VICTORY for "the preservation for parkland, for historic resources and for the whole movement of preservation" (Melanie Billig, Flanders Foundation)

National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion
View of Front Door
Mission Trail Nature Preserve
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.

GNM76728: Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel By the Sea, et al

Writ of Mandate Hearing: Thursday, 1/11/2007, 9:00 A.M., Courtroom 14

Judge: Honorable Robert O’Farrell

Today, Wednesday, 28 February 2007, The Monterey County Herald reported that Judge Robert O’Farrell found that “selling the property would be a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as well as state law and Carmel’s own municipal code.”

Additionally, today, the City Council plans to meet in closed session to “discuss the property’s future.”
(Source: FLANDERS OFF THE MARKET Judge rules city must keep, maintain historic mansion
By LAITH AGHA
Herald Staff Writer, http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/16800825.htm)
Click on post title above for article.

To review, Judge Robert O’Farrell found in favor of the Flanders Foundation on all of the following three causes of action.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CEQA

a.) City unlawfully approved a project with significant environmental impacts; alternatives and mitigation measures, not adopted.
b.) City unlawfully adopted statement of overriding considerations unsupported by substantial evidence.
c.) EIR, inadequate, incomplete; defers analysis of environmental impacts and development, implementation of mitigation measures and General Plan, Zoning Code, inadequate analysis.
d.) EIR failed to respond to comments adequately.
e.) City failed to make Findings supported by substantial evidence as to feasibility of project alternatives and mitigation measures.
f.) EIR failed in including adequate mitigation measures and monitoring plan, including preservation plan and improperly deferred mitigation assessment.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODES

a.) City failed to comply with Gov. Code Sections 38440-38462, procedures for sale of parkland, including a City Council resolution justifying the proposed discontinuance of park use, a public hearing to consider protests, a vote to sustain or overrule protests and the scheduling of a special election if the City Council votes to overrule the protests.
b.) Government Code Section 54222
As parkland, "surplus" land to private party, requires City to offer for sale to other parties ex. Park District, etc.
c.) Government Code Section 65000
Inconsistent with the General Plan; reasons cited include decrease open space in public domain, eliminate areas of aesthetic quality from public domain, could degrade passive recreational environment of Mission Trails Nature Preserve and Rowntree Arboretum.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CARMEL MUNICIPAL CODE

City failed to enforce Title 17.32.210 of the Carmel Municipal Code regarding maintenance and upkeep of historic resource.

Petitioner prays:
1.) Court issues a peremptory writ of mandate to Carmel-by-the-Sea to set aside and void all approvals of sale "pending full compliance" with CEQA, Government Code, LCP, City ordinance.
2.) Petitioners costs and fees.
3.) Other and future relief, court finds proper.

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA’S RESERVE POLICY: “tantamount to hoarding taxpayers’ money” or “prudent?”

For an informative and insightful article on city reserve policies, click on the title post above or http://www.csmfo.org/download/index.cfmfuseaction=download&cid=1456.

Selected excerpts from the article, MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS – THE ADOPTION OF RESERVE POLICIES IN CALIFORNIA CITIES by Anita Lawrence, Finance Director for the City of Camarillo (2000, 2001, 2005), as follows:

CHAPTER 1
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Introduction

...when determining the amount to set aside, how much is too little and how much is too much? In other words, what is the “prudent” or right amount for that individual city? How much would be enough to cover certain unanticipated events and develop a sense of security for the organization and the community? On the other hand, at what level would the constituency begin to question it as too much? What is the risk tolerance of the organization and the community? And what criteria should be used in making that decision?

Objectives of Project
Guidelines which could assist cities in setting reserve level policies generally do not exist. The final outcome of this project will be the development of a product that will support finance professionals in California cities when they formulate and recommend reserve level policies to best fit the cities they work in.

Political Culture
It is expected that city finance professionals will likely have different points of view regarding what level of reserves is tantamount to hoarding taxpayers’ money and what level is prudent. This project will recognize that it is possible to find differences in opinions and provide an additional dimension which will measure the role of political culture in establishing the level of adequate reserves. There really is no right or wrong answer. Cities must define their own political culture as the foundation from which their own reserve level policy should be developed. It is also important to recognize that while certain criteria may need to be considered when setting reserve policies, it may not be necessary, nor politically advisable, to reserve 100% for every contingency considered. It is very unlikely that all contingencies would arise at once requiring the need to exhaust the entire reserve.

Bill Statler served as the Director of Finance/City Treasurer for the City of San Luis Obispo for twelve years.

In the context of a balanced budget policy, it tells you when you have too little and even when you have too much. “Having a policy forces you to think about the underlying reasons why you set that limit in the first place which is probably more important than the number you arrive at. It makes you analyze each of the reasons you have a policy at all.”

...cities should have an articulated minimum and maximum reserve level. Having a minimum allows the city to respond to a downturn in the economy or cover a major unforeseen contingency in a construction project without having to make drastic decisions that may have an immediate impact. Having a maximum prevents the city
from building its reserves beyond a reasonable amount.

Of 205 respondents, one hundred eighty-nine (189) or 92.1% of them either somewhat agreed, agreed or strongly agreed that California cities should have reserve policies.

Sixty percent of those that said they had a policy said they express it as a percentage of operating expenditures.

RESERVE POLICY RANGES
Method of Measurement Range
As a flat amount $1 to $20 Million
As a % of either revenues or expenditures 2% to 150%

MOST COMMON RESERVE POLICIES
(IN BRIEF)
Number of
Respondents Policy (In Brief)
15 10% of operating expenditures
11 15% of operating expenditures
10 20% of operating expenditures
9 25% of operating expenditure
6 50% of operating expenditures

For the General Fund, less than 10% (19) of those that responded reported reserves of less than 5%. Fifty-nine percent (118) fell in the 10% to 49.99% range. Only 5% were above 100%.

Seventy-five percent of the cities report a General Fund reserve of more than 10%.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
The results of this research demonstrate that a vast majority of finance professionals think that cities should develop reserve policies. It is also clear that certain criteria should be examined when formulating a reserve policy; however, there is a wide range of opinions regarding the degree of importance that should be placed on each of them. It is also clear that selecting the criteria to be considered varies from city to city depending upon the experience and political culture of that particular city. Each city should look to the past to determine which criteria should be considered when developing a policy to protect the future. At the very least, they should consider the following four criteria when formulating policies for their city:

♦ Cash Flow
♦ Exposure to Natural Disasters,
♦ Exposure to Economic Impacts
♦ Vulnerability to Actions from the State.

Public officials have been given the task of preserving the public trust and making decisions that are in the best interest of their city. A reserve policy is one of the most important policies a city can adopt to ensure the fiscal health of the city. By keeping a close watch on the reserve levels compared to the adopted policy, public officials can be forewarned of trends that may jeopardize the city’s ability to provide essential services to the community.

Another interesting item is the City of Glendale’s INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION of October 17, 2001 on City Financial Reserves (http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/admin-svcs/pdf/city_financial_reserves.pdf)

The communication cites the Purposes of Reserves:
1. Legal and Accounting Requirements
2. Emergencies and Natural Disasters
3. General Fund Revenue
4. Economic Uncertainties
5. Financial Flexibility
6. Financial “Peace of Mind”

The communication surveyed 13 California cities; the most common method of comparing Fund Balances was as a percentage of General Fund budget. Another method and meaningful comparison for Fund Balance analysis/policies is Fund Balance Per Capita – General Fund.

FUND BALANCE AS % OF GENERAL FUND BUDGET
Range: 7.8% San Bernadino – 134.4% Burbank Average 42.8%
Note: Carmel-by-the-Sea 82%

FUND BALANCE PER CAPITA - GENERAL FUND
Range: $32 San Bernadino - $1,875 Santa Monica
Average $218
Note: Carmel-by-the-Sea $2,341.

Survey Cities:
13 California Cities

Glendale
Burbank
Pasadena
Inglewood
Anaheim
Htg. Beach
San Bern.
Riverside
Torrance
Santa Monica
Santa Ana
Long Beach
Garden Grove

CITY’S CONTRADICTIONS & MISPLACED PRIORITIES

• As stated in Ordinance No. 96, adopted in June 1929, 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;” Yet City Council actions have contravened the spirit of that Ordinance by making residential concerns subordinate to “business and commerce.”

• The City has a proposed Fiscal Year 2006/07 General Fund budget of $11,649,860 and has nearly $10 million in Reserve Funds. Yet the City Council refuses to adopt a policy of using Reserve Funds for deferred maintenance projects to augment General Fund budgeted amounts in order to get Carmel-by-the-Sea’s finances more in line with convention; that is, no more than 20% of a city’s annual budget in reserve funds. Otherwise, there is an imbalance between the General Fund for essential city services, Reserve Funds for emergency provisions and long-term projects and deferred maintenance which continues to accumulate and increase in cost the longer deferred maintenance projects are not financed and completed.

