[4:08] speech and values diversity of opinion
[4:11] and the full text is on the front of the
[4:15] agenda. I'm not going to read the whole
[4:16] thing right now. Um, town manager
[4:20] Johnson, has the agenda been posted?
[4:23] >> Yes, mayor.
[4:24] >> Any changes to the agenda?
[4:26] >> No.
[4:27] Number three, disclosure of exparte
[4:30] communications on items where the town
[4:32] council acts in an adjudicatory or quasi
[4:35] judicial capacity. Anything to disclose?
[4:39] Hearing none, we will go to number four,
[4:42] open time for public expression. This is
[4:44] limited to three minutes per speaker on
[4:47] items that are not on our agenda.
[4:50] Anybody in the chamber for public
[4:52] comment?
[4:54] Anyone online, Donna, for public
[4:55] comment?
[4:58] No one's online. Mayor,
[5:00] >> thank you.
[5:02] The next item is the proclamation
[5:05] celebrating National Fair Housing Month,
[5:08] April 2026.
[5:10] Whereas the principle of fair housing is
[5:13] not only state and national law and
[5:16] policy, but a fundamental human concept
[5:18] and entitlement for all citizens. And
[5:21] whereas discrimination based on race,
[5:23] national origin, gender, disability,
[5:25] familial status, exclusion of minor
[5:28] children, religion, marital status, and
[5:30] sexual orientation is illegal in
[5:33] California. And whereas as a community,
[5:35] we welcome all good neighbors,
[5:37] recognizing the contributions and
[5:39] richness tendered by a wide variety of
[5:41] young and old, male and female, people
[5:43] of all colors and ethnic backgrounds,
[5:45] religious traditions, etc. and whereas
[5:48] interested parties from both the private
[5:50] and public sectors will participate in a
[5:53] city, state, and national effort to
[5:55] promote fair housing. Now therefore, on
[5:58] behalf of the town council and the town
[6:00] of Ross, I do by here I do hereby
[6:03] proclaim the month of April 2026 to be
[6:06] fair housing month in the town of Ross
[6:09] and urge all residents of our community
[6:11] to personally adopt the spirit of equal
[6:14] housing opportunity and adhere adhere to
[6:17] the letter and character of the fair
[6:19] housing laws.
[6:22] Number six is the mayor's report. That's
[6:24] me again. Sorry. Um, Chief Pota's
[6:28] retirement and celebration coffee, April
[6:31] 30th. The town of Ross has been so
[6:34] fortunate that Ralph Pota joined us as
[6:36] police chief in March 2021. Chief Pota
[6:40] has demonstrated a deep commitment to
[6:42] serve and interact with the Ross
[6:44] community. Chief Pota began his career
[6:46] as a city fire dispatcher at age 17,
[6:49] becoming a police officer in 1985 at age
[6:52] 20. After 35 years, he retired from
[6:55] Samfell in 2018 and then worked for the
[6:59] Northern California Computer Crimes Task
[7:01] Force, assisting and training
[7:03] investigators
[7:05] in Ross. Chief Pota has been known for
[7:07] his open open door policy, broad smile,
[7:10] and warm laugh. He has seamlessly led
[7:13] his department of eight police officers.
[7:15] Chief Pota engages with residents and
[7:17] genu genuinely cares about our
[7:19] community. He has been an excellent
[7:21] partner with students and staff at Ross
[7:23] School and Branson. He was instrumental
[7:26] in educating Ross ebike riders and
[7:28] leading the county's efforts to regulate
[7:30] ebikes to enhance safety for the riders
[7:33] and our community. He has attended
[7:35] nearly every Ross town council meeting
[7:38] providing a voice of reason and
[7:40] collaboration.
[7:42] After 5 years of dedicated service,
[7:44] Chief Pa will retire on April 30th.
[7:47] While we are sad to see him go, we are
[7:49] deeply grateful for his exceptional work with the Ross community
[7:53] and excited for him to begin his next
[7:55] chapter. The town will host a morning
[7:58] coffee for Chief Pota on Thursday, April
[8:00] 30th. Details will be coming soon, but
[8:03] please plan to join us to thank Chief
[8:05] Pota and wish him well.
[8:08] Please support downtown Ross businesses.
[8:11] Many of you are already aware that
[8:13] beloved Crown and Crumpet has closed. We
[8:15] are very sorry to see them go. Each
[8:17] month, the Ross Review has been
[8:19] featuring a Ross business. Please
[8:21] patronize these fine businesses in our
[8:24] charming downtown. They need our
[8:26] continued support to thrive. At the
[8:28] March RPOA meeting, Ross resident Kevin
[8:31] Erdman shared ideas about how to enhance
[8:33] the downtown Ross business environment.
[8:36] Working with RPOA, Kevin will be
[8:39] implementing some of these steps soon.
[8:41] We thank Kevin and RPOA for their
[8:43] efforts.
[8:44] Finally, citizens advisory committee
[8:46] recommendations. Wednesday, April 29th.
[8:50] The Citizens Advisory Committee has been
[8:53] hard at work since midFebruary and will
[8:55] give its recommendations about the town
[8:57] facilities and fire station at the April
[9:00] 29th council meeting. Please note that
[9:02] the May council meeting has been moved
[9:04] up to April 29th due to scheduling
[9:06] conflicts. This meeting, like all
[9:08] council meetings, will also be available
[9:10] on Zoom.
[9:14] Next seven, council committee and
[9:17] liaison reports.
[9:19] Terry. Yeah.
[9:34] Yes. After conferring with our town
[9:36] manager and public works director, I
[9:38] voted no on the agenda item. The reason
[9:41] I voted no is because we currently
[9:43] receive a very modest amount each year
[9:46] amount of money each year from TAM that
[9:48] supports our local roads in Ross. The
[9:51] amendment would reduce our funding along
[9:54] with other cities and towns to support a
[9:56] new category called reimagine roadways.
[10:00] This new category will support and
[10:02] improve regional traffic congestion
[10:05] through advanced planning efforts. Ross
[10:08] will not directly benefit from these
[10:10] funds, nor will Ross be eligible to
[10:12] apply for these funds. The vote on the
[10:15] measure AA amendment was passed by most
[10:18] of the TAM commissioners. Next week,
[10:20] Christa Rich and I will meet with the
[10:22] TAM executive director and the planning
[10:25] director to discuss this issue and
[10:27] hopefully identify opportunities for
[10:29] additional funding uh opportunities for
[10:32] us to maintain our local roads and
[10:34] transportation infrastructure,
[10:36] especially for small towns like Ross and
[10:38] Belvadier. In June, the town of Ross
[10:42] will also be asked to vote yes or no on
[10:44] measure AA amendments. If 50% of cities
[10:48] and towns in Marin vote yes, the measure
[10:51] AA amendment will pass. Thank you.
[10:56] >> Bill,
[10:59] I have a report on uh MCE clean energy
[11:03] uh which has been in the news uh off and
[11:07] on this year. At this particular
[11:09] meeting, um there was some um well,
[11:14] first of all, some progress made on
[11:15] issues that we've talked about for quite
[11:17] a while. Uh one is um a governance
[11:21] there. The the board has requested and
[11:24] authorized a governance study. You may recall there's been concern that the
[11:30] governance structure is unwieldy. Uh the
[11:34] directors are all representatives of
[11:36] towns in four counties uh and the
[11:39] counties themselves. And so we have a
[11:42] board of 34 members and an executive
[11:45] committee trying to oversee in a very
[11:47] complex business with a budget of about
[11:50] $700 million a year. So um I was pleased
[11:54] to see that there was agreement on a
[11:56] proposal a request for services and I
[12:00] hope that will come together soon. The
[12:02] finance committee that the board
[12:04] authorized previously and requested is
[12:08] has been um um created and is is now
[12:12] meeting uh periodically.
[12:15] Um couple of controversial things. Uh
[12:19] one was um
[12:22] a proposal in connection with the budget
[12:24] to cap the budget for staff expenses
[12:27] without specifying how that would be
[12:30] done. and the CEO said, "Well, then
[12:33] we'll have to lay some people off." And
[12:36] uh so that did not pass that that that
[12:39] effort to cap the the budget. I think
[12:42] there's concern on the board about the the staff expense. There's concern
[12:47] about how much MCE is is charging for
[12:50] electricity. It's now more than PG&E for
[12:53] various reasons. And there is some
[12:55] concern about trying to keep electricity
[12:58] rates reasonable while still serving
[13:01] MC's mission, which is to promote
[13:03] renewable energy.
[13:05] Um, and then there's also a controversy
[13:08] about creating an interim committee
[13:10] because of some concern about the
[13:12] contract approval process.
[13:14] Uh and uh the u the disagreement was
[13:19] whether this should all be something
[13:21] before the full board or some other
[13:24] brown neck committee or whether an
[13:26] interim committee which is a sort of an
[13:27] ad hoc committee would be appropriate.
[13:29] My view was we should undertake this
[13:32] evaluation quickly and we should get
[13:35] started. It'll all be public soon enough
[13:37] uh when we get the recommendations from
[13:39] the interim interim committee. So that
[13:41] measure passed. So stay tuned. I'm sure
[13:44] we'll have much more in the future as
[13:46] MCE
[13:48] and its board
[13:50] attempt to sort of restructure things
[13:52] and get things on track.
[13:55] >> Thank you. Elizabeth, do you have
[13:56] anything?
[13:57] >> Okay.
[14:00] Next is staff and community reports. Um,
[14:03] Ross Property Owners Association.
[14:06] Is there anyone online for Ross Property
[14:09] Owners Association?
[14:11] Okay. Town Manager Johnson.
[14:15] >> Sorry, they're they're not on there.
[14:19] >> Thank you. Thank you, Mayor and Council.
[14:21] Um, and our POA uh their meeting was not
[14:25] uh scheduled this week, I think, due to spring break and other holidays.
[14:30] Um, our esteemed town clerk, Cindy
[14:33] Martell, retired last Monday, and I'm
[14:35] grateful that our part-time office
[14:37] assistant, Donna Redstone,
[14:40] has agreed to fill in as our interim
[14:42] town clerk until the position of town
[14:44] clerk is filled. Donna has been with the
[14:46] town for over 10 years, and we're
[14:48] fortunate to have her extra assistance.
[14:51] Fingers crossed that we will have a new
[14:53] town clerk on board soon. Until then, we
[14:56] ask the council and the community for
[14:58] your patience as we are short staffed in
[15:01] the administrative office. The council's
[15:04] annual b uh budget workshop will take
[15:06] place on Thursday, April 23rd, starting
[15:09] at 9:00 a.m. in the council chambers.
[15:11] Later on tonight's agenda, the council
[15:13] will consider moving your May meeting up
[15:15] to Wednesday, April 29th. So, we have a
[15:18] busy month ahead. Uh the first section
[15:21] of the Bolina storm drain phase 2
[15:23] improvements uh was completed in March
[15:26] and the contractor has cleaned up the
[15:28] site and demobilized. The final section
[15:31] of storm drain which includes the new
[15:34] outfall into the creek will be completed
[15:37] in July after the Sir Francis Drake
[15:39] paving project is completed. Speaking of
[15:44] the Sir Francis Drake paving project
[15:46] which will be between Bolinus Avenue and
[15:49] Elcom Camino Bueno is scheduled to start
[15:52] after Ross School gets out for the
[15:54] summer and will require one lane traffic
[15:58] control for approximately 2 weeks. So
[16:01] please mark your calendars, plan
[16:04] accordingly and get out of town if you
[16:06] can. And that's it. Thank you for the
[16:09] opportunity to report.
[16:11] Thank you. Number nine, the consent
[16:14] agenda. Does any member of the council
[16:16] wish to pull an item from the consent
[16:18] agenda?
[16:20] >> Does any member of the public wish to
[16:22] pull an item from the consent agenda?
[16:26] >> Okay. Could we have a motion to approve
[16:28] the consent agenda?
[16:28] >> I move we approve the consent agenda.
[16:30] >> A second.
[16:38] Just a roll call.
[16:40] >> Mayor McMillan,
[16:42] >> yes.
[16:43] >> Mayor Prom Robbins,
[16:44] >> yes.
[16:45] >> Council member Kercher,
[16:46] >> yes.
[16:47] >> And council member Deli,
[16:48] >> yes.
[16:50] >> Thank you.
[16:51] >> Measure passes.
[16:56] » Now we are moving to public hearing on
[17:00] planning projects. Part one
[17:04] A is five Allen Avenue design review
[17:06] variance and town council consideration
[17:08] of adoption of resolution number 2615
[17:12] approving the project subject to
[17:14] conditions.
[17:16] >> Uh good evening mayor and council
[17:17] members. Uh tonight the applicant at
[17:19] five Allen Lane is requesting a town
[17:22] council consideration for design review
[17:24] and a variance. The project is proposing
[17:26] to renovate the exist the southern
[17:28] portion of the yard which is which acts
[17:30] as their rear yard uh to include
[17:33] construction of a new pool spa uh
[17:36] outdoor kitchen and arbor and patio. At
[17:40] the ADR meeting on March 17th, the ADR
[17:44] board voted 3 to zero in support of the
[17:46] project uh citing that the site's
[17:48] topography, irregular lot shape, and the
[17:51] existing privacy on the lot. Also want
[17:54] to point out the uh the in the
[17:56] construction management plan, the
[17:57] applicant has indicated that three
[17:59] vehicles will be parked on site with no
[18:02] street parking and all materials will be
[18:05] stored on site. Staff requests that the
[18:07] town council consider adopting
[18:09] resolution 2615 approving designer view
[18:13] and a variance. Thank you.
[18:15] >> Thank you. That's great about the
[18:16] on-site parking too. Thank you.
[18:19] Questions from council members?
[18:23] Nope. Um, does the applicant wish to
[18:26] make a statement? It's not necessary.
[18:29] You can if you want. Okay. Any public
[18:32] comment on this item? Anybody online?
[18:35] Donna,
[18:37] >> no one's online with a hand raised.
[18:39] Mayor,
[18:39] >> thank you. We'll bring it back for any
[18:42] discussion or a motion.
[18:44] >> I move we approve resolution 2615.
[18:48] >> Is there a second?
[18:49] >> I'll second.
[18:52] Mayor McMillan,
[18:54] >> yes.
[18:54] >> Mayor Prom Robbins,
[18:56] >> yes.
[18:57] >> Council member Kercher,
[18:58] >> yes.
[18:59] >> And Council Member Deli,
[19:00] >> yes. The motion passes.
[19:03] >> Thank you.
[19:07] » Next is 10B3 Allen Lane, Design Review,
[19:11] Variance, and Town Council consideration
[19:12] of adoption of resolution number 2614,
[19:16] approving the project subject to
[19:18] conditions. Alex. Good evening, mayor,
[19:20] council members. Uh the neighbor of five
[19:22] Allen, 3 Allen Avenue, Elaine, is
[19:25] requesting town council consideration
[19:27] for designer view and variance. They
[19:29] also are uh renovating their rear yard
[19:32] uh to construct a new pool and patio.
