ABSTRACT: COUNCIL-MANAGER OR “STRONG MAYOR” The Choice is Clear, prepared by the California City Management Foundation and ICMA, the International City/County Management Association, states, as follows: “There are compelling reasons why many of the nation’s most successful cities and towns have adopted council-manager government rather than the 'strong-mayor' form.” In Council-manager government, Neighborhoods Strengthen Their Voice, The Power of Special Interests is Diffused and Merit-Based Decision Making occurs. Especially relevant to Carmel: “Under the ‘strong mayor’ form of government, the day-to-day management of community operations shifts to the mayor, who often lacks the appropriate training, education, and experience in municipal administration and finance to oversee the delivery of essential community services.” Finally, History Argues for the Council-Manager Form of Government. The article is reproduced. And a link to Beware the Lure of the "Strong" Mayor, an article abut the "good and bad aspects of the strong mayor form of government" using two case histories, is provided.
COUNCIL-MANAGER OR “STRONG MAYOR”
The Choice is Clear
Learn the Facts About Council-Manager Government
Everyone wants strong political leadership—neighborhoods, civic leaders, and the business community included. And today’s complex communities cannot succeed without the guidance of effective mayors who provide a sense of direction and contribute to the smooth functioning of a local government.
But communities also need thoughtful, dedicated council members, who work with the mayor to establish appropriate policy, and competent, professional managers to carry out those policies. None of the three are mutually exclusive; they can and do work together today in many of the country’s successful council-manager communities.
Today council-manager government is the fastest growing form of government in the United States; it frees up the elected body to establish policy, which is carried out by an appointed manager and an administrative staff. The manager is accountable to the entire council for the satisfactory implementation of council policy and the day-to-day administration of municipal affairs.
There are compelling reasons why many of the nation’s most successful cities and towns have adopted council-manager government rather than the “strong-mayor” form. Council-manager government encourages neighborhood input into the political process, diffuses the power of special interests, and eliminates partisan politics from municipal hiring, firing, and contracting decisions.
People who take time to learn the facts about council-manager government are likely to join the ranks of those who favor this popular form. Consider the following when deciding which form of government is best for your community:
Neighborhoods Strengthen Their Voice
The council-manager form encourages open communication between citizens and their government. Under this form, each member of the governing body has an equal voice in policy development and administrative oversight. This gives neighborhoods and diverse groups a greater opportunity to influence policy.
Under the “strong mayor” form, political power is concentrated in the mayor, which means that other members of the elected body relinquish at least some of their policy-making power and influence. This loss of decision-making power among council members can have a chilling effect on the voices of neighborhoods and city residents.
The Power of Special Interests is Diffused
Under the council-manager form of government, involvement of the entire elected body ensures a more balanced approach to community decision making, so that all interests can be expressed and heard—not just those that are well funded. Under the “strong mayor” form, however, it’s easier for special interests to use money and political power to influence a single elected official, rather than having to secure a majority of the city council’s support for their agenda.
Merit-Based Decision Making Vs. Partisan Politics
Under council-manager government, qualifications and performance—and not skillful navigation of the political election process—are the criteria the elected body uses to select a professional manager. The professional manager, in turn, uses his or her education, experience, and training to select department heads and other key managers to oversee the efficient delivery of services. In this way, council-manager government maintains critical checks and balances to ensure accountability at city hall.
Functioning much like a business organization's chief executive officer, the appointed professional manager administers the daily operations of the community. Through a professional staff, the manager ensures the effective provision of services and enforces the policies adopted by the elected body. He or she, in turn, uses merit as the leading criterion for making all hiring and personnel decisions.
Appointed local government managers have no guaranteed term of office or tenure. They can be dismissed by the council at any time, for any reason. As a result, they constantly must respond to citizens and be dedicated to the highest ideals of honesty, integrity, and excellence in the management and delivery of public services.
Under the “strong mayor” form of government, the day-to-day management of community operations shifts to the mayor, who often lacks the appropriate training, education, and experience in municipal administration and finance to oversee the delivery of essential community services. Also, under the “strong mayor” form, the temptation is strong to make decisions regarding the hiring and firing of key department head positions—such as the police chief, public works director, and finance director—based on the applicant’s political support rather than his or her professional qualifications.
Many Successful Cities Use Council-Manager Government
Council-manager government works! It balances diverse interests, responds quickly to challenges, and brings the community together to resolve even the toughest issues.
Currently, more than 92 million Americans live in council-manager communities, and the system continues to flourish. This form of government is used by thousands of small, medium, and large jurisdictions, including Charlotte, N.C.; Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, and San Antonio, Texas; Las Vegas, Nev.; Oklahoma City, Okla.; Phoenix and Tucson, Ariz.; Sacramento, San Jose, and Anaheim, Calif.; Wichita, Kans.; and Colorado Springs, Colo. Consider these examples:
History Argues for the Council-Manager Form of Government
Nearly 100 years old, the council-manager form of government has proven its adaptability; today it is the most popular choice of structure among U.S. communities with populations of 2,500 or greater.
Council-manager government, however, was not always an option. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was widespread corruption, graft, and nepotism among U.S. cities. The stories of New York City’s Tammany Hall and Kansas City’s Pendergrast machine are only two examples of the misuse of local government power during this time.
By the early 20th century, reformers were looking for ways to return control of municipal government to citizens. Those reformers advocated the council-manager structure of government to eliminate the corruption found in many cities. With its emphasis on professional training and accountability, the council-manager form of government was first formally adopted in 1912 (following appointment of the first manager in 1908), and
was subsequently adopted by a number of cities in the 1920s and 1930s.
It took years to diffuse the power entrenched in turn-of-the-century city political machines and special interests. Today, however, citizens throughout the U.S. have resumed control by adopting or retaining council-manager government in their community and enjoying representative democracy at its best.
SIDEBAR:
San Jose, California (pop. 894,000)
Long viewed as the “capital” of Silicon Valley, San Jose uses the council-manager form of government to successfully manage diverse interests in an environment of rapid residential and commercial growth.
Phoenix, Arizona (pop. 1,321,000)
In 1993, Phoenix captured the international Bartelsmann Award for being one of the two best managed cities in the world. Today, the city continues to maintain its reputation as a model U.S. community.
Boulder, Colorado (pop. 94,000)
One of the nation’s most beautiful and environmentally conscious communities, the city of Boulder successfully balances environmental quality with a vibrant business climate.
Dayton, Ohio (166,000)
Dayton enhanced the process of involving citizens in community decision making by creating neighborhood-based priority boards to deal with key funding, service, and neighborhood issues.
Prepared by the California City Management Foundation and ICMA, the International City/County Management Association (Revised 2009)
ADDENDUM:
Beware the Lure of the "Strong" Mayor
by Terrell Blodgett
January 1994
International City/County Management Association
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Calendar Year 2010: Top City Employees Salaries, Overtime & Benefits
ABSTRACT: For Calendar Year 2010, Top Five Taxpayer Compensated City Employees (Over $193,000), Other Top Taxpayer Compensated City Employees (over $108,000) and Taxpayer Compensated City Council Members lists are compiled. For city employees, each listing includes the name of the city employee, Salary, Overtime (if any), Benefits, Holiday Pay (if any) and Total Compensation and 2010/11 Budget Summary for Department/Division, including Salary/Benefits, Materials/Services and Total. In calendar year 2010, the top five taxpayer compensated city employees were Carmel Fire Captain Mitch Kastros (Total Compensation $208,111.70), Carmel Police Sgt. Ken Shen (Total Compensation $205,386.97), Police Chief/Public Safety Director George Rawson (Total Compensation $199,057.05), City Administrator Rich Guillen (Total Compensation $197,923.28) and Carmel Fire Captain Ian Watts (Total Compensation $193,472.04). The City’s EXPENDITURE SUMMARY, 2010/11 Budget Summary shows $ 8,019,693 Salary/Benefits, $ 5,908,171 Materials/Services for a Total of $ 13,927,864. The City’s total Estimated Actual Budget 2009/10 $ 13,281,151 and Revised Budget 2010/11 $ 13,927,864. The City has 66 full time positions and 9.68 part time FTE’s. Links to Salary Information for Comparable Cities (population and tourist destination) are provided courtesy of the California State Controller's Office, Controller John Chiang.
Top Five Taxpayer Compensated City Employees (Over $193,000):
1. Carmel Fire Captain Mitch Kastros
Salary: $99,660
Overtime: $58,738.03
Benefits: $45,129.31
Holiday Pay: $4,584.36
Total Compensation: $208,111.70
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Fire
Salary/Benefits:$ 1,471,060
Materials/Services: $ 547,125
Total: $ 2,018,185
2. Carmel Police Sgt. Ken Shen
Salary: $148,200
Overtime: $7,202.08
Benefits: $45,586.97
In-Lieu Holiday Pay: $4,397.92
Total Compensation: $205,386.97.
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Police
Salary/Benefits: $ 2 ,673,936
Materials/Services: $ 2 67,479
Total: $ 2,941,415
3. Police Chief/Public Safety Director George Rawson
Salary: $140,000
Benefits: $59,057.05
Total Compensation: $199,057.05
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Police
Salary/Benefits: $ 2 ,673,936
Materials/Services: $ 2 67,479
Total: $ 2,941,415
4. City Administrator Rich Guillen
Salary: $150,000
Benefits: $47,923.28
Total Compensation: $197,923.28.
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Administration
Salary/Benefits: $ 445,091
Materials/Services: $ 336,670
Total: $ 781,761
5. Carmel Fire Captain Ian Watts
Salary: $99,660
Overtime: $40,517.38
Benefits: $48,710.30
Holiday Pay: $4,584.36
Total Compensation: $193,472.04
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Fire
Salary/Benefits:$ 1,471,060
Materials/Services: $ 547,125
Total: $ 2,018,185
Other Top Taxpayer Compensated City Employees (over $108,000):
Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Heidi Burch
Salary: $111,899.40
Benefits: $33,408.54
Total Compensation: $145,307.94
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Administration
Salary/Benefits: $ 445,091
Materials/Services: $ 336,670
Total: $ 781,761
Public Works Superintendent Stu Ross
Salary: $107,741.50
Overtime: $2,605.19
Benefits: $34,412.18
Total Compensation: $144,758.87
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Public Works
Salary/Benefits: $ 659,296
Materials/Services: $ 461,662
Total: $ 1,120,958
City Forester Mike Branson
Total Compensation: $133,947.17
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Forest, Parks and Beach
Salary/Benefits: $ 324,223
Materials/Services: $ 209,455
Total: $ 533,678
Information Services/Network Manager Steve McInchak
Total Compensation: $132,292.65
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Information Services/Network Management
Salary/Benefits: $ 246,049
Materials/Services: $ 61,950
Total: $ 307,999
Planning and Building Services Manager Sean Conroy
Salary: $79,569.59
Benefits: $38,479.25
Total Compensation: $118,048.84
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Community Planning and Building
Salary/Benefits: $ 528,820
Materials/Services: $ 87,500
Total: $ 616,320
Library Director Janet Cubbage
Salary: $89,480.40
Benefits: $22,916.90
Total Compensation: $112,397.30
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Harrison Memorial Library
Salary/Benefits: $ 913,324
Materials/Services: $ 30,000
Total: $ 943,324
Facilities Maintenance Manager Bernard Martino
Salary: $90,466.27
Benefits: $18,141.01
Total Compensation: $108,607.28
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Facilities Maintenance
Salary/Benefits: $ 207,325
Materials/Services: $ 241,493
Total: $ 448,818
Taxpayer Compensated City Council Members:
Mayor Sue McCloud
Stipend: $2,400
Benefits: $453.60
City Council Member Paula Hazdovac
Stipend: $1,800
Benefits: $12,642.24
City Council Member Karen Sharp
Stipend: $1,800
Benefits: $12,642.24
City Council Member Ken Talmage
Stipend: $1,800
Benefits: $10,537.32
City Council Member Jason Burnett (elected April 2010)
Not included.