• The City Council has chosen to subsidy Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) to manage the Sunset Center for $700,000 plus - $900,000 plus annually. Yet the City Council refuses to fund maintenance and infrastructure improvements to the city’s other historical and cultural assets, namely the Scout House, Forest Theatre and Flanders Mansion, for a fraction of the SCC subsidy expenditure.

• The City Council authorized an expenditure of approximately $15,000 for a Library Operations Study. Yet the city fails to implement the already approved $35,000 expenditure for the restoration of library hours to Harrison Memorial Library and the Park Branch as requested by the Library Board and the public.

• The mayor authorized the installation of approximately 50 lights in the Ocean Avenue medians without public hearings and in violation of the city’s municipal code. Yet she fails to install one light for the purpose of illuminating her residential American flag at night.

• The city authorized the posting of “No Bicycle” signs in Mission Trail Nature Preserve without public hearings and without a California Coastal Commission permit, as required. Yet the city does not adequately maintain the Preserve, particularly the trail system, as required annually by the city’s Local Coastal Program.

• The City Council authorized over $200,000 a year for tourism marketing and advertising. Yet the City Council fails to provide for the increased number of tourists by refusing to fund a permanent restroom facility at Scenic Road and Santa Lucia Avenue, for example.

Disinformation Campaign by City Administrator Rich Guillen & Mayor Sue McCloud

THESIS: City Administrator Rich Guillen and Mayor Sue McCloud have dishonestly engaged in a disinformation campaign to explain the city’s status quo by citing “financial difficulties.” In reality, the status quo can be explained by City Administrator Guillen’s and Mayor McCloud’s ongoing campaign to centralize all power, authority and control with them. They have either forced city employees to prematurely retire or created a working environment which has caused city employees to voluntarily leave the city. These were not “cuts,” as City Administrator Guillen communicated to Herald Staff Writer Dania Akkad. Rather, they were purposely eliminated positions. Moreover, since the elimination of these positions, none of the positions have been filled; no Assistant City Administrator, no Public Works Director, no City Forester, no Planning Director, no Fire Chief, no Library Director, et cetera.

BACKGROUND: On Sunday, 18 February 2007, The Monterey County Herald published an article entitled, “A step toward consolidation: Peninsula: PG to contract with Monterey for fire official” by Herald Staff Writer Dania Akkad. In the article, Akkad wrote “With their small size, high cost to run separate departments, and especially in light of financial difficulties in Pacific Grove and Carmel, it makes sense, officials say.”

On Sunday, 18 February 2007, a Carmelite contacted Dania Akkad and wrote in part, as follows:
“While a Carmel-by-the-Sea official may tell you that the city has “financial difficulties,” a professional would publish the fact that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has an annual budget of $12 million dollars (per capita spending of approximately $2,926) and reserve funds of nearly $10 million dollars.”

“In short, a reporter who fails to engage in the disciple of verification and provide facts for context is irresponsibly misleading the public. Moreover, printing what you are told, without verification, is not a principle of journalism; it is propaganda.”

On Monday, 19 February 2007, Dania Akkad wrote the Carmelite to explain, as follows:
“Carmel City Administrator Rich Guillen told me that since 9/11, Carmel has had to be innovative with the way it spends its money because the tourism industry revenues have decreased significantly since then. He told me that in 2004, the city cut more than 20 full-time positions and that a future consolidation makes sense as the city continues to pursue innovative ways to get more services for the same dollars. That was what I was referring to by ‘financial difficulties’.”

On Tuesday, 20 February 2007, the Carmelite responded to Dania Akkad’s explanations, as follows:
Herald Staff Writer Dania Akkad: “Carmel City Administrator Rich Guillen told me that since 9/11, Carmel has had to be innovative with the way it spends its money because the tourism industry revenues have decreased significantly since then.”

Carmelite’s Response:
Revenues: Major 5 Totals:
FY 2001/02 8,948,985 -15%

FY 2002/03 8,623,105 -4%

FY 2003/04 9,079,076 5%

FY 2004/05 9,302,991 2%
*Without the first year accrual income the “Major Five” total would be $9,441,882 and a 11% increase in F.Y. 00/01 and a 5% decrease in F.Y. 02/02. The Hostelry Tax total would be $4,045,589 a 7% increase in F.Y. 00/01 and a 11% decrease in F.Y. 01/02.”

(Source: http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CALIFORNIA DRAFT BUDGET FISCAL YEARS 2006/07 THROUGH 2008/09, pg. 42 of 72)

Herald Staff Writer Dania Akkad: “He told me that in 2004, the city cut more than 20 full-time positions and that a future consolidation makes sense as the city continues to pursue innovative ways to get more services for the same dollars. That was what I was referring to by "financial difficulties".”

Carmelite's Response:
GENERAL FUND TOTALS

Actual FY 2004/05
$ 11,921,573

Revised 2005/06
$11,931,765

Proposed FY 2006/07 $ 11,649,860
Proposed FY 2007/08 $ 12,077,916
Proposed FY 2008/09 $ 12,008,964

(Source: http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CALIFORNIA DRAFT BUDGET FISCAL YEARS 2006/07 THROUGH 2008/09, pg. 46 of 72)

Herald Staff Writer Dania Akkad: “financial difficulties”

Carmelite’s Response:

A comprehensive understanding of the fiscal state of Carmel-by-the-Sea requires knowledge about the city’s reserve funds, not just each year’s general fund. As shown below, Carmel-by-the-Sea’s reserve funds grew from $8,322,653 as of June 30, 2005 to $9,593,226.00 as of June 30, 2006.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
California
Annual Financial Report
June 30, 2006

BALANCE SHEET
Government Funds
June 30, 2006

FUND BALANCES
Reserved for debt service:$627,309

Unreserved:
Designated: $5,359,692
Reserved: $552,884 (Parking)
Undesignated: $3,053,341

Total Fund Balances: $9,040,342 $552,884

TOTAL: $9,593,226.00

(Source: Financial Statements, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, BALANCE SHEET, Government Funds, June 30, 2006, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, California, Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2006.)


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
California
Annual Financial Report
June 30, 2005

BALANCE SHEET
Government Funds
June 30, 2005

Fund Balances
623,709 Reserved for debt service

Unreserved
$37,662 Designated for street and traffic safety
$740,451 Designated for liability insurance
$647,527 Designated for health insurance
$1,370,334 Designated for capital improvements
$249,579 Designated for equipment replacement
$1,432,394 Designated for benefits and wc insurance
$657,000 Designated for reserves
$549,690 Designated for economic uncertainty
$165,011 Designated for emergency response
$140,000 Designated for general services and operations
$468,857 Designated for customer deposits
$1,240,439 Undesignated

8,322,653 Total Fund Balances

(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA California, Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2005, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, Fund Financial Statements, Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds.)

Herald Staff Writer Dania Akkad:
“So I guess it could be said that all three cities have had some work to do on their finances in recent years, as have so many other cities in California.”

Carmelite’s Response: Admittedly not being familiar with the fiscal state of either Monterey or Pacific Grove, I doubt if Monterey or Pacific Grove have reserve funds totally 80% of their annual budgets; the convention and standard for most cities is to have 10% -20% of their annual budget in reserve funds.

Herald Staff Writer Dania Akkad:“I welcome your input as I am not a propagandist,...”

Carmelite’s Response:
While I appreciate your view that you are “not a propagandist,” the record of staff writers and editorial commentators at The Monterey County Herald in their coverage of Carmel-by-the-Sea has been as purveyors of the City Administrator’s and Mayor’s spin, without any hint of verification through other sources of information, i.e., individuals, documents, audits, staff reports, et cetera. Moreover, when corrections and clarifications have been brought to the attention of The Herald, they have been routinely ignored. This state of affairs leads readers to believe that The Monterey County Herald is not interested in covering Carmel-by-the-Sea fairly and objectively. Moreover, two other Principles of Journalism have consistently not been upheld, namely “ITS PRACTITIONERS MUST MAINTAIN AN INDEPENDENCE FROM THOSE THEY COVER; “While editorialists and commentators are not neutral, the source of their credibility is still their accuracy, intellectual fairness and ability to inform--not their devotion to a certain group or outcome” and “IT MUST SERVE AS AN INDEPENDENT MONITOR OF POWER.”

FINAL COMMENTS:
Citizens of Carmel-by-the-Sea are not well informed about the state of their city for two main reasons.

