NOTE:  This is not an agenda. The agenda will be posted and available the Friday before the meeting.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 6:30 p.m., the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere will hold a regular meeting at 450 San Rafael Avenue, Belvedere, California, to consider the following actions:

1. Consideration of proposed amendments to Section 20.04.210 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, Landscape plans — Materials. The draft amendment is related to adopting Marin Municipal Water District’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by reference. CEQA status: exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3). Applicant and Property Owner: Citywide.
2. Consideration of City of Belvedere’s 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) Inventory. The inventory establishes baseline emissions from community and government operations in 2005. An emissions reduction target will be discussed. CEQA status: exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3). Applicant and Property Owner: Citywide.
3. Design Review for modifications to previously approved plans for the project at 2 Britton Avenue, including new landscaping, new retaining walls, new fence and gate, and the removal of a 14-inch-diameter Oak tree. CEQA status: categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities. Property Owner: Raj Pherwani. Applicant: Mark Swanson.
4. Design Review for revisions to previous Planning Commission Design Review approvals by means of Resolutions 2008-001, 2008-002 and 2008-065 for property at 450 Belvedere Avenue, an historically designated property, also known as The Blanding Casino. CEQA status: categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15331, Historic Rehabilitation. Property Owner: Bryan and Tara Meehan. Applicant: Walker and Moody Architects.
5. Design Review and Variance applications for a new hanging, painted wood sign at 83-85 Beach Road, an historically designated property, also known as the Belvedere Land Company Building. CEQA status: categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15331, Historic Rehabilitation. Property Owner: Belvedere Land Company. Applicant: Dan Hadley, Ireland, Robinson and Hadley, Inc.
6. Modification of Design Review condition of approval regarding construction within side yard easement related to demolition of the existing 2,143 square foot residence, construction of a new 2,972-square-foot single-family residence where 3,028 square-feet would be allowed, new site improvements, and new landscaping at 40 San Rafael Avenue.  CEQA status: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Property Owner: Huret Revocable Trust, dated January 17, 1996. Applicant: Aleck Wilson Architects.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that at the above time and place, all letters received will be noted, and all interested parties will be heard.  Please note that if you challenge in court any of the matters described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the above-referenced public hearing [Government Code Section 65009(b)(2)]. Please submit any correspondence by September 10, 2010 for inclusion in the staff report distributed to the Commission before the meeting. Items will not necessarily be heard in the above order, nor, because of possible changes or extenuating conditions, be on the actual agenda.  For additional information, please contact City Hall.

450 San Rafael Avenue, Belvedere, CA 94920  (415) 435-3838

In the early years, local government and local government finance was under the strict thumb of the state.  The state Legislature maintained a deep distrust of local affairs while local officials continued to seek more latitude in municipal policy and local control.  Early on, a few landmark court decisions and several prominent legislative acts were enacted to change the landscape of municipal finance and change the state:local relationship.

One of the most consequential was the 1910 “Separation of Sources Act.”  This Act secured property taxes as a local government revenue source and established the principle of separate revenue sources for state and local governments.  Property tax was believed to be best suited to fund local general services such as public safety, parks, schools, libraries, and public health.

In 1914, the California Constitution was amended to provide most cities with the authority to make and enforce laws and regulations with respect to municipal affairs – a significant landmark in local control.  However, local authority remained and remains to this day subject to state pre-emption, a process that occurs with more regularity as the state’s budget evolves every year.

In 1935, the state pre-empted then existing local taxation of motor vehicles as real property and established a statewide uniform value-based tax on motor vehicles.  This tax is more commonly known as the “motor vehicle in-lieu tax” or Vehicle License Fee (VLF).  Allocations from the VLF are made to cities and counties based on their share of county population.  Over time, the state has borrowed, shifted, transferred, re-allocated, re-distributed, swapped, and re-defined the VLF such that local government can no longer depend on its proper allocation.  Belvedere receives on average $173,000 per year through the state VLF “swap” process.

In 1955, the California legislature passed the Bradley-Burns Uniform Sales and Use Tax Act.  This Act pre-empted then existing local sales taxes and and provided for a uniform, statewide system of sales taxation and collection.  The Act authorized cities to adopt local sales and use tax rates up to 1% of taxable sales transacted in their jurisdictions, to be administered and allocated by the state.  Belvedere collects on average $40,000 per year from its local sales and use tax rate of 1% of the gross receipts of the retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in the City.

Through the 1950s and 1960s many federal and state policy initiatives were enacted that provided the opportunity for more funds and incentives to make their way into the state coffers.  However, the programs and incentives enacted by the state also resulted in a significant amount state mandates on local government without the benefit of a funding source with which to implement the mandate.  The Legislature frequently passes laws that contain local mandates but include no appropriation for the programmatic requirements.  In 1972, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 90 requiring the reimbursement of costs to local agencies for state mandated programs.  Local agencies must pursue reimbursement through a claims process with the state.  In 2008, there were 46 different city, county, and special district programs mandated by the State.  The City regularly applies to the state for funding for the cost of the many state mandated programs that must be implemented locally.  However, during the state’s annual budget challenge, the state regularly “suspends” payment for local mandates – however, compliance with the mandates is not suspended.  In other words, local governments must continue to conduct the state mandated programs but must do so at local expense.  This suspension process has been ongoing since the early 90s.