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: City Council
Salary/Benefits: $ 50,507
Materials/Services: $ 56,100
Total: $ 106,607
NOTES:
Calendar Year 2010: $7,352,162.36 salaries and benefits for public employees, including $4,839,459.10 salaries, $501,049.97 overtime, $1,917,800.73 benefits (medical, dental, uniform pay, retirement contributions from the city and other income) and $93,852.56 holiday pay to public-safety employees.
Calendar Year 2009: $7,139,401.41 salaries and benefits for public employees, including $4,593,381.10 salaries, $329,092.03 overtime, $1,828,326.38 benefits and $82,992.93 in holiday pay to public-safety workers.
SOURCES:
Police and fire top salary costs, MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, April 29, 2011, 1A & 9A
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CALIFORNIA
ADOPTED BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 2010/11 AND ESTIMATED THROUGH 2012/13
ADDENDUM:
Local Government Compensation Reports
Calendar Year 2009
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea
Population: 4,037 (as of June 30, 2009)
Web Address: http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us
Salary Information for Comparable Cities (population and tourist destination):
Calendar Year 2009
City of Yountville
Population: 3,263 (as of June 30, 2009)
Web Address: http://www.townofyountville.com/human-resources.html
Calendar Year 2009
City of Avalon
Population: 3,540 (as of June 30, 2009)
Calendar Year 2009
City of Del Mar
Population: 4,591 (as of June 30, 2009)
Web Address: http://www.delmar.ca.us
Calendar Year 2009
City of Sonora
Population: 4,666 (as of June 30, 2009)
Web Address: http://www.sonoraca.com/employment/hr%20dept.htm
Calendar Year 2009
City of Calistoga
Population: 5,331 (as of June 30, 2009)
Overtime
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Overtime Pay
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Top Five Taxpayer Compensated City Employees (Over $193,000):
1. Carmel Fire Captain Mitch Kastros
Salary: $99,660
Overtime: $58,738.03
Benefits: $45,129.31
Holiday Pay: $4,584.36
Total Compensation: $208,111.70
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Fire
Salary/Benefits:$ 1,471,060
Materials/Services: $ 547,125
Total: $ 2,018,185
2. Carmel Police Sgt. Ken Shen
Salary: $148,200
Overtime: $7,202.08
Benefits: $45,586.97
In-Lieu Holiday Pay: $4,397.92
Total Compensation: $205,386.97.
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Police
Salary/Benefits: $ 2 ,673,936
Materials/Services: $ 2 67,479
Total: $ 2,941,415
3. Police Chief/Public Safety Director George Rawson
Salary: $140,000
Benefits: $59,057.05
Total Compensation: $199,057.05
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Police
Salary/Benefits: $ 2 ,673,936
Materials/Services: $ 2 67,479
Total: $ 2,941,415
4. City Administrator Rich Guillen
Salary: $150,000
Benefits: $47,923.28
Total Compensation: $197,923.28.
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Administration
Salary/Benefits: $ 445,091
Materials/Services: $ 336,670
Total: $ 781,761
5. Carmel Fire Captain Ian Watts
Salary: $99,660
Overtime: $40,517.38
Benefits: $48,710.30
Holiday Pay: $4,584.36
Total Compensation: $193,472.04
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Fire
Salary/Benefits:$ 1,471,060
Materials/Services: $ 547,125
Total: $ 2,018,185
Other Top Taxpayer Compensated City Employees (over $108,000):
Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Heidi Burch
Salary: $111,899.40
Benefits: $33,408.54
Total Compensation: $145,307.94
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Administration
Salary/Benefits: $ 445,091
Materials/Services: $ 336,670
Total: $ 781,761
Public Works Superintendent Stu Ross
Salary: $107,741.50
Overtime: $2,605.19
Benefits: $34,412.18
Total Compensation: $144,758.87
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Public Works
Salary/Benefits: $ 659,296
Materials/Services: $ 461,662
Total: $ 1,120,958
City Forester Mike Branson
Total Compensation: $133,947.17
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Forest, Parks and Beach
Salary/Benefits: $ 324,223
Materials/Services: $ 209,455
Total: $ 533,678
Information Services/Network Manager Steve McInchak
Total Compensation: $132,292.65
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Information Services/Network Management
Salary/Benefits: $ 246,049
Materials/Services: $ 61,950
Total: $ 307,999
Planning and Building Services Manager Sean Conroy
Salary: $79,569.59
Benefits: $38,479.25
Total Compensation: $118,048.84
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Community Planning and Building
Salary/Benefits: $ 528,820
Materials/Services: $ 87,500
Total: $ 616,320
Library Director Janet Cubbage
Salary: $89,480.40
Benefits: $22,916.90
Total Compensation: $112,397.30
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Harrison Memorial Library
Salary/Benefits: $ 913,324
Materials/Services: $ 30,000
Total: $ 943,324
Facilities Maintenance Manager Bernard Martino
Salary: $90,466.27
Benefits: $18,141.01
Total Compensation: $108,607.28
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: Facilities Maintenance
Salary/Benefits: $ 207,325
Materials/Services: $ 241,493
Total: $ 448,818
Taxpayer Compensated City Council Members:
Mayor Sue McCloud
Stipend: $2,400
Benefits: $453.60
City Council Member Paula Hazdovac
Stipend: $1,800
Benefits: $12,642.24
City Council Member Karen Sharp
Stipend: $1,800
Benefits: $12,642.24
City Council Member Ken Talmage
Stipend: $1,800
Benefits: $10,537.32
City Council Member Jason Burnett (elected April 2010)
Not included.
2010/11 Budget Summary
Department/Division: City Council
Salary/Benefits: $ 50,507
Materials/Services: $ 56,100
Total: $ 106,607
NOTES:
Calendar Year 2010: $7,352,162.36 salaries and benefits for public employees, including $4,839,459.10 salaries, $501,049.97 overtime, $1,917,800.73 benefits (medical, dental, uniform pay, retirement contributions from the city and other income) and $93,852.56 holiday pay to public-safety employees.
Calendar Year 2009: $7,139,401.41 salaries and benefits for public employees, including $4,593,381.10 salaries, $329,092.03 overtime, $1,828,326.38 benefits and $82,992.93 in holiday pay to public-safety workers.
SOURCES:
Police and fire top salary costs, MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, April 29, 2011, 1A & 9A
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CALIFORNIA
ADOPTED BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 2010/11 AND ESTIMATED THROUGH 2012/13
ADDENDUM:
Local Government Compensation Reports
Calendar Year 2009
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea
Population: 4,037 (as of June 30, 2009)
Web Address: http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us
Salary Information for Comparable Cities (population and tourist destination):
Calendar Year 2009
City of Yountville
Population: 3,263 (as of June 30, 2009)
Web Address: http://www.townofyountville.com/human-resources.html
Calendar Year 2009
City of Avalon
Population: 3,540 (as of June 30, 2009)
Calendar Year 2009
City of Del Mar
Population: 4,591 (as of June 30, 2009)
Web Address: http://www.delmar.ca.us
Calendar Year 2009
City of Sonora
Population: 4,666 (as of June 30, 2009)
Web Address: http://www.sonoraca.com/employment/hr%20dept.htm
Calendar Year 2009
City of Calistoga
Population: 5,331 (as of June 30, 2009)
Overtime
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Overtime Pay
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Friday, April 29, 2011
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING: City Administrator Recruitment Presentations & Selection of a recruiting firm to conduct the recruitment of the City Administrator
ABSTRACT: A Special City Council Meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, Saturday, 30 April 2011 at 9:00 A.M., City Council Chambers. The AMENDED agenda consists of City Administrator Recruitment Presentations by Ralph Anderson & Associates and Avery & Associates and Selection of a recruiting firm to conduct the recruitment of the City Administrator. The AMENDED NOTICE is reproduced.
NOTICE OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AMENDED
Saturday, April 30, 2011
9:00 a.m.
Council Chambers
East side of Monte Verde Street between
Ocean and Seventh Avenues
Live video streaming available at:
www.ci.carmel.ca.us
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Pledge of Allegiance
IV. Orders of Council
A. Interviews with representatives of selected firms interested in conducting the recruitment of the City Administrator.
B. Selection of a recruiting firm to conduct the recruitment of the City Administrator.
V. Adjournment
NOTICE OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AMENDED
Saturday, April 30, 2011
9:00 a.m.
Council Chambers
East side of Monte Verde Street between
Ocean and Seventh Avenues
Live video streaming available at:
www.ci.carmel.ca.us
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Pledge of Allegiance
IV. Orders of Council
A. Interviews with representatives of selected firms interested in conducting the recruitment of the City Administrator.
B. Selection of a recruiting firm to conduct the recruitment of the City Administrator.
V. Adjournment
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
COMBINED RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AND CROSS-APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF: Court of Appeal No. H035818
ABSTRACT: COMBINED RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AND CROSS APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF, THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION, Plaintiff and Respondent vs. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Defendants and Appellants, Court of Appeal No. H035818, is embedded and SYNOPSIS HIGHLIGHTS, including the reproduced Conclusion, are presented. Respondent’s Brief (Defendant and Appellant: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea) is due 4 May 2011, and will be posted when available.
COMBINED RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AND CROSS-APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF H035818 -
COMBINED RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AND CROSS-APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
No. H035818
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA,
Defendants and Appellants.
Civil No. H035818
Monterey County Superior Court
Case No. M99437
On appeal from the Superior Court of Monterey County
Honorable Kay T. Kingsley
COMBINED RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AND
CROSS-APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP
Susan Brandt-Hawley / 75907
P.O. Box 1659
13760 Arnold Drive
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
(707) 938-3900, fax (707) 938-3200
susanbh@preservationlawyers.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent
The Flanders Foundation
SYNOPSIS HIGHLIGHTS:
Discussion includes, as follows:
A. The CEQA Appeal
1. Surplus Land Act Issues
EIR Analysis is Inadequate
B. The Cross Appeal
1. Analysis of Economic Feasibility
Feasibility Analysis should be in the EIR
The CBRE Report was Inadequate
2. Lease of Flanders Mansion is Feasible
3. There are no Overriding Considerations.
Conclusion
The Flanders Foundation appreciates that the Court will not lightly interfere with the public policy decisions of an elected decisionmaking body such as the Carmel City Council, but when a decision has significant environmental impacts, CEQA overrides the Council’s discretion until its mandated procedures and substance are met.
The City’s appeal should be denied and the Flanders Foundations’ cross-appeal should be granted. On remand, the peremptory writ should issue because the Flanders EIR failed to assess environmental impacts related to compliance with the Surplus Land Act, failed to adequately respond to comments, and failed to adequately analyze the economic feasibility of a lease. The City’s findings violated the substantive mandate of CEQA because no substantial evidence supported the infeasibility of a lease alternative or the statement of overriding considerations.
The Court’s enforcement of CEQA is respectfully requested to provide great and longstanding public benefit to the citizens of Carmel.
April 1, 2011
COMBINED RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AND CROSS-APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF H035818 -
COMBINED RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AND CROSS-APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
No. H035818
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA,
Defendants and Appellants.