1. Mayor Sue McCloud, and her City Administrator Rich Guillen, have a covert policy of eliminating city positions in order to centralize power, authority and control with them, exclusively. Furthermore, they dishonestly alibi their policy by citing “financial difficulties.” In reality, it is an issue of priorities, not finances. That is, Mayor McCloud, City Council Members and City Administrator Guillen have refused to budget and fund deferred maintenance projects which would benefit residents and the city, including maintenance and upgrades to the Scout House, Forest Theatre, Flanders Mansion, streets and roads, et cetera. All the city’s deferred maintenance projects should be budgeted and funded from General Fund revenues and Reserve Funds.

2. The Staff Writers and Editorial Commentators at The Monterey County Herald have a long record of not honoring journalism’s “Principles of Journalism,” including, “JOURNALISM’S FIRST OBLIGATION IS TO THE TRUTH,” “ITS FIRST LOYALTY IS TO CITIZENS,” “ITS ESSENCE IS A DISCIPLINE OF VERIFICATION,” “ITS PRACTITIONERS MUST MAINTAIN AN INDEPENDENCE FROM THOSE THEY COVER,” and “IT MUST SERVE AS AN INDEPENDENT MONITOR OF POWER.”

In sum, because Mayor McCloud and City Administrator Guillen are dishonest individuals who purposely mislead reporters and the public, and because local media writers and commentators “print what they are told,” Carmelites are ill informed about the state of affairs in Carmel-by-the-Sea. These obstacles to an informed Carmel-by-the-Sea citizenry must be overcome if Carmelites are ever to recapture the essence of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea as “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.” Only then will Carmelites be able to proudly enjoy all the amenities of Carmel, including a rehabilitated and ADA compliant community center in the Scout House, a renovated and ADA compliant Forest Theatre, a rehabilitated, renovated and publicly used Flanders Mansion, a regenerating forest, et cetera.

Mayor McCloud’s Failure to Comply with United States Flag Code

Flag of the United States
Displayed at the Residence of Carmel-by-the-Sea Mayor Sue McCloud
S/s Santa Lucia Av. between San Carlos St. & Mission St.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
Thursday, 22 February 2007

The Mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea authorized the installation of approximately 50 lights in the Ocean Av. medians between Monte Verde St. and Junipero Av. without a public hearing and in violation of the municipal code. Yet as a 30 plus year former federal government employee with the C.I.A., Mayor McCloud does not follow the United States Flag Code, Flag Etiquette, Standards of Respect, by illuminating her residential flag at night.

Reference:
Flag Etiquette
STANDARDS of RESPECT

“Ordinarily it should be displayed only between sunrise and sunset. It should be illuminated if displayed at night.”

United States Code Title 4 Chapter 1 — The Flag

§6. Time and occasions for display
a. It is the universal custom to display the flag only from sunrise to sunset on buildings and on stationary flagstaffs in the open. However, when a patriotic effect is desired, the flag may be displayed twenty-four hours a day if properly illuminated during the hours of darkness.

COMMENTS:
As Mayor McCloud displays a residential flag 24/7, she “should follow all of the traditions of the greatest symbol of our freedom,” including illumination of the American flag during the night. It is disturbing that a former federal government employee could violate such a basis standard of respect and patriotism. Mayor McCloud, an embarrassment to herself and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea?

Fire Chief Andrew Miller’s 6 February 2007 Fire Hydrant Report

City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
February 6, 2007

V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.

C. Announcements from City Administrator.

• Receive Fire Hydrant Report

Brief Report on the Fire Hydrant Update and ISO based on Questions from the last meeting:

Selected excerpts from Fire Chief Andrew Miller’s Report, as follows:

PSA (Public Service Announcement): A map and text of “OPERATIONAL FIRE HYDRANTS” and “OUT-OF-SERVICE HYDRANTS” in The Carmel Pine Cone.

“My assistant Chief...physically has gone out with a representative from Cal-Am and spotted where all the relocated hydrants are going to go...Cal-Am has that plan. And they are also in the process of finalizing the contract for a contractor to come out in the next 6 months to do at least 50% of the hydrants that are out-of-service.”

“My plan at the Fire Department, to continue and to complete all the flow testing of all the hydrants by the end of July. We flow tested a total of 110 hydrants and concentrate on the hydrants that were on the 4” mains that were causing some problems. The hydrants that we haven’t flow tested yet we don’t anticipate any problems because they’re on better mains, but certainly if we find them, we will identify them and correct them.”

ISO (Insurance Service Office) Questions & Fire Chief Miller’s Responses:

Questions:
“Has the city been contacted since filling out the community outreach questionnaire for a field survey and reevaluation?"

"If not, when do you expect to be reevaluated by the ISO?"

"Do you anticipate, with the changes in our department, from 12 years ago, that our rating could change for the better or for the worse?"

Responses:
ISO is an individual rating agency that rates Fire Departments.

“A very complicated system.”

Fire Department last evaluated in 1994, class 4 rating. (Ratings 1-10, 1 the best, 10 the worst.) Class 4 rating is a “pretty good rating.”

Rating are banded; 1-6, equivalent for insurance purposes.
Fire Department received an Outreach Questionnaire in 2002; it was completed by Staff, and then returned to ISO. Since there were “no changes,” the city remains a Class 4 city.

ISO will be sending the Fire Department a new questionnaire; an outreach questionnaire usually “comes out every 2 years.” The Fire Department will complete the questionnaire, return it to ISO; ISO then determines if any significant changes have occurred that would impact the current rating. If ISO determines significant changes have occurred, then ISO will schedule an evaluation.

ISO: “...not all insurance companies utilize the ISO ratings schedule, and some don’t utilize all their criteria,” et cetera.

“...a lot of good things have happened, our hydrants are going to be hopefully done in the next year so that will definitely benefit us, our training records are all up to date, our pump testing, our hose testing, apparatus testing, everything’s up-to-date, our training is actually better than it was, so a lot of really good things have happened.”

MAYOR MCCLOUD'S Inane Verbosity

This is the last in a series of five “In Her/His Own Words” posts on the Library.

Regular Meeting
Tuesday, February 6, 2007

XI. Orders of Council
A. Review the Organization Study of Library Operations from John Goss of Ralph Andersen & Associates and provide policy direction.

After the public hearing was closed, Mayor McCloud made the following comments.

“I would just like to say thank you all for your input and your thoughts and concerns, but I would also say you should look at this as an opportunity. I think Carolyn made the remark that something that we should not be making a change. No. I don’t think we are making a change, but the world is making a change.”

“One of the people you forgot to thank, and I don’t mean this critically of anyone, is the Carmel-by-the-Sea Garden Club, who is just put a large sum of money into re-landscaping the library to set it off for the exceptional building that it is. And hopefully you will see that completed rather shortly.”

“But, I think this is an opportunity. Technology is out there, our younger generation, there are some of whom are seeing coming back to town, have different demands than those of us sitting in this room with more white hair than dark. And I think we need to think as we’re doing the garden, or we’re doing other things, as we start to make investments into the library or maybe fine tune how that’s done that we need to plan for the future…being in the enviable position of building a state of the art library over there at MPC that sits up there on the hill. And it’s wonderful. And that’s about all that we are sort of talking about here. How can we, if we’re going to invest 10 or 20 or 30 thousand dollars, that’s a lot of money for us, compared to 20 some million to the MPC Library, and maybe there’s a better way that we can use that money."

“And certainly we thank the Foundation and all that they have done, but I think this is an opportunity we should look at and the glass is half full not half empty. So it isn’t the time to threaten all these well meaning people up here, who are simply trying to look a little bit into the future of how we’re going to do things and what kind of resources we’re going to take and thy will change. We didn’t have computers…So do look at this as a positive thing that we’re trying to do, and Lord knows we can run our own homes more efficiently with some of the technology that’s coming and we’re just I think we’re just taking a pause here, to ask, is there something that we can use, in the way we do business, whether it’s the library or the other departments hate we’ve looked at, we’ve had PG & E come do an energy survey of the buildings here to see how we can save money, so it’s just a normal thing you would do as people who as custodians of funds for the city.”

COMMENTS:
• Based on Mayor McCloud’s discursive and nongermane comments, it appears that she neither heard, nor listened, to the “thoughts and concerns” of the public speakers.

• In the context of the library, Mayor McCloud stated, “if we’re going to invest 10 or 20 or 30 thousand dollars, that’s a lot of money for us...” Yet in the context of the Community Housing Trust of Monterey County, Mayor McCloud initiated the reversal of an October 2006 City Council decision not to support the Community Housing Trust of Monterey County and voted to approve a $100,000 expenditure to the Community Housing Trust as an adjustment to the FY 2006/07 budget. To alibi her action, she cited private complaints from people about the City Council’s “unwillingness to support the Community Housing Trust.” Yet public complaints from residents about not expending the already approved $35,000 expenditure to restore library hours to Harrison Memorial Library and the Park Branch are not met with a similar response from Mayor McCloud!

