Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Random Reportings

ABSTRACT: Random Reportings on the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea COMMUNITY SURVEYS, with associates Notes, proposed fire departments consolidation and Flanders Mansion.

• COMMUNITY SURVEYS: Within the last week, Carmelites received via USPS City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Community Surveys aimed at gathering input from Carmelites on TRAFFIC SAFETY, CIRCULATION AND PARKING, PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES, CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY, NOISE and ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY for the General Plan Revisions Project. The Survey was prepared by the City and RBF Consulting. The surveys are to be completed and returned to the City no later than August 1, 2008, according to an enclosed letter from Planning and Building Services Manager Sean Conroy, dated July 1, 2008. Apparently, numerous Carmelites have received multiple Community Surveys addressed to other individuals but mailed to their addresses. For example, one household received four Community Surveys-one addressed to a member of the household with the correct address and three addressed to three individuals not of the household at their Post Office Box. A concerned resident wrote to the City asking “What went wrong?”

Notes:
The Consultant Services Agreement with the firm of RBF Consulting for the General Plan Update project was unanimously approved by the City Council in an amount not to exceed $166,488 on January 9, 2007.

Even though the Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan Update website states that the website is “designed to keep Carmel’s residents, employees and business community informed about the status and activities involving the General Plan” and “will be updated regularly with new information,” the most recent information on the website is from July 2007. Furthermore, Staff Contact information is out-of-date, listing former employees Brian Roseth (Planning Services Manager), Christie Miller (Community Services Manager), Tim Meroney (Building Official) and Nathan Schmidt (Assistant Planner).

• Proposed Consolidation of Fire Departments: With regard to the payments to Citygate Associates for services related to the proposed fire services consolidation, the cost share formula mutually agreed to prior to the Fire Department Consolidation Feasibility Analysis for the Cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel was Monterey 66%, Pacific Grove 19% and Carmel 15%. Carmel’s share is approximately $9,500.00. Since the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea withdrew from the consolidation process in January 2008, the Cities of Monterey and Pacific Grove have continued consolidation planning, although Monterey is focusing on a “contract for services” model where Monterey would absorb the incumbent Pacific Grove firefighters and provide fire services to Pacific Grove by contract, according to Monterey Fire Chief Sam Mazza. And although Monterey is not currently in discussion with Carmel regarding fire services, Monterey is willing to discuss a “regional fire service opportunity” with Carmel, also according to Monterey Fire Chief Sam Mazza.

• Flanders Mansion: At both City Council Meetings in July 2008, the Regular Meeting on July 1, 2008 and the Special Meeting on July 15, 2008, the City Council adjourned to Closed Session to consider “Existing Litigation” involving conference with legal counsel regarding The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Respondents, Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M76728. After each Closed Session, no announcements were made to the public.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Carmle's actions vis a vis the fire dept. consolidation have been shameful from the standpoint of the residents they are supposed to make safe, to the Carmel firefighters who deserve better treatment, to Monterey and PG, with the city's abrupt pullout from consolidation talks. Carmel by pulling out has made it that much harder for the ultimate solution for fire safety for the greatest number, total consolidation.

Anonymous said...

I would also like to know "what went wrong." Can the city do anything in a competent fashion? Over $150,000 for GP update, what does this say about the process on the entire General Plan update if the city and the city's consultant cannot even get surveys to business owners, second home ownere, permanent home owners at their correct addresses?