[19:34] And at the ADR meeting March 17th, the
[19:37] board voted the ADR board voted 3 to
[19:40] zero of the project in support of the
[19:43] project with modifications. The primary
[19:46] concern was the pool's proximity to the
[19:48] side and rear yard property line. The
[19:50] and the AD armor recommended increasing
[19:53] the setbacks. In response, the applicant
[19:56] did revise the plans by reducing the
[19:58] length of the pool and patio resulting
[20:00] in an increased setbacks along the side
[20:02] and rear yard setback. And also in the
[20:05] construction management plan for this
[20:06] one, the applicant indicated that uh
[20:08] they will provide three parkings on site
[20:11] and no parking, no street parking. Staff
[20:15] request that the town council consider
[20:17] adopting resolution 2614
[20:21] approving designer review and a
[20:22] variance. Thank you.
[20:24] >> Thank you. And that's wonderful news
[20:26] about the parking. Also questions from
[20:28] council members.
[20:31] Um
[20:32] the the applicant can make a statement,
[20:34] but it's probably not necessary.
[20:37] Okay. Um any public comment on this
[20:39] item?
[20:40] >> No one online, mayor.
[20:42] >> And nobody in the chambers. Um we'll
[20:44] bring it back for discussion or a
[20:46] motion.
[20:47] >> I move we approve resolution 2614.
[20:50] >> And I will second.
[20:54] >> Mayor McMillan.
[20:55] >> Yes.
[20:56] >> Mayor Prom Robbins.
[20:57] >> Yes.
[20:58] >> Council member Kercher. Yes.
[21:00] >> Council member Dalling.
[21:01] >> Yes.
[21:02] >> The motion passes.
[21:04] >> You're welcome.
[21:06] >> Thank you.
[21:09] » Okay, that is the end of public hearing
[21:12] on planning project one.
[21:15] We're moving to the administrative
[21:17] agenda item number 11. Town council con
[21:21] to consider adopting resolution number
[21:23] 2618 approving the police chief
[21:26] employment agreement between the town of
[21:27] Ross and Raul Ernesto Aguilar for the
[21:30] period April 27, 2026 through June 30,
[21:34] 2029 and amending the salary schedule.
[21:37] Town manager Johnson. Thank you, Mayor.
[21:39] Uh, current police chief Pota is
[21:41] retiring after serving as the town's
[21:43] police chief since March of 2021. The
[21:46] town conducted a thorough process for
[21:49] selecting a new police chief and Raul
[21:51] Enrersto um Aglar was the top candidate
[21:54] for the position. Chief Aglar brings
[21:57] more than 25 years of law enforcement
[22:00] experience in Marin County to the town
[22:03] of Ross. He previously served with the
[22:05] San Rafale Police Department in a range
[22:08] of specialized assignments and later
[22:10] held leadership roles overseeing
[22:12] traffic, street crimes, and community
[22:15] engagement teams. Most recently, he
[22:18] served as chief of police and director
[22:20] of safety at the College of Marin.
[22:23] Deeply committed to community
[22:25] partnership, Chief Aglar prioritizes
[22:28] building trust through transparency,
[22:31] accessibility, and compassionate
[22:33] service. He believes that strong
[22:35] relationships between residents and
[22:37] public safety professionals are
[22:39] foundational to a thriving community.
[22:42] Chief Aglar meets all the state
[22:44] requirements for the position and in
[22:47] addition holds a master's degree from
[22:49] the Goldman School of Public Policy at
[22:51] UC Berkeley. I negotiated an employment
[22:54] agreement with Chief Aglar structured
[22:56] similar to the existing employment
[22:59] agreement with the current police chief.
[23:01] The agreement is for 3 years and 2
[23:03] months through June 30th, 2029 and
[23:07] expresses the terms of the agreement
[23:09] between the town and police chief
[23:11] including salary and benefits. The
[23:13] town's pens pension system uh called
[23:16] Kalpers requires the town council to
[23:19] adopt a salary schedule by resolution.
[23:22] Each time salaries change, the town must
[23:25] adopt a new resolution amending the
[23:27] salary schedule to reflect the changes.
[23:31] In summary, it's recommended that the
[23:33] council adopt resolution number uh 2618
[23:36] approving the police chief employment
[23:38] agreement
[23:39] um and amending the town salary
[23:42] schedule. Thank you.
[23:44] >> Thank you. Questions, council members.
[23:48] Public comment on this item.
[23:52] Anybody online?
[23:55] >> No one's online. Mayor,
[23:57] >> thank you, Donna. We'll bring it back
[23:59] then for discussion and a motion.
[24:05] Well, I would uh recommend we adopt
[24:07] resolution number 2618 approving the
[24:10] police chief employment agreement
[24:11] between the town of Ross and Ral Ernesto
[24:14] Aguular for the period of April 27 to
[24:18] 2026 through June 30th, 2029 and
[24:21] amending the town salary schedule.
[24:24] >> Second
[24:27] making a motion or recommend.
[24:28] >> I I make the motion. Thank you so much.
[24:31] Thank you,
[24:33] >> Mayor McMillan.
[24:34] >> Yes.
[24:35] >> Mayor Prom Robbins.
[24:36] >> Yes.
[24:37] >> Council member Kercher,
[24:39] >> yes.
[24:39] >> Council member Dowling,
[24:41] >> yes.
[24:42] >> The motion passes.
[24:44] >> Uh, thank you, Town Council. And um, now
[24:47] that you've taken action, I would like
[24:48] to take a moment to introduce Chief
[24:51] Aglar. And he is here this evening. And
[24:54] if you would be so kind, chief, as to
[24:56] come up to the podium.
[25:03] And uh just this is this is our new
[25:07] chief. Yay.
[25:08] >> YAY.
[25:16] » Good evening. Thank you very much for
[25:18] the warm welcome and uh thank you very
[25:20] much to Mayor McMillan, honorable
[25:23] members of town council and um Miss
[25:26] Johnson. Uh, I want to thank you for the
[25:28] opportunity for this.
[25:30] >> Oh, he needs the mic on.
[25:32] >> Sorry, we have to turn your microphone
[25:33] on.
[25:38] » Perfect. Um, I want to thank you for the
[25:41] opportunity, and I am committed to
[25:44] leading uh the department with
[25:45] integrity, accountability, and
[25:48] transparency, and a a deep commitment to
[25:51] our shared goals. Um, so I look forward
[25:54] to working with all of you. And once
[25:56] again, thank you for the opportunity.
[25:59] >> Thank you.
[26:07] Uh we will be uh the chief's uh starts
[26:10] on April 27th and at your meeting um
[26:15] assuming the c well the council just
[26:17] made the decision to move your meeting
[26:18] to April 29th, we'll plan on having a a
[26:21] swearing in and and some other
[26:24] opportunities to um celebrate our
[26:27] outgoing chief and to welcome our new
[26:30] chief. So thank you so much.
[26:32] Thank you. Good work.
[26:35] Number 12, town council to consider
[26:37] adopting resolution number 2611 amending
[26:40] the town fee schedule and receive a
[26:42] presentation from staff in NBS of the
[26:45] fee study report. I don't think we're
[26:48] doing that again, are we?
[26:50] >> We are again. Okay. and and receive a
[26:53] presentation from staff and NBS of the
[26:56] fee study report including evaluation of
[26:59] fees for services for administration and
[27:01] finance, planning, building, public
[27:03] works, police and general plan updates.
[27:06] Roberta,
[27:06] >> good evening mayor and council members.
[27:09] Our presentation is only five minutes,
[27:11] so it'll just hit the key points on the
[27:14] fee study. So, this item is for the
[27:17] council to consider the adoption of
[27:20] resolution number 2611, which is an
[27:23] amendment to the town's schedule based
[27:25] on the fee study report. The council did
[27:29] receive a presentation during the
[27:30] February meeting regarding the purpose,
[27:33] the analysis from the fee study uh which
[27:36] evaluated finance and administration,
[27:40] planning and building, police and public
[27:42] work fees to accurately reflect the
[27:45] actual cost of providing those services.
[27:49] Since then, staff did add a false alarm
[27:52] fee um which would apply after three
[27:55] occurrences per calendar year. State law
[27:58] allows the town to recover but not
[28:00] exceed the reasonable cost of staff time
[28:04] and resources required to process
[28:06] applications,
[28:07] conduct inspections,
[28:09] and provide services that require fees
[28:12] to be supported by a cost of service
[28:15] analysis as outlined in the fee study
[28:19] report. The recommended fees are
[28:22] consistent with Prop 26. Since the last
[28:26] update in 2016,
[28:28] staffing costs, workloads, and
[28:31] regulatory requirements have changed.
[28:33] So, the study updates the fees based on
[28:36] current service levels and documented
[28:39] time spent with the goal of fair cost
[28:43] recovery. So, the action before the
[28:45] council tonight is to adopt the
[28:48] resolution approving the updated town
[28:50] fee schedule as presented in the staff
[28:53] report and resolution and will be
[28:56] effective July 1st. So, now let me turn
[28:59] it over to Nicole Kissum with NBS to
[29:03] provide a fiveminute highlight of a few
[29:06] of the key points from the fee study and
[29:08] then after that Nicole and I are happy
[29:10] to answer any questions.
[29:15] So, uh, good evening everybody. Um,
[29:18] Nicole Cassam here with NBS. I'm not
[29:21] sure if you can see me. Can you see me?
[29:26] » Nope.
[29:30] And Robera, I don't I don't have sharing
[29:33] capabilities, so I don't know if you're
[29:36] putting the presentation up.
[29:38] >> Sure.
[29:42] Nicole, can you accept the prompt?
[29:50] » Okay, there we go. Good evening
[29:52] everyone.
[30:01] So, Robera, would you like me to share
[30:03] the presentation from my screen or do
[30:05] you have it up?
[30:09] » Could you say that again? I didn't quite
[30:10] hear you.
[30:11] >> Oh, yes, please.
[30:12] >> Okay, no problem. Um, good memory. Yes,
[30:16] we were. Okay, so I do not have screen
[30:19] sharing capabilities, so that the clerk
[30:21] would need to grant me grant me that
[30:44] Okay, looks like we're moving now. Can
[30:46] everybody see the presentation?
[30:48] >> Yes.
[30:50] >> Great. Thank you. And I I heard when you
[30:52] introduced this item, are we doing this
[30:54] again? Um, you are correct. We were here
[30:56] in February and we made a much more
[30:59] extensive presentation about the fee
[31:02] study and its results and what all goes
[31:04] into it. This is a very truncated
[31:06] version just to refresh your memory and
[31:09] you know provide a refresh for any
[31:12] community members that maybe weren't
[31:14] there um in February that might be
[31:16] interested.
[31:19] So I'm just going to review very briefly
[31:22] what the goals of the study are, how we
[31:24] approached it, what the results are, and
[31:26] of course leave time for questions.
[31:29] Um, so the goal of any fee study, we're
[31:31] calculating fees for services and in
[31:34] California, fees cannot exceed the cost
[31:37] of providing services. So the majority
[31:40] of our work with the town is to
[31:42] establish what the full cost of service
[31:45] is for each individual fee. And step two
[31:48] is where we're at tonight where the
[31:50] council uh hopefully is taking action to
[31:52] set fees according to local policies.
[31:58] So these types of fees are cost recovery
[32:00] opportunities. They can be adopted by
[32:03] town council. They don't require any
[32:05] voter or voter protest. These are fees,
[32:08] not taxes. And we also did not analyze
[32:11] anything that is not a fee for service.
[32:14] So where you see that no bubble, we did
[32:16] not look at any taxes, fines, penalties,
[32:18] impact fees, etc.
[32:22] So these are the fee programs that the
[32:24] town has that we studied. We've got some
[32:26] miscellaneous administrative fees. Um
[32:29] quite a few I think your core fee
[32:30] programs are really your planning and
[32:32] building departments and public works.
[32:35] Police has some miscellaneous
[32:37] administrative uh and processing fees.
[32:40] And as Robera mentioned in her intro,
[32:42] the last time we really did this big of
[32:44] a deep dive was uh almost 10 years ago
[32:47] in 2016.
[32:50] So the way we approach any fee study is
[32:53] really we collect certain types of data
[32:56] um mostly budget information, staffing
[32:58] information, current fee schedule
[33:00] information, workload information. We
[33:02] review the fee structures in each fee
[33:04] program to make sure that fees are
[33:07] structured fairly equitably and do
[33:10] target cost recovery.
[33:12] Um we also sometimes need to bring
[33:14] things up to date or remove fees that
[33:16] are not used anymore. Uh and then from
[33:19] there we perform the cost analysis which
[33:21] is what makes the fees defensible and we
[33:24] look at that on in three ways annually,
[33:27] hourly and per unit which per unit just
[33:29] means per fee. So, where you guys are at
[33:32] tonight is adopting the outcomes of the
[33:35] study and setting each individual fee
[33:38] according to the 100% maximum or less
[33:41] depending on on a local policy.
[33:45] So, this is the annual summary of
[33:47] results here just to recap this also in
[33:49] the staff report. So what we found is
[33:53] that on average or d for the time period
[33:55] of the study um the town is collecting
[33:58] about 1.3 million in these different fee
[34:01] programs. So we didn't have any
[34:03] information to um get that for some a
[34:06] handful of fees for admin and finance.
[34:09] But when we compare that to the full
[34:10] cost recovery levels for each fee
[34:12] program the town could recover 1.6
[34:15] million in costs. So you can see here in
[34:19] this table where it says existing cost
[34:20] recovery percentage um building is is
[34:24] recovering closest to 100% cost and then
[34:27] every every other fee program is you
[34:30] know somewhere around 60 70% and police
[34:33] very low because police has very few
[34:36] fees. So, by industry standard, this is
[34:40] a pretty good outcome
[34:42] um for an overall 84% recovery rate. And
[34:45] the recommendations that staff have
[34:47] provided to set all fees at 100% or
[34:50] lower are just bringing that up um a
[34:53] little bit from where the current revenues stand.
[35:00] Um so, there are some fees that are
[35:02] recommended at below 100%, those are
[35:04] listed in the staff report. We're just
[35:06] repeating them here. So, in planning and
[35:08] building, there are a handful of fees um
[35:11] that the town would like to keep low.
[35:13] ADU permits,
[35:16] small design review permits, use
[35:18] permits, uh solar, which is capped by
[35:21] the state law, and resale inspections.
[35:24] And then with police, you know, a lot of
[35:27] these processing fees are very difficult
[35:30] to charge at 100%. they depend on
[35:32] ability to pay and sometimes people are
[35:34] just trying to get these reports you
[35:36] know for insurance purposes and so
[35:38] forth. So with police it's really to
[35:40] make the service available and encourage
[35:43] compliance while getting just a little
[35:44] bit of incremental recovery.
[35:48] That's it. We truncated this down to
[35:50] five minutes. So if you have any
[35:51] questions or anywhere where I can, you
[35:53] know, elaborate for you, let me know.
[35:56] >> Thank you very much. That was very
[35:58] concise and we appreciate it. Questions
[36:01] from council.
[36:04] Public comment.
[36:06] Anybody online?
[36:08] >> No one's online.
[36:10] >> Okay, we'll bring it back for discussion
[36:12] or a motion. I just want to say I I
[36:15] really I mean it's a dense report, but I
[36:18] really appreciated all the work that
[36:19] went into this. It's also the staff's
[36:22] work that went into this, too, to
[36:24] determine the cost. So, um it's nice to
[36:27] know that we've got something that's so
[36:29] um well done and well organized. So,
[36:32] thank you.
