Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1997-09-15SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Eric Davis, Deputy City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM None Mayor Boro announced he would begin the meeting with one of the Special Presentation Agenda items. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: 11. PRESENTATION OF AWARDS TO THE SAN RAFAEL LITTLE LEAGUE NINE AND TEN-YEAR OLD ALL-STAR MARIN COUNTY CHAMPIONS IN RECOGNITION OF THEIR UNDEFEATED SEASON: (CM) - File 102 a) TYLER FAYLES, b) MIKE LINDQUIST, c) DUSTIN LOPEZ, d) GREGORY ASTER, e) BRIAN MAGALINE, f) BEN LEVIN, g) JOSH NICHOLSON, h) BOBBY CATELLI, i) JOSH GALLAND, j) TIM RODRIQUIZ, k) SHAWN WAITE, 1) BRENDON BICKEL, m) RICHARD DAVEY, n) STEVE DETWILER, o) NICK KUROCZKO, p) SEAN BARNI, q) JOHN STANTON, r) MAX JONES Mayor Boro announced certificates were being presented to the members of the San Rafael Little League Nine and Ten-year Old All Star Marin County Champions in recognition of their undefeated tournament play for the first time in the history of the San Rafael Little League. Mayor Boro stated the City was proud to honor the team members for representing San Rafael as the 1997 All-Star Marin County Champions. Mayor Boro also introduced some of the parents who have supported the team: Rick Catelli, Team Manager; Mark Kuroczko, Assistant Manager; Mike Rodriquez, Assistant Manager; Nita Fayles, Assistant Coach. Mayor Boro introduced each of the team members present, presenting them with a certificate and a City of San Rafael pin. He also gave pins to Mr. Catelli, Mr. Kuroczko, Mr. Rodriquez, and Mrs. Fayles. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:30 PM REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE MARTINEZ BILL - File 9-1 Coleman Persily, resident of San Rafael, spoke regarding the Martinez Bill, noting he had previously sent information regarding this bill to the Mayor and Councilmembers, and explained this was a bill that would create Public Works jobs, cut crime by putting people to work, get jobs for those coming off the Welfare rolls, and give jobs to the unemployed. Mr. Persily reported this bill had the endorsement of the members of the Marin County Board of Supervisors, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, Senator Barbara Boxer, the State Senate and the State Assembly, as well as the endorsement of Labor and many community organizations, including the cities of San Francisco and Oakland. Mr. Persily stated the creators of this Bill are asking the cities to pass Resolutions supporting this Bill, and he asked the City of San Rafael to pass such a Resolution endorsing the Bill. City Manager Rod Gould reported this Bill was the subject of a Resolution being presented for Council's approval, as part the Legislative Report listed on tonight's Agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted. Tuesday, September 2, 1997 (CC) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 2 2. Acceptance of Statements of Disclosure for Jeff Kirchmann, Bruce Scott, and Theresa Smith, Planning Commission (CC) - File 9-4-3 4. Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) recommendation: - File 9-1 OPPOSE; AB 1243 (Granlund), OPPOSE. Accepted Statements of Disclosure. Approved staff SB 110 (Dills) , Sales & Use Taxes: RESOLUTION NO. 9912 - RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE JOB CREATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE RESTORATION ACT OF 1997 (HR 950) . 5. Resolutions of Appreciation for Yolanda Gibson, RESOLUTION NO. 9913 - Rosa Maria Hayden, Barbara Kob and Eleanor S. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO Spater, Mediation Services Staff/Volunteers, YOLANDA GIBSON, MARIN COUNTY for Their Long -Time Intensive Work in the MEDIATION SERVICES ADVISORY Canal Area (CM) - File 102 COMMITTEE. RESOLUTION NO. 9914 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO ROSA MARIA HAYDEN, MEDIATION SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE. RESOLUTION NO. 9915 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO BARBARA KOB, MARIN MEDIATION SERVICES. RESOLUTION NO. 9916 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO ELEANOR S. SPATER, MEDIATION COORDINATOR, MARIN COUNTY MEDIATION SERVICES. 6. Resolution Approving the Final Map Entitled RESOLUTION NO. 9917 - "Map of Montevideo Terrace, Unit 2" (PW) RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL - File 5-1-327 MAP ENTITLED, "MAP OF MONTEVIDEO TERRACE UNIT 211, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA. 7. Resolution Extending Time for the Completion RESOLUTION NO. 9918 - of Improvement Work - Baypoint Lagoons Unit 2 RESOLUTION TO EXTEND TIME Subdivision (Extended to and Including FOR THE COMPLETION OF December 19, 1998) (PW) - File 5-1-292 IMPROVEMENT WORK - "BAYPOINT LAGOONS UNIT 2 SUBDIVISION" (EXTENDED TO AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 19, 1998). 8. Monthly Investment Report (Admin. Svcs.) Accepted report. - File 8-18 x 8-9 AYES: COUNCIL ERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCIL ERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro pointed out to Mr. Persily that the approval of the Consent Calendar items had included approval of the Resolution endorsing HR Bill 950. The following item was pulled from the Agenda for further discussion: 3. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE BELOW MARKET RATE RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1996, BETWEEN MARIA B. FREITAS SENIOR HOUSING CORPORATION AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, FOR THE MARIA B. FREITAS SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED AT 1 TRINITY WAY, SAN RAFAEL (CA) - File 229 Mayor Boro noted a report will be prepared on an annual basis, and asked Housing Consultant Dick Bornholdt to make certain the report comes to him, and that he keeps the Council posted as to the status of this project. Mr. Bornholdt stated the Agreement included a provision which stipulates they must provide a H.U.D. report and show the occupancy reporting and verify that they meet the income requirements. Councilmember Cohen asked if it was possible for them to re -finance this project at some point in the future, which would remove the H.U.D. oversight? Mr. Bornholdt stated that while it may be possible, he did not think it was likely because of the depth of the subsidy on H. U. D. Is part. He explained that because the rents are so low, a big portion of H.U.D. Is assistance is not debt financing, it is sort of a grant situation, noting they have very long Deed Restrictions and Agreements as far as the use of the property. Mr. Bornholdt stated if it were to be re -financed and those grants disappeared, they would then have to SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 3 increase the rents, which would lead to the units no longer being affordable, and people would either have to pay the higher rents or move. Mr. Bornholdt stated that if something like that should happen in the future, the City would be notified, and could revisit the Agreement, stating that if the more stringent requirements from a public Agency such as H.U.D. were no longer going to be in place, then the City would put its own requirements back in place. Mr. Cohen asked if the City was in the position to do that somewhere down the road, or if we needed to add language which states that in the event their subsidies terminate, and something happens with the H.U.D. Agreement, then the City has the right to step back in and impose its requirements? Mr. Bornholdt stated such a clause could be added, noting he did not believe the Maria B. Freitas Senior Housing Corporation would have a problem with that, and he felt H.U.D. probably would not have a problem with it. Mr. Cohen stated he believed it would be prudent to add this language, because if the City was going to waive its requirements because H.U.D.Is are more restrictive, we should reserve the right to step back in and make that reporting requirement if H.U.D.'s restrictions were no longer in place. Mr. Bornholdt stated he would contact the Developer, and noted that based upon his discussions, and having negotiated this Agreement thus far, he did not feel they would have a problem with this. Mayor Boro asked if Mr. Bornholdt wanted to bring this item back at the next Council meeting on October 6th? Mr. Bornholdt stated there were some timing issues with this project, as they are closing it out and it needs to be recorded. City Manager Gould asked if Council would feel comfortable approving the Resolution at this time, with the provision that Mr. Bornholdt negotiate this language with the Developer and H.U.D. and incorporate it into the Agreement, and if he were unsuccessful in his negotiations, then the item would be brought back at the meeting of October 6th? The Councilmembers indicated they would be comfortable with that course of action. City Clerk Leoncini asked that it be specified that the language to be included in the Agreement be approved by the City Attorney's Office. Council agreed to that stipulation. