HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1996-10-21SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1996 AT 8:00
PM
Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Cyr Miller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
CLOSED SESSION
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
8:00 PM
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the
following Consent Calendar items:
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of
Monday, September 16, 1996 (CC)
3. Approval of Closure of Second Level of Parking
recommendation.
Structure at Third and Lootens on Sunday,
October 27, 1996 from 8:00 AM to 1:00 PM
for the Downtown Graffiti Removal Project
as Part of "San Rafael Make a Difference
Day" (CM) - File 12-14
4. Monthly Investment Report (Adm. Svc.)
- File 8-18 x 8-9
5. Resolution Authorizing Execution of Agreement
Agenda
with Advantage Communications, Inc. for Audit
of City's Telecommunications Systems (Adm. Svc.)
- v;io Q -a
Approved as submitted.
Approved staff
Accepted report.
Item removed from
at request of staff.
6. Resolution Amending Resolution #9630, Approving RESOLUTION NO. 9722 -
the Amended Budget for the Fiscal Year RESOLUTION AMENDING
RESOLUTION
July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1997 and Providing #9630, APPROVING THE AMENDED
for the Appropriations and Estimated Revenues BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
(Adm. Svc.) - File 8-5 JULY 1, 1996 TO JUNE 30, 1997
AND PROVIDING FOR THE APPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATED REVENUES
8. Report on Bid Openings and Award of Contracts a. RESOLUTION NO. 9723
for: (PW)
RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF
a. Traffic Signal System Installation at
the CONTRACT TO GHILOTTI
BROTHERS
Intersection of Bellam Blvd. and Kerner
CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR TRAFFIC
Blvd., Project No. 046-4610-467-8000 (Bid
SIGNAL SYSTEM INSTALLATION
Opening on Thursday, October 10, 1996 at
AT THE INTERSECTION OF
2:00 PM) - File 4-1-484
BELLAM BLVD./KERNER BLVD.,
b. Traffic Signal System Installation at
the PROJECT NO.
046-4610-467-8000
Intersection of Civic Center and McInnis
(In the amount of $178,858)
Parkway, Project No. 046-4610-409-8000
(Lowest responsible bidder)
(Bid Opening on Thursday, October 10, 1996
at 2:00 PM) - File 4-1-485 b.
RESOLUTION 9724 -
c. Fifth Avenue Drainage Improvements,
RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF
Project No. 042-4210-429-8000 (Bid
CONTRACT TO GHILOTTI BROTHERS
Opening on Thursday, October 10, 1996
CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR TRAFFIC
at 3:00 PM) - File 4-1-486
SIGNAL SYSTEM INSTALLATION AT THE
INTERSECTION OF CIVIC CENTER DRIVE/McINNIS PARKWAY, PROJECT NO.
046-4610-409-8000 (In the amount of $138,887.50)
(Lowest responsible bidder)
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 1
CONSENT CALENDAR:
ITEM
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION
c. RESOLUTION NO. 9725 - RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO GELCO SERVICES, INC.
FOR FIFTH AVENUE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO.
042-4210-429-8000 (In the amount of $72,250) (Only responsible bidder)
9. Resolution Amending Resolution No. 9175 RESOLUTION NO. 9726 -
Pertaining to the Compensation and Working RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION
Conditions for the San Rafael Police Mid- #9175 PERTAINING TO THE
Management Association (Per) COMPENSATION AND WORKING
- File 7-8-3 CONDITIONS FOR THE SAN RAFAEL
POLICE MID -MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (Three Year Agreement from July 1, 1996
through June 30, 1999)
10. Resolution Denying the Request for General Plan RESOLUTION NO. 9727 -
Amendment and Other Applications as InconsistentRESOLUTION DENYING THE
with the General Plan (San Rafael City Council REQUEST FOR A GENERAL PLAN
Public Hearing Held on Monday, September 16, 1996) AMENDMENT AND OTHER
Re: Changing the Permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR) APPLICATIONS AS
INCONSISTENT
for Mini -storage Projects from 1.0 to 2.0; City -WITH THE GENERAL PLAN;
wide Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
14.16.150 G4 (Floor Area Ratios), to Change the CHANGING THE PERMITTED FLOOR
Permitted FAR for Mini -storage Projects from 1.OAREA RATIO (FAR) FOR MINI -
to 2.0; Project Applications for a Use Permit for STORAGE PROJECTS FROM 1.0 TO
FAR in Excess of 1.0; a Use Permit for a Caretaker's 2.0, CITY-WIDE ZONING
Unit; and an Environmental Design Review Permit ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
for a Three-story, Approximately 59,247 Sq. Ft. SECTION 14.16.150 G4
Mini -storage Building at 50 Golden Gate Drive, (FLOOR AREA RATIOS), TO
San Rafael; APN: 18-142-85; Robert McGowan, Owner; CHANGE THE PERMITTED FAR
Darrel deTienne, Representative (P1) FOR MINI -STORAGE PROJECTS
- File 115 x 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 FROM 1.0 TO 2.0; PROJECT
APPLICATIONS FOR A USE PERMIT FOR FAR IN EXCESS OF 1.0; A USE PERMIT FOR A
CARETAKER'S UNIT; AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A THREE
STORY, 59,247 SQUARE FOOT MINI -STORAGE BUILDING AT 50 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE; SAN
RAFAEL; APN 18-142-85; ROBERT McGOWAN, OWNER; DARREL deTIENNE, REPRESENTATIVE
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, from minutes of the Regular Meeting of
Monday, September 16, 1996, due to absence from the meeting; and from Item
#10, due to absence from Public Hearing.
The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion:
2. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH WILLIAM M. MERCER, INC.
FOR MEMBERSHIP COMPARISON STUDY BETWEEN MARIN COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
ASSOCIATION (MCERA) AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) FOR $9,200
(CM)
- File 4-10-293 x 7-1-26
Councilmember Heller asked if it was Management's option to make this change, or
would it go back to the bargaining groups? Assistant City Manager Suzanne
Golt explained it would go to the bargaining groups, and the City would also
need to have a majority of the employees and safety personnel vote to leave
the Marin County system. Ms. Heller asked if Marin County had any decision
in the City leaving their system, or if it was entirely up to the City? Ms.
Golt stated it would be the City's decision.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 9728 -RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH
WILLIAM M. MERCER, INC. FOR MEMBERSHIP COMPARISON STUDY BETWEEN MARIN COUNTY
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION (MCERA) AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 3
(PERS) FOR $9,200
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
7. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH MANAGEMENT SERVICES
INSTITUTE (MSI) TO DEVELOP A MUNICIPAL BUSINESS SYSTEM INCLUDING A CITY-WIDE
COST PLAN AND FEE FOR SERVICE ANALYSIS (Adm. Svc.) - File 4-10-294 x 8-9 x
9-3-20
Councilmember Cohen noted Council had recently passed a Resolution to hire a new
Administrative Services Director, and asked if this recommendation had been
discussed with the new Director? Interim Administrative Services Director
Susan Merrill stated this had been discussed with Ken Nordhoff, the new
Administrative Services Director, noting he has used the services of this
company in the past, and also in his present place of employment. She stated
Mr. Nordhoff was very supportive of this agreement.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution
as presented authorizing execution of an agreement with Management Services
Institute.
RESOLUTION NO. 9729 -RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH MANAGEMENT
SERVICES INSTITUTE (M.S.I.) TO DEVELOP A MUNICIPAL BUSINESS SYSTEM INCLUDING
A CITY WIDE COST PLAN AND FEE FOR SERVICE ANALYSIS
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SPECIAL PRESENTATION:
11. PRESENTATION TO CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FROM HUGH CAMPBELL RE: PT. SAN PEDRO ROAD
MEDIAN LANDSCAPE CLEAN-UP - File 105 x 9-3-66 x 9-3-40
Mayor Boro recalled that several months ago he had reported back to the Council
regarding a meeting he and Assistant Public Works Director Matt Naclerio had
attended with County Supervisor Kress, along with a representative from the
City's Parks Department, to discuss cleaning up Pt. San Pedro Road as far as
the medians were concerned. He pointed out the presidents of all the Homeowners
Associations were also in attendance, and a commitment was made that if the
City and County would put up the initial money to clean the road from curb
to curb, then the neighbors would get together through their Associations and
come back with a plan to deal with this in the long term.
Hugh Campbell, representing seven Homeowners Associations along Pt. San Pedro Road,
recalled that in May, 1995 the residents had become very concerned with the
condition of Pt. San Pedro Road, and a group representing seven of the Homeowner
Associations met to determine how they could resolve the problems. He noted
that as a result of several meetings, they developed a three point plan; the
first phase would be to clean it up by getting rid of the weeds, trash and
litter; the second phase was to look at replanting and relandscaping, and also
to look at the water systems, and then to determine what it would cost to return
the roadway to its original state; the third phase was to determine how they
could make sure it would be maintained, noting if they did all the work to
re -landscape and re -plant, and then it was not maintained, their work would
all be for naught.
Mr. Campbell reported that in April of this year a meeting was held with the presidents
of the seven Homeowners Associations, attended by Mayor Boro and County
Supervisor Kress, who told the group they would push to get funding for an
initial, one-time clean up, if the citizens would also contribute money to
the project. Mr. Campbell stated the Associations pledged to raise $1,000
toward that project, noting there were no complaints, and all seven groups
happily contributed their share. Mr. Campbell noted this project represented
four and a half miles of roadway on Pt. San Pedro Road, which goes from the
Montecito Shopping Center to Marin Bay Park, with twenty-eight medians, and
noted the area of the medians is approximately 156,000 square feet.
Mr. Campbell reported that several weeks ago Phase I was implemented and the roadway
was cleaned up, noting it was cleaner that it has been in at least five years,
and people began calling to comment on how wonderful it looked, and to ask
what would be done next. Mr. Campbell stated a committee was then formed to
look at Phase II, and address the issues of re -landscaping, what the water
lines were like under the roadway, and what the second phase of the project
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 4
would cost. Mr. Campbell noted there had been tremendous cooperation from
the City and the Department of Public Works, noting Mr. Naclerio had provided
the maps used at the meetings, and Parks Maintenance Supervisor Tom Rothenberger
did a tremendous job for them, noting Mr. Rothenberger drove the roadway with
him three times, stopping along the way to give his insight as to what they
could and could not do.
