HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2005-07-18
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 18, 2005 AT 8:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Barbara Heller, Vice-Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION – COUNCIL CHAMBER – 10:20 PM
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item.
CLOSED SESSION – CONFERENCE ROOM 201 – 10:20 PM
)
Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Government Code Section 54957
Title: City Manager
Mayor Boro announced at 10:54 p.m. that no reportable action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:8:15 PM
875 Patricia Way, San Rafael: - File 9-1 x 9-3-85
Vincent Gould, 879 Patricia Way, San Rafael, having been informed that nothing could be done requested
that Council exercise its right of eminent domain to take over the property at 875 Patricia Way because of
the excessive amount of time (eight years to date) being taken to complete construction.
Bob Brown, Community Development Director, reported that this issue came to Code Enforcement’s
attention late last year, and since that time a Notice and Order had been issued to compel the property
owner to submit plans, which he had done. The plans were still under review and staff anticipated by the
end of this week being in a position to issue a Building Permit to get the work underway again. When the
Building Permit is issued, the Notice and Order provides the property owner with 120 days to complete the
exterior work and 180 days to complete the interior work; therefore, the project should be complete by the
end of this year. If not, the property owner would be taken to Administrative Hearing to have sanctions and
penalties imposed. Mr. Brown anticipated having the problem resolved this year.
Noting this was not the first such case, Mayor Boro recalled one recently where the penalties were quite
severe, over $100,000 in fact; therefore he hoped to see progress. He invited Mr. Gould to contact Mr.
Brown to monitor the situation.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as
follows:
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meetings of Minutes approved as submitted.
Monday, June 20, 2005 and Tuesday, July 5,
2005 (CC)
2. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael Approved staff recommendation:
SBX 1-3. Disability Retirements:
(CM) – File 116 x 9-1
Medical Examinations. – Speier –
SUPPORT
SBX 1-4 & SB 697. Insurance Fraud. –
Soto – SUPPORT
3. Resolution Approving a Contract (CPRE-5188) RESOLUTION NO. 11802 –
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
with the Department of Education to Provide
ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT
State Preschool Services in the Amount of
(CPRE-5188) WITH THE
$155,349.00 and Authorizing the City Manager to
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR
(CS) –
Sign Contract Documents
STATE PRESCHOOL SERVICES AND
File 4-10-238 x 9-3-65
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
1
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 2
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO SIGN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $155,349.00
4. Resolution Approving a Contract (CLTK-5050) RESOLUTION NO. 11803 –
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
with the Department of Education to Provide
ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT
Extended Day Child Care Services (Latchkey) in
(CLTK-5050) WITH THE
the Amount of $103,473.00 and Authorizing City
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR
Manager to Sign Contract Documents (CS) –
EXTENDED DAY CHILD CARE
File 4-10-238 x 9-3-65
SERVICES (LATCHKEY) AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO SIGN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $103,473.00
5. Resolution of Appreciation to Robin Levy, RESOLUTION NO. 11804–
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
Development Coordinator, Marin Literacy
ROBIN LEVY, DEVELOPMENT
Program, for 15 Years of Service (Lib.) –
COORDINATOR, MARIN LITERACY
File 102 x 9-3-61
PROGRAM, FOR 15 YEARS OF
SERVICE
6. Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending Accepted Monthly Investment
June 2005 (MS) – File 8-18 x 8-9
Report for month ending June
2005, as presented.
7. SECOND READING AND FINAL Approved final adoption of
Ordinance No. 1836.
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1836 -
An
Ordinance of The City of San Rafael Setting the
Paramedic Tax Rate, Commencing with Fiscal
Year 2005-2006, at the Rates Allowed in
Ordinance No. 1793 for Residential and Non-
Residential Properties in The City of San Rafael;
and Further Confirming the Paramedic Tax
Rates, Commencing with Fiscal Year 2005-2006
for Residential and Non-Residential Properties in
The City of San Rafael, The Marinwood
Community Services District, County Service
Area No. 13, and County Service Area No. 19.
($61.00 for Residential and $.08 Per Square Foot
for Non-Residential Property) (MS) –
File 9-12-1 x 9-3-31
8. Report on Bid Opening and Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 11805 –
RESOLUTION AWARDING
Awarding Contract to WBE in the Amount of
CONTRACT TO W. BRADLEY
$587,500.00 for Traffic Signal Installations
ELECTRIC, INC. IN THE AMOUNT
2005 (Rebid) at Nova Albion Way and Arias
OF $587,500.00 FOR TRAFFIC
Street, Nova Albion Way and Las Gallinas
SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS 2005
Avenue, Los Ranchitos Road and Northgate
(REBID), PROJECT NO. 11011
Drive, Lincoln Avenue and Linden Lane,
(BID OPENING HELD ON
Project No. 11011 (Bid Opening Held
TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2005)
Tuesday, July 12, 2005) (PW) –
(Lowest responsible bidder)
File 4-1-574 x 11-10 x 9-3-40
9. Resolution Accepting a Proposal From RESOLUTION NO. 11806 –
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A
Econolite Control Products for Procurement
PROPOSAL FROM ECONOLITE
of Traffic Signal Equipment in the Amount of
CONTROL PRODUCTS FOR
$198,463.11, and Authorizing the Director of
PROCUREMENT OF TRAFFIC
Public Works to Execute the Purchase
SIGNAL CONTROLLER AND
Agreement (PW) –
CAMERA SYSTEM EQUIPMENT IN
File 4-2-331 x 11-10 x 9-3-40
THE AMOUNT OF $198,463.11
(SOLE SOURCE) AND
AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE
THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
2
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 3
10. Resolution Authorizing Submission of a RESOLUTION NO. 11807 –
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A
$150,000 Grant Application for the Bay Area
GRANT APPLICATION FOR BAY
Air Quality Management District’s 2005-06
AREA AIR QUALITY
Transportation Fund for Clean Air Funds for
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian
TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR
Master Plan Implementation Project, and
CLEAN AIR FUNDS FOR THE
Identifying the Director of Public Works as
“SAN RAFAEL BICYCLE AND
the Individual Authorized to Submit and
PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Carry out the Proposal (PW) –
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT”
File 261 x 9-3-40
AND IDENTIFYING THE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
AS THE INDIVIDUAL
AUTHORIZED TO SUBMIT AND
CARRY OUT THE PROPOSAL
11. Resolution Authorizing an Acquisition RESOLUTION NO. 11808 –
RESOLUTION APPROVING
Agreement and a Public Improvement
EXECUTION BY THE CITY
Development Agreement for the Realignment
MANAGER OF THE CITY OF SAN
of DuBois Street (re: Best Buy) (RA) –
RAFAEL OF AN ACQUISITION
File 4-10-349 x 11-15 x (SRRA) R-140 #8
AGREEMENT AND A PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR THE
REALIGNMENT OF DUBOIS
STREET (RE: BEST BUY)
12. Resolution Authorizing Temporary Closure of RESOLUTION NO. 11809 –
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
Alto Street from Larkspur Street to Belvedere
TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF A
Street to Allow for the Canal Welcome
CITY STREET FOR THE CANAL
Center Cultural Celebration and Anniversary
WELCOME CENTER CULTURAL
on July 31, 2005 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
CELEBRATION AND
(RA) – File 11-19
ANNIVERSARY ON JULY 31, 2005
FROM 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
(Alto Street from Larkspur Street
to Belvedere Street)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips (from minutes of 7/5/05 and item #7, due
to absence from meeting of July 5, 2005)
SPECIAL PRESENTATION:
13. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO ROBIN LEVY,
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR, MARIN LITERACY PROGRAM, FOR 15 YEARS
SERVICE (LIB.) – FILE 102 x 9-3-61
Mayor Boro noted from the Resolution of Appreciation that Robin Levy had been a passionate
advocate for the cause of adult literacy since 1990 and a volunteer in the program since that
time. In 1993, she became the coordinator of Families for Literacy for the Marin Literacy
Program, becoming the Development Coordinator in 1998 and raising well over $1 million for
the program. Mayor Boro stated that Ms. Levy had been the co-director for the Marin Literacy
Program during which time it grew from 368 students and a budget of $237,210 in 1998, to over
900 students and a budget of just over $500,000 currently. He commented that this was quite a
bit of positive growth for a great program, noting the program had evolved to include Family
Literacy Services, the FLAGship (bus) which brings literacy to the community, and a consistent
approach to the use of technology.
Of particular note, Mayor Boro stated that “whenever Robin is praised, she always thanks the
people who work with her” and tonight she alone was being thanked. On behalf of the City
Council and citizens of San Rafael he expressed thanks for the great work she had done in the
community, commenting that she would be missed.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
3
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 4
Ms. Levy stated that fifteen years ago having begun volunteering as a tutor in the Marin Literacy
Program she did not realize how captured she would become by the type of work being done. It
became a passion for her and through that passion she had the opportunity to work with some
really extraordinary people, some of whom were in attendance this evening. Addressing these
people she stated that she loved every moment of the day she was crowned “Queen for the
day.” Thanking the City Council for the Resolution of Appreciation, Ms. Levy stated it meant a
lot to be recognized. She expressed the hope that all would continue to appreciate, recognize
and support the fine staff and volunteers of the Marin Literacy Program who give so much to the
community.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
14. Public Hearing: Baypoint Lagoons Landscaping and Lighting District
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 (PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT
OF 1972) (PW) – FILE 6-48
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
Public Works Director Andy Preston reported that at the City Council meeting of July 5, 2005,
the City Council adopted a resolution to approve the Engineer’s Annual Report, directed it be
filed and adopted the Resolution of Intention to Order Improvements in accordance with the
recommendations in the report. The date of the public hearing was also set for July 18, 2005
(today).