Civil No. H035818
Monterey County Superior Court
Case No. M99437
On appeal from the Superior Court of Monterey County
Honorable Kay T. Kingsley
COMBINED RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AND
CROSS-APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP
Susan Brandt-Hawley / 75907
P.O. Box 1659
13760 Arnold Drive
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
(707) 938-3900, fax (707) 938-3200
susanbh@preservationlawyers.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent
The Flanders Foundation
SYNOPSIS HIGHLIGHTS:
Discussion includes, as follows:
A. The CEQA Appeal
1. Surplus Land Act Issues
EIR Analysis is Inadequate
B. The Cross Appeal
1. Analysis of Economic Feasibility
Feasibility Analysis should be in the EIR
The CBRE Report was Inadequate
2. Lease of Flanders Mansion is Feasible
3. There are no Overriding Considerations.
Conclusion
The Flanders Foundation appreciates that the Court will not lightly interfere with the public policy decisions of an elected decisionmaking body such as the Carmel City Council, but when a decision has significant environmental impacts, CEQA overrides the Council’s discretion until its mandated procedures and substance are met.
The City’s appeal should be denied and the Flanders Foundations’ cross-appeal should be granted. On remand, the peremptory writ should issue because the Flanders EIR failed to assess environmental impacts related to compliance with the Surplus Land Act, failed to adequately respond to comments, and failed to adequately analyze the economic feasibility of a lease. The City’s findings violated the substantive mandate of CEQA because no substantial evidence supported the infeasibility of a lease alternative or the statement of overriding considerations.
The Court’s enforcement of CEQA is respectfully requested to provide great and longstanding public benefit to the citizens of Carmel.
April 1, 2011
‘MINUTES’ for Special City Council Meeting: City Administrator Recruitment Presentations by Bobbi Peckham, Peckham & McKenney and Bob Murray, Bob Murray & Associates
“MINUTES”
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12 noon
Council Chambers
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
Archived video streaming
II. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Council Members Burnett, Hazdovac, Sharp, Talmage, Mayor McCloud
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk
IV. Orders of Council
A. Interviews with representatives of selected firms interested in conducting the recruitment of the City Administrator.
Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.
PECKHAM & MCKENNEY:
Bobbi Peckham, Peckham & McKenney, gave her presentation.
• Bobbi Peckham has been an executive recruiter with three separate firms; she founded her own firm seven years ago, Peckham & McKenney.
• 94% of placements in positions today.
• Peckham is currently working with the cities of Encinitas, Tulare, Town of Woodside; past work in the last two years with the cities of Del Mar, Mill Valley, St. Helena, Palo Verdes Estates and Town of Moraga.
• Peckham cited her past recruitment work for the cities of Park City, Vail, Big Bear Lake, Calistoga; all cities “very similar” to Carmel.
• Peckham characterized herself as having “more experience” than other recruiters with smaller, affluent, highly educated, tourism or resort based, communities.
• Peckham described her personality and style as “extremely high integrity.” She keeps cities posted on recruitment activities “at all times.” She has three contracts presently. Her “team” is primarily “me.”
• Process involves meeting individually with council members for about one hour, then meeting as a group, meeting with management employees and staff, participating in a public forum, contacting chamber, residents association for the purpose of developing a “profile.” She has a “search schedule.” She will do preliminary interviews of candidates and then communicate with city about interviews. Peckham has a “strong and active database.”
• Peckham described the role of the community in the process. After profile is developed, she searches for candidates, conducts preliminary interviews with 15-18 candidates, shares information with council and makes recommendations to the council. Council then selects finalists for interviews and determines process for selection of city administrator.
• Peckham's firm has a two year guarantee. She described situations with Calistoga and Moraga.
• In the aftermath of the Bell scandal, there is a focus on salaries and benefits. Two-tier system is considered now by cities. Salaries and benefits can be stated as “under consideration” during recruitment process.
• Typically 50-80 candidates for the position of city manager.
• Peckham stated that she is more actively involved in the profession than other recruiters. She encouraged the council to contact her references and talk to them.
ADDENDUM:
Bobbi C. Peckham
Bobbi Peckham is one of the West Coast’s leading local government recruiters and has 28 years of experience in local government and executive recruitment. Ms. Peckham began her career in the public sector in Naperville, Illinois, where she became familiar with all aspects of local government. Ms. Peckham was then recruited to join the Executive Search practice of a leading California recruitment firm. Later, she played an integral role in creating a national search business for what became the largest recruitment practice serving local government in the country. Here, she became Regional Director overseeing Northern California and a nine-state region.
In 2001, Ms. Peckham was invited to implement a public sector search practice for a Sacramento-based, private sector firm. As a result of her success in this implementation, she then chose to leave in June 2004 in order to form Peckham & McKenney in partnership with Phil McKenney. Ms. Peckham has personally conducted hundreds of national searches throughout the Western United States. She has extensive experience working with City Councils, Executive Boards, and local government administrators, listening to and understanding their needs in executive level placements.
Ms. Peckham received a Bachelor of Science degree in Organizational Behavior from the University of San Francisco. She is a contributing member of the International City/County Management Association, CAL-ICMA, International Public Management Association, Municipal Management Association of Southern California, Professional Businesswomen of California, Municipal Management Association of Northern California, and Women Leading Government.
Ms. Peckham was appointed to ICMA’s National Job Hunting Task Force and serves on Cal-ICMA’s Committee on Preparing the Next Generation.
Our Philosophy
“All About People”
“All About Fit”
When we chose to form our own executive search firm, we did so with the goal of providing both clients and candidates unparalleled service.
We achieve this goal by limiting the number of searches we take on at any one point in time, thereby focusing more directly on those we serve. In this way, no client or candidate should ever feel “lost in the shuffle.”
Not only do we take great care of our clients and candidates, but we are very actively involved in efforts to prepare the next generation of local government managers. Our commitment to the industry is genuine, and we look forward to many years of service
Testimonials
Current Searches
Recent Placements
BOB MURRAY & ASSOCIATES:
Bob Murray, Bob Murray & Associates, gave his presentation.
• Background and firm information:
For 25 years, Bob Murray (a former city manager) has placed over 125 city managers in California and the western U.S. His goal is to “get to know you” and use that information as a guide to search for outstanding candidates; client-driven and personal approach meeting councils’ needs and expectations. Murray described process as “transparent” and “engages the community.”
• Six people in Sacramento office; Regan Williams, Vice President; Wesley Herman, Vice President; S. Renee Narloch, Vice President — Southeast/Mid Atlantic Region; Amanda Urrutia-Sanders, Principal Consultant; Sarah Kenney, Senior Consultant; and Rosa Gomez, Administrative Manager
• Murray cited past recruitments for cities of Laguna Beach, Coronado (destination community), Lodi, Sonoma (destination community), Calistoga (destination community) and South Lake Tahoe.
• Input from businesses, residents, staff to produce profile: options include meet with representatives of each group, host a town hall meeting. Murray recommended a town hall meeting for members of the public to inform the decision-makers and himself as recruiter. Murrary described recommending 5-8 candidates, council interview candidates in executive session to narrow field to 3 candidates, then engage community and staff as advisors. Murray suggested appointing a citizen committee to talk to 3 candidates and report to council the strengths and weaknesses of candidates and areas to further pursue.
• Murray described himself as "attentive to clients," works diligently to get best candidates, and clients pleased with the outcomes.
• Murray cited his firm with the record of the majority of police chief searches in the western U.S. and city managers and city administrators’ searches.
• Current searches five or six; communication with council “as often as you like.”
• Murray recommended disclosing a two-tier system, if under consideration or adopted.
• Timeline: Sixty days from start of search until close of recruitment. Three weeks to review candidates and report recommendations to council. Council interview candidates within week and second round a week later. Candidate hired in five months.
• Reference checking process; once two-four final candidates identified, perform criminal, civil, credit, drivers’ license, and education checks.
• Murray concluded he likes what he does, it makes him a better recruiter and he wants to work with the council to find the best person, the best person for Carmel, “not for Bob.”
ADDENDUM:
Bob Murray, President
Mr. Murray brings over 20 years experience as a recruiter. Mr. Murray is recognized as one of the nation's leading recruiters. He has conducted hundreds of searches for cities, counties, and special districts. He has been called on to conduct searches for some of the largest most complex organizations in the country and some of the smallest. Mr. Murray has conducted searches for chief executives, department heads, professional and technical positions. Mr. Murray has taken the lead on the firm's most difficult assignments with great success. His clients have retained him again and again given the quality of his work and success in finding candidates for difficult to fill positions.
Prior to creating Bob Murray & Associates, Mr. Murray directed the search practice for the largest search practice serving local government in the country. Mr. Murray has worked in local government and benefits from the knowledge of having led an organization. Prior to his career in executive search he served as the City Manager for the City of Olympia, Washington. He has also served as an Assistant City Manager and held positions in law enforcement.
Mr. Murray received his Bachelor's degree in Criminology from the University of California at Berkeley with graduate studies in Public Administration at California State University at Hayward.
“Experts in Executive Search”
Bob Murray & Associates brings a personal approach to providing quality executive recruitment services. Our clients include cities, counties, and special districts, both large and small. Our experience includes working with the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Fresno, Sacramento, and San Diego, CA; Eugene, Salem, and Portland, OR; Seattle, WA; San Antonio, TX; New Orleans, LA; Greenville, SC; Norfolk, VA; Jupiter and Miami Beach, FL; and Washington DC. Counties we have assisted include Orange County, Monterey County, and Marin County, CA; Clackamas County and Washington, OR; Fulton County, Orange County and Lowndes County, GA; Arlington County, VA; and Bay County, FL. We have also assisted a number of special districts and professional organizations including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association and the California State Association of Counties.
Many of our clients are "repeat customers" that return to Bob Murray & Associates because of our emphasis on quality and our success in finding candidates for positions that are difficult to fill.
Through many years of experience, we have created an ideal recruitment process by combining our ability to help you to determine the direction of the search and the types of candidates you seek. We understand the importance of recruiting candidates who are not necessarily looking for a job and are doing well in their current position. Working with professionalism, integrity and personal attention, our team-oriented search process, in addition to our proven expertise, ensures that the candidates we present for your consideration will match the criteria you have established and will be outstanding in their field. Our collaborative process, created to build partnerships with our clients, entails the following:
• Developing a Candidate Profile
• Advertising Campaign and Recruiting Brochure
• Recruiting Candidates
• Candidate Interviews and Evaluation
• Referencing Top Candidates
• Recommendation
• Final Interviews and Background Checks
• Negotiations
Current Searches
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12 noon
Council Chambers
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
Archived video streaming
II. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Council Members Burnett, Hazdovac, Sharp, Talmage, Mayor McCloud
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk
IV. Orders of Council
A. Interviews with representatives of selected firms interested in conducting the recruitment of the City Administrator.
Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.
PECKHAM & MCKENNEY:
Bobbi Peckham, Peckham & McKenney, gave her presentation.
• Bobbi Peckham has been an executive recruiter with three separate firms; she founded her own firm seven years ago, Peckham & McKenney.
• 94% of placements in positions today.
• Peckham is currently working with the cities of Encinitas, Tulare, Town of Woodside; past work in the last two years with the cities of Del Mar, Mill Valley, St. Helena, Palo Verdes Estates and Town of Moraga.
• Peckham cited her past recruitment work for the cities of Park City, Vail, Big Bear Lake, Calistoga; all cities “very similar” to Carmel.
• Peckham characterized herself as having “more experience” than other recruiters with smaller, affluent, highly educated, tourism or resort based, communities.
• Peckham described her personality and style as “extremely high integrity.” She keeps cities posted on recruitment activities “at all times.” She has three contracts presently. Her “team” is primarily “me.”
• Process involves meeting individually with council members for about one hour, then meeting as a group, meeting with management employees and staff, participating in a public forum, contacting chamber, residents association for the purpose of developing a “profile.” She has a “search schedule.” She will do preliminary interviews of candidates and then communicate with city about interviews. Peckham has a “strong and active database.”
• Peckham described the role of the community in the process. After profile is developed, she searches for candidates, conducts preliminary interviews with 15-18 candidates, shares information with council and makes recommendations to the council. Council then selects finalists for interviews and determines process for selection of city administrator.