The Third Rail – Proposition 13

In 1978, the electorate approved and the Legislature codified Proposition 13.  The electorate sought relief from property tax escalation.  Proposition 13 had far reaching consequences and numerous unintended consequences.  Proposition 13 reduced property tax revenues by more than half and effectively abolished any local control with regard to property tax.  There were six key provisions within Proposition 13 affecting local finance:

• 1% Cap:  Proposition 13 capped property tax rates at 1% of the full cash value at the time of acquisition.  Prior to Proposition 13, local jurisdictions independently established their tax rates and the total tax rate was a composite of the individual rates.
• Assessment Rollback:  Proposition 13 rolled back property values as determined for tax purposes to their 1975-76 level.
• Reassessment Upon Change in Ownership:  Proposition 13 replaced the practice of annually reassessing property at full cash value with a system based on cost at acquisition.  Under Proposition 13, property is assessed at market value for tax purposes only when it changes ownership.  Subsequent annual values are limited to this “base year” amount plus an annual growth factor of 2%.
• Responsibility for allocating property tax transferred to the state: Through Proposition 13, the state retains responsibility for allocating property tax revenues among local jurisdictions.
• Voter approval for special taxes:  Proposition 13 requires two-thirds voter approval for taxes raised by local governments for a designated “special” purpose.
• Taxes imposed by the State Legislature require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

Prior to Proposition 13, effective total property tax rates varied, but overall, they averaged about 2.5% of market value.  The 1% limitation and the rollback to 1975-1976 assessed values resulted in an immediate 57% reduction in property tax revenues statewide.

In 1979-80, the Legislature used its authority to allocate property tax revenues to cushion the fiscal impact of Proposition 13 on local governments.  The state was able to shift about $2.7 billion of its annual ongoing financial resources to local governments – as a result, the city property tax losses from Proposition 13 were about 28% less than they might have been.

In addition to the assistance to local government, the Legislature established a system for allocating property taxes.  Assembly Bill 8 reduced school shares of property tax revenues and gave cities, counties, and special districts greater shares.  In return, the state assumed a larger financial responsibility for K-14 schools.  The state also increased its share of costs for a number of social service and health programs operated by counties.

Despite its goals, some of the intended and unintended consequences of Proposition 13 have been:

• Proposition 13 effectively lowered tax burden for elderly and low income homeowners (proportionate to income)
• Proposition 13 allowed for disparate treatment of similarly situated properties
• Proposition 13 results in a disconnect between service costs and revenues deterring any form of balanced planning
• Proposition 13 cut local agency property tax revenues by nearly 60%
• Proposition 13 does not allow tax rates and shares to stay in sync with service demands
• Proposition 13 results in a greater reliance on the state General Fund for county and school spending
• Proposition 13 forces a greater reliance by cities and counties on user fees and local taxes

In the years following Proposition 13, local governments faced substantially constrained revenues both from reduced property tax revenues but also from substantial reductions in state and federal aid.  The reduction in revenues did not coincide with a reduction in demand for services.  The state, after shifting resources to cushion the local impact of Proposition 13, also put itself into fiscal trouble.  To adjust, over time the state has repealed various state aid programs and even shifted local revenues to state coffers.  Between 1981 and 1984 the state shifted over $700 million in VLF revenues from cities, revenue that had never before gone to the state General Fund.

During these same years, the state repealed an assortment of local aid subventions (revenues and reimbursements to local agencies).  To address the ever-increasing gap, local governments began to increase fees to recover full costs and eliminate subsidies.  They sought out ways to raise existing taxes such as business licenses and hotel taxes.  Many adopted new taxes such as utility user taxes, admission and parking taxes.  With statutory authorization from the state, they adopted new forms of assessments to provide needed funds for such things as streets, parks, lighting, and landscaping.

Belvedere presently receives an estimated of $3 million per year in secured property taxes.  The City receives approximately $70,000 in business license revenue from a local business license tax enacted in 1975.  The City does not have a utility users tax, a hotel tax, or parking taxes.  The City does have a Fire Tax in support of fire services for the City.  Funds that are raised through the fire tax provide approximately 53% of the cost to provide services.  The City’s General Fund subsidizes the difference – approximately $$560,000 in FY 2010-11.

Recent trends in municipal finance continue to indicate that there is a decline in predictable discretionary funding available to local governments.  Further that population growth and other factors continue to result in an increase in service delivery demands against which revenues are not keeping pace.  Infrastructure in many communities face significant neglect and environmental issues continue to require expensive mitigation measures.  Over time, issues get worse – not better.

Moving Toward To Today

The courts have given the state more discretion over “issues of state concern” thereby weakening local control over revenues.  The most dramatic example of the shift of power from local governments is the state Legislature’s use of local property taxes to balance the state’s budget troubles beginning in the early 1990s.  To meet its obligations under Proposition 98, voter-initiated, minimum constitutionally mandated funding for schools, the state enacted legislation to shift partial responsibility for funding education to local government.  The state did this by instructing county auditors to shift the allocation of local property tax revenues from local government to “educational revenue augmentation funds” (ERAFs), directing that specified amounts of city, county, and other local agency property taxes be deposited into these funds to support schools.

