Remarks by Mathew Salter
94 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 4
You know what? Just one, Mayor McMillan. Just the issue of the paramedic facility from the last meeting, we gave direction to staff, but Gensler wasn't at that meeting. So I just want to make sure Letha is very clear that the direction of the council, which was unanimous, was to look at ways that we can combine functions between the fire and paramedics and police for that matter. So for great example, the gym, we don't need to build four gyms. So any way that we can look at overlapping functions like a kitchen or a living area, we want to do that. And that was the direction last time. And…
Yeah, I mean, just referring in public session, what we gave direction to staff. And like I said, Letha, unfortunately, your team wasn't on that meeting. So I don't know if it got relayed to you, but we unanimously decided that, yes, we want to combine functions wherever possible to create an economical plan that works for everyone. So I just, oh, I'm sorry if you were going to respond. I just want to make sure you knew that.
thank you I just the reason I'm bringing up is it wasn't on your scoping and your plan and you're meeting chief Mahoney I would probably suggest you meet with chief Weber or just understand the paramedic needs as well just so we're making sure that the programming is going to work for everybody in in mayor through through the town manager I just want to confirm with council
Thank you. So I just want to reiterate that the lease was based on a standalone separate structure for the paramedics. And the new CAC plan we've all said we're for is now bringing all those functions together. And so we need to discuss with the paramedics this change in the building. It's not what the lease was based on. It's a totally new concept. and this idea of sharing space. So I want that in the scope. I just don't I think we need to write that in and make sure it's like you're going to work with Chief Weber and the paramedics to make sure their programing needs are met in whatever we…
So the right-of-way is a legal definition based on maps that are between the property owner and the town is that correct it may be maps it could also be other other legal documents and or easements yeah but those are recorded on maps that are recorded with basically the county showing where the property owner's line lies and where the right-of-way or an easement lies.
So Ben, I'm asking a really specific question. The right-of-way is a legal concept. that is actually defined by a map that shows the boundaries.
Okay, so did the town look at any maps prior to removing signs from people's homes?
Okay, so there was no due diligence done to verify.
I'd appreciate it if you don't interrupt me.
So to finish my question, there was no due diligence done looking at the maps, the surveyed maps, the GIS set maps, the recorded maps with the county of where the property line lies and where the public right of way lies for any property that the town removed signs. Is that correct?
Okay so it was based on experience it was not based on any maps or any looking at the actual legal recorded deeds and maps that show this boundary that's that's that's it that's that's that that has now been confirmed okay then the second question I have is where in the ordinance does it say that the town can remove signs without notice So there's two parts to the ordinance. The first part is what is acceptable and can't be done, which agreed you can't put it in the right of way, but the removal piece requires notice be given. Where does it say you do not need to provide notice? Where did you…
Okay so there's nothing there it does say that the town later can remove summer some have a summary removal by the planning director within 10 days after an election so my question is why doesn't the ordinance say that for anything that is in the public domain why is that sentence not there if that's if that's the intention
Okay, so it doesn't say private property in either of these places, so you can interpret it that, but it does not say any such signs remaining in private property. And it doesn't say above any sign, not in accordance on private property. It's not saying that anywhere in this ordinance. So at a minimum, I would think we'd want to change these things and make it very clear. But I don't see any language in here that says it must be in private or public. It just says if it is not in accordance with the conditions, whether that's public or private, if it's not in accordance with conditions, it…
So the first thing is on Measure E, I put signs in the right of way myself. I worked with Elizabeth Robbins. I took signs, and I put them almost everywhere around town in the right of ways, and they were never removed. So I just want to make that a clear fact. You know, freedom of speech is central to who we are as Americans. The town's heavy-handed enforcement of its sign ordinance has damaged our reputation and eroded residents' trust in the town. From the testimony tonight, the town did not do its homework to determine the public right-of-way on the lots where it removed signs, which has…
So, I mean, to answer a question, the ordinance says. Regarding an election 10 day post election period, the town can remove signs Okay, so that is that's in the ordinance right now.
Yes, and I think that people have posted their graduation announcements, parties, signs to direct people in traffic to Branson. This is very commonly done, and it has never been a problem. So again, we're heavy-handed in this ordinance, but it's not even clear. So I absolutely agree it needs to be amended. I'm happy to refer it to the government committee if they want to work on it. But there's no doubt our citizens are upset. People are very, very upset. Upset about what's going on and the ordinance is flawed so either we decide to fix the ordinance or we're going to have a lot of upset…
I support that. I think that would be I think getting some more information about how other towns and cities deal with this issue would be helpful just for comps. There could be I think, Ben, you brought up a big point about, hey, you don't want non political signs up there forever. So why not work on the ordinance language and see if there's some sort of compromise where it could be very clear between public and private? I think the ordinance has to be amended because it isn't clear. And then also determining what is the right of way, because that is an issue that came up here where…
Mayor, just to your comment, can we have on our website, I don't know if it is like sign up for Alert Marin right at like on the homepage, can we add that?
Town Manager Johnson, is there an update on the Public Works Director vacancy?
No, agreed. That's why I was asking about it. Thank you.
I was just hoping the governance committee could tell us a little bit about their process and why they selected Ian and just want to hear about it because it's obviously an important appointment.
So I think it's great. I'm so glad you guys did that. I hope with these appointments, maybe we can all think about maybe it's a future item is how to incorporate the ADR members in sort of the interview process or having them be a part of it just to make sure that they can work with this colleague as well. So it's just something for the future.
So in the JPA agreement we're supposed to sign. It says these cost allocations should be fair and equitable. And so I just have a couple questions about that in terms of for us to deliberate how to determine that fair and equitable allocation. So the first one was that According to this agreement, these allocations should be reviewed, it looks like, at least every three years. Do you know if these allocations and studies were done on populations or other parcels and structures and fires, these reviews have ever happened?
That would be done at the correction of the board to me it's okay to say what we don't we haven't seen anything there's nothing that I haven't seen essentially it doesn't exist okay. Second question is that there has been talk about Elvide or as a relevant comp for Ross because they also give up their fire station and I think 1982 are you aware that their ally cost allocation is based on parcels the relative parcels. a Belvedere to Tiburon?
brought forward to your to your council based on the direction of the of the 2022 third amendment which is gave me direction to come back to you all oh no no I I totally get the narrow focus of what you're telling us but I have to tell my community that I'm signing an agreement that says it's fair and equitable that's what the words are and that each town that signs is attesting to that fact Mayor Mrakas, And that's what I have to do so i'm trying to get information, so that maybe I can make the best decision there. Mayor Mrakas, The next question is just on our vp a since you serve on that…