Mr. Campbell stated he and Al Barr, President of the Loch Lomond Homeowners
Association, met with Mayor Boro several weeks ago to discuss options for
implementing Phase II and Phase III. He noted they have been told by landscaping
firms, as a rough rule of thumb, to make certain the water lines are working
and to re -landscape, the cost would be approximately $3.25 per foot; however,
if you multiply $3.25 per foot times 156,000 square feet of median, that becomes
a very sizeable number. Mr. Campbell stated they were now seeking the City' s
wisdom about ways their group could contribute toward this, pointing out the
residents are very supportive, and totally behind this. He noted that when
the committee asked the various associations for their checks, there were seven
Homeowner Associations representing 1,814 homes, and now there are eleven
Homeowner groups representing 2,000 homes. Mr. Campbell stated he was certain
they would be adding another three groups next month, which would mean a total
of fourteen Homeowner Associations representing 2,200 homes in favor of this
project. Mr. Campbell stated the committee looked forward to discussing Phase
II and Phase III, and how they can work with the City to make this a reality.
Mr. Campbell reported the checks collected for presentation to the City were from
the Country Club Homeowners Association, representing 250 homes; the Glenwood
Homeowners Association, representing 700 homes; Loch Lomond Homeowners
Association, representing 265 homes; Marin Bay Park Homeowners Association,
representing 27 homes; Peacock Gap Homeowners Association, representing 427
homes; Seastrand Neighborhood Association, representing 60 homes; and Villa
Real Homeowners Association, representing 85 homes.
Mayor Boro accepted the check from Mr. Campbell, thanking him on behalf of the City,
and noting with the enthusiasm generated to date, he felt certain this would
be a very successful project as we go forward.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT:
12. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT (CM) - File 9-3-11 (Verbal)
City Manager Gould stated he would like to update the Council on a few Administrative
and Policy issues. Mr. Gould noted there was an item on the agenda which asked
Council to change the Finance Department to the Administrative Services
Department, and pointed out that if the Council approved this, then beginning
November 4, 1996 the City would have a new Administrative Services Director,
Kenneth Nordhoff, whom Mr. Gould described as a man of extraordinary talent.
He noted there was currently a vacant position in the Administrative Services
Department, which was currently the position of Administrative Services
Supervisor; however, with Council's approval he would like to reclassify that
position as a Revenue Analyst, and seek someone with accounting experience
to help ensure we are properly managing our Business Licenses and Transit
Occupancy Taxes. Mr. Gould reported the City's negotiations with Business
Records Corporation have been off and on, and there have been some changes
in the management of that company, noting he had hoped to bring Council a renewal
or change in the contract this month, but that would be postponed until a new
agreement is reached with the new management of the company.
Mr. Gould reported the recruitment for the new Police Chief is now underway, noting
that in the meantime Acting Police Chief Tom Boyd has been working with the
Community Policing Committee within the Police Department to begin to get some
ideas together as to how we might proceed in that direction. Mr. Gould stated
a study session with the Police Radio Committee had been held last week, and
it was his understanding the Committee would meet again on Wednesday to consider
whether to recommend going with the County of Marin to purchase radios that
would be compatible throughout the County, or to recommend to the Council that
the City purchase its own system, and hope it will be compatible down the road.
In the meantime, to show good faith and commitment to moving ahead quickly,
the CAO (Chief Administrative Officer) has placed an item on the County Board
of Supervisors' agenda for tomorrow evening which would engage a firm to examine
and determine the proper performance standards for Police and Public Safety
radios across the County, and then to ask the various
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 5
agencies if they wished to participate. Mr. Gould stated, pending a recommendation
from the Police Radio System Committee, this would be brought back for Council's
consideration, and they could decide whether or not to join the County in this
procurement process.
Mr. Gould reported that under Acting Chief Boyd Is direction, they hoped to be able
to announce a change in the Voice Mail system in the Police Department, which
has been an item of contention, noting residents and business people will be
able to call the non -emergency number during normal business hours and speak
immediately to a human being, and only after hours would they be connected
with a vastly scaled down and much more simplified Voice Mail system.
Mr. Gould commended the Planning staff and Planning Director Pendoley for the North
San Rafael Vision kick-off on Saturday in Terra Linda, noting approximately
250 residents turned out to give their input as to the future direction of
that important section of our City. He stated the displays were good and the
facilitation was excellent, and he was pleased everyone turned out to take
part in this event.
Mr. Gould pointed out this Sunday was "Make a Difference Day", and all the residents
who would like to clean up graffiti, or clean up the Canal neighborhood, could
meet one of two places at 9:00 AM; they could meet on the second level of the
parking garage between Third Street and Lootens Avenue to help clean up graffiti,
or they could meet at Pickleweed park to help clean up the Canal neighborhood.
He noted that either way, it would be great community service, and he encouraged
everyone to come out.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
13. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF BUILDING OFFICIAL'S NOTICE AND ORDER FOR APN
14-162-02, 616 CANAL STREET (PURSUANT TO SECTION 401.2 OF THE UNIFORM CODE
FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS) (HOLIDAY MAGIC BUILDING) (PW) -
File 3-3-53 x 1-6-7
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for comment from the City
Attorney.
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti stated an addendum had been added to this item, noting
the property owner, Mr. Carrico, had engaged attorney Perry Litchfield as
counsel, who had communicated with Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan, and
indicated the letter which had been written by his client in response to the
notice sent to him on September 20, 1996 did not constitute an appeal. Mr.
Ragghianti noted Public Works Director Bernardi indicated in a letter he wrote
on October 14th that he would consider the letter written by Mr. Carrico on
October 2nd, responding to the September 20th notice, as an appeal and,
consequently, would place this matter on the agenda for a Public Hearing.
Rather than create an unnecessary legal and procedural problem, staff spoke
with Mr. Litchfield and consulted with the City Manager, suggesting this matter
stand over for two weeks, for the purpose of having the Appeal Hearing conducted
then. Mr. Ragghianti stated he would ask Mr. Guinan to discuss what has taken
place since that time. Mr. Ragghianti also noted an inspection would take
place tomorrow at 3: 00 PM, with comprehensive City staff going into the building,
photographing and video taping it, and inspecting it for the purpose of adding
to the information we already have, in anticipation of the Hearing which is
scheduled for November 4, 1996. Mr. Ragghianti stated staff was asking Council
to continue the hearing until November 4th, noting that after receiving
permission from the City Manager, staff had represented to Mr. Litchfield that
this matter would be continued until then, which was why he was not present
at this time.
Assistant City Attorney Guinan stated he had further discussions with Mr. Litchfield,
and he had agreed, on behalf of his client, to have City staff go into the
building tomorrow afternoon at 3:00 PM. Mr. Guinan noted the City had
scheduled those taking part in the inspection to include Dave Smail from the
County Health Department, San Rafael Fire Marshal Keith Schoenthal, Joe Curley
and Fred Vincenti from the Public Works Department, Bill Palmer or his designee
from Code Enforcement, and probably someone from the Police Department who,
hopefully, will operate the video camera. Mr. Guinan stated a complete and
thorough inspection of the building would be conducted, noting he had prepared
an inspection warrant, and it was ready for signature by a Superior Court judge
should there be any problem with the scheduled inspection tomorrow afternoon.
Mayor Boro stated the public hearing would remain open, and be continued to the
Council meeting of November 4, 1996.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 6
14. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION SETTING HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATORY FEE AND CONDITIONALLY EXEMPT SMALL QUANTITY
GENERATOR REGULATORY FEE (FD) - File 13-2 x 115 x 4-3-32
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for a staff report.
Fire Prevention Officer Forrest Craig reported a Public Hearing had been held in
May to amend the Municipal Code, adding Chapters 9.22 and 9.23, which allowed
the City to collect household hazardous waste, and conditionally exempt small
quantity generator waste from households and businesses. He noted the
amendment also allowed and authorized Council to establish and collect a
Regulatory Fee for those generator activities, and the Resolution now before
Council establishes that Regulatory Fee for Household Hazardous Waste and
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Waste Programs.
Mr. Craig stated this Resolution parallel tracks discussions the City has had with
the Solid and Hazardous Waste Joint Powers Authority concerning the Joint Powers
Agreement. He stated they have approached the City and suggested we enter
into an agreement to provide household hazardous waste program activities,
as well as small quantity generator waste activities. Mr. Craig stated that
should we proceed with the JPA, and the City authorizes an agreement be executed,
we would stay this Resolution, and the fee would not be imposed.
Councilmember Heller asked if the 33,611 units mentioned in the staff report were
strictly for the City of San Rafael, both north and south of the hill? Mr.
Craig stated he believed that was correct. Ms. Heller asked if it would then
be expanded if the rest of the jurisdictions come in? Mr. Craig stated that
was correct. Ms. Heller asked if Mr. Craig foresaw that the monthly charge
would then be reduced for our rate payers, and he stated it would be. Ms.
Heller asked when we would know how far along the JPA had come in deciding
whether they would be coming into this agreement with us? Mr. Craig hoped
it would be within the next several weeks, noting the agreement was currently
being reviewed by County Counsel, as well as our City Attorney. Ms. Heller
reported she had gone out and watched the collection process, and noted it
was fascinating, and they had done a wonderful job of putting the whole working
area together.
Councilmember Cohen asked, in the event we are not able to reach an agreement with
the JPA, if households from outside the City of San Rafael showed up on collection
days, would that hazardous waste be turned away, or would there be a fee for
service basis for those households, as well? Mr. Craig stated that if the
City and the JPA did not execute an agreement, those jurisdictions outside
the City of San Rafael wanting to bring material to the recycling center would
be turned away, until such time as each jurisdiction signed an agreement with
the City sharing and apportioning liability and generatorship for that waste.