Mr. Preston stated that under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Council was
responsible to confirm the Assessment Diagram and the Assessment, shown in the Engineer’s
Report, and also levy the Assessment for the work improvements for 2005-2006 for this
Landscaping and Lighting District. He indicated that the work proposed for this year was very
similar to previous years – cattail management and selective removal would be continued, non-
native plants would continue to be removed and replanting of the upland areas with native
plants would also continue. In addition, this year, a SCADA system would be added to the
pump station and this would afford a better way of monitoring the water level in the lagoon in
late spring. The water level could then be controlled to try to keep it at its highest in late spring
which is very beneficial to the nesting of wild fowl and also for cattail control.
Mr. Preston stated that staff also continues to meet with the Baypoint Lagoon Homeowners
Association on a bi-monthly basis to discuss environmental maintenance measures, and he
indicated this had been beneficial to both the Homeowners Association in understanding what
was happening and also to City staff.
Indicating that the Assessment for this year, as in previous years, remained unchanged, Mr.
Preston confirmed it could only be used for the purpose of maintaining the Baypoint Lagoon
landscaping.
There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 11810 – RESOLUTION CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT
AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006
– BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
DISTRICT (Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
4
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 5
15. Public Hearing: (CM) – File 9-4 x 8-5
a) CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING A ONE-HALF OF
ONE PERCENT (1/2 %) TRANSACTIONS (SALES) AND USE TAX, FOR FUNDING
GENERAL CITY SERVICES, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE
CITY ELECTORS VOTING ON THE TAX MEASURE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2005
b) CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION:
1) ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL A BALLOT MEASURE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO ESTABLISH A
TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX, AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TO BE HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8; 2005, AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION
NO. 11775, AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION THEREOF; AND
2) REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION WITH ANY OTHER ELECTION
CONDUCTED ON THE SAME DATE; AND
3) REQUESTING ELECTION SERVICES BY THE COUNTY CLERK; AND
REQUESTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL
4)
ANALYSIS OF THE MEASURE
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
Addressing Mayor Boro, the members of the City Council, members of the community in
attendance and his esteemed colleagues, City Manager Rod Gould stated that as those
present knew all too well, and the public was becoming increasingly aware, San Rafael
had been in fiscal distress for four years. The City Council had met repeatedly during
that period of time to make adjustments to the City’s budget to keep it in balance - 27
times in the last two years alone.
Mr. Gould outlined the three principal causes:
1) The practice by the State of California to begin expropriating local funds, particularly
property taxes, beginning in the early 1980s, accelerating in the 1990s and being raised
to the level of a high art form at the beginning of this century. San Rafael would lose $2
million this year to the State of California. The City Council was a very active participant
in the fight for Proposition 65 which became Proposition 1A, to cap the amount of money
taken by the state from local governments, cities, counties and special districts which
won handily in November, 2004. Nonetheless, the losses continue. Furthermore, the
amount of state aid that used to trickle down to cities has almost dried up. The budget
approved by the legislature and signed by the Governor recently, stripped San Rafael
further of $167,000 in booking fee reimbursements that used to be received for booking
prisoners into the County Jail.
2) Less apparent from the newspaper accounts was the fact that San Rafael’s revenues
had not been growing particularly well in recent years. San Rafael is heavily dependent
upon sales tax, being the largest source of revenue in the General Fund, and since
2001, the sales taxes had grown approximately 2% per year. However, in the last year
or so, the City had begun to see it fall. In the all-important Christmas quarter last year,
sales tax in San Rafael dropped 1.5% compared to the quarter the year before. In the
first quarter of 2005, sales tax in San Rafael was down 5.5%, or $211,000, from the
similar quarter in 2004. Property taxes had been growing at a rate of 4% - 6% in each of
the three years; however, unfortunately, San Rafael receives approximately 11% of the
property taxes because historically, City Councils had maintained property tax rates very
low in the City and they got locked in with Proposition 13. Therefore, the increase in
property taxes does not make up for the lack of sales tax growth. Similarly, hotel taxes
had been down since 2001 and had not recovered.
3) The increasing costs of employee benefits. Wages had been kept in line; however, as
the private sector had experienced, healthcare costs had increased, often double digits,
pension costs had risen, workers’ compensation costs had increased, even though the
number of injured workers in San Rafael had dropped, and energy costs had ballooned
in the last year.
Mr. Gould stated that these three items together cause continued financial problems for the
City.
Reporting that in the last fiscal year alone Council made $4.7 million worth of reductions, Mr.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
5
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 6
Gould stated that the projected deficit for the current year was $3.5 million. Council made a
decision to allocate one-time revenue sources and a good portion of emergency reserves to get
through this fiscal year without further reductions in services. However, he indicated that the
projection for next year was another $3.7 million deficit, hence San Rafael had a structural
operating deficit. It was one the City would not be able to grow its way out of and would affect
the financial future for years to come.
Mr. Gould stated that in recent years thirty positions had been cut from City staffing, including
police officers, firefighters, parks workers and library and recreation staff. General employees
took 5% pay cuts last year, with 8% cuts for managers. He indicated that services, supplies,
contracts, travel and equipment replacements were cut and capital projects and vehicle
replacements were postponed. More grants were sought and received and fundraising had
begun for services that hitherto were funded through tax revenues. User fees for individual
benefit services were raised, in some cases considerably; emergency reserves were drawn
down and in fact, unless something changed in this fiscal year, the 10% figure codified in
Council’s financial principles, would be violated this year and be at half of the expected
emergency reserves in the General Fund.
To look at San Rafael in the macro sense, and according to several think tanks that have
looked at the City, Mr. Gould stated that a very high level of service is provided, with below
average taxes, not just residential, rather taxes on businesses also. He indicated that the
Citizen Satisfaction Survey appeared to underscore the fact that residents believe the services
provided were quite good, which was a point of pride; however, the situation was not
sustainable.
Mr. Gould reported that after three years of budget cuts the structural deficit threatens public
safety, quality of life and community character. Should the City have to cut its way out of a
$3.7 million deficit in the next fiscal year’s budget, it would mean fewer police officers on the
beat, fewer firefighters responding to emergency medical services and fires, longer response
times for public safety, possible closure of at least one fire station, the likely closure of at least
one community center, further reductions in library hours (already cut by 15%, this would mean
probably cutting them in half again), closure of the Falkirk Cultural Center and even further
reductions in street, sidewalk and storm drain maintenance. Mr. Gould pointed out that
currently, the City is spending approximately $1 million per year on street maintenance. While
this may sound like a lot of money, which it is, he indicated that $2 million per year should be
spent on street maintenance in order to maintain it at a reasonable level. As a result, he stated
the reductions that would have to occur would affect all citizens in San Rafael.
Mr. Gould reported that on December 21, 2004, Council met for a half-day study session. They
considered the projections and directed staff to begin examining options on the revenue side to
avoid further cuts to essential services. Council also directed staff to begin a community
education effort to explain to residents that San Rafael was rapidly approaching a crossroads
and important decisions needed to be made. He explained that Council directed staff to begin
to meet with community groups, business groups, community service clubs, essentially, anyone
who would listen, and staff had been making that effort.
Reporting that in January 2005 Council received the results of the bi-annual Citizen Satisfaction
Survey, Mr. Gould explained these surveys were carried out every two years at the beginning of
the budget process. Noting the results were pretty indicative, he stated people were very
pleased with the City’s general services. They noted the reduction in library hours and streets
were looking somewhat rougher; however, by and large, they felt things were pretty good in San
Rafael. When invited to comment on the City’s financial condition, Mr. Gould reported that the
great majority of respondents believed it to be good to excellent. He stated he could
understand this as to drive around San Rafael, the neighborhoods looked neat, police vehicles
and fire engines were evident, and the parks were in pretty good shape; therefore, anyone
would assume the City was fairing pretty well. He believed this was due to the fact that Council
had worked very hard to try to avoid cuts to essential services that would be felt by the
community.
Mr. Gould stated that in February 2005, the Critical Facilities Committee reported to Council.
He explained this was a group of twelve residents Council charged with examining the City’s
police stations, fire stations and library. These people worked hard for six months and
presented recommendations to the City Council to address the many deficiencies found in
these critical facilities. However, he indicated their number one recommendation was to place a
tax on the November 2005 ballot to deal with the operating deficit which they recognized
threatened the City’s ability to provide these essential services. Mr. Gould stated it made little
sense to the Critical Facilities Committee to seek millions of dollars to fix these building if the
proper staff could not be provided to implement the essential services out of those buildings;
therefore, it was their unanimous decision to place a tax before the voters and permit the voters
to decide to pay a little more for City services to avoid deep cuts.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
6
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 7
Mr. Gould stated that between January and July, staff met with twenty-eight separate
community groups to discuss the City’s financial situation. He reported that people posed good
questions and left with a much better understanding of the City’s plight. At Council direction
over 17,000 mailers were distributed to households inviting them to a series of three town
meetings held in different sectors of the community where the Mayor and Councilmembers
presented the situation to the community and answered questions for one and a half hours
afterwards. Mr. Gould reported that approximately 200 residents attended these meetings. At
the end of the meetings attendees were invited to complete a one-page form outlining their
thoughts and offering suggestions as to what should be done and the results were tabulated. A
lot of information was displayed on the City’s website and in the newsletter in an attempt to get
the message out, together with a website survey which also garnered some input.
