REVENUES:
#1: Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT): $3,800,000 (32% Total Revenues)
#2: Property Tax: $3,440,000 (29% Total Revenues)
#3: Sales Tax: $2,100,000 Includes added $50,000 from Increased Revenue Estimate. (18% Total Revenues)
Total General Fund: $11,749,860 (Includes added $100,000 from Increased Revenue Estimate)
EXPENDITURES:
#1: Police: $2,486,897 (21% General Fund)
#2: Administration/Admin. Services $1,339,517 (11% General Fund)
#3: Fire $1,308,629 (11% General Fund)
#4: Library $888,929 Includes added $35,000 from increase in Revenue Estimate. (8% General Fund)
#5: City Council $793,210 Includes $100,000 Regional Destination Marketing & $108,376 Monterey County Conventions & Visitor’s Bureau Contract (7% General Fund)
#6: Debt Service $759,673 Includes $570,710 on Sunset Theater (6% General Fund)
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES:
Total: 97
Full-Time: 66
(22 of 66 Police Department Employees)
Part-time: 31
COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL
The Sunset Center complex including the Theater is managed by a non-profit corporation. The non-profit corporation is responsible for administration staffing, routine maintenance of the facilities, booking and operation of the Theater and Community Rooms, marketing first-rate performances and community events, and fundraising.
Sunset Center Complex
Description-------------------Proposed 06/07
Operating Budget (SCC, Inc.) $713,000
Debt Service:
Sunset Theater/Principal-----$185,000
Sunset Theater/Interest------$383,410
Sunset Theater-Admin. Fee------$2,300
Total: $1,283,710 (or 11% General Fund of $11,749,860)
POLICE
$2,486,897 (#1 Expenditure; 21% General Fund)
LIBRARY
$888,929; Includes added $35,000 from increase in Revenue Estimate. (8% General Fund)
FOREST, PARKS & BEACH COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
$469,551; Includes added $70,000 from increased Revenue Estimate. (4% General Fund)
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Plans, administers, organizes and directs the operation and activities of the Forest Theater, Vista Lobos and the Scout House.
Provides staff support to the Community Activities and Cultural Commission and the Carmel Art Board.
$189,939 (1 Full-Time Employee) (2% General Fund)
PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT “SUPER” DEPARTMENT
The proposed Community Development Department, consisting of the Community Planning & Building Department ($569,246; 6 Full-Time employees), Building Maintenance Department ($363,774; 2 Full-Time Employees), Public Works Department ($960,204; 8 Full-Time Employees) and Forest, Parks & Beach Department ($399,552; 3 Full-Time Employees), would be the second largest city department and city expenditure, $2,292,776, and 19 employees, second only to the Police Department.
Note: $399,522 was the original budgeted amount for Forest, Parks & Beach, FY 2006/07.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS (2006/07)
4th Avenue Riparian Restoration $44,594
Del Mar Restrooms $ 25,000
Subtotal $69,594 (compared to $772,135 FY 2005/06 & $344,321 FY 2007/08)
GRANTS
$136,897 FY 2004/05; $0 FY 2005/06
GENERAL FUND FY 2006/07 TOTAL: $11,749,860
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT "SUPER" DEPARTMENT: City Administrator Guillen's COGNITIVE FAILURES
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
City Council
Special Meeting
Thursday, June 22, 2006
At the Special City Council meeting on 22 June 2006, City Administrator Rich Guillen gave a presentation on the City’s Organizational Structure, including Historical Structure and Proposed Community Development Department Structure.
City Organizational Structure:
Historical Structure:
Public Works Director, Community Planning & Building Director and Forest, Parks & Beach Director
New Proposed Community Development “Super” Department:
Community Development Director oversees Planning Services Manager, Building Official, Public Works Superintendent and City Forester.
During City Administrator Rich Guillen’s presentation, he claimed an estimated cost of $679,092/year for the Historical Structure, whereas his proposed Community Development “Super” Department would cost the city an estimated $497,760/year, a cost savings of $181,332. However, for Fiscal year 2006/07, Salary/Benefits for Community Planning & Building Department ($552,398), Building Maintenance Services Department ($196,989), Public Works Department ($631,941) and Forest, Parks & Beach ($275,075), is a total of $1,656,403. In Fiscal Year 2005/06 the actual total cost was $1,595,523. With the proposed Community Development Director job description and the salary/benefit unknown, it is unknown if there would be any cost savings at all, especially given the current reality that the City presently does not have Directors for Public Works, Community Planning & Building and Forest, Parks & Beach Departments. Additionally, instead of the historical structure of 3 Directors responsible to the City Administrator, according to City Administrator Guillen, the new “Super” department structure would have 1 Director responsible to the City Administrator. However, as City Councilman Michael Cunningham emphasized, the Historical Structure does not reflect current reality; that is, presently, the city does not have a Public Works Director, a Community Planning & Building Director or a Forest, Parks & Beach Director. Ergo, instead of a change from 3 Directors (Managers) to 1 Director, it is an ADDITION of 1 Community Development Director and a cost INCREASE of presumably over $100,000/year.
Ironically, City Administrator Rich Guillen stated at another time during the meeting: “...You know, 2 years ago, it was very painful, you all were here and we had to eliminate 20 positions and so forth. If you start increasing hours, adding staff back, and so forth, we are just making the same mistake that was made in 1993 when they eliminated a lot of positions and then staff grew up to 2004, then 2004 came along, we had more expenditures than revenues, mostly staff and we had to cut. And I see this Council…you’re starting to make the same mistake...”
Additionally, City Administrator Guillen stated ”the City of Monterey is actually proposing the same thing.” Actually, the City Council of the City of Monterey did adopt City Manager Fred Meurer’s recommendation to combine their Public Works Department and their Community Development Department. However, in the case of Monterey, their budget reduction plan of $1,520,000 for FY 2006/07 included the elimination of the Public Works Director at $136,300. Ergo, pragmatic necessity resulted in the combining of the pre-existing Public Works Department and the pre-existing Community Development Department under one Director. Interestingly, in his Budget Message, City Manager Meurer stated, “staff has worked very hard to minimize the impact of these reductions on core City services such as public safety and the library.”
City Administrator Guillen: “...the Community Development Director...mainly gets involved with the budgetary, personnel management and handling any complaints...and really get it off my desk.”
Interpretation: City Administrator Rich Guillen is compensated over $100,000/year to administer a city of 1 square mile, 4,000 residents, 66 Full-Time Employees and an $11.8 million annual budget. Yet he wants another employee, a Community Development Director, to administer to Planning, Building, Public Works and Forestry...so Guillen can get it off his desk. SUGGESTION: If Rich Guillen does not feel competent to manage the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea under current conditions, then perhaps he should resign and allow the City Council to find a City Administrator who will competently manage Carmel-by-the-Sea as it is.
City Council
Special Meeting
Thursday, June 22, 2006
At the Special City Council meeting on 22 June 2006, City Administrator Rich Guillen gave a presentation on the City’s Organizational Structure, including Historical Structure and Proposed Community Development Department Structure.
City Organizational Structure:
Historical Structure:
Public Works Director, Community Planning & Building Director and Forest, Parks & Beach Director
New Proposed Community Development “Super” Department:
Community Development Director oversees Planning Services Manager, Building Official, Public Works Superintendent and City Forester.
During City Administrator Rich Guillen’s presentation, he claimed an estimated cost of $679,092/year for the Historical Structure, whereas his proposed Community Development “Super” Department would cost the city an estimated $497,760/year, a cost savings of $181,332. However, for Fiscal year 2006/07, Salary/Benefits for Community Planning & Building Department ($552,398), Building Maintenance Services Department ($196,989), Public Works Department ($631,941) and Forest, Parks & Beach ($275,075), is a total of $1,656,403. In Fiscal Year 2005/06 the actual total cost was $1,595,523. With the proposed Community Development Director job description and the salary/benefit unknown, it is unknown if there would be any cost savings at all, especially given the current reality that the City presently does not have Directors for Public Works, Community Planning & Building and Forest, Parks & Beach Departments. Additionally, instead of the historical structure of 3 Directors responsible to the City Administrator, according to City Administrator Guillen, the new “Super” department structure would have 1 Director responsible to the City Administrator. However, as City Councilman Michael Cunningham emphasized, the Historical Structure does not reflect current reality; that is, presently, the city does not have a Public Works Director, a Community Planning & Building Director or a Forest, Parks & Beach Director. Ergo, instead of a change from 3 Directors (Managers) to 1 Director, it is an ADDITION of 1 Community Development Director and a cost INCREASE of presumably over $100,000/year.
Ironically, City Administrator Rich Guillen stated at another time during the meeting: “...You know, 2 years ago, it was very painful, you all were here and we had to eliminate 20 positions and so forth. If you start increasing hours, adding staff back, and so forth, we are just making the same mistake that was made in 1993 when they eliminated a lot of positions and then staff grew up to 2004, then 2004 came along, we had more expenditures than revenues, mostly staff and we had to cut. And I see this Council…you’re starting to make the same mistake...”
Additionally, City Administrator Guillen stated ”the City of Monterey is actually proposing the same thing.” Actually, the City Council of the City of Monterey did adopt City Manager Fred Meurer’s recommendation to combine their Public Works Department and their Community Development Department. However, in the case of Monterey, their budget reduction plan of $1,520,000 for FY 2006/07 included the elimination of the Public Works Director at $136,300. Ergo, pragmatic necessity resulted in the combining of the pre-existing Public Works Department and the pre-existing Community Development Department under one Director. Interestingly, in his Budget Message, City Manager Meurer stated, “staff has worked very hard to minimize the impact of these reductions on core City services such as public safety and the library.”
City Administrator Guillen: “...the Community Development Director...mainly gets involved with the budgetary, personnel management and handling any complaints...and really get it off my desk.”
Interpretation: City Administrator Rich Guillen is compensated over $100,000/year to administer a city of 1 square mile, 4,000 residents, 66 Full-Time Employees and an $11.8 million annual budget. Yet he wants another employee, a Community Development Director, to administer to Planning, Building, Public Works and Forestry...so Guillen can get it off his desk. SUGGESTION: If Rich Guillen does not feel competent to manage the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea under current conditions, then perhaps he should resign and allow the City Council to find a City Administrator who will competently manage Carmel-by-the-Sea as it is.