[36:37] » I I move we approve resolution 2611.
[36:41] >> I'll second.
[36:43] >> Mayor McMillan,
[36:45] >> yes.
[36:46] >> Mayor Prom Robbins,
[36:47] >> yes.
[36:48] >> Council member Kercher,
[36:50] >> yes.
[36:50] >> Council member Dalling,
[36:51] >> yes.
[36:52] >> The motion passes.
[36:54] Thank you for all your great work on
[36:56] this, Roberta.
[36:58] >> Nicole. Yeah. Thanks so much.
[37:00] >> Thank you. Have a good evening.
[37:01] >> See you. We'll see you in 10 years.
[37:03] >> Yeah.
[37:05] Feels that way, too. Yes. Thank you so
[37:07] much, guys. Bye.
[37:08] >> Thank you. Bye. Bye. Item 13, Ross
[37:12] Recreation Update. Moren,
[37:22] » please give me a brief minute while I
[37:24] load our presentation.
[38:28] You don't need
[39:06] Roberto is making herself indispensable.
[39:08] She's gonna have to be here to the end
[39:10] of every meeting.
[39:18] We are getting there. Thank you for your
[39:20] patience.
[39:26] Okay. Good evening, mayor and members of
[39:30] town council. Um I am Morin Borthwick,
[39:32] your recreation manager. Um and sitting
[39:34] next to me is Wyatt Man, our recreation
[39:36] coordinator. Um and thank you for the
[39:38] opportunity to present an update of the
[39:40] Ross Recreation Department.
[39:44] Uh to start off, we pretty much do this
[39:46] every presentation. Um we just want to
[39:48] remind the community um and town council
[39:50] of Ross Recreation's mission um which is
[39:53] to provide a program of instruction to
[39:55] the public on subjects beneficial to the
[39:57] Ross community in which an individual
[40:00] may improve or develop him or herself
[40:02] physically, mentally, andor socially.
[40:08] Our team has changed a little bit over
[40:09] the past year. We've added some
[40:11] wonderful new um staff members and team
[40:13] members. So, I wanted to reintroduce you
[40:15] to them if you have not met them. Um
[40:17] Ross is now fully staffed with an
[40:19] experienced and engaged team. Serving in
[40:22] the admin office is Mallerie Baron,
[40:24] recreation clerk, Wyatt Man, uh
[40:26] recreation coordinator, and myself,
[40:28] Moren Berwick, recreation manager. Uh
[40:30] Kira, uh Kira Ortiz, and Kelly Nunees
[40:34] lead the after school kids club program.
[40:36] Uh, Lorenzo Cowell, also known as Coach
[40:39] C, is our Ross School after school
[40:42] sports lead and kids club support. And
[40:44] Sophia Vasquez is our happyhive after
[40:47] school lead. Um, and coach John Mark
[40:49] Schaefer, who is not pictured above, is
[40:51] our sports program lead at Bayage
[40:53] Elementary. Uh, the department is
[40:55] focusing on team and individual
[40:57] strengths to increase motivation,
[40:59] morale, and overall performance, and the
[41:02] results have been significant.
[41:07] The team has produced a broad list of
[41:10] new initiatives for uh fiscal year
[41:12] ending 26, including those you see
[41:14] listed and more. Programs span from new
[41:17] game clubs like Dungeons and Dragons and
[41:20] the Wheel Kids Bike Club to Driftwood
[41:23] Painting and Wine Workshops for adults.
[41:26] The department also worked with local
[41:28] community sports clubs such as Ross
[41:30] Valley Lacrosse um also known as the
[41:32] Grizzlies um on after school lacrosse at
[41:35] Ros School and at Bage.
[41:39] In addition to new program initiatives,
[41:41] Rex staff are proud to share the
[41:43] following accomplishments thus far this
[41:45] year. Um new to this year was our
[41:47] agreement and partnership with Magic
[41:50] Marine Art and Garden Center. Um helping
[41:52] to kick off a successful program held on
[41:55] Magic campus. uh such as HappyHive After
[41:57] School for preschool students. Um the
[42:00] team further expanded flexible
[42:01] afterchool child care options such as
[42:04] gap care for kids club families um for
[42:07] kids club uh for families needing care
[42:09] to fill the 1-hour gap between
[42:11] kindergarten dismissal and dismissal for
[42:14] older siblings or when later programs
[42:16] begin. The team saw growth of the
[42:18] RossRack Basketball League increasing to
[42:21] 312 players for this 2026 season. um
[42:26] which was approximately 50 more players
[42:27] than last year. The department has
[42:29] offered over 150 programs to the Ross
[42:32] community from September to today. This
[42:35] does not include summer camps or events,
[42:37] mind you. Um lastly, staff was expect
[42:40] was excited to support the
[42:42] reestablishment of the organic farm
[42:44] stand on Ross Common um and and due to
[42:47] the uh approval of the consent calendar
[42:49] that it will be coming back again.
[42:54] All right. Okay. So, focus on Kids Club
[42:56] After School. So, an accomplishment in
[42:58] its own right. Kids Club After School
[43:01] has been flourishing with between 16 and
[43:04] 31 students now served daily. Um staff
[43:08] have listened to families who have
[43:09] requested support uh for the gap between
[43:12] kinder dismissal um at 2 p.m. when their
[43:15] older children are released at 2:45 p.m.
[43:18] We have been successfully offering these
[43:20] families this 1-hour care option at a
[43:23] reduced rate to cover this gap. Still,
[43:25] majority of families utilized the
[43:27] program uh from the full program from
[43:29] dismissal to 5:00 p.m. Additionally, new
[43:32] to the fiscal year ending 26 uh season
[43:35] was the uh 6 week short session for
[43:38] kindergarten families. Uh this was a
[43:40] separate kids club program registration
[43:42] that covered the 6 weeks where
[43:44] kindergarteners transition to the school
[43:47] schedule. Uh, the program was offered to
[43:49] kindergarten families from 12:30 p.m. to
[43:52] 5:00 p.m. for the duration of the the
[43:54] first 6 weeks of school.
[43:57] Um, our total year-to- date um income
[44:00] for Kids Club um was is currently
[44:03] $124,000.
[44:05] Um, and that's uh in comparison to the
[44:07] $99,000 from from last year. So
[44:11] um yeah, so we are very excited of the
[44:13] um of just the growth and support from
[44:17] the community um to see this program
[44:19] grow and flourish.
[44:23] Right on to Happy Hive. Uh so created
[44:26] with kids club in mind. Um HappyHive
[44:28] afterchool program began this past fall
[44:31] with the launch of theou agreement. Uh,
[44:34] similar to kids club, Happy Hive runs
[44:36] daily and is offered to garden school
[44:38] preschool families from 1:00 p.m. to 3
[44:40] p.m. with a 4pm extended care option.
[44:46] The program began with five students per
[44:48] day and now serves 9 to 11 students per
[44:51] day, which is our max capacity.
[44:54] Um, our total year-to- date revenue for
[44:56] this program um is $51,000.
[44:59] Um so 12% of that actually comes from if
[45:02] you look at our chart um so 12% of that
[45:04] comes from our we created a flexible
[45:06] drop in pack. Um so 12% of that income
[45:08] comes from that. Um we also are offering
[45:11] no school day camps for when the garden
[45:13] school is not offering um school. Um so
[45:15] 12% comes from that and then 34% comes
[45:18] from our fall enrollment and now 42%
[45:21] from uh current winter enrollment which
[45:23] uh uh is January through June.
[45:31] All right. So, looking more broadly
[45:32] across the department, um fiscal year
[45:35] ending 26 estimated revenue is expected
[45:38] to reach close to a million dollars in
[45:41] comparison to our budget of $97
[45:44] uh,000. Um, significant callouts include
[45:47] growth in the kids classes account due
[45:49] to an increase in daily enrollment um
[45:52] and the addition of the six-w week
[45:54] kinder short session. Um, also
[45:56] successful Happy Hive After School and
[45:58] an increase in the basketball league
[46:00] program enrollment.
[46:02] Um, excuse me. The department did see a
[46:04] modest reduction in field rentals um due
[46:08] to the loss of the Ross Valley Lacrosse
[46:09] Club. Uh, staff are working on ways to
[46:12] promote field rentals to other sports
[46:14] groups and community partners. Um, two
[46:16] account categories tots um and
[46:19] contributions are held at 0% for the
[46:20] year as we do not receive income uh for
[46:22] either of these. Um, and currently TOT's
[46:25] classes fall under kids class accounts
[46:27] which will be split into its own account
[46:29] for next year so we can see the
[46:30] breakdown a little bit better. Um, staff
[46:32] look to continue strengthening our
[46:34] positive momentum across the board in
[46:36] all program categories well into the
[46:38] summer and next fiscal year.
[46:43] Okay. Um, expenses year-to- date um are
[46:47] higher than expected due to our class
[46:49] program growth and an increase in
[46:50] overall enrollment. Specific callouts
[46:53] include an increase in the contract
[46:54] instructor program line that is around4
[46:57] to $50,000 um 40 to $50,000 um higher
[47:01] than budgeted due to an increase in
[47:03] contractled classes. Additionally, staff
[47:06] are reporting an increase in wages and
[47:08] benefits um due to the need for more
[47:10] staff. Uh for example, kids club went
[47:13] from two staff members daily to three in
[47:16] order to accommodate the growing program
[47:18] and meet ratio safety and fun standards.
[47:25] Okay. Uh, Rex staff have placed a
[47:28] greater emphasis on community
[47:30] involvement this year. Uh, Rossre has
[47:33] been an active partner in RPOA, Ross
[47:36] Auxiliary, Age Friendly Ross, and Ross
[47:38] School events, most recently activating
[47:40] a live action Candyland at the March
[47:43] 28th Spring Fling event.
[47:46] Staff are also hard at work preparing
[47:48] for the 2026 Fourth of July parade and
[47:51] celebration. Um, which is scheduled to
[47:53] kick kick off on Saturday, July 4th from
[47:56] 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Shifting gears
[47:59] slightly for this year, staff is excited
[48:01] to organize the American Pie Baking
[48:03] Contest uh for all baking enthusiasts
[48:07] and bring back the popular mechanical
[48:09] bowl. Uh, don't worry. Our patriotic
[48:12] pooches will be highlighted in our
[48:14] parade in the Dogs on Parade group. Um,
[48:16] staff have also set a date for the 2026
[48:19] Rosstown dinner. Um, which will be held
[48:21] on Friday, September 4th. Um, after a
[48:24] successful 2025 event, the Rostown
[48:26] dinner will once again be held at Magic
[48:28] Campus. Um, it will just be moved to the
[48:30] Great Lad Gazebo while construction is
[48:32] happening. Uh lastly, staff have begun
[48:34] initial planning for the 2026 Ross
[48:37] Turkey Trot, which will be held on
[48:39] Sunday, November 15th.
[48:44] Next steps for the department includes a
[48:47] focus on summer camp enrollment and
[48:48] promoting our incredible lineup of
[48:50] summer programs. Running the Happy Hive
[48:53] spring break camp for 2 to 5-year-olds
[48:54] next week. Firming up plans for the 2026
[48:58] Fourth of July parade and celebration.
[49:00] Uh coordinating the fall 2026 program
[49:03] guide book. And continuing to nurture
[49:05] important partnerships and
[49:06] collaborations across Ross and
[49:09] throughout Marin County.
[49:13] Thank you, mayor and members of town
[49:14] council. Um, if you have any questions,
[49:17] we are here to answer them.
[49:19] >> Thank you, Moren. That was a great
[49:20] report. Questions? Council members?
[49:24] >> I I just had a question. Um, I recall
[49:28] several years ago we were on the verge
[49:30] of cancelling the kids club. Is that
[49:32] correct?
[49:33] >> That is correct.
[49:34] >> And now it's thriving, surging. Yes.
[49:37] >> It's great.
[49:38] >> Okay. Great. um public comment on this
[49:41] item.
[49:43] Anybody online, Donna?
[49:46] >> No one's online. Mayor,
[49:48] >> thank you. Then we'll bring it back for
[49:50] um any further discussion. Elizabeth, I
[49:54] >> I wanted to mention kids club also. Um
[49:57] you know, we we were the only town that
[50:00] didn't have any afterchool care for
[50:01] quite a long time and kids club was
[50:03] really on its last legs. Elizabeth Breus
[50:06] gets a lot of credit for pushing hard to
[50:08] keep it going, but you've really run
[50:10] with it and made it something that that
[50:13] a lot of families want to participate
[50:15] in. I think that's really wonderful.
[50:17] You've done a great job with kids club.
[50:19] >> Thank you. I would I definitely want to
[50:21] recognize um the whole Ros team for that
[50:23] effort. Um it is definitely not just me.
[50:26] It is it is their staff. They are
[50:28] wonderful. They listen to families. Um
[50:30] and we created a flexible option that
[50:33] families want. Um, and that is clearly
[50:36] shown here.
[50:39] Great. Thank you, Moren. Thank you,
[50:41] Wyatt. Wonderful.
[50:46] » 14. town council to receive a
[50:48] presentation from Fieldman Rolop, the
[50:50] town's municipal advisor, regarding the
[50:53] town's financial condition, budget
[50:55] outlook, and capacity to support debt
[50:57] service associated with implementation
[51:00] of the facility's master plan and
[51:02] potential capital and operating costs
[51:04] related to the friends of the Ross
[51:06] Firehouse FORF initiative.
[51:11] Manager Johnson,
[51:16] » thank you. Um, we have a space
[51:18] constraint. David, would you like to do
[51:20] the introduction just from the podium?
[51:22] Is that all right?
[51:25] >> Oh, okay. Okay. Um,
[51:29] just a moment.
[51:53] Are are I'm I'm just waiting. Are you
[51:56] guys happy to you ready to go? Okay.
[51:58] Um I'll just give it just a short
[52:00] presentation. So um good evening, mayor
[52:02] and council members. Um this evening,
[52:04] this item before you tonight is not an
[52:06] action item. It's a presentation and um
[52:09] I worked with our project manager David
[52:11] Kelly to um bring this forward to the
[52:15] council because your uh facility uh
[52:19] master plan to be implemented is could
[52:22] very well require um some kind of
[52:24] financing plan. And so I think that
[52:27] there I'd like to start off with with
[52:29] having an education for the council and as well as staff as well as um our
[52:35] res our residents and um members of the
[52:39] uh citizens committee that has gotten
[52:41] together these past couple of months. I
[52:43] thought this would be a good opportunity
[52:45] to have us all learn about the different
[52:47] kinds of financing that is available and
[52:50] um have some professionals take a look
[52:52] at our budget to um be able to confir in
[52:56] our 5-year uh financial forecast just to
[52:59] confirm with some of the things that I
[53:02] and our and the staff team have been
[53:04] saying about the the status of our of
[53:07] our financial well-being. So, um, we
[53:10] have a, uh, David Kelly prepared with me
[53:13] the staff report that's in your agenda.
[53:15] Attached to it, we have a memorandum
[53:18] that was prepared by our consultants
[53:20] with Fieldmen and Rollup. And, um, they
[53:23] are here this evening. I'm going to let
[53:25] them introduce themselves and take off
[53:28] with our presentation. Um what should we
[53:32] um are we going to see if the council
[53:34] wants to ask questions as we go through
[53:37] the slides? Is that as okay? We didn't
[53:39] discuss that earlier.