Mr. Cohen asked if this meant individual residents would not be able to do
this, even on a fee for service basis? Mr. Craig stated that from outside
the City of San Rafael, this was correct.
There being no public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Boro stated, as he understood this, the City had several potential scenarios
that might play out; one might be that this would turn out to be a County -wide
facility; secondly, it might be all of the County except the City of Novato,
which had currently not decided on this; third, it could be San Rafael and
the other jurisdictions that are served by Marin Sanitary; and the fourth
scenario would be just San Rafael alone. Mayor Boro stated that in any event,
we do have the authority from the State of California to run this facility,
we have the rate structure in place, and as far as our City is concerned, the
price can only go down as more people become involved.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution
setting the Household Hazardous Waste Regulatory Fee, and a Conditionally Exempt
Small Quantity Generator Regulatory Fee.
RESOLUTION NO. 9730 -RESOLUTION SETTING A HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATORY FEE,
AND A CONDITIONALLY EXEMPT SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR REGULATORY FEE, PURSUANT
TO CHAPTERS 9.22 AND 9.23 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE
AYES: COUNCIL ERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL ERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 7
15. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 2.24, AND OTHER SECTIONS TO: (CM) - File 9-3-20
a. ELIMINATE THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND ESTABLISH THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DEPARTMENT, CONSOLIDATING THE FUNCTIONS, DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE FINANCE
DEPARTMENT AND OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CITY'S INFORMATION SYSTEMS, AND
b. ELIMINATE THE POSITION OF FINANCE DIRECTOR AND CREATE THE POSITION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR.
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for the staff report.
City Manager Gould stated he would be pleased to answer questions pertaining to
this report.
Councilmember Cohen noted City Manager Gould had stated in the report that he intended
to reprogram one of the positions currently funded, and asked if that was
something the Council needed to see, or if it was something the City Manager
would just implement? Mr. Gould stated it would be brought to Council as a
budget adjustment to pay for the difference in cost. Councilmember Cohen asked
when this would be brought back to Council, and Mr. Gould stated he would bring
this to Council at the next meeting.
There being no public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing.
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REPEALING CHAPTER 2.24 OF THE SAN RAFAEL
MUNICIPAL CODE, 'FINANCE DEPARTMENT' AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 2.24
'ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT', AND RELATED CODE CHANGES"
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with
the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only
and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1702 to print, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
16. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER
2.55, "PURCHASING POLICY", TO CONSIDER BUSINESSES AND VENDORS LOCATED IN THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL (CM) - File 9-3-12
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for the staff report.
City Manager Gould reported the Chamber of Commerce had approached the City this
summer and asked that Council consider revising the City' s purchasing policies
to encourage the use of local vendors and suppliers for goods, services and
supplies necessary for the City's operations. The original request was for
the City to consider an Ordinance that would set a numerical or percentage
preference for San Rafael based businesses; however, in checking with the City
Attorney's office staff was advised that to grant such a preference, findings
would have to be made that San Rafael based businesses are at a disadvantage
in regard to competing for City contracts, and a study would have to be prepared
that would document this disadvantage before the City could grant such a
numerical preference. Mr. Gould reported the Chamber's Economic Development
Committee considered this information, and recommended the Council consider
simple, broad language that encourages the use of local vendors wherever
possible in the City's purchasing policies, and he noted the City Attorney
had drafted language to that effect. Mr. Gould stated further discussions
with Elissa Giambastiani, President of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce,
indicated the proposed language might be improved upon, and Ms. Giambastiani
requested Council direct staff to go back and add a provision which states
that where all else is equal, the San Rafael based business would win the contract
or purchase. Mr. Gould noted, based on a study by the City Attorney's office,
this appeared to be supportable, and it was staff' s recommendation that Council
send this item back to be redrafted, and brought back to Council at the next
meeting.
Elissa Giambastiani, President of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated she
appreciated the Council considering making this change in the City's purchasing
policy recommendation. She reported that when she looked at the statement
the Assistant City Attorney had drafted, she thought it was a little weak.
She stated the reason her committee had decided they would not ask Council
to have a percentage preference was because the City Manager stated the other
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 7
Ms
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 8
managers felt that 1% was all they would feel comfortable with, and her committee
decided it would be very difficult to try to ascertain whether or not the
businesses were indeed suffering a disadvantage that could be rectified by
a 1% preference policy.
Giambastiani stated the point was that local businesses wanted to know the City
really does care about the fact they are here, so the Chamber just wanted to
ask for some very strong language in the policy, stating that businesses located
within the City limits would be invited first, and Management would be strongly
encouraged to do business with the businesses that are located here. She stated
the Chamber would also like to work with the City in developing a larger list
of businesses, and informing them about the bid process, noting she felt they
had a very good start when they had their Purchasing Fair last month, with
a representative of the City there to speak with the Chamber members about
the Purchasing Policy. She stated the Chamber could work with the City in
developing the list and inform more people about the opportunities they have.
Councilmember Phillips clarified that all other factors being equal, the City would
do business with the local vendor, and Ms. Giambastiani stated that was correct,
noting this would also include small purchases, such as caterers for City events.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing would
remain open, and be continued to the next Council meeting of November 4, 1996.
Councilmember Cohen stated that at some point he would like to revisit the issue
of local preference, noting at least in the area of contracting, a number of
communities surrounding us, such as Vallejo, Richmond, and San Francisco, in
their bid packages give a preference to businesses domiciled in the city
contracting for services. He noted they have apparently found a way to do
that which they consider to be legal, and suggested we might look at that in
the future to determine if we could take a similar approach. In the meantime,
Councilmember Cohen stated he certainly supported this amendment, and would
like to suggest the City actually encourage local businesses, and impress that
local businesses are important to us. He noted he did not feel the language
in this amendment was strong enough, and rather than state in the amendment
that the City would "consider" local businesses, he felt the amendment should
include such words as "solicit local bidders" or "encourage local businesses".
He stated he would like to see language in the amendment beyond just saying
that all other things being equal, the San Rafael vendor would get the contract,
and would like the amendment to state that the City wants to encourage these
businesses, and that it was the City's policy to develop local bidders who
could give the City competitive prices, and that the City has a goal of doing
that.
Mr. Gould stated some things are more expeditiously carried out administratively,
and noted he could speak for all the managers in telling Council they think
this makes sense, and they feel they can take actions that will encourage local
vendors and give them the proper consideration for all City purchases, noting
they pledge to work with the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Improvement
District to carry out the Council's general wishes.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to continue the public
hearing to the next Council meeting on November 4, 1996.
AYES: COUNCIL ERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL ERS:
OLD BUSINESS:
Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
None
None
17. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING CONCEPTUAL BOYD PARK MASTER
PLAN (Rec) - File 9-3-66
Mayor Boro stated he wanted to recognize the partnership that had come together
between the City, the Marin Historical Society, the Lions Club, and the neighbors
on this project.
Recreation Director Sharon McNamee reported the Marin Historical Society had come
to the City a year and a half ago, requesting to build a museum at Boyd Park.
She noted this was a very creative idea, and after long discussions, the Society
came to the City and the Council approved a Development and Disposition Agreement
in December. She reported since that time they have been working on a Master
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 9
Plan which would allow them to incorporate the museum as part of Boyd Park,
and the Historical Society agreed to pay for that. She reported a firm from
New York, Project for Public Spaces, was hired to act as consultant on the
project, and three community meetings were held, with a lot of representation
from different parts of the community's neighborhood, organizations and groups.
She stated that from this a
Master Plan was developed, as well as a dynamic community process, noting the group
had solidified and grown in leaps and bounds, with resources, ideas and partners,
to make this really happen. Ms. McNamee stated this was the kind of thing
that really turns our neighborhoods into communities.
Fred Warneke, Chairman of the San Rafael Park and Recreation Commission, noted he
was speaking as a concerned Park and Recreation Commissioner, and as a volunteer
working on the Master Plan study for Boyd Park. He stated this park was a
wonderful opportunity for San Rafael, noting it has history, natural topography,
and beautiful trees; but, unfortunately, it is run down and people are afraid
to go into the park. He stated he hoped Measure A passes on the ballot in
November, as it would be a great opportunity for the City to receive a lot
of money and improve our parks.
Mr. Warneke noted that when Architect Jim Ring approached them and stated they wanted
to put the Marin Historical Society Museum in Boyd Park, the approximate 5,000
square foot museum became the basis for the entire renovation, and he pointed
out on the architectural renderings where the museum would be located within
the park. He noted that in working with Project for Public Spaces, they were
wonderful programmers to address getting the people into the parks and using
the parks. He stated this was extremely important, and noted they set up a
series of ideas creating an opening which would draw people into the park through
an entrance courtyard. Using the renderings, Mr. Warneke pointed out areas
where they propose to install a fountain and grand stairs up to the higher
elevation of the park, noting the entrance to the Museum, the street trees
which would remain, and the proposed tennis court, which at first we were going
to lose, but will now be placed over the parking area. Mr. Warneke noted the
beautiful Boyd Gates will remain to create an entry feeling, and the most
important thing will be creating something attractive that will bring people
into the park, because people have been afraid to go to this park, and that
was compounded by a terrible traffic problem, which they hope to resolve with
a new cross -walk, and possibly a turnaround in the middle of the street to
slow the traffic down and make people want to go into the park. He reported
that once inside the park, there will be a big sand area with 1950's play
equipment, a large lawn area that will be a central feature of the park, and
a re-creation of the water, which is a beautiful feature of the park, and will
be a series of cascading fountains and streams coming down into ponds. He
noted other areas of the park will be natural areas, botanical gardens, and
some native areas. He pointed out areas of beautiful redwood trees which they
plan to use as azalea and rhododendron gardens. He noted a children's play
area which will be located around an old tree with a wonderful root system
for the children to play on, and slides will be placed on the side of the hill.