Monday, June 26, 2006
LIBRARY FY 2006/07 BUDGET: City Council Deliberations
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
City Council
Special Meeting
Thursday, June 22, 2006
At the Special City Council meeting on 22 June 2006, City Administrator Rich Guillen presented a revised “Proposed Revenue Adjustments FY 2006/07,” including an increase of $50,000 from Sales Tax, $30,000 from Building Permits and $20,000 from Parking Lots Fees, a total of $100,000. And Guillen presented a “Proposed Expenditures Adjustment FY 2006/07,” including $70,000 for Forest, Parks & Beach, $35,000 for Library (4 hours on Saturdays at the Park Branch and 4 hours on Sundays at Harrison Memorial Library) and $30,000 for Capital Improvements-Del Mar Restroom.
During the City Council’s deliberations on the Library, the following quotes are insightful:
City Administrator Rich Guillen: “...I’m not really sure that you really got the statistics that you needed to make an informed decision...and...this has been a bone of contention for me for about 2 years, I went to the Library Board about 2 years ago, expressed to them a way to save $16,000 in accounting fees by the City doing the services for them and they basically told me to take a hike. That was $16,000 I could have saved them which could maybe added to opening the hours at the library...”
COMMENT: Does City Administrator Guillen believe a professional city administrator would deny Carmelites and library patrons restored 2004 library operating hours because the Library Board refused to allow the City, under his auspices, to provide accounting services?
Mayor McCloud: “I’m very struck by the fact that Martha referred to all these statistics. The Council gets no library statistics. Zero...”
Library Director Margaret Pelikan: “...A full Library Board packet including all of our statistics, which is 6 pages of statistics, is given to the Administration every month, so that’s forwarded to Administration every month.”
Mayor McCloud: “O.K.”
COMMENT: As mayor, it is the responsibility of Mayor McCloud to acquire all the information and statistics she believes she needs to make an informed decision prior to the actual City Council meeting. That the Library provides the Administration with library statistics every month is no reason or basis for Mayor McCloud to use a lack of statistics and data for her refusal to endorse additional library hours towards 2004 restoration levels.
City Administrator Rich Guillen: “...and quite honestly...and if you want to go to the library, this might sound awful, but if you want to go to the library on Sunday, Monterey is open Sunday afternoon, it’s a 5 mile drive over the hill, if you really, really that badly want to go to the library on Sunday...”
COMMENT: Is Rich Guillen the City Administrator/Manager of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea OR the City of Monterey?
After City Administrator Guillen, City Councilwoman Paula Hazdovac and Mayor Sue McCloud adamantly stated that they would not recommend or support including $35,000 in the FY 2006/07 budget for the library because they needed a study and more data, the following ensued:
City Councilman Erik Bethel: “Back to the library issue, I remember when we cut the hours and it was a very difficult thing for us to do, but I don’t remember studying and researching surveys and waiting 30 days or 90 days to survey what, and after studying those surveys determining where we should allocate our library hours. So it seems a little bit unreasonable for us to be able to make a decision to close library hours without the study yet we need an intense study to be able to reinstate library hours when we could just exercise a little bit of common sense.”
City Administrator Rich Guillen: “Let me talk to that. You know, 2 years ago, it was very painful, you all were here and we had to eliminate 20 positions and so forth. If you start increasing hours, adding staff back, and so forth, we are just making the same mistake that was made in 1993 when they eliminated a lot of positions and then staff grew up to 2004, then 2004 came along, we had more expenditures than revenues, mostly staff, and we had to cut. And I see this Council...you’re starting to make the same mistake…”
Yet, during the City Council’s deliberation on City Administrator Guillen’s proposed new Community Development “Super” Department, City Administrator Guillen is proposing an ADDITIONAL employee, the Community Development Director.
Interpretation: Adding a Community Development Director is O.K., but adding staff to the library in order to better serve library patrons and restore library hours to 2004 operating levels is decidedly not O.K.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
PATTERN: Mayor McCloud Places CONTROVERSIAL Items On CONSENT CALENDARS
DEFINITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR: Those City Council agenda items which are noncontroversial and minor in nature, such as the ratification of minutes from a previous meeting, the ratification of bills paid for a preceding month, etc. These items are voted on by the City Council as a group without debate in one roll call.
Important Consideration: Only if a City Council Member or a member of the public pulls an item from the Consent Calendar will a public hearing be held on that item, usually at the end of the City Council meeting.
QUESTION: What do the following three Resolutions regarding the 2005 Grand Jury Report on Open Government, a gift of $40,000 from the Friends of the Carmel Fire House, Inc. and the Agreement with Aurum Consulting Engineers Monterey Bay, Inc. for Electrical and Lighting Design of the Ocean Avenue Median Renovation Project have in common?
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 7, 2006
4:30 p.m., Open Session
VII. Consent Calendar
C. Review and approve the response to the 2005 Grand Jury Report and direct staff to submit the response no later than April 3, 2006.
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
4:30 p.m., Open Session
VII. Consent Calendar
G. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a gift of $40,000 from the Friends of the Carmel Fire House, Inc. for the Carmel Fire Station.
Special Meeting
Thursday, June 22, 2006
4:30 pm
IV. Consent Calendar
A. Consideration of a Resolution entering into a professional services Agreement with Aurum Consulting Engineers Monterey Bay, Inc. for Electrical and Lighting Design of the Ocean Avenue Median Renovation Project.
ANSWER: Carmel-by-the-Sea Mayor Sue McCloud placed all of these Resolutions on City Council Regular or Special Meeting agendas as Consent Calendar items, not as Public Hearing items; her purpose was to discourage and minimize the possibility of public input on these items.
COMMENTS: Only a mayor with total disregard for the public and utter contempt for the processes and procedures of open government would employ such a stunt. Only Carmel-by-the-Sea Mayor Sue McCloud!
Important Consideration: Only if a City Council Member or a member of the public pulls an item from the Consent Calendar will a public hearing be held on that item, usually at the end of the City Council meeting.
QUESTION: What do the following three Resolutions regarding the 2005 Grand Jury Report on Open Government, a gift of $40,000 from the Friends of the Carmel Fire House, Inc. and the Agreement with Aurum Consulting Engineers Monterey Bay, Inc. for Electrical and Lighting Design of the Ocean Avenue Median Renovation Project have in common?
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 7, 2006
4:30 p.m., Open Session
VII. Consent Calendar
C. Review and approve the response to the 2005 Grand Jury Report and direct staff to submit the response no later than April 3, 2006.
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
4:30 p.m., Open Session
VII. Consent Calendar
G. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a gift of $40,000 from the Friends of the Carmel Fire House, Inc. for the Carmel Fire Station.
Special Meeting
Thursday, June 22, 2006
4:30 pm
IV. Consent Calendar
A. Consideration of a Resolution entering into a professional services Agreement with Aurum Consulting Engineers Monterey Bay, Inc. for Electrical and Lighting Design of the Ocean Avenue Median Renovation Project.
ANSWER: Carmel-by-the-Sea Mayor Sue McCloud placed all of these Resolutions on City Council Regular or Special Meeting agendas as Consent Calendar items, not as Public Hearing items; her purpose was to discourage and minimize the possibility of public input on these items.
COMMENTS: Only a mayor with total disregard for the public and utter contempt for the processes and procedures of open government would employ such a stunt. Only Carmel-by-the-Sea Mayor Sue McCloud!
Friday, June 23, 2006
CONTINUED: Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al
On Thursday, 22 June 2006, Hon. Robert O'Farrell announced in his courtroom that Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea would be continued to November 16, 2006, citing the record as not yet complete.
Case No.: M76728
Caption: Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al
Court Date: 11/16/06 (Thursday)
Time: 9:00 A.M.
Courtroom: Courtroom 14, 2nd Floor
Judge: Hon. Robert O'Farrell
Court Event Description: Writ of Mandate Hearing
Case No.: M76728
Caption: Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al
Court Date: 11/16/06 (Thursday)
Time: 9:00 A.M.
Courtroom: Courtroom 14, 2nd Floor
Judge: Hon. Robert O'Farrell
Court Event Description: Writ of Mandate Hearing
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Penny Wise & Pound Foolish!
Information on the City's Funds and Fund balances, although not included in the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CALIFORNIA DRAFT BUDGET FISCAL YEARS 2006/07 THROUGH 2008/09, is included in the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA California Annual Financial Report June 30, 2005.
Of the 12 Total Unreserved Funds, totaling $8,322,653, the “Undesignated” Fund Balance is $1,240,439.
The cost to the city of restoring library hours to 2004 levels is $123,000.
$123,000 represents less than 10% of the “Undesignated” Fund Balance.
Recommendation: To restore hours to the Harrison Memorial Library and Park Branch, take $123,000 from the “Unreserved, Undesignated” Fund balance of $1,240,439, leaving $1,117,439.
Similarly, of the 12 Total Unreserved Funds, the “Unreserved, Designated for capital improvements” Fund balance is $1,370,334.
The Capital Improvements Program was $321,166 in Fiscal Year 2004/05 and $772,135 in Fiscal Year 2005/06. The Proposed Capital Improvements Program is $69,594 for FY 2006/07, $344,321 for FY 2007/08 and $394,000 for FY 2008/09.
With the magnitude of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s deferred maintenance, (ex. Sewer, Stormwater System, Streets, Restrooms, Pedestrian Paths, Public Buildings/Historical & Cultural Assets, Parks, etc.), the Capital Improvement Programs should be funded at a consistently high level of at least $600,000 to $700,000/year. To achieve these levels, the difference between $600,000 and the proposed expenditures, should be funded from the “Unreserved Designated for capital improvements” Fund, totaling $1,370,344.
Instead of having wildly fluctuating Capital Improvement Programs from year to year, that is, $321,166 in FY 2004/05, $772,135 in FY 2005/06 and $69,594 in FY 2006/07, the Capital Improvement Programs should be funded at consistent levels of $600,000 - $700,000/year.
For example, the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2006/07, instead of being $69,594, should be at least $600,000. To achieve this level, the deficit of $530,406 should be taken from the “Unreserved Designated for capital improvements” Fund.
A total Fund balance of $8,322,653, or 70% of the City’s annual budget, indicates that the City has allowed the city’s infrastructure to deteriorate beyond a reasonable condition, thereby causing deferred maintenance to balloon out-of-control costing Carmel-by-the-Sea taxpayers significantly more money later on for more costly projects.