In FY 2008, the annual impact of the ERAF shift removed $7.3 billion from cities, counties, and special districts.  The state has provided some funding to local governments that it considers “mitigation” for the ERAF shift, but the vast majority of these funds are earmarked for particular purposes instead of the general use funds that were taken.  One such earmark is Proposition 172 that provides funds for police, fire, and other public safety programs using sales taxes.  In 2008, Proposition 172 funds provided on $3 billion annually to local government leaving a $4.3 billion net ERAF gap.  Considering all the ERAF mitigation funds, the net ERAF impact on cities stood at nearly $800 million in 2008.  Although ERAF shifts ended in 2007, the original ongoing shifts that began in 1992 have not been reduced.  Belvedere receives approximately $14,500 a year in Proposition 172 funds.

In 1996, voters approved Proposition 218 expanding restrictions on the ability of local government to raise revenues.  The measure allows voters to repeal or reduce taxes, assessments, fees, and charges through the initiative process; reiterates the requirement for voter approval for both special taxes and general taxes; and imposes substantive procedural limitations on benefit assessments imposed on real property and on certain types of fees.

Under Proposition 218, no local government may impose, extend or increase any general tax until such tax is submitted to the electorate and approved.  In some communities, there is general support expressed for particular issues of local concern – fire, police, library, parks, etc.  In many others, there is not.  But in both communities, the demand for local services often does not change, but instead will increase with demographic changes.  Because of the high threshold of Proposition 218 and the potential for the process to be hijacked by special interests or derailed by situational apathy, local government often turns to rely on fees or charges for services.

Taxes and assessments are subject to regulatory control under Proposition 218.  A tax need not be levied in proportion to a specific benefit to a person or property.  Fees or charges are not taxes.  A fee or charge must represent the actual cost of providing the service.  If a fee or charge is not commensurate with the reasonable cost to provide the service, commodity or facility for which they are imposed they will be considered a tax and become subject to Proposition 218.  Proposition 218 covers the imposition of taxes and most new special assessments.  The key distinction between an assessment and a tax is that an assessment is based upon the special benefit that a property will derive from the improvement or service provided by the assessment.

Annually, the Belvedere City Council evaluates its fees and charges for service to ensure that they are commensurate with the actual cost to provide the service.  These include such fees as planning fees, building permit fees, copy fees, publication and material fees, etc.  The City receives an average of $250,000 in service charges and fees for ongoing projects and operations.  The City does not maintain or receive revenues from any Assessment Districts, such as flood control, lighting, or landscaping.  There are special benefit assessment districts in the City related to utility undergrounding.  These districts were formed consistent with Proposition 218 and Improvement Act of 1911 requirements.

For more information on local government finance and Belvedere specific issues, feel free to contact me at 435-3838.

Next in the Local Government Finance Series:

Part II:  Today’s Revenue Alternatives

Belvedere is no exception here.  Do you have any idea what resources are available via the City’s website alone?  Recently there has been a tremendous amount of press on public pay.  Sadly, most of it has been negative.  Further, most of it has been focused on outrageous outliers in the system.  Don’t get me started on how angry that has made those holding true to the public trust.  Recent news on the salaries of public officials and select public employees from the City of Bell in southern California simultaneous angered and saddened me.   I was angry that this outlier had forever tainted the honor of public service.  I was also saddened that the public trust may have been so violated that the reverberations from the incident could take years to heal.  Many, if not most, communities take great pride in their efforts to hold up their end of the public trust deal.   The other end of the deal being the commitment of the community to overcome situational apathy and issue blindness.   These outliers are exceptions.  Losing faith in the honor and commitment of local public leadership because of the outrageous violations of the public trust by outliers in the system is certainly not warranted.

But I’m soapboxing here.  The issue is Belvedere and its transparency.   There are so many ways to be involved in local government in Belvedere – some of which take little if any effort.   The City’s website provides electronic access to a plethora of information.  One of the more relevant items to the aforementioned discussion is found on the Publications portion of the website.  Here, you can find digital editions of the current Salary & Benefit Resolutions for all staff – local miscellaneous and public safety.  Those resolutions include all salaries for all staff at all levels in all detail.  Further, you can find digital editions of the City Budget back to 2002/2003.  The budgets provide accounting information on what the City’s expends, where, and how.  Further, you can also find digital copies of the Annual Audit back to the same year.  Here you can find out how the City did financially from an independent auditor.  This is and has been standard practice.

Browse around the Publications section a bit and you will find the City’s Municipal Code (the laws of Belvedere), permit forms, mission statements, manuals and publications to assist with Planning & Building in Belvedere, and building and zoning standards.  But wait, there’s more!  You can visit the Forms portion of the website to download permit applications, plans submittal requirements, fee schedules, and more!

In addition to Forms and Publications, the website features informational material, links to other agencies, Agendas and Agenda Packets for the City Council and Planning Commission, AND links to the City’s digital connections.  Here, I’m speaking of the E-News, the City’s Audio Podcasts, its Facebook page, its Twitter, its Quarterly Newsletter, its Financial Stats publication, and, of course, its Blog.