The roof of the Museum would be used as a large gathering space, much like
a public plaza, which can be used for events such as weddings, and a sloping
lawn area could serve as a small amphitheater. Mr. Warneke noted the park
was already partially fenced, and they would like to complete the fencing to
close off the park, securing it from deer and other unwanted elements.
Jim Ring, architect for the Marin County Historical Society, stated the Marin County
Historical Society was the historical society in Marin County. He pointed
out that William P. Murray, Jr. and his wife were in the audience, noting Mr.
Murray's grandfather had built the Gatehouse, and Mr. and Mrs. Murray were
the ones who had catapulted the Marin Historical Society Museum into Boyd Park,
where they have been located at the Boyd Park Gatehouse for approximately fifty
years. Mr. Ring pointed out that Mr. Murray's grandfather had received one
of the largest substantial grants ever given to Marin County from San Francisco,
noting the grant was a challenge grant to the Historical Society, and he felt
the Society was going to meet the challenge. He stated the Marin County
Historical Society had researched many properties, and decided the Society
could best serve the County at Boyd Park. He reported that in working with
Mr. Warneke, they found they could detach and not have to dig down under the
ground, but would be able to put the Museum under the tennis courts. He noted
they would be leaving the Gatehouse alone, and would install a small coffee
house under the Gatehouse. Mr. Ring stated activity was very important to
the Museum, noting they are an educational, cultural, and recreational facility,
and in looking at San Rafael with the Rafael Theater, Falkirk Cultural Center
and the Library, the Museum would really be an anchor, too. He noted the Museum
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 10
goes so far back in history that it even has all of the original publications
of the Marin Independent Journal. He pointed out that once you lose these
things, they are gone forever, so a vault will be constructed in a building
which will be semi -recessed into the ground, but will be terraced so that the
neighborhood across the street and people passing by will see only lovely
terraces, with a very active roof deck. He stated people would enter through
a glass structure which will repeat the gothic architectural structure of the
Boyd Gatehouse, and the courtyard, which will be the foreground of the Museum,
will showcase exhibits, so the courtyard looks like an active area. Mr. Ring
stated that when children come to the Museum, they want the children to see
Marin County in its glory, and this will be the only Victorian
period home in Marin County. Mr. Ring acknowledged this project would take a lot
of money; however, he stated they know they will meet it, and will be a real
asset to the community.
Jim Atchison, Chairman of the Boyd Park Steering Committee, stated he had found
a group, Orchid Net, that was looking for a home for a botanical garden, for
which they have their own funding. He pointed out an area on the architectural
rendering which would be turned into a botanical garden by Orchid Net, with
a greenhouse and possibly a teaching laboratory, noting they may begin a program
of working with some of our students in the area for internship programs.
Mr. Atchison reported he had also spoken with members of the Marin Rose Society,
noting that for nearly twenty years they have been looking for a home, and
they are also interested in locating within the park. Mr. Atchison pointed
out the water element, which no one else had, noting they are considering
cascading water, toys, musical items, and one possibility being discussed is
the installation of sluice and weir effects, where children can actually
experiment with the water. He pointed out that in the area where the elements
cross, they need to bring one of the paths down approximately fifteen feet,
which will allow wheelchair access to the entire bottom half of the park, noting
that with the topography of the park, this would be pulling off a major miracle,
but that is the type of commitment his committee wants to make. He reported
he had spoken with the Lions Clubs in the area, noting there are soon to be
five clubs, one of which is made up of disabled individuals. He stated this
club would like to provide the maintenance for one particular area of the park,
with the other clubs provide the funding, where a Victorian -like sensory garden
would be installed, and would be fully maintained and funded by these Lions
Clubs. Mr. Atchison noted the Clubs had originally looked at taking over the
responsibility for the playground area, but he noted there may be some outside
commercial interests who have Day Care in the area, as well as a church, who
may provide funding for the playground area. Mr. Atchison reported they had
done a walk-through with approximately twenty-five students from College of
Marin, asking them to look at engineering possibilities, noting they will be
coming back in about a week with some preliminary drawings.
Mr. Atchison noted the area of the park which the Lions Clubs have agreed to sponsor
represents a commitment from them of approximately $80,000, and in addition,
they have also agreed to work on the picnic areas one at a time, targeting
one area per month, to dress them up and make them usable again. They have
also committed to working with Orchid Net on the back landscaping.
Ms. McNamee noted the Marin Historical Society had already conceptually approved
the plan, as had the Park and Recreation Commission, who were recommending
Council consider this plan and give the Steering Committee their approval.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution
approving the conceptual Boyd Park Master Plan.
RESOLUTION NO. 9731 -RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BOYD PARK/MUSEUM MASTER PLAN
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
18. CONSIDERATION OF PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO IMPLEMENT
A TENNIS KEY FEE SYSTEM AT ALBERT AND FREITAS PARKS (Rec) - File 9-3-65 x
9-2-4
Recreation Director Sharon McNamee stated this recommendation had been formulated
by the Park and Recreation Commission through several community meetings
involving a lot of tennis players and people who use these courts, mainly those
who use the courts at Albert Park, but also a few from other areas of the City.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 11
She stated the Commission' s goal was to try to come up with a way to generate
revenue on the tennis courts, pointing out that City-wide they have thirteen
courts which they are responsible for. She reported six of the courts at Albert
Park and Freitas Park had just been resurfaced, and there are several more
throughout the City that need to be done, but we do not have a revenue stream
that comes from the tennis players or the people who use the courts for league
play, lessons, or tournaments, noting the little revenue they do have is used
to administer those programs. She reported the Park and Recreation Commission
was attempting to find a way to develop a revenue stream that could be used
to keep the courts resurfaced, and keep them cleaner and in better shape.
Ms. McNamee stated the Commission reviewed what other Marin cities were doing, and
pointed out a summary included in the staff report which shows where keys are
sold and their prices in Mill Valley, Tiburon, Ross, San Anselmo and the
Strawberry Recreation District. She explained the fees vary greatly, as do
the processes for the way they are sold and distributed, and after reviewing
this information and talking to many of the people who play tennis, the Park
and Recreation Commission came up with what they felt was a fair process,
recommending putting keys and locks only on the six courts at Albert Park and
Freitas Park, which would leave seven courts still available within the City
at the Boyd, Gerstle, Santa Marguerita, Glenwood and Peacock Gap parks. Ms.
McNamee recommended the fees be renewed on an annual basis, and that the program
begin in January, 1997. She noted the cost of implementing this program would
not be cheap, pointing out they would have to replace the gates, which are
expensive, and then install the locks. She stated they estimated distributing
500 keys per year, but noted this was a very rough guess, and they would need
to monitor this for a year or two to determine the actual use patterns.
Ms. McNamee stated the Commission was recommending a special fund be established
for this money, with the funds being spent only on tennis court maintenance.
She stated the Commission recommended the fees be set at $55.00 for a family
key, an individual key for $35.00, and a fee of $25.00 for seniors and juniors,
noting these fees would be for a one-year period.
Ms. McNamee noted a petition had been delivered to the City Clerk's office earlier
in the day, which was signed by members of the community opposed to the key
fees. She stated the petition had also been received by the Commission at
their meeting, noting they had reviewed it and heard comments from the gentlemen
who initiated the petition. She stated the Commission had agreed with some
of the comments, and understood their concerns; however, the Commission felt
that what we really needed to do was address a needed revenue stream for tennis,
and they believed that locking just these two sets of courts would still leave
access to other courts, and continue to meet the needs of the people.
Mayor Boro asked the status of the loan advanced by the Council to resurface the
tennis courts at Albert Park? Ms. McNamee stated that loan had not yet been
repaid and was still outstanding. She noted when they did the resurfacing
last year they did not get into the fund raising at the same time; however,
she has spoken with some of the people in the tennis community, and they are
planning some events for the Spring.
Mayor Boro noted the summary of fee comparisons of other cities showed a number
of the cities have a fee for non-residents that is higher than the fee for
residents, and noted among some of the correspondence the City had received
was a letter from Mark Shinbrot, a resident of San Rafael, who raised the question
of implementing a two-tiered fee structure for residents and non-residents.
He asked Ms. McNamee if this had been considered? Ms. McNamee stated the
Commission had not specifically addressed that issue, although they are aware
that our tennis courts draw from a wide variety of people, and not just San
Rafael residents. However, she noted we do not have non-resident fees for
any of the City's other programs, and the Commission did not choose to implement
that at this time, although they may address the issue in the future.
Councilmember Miller noted the courts at Albert Park and Freitas Park were the most
heavily used; however, we are not charging fees at Peacock Gap, and if anyone
would be able to afford to pay, it would be the residents of the Peacock Gap
area. He asked how Albert and Freitas parks had been chosen? Ms. McNamee
stated
the main reason was because we had just resurfaced those courts, noting the first
reason for implementing a key system was revenue, and the second was for security
issues, noting that although this was a lower priority, it was one the Commission
and a lot of the tennis players acknowledge. She pointed out that while they
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 12
were still in the stages of resurfacing the courts at Freitas Park the courts
were visited by skateboarders and soccer players. She also noted that Albert
Park has the busiest courts, and the Commission felt Albert Park would be the
most lucrative and the most manageable. She stated the Commission had decided
to watch how this program goes for a year or two, and may consider implementing
a fee system at Peacock Gap. She reported they had spoken with neighbors of
the Glenwood tennis courts area, and they stated they wanted to get involved
not just in fixing up the tennis courts, but also the area immediately around
it, because the landscaping is pretty bad. Ms. McNamee stated if we were able
to improve the Glenwood courts in the next year or so, they might come back
to Council and request to lock the courts, because they would be in good shape,
and we would want to keep them that way.
Councilmember Heller noted Mr. ShinbrotIs letter also pointed out that some of the
other cities base their fees on a six month basis, and Mill Valley issues theirs
on a month to month basis. She asked if the Commission could look at this
when they
review the program? Ms. McNamee noted Mill Valley was able to issue their keys
on a month to month basis because they have a "pro shop" staff person on site
at the courts most of the time, monitoring the courts and selling keys for
the day or the month.