Of the 12 Total Unreserved Funds, totaling $8,322,653, the “Undesignated” Fund Balance is $1,240,439.
The cost to the city of restoring library hours to 2004 levels is $123,000.
$123,000 represents less than 10% of the “Undesignated” Fund Balance.
Recommendation: To restore hours to the Harrison Memorial Library and Park Branch, take $123,000 from the “Unreserved, Undesignated” Fund balance of $1,240,439, leaving $1,117,439.
Similarly, of the 12 Total Unreserved Funds, the “Unreserved, Designated for capital improvements” Fund balance is $1,370,334.
The Capital Improvements Program was $321,166 in Fiscal Year 2004/05 and $772,135 in Fiscal Year 2005/06. The Proposed Capital Improvements Program is $69,594 for FY 2006/07, $344,321 for FY 2007/08 and $394,000 for FY 2008/09.
With the magnitude of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s deferred maintenance, (ex. Sewer, Stormwater System, Streets, Restrooms, Pedestrian Paths, Public Buildings/Historical & Cultural Assets, Parks, etc.), the Capital Improvement Programs should be funded at a consistently high level of at least $600,000 to $700,000/year. To achieve these levels, the difference between $600,000 and the proposed expenditures, should be funded from the “Unreserved Designated for capital improvements” Fund, totaling $1,370,344.
Instead of having wildly fluctuating Capital Improvement Programs from year to year, that is, $321,166 in FY 2004/05, $772,135 in FY 2005/06 and $69,594 in FY 2006/07, the Capital Improvement Programs should be funded at consistent levels of $600,000 - $700,000/year.
For example, the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2006/07, instead of being $69,594, should be at least $600,000. To achieve this level, the deficit of $530,406 should be taken from the “Unreserved Designated for capital improvements” Fund.
A total Fund balance of $8,322,653, or 70% of the City’s annual budget, indicates that the City has allowed the city’s infrastructure to deteriorate beyond a reasonable condition, thereby causing deferred maintenance to balloon out-of-control costing Carmel-by-the-Sea taxpayers significantly more money later on for more costly projects.
Pre-Programmed ROBOT Totally UNRESPONSIVE to Carmelites' Pleadings
To address City Councilman Gerard Rose’s expressed desire to restore hours to the Harrison Memorial Library and Park Branch at 2004 opering levels at the Special Budget Meeting on Tuesday 13 June 2006, City Administrator Rich Guillen responded as follows:
Rose: “...I have some questions of Rich...I’m wondering has any thought been given to finding creative ways of staffing the library…have you given any thought to thinking outside the box to finding people to staff our library.”
Guillen: “We haven’t at this point, I haven’t worked with the Library Director to do that...maybe go back to the county, maybe we can look at how we handle volunteers. There’s probably lot of detail we could look at but I have not personally gotten involved...”
Rose: “...If we did at least temporarily restore the hours exactly as we have them, we know what the number is, do you have recommendations of where that would could from?” (Note: The City estimates the cost of restoring library hours to 2004 operating levels is $123,000.)
Guillen: “No, not at this point. And I do have a concern…it’s an issue of equity. In 2000, when I arrived here, I made a concerted effort, I think the Council supported at that time, that as we lost people through attrition we wouldn’t replace them. That impacted every department except the library. And then in 2004, when we did the cutbacks, the library shared with everybody else, but every other department also cut again, so in my mind, every department has cut twice, the library has only cut once. And I think to restore the hours; I think it really an equity question. And I would have a concern too because I could probably march every department head up here to the podium and they could argue too all the needs they have...”
Guillen: "...but quite honestly our kids are playing computer games...And it would be nice to know how many actually go to the library. I do not know if we have that kind of data. I’d like to see what the Library Director has available. And I agree, I think we should base our decision on some data, not just the emotional side, saying oh my god, the sky is falling because we reduced the library by x hours.”
Guillen: “...We’re all here debating something all on our own personal emotion and I think Paula hit the nail on the head, I think we need to put some data together, take a hard look at this, and then maybe there’s some economy of scale, maybe there’s a different way of doing it, maybe we change hours...”
COMMENTS:
• Despite the numerous and overwhelming number of Carmelites speaking at recent City Council meetings about their respective requests of the City Council to restore Harrison Memorial Library and Park Branch library hours to 2004 levels, City Administrator Guillen did not take seriously the pleadings of these Carmelites; he did not take the initiative to investigate the possibilities of restoring library hours. Only when City Councilman Gerard Rose requested that Guillen investigate creative ways of staffing the library, making recommendations about revenue sources for restoring the hours to the library, etc., did Guillen agree to investigate and speak with the Library Director.
• While City Councilwoman Paula Hazdovac demanded library data prior to restoring any library hours, and City Administrator Guillen agreed, it is apparent from City Council Michael Cunningham that he, along with all the City Council Members, are fine with adopting a $108,000 expenditure for tourist promotion to the Monterey County Convention & Visitor’s Bureau with scant information and without any data at all.
Cunningham: Approve the $108,000 in the Budget, ”with the condition that’s setting aside the money...but that we actually hear the details from MCCVB (Monterey County Convention & Visitor’s Bureau)...make the decision of whether or not to go forward based on a much fuller vetting of the program...but I don’t feel I know enough yet of what we’re buying for 108K…”
• As Carmelite Robert Irvine, Member of the Library Board of Trustees, stated during the City Council meeting, a library changed his life as a young man; he became a writer because of his first librarian. Moreover, he stated that the “youth are the future of our society...and I think we really cannot afford to neglect the young people.”
• The incoming Head of the Carmel Public Library Foundation stated that the library “is the strongly beating heart of the City.” He stated that previous cutbacks were discouraging to members of the Carmel Public Library Foundation Board. Furthermore, the cutbacks made it more difficult to raise funds for the library because the cutbacks discouraged contributors from contributing to the library. (Note: The Carmel Public Library Foundation, in partnership with the City and Friends of the Library, is an important source of funding for the library.)
• City Administrator Guillen’s statements that restoring library hours are a question of equity appear to demonstrate Guillen’s obliviousness to the concept that not all departments are the same. Ergo, not all departments should be cut or cut the same amounts, especially in Carmel-by-the-Sea, a village of one-square mile and about 4,000 residents. More disturbing is the fact that Guillen appears oblivious to the ideas presented by Carmelite parent Sarah Imbert. She stated, “A free and open library is fundamental to Carmel’s core values and is a living icon of its’ literary and cultural heritage...However,...thinking about the future of Harrison Memorial Library requires a qualitative study about how the City seeks to sustain its’ core values of literacy and the opportunity to educate oneself. The internet is not making the library obsolete. The library is going to make the children of Carmel obsolete.”
• The record of City Administrator Guillen demonstrates the following:
1. City Administrator Guillen does not take seriously the concerns of Carmelites.
2. As a result, City Administrator Guillen does not initiate action based on the concerns of Carmelites, rather he only acts if a City Council Member demands he investigate a question and/or issue.
3. City Administrator Guillen does not recognize, comprehend and respect the core values of Carmelites and Carmel-by-the-Sea. In this particular case, the values of literacy, education, library environment, books, reference librarian services, etc.
Rose: “...I have some questions of Rich...I’m wondering has any thought been given to finding creative ways of staffing the library…have you given any thought to thinking outside the box to finding people to staff our library.”
Guillen: “We haven’t at this point, I haven’t worked with the Library Director to do that...maybe go back to the county, maybe we can look at how we handle volunteers. There’s probably lot of detail we could look at but I have not personally gotten involved...”
Rose: “...If we did at least temporarily restore the hours exactly as we have them, we know what the number is, do you have recommendations of where that would could from?” (Note: The City estimates the cost of restoring library hours to 2004 operating levels is $123,000.)
Guillen: “No, not at this point. And I do have a concern…it’s an issue of equity. In 2000, when I arrived here, I made a concerted effort, I think the Council supported at that time, that as we lost people through attrition we wouldn’t replace them. That impacted every department except the library. And then in 2004, when we did the cutbacks, the library shared with everybody else, but every other department also cut again, so in my mind, every department has cut twice, the library has only cut once. And I think to restore the hours; I think it really an equity question. And I would have a concern too because I could probably march every department head up here to the podium and they could argue too all the needs they have...”
Guillen: "...but quite honestly our kids are playing computer games...And it would be nice to know how many actually go to the library. I do not know if we have that kind of data. I’d like to see what the Library Director has available. And I agree, I think we should base our decision on some data, not just the emotional side, saying oh my god, the sky is falling because we reduced the library by x hours.”
Guillen: “...We’re all here debating something all on our own personal emotion and I think Paula hit the nail on the head, I think we need to put some data together, take a hard look at this, and then maybe there’s some economy of scale, maybe there’s a different way of doing it, maybe we change hours...”
COMMENTS:
• Despite the numerous and overwhelming number of Carmelites speaking at recent City Council meetings about their respective requests of the City Council to restore Harrison Memorial Library and Park Branch library hours to 2004 levels, City Administrator Guillen did not take seriously the pleadings of these Carmelites; he did not take the initiative to investigate the possibilities of restoring library hours. Only when City Councilman Gerard Rose requested that Guillen investigate creative ways of staffing the library, making recommendations about revenue sources for restoring the hours to the library, etc., did Guillen agree to investigate and speak with the Library Director.
• While City Councilwoman Paula Hazdovac demanded library data prior to restoring any library hours, and City Administrator Guillen agreed, it is apparent from City Council Michael Cunningham that he, along with all the City Council Members, are fine with adopting a $108,000 expenditure for tourist promotion to the Monterey County Convention & Visitor’s Bureau with scant information and without any data at all.
Cunningham: Approve the $108,000 in the Budget, ”with the condition that’s setting aside the money...but that we actually hear the details from MCCVB (Monterey County Convention & Visitor’s Bureau)...make the decision of whether or not to go forward based on a much fuller vetting of the program...but I don’t feel I know enough yet of what we’re buying for 108K…”
• As Carmelite Robert Irvine, Member of the Library Board of Trustees, stated during the City Council meeting, a library changed his life as a young man; he became a writer because of his first librarian. Moreover, he stated that the “youth are the future of our society...and I think we really cannot afford to neglect the young people.”