• Consultant John Goss crafted a methodology which lead inevitably to “what the city wanted to hear” conclusions.

MELANIE BILLIG: "You will certainly lose my Sterling Circle membership, and Harvey's."

This is the fourth in a series of five “In Her/His Own Words” posts on the Library.

Regular Meeting
Tuesday, February 6, 2007

XI. Orders of Council
A. Review the Organization Study of Library Operations from John Goss of Ralph Andersen & Associates and provide policy direction.

“Mayor and Council, Melanie Billig.”

“...I think the one really nice aspect of this report is that repeatedly it acknowledges the incredible work done by the Library Board, the Friends of the Library and also by the Carmel Public Library Foundation. And I just have to look at that report, and see even having been on the Library Foundation for four years and being intimately involved with the library, that this library is so incredibly outstanding. And to sacrifice in any way, shape or form the outstanding, the excellence, of this institution, and the obvious affection that this institution holds in this community by the tremendous amounts of money that are contributed every single year to the programs, and the equipment and the books, et cetera. I think it’s just a marvel that we are so incredibly lucky to have the donors that we have whether they are in this community or outside this community.”

“I think the one thing that’s really distressing is that this proverbial issue of non-residential use. Well, we are a very tiny community, we all recognize that, but the point is that those people who contribute to the Library Foundation are the very people that the report continuously talks about being non-residential users. And as a resident of this community, I don’t have a problem with that. And I rejoice in the fact that as much culture as this community can spread around the better off we are.”

“And we just received reports tonight that we’re not exactly bankrupt. And we’re not exactly on a tremendously limited financial basis. So that we all appreciate that we have to be cost effective and we have to be concerned about our budget, but I don’t think we should ever use that as an excuse for trying to fundamentally change, and I’m not accusing you of that at all, I’m just making a statement based upon looking at this report, to use that as an excuse to make any really major, fundamental changes and in the way the library is administered or its operations. Everything can be fine tuned and we understand that, but the issue is that we don’t want to sacrifice those important donations that we’re getting. And I can tell you, you will lose donations, big time, if you start changing the way this is operated. You will certainly lose my Sterling Circle membership, and Harvey’s. Because I, we, have no intention of contributing a large amount of money to an organization that we bought into under one pretext, or one understanding, and then find it being tremendously altered.”

“So I thank you for that. And I hope you will not change things!”

Goss Rebuttal:
On Non-Residents: “...it’s only an observation, to explain that one of the policy issues for this city, I think, is to determine what is your community that you serve.”

On City’s Finances: “You obviously downsized over the last 3 years, you’ve looked at ways to increase revenues, and this is really offered in the same spirit, to look at these opportunities.”

SKIP LLOYD: "there are two ways that a Library Board can be disbanded...by a vote of 51% of the voters"...and by "adopting a Joint Powers Agreement"

This is the third in a series of five “In Her/His Own Words” posts on the Library.

Regular Meeting
Tuesday, February 6, 2007

XI. Orders of Council
A. Review the Organization Study of Library Operations from John Goss of Ralph Andersen & Associates and provide policy direction.

“I’m Skip Lloyd. I’m a long time resident of Carmel. Madam Mayor and Council...I don’t have any quarrel with your objective in securing this report, obviously I think it’s always good to examine what’s going on in your department.”

“The only thing I wanted to comment upon was an inference in the report, as I saw it, that the Library Board does not administer the library or is not authorized to administer the library. I think the Education code is quite clear on that. And there is a reference to the Government Code as perhaps being inconsistent with the Education Code under which the library is established. I would just point out, on that point, that it is important that there was actually a court case on that very point in Monterey Park where the City Council there inadvisedly tried to disband the Library Board and the court said that the code section in the Government Code was entirely subservient to the Education Code provisions.”

“I served on the Library Board many years ago, back in the 70s probably around the time some of these things were brought into the municipal code, because I remember the issue was so clear as to the independence of the Library Board versus the city. And it was an issue over money at that time; not a big confrontation. But the Library Board was very independent and managed to save up about a million dollars at that time, as I recall, jealously guarded by a man named Peter Dyer. And of course, a lot of that money ended up helping to equip and purchase the Library Branch that was later, when the establishment took over the Savings and Loan building.”

“So I would just like to speak, in closing, as I understand the Education Code and that case that I mentioned, there are two ways that a Library Board can be disbanded. One is by a vote of 51% of the voters of the city, and the other one is by adopting a Joint Powers Agreement with another local agency and deciding to proceed in that fashion. Just speaking for the independence of the library and the importance of that to the city, I would say that number one, they are independent, and number two, I think it would be a big mistake to operate Harrison Memorial Library under a Joint Powers Agreement whereby Carmel cedes its authority to a broader board. I think it would be unfortunate, out of keeping with its history and it would very well have the negative impact on fundraising that you’ve heard about already.”

Goss Rebuttal:

“I don’t believe there was an inference, hopefully there wasn’t, that the Library Board does not have the authority to administer the library, just pointing out some analomies, in the fact that the State library system, when they look at an Administrative Board, which they consider your Library Board to be, there were certain elements that for one thing that was taken out of their authority in the Municipal Code that used to be in the Education Code and that is the appointment of the Library Director…and that was transferred to the City Administrator. Most Administrative Boards adopt the entire library budget which they don’t here, they adopt the restricted budget. You approve a General Fund budget for the rest of the operation. It’s an Administrative Board, but it doesn’t really have all the elements of an Administrative Board as it now functions.”

MARY ANNE LLOYD: "...the library actually ought to be the model for the city as to how to do things efficiently."

This is the second in a series of five “In Her/His Own Words” posts on the Library.

Regular Meeting
Tuesday, February 6, 2007

XI. Orders of Council
A. Review the Organization Study of Library Operations from John Goss of Ralph Andersen & Associates and provide policy direction.

“Good Evening, Mayor McCloud and City Council Members, City Staff as well.”

“My name is Mary Anne (T.) Lloyd. I am here because I would like to speak to the Ralph Andersen Associates Report prepared by John Goss. I am greatly disturbed by the measures of library efficiency Mr. Goss used in his report and which I am concerned could lead to erroneous conclusions and premature actions.”

“First, I would like to say why I feel I have a background to understand the Goss Report. I am a librarian with experience in physics, biomedical libraries, engineering and technology libraries at William and Mary, UCLA, Hughes Research Corporation, and I have just retired from Monterey Peninsula College where I was the director of the library for the last 20 plus years. Amongst my responsibilities was the planning, organizing application and overseeing of the new 22 and ½ million dollar building we got for the library in our community, I’m happy to say. In addition, I was involved in the start-up of the foundation which has raised a few million dollars for the college. Additionally, I made it possible for the public multi type cooperative MOBAC, to be housed at the MPC library for over 12 years. As chair of MOBAC at one time, and multiple position holders with MOBAC, I have been aware of public library issues over the years. Moreover, Harrison Memorial Library is my library, my public library.”

“My special concerns with the Goss Report go to the measures of the use of the library and conclusions of its inefficiency. No measure, I have a number of items, there were many that I would like to speak to, there isn’t time to do so, so I will just bring our a few. No measure of use of efficiency of a library is based merely on the number of materials checked our. It’s wholly inadequate measure. Computers, internet use, journals, reference collections, local historical records and other materials that do not circulate are made available for the public use. These are measures, the use of the library for whatever purpose, is the way we, in the profession, measure use, not be single numbers of items checked out; that’s misleading. The use of MOBAC, the agency that makes it possible for all libraries to share materials between institutions for the benefit of an informed public was not mentioned at all in the report. This is a huge efficiency item that should not be overlooked. It means the savings of expenses on the part of the library and the city...”

“I would like to make a bold statement here, which is that I think the library actually ought to be the model for the city as to how to do things efficiently. Which other department has started a foundation and raised the money for all the tools of its daily service to people? Which other department has given the building to the city and then been a partner in the renovation of the building and made that available to the city? Not only does it provide the information and materials, but lectures, outreach to the elderly population with volunteers, innumerable services to the city for which the city does not pay. I would submit to you that the library is an outstanding example of efficiency and perhaps could be a model for the city!”

“Thank you for your time and consideration.”

Goss Rebuttal:
About MOBAC: “...there was no real effort, since this is just a management analysis, and not really an audit, to go through all the different elements that made up the operation of the library. That’s certainly was something I was aware of and certainly something that was beneficial to the operation of the library.”

On Measurement: “In my experience, with various cities and city libraries, circulation is usually the first thing that’s looked at, but certainly the other elements that were mentioned are certainly can be utilized and are useful in that respect.”