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the Resolution authorizing execution of an amendment to the Below Market Rate Rental Agreement dated September 16, 1996 between Maria B. Freitas Senior Housing Corporation and the City of San Rafael, with the inclusion of the additional wording as discussed by Council; language to be approved by the City Attorney's office. RESOLUTION NO. 9919 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE BELOW MARKET RATE RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1996, BETWEEN MARIA B. FREITAS SENIOR HOUSING CORPORATION AND CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, FOR THE MARIA B. FREITAS SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED AT 1 TRINITY WAY, SAN RAFAEL. (As amended.) SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 9. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO YOLANDA GIBSON, ROSA MARIA HAYDEN, BARBARA KOB AND ELEANOR S. SPATER, MEDIATION SERVICES STAFF/VOLUNTEERS, FOR THEIR LONG-TIME, INTENSIVE WORK IN THE CANAL AREA (CM) - File 102 Mayor Boro introduced Eleanor Spater, announcing she has been Mediation Coordinator for the Marin County Mediation Services since 1979. He noted Ms. Spater has devoted much of her time, including nights and weekends, to assist landlords and tenants in the Canal area of San Rafael, and as part of her realization of the many needs of the immigrants who populate this neighborhood, she has been instrumental in gathering the funding, script, and actors to produce a Spanish language video about the basic landlord/tenant rights and responsibilities. Mayor Boro stated Ms. Spater also organized a series of meetings for the landlords, building managers, tenants, and City staff regarding efforts to initiate the repair and clean-up of some of these apartments that were in violation of City Codes. On behalf of the City of San Rafael, Mayor Boro thanked Ms. Spater for the exceptional work she has done, and presented her with a Resolution of Appreciation. Ms. Spater thanked Mayor Boro and the Councilmembers, and presented Mayor Boro with a copy of the landlord/tenant video to view. Mayor Boro introduced Rosa Marie Hayden, noting that while she and her husband are very involved with Falkirk Cultural Center, tonight she was being honored as a mediation volunteer and a member of the Mediation Services Advisory Committee for the Marin County Mediation Services since 1992. Mayor Boro reported that because Ms. Hayden is bilingual in Spanish and English, she has been of great assistance to Mediation Services in helping Latino clients, noting she has also spent a great deal of time helping with the City's Operation Pride Clean-up Day in the Canal. Mayor Boro, on behalf of the City, expressed his thanks for Ms. Hayden's many hours of community service, and presented her with a Resolution of Appreciation. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 4 Mayor Boro introduced Barbara Kob, stating she has been a worker/volunteer for the Marin Mediation Services for the past three years, during which time she has been the recipient of an exceptional number of letters of commendation from the Mediation Services' clients. He reported she had also assisted in the City's Operation Pride Clean-up Day and other festivities in the Canal, and helped arrange funding to offset the cost of the lunch for more than 100 volunteers. Mayor Boro noted Ms. Kob has also donated many hours assisting in the resolution of landlord/tenant problems in the Canal. Mayor Boro presented Ms. Kob with a Resolution of Appreciation, thanking her on behalf of the City for her service. Ms. Kob thanked Mayor Boro, noting it was a pleasure to work in a community setting and do these types of projects. Mayor Boro announced Yolanda Gibson was unable to attend tonight's meeting to receive her Resolution of Appreciation. 10. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO MICHAEL TRUJILLO (RESOLUTION NO. 9906 ADOPTED AUGUST 18, 1997) FOR ASSISTANCE TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT (PD) - File 102 x 9-3-30 Police Chief Cam Sanchez noted this presentation was actually a surprise to the recipient, asking Michael Trujillo to join him at the dias. Chief Sanchez stated the City was recognizing Michael as a young man who has "stepped up to the plate", reporting Michael had been involved as a witness to a violent crime in the Canal area, in which someone had been stabbed. Chief Sanchez noted there were a lot of traumatic things going on while this was happening, yet Michael made the decision to call the Police and an ambulance, and get people involved to assist the victim of the stabbing. Chief Sanchez reported most people who were there, including family and friends, urged Michael not to call the Police; however, Michael knew what the right thing to do was, and he got involved. Chief Sanchez noted Michael called the Police, assisted in translating, and on his own he went to the hospital with the victim and the victim's wife, where he assisted in translating. Chief Sanchez reported Michael also assisted in the identification which led to the arrest of the suspect. Chief Sanchez noted that in spite of peer pressure, Michael decided he was going to look beyond that and be the big guy that he is, and get involved with the Police Department to assist a victim of a violent crime. On behalf of the City of San Rafael and the Police Department, Chief Sanchez thanked Michael for stepping up and doing the right thing. Michael Trujillo thanked Miguel Gavaldon, Raza Studies Director, and the members of his study group for giving him their support whenever he needs it. He also thanked Chief Sanchez for making presentations before the group, noting he volunteers his time to tell them about Police work. Michael acknowledged it had been difficult to call the Police, noting everyone was scared of the man who had stabbed the victim. Chief Sanchez noted Michael was also involved with Canal Ministries, and introduced Miguel Gavaldon, who directs the young people, and works closely with Chief Sanchez in teaching them about consequences, and about life choices and the right thing to do. Chief Sanchez thanked Miguel for his work, stating the Canal Ministries was doing a wonderful job in the Canal, and the Police Department was honored to be a part of the group. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 12. PUBLIC HEARING - TO DETERMINE WHETHER PUBLIC NECESSITY, HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE REQUIRES THE FORMATION OF AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT IN THE VICINITY OF SECOND STREET, THIRD STREET, LINDARO STREET, AND LINCOLN AVENUE, KNOWN AS LINDARO STREET UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT (PW) - File 12-18-12 Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing and asked for the staff report. Public Works Director David Bernardi stated Council was being asked to consider a Resolution establishing an Underground Utility District in the vicinity of Second Street, Third Street, Lindaro Street, and Lincoln Avenue, known as Lindao Street Underground Utility District. He noted a map was attached to the staff report indicating the boundaries of the Underground District. Mr. Bernardi reported on August 18th Council adopted a Resolution calling for a Public Hearing to determine whether there was public necessity, health, safety, or welfare in the requirement of the formation Underground Utility District, pointing out the attached Resolution contains those findings. He stated the proposed undergrounding to be accomplished would avoid or eliminate an unusually SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 5 heavy concentration of overhead distribution facilities. Streets, roads, and rights-of-way in the District are extensively used by the general public, and carry a heavy volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. These streets, roads and rights-of-way adjoin and pass through this District, and it is also a civic area. Mr. Bernardi stated it was important to note that the 60,000 volt lines, or the big heavy cables will not be undergrounded as part of this project, but will remain overhead, primarily because of the very expensive cost to underground those utilities. He noted it is approximately $3 million per mile for the wires, plus approximately $500,000 at either end for transition facilities to convert it back up the towers to the tall poles. Mr. Bernardi explained the wires that would be undergrounded in this District would all be what is described as "secondary service", which is everything lower than 60,000 volts. Mr. Bernardi reported this District would require property owners to re -wire all of their utilities to receive underground service by February 1, 1999, with all of the poles and wires being removed by December 1, 2000. Mr. Bernardi stated the funding for this project was such that the City would have to put in approximately $1 million for its share of the work, which includes street lighting, traffic signal installation, and project management, as well as part of the design costs. The City would pay approximately 15% of the trenching cost, and the balance would be paid by P. G. & E. and the other utility companies. Mr. Bernardi stated the total project cost would be approximately $2.5 million, pointing out the City would also be borrowing future allocated funds from P.G.