• The incoming Head of the Carmel Public Library Foundation stated that the library “is the strongly beating heart of the City.” He stated that previous cutbacks were discouraging to members of the Carmel Public Library Foundation Board. Furthermore, the cutbacks made it more difficult to raise funds for the library because the cutbacks discouraged contributors from contributing to the library. (Note: The Carmel Public Library Foundation, in partnership with the City and Friends of the Library, is an important source of funding for the library.)
• City Administrator Guillen’s statements that restoring library hours are a question of equity appear to demonstrate Guillen’s obliviousness to the concept that not all departments are the same. Ergo, not all departments should be cut or cut the same amounts, especially in Carmel-by-the-Sea, a village of one-square mile and about 4,000 residents. More disturbing is the fact that Guillen appears oblivious to the ideas presented by Carmelite parent Sarah Imbert. She stated, “A free and open library is fundamental to Carmel’s core values and is a living icon of its’ literary and cultural heritage...However,...thinking about the future of Harrison Memorial Library requires a qualitative study about how the City seeks to sustain its’ core values of literacy and the opportunity to educate oneself. The internet is not making the library obsolete. The library is going to make the children of Carmel obsolete.”
• The record of City Administrator Guillen demonstrates the following:
1. City Administrator Guillen does not take seriously the concerns of Carmelites.
2. As a result, City Administrator Guillen does not initiate action based on the concerns of Carmelites, rather he only acts if a City Council Member demands he investigate a question and/or issue.
3. City Administrator Guillen does not recognize, comprehend and respect the core values of Carmelites and Carmel-by-the-Sea. In this particular case, the values of literacy, education, library environment, books, reference librarian services, etc.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Flanders Mansion: Writ of Mandate Hearing
CASE NUMBER: M76728
CAPTION: Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel By-the-Sea, et al
COURT DATE: Thursday, June 22, 2006
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
JUDGE: Hon. Robert O’Farrell
COURTROOM: Courtroom 14, 2nd Floor, Monterey Courthouse
COURT EVENT DESCRIPTION: Writ of Mandate Hearing
Monday, June 19, 2006
$18,000 Forest Theatre Fire Sprinkler Capital Improvement Project (FY 2005/06)
Presently, The Forest Theater Guild is presenting “The Music Man,” from June 16 – July 22, 2006 at the Outdoor Forest Theatre.
And The Forest Theater Guild is also presenting “Films In The Forest 2006.” The season of 27 films is between May 22 - July 26, 2006 at the Outdoor Forest Theater. As of today, the Forest Theater Guild is mid-season; that is, 13 films have been shown, and 14 films remain to be shown.
And summer programs are being presented by C.E.T. Children's Experimental Theater’s at the Forest Theater.
Yet despite all these current events at the Outdoor and Indoor Forest Theatre, the City has not completed the $18,000 Forest Theater Fire Sprinklers Capital Improvement Project budgeted for Fiscal Year 2005/06, leaving an open 3’ deep trench just feet from the Port-O-Let “Restrooms.”
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Del Monte Forest Plan Preservation Areas vs. Mission Trail Nature Preserve
The Del Monte Forest Plan Preservation Areas are naturally regenerating forests, whereas Mission Trail Nature Preserve is not a naturally regenerating forest. That is to say, the Del Monte Forest Plan Preservation Areas consist of, in particular, Monterey Pine trees of all life cycle stages; i.e. seedlings, middle-age trees and mature 150’-200’ trees, whereas Mission Trail Nature Preserve consists of, in general, mature to old Monterey Pine trees. Many of these trees are ivy-covered and surrounded at their bases by dense, overgrown undergrowth of ivy, poison oak, etc.
Pebble Beach has a Preservation Plan for the Del Monte Forest, whereas the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not have a comprehensive and effective Preservation/Reforestation Plan.
Finally, as a result of Carmel-by-the-Sea not having a Preservation/Reforestation Plan over many years, Carmel-by-the-Sea’s forest is in a state of senescence, in stark contrast to the Del Monte Forest in Pebble Beach.
Notes: The expense of the City’s ongoing Sunset Center Landscaping Project, (from April 2004), is $231,000, while the proposed Fiscal Year 2006/07 Forest, Parks and Beach Budget is $399,553.
From Fall 2003-present, 441 trees have been removed from Carmel-by-the-Sea, while only approximately 103 trees were planted during the same time period. That's a 338 Carmel-by-the-Sea tree deficit.
Pebble Beach has a Preservation Plan for the Del Monte Forest, whereas the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not have a comprehensive and effective Preservation/Reforestation Plan.
Finally, as a result of Carmel-by-the-Sea not having a Preservation/Reforestation Plan over many years, Carmel-by-the-Sea’s forest is in a state of senescence, in stark contrast to the Del Monte Forest in Pebble Beach.
Notes: The expense of the City’s ongoing Sunset Center Landscaping Project, (from April 2004), is $231,000, while the proposed Fiscal Year 2006/07 Forest, Parks and Beach Budget is $399,553.
From Fall 2003-present, 441 trees have been removed from Carmel-by-the-Sea, while only approximately 103 trees were planted during the same time period. That's a 338 Carmel-by-the-Sea tree deficit.
Del Monte Forest Plan Preservation Area
Del Monte Forest Plan Preservation Area characterized by age diverse Monterey Pine trees i.e. seedlings, middle-aged trees and mature trees.
In Mission Trail Nature Preserve
Dense, overgrown undergrowth of ivy, poison oak, etc. in Mission Trail Nature Preserve.
Del Monte Forest Plan Preservation Area Sign
Where are Carmel-by-the-Sea's Mission Trail Nature Preserve Plan Preservation Area Signs?
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Firefighters, LIUNA Local 270 & Police Officers: No City Contract
CITY COUNCIL
Tour of Inspection & Closed Session
Monday, May 1, 2006
3:30 p.m.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 et seq. of the State of California, the City Council will adjourn to Closed Session to consider the following:
Labor Negotiations - Gov't. Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea's Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, City Administrator Guillen, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the Firefighters, LIUNA Local 270 and Police Officer Associations.
CITY COUNCIL
Tour of Inspection & Closed Session
Monday, June 5, 2006
3:30 p.m.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 et seq. of the State of California, the City Council will adjourn to Closed Session to consider the following:
Labor Negotiations - Gov't. Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea's Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, City Administrator Guillen, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the Firefighters, LIUNA Local 270 and Police Officer Associations.
Comment & Questions:
• At the 6 June 2006 City Council meeting, the “Announcements from Closed Session” item was not even recognized. Interpretation: No contract.
• Déjà vu? Will the Police employees and LIUNA Local 270 employees have to work without a contract for another 2 years until just prior to the next city council election in 2008?
• Will the Police employees and LIUNA Local 270 employees pay to place another ad in The Carmel Pine Cone explaining the bad faith negotiating stance of the City?
Tour of Inspection & Closed Session
Monday, May 1, 2006
3:30 p.m.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 et seq. of the State of California, the City Council will adjourn to Closed Session to consider the following:
Labor Negotiations - Gov't. Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea's Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, City Administrator Guillen, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the Firefighters, LIUNA Local 270 and Police Officer Associations.
CITY COUNCIL
Tour of Inspection & Closed Session
Monday, June 5, 2006
3:30 p.m.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 et seq. of the State of California, the City Council will adjourn to Closed Session to consider the following:
Labor Negotiations - Gov't. Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea's Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, City Administrator Guillen, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the Firefighters, LIUNA Local 270 and Police Officer Associations.
Comment & Questions:
• At the 6 June 2006 City Council meeting, the “Announcements from Closed Session” item was not even recognized. Interpretation: No contract.
• Déjà vu? Will the Police employees and LIUNA Local 270 employees have to work without a contract for another 2 years until just prior to the next city council election in 2008?
• Will the Police employees and LIUNA Local 270 employees pay to place another ad in The Carmel Pine Cone explaining the bad faith negotiating stance of the City?
Friday, June 16, 2006
Eloquent Sentiments on Carmel-by-the-Sea's Legacy to Learning
Appearances, City Council 6 June 2006 meeting:
“My name is Sarah Imbert. I’m a resident of Carmel-by-the-Sea and I am requesting that the City Council adjust its’ budget priorities for next year and seek to find adequate funding to fully restore Harrison Memorial Library hours of operation as they were in 2004. I thank the City for sparing the library in the most recent round of budget cuts."
"As a parent of two children who use the library frequently, I join with many other parents, most of whom could not be here today, or on the 13th because they are either working or caring for children."
"A free and open library is fundamental to Carmel’s core values and is a living icon of its’ literary and cultural heritage. But parents who they themselves learned to read at Harrison Memorial Library want to pass that tradition on to their children, but they can’t if they are working full-time and the children’s library is closed on Saturdays. I ask for increased funding because I have had to explain to my child more than once why the library is closed."
"Carmel is filled with children. As of May, the Carmel School district has 2,117 students, the Carmelo pre-school has 120, private schools account for an additional 1,600. That’s 3,837 students to start with. For them to excel they need a free and accessible library. Working parents need the children’s library open on Saturdays. Even during the Depression Carmel managed to keep the library open 6 days a week."
"Taking children to the library also means spending money in Carmel. Juice or a bottle of water at Brunos is inevitable, lunch at Pernilles, The Forge or Buon Giorno is probable, and even if they’ve been extra good they might even get a present at Thinker Toys."
"However, a simple quantitative approach to the library is misguided, it isn’t about money spent per child per capita, rather thinking about the future of Harrison Memorial Library requires a qualitative study about how the City seeks to sustain its’ core values of literacy and the opportunity to educate oneself. The internet is not making the library obsolete. The library is going to make the children of Carmel obsolete."
"Please support your librarians, they know what the children need, they need more library hours."
"Thank you."
“My name is Sarah Imbert. I’m a resident of Carmel-by-the-Sea and I am requesting that the City Council adjust its’ budget priorities for next year and seek to find adequate funding to fully restore Harrison Memorial Library hours of operation as they were in 2004. I thank the City for sparing the library in the most recent round of budget cuts."
"As a parent of two children who use the library frequently, I join with many other parents, most of whom could not be here today, or on the 13th because they are either working or caring for children."
"A free and open library is fundamental to Carmel’s core values and is a living icon of its’ literary and cultural heritage. But parents who they themselves learned to read at Harrison Memorial Library want to pass that tradition on to their children, but they can’t if they are working full-time and the children’s library is closed on Saturdays. I ask for increased funding because I have had to explain to my child more than once why the library is closed."