[53:42] >> That is that all right mayor if you
[53:45] >> probably makes more sense.
[53:46] >> Yeah. Some of the um slides have have
[53:49] some have have a good good robust amount
[53:51] of information. So I think it would be
[53:53] good for the council to be able to ask
[53:54] questions as you go along. And um David
[53:58] Kelly did put out a um a request for
[54:02] proposals to have this work done. The
[54:05] scope of work was specific to uh review
[54:08] our materials, our our budget documents
[54:10] and other other financial information
[54:13] and prepare this presentation for the
[54:15] council. And we did receive three
[54:18] proposals and uh our treasurer Jeff
[54:22] was able to uh take a a review of the
[54:25] proposals along with David Kelly and
[54:27] myself and we chose um the firm of
[54:30] Fieldman rollup to to do this work for
[54:33] the town. We entered into an agreement
[54:36] uh with them to prepare for this and uh
[54:40] we gave them about a week or week or 10
[54:43] days to prepare this. So really
[54:45] appreciate that um they've stepped up to
[54:47] the plate and and helped us put together
[54:50] this information from the council. So um
[54:52] thank you. I'm going to let you guys
[54:53] introduce yourselves if that's okay.
[54:58] » Good evening. Um Mary McMillan and
[55:01] council members. My name is Onie Veren
[55:02] and I'm from Fieldman Rele Associates
[55:04] and I'm here with my colleague.
[55:07] >> Hi. Good evening. I'm Dan Shaw. I'm also
[55:09] with Fieldman. Yeah. And just uh before
[55:12] we get started, just a a quick uh
[55:14] overview of our firm. Um we're based out
[55:17] of California in Irvine. We have offices
[55:20] um in in the Bay Area. Um we've been in
[55:24] the industry for over 60 years and our
[55:27] sole practice is advising public sector
[55:31] agencies, cities, school districts,
[55:33] federal districts throughout the state.
[55:36] Um we're a regulated industry. We're
[55:38] licensed by the the SEC. We both have
[55:40] our licenses and it's very important um
[55:44] or understanding our role. We act as a
[55:46] fiduciary to our clients. Uh we provide
[55:50] um advice um that's in the best interest
[55:52] of our clients only. So um with that we
[55:56] can turn the next page. Uh this is uh
[55:59] just an overview of what we plan to
[56:02] review tonight. Um just discussing the
[56:06] town's
[56:07] um capital plans and needs that your
[56:12] financial capacity in terms of your
[56:14] general fund uh and discussing your your
[56:17] budget trends. Um and discussing the the
[56:21] funding gaps of the capital facilities
[56:23] that uh you're currently reviewing and
[56:26] potential revenue options.
[56:33] And be before we get into the town's
[56:35] funding needs, we wanted to review uh
[56:38] the the the town's revenue profile. As
[56:42] you um know, the the town's revenue
[56:45] profile is largely based on property tax
[56:47] base
[56:49] u revenues. Um 85% of those coming
[56:53] currently from property taxes.
[56:55] uh 13% coming from your measure E uh
[56:59] parcel tax and the the remaining 2% are
[57:03] from other sources like uh sales tax uh
[57:06] business license tax and property
[57:08] transfer taxes. So uh you have uh the
[57:11] majority of uh your revenues coming from
[57:14] property tax revenues which are um a
[57:18] very stable revenue source there. there
[57:20] isn't a lot of variation there. And um
[57:24] and uh in terms of your projections, the
[57:29] projections are largely fixed and really
[57:32] are heavily dependent on your assessed
[57:34] valuation growth.
[57:41] » So in uh what is the the town trying to
[57:45] fund? We have three buckets of uh CIP
[57:49] plans here.
[57:50] Um the the first one is the the town's
[57:54] facilities master plan ranging
[57:57] in cost of 26 million to $30 million.
[58:03] The friends of Ross firehouse or fourth
[58:06] initiative which include a capital cost
[58:10] of about 22 million to $28 million as
[58:14] well as ongoing operation needs of uh
[58:18] about 3.4 four million to five 5 million
[58:21] a year. And the third bucket covers the town's ongoing capital improvement
[58:29] uh funding needs that are supported
[58:32] currently by the town's general fund and
[58:34] those range from
[58:36] um about
[58:39] those total about $3 million a year and
[58:41] that includes a million dollars for your
[58:43] Ross common project uh funds for
[58:46] facilities and equipment projects as
[58:48] well as your undergrounding project.
[58:58] So this slide provides
[59:02] u numbers setting out the the town's
[59:06] financial
[59:08] capacity. So what can you realistically
[59:12] afford based on what your current
[59:15] revenues produce? And that's
[59:17] approximately about $1.2 million. based
[59:20] on your adopted fiscal year 26 budget.
[59:25] Um, we applied uh Standard Empors or
[59:28] S&P. They're a a leading credit rating
[59:31] agency in in our industry and their
[59:36] general rule of thumb is that for a
[59:39] well-managed
[59:40] uh municipality
[59:43] uh that um their general fund shouldn't
[59:46] carry more than 60 6 to 8% of their
[59:50] general revenues. So for Ross that means
[59:54] a maximum of about $670,000
[59:57] to $890,000.
[1:00:00] Those are your outer limits of of debt
[1:00:02] service that can can be carried each
[1:00:04] year. And so um just to bring that into
[1:00:08] context, we ran um certain hypothetical
[1:00:12] bonding scenarios. And what we've shown
[1:00:15] in this graph here is the debt service,
[1:00:19] the estimated debt service uh needed to
[1:00:22] produce a $10 million bond issuance,
[1:00:25] that is about uh uh roughly $650,000 a
[1:00:31] year in annual debt service. So, uh
[1:00:33] while that is just slightly below the
[1:00:37] S&P guidelines of 6%, you you know there isn't a lot of room there. Um,
[1:00:43] when we look at the $20 million bond
[1:00:45] issue, it jumps up to an annual debt
[1:00:48] service of approximately $1.3 million.
[1:00:50] And that uh it far exceeds what you can afford at
[1:00:57] this time. And then again, looking at uh
[1:00:59] a bond issuance of $30 million, that's
[1:01:03] uh approximately $1.9 million in in
[1:01:06] annual debt service.
[1:01:09] So,
[1:01:10] go ahead. have a question on this. Is is
[1:01:13] this assuming that the town is using its
[1:01:15] facilities to service the or mortgage
[1:01:19] the debt or is this assuming that
[1:01:21] there's some kind of an election and all
[1:01:24] the homeowners are being assessed? So,
[1:01:26] this is just looking at your current
[1:01:28] picture. If you if the town were to move
[1:01:31] forward, you would need to approve some
[1:01:33] sort of new tax revenue to do that. And
[1:01:36] then um Dan will get into the different
[1:01:38] type of uh debt options available to
[1:01:41] you. Um there is a lease revenue option
[1:01:45] that the town will have to um encumber
[1:01:49] to move forward with that type of
[1:01:51] financing. Um we'll talk about a geo
[1:01:53] bond financing which does not require
[1:01:55] that. I don't know if that answers your
[1:01:58] question.
[1:01:59] So, may I may I just add um mayor that
[1:02:02] this is if the town were to take out
[1:02:04] debt itself. This is not this is not
[1:02:07] before going to to property owners. This
[1:02:09] is just if we wanted to take out a loan,
[1:02:13] and I'm sure we'd have to secure it in
[1:02:15] some way, right? But if we wanted to
[1:02:16] take out a loan, do we have the capacity
[1:02:19] to do this to pay for it ourselves
[1:02:22] without going to the voters? That's what
[1:02:24] the voters are, you know, they're going
[1:02:25] to want to know. Are you sure you guys
[1:02:27] can't afford to pay for it out of your
[1:02:28] existing budget? And that's what this is demonstrating that
[1:02:35] according to the S&P guideline, you
[1:02:37] know, we might be able to come up they
[1:02:39] we might be able to come up with some
[1:02:41] money. However, I just wanted to note
[1:02:44] that if you look at the green line when
[1:02:45] it says that 10 million, we could come
[1:02:48] up with um maybe we could come up with
[1:02:50] $600,000 a year. Right now, for example,
[1:02:53] for the past several years, the council
[1:02:55] has been putting away um paying uh
[1:02:58] optional payments to um Kalpers to
[1:03:03] address unfunded pension liability in uh
[1:03:07] at at a minimum of $200,000 a year. So,
[1:03:10] you make that choice with that. You've
[1:03:12] also been putting funding aside in your
[1:03:14] capital projects fund. So those are the
[1:03:16] things that when they talk about there
[1:03:18] wouldn't be a buffer,
[1:03:21] you wouldn't be able to do. You would it
[1:03:23] would be very difficult for you would
[1:03:24] take away a lot of your discretionary um decision making. Am am I am I
[1:03:31] speaking out of turn or is that right?
[1:03:32] >> That's okay.
[1:03:34] >> Thank you.
[1:03:35] So this slide assumes that the town
[1:03:37] would be funding the debt based on the
[1:03:41] town's revenues and budget and
[1:03:44] facilities that could be mortgaged or
[1:03:46] you know secured for for the debt. I
[1:03:49] think it's important to understand that
[1:03:51] >> that's what this slide is.
[1:03:52] >> Yes.
[1:03:53] >> Okay. Great. The the takeaway that is
[1:03:55] that the town can only afford a very
[1:03:58] little amount each year to pay towards
[1:04:02] debt. It needs to go to the voters for
[1:04:06] approval of additional taxes or or bond repayment.
[1:04:11] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:04:20] » So, this slide illustrates something
[1:04:22] that isn't obvious by looking at a a
[1:04:24] balanced budget. Um the the town's
[1:04:27] revenue grows by 4%. It's largely based
[1:04:30] on your property tax revenues growing 4%
[1:04:33] in each year. Um the the expenses
[1:04:37] are a different story. um those are
[1:04:40] growing um according to the the town um
[1:04:45] by a higher number each year of anywhere
[1:04:47] from 6 to 10% per year and those cover
[1:04:51] um various expenses like personal
[1:04:53] expenses, fire, uh insurance and and
[1:04:56] pensions costs and those are growing
[1:04:58] faster than your your revenues of 4%
[1:05:01] each year. So there's a gap. Um and uh
[1:05:05] what the town has been doing is that
[1:05:07] you've been uh reducing transfers to the
[1:05:11] general fund. Um excuse me, you've been
[1:05:13] reducing transfers to the capital fund
[1:05:16] to help bal balance the budget. And so
[1:05:18] over time you the gap between the the
[1:05:22] revenues and expenditures will just
[1:05:24] grow. Um so your um
[1:05:30] uh cushion will decline as well. And so
[1:05:33] it'll be more much more difficult for
[1:05:35] the town to balance its budget by
[1:05:38] reducing um transfers to to the capital
[1:05:41] fund. And um so we wanted to explain
[1:05:46] that. So if you're taking on debt
[1:05:48] without approving any new tax revenue
[1:05:51] measures um there will be little to no
[1:05:56] uh additional revenues to pay debt
[1:05:58] service. Kim
[1:06:01] >> another question on the expenditure
[1:06:03] growth the six to 10% is that based on
[1:06:06] this year
[1:06:08] >> um I'll defer to David we uh received
[1:06:13] that from the town
[1:06:13] >> I'm just want my my question really is
[1:06:16] how how much faster is that expenditure
[1:06:20] trajectory going to go
[1:06:23] >> that's a great question Mayor McMillan
[1:06:25] and uh the the team was provided a copy
[1:06:29] of the 5-year year forecast and we're in
[1:06:30] the process of uh fully validating the
[1:06:34] forecast and looking at the both revenue
[1:06:36] growth and the expense growth. Uh the growth in expenditures of 6 to 10%
[1:06:42] per year is is not so much reflective of
[1:06:44] this year's budget but future year's
[1:06:46] budget. Um and so kind of the point of
[1:06:49] it is that uh as you see those the
[1:06:52] expenditures grow, you're going to have
[1:06:54] less flexibility within the budget to
[1:06:57] fund the debt ser you know to to to fund
[1:07:00] uh or uh have the general fund fund any
[1:07:03] debt service. Uh even though it's
[1:07:05] already limited uh in terms of the
[1:07:08] amount that could contribute to debt
[1:07:10] service, it's likely to be uh
[1:07:13] constrained going forward. So it's
[1:07:15] really kind of uh looking ahead um and
[1:07:18] which is very prudent to do is to to
[1:07:20] look at the forecast and see you know
[1:07:22] what is the trend going forward and and that's what the 5-year forecast
[1:07:26] really uh predicts and tells us is that
[1:07:29] there's going to be um uh you know
[1:07:31] greater expenditures
[1:07:33] uh greater expenditure growth than than
[1:07:36] revenue growth.
[1:07:37] >> So the six to 10% is based on a
[1:07:40] five-year projection going out.
[1:07:42] >> That's correct.
[1:07:42] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:07:45] David. And and I'd just like
[1:07:47] to add, mayor and council, that um so
[1:07:49] your your budget work session is in just
[1:07:51] a few weeks, and one of the items we
[1:07:54] always bring forward is an update of the
[1:07:57] five-year um 5-year financial forecast.
[1:08:00] So, we're scrambling right now to put
[1:08:03] all that together in order to get it out
[1:08:05] to the council. So, but this analysis
[1:08:07] was based on on the one in the current
[1:08:10] budget.
[1:08:12] Yeah.
[1:08:15] sit down.
[1:08:18] >> So, the next couple of slides uh put
[1:08:20] some numbers around the um the different
[1:08:24] buckets of uh CIP plans that the the
[1:08:27] town is reviewing. This first one
[1:08:29] reviews the uh facility facilities
[1:08:32] master plan and what the town can can
[1:08:35] carry as far as debt service. Um again
[1:08:38] the facil's master plan cost is between
[1:08:42] 26 million to $30 million. Um annual
[1:08:45] debt service related to those uh amounts
[1:08:50] are approximately $1.7 million on the
[1:08:53] low end and approximately $1.9 million
[1:08:56] on the high end. And when you add the
[1:09:00] existing annual costs of uh the town's
[1:09:03] CIP needs, which are a range of $1
[1:09:07] million to $ 1.5 million, you get a
[1:09:09] total annual burden of about uh $2.7
[1:09:14] million to $3.4 million.
[1:09:18] Um, and that represents approximately
[1:09:21] 24 to 30% of your general fund revenues
[1:09:26] each year, which is a a quite a big
[1:09:30] amount.
[1:09:32] um and and one that you you couldn't
[1:09:35] really feasibly um uh um enter in at
[1:09:40] this stage based on your your current um
[1:09:45] condition of your or based on your
[1:09:47] current levels of of your general fund
[1:09:49] revenues.
[1:09:54] Okay, the next slide looks at the the
[1:09:58] fourth financial burden and it's a a
[1:10:01] bigger number because of the annual
[1:10:05] operating costs required to to run the four initiative projects. Um
[1:10:13] we took a look at the the fourth uh bond
[1:10:16] debt service related to the the cost for
[1:10:19] that initiative and that is uh $17.6 $6
[1:10:23] million. Uh the annual debt service
[1:10:26] related to that is about $1.1 million.