Indicating that by June a more detailed voter survey was conducted by Godbe Research, Mr.
Gould explained this was a 600 person phone poll that bore down on these issues - whether or
not people understood the situation, identifying the most important services, whether there was
support for a tax measure in San Rafael – and this revealed that by now, people were more
cognizant of the City’s financial situation and that a majority were willing to support a sales tax
to deal with the structural deficit if it helped to maintain police and fire services, helped to
restore hours in the library, allowed staff to do a better job of street maintenance, and as long
as it was overseen by a citizens’ committee and had a sunset provision.
Mr. Gould reported that staff had considered a number of mechanisms, types of taxes to fill this
gap, probably a dozen in all; however, essentially, the analysis quickly filtered down to the three
types of taxes it was believed could generate the kinds of money to avoid the deep service cuts
described:
A parcel tax;
Utility Users’ Tax; or
A Transactions and Use Tax (a variance of the sales tax)
Mr. Gould explained that the Parcel Tax is well known to Marin and San Rafael residents. He
indicated it was the principal tool used by schools to raise operating money and capital for
school renovations and an approximate $283 per parcel, Parcel Tax in San Rafael would raise
approximately $4.5 million, which was the amount he believed was necessary to overcome the
$3.7 million deficit, have a little money to begin to rebuild reserves consistent with Council’s
financial principles, put a little more money into City streets and begin to replace positions
where deep cuts were made, particularly in public safety and Public Works. Mr. Gould reported
that a Parcel Tax would be very easy to plan and project and would require two-thirds approval
by the voters; however, it would not be deductible on Federal Income Tax.
Regarding the Utility Users’ Tax, Mr. Gould explained this was a percentage in addition on bills
for gas, electric and telephone service, including cellphones. Over 150 cities in California have
these Utility Users’ Taxes. They are predictable and grow very nicely; however, they are
regressive, very burdensome on energy intensive companies, such as high-tech companies. He
indicated that people do not understand their utility bills which they believe are too high already;
therefore, they have not been passing too well recently. He noted that an approximate 5% - 7%
increase in a new Utility Users’ Tax would be needed to generate the $4.5 million described.
Lastly, Mr. Gould reported that a Transactions and Use Tax was considered. He explained that
the state does not allow cities or counties to impose sales taxes; however, they allow this
Transactions and Use Tax. Noting a very slight difference, especially to the business
community, he quoted: “A Transactions and Use Tax is applied where the goods are going to
be delivered or consumed.” He indicated that, therefore, it did not put auto dealers, technology
companies, construction companies or others that deliver their products outside of the area at
any competitive disadvantage. Mr. Gould stated that Measure A was a Transactions and Use
Tax and went into effect in April; therefore, businesses throughout Marin were now used to
administering this tax. To do a Transactions and Use Tax, Mr. Gould stated staff was
suggesting it be a half of one percent, i.e., 50 cents on a purchase of $100 worth of consumable
goods. He reported that a Transactions and Use Tax is also paid by people outside of the
community who come in to use the community services, and there was some equity in that.
Hence, it cost the average resident less than either the Parcel Tax or the Utility Users’ Tax.
Giving a comparison, he stated it would be necessary to spend $56,000 on sales taxable goods
in a particular year in order to pay $280 on a Transactions and Use Tax, similar to the Parcel
Tax described; therefore, it was the least expensive way.
Mr. Gould reported that the Chamber of Commerce was quite concerned about the effect of a
Transactions and Use Tax on the business community. He indicated that a number of meetings
had taken place with the Chamber Board and a committee of the Chamber attempting to
answer questions. Members had been quite good about understanding City finances and
helping staff work through it. Mr. Gould believed the principal concern for the Chamber was
that a Transactions and Use Tax in San Rafael only would put the City’s businesses at a
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
7
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 8
competitive disadvantage.
To test this notion, Mr. Gould stated that Mr. Lloyd de Lamas, principal partner of Hinderlider
de Lamas, primary sales tax auditors in the state, was invited to San Rafael to speak to this
issue at a meeting with a committee of the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Gould reported that Mr.
De Lamas had personally carried out research to determine where a Transactions and Use Tax
had been in place whether there was any change in the sales volume or business activity in
those cities, and he concluded there was no change. In fact, sales had increased at the same
level as neighboring cities that did not have such a tax. Mr. De Lamas’ theory was that it was
because people did not track such small differences in taxation.
To test this notion locally, Mr. Gould stated he called Mr. Mike Hauser, Executive Director of
the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce. He recalled that Santa Rosa had a Transactions and
Use Tax on the ballot in November, Measure O. Mr. Hauser explained that his Chamber of
Commerce was very supportive of that city because there was concern about gang activity and
the slow response of police and fire, and therefore, the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce
lined up behind the City on that tax. Mr. Gould reported that he explained to Mr. Hauser that
San Rafael was trying to avoid those outcomes in San Rafael, hence the recommendation for
placing this tax on the ballot to avoid having to lose control over certain elements that had
become common in Santa Rosa. Mr. Gould indicated that he had questioned Mr. Hauser as to
whether there had been complaints from any businesses in Santa Rosa since Measure O
became law, and he reported there had not been one, which would tend to confirm Mr. de
Lamas’ findings.
Mr. Gould reported there also had been concerns in the community that a Transactions and
Use Tax was regressive in and of itself. He believed this was true, especially in comparison
with the Income Taxes which were very progressive in California; however, he hastened to point
out that California Sales Tax was probably the least regressive of those found in the United
States. This was because over the years, between interest groups getting special legislation
and the Board of Equalization, $8.5 billion per year of sales taxable goods had been exempted
from sales tax in California, including food, energy, medicine and many common consumables;
therefore, it was less regressive than was found elsewhere. Also, should it be necessary to cut
police and fire, library, recreation and park services, Mr. Gould argued that the impacts would
fall disproportionately on the poorest in the community, which was an offset to him.
Noting a further concern that should a Transactions and Use Tax be approved in San Rafael it
would increase the likelihood of the development of retailers in the community because it would
increase the City’s reliance on sales tax as a primary revenue source, Mr. Gould stated that
while he could understand that concern, the history was that for the last several decades due to
the fiscal relationship between the State of California and local governments, at no time has
anything but retail paid for itself in California. This meant housing development and office
development generated less in property taxes than the cost of serving the new development in
California; therefore, there had been the incentive for the last decades to develop retail in
communities, and it was still there. Mr. Gould stated, however, that San Rafael like many
communities, had to balance that against community wishes, and General Plan 2020 made
severe constraints on the amount of commercial development allowed in the community. The
130-year city was almost built out, there were very few development sites and the few
remaining were heavily constrained by traffic. Should a Transactions and Use Tax be approved
by the voters in the community, Mr. Gould did not believe there would be evidence of any great
increase in the amount of retail development in San Rafael.
Based on the results of the June voter survey described, Mr. Gould reported that what was
heard at all of the community meetings, from the Internet survey, from people who just called,
wrote, faxed or e-mailed, it appeared there was a very strong preference for the Transactions
and Use Tax over either the Parcel or the Utility Users’ Tax – 2:1 – and it was staff’s thinking
that because the thrust was to protect general services, including police, fire, library, parks,
recreation and infrastructure maintenance, these would be general funds that would be put into
the General Fund and counted that way. Mr. Gould stated it would be a general tax and as
such, it would take a simple majority to approve and be put into place. He indicated that it was
also important to note that where local taxes were approved, there was no way the State of
California could take them; therefore, these local revenues would stay local to provide local City
services.
Mr. Gould stated staff believed there should be a Citizens’ Oversight Committee to monitor the
collection and expenditure of these additional funds. Because of being put into the General
Fund, they would be subject to the City’s annual independent audit of all its funds; however, the
Citizens’ Oversight Committee could meet three or four times annually to examine, not just the
use of the monies, rather the service levels provided. The service levels in 2005 were clearly
defined and the committee could ensure that the service levels in all the key areas had been
maintained or enhanced during the life of the tax. They could question the Department Heads,
spend time with Ken Nordhoff, Assistant City Manager, to satisfy themselves and render an
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
8
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 9
independent report to the public and the City Council. Mr. Gould stated this would not constrain
the City Council’s ability as the legislative body to make changes as was seen fit, rather it would
be an independent group of citizens watching and reporting on service levels throughout the
period of this tax.
Regarding the suggestion of a sunset provision, Mr. Gould stated that as was seen from other
communities, voters prefer some type of sunset provision. Given the fact that this is a systemic
problem, a deeply embedded operational deficit that would not be erased by an improvement in
economic conditions, it was suggested that this tax should run for a while. On the basis of the
voter survey and in talking with finance experts, staff believed it should have a ten-year term,
expiring in 2016, unless extended by the voters at that time.
Mr. Gould reported that the language of an ordinance had been submitted to the Board of
Equalization, who would administer it. He explained that one of the benefits of a Transactions
and Use Tax was it was easy to administer and account for.
Regarding the financial impact, Mr. Gould stated that should a half of one percent be approved,
this would amount to approximately $4.5 million annually. This would prevent further cuts to
essential services, begin to rebuild emergency reserves and afford a little more money to
replace cut positions, particularly in public safety and maintenance.