You can also sign up for the golf tournament.  You can learn when the next Council or Commission meeting is.  You can learn about underground districts and watch an informational video.  You can check out a street sweeping map for your neighborhood.  You can read archived editions of the E-News.  You can read about deer.  You can read about the various committees and their work.  You can access old agendas.  You can access old minutes.  You can listen to the audio of a public meeting from nearly two years ago.  You can read the City’s General Plan in its entirety – on your iPad at your leisure.  AND – you can complete a customer satisfaction survey to let us know how we’re doing.  All from the City’s website.

Transparency.  It’s all there.  Waiting for you to get involved.  All public meetings are formally noticed by law.  You can attend.  We don’t lock the doors.  We post agendas on the website.  We post copies and notice in front of City Hall on the bulletin board.  We give copies to the Library, the Ark Newspaper, the IJ.  We send emails out each week telling you when meetings will be.  We tell you what’s going to be on the Agenda.

Transparency.  No secrets here.  Just dedicated staff and dedicated local leaders working hard to keep and maintain that public trust.  We’re waiting for you.   The Council Chambers can hold 45 people comfortably and the website even more!  City staff believe that public service IS public trust.  Those of us in public service owe a higher loyalty to those we serve and by serving well and faithfully (part of our oath of public service) we earn the trust of those we serve.  There is honor in public service.  We execute it every day.  Get involved and let us restore your faith.

CITY OF BELVEDERE

NOTICE OF

PUBLIC HEARING

NOTE:  This is not an agenda. The agenda will be posted and available the Friday before the meeting.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, August 17, 2010 at 6:30 p.m., the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere will hold a regular meeting at 450 San Rafael Avenue, Belvedere, California, to consider the following actions:

1. Consideration of proposed amendments to Section 20.04.210 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, Landscape plans — Materials. The draft amendment is related to adopting Marin Municipal Water District’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by reference. CEQA status: exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3). Applicant and Property Owner: Citywide.
2. Design Review for the remodel and addition of 999 square feet to an existing 3,216-square-foot residence at 63 West Shore Road. CEQA status: categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities. Property Owners: Kim Baltzell and John Maine. Applicant: Hood Thomas Architects.
3. Design Review for modifications to previously approved plans for the project at 2 Britton Avenue, including new landscaping, new retaining walls, new fence and gate, and the removal of a 14-inch-diameter Oak tree. CEQA status: categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities. Property Owner: Raj Pherwani. Applicant: Mark Swanson.
4. Retroactive Design Review for landscaping changes including exterior speakers as well as proposed artificial turf lawn deck facing Belvedere Lagoon at 38 Lagoon Road. CEQA status: categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities. Property Owner: Roger Gershman. Applicant: Gary Graw.
5. Design Review and Exception to Total Floor Area for modification to an existing 10,369-square-foot residence at 20 Crest Road built for Mr. and Mrs. Leonard M. Sperry Jr. from designs by William Wurster. Modifications include 334-square-foot addition within the existing building envelope, removal of existing chimney and construction of a new chimney in a new location, minor demolition for new windows and the replacement of existing windows and doors, and different window types within existing window openings. Property Owner: Tradco (Barbados) Inc., care of Aspen Advisory Services. Applicant: Stephen Scanlon.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that at the above time and place, all letters received will be noted, and all interested parties will be heard.  Please note that if you challenge in court any of the matters described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the above-referenced public hearing [Government Code Section 65009(b)(2)]. Please submit any correspondence by August 6, 2010 for inclusion in the staff report distributed to the Commission before the meeting. Items will not necessarily be heard in the above order, nor, because of possible changes or extenuating conditions, be on the actual agenda.  For additional information, please contact City Hall.

450 San Rafael Avenue, Belvedere, CA 94920  (415) 435-3838

Small Business Development Center

Anyone who is familiar with the City of Belvedere knows that the City has limited commercial opportunities within its borders.  There are a few commercially-zoned parcels such as those within the Boardwalk Shopping Center and the few along Beach Road.  These areas are home to many “community-oriented” businesses that take great pride in serving the local community and heralding from “Belvedere” as their home base – Belvedere Land Company, Ireland-Robinson & Hadley, Inc., R&S Service Station, Bayside Garden Center, and more!   In addition to the commercially-zoned parcels, there are many in the community that operate home offices or home-based businesses – accounting, consulting, real estate, etc.

But the City does not have a “downtown” commercial and hotel area from which it receives “sales tax” or “transient occupancy tax” – also known as “hotel tax.”  The majority of the Boardwalk Shopping Center, all of the businesses along the southern end of Tiburon Boulevard, and Ark Row/Main Street businesses and hoteliers are all within the Town of Tiburon limits.  Therefore, unlike many communities, the City does not rely on “sales tax” or “hotel tax” revenue from local economic activity to support its annual operations.   In fact, sales tax revenues represent 0.7% or $37,500 of the City’s general fund revenue – as compared to neighboring Tiburon where sales and hotel taxes represent 11.1% or $770,000 of the Town’s general fund revenue.

However, that does not mean that the City is not supportive of local businesses and local business activities.  To that end, there are local business resources available to assist southern Marin business owners in obtaining fresh advice and assistance with marketing plans, economic development, raising capital and more!

The Small Business Development Center at Santa Rosa Junior College, funded in part by the Small Business Administration, has a mission of economic development. Their outreach offices are located throughout Marin County and meeting with their advisors is FREE, confidential and tailored toward specific business needs.  SBDC advisors are knowledgeable in a broad scope of industries and business management. Since opening their office in 1991, SBDC clients have had increased sales exceeding 66 million dollars.