[1:10:29] When you add the estimated annual
[1:10:32] operations cost of $3.4 million and $5
[1:10:36] million as well as the the city or
[1:10:39] excuse me the town's ongoing capital
[1:10:42] needs of $1 to $1.5 million, we get a
[1:10:45] total annual burden of uh $5.5 million
[1:10:49] to $7.6 $6 million and the uh ratio to
[1:10:55] the town's annual revenues is is much
[1:10:58] greater between 49% to 68% and that is
[1:11:03] just uh isn't financial financially
[1:11:06] feasible to do that. So, um, one note I
[1:11:09] did want to make is that the the fourth,
[1:11:12] uh, preliminary cost estimates, um,
[1:11:14] doesn't include the
[1:11:16] doesn't, uh, include all of the needed
[1:11:19] facility master plan elements from
[1:11:24] I just wanted to provide that
[1:11:26] clarification.
[1:11:26] >> If I might just clarify, so that what
[1:11:29] she's saying is that that is based on
[1:11:31] for's uh,
[1:11:34] presentation that they meet made to
[1:11:36] council on January 8th. So that $17.6
[1:11:40] million number is the number that FORF
[1:11:44] came up with and presented to the
[1:11:46] council and their plan. Um it does not
[1:11:51] include all the elements that the the
[1:11:56] council's the council adopted facility
[1:11:58] master plan for example. It doesn't
[1:12:00] include um the our public works and our um storage yard for the um a secure
[1:12:07] yard for the police cars, etc. And um so
[1:12:11] that's we just wanted to make sure that that's where that $17 million
[1:12:15] number is coming from. Thank you.
[1:12:20] And for uh illustrative purposes, we
[1:12:23] wanted to combine both plans, the
[1:12:26] facilities master plans as well as the fourth initiative.
[1:12:31] And the total annual costs of of those
[1:12:35] plans, including the the town's existing
[1:12:39] capital needs, uh ranges between $7.2
[1:12:41] million to $9.5 million. and that
[1:12:44] represents approximately 64 to 85%
[1:12:48] of the town's revenues. And and uh so
[1:12:54] you know in in all of these scenarios t
[1:12:57] taking on um these obligations without
[1:13:02] uh raising new revenues is just isn't
[1:13:05] financially feasible for the town.
[1:13:09] >> I was just going to check. So the fourth
[1:13:12] is the annual operations which would
[1:13:14] include staffing but if staffing if the
[1:13:17] cost of staffing would go up between six
[1:13:20] and 10% every year
[1:13:22] ongoing
[1:13:24] so that number will get higher and
[1:13:26] higher over time
[1:13:28] >> right
[1:13:28] >> okay
[1:13:33] I just have a question do any other
[1:13:35] towns or cities have this kind of burden
[1:13:40] 64 to 85%.
[1:13:42] >> No, no, you you wouldn't be able to go
[1:13:44] out into the market with that type of
[1:13:46] burden.
[1:13:47] >> Okay.
[1:13:48] >> Thanks. and
[1:13:50] >> and and just to clarify, so the SMB
[1:13:53] guideline
[1:13:56] says that um towns and cities should not
[1:14:01] spend more than 6 to 8% of their annual
[1:14:07] revenue on debt service. Correct.
[1:14:11] >> Right. So this when it the the low is
[1:14:16] not 6 to 8% it's 64%. And the red one is
[1:14:21] not 6 to 8% it's 85%. Is that
[1:14:25] >> that's correct?
[1:14:25] >> Is that correct? Yeah.
[1:14:26] >> So it's 10 times the S&P guideline.
[1:14:30] >> Right. and and it it we need the revenue
[1:14:34] to cover
[1:14:36] all of your expenses to provide services
[1:14:39] to the community such as law
[1:14:40] enforcement, such as the fire
[1:14:42] department, such as planning and
[1:14:44] building and public works.
[1:14:47] >> Could I ask a question?
[1:14:50] >> Look at the same slide. Um the first
[1:14:54] line item FMP bond debt service that's
[1:14:58] the facilities existing facilities
[1:15:01] master plan concept B
[1:15:03] >> that we're talking about and then the
[1:15:04] next line fourth bond debt service that
[1:15:08] would be their competing proposal but we
[1:15:11] wouldn't do both of these right we do
[1:15:12] one or the other I aren't we double
[1:15:15] counting that's my concern
[1:15:19] >> go ahead David
[1:15:20] >> thank you council member Kerscher for
[1:15:22] your question and and I think we we
[1:15:24] wanted to note that that this is really
[1:15:26] for illustrative comparison purposes. Um
[1:15:30] the the difficulty is as was stated
[1:15:33] earlier in the presentation that the the
[1:15:35] fourth initiative does not cover all of
[1:15:37] the facilities
[1:15:39] uh uh all the elements of the facilities
[1:15:42] master plan. So there's uh there's
[1:15:46] definitely some overlap, but you you
[1:15:48] know that would that ultimately need to
[1:15:51] uh do some additional scenario planning
[1:15:53] to pull out what items are in the
[1:15:56] facility master plan which aren't in the
[1:15:58] fourth initiative. And as as as uh the
[1:16:01] town manager uh opined earlier, some of
[1:16:04] those items include uh of course public
[1:16:07] works, uh the new admin facility, the
[1:16:10] police storage yard, the public works
[1:16:12] storage yard. So uh you know, again,
[1:16:15] this is just to illustrate if council
[1:16:18] desired to fund all of those elements,
[1:16:21] uh what that would look like in terms of
[1:16:24] a burden to your general fund. So there
[1:16:26] so really the the if if you want to say
[1:16:29] um double counting would be um the the
[1:16:33] there's a a fire facility and there's uh
[1:16:38] potential
[1:16:40] opportunity to house the paramedics in
[1:16:43] that fire facility that the cost of the
[1:16:45] paramedics is also included in the
[1:16:47] facility master plan. But other than
[1:16:49] that there's really not a whole lot of overlap currently.
[1:16:56] It just seems as this is on the high
[1:16:57] side because of of that. I think you you could take the fourth cost their
[1:17:04] projection and add something to it for
[1:17:08] the public service I mean the public
[1:17:10] works yard for example or secured
[1:17:13] parking or anything that they haven't
[1:17:15] covered. remember they had a a fairly
[1:17:18] specific proposal for rehabbing
[1:17:21] rebuilding the um the existing uh public
[1:17:26] safety building and then they had and they came up with I forgotten it $11
[1:17:31] million or something like that and then
[1:17:33] they had just a kind of a catchall
[1:17:35] saying well perhaps another 7 million
[1:17:37] for the administrative buildings and
[1:17:39] then during our discussion it turned out
[1:17:41] they had not really taken into account
[1:17:43] things like the uh public works um uh
[1:17:46] yard and so forth. So obviously that's a very general number and would
[1:17:51] have to be threshed out. But just the
[1:17:54] same I I you know I'm a a little
[1:17:57] concerned about these bottom line
[1:17:58] numbers of 7 million to 9.5 million. I I
[1:18:02] do think there's enough of an overlap
[1:18:03] that it would it would not really be 7.5
[1:18:06] million
[1:18:10] » through the mayor. May I um I'd just
[1:18:12] like to direct um
[1:18:15] remind the council that um staff did
[1:18:17] prepare a memo in the end of February. I
[1:18:21] think we published it on February 26th,
[1:18:23] 27th where we um evaluated the fourth
[1:18:29] uh proposal and um compared it to the
[1:18:34] facilities master plan and came up with
[1:18:37] some things that it because it's not
[1:18:39] just as it's not just that it doesn't
[1:18:41] include elements that the facility
[1:18:43] master plan does. Our staff team, which
[1:18:47] includes um our consultant team, also
[1:18:51] had concerns that were identified and um
[1:18:54] and findings that were identified in
[1:18:57] that memorandum that also talked about
[1:19:00] um the uh forest forest proposal and it how well or how really rather how it
[1:19:08] doesn't um um it doesn't take care of
[1:19:12] any flooding take care of the flooding
[1:19:14] issues as much as it needs. to so there
[1:19:17] are other um deficiencies in that plan
[1:19:21] from staff and consultants perspective
[1:19:24] that um it does make it difficult to to
[1:19:28] come up with something you can't it's
[1:19:30] not we can't really compare apples to
[1:19:32] apples but I I just think that the
[1:19:34] takeaway of this initial part of the
[1:19:36] presentation is just that we don't have
[1:19:40] um we just do not we don't have funding
[1:19:43] in the budget to be able able to take on
[1:19:47] very much debt ourselves. You need to go
[1:19:49] to the voters and and I don't think
[1:19:50] that's a surprise to to everyone, but I wanted to make sure that our
[1:19:56] professional consultants
[1:19:58] took a look at that and confirmed what
[1:20:02] staff has been reporting out to the
[1:20:04] council on that matter.
[1:20:07] >> Thank you. I have a question.
[1:20:10] Aren't we doing this like a month or two
[1:20:12] early? Because we're talking about the
[1:20:14] fourth plan, but we have a committee
[1:20:16] that's working right now to try to
[1:20:18] reconcile plan B and the fourth plan.
[1:20:21] So, why aren't we looking at this after
[1:20:24] April 29 when we hear what that plan is
[1:20:27] and if the council approves it? It it
[1:20:30] seems premature to be going through. I
[1:20:33] understand that the debt burden that's
[1:20:34] important but comparing for to plan B to
[1:20:38] me that seems premature because it there
[1:20:40] may be changes next month or late at the
[1:20:42] end of this month and I think that's
[1:20:44] what we really want to be focusing on.
[1:20:50] » Um thank you Mayor Prom Robbins. Um you
[1:20:54] know I I was charged with implementing
[1:20:57] concept B and moving this forward. The
[1:21:00] item before you tonight is not an action
[1:21:03] item. It's simply it's a presentation.
[1:21:05] It's to start to make sure that the
[1:21:07] council has a foundation on financing options. And we we haven't
[1:21:13] gotten to the primer part of this uh
[1:21:16] presentation, but it's it's to start
[1:21:19] this conversation. And one of the
[1:21:22] reasons I really wanted to bring forward
[1:21:24] this initial step so that the council
[1:21:26] could receive some education would have
[1:21:29] an opportunity to ask questions like
[1:21:30] you're doing tonight would have the
[1:21:32] opportunity for ask for more information
[1:21:35] so that we are prepared to come back to
[1:21:38] you to provide the information that
[1:21:41] you're looking for because uh I don't I
[1:21:44] don't know what's going on with with the
[1:21:47] committee. I don't know what they're
[1:21:49] going what recommendations they're going
[1:21:51] to give. Um, however, if this has
[1:21:54] anything to do with um putting something
[1:21:58] on the ballot this November, the council
[1:22:02] is going to be under an extremely tight
[1:22:04] timeline. So, I wanted the council and
[1:22:07] the community and frankly staff, we all
[1:22:09] need to be learning about this. I wanted
[1:22:11] us to all have an opportunity to to to
[1:22:14] start asking questions to start
[1:22:16] receiving the information and I wanted
[1:22:18] you to have that information before the
[1:22:20] committee comes forward because they I
[1:22:23] don't know for sure but they might have
[1:22:25] recommendations about um different kinds
[1:22:27] of debt financing and I wanted the
[1:22:29] council to be able to already be
[1:22:32] informed. So that simply is it's nothing
[1:22:34] nefarious. It's nothing. It's just
[1:22:37] simply uh I want to give the the council
[1:22:40] uh good information before you start.
[1:22:42] So, we'll definitely, you know, if the
[1:22:44] council wants to move forward with this
[1:22:46] conser conversation, we'll be coming
[1:22:49] back and providing more information
[1:22:51] tailored to both what the town what the
[1:22:53] council wants.
[1:22:55] I was going to say I think Elizabeth too
[1:22:58] this may be very useful information for
[1:23:00] that citizens committee as they're
[1:23:02] working to understand these costs.
[1:23:19] Uh we ran a few stress tests on the uh
[1:23:24] town's property tax revenue because that
[1:23:26] is the the biggest driver of the the
[1:23:29] town's annual revenues. And um as we
[1:23:34] discussed earlier, it's about uh 85% of
[1:23:37] the property tax revenues come um or or
[1:23:41] the revenues come from property tax
[1:23:42] revenues. And um we ran three scenarios.
[1:23:46] So the first we called the best case
[1:23:48] scenario that assumes a revenue growth
[1:23:51] of 4% in each year. The the second
[1:23:55] scenario we ran assumed a revenue growth
[1:23:59] of 3% in each year. And the third
[1:24:03] scenario uh we called the the downside
[1:24:05] case. Uh we assumed property growth of
[1:24:08] 1% in each year. And um it's kind of
[1:24:13] hard to see in that top graph there, but
[1:24:16] the uh total expenditures growing six to
[1:24:20] 10% over the the next five years. Um the
[1:24:26] and the gap between the the three stress
[1:24:29] test scenarios. You can see that that
[1:24:31] gap uh slowly declines over time. And
[1:24:36] under the um uh 2% the the downside case
[1:24:41] scenario you can see that uh there are
[1:24:44] no surplus revenues in that final year.
[1:24:48] And uh these 1% swings in assessed value
[1:24:51] great assessed valuation growth are are
[1:24:54] not big swings but they do have a a very
[1:24:57] big impact on the the town's um um
[1:25:01] budget o over the next five years. And
[1:25:04] you know, we we all know it's all market
[1:25:05] dependent and it's really out of the
[1:25:09] town's uh control on how um this source
[1:25:13] of revenues are uh fair over the next
[1:25:16] five years. So, uh, we just wanted to
[1:25:19] illustrate,
[1:25:20] um, that, um, you know, these, uh,
[1:25:25] assumptions over time will eat into your
[1:25:29] revenues and if you take on debt
[1:25:30] without,
[1:25:32] um, approving new tax revenues that your
[1:25:36] ability to repay debt u
[1:25:40] diminishes as well. So,
[1:25:43] any questions on that? No. Okay. With
[1:25:46] that, I'll turn it over to Dan.
[1:25:49] >> Hi. Hi. So,
[1:25:51] with our analysis showing that a tu is
[1:25:55] new debt would likely need new revenue
[1:25:56] streams, I'd like to just go over what
[1:25:58] those are. Um, just as an educational
[1:26:01] starting point for everybody.
[1:26:03] There are four main options for a town
[1:26:05] like Ross to generate additional sources
[1:26:07] of revenue. The first option is an
[1:26:09] adorum general obligation bond measure
[1:26:12] which taxes property based on assessed
[1:26:14] value. This requires 2/3 voter approval
[1:26:17] and can only fund capital, not
[1:26:19] operations.
[1:26:20] Next, a parcel tax is a flat fee per
[1:26:23] parcel. You guys are familiar with this
[1:26:25] with measure E. Um, it also requires a
[1:26:29] 2/3 approval. It can fund operations,
[1:26:32] capital, or debt service.
[1:26:35] Our third option is a CFD or melus tax.
[1:26:39] And unlike a flat parcel tax, a CFD
[1:26:42] special tax can be structured by square
[1:26:43] footage or land use. It can fund both
[1:26:46] capital and ongoing services. And CFDs,
[1:26:49] they can be complex to administer and
[1:26:51] they do require twothirds voter approval
[1:26:53] as well.