"Carmel is filled with children. As of May, the Carmel School district has 2,117 students, the Carmelo pre-school has 120, private schools account for an additional 1,600. That’s 3,837 students to start with. For them to excel they need a free and accessible library. Working parents need the children’s library open on Saturdays. Even during the Depression Carmel managed to keep the library open 6 days a week."
"Taking children to the library also means spending money in Carmel. Juice or a bottle of water at Brunos is inevitable, lunch at Pernilles, The Forge or Buon Giorno is probable, and even if they’ve been extra good they might even get a present at Thinker Toys."
"However, a simple quantitative approach to the library is misguided, it isn’t about money spent per child per capita, rather thinking about the future of Harrison Memorial Library requires a qualitative study about how the City seeks to sustain its’ core values of literacy and the opportunity to educate oneself. The internet is not making the library obsolete. The library is going to make the children of Carmel obsolete."
"Please support your librarians, they know what the children need, they need more library hours."
"Thank you."
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Is it the City's Flag or McCloud's Flag?
"...I just thought it was kind of odd that a flag that's already been decided upon and nobody else got a say in the design of the City flag. Maybe there is something better than the Mission?...Is it possible that this could be a community kind of thing where people could put their opinions in as to what they think would be the best flag that represents all of the people in the City?
(Remarks by Mrs. Dogman McBill, Appearances, City Council 6 June 2006 meeting.)
After Appearances closed, Mayor Sue McCloud responded:
"The question of the flag was on an earlier city agenda and we did have a prototype here. This is the city seal. So. O.K."
The extent of "the question of the flag was on an earlier city agenda," according to Mayor McCloud:
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
May 2, 2006
XI. ORDERS OF COUNCIL
A. Consideration and approval of a proposed City flag design.
Mayor McCloud answered questions regarding the proposed flag design.
Mayor McCloud declared the meeting open and closed to public comment at
6:23p.m., as there was no public comment.
Council unanimously approved the proposed City flag design.
COMMENTS:
• Here we go again!
Finding 7. Over-control of this process by mayors is not in the public interest.
(Reference: 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report on Open Government, which focused on Carmel-by-the-Sea)
• Mayor McCloud has a public record of answering questions with tangential, non-germane blather, as this example aptly demonstrates.
• In Carmel-by-the-Sea, isn’t is possible to honor the city’s heritage by making the decision and/or design of a City Flag a “community kind of thing,” as Mrs. Dogman McBill asked?
• Isn’t it possible for the City Council to entertain more and other original designs for the city’s seal?
• Finally, then, is this a City Flag representing the people of Carmel-by-the-Sea OR Mayor McCloud’s edict.
(Remarks by Mrs. Dogman McBill, Appearances, City Council 6 June 2006 meeting.)
After Appearances closed, Mayor Sue McCloud responded:
"The question of the flag was on an earlier city agenda and we did have a prototype here. This is the city seal. So. O.K."
The extent of "the question of the flag was on an earlier city agenda," according to Mayor McCloud:
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
May 2, 2006
XI. ORDERS OF COUNCIL
A. Consideration and approval of a proposed City flag design.
Mayor McCloud answered questions regarding the proposed flag design.
Mayor McCloud declared the meeting open and closed to public comment at
6:23p.m., as there was no public comment.
Council unanimously approved the proposed City flag design.
COMMENTS:
• Here we go again!
Finding 7. Over-control of this process by mayors is not in the public interest.
(Reference: 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report on Open Government, which focused on Carmel-by-the-Sea)
• Mayor McCloud has a public record of answering questions with tangential, non-germane blather, as this example aptly demonstrates.
• In Carmel-by-the-Sea, isn’t is possible to honor the city’s heritage by making the decision and/or design of a City Flag a “community kind of thing,” as Mrs. Dogman McBill asked?
• Isn’t it possible for the City Council to entertain more and other original designs for the city’s seal?
• Finally, then, is this a City Flag representing the people of Carmel-by-the-Sea OR Mayor McCloud’s edict.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
NO ACCOUNTABILITY: Public Service In Carmel-by-the-Sea
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
4:30 p.m., Open Session
VII. Consent Calendar
G. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a gift of $40,000 from the Friends of the Carmel Fire House, Inc. for the Carmel Fire Station.
At the City Council meeting, City Councilman Michael Cunningham pulled the above item from the Consent Calendar. At the end of the meeting, the following verbal exchange occurred between City Councilmen Michael Cunningham, Erik Bethel and City Attorney Don Freeman, and City Council Members Gerard Rose and Paula Hazdovac.
Cunningham: This issue has some history...There is legal risk associated with certain activities that we deemed, some time ago, as being significant enough that we shouldn’t accept the money. Now, we’re asked to decide whether we should accept the money and it seems to me one piece of that is, has the legal risk changed in any way between then and now.
Freeman: No, the legal position has not changed. We have one legal opinion from (inaudible) and one from ourselves and neither has changed.
After the Public Comment period was closed:
McCloud: I don’t have the number of calendars that they sold...several thousand...
Bethel: I think the issue isn’t the number of calendars they sold, but rather to Mike’s earlier point, what’s changed between last year, when this issue was under discussion, and now? What’s changed legally and is the City at risk for a potential lawsuit? I think that’s the big issue.
ROSE: I’ll move adoption of the Resolution.
Hazdovac: I’ll second.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-2
AYES: HAZDOVAC, ROSE, MCCLOUD
NOES: BETHEL, CUNNINGHAM
COMMENTS:
• By analogy, during the Public Hearing for the Business License tax increase ballot measure, after City Attorney Freeman explained that the Resolution was written as a General Fund measure requiring a simple majority for passage, not a Special Tax measure requiring a 2/3 vote for passage, the following exchange occurred:
Bethel: On a final note, I would seriously encourage Council to consider where the money goes, I know it’s going into the General Fund, but let’s use it to stimulate economic activity.
McCloud: (Laughter) So much for your advise Don. (Laugh)
McCloud laughs at the expense of both City Councilman Bethel and City Attorney Freeman, and yet she herself did not follow the legal advice of the City Attorney and another independent law firm who advised the City not accept $40,000 from the Friends of the Carmel Fire House, Inc. (aka Calendar Girls).
• Notice that the reasons behind the questions raised by City Councilmen Cunningham and Bethel were never addressed by either Mayor McCloud, City Council Members Rose or Hazdovac; that is, why did Mayor McCloud reject legal advice, paid by Carmel-by-the-Sea taxpayers, and potentially put the City in needless legal jeopardy by accepting the $40,000 from the Carmel Fire Belles? Obviously, Mayor McCloud, Councilman Rose and Councilwoman Hazdovac feel they have no accountability to two of their own colleagues on the City Council, not to mention their constituents.
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
4:30 p.m., Open Session
VII. Consent Calendar
G. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a gift of $40,000 from the Friends of the Carmel Fire House, Inc. for the Carmel Fire Station.
At the City Council meeting, City Councilman Michael Cunningham pulled the above item from the Consent Calendar. At the end of the meeting, the following verbal exchange occurred between City Councilmen Michael Cunningham, Erik Bethel and City Attorney Don Freeman, and City Council Members Gerard Rose and Paula Hazdovac.
Cunningham: This issue has some history...There is legal risk associated with certain activities that we deemed, some time ago, as being significant enough that we shouldn’t accept the money. Now, we’re asked to decide whether we should accept the money and it seems to me one piece of that is, has the legal risk changed in any way between then and now.
Freeman: No, the legal position has not changed. We have one legal opinion from (inaudible) and one from ourselves and neither has changed.
After the Public Comment period was closed:
McCloud: I don’t have the number of calendars that they sold...several thousand...
Bethel: I think the issue isn’t the number of calendars they sold, but rather to Mike’s earlier point, what’s changed between last year, when this issue was under discussion, and now? What’s changed legally and is the City at risk for a potential lawsuit? I think that’s the big issue.
ROSE: I’ll move adoption of the Resolution.
Hazdovac: I’ll second.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-2
AYES: HAZDOVAC, ROSE, MCCLOUD
NOES: BETHEL, CUNNINGHAM
COMMENTS:
• By analogy, during the Public Hearing for the Business License tax increase ballot measure, after City Attorney Freeman explained that the Resolution was written as a General Fund measure requiring a simple majority for passage, not a Special Tax measure requiring a 2/3 vote for passage, the following exchange occurred:
Bethel: On a final note, I would seriously encourage Council to consider where the money goes, I know it’s going into the General Fund, but let’s use it to stimulate economic activity.
McCloud: (Laughter) So much for your advise Don. (Laugh)
McCloud laughs at the expense of both City Councilman Bethel and City Attorney Freeman, and yet she herself did not follow the legal advice of the City Attorney and another independent law firm who advised the City not accept $40,000 from the Friends of the Carmel Fire House, Inc. (aka Calendar Girls).
• Notice that the reasons behind the questions raised by City Councilmen Cunningham and Bethel were never addressed by either Mayor McCloud, City Council Members Rose or Hazdovac; that is, why did Mayor McCloud reject legal advice, paid by Carmel-by-the-Sea taxpayers, and potentially put the City in needless legal jeopardy by accepting the $40,000 from the Carmel Fire Belles? Obviously, Mayor McCloud, Councilman Rose and Councilwoman Hazdovac feel they have no accountability to two of their own colleagues on the City Council, not to mention their constituents.
Monday, June 12, 2006
On Public Display: A Disturbing Pattern of Management & Governance
At the Carmel-by-the-Sea 6 June 2006 City Council meeting, during the Public Hearing for the Resolution to put the Business License tax increase measure on the 7 November 2006 general election ballot, the following verbal exchange occurred between City Administrator Rich Guillen, City Councilman Michael Cunningham and Mayor Sue McCloud.
Guillen: ...And you will hear me again at the next budget hearing, that if you do not adopt this, really, why should staff move forward on the Tourist Investment District, it's a waste of time.
Cunningham: Rich, I know it can be frustrating. But, it seems to me that part of the process is that we request that you dig into it, to find out enough to help us make a decision. We can't go into it knowing what the decision is. And I think the Tourist Improvement District is an idea with potentially an awful lot of merit...I would say I would like you to investigate it...I'm glad you investigated this; but I just do't think that from my value structure, that what it shows is anything compelling with respect to saying that the business community owes the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea more than they are currently paying...So I can understand your frustration, but that's the nature of the beast.