& E. under their Rule 20 allocation, so that by the time the City is ready to construct this project, we will have sufficient funds to cover P.G.& E. Is cost, which will be approximately $1.2 million. Mr. Bernardi stated that should the project exceed the estimated costs, the City will split the project into two Undergrounding Districts, waiting for the future funds to be allocated. Mayor Boro clarified that this action was part of the policy that had been adopted by Council to proceed with this site? Mr. Bernardi stated that was correct. He reported that in consideration of the Fair, Isaac project, and in looking and the utilities and discussing infrastructure issues with the representatives of Fair, Isaac, one of the concerns of their employee group was the wires around the site. He noted at that time a commitment was made that the wires that could be undergrounded would be considered as part of what Council is being asked to consider at this time. The remaining 60,000 volt lines on the southern, creek side of the property would be relocated away from the site, and the remainder of the high voltage lines would remain in place for the time being. In addition, the undergrounding of utilities in the Downtown Core has been a goal of the Council for the past thirty years, and this is just a continuation of that policy, as well. Councilmember Heller stated all the neighborhoods would like to have their utilities undergrounded, and asked if there was a Master Plan regarding this, or if we are just concentrating on the Downtown area? Mr. Bernardi stated Council had selected those locations where there is heavy pedestrian and traffic volume, citing Francisco Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue as examples, as well as Second and Third Streets, and all of the Downtown area. Mr. Bernardi stated those were generally the criteria that were used; however, if in the future the Council decides it wants to look at residential areas, they would certainly have the prerogative to do so. He noted that in the past the Villa Real neighborhood on the San Pedro Peninsula had looked into an Undergrounding Assessment District, but because of the high cost, it was not pursued at that time. Councilmember Cohen noted the staff report states that by the end of the Second, Third, and "A" Streets Undergrounding Project all currently accumulated funds will be spent. He asked what the current date of completion was for that project? Mr. Bernardi reported the official date was approximately a year and a half away, when all the poles have to come down; however, the construction itself should be completed by next April. Councilmember Cohen noted it had been stated that by the end of the project, existing allocations would be spent, plus we would need to go one future year. Mr. Cohen asked, if the project ends in 1998, is Mr. Bernardi saying that we will be taking 1999's allocations in addition to the existing funds? Mr. Bernardi stated we would be taking 1998's future allocation, and we would then have future allocations for 1999, 2000, and 2001 that we will borrow against in order to fund this project in 1999. Mr. Cohen asked if that would total $1 million? Mr. Bernardi stated the allocations were $360,000 per year. Mr. Cohen asked how much phasing we will have to do, and whether or not we needed more of a cushion than that? Mr. Bernardi stated the numbers we have right now are based upon estimates from P.G.& E., primarily because it is their undergrounding money that is going to be spent to fund most of the work. If their estimates are too low and the bids come in at $1.6 million, for example, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 6 the City would have to look at the scope of the project and eliminate part of that to bring the project within the funds available, or convince P.G.& E. to loan us more than three years. Mr. Cohen asked if the City would know this when we get the bids on the project, plus the 20% contingency? Mr. Bernardi stated that was correct. Mr. Cohen asked if the City would have some contingency amount available so we do not end up on the hook for this because we started a year too early? Mr. Bernardi stated this was correct. Mr. Cohen asked if there was a timing issue relative to the Fair, Isaac project, or was this happening independently? Mr. Bernardi stated it would happen independently, and this was just meeting our commitment as part of the project work. Mr. Cohen asked, if it would cause a problem if it ended up that the City had to wait a year to let funds accumulate before we started this project? Mr. Bernardi stated he did not believe that would be unacceptable to Fair, Isaac. Mr. Cohen stated he did not want the City to get in a position where we had made a commitment to go forward and then backs up. City Manager Gould stated he believed Fair, Isaac had the expectation that close to the time that it opens Phase I of its office project the lines will be underground. However, if the City does not have sufficient funds, we would have to explain that to Fair, Isaac and expect that they would understand. He noted there was no legal agreement or policy statement by them. Mayor Boro stated, based on the estimates we have received, the City is fairly well along the way to meet the commitments we have made. If the cost should be more than we had anticipated, the City would continue to do this project, but it would be phased, and taken out of future dollars, which would delay the final implementation. Councilmember Cohen asked if the $360,000 was a known figure? Mr. Bernardi stated that it was. Mr. Cohen asked if the City could conceivably fund that itself if, for example, P. G. & E. were to say that they would only advance us three years, yet we know during the fourth year there will be another $360,000 coming as a source of funds, could the City look at trying, in some fashion, to see that this project go forward? Mr. Gould stated that it could, noting that if the City could fund the entire thing from sources other than Rule 20-A, it would just mean giving up other projects that we have committed to. Mr. Cohen asked if the City could refund that money from Rule 20-A monies? Mr. Gould stated Rule 20-A money can only be used for undergrounding projects. Mr. Cohen asked, if the City had a $300,000 shortfall, knowing we had another $360,000 coming, could we tap that for the advance? Mr. Bernardi stated that was something we would have to pursue with P. G. & E. , stating he did not know if their cash allocation permits that or not. Mr. Bernardi pointed out the staff report included a letter from the property owners at 901 Lincoln Avenue and 806 Third Street, which is the corner of Third Street and Lincoln Avenue, which requested the Underground District not be formed, and that staff recommended denial of their request. There being no public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution establishing an Underground Utility District in the vicinity of Second Street, Third Street, Lindaro Street and Lincoln Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 9920 -RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT IN THE VICINITY OF SECOND STREET, THIRD STREET, LINDARO STREET, AND LINCOLN AVENUE (LINDARO STREET UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT). AYES: COUNCIL ERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCIL ERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 13. PUBLIC HEARING - MASTER FEE SCHEDULE: (Admin. Svcs.) - File 9-10-2 (a) CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 3.34 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A FEE AND SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE/COST COMPARISON SYSTEM, AND AMENDING RELATED PROVISIONS OF THE CODE CONSISTENT THEREWITH; AND (b) CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEW MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS, AND RESCINDING THE EXISTING RESOLUTIONS ESTABLISHING THE PRE-EXISTING MASTER FEE SCHEDULE. Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for a staff report. Administrative Services Director Ken Nordhoff stated this was the accumulation of a very lengthy project which had begun last fall, recalling Council commissioned Management Services Institute (MSI) to work with City staff to develop a cost study. As part of that process, staff was charged with identifying all of the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 7 services they provide to the citizens and businesses of the community, and developing the full cost of providing each of those services. He noted one of the major outcomes of that process has been to look at two categories of those services; those in the MSI report that are identified as community -wide or tax supported services, such as Police patrol or fire suppression, and those things that might be individual or personal choice services, which tend to be paid by fees. Mr. Nordhoff stated this process has been going on for several months, noting they have had numerous meetings with staff from all departments to develop the outcome that is presented in the report, and there have been several work study sessions with the Council and the Budget Oversight Committee. Mr. Nordhoff stated the report is intended to be the final accumulation of information and recommendations to Council. Mr. Nordhoff asked Rick Kermer, of MSI, to present highlights and recommendations contained in his report. Rick Kermer, Management Services Institute, stated this process actually addressed the concerns of the voters that were expressed in three voter approved initiatives. He reported the first was Proposition 13, which was adopted by the voters over nine years ago, and addressed the concern of the use of property tax by local government. He explained we were now able to address the issue of how property tax is used by referring to Pages 64 and 65 of the report, which show the tax revenue and the tax services. He pointed out that property taxes make up approximately $5.5 million of the City's revenue, while Police Patrol Services, for example, takes approximately $8.5 million; therefore, if someone were to ask how their taxes are used, they can be shown that their property tax does not even pay for this basic service provided by the City. Mr. Kermer stated the second initiative, Proposition 4, was adopted a year after Proposition 13, and it had two major goals; one was to limit the growth of taxes overall, and the second was to ensure the governments did not make an end run by adopting fees that would make up for the loss in tax revenue. He noted that issue could now be addressed by the City Council by referring to Chapter 5, or the summary on Page 59, which shows, by group, the revenue received in fees for the different services groups, Development Services, Public Safety, Leisure and Cultural, Utility & Maintenance Services, and Administrative Services, and the cost for those same services. He pointed out the City could show that even in these areas, the City is using over $7 million of its taxes to make up for a shortfall in fees, so taxpayers' concerns that the City could be making an end run are not valid, as the City is using quite a bit of its taxes just to cover the cost of its fee services. The third voter concern came only about a year ago with the passage of Proposition 218, and the concern here by the voters was the taxing and charging of fees against property services provided by the City. Mr. Kermer noted this was primarily reflected in the report under the discussion regarding Assessments, found on Pages 55 through 57. He pointed out that assessments, which are still available with a great deal of effort on the part of the City to sell them, could address some of the infrastructure needs for storm drains, street trees, and street lights; however, even these items are only a small portion of the City's total infrastructure items. He noted Page 31 of the report lists all of the assets of the City, and the annual replacement cost of those assets, pointing out the City has approximately $320 million in assets. Mr. Kermer stated that in looking at replacing those assets on an annual basis, it would take, on average, approximately $8 million annually to replace those assets, yet the City is only spending a small portion of that amount annually; therefore, the City has a significant asset issue that needs to be addressed. He stated that by addressing the issue raised by Proposition 4, which is fees, the City might still be able to generate some revenue that could be used to start addressing its infrastructure problem. However, to the extent the infrastructure problem is not addressed, the residents and business people in the community will be receiving a higher level of service than they might otherwise be expected to receive if the City addressed all its concerns. He noted the net result of that is that one of these days it is going to be hard getting down the streets, the storm drains will back up, street lights will be deteriorated and there will not be a plan for replacement, and the sidewalks will be torn up by the street trees that have not been maintained. Mr. Kermer stated the City Council had a lot of issues to address, noting the report gave an overview of those issues, and he was ready to act in any capacity he could as a facilitator, and to answer any questions Council might have. Peter Turnbaugh, Board Member of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce and current Chair of the Economic Development Committee, reported he was employed by Panamax, a local business operating successfully in San Rafael for over twenty years. He stated his first observation was that the Business Cost Survey is a good SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 8 process, noting that for private business as well as government, we all need to know and understand our costs, and the nature of those costs. Likewise, we need to know who the beneficiaries of those services are, pointing out the beneficiaries of those services should bear the cost of the services they require, and others should not be asked to subsidize their needs. With that said, he felt the current Cost Survey and the proposed Master Fee Schedule have made the City of San Rafael, in general, the most expensive city providing these services in the County. Mr. Turnbaugh stated this was not an enviable position to find yourself in as a business person, or as an elected official. Although he was relieved to hear that these fees would be re-examined no less than annually, he was concerned that there was no incentive to reduce these fees. Mr. Turnbaugh stated there was a general feeling among the public and the business community that government operates in reverse from the laws of physics, that is, what does go up does not always come down, especially when it comes to taxes and fees. He noted that in the Business Cost Study, as well as the Master Fee Schedule and related Ordinance, there is not one incentive to reduce costs, or streamline government processes that provide services. Mr. Turnbaugh stated this concerned him greatly, noting that as a business person he needed to hear a commitment, some promise of action that the City of San Rafael will come back in line in terms of fees and services provided elsewhere. He reported it has been his experience that where fees and costs are simply passed along without an incentive to lower costs, it is easier to simply pass the costs along instead of addressing the cost drivers and inefficiencies in the processes that give them rise. Fred Divine, 1924 Fourth Street, noted he, too, was representing the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce, stating he appreciated what had been started here, noting he felt this was a very good study, and could appreciate the fact that San Rafael is a leader in looking at this like they have been with the Downtown and so many other things. However, he stated he wished to address two concerns which were expressed in the Chamber's letter. First was the issue of streamlining, and Mr. Divine stated there was a real fear among the business people who specifically work with the process, that the fees will be going up but they will not come down, and that there is a real structural flaw and room for improvement in the process in place right now. Mr. Divine stated that in looking at where the money is, almost 60% is in Planning and Development, and of that, almost 60% is in Design Review, which they have actually been working on for approximately four years. He stated he believed it needed more work, and while he does not have a problem with fees going up to match reasonable process , he felt the process needed to be refined and studied, hopefully with the Chamber of Commerce and other business people involved in that process. Mr. Divine noted that when we look at this in a year, we do not want to be the city that is leading in fees, we should be the city that has the lowest fees, the city that knows it is covering its costs but still has the lowest fees, and knows that is because we are doing the process right. Both Mr. Devine