[1:26:55] Our our fourth revenue option is the
[1:26:57] real property transfer tax. It applies
[1:27:00] at the time of sale of a property. It
[1:27:02] only requires a simple majority, not
[1:27:04] that 2/3 that these other three options
[1:27:06] require, but it's very volatile
[1:27:08] depending on how many homes are sold
[1:27:10] that year. Um, another caveat is Ross
[1:27:13] would actually need to become a charter
[1:27:14] city temporarily in order to raise that
[1:27:17] uh tax rate above the default state.
[1:27:23] » Yeah. on the um on the becoming a
[1:27:26] charter town. Um is there something on
[1:27:30] the fall ballot that is going to
[1:27:32] preclude potentially towns converting
[1:27:35] into charter towns?
[1:27:36] >> Uh potentially. Yes, that could be. Mhm.
[1:27:40] And our next slide will will kind of
[1:27:43] show because that real property transfer
[1:27:45] tax is so volatile, it's very hard to
[1:27:47] bond against and it's probably the least
[1:27:51] suitable option.
[1:27:53] I know Belvadier tried to do that a few
[1:27:55] years ago and was unsuccessful even
[1:27:57] though it only required a 50% 50.1%
[1:28:00] majority.
[1:28:02] May May I just um to clarify the the
[1:28:06] item that is I think it just qualified
[1:28:08] for the fall ballot statewide ballot.
[1:28:11] It's for um it would preclude cities
[1:28:14] from becoming charter cities for that
[1:28:16] purpose. The purpose of increasing their
[1:28:19] real estate transfer, not preclude
[1:28:21] cities from just becoming charter
[1:28:23] cities. It's just for that purpose.
[1:28:27] But why would we want to be a charter
[1:28:29] city if it's not to
[1:28:32] add this tax?
[1:28:34] >> I'd defer to the um town attorney for
[1:28:36] that.
[1:28:38] There's a lot of reasons why some cities
[1:28:39] become charter cities, but I think
[1:28:41] that's beyond the breadth of what we're
[1:28:42] talking about tonight. I think they're
[1:28:44] presenting it as an option for this tax
[1:28:47] and I just want to correct something.
[1:28:49] Once you become a charter city, you are
[1:28:50] a charter city. It's not for a limited
[1:28:52] time. You know, the voters would have to
[1:28:55] take away the charter at some point in
[1:28:56] the future.
[1:29:00] Um, just a question about the the CFD
[1:29:03] flexible tax based on square foot of the
[1:29:07] piece of property or the building on the
[1:29:10] property or
[1:29:11] >> there's a lot of flexibility there, but
[1:29:12] it's typically the property the um
[1:29:16] >> the square footage of the of the
[1:29:17] building.
[1:29:18] >> Yeah.
[1:29:18] >> And the land use this
[1:29:20] >> land use whether it's commercial, ret,
[1:29:22] residential.
[1:29:23] >> Okay.
[1:29:23] >> Developed, undeveloped,
[1:29:25] >> and acreage would be about the same.
[1:29:26] It's like the square footage. Okay,
[1:29:29] great. Thank you.
[1:29:30] >> Yeah.
[1:29:33] » All right. This table here summarizes
[1:29:35] the differences between these four
[1:29:36] options. Um, I'll point out a few
[1:29:38] things. The GEO bonds are the only
[1:29:41] option that can't fund operations or pay
[1:29:43] as you go capital. They are strictly for
[1:29:45] backing long long-term debt. Um, every
[1:29:48] other option has a little bit more
[1:29:50] flexibility when it comes to how the
[1:29:51] money is used, how the revenues are
[1:29:52] used.
[1:29:54] Three out of the four options require
[1:29:56] twothirds voter approval. The transfer
[1:29:58] tax is the only exception needing just
[1:30:00] that simple majority. But as we noted is
[1:30:02] extremely volatile and market dependent
[1:30:05] which makes it a um worse choice for the
[1:30:07] primary funding source for a long-term
[1:30:10] bond.
[1:30:12] Uh revenue stability matters a lot when
[1:30:14] you're pledging it to debt service. You
[1:30:15] need predictable cash flows to make bond
[1:30:17] payments that favors parcel taxes, CFD
[1:30:20] taxes, and the geo bond levy.
[1:30:28] All right, after going over those
[1:30:29] revenue sources, I want to give a little
[1:30:31] basic overview of municipal bonds.
[1:30:33] are how local
[1:30:34] governments borrow money to fund public
[1:30:37] projects. You, the town, issue the bonds
[1:30:40] and investors provide the cash up front
[1:30:42] and then you repay principal plus
[1:30:44] interest over the next 20 to 30 years or
[1:30:46] however long the term is of the bond
[1:30:48] issuance.
[1:30:50] The interest earned for municipal bonds
[1:30:52] is typically exempt from federal and
[1:30:53] state income taxes which allows
[1:30:56] investors to accept a lower interest
[1:30:57] rate which means cheaper borrowing for
[1:30:59] the town. How bonds are repaid depends
[1:31:02] on the type. General obligation bonds
[1:31:05] are repaid through that advalorum
[1:31:07] property tax levy we discussed. Lease
[1:31:09] revenue bonds or certificates of
[1:31:11] participation are repaid from the town's
[1:31:14] general fund. Um that's when we started
[1:31:17] this presentation, those were
[1:31:19] leasebacked um either COP or a lease
[1:31:22] revenue bond. Um so they're an
[1:31:24] obligation of the town's general fund.
[1:31:26] And then CFD or special tax bonds are
[1:31:29] also known as mealus bonds. They are
[1:31:31] repaid through that special tax on
[1:31:32] properties within a a specific district
[1:31:35] a within that CFD.
[1:31:38] Uh lastly, I just want to say municipal
[1:31:40] bonds often require voter approval. Uh
[1:31:42] with most local bonds in California
[1:31:44] requiring twothirds. The key exception
[1:31:46] is leaseback financings, which are lease
[1:31:48] revenue bonds and certificates of
[1:31:50] participation. They do not require voter
[1:31:52] approval, but those, like I said, do
[1:31:54] create an obligation of the town's
[1:31:56] general fund.
[1:32:02] So, California's Constitution,
[1:32:04] specifically article 16, uh, section 18,
[1:32:07] sets the framework for local government
[1:32:09] debt. The general rule is 2/3s voter
[1:32:12] approval for cities and towns before
[1:32:13] taking on the long-term debt. But there
[1:32:15] are the three recognized exceptions. Uh,
[1:32:18] the first one we've talked about, it's
[1:32:19] the lease financings that are backed by
[1:32:21] the general fund. That's the first
[1:32:23] exception. The next two exceptions are
[1:32:26] not very applicable to the town. Um the
[1:32:28] first one being enterprise revenue bonds
[1:32:30] which are repaid from utility revenues
[1:32:32] um not the general fund and then the
[1:32:34] third exception being court-ordered
[1:32:37] obligations. These are involuntary
[1:32:39] court-ordered obligations such as
[1:32:40] pension obligation bonds. Um I just want
[1:32:43] to point out one nuance. Special
[1:32:46] districts like CFDs operate under
[1:32:48] different rules and have more
[1:32:49] flexibility than cities and counties
[1:32:51] under article 16.
[1:32:54] Could
[1:32:57] you just explain again what is lease
[1:32:59] financing?
[1:33:00] >> Lease financing. So lease financing,
[1:33:02] there's two main bond types that fit
[1:33:05] under lease financing. It's a uh lease
[1:33:08] revenue bond or a certificate of
[1:33:10] participation. They are structured a
[1:33:13] little bit legally, but the way the debt
[1:33:14] is repaid is very they're very similar.
[1:33:17] Um, essentially the when the they're
[1:33:21] with lease revenue bonds and coops, uh,
[1:33:23] the issuer has to put up collateral,
[1:33:26] real property as collateral and then the
[1:33:29] repayments are paid from the town's
[1:33:31] general fund.
[1:33:34] >> Those were the first few slides that you
[1:33:36] were covering.
[1:33:36] >> Exactly. Yep. And what we've seen is
[1:33:39] that it would e there's too much um the debt service would be too high, be
[1:33:44] too much of a burden on the general fund
[1:33:45] of the town without an additional
[1:33:47] revenue source. One of the options I'm
[1:33:49] going to go through general obligation
[1:33:50] bonds first. When we discuss lease
[1:33:52] revenue bond options for the town, we're
[1:33:54] assuming a parcel tax gets approved to
[1:33:58] repay the general obligate the lease
[1:34:00] revenue bond.
[1:34:02] And we'll get to that.
[1:34:11] So the uh first option I wanted to show
[1:34:13] is the general obligation bonds. They
[1:34:15] are the lowest cost borrowing tool
[1:34:17] available to the town. They're backed by
[1:34:19] an unlimited property tax pledge. So
[1:34:21] investors find them to be the highest
[1:34:24] level um of security. They have the
[1:34:26] highest confidence with them and that
[1:34:27] translates into the lowest um interest
[1:34:29] rate and a lower borrowing cost for the
[1:34:31] town.
[1:34:33] The trade-off with general obligation
[1:34:34] bonds, you need twothirds voter approval
[1:34:36] and the proceeds can only go towards
[1:34:38] capital improvements, not operations.
[1:34:42] One thing worth noting um on equity
[1:34:45] because geo bonds, the taxes scale with
[1:34:48] assessed value and with Prop 13, meaning
[1:34:51] similar homes can have completely
[1:34:52] different um assessed values depending
[1:34:54] on when they were purchased. Uh
[1:34:55] neighbors can end up paying very
[1:34:57] different amounts for the same bond
[1:34:59] measure.
[1:35:02] So, our our chart on the right here um
[1:35:05] shows a few options with a geo bond
[1:35:07] issuance. If the town were to issue a
[1:35:10] $10 million, $20 million, and $30
[1:35:12] million geo bond,
[1:35:14] we've uh found that a $10 million geo
[1:35:18] bond issuance would require a tax rate
[1:35:20] of $20 per assessed per $100,000 of
[1:35:23] assessed value in order to cover the
[1:35:25] debt service on the bonds. Um, just for
[1:35:28] an example, we we found that if a home
[1:35:30] was $2 million or had an assessed value
[1:35:32] of $2 million, that levy would be
[1:35:34] approximately $400 in year one.
[1:35:38] A $20 million bond would double that tax
[1:35:41] rate to $40 per $100,000 of assessed
[1:35:43] value, which would be a levy of $800 for
[1:35:46] a $2 million home. And then a $30
[1:35:49] million bond sale would be a tax rate of
[1:35:52] $60 per 100k of assessed value resulting
[1:35:54] in about $1,200 for a $2 million home.
[1:35:58] Any I'll pause here for any questions
[1:36:01] because that was a lot of information.
[1:36:03] >> I have a question on your 4.75 interest
[1:36:06] rate. What is that? The current interest
[1:36:07] rate?
[1:36:08] >> It's there's a little bit of room in
[1:36:10] there, a little bit of just protection
[1:36:12] in case the markets move. Um,
[1:36:15] so I
[1:36:17] >> I would say a 30-year geo bond now is
[1:36:19] about four and a half percent. You would
[1:36:21] be a very highly rated uh town. And so
[1:36:25] about four and a half% would be
[1:36:28] >> um the current levels.
[1:36:30] >> And what do you think it'll be in
[1:36:31] November?
[1:36:34] » The joke I always hear is if we knew
[1:36:36] where rates would be, we wouldn't be
[1:36:37] working. So yeah.
[1:36:40] >> Yeah. And if you can price before then
[1:36:42] you you should
[1:36:46] » and Oh yeah go ahead.
[1:36:47] >> So this is just for capital improvements
[1:36:49] only not ongoing.
[1:36:51] >> Correct. Yes.
[1:36:52] >> And it would be for how many years?
[1:36:55] >> Um typically the max term is 30 years.
[1:36:57] >> Okay. So every year a property owner
[1:37:01] would have to pay if it was a $10
[1:37:04] million it would be 402 for 30 years.
[1:37:09] 402.
[1:37:10] Uh, yes. If they had a $2 million home,
[1:37:13] >> if they had a $2 million
[1:37:14] >> Yes. With with There's one thing here
[1:37:16] and Yeah. With these bonds, we have
[1:37:18] level debt service and assuming assessed
[1:37:21] values go up each year, which they
[1:37:23] typically do around 3 to 4%. The tax
[1:37:25] rate would actually drop down. It would
[1:37:27] get lower as time goes on because
[1:37:29] everyone's assessed value is higher.
[1:37:31] They need to tax each one less to cover
[1:37:33] the debt service.
[1:37:34] >> Got it. Does that mean that the term is
[1:37:37] reduced or does that mean that our tax
[1:37:39] the amount on our tax
[1:37:40] >> the amount on the tax bill would go
[1:37:42] down?
[1:37:43] >> Huh, that's interesting.
[1:37:46] >> I've never seen that happen.
[1:37:48] >> A lot of the times with the the school
[1:37:49] district geo bonds, they will escalate
[1:37:52] debt service to match the assumed growth
[1:37:55] in assessed values. So that's why you
[1:37:57] see your the your tax bill for school
[1:38:00] bonds kind of stay constant
[1:38:02] >> and the the town would not have the same
[1:38:04] tax rate constraints like the the the
[1:38:06] local school district does. The school
[1:38:08] district is falls under proposition 55
[1:38:12] where they're limited by their tax rate.
[1:38:15] Um, I think the school district is
[1:38:17] limited to$25 or $30 per $100,000 of AV,
[1:38:22] but but the town would have greater
[1:38:24] flexibility.
[1:38:29] » All right.
[1:38:31] We'll move into the the
[1:38:33] leasebacked financings, which are lease
[1:38:34] revenue bonds or certificates of
[1:38:36] participation.
[1:38:37] Um, they are general fundbacked
[1:38:39] obligations that don't require voter
[1:38:41] approval. uh that what happens is the
[1:38:43] town pledges an essential facility as
[1:38:45] security that can be existing or one
[1:38:47] that's uh a new a new building and then
[1:38:50] a JPA or nonprofit issues the bonds on
[1:38:52] the town's behalf. The town makes annual
[1:38:54] lease payments to pay the debt service
[1:38:56] on the bonds.
[1:38:58] The advantages are speed and simplicity
[1:39:00] basically with there being no ballot
[1:39:02] measure. Um so sometimes the financing
[1:39:04] can take only 3 to four months. The
[1:39:06] structure is widely used and well
[1:39:08] understood by the market. It's very
[1:39:09] common. The limitation with this option
[1:39:12] is that it creates a general fund
[1:39:13] obligation and from our present you know
[1:39:15] previous presentation that is an issue
[1:39:17] for the town. Um so for
[1:39:22] yeah
[1:39:26] so while the uh lease revenue bonds
[1:39:27] would still be a general fund
[1:39:28] obligation. Okay sorry I lost myself. Um
[1:39:31] as so the for our modeling for this
[1:39:34] option we've assumed that the town
[1:39:36] adopts a parcel tax similar to measure
[1:39:38] E. um that that money flows and repays
[1:39:42] the debt service. So the parcel tax
[1:39:44] money would flow into the general fund
[1:39:46] to pay the debt service on the coops or
[1:39:48] lease revenue bonds. So it's still a
[1:39:50] general fund obligation. There's just a
[1:39:52] new revenue stream that helps pay it.
[1:39:56] The uh the table on the right shows the
[1:39:58] same 10 million, 20 million, and $30
[1:40:00] million scenario for the structure.
