Sausalito Out of Control Spending
***NEWS FLASH, APRIL 1, 2024
Here are two of the stand-out Sausalito Capital Improvement Projects for 2024 which are coming before the City Council this Tuesday, April 2 (Agenda Item 5A.)
1. Elimination of the Bridgeway Center Median to accommodate bike lanes; and
2. Repaving Parking Lot 1 with your money
A. THE LOSS OF THE CENTER MEDIAN:
1. would seriously delay emergency vehicle access to Old Town. Minutes delay is the difference between, life and death, preserved mental ability and loss of mental competence and a house saved vs a house, and possibly a neighborhood, lost to fire.
2. make it difficult and dangerous for pedestrians to cross the streets
3. cause traffic jams while people parallel park and while delivery trucks, fire trucks, ambulances, and Marin sanitary district trucks block traffic.
And Bridgeway is a primary Emergency Evacuation Route for Sausalito .
TIME TO PUT THE RESIDENTS SAFETY FIRST!
B. WHY TAP THE RESIDENTS FOR PARKING LOT 1?
The Council and City Staff have spent many HOURS discussing the re-design of Parking Lot 1/Ferry Landing. Presentations, appeals, committees-- crosswalks in driveways, plazas around hotels and restaurants, drainage trenches and over $300.000 spent on various design and construction drawings —all because there is a $2 million grant for ferry land side improvements. The grant states:
Specifically,this project will modify an existing City-owned vehicle parking lot to better delineate the areas for vehicle, pedestrian and bicyclist uses and to improve circulation in this highly congested area.
This implies re-striping the parking lot AT THE VERY LEAST so cars know where to park and which direction to drive. And if it’s re-striped, the lot should be resurfaced. The total cost of this was estimated to be about $1.8 million several years ago. The grant should just about cover this work and produce a well-functioning and attractive traffic hub.
Instead, designs by local groups have focused on cutting parking spaces and expanding plazas – to the extent the grant would fall far short of covering costs in spite of specific instructions to the contrary. And the current local plans specifically note that repaving the lot is NOT part of the current specifications which is wrong!
Why should the City saddle residents with this cost when the grant will cover it? Give the residents a break. To reasonably comply with the grant, improved passenger and bicycle flow can be achieved with appropriate signage and removal of unsightly planters and fences.
FOR ONCE, LET FUNCTIONALITY WIN OVER EXPENSIVE AND UNNECESSARY ESTHETICS. THOSE PASSIONATE ABOUT APPEARANCE CAN RAISE FUNDS TO PAY FOR THE EXTRAS!
Look around you! Shouldn’t the City funds be designated for sidewalks, mudslides and roads?
Please attend the City Council meeting in person, by phone or zoom. Instructions.
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL THE CITY COUNCIL
**NEWS UPDATE, 8/30/22
THE MACHINE SHOP
The Sausalito City Council wants to appropriate $225,000 to architectural and environmental services to evaluate a possible purchase of the Machine Shop. What about our roads and police department?? Another vanity project to cronies!!
**News Update, 7/4/22
THE HOMELESS
The CIty of Sausalito has spent $653,000 this fiscal year dealing with our homeless. Here is a spread sheet of expenses—REI tents, Golden Gate Market food, security services, $250,000 + in legal fees, etc. It all adds up.
2021
MEASURE “F” – A FEEL GOOD PROPOSITION
In the Spring of 2015 Charlie Francis, the then Sausalito Administration Services Director, proposed raising A LOT of money by borrowing against City revenues from the MLK campus tenants, and allocating the borrowed funds to capital improvement projects in Sausalito’s Parks.
The City Council, with one dissent, loved it. Who wouldn’t? Parks are beloved by Sausalitans. Over the years, many contributed time, money, home grown creativity, and muscle to create the parks we all enjoy – Dunphy, Southview, the Dog Park at MLK, Marinship Park, and Gabrielson, among others – while creating a web of shared community.
And spending money on big shiny projects is a favorite political activity.
Because City Ordinance 1128 requires voter approval before disposing of key City properties, and because the financing scheme included pledging the MLK property as collateral, the City was “encouraged” to put the financing scheme on the ballot. Thus Measure F came to be placed on the November 2015 ballot.
The City heavily marketed Measure F’s financing scheme.
What did City Hall tell us?
1) That Robin Sweeney Park, Dunphy Park, the MLK Campus, and Southview Park needed millions in repairs and safety upgrades – specifically, $7.2 million among the four.