In addition to their no cost consultations, the SBDC offers various low cost workshops and services related to managing a business. Need a guest speaker? Their advisors are available. Have an idea for a new product? Their Sawyer Center can advise how to turn your idea into a marketable venture.

How can the SBDC help you?  Visit their web site, www.sbdcsantarosa.org or call (707) 524-1770.  You can also read an Supporting Marin’s Econony featured in the Marin IJ on the topic.

CEQA applies to certain activities of state and local public agencies. A public agency MUST comply with CEQA – it’s not an option – when it undertakes an activity defined by CEQA as a “project.”  Subject to interpretation, generally, a project is ANY activity undertaken by a public agency or a private activity which must receive some discretionary approval (meaning that the agency has the authority to deny the requested permit or approval) from a government agency which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment.  This effectively means that residential projects that trigger planning review (i.e. zoning or design review) must be reviewed for CEQA compliance – albeit there are numerous listed exemptions.

Most proposals for physical development in California are subject to the provisions of CEQA, as are many governmental decisions which do not immediately result in physical development (such as adoption of a general plan). Every development project which requires a discretionary governmental approval will require at least some environmental review pursuant to CEQA, unless an exemption applies.  The environmental review required imposes both procedural and substantive requirements. At a minimum, an initial review of the project and its environmental effects must be conducted. Depending on the potential effects, a further, and more substantial, review may be conducted in the form of an environmental impact report (EIR).

CEQA is a self-executing statute. Public agencies are entrusted with compliance with CEQA and its provisions are enforced, as necessary, by the public through litigation and the threat thereof.  In Belvedere, CEQA is a part of every planning application. Following an initial evaluation, the Planner will recommend whether the project is exempt under CEQA, qualifies for a Negative Declaration, or a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Design Review applications will not be considered by the Planning Commission until the Environmental Review process is completed.

Want to know more?  Feel free to contact one of the City’s Planners for a run-down on how CEQA is handled in Belvedere.  They can all be reached via 415-435-3838 but feel free to email as well…

• Planning Manager Pierce Macdonald
• Associate Planner Felicia Wheaton
• Assistant Planner Raquel Paniagua

On Tuesday, July 20, 2010 at 6:30 p.m., the Planning Commission of the City of Belvedere will hold a regular meeting at 450 San Rafael Avenue, Belvedere, California, to consider the following actions:

1. Consideration of proposed amendments to Section 20.04.210 of the Belvedere Municipal Code, Landscape plans — Materials. The draft amendment is related to adopting Marin Municipal Water District’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by reference. CEQA status: exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3). Applicant and Property Owner: Citywide.
2. Design Review, Variance and Revocable License for the remodel and addition of 1,024 square feet to an existing 3,216-square-foot residence at 63 West Shore Road. Variance is for nonconforming front yard setback of – (minus) 1 foot where 5 feet is permitted and – (minus) 1-foot-and-9-inches currently exists. CEQA status: categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities. Property Owners: Kim Baltzell and John Maine. Applicant: Hood Thomas Architects.
3. Demolition, Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, Second Unit and Revocable License for property at 10 Crest Road for demolition of an existing 5,305-square-foot residence and construction of a new 5,984-square-foot residence, including a 460-square-foot second unit. Project includes the removal of several mature trees, new landscaping, swimming pool, terraces, retaining walls, and perimeter fencing. CEQA status: categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Construction of Small Structures. Property Owner: Gary Syman and Azita Raji Family Trust. Applicant: Moller Architecture.
4. Design Review, Exception to Total Floor Area, Variances and Revocable License for the remodel and addition of 1,048 square feet to an existing 1,829-square-foot residence at 250 Bayview Avenue. Variances are for nonconforming minimum separations between the proposed addition and nonconforming residences on both sides of the property and for increasing the size of the floor area of the existing nonconforming residence by more than 50% within a 10-year period. Property Owners: Conor and Meredith Flynn. Applicant: Hank Bruce Architects.
5. Appeal of Administrative Design Review approval of new landscaping, trees, paths, steps, terraces, exterior lighting, retaining walls, and lawn area at 142 Bella Vista Avenue. CEQA status: categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities. Applicant: Imprints Landscape Architecture. Appellants: Frederick and Patricia Holden.
6. Retroactive Design Review for modifications to windows and lower level foundation at 37 Alcatraz Avenue, constructed in 1910 for the Fred B. Adams Family from plans designed by Bernard J. Joseph. Property Owner: Marin Mortgage Bankers. Applicant: Bruce Portner.
7. Design Review for artificial turf lawn deck facing Belvedere Lagoon at 38 Lagoon Road. CEQA status: categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Existing Facilities. Property Owner: Roger Gershman. Applicant: Gary Graw.
8. CEQA Addendum, Retroactive Demolition, Design Review and Use Permit for modifications to approved plans at 125 Belvedere Avenue. Modifications include new lighting, exterior speakers, seagull deterrent, security cameras, boathouse, and two buoys in public waters within the R-Recreation Zoning District. CEQA status: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration:  Applicants and Property Owners: Robert and Carole McNeil.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that at the above time and place, all letters received will be noted, and all interested parties will be heard.  Please note that if you challenge in court any of the matters described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the above-referenced public hearing [Government Code Section 65009(b)(2)]. Please submit any correspondence by July 6, 2010 for inclusion in the staff report distributed to the Commission before the meeting. Items will not necessarily be heard in the above order, nor, because of possible changes or extenuating conditions, be on the actual agenda.  For additional information, please contact City Hall.