Councilmember Cohen noted that in the cost comparisons, Ms. McNamee had listed five
cities currently charging fees for their courts, and asked if this was just
a sample, or was this the entirety of the communities within Marin County who
are charging? Ms. McNamee stated, to her knowledge, these were the cities
who were charging for access to public courts, and noted San Rafael High School
had just been added to the list, reporting they have locked their courts and
now charge $30 for a key.
Steve
Zettner, 45 Graceland Drive, stated he has lived in San Rafael since 1971,
and lived in Marin County since 1944. Mr. Zettner reported he has belonged
to private tennis courts, and during the past ten years he has been playing
at Albert Park because of the congeniality of the people, stating it is a very
nice place to play tennis without any formal organizations, noting people come
there from all over the County. He noted that in spite of the fact they use
two of the tennis courts quite a lot of the time for private lessons provided
by the Recreation Department, they all get along very well down at Albert Park,
pointing out there is no policing, and still there are no problems at all.
Mr. Zettner asked the Council to give serious consideration to leaving Albert Park
as it is, noting there are several other parks that could be used with keys,
although he did not believe the City was going to generate much money by doing
this. Mr. Zettner stated it would be a shame to ruin Albert Park as a place
for people to play, without doing further study on the issue.
John Griffo, resident of Tiburon, stated he had lived in Marin County for the past
thirty-five years, and he has been coming to Albert Field since 1965. Mr.
Griffo noted the thing most people are concerned with, particularly those who
play at Albert Field, is that by restricting the use, instead of creating
something, the City may be terminating something, pointing out that they all
look at Albert Field with a great deal of affection, and as a place that really
transcends the game of tennis. He stated it really has a character all its
own, and its own culture that involves people from all walks of life, noting
everyone is welcome there and they all find a communal spirit with one another,
and even if they do not know one another's names, they create nicknames for
each other. Mr. Griffo stated they are all concerned that something is going
to be terminated, rather than created. He acknowledged the concerns expressed
by Ms. McNamee regarding the fiscal responsibility, but noted he could not
address that issue, he could only address the issues of what the players consider
to be the heart and soul of something special that has been in existence since
the 1940' s and 1950' s. Mr. Griffo stated he had never been around a park that
had so much personality to it and he would like to see it continue, but did
not think it could continue if it is to be administered the way we are suggesting.
Bill Hard, resident of San Rafael since 1971, stated he had taken part in developing
the survey which had been distributed to Council as an addendum to this item.
Mr. Hard quoted from a letter he had originally sent to the Marin Independent
Journal, but had never been published, "The public tennis courts at Albert
Park in San Rafael are about to be converted to a lock and key system, open
to those residents who pay an annual fee. The plans submitted by the Park
and Recreation Department have to be approved by the City Council next on August
5th. As there has never been a survey of who or how many players actually
use these facilities, it fell to two players to do just that. Signatures were
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 13
obtained from 256 players, who were interviewed on the courts during a three
week period in late June and early July. The results should be of interest
to the City Council; 49 supported the plan the plan, and 201, or 79%, were
opposed, while 6 offered no opinion. A part of the survey indicated that 45%
of the players use the courts at least once a month, about one in three resided
outside of San Rafael, and while the proposal is attractive to those whose
job it is to balance and allocate funds, there are several trade-offs. A
conservative extrapolation would place the annual use of these courts at over
2,000 individuals . The Park Commission indicated they would be happy if they
managed to sell 500 keys, all very well and popular for those 500 on the inside
looking out, less popular for the 1,500 on the outside looking in. Generally
our leaders and elected officials belong to the former group. It is not simply
a matter of affordability, expressed by some on SSI, for example, nor the idea
of having already paid taxes for the park, nor even the limiting of an activity
outlet for children. It is the intangible quality of community and friendly
atmosphere that has made these courts among the most popular in Marin. Locks
define exclusion, and I prefer to live in a town where 'Open to the Public'
means open to the public".
Mr. Hard stated that since the locks have been placed on the courts at San Rafael
High School, weekend play has declined, noting there used to be players waiting
on benches to play, and now there are two or three courts open and available
to play on. Mr. Hard urged the Council to hold off on this decision until
Measure A is passed, noting he understood 40% of the funds generated are to
be distributed to the cities for repairing and developing parks and recreational
facilities.
Alfred Morrisett, architect and resident of San Rafael, stated he has played tennis
at Albert Park for the past ten years, playing there almost every day. Mr.
Morrisett stated he had looked at the numbers in the staff report, and he was
skeptical about the way the numbers have been set-up. He stated that with
a $4,300 annual maintenance fee just for monitoring keys, the City would have
to sell 100 keys at $40 each, which is the average between the $55 and $25
spread being proposed, and with a $9,500 implementation fee, the City would
have to sell 240 keys just for the implementation. He stated that for a $27,500
annual fee on the 13 courts, that is $22,000 for the maintenance of the courts,
plus the $4,300 for the key situation, then the City would have to sell 687
keys. He stated he had talked with a lot of people down at the Albert Park
courts, and he did not think the City would sell more than 60-70 keys at Albert
Park. Mr. Morrisett stated he had seen the situation at San Rafael High School,
noting he used to play there, and it used to be that everyone played there
on Saturday and Sunday mornings, but now there are usually only one or two
courts with players.
Mr. Morrisett stated he would suggest a couple of alternates to this plan; first,
meters could be installed on the lights, charging $.25 for fifteen minutes
of play, which would be $1.00 per hour per court. He noted the courts are
used very heavily at night, and stated if we had four courts, with $1.00 per
hour for five hours per night, that would be $20.00 per day just from the use
of the lights; and $20.00 per day would be $7,000 per year. He stated the
City could also charge for keys to use the bathrooms, which have been locked.
He noted that currently there are temporary bathrooms, which are just
impossible, and he stated he would be happy to pay for a key to use the bathrooms.
He noted that adding another $2,000 for keys to the bathroom would bring the
total to $9,000 from lights and bathroom keys, and the annual maintenance on
the courts at Albert Park is only $6,500, so the City could potentially have
a profit. Mr. Morrisett stated that in the past he had also offered to help
out in designing some sort of little center next to the bathrooms and across
the street from the Nature Center, where they could sell such things as juices,
bottled water, sandwiches, and tennis balls, noting perhaps it could be managed
by retirees within the community.
Fred Warneke, Chairman of the Park and Recreation Commission, stated there has been
a lot of public interest over this issue, and he hated to see any park be locked,
noting parks are for public use, and there is a very close community that uses
these courts. Mr. Warneke stated it had been a tough decision to weigh because
of the cost of the maintaining the courts, noting the courts at Freitas Park
had already been vandalized. He pointed out that several people have come
forward and stated they supported locking the courts because they felt that
by locking them they would have more control over the courts, and they could
be preserved in good condition for a longer period of time. He stated the
Park and Recreation Commission support this proposal, and urged the Council
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 14
to support it, as well.
Councilmember Phillips stated Albert Park seemed more structured than Freitas Park
in terms of tournaments and activities, and Freitas seemed to be more of a
"drop in" park, with kids coming down and putting together a game, and he was
concerned we might be substantially jeopardizing that kind of play, as they
may not have a key. He asked if staff had looked at the distinction or
differentiation between the two? Mr. Warneke stated every court, depending
on its location and the population around it, was going to be different. He
noted the Park and Recreation Commission had mainly looked at the fact that
these courts had been newly resurfaced for quite a bit of money, and this cost
was something that was weighing on them. He stated they had been looking for
the tennis community to come up with ideas, and then did a survey of what was
being done in other cities, and decided this might be something that would
work in San Rafael.
Glen Almadova, San Rafael resident, stated the people who regularly play tennis
at Albert Park have become like family. He stated he had previously lived
in Hawaii, where he was an assistant pro shop manager at the Sheraton Kauai,
and had also been a United States Tennis Association approved referee for
tournaments, noting he had also dealt with facility maintenance. Mr. Almadova
stated he felt Albert Park should be kept open to the public, not only for
the goodwill, but also for the ability of the community to be friendly and
have a good open tennis game there. He pointed out Ms. McNamee had done an
excellent job of raising funds, but felt staff could do more to assist her
in this effort, not only through tennis lessons, but
also the organization of tennis tournaments and various other functions at the courts,
noting if they were to contact the NorCal Association, they could probably
schedule more tournaments at Albert Park if they could get on the tournament
calendar for 1997. He further suggested asking for community support with
the cleaning of the courts, noting he had spoken with many others who would
be glad to show up on the weekends and clean the courts. He acknowledged staff
has been doing the best they could to try to keep up with this, but noted they
are falling behind because of their other responsibilities, and there should
be a steady maintenance program of washing the courts on a timely monthly
schedule.
Mr
Almadova referred to the key system being proposed, and stated he did not feel
the City would get many people purchasing the keys, so the City would be spending
money for a lock and key system that would not pay for itself within the time
we would need to have it paid off, and the City would actually be losing money
rather than making the money we hoped to acquire.
Councilmember Miller asked Ms. McNamee what other revenue streams had been explored
to support the courts, and how did staff arrive at this being the preferred
solution? Ms. McNamee stated staff had discussed fundraisers, such as
tournaments and special events, noting those are still on the list of things
to do, but pointed out there is also an outstanding loan of $40,000 which must
be repaid. They felt they needed something more consistent, and something
a lot of people and players would contribute to, and they recognized a lot
of other cities were already doing this, and it was bringing them steady revenue
to do maintenance.
Councilmember Heller referred to the annual fees, and asked if that was the price
whether a person lived in San Rafael or out of San Rafael? Ms. McNamee stated
at this time they have not set separate resident and non-resident fees. Ms.