• Peckham's firm has a two year guarantee. She described situations with Calistoga and Moraga.
• In the aftermath of the Bell scandal, there is a focus on salaries and benefits. Two-tier system is considered now by cities. Salaries and benefits can be stated as “under consideration” during recruitment process.
• Typically 50-80 candidates for the position of city manager.
• Peckham stated that she is more actively involved in the profession than other recruiters. She encouraged the council to contact her references and talk to them.
ADDENDUM:
Bobbi C. Peckham
Bobbi Peckham is one of the West Coast’s leading local government recruiters and has 28 years of experience in local government and executive recruitment. Ms. Peckham began her career in the public sector in Naperville, Illinois, where she became familiar with all aspects of local government. Ms. Peckham was then recruited to join the Executive Search practice of a leading California recruitment firm. Later, she played an integral role in creating a national search business for what became the largest recruitment practice serving local government in the country. Here, she became Regional Director overseeing Northern California and a nine-state region.
In 2001, Ms. Peckham was invited to implement a public sector search practice for a Sacramento-based, private sector firm. As a result of her success in this implementation, she then chose to leave in June 2004 in order to form Peckham & McKenney in partnership with Phil McKenney. Ms. Peckham has personally conducted hundreds of national searches throughout the Western United States. She has extensive experience working with City Councils, Executive Boards, and local government administrators, listening to and understanding their needs in executive level placements.
Ms. Peckham received a Bachelor of Science degree in Organizational Behavior from the University of San Francisco. She is a contributing member of the International City/County Management Association, CAL-ICMA, International Public Management Association, Municipal Management Association of Southern California, Professional Businesswomen of California, Municipal Management Association of Northern California, and Women Leading Government.
Ms. Peckham was appointed to ICMA’s National Job Hunting Task Force and serves on Cal-ICMA’s Committee on Preparing the Next Generation.
Our Philosophy
“All About People”
“All About Fit”
When we chose to form our own executive search firm, we did so with the goal of providing both clients and candidates unparalleled service.
We achieve this goal by limiting the number of searches we take on at any one point in time, thereby focusing more directly on those we serve. In this way, no client or candidate should ever feel “lost in the shuffle.”
Not only do we take great care of our clients and candidates, but we are very actively involved in efforts to prepare the next generation of local government managers. Our commitment to the industry is genuine, and we look forward to many years of service
Testimonials
Current Searches
Recent Placements
BOB MURRAY & ASSOCIATES:
Bob Murray, Bob Murray & Associates, gave his presentation.
• Background and firm information:
For 25 years, Bob Murray (a former city manager) has placed over 125 city managers in California and the western U.S. His goal is to “get to know you” and use that information as a guide to search for outstanding candidates; client-driven and personal approach meeting councils’ needs and expectations. Murray described process as “transparent” and “engages the community.”
• Six people in Sacramento office; Regan Williams, Vice President; Wesley Herman, Vice President; S. Renee Narloch, Vice President — Southeast/Mid Atlantic Region; Amanda Urrutia-Sanders, Principal Consultant; Sarah Kenney, Senior Consultant; and Rosa Gomez, Administrative Manager
• Murray cited past recruitments for cities of Laguna Beach, Coronado (destination community), Lodi, Sonoma (destination community), Calistoga (destination community) and South Lake Tahoe.
• Input from businesses, residents, staff to produce profile: options include meet with representatives of each group, host a town hall meeting. Murray recommended a town hall meeting for members of the public to inform the decision-makers and himself as recruiter. Murrary described recommending 5-8 candidates, council interview candidates in executive session to narrow field to 3 candidates, then engage community and staff as advisors. Murray suggested appointing a citizen committee to talk to 3 candidates and report to council the strengths and weaknesses of candidates and areas to further pursue.
• Murray described himself as "attentive to clients," works diligently to get best candidates, and clients pleased with the outcomes.
• Murray cited his firm with the record of the majority of police chief searches in the western U.S. and city managers and city administrators’ searches.
• Current searches five or six; communication with council “as often as you like.”
• Murray recommended disclosing a two-tier system, if under consideration or adopted.
• Timeline: Sixty days from start of search until close of recruitment. Three weeks to review candidates and report recommendations to council. Council interview candidates within week and second round a week later. Candidate hired in five months.
• Reference checking process; once two-four final candidates identified, perform criminal, civil, credit, drivers’ license, and education checks.
• Murray concluded he likes what he does, it makes him a better recruiter and he wants to work with the council to find the best person, the best person for Carmel, “not for Bob.”
ADDENDUM:
Bob Murray, President
Mr. Murray brings over 20 years experience as a recruiter. Mr. Murray is recognized as one of the nation's leading recruiters. He has conducted hundreds of searches for cities, counties, and special districts. He has been called on to conduct searches for some of the largest most complex organizations in the country and some of the smallest. Mr. Murray has conducted searches for chief executives, department heads, professional and technical positions. Mr. Murray has taken the lead on the firm's most difficult assignments with great success. His clients have retained him again and again given the quality of his work and success in finding candidates for difficult to fill positions.
Prior to creating Bob Murray & Associates, Mr. Murray directed the search practice for the largest search practice serving local government in the country. Mr. Murray has worked in local government and benefits from the knowledge of having led an organization. Prior to his career in executive search he served as the City Manager for the City of Olympia, Washington. He has also served as an Assistant City Manager and held positions in law enforcement.
Mr. Murray received his Bachelor's degree in Criminology from the University of California at Berkeley with graduate studies in Public Administration at California State University at Hayward.
“Experts in Executive Search”
Bob Murray & Associates brings a personal approach to providing quality executive recruitment services. Our clients include cities, counties, and special districts, both large and small. Our experience includes working with the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Fresno, Sacramento, and San Diego, CA; Eugene, Salem, and Portland, OR; Seattle, WA; San Antonio, TX; New Orleans, LA; Greenville, SC; Norfolk, VA; Jupiter and Miami Beach, FL; and Washington DC. Counties we have assisted include Orange County, Monterey County, and Marin County, CA; Clackamas County and Washington, OR; Fulton County, Orange County and Lowndes County, GA; Arlington County, VA; and Bay County, FL. We have also assisted a number of special districts and professional organizations including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association and the California State Association of Counties.
Many of our clients are "repeat customers" that return to Bob Murray & Associates because of our emphasis on quality and our success in finding candidates for positions that are difficult to fill.
Through many years of experience, we have created an ideal recruitment process by combining our ability to help you to determine the direction of the search and the types of candidates you seek. We understand the importance of recruiting candidates who are not necessarily looking for a job and are doing well in their current position. Working with professionalism, integrity and personal attention, our team-oriented search process, in addition to our proven expertise, ensures that the candidates we present for your consideration will match the criteria you have established and will be outstanding in their field. Our collaborative process, created to build partnerships with our clients, entails the following:
• Developing a Candidate Profile
• Advertising Campaign and Recruiting Brochure
• Recruiting Candidates
• Candidate Interviews and Evaluation
• Referencing Top Candidates
• Recommendation
• Final Interviews and Background Checks
• Negotiations
Current Searches
Monday, April 25, 2011
Three Special City Council Meetings: Interviews with representatives of selected firms interested in conducting the recruitment of the City Administrator & Fire Service Alternatives Workshop
ABSTRACT: Three Special City Council Meetings are scheduled this week to discuss “Interviews with representatives of selected firms interested in conducting the recruitment of the City Administrator” on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 @ 12:00 P.M. and Saturday, April 30, 2011 @ 9:00 A.M., and Fire Service Alternatives Workshop on Thursday, April 28, 2011 @ 5:00 P.M., Council Chambers. The NOTICES are reproduced.
NOTICE OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
12 noon
Council Chambers
East side of Monte Verde Street between
Ocean and Seventh Avenues
Live video streaming available at:
www.ci.carmel.ca.us
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Pledge of Allegiance
IV. Orders of Council
A. Interviews with representatives of selected firms interested in conducting the recruitment of the City Administrator.
V. Adjournment
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 28 2011
This is a workshop to discuss the contract management of the Carmel Fire Department
Copies of the documents can be had from Copies-by-the-Sea or City Hall.
NOTICE OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Saturday, April 30, 2011
9:00 a.m.
Council Chambers
East side of Monte Verde Street between
Ocean and Seventh Avenues
Live video streaming available at:
www.ci.carmel.ca.us
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Pledge of Allegiance
IV. Orders of Council
A. Interviews with representatives of selected firms interested in conducting the recruitment of the City Administrator.
V. Adjournment
NOTICE OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
12 noon
Council Chambers
East side of Monte Verde Street between
Ocean and Seventh Avenues
Live video streaming available at:
www.ci.carmel.ca.us
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Pledge of Allegiance
IV. Orders of Council
A. Interviews with representatives of selected firms interested in conducting the recruitment of the City Administrator.
V. Adjournment
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 28 2011
This is a workshop to discuss the contract management of the Carmel Fire Department
Copies of the documents can be had from Copies-by-the-Sea or City Hall.
NOTICE OF SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Saturday, April 30, 2011
9:00 a.m.
Council Chambers
East side of Monte Verde Street between
Ocean and Seventh Avenues
Live video streaming available at:
www.ci.carmel.ca.us
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Pledge of Allegiance
IV. Orders of Council
A. Interviews with representatives of selected firms interested in conducting the recruitment of the City Administrator.
V. Adjournment
OPEN LETTER to John Goss, Interim City Administrator
“I’ll get things accomplished pursuant to the direction of the city council.”
John Goss, The Carmel Pine Cone, April 22, 2011
That commitment would suffice in a city without significant problems, but Carmel’s city government has profound and fundamental governance problems stemming from Mayor Sue McCloud’s and City Councils’ serious breaches of the public trust over many, many years. Your role, then, is more than assisting the council with the budget and the selection of a fire services alternative; your role should also be about restoring public confidence in our city government. To that end, I sincerely hope that prior to you accepting the Interim City Administrator position you read former Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s court file and have given some thought about how you can begin to restore public trust in Carmel’s city government because attorney Michael Stamp is absolutely correct in his assessment that “This is no way to run a city. As long as the city and The Pine Cone blame the victim, the city will be at risk.”
In closing, even though your tenure as Interim City Administrator is short-term, your most important priority should be restoring public trust in Carmel’s city government. In pragmatic terms, restoring public trust begins with the Interim City Administrator managing the city, not the mayor.
P.S. Regarding the upcoming Fire Services Workshop, the City should have the 76-page Fire Service Alternatives packet loaded onto the City’s website for public access purposes. The City should also have an up-to-date website with agendas and minutes for all boards and commissions, at a minimum.
John Goss, The Carmel Pine Cone, April 22, 2011
That commitment would suffice in a city without significant problems, but Carmel’s city government has profound and fundamental governance problems stemming from Mayor Sue McCloud’s and City Councils’ serious breaches of the public trust over many, many years. Your role, then, is more than assisting the council with the budget and the selection of a fire services alternative; your role should also be about restoring public confidence in our city government. To that end, I sincerely hope that prior to you accepting the Interim City Administrator position you read former Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s court file and have given some thought about how you can begin to restore public trust in Carmel’s city government because attorney Michael Stamp is absolutely correct in his assessment that “This is no way to run a city. As long as the city and The Pine Cone blame the victim, the city will be at risk.”
In closing, even though your tenure as Interim City Administrator is short-term, your most important priority should be restoring public trust in Carmel’s city government. In pragmatic terms, restoring public trust begins with the Interim City Administrator managing the city, not the mayor.
P.S. Regarding the upcoming Fire Services Workshop, the City should have the 76-page Fire Service Alternatives packet loaded onto the City’s website for public access purposes. The City should also have an up-to-date website with agendas and minutes for all boards and commissions, at a minimum.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Attorney Michael Stamp: ‘This is no way to run a city. As long as the city and The Pine Cone blame the victim, the city will be at risk.’