450 San Rafael Avenue, Belvedere, CA 94920  (415) 435-3838

The City’s building codes and their administration are important factors in determining whether your home will remain standing and continue to be structurally sound after a disaster.  The City makes every attempt to adopt recent and relevant code standards and makes them applicable across the board.  But don’t take our word for it.  There are private competitive market forces at work identifying those communities that take such issues seriously to minimize catastrophe-related damage and ultimately lower insurance costs.

The Insurance Services Office (ISO) is an insurer-supported organization with the primary mission of providing advisory insurance underwriting and rating information to insurers.  Through the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule, the ISO helps distinguish amongst communities with effective building-code adoption and enforcement.  The ISO is an independent statistical, rating, and advisory organization that serves the property/casualty insurance industry.  The ISO collects information on a community’s building-code adoption and enforcement services, analyzes the data, and then assigns a Building Code Effectiveness Classification from 1 to 10.  Class 1 represents exemplary commitment to building-code enforcement.  Insurers using the ISO Classification system assign “credits” to individual property insurance policies in recognition of community efforts to mitigate property damage due to natural disasters.

Municipalities with well-enforced, up-to-date codes demonstrate better loss experience, and their citizens’ insurance rates can reflect that.  Not all communities have rigorous building codes, nor do all communities enforce their codes with equal commitment.  The effectiveness of local building codes can have a profound effect on how structures in the community will fare in a hurricane, earthquake, or other natural disaster.

The ISO recently conducted an analysis of the City of Belvedere’s Codes and assigned Belvedere’s classifications as follows:

• Classification 3 for single and multi-family residential property; and
• Classification 3 for commercial and industrial property.

The ISO has been surveying and evaluating building code adoption and enforcement in communities around the country since 1995.  The program is designed to conduct surveys on a 5-year cycle.  From a 100% scoring perspective, the City’s single and multi-family score bettered itself by 12% over the five year period.  The City’s commercial and industrial score bettered itself by 24%.  The City’s code adoption and enforcement scored better than other jurisdictions across the state in all three categories: administration, plan review, and field inspection.  Nationwide – we excelled as well.

For more information on the City’s Building Code Enforcement Evaluation Report, contact the City’s Building Official Lee Braun at 435-3838.

The Mayor serves as the leader and visionary for the City Council during his or her tenure in the top spot.  In concert with the full Council, the Mayor sets the agenda and pace for the year and works toward the implementation of key goals set through the adoption of the City’s annual budget.  Unlike some larger communities, Belvedere does not have a “directly elected” Mayor.  Instead, all five members of the City Council are elected “at large” and they rotate through the roles of Vice Mayor and Mayor.   The full Council provides the political leadership and sets policy for the community and appoints an professional manager (the City Manager) to run the organization and carryout that policy.  This is known as the “council-manager” form of government and is one of the two predominant forms of municipal government in the United States.  The other form is the mayor-council form, which characteristically occurs in large cities where you will have a directly elected Mayor working full-time in the role with administrative authority over the organization – often termed – the strong mayor form of government – think, New York City, San Francisco, etc.

Back to Belvedere and the “switch” that will occur in July.  At the July meeting, the Council will appoint a new Mayor, typically, the Vice Mayor moving up.  Then, they will select a new Vice Mayor from amongst the remaining Council members. Because this year also coincides with the election, the Council will honoring those members leaving the Council and “swear in” those members joining or returning to the Council.  This year, after serving the City of Belvedere for 8 years as a member of the City Council, twice as Mayor, Barbara Morrison will be leaving the Council.  There will be gifts.

With Barbara’s departure, the community elected Sia Barmand to fill her vacant seat.  Sia will be sworn in as a Council member that evening and will take his seat on the dais to finish out that evening’s Agenda.

We typically try to keep the July Agendas relatively light as the new Mayors like to celebrate with the community  - it’s tradition.  There will be a party.

So, plan to attend the July 12 City Council meeting – say welcome and congratulations to the incoming and thank you and congratulations to the outgoing!  The meeting will be held in the City Hall Council Chambers, 450 San Rafael Avenue at 7:30 pm.

See you there!

One of the noteworthy characteristics of the Belvedere budget is its enviable position of self-reliance.  Careful and calculated measures are in place to ensure that the City’s finances are kept in that enviable position.   The City consistently budgets within its means; budgets for local priorities; adopts a budget that promotes fiscal responsibility; and adopts a budget that maintains compliance with an aggressive reserve policy.

The purpose of this post is to walk you through the City’s Budget from a basic description of its financial structure to proposed expenditures to a brief summary of coming capital projects to a summary of the City’s reserve policy compliance in the present and future years.

Budget Structure

The City’s accounting records are organized and operate on a “fund” basis, which is the basic fiscal accounting entity in governmental accounting.  Each fund is designed by fund type and classification.  The City’s primary funds are “governmental funds” which consist of General, Special Revenue, and Capital Project Funds.