Guillen: ...I guess when I was raising my children, a little thing, a little thing and then about the 5th or 6th thing I would explode...we're tried paid parking, Business Improvement District, Stormwater Utility Tax and then...
McCloud: TOT
Guillen: the TOT and now we brought this up and you get to a point that I'm, staff is really beating their head against the wall.
McCloud: Well, if I could interrupt, it's not only that, we have spent a lot of money along the way...we've spent $20,000 on pay-and-display,...the innkeepers spent $10,000 on TOT defeat,...somewhere along the line we've got to have some courage to try some of these things because its wasting staff time, which is money, and its wasting the money...I can understand Rich's frustration.
COMMENTS:
1. Notice that Guillen, with the interjection of McCloud, added the Transient Occupancy Tax Citizen Initiative to the list that "we're tried." FACT: The City advocated city-wide paid parking, the Business Improvement District and the Stormwater Utility Tax; the City advocated the defeat of the Citizen Transient Occupancy Tax Increase, which would have represented a continuing stream of additional revenue of approximately $700,000/year.
2. City Councilman Cunningham is absolutely correct when he stated But, it seems to me that part of the process is that we request that you dig into it, to find out enough to help us make a decision. We can't go into it knowing what the decision is. Furthermore, Guillen linking one City Council decision on the merits of increasing the business license tax to the merits of a Tourist Improvement District is a blatant coercive attempt to blackmail the City Council Members into approving this particular measure.
3. Mayor McCloud exhibited a disturbing thought process when she stated we have spent a lot of money along the way...we have spent $20,000 on pay-and-display...the innkeepers spent $10,000 on TOT defeat,...somewhere along the line we've got to have some courage to try some of these things because its wasting staff time, which is money, and its wasting the money. Similarly, this is a coercive attempt to blackmail the City Council into approving what she has already decided is something she wants to impose on Carmelites.
Needless to say, the pattern of City Administrator Guillen and Mayor McCloud stating at the outset that the staff will only be investigating a matter and then when an investigation is complete City Administrator Guillen and Mayor McCloud inform the City Council that they must unanimously support it because the City has expended staff time and money on it is evidence of a disturbing pattern of poor city management and governance.
Guillen: ...And you will hear me again at the next budget hearing, that if you do not adopt this, really, why should staff move forward on the Tourist Investment District, it's a waste of time.
Cunningham: Rich, I know it can be frustrating. But, it seems to me that part of the process is that we request that you dig into it, to find out enough to help us make a decision. We can't go into it knowing what the decision is. And I think the Tourist Improvement District is an idea with potentially an awful lot of merit...I would say I would like you to investigate it...I'm glad you investigated this; but I just do't think that from my value structure, that what it shows is anything compelling with respect to saying that the business community owes the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea more than they are currently paying...So I can understand your frustration, but that's the nature of the beast.
Guillen: ...I guess when I was raising my children, a little thing, a little thing and then about the 5th or 6th thing I would explode...we're tried paid parking, Business Improvement District, Stormwater Utility Tax and then...
McCloud: TOT
Guillen: the TOT and now we brought this up and you get to a point that I'm, staff is really beating their head against the wall.
McCloud: Well, if I could interrupt, it's not only that, we have spent a lot of money along the way...we've spent $20,000 on pay-and-display,...the innkeepers spent $10,000 on TOT defeat,...somewhere along the line we've got to have some courage to try some of these things because its wasting staff time, which is money, and its wasting the money...I can understand Rich's frustration.
COMMENTS:
1. Notice that Guillen, with the interjection of McCloud, added the Transient Occupancy Tax Citizen Initiative to the list that "we're tried." FACT: The City advocated city-wide paid parking, the Business Improvement District and the Stormwater Utility Tax; the City advocated the defeat of the Citizen Transient Occupancy Tax Increase, which would have represented a continuing stream of additional revenue of approximately $700,000/year.
2. City Councilman Cunningham is absolutely correct when he stated But, it seems to me that part of the process is that we request that you dig into it, to find out enough to help us make a decision. We can't go into it knowing what the decision is. Furthermore, Guillen linking one City Council decision on the merits of increasing the business license tax to the merits of a Tourist Improvement District is a blatant coercive attempt to blackmail the City Council Members into approving this particular measure.
3. Mayor McCloud exhibited a disturbing thought process when she stated we have spent a lot of money along the way...we have spent $20,000 on pay-and-display...the innkeepers spent $10,000 on TOT defeat,...somewhere along the line we've got to have some courage to try some of these things because its wasting staff time, which is money, and its wasting the money. Similarly, this is a coercive attempt to blackmail the City Council into approving what she has already decided is something she wants to impose on Carmelites.
Needless to say, the pattern of City Administrator Guillen and Mayor McCloud stating at the outset that the staff will only be investigating a matter and then when an investigation is complete City Administrator Guillen and Mayor McCloud inform the City Council that they must unanimously support it because the City has expended staff time and money on it is evidence of a disturbing pattern of poor city management and governance.
Friday, June 09, 2006
STEP 1: Pothole Street Patch Repair
(Torres St. North of 8th Av.)
Mechanical Cut Around Pothole, Removal of Asphalt to Ground Level on Monday June 5, 2006.
STEP 2: Pothole Street Patch Repair
(Torres St. North of 8th Av.)
Baserock & Sand Fill on Tuesday, June 6, 2006.
STEP 3: Pothole Street Patch Repair
(Torres St. North of 8th Av.)
Asphalt Fill on Wednesday, June 7, 2006
Post-Pothole Street Patch Repair
(Santa Fe St. North of 8th Av.)
BEWARE: Pothole Street Patch Repairs Erode Rapidly!
Thursday, June 08, 2006
UPDATE: City Monetary Compensation to Attorney Conners
TOTAL CITY MONETARY AMOUNT TO SPECIAL COUNSEL
WILLIAM B. CONNERS
M76728, FLANDERS FOUNDATION v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA:
$33,200.00 (March 2005-May 2006)
110419 5/2/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 1,400.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
110570 5/23/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 540.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
----Vendor Total---- 1,940.00
110141 3/21/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 880.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES – FLANDERS LAWSUIT
110014 2/28/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 3,780.00 01 61051 JAN '06 LEGAL SERVICES
109798 1/24/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 1,260.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES
109626 12/27/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 1,780.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS
109353 11/15/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $40.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
109165 10/11/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $7,220.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108976 9/13/2005 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $4,280.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108897 8/30/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,520.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108622 7/20/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,940.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108410 6/14/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,360.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108242 5/24/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,660.00 01 61051 0040 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
107869 3/22/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 1,540.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea web site http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/ March 2005 – May 2006 Check Registers)
WILLIAM B. CONNERS
M76728, FLANDERS FOUNDATION v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA:
$33,200.00 (March 2005-May 2006)
110419 5/2/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 1,400.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
110570 5/23/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 540.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
----Vendor Total---- 1,940.00
110141 3/21/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 880.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES – FLANDERS LAWSUIT
110014 2/28/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 3,780.00 01 61051 JAN '06 LEGAL SERVICES
109798 1/24/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 1,260.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES
109626 12/27/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 1,780.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS
109353 11/15/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $40.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
109165 10/11/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $7,220.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108976 9/13/2005 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $4,280.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108897 8/30/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,520.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108622 7/20/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,940.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108410 6/14/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,360.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108242 5/24/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,660.00 01 61051 0040 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
107869 3/22/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 1,540.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea web site http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/ March 2005 – May 2006 Check Registers)
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Govt Reaction: Economics 101 Antithesis, Decreasing Demand: Raise Price!
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Paid Parking Revenues: Sunset Center North Lot & Tour Bus Parking Kiosks
July 2005-April 2006
FY 2005-06
Quarter---Sunset Center North Lot---Tour Bus Parking-----TOTALS
3rd---------$16,485.50-------------------$1,774.00---------$18,259.50
4th---------$33,921.61-------------------$7,978.75---------$41,900.36
TOTALS---$50,407.11-------------------$9,752.75---------$60,159.86
City’s 65%-$39,104.91; National Parking 35%-$21,055.95
FY 2006-07
Quarter---Sunset Center North Lot---Tour Bus Parking------TOTALS
1st----------$58,302.80-------------------$8,662.25----------$66,965.05
2nd---------$35,926.95-------------------$5,162.00----------$41,088.95
3rd---------$22,484.44-------------------$2,453.00-----------$24,937.44
4th ----------$7,534.00----------------------$210.00------------$7,744.00
(through April)
TOTALS---$124,248.19------------------$16,487.25-----------$140,735.44
City’s 65%-$91,478.04; National Parking 35%-$49,257.40
COMMENTS:
• Since the 1st Quarter of Fiscal year 2006-07, the total collected by National Parking & Valet has declined with each subsequent quarter, particularly bus parking revenues.
• The City’s response to fewer paid parking vehicles and buses (decreasing demand) is to raise the hourly rate at the Sunset Center North Lot from $2.00/hour to $3.00/hour.
• The City’s 65% portion of the total collected by National Parking & Valet will be approximately $100,000 for Fiscal Year 2006-07.
• A trend line of declining revenue means fewer business and restaurant patrons and less sales tax revenue for the city.
• Is the $100,000 per year generated from paid parking worth a probable greater amount loss in sales tax revenues?
Paid Parking Revenues: Sunset Center North Lot & Tour Bus Parking Kiosks
July 2005-April 2006
FY 2005-06
Quarter---Sunset Center North Lot---Tour Bus Parking-----TOTALS
3rd---------$16,485.50-------------------$1,774.00---------$18,259.50
4th---------$33,921.61-------------------$7,978.75---------$41,900.36
TOTALS---$50,407.11-------------------$9,752.75---------$60,159.86
City’s 65%-$39,104.91; National Parking 35%-$21,055.95
FY 2006-07
Quarter---Sunset Center North Lot---Tour Bus Parking------TOTALS
1st----------$58,302.80-------------------$8,662.25----------$66,965.05
2nd---------$35,926.95-------------------$5,162.00----------$41,088.95
3rd---------$22,484.44-------------------$2,453.00-----------$24,937.44
4th ----------$7,534.00----------------------$210.00------------$7,744.00
(through April)
TOTALS---$124,248.19------------------$16,487.25-----------$140,735.44
City’s 65%-$91,478.04; National Parking 35%-$49,257.40
COMMENTS:
• Since the 1st Quarter of Fiscal year 2006-07, the total collected by National Parking & Valet has declined with each subsequent quarter, particularly bus parking revenues.