Mr. Gould outlined the options:
Adopt the ordinance imposing this new Transactions and Use Tax, subject to voter
approval, and adopt the resolution placing it on the November 8, 2005 ballot;
Reject them and begin budget cutting now. Should this option be the recommendation
or should the measure fail in November, Mr. Gould stated his recommendation would be
to set a date shortly, within a couple of weeks, and begin the process of cutting millions
of dollars out of the budget and begin protecting what remained of the City’s emergency
reserves. He stated that the City’s layoff policies required 90-days of continued pay and
benefits after laying people off; therefore, it would take a while. Staff would cease taking
reservations for some of the City’s facilities, setting firm dates for closure and begin
ratcheting down the service levels immediately; or
Return the matter for more research prior to the deadline in early August for placing
something on the November 8, 2005 ballot.
Mr. Gould stated it was staff’s strong recommendation that the City Council hold the public
hearing this evening, receive public input and adopt an ordinance imposing a one half of one
percent Transactions and Use Tax, subject to voter approval, and further adopt the resolution
placing the one half of one percent Transactions and Use Tax on the November 8, 2005 ballot
for voter approval.
Councilmember Heller inquired as to how many other cities had a Transactions and Use Tax.
Mr. Gould explained that the law allowing cities to impose a Transactions and Use Tax without
getting separate approval from the legislature became effective last year, and since that time,
approximately twenty-two cities had taken advantage of it. He noted more cities would do so in
the future. He recalled a figure that indicated that between cities and counties, 77% of
Californians reside in an area where a Transactions and Use Tax was in place, either in their
city or their county.
Noting the state had no possibility of extracting these funds, Councilmember Phillips inquired
what assurance the City had that the state would not change the law followed by an extraction.
Mr. Gould explained that it would have to change the Constitution with approval from the voters,
to be able to help itself to locally approved taxes.
Bob Spofford, Loch Lomond, speaking on behalf of Sustainable San Rafael and indicating that
he was in favor of this tax, explained that over the next couple of years, his organization would
be in front of the City Council a lot advocating for various sustainability issues and most of the
issues being advocated were potentially win-win situations, where something good is done for
the environment and the City saved money. However, like most things in business, most of
these issues required investing money today to save money five or ten years hence. Should
there be a decent budget and the balance sheet looked reasonable, the City would be in a
position to do that; however, living with emergency cuts and austerity budgets, serious
consideration could not be given to those issues both Sustainable San Rafael and the City
would like to see done.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
9
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 10
Michael Whipple, stated he lived and worked in San Rafael and the City’s welfare was very
important to him. He indicated he was present this evening to express his concerns about the
proposed sales tax increase for San Rafael. He stated he was generally supportive of the City
Council’s wish to raise taxes in San Rafael, and believing tax increases should be employed
only as a last resort, he considered the City Council had been diligent in its efforts to locate
savings and revenues for the City over the past several years.
Mr. Whipple stated the benefits of the sales tax increase were:
1) Much of the tax revenue would come from non-San Rafael residents. People shopped
where they worked and San Rafael had many more workers than residents.
2) The tax was regressive and would be imposed on people who did not pay very much
tax, such as renters and the poor.
3) It could be implemented with only 50% approval.
The Negatives of the Sales Tax Approach:
1) It singles out San Rafael’s uniquely high tax community. Towns with such a reputation
are subject to isolation and ridicule, becoming an island in the County. Utilities and
parcel taxes, by contrast, are ubiquitous throughout Marin and are not transparent. In
increasing utilities and parcel taxes, San Rafael would only be raising these rates to be
comparable with other towns and cities of Marin.
2) Some people would shop elsewhere, despite protestations to the contrary. Many people
would drive a distance to save 5 cents on a gallon of gas, even though it represented on
average, an annual savings of only $25.
3) There is a general economic principle that states if you want less of something you
should tax it. Decreased sales could lead to decreased employment and economic
activity. If large scale retailers decided the higher sales tax was a business detriment,
they would locate in neighboring cities and the loss of revenues and values could ripple
throughout the economic lives of San Rafael’s residents.
4) The 0.5% sales tax is a 67% increase in the City’s sales tax revenue. While the City is
insulated from sales decreases caused by the increased tax because of this high
percentage, any negative effect on sales caused by the increase would have a two
hundredfold negative impact on the economy of San Rafael. If sales tax drives away
$1 million in sales, it would cost the City $1,250; however, it would cost the residents
$1 million.
Mr. Whipple outlined why the sales tax was at risk of not obtaining the 50% approval:
1) Liberal voters would be opposed because the tax is regressive. The weight of the tax
would be most hurtful to those least able to pay.
2) Renters would be opposed because an increase in sales tax directly affects them,
whereas an increase in parcel taxes would not, and the utilities tax would have little
effect on them.
3) There would be skeptics to the “accountability” issues. If the City promised to be
accountable on specific terms, the tax would be subject to the two-thirds voter approval,
and not to do so would sound and be disingenuous. Furthermore, Council\\members
could not commit their successors, or even themselves, to certain behavior, as no one
would believe them in this day and age when the state legislature takes constitutional
amendments to be only advisory. How would the City respond in the event of having to
use the revenue to fund the defined benefit retirement plan benefits for early retirees
instead of where promised during the election?
Mr. Whipple believed the risk of significant adverse impacts of the sales tax solution was too
high and the other options were better.
Roger Roberts, while admitting the financial difficulty, believed the City owed the voters. He
urged the City Council to inform voters on a number of issues surrounding the tax measure that
had not really been addressed in any detail to this point, if they desired a successful passage.
Explaining, Mr. Roberts believed voters specifically wanted to know what service cuts would
ensue should the tax measure not pass. He noted a number of vague statements of dire cuts in
this or that service without putting any boundaries and specificity to it, and the City owed the
voters that information, so they would be aware of exactly what was at stake. Mr. Roberts
stated that the City would be wise to make clear the specific priority for the use of the additional
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
10
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 11
funds raised. He noted that the ordinance allowed the money to go into the General Fund and
basically, be spent for anything the City required to run its operation. While he understood why
the City wanted flexibility in using these monies to meet the needs of the budget, he believed
voters would be reassured if they were aware of exactly what the priority of the use of these
funds would be. He believed advertising and explaining this would help in passing the
measure.
Indicating that he had raised this issue informally with some Councilmembers in the past, Mr.
Roberts stated it would be useful for the City of San Rafael not to just make the argument that it
is a low tax base city and therefore, a poor boy on the block. He believed that effective
efficiency arguments should be made that compared the efficiency of San Rafael’s service
provision on a per capita basis with other cities of a comparable nature. He understood some
of this data was available and that Ken Nordhoff, Assistant City Manager, may already have
researched it to some extent. If this information was available it should be shared, and if not, it
should be obtained and shared, as he believed it would help substantially to show that this city
compared to others in like circumstances is very efficient in the delivery of its services, and that
there is no fat in the system. Mr. Roberts stated that if the City knew this was the case, it
should be made clear.
Lastly, Mr. Roberts stated that the public should be informed what the City was going to do to
control some of the uncontrollable expenses referred to in the staff report, most of which were in
the realm of employee benefits, as explained by Mr. Gould. The Grand Jury for the County
pointed out that these expenses were growing at the County level in an uncontrollable way and
it could be that the City is in a similar box and needed to explain what it would do to try to
control these costs in the future. For example, switch from a defined benefit plan for employees
to a defined contribution plan, which was happening in the private sector all across the country,
and it could be that cities would have to bite that bullet also. Mr. Roberts stated it was owed to
the voters to explain how this part of the budget, which was probably the part most difficult to
address, would be controlled.
Mr. Roberts stated he was pleased to hear there would be a sunset provision. Ten years was a
fair amount of time and there was a possibility there would be a turnaround somewhere
between now and then. He noted no provisions in the ordinance for revocation in the event
circumstances changed for the City and he inquired whether this was something the City
Council could do on its own. He believed the ordinance should contain some language that
would allow the City to revoke this tax should there be a finding it was no longer necessary.
Mr. Roberts noted the sunset provision allowed the voting public to determine the impact of the
tax and to review the continuing need for such a tax in the community, and the City had quite
properly indicated that there would be a Citizens’ Oversight Committee to help ensure that. He
stated that that committee must be transparent, it must be public and must have broad
representation that also represented not just residents, but commercial interests, who may or
may not be residents. Mr. Roberts expressed the hope that the City Council would spend a
considerable amount of time in thinking about how this committee would actually be structured,
whether there would be staggered terms, and it should be designed in such a way that the
public would have faith it was not just another instrument to “hide a pea under a shell”
somewhere and not really act in the intended manner. When it came to the resolution of
establishing such a committee, Mr. Roberts stated he hoped these issues would be addressed
and he believed the public would be interested in participating in a discussion about exactly
what the resolution would state. He presumed, therefore, there would be a public hearing on
that.
Mr. Roberts urged the City Council to consider the revocation issue, whether there was no tax
on food stuffs, pharmaceuticals and energy, pursuant to state law, and that it applied in this
case. He indicated it was not necessarily clear to him in the language of the ordinance whether
this was the case and he would like to hear from staff that state law would prevail in this regard.
