< 7 Sausalito simmers over fire annexation LAFCO to look at new evidence. Pfeiffer, Ford and other opponents say there’s plenty of new evidence not included in the consideration that led to the LAFCO approval. The city and LAFCO and the Southern Marin Fire District dispute that claim. The formal reconsideration process calls for LAFCO commissioners to hold a public hearing and to either reverse its approval of the annexation or to stop and provide extended new analysis of pension benefit costs. Opponents claim that under the annexation, Sausalito firefighters could, for example, quit the city fire department, collect pensions under the city’s pension program, and then go to work for Southern Marin Fire District, amounting to what opponents call “double dipping.” But proponents of the annexation disagree. The city maintains that the arrangement that would occur with annexation is similar to any other situation when an employee changes jobs. Opponents say annexation will result in the city having to assume unacceptable costs related to pensions. Proponents, including the city and the Southern Marin District, say they’re wrong. Opponents countercharge that the two entities base their assumptions on the results of a tainted study. The controversy that’s boiling in Sausalito now first started bubbling in 2004, when the Southern Marin Fire Protection District and the city started talking about a cooperative service arrangement. Sausalito, which has about 7,000 residents, was finding it increasingly difficult to fund its own fire services, given tightening regulations and rising costs. That led to a joint powers agreement that called for the city and the district to share management services and personnel. Then, in 2006, the city and the district signed a contract for the district to manage the city’s fire department. That contract allowed the city to cut five redundant fire department positions and use the money for other purposes. The city kept 15 fire department employees, which the Southern Marin district manages. Proponents of the annexation say the city and the district have embraced a de facto annexation thanks to that contract arrangement, and residents would see virtually no change in service should annexation become reality. “The intent that the city and the district were working toward was annexation,” says Banning. “They had a lot of issues to resolve. They worked together. They explored all the territory. Tried what worked, and discarded what didn’t.” Part of that process included the city and the district hiring a well-known consulting firm, Citygate Associates, in early 2011 to help them work thorough the numbers, permutations, hazards and advantages of annexation. That work led to the September approval at the City Council to submit an annexation application to LAFCO. Pfeifer says the hiring of Citygate is a prime reason to call for reconsideration of the LAFCO-approved annexation proposal. Citygate could not be independent, she says, because the consultant was working for both
the city and the fire district. “It’s clear an independent analysis was not done.” But the city says the Citygate analysis is sound—and the city’s finance people vetted the financials. But Pfeifer remains deeply skeptical about the permutations of pension arrangements and consequences on Sausalito’s bottom line and on taxpayers’ pocketbooks. She objects to the possibility that Sausalito firefighters could retire from the Sausalito department, draw pensions, and then join the district after annexation and draw salaries as well as pensions there when they vest. She also says the city could be liable for the unfunded pension liability of the district, and that wasn’t included in considerations leading to the LAFCO approval. The city and LAFCO maintain that the amount of money the city will send annually to the fire district will cover an amount sufficient to fund fire services as well as increases in district costs related to annexation—at no additional cost to Sausalito taxpayers. The merger plan calls for Sausalito to provide the fire district with 45 percent of the city’s annual property tax revenue. Under the current contract, the city sends 55 percent of its property tax to the fire district. All told, the city will save $184,000 a year under annexation, according to city figures. Annexation also would allow firefighters to work under one contract, eliminating dual-contract issues. It also would improve efficiency and streamline one fire agency for the long term. And after annexation, Sausalito residents can vote to put their own representatives on the district board for representation. But Pfeifer says all the assumptions are flawed because of inadequate information in the assessment the city and LAFCO considered. “Without knowing all the numbers, we don’t know what the taxpayers’ exposure really is. This could be the worst fiscal policy decision in the history of Sausalito.” According to Banning, the request is a non-issue because the law constricts LAFCO agencies to a timeline for consolidations and annexations to prevent anyone from drawing out the process to an excruciating degree. By Feb. 9, LAFCO will have reached a time limit. “The commission is out of time,” says Banning. “Effectively, the commission has no way to agree to the request for a new extensive analysis of pension benefit costs.” But, he adds, commissioners can reverse their previous approval of the annexation. The request for reconsideration hearing will include two parts: the actual request to consider new information, and a vote of LAFCO commissioners to either kill the annexation proposal or to proceed. That leaves opponents with one other, potent, tactic. If they can collect signatures from between 25 percent and 50 percent of the 5,041 registered voters in Sausalito, they can force the annexation to an election. If they collect less than 25, the annexation proceeds. If they collect more than 50 percent, the annexation au- 11 >
< 7 Newsgrams New pickup programs that allow customers to mix meat, dairy and food-contaminated paper products in with green waste are proving popular, but they may be coming with a new price tag if the board approves a 4.8 percent rate increase for Marin Sanitary users and a 6.74 percent increase for Redwood Empire users.The cost in real dollars, according to the County, would be $1.38 and $2, respectively, for a 32-gallon can. Marin Sanitary serves San Rafael, Larkspur, Ross, the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District and nearby unincorporated areas; MSS has been allowing customers to mix food and yard waste since early 2010, when it launched its green-waste pilot program. It expanded the program in March 2011. Based on the first 10 months of the food waste program, according to a review of the rate request conducted by HF&H Consultants, yard waste volumes are projected to increase by 2,255 tons this year, with residential refuse declining by 1,557 tons.The success of Marin Sanitary’s green-waste program led to a small rate hike for users last year; this year’s increase is to offset the rise in costs for fuel, dump fees and workers compensation insurance, says MSS president Patty Garbarino. According to county statistics, an estimated 49 percent of our landfill is made up of food waste and compostable organics.“The hope is that this new method of combining contaminated paper products and yard waste will significantly enhance the County’s goals of reducing landfill,”writes county budget analyst Eric Engelbart in an email regarding the proposed rate increase. Redwood Empire Disposal, which serves West Marin, is planning to launch a new weekly pick-up program along the lines of Marin Sanitary’s.