• The City’s response to fewer paid parking vehicles and buses (decreasing demand) is to raise the hourly rate at the Sunset Center North Lot from $2.00/hour to $3.00/hour.
• The City’s 65% portion of the total collected by National Parking & Valet will be approximately $100,000 for Fiscal Year 2006-07.
• A trend line of declining revenue means fewer business and restaurant patrons and less sales tax revenue for the city.
• Is the $100,000 per year generated from paid parking worth a probable greater amount loss in sales tax revenues?
Monday, June 05, 2006
A Government of Laws OR a Government OF, BY & FOR Mayor McCloud?
“McCloud said it would be bad judgment for elected officials to ignore advice given to them by the city attorney.”
(Source:
CARMEL
Charity calendar ignites legal fears
Belles in the buff can't give cash to city,
Maria Alicia Gaura, San Francisco Chronicle, January 30, 2005)
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/30/BAGFOB2SRM12.DTL)
• On May 23, 2006, Mayor Sue McCloud accepted $40,000 from the Carmel Fire Belles prior to the Forest Theater Guild’s film presentation of “Calendar Girls.”
• Yet, City Policy C89-41 requires City Council approval for all donations and gifts to the City with a value in excess of $1,000.
• The Staff Recommendation is to approve the resolution accepting the $40,000 gift from the Friends of the Carmel Fire House despite dissenting legal advice from the City Attorney.
• The Resolution is item G. on the Consent Calendar (thereby precluding a public hearing unless pulled by a City Council Member, Staff Member or member of the public), not on the Public Hearing section. The Resolution on the City Council 6 June 2006 agenda states: Consideration of a Resolution accepting a gift of $40,000 from the Friends of the Carmel Fire House, Inc. for the Carmel Fire Station.
• The City Council had a Special City Council meeting on 23 May 2006. At that meeting, Mayor McCloud could have placed the Resolution on the agenda for approval by the City Council. Mayor McCloud did not; as a result she accepted the Carmel Fire Belles monetary donation in violation of proper procedure and protocol.
The Constitution establishes a government of laws, not men; and no men, or women, or even mayors of lilliputian villages, are above the law.
The mayoral record of Mayor McCloud, from April 2000-Present:
• Complaints chronicling a pattern of Ralph M Brown Act violations.
• 2005 Monterey County Grand Jury Report on Open Government citing Findings and Recommendations, including “Over-control of this process by mayors is not in the public interest,” which was answered with a fraudulent letter to the Monterey County Superior Court, signed by Mayor Sue McCloud.
• Rejecting the advice of the city attorney and accepting $40,000 from the Carmel Fire Belles prior to adhering to proper government procedure. CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, Title 4, Division 3, Chapter 5 Article 1. 37354. The legislative body may accept or reject any gift, bequest, or devise made to or for the city, or to or for any of its officers in their official capacity or in trust for any public purpose. And CITY POLICY NO. C89-41 ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS AND GIFTS TO THE CITY 3. All donations and gifts with a value in excess of $1,000 must be approved and accepted by a Resolution of the City Council.
Why do a majority of Carmel-by-the-Sea voters re-elect Sue McCloud as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea? There are two possible explanations: apathy and ignorance OR informed acquiescence, even overt support.
(Source:
CARMEL
Charity calendar ignites legal fears
Belles in the buff can't give cash to city,
Maria Alicia Gaura, San Francisco Chronicle, January 30, 2005)
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/30/BAGFOB2SRM12.DTL)
• On May 23, 2006, Mayor Sue McCloud accepted $40,000 from the Carmel Fire Belles prior to the Forest Theater Guild’s film presentation of “Calendar Girls.”
• Yet, City Policy C89-41 requires City Council approval for all donations and gifts to the City with a value in excess of $1,000.
• The Staff Recommendation is to approve the resolution accepting the $40,000 gift from the Friends of the Carmel Fire House despite dissenting legal advice from the City Attorney.
• The Resolution is item G. on the Consent Calendar (thereby precluding a public hearing unless pulled by a City Council Member, Staff Member or member of the public), not on the Public Hearing section. The Resolution on the City Council 6 June 2006 agenda states: Consideration of a Resolution accepting a gift of $40,000 from the Friends of the Carmel Fire House, Inc. for the Carmel Fire Station.
• The City Council had a Special City Council meeting on 23 May 2006. At that meeting, Mayor McCloud could have placed the Resolution on the agenda for approval by the City Council. Mayor McCloud did not; as a result she accepted the Carmel Fire Belles monetary donation in violation of proper procedure and protocol.
The Constitution establishes a government of laws, not men; and no men, or women, or even mayors of lilliputian villages, are above the law.
The mayoral record of Mayor McCloud, from April 2000-Present:
• Complaints chronicling a pattern of Ralph M Brown Act violations.
• 2005 Monterey County Grand Jury Report on Open Government citing Findings and Recommendations, including “Over-control of this process by mayors is not in the public interest,” which was answered with a fraudulent letter to the Monterey County Superior Court, signed by Mayor Sue McCloud.
• Rejecting the advice of the city attorney and accepting $40,000 from the Carmel Fire Belles prior to adhering to proper government procedure. CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, Title 4, Division 3, Chapter 5 Article 1. 37354. The legislative body may accept or reject any gift, bequest, or devise made to or for the city, or to or for any of its officers in their official capacity or in trust for any public purpose. And CITY POLICY NO. C89-41 ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS AND GIFTS TO THE CITY 3. All donations and gifts with a value in excess of $1,000 must be approved and accepted by a Resolution of the City Council.
Why do a majority of Carmel-by-the-Sea voters re-elect Sue McCloud as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea? There are two possible explanations: apathy and ignorance OR informed acquiescence, even overt support.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Preservation Of Historic Resources That Best Represent Carmel-by-the-Sea's History
CONSIDER:
Staff and the Historic Resources Board recognize four possible reasons for removing a property from the Carmel Inventory:
1) There are gross, non-correctable errors in the historic documentation,
2) The property bears a poor or minimal relationship to the adopted Historic Context Statement,
3) There are a sufficient number of other, better preserved or more important resources of the same type elsewhere within the City,
4) The resource has lost its historic integrity through past alterations.
(Source: City Staff Report)
CONSIDER:
Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation
Historic resources are an important element of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s community
character. These resources and the City’s approach to protecting them are discussed below. (LUP)
Architecture and Community Character
Protection of Historic Resources
Although the Coastal Act does not specifically discuss historic preservation, this topic is related to the preservation of character required by sections 30251 and 30253 of the Act. The purpose of this component of the Land Use Plan is to provide a framework for policies that address the preservation of the diverse and valuable historic resources in Carmel. Its primary goals are to educate residents and visitors about the unique architectural, cultural and historic identity of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and to promote the identification and preservation of structures and sites that best represent this history. The addition of this component to the Coastal Plan reflects Carmel’s commitment to the preservation of its important historic resources and the City’s recognition of the role that historic resources play in defining community character. (LUP)
(Source: General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element Carmel-by-the-Sea Pages 1-20)
COMMENTS: Since the Historic Resources Board began deliberating on appeals of historic inventory designations by property owners of residences and commercial buildings on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, the rate of appeals granted is approximately 50%; that is, of the total 29 appeals since October 2005, 12 appeals have been granted and 11 appeals have been denied. If this rate continues for all of the approximately 95 appeals, then approximately half, or 48 residences/commercial buildings, will be removed from the Inventory of Historic Resources. After all the appeals, the original Inventory of approximately 300 historic resources, submitted to the California Coastal Commission as part of the City’s Local Coastal Program, will be an Inventory of approximately 252 historic properties.
Given the high rate of appeals granted by the Historic Resources Board and the City Council, did Mayor McCloud and City Administrator Guillen articulate to Kent Seavy, the professional compiler of the Inventory properties, strict criteria for selecting only the BEST historic properties for the Inventory. And if only the BEST were included in the Inventory, would the City have had an Inventory of 300 historic resources? After the appeals process is completed, will the City have an Inventory of only the BEST historic resources, or will the City have an Inventory of 205 dubious “historic resources” (those who did not appeal) and 47 BEST historic resources (those reviewed by the Historic Resources Board)?
Staff and the Historic Resources Board recognize four possible reasons for removing a property from the Carmel Inventory:
1) There are gross, non-correctable errors in the historic documentation,
2) The property bears a poor or minimal relationship to the adopted Historic Context Statement,
3) There are a sufficient number of other, better preserved or more important resources of the same type elsewhere within the City,
4) The resource has lost its historic integrity through past alterations.
(Source: City Staff Report)
CONSIDER:
Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation
Historic resources are an important element of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s community
character. These resources and the City’s approach to protecting them are discussed below. (LUP)
Architecture and Community Character
Protection of Historic Resources
Although the Coastal Act does not specifically discuss historic preservation, this topic is related to the preservation of character required by sections 30251 and 30253 of the Act. The purpose of this component of the Land Use Plan is to provide a framework for policies that address the preservation of the diverse and valuable historic resources in Carmel. Its primary goals are to educate residents and visitors about the unique architectural, cultural and historic identity of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and to promote the identification and preservation of structures and sites that best represent this history. The addition of this component to the Coastal Plan reflects Carmel’s commitment to the preservation of its important historic resources and the City’s recognition of the role that historic resources play in defining community character. (LUP)
(Source: General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element Carmel-by-the-Sea Pages 1-20)
COMMENTS: Since the Historic Resources Board began deliberating on appeals of historic inventory designations by property owners of residences and commercial buildings on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, the rate of appeals granted is approximately 50%; that is, of the total 29 appeals since October 2005, 12 appeals have been granted and 11 appeals have been denied. If this rate continues for all of the approximately 95 appeals, then approximately half, or 48 residences/commercial buildings, will be removed from the Inventory of Historic Resources. After all the appeals, the original Inventory of approximately 300 historic resources, submitted to the California Coastal Commission as part of the City’s Local Coastal Program, will be an Inventory of approximately 252 historic properties.