Paul Finkle, Chair-Elect, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated they appreciated the effort
the City had made thus far to educate those at the Chamber and as business people in San
Rafael regarding the budget and the proposed tax measure. After several months of studying
the issue, he indicated they had some concerns. He expressed the belief that this would not be
the only tax the City Council may decide to impose, noting the Paramedic Tax would be on the
ballot next year, and the City might wish to adopt a bond measure also to generate some
additional revenue for facilities repair. He indicated that the tax measure for SMART
(Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit), an issue of great importance to many present and certainly
to the business community, would be before the voters in 2006 and there was great concern
that perhaps the goodwill of residents for additional taxes could be used up by that time.
Indicating they believed that the revenue picture for the City could be getting a little brighter, Mr.
Finkle explained that the VLF (Vehicle License Fee) money was being returned from the state
and several new, large tax generators were coming to San Rafael in the form of Smart & Final
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
11
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 12
and Best Buy. Also in Chamber members’ conversations with some hoteliers, they noted that
occupancy rates had improved considerably, bringing increased transient occupancy tax
revenue to the City.
Because the Transactions and Use tax would generate more than was needed to close the
financial gap and because they believed the economic climate for the City would improve, Mr.
Finkle stated that the Council should consider adopting a shorter sunset, i.e., five years. This
would show residents that this tax was being imposed only as a last resort to bridge the gap in
the budget until better economic times.
Mr. Finkle noted that in the letter they received from the City Council it was stated that pension
changes may create a two-tiered pension program, and they applauded this direction. He
indicated they believed that public employee benefits, both pensions and healthcare, could not
be sustained at current levels, and that local and state governments must address this
underlying problem.
Indicating that they did not believe it prudent to agree to continued salary increases in the face
of a deficit budget, Mr. Finkle explained that businesses coping with decreased revenues often
were forced to tell employees they could not expect raises. While no employer enjoyed doing
this, he stated that sometimes it was necessary.
Mr. Finkle reported that their final concern was with the text of the measure itself. They
believed the ballot language as proposed could be misleading as it appeared to suggest it was
a special tax, when in fact, the ordinance specifically stated it was a general tax. He questioned
whether it would not be better to specifically designate where the increased funding was
needed and for what purpose, rather than circumvent the issue with this general tax.
Mr. Finkle stated their members were indicating they did not support this tax. Having conducted
two polls of their members, he reported they were concerned that consumer perceptions of San
Rafael being a more expensive place to shop would cause customers to shop in other areas.
While they understood the terms of the Transactions and Use Tax, he noted there were many
consumers who were not aware that the tax rate applied in their own residence as opposed to
where they were actually purchasing. Mr. Finkle stated they believed that doing business was
sufficiently difficult without additional tax burdens and having polled their membership twice,
they continued to show opposition to the tax. Therefore, he stated they believed they could not
support the measure; however, as a group had decided not to actively oppose it.
Mr. Finkle stated they appreciated the opportunity to share their concerns and the multiple
considerations afforded them in terms of sharing information with them as a group.
Joan Hoffman, Santa Venetia, stated that while they resided in the County, they shopped in the
City. She noted from the staff report that wages had been kept in the 2% - 4% range; however,
San Rafael experienced what other public and private employers had struggled with in recent
years. She indicated it bothered her that private business had a product, had increased
revenues, unions, etc., whereas public service was not unionized, had security of job but it did
not mean that employees would be on the same par as private business. In looking at the
health benefits and pensions, she considered this was being taken from taxpayers, while the
City did not have a product. While she was aware of the police, fire and maintenance of roads,
she believed City roads were in dire straights and more roads were needed. Ms. Hoffman
noted that commencing August 1, 2005 it would cost 65-cents per hour to park which could
drive people away, and she commented that when businesses left, all that remained were the
property owners.
Ms. Hoffman stated the City Council was supposed to be working for the general public and as
she believed the City was not unionized, she could not understand how it considered itself on a
par with private business. She noted the City was the servant of the people, not vice versa.
Jim Ganzman thanked the City Council for the opportunity to appear and express his opinions.
He indicated that together with the City Council, he was concerned about the financial situation
the City found itself in currently. He was concerned about the cuts already made to public
services, including the library and he believed that a tax measure was necessary and was the
way to correct the situation. He did not believe, however, that a Transactions and Use Tax was
the way to do it, rather, he favored a Parcel Tax. He recalled having been somewhat critical in
the past of the City’s efforts over the last ten or fifteen years to secure some financial stability,
vis a vis an expanded tax base and quite a lot of commercial development. He indicated that
his main concern about that approach at the time was its impact on quality of life issues in the
City. As it turned out, there was a further disadvantage, i.e., it was tied intimately to the
economy, which is now not in very good condition, and as a result, the City was not in good
condition.
Mr. Ganzman stated that on his last appearance before the City Council he suggested that
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
12
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 13
other communities in Marin County who had taken other approaches to establishing a good
sound financial base were in better shape currently than San Rafael. He indicated that at least
one Councilmember thought he was referring to communities that had constructed shopping
centers, and this was not the case, rather he was referring to communities that had approved
parcel taxes. He noted that many communities in Marin County had done this for years and
was aware that recently the Town of San Anselmo adopted a resolution placing a Parcel Tax
measure on its ballot at some point in the near future. (This was a report in the Marin
Independent Journal, which he assumed was correct.). Mr. Ganzman stated the report also
noted that all the Councilmembers were in favor and pledged to campaign actively for its
passage. He indicated he was impressed by this and would like to see it happen in San Rafael.
If the City Council pledged to campaign for such an issue, Mr. Ganzman pledged to help, i.e.,
to talk to community people. He realized it would take this as such a tax would be more difficult
to pass than a Transactions and Use Tax; however, he believed it was the right thing to do.
Pam Reeves, Safe and Healthy San Rafael, an organization working with the Department of
Public Works for the past three years in implementing an integrated pest management plan,
stated she was present to represent her group, noting she also was a County Commissioner for
integrated pest management.
Ms. Reeves expressed thanks to the City Council for their very strong efforts in working with the
budget crisis, noting that she, a lot of her neighbors and the members of Safe and Healthy San
Rafael realized the seriousness of it. She indicated she would like to put on record that in their
efforts to work with Public Works, including Andy Preston, Public Works Director, they had been
told for almost three years that one of the problems of implementing such a program was due to
budget constraints. Therefore, although she had no problem supporting the tax deemed most
beneficial, her concern was that these very important environmental issues would not be
addressed. Encouraging that they be addressed, Ms. Reeves stated she believed, as did
Sustainable San Rafael, that it would be a win-win situation and they could work with the City.
Gary Ford, noted that Messrs. Finkle and Roberts already touched on some of the topics he
would address. Realizing the City was in a financial predicament, he encouraged the City
Council to take a full solution package to the voters. He noted the library, police station, main
fire station, and even the City Clerk’s office needed work; however, one narrow application was
being looked at – a Transactions and Use Tax. Mr. Ford stated the biggest reason for the
financial predicament was the excessive cost of pensions, yet nowhere in the Transactions and
Use Tax initiative was the pension cost.
Mr. Ford noted that Mr. Roberts encouraged the City to go from a defined benefit to defined
contributions; however, Mr. Roberts was not aware that two or three weeks ago, the City
Council approved a resolution endorsing a defined benefit plan and sent it to the legislature. He
stated the biggest issue and current danger was close to $2 million – the premium the Marin
County Board of Retirement would be giving the City of San Rafael in the first quarter of 2006
because the returns the stock market has given are parallel to the returns in 2001 and 2003.
Because those premiums are amortized over a twenty-four month period, the bill for $2 million
means $1 per year, i.e., 20% of the first year’s tax revenue from this measure would go to pay
the pensions. Mr. Ford stated that the pensions paid to City employees were not sustainable
and major reassessment was necessary. Indicating that the tax did nothing, he noted that in
fact, the staff report clearly stated it was the fringe benefits – pensions, workers’ compensation
and healthcare costs – that were a major contributor to the deficit, and yet no work was being
done. He commented that if the public was somewhat questioning disillusionment in this area,
he questioned what would happen when a bond issue was presented.
Mr. Ford encouraged the City Council not to pass this tax, rather table it, go back to the voters
once with a total solution, i.e., the package to rein in healthcare costs, workers’ compensation
costs, pension costs, the program for the bond issue to replace the aging infrastructure, and the
proposal to handle the operational deficit. Otherwise, there would be a lot of fatigued voters
who would become angry recalcitrant taxpayers who would not believe the stories.
Don Magdanz, member of the Marin County Bicycle Coalition Board of Directors and the San
Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, speaking this evening on his own behalf,
stated he was very much in favor of the tax. He suggested that the sales tax had a great deal
of visibility and that a use tax or parcel tax would be much more appropriate for these needed
funds. Agreeing that funds were needed, he noted that the Department of Public Works had
been significantly curtailed as a result of the budget cuts and unless more revenue was
received, they would be more severely curtailed.
Mr. Magdanz noted that the infrastructure for bicycles currently within the City of San Rafael
needed a lot of work. The goal of General Plan 2020 was for 20% of all trips within the City to
be done by either bicycle or pedestrian and with the current infrastructure for bicyclists, that
would be very difficult to meet.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
13
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 14
Noting the City of San Rafael was in the process of applying for some small grants for
improving this infrastructure, i.e., marking, minor repairs, etc., and although not a significant
amount of money, he indicated that some of these grants could require matching funds, and he
would like to see a tax that would be available. He commented that with matching funds the
effect of any City money could be multiplied, and without the capability of putting up matching
funds, opportunities would be lost.
Mr. Magdanz noted that Measure F in Fairfax recently passed and it contained some funds for
matching bicycle funds.