Heller stated she would like to see the Recreation Department look into the
proposal of having meters on the court lights, noting she felt it was an excellent
suggestion, especially at some of the other tennis courts in the smaller areas,
such as Boyd Park, that might take care of the lights. She felt the lights
should be off when they are not in use, and asked if staff had looked at this
idea? Ms. McNamee stated they had looked at it once, and would review it again.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was not sure the key system would work at Freitas
Park, noting the type of play conducted there seems different. He stated he
was skeptical there would be much participation at that court if, in fact,
we have something which to him seems a substantial inconvenience, noting if
you cannot get in, you cannot play on the courts. He stated the community,
at least those who play tennis, will be losing community recreation. He asked
if that was a valid concern, or not? Ms. McNamee stated it was tough to answer
this, noting she had found an earlier observation about the use pattern changing
at San Rafael High School very interesting, as she had not been aware of that.
Ms. McNamee stated she believed there may initially be some repercussion which,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 15
over time, would change and return to the normal use pattern as people get
used to the idea; however, she stated this was very difficult to predict.
She acknowledged that Freitas Park felt like it was tucked out of the way,
noting there are six courts at Terra Linda High School which are supported
by a volunteer group of tennis players who have organized themselves into a
club, but other than that, Freitas has the only other public courts unless
you go out to Santa Marguerita, way out in the valley. Ms. McNamee stated
it was difficult to know how the use pattern will change, and how it will affect
the users, without trying it and really measuring it.
Councilmember Cohen stated it has been obvious for nine or ten years that fund raising
efforts needed to take place for resurfacing and maintenance, particularly
the courts at Albert Park, and the City is not in a position to do that. However,
we have not seen anyone come forward to say they would do this in order to
keep from becoming a situation where the City would have to do some type of
lock and key system. Mr. Cohen stated the key system has been under discussion
for the past year or two, and he has not heard a viable alternative to this
suggestion. Mr. Cohen stated either we have to see the same kind of community
effort we have seen on some of the other park projects, or we have to implement
a fee for service, or some kind of combination thereof. He acknowledged this
was not a simple question, and was something that must be evaluated carefully,
but on balance, he believed as the Park and Recreation Commission does, that
we should implement this policy for both Albert Park and Freitas Park, and
see how it plays out.
Mayor Boro pointed out the City advanced the money several months ago for the tennis
courts, and not much has happened. He noted the courts were resurfaced with
the understanding the loan would be repaid, and further, they would be protected
as we moved forward. He stated the City must protect that asset, and the money
has to be in place as we go forward to replenish it when it needs resurfacing.
Mayor Boro pointed out fees are charged for many different things, noting
softball players, swimmers, and Little League players all pay fees. He noted
we are not trying to make money to the point where we are turning a profit
on this, but we are trying to
start a fund where we can maintain these particular facilities which were just
resurfaced. Mayor Boro stated Council had an obligation to the entire community
to provide the facilities, but at the same time to find a way to fund them,
noting tax revenues are not readily available.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was concerned with the inconvenience and lack of
accessibility because of the key aspect. He asked if something could be set
up whereby a player could put quarters into a slot for admission to the courts,
as anyone could have access to the quarters, but might not have access to one
of the keys? Mayor Boro asked where the keys were going to be sold? Ms. McNamee
stated the keys would be sold at all of the Recreation Centers, and perhaps
at Vallecito School, to make them accessible. She noted it had also been
discussed that if someone were coming to one of the courts for just a day,
and they did not have a key, perhaps a key could be available for loan at each
of the Recreation Centers. Mr. Phillips reiterated his belief that Freitas
Park was different because it is isolated. Ms. McNamee acknowledged that
Freitas was different, and it was isolated, but she pointed out it is also
vandalized more often because of that; therefore, it needs a key system, maybe
more for a security issue versus just an access issue.
Councilmember Heller stated she was going to support this project because she had
reluctantly reached the conclusion that everyone needs to pay for their special
interests. She noted she had paid for swimming lessons for her children, and
she pays for tennis lessons, and she did not feel the entire community should
be obligated to pay for these things if they are of special interest. Addressing
the area of convenience in obtaining the keys, she stated she would like staff
to look into perhaps making them available at the Police Department, Library
and City Hall, and other places convenient to members of the community, and
then make it very clear where the keys can be obtained.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution
approving the tennis key system at Albert Park and Freitas Park tennis courts.
RESOLUTION NO. 9732 -RESOLUTION APPROVING A TENNIS KEY SYSTEM FOR SAN RAFAEL TENNIS
COURTS (at Albert and Freitas Parks)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCIL ERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 16
19. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (P1) - File 240
City Manager Gould stated Code Enforcement is a service in increasing demand in
San Rafael, and the current level of staffing of one Code Enforcement Officer
to serve the entire City does not meet the needs; therefore, staff has been
developing a more comprehensive Code Enforcement program for Council's
consideration. Mr. Gould noted this program had a number of elements, although
it was still a work in progress. First, staff felt there was a need to overhaul
the Enabling Ordinance and the way the City enforces aspects of the Municipal
Code having to do with such issues as building, housing and safety, and to
empower more people in City Government to enforce different aspects of the
Code, noting currently only the Code Enforcement Officer has certain
authorities, and it was felt that we need to broaden that. Secondly, staff
felt that rather than relying on the Court System, it might be good to institute
what is called an Administrative Hearing Officer process, so we could get more
speedy review of Code infractions, and also so we could keep the revenue from
the citations for the City, which currently go to the County and State. He
noted staff felt this would be a major improvement and allow us to process
things faster. Third, the City Attorney's office would need additional support
to be able to effectively prosecute Code infractions, and it was felt we should
increase the staffing level. Fourth, we need more Code Enforcement Officers,
noting the current staffing level is one, and three would be appropriate for
the City; one as a Supervisor, one designated for the Canal neighborhood, and
one assisting the Supervisor with the rest of San Rafael.
Mr. Gould noted one of the items which has come to his attention, and caused some
concerns, was the proposal to commit to doing annual or bi-annual housing
inspections of all the apartment units in San Rafael, and charge a fee for
that. Mr. Gould stated this proposal has been reviewed, and it was felt the
City might want to hold this aside for the moment and consider the core aspects
of this program, meaning increase the staffing, come up with the Administrative
Hearing Officer process, give the City Attorney's office the additional time
it needs to effectively prosecute the infractions, and make some of the budget
adjustments that have been talked about. Mr. Gould reported staff felt they
could go after some Community Development Block Grant funds, and if not
successful there, the City might be able to tap some of the 20% set-aside
Redevelopment Housing Funds. Mr. Gould reported the General Fund currently
supports Code Enforcement, and that would
continue. He stated the 15% surcharge on permit fees was something that could be
done right away, so new development pays its share of future Code Enforcement,
noting he felt this was reasonable to do. He pointed out the City had received
a $121,000 State Law Enforcement Grant, which might be used as seed money to
set this whole thing in motion.
Planning Director Pendoley stated the Code Enforcement Program has traditionally
been thought of in San Rafael as a Code Enforcement Officer who worked for
the Zoning Ordinance, but in researching this, one would find the Code
Enforcement Officer and his or her duties show up in at least thirteen of the
nineteen chapters in the Municipal Code, pointing out there are also at least
nine other officers of the City or the County who are charged with some part
of Code Enforcement. Mr. Pendoley stated this was a program developed piecemeal
over the past almost forty years, and what it needs today is to be scrapped
and rebuilt from the bottom up, to create what we are calling a comprehensive
Code Enforcement Program.
Mr. Pendoley stated there should be five basic elements to such a program. First,
the City would need to adopt a Code Enforcement Enabling Ordinance setting
out Council's intent, describing exactly who is empowered with Code Enforcement
responsibilities, and exactly what their powers are. He noted the Fire Marshal
and Building Officer have Code Enforcement responsibilities, and there is also
a County Health Officer empowered to administered Codes for the City, but he
does not have citation authority, although that could be remedied with the
proper Enabling Ordinance.
Mr. Pendoley stated the Enabling Ordinance would also set up a variety of procedures,
noting a whole set of procedures would revolve around remedies, and the most
important part of that would be the second key element, creating a Hearing
Officer. Mr. Pendoley explained a Hearing Officer would have essentially the
same authority as the Council has when they hold an abatement hearing, such
as they did last month on a property in Bret Harte neighborhood; however, a
Hearing Officer could be empowered to do many more things with that authority.
He noted one of the most important could be the ability to levy fines, so
instead of having to turn that over to the Municipal Court, the City could
actually recover a good part or all of our costs on a given Code Enforcement
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 17
action. Mr. Pendoley reported that even more important, having a Hearing
Officer would streamline the process, noting hearings are really hard to package
and are an extremely cumbersome process. Mr. Pendoley stated the City could
do many more cases with a more streamlined process and a Hearing Officer, with
an appeal process to the City Council.
Mr. Pendoley stated another important element would be to increase staffing, noting
that while there are a lot of other people who do Code Enforcement in San Rafael
besides the Code Enforcement Officer, the core of it really is the Code
Enforcement Officer, and the support he or she gets from the City Attorney's
Office. Mr. Pendoley agreed with Mr. Gould's comment that we really do need
a staff of three, stating once we have a staff of three, the demand for service
is going to go up because, as with any enforcement activity, once people see
results they expect more.
Mr. Pendoley stated staff had outlined an approach for the program as it has been
described in this report, noting the most important single source could be
a surcharge on all Land Use Permits, explaining this would include not just
zoning and subdivision, but also building codes.
Mr. Pendoley stated the fifth element is an option, noting staff had structured
the report with a Code Enforcement activity called the Housing Code Inspection
Program, and that was included for several reasons. He reported there had
been some interest at the Council meeting two weeks ago to have the Housing
Code Inspection in the Canal be supported, and it is easiest to support this
if we do it City-wide. Mr. Pendoley noted this does provide a revenue stream
that helps us to leverage other monies and staff; nevertheless, we can develop
an option that does fund the basic program of the Hearing Officer, two Assistant
Code Enforcement Officers, and support from the City Attorney's Office, without
that program.