Given the high rate of appeals granted by the Historic Resources Board and the City Council, did Mayor McCloud and City Administrator Guillen articulate to Kent Seavy, the professional compiler of the Inventory properties, strict criteria for selecting only the BEST historic properties for the Inventory. And if only the BEST were included in the Inventory, would the City have had an Inventory of 300 historic resources? After the appeals process is completed, will the City have an Inventory of only the BEST historic resources, or will the City have an Inventory of 205 dubious “historic resources” (those who did not appeal) and 47 BEST historic resources (those reviewed by the Historic Resources Board)?
Saturday, June 03, 2006
UPDATE: Appeals of Historic Inventory Resources
Mary Young Hunter House
(N.E. Corner Ocean Av. & Torres St.)
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea,
Record of Inventory of Historic Resources Appeals
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
MEMBERS:
Julie Wendt, Chairperson
Paul Coss
Erik Dyar
Kay Holz
Erling Lagerholm
APPEALS: Considerations of Historic appeals of the City's determination to place existing residences on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Single Family Residential R-1 District.
TOTAL NUMBER OF APPEALS, as of May 2006: 29
APPEALS GRANTED: 12 (Including 1 by City Council, overturning HRB)
APPEALS DENIED: 12
APPEALS CONTINUED: 6
APPEALS NOT HEARD: 1
ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD 22 MAY 2006 AGENDA
Dolores Schmidt
N.E. Corner Ocean Av. & Torres St.
Resource Name: Mary Young Hunter House
APPEAL DENIED
AYES: COSS, DYAR, HOLZ
NOES: LAGERHOLM
ABSENT: WENDT
John Wagner
W/s Camino Real Between Ocean Av. & 4th Av.
Resource Name: Dorothy MacDonald Cottage
APPEAL GRANTED
AYES: HOLZ, LANGERHOLM
NOES: DYAR
RECUSAL: COSS
ABSENT: WENDT
Mission St. Properties
W/s Mission between 4th Av. & 5th Av.
Resource Name: Joe McEldowney House
APPEAL CONTINUED
Sigrid Banks
E/s Lincoln St. between 13th Av. & Santa Lucia Av.
Resource Name: Laumeister House
APPEAL CONTINUED
AYES: COSS, DYAR, LAGERHOLM
RECUSAL: HOLZ
ABSENT: WENDT
Carmel-by-the-Sea
City Council Meeting
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, May 2, 2006, 4:30 P.M.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located on the west side of Carmelo, between Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues from the city’s inventory of historic resources. The appellant and property owner is David Hall.
David Hall
W/s Carmelo St. between 11th Av. & 12th Av.
Resource Name: E.P. Young Spec. House
APPEAL GRANTED
AYES: BETHEL, CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC & McCLOUD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: ROSE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Consideration of remanding a decision of the Historic Resources Board that removed properties from the Historic Resources Inventory developed between 1940 and 1956 with direction to the board to reverse its decision based on new information and analysis.
AYES: BETHEL, CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC & McCLOUD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: ROSE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Carmel-by-the-Sea
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, June 6, 2006, 4:30 P.M.
VIII. Public Hearings
B. Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decisionto deny a request to remove a property located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources
(Norman and Eleanor Moscow, W/s Camino Real be. 11th & 12th, Blk R, Lot 11 & 13, APN: 010-274-005).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: GRANT APPEAL AND OVERTURN HRB's DECISION
C. Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources
(Eldana Eggleston, W/s Camino Real be. 7th & 8th, Blk N, Lot 11, APN: 010-265-004).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: DENY APPEAL AND UPHOLD HRB's DECISION
E. Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located in the Central Commercial (CC) and Downtown Conservation Overlay (DC) Districts from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources
(Doris M. Rayne Trust, S/s Ocean bet. Lincoln & Dolores).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: DENY APPEAL AND UPHOLD HRB's DECISION
F. Consideration of an appeal of a decision of the Historic Resources Board placing a commercial structure, known as the Palo Alto Savings and Loan building, on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources. The building is located on the southeast corner of Seventh Avenue and Dolores Street. The property owner is the Pacific Grove Land Company. The appellant and project designer is John Mandurrago.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the Historic Resources Board’s determination that the Palo Alto Savings building is eligible for listing on Carmel’s Inventory of Historic Resources.
Friday, June 02, 2006
"primarily, a residential City..."
THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA is hereby determined to be primarily, a residential City wherein business and commerce have in the past, are now, and are proposed to be in the future subordinated to its residential character;and that said determination is made having in mind the history and the development of said city, its growth and the causes thereof; and also its geographical and topographical aspects, together with its near proximity to the cities of Pacific Grove and Monterey and the businesses, industries, trades, callings and professions in existence and permissible therein.
Adopted by Ordinance No. 96 passed on this 5th day of June 1929
(Source: Carmel-by-the-Sea California - Official City Website)
Question & Answer:
Question:In The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea California Draft Budget for Fiscal Year 2006/07, what category received an increase of 2.36 times its Fiscal Year 2005/06 budget amount?
Answer:Marketing/Tourist Promotion/Economic Development
COUNCIL – OTHER
Revised 05/06------------Description------------Proposed 06/07
$100,000--------Regional Destination Marketing----$100,000
$ 16,000------Monterey Peninsula Visitor Subsidy---$15,161
0------------------MCCVB contract (proposed)---------$108,376
0----------------Economic Development Manager-------$50,000
$116,000 TOTAL 05/06----------------------------------$273,537 TOTAL 06/07
(SOURCE: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea California Draft Budget Fiscal Years 2006/07 through 2008/09)
Needless to say, no other category, item or department received an increase of 2.36 times its previous fiscal year budget amount.
How is this exorbitant increase in marketing/tourist promotion/economic development, at the expense of residential services, consistent with Carmel-by-the-Sea’s credo, “THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA is hereby determined to be primarily, a residential City wherein business and commerce have in the past, are now, and are proposed to be in the future subordinated to its residential character;…?”
Adopted by Ordinance No. 96 passed on this 5th day of June 1929
(Source: Carmel-by-the-Sea California - Official City Website)
Question & Answer:
Question:In The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea California Draft Budget for Fiscal Year 2006/07, what category received an increase of 2.36 times its Fiscal Year 2005/06 budget amount?
Answer:Marketing/Tourist Promotion/Economic Development
COUNCIL – OTHER
Revised 05/06------------Description------------Proposed 06/07
$100,000--------Regional Destination Marketing----$100,000
$ 16,000------Monterey Peninsula Visitor Subsidy---$15,161
0------------------MCCVB contract (proposed)---------$108,376
0----------------Economic Development Manager-------$50,000
$116,000 TOTAL 05/06----------------------------------$273,537 TOTAL 06/07
(SOURCE: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea California Draft Budget Fiscal Years 2006/07 through 2008/09)
Needless to say, no other category, item or department received an increase of 2.36 times its previous fiscal year budget amount.
How is this exorbitant increase in marketing/tourist promotion/economic development, at the expense of residential services, consistent with Carmel-by-the-Sea’s credo, “THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA is hereby determined to be primarily, a residential City wherein business and commerce have in the past, are now, and are proposed to be in the future subordinated to its residential character;…?”
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Harrison Memorial Library, Park Branch (& Carmelites) DESERVE More Budget Dollars
FACT: With 13,000 Carmel-by-the-Sea residents and surrounding Monterey County area residents cardholders of the Library, nearly 100% of all Carmelites use Harrison Memorial Library and the Park Branch.
FACT: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea proposes to expend $853,929 (7% of the total Fiscal Year 2006/07 Budget) for personnel and facility maintenance at the Harrison Memorial Library and Park Branch.
FACT: Harrison Memorial Library Hours---Adult Services---Open Hours of 40 Hours/Week
Monday-----1 P.M.---5 P.M.
Tues-Wed--11 A.M.---8 P.M.
Thurs-Fri-11 A.M.---6 P.M.
Saturday---1 P.M.---5 P.M.
Sunday----Closed
FACT: Park Branch Hours---Youth Services---Open Hours of 28 Hours/Week
Tues---------------------1 P.M.-8 P.M.
Wed.-Thurs.-Fri.—--11 A.M.-6 P.M.
Sat.-Sun.------------Closed
FACT: Carmel-by-the-Sea residents purchase 14% of all the tickets sold to Sunset Center events. (Source: Sunset Cultural Center, Inc.)
FACT: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea expended $867,000 (Fiscal Year 2004/05), $772,000 (Fiscal Year 2005/06) and proposes to expend $713,000 (Fiscal Year 2006/07) to Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) to subsidize its management of the Sunset Center.
Conclusion:
For approximately the same City expenditure amounts, significantly more Carmelites use Harrison Memorial Library and Park Branch than attend performances at the Sunset Center. Consequently, the City Council should budget significantly more money for Carmel-by-the-Sea’s two libraries than the proposed $853,929 for Fiscal Year 2006/07.
FACT: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea proposes to expend $853,929 (7% of the total Fiscal Year 2006/07 Budget) for personnel and facility maintenance at the Harrison Memorial Library and Park Branch.
FACT: Harrison Memorial Library Hours---Adult Services---Open Hours of 40 Hours/Week
Monday-----1 P.M.---5 P.M.
Tues-Wed--11 A.M.---8 P.M.
Thurs-Fri-11 A.M.---6 P.M.
Saturday---1 P.M.---5 P.M.
Sunday----Closed
FACT: Park Branch Hours---Youth Services---Open Hours of 28 Hours/Week
Tues---------------------1 P.M.-8 P.M.
Wed.-Thurs.-Fri.—--11 A.M.-6 P.M.
Sat.-Sun.------------Closed
FACT: Carmel-by-the-Sea residents purchase 14% of all the tickets sold to Sunset Center events. (Source: Sunset Cultural Center, Inc.)
FACT: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea expended $867,000 (Fiscal Year 2004/05), $772,000 (Fiscal Year 2005/06) and proposes to expend $713,000 (Fiscal Year 2006/07) to Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) to subsidize its management of the Sunset Center.
Conclusion:
For approximately the same City expenditure amounts, significantly more Carmelites use Harrison Memorial Library and Park Branch than attend performances at the Sunset Center. Consequently, the City Council should budget significantly more money for Carmel-by-the-Sea’s two libraries than the proposed $853,929 for Fiscal Year 2006/07.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)