The General Fund is the general operating fund of the City.  All general tax revenues and other receipts that are not allocated by law or contractual agreement to some other fund are accounted for in this fund.  Expenditures within this fund include general operating expenses such as Administration, Building, Planning, Public Works, and Public Safety.

Special Revenue Funds are used to account for revenues derived from specific sources, which are usually required by law or administrative regulation to be accounted for in a separate fund.  The City’s primary Special Revenue Funds include the Fire Fund, the Insurance Reserve Fund, the Gas Tax Fund, and the Road Impact Fee Fund.

The City’s Capital Improvement Fund is used to account for financial resources used for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities.  The City uses the Capital Improvement Fund for projects such as Streets, Drainage, Lanes, Parks & Open Space, Community Buildings, and Utility Undergrounding Districts.

FY 2010/2011 Revenues

Revenues to the City’s General Fund consist of Property Taxes, Local Non-Property Taxes, Licenses & Permits, Fines & Forfeitures, Investments & Property, and Revenue from Other Agencies, Services Charges, and Miscellaneous Revenues.  General Fund Revenue projections for the FY are relatively flat.

Property Taxes

Property tax is the City’s single largest revenue source.  Property tax revenues consist of Secured, Unsecured, Supplemental, and Property Transfer Tax revenues.  In addition, due to State raids on local funds in years past, the City receives offsetting revenue from the State in the form of Vehicle License Fee Swaps and Educational Reimbursement Augmentation Fund revenues.  These revenues offset State raids on local property tax revenues.  In FY 2009/2010 the City budgeted for $3.5 million in total property tax revenues.  Actual property tax revenues received in FY 2009/2010 totaled $3.7 million.  Property tax revenues are projected at $3.6 million for FY 2010/2011.

Local Non-Property Taxes

Local Non-Property Taxes consist of sales taxes, business licenses and franchise fees from local franchisees – PG&E, Comcast, and Mill Valley Refuse Services.  In FY 2009/2010 the City budgeted for $279,693 in total non-property tax revenues.  Actual non-property tax revenues in FY 2009/2010 totaled $261,841.  Non-local property tax revenues are projected at $255,360 for FY 2010/2011.

Licenses & Permits

Licenses & Permits consist of construction, encroachment, and parking permits, as well as miscellaneous and revocable licenses.  In FY 2009/2010 the City budgeted for $266,000 in total license & permit revenue.  Actual license & permit revenue in FY 2009/2010 totaled $346,500.  License & Permit revenues are projected at $346,500 for FY 2010/2011.

Fines & Forfeitures

Fines & Forfeitures consist of vehicle code and planning/building penalties.  In FY 2009/2010 the City budgeted for $61,000 in total fine & forfeiture revenue.  Actual fine & forfeiture revenue in FY 2009/2010 totaled $336,500.  Fine & Forfeiture revenue for FY 2010/2011 is projected at $90,000.  Revenues are projected lower due to the unpredictability of planning and building penalty revenue.

Investment & Property and Revenue from Other Agencies

These revenue sources consist of investments, rents, In Lieu fees, Supplemental Law Enforcement Funding, and Reimbursements.  In FY 2009/2010 the City budgeted $250,776 in total revenue for these accounts.  Actual revenue received in FY 2009/2010 totaled $195,967.  Revenue for FY 2010/2011 is projected at $195,967.  Revenues came in lower due to lower than anticipated investment earnings.

Service Charges and Miscellaneous

Service Charges and Miscellaneous Revenues consist of charges for general counter services provided to the community, such as public works, planning, and building.  In FY 2009/2010 the City budgeted $256,550 in total revenue for these accounts.  Actual revenue received in FY 2009/2010 totaled $321,702.  Revenue for FY 2010/2011 is projected at $314,700.

FY 2010/2011 General Expenditures

General Expenditures

General expenditures for the City cover City Administration, Planning & Building, Police, Public Works, the Community Center, and Fire Services.  In FY 2009/2010 the City budgeted $4,501,710 for general expenditures.  Actual expenditures in FY 2009/2010 totaled $4,411,155.  Expenditures for FY 2010/2011 are projected at $4,384,990.

Fire Services

Fire Services covers the cost for fire protection services provided through the Tiburon Fire Protection District.  Expenditures in the FY 2009/2010 budget totaled $1,104,654.  Actual expenditures for FY 2009/2010 totaled $1,116,757.  The FY 2009/2010 Budget includes expenditures of $1,205,993.

FY 2010/2011 Capital Projects

Every City Budget contains capital improvement projects planned for during the coming year.  The Budget also includes a list of capital projects planned for in the coming five years.  This allows the City to project necessary transfers from the City’s General Fund Reserve to the City’s Capital Improvement Fund; begin the process for the application of grants or other outside funding sources; and coordinate with outside agencies for overlapping projects.