CAROLYN HARDY: "...the council could shelve this study and I think that is exactly what you should do!"

This is the first in a series of five “In Her/His Own Words” posts on the Library.

Regular Meeting
Tuesday, February 6, 2007

XI. Orders of Council
A. Review the Organization Study of Library Operations from John Goss of Ralph Andersen & Associates and provide policy direction.

“Mayor, Council, Carolyn Hardy.”

"I just have a potpourri of thoughts as I'm hearing everyone talk about this. As some of you know, I have served for a few years on the Carmel Public Library Foundation so I have some knowledge about what it takes to raise the money, how much money is there. I'd hate to see that jeopardized by you making any changes. I'm not in favor of tinkering with the library. I think it's fine like it is. I think moving for efficiency, getting more out of less, doesn’t work in this case. It might work in the big corporate world, but this is our public library.”

“I did want to say congratulations to you for putting Carmel number one. And it has to do with the library. You’ve made Carmel number one in the state because of per capita spending and I thing that’s significant and we should really be proud of that.”

“I hear you talk about being flush with money, so I don’t want to hear anybody talking about poor mouth when it comes to the library.”

“I did notice in the report it talks about a 1987 MOU that’s out-of-date. I see no reference to the subsequent MOU of 1992. All be it in one page Memo of Agreement, it said it superseded the previous MOU. So I was wondering why that was missing from the consultant’s report.”

“The other thing that bothers me about the report is again talking about the community served by the library, and all the reference to the non-resident citizens because we have a Carmel Youth Center that serves non-resident citizens, we have a Sunset Center that serves non-resident citizens, and we’re proud of that, and we have a Carmel Foundation in our community who heavily serves non-resident people outside of Carmel, but we never question any of those as a downside. And I don’t think we should be questioning that about the library.”

“So, Rich Guillen put the idea in my mind that he says the council could shelve this study and I think that is exactly what you should do!”

“Thank you.”

Goss Rebuttal:
“Flush with money:” “You obviously downsized over the last 3 years, you’ve looked at ways to increase revenues, and this is really offered in the same spirit, to look at these opportunities.”

On 1992 MOU: “...all the people I talked to did not mention that so I’m unaware of that, your City Attorney had never mentioned that to me, your past Librarian,…, we basically focused on the 1987 MOU and so the other one was not discussed.”

On Non-Residents: “...it’s only an observation, to explain that one of the policy issues for this city, I think, is to determine what is your community that you serve.”

NOTE: After the close of the public hearing and city council deliberations, as a substitute motion, ROSE moved to approve City Administrator Rich Guillen’s recommendation to establish an Ad Hoc Committee composed of 2 members from the Library Board of Trustees, two members from the Carmel Public Library Foundation, the Interim Library Director and the City Administrator which “will return to Council within 90 days with a report that recommends and prioritizes issues needing further study or action.” It carried by unanimous vote of Council Members CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC, ROSE, TALMAGE & McCLOUD. (The first motion was made by Council Member CUNNINGHAM to add 2 library users from the public to the Ad Hoc Committee; that idea was rejected.)

Forest Theatre: Outsourced Preparatory Work for Future Landscaping

WHO: Assured Landscape

WHAT: Installation of water lines and valves

WHEN: Week of Februrary 5 - 9, 2007

WHERE: Forest Theatre
Mt. View Av. between Santa Rita St. & Guadalupe St.

WHY: Installation of water lines and valves required prior to the installation of a drip system to water plants to be planted at a future date.

Carmel Art Association Presents ‘JOURNEYS’ and “MOSTLY FIGURE”

Carmel Art Association
Voted “Art Gallery of the Year” by the Carmel Business Association

W/s Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M. Daily

“Founded in 1927, Carmel's oldest gallery features the work of more than 120 professional local artists, and is dedicated to presenting only the finest work for sale by artists living on the Monterey Peninsula.”

For more information, click on the post title above, or http://www.carmelart.org/ or (831) 624-6176.

‘JOURNEYS’ and “MOSTLY FIGURE”
Thursday, 8 February 2007 – Tuesday, 6 March 2007

GROUP SHOW:
'JOURNEYS:' Beardsley Room

Eleen Auvil: Bronze sculptures “inspired by the ancient Egyptian belief in the journey of the soul to the afterlife in ceremonial barques.”
For more information about Eleen Auvil, click on the post title above, then click on “artists,” then click on “Auvil, Eleen,” below photo of sculptures.

Robert R. Bradshaw: Mixed media paintings featuring a “THIRTY DAY MYSTERY CRUISE.”
For a sample of Bradshaw’s artwork, click on title post above, then click on "artists."

Susan Giacometti: Paintings, prints and drawings of the “Lobstermen of Maine,” an “artistic journey to the northeastern US.”
For a sample of Giacometti’s artwork, click on title post above, then click on “artists.”

GALLERY SHOWCASE:
“MOSTLY FIGURE:” Segal Room

John McWilliams: Pastel and pencil figure drawings and oil landscapes.
For McWilliams’ biography, artist’s statement and samples of his artwork, click on title post above, then click on “artists,” then click on “click here for page 2,” then click on "McWilliams, John," below a photo of oil painting, “Farm Road.”

Susan Reith and Time Sloan: Figurative painting in oil on canvas, paper and board.
For samples of Reith’s and Sloan’s artwork, click on title post above, then click on “artists.”

Opening reception Saturday, 10 February 2007, 6:00 – 8:00 P.M.

$53,540: City Compensation to Special Counsel Conners from Inception through Writ of Mandate Hearing

Flanders Mansion
Mission Trail Nature Preserve
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.

TOTAL CITY MONETARY AMOUNT TO SPECIAL COUNSEL WILLIAM B. CONNERS
GNM76728, FLANDERS FOUNDATION v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA:
(March 2005 – January 2007):

TOTAL: $53,540.00 (March 2005 - January 2007)

112054 12/22/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 7,980.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
112165 1/16/07 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 4,440.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
----Vendor Total---- $ 12,420.00

111794 11/14/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 4,660.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT

111606 10/17/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 1,920.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT

111097 8/8/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 260.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
111150 8/15/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 500.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
----Vendor Total---- $ 760.00

110707 6/13/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 580.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT

110419 5/2/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 1,400.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
110570 5/23/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 540.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
----Vendor Total---- $ 1,940.00

110141 3/21/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 880.00 LEGAL SERVICES – FLANDERS LAWSUIT

110014 2/28/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 3,780.00 JAN '06 LEGAL SERVICES

109798 1/24/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 1,260.00 LEGAL SERVICES

109626 12/27/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 1,780.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS

109353 11/15/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 40.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

109165 10/11/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 7,220.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

108976 9/13/2005 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 4,280.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

108897 8/30/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 2,520.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

108622 7/20/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 2,940.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

108410 6/14/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 2,360.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

108242 5/24/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 2,660.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

107869 3/22/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 1,540.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

(Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea web site http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/ March 2005 – January 2007 Check Registers)

Note: Attorney Francis ("Skip") Lloyd wrote in a February 9, 2007 Letter to the Editor (The Carmel Pine Cone) that the judge's ruling "should come soon."

79% of Fiscal Year 2005/06 Capital Improvement Program Funded from Capital Improvement Reserves

For the Fiscal Year 2005/06, the City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea transferred approximately $612,000 from the Capital Improvement Reserves to the General Fund in order to fund a Capital Improvement Budget of $772,135. In other words, 79% of the funding for Capital Improvement Projects in FY 2005/06 was from the Capital Improvement Reserves. While the practice of transferring funds from reserves to the General Fund to fund projects in not unusual, it is atypical for a city to have 80% of its annual budget in reserves ($9.6 million reserves of a total $11.9 million budget).

Furthermore, in City Administrator Rich Guillen’s May 2006 Budget Message, he stated the following:

“Subsequent Fiscal Years 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 return to prior year funding levels or in the range of $600,000 to $700,000. The success of returning to this spending level for subsequent Fiscal Years will depend on how prudent expenditures are managed, whether revenues will continue to grow, and the availability of grant funding. The sale of non-working City assets, such as, Flanders Mansion, Rio Park and other City properties can also contribute to a successful reinvestment in Capital Improvement Projects.”

As background on Capital Improvements:
Actual Capital Improvements (FY 2004/05): $321,166
Revised Capital Improvements (FY 2005/06): $772,135
Proposed Capital Improvements (FY 2006/07): $69,594
Proposed Capital Improvements (FY 2007/08): $344,321
Proposed Capital Improvements (FY 2008/09): $394,000

While City Administrator Guillen claims that the city’s objective is to return to funding levels of $600,000 to $700,000, the proposed budget figures for FY 2007/08 and FY 2008/09 do not support this contention.