Unfiltered truth behind Marin’s tobacco prevention Marin needs some tutoring when it comes to preventing smoking—at least according to the American Lung Association, which last week released“grades”in its State of Tobacco Control 2012 audit. Based on most of its grades in such subjects as“smokefree outdoor air,”“smokefree housing”and “reducing sales of tobacco products,”Marin’s got a lot of homework to do. The American Lung Association’s State of Tobacco Control report tracks progress on key tobacco control policies at the state and federal levels.The report assigns grades to the states in four key areas—tobacco prevention and control spending, smokefree air, cigarette tax and cessation coverage.The grades are based on tobacco control laws and regulations in effect as of Jan. 1, 2012 (check ‘em out at www.stateoftobaccocontrol.org). According to the report’s executive summary, 2011 was“an abysmal year”for tobacco-control measures across the country. Marin’s results are, at best, a mixed pack. Let’s start with the good news. Novato’s and Larkspur’s overall scores were a B—each earning A’s for smoke-free outdoor air and smoke-free housing; their overall grades were dragged down by a D and an F, respectively, in“reducing sales of tobacco products.” Novato’s cumulative point total edged out Larkspur by a single digit, but the northerly Twin City was singled out for recognition by the ALA as, along with Alameda and Compton, one of the most improved cities in the state—raising its overall grade from last year’s F to a B. Larkspur“demonstrated great leadership by passing strong tobacco control ordinances”ALA officials said. Larkspur enacted a tough anti-smoking law in 2011, joining Novato in outlawing smoking in apartments and condos with shared walls. The only Marin town to fare well in reducing sales of cigarettes—in fact the only town not to receive a D or F in that category—was San Rafael, which earned an A.The overall grades of Marin’s other towns are as follows: Belvedere, F; Corte Madera, F; Fairfax, C; Mill Valle, F; Ross, C; San Anselmo, D; San Rafael, C; Sausalito, F;Tiburon, C; unincorporated county, C. The Lung Association is hoping news of California’s low scores will help drum up support for the California Cancer Research Act, set to appear on the June ballot.The act would increase the state’s tobacco tax to $1 per pack (it’s currently at 87 cents) with revenues going to fund treatment, prevention and cures for lung disease, heart disease and stroke, cancer and other tobacco-related illnesses.The measure would also triple the state’s funding for tobacco prevention and cessation efforts. West Point Inn named to National Register of Historic Places When Marinites visit the West Point Inn now, it won’t merely be a refreshing hike along Old Railroad Grade for a delicious pancake breakfast. It will be pilgrimage to a national historic treasure. The 108-year-old Mt.Tam landmark was placed this week on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. The rustic turn-of-the-20th-century way station is owned these days by the Marin Municipal Water District and operated by the nonprofit West Point Inn Association, which applied for the listing on the National Register in honor of the inn’s significance in the popularity of Mt.Tam. Built in 1904, the inn served as a refuge for adventurous city dwellers of the early 1900s and was also a way station on the scenic railway up the southern slope of the mountain and hub for stagecoach service to Stinson Beach and Bolinas. According to the Marin Municipal Water District, the inn is also a rare intact example of Bay Area shingle-style architecture and rustic single-room mountain cabins. One of the inn’s many charms—and what attracts visitors—is that the two-mile-long dirt road to the inn is restricted to vehicles servicing the inn and nearby watersheds—everyone else has to hoof it. Old Railroad Grade was originally part of the railway line that was abandoned after a devastating fire in 1929 scorched much of the south side of Mt.Tam and burned hundreds of homes in Mill Valley.The inn, which survived the fire, is located where the rail route made a tight curve from west to east, marking the line’s westernmost poin—hence the name West Point. The inn continues to offer lodging, shelter and refreshments for passing visitors—it’s particularly busy during the Mountain Play’s season—and hosts monthly summer pancake breakfasts.
JANUARY 27 - FEBRUARY 2, 2012 PACIFIC SUN 9