As discussed earlier, the City’s Capital Improvement Fund accounts for project in several different areas: Streets, Drainage, Lanes, Parks & Open Space, Community Buildings, and Utility Undergrounding Districts.  Routine projects include street paving projects, routine drainage improvement projects, and lane maintenance projects.  The major capital projects in the FY 2010/2011 Budget are as follows:

• Retaining Wall Improvement – At an estimated cost of $130,000 this project would replace an existing wood wall that is randomly supported with steel rails and columns.  This 7-foot high wall is showing signs of deterioration and movement.  A replacement concrete wall with stone facing will be built so as to provide additional roadway width along this narrow stretch of Beach Road (opposite 276 Beach Road).
• San Rafael Avenue Pathway and Landscape Improvements – At an estimated cost of $300,000 this project involve planting, irrigation, and pathway improvements along the frontage of Richardson Bay.  Planting at the gateway areas and at the Lagoon frontage will also be enhanced.
• Replacement of the City Hall Patio – Recent repairs indicate that the waterproofing below the City Hall Patio is reaching the end of its useful life.  At an estimated cost of $150,000 the patio and waterproofing will be replaced.  The patio area will be enhanced with planters and vegetation to soften the entry.
• Utility Undergrounding Districts – The Budget includes allocations for completion of the Bayview/Bella Vista Utility Undergrounding District and initiation of the Mid-San Rafael Utility Undergrounding District.  Districts are funded through local assessments against the parcels within the District.  However, as an accounting function, until the District is formally approved, the City budgets for the expenditures.  If a District does not form, the expenditures are not incurred.

At the meeting on June 9, the City Council will also consider the addition of funds in support of other local community projects.  Some of these projects are the result of local partnerships and others are in support of local requests.  For Council consideration will be the following:

• Tiburon’s Lyford Drive Modal Parking Project – The Town of Tiburon has asked that the City consider a financial contribution in support of the Lyford Drive Modal Parking Project.  This could represent an estimated cost of $50,000 or more, depending on Council authorization.
• Belvedere-Tiburon Recreation Building – Belvedere-Tiburon Recreation is a Joint Powers Authority between the City of Belvedere and Town of Tiburon forming a special recreation district for the Peninsula.  The City and Town are ultimately responsible for Belvedere-Tiburon Recreation as the founders of the Authority.  Belvedere-Tiburon Recreation has operated after-school programs at Reed Elementary School through a Joint Use Agreement.  These programs are one of the primary revenues sources for Belvedere-Tiburon Recreation.  With the explosion of the school population throughout the school system, space at the schools has become a priority for the school district.  As a result, Belvedere-Tiburon Recreation must find another location within which to operate its after-school programs.  Tiburon has offered to provide Town-owned land for such a facility to be built and is seeking a partnership from the City of Belvedere for development costs.  Costs are estimated at $250,000 for the City.
• License Plate Cameras – Early in 2010 the City Council voted to participate with the Town of Tiburon on the installation of license plate cameras on Tiburon Boulevard.  The cost to the City of Belvedere is estimated at $35,000 for installation and $1,500 per year.
• Recreation Master Plan – In mid-2009 the City Council opted to participate with the Town of Tiburon on the development of a Master Recreation Plan for the peninsula.  The cost to the City of Belvedere is approximately $12,500.

All total, these projects could add another $350,000 to the City’s Budget for the year.  The License Plate Cameras and Recreation Master Plan are previously approved projects, but as yet, unbudgeted (as there have been no formal costs incurred for which the City has been invoiced).  Once invoiced, the City Council will be asked to approve a Budget Amendment transferring Reserve funds to the 2010/2011 Operating Budget.  The Parking Project and Recreation Building are as yet, unapproved.

Budgetary Reserve Policy

In 2007, the City Council adopted a General Fund Operational Reserve Policy requiring that the City maintain six months General Fund Operating Expenses in Reserve.  Because the City is obligated to provide fire protection services, costs related to the provision of these services must be included within the City’s basic annual operating expenses.

In FY 2010/2011, the City’s basic annual operating expenses, including fire protection services is $5,590,983.  Pursuant to the Reserve Policy, the City’s General Fund Reserve must total $2,795,492 at year-end.  At the conclusion of FY 2010/2011, the City’s General Fund Reserve will total $3,569,012, well within compliance of the City’s Reserve Policy.

In 2010, with the adoption of the Budget, the City Council will consider adoption of an extended Reserve Policy making the existing Reserve Policy informally applicable to the 5-Year Projections.  In the 2010 Budget, the 5-Year Projections include a calculation for Reserve Policy compliance.  The Budget moves out of compliance in FY 2014/2015.

Because the City subsidizes fire protection services for the community from its General Fund Reserve, the amount of reserve transfer to the Fire Fund to make up the difference increases each FY.  In other words, the amount the residents contribute to fire protection services through the fire tax is insufficient to cover the cost of fire protection services so the City pays the difference with a transfer from its General Fund Reserve.  The City has been contributing General Fund Reserve toward the cost of Fire Protection Service since its inception.  The annual increase in the fire tax is not keeping pace with annual cost projections to provide fire services.  As a result, the drawn down on the City’s Reserves increases each year.  From a contribution of $494,620 in FY 2009/2010, the City’s contribution increases to $704,241 in FY 2014/2015.  The community may wish to consider increasing the Fire Tax at some point in the future to protect the overall City reserve.

The City Council will hear the Keynote Presentation on the Budget at their Special Meeting on June 9.  Because this meeting is also the final meeting on the General Plan, it will be webcast via http://www.cmcm.tv.  Actual approval of the budget is scheduled for the regular meeting of June 14.