Mr. Pendoley explained we had a City-wide Code Enforcement Program in the report
for a couple of reasons; one was to create a revenue stream that we would combine
with other funds to help support three Code Enforcement Officers, a half-time
City Attorney, and a Hearing Officer. If the Housing Code Enforcement Program
is deleted, we could still fund the staff positions, but there would not be
as great a savings to the General Fund; it would be no additional cost, but
we would not realize some of the savings that have been analyzed in the report.
Mr. Pendoley stated that if Council is interested in this option, staff would
like to come back with an analysis.
Mayor Boro stated he had discussed this earlier with Mr. Pendoley and Mr. Gould,
and he fully supported the collection of fees for special services, if we offer
them to special groups. On the other hand, he challenged whether the City
would want to tax an entire body if we are only interested in targeting one
particular group with respect to some of these inspections. Mayor Boro noted
we had discussed the grant that we have, but the problem with a grant is that
it runs out, so once we were to start this program, and once the grant runs
out, we also have money from the federal government that potentially may come
forward, and we could also potentially use some Redevelopment money from the
Housing allocation. Mayor Boro stated, in the case of fire, if the City begins
making examples of a few offenders and the word gets out that if you do not
get going the City is going to do it for you, people will start to take care
of their problems, and he felt the same was true with a lot of people who are
not in compliance.
Mayor Boro asked if staff wanted to come back with a report on the funding, or if
they felt we should start the project and they would then work on the dollars
separately? City Manager Gould stated at this time they would like conceptual
approval that they are on the right track with a comprehensive approach to
Code Enforcement, and would like a chance to re -work the budget to give Council
the options that have been described. He noted it would be advantageous if
at some point Code Enforcement could stand on its own and become completely
distinct from the General Fund.
Councilmember Heller noted she reviewed the funding sources and saw the CDBG funds
sitting there for $50,000; however, she did not know if that would really be
there for us, noting it was a hard struggle to get anything for any localized
or special needs because the needs out there are so great. Mr. Gould stated
another unknown was the revenue from citations, and until we have some experience
with the new Administrative Hearing Process, we really have no idea what to
put in there.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 17
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 18
Ms. Heller referred to the appeal process, noting it appeared as though we would
be going to a Hearing Officer who would be a semi-official officer of our City,
and then the appeal would go all the way up to the City Council. She asked
if the Council would be the very end of the process, or if someone could then
appeal to the Superior and Municipal Courts?
City Attorney Ragghianti stated staff was conceptualizing that most of the matters
heard by the Hearing Officer the Council would never see, noting the ones we
were primarily concerned about were the ones the courts have always been
concerned about, and they involve the City actually going upon someone's
property and abating a nuisance. Mr. Ragghianti stated he is very conservative,
and even though the City may have a declaration that a property constitutes
a Public Nuisance and ought to be abated, in the absence of an emergency, before
he would want our people to go upon the property and knock it down, he would
want to take that declaration of the City, file a lawsuit and get the judicial
document to help us along. He stated those were the only cases he felt the
City would contemplate the possibility of the Council seeing the property owner
being given the right to come before the Council for one last appeal.
Ms. Heller asked if we would be increasing part of our legal time, and if the Deputy
City Attorney would be working on this a greater portion of his time, and
increasing his time working for the City from half-time to full-time?
Mr. Ragghianti stated it was his understanding that Assistant City Attorney Gus
Guinan would be remaining as the full-time, in-house assistant, and the other
position we have for Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis would eventually be funded
to full-time if this were implemented, and he would be primarily responsible
for handling all of the prosecutions and all of the other matters involved
with the Comprehensive Code Enforcement Program. Mr. Ragghianti asked City
Manager Gould to comment on how this was to be funded.
Mr. Gould stated that according to the budget Council approved in June, the Deputy
City Attorney goes from half-time to three-quarter time in January, and that
envisions he would be spending one-quarter time on general municipal affairs,
and 50% of a full-time position doing Code Enforcement; however, under this
proposal, he would be taken to full-time and, therefore, would be spending
three-quarters of his time doing Code Enforcement, and one-quarter of his time
doing research and other municipal legal work. Mr. Gould stated this would
be better spelled out when staff returns with the budget for this program.
Mayor Boro noted last year the City agreed that for the next three years we would
throw our fate with CDBG together with the County, but now that we are a fully
certified city with a population beyond 50,000, we have the right to be a
stand-alone entity, and he asked when the issue would come up again? City
Manager Gould responded it would be three years. Mayor Boro stated that was
something the City
should look forward to, noting the County had asked us to cooperate with them, but
assuming Mr. Gould's assumptions are correct, he felt the City would definitely
want to be on our own.
Councilmember Cohen felt the news concerning the conceptual support was probably
all good, but he did not know if it was so good on the financial side. Regarding
the proposed budget, he stated he thought we should take a hard look at the
proposed permit surcharge of 15%. He noted he was sure this was really "under
the radar", or we would have been hearing about it already. He pointed out
there had been a lot of discussion the last time we tried to increase the Planning
Fees, and really had to show the justification for that. Mr. Cohen stated
he was concerned that we were starting into a process where we are going to
take a hard look at actual costs of services, and it may be that we are going
to end up increasing fees as a result of that. He suggested we might want
to do this in that context, rather than turn around a few months from now and
have to tell the public we realize it is going to cost us more to process the
permits, and then increase the cost. He referred to the statement in the
recommendation which states, " Application of these funding sources would result
in a net savings to the City's General Fund of more than $55,000 because the
currently budgeted Deputy City Attorney position would become fee supported",
and noted we might want to look at our fee structure under this plan, as opposed
to trying to grab that $55,000 back to the health of the General Fund as a
whole, and reduce the amount by which we have to increase fees to cover this
by that $55,000, at least in the initial stages of this program.
Councilmember Cohen stated another issue he had looked at was that we are going
from one to three Code Enforcement Officers, and perhaps a way to get from
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 18
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 19
here to there was to go from one to two, and then look to fund the third.
He noted the Code Enforcement Officer, as described, is going to be spending
a lot of time supervising the other two assistants and coordinating, and maybe
if there was only one other person to supervise there would be less time spent
supervising and more time for that person to be out doing some of the code
enforcement, and we might get more bang for the buck, maybe not as much as
if we had three officers, but more than we have
had with only one officer. He noted the savings would be approximately $43,000
if we do not fund one of those positions during the first year.
Ms. Heller stated she would rather write up the entire program, and then if we feel
we want to start with just two Code Enforcement Officers, we could wait in
hiring the third, noting she would listen to the suggestions of the City Manager
and the Planning Director on this, but as long as we had this in place, we
could go ahead and hire at another time. Mr. Cohen stated he would not object
to that approach.
Councilmember Cohen referred to the Housing Code Inspection Program, stating he
felt what we have had in the Canal has been a very good program, and extending
that to other areas throughout the City made a lot of sense, and was not something
he would want to take out of this package. He stated he did not know where
the "nominal fee" came from, noting if the City is proposing to raise building
permit fees by 15%, then $14.00 per unit is not a very big hit, and perhaps
we could up that a little bit, noting $1.50 per month is only $18.00 per unit.
Mr. Cohen stated he understood the connection between building permit activity
and Code Enforcement, and if what we are saying is that we are going to have
a program where we are going to inspect the multi -unit housing stock, then
having a fee for that is a connection that is very easy to make, and he suggested
we might look at that fee, as well.
Mayor Boro stated he had a problem with the way this was portrayed in the staff
report, having one level of service in one part of the community, and a different
level of service in another part of the community, but charging the same fee,
and he was concerned the City would be criticized for subsidizing, noting this
was something Mr. Gould and Mr. Pendoley were going to have to look at. Mayor
Boro stated he did not disagree with the need to do it, but there is an
inconsistency in the fee structure as it is proposed, and we need to be able
to defend this. Mr. Cohen stated he felt one way to do that was to implement
a fee structure that is the same, and then if there is going to be a subsidy
for units in the Canal, that would be where CDBG would come in, and if it does
not come in, we would have our fee structure in place and charge the same fee,
and look for some other funding source to do the subsidizing.
City Manger Gould stated that had been the original proposal, and he suggested staff
come back before the Council in two weeks with three service level options;
first, simply adding a second Code Enforcement Officer, and what we would get
as far as increased service, where that person would spend his or her time,
what it would cost, and how that would be funded; second, moving to two additional
Code Enforcement Officers, but not doing the Housing Code Inspection Program,
and how that might be funded; third, refine the budget for all five elements.
He stated the Council could then decide what level of service and funding
they would be most
comfortable with. Mayor Boro asked that the revised report also include which
recommendations the City should begin with to enable us to go forward, and
which ones staff would want more time on, noting this would allow the Council
to begin the process to pick the level of service they want and the Ordinances
to support that, and staff could begin looking at funding sources.
Councilmember Miller agreed the staged implementation was a very important process,
because that way we could begin to move it, but in order to get a staged
implementation process we need to have the big picture first, and that is why
he is so strongly endorsing the City-wide Code Inspection. Mr. Miller stated
he saw the inspections in the Canal as just being part of the City-wide program,
not part of a special program for that area.
Mayor Boro stated he had a little different philosophy, noting that if we have a
problem in one area that is more acute than the rest, when we address it we
might look at alternate funding sources, in addition to the property owners
taking some of the burden, but the way he read this particular program, property
owners in two-thirds of the 5,500 properties are outside the Canal, so the
perception could be that those two-thirds are subsidizing the one-third, and
that is where we could have some problems. Mayor Boro pointed out this will
not be a popular decision, and the Council will be hearing about how the poor
people who live there now can hardly pay the rent, and the City is going to
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 19
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 20
raise the fees by $14.00 per year. He stated he was not at all opposed to
what was being proposed, but felt there might be other ways to address some
of these fees, and if the City is going to assess the entire populace, as far
as rental units, then we should at least be certain they are getting something
for their money, other than just feeling good that they are supporting another
part of the City.