and Mr. Turnbaugh stated the City should not necessarily picture this as 100% recovery, acknowledging the City needed the money, and that this was a good place to find it; however, they felt the City needed to look at the process and how it is being done, and make certain that it is equitable, instead of just assuming that they can pass it on. Matt Guthrie, member of the Board of Directors of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, noted that in the past the Chamber has emphasized the importance of fiscal management of the City's $320 million worth of assets, and they are supportive of the initiative before the Council to review the cost sub -services provided, in order to examine the fees charged for the services. We stated the Chamber is equally supportive of the expressions and recent efforts taken to date by staff to provide customer friendly, more efficient response from City Hall. However, Mr. Guthrie stated the Chamber's adverse reaction to this Master Fee Schedule stems from the initial effort coming from City Hall to require payment of additional fees to cover the cost of a less efficient, less customer friendly existing Planning Process. He pointed out the Study shows the money, the cost of services currently provided, but it does not follow the money, how these services can be provided in a more efficient way at a lesser cost. For instance, the Planning Fee Schedule simply perpetuates payment, on an hourly basis, for an amount for which there is no current check. He stated it is now being proposed that fees continue to be charged on an hourly basis, noting the check on that time is significant, and it is important to truly evaluate whether the City's commitment to process applications in an equitable manner is being carried out, and if, when the project benefits the City, it justifies less than a full cost recovery of fees. Mr. Guthrie stated the Board is quite aware of the fine line between thorough public SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 8 Mr. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 9 project review and the business community paying fees for staff time spent on repetitive concerns, unsubstantiated issues, and areas of vested interest, acknowledging it was difficult to quantify that line within a fee structure. He stated the Board believed that if the Planning fees were equitable and reflected 100% cost recovery, then there should be no difference in a fee charged an applicant or anyone else for an appeal, noting the appeal process is available to all those who have a grievance with a decision, and staff time to process that appeal takes no more time whether the appellant is the applicant or someone else. He stated the creation of a two-tiered fee for that situation does not seem to provide equal protection between the parties. Guthrie stated that while they appreciate the manner in which this is being looked at, they feel the evaluation should be continued throughout the next year, and to do that, they are requesting a couple of things. First, that staff work with the Chamber on a regular basis in the following year to correlate fees with time spent on projects and the fees charged, and indicate where fees can be decreased. Second, that staff inform the Chamber of the means by which City staff time billable to a project is accounted for. Mr. Guthrie stated he was not aware of that system, although he understood it was being implemented, noting the whole process of doing that would require a goodly amount of staff involvement and work. Third, the Chamber would like to continue working with City Manager Gould and staff to implement Community Development Department operations and staffing, to more efficiently process applications to the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission, as a key in understanding the fee structure proposed. Fourth, he stated they would appreciate the Council adopting a Fee Schedule that establishes one fee for appeal. Herb Neinstadt, Marin Builders Exchange, stated he and Peter Arrigoni had met with Community Development Director Bob Leiter and Administrative Services Director Ken Nordhoff, and a number of their concerns had been resolved during that meeting. Mr. Neinstadt noted he and Mr. Arrigoni were not as informed or knowledgeable about the Planning or Zoning types of fees as the members of the Chamber of Commerce are; however, he did wish to state that they are in full support of the Building Inspection Fees, noting these were merited fees in their estimation. Mr. Neinstadt referred to Mr. Guthrie's concerns about the Appeal Fee, stating that while they did not believe just one fee would be sufficient regarding an appeal, they did have a concern regarding fees for a non -applicant resident being set at $100, while for all others it is $1,000. Mr. Neinstadt explained one of the problems they had with that particular approach was that there are also non-resident property owners, and it seemed difficult to understand why a non -applicant resident would only have to pay $100, while a non-resident property owner would have to face a $1,000 fee. Mr. Neinstadt recalled that three or four years ago there had been discussions regarding the problems of the inequities of repeated hearings on project, in which some of them, whether they actually were or not, at least appeared to have the appearance of harassment with regard to certain projects, and he noted they discussed how they might get around this by imposing costs on the people who were pursuing these particular issues. Mr. Neinstadt reported Community Development Director Leiter had informed him that this was, indeed, a footnote on the current fee structure, and he believed something needed to be set up so this type of situation can be discouraged, partly through the fee process, and that is one of the reasons he has a disagreement with the single fee approach with regard to the appeal process. Mr. Neinstadt agreed that this would need further discussion and consideration, stating further comment needed to be made. Mr Mr. Neinstadt stated there was one further issue, which they have presented to the Council in different types of forms over the years, and would like to reintroduce because it affects two things that are of concern, one of concern to the City, and one of concern to the Builders Exchange. He stated that for them it is the issue of the unlicensed contractor, and for the City it is a matter of fees. Mr. Neinstadt noted it has frequently been their experience that where the unlicensed contract is doing work, the City is not receiving Permit Fees. He acknowledged that this is to the benefit of the person who is having the work done; it is a lot cheaper to get a project done when you do not have to pay fees, and usually the cost of the project appears to be less because the contractor's price is lower than what a licensed contractor may or may not be offering. He stated one of the things they would suggest the City consider is that during their weekend rounds, the Police Department note the address where construction activity is going on, and then on Monday morning these addresses be given to the Building Inspection Department so they can check to see whether a building permit has been issued on the particular project that has been seen. Neinstadt stated the most prevalent type of unlicensed contracting which occurs on the weekends is roofing, pointing out that is one of the most expensive and also the most critical with regard to safety. He believed the City would gain, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 10 and certainly the Builders Exchange would gain, by this kind of an enterprise. Mr. Neinstadt did not feel this request would be an imposition, and he did not feel the Police should be involved in approaching the contractors, simply in noting the address of the location. Jack Devlin, Chair of the San Rafael Budget Oversight Committee, expressed the Committee's unanimous support for the Master Fee Schedule being proposed and presented to Council at this time. He stated the Committee recommends Council approve the Resolution for three reasons: 1) Finite tax revenues available to the City of San Rafael are insufficient to continue subsidizing personal choice services to the degree it has been done up until now. The unfunded Capital Projects backlog and the decay of the City's infrastructure can be reduced by redirecting tax revenues away from these subsidies; 2) The Master Fee Schedule includes some recommendations to reduce fees. Mr. Devlin stated the point was that while this is just the beginning, this is a process aimed at bringing equity to the fee process. He acknowledged it probably would not happen in one pass, noting there more potential recovery of costs to be made out there; however, he felt this was a very good beginning; 3) The City can begin to recover the benefits from the Business