[1:40:03] And what we've come up with is in order
[1:40:05] to generate enough revenue to cover the
[1:40:07] cost of a $10 million lease revenue
[1:40:10] bond, the town would need a parcel tax
[1:40:12] of about $777
[1:40:14] per parcel.
[1:40:16] If we were to up that to a $20 million
[1:40:18] issuance, we would it would require a
[1:40:21] parcel tax of about $1,500 per parcel.
[1:40:24] And a $30 million issuance would require
[1:40:26] a parcel tax of about $2,300 per parcel.
[1:40:30] Um, this table also kind of adds in uh
[1:40:33] what the parcel tax would be when
[1:40:35] combined with measure E. Uh, with it
[1:40:37] being about just under 2,000 per parcel
[1:40:39] on the $10 million option and rising up
[1:40:42] to $3500 on the $30 million option,
[1:40:45] >> that would require voter approval.
[1:40:47] >> Correct. Correct. So, these these pro
[1:40:50] these benefits of lease revenue bonds is
[1:40:52] that it's speedy and doesn't require
[1:40:54] voter approval. However, for the town to
[1:40:56] be able to do it, they would need voter
[1:40:57] approval on the parcel tax to repay it.
[1:41:02] >> So, a question. So, a very small parcel
[1:41:05] would be paying say for $10 million
[1:41:09] uh
[1:41:11] 190 90,000 and a very huge piece of
[1:41:16] property with tennis courts, the
[1:41:17] swimming pool, and everything else,
[1:41:19] they'd be paying the same amount.
[1:41:20] >> Exactly.
[1:41:21] >> So, there's an equity issue.
[1:41:22] >> There's an equity issue as well with the
[1:41:23] parcel tax. Yep. Mhm.
[1:41:27] Any any other questions on
[1:41:28] >> And this is also for just capital or is
[1:41:30] this capital plus
[1:41:31] >> the the parcel tax money can fund
[1:41:33] capital and operating? Yep.
[1:41:36] >> Mhm.
[1:41:37] >> I I just also wanted to point out that
[1:41:40] uh
[1:41:42] a parcel tax is a general tax. You can't
[1:41:44] uh pledge that directly to the payment
[1:41:47] of your lease revenue bonds. What is
[1:41:49] pledged is the the town's general fund.
[1:41:51] So all legally available funds of the
[1:41:54] general fund would repay the the annual
[1:41:56] debt service payments.
[1:42:04] » All right. The last form of municipal
[1:42:05] bond um that we will go over is a CFD.
[1:42:09] It's called a special tax bond, also
[1:42:11] known as a melerus bond. Um they are the
[1:42:14] most flexible in terms of what you can
[1:42:16] fund. Um unlike geo bonds, they can fund
[1:42:19] both capital facilities and ongoing
[1:42:21] services. The tax structure is
[1:42:24] customizable a lot more so than a parcel
[1:42:26] tax. Uh you can base it on square
[1:42:27] footage, land use, acreage, and other
[1:42:29] characteristics. Um it can be phased in
[1:42:32] over time.
[1:42:34] Some trade-offs with CFDs, uh they carry
[1:42:36] a lower quality rating than go bonds, so
[1:42:39] the borrowing costs are often a bit
[1:42:41] higher, so higher interest rates uh when
[1:42:43] the bonds are sold. The setup is a bit
[1:42:45] more complex with the CFD formation. And
[1:42:47] then you also need that 2/3 voter
[1:42:49] approval from those within the CFD.
[1:42:54] Our table on the right here shows the
[1:42:55] melus tax for our three bond sizing
[1:42:58] options. For this preliminary analysis,
[1:43:00] we've assumed the melus tax is flat fee,
[1:43:03] a flat fee per parcel. Um, however, as
[1:43:06] we discussed, the town could really
[1:43:07] structure that any way as they that they
[1:43:08] please.
[1:43:10] And our analysis shows that a $10
[1:43:12] million melarus bond would cost roughly
[1:43:14] $751 per parcel in year one. A $20
[1:43:18] million bond would result in a $1,400
[1:43:20] levy per parcel in year one. And a $30
[1:43:23] million bond would result in a
[1:43:25] $2,100,000
[1:43:27] levy percel in year one.
[1:43:34] Any any questions on the Melus tax?
[1:43:44] All right. So, this table is a quick
[1:43:45] reference to compare the three financing
[1:43:48] vehicles that we just discussed. Um, if
[1:43:51] your top priority is the lowest
[1:43:52] borrowing cost and you have the voter
[1:43:53] appetite for two-thirds approval, a geo
[1:43:55] bond is a is a really strong candidate
[1:43:57] for a capital pro for funding a capital
[1:43:59] project. Uh while lease revenue bonds
[1:44:02] don't require voter approval, uh they
[1:44:04] create a general fund obligation that
[1:44:05] the current budget can't easily absorb
[1:44:07] without a new revenue stream.
[1:44:10] And then a which would require likely a
[1:44:12] parcel tax to be approved. And then
[1:44:14] lastly, if you need to fund both capital
[1:44:16] and ongoing operations from a single
[1:44:18] financing structure and you're willing
[1:44:19] to run a more complex administration
[1:44:21] process, a CFD is definitely worth
[1:44:24] exploring.
[1:44:34] So, I will uh wrap this up with a few
[1:44:36] key takeaways. Uh as we've discussed,
[1:44:38] the town h the town has limited
[1:44:40] financial capacity to fund their desired
[1:44:42] projects with 11.2 million in general
[1:44:44] fund revenue and expenditures already
[1:44:46] growing faster than re already growing
[1:44:48] faster than revenues. There is no margin
[1:44:50] to make to to take on meaningful debt
[1:44:52] new debt service from the existing
[1:44:54] budget. Issuing new debt would require a
[1:44:56] new revenue source. Whether that's a geo
[1:44:58] bond measure, a parcel tax, a CFD, or
[1:45:01] some combination, you would need voter
[1:45:03] approval for a new dedicated revenue
[1:45:05] source before a debt financing becomes
[1:45:07] viable. A general obligation bond would
[1:45:09] provide the lowest borrowing cost, but
[1:45:11] would not be able to fund operations. A
[1:45:13] CFD special tax bond give the most
[1:45:15] flexibility on how the tax is levied,
[1:45:17] but can be complex to administer and
[1:45:19] comes with a higher borrowing cost. And
[1:45:20] lastly, a lease revenue bond would
[1:45:22] likely require a parcel tax be approved
[1:45:24] in order to provide revenue stream to
[1:45:25] repay that debt service.
[1:45:27] And with that, we are happy to take any
[1:45:29] questions.
[1:45:33] » More questions.
[1:45:35] >> So, one could do a combination. A town
[1:45:38] could do a combination. You could you've
[1:45:40] got a capital that needs to be built.
[1:45:43] So, you could do the geo bond and then
[1:45:47] you've got ongoing costs for people,
[1:45:51] staffing,
[1:45:53] um, equipment. So that might be a
[1:45:56] different uh parcel tax or something
[1:45:59] else.
[1:46:00] >> Uh that's correct. Yep. You could do a a
[1:46:02] mixture of these three of these four
[1:46:04] different revenue sources. Well, three
[1:46:05] that are good good options for the town,
[1:46:07] >> right? But the the homeowner is going to
[1:46:09] have to end up being paying for
[1:46:12] both.
[1:46:13] >> Mhm. That's correct.
[1:46:15] >> There's no free lunch.
[1:46:17] >> Yeah.
[1:46:19] >> Okay. Thank you. Um any other questions?
[1:46:22] Council
[1:46:23] public comment on this item.
[1:46:26] Mr. Rosenbomb,
[1:46:28] >> just Michael Rosenbomb at 14 Madrona.
[1:46:31] Just a quick question if the consultants
[1:46:34] have considered the age of the people in
[1:46:36] the parcels because there's the
[1:46:40] um senior opt out of parcel tax and also
[1:46:44] a I believe SSI and um also if depending
[1:46:49] on your median income you can opt out.
[1:46:51] So the amount of parcels in the Ross
[1:46:52] will go down. So I do get a free lunch
[1:46:55] potentially.
[1:46:57] >> Ah,
[1:46:58] >> you never know. I'm just So, but there
[1:46:59] is a there is that and just whether
[1:47:01] that's in your report or not or thought
[1:47:03] about that there really aren't 835.
[1:47:06] There may only be 800 to pay.
[1:47:11] » The numbers that Dan presented were just
[1:47:13] hypothetical
[1:47:15] uh scenarios. Um to the extent that
[1:47:17] there are parcels that are exempt, uh
[1:47:20] that would increase the uh amount per parcel
[1:47:26] >> and that would be something that the
[1:47:27] council would decide if there was going
[1:47:29] to be some kind of senior exemption,
[1:47:31] something like that.
[1:47:31] >> You would carve that out into the the
[1:47:34] language, I believe. But
[1:47:35] >> okay,
[1:47:37] any other public comment? Anybody
[1:47:39] online?
[1:47:41] >> No one's online, Mayor.
[1:47:43] >> Okay. We'll bring it back for any
[1:47:45] further thoughts or discussion.
[1:47:48] >> I think I need to spend some time
[1:47:50] looking at this. I think it was very
[1:47:52] helpful, the differences, uh the
[1:47:55] options. Um so I appreciate this
[1:48:00] information. It's really helpful and
[1:48:02] giving us more information so we can
[1:48:04] make a wise decision about moving
[1:48:07] forward with the town.
[1:48:09] >> Yeah. Thank you.
[1:48:11] >> Thank you. Thank you.
[1:48:19] » Number 15, town council to receive an
[1:48:23] update from staff regarding the status
[1:48:25] of the implementation of the town of
[1:48:27] Ross facilities master plan.
[1:48:30] Manager Johnson.
[1:48:31] >> Yeah. Thank you, Mayor and Council
[1:48:33] members. Uh this evening we um we have
[1:48:37] brought forward um your third report
[1:48:41] regarding the status of the
[1:48:42] implementation of the facilities master
[1:48:44] brown. We uh brought forward one in
[1:48:47] September and then our second in uh
[1:48:50] December and uh David Kelly our pro
[1:48:54] part-time project manager will be giving
[1:48:56] the report. And
[1:48:59] are you ready? I'm gonna do the handoff.
[1:49:04] Take it away, David.
[1:49:11] Thank you, manager, town manager
[1:49:13] Johnson. Good, good, good evening, Mayor
[1:49:16] McMillan,
[1:49:17] Mayor Prom Robbins, Council Members
[1:49:20] Dalling and Kercher, and uh our esteemed
[1:49:23] town attorney Benjamin. Uh I am David
[1:49:26] Kelly. I'm your project manager. I'm
[1:49:28] here uh for the third update on your
[1:49:31] facilities master plan and to talk about
[1:49:33] some of the progress that we've made uh
[1:49:36] on the council's behalf. So the agenda
[1:49:38] tonight is uh really to provide again an
[1:49:41] update and uh discuss progress.
[1:49:45] We will talk about the cost estimates
[1:49:47] that were updated to reflect the cost of
[1:49:50] implementing the uh facilities master
[1:49:52] plan as well as the completed uh section
[1:49:56] 9212 fiscal impact study. Uh give you an
[1:50:00] update on the two RFQS that council
[1:50:02] approved both for affordable housing and
[1:50:05] architectural and engineering services.
[1:50:07] uh discuss real brief the uh selection
[1:50:10] of the municipal adviser which you just
[1:50:11] heard tonight give a presentation from
[1:50:13] Phil Lap as well as uh a a minor update
[1:50:18] on SQUA and the um current citizen
[1:50:22] advisory committee evaluation.
[1:50:25] So again, uh, as as I've, uh, updated
[1:50:29] the council, we we prepared a roadmap at
[1:50:33] the start of this process to really
[1:50:35] guide the implementation of the
[1:50:38] facilities master plan. It's, you know,
[1:50:40] it's a a best practices tool and project
[1:50:42] management to, uh, guide the timing and
[1:50:45] delivery of a project. Uh, and
[1:50:48] ultimately, it's a tool for
[1:50:49] communicating implementation to the town
[1:50:51] council as well as the town manager. uh
[1:50:55] the the G the Gant chart that was
[1:50:57] prepared uh it is intended to be
[1:51:00] flexible and adaptable as conditions
[1:51:03] change and certainly uh it the timelines
[1:51:06] have been uh affected by the fourth
[1:51:08] initiative.
[1:51:11] So, one of the key updates was uh
[1:51:13] updating the cost estimates that were
[1:51:15] included in your facility's master plan,
[1:51:18] particularly uh for concept B, but also
[1:51:21] the paramedic facility. Uh both of those
[1:51:24] uh cost estimates were completed in
[1:51:26] December. The um uh cost estimates for
[1:51:30] the paramedic facility was in uh updated
[1:51:32] to inform the lease agreement with the
[1:51:35] Ross Valley Paramedic Authority. And
[1:51:37] then the cost estimates for concept B
[1:51:39] were updated to reflect uh cost
[1:51:42] escalation through 2030. Uh as many of
[1:51:46] you know the facilities in the master
[1:51:48] plan uh and and which could include
[1:51:51] modifications proposed or recommended by
[1:51:53] four uh will be done over time and cost
[1:51:56] escalation factors uh are a driving a a
[1:52:00] cost driving factor that's really
[1:52:02] important to track. uh in particular the
[1:52:05] uh cost update will help inform your
[1:52:08] budget and CIP as uh the town manager
[1:52:11] reported earlier that is in process and
[1:52:15] the updated cost estimates will help
[1:52:17] inform the the the next year's budget
[1:52:20] and budgets going forward
[1:52:23] in terms of the uh election code 9192
[1:52:26] report again that is a fiscal impact
[1:52:29] study uh that was really a response to the FOR initiative. Uh the
[1:52:36] report required contracting with uh a
[1:52:39] number of specialized firms including
[1:52:41] RSG who was the lead contractor but also
[1:52:45] uh the the master plan consultant KPA
[1:52:48] along with Mary McGrath Architects who
[1:52:51] uh did a an evaluation of the costs of a
[1:52:54] new capital fire facility and citygate
[1:52:57] associates which prepared the staffing
[1:52:59] analysis for uh two scenarios. one uh
[1:53:03] either contracting with uh Ross Valley
[1:53:06] Fire or a standalone fire station. Uh
[1:53:09] the the outcome of that is uh that it
[1:53:13] helps inform both the town council and
[1:53:15] the voters. Again, uh recognizing that
[1:53:17] council approved the fourth initiative
[1:53:19] for placement on the November ballot. Uh
[1:53:22] that's a key piece of information uh for
[1:53:24] both council and and voters. Um
[1:53:27] ultimately it does uh help inform policy
[1:53:30] direction and and financial feasibility
[1:53:32] associated with the fourth the fourth
[1:53:34] initiative. Um I I want to note that the
[1:53:39] uh election code 9192 report is uh
[1:53:42] included on your website and is
[1:53:44] available for review by the community.
[1:53:47] Uh at your February meeting, council
[1:53:50] gave direction to staff to move forward
[1:53:53] with two requests for qualifications. Uh
[1:53:56] the first of which was for a affordable
[1:53:59] housing. uh to prepare that RFQ. Town
[1:54:03] staff coordinated with both planning
[1:54:06] staff and the town attorney's office to
[1:54:08] ensure that the RFQ reflected
[1:54:11] consistency with your your housing
[1:54:12] element and your regional housing needs
[1:54:16] uh compliance objectives uh in addition
[1:54:18] to consistency with your both your
[1:54:20] zoning and your development standards.