Tymber Cavasian stated that everyone was concerned about long-term fiscal health and the
capacity to meet cost increases. As pointed out by Mr. Ford, she noted the question of how to
maintain quality of life and make future improvements, and believed there appeared to be a lot
missing from this particular stop gap measure.
Ms. Cavasian stated she fundamentally disagreed with basing the money needed to provide
essential services further on sales tax funding. Having attended a lot of meetings and spoken
with staff she was aware there was a difference of opinion; however, she believed these should
be based on a steady, logical and diverse funding source and the public could probably be
convinced of the merits of this. Personally, she felt that sales tax had taken a lot of airtime in
this particular rollout of the budget crisis and its solutions.
Noting Mr. Gould mentioned the flat levels of sales tax revenue and the limited possibility San
Rafael has of substantial growth in that area, Ms. Cavasian stated she believed it was a mistake
to lead the voters into sales tax. Believing in leadership and being less versed in politics, she
was aware part of this was what measure could be put on the ballot that was likely to succeed;
however, she had a hard time with that, as philosophically, she did not believe this particular
measure was the answer.
Indicating she participates in neighborhood associations and the Federation of San Rafael
Neighborhoods, Ms. Cavasian stated they had been having lots of discussion, and while a
consensus had not been formed, a lot of concern had been expressed, ranging from lack of
support to opposition for sales tax. Therefore, some of the specifics that Roger Roberts,
Michael Whipple, Jim Ganzman, and Gary Ford brought up would have to addressed and she
was unsure whether this measure could answer all of them.
Returning to the podium, Gary Ford stated that the San Rafael School District was conducting a
mail-in ballot and the measure, whether it passed or failed, could be a good barometer as to
what would happen for San Rafael’s tax measure.
There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
Responding to questions raised, Mr. Gould stated he was looking for common themes in
tonight’s comments. First, he noted three different groups that pledged to work more closely
with the City to affect improvements in the community – Sustainable San Rafael, Safe and
Healthy San Rafael and the Bicycle Coalition – all three of which were acutely aware of the
City’s financial circumstances and the reasons the City was unable to work more closely with
them; therefore, they were supportive of tonight’s proposal. He pointed out that the thrust of
this proposal was to maintain current essential City services, i.e., keep police and fire strong in
San Rafael, maintain or even restore some of the library hours, do a decent job of maintaining
the City’s critical infrastructure, and have the community centers and Falkirk open. He hoped it
was clear to these groups that no additional commitment of funds was being proposed with this
measure.
On the question of putting San Rafael businesses in some type of unique high tax situation and
therefore, hurting business and reducing sales tax all round, Mr. Gould stated that again, there
was no evidence this occurs. In every city in California that had adopted a Transactions and
Use Tax, there had been no corresponding drop in sales activity - no exceptions. While he
could understand the concern, he noted people do not track less than 1% difference in sales tax
rates. Mr. Gould stated there were wide variations in sales taxes up and down the state;
however, people were not aware of them. As some speakers had pointed out, there were wide
variations in the way cities were supported in Marin and across the state. He noted that the
11% of property taxes being returned to the General Fund corresponded to 25% and 30% in
many other cities and towns in Marin and across the state and people were generally not aware
of them. Therefore, the notion that San Rafael businesses would be put at a disadvantage
would imply there was something unique about San Rafael that could not be found elsewhere.
Mr. Gould stated it was also his belief that these Transactions and Use Taxes would become
increasingly common in the future.
Noting a concern that benefits needed to be more tightly controlled, Mr. Gould indicated he
wished to make some broad statements in this connection. He believed the City Council had
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
14
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 15
been very prudent in the labor packages approved over the years and contrary to one speaker’s
comments, San Rafael was a heavily unionized environment. Since the 1980s the one sector
of the U.S. economy that had seen union growth was the government sector. He reported that
currently, the City bargains with eight separate employee associations in San Rafael.
Nonetheless, Mr. Gould stated the City Council had held the line and its philosophy in the nine
years of his tenure was to pay competitive wages to be able to attract and retain the best
possible people to provide these critical services, which was good, sound management. While
San Rafael did not pay the best salaries in the area, or even the best in Marin County, although
it was arguable that San Rafael’s employees did more and more difficult work than their
counterparts in some of the cities and towns in Marin, compared with 11 benchmark cities in the
Bay Area, San Rafael was not even at the average. The suggestion to cut back wages and
benefits further because of this systemic problem being faced he did not believe made good
short or long term sense and he noted that just this past week two police officers were lost to go
to work in communities closer to where they lived for better pay and benefits. Mr. Gould stated
San Rafael could not pay anywhere close to what it took for people to live in the community;
therefore, they expected an hour or more commute to come to San Rafael. To be asked to take
substandard wages and benefits at the same time would preclude obtaining the best graduates
of the police and fire academies, best engineers, technicians and planners, etc., who are
counted on to do the important work in this community, and a lot of the good people already
with the City who now had the skills and abilities and were at the peak of their productivity
would go elsewhere. San Rafael would then be the employer of last resort and the temporary
employer and training ground for other communities, which is a recipe for mediocrity.
As to the level of those benefits and particularly pensions, Mr. Gould reported that San Rafael’s
pensions were not the highest in the State of California. San Rafael’s firefighters had the lowest
pension program in Marin County and one of the lowest in the State of California and the
average pension for a Miscellaneous employee – non-safety employee – in San Rafael is
$19,600. The average pension for a public safety employee – police and fire- was $39,000 and
it should be borne in mind that San Rafael employees were not involved in the Social Security
Program, so this was their pension program; therefore, these numbers were not outrageous.
Mr. Gould stated that the City Council also required that employees pay their entire employee
contributions towards pensions, and this was not found in other cities and towns in Marin or
California. He indicated that San Rafael was the first City Council in the state to adopt a
resolution calling for statewide pension reform. The City Council had acknowledged there were
some abuses and excesses in the current pension program and had taken positions on
legislation that would begin to affect some of this change statewide; however, would do so on a
level playing field so that San Rafael would be adjusted similar to other local government
employers, which made sense in order to continue to attract and retain the best people
possible.
Mr. Gould stated he was intensely proud of those working for San Rafael and would put them
up against any other organization. He could show the matrix referred to by Mr. Roberts
depicting the efficiency and effectiveness, and he believed it to be a very good suggestion.
Regarding the concept of a shorter sunset, Mr. Gould stated that even if the economy took off
the way it did in the late 1990s he questioned whether the City would grow its way out of a $3.7
million operating deficit anytime soon; he did not believe it would happen and a long period
needed to be applied.
Regarding Mr. Ford’s suggestion of putting everything into one and deal with the facilities
issues, which had developed over decades, simultaneous with addressing the operating deficit,
Mr. Gould believed to be a lovely idea; however, to fail would revert the City to deep cuts in
police and fire, parks, library and street maintenance. In deference to Ms. Cavasian, he stated
that sometimes politics is the art of the possible, not the optimal.
Noting arguments that a Parcel Tax would be better for the City, Mr. Gould agreed that from a
financial standpoint it would be better to have an increased Parcel Tax; however, based on
feedback from the scientific surveys and community meetings, the Transactions and Use Tax
was preferred 2-3:1 to a Parcel Tax. According to the June survey, the support level for a
Parcel Tax or Utility Users’ Tax was in the 30% range, whereas over 60% were willing to
support a Transactions and Use Tax. Therefore, he questioned whether the City should listen
to what the voters were stating or try to convince them that something else was better, and this
was a tactical question that only the City Council could answer.
Regarding the return of the VLF monies addressed in the letter from the Chamber of
Commerce, Mayor Boro requested clarification that this was a one-time return.
Responding in the affirmative, Mr. Gould explained that when the Governor of the State of
California on his election decided to cut back the Vehicle License Fee, he did so knowing that
almost 100% of the VLF flow to cities and counties; therefore, they were essentially cutting
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
15
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 16
someone else’s tax revenues. However, the Governor stated “not to worry, we will reimburse
you cities and counties, but we can’t do it right now; we plan to do so sometime in 2006.” Mr.
Gould stated this was a debt of the State of California. He reported that the City had no
confidence, along with many other cities and counties, that the state would actually repay these
sums; therefore, the City Council securitized the debt by allowing a bonding company to
purchase it, with the City receiving 92.5 cents on the dollar last fall, which was a smart move.
Surprisingly, the budget adopted by the state included full funding of that 2006 obligation. San
Rafael had already built this into the budget and was already applying that money to ensure
deeper cuts would not have to be made this fiscal year, giving the community the time to absorb
the reality of the situation and make an informed choice.
Mr. Gould confirmed for Mayor Boro that going forward, there would be no additional
reimbursement, this was a one-time refund. Explaining the complicated system known as the
“triple flip”, he indicated that the state was trying to take sales tax from cities, apply it to the $15
billion worth of bonds sold by the state, replace those with property taxes and replace the lost
Vehicle License Fees with property taxes also. Indicating that this was the plan, which changed
year to year, he noted it was a very fluid system and as most of the press accounts had shown,
even this year’s budget at the state leaves a $5 - $7 billion deficit for next fiscal year.
Councilmember Cohen noted that several speakers urged staff to be more specific in the uses
to which the tax would be put and it was his understanding that to be any more specific than
proposed would trigger this as a special tax, taking the threshold from 50% to two-thirds. Mr.
Gould concurred.
Indicating he had read the proposed language for the ballot, Councilmember Cohen quoted “to
prevent further cuts and preserve funding for general City services” and believed it was pretty
clear that it was a general tax and non-specific, for good reason.