ABSTRACT: HIGHLIGHTS of attorney Michael Stamp’s letter to the editor, "Don’t blame the victim,” The Carmel Pine Cone, April 22, 2011, in response to the “Editorial: The benefits of suing yourself,” (April 15, 2011), are presented. Significantly, Stamp concluded: “This is no way to run a city. As long as the city and The Pine Cone blame the victim, the city will be at risk.”
HIGHLIGHTS:
• “Your April 15 editorial hits a new low in blaming victims for being victimized. It gets the facts wrong, it gets the law wrong, and it tries to cover up for the mayor.”
• “ First, Guillen is to blame. He voluntarily engaged in a pattern of conduct that cost the city $600,000 because his conduct was not defensible.”
• “And when the human resources director went directly to the mayor and city council and asked for protection, the mayor and council allowed Guillen to control his own investigation. Guillen stonewalled the city and the investigator, denied everything, claimed that he had never sent the scores of harassing emails and hid behind the mayor. Eventually, the taxpayers paid for Guillen’s conduct and the broken promises of the mayor and city council.”
• “This is no way to run a city. As long as the city and The Pine Cone blame the victim, the city will be at risk.”
Source: “Don’t blame the victim,” Michael Stamp, Monterey, Letters to the Editor, The Carmel Pine Cone, April 22, 2011, pg. 22A
HIGHLIGHTS:
• “Your April 15 editorial hits a new low in blaming victims for being victimized. It gets the facts wrong, it gets the law wrong, and it tries to cover up for the mayor.”
• “ First, Guillen is to blame. He voluntarily engaged in a pattern of conduct that cost the city $600,000 because his conduct was not defensible.”
• “And when the human resources director went directly to the mayor and city council and asked for protection, the mayor and council allowed Guillen to control his own investigation. Guillen stonewalled the city and the investigator, denied everything, claimed that he had never sent the scores of harassing emails and hid behind the mayor. Eventually, the taxpayers paid for Guillen’s conduct and the broken promises of the mayor and city council.”
• “This is no way to run a city. As long as the city and The Pine Cone blame the victim, the city will be at risk.”
Source: “Don’t blame the victim,” Michael Stamp, Monterey, Letters to the Editor, The Carmel Pine Cone, April 22, 2011, pg. 22A
Thursday, April 21, 2011
FIRE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES Report & Workshop
ABSTRACT: The FIRE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES Report prepared by GEORGE E. RAWSON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY (RET.), dated April 17, 2011, “focuses on alternative models of how fire protection services can be administered, and does not include the Carmel Regional Fire Ambulance component.” The FIRE SERVICE OPTIONS include STAND ALONE MODEL, MONTEREY FIRE CONTRACT and CAL FIRE CONTRACT. The SUMMARY states: “In summary, the stand-alone model is more costly and provides substantially fewer personnel and equipment resources versus the JPA or fire service contract alternatives. Although the JPA model is a promising alternative, the ability to implement this option in the near future makes this an impractical alternative at this time. It is recommended the city focus on contract fire services as the preferred alternative while maintaining the option to participate in a fire services JPA in the future.” An abbreviated summary of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Fire Service Cost Estimate Comparison table is presented. And the Comparative Analysis of Fire Service Options table, including all fourteen FACTORS (Emergency response standard (first unit on scene); Emergency response standard (structure fire); Availability of qualified chief officer for incident command; Station staffing; Fire Inspection services; Control over service levels and costs; Governance / local control; Capability to share other local City services; Workforce stability; Financial risk; Existing liability for retiree medical benefits; Ease of implementation; sustainability; Labor support and Employee Pre-employment background investigation) is reproduced. Importantly, Monterey and Carmel fire associations fully support the MONTEREY FIRE CONTRACT option. The intent of the report is “to facilitate preliminary discussion and public input.” The City’s FIRE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES Packet is embedded, including the Fire Services Proposal For the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea from the City of Monterey, Fire Department, March 31, 2011 and Service Options for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, CAL FIRE San Benito – Monterey Unit Richard C. Hutchinson Jr., Unit Chief, April 28, 2011. The 5-Year Totals for STAND ALONE MODEL, MONTEREY FIRE CONTRACT and CAL FIRE CONTRACT are $12,813,077, $9,560,633 and $8,686,017, respectively. A Fire Services Workshop is scheduled for Thursday, April 28, at 5:00 P.M., City Hall Chambers.
Carmel-by-the-Sea Fire Service Cost Estimate Comparison
OPTION #1: STAND ALONE MODEL
FY 11/12 Total $ 2,604,535
FY 12/13 Total $ 2,490,098
FY 13/14 Total $ 2,564,135
FY 14/15 Total $ 2,574,833
FY 15/16 Total $ 2,579,476
5-Year Total $ 12,813,077
Note: Total excludes CRFA subsidy and leases
OPTION #2: MONTEREY FIRE CONTRACT
FY 11/12 Total $ 1,928,541
FY 12/13 Total $ 1,852,083
FY 13/14 Total $ 1,909,541
FY 14/15 Total $ 1,928,734
FY 15/16 Total $ 1,941,734
5-Year Total $ 9,560,633
Note: Total excludes CRFA subsidy and leases
OPTION #3: CAL FIRE CONTRACT
FY 11/12 TOTAL $ 1,801,437
FY 12/13 Total $ 1,704,625
FY 13/14 Total $ 1,708,089
FY 14/15 Total $ 1,733,091
FY 15/16 Total$ 1,738,775
5-Year Total $ 8,686,017
Note: Total excludes CRFA subsidy and leases
Comparative Analysis of Fire Service Options
FACTOR: Emergency response standard (first unit on scene
STAND ALONE Response time is 3 to 5 minutes on 90% of calls.
MONTEREY Response time is 3 to 5 minutes on 90% of calls.
CAL FIRE Response time is 3 to 5 minutes on 90% of calls.
FACTOR: Emergency response standard (structure fire)
STAND ALONE 1 engine, 1 ambulance, and 1 chief officer (6 personnel).
MONTEREY 4 engines, 1 aerial apparatus, 1 ambulance and 1 chief officer (min. 18 personnel)
CAL FIRE 4 engines, 1 aerial apparatus, 1ambulance and 1 chief officer (min. 18 personnel)
FACTOR: Availability of qualified chief officer for incident command
STAND ALONE City establishes criteria for availability.
MONTEREY Available within 10 minutes of Carmel at all times.
CAL FIRE Available within 10 minutes of Carmel at all times.
FACTOR: Station staffing
STAND ALONE 1 engine company with 3 personnel; backfill with off-duty personnel as available.
MONTEREY 1 engine company with 3 personnel; will backfill Carmel station when Carmel engine is committed.
CAL FIRE 1 engine company with 3 personnel; will backfill Carmel station when Carmel engine is committed.
FACTOR: Fire Inspection services
STAND ALONE As established and funded by City.
MONTEREY Contract includes inspection services by Monterey Fire Prevention staff.
CAL FIRE Contract offers dedicated inspection staff plus on-duty engine crew
FACTOR: Control over service levels and costs
STAND ALONE Most control over service levels and costs.
MONTEREY City determines service level desired in collaboration with Monterey; somewhat more influence on costs than state model
CAL FIRE City determines service level desired; no control over state personnel salary & benefits costs.
FACTOR: Governance/local control
STAND ALONE City retains the most control with this option.
MONTEREY Local city to city partnership building on existing relationships and agreements. Fire Chief has track record of being responsive to Carmel standards.
CAL FIRE State/local government partnership subject to state’s oversight authority. Local area CALFIRE Unit Chief has authority to tailor fire protection proposal to meet Carmel standards.
FACTOR: Capability to share other local City services
STAND ALONE Not applicable
MONTEREY Significant potential to share other municipal services
CAL FIRE None
FACTOR: Workforce stability
STAND ALONE City has full control of employees; historically very stable workforce.
MONTEREY Majority of fire staff lives within Monterey County and is heavily involved in local activities; may result in lower turnover rate than state model.
CAL FIRE State agency with employees recruited throughout state; ability to transfer in and out of Carmel and local area at any time.
FACTOR: Financial risk
STAND ALONE More costly than contract alternative; city retains most control of costs with this alternative.
MONTEREY Proven local government partnership; likely somewhat more influence over costs than state model.
CAL FIRE State budget uncertainties do exist. City maintains right to pay costs for level of fire services city desires.
FACTOR: Existing liability for retiree medical benefits
STAND ALONE None
MONTEREY None
CAL FIRE CAL FIRE’s share of State’s unfunded retiree medical obligations not included in proposal; Retiree benefit calculated on basis of state employee service; city years of service excluded from benefit calculation.
FACTOR: Ease of implementation; sustainability
STAND ALONE Likely more complex than contract model.
MONTEREY Proven local contract partnerships; many of the required implementation steps have been completed to minimize transition period; likely quickest implementation.
CAL FIRE Proven experience with implementing contracts. May result in longer implementation period due to collective bargaining process yet to be completed.
FACTOR: Labor support
STAND ALONE Carmel Firefighter’s Association does not support this model.
MONTEREY Monterey and Carmel fire associations fully support this alternative.
CAL FIRE Unknown, however CAL FIRE firefighters union has previously opposed CAL FIRE contracting with Pacific Grove.
FACTOR: Familiarity with local structures and needs
STAND ALONE Carmel firefighters are well-acquainted with Carmel’s unique characteristics.
MONTEREY Carmel and Monterey Firefighters currently conduct joint training and are familiar with Carmel’s unique characteristics.
CAL FIRE Current Carmel firefighters remain assigned to the CFD as CAL FIRE employees. However, they have future discretion to transfer anywhere in the State. New staff must be trained on Carmel’s unique characteristics.
FACTOR: Termination of Fire Services Agreement
STAND ALONE Not applicable
MONTEREY 12 months’ termination notice required; payment for unpaid transferred leave balances due upon termination.
CAL FIRE 12 months’ termination notice required; no fiscal liability for transferred leave balances upon termination.
FACTOR: Employee Pre-employment background investigation
STAND ALONE All employees hired and promoted are subject to comprehensive background and psychological evaluation.
MONTEREY All employees hired and promoted are subject to comprehensive background and psychological evaluation.
CAL FIRE No agency specific requirements for pre-employment background checks, but criminal history checks are performed pursuant to State EMT employment regulations.
City FIRE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES April 2011
FIRE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES April 2011
Carmel-by-the-Sea Fire Service Cost Estimate Comparison
OPTION #1: STAND ALONE MODEL
FY 11/12 Total $ 2,604,535
FY 12/13 Total $ 2,490,098
FY 13/14 Total $ 2,564,135
FY 14/15 Total $ 2,574,833
FY 15/16 Total $ 2,579,476
5-Year Total $ 12,813,077
Note: Total excludes CRFA subsidy and leases
OPTION #2: MONTEREY FIRE CONTRACT
FY 11/12 Total $ 1,928,541
FY 12/13 Total $ 1,852,083
FY 13/14 Total $ 1,909,541
FY 14/15 Total $ 1,928,734
FY 15/16 Total $ 1,941,734
5-Year Total $ 9,560,633
Note: Total excludes CRFA subsidy and leases
OPTION #3: CAL FIRE CONTRACT
FY 11/12 TOTAL $ 1,801,437
FY 12/13 Total $ 1,704,625
FY 13/14 Total $ 1,708,089
FY 14/15 Total $ 1,733,091
FY 15/16 Total$ 1,738,775
5-Year Total $ 8,686,017
Note: Total excludes CRFA subsidy and leases
Comparative Analysis of Fire Service Options
FACTOR: Emergency response standard (first unit on scene
STAND ALONE Response time is 3 to 5 minutes on 90% of calls.