In city Administrator Guillen’s June 2006 Budget Questions & Answers, he stated:

"Staff agrees with the need to maintain and improve our infrastructure. However like many cities, capital outlays and capital improvements are deferred in place of providing public services. When revenues are generally flat as has been the case in recent years, the only capital projects and capital outlays that receive funding are typically through grant programs.”

And in City Administrator Guillen’s May 2006 Budget Message, he stated:

"The remainder of the Capital Outlays and Capital Improvements projects were deferred to future Fiscal Years, assuming that growth of revenues will fund those items. Based on the large capital demands for future years, the City will need some infusion of cash to fund these projects, such as from the sale of City properties or through some other special financing mechanism."

To reiterate, it is atypical for cities have reserves totaling 80% of the city’s annual budget. With the city’s millions and millions of dollars in deferred maintenance, it is fiscally imprudent to maintain the current level of reserves. Moreover, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has never publicly offered any rationale for the present fiscal situation.

And in City Administrator Guillen’s May 2006 Budget Questions & Answers, he stated:

“The Capital Improvement Reserve fund is a separate reserve fund established in 1988. It has no minimum funding requirement. The proposed transfers will add to the reserve fund to make up for some of the amounts transferred to the General Fund for FY 05-06’s capital improvement projects, including the Fire Department seismic retrofit.”

Again, the city’s reserve funds should be brought into conformance with other cities; that is, 10% -20% of annual budget in reserve funds. For FY 2006/07, this means using the surplus, not to reinfuse the reserves, but to use from the General Fund to fund deferred maintenance projects. Otherwise, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s infrastructure and historical and cultural assets will continue to deteriorate and in the case of the Scout House and Flanders Mansion, not even be available to the public.

References:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CALIFORNIA
DRAFT BUDGET
FISCAL YEARS 2006/07 THROUGH 2008/09

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM

Funds are budgeted to provide for planning and construction of major capital improvements. The capital projects, submitted by departmental staff and their respective commissions or boards, are selected through an in-depth evaluation prioritization process and then reviewed and approved by the City’s Planning Commission as part of the City's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program.

Proposed Capital Improvements (2007/08)
4th Avenue Riparian Restoration $ 89,321
Parking lot-Sunset Center $ 50,000
Tennis Court Reconstruction $ 40,000
Repave Mission between 3rd & 4th $ 150,000
City Hall Carpeting (Admin area) $ 15,000
Subtotal $ 344,321

Capital Improvements (2008/09)
Parking lot-Del Mar $ 159,000
Underground Water Tank/Booster Pump $ 100,000
Pedestrian Path - S. Antonio bet 2nd & 4th $ 60,000
City Hall Carpeting (Bldg/Planning area) $ 25,000
Scout House ADA Upgrades (design work) $ 50,000
Subtotal $ 394,000

Proposed Capital Improvements (2006/07)
4th Avenue Riparian Restoration $ 44,594
Del Mar Restrooms $ 25,000
Subtotal $ 69,594

Revised Capital Improvements (2005/06)
$ 15,227 Professional fees-Sunset Ctr Roof
$ 12,707 Sunset Yoga Ctr Repairs
$ 577,285 Fire Dept Seismic Retrofit
$ 119,616 Resurface Beach Bluff Pathway
$ 9,300 4th Avenue Riparian Restoration
$ 8,000 Forest Hill Park Improvements
$ 18,000 Forest Theater Fire Sprinklers
$ 12,000 Sunset Ctr Roof/Fire System
$ 772,135 Subtotal

Actual Capital Improvements (2004/05)
$ 321,166


CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS (FY 2005/06)

Meeting Date: July 5, 2005
Prepared by: Mike Branson
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution awarding a professional services agreement for preparation of a preliminary design for the Fourth Avenue Riparian Habitat Restoration project to Hall Landscape Design at a fee not-to-exceed $25,000 and authorizing a transfer of funds from Capital Improvement Reserves to the general fund Capital Improvement Account.

The Capital Improvement Reserve Fund will be reimbursed from the Grant Funds.

City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
September 6, 2005

VII. Consent Calendar
C. Consideration Of A Resolution Authorizing The Transfer Of Funds In An Amount Of $12,707.06 From The Capital Improvement Reserve Account For Repairs To The Yoga Center Cottage At The Sunset Center.

City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
October 4, 2005

VII. Consent Calendar
D. Consideration Of A Resolution Authorizing The Transfer Of Funds In An Amount Not To Exceed $12,000 From The Capital Improvement Reserve Account For The Erection Of A Roof Structure At The Sunset Center.

City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
November 1, 2005

VII. Consent Calendar
E. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the transfer of $68,046 from the Capital Improvement Reserve Account 01-24013 to cover costs associated with the temporary move of the Fire Department.

City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
February 7, 2006

VII. Consent Calendar
C. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to transfer funds in an amount not to exceed $493,907 from the Capital Improvement Reserve Fund to the General Fund for the Fire Station Seismic Retrofit and Remodel Project.

X. Resolutions
B. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the transfer of the fiscal year 2004-05 year-end surplus to the Capital Improvement Reserve Fund.

Staff Recommendation: Approve the transfer of $493,907 from the Capital Improvement Reserve Fund to the General Fund. A portion of the costs, $280,000, was already budgeted as a capital improvement in the fiscal year 05-06 budget.

Important Considerations: Below is an accounting of the Capital Improvements Reserve Fund:
Balance July 1, 2005 $1,370,334
Projects approved per resolution since July (225,228)
Other budgeted projects, not yet started (100,600)
Subtotal $1,044,506
Amount needed to cover fire station retrofit (493,907)
Estimated balance at June 30, 2006 $ 550,599

Failure to Respond: “Organization Study of Library Operations” Consultant John Goss

City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
February 6, 2007

XI. Orders of Council
A. Review the Organization Study of Library Operations from John Goss of Ralph Andersen & Associates and provide policy direction.

Soon after Consultant John Goss’ power point presentation to the public at the 29 November 2006 City Council Special Meeting, a Carmelite emailed the following to John Goss, Senior Associate, Ralph Andersen & Associates.

Since I was unable to attend the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Special City Council meeting on Wednesday, 29 November 2006, I am writing to ask you for clarifications on your oral presentation to the public at that meeting.

Regarding your recommendations, your first recommendation was the following:

1. Given the city’s tight finances, expenses should be reduced, or revenues increased, to support library services.

Questions:

1. Do you consider an annual budget of $11.75 million and reserves of almost $10 million “tight?”

2. Given the above fiscal condition of Carmel-by-the-Sea, would this information change your assessment that the city needs to reduce expenses to support library services, especially in the context that the city’s General Fund support for the library is already 3.6 times the National Average?

3. The mayor mentioned you would return in a “couple of months;” for what purpose?

Thank you for your time and responses.

COMMENT: Consultant John Goss failed to acknowledge correspondence or respond to questions.

Note: For Highlights of Joss Goss' presentation to the public at the 29 November 2006 Special City Council Meeting, click on the post title above.

COMMENTARY: Organization Study of Library Operations & Context

For Carmelites to understand the present library situation, it is necessary to not only appreciate the limitations of the city’s Ralph Andersen & Associates “Organization Study of Library Operations,” but it is essential to understand the study in context.

The “Organization Study of Library Operations:”

The consultant, Senior Associate John Goss, writes in “City of Carmel Library Report," as follows: “This is not a comprehensive management audit, but is limited to offering suggestions for management effectiveness and organizational options that might be beneficial and pursued by the City...Its objective is to look at broader options for a cost effective library...” However, due to the study’s erroneous underlying assumptions and the fact that consultants often feel pressured “to tell you what you want to hear,” most, if not all, of the study’s Findings and Recommendations should be rejected.

Specifically, John Goss makes the erroneous underlying assumption that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea lacks the financial resources to support the library. In the Library Report, he states, as follows:

“Given the fact that the City has limited income to support overall City services, it is prudent to evaluate all City services, including the library, to determine if these services can be improved or provided in a more cost effective manner.”

“The ability of the City to continue to staff the library at current levels has been challenging given its current fiscal constraints.”

“This is particularly true since the City has limited budget resources to fund the library and its other municipal services.”

“Given the City’s limited revenues, but with the continuing demand to return library hours to previous levels,...”

“The City of Carmel, as have many other built out cities in California, is facing difficult fiscal challenges.”

“The City of Carmel should take steps to reduce expenses or increase revenues to help support library services, taking into account the City’s tight financial structure.”