Councilmember Phillips stated he felt this was a good approach, and he was anxious
to see it, noting he felt it was on the right track and would make it easier
to make a decision. He felt phasing -in probably made sense, and acknowledged
this was a sorely needed program.
20. PROPOSED MANAGEMENT EVALUATION AND COMPENSATION PROGRAM (Per)
- File 7-4
Personnel Director Daryl Chandler recalled that when the City was recruiting for
the City Manager position last summer, there had been some discussion about
an evaluation system for all Management positions, and this was incorporated
into the recruitment brochure. Staff has attempted to incorporate the
evaluation program into a more comprehensive Management Performance Evaluation
and Compensation Program, and in doing that, have established not only a
Management Performance Planning and Evaluation System and related forms, but
also a method whereby a pay for performance plan could be established for those
Managers meeting certain goals and objectives.
Mr. Chandler stated the staff report outlines the program, and how it is incorporated
into the current compensation, pay, and benefit system of Managers, noting
the appraisal system is really a system establishing the fact that evaluation
should be occurring at all times, beginning at the start of the evaluation
period with a planning phase. There was also a progress review phase, and
a formal evaluation at the end of the year, at which time a new plan for the
upcoming year would be developed. Based upon the Department Managers' ability
to achieve the goals and objectives, they would be subject to the possibility
of a performance bonus, which could be anywhere from one to five percent of
pay. Mr. Chandler reported the other factor related to the performance bonus
system was that the money would have to come from the existing budget of each
particular department and, thereby, this program would be implemented without
any additional costs to the City.
Councilmember Phillips asked about the origin of the plan, and whether this was
being done in other cities, or was something unique that we were considering?
Mr. Chandler stated this was only unique in that staff used three or four
different sources, noting the overall aspects of the planning phases are
something currently being used with the M.A.P.E. employees, and the pay for
performance portion of it is something that has been discussed over a number
of years in the public sector, and some portions of this program were adopted
from the City of Palo Alto's program.
Councilmember Phillips referred to the funds that are made available, and asked
if, over time, we would be encouraging the various departments to inflate their
departmental budgets so there would be a means during the year to scale that
back, creating the bonus pool? Mr. Chandler stated he felt this was something
there might be some awareness of, but all budgets would have to be justified
through the normal process, and that could probably be taken care of if it
were happening at that point.
City Manager Gould noted that at some future date, one of the things he would like
to bring to the Council for consideration is the way we do the budgeting to
the expenditure control concept, where the budgets are increased by a cost
of living indicator each year, and the departmental managers are charged with
carrying out the missions of their departments within that sum of resources.
He noted the Council would not be approving budget line items as they do now,
they would be approving lump sums, but then holding the City Manager and the
Department Managers responsible for carrying out objectives and goals for those
departments, and only those department heads who could meet their goals and
objectives and accrue some savings would be eligible for either the permanent
increases or the bonus as described by Mr. Chandler. Mr. Gould stated this
system has worked in other places, and while it may take some getting used
to, it provides tremendous incentive to Managers to meet their goals and
objectives, and not spend what is not absolutely necessary each year.
Councilmember Phillips asked if Mr. Gould had found there was a correlation between
the department meeting its goals and objectives, resulting in a savings that
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 20
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 21
could then be disbursed as a bonus? Mr. Phillips noted he could see situations
where the department would meet its goals and objectives, but there is not
necessarily a related cost savings in that process and therefore, there would
not be a bonus pool, even though the Manager has done an outstanding job of
meeting goals and objectives.
Mr. Gould stated there may not be a direct correlation between meeting one's goals
and objectives, and savings. He pointed out that what expenditure control
budgeting tries to achieve is to get beyond the incentive of "spend it or lose
it", which is very prevalent in government today, noting there is a feeling
that if one does not spend their entire budget it will be reduced next year,
and they will, therefore, be penalized for the savings. Mr. Gould stated the
idea here is to say that if a department achieves savings this year, they are
able to keep a portion of it next year, to be spent on personnel, equipment
or bonuses, and that way it can be saved for a "rainy day". Mr. Gould stated
this was similar to corporate accounting, and has proven to be effective in
the public sector. He stated that what mitigates against a Manager generating
false savings, is that he or she is still held accountable for the goals and
objectives, and if they do not meet those, there is no bonus anyway, so it
places the greatest responsibility at the Management level. Mr. Gould stated
he believed we had the quality of Management to allow us to take advantage
of this.
Councilmember Phillips asked if we have the performance based accounting in place
to implement this program, and how will the timing of the two come together?
Mr. Gould stated he would suggest the Council could approve this evaluation
and compensation system now, and when staff brings the process for the 1997/1998
City and Agency Budget to the Council, then he would also bring the idea of
expenditure control budgeting to the Council at that time, noting he felt they
could go hand in hand.
Mayor Boro asked how we would make the transition the first year, if we start this
in November, and the budget ends in June and another budget starts, and if
there would be a different cycle for performance and budget reviews, and how
that would be bridged. Mr. Gould stated Mr. Chandler has proposed that in
July they would do performance evaluations for all of the department heads,
and at that time they would know whether or not there were expenditure savings
in the major departmental budgets, and they would be able to gauge performance
against the goals and objectives approved by the Council at the Study Session
a month ago.
Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Chandler for putting this report together, and Mr. Gould
for bringing it to the Council, as this is something that has been talked about
in the past. Mayor Boro noted there was a question as to how they would deal
with the City Manager, and pointed out this process needs to be put together
so the Council will have a more direct role in his situation, while Mr. Gould
takes care of the department heads. He stated he felt this was the right way
for the public sector to go, to pay for performance and give people a chance
to stretch, as far as their salaries go, on a permanent basis, but also to
have a bonus out there if they can produce and meet their goals and objectives.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution
amending Resolution No. 9414 to establish a Management Evaluation and
Compensation Program.
RESOLUTION NO. 9733 -RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION #9414 TO ESTABLISH A MANAGEMENT
EVALUATION AND COMPENSATION PROGRAM
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL ERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
21. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
None
None
a. MARIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION - File 226 x 9-1 (Verbal)
Councilmember Phillips reported he had met with the Marin Community Foundation (MCF)
as liaison between MCCMC (Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers)
and MCF, noting they were working on how to bring various Joint Powers Agreements
into a situation that provides more management control. He stated that would
be reviewed, with a report prepared by a consultant over the next several months.
He stated the MCF is going through a program review with outreach to various
providers for feedback as to how effective their programs have been, noting
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 21
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 22
they are going to ask MCCMC to provide feedback at their meeting to be held
January 23rd, at the request of Stephen Dobbs. He stated they have recommended
the Liaison Committee, and perhaps one other member of the Council, meet on
that day to provide reactions, suggestions and criticisms with regard to their
program; therefore, he suggested someone from the Council accompany him to
the meeting to provide that input. Councilmember Heller will attend with Mr.
Phillips.
b. VOLUNTEER CLEAN-UP DAY, SUNDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1996 - File 235 (Verbal)
Councilmember Heller stated that in addition to the Volunteer Day graffiti clean-up
activities mentioned by City Manager Gould, there were also clean-up
opportunities in the Montecito area, and "north of the hill" they will be
involved in trash pick-up, noting they have 500 to 1,000 orange bags to fill
up with trash. She reported there would also be a picnic in Pickleweed Park
after the clean-up activities.
C. TRAFFIC SIGNAL IN GERSTLE PARK - File 11-10 x 11-1 (Verbal)
Councilmember Cohen stated the residents of the Gerstle Park neighborhood held a
community meeting, and the majority voted in support of the City's proposal
to install a stop light at the intersection of Bayview and "D" Street. He
stated there had been many different proposals, and the City explored every
conceivable alternative, with our emphasis on safety and access to crossing
"D" Street. He noted the City was still waiting for communication from the
Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association confirming they voted in support of this,
and then the City should hold a Public Hearing to hear public comment. Mr.
Cohen stated he would like the notice to be mailed to every resident in the
Gerstle Park neighborhood, not just those properties near the affected
intersection, giving them the opportunity to voice their opinions or participate
in the meeting, at which the Council will make the final decision.
d. MARIN/SONOMA INTER -MODAL TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE STUDY - File 170 (Verbal)
Mayor Boro announced meetings would be held November 12th in Petaluma and November
20th in San Rafael to discuss the results of the Marin/Sonoma Inter -Modal
Transportation Committee Study. He stated he and Councilmember Cohen would
be at a Sanitary Board meeting the night of the meeting in San Rafael, and
he hoped one of the other Councilmembers could attend. He stated there may
be a recommendation coming out as to the alternatives on Highway 101 regarding
transportation improvements, and noted the meeting on November 20th would be
a workshop held in our Council Chamber.
e. "DRIVE 45 ON THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE" - File 112-2 (Verbal)
Mayor Boro distributed bumper stickers which state, "Drive 45 on the Golden Gate
Bridge", noting these stickers would soon be appearing on the City's cars,
the Marin Municipal Water District's cars, and hopefully the cars of other
city agencies. He reported there have been several hundred citations issued
for speeding on the bridge, and he felt the bumper stickers conveyed a very
important message.
f. FEE FOR FIRE FLOW IMPROVEMENTS BALLOT MEASURE - File 9-4 x 9-3-31 (Verbal)
Mayor Boro gave each of the Councilmembers a pen imprinted with a message of support
for Measure L, the Fee for Fire Flow Improvements ballot measure.
g. TERRA LINDA VISION PROJECT - File 238 (Verbal)
Mayor Boro stated staff had done an outstanding job with the Terra Linda Vision,
and he was very impressed with the fact that 250 people attended the kick-off
event. He stated the community had begun a great process, and he looked forward
to a very successful conclusion.
Councilmember Phillips noted the Councilmembers have all been assigned Partner
Groups, and reported he had met with the Terra Linda leadership class, a class
of approximately fifty students, to get their input. Mr. Phillips stated he
had three Partner Groups, noting the Councilmembers comprised one of those
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 22
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 23
groups, and he would be contacting them for their input.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned
at 10:30 PM.
Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1996
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/21/96 Page 23