MONTEREY Response time is 3 to 5 minutes on 90% of calls.
CAL FIRE Response time is 3 to 5 minutes on 90% of calls.
FACTOR: Emergency response standard (structure fire)
STAND ALONE 1 engine, 1 ambulance, and 1 chief officer (6 personnel).
MONTEREY 4 engines, 1 aerial apparatus, 1 ambulance and 1 chief officer (min. 18 personnel)
CAL FIRE 4 engines, 1 aerial apparatus, 1ambulance and 1 chief officer (min. 18 personnel)
FACTOR: Availability of qualified chief officer for incident command
STAND ALONE City establishes criteria for availability.
MONTEREY Available within 10 minutes of Carmel at all times.
CAL FIRE Available within 10 minutes of Carmel at all times.
FACTOR: Station staffing
STAND ALONE 1 engine company with 3 personnel; backfill with off-duty personnel as available.
MONTEREY 1 engine company with 3 personnel; will backfill Carmel station when Carmel engine is committed.
CAL FIRE 1 engine company with 3 personnel; will backfill Carmel station when Carmel engine is committed.
FACTOR: Fire Inspection services
STAND ALONE As established and funded by City.
MONTEREY Contract includes inspection services by Monterey Fire Prevention staff.
CAL FIRE Contract offers dedicated inspection staff plus on-duty engine crew
FACTOR: Control over service levels and costs
STAND ALONE Most control over service levels and costs.
MONTEREY City determines service level desired in collaboration with Monterey; somewhat more influence on costs than state model
CAL FIRE City determines service level desired; no control over state personnel salary & benefits costs.
FACTOR: Governance/local control
STAND ALONE City retains the most control with this option.
MONTEREY Local city to city partnership building on existing relationships and agreements. Fire Chief has track record of being responsive to Carmel standards.
CAL FIRE State/local government partnership subject to state’s oversight authority. Local area CALFIRE Unit Chief has authority to tailor fire protection proposal to meet Carmel standards.
FACTOR: Capability to share other local City services
STAND ALONE Not applicable
MONTEREY Significant potential to share other municipal services
CAL FIRE None
FACTOR: Workforce stability
STAND ALONE City has full control of employees; historically very stable workforce.
MONTEREY Majority of fire staff lives within Monterey County and is heavily involved in local activities; may result in lower turnover rate than state model.
CAL FIRE State agency with employees recruited throughout state; ability to transfer in and out of Carmel and local area at any time.
FACTOR: Financial risk
STAND ALONE More costly than contract alternative; city retains most control of costs with this alternative.
MONTEREY Proven local government partnership; likely somewhat more influence over costs than state model.
CAL FIRE State budget uncertainties do exist. City maintains right to pay costs for level of fire services city desires.
FACTOR: Existing liability for retiree medical benefits
STAND ALONE None
MONTEREY None
CAL FIRE CAL FIRE’s share of State’s unfunded retiree medical obligations not included in proposal; Retiree benefit calculated on basis of state employee service; city years of service excluded from benefit calculation.
FACTOR: Ease of implementation; sustainability
STAND ALONE Likely more complex than contract model.
MONTEREY Proven local contract partnerships; many of the required implementation steps have been completed to minimize transition period; likely quickest implementation.
CAL FIRE Proven experience with implementing contracts. May result in longer implementation period due to collective bargaining process yet to be completed.
FACTOR: Labor support
STAND ALONE Carmel Firefighter’s Association does not support this model.
MONTEREY Monterey and Carmel fire associations fully support this alternative.
CAL FIRE Unknown, however CAL FIRE firefighters union has previously opposed CAL FIRE contracting with Pacific Grove.
FACTOR: Familiarity with local structures and needs
STAND ALONE Carmel firefighters are well-acquainted with Carmel’s unique characteristics.
MONTEREY Carmel and Monterey Firefighters currently conduct joint training and are familiar with Carmel’s unique characteristics.
CAL FIRE Current Carmel firefighters remain assigned to the CFD as CAL FIRE employees. However, they have future discretion to transfer anywhere in the State. New staff must be trained on Carmel’s unique characteristics.
FACTOR: Termination of Fire Services Agreement
STAND ALONE Not applicable
MONTEREY 12 months’ termination notice required; payment for unpaid transferred leave balances due upon termination.
CAL FIRE 12 months’ termination notice required; no fiscal liability for transferred leave balances upon termination.
FACTOR: Employee Pre-employment background investigation
STAND ALONE All employees hired and promoted are subject to comprehensive background and psychological evaluation.
MONTEREY All employees hired and promoted are subject to comprehensive background and psychological evaluation.
CAL FIRE No agency specific requirements for pre-employment background checks, but criminal history checks are performed pursuant to State EMT employment regulations.
City FIRE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES April 2011
FIRE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES April 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPOINTS INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR JOHN GOSS EFFECTIVE APRIL 19, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 19, 2011
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPOINTS INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR JOHN GOSS EFFECTIVE APRIL 19, 2011
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA — Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council unanimously selected John Goss from 19 applicants to act as Interim City Administrator effective Tuesday, April 19, 2011. Goss will serve until a permanent Administrator has been selected.
Having served as City Manager for two California cities as well as Assistant County Administrator and Interim Planning Director for a large California county, Goss brings substantial experience and leadership to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. In addition, Goss has first-hand experience of Carmel-by-the-Sea through his earlier analysis work on the library and business license tax.
“We believe John is a nice fit with staff and our city,” Mayor Sue McCloud said. “His familiarity with Carmel will be particularly helpful in tackling the budget that has to be balanced and approved by the end of June.”
As a recipient of the International City/County Management Association’s (ICMA) 40-year Service Award, Goss has managed the budget process during challenging times for cities, including major revenue loss due to the adoption of Proposition 13 and the recession of the early 1990s. He also has extensive community planning experience such as a parking plan to support a historic downtown and applied “smart growth” concepts to various projects as part of implementing best practices and quality of life issues.
“Besides offering the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea extensive experience and background as a city and county manager, I will analyze the current issues and give the City Council practical, well thought out solutions,” Goss explained. “My strength is in solving problems and giving elected officials guidance.”
“With particular knowledge of Carmel, I am also familiar with the police and fire service being headed by a Public Safety Director and I have worked with George Rawson your former Chief,” Goss continued. “Additionally, I also became familiar with Carmel’s fire contracts with Pacific Grove and Monterey in a study prepared for the City of Albany which, in part, examined the potential of outsourcing or jointly providing fire management and other services in cooperation with other nearby cities. Finally, my specific understanding of fire operations and in evaluating different ways to finance, organize, and provide fire services is reflected in the fire studies prepared for a City with an “in-house” fire department (Orange) and one that contracts for fire service (Thousand Oaks).”
# # #
April 19, 2011
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPOINTS INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR JOHN GOSS EFFECTIVE APRIL 19, 2011
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA — Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council unanimously selected John Goss from 19 applicants to act as Interim City Administrator effective Tuesday, April 19, 2011. Goss will serve until a permanent Administrator has been selected.
Having served as City Manager for two California cities as well as Assistant County Administrator and Interim Planning Director for a large California county, Goss brings substantial experience and leadership to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. In addition, Goss has first-hand experience of Carmel-by-the-Sea through his earlier analysis work on the library and business license tax.
“We believe John is a nice fit with staff and our city,” Mayor Sue McCloud said. “His familiarity with Carmel will be particularly helpful in tackling the budget that has to be balanced and approved by the end of June.”
As a recipient of the International City/County Management Association’s (ICMA) 40-year Service Award, Goss has managed the budget process during challenging times for cities, including major revenue loss due to the adoption of Proposition 13 and the recession of the early 1990s. He also has extensive community planning experience such as a parking plan to support a historic downtown and applied “smart growth” concepts to various projects as part of implementing best practices and quality of life issues.
“Besides offering the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea extensive experience and background as a city and county manager, I will analyze the current issues and give the City Council practical, well thought out solutions,” Goss explained. “My strength is in solving problems and giving elected officials guidance.”
“With particular knowledge of Carmel, I am also familiar with the police and fire service being headed by a Public Safety Director and I have worked with George Rawson your former Chief,” Goss continued. “Additionally, I also became familiar with Carmel’s fire contracts with Pacific Grove and Monterey in a study prepared for the City of Albany which, in part, examined the potential of outsourcing or jointly providing fire management and other services in cooperation with other nearby cities. Finally, my specific understanding of fire operations and in evaluating different ways to finance, organize, and provide fire services is reflected in the fire studies prepared for a City with an “in-house” fire department (Orange) and one that contracts for fire service (Thousand Oaks).”
# # #
John Goss: City Council’s Unanimous Choice for Interim City Administrator
ABSTRACT: Yesterday, the City Council unanimously voted to select John Goss as the City’s Interim City Administrator. Briefly, Goss has served as Alameda city manager, Chula Vista city manager and San Bernardino County interim planning director. Additional information about John Goss is presented from Ralph Andersen & Associates and Cal-ICMA.
As noted on the Ralph Andersen & Associates website, John Goss is "Senior Associate with Ralph Andersen & Associates, specializes in both executive search and management consulting assignments. He has over 40 years of experience in local government, working with both counties and cities."
"Before joining Ralph Andersen & Associates, Mr. Goss was the Assistant County Administrator, Economic Development and Public Services Group for San Bernardino County, California for five years. Mr. Goss has also served as City Manager of the City of Chula Vista, California and the City of Alameda, California and as the General Services Director for the City of Oakland, California."
Manager In Residence Profiles
JOHN GOSS
Retired City and County Manager; part-time consultant
Organization: Ralph Andersen & Associates
Mailing Address: 11382 Provencal Place, San Diego, CA 92128;
5017 Signal Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130
Email: John@ralphandersen.com
Phone: Cell (858) 829-9788
Fax: (916) 630-4911 (RAA)
Number of Years in Local Government: 45
Additional Background Information
Degrees held:
Degree: BA, Political Economy
Institution: Fresno State College (Now University)
City/State: Fresno, CA
Year Completed: 1960
Degree: MPA
Institution: University of Southern California
City/State: Los Angeles, CA
Year Completed: 1964
Work History:
Position Title: Senior Associate
Organization: Ralph Andersen & Associates
City/State: Rocklin, CA
Start/End Dates: 2004–Present
Position Title: Assistant County Administrator (also Interim Planning Director)
Organization: County of San Bernardino
City/State: San Bernardino, CA
Start/End Dates: 1999–2004
Position Title: City Manager
Organization: City of Chula Vista, CA
City/State: Chula Vista, CA
Start/End Dates: 1983–1998
Position Title: General Services Director
Organization: City of Oakland, CA
City/State: Oakland, CA
Start/End Dates: 1980-1983
Position Title: City Manager
Organization: City of Alameda, CA
City/State: Alameda, CA
Start/End Dates: 1973–1980
Position Title: Assistant City Manager
Organization: City of Alameda, CA
City/State: Alameda, CA
Start/End Dates: 1968–1973
Also, in the early years, served in the positions of Administrative Intern (City of Phoenix), Administrative Analyst (City of San Diego) and Assistant to the City Manager (City of Fremont)
What, if any, teaching experience do you have?
I taught an annual graduate level seminar on municipal management (PA 620) at San Diego State for 11 years (approximately 1987 – 1997).
What are some areas of experience or topics that you would like to address during in-class presentations?