“The question is whether the City should continue the level of General Fund support for the Library;”

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has an annual budget of $12 million and reserves of nearly $10 million; ergo, it is a question of priorities, not an issue of lacking the financial resources to fund the library. As an example, the City Council chose to contract with Ralph Andersen & Associates for a Library Operations Study at the expense of $12,252.62. Yet the City has not expended $35,000 for “library services,” which was approved by the City Council in June 2006.

Moreover, while the Library Report emphasizes quantitative aspects of library operations, it downplays the qualitative aspects; that is, the value of the Harrison Memorial Library and Park Branch to Carmelites. John Goss acknowledges “...the Carmel Public Library Foundation...this level of gifts and financial support to a public library in a city the size of Carmel is extremely unusual and unique in the State and perhaps the nation. It demonstrates a major and long-term level of commitment from the community for public library services to the benefit of Carmel, but also the area surrounding the City.”

The Library Operations Study in Context:

City Administrator Rich Guillen’s pique at the Library Board for not bowing to his previous recommendation and City Administrator Guillen’s refusal to work constructively with then Library Director Margaret Pelican set the stage for the City Council contracting with Ralph Andersen & Associates for a Library Operations Study. And while John Goss acknowledges that “the Library Board requested funding to restore those branch hours that were in place in 2004,” he wrote that “it would be a mistake to add $35,000 to the library budget without a detailed look at how extra hours could be achieved for less than the requested amount.” Ergo, because of City Administrator Rich Guillen’s unprofessional conduct, namely his inability to transcend petty personal grievances and work with the Library Board and the Library Director, who knew the statistics and operations of the library better than anyone, the City contracted with a consultant to tell the City Council what the City Council wants to hear.

Finally, based on the past conduct of City Council Members, it appears that City Council members have already made up their minds and will rationalize the study findings and recommendations to conform to their predetermined decision. That is unfortunate, especially given the fact that the library is not only an educational and historical resource, but it is Carmel-by-the-Sea's comunity center since the Scout House is closed and the Sunset Center is no longer home to many historic user groups.

Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. Executive Director Jack Globenfelt: "More resources will be required..."

Sunset Center Theater
"The Cultural Heart of Carmel-by-the-Sea"
E/s San Carlos St. between 8th Av. & 10th Av.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.

Regular Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
4:30 p.m., Open Session

V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.

C. Announcements from City Administrator.

• Receive second quarter financial report for SCC, Inc.

Herewith is an excerpt from the “2nd Quarter 2006-2007 Financial Report,” written by Sunset Cultural Center, Inc.’s Executive Director Jack Globenfelt, dated February 6, 2007, which was included in the February 6, 2007 City Council Agenda packet.

Significance: The end of the “Term,” or the first three years of the agreement between Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea ends June 30, 2007; “the SCC shall have the option to extend the Term for three (3) additional years (“the Renewal Term”). “During the one hundred fifty (150) day period prior to end of the Term…, Carmel and SCC shall negotiate in good faith to establish a new Enabling Grant, as defined in Section 4.4, for the Renewal Term.” (See Reference at end of post)

To: Mayor Sue McCloud and Members of the City Council

From: Jack Globenfelt
Executive Director
Sunset Cultural Center, Inc.

Date: February 6, 2007

Subject: 2nd Quarter 2006-2007 Financial Report
Summary of Operations

“We expect the remainder of the year to be close to our projections. While we have pushed to lower costs and raise income, it can not be anticipated that these results will be sustainable in the future. More resources will be required and we are diligently working on a three year budget to present to you to reflect this reality.”

QUESTION: Evidence for SCC reneging on SCC’s pledge to reduce the City’s subsidy over time?

NOTES: City Subsidy to SCC (Fiscal Year 2004/05 – Fiscal Year 2006/07)
Fiscal Year 2004/2005:
Enabling Grant: $762,000
Start-Up Grant: $105,000
Advance of Working Capital: $120,000

Fiscal Year 2005/06:
Enabling Grant: $772,000

Fiscal Year 2006/07:
Enabling Grant: $713,000

Total for Three Year Term: $2,472,000


REFERENCE:
AGREEMENT Between CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, A Municipal Corporation And SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER, A California Not-for-Profit Corporation
May 24, 2004

ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS; PREMISES; PARKING; TERM; OPTIONS; POSSESSION

1.5 Agreement Term. The term of this Agreement (“Term”) shall be for a period of three (3) years commencing on July 1, 2004 (“Commencement Date”) and terminating on June 30, 2007, unless terminated sooner in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

1.6 Option to Extend Term. At the end of the Term, provided that SCC is not then in default under the terms of this Agreement, SCC shall have the option to extend the Term for three (3) additional years (“the Renewal Term”), followed by an option to extend the Renewal Term for an additional three-year (3) period (“the Second Renewal Term”). SCC may exercise its option to extend the Term or the Renewal Term, by giving Carmel an updated Operating Budget, as defined in Section 4.4. for the Renewal Term or the Second Renewal Term, and written notice of its intention to extend the Term or the Renewal Term not less than one hundred and eighty (180) days prior to the end of the Term or the Renewal Term. During the one hundred fifty (150) day period prior to end of the Term or the Renewal Term, Carmel and SCC shall negotiate in good faith to establish a new Enabling Grant, as defined in Section 4.4, for the Renewal Term or the Second Renewal Term. If the parties agree upon a new Enabling Grant, and if Carmel approves an updated Operating Budget, the Term shall be extended and the Renewal Term or the Second Renewal Term shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement, but not including additional options to extend the Second Renewal Term.

ARTICLE 4
EXPENSES
4.1 Carmel’s Duty to Reimburse SCC’s Operation. SCC agrees to assume the full and complete responsibility for all Direct and Indirect Costs of operation of the Sunset Center, except for those specific costs of repair, maintenance and capital expenditures which Carmel assumes under the terms of this Agreement as set forth in Section 6.1 below. In addition to those expenses which Carmel shall pay directly for repair, maintenance and capital expenditures, Carmel shall advance SCC an Enabling Grant as set forth in Section 4.4 below, which is the amount equal to the difference between revenues generated by SCC’s management of Sunset Center, and the costs incurred by SCC in connection therewith, as hereafter provided. Carmel acknowledges and understands that SCC’s initial operating budget is based on best effort estimates by SCC and that adjustments to the budget may be necessary during the Term of this Agreement.

4.2 Operating Budget. EXHIBIT B, attached hereto and incorporated herein, is an operating budget for the three (3) fiscal years of the Term, ending on June 30th of each year. By signing this Agreement, Carmel hereby approves EXHIBIT B.

4.3 Fiscal Year. The fiscal year for SCC shall start July 1 and end June 30 of each year to coincide with Carmel’s fiscal year.

4.4 Enabling Grant. Carmel acknowledges that SCC’s expenses incurred in the management and operation of Sunset Center will exceed revenue SCC generates from the Sunset Center. Therefore, Carmel agrees to provide SCC with an annual Enabling Grant, in amounts set forth in EXHIBIT B, to be paid to SCC in quarterly installments in advance, commencing on July 1, 2004. The annual Enabling Grant is intended to cover SCC’s budgeted financial shortfall as set forth in EXHIBIT B for each fiscal year of the Agreement.

4.5 Advance of Working Capital. Carmel shall advance to SCC five (5) days after the approval of this Agreement by Carmel, or on July 1, 2004, whichever is the first to occur, the lump sum payment of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000) as working capital. Any working capital remaining at the end of the Term shall be credited back to Carmel.

4.6 Start-Up Grant. Carmel shall further provide SCC with a one-time non-refundable start-up grant five days after the approval of this Agreement by Carmel, or on July 1, 2004 whichever is the first to occur, to cover expenses incurred by SCC during the start-up period (“Start-Up Grant”). The Start-Up Grant shall be in the amount set forth in EXHIBIT B.
(Source: http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/, SCCagreement.pdf)

Carmel Beach: "NO SMOKING ON BEACH OR PATHWAY"

"NO SMOKING ON BEACH OR PATHWAY" Sign Posted with other Signs
Carmel Beach, Scenic Rd. near 8th Av.

Close-Up of 1 of 16 "NO SMOKING ON BEACH OR PATHWAY" Signs at Carmel Beach

Earlier this week, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea posted approximately 16 “No Smoking” signs along Carmel Beach between Del Mar Av. & Martin Way. Some of the signs are posted with pre-existing signs (as shown above), some signs are posted under Mutt Mitt dispensers and some signs are posted on the wooden stairways to the beach, about midway down the stairways. Carmel-by-the-Sea is now one city among at least 25 other California cities with “smoke free” beaches.

Selected excerpts from the Municipal Code, as follows:

Chapter 8.36
SMOKING REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC PLACES*

Sections:
8.36.010 Definitions.
8.36.020 Smoking Prohibited in Certain Public Places.
8.36.030 Posting of Signs.
8.36.040 Violation – Penalty.
* For statutory provisions on smoking in public places, see Health and Safety Code § 25940 et seq.