[1:54:22] that uh RFQ which was authorized by
[1:54:25] council on February 12th and
[1:54:26] subsequently released requires
[1:54:29] statements of qualifications to be uh
[1:54:32] submitted to the town on on uh April 3rd
[1:54:35] which is tomorrow. Uh thus far we have
[1:54:38] received uh uh one SOQ uh in advance of
[1:54:42] the due date and we are hoping to
[1:54:44] receive additional SOQs um in accordance
[1:54:48] with the due date. Uh next steps do
[1:54:51] include review of uh all received SOQS,
[1:54:55] uh interviews of uh the potential
[1:54:59] development partners, and the goal would
[1:55:02] be to bring that forward to council for
[1:55:04] consideration of an exclusive
[1:55:06] negotiating agreement with the uh the
[1:55:09] preferred housing partner.
[1:55:12] Uh as as I mentioned earlier, council
[1:55:15] also approved RFQ for architectural
[1:55:18] engineering services. Uh thus far, we've
[1:55:22] received and just just by way of email
[1:55:24] received the the fourth uh SOQ today. Uh
[1:55:28] we are expecting additional SOQs uh by
[1:55:31] the due date tomorrow. So I'm thinking
[1:55:33] we'll have at least five, if not more uh
[1:55:36] SOQ's. Uh again, the the uh council in
[1:55:41] their discussions and approval of that
[1:55:43] RFQ did uh recommend including language
[1:55:47] to uh support potential evaluation of
[1:55:50] alternatives
[1:55:52] site configurations and development
[1:55:54] particularly in response to the fourth
[1:55:56] initiative which you're going to uh as I
[1:55:58] understand receive a presentation later
[1:56:00] this month. So if we can get an
[1:56:02] architect on board uh that will help
[1:56:05] with some critical evaluation of of of
[1:56:07] that proposal assuming it comes comes
[1:56:10] forward. Again, next steps in in that
[1:56:13] process will be to uh you know,
[1:56:16] diligently review the uh SOQs that have
[1:56:19] been submitted. Uh conduct interviews
[1:56:22] with the top two or three firms and
[1:56:25] ultimately uh negotiate a scope of work
[1:56:28] that would be the basis of a a
[1:56:31] professional services agreement with the
[1:56:33] selected or recommended firm uh which
[1:56:35] would uh require council approval. So
[1:56:37] that would be placed back on your agenda
[1:56:39] for review and approval. And that would
[1:56:41] be a professional service agreement with
[1:56:44] a detailed scope of work. uh providing
[1:56:47] the architectural engineering services
[1:56:49] which would include uh of course design
[1:56:52] services, landscape uh uh architecture
[1:56:56] uh uh civil work as as along with what
[1:57:00] we call MEP um uh for all of your uh air
[1:57:06] conditioning ma and electrical equipment
[1:57:08] so forth.
[1:57:11] Um
[1:57:13] as council just saw uh the you received
[1:57:16] a presentation by Fieldman Rolap. Um
[1:57:21] within the last month uh we moved very
[1:57:23] quickly to uh issue a request for
[1:57:27] proposals uh document uh for municipal
[1:57:30] advisory services to uh three firms as reported by uh the town manager. Uh
[1:57:37] we we received those three proposals and
[1:57:40] quickly uh made a decision to retain
[1:57:44] Fieldman Rolap who is very qualified uh
[1:57:46] firm to serve as municipal adviser for
[1:57:49] kind of this phase one effort to do an
[1:57:53] evaluation of the town's budget but also
[1:57:55] to look at potential uh financing
[1:57:57] options for for the council's
[1:57:59] consideration. Um and as part of that
[1:58:02] you assess debt capacity and what the
[1:58:04] tax impacts are for the for the
[1:58:07] residents for associated with a
[1:58:09] potential uh revenue measure. Uh of
[1:58:12] course the presentation tonight was was
[1:58:14] somewhat general. I mean the budget
[1:58:16] stuff was very specific uh but it may uh
[1:58:19] it would ultimately be need to be uh you
[1:58:22] know f further clarified when we
[1:58:24] understand what costs the council may
[1:58:26] want to uh cover as part of either the
[1:58:29] fourth initiative or the master plan.
[1:58:34] Uh just briefly on SQA environmental
[1:58:36] review, I just want to uh restate that
[1:58:39] uh you know staff conducted a um uh kind
[1:58:44] of a mini environmental review to assess
[1:58:46] the environmental impacts of the
[1:58:48] facility master plan. Uh one of the key
[1:58:52] you know study areas uh from a SQA
[1:58:55] perspective
[1:58:56] uh is of course land use planning but uh
[1:59:01] maybe more significantly includes uh
[1:59:03] transportation issues, transportation
[1:59:05] safety around uh your your two major
[1:59:08] thorough affairs adjacent to the town
[1:59:10] hall uh along with biological issues and
[1:59:13] historic resource issues.
[1:59:16] Um
[1:59:18] the
[1:59:20] earlier uh Gant chart did identify that
[1:59:23] we'd be moving forward with
[1:59:24] environmental review. Uh town manager
[1:59:27] and town attorney and myself have
[1:59:29] discussed bringing an RFQ forward. Uh
[1:59:33] but we we did uh hold off that process
[1:59:35] was delayed to allow for the citizens
[1:59:38] advisory committee to provide a
[1:59:40] recommendation to town council because I
[1:59:42] know that was a concern of council is
[1:59:44] that there was we maybe moving forward
[1:59:46] too fast. So uh that that that process
[1:59:49] has been delayed but we do think one of
[1:59:52] the key next steps is to uh hire
[1:59:56] necessary subconultants to that would
[1:59:58] inform the environmental review process
[2:00:01] uh going forward.
[2:00:03] So that really concludes an update uh on
[2:00:06] the facilities master plan. Again, just
[2:00:09] to uh emphasize that the goal of the the
[2:00:12] master plan was, you know, mo
[2:00:14] modernization of your your town
[2:00:17] facilities in in alignment with
[2:00:19] community's desires, but also while uh
[2:00:22] protecting public safety and service.
[2:00:26] >> Thank you, David. Questions? Elizabeth?
[2:00:30] >> Uh thank you very much. Um uh regarding
[2:00:34] the um architectural and engineering
[2:00:37] services, you mentioned that there'd be
[2:00:39] a professional service agreement that
[2:00:41] would come to the council with details.
[2:00:43] When would that be coming to the
[2:00:45] council?
[2:00:46] >> Uh we don't have a a specific date
[2:00:49] scheduled yet. Um you know it's going to
[2:00:51] be uh based in part on arranging
[2:00:54] interview well first conducting a
[2:00:57] thorough review of proposals and um uh
[2:01:02] you know negotiating a scope of work
[2:01:05] with the the the top firm. Uh and that will kind of set the the schedule
[2:01:10] for when we bring that uh when that
[2:01:12] scope of work comes back to council.
[2:01:14] Because I was I was thinking if if there
[2:01:16] are changes to the plan come later this
[2:01:19] month, that would have to be something
[2:01:21] that would be part of this part of the scope of work. Is that right?
[2:01:26] >> I think that's that's that's fair to
[2:01:27] say, Mayor P.
[2:01:28] >> And we don't have a May meeting, so it
[2:01:29] wouldn't at the earliest it would be
[2:01:31] June. Is that is that too late or is
[2:01:33] that okay?
[2:01:35] Uh, I would probably defer to town town
[2:01:37] manager whether a special meeting would
[2:01:39] be necessary, but otherwise,
[2:01:40] >> you know, it it's it definitely we're
[2:01:43] not going to be ready for your next
[2:01:44] council meeting, which is April 29th.
[2:01:46] So, that this item it will not be on
[2:01:48] April 29th, and you are correct that
[2:01:51] there's no meeting in May. So, the first
[2:01:53] other opportunity would be June 11th.
[2:01:56] Um, but honestly, I we we we need to
[2:01:59] talk more about um the evaluation and
[2:02:02] all that that stuff. So, um, and I'm I'm
[2:02:05] really interested in hearing, uh, from
[2:02:07] the citizens committee, too. So, um, we wanted to, uh, give we wanted to get
[2:02:15] the word out to architectural and
[2:02:17] engineering firms. We're happy we we
[2:02:20] have, uh, received um, and expect to
[2:02:22] receive a few more tomorrow. That's
[2:02:24] really exciting. And, um, so we're not
[2:02:28] it's we're not rushing this, mayor prom.
[2:02:31] Um,
[2:02:32] >> so June would be the rush, but I was
[2:02:34] just wondering it has to be held up a
[2:02:36] little bit for the citizens committee
[2:02:38] and then will these firms be not happy
[2:02:42] if they aren't signed on until sometime
[2:02:45] in June or later? I I I think that firms
[2:02:49] are are very used to when they work with cities, especially on projects of
[2:02:53] this size, and they uh as the council
[2:02:56] directed us when we came to you to get
[2:03:00] your approval to release these
[2:03:02] documents, we did add language into
[2:03:04] these uh requests for qualifications
[2:03:07] that talked about the fourth initiative.
[2:03:10] So, I'm sure that they're expecting that
[2:03:13] there's going to be some ups and downs
[2:03:15] and some changes. So, I I don't think
[2:03:17] they're going to be surprised.
[2:03:20] >> Thank you.
[2:03:21] >> Any other questions? Any public comment
[2:03:24] on this item?
[2:03:26] Anybody online? Donna,
[2:03:29] >> there's no one online, Mayor.
[2:03:31] >> Okay. Um, any further discussion? I I
[2:03:34] just wanted to thank you for getting
[2:03:36] these things, the the municipal finance
[2:03:41] opinion consultation and the architect
[2:03:45] engineering and also the affordable
[2:03:47] housing getting those moving instead of
[2:03:50] waiting until after April 29th because
[2:03:53] if we want to do something by the
[2:03:55] November election, it's going to be a
[2:03:57] huge scramble. So the more we can do in
[2:04:00] advance, as Christa, you wisely set up,
[2:04:03] the the better off we'll be. So, thank
[2:04:06] you for continuing to push forward on
[2:04:08] the items that we can push forward on.
[2:04:11] >> You're welcome. Thank you.
[2:04:13] >> All right. Item 16,
[2:04:16] town council to consider adopting
[2:04:18] resolution number 2617, approving and
[2:04:21] authorizing the mayor to execute a first
[2:04:23] amendment to the amended and restated
[2:04:26] employment agreement between the town
[2:04:29] and town manager Christa Johnson to be
[2:04:32] effective April 2nd, 2026.
[2:04:34] Den,
[2:04:35] >> good evening, mayor and council members.
[2:04:38] This is your town attorney, Benjamin. I
[2:04:40] like that introduction. That was a nice
[2:04:42] angle. You referred to that for now on.
[2:04:44] >> He used the word esteemed, too.
[2:04:45] >> Esteemed.
[2:04:46] Benjamin. I enjoyed that.
[2:04:49] >> Uh, tonight before you is the proposed
[2:04:51] first amendment to the amended and
[2:04:52] restated town manager employment
[2:04:54] agreement to increase the town manager's
[2:04:56] vacation leave cap from 300 to 400
[2:04:58] hours.
[2:05:00] During the last 5 months, a heavy
[2:05:02] workload has prevented the town manager
[2:05:03] from taking vacation leave, resulting in
[2:05:05] the consistent loss of vacation leave
[2:05:07] due to the cap on the vacation leave
[2:05:09] balance stayed in her current employment
[2:05:11] agreement.
[2:05:13] Most city managers in Marin have the
[2:05:14] ability to sell back a certain amount of
[2:05:16] vacation leave hours each year. Uh the
[2:05:19] town manager does not have that benefit
[2:05:20] in her existing contract. To prevent the
[2:05:23] loss of vacation leave, the town manager
[2:05:25] has requested that the council consider
[2:05:27] a request to increase the cap from 300
[2:05:29] to 400 hours. And there's a proposed
[2:05:31] amendment in your packet with a
[2:05:33] resolution accompanying that. And that
[2:05:35] concludes my report.
[2:05:36] >> Thank you, esteemed council person
[2:05:40] stock.
[2:05:40] >> Benjamin what's your middle initial?
[2:05:43] Um, any questions on this council
[2:05:46] members?
[2:05:49] public comment on this item.
[2:05:53] » No one's online, mayor.
[2:05:54] >> Okay. Then we'll bring it back for any
[2:05:56] discussion or a motion.
[2:06:02] » I just want to say I I worked for the
[2:06:04] city and county of San Francisco for
[2:06:06] many years. And so I went back and said,
[2:06:08] what do we have in San Francisco as a
[2:06:11] ceiling for where you can't carry
[2:06:13] vacation over? It's 400 400 hours. So,
[2:06:17] it's pretty consistent with how it is
[2:06:19] other places.
[2:06:23] » And I I think given how hard our town
[2:06:26] manager has been working and juggling so
[2:06:28] many things that we need to make sure
[2:06:31] that she is able to take a break
[2:06:33] >> and not be penalized for working hard,
[2:06:35] which is you're getting penalized right
[2:06:37] now for working hard um by not being
[2:06:40] able to use your vacation time or carry
[2:06:42] it over. So, I'm totally in favor of
[2:06:45] this.
[2:06:46] So, I'd like to make a motion, unless
[2:06:48] somebody else wants to speak, that we
[2:06:50] adopt resolution number 2617.
[2:06:55] » Second.
[2:06:58] >> Mayor McMillan.
[2:06:59] >> Yes.
[2:06:59] >> Mayor Prom Robbins.
[2:07:01] >> Yes.
[2:07:01] >> Council member Kercher.
[2:07:03] >> Yes.
[2:07:03] >> Council member Dally.
[2:07:05] >> Yes.
[2:07:06] >> Motion passes.
[2:07:07] >> Thank you, council and esteemed
[2:07:09] attorney.
[2:07:10] >> Take that vacation.
[2:07:11] >> Yes.
[2:07:14] >> All right. Um, the no action items,
[2:07:18] council correspondence. I just
[2:07:20] distributed a nice note from Anna about
[2:07:23] us giving her a proclamation. Is there
[2:07:25] any other council correspondence?
[2:07:29] Future council items. Anybody have
[2:07:31] anything?
[2:07:33] Council member participation at the
[2:07:35] communications table at our next meeting
[2:07:38] which is April 29th. I am able to be
[2:07:40] there. If anyone else wants to join me,
[2:07:43] >> I can join you.
[2:07:45] >> Okay.
[2:07:47] great. Um 18 is our meeting evaluation.
[2:07:53] It's 8:07.
[2:07:56] >> That is good. Any any constructive
[2:07:59] criticism or comments?
[2:08:01] >> Nope. All right.
[2:08:02] >> I think it went very smoothly.
[2:08:03] >> I agree.
[2:08:07] >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah.
[2:08:09] >> All right. And I and I actually was glad
[2:08:11] to see so many people in the um sitting
[2:08:14] area audience.
[2:08:16] >> Yeah.
[2:08:16] >> People. So that's great.
[2:08:19] >> All right. With that we are adjourned at
[2:08:21] 8:08. Thank you.