Councilmember Cohen noted a concern expressed that sales tax appeared to be relatively flat,
and sharing Mr. Ganzman’s concern, indicated he did not believe this or any future Council
would suddenly go on a rampage and decide to build tons of sales tax generators. Therefore,
he believed the assessment that sales tax would be relatively flat was probably fairly accurate.
Indicating that a Parcel Tax was not like property tax in the sense that it was not tied to value,
rather a fixed Parcel Tax fee per parcel, it was not likely there would be a tremendous increase
in the number of parcels in San Rafael, in fact, very little. He believed a Parcel Tax was no
more likely to be an increasing source of revenue over time than sales tax. In looking at where
the economy is he believed there was at least some chance sales tax figures would improve,
while there was no chance of seeing any significant growth in the number of parcels. While a
Utility Users’ Tax might increase, Councilmember Cohen believed it would be tied to the cost of
energy and was one reason why voters were very hesitant to support such a tax because they
were concerned about a tax on top of increasing telephone, cable and energy costs. An
argument in favor was its potential source of growth; however, this also was the reason why
voters were very leery of it.
Commenting that the City was at a crossroads, Councilmember Cohen stated that decisions
needed to be made now as to whether to put this measure on the ballot, take the time to
implement it and be able to save City services in less than a year from now. He indicated that
while it would be nice to be able to wait and put together the one big solution that wrapped up
everything that needed to be done over time, he did not believe that luxury was available.
Councilmember Cohen stated the City Council had worked diligently to make cuts and minimize
the impact on the community of making those cuts. Employees not only did not receive a wage
increase last year, rather took a wage cut; therefore, some of the steps being urged had already
been taken. He did not believe, however, the City had the luxury to wait for the perfect time to
go out and do something that would fix the operating gap of funds, capital improvements, and
also wrap up in San Rafael what was a statewide issue – the resolution of the pensions
questions that confronted public entities throughout California. While he believed there were
potential solutions to those, he did not consider any would be immediate or overnight. He noted
some poor decisions were made, not necessarily in San Rafael, at the height of the last
economic boom and the impact of some of that was still being felt. Councilmember Cohen
stated that question could not be solved in San Rafael and certainly, could not be solved before
the beginning of the next fiscal year.
In response to Mr. Gould, Councilmember Cohen stated he appreciated the groups who came
out in support tonight and he believed he heard pretty clearly an understanding of the City’s
financial situation. He did not believe he heard that this support would be in exchange for doing
“X”, rather it was an understanding that should the City have to make the cuts being faced next
year – closing fire stations and laying off police officers – the City would not possibly be in a
situation to make the types of wise use investments these groups were urging. Councilmember
Cohen stated it was necessary to save what the City already had before beginning to consider
making these types of investments, and he believed that was understood.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
16
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 17
Councilmember Cohen stated that the question being faced was larger than the City Council.
He believed they had done a good job and commended a very capable staff for working hard
over the last few years to try to address the situation and challenges to be faced, only one of
which related to employee benefits, and as much as could be cut was cut.
Regarding the broken window theory, Councilmember Cohen stated this was discussed in
relation to community policing. The theory from New York City was that “if you leave a broken
window unrepaired, people would begin to believe it was o.k., and pretty soon, all the windows
would get broken as it was an accepted standard.” He believed San Rafael was on the brink of
setting that type of standard in this community if service was lowered to the necessary level to
balance the budget. Councilmember Cohen stated he was not prepared to make that choice on
behalf of the citizens of San Rafael without asking them to participate in that discussion. He
believed people needed to be offered a choice, inquiring what level of service they were
prepared to pay for. Indicating this was somewhat dissonant, he stated the Federal
Government had stated “we can go to war and cut taxes and just borrow the money” and the
state indicates it can get out of the deficit by just bonding around it, while at the local
government level, these options were not available. He commented that neither one was a
good choice; however, San Rafael did not even have that option and was left to state “either
spend more or cut services.” Regardless of being specific, Councilmember Cohen believed that
any exercise where the City pretended to indicate what cuts would be made would be just an
exercise until faced with it. Should the measure not pass and in six months the City Council
was cutting $3 million from the budget, these would be very difficult choices and the community
would have to be listened to very carefully. He believed no one would like what the City Council
would do; however, to pretend today to make that decision and specify what would be cut was
technically an exercise in scaring people.
Councilmember Cohen believed the City Council wanted to present the community honestly
with the choices and the question was simple – what level of service were people prepared to
pay for. To maintain the excellent level of service San Rafael had provided and to retain the
excellent organization that had been built, together with the excellent level of service provided in
the community, the choice would have to be made to pay the price, which meant putting this tax
on the ballot, going out and committing to support it, which he would do, even though it was a
sales tax, and requesting the voters to share in making that choice and approving the tax.
Councilmember Cohen stated he would be voting in favor of putting this on the ballot and
planned to spend a lot of time attempting to persuade the voters of San Rafael to choose to do
th
that to save the City Council from having to choose to make serious cuts on November 9.
Councilmember Miller stated that in response to a request from constituent, Ms. Dorothy
Vesecky, he would like to read her comments into the record, as she was unable to attend
tonight’s meeting:
“
I had hoped to attend tonight’s meeting but find I am unable to do so. I have asked
Councilperson Miller to make certain that my remarks are read into the record. I wish to
express my enthusiastic support to the proposed City sales tax initiative. As one of the lower
income residents of our fair city, I am well aware that a sales tax is not a progressive tax. I am
supporting this form of tax simply because, as a practical matter, I believe that this tax has a far
better chance of passing than do other types of taxes at this time. I also do not believe that this
miniscule additional cost added to purchases will create a hardship to lower income residents.
An additional fifty cents added to a one hundred dollar purchase is not an undue hardship. Nor
would it discourage customers from shopping in San Rafael. How far would one drive to save a
few cents?
I am impressed with the City's clear and concise explanation to the public as to why this tax is
needed. Vital City services that include, but are not limited to, police and fire safety are at
stake. The quality of life in our city is at stake. A city cannot claim to offer a high quality of life
without services that include good educational, cultural, recreational, and library services, as
well as reasonably maintained streets and public spaces.
All property owners and businesses will suffer if the City is unable to maintain the level of
services that exist in the City at the present time. For people in those positions to oppose this
tax is very short-sighted. A well-maintained city with healthy and productive activities for its
residents and visitors, not only increases property values, but also draws customers and
consumers to local businesses. This tax should sunset in 10 not 5 years. To sunset it in five
years would only cost the taxpayers more money for another election at that time and put the
City on a crisis basis again. I doubt that the need for this tax will diminish in five years. The
situation in California is very complex and will take time to solve.
At a time when the federal and state governments are practicing irresponsible fiscal policies, I
commend local officials for their integrity in coming forward and working with the people they
serve to exercise fiscal responsibility. In time, California may adopt better tax policies that
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
17
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 18
would make additional sales taxes unnecessary, but for the time being, the City of San Rafael
has little choice but to work within a tax system that is not of their making. San Rafael has
made great strides in good government in the last decade. Unfortunately, a fiscal crisis could
undo much of this work. I urge everyone to remember that it takes much longer to build than to
destroy.”
Councilmember Miller reported that in watching the 6:30 p.m. news last evening, he noted the
major topic was Hurricane Emily hitting Cancun and the weather graphics really showed its
power. He stated there was an entire segment on Cancun as it prepared for the hurricane.
Shelters filled up, the streets became eerily silent and men were evident installing boards to
protect hotel windows, etc.
Recognizing the metaphor, Councilmember Miller stated he could not help but think that the
City’s $3.5 million structural deficit was like a 145 miler-per-hour hurricane, capable of
devastating the entire service structure of the City. In terms of preparation, he stated the
budget had been cut as far as possible and he did not believe there was anything that had not
been cut. On posing the question as to how to deflect this fiscal hurricane, he believed it was
deflected with this proposed Transactions and Use Tax.
Councilmember Cohen stated that the way to save the degradation of the system of services
that protect and provide the quality of life in San Rafael was for the people to pass the proposed
Transactions and Use Tax. The passage of the proposed tax would be the most significant
political act of this community in a twenty year period, ten years before and ten years after.
Likewise, the vote on this tax was the most significant of his tenure on the City Council and he
would vote yes.
Should the City choose not to go forward in 2005, Councilmember Heller requested clarification
that it would be necessary to wait a further two years. Mr. Gould confirmed that to run a general
tax would necessitate waiting until 2007 and by that time the emergency reserves would have
been exhausted.
Reiterating her remarks at previous meetings, etc., Councilmember Heller stated that as a
member of the City Council she had the desire to leave the City in a little better shape than
when she arrived, literally seeing things done through the years that were not done heretofore,
and she was aware her colleagues all shared that feeling. She indicated that none of them ever
thought they would be asking their fellow citizens to vote for a tax raise for themselves, as being
elected officials this was not what they wished to do.
Councilmember Heller stated that the past four years had been quite difficult – library hours
were reduced, City Hall @ The Mall was closed, employees were laid off and current
employees were requested to take a 5% pay cut, management more – the list was endless and
the deficit grew.