Cost Study, which was initiated a little less than a year ago, and which, for the first time, quantified these fee subsidies, along with other costs in the operation of City government. Mr. Devlin believed this would be a significant sign to the taxpayers of San Rafael that the City Council takes its job seriously and expects the City to operate in the most effective way, and distributes and uses the tax revenues that come to the City in the most efficient and effective way. Mr. Devlin reported these changes represented only a fraction of the potential recovery of costs of fee based services, and adoption of the Master Fee Schedule would be a good step in shifting the appropriate cost to personal choice service users. He stated the Budget Oversight Committee urged Council to pass the Ordinance and adopt the Resolution as presented. Albert Barr, Member of the Budget Oversight Committee, stated he fully supported Mr. Devlin's comments. However, he called Council's attention to the Library Fees section of the Fee Schedule, and stated he did not believe Library Fees fell into the same category as all the other fees. He noted that, fortunately, there had been no significant changes in Library Fees, but as a cautionary note, he would not recommend that staff pursue, in future years, full cost recovery of Library services. Mr. Barr stated a free Public Library is an institution in the United States which other countries envy, and we would not like to see any of that taken away from us; and as a matter of fact, he suggested that in the coming year staff look at the fees charged for non-traditional use of the library, such as compact discs, audio books, and videos. He proposed staff come up with programs to actually reduce and eliminate fees on those services, because compact discs, audio books, and videos are really books in another format, although they might want to make a distinction between educational videos and entertainment type videos. Mr. Barr complimented the Library staff for proposing a reduction and no charge on children's videos. Similarly, he felt they should make another category for videos of an educational nature, and move toward reducing and eliminating fees on those types of videos. He also proposed that as technology changes and audio books, which are currently on audio tape, become available on compact discs, the Library staff might want to pursue a corporate sponsor of the collection of books on disc, name that collection after the corporate sponsor, and San Rafael would become the leader in Marin County in having a free collection of books on disc, as well as compact discs for music, and the remaining audio tapes. Mr. Barr pointed out he was not arguing or disagreeing with the Master Fee Schedule, he was merely asking Council and staff to take into consideration that Library services are not in the same category, and that in the future, Library charges on the items mentioned actually be reduced or eliminated. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. City Manager Gould first referred to remarks made by members of the Chamber of Commerce's Board of Directors, and noted this was not a Business Cost Study, nor was it an efficiency study or a market study. He noted it had been stated that if Council were to adopt the fees proposed for Development Services, San Rafael would be the most expensive in the County, and while that might be partially true, our fees would still be substantially lower than Marin County's. However, Mr. Gould stated he was not sure this was relevant, because he was not certain any other city in Marin County had done this type of survey to find out to what extent it is subsidizing Development Services with its general tax dollars. Mr. Gould stated that unless someone questioned the methodology, San Rafael now knows the level of its subsidy. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 11 Mr. Gould noted the statement had also been made that there was no incentive to reduce cost, stating he would take some issue with that statement. He pointed out that although it is true there is nothing in the Business Cost Study or the Resolution now before Council that commits the City to reducing costs, the purpose behind the reorganization to form a Community Development Department was to begin to process development applications concurrently, to cut the time involved in processing development applications, whether it is the simple addition onto a single-family home, or a major corporate office complex. Mr. Gould noted staff is told constantly that time is money and business, and that the time spent waiting for the application to clear all of the hurdles in the Development process is the most costly aspect of the development process, not the permit fees. Mr. Gould stated he believed the City would succeed if we are able to reduce the time spent in most of the applications, and provide a more consistent and dependable processing for our applicants, and he felt that whether or not the fees go up or down was really secondary. Mr. Gould stated staff would be grateful to work with the Chamber of Commerce and the Builders' Exchange to explore ways of streamlining the City's permit processing. He noted much of it is policy decision making that would end up before Council in determining what steps they want to see taken in various types of applications, and what level of public input they wish to see as they consider changes to our physical environment. Mr. Gould acknowledged we can be more efficient, and staff is committed to finding ways to do that, noting they would like to work in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce and the Builders Exchange to do that. Mr. Gould stated he felt the policy decision now before Council was whether or not they wish to recover the full cost of Development or Permitting services from the applicant. Mr. Gould pointed out that the argument had been advanced that perhaps they should not, and that perhaps there were social reasons or community reasons why the City should underwrite the cost of Development services; however, he reminded the Council that unless we are discussing a retail project, as in the cases of Office development or Residential development, property taxes paid on those projects will not nearly compensate the City for the service that will be provided those projects throughout their lifespan. Mr. Gould reported 11% of the property taxes paid in San Rafael return to San Rafael to pay for services, yet as we have already heard, the property taxes paid for San Rafael do not even pay for the Police patrol provided to our residents and businesses in the City. Therefore, in some ways, there is going to be ongoing subsidy of these projects, it just will not be at the permit phase. Mr. Gould pointed out we were engaged in aggressive economic development and redevelopment on this meeting's agenda with the "B" Street, Safeway, Shamrock, and Fair, Isaac projects, and he felt the City was doing its share to assist in economic development. Mr. Gould reported part of the reason the increases were so great in the Design Review areas is because fees in that area have not been adjusted for quite some time, as Council wanted to make changes to ensure more efficient processing, noting strides had been made in that area. Mr. Gould stated he did not have a comment on the various cost of appeals, noting that was a policy decision that has been discussed numerous times in study sessions. He stated staff would be glad to work with the Chamber in streamlining and time -recording as far as improving efficiency and customer friendliness, which is very much Council's charge and direction, noting staff is reporting monthly their efforts in accomplishing this. Mr. Gould reported Community Development Director Leiter is very much committed to seeing those two things as the watchword of his new department. Mr. Gould felt the comments regarding unlicensed contractors was very valuable, noting he had met last week with Mario Ghilotti, who recommended a retired contractor might be the person to go out during the week, or even on weekends, to find unlicensed contractors. Mr. Gould suggested we might try this on a contract basis, to see if it works. Regarding the suggestions concerning Library fees, Mr. Gould's only suggestion was that we do charge for overdue library books, noting it was really behavior modification we were after, not revenue enhancement. Administrative Services Director Nordhoff stated he was very much interested in the Council's comments regarding accountability of time, particularly in the Development Services area. He noted he would be working very closely with the Public Works and Community Development departments to see if they can enhance the way we track that, and the type of documentation and information we can provide to our customers with respect to billing, and the accountability of the