8.36.010 Definitions.
The terms “smoke” or “smoking” are defined for the purposes of this chapter to include the carrying of a lighted pipe, lighted cigar or lighted cigarette of any kind, or the lighting of any pipe, cigar or cigarette. (Ord. 76-1 § 1, 1976; Code 1975 § 699.2).

8.36.020 Smoking Prohibited in Certain Public Places.
Smoking shall be prohibited in the following places within the City:
F. Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful within the boundaries of Carmel Beach, on the Beach Bluff Pathway and within any public beach access way including but not limited to stairways and walkways adjoining public beach areas. Carmel Beach is defined as public lands: west and south of private property along Carmel Way; west of private property on the west side of San Antonio Avenue between 2nd Avenue and Ocean Avenue; west of San Antonio Avenue between 4th Avenue and Ocean Avenue; north of Ocean Avenue between San Antonio Avenue and Del Mar Avenue; west of Del Mar Avenue; west of private property on the west side of Scenic Road between Ocean Avenue and 8th Avenue; and west of the Scenic Road pedestrian pathway between 8th Avenue and the City limit. (Ord. 2005-05 § 1, 2005; Ord. 76-1 § 1, 1976; Code 1975 § 699.3).

8.36.030 Posting of Signs.
Signs which designate smoking or no-smoking areas established by this section shall be clearly, sufficiently and conspicuously placed or posted in every room, building or other place treated by this section at the expense of the building owner or tenant. The manner of such posting, including the wording, size, color, design and place of posting shall be at the discretion of the owner, operator, manager, or other person having control of such room, building or other place; provided, the sign regulations of CMC Title 17 are not violated. (Ord. 76-1 § 1, 1976; Code 1975 § 699.4).

8.36.040 Violation – Penalty.
Any person who shall violate the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of an infraction and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $25.00 for each such violation. (Ord. 76-1 § 1, 1976; Code 1975 § 699.5).


As a review, the City Council considered an Ordinance amending Title 8, Chapter 8.36.020 in late 2005; the Agenda Item Summary, Staff Report and City Council Meeting Minutes, as follows:

Meeting Date: November 1, 2005
Prepared by: Mike Branson
City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an Ordinance amending Title 8, Chapter 8.36.020 of the Municipal Code to prohibit smoking on Carmel Beach and the Beach Bluff Pathway. (Second reading- Ordinance Amended)

Description: Adoption of the amended ordinance to prohibit smoking on Carmel Beach and the Beach Bluff Pathway will provide a safer, cleaner, and healthier environment for tourists, residents, pets and wildlife that visit Carmel Beach. Cigarette and cigar butts are a very common type of litter on the Beach and are slow to decompose into their natural components. Wildlife, pets and small children can ingest discarded butts, which may cause health problems. Second-hand smoke is also a potential health issue and a nuisance to non-smoking beach visitors.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: $500
Grant Funds: Possible from Monterey County Tobacco Program.

Staff time: 3hrs

Staff Recommendation:
Adopt the Ordinance amending Title 8, Chapter 8.36.020 of the Municipal Code to prohibit smoking on Carmel Beach and the Beach Bluff Pathway.

Important Considerations:
Several other California coastal cities have adopted ordinances to prohibit smoking along their beach areas. State legislation to ban smoking on California beaches has failed to pass over the past few years.

Decision Record:
First Reading of Ordinance amended and approved by Council at the October 4, 2005 City Council Meeting.

Reviewed By:
______________________________ ________________

Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FORESTRY DIVISION
STAFF REPORT

TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

FROM: MIKE BRANSON, CITY FORESTER

DATE: 19 OCTOBER 2005

SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AMMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 8.36.020, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SMOKING PROHIBITION ON CARMEL BEACH AND THE BEACH BLUFF PATHWAY.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve an Ordinance amending Title 8, Chapter 8.36.020 of the Municipal Code to prohibit smoking on Carmel Beach and the Beach Bluff Pathway.

BACKGROUND
Michelle House from the Monterey County Health Department made a presentation to the City Council at the July 2005 meeting. At that meeting, she described many of the detrimental effects of smoking, as well as those of second-hand smoke and the resulting litter. The impacts on the beach and ocean environments as well as the on public health were also noted. As such, Staff has been directed to develop an ordinance to prohibit smoking on Carmel Beach and the Beach Bluff Pathway for adoption by the City Council.

REVIEW
In the last few years, several California cities have adopted ordinances banning smoking on their beaches in the interest of providing a cleaner and safer environment for their beach users and local wildlife. These cities include Santa Cruz, Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Carpenteria, Malibu, Solana Beach, and San Clemente. The primary reasons for the ban on smoking are: the litter from cigarette butts, the effects on the beach and ocean environment, and potential health risks to young children, pets and wildlife.

Cigarette and cigar butts have a long period of decomposition when discarded on the beach, often taking over a year to break down. Last year during the coastal cleanup day on Carmel Beach, over 2,700 cigarette and cigar butts were collected. Volunteers
for the monthly Carmel Residents Association Beach Cleanup also collect many cigarette and cigar butts during their activities. Pets and wildlife can mistakenly ingest a butt, which can disrupt their digestive system and affect the animal's health. Children playing in the sand can play with or ingest cigarette or cigar butts, causing potential health problems. Second-hand smoke also has a determental effect on the health of persons in the vicinity of someone smoking as well as detracting from their enjoyment of the environment.

Education and peer pressure, rather than enforcement - although citations are possible - seems to be the preferred method of achieving compliance with the no smoking ordinances. New sings will be necessary to make the public aware of the new ordingance and to provide authority for citations to be issued, if necessary. Additionally, any new signs along the beach will require at least a staff review and possibly a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission. Serveral failed efforts have been made to pass State legislation benning smoking on all California beaches, leading individual cities to take matters into their own hands.

FISCAL IMPACT
New ‘No Smoking’ signs will need to be posted. The cost of the new signs and installation is estimated to be under $500. The county tobacco awareness program may provide some support for the purchase of the signs.

SUMMARY
In the interests of providing a safe, clean and healthy beach environment for humans and wildlife, staff recommends adoption of an ordinance to prohibit smoking on Carmel Beach and the Beach Bluff Pathway.


MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
OCTOBER 4, 2005

XI. A. Consideration Of An Ordinance Amending Title 8, Chapter 8.36.020, Of The Municipal Code To Prohibit Smoking On Carmel Beach. (1st Reading)

Mike Branson, City Forester, presented the staff report. He noted that the Forest and Beach Commission had discussed the issue and were concerned about costs and issues of enforcement. Michelle House of the County of Monterey's Tobacco Control Program answered Council questions and said that the County would provide signs and receptacles to the City free-of-charge.

Mayor McCloud declared the public hearing open at 7:00 p.m.

Barbara Livingston, Clayton Anderson, Linda Anderson addressed the Council.

Mayor McCloud declared the public hearing closed at 7:07 p.m.

Mayor McCloud requested that the ordinance be amended as follows:

The Title of the Ordinance was MODIFIED to read:
“AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 8.36.020, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT SMOKING ON CARMEL BEACH AND THE BEACH BLUFF PATHWAY.”

The First and Second Paragraphs were MODIFIED to read:

“WHEREAS, cigarette and cigar butts are the most common form of litter on California beaches, and

WHEREAS, cigarette and cigar butts are dangerous to young children, pets and wildlife who may ingest them or handle them while still hot and"

Section 8.36.020.F- Smoking Prohibited in Certain Public Places was MODIFIED to read:
“F. Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful within the boundaries of Carmel Beach, on the Beach Bluff Pathway and...”

Council Member ROSE moved adoption of the Ordinance Amending Title 8, Chapter 8.36.020, Of The Municipal Code To Prohibit Smoking On Carmel Beach as amended, seconded by Council Member HAZDIVAC and carried by the following roll call:

AYES: CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC, ROSE, McCLOUD
NOES: BETHEL
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE

NOTES: Solana Beach was the first California city to prohibit smoking at the beach in October 2003: ban effective as of November 2003.

According to the California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section, as of June 2006, there were 25 California beaches prohibiting smoking.
(Source: http://www.dhs.ca.gov/tobacco/documents/pubs/CTCUpdate2006.pdf)

Some of California’s “smoke free” beaches, as follows:
Coronado
Chula Vista
Del Mar
El Cajon
Huntington Beach
Imperial Beach
La Mesa
Laguna Beach
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Malibu
Monterey
National City
Newport Beach
Pacific Grove
San Clemente
San Diego
Sand City
Santa Cruz
Santa Monica
Seal Beach
Solana Beach