Noting staff had requested the City Council to choose between three options, Councilmember
Heller stated she was aware of the many other options, had read the reports statewide other
cities had tried, and she agreed these were the best three options that a City could do. She
believed the Transactions and Use Tax weighed least heavily. It was much less per person
than the Parcel Tax; therefore, she was somewhat surprised to hear people state that they
would like to pay more taxes. Further, she would favor a sunset of twelve years, because being
an old City, the sidewalks, medians, parks and buildings were old and aging rapidly. She
indicated that with 174 miles of streets, 24 acres of center medians and 16 acres of roadside
landscaping to take care of, they would disintegrate in no time if not taken care of. Most of all,
Councilmember Heller stated that a future City Council must be afforded the ability to take care
of the City. If the present City Council could lay that foundation for those to come in the future,
she believed they would have left the City a lot better than when they arrived.
Councilmember Heller stated that a Citizens’ Oversight Committee was a must. It could be
structured with the help of the community to include people from different aspects and basically
would allow people with no idea how city government finances were and how constrained they
were by various laws to become somewhat more acquainted with the City and its finances.
Believing they would be happy to be educated in this way, she thought there would be a good
group looking in on the tax going forward.
Councilmember Heller stated she would vote in favor of the Transactions and Use Tax and
while the other members of the City Council might not agree, she would favor a twelve year
sunset.
Councilmember Phillips stated he appreciated the efforts of Mr. Gould, Mr. Nordhoff and staff
members in dealing with these complex issues, and to raise the red flag was not a simple task
either. To have raised it early when it was necessary to hopefully bring the City out of troubled
waters was commendable.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
18
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 19
Noting Joan Hoffman addressed service and indicated the City did not have a product,
Councilmember Phillips suggested that the product was service. He stated there was good
feedback that residents were generally pretty pleased with the service provided and he was
constantly amazed and appreciative of the competency and dedication of staff which was
difficult to find.
While he too had some concerns about pension plans, Councilmember Phillips noted that in his
own business they had converted a number of clients from defined benefit plans, such as the
public employees have, to defined contribution plans because they were more manageable and
predictable and if in a bind, they could be reduced if appropriate; however, that was not in place
thus far. He indicated that the reality, as mentioned by Mr. Gould, and expected by the public,
was that the City demanded of itself that it provide good service and demanded top notch
service from employees. He noted however, that no one would work for a long period of time
for an employer who was not paying competitive wages. To focus merely on pension, the
conclusion would be drawn that City employees were grossly overpaid. To look at the total
package, that conclusion might not necessarily be drawn, as it was a balance of the total
compensation package. Councilmember Phillips stated the City was trying to provide good
service at a cost it could afford and deliver it in an efficient manner. Therefore, focusing
suddenly on the pension, which was derivative in large part from the stock market of a few
years ago, and noting some of the issues some cities had gotten into, under Mr. Gould’s
recommendation and Mayor Boro’s leadership, San Rafael was in a better position than many
other cities. While options should be explored, he did not believe the City should beat itself up
with the wonderful hindsight being presented on occasion.
Being somewhat of a pragmatist, Councilmember Phillips stated the City Council had
information indicating that contrary to some of the 26 in the audience, on balance, people were
more in favor of a sales tax. He believed the most expedient way to enhance the budget to
provide the services everyone expected was a sales tax and therefore, he was in favor of that
approach.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was a little surprised by the Chamber of Commerce’s letter
because owning a business in San Rafael, for him one of the critical issues with regard to his
business environment was how safe people would feel going to the downtown, how enthusiastic
they were about the services provided or how they felt about the cleanliness of the City. He
considered those issues entered into consumers’ views of where they would feel comfortable
buying their services and he did not find anything in the Chamber’s letter that addressed the
benefits the City provides to enhance business opportunities, instead he found a lot of negative
which was disappointing. However, he hoped that as the process progressed, the Chamber
might see the benefit.
Regarding the sunset provision, Councilmember Phillips stated he had some concern; however,
he believed that if by chance the economy did have a sudden turnaround and revenues became
available, they would be wisely spent. He noted the tremendous needs in capital areas and
should there be extra funds from an economy turnaround, there would be a lot of ways to wisely
spend these; therefore, he was not too concerned about the period.
Regarding the Citizens’ Oversight Committee, Councilmember Phillips did not see that it would
necessarily be a distraction, rather it might help; however, ultimately, the City Council was
charged with the responsibility of overseeing the funds and he did not feel, on a personal level,
that it was necessary to delegate that to a group. He was also somewhat pragmatic with regard
to the fact that maybe it would make some people feel somewhat better about the process, and
if so, it could not hurt.
In conclusion, Councilmember Phillips stated that the City Council and many citizens had spent
a lot of time exploring the options available and the situation the City found itself in to draw this
conclusion. Having read an article in the newspaper recently that indicated approximately only
150 – 200 people attended the three public meetings, he expressed disappointment with these
comments as these meetings were not a secret. Thanking those present this evening, he
noted, however, only 26 in attendance.
Noting public meetings were held, and 17,000 mailers distributed, Councilmember Phillips
stated that between now and the election, assuming there was one regarding this issue, there
would be opportunities for more and more people to become aware and informed about the
necessity to continue services. With regard to the types of service, he stated “look around,
what you see is what you’re going to get; should the measure not pass what you see now is
what you’re going to miss.” Councilmember Phillips stated he was in favor of the motion.
Noting Councilmember Heller’s remarks that no Councilmember wanted to go to the public
proposing a tax increase, Mayor Boro stated it reminded him that approximately six years ago
on completing the first Citizens’ Satisfaction Survey, a member of the press stated “you guys
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
19
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 20
are taking a risk doing that because if the results are not good, it’s a public document and
everyone would see it.” Mayor Boro stated it was done because it was considered important to
know what people thought was essential in the community, the services provided, and how
these services were performed, and having taken that risk, the City had improved over the
years. As the last two years had evolved, especially this past year when things did not improve,
in December of 2004, it was decided that the City must look for a revenue option in order to
sustain the quality of service this City Council wanted to provide and, he believed, the people in
the community wanted to receive.
Indicating that public safety was the number one priority, Mayor Boro stated the library, parks,
streets, etc., were all infrastructure items which must be sustained. He stated the City Council
took a risk six months ago in deciding to pursue this. Informal meetings were held with
homeowner groups, culminating with the three community meetings and conducting polls. He
indicated that everything the City Council thought it could and should do was done to obtain a
sense of what the community wanted and what should be done to try to solve this structural
deficit being faced.
Mayor Boro stated that many positive things had been done over the past years. Many
construction projects had been completed, including the new Childcare Center at Albert Park,
the new Parking Garage and the Public Works building. The downtown had been greatly
improved making it a place people wanted to visit, it was a safe place and the heart of the City.
Noting a lot had been done in the neighborhoods, he stated a lot had been done in North San
Rafael, and in particular, Terra Linda, and a lot had been done in parks throughout the entire
City in all communities. Mayor Boro stated that efforts had been made over the past many
years to spread the improvements throughout the City, all with a view to making San Rafael a
place where people wanted to live, raise their families and conduct their business. The
measure before the City Council this evening was to sustain that and he supported both the
Ordinance and Resolution.
Believing it was for the betterment of the community, Mayor Boro stated the options were there
and noting Mr. Roberts’ request for specifics, he believed Councilmember Cohen had answered
the question. There was an order of magnitude of what it would take to cut $3.5 million and
these items had been discussed. They were not scare tactics, rather a reality should it have to
be faced, and the City Council did not wish to do this, nor did they believe the community did.
Indicating that it was important to get the message out to the community, Mayor Boro stated
that he along with all of his colleagues would campaign very hard for this measure to get it
passed. He believed it was the correct thing to do for the City; people were beginning to
understand the need and he was looking forward to getting the word out, answering questions
and getting the matter before the voters in order to continue with what he believed was a City
that had a wonderful partnership between its community and employees. Commenting that he
knew a lot of the City employees personally (he was at City Hall almost daily), he stated that
those who worked for the City were proud to do so, whether a groundskeeper or the City
Manager. He noted that Mr. Gould on his own initiative, two years in a row, had taken a 10%
pay cut and forgone a bonus he was entitled to because of the City’s financial situation. Mayor
Boro stated this was an example of one employee who had gone way beyond the call knowing
the needs of the City. Stating this typified in an extreme what all City employees were about,
he indicated they were great people, doing a top job and their cost for delivery of service could
certainly be shown. He commented that he would put police, fire, Public Works, parks,
childcare, which was the best, public or private, up against anyone.
Mayor Boro stated it was all about continuing what had been done to ensure a solid future for
San Rafael.
a) The title of the Ordinance was read:
“AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADDING CHAPTER 3.19 TO THE
SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE IMPOSING A TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX TO
BE ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, SUBJECT TO
APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORS VOTING ON THE TAX
MEASURE AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 8, 2005”
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. 1837 to print by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
20
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page 21
b) Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 11811 – RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN RAFAEL:
1) ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL, A BALLOT MEASURE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO ESTABLISH A
TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TO BE HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2005, AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION
NO. 11775 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION THEREOF; AND
2) REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION WITH ANY OTHER ELECTION
CONDUCTED ON THE SAME DATE; AND
3) REQUESTING ELECTION SERVICES BY THE COUNTY CLERK; AND
4) REQUESTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL
ANALYSIS OF THE MEASURE
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
16. City Manager Rod Gould expressed thanks to the City Council.
COUNCILMEMBERS REPORTS:
17. None
There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:20 p.m. to
Closed Session to take place in the City Manager’s Conference Room.
____________________________
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS ______ DAY OF __________, 2005
___________________________________
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/18/2005 Page
21