costs and fees charged for the services. Regarding the Ordinance being presented, Mr. Nordhoff reported the Ordinance was a new Municipal Code section, and was actually the policy portion of this entire process, where Council is making recommendations concerning to what extent they want to recover costs. The Resolution is the companion piece that translates SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 12 that Council decision into an actual Fee Schedule. Mr. Nordhoff reported the fees would become effective thirty days after the Ordinance is adopted, around the first of November, with the exception of the Building and Planning related fees which, by State statute, cannot take effect for sixty days, so they will take effect approximately the first of December. Councilmember Cohen reported the charge to staff regarding this issue had not been to "find the money", the charge to staff had been to find the cost. He noted the Council had been told for years to run the City like a business, and the first thing they needed to do was find out what it costs the City to do business, and what it costs to provide these services, so they told staff to find the answers. Mr. Cohen acknowledged the Council took a risk when they did that, noting the risk they took was finding out what the answers were, and then once they knew how much it was costing us to do these things, then they had to determine how we were going to pay for them. Mr. Cohen pointed out that no one on the Council particularly liked the idea of being the city in Marin County that charges the highest fees for Development Services, for example; however, here are these costs, and they are documented, and unless the methodology or the way we arrived at these numbers is questioned, the City has to find a way to deal with it. Mr. Cohen referred to comments from the Chamber of Commerce representatives, noting it had been suggested that perhaps we should streamline first, and then increase fees, as there are no built-in incentives to reduce cost. Mr. Cohen stated he was very open to the idea of streamlining, not only in the number of calendar days, but also in billable hours. However, rather than take the position that we should streamline first and then implement this, he felt we should go ahead and implement it, pointing out we have to justify the hours that we bill. He stated he was also very open to working with everyone involved to find ways to streamline the process, which should then reduce the number of billable hours, which means it reduces the fees. He did note that he cound not make a commitment that the City was going to be able to do that, but he was committed to charging staff to do their best to find a way to do that, and to be open to any ideas for working with the private sector to find ways to do this. Mr. Cohen stated this was not about finding other places to get money, it was about understanding what it cost the City to do business, and reduce in those areas where we are subsidizing things we should be charging for, reducing subsidies. He stated the City is not looking to make Development Fees a profit center. Mr. Cohen stated we now have a way to test those costs and justify them, noting we can document the hours spent, and establish a benchmark, not just against other cities but also against our own performance, and hopefully show continuous improvement in how efficiently we process applications. Mr. Cohen referred to the issue of cost recovery, noting specific points had been made about Recreation and Child Care. Mr. Cohen stated he was a user of the City's Child Care services, and reported that for the past five years as a Councilmember he had been told that Child Care paid for itself, and that the fees paid for Child Care services fully paid for providing those services. He stated he was shocked to discover last year that this, in fact, was not the case. He noted this report bears that out, reporting the City subsidizes Child Care, and stated he did not believe he deserved to have his Child Care subsidized by the other residents of the City of San Rafael. Mr. Cohen stated the City had to get to 100% cost recovery on Child Care, with the exception that we might want to subsidize certain people's Child Care, noting there were probably some families in the Canal where this would serve a public policy purpose, and he suggested this be made a targeted subsidy. Mr. Cohen stated they have had a lot of discussion about Recreation, and they are going to have to continue to do that. He noted reference had been made that the City is only recovering 25% of Recreation Services costs, which tells him the City should get out of that particular line, as it is not going to be viable for the City. He stated if the City cannot recover more than 25%, we probably discontinue the service. Based on the fact that we are subsidizing, Mr. Cohen believed we should subsidize certain development projects City Manager Gould had touched upon. He stated if we are going to subsidize certain development projects, we should target that subsidy to ones that have clear financial benefit to the City. Mr. Cohen noted he would be receptive to the argument that the City should subsidize fees for the Macy' s project; however, he stated that did not translate to saying we should subsidize development projects across the board. He stated the Macy's project had identifiable benefits. Regarding the issue of appeals, Mr. Cohen stated he was open to the idea of making the appeal fees the same; however, the argument is that there are cases where there is a larger interest served in not recovering full fees, which he felt had to do with access to government. Mr. Cohen believed the voters in this SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 13 community had a right, as did the property owners, to have access to those in the City who are accountable, and they should not hide behind appointed bodies and put up barriers to people who want to talk to them about their concerns regarding approvals. He felt his neighbors would perceive a $1,000 appeal fee as a barrier to their access to him as their elected official; therefore, Mr. Cohen stated he would argue for keeping that appeal fee low. He stated he understood the argument being made that it is inequitable to then charge $1,000 to the project applicant, so he is willing to state that the appeal fee should be $100, and if someone wants to come to a Council meeting and argue to Council that someone along the way made a mistake, we should be open to letting them do that. He stated he would be willing to revisit this issue, noting he would not be willing to put a barrier on access to the City Council by the residents of this community by setting the appeal fees at $1,000, even if that is what it truly costs us. Councilmember Phillips noted he was in favor of the general principle of cost recovery. He stated staff had done a fine job of addressing this issue, and presenting Council with some very workable data, noting he felt the City would benefit if we implement this. Councilmember Heller referred to the issue of appeal fees, stating she would like to leave it as it is right now, and look at our record a year from now to see if it was a hardship, and if we had more than just one or two appeals, noting as she recalled, this involved a very small number of appeals, perhaps one or two a year, and she did not feel this was something that would overburden the community. She believed the fee should be a little higher than $100, but substantially less than $200. She also stated she agreed that the City needed to recover full costs, and look into Child Care and some of the areas of Recreation to move them toward full recovery. Councilmember Miller stated being in government one operates under two models, they operate under the business model when they are talking about operations, and then they operate under the human model when talking about the mission of the City in terms of the general welfare. Coming from a business perspective, Mr. Miller stated he welcomed the Cost Analysis, because his entire business operates off of a cost analysis, noting he has seen more of his competitors go out of business because they did not pay any attention to that. He stated what he really appreciated from the comments of the public was that they were telling Council that if the City wanted to charge them more, then the City had to give them service equal to the charge. Mr. Miller stated that was the real criteria here, the question of whether or not the City was going to give out service equal to the cost. He stated he appreciated the Chamber of Commerce's work in this area, noting that as a member of the Chamber of Commerce, he was proud to be their colleague. Mr. Miller agreed with Mr. Cohen's comments, stating the 100% recovery is the basic premise and public policy we should be working off, and noted we should start