2) That these parks were “deteriorating public assets,” and needed “critical park repairs now.”
3) That “Many projects are ‘shovel ready’” and could start immediately.
4) That the borrowing would “fund” (implication: totally fund) park projects.
5) And that these improvements could be financed “WITHOUT RAISING TAXES!” In fact, the City title for Measure F was the “No-Tax-Increase Park Improvement/Safety Measure.”
The City mounted a slick PR campaign, using the City sponsored news e-mail Sausalito Currents and full color mailers personally addressed to every voter from the City Manager’s Office and the Parks and Recreation Director. Words like “health/safety”, “unsafe”, “safety”, “restore wetlands” were selected for emotive content: who can be against health, safety and the environment?
What did City Hall NOT tell us?
1) That they had NO IDEA what the parks projects would REALLY cost. What estimates that did exist for Robin Sweeny were from 2011 – and budgets had actually NOT been developed for Dunphy and Southview Parks. A quick demonstration of this fact was the immediate cost overrun in the bids for Robin Sweeny.
Marin IJ 2/1/16: Sausalito Voter-Approved Parks Measure Not Enough to Cover First Project
2) That the statement “Many projects are shovel ready” was a deliberate misrepresentation. The only “shovel ready” project was Robin Sweeny Park – which exceeded $430,000 in cost overruns before breaking ground in 2016. Dunphy Park work did not start until the end of 2018, and Southview waited until 2019 to break ground.
Clearly, the extreme urgency to borrow funds in 2015 was overstated. For a significant length of time the City had a substantial amount of borrowed moneys sitting in low interest bank accounts, while paying higher interest to the lender.
3) City Hall did not inform the voters of the financing scheme costs in its PR campaign – only the expediency. Per a 12/1/14 Staff report, out-of-the-gate financing fees and issuing expenses were expected to cost $205,000. A portion of the borrowing equal to one year’s debt service (staff estimate = $630,000) would have to be set aside in a reserve fund. The repeated tag line reference to NO TAXES was a particularly clever misdirection. Moneys wasted on interest and fees were not available for other City needs, and committing hundreds of thousands of dollars of MLK tenant rents to 15 years of loan repayment removed both assets and flexibility from the City’s financial quiver.
4) City Hall did ask the voters for approval of up to $8,500,000 in borrowings, while specifying at the time only $7,193,378 in identified park projects (a significant underestimate, as it turned out.) This raises the questions:
5) What did we actually borrow??? At what rate??? Where were the funds deposited? How much was spent, and on what? And what, if anything, is left?
Treasure Hunt: Can you find the Certificates?
The City touts its “transparency.” It has sections on the website for “Financial Documents,” “Hot Topics,” “More Hot Topics,” “Finance Committee,” and the “COP Oversight Committee (“COP” is short for Certificates Of Participation, which is the form of financing used by the City for this 2016 $7.2-$8.5 million borrowing.) All of these places are notable for the ABSENCE of final official documentation. Here are some “transparency” facts:
1) Financial Documents are a logical place to look for financial documents. Here is what it says about Measure F:
Measure F information (2016 Certificates of Participation): Measure F was on the November 3, 2015 ballot to make park improvements without raising taxes by delivery of Certificates of Participation (COPs) in the amount of $3,000,000.” Sausalito Financial Documents
$3,000,000?? Really??
2) The COP Oversight Committee records on the website only include agendas. Most of the agendas do not attach exhibits or back-up materials – you must look in Document Archives to find any backup. At one time, the Committee did request a copy of the Certificates: they were sent hard copy, without a copy placed on the website. Although the website says they “typically” meet monthly, they met only four times in 2017, one time in 2018, and two times in 2019. Their last meeting was held in November 2019.
3) The COP Oversight Committee apparently spent its time looking at invoices. Was anyone on the committee privy to the bank statements? Were there reconciliations between the two?
4) One would think the Finance Committee would include mention of the gross proceeds and disposition of $7.2 to $8.5 in city borrowing, especially during the beginning of 2016 when the COP’s were issued. One would be wrong.
Voters approved Measure F on November 3, 2015 by 63.5%. It seems obvious that information about matters as important as a financing of this magnitude, and the accompanying projects to which the financing was directed, should be EASILY accessible and CLEARLY delineated in an OBVIOUS location on the City website. The City played fast and loose with the facts to sell the Measure, and been less than transparent about these funds thereafter.