After all of these years, I have the background to discuss any city or county issue that the Professor would want discussed. I am particularly interested in what makes local government organizations work, including theories of organizational management. I also have significant background on how to piece local government organizations together, both from a direct service, operational perspective, as well as from a LAFCO perspective. Also, those who are interested in water conservation might be interested in a project I prepared for San Bernardino County that created a Desert Groundwater Preservation Ordinance for unadjudicated aquifers in San Bernardino’s expansive deserts. However, I have had three “career” projects that might be of interest:
Planning and implementation of the Otay Ranch Project. This is a 34 square mile project that began while I was City Manager of Chula Vista, that resulted (after 7 years of planning) in a master plan for 24,000 dwelling units, with supporting commercial and industrial development. This was based on the principles of smart growth (late ‘80s) before that term was coined.
Annexation of the “Montgomery Area.” At the time (1986) this was largest inhabited annexation in state history (24,000 people/four square miles).
Overseeing San Bernardino County’s response to the 2003 wildfires (Grand Prix and Old Fires). The results of this response are summarized in an article I wrote for Public Management, March 2004 issue. The planning and the resulting organization that prepared San Bernardino County for these fires (MAST, Mountain Area Safety Task Force) has become a national model for other agencies which need to prepare and plan for large wildfires.
Source: Cal-ICMA, is a collaboration of the California City Managers’ Department (CMD); the California City Managers Foundation (CCMF); the two assistants groups (MMANC and MMASC); the County CAOs; the COG Directors; along with members of the academic community and from all of the other ICMA membership categories. Cal-ICMA is the "official" state affiliate with ICMA and is inclusive of all ICMA members without creating another “organization” with a separate dues structure.
OTHER SOURCES:
Your Town
The Monterey County Herald
Posted: 04/20/2011
Carmel Names Interim City Administrator
Posted: Apr 19, 2011 8:22 PM PDT
By Matt Stein
ADDENDUM:
Comprehensive Listing of Current and Recently Completed Executive Recruitments For John Goss
Current and Recently Completed Consulting Assignments For John Goss
As noted on the Ralph Andersen & Associates website, John Goss is "Senior Associate with Ralph Andersen & Associates, specializes in both executive search and management consulting assignments. He has over 40 years of experience in local government, working with both counties and cities."
"Before joining Ralph Andersen & Associates, Mr. Goss was the Assistant County Administrator, Economic Development and Public Services Group for San Bernardino County, California for five years. Mr. Goss has also served as City Manager of the City of Chula Vista, California and the City of Alameda, California and as the General Services Director for the City of Oakland, California."
Manager In Residence Profiles
JOHN GOSS
Retired City and County Manager; part-time consultant
Organization: Ralph Andersen & Associates
Mailing Address: 11382 Provencal Place, San Diego, CA 92128;
5017 Signal Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130
Email: John@ralphandersen.com
Phone: Cell (858) 829-9788
Fax: (916) 630-4911 (RAA)
Number of Years in Local Government: 45
Additional Background Information
Degrees held:
Degree: BA, Political Economy
Institution: Fresno State College (Now University)
City/State: Fresno, CA
Year Completed: 1960
Degree: MPA
Institution: University of Southern California
City/State: Los Angeles, CA
Year Completed: 1964
Work History:
Position Title: Senior Associate
Organization: Ralph Andersen & Associates
City/State: Rocklin, CA
Start/End Dates: 2004–Present
Position Title: Assistant County Administrator (also Interim Planning Director)
Organization: County of San Bernardino
City/State: San Bernardino, CA
Start/End Dates: 1999–2004
Position Title: City Manager
Organization: City of Chula Vista, CA
City/State: Chula Vista, CA
Start/End Dates: 1983–1998
Position Title: General Services Director
Organization: City of Oakland, CA
City/State: Oakland, CA
Start/End Dates: 1980-1983
Position Title: City Manager
Organization: City of Alameda, CA
City/State: Alameda, CA
Start/End Dates: 1973–1980
Position Title: Assistant City Manager
Organization: City of Alameda, CA
City/State: Alameda, CA
Start/End Dates: 1968–1973
Also, in the early years, served in the positions of Administrative Intern (City of Phoenix), Administrative Analyst (City of San Diego) and Assistant to the City Manager (City of Fremont)
What, if any, teaching experience do you have?
I taught an annual graduate level seminar on municipal management (PA 620) at San Diego State for 11 years (approximately 1987 – 1997).
What are some areas of experience or topics that you would like to address during in-class presentations?
After all of these years, I have the background to discuss any city or county issue that the Professor would want discussed. I am particularly interested in what makes local government organizations work, including theories of organizational management. I also have significant background on how to piece local government organizations together, both from a direct service, operational perspective, as well as from a LAFCO perspective. Also, those who are interested in water conservation might be interested in a project I prepared for San Bernardino County that created a Desert Groundwater Preservation Ordinance for unadjudicated aquifers in San Bernardino’s expansive deserts. However, I have had three “career” projects that might be of interest:
Planning and implementation of the Otay Ranch Project. This is a 34 square mile project that began while I was City Manager of Chula Vista, that resulted (after 7 years of planning) in a master plan for 24,000 dwelling units, with supporting commercial and industrial development. This was based on the principles of smart growth (late ‘80s) before that term was coined.
Annexation of the “Montgomery Area.” At the time (1986) this was largest inhabited annexation in state history (24,000 people/four square miles).
Overseeing San Bernardino County’s response to the 2003 wildfires (Grand Prix and Old Fires). The results of this response are summarized in an article I wrote for Public Management, March 2004 issue. The planning and the resulting organization that prepared San Bernardino County for these fires (MAST, Mountain Area Safety Task Force) has become a national model for other agencies which need to prepare and plan for large wildfires.
Source: Cal-ICMA, is a collaboration of the California City Managers’ Department (CMD); the California City Managers Foundation (CCMF); the two assistants groups (MMANC and MMASC); the County CAOs; the COG Directors; along with members of the academic community and from all of the other ICMA membership categories. Cal-ICMA is the "official" state affiliate with ICMA and is inclusive of all ICMA members without creating another “organization” with a separate dues structure.
OTHER SOURCES:
Your Town
The Monterey County Herald
Posted: 04/20/2011
Carmel Names Interim City Administrator
Posted: Apr 19, 2011 8:22 PM PDT
By Matt Stein
ADDENDUM:
Comprehensive Listing of Current and Recently Completed Executive Recruitments For John Goss
Current and Recently Completed Consulting Assignments For John Goss
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
COMMENTARY: On ‘Editorial: The benefits of suing yourself’
“...the American Society of Newspaper Editors sets forth this Statement of Principles as a standard encouraging the highest ethical and professional performance.”
ARTICLE I - Responsibility. The primary purpose of gathering and distributing news and opinion is to serve the general welfare by informing the people and enabling them to make judgments on the issues of the time. Newspapermen and women who abuse the power of their professional role for selfish motives or unworthy purposes are faithless to that public trust. The American press was made free not just to inform or just to serve as a forum for debate but also to bring an independent scrutiny to bear on the forces of power in the society, including the conduct of official power at all levels of government.
ARTICLE IV - Truth and Accuracy. Good faith with the reader is the foundation of good journalism. Every effort must be made to assure that the news content is accurate, free from bias and in context, and that all sides are presented fairly. Editorials, analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect to facts as news reports. Significant errors of fact, as well as errors of omission, should be corrected promptly and prominently.
Yet, in the Carmel Pine Cone (April 15, 2011) “Editorial: The benefits of suing yourself,” Editor Paul Miller did not demonstrate “responsibility” and “truth and accuracy.” To wit, the editor’s overarching claim that the City’s former Human Resources Manager Jane Miller was incompetent is based on the false assertion that Jane Miller “kept quiet until she sprung her lawsuit.”
FACT: Former Human Resources Manager Jane Miller filed her lawsuit against the City on 17 June 2009 and “immediately served the City.”
FACT: Prior to 17 June 2009, Mayor Sue McCloud, the City Council and City Attorney Don Freeman were notified on numerous occasions in writing of Jane Miller’s claims of retaliation, discrimination and harassment at City Hall, as follows:
• May 20, 2008: Letter from plaintiff’s attorney Michael Stamp to Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council
Letter informed the City of Stamp’s representation of Jane Miller and her claims of “retaliation, gender-based discrimination and harassment, as well as age-based discrimination...”
“For the past several years, the Mayor and City Council have supported Mr. Guillen without meaningful inquiry into his practices and without effective oversight. His inappropriate relationships with female subordinates, his actions in classifying and rewarding favored employees, his extravagance with public funds, his favoritism within the work place, his inappropriate actions and statements, and his unchecked power over the lives, salaries, and personal lives of City employees have been overlooked or unexamined by the Mayor and City Council. Those actions have resulted in a hostile work place and adverse and illegal employment actions...”
• July 30, 2008: Letter from attorney Michael Stamp to Mayor Sue McCloud (copy to City Attorney Donald F. Freeman) informing her that the complaints had been filed by Jane Miller against the City and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) had issued right-to-sue letters to Miller; one complaint identified the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea as respondent and the second named Richard Guillen.
• October 17, 2008: Letter from attorney Michael Stamp to Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council
“Nearly five months ago, Jane Miller, the Human Resources Manager for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, informed the Mayor and City Council in writing of her claims of retaliation, gender-based discrimination and harassment, and age discrimination against the City and City Administrator Richard Guillen. Ms. Miller also filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing."
“Although the City has a policy prohibiting harassment which mandates prompt and effective action, the City did not take either prompt or effective action. In fact, the City has taken no meaningful action.”
“In a letter of May 20, 2008, on behalf of Ms. Miller, we provided notice to the Mayor of Ms. Miller’s claims in regard to Richard Guillen. The Mayor never responded."
“During her employment with the City, Ms. Miller has had no adequate or appropriate recourse to remedy her concerns. According to the City discrimination policy, provided by the city four months after Ms. Miller notified the City of her claim, the employee’s recourse is to inform the personnel committee, which did not exist at the City. Ms. Miller’s only other possible option was to contact the Mayor, which she did with the letter of May 20. It is clear that the Mayor then allowed Mr. Guillen to act against Ms. Miller by ordering her to return to work, and that it was futile for Ms. Miller to disclose anything to the City in confidence and without fear of retaliation. The Mayor has never responded to Ms. Miller’s May 20 complaint, nor has she responded to Ms. Miller’s DFEH complaint.”
• October 23, 2008: Thirteen-page letter from Jane Miller to Mayor and the City Council which outlined “the workplace situation, Guillen’s actions, the actions directed at Miller and the favoritism displayed to others, all in support of her May 20, 2008 letter.”
• June 17, 2009: Plaintiff Jane Miller filed suit against the city and “immediately served the City.”
The editor also claims that Jane Miller’s claim of retaliation, discrimination and harassment was “remarkable.” Needless to say, in the context of at least four other senior management city employees, namely the Assistant City Administrator, Community and Cultural Director, Library Director and Executive Assistant, making similar claims of retaliation, discrimination and harassment against City Administrator Rich Guillen and the City between 2003 – 2008, what is remarkable is Mayor Sue McCloud’s and City Councils’ failure to take city employees’ claims seriously, failure to follow and enforce the City’s policy against sexual harassment, failure in their duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent retaliation, discrimination and harassment from occurring and once notified of said concerns failure to promptly and effectively prevent and remedy the environment of retaliation, discrimination and harassment at City Hall.
In closing, the author of “Editorial: The benefits of suing yourself” did not demonstrate “the pursuit of a standard of integrity proportionate to the journalist’s singular obligation.” Moreover, Editor Paul Miller’s opinions based on untruthful and inaccurate assertions show an editor more interested in protecting and defending the unconscionable and indefensible acts and omissions of Mayor Sue McCloud and City Councils than in upholding the principles of journalism and serving as an independent watchdog for the people of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
ARTICLE I - Responsibility. The primary purpose of gathering and distributing news and opinion is to serve the general welfare by informing the people and enabling them to make judgments on the issues of the time. Newspapermen and women who abuse the power of their professional role for selfish motives or unworthy purposes are faithless to that public trust. The American press was made free not just to inform or just to serve as a forum for debate but also to bring an independent scrutiny to bear on the forces of power in the society, including the conduct of official power at all levels of government.