now. Mayor Boro stated the concept of full cost recovery was something the Council has been committed to, and he felt it was important to implement it. Mayor Boro stated what he saw in the annual reviews was that it was not what was in the rates, the real purpose of the annual review was in the application and how many hours were spent. He pointed out that there are times when things take longer because of the ineptness of the application, or the person who is coming in, as well. He stated it is a two way street, and it is not just that the City is somewhat cumbersome as an organization. He stated there are times when staff has to spend a lot of time with the applicant because of their inability to really grasp the issue, whether it be to read the neighborhood, or complete the application form. Mayor Boro stated he truly believed the philosophy that whatever they approve today will be around longer than he is going to be around, and they want to be sure that what they approve is what everyone seeks. He believed that during the annual review of the application of the rates and why the process takes so long the efficiency or inefficiency of staff will truly come out; however, at the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that it is a two-way street, and as we go through this process and as we do the reviews, and as we challenge why we are spending so many hours on this, they need to look at both sides of the equation. Mayor Boro stated that with the help of the Chamber of Commerce the City has made some great strides in the Design Review process, noting that process seems to have improved. Mayor Boro stated good projects do get approved in this town, in a timely fashion, and he felt everyone knew that. He noted, as Mr. Cohen expressed earlier, we do have a community that cares and is interested. He noted that as we do the reviews, the City will be challenged as to why a project takes so long, and he reiterated that on the flip side, we had to make sure to look at what has been given to staff to begin with, as well as how they have responded to it. Mayor Boro stated he was hopeful that this would lead us to be more efficient, noting SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 14 we had already started in our Design Review process. He pointed out there had been three Design Review Board meetings in the past couple of weeks, noting they are putting in a lot of time, and are not trying to make people wait. He also stated the Design Review Board is sensitive to the fact that in the past some of the members might have been absent, and then come to the next meeting and started the process all over again. Mayor Boro reported the Council had a joint meeting with the DRB and pointed this out to them, and he believed they have made great strides in this area. Referring to the comments concerning unlicensed contractors, Mayor Boro informed City Manager Gould that he was looking for the City to really get on top of this, noting that in fairness to ourselves and to the business community, especially the contractors, the City should go after people who are illegally doing business here in this town. After discussion of the appeal fee, Council decided to leave the fee at $100 for all appeals. Administrative Services Director Nordhoff reported the City Clerk had reminded him that there is also a $25 fee for a request for continuance of an appeal. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to accept the report on Cost Recovery, as presented. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None The Title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 3.34 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A FEE AND SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE/COST COMPARISON SYSTEM AND AMENDING RELATED PROVISIONS OF THE CODE CONSISTENT THEREWITH". Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1714 to print, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution as presented, with the amendment that the appeal fee be set at $100.00 for anyone who wishes to appeal to the Council, and with a continuation fee of $25.00. RESOLUTION NO. 9921 -RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEW MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS AND RESCINDING THE EXISTING RESOLUTIONS ESTABLISHING THE PRE-EXISTING MASTER FEE SCHEDULE. (As amended; appeal fee to remain at $100.00 for all appeals, including $25.00 for request for continuation of an appeal.) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro stated he would like staff and the Budget Oversight Committee to work with the Chamber of Commerce and the Builders Exchange regarding the idea of an annual review, noting a joint meeting between the Budget Oversight Committee and the Chamber of Commerce might also be in order. MONTHLY REPORT: 14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT (CM) - File 9-3-11 City Manager Gould commended Chief Sanchez and the members of the Police Department for their meeting with the residents of the Sun Valley neighborhood held earlier this evening, at which they stressed the neighbors must work in partnership with the Police Department in order to prevent crime. He reported the interest survey which was mailed to the residents of the Del Ganado neighborhood had not reached all of the residents in a timely manner; therefore, the original deadline for submitting the survey has been extended from September 19th to October 3rd, with SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 15 the ballots to be counted on October 8th (at 10:00 AM in the Council Chamber) Mr. Gould stated the Gerstle Park neighborhood has asked for a neighborhood meeting to discuss 523 "D" Street, Code Enforcement, and traffic issues. Mr. Gould suggested the meeting be held on Monday, September 29th, in the Council Chamber. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION NEW BUSINESS: 15. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A COUNTYWIDE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS RESOLUTION OF INTENT (CM) - File 9-3-30 x 9-3-31 x 9-3-40 City Manager Gould stated that after nine months of discussing a Countywide effort to purchase a communications system that works for Police, Fire, and Public Works, we are finally at a point where it is time to act. He reported a testing of the sub -frequencies has proven very successful, and a great majority of the Police Chiefs and Fire Chiefs in the County have recommended that we move forward. He stated this goes before the Board of Supervisors tomorrow, and staff is asking Council to adopt a Resolution that would support an application to the FCC for the frequencies, and initiate the procurement of a Countywide Safety Radio System. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Countywide Public Safety Communications Resolution of Intent. RESOLUTION NO. 9922 -RESOLUTION INITIATING THE PURCHASE OF A COUNTY -WIDE, STATE OF THE ART SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM WITHIN MARIN COUNTY. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 16. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE FOR LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE SUNDAY, OCTOBER 12 THROUGH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1997 IN SAN FRANCISCO (CC) - File 9-11-1 Mayor Boro explained a delegate was needed for the League of California Cities Annual Conference, to be held Sunday, October 12th through Tuesday, October 14th in San Francisco. He asked if any of the Councilmembers were planning on attending the Conference? Vice -Mayor Heller stated she had planned on attending the conference. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to appoint Vice -Mayor Heller as voting delegate to the League of California Cities Annual Conference. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 17. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: a. MCCMC CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE COMMITTEE - File 113 Mayor Boro announced Councilmember Cyr Miller would replace him as the MCCMC representative for the Cable Television Franchise Committee. Councilmember Heller noted she had already made this change on MCCMC's agenda for the coming year. b. SISTER CITY IN FALKIRK, SCOTLAND - File 128 Mayor Boro reported on his recent visit to San Rafael's sister city, Falkirk, Scotland. He stated the Vice -Mayor, Vice -Provost, and one of that City's staff drove he and his wife to Falkirk, where they had a wonderful tour. He noted he learned that they have thirty-six members on their City Council, and they are all elected by party, and he found that there is very little public participation at any of the Council meetings. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 PM. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 16 JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1997 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 16