable Judge Ritchie and Mr. Treadgold:
This letter explains in detail the Town of Tiburon's response to the Grand Jury
Report dated June 1, 2012. The Report directs the Town to respond to four
recommendations. These recommendations involve a number of agencies other
than the Town and that are outside the Town's control. Accordingly, this letter is
intended only to apply to the Report's recommendations insofar as they pertain to
the Town.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Report asks the Town to respond to the following recommendations:
Recommendation No. 2: The City Councils and County Board of Supervisors
require annual reports from their city managers or county administrator that
identify any and all opportunities for a regional sharing approach of sharing public
services.
Recommendation No. 3: Every local government entity, when facing major
capital expenditures, seek out other entities to share the use and cost of the item.
Recommendation No. 4: All government officials make it a priority to identify
institutional duplication within their sphere of influence and then bring leadership,
vision and openness to new, more cost-effective alternatives.
Recommendation No. 5: Public officials assume the obligation of informing and
leading their citizens toward the changing paradigms of government that result in
more cost-effective government.
As requested, the Town has the following responses:
Response to Grand Jury
August 2, 2012
Page 2 of 2
Recommendations numbered _R3, R4 and R5_ have been implemented. The
Town regularly consults with neighboring agencies to share capital expenses.
Shared service opportunities are already a priority. The Marin Managers as
well as elected officials discuss opportunities on an ongoing basis, and have
for many years. The Town Manager's newsletter and Town's website are
utilized to inform the public of the improving efficiency of government
services. The Town of Tiburon continues to look for additional opportunities
for shared services in the future.
Recommendations numbered R2 has not yet been implemented, but will be
implemented in the future. In future capital expenditures, where there is
excess capacity and/or shared costs are feasible, the item will be considered to
be shared with other entities. As part of the annual budget process, the Town
Manager will report on any changes in status regarding shared services or any
newly identified opportunities.
The Tiburon Mayor and Town Council reviewed and approved this response on
August 1, 2012 at a duly noticed and agendized public meeting. If you have
further questions on these responses, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
MARGARET A. CURRAN
Town Manager
cc: Town Council
Town Attorney