ARTICLE IV - Truth and Accuracy. Good faith with the reader is the foundation of good journalism. Every effort must be made to assure that the news content is accurate, free from bias and in context, and that all sides are presented fairly. Editorials, analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect to facts as news reports. Significant errors of fact, as well as errors of omission, should be corrected promptly and prominently.
Yet, in the Carmel Pine Cone (April 15, 2011) “Editorial: The benefits of suing yourself,” Editor Paul Miller did not demonstrate “responsibility” and “truth and accuracy.” To wit, the editor’s overarching claim that the City’s former Human Resources Manager Jane Miller was incompetent is based on the false assertion that Jane Miller “kept quiet until she sprung her lawsuit.”
FACT: Former Human Resources Manager Jane Miller filed her lawsuit against the City on 17 June 2009 and “immediately served the City.”
FACT: Prior to 17 June 2009, Mayor Sue McCloud, the City Council and City Attorney Don Freeman were notified on numerous occasions in writing of Jane Miller’s claims of retaliation, discrimination and harassment at City Hall, as follows:
• May 20, 2008: Letter from plaintiff’s attorney Michael Stamp to Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council
Letter informed the City of Stamp’s representation of Jane Miller and her claims of “retaliation, gender-based discrimination and harassment, as well as age-based discrimination...”
“For the past several years, the Mayor and City Council have supported Mr. Guillen without meaningful inquiry into his practices and without effective oversight. His inappropriate relationships with female subordinates, his actions in classifying and rewarding favored employees, his extravagance with public funds, his favoritism within the work place, his inappropriate actions and statements, and his unchecked power over the lives, salaries, and personal lives of City employees have been overlooked or unexamined by the Mayor and City Council. Those actions have resulted in a hostile work place and adverse and illegal employment actions...”
• July 30, 2008: Letter from attorney Michael Stamp to Mayor Sue McCloud (copy to City Attorney Donald F. Freeman) informing her that the complaints had been filed by Jane Miller against the City and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) had issued right-to-sue letters to Miller; one complaint identified the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea as respondent and the second named Richard Guillen.
• October 17, 2008: Letter from attorney Michael Stamp to Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council
“Nearly five months ago, Jane Miller, the Human Resources Manager for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, informed the Mayor and City Council in writing of her claims of retaliation, gender-based discrimination and harassment, and age discrimination against the City and City Administrator Richard Guillen. Ms. Miller also filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing."
“Although the City has a policy prohibiting harassment which mandates prompt and effective action, the City did not take either prompt or effective action. In fact, the City has taken no meaningful action.”
“In a letter of May 20, 2008, on behalf of Ms. Miller, we provided notice to the Mayor of Ms. Miller’s claims in regard to Richard Guillen. The Mayor never responded."
“During her employment with the City, Ms. Miller has had no adequate or appropriate recourse to remedy her concerns. According to the City discrimination policy, provided by the city four months after Ms. Miller notified the City of her claim, the employee’s recourse is to inform the personnel committee, which did not exist at the City. Ms. Miller’s only other possible option was to contact the Mayor, which she did with the letter of May 20. It is clear that the Mayor then allowed Mr. Guillen to act against Ms. Miller by ordering her to return to work, and that it was futile for Ms. Miller to disclose anything to the City in confidence and without fear of retaliation. The Mayor has never responded to Ms. Miller’s May 20 complaint, nor has she responded to Ms. Miller’s DFEH complaint.”
• October 23, 2008: Thirteen-page letter from Jane Miller to Mayor and the City Council which outlined “the workplace situation, Guillen’s actions, the actions directed at Miller and the favoritism displayed to others, all in support of her May 20, 2008 letter.”
• June 17, 2009: Plaintiff Jane Miller filed suit against the city and “immediately served the City.”
The editor also claims that Jane Miller’s claim of retaliation, discrimination and harassment was “remarkable.” Needless to say, in the context of at least four other senior management city employees, namely the Assistant City Administrator, Community and Cultural Director, Library Director and Executive Assistant, making similar claims of retaliation, discrimination and harassment against City Administrator Rich Guillen and the City between 2003 – 2008, what is remarkable is Mayor Sue McCloud’s and City Councils’ failure to take city employees’ claims seriously, failure to follow and enforce the City’s policy against sexual harassment, failure in their duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent retaliation, discrimination and harassment from occurring and once notified of said concerns failure to promptly and effectively prevent and remedy the environment of retaliation, discrimination and harassment at City Hall.
In closing, the author of “Editorial: The benefits of suing yourself” did not demonstrate “the pursuit of a standard of integrity proportionate to the journalist’s singular obligation.” Moreover, Editor Paul Miller’s opinions based on untruthful and inaccurate assertions show an editor more interested in protecting and defending the unconscionable and indefensible acts and omissions of Mayor Sue McCloud and City Councils than in upholding the principles of journalism and serving as an independent watchdog for the people of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Street Improvement Project on Junipero Avenue between Ocean Av. & 8th Av.
UPDATE (as of 04/21/11): Completion of all painted pavement markings.
Junipero Av. (east side) between Ocean Av. & 7th Av.
Junipero Av. (west side) between Ocean Av. & 7th Av.
ABSTRACT: At the City Council’s 1 March 2011 Meeting, the City Council unanimously approved Item E. Consideration of a Resolution Awarding a Bid to Monterey Peninsula Engineering for the Street Improvement Project on Junipero Avenue between Ocean Avenue and 8th Avenue and a total project cost of $363,662 on the CONSENT CALENDAR. The MINUTES of the meeting are reproduced; the Agenda Item Summary is reproduced and all the information originally provided under separate cover by the City is uploaded, including Agenda Item Summary, RESOLUTION 2011-10, TABULATION OF BIDS and Capital Improvement and Capital Outlay Budgets, FY 2010-11 Thru 2014-15. Progress photos of the reconstruction of Junipero Avenue between Ocean Av. and 7th Av. are presented; reconstruction, the most substantial and expensive type of repair, involves roadway excavation, furnish and place Class 2 aggregate base, furnish and place asphalt concrete and layout and paint pavement markings, et cetera. It is anticipated that all painted pavement markings will be done by Friday, April 22, at the latest.
Thursday, 7 April 2011
View of completed excavation, Junipero Av. (east side, south of Ocean Av.)
Thursday, 7 April 2011
View of Class 2 aggregate base, Junipero Av. (west side, south of Ocean Av.)
Saturday, 9 April 2011
View of compacted Class 2 aggregate base, Junipero Av. (east side, south of Ocean Av.)
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
View of asphalt concrete pavement, Junipero Av. (west side, south of Ocean Av.)
Saturday, 16 April 2011
View of asphalt concrete pavement and painted pavement marking, open for vehicular traffic, Junipero Av., (east side, south of Ocean Av.)
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
March 1, 2011
II. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Council Members Hazdovac, Sharp, Talmage, Mayor McCloud (Council Member Burnett participated in the meeting via phone conference from Akron, Ohio)
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk
Molly Laughlin, Deputy City Clerk
Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager
Paul Tomasi, Sergeant-at-Arms
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
E. Consideration of a Resolution Awarding a Bid to Monterey Peninsula Engineering for the Street Improvement Project on Junipero Avenue between Ocean Avenue and 8th Avenue and a total project cost of $363,662.
Council Member SHARP moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A-E, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
Meeting Date: March 1, 2011
Prepared by: Stu Ross/Margi Perotti, Public Works Dept.
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution Awarding a Bid to Monterey Peninsula Engineering for the Street Improvement Project on Junipero Avenue between Ocean Avenue and 8th Avenue and a total project cost of $363,662.
Description: This project includes the repaving of Junipero Avenue between Ocean and 8th Avenues. The lowest bid of $317,400 was provided by Monterey Peninsula Engineering.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $363,662 (total to be covered by grant funds)
Construction Bid: $317,400.00
Project Contingency: $31,740.00
Project Engineering and inspection: $9,522.00
Project soil compacting testing: $5,000.00
Grant Funds: $462,760 total TAMC funds available per the attached CIP budget.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: There are two amounts included in the Fiscal Year 2010-11 Capital Improvement Budget for this project: $291,760 and $171,000 for a total of $462,760. Junipero Avenue, one of the City’s major arteries, carries significant pedestrian and bus traffic. Its heavy usage has created the pavement to become seriously worn.
Decision Record: The Junipero Street Improvement project has been scheduled for several years and is a project recommended as “high priority” in the Nichols Engineering Pavement Management Study.
Attachments:
• Tabulation of Bids prepared by Neill Engineering
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
Street Improvement Project Junipero Avenue
Street Improvement Project on Junipero Avenue between Ocean Avenue and 8th Avenue
Agenda Item Summary
RESOLUTION 2011-10
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AWARDING A BID TO MONTEREY PENINSULA ENGINEERING FOR THE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ON JUNIPERO AVENUE BETWEEN OCEAN AND EIGHTH AVENUES AND A TOTAL PROJECT COST OF $363,662
TABULATION OF BIDS
ENGINEERER’S ESTIMATE ($374,220.00)
MONTEREY PENINSULA ENGINEERING ($317,400.00) LOW BID
THE DON CHAPIN COMPANY ($318,000.00)
GRANITE ROCK CO. PAVEX CONSTRUCTION DIV. ($331,830.00)
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION ($358,420.00)
GARCIA ENGINEERING ($368,717.50)
ROBERT F. ENZ CONSTRUCTION ($455,670.00)
Capital Improvement and Capital Outlay Budgets
FY 2010-11 Thru 2014-15
ADDENDUM:
Repair and Maintenance Treatments
High quality streets are maintained by using one or more of five different treatments. Which treatment is applied is determined by the pavement’s condition and the volume and size of vehicles regularly traveling on the street. The goal is to provide safe, efficient thoroughfares, while minimizing long-term maintenance costs. The following treatments are ranked in order of most to least substantial and expensive repairs.
1. Reconstruction – The complete removal of curbs, roadway, and base followed by the new construction of the street and curb. Usually, the sidewalks and utilities under the roadway surface are included in this project. The street is under construction for weeks to months. This treatment is the most disruptive to the neighborhood. The life expectancy is at least fifteen years. This is the most expensive treatment usually reserved for the busiest bus and truck routes and streets in very poor condition.
2. Overlay – The edge of the roadway is usually ground down to the depth of the new paving layer to keep the original flow line or gutter line intact. The street surface is oiled to help the new asphalt adhere to the existing layer. A paving machine is used to lay asphalt in lane-width or wider passes to apply a level and smooth structural layer of asphalt (usually at least two inches thick). The street is under construction for usually two different days – one day to grind and one day to pave. The life expectancy is between ten and fifteen years depending on use and traffic. This is the next most expensive treatment and used on the busiest streets where significant bus and truck traffic are present.
3. Chip Seal – The surface of the street is coated with a thin hot temperature emulsion layer containing melted rubber. Small rock chips are spread over the emulsion and rolled into place. The excess rock chips are swept clean. Normally, the City covers the chip seal with a slurry seal to provide a finished look to the street and hold the chips in place. The street is usually under construction for three different days – one day to prepare the street, one day to chip seal, and one day to slurry seal. The life expectancy is seven to twelve years. This is a mid-priced treatment that is typically used on neighborhood streets.
4. Slurry Seal – The surface of the street is coated with a thin emulsion with liquid rubber and course sand layer that requires up to eight hours to cure. The street is usually under construction for two days, one day to prepare the street and one day to slurry seal. The life expectancy is five to seven years. This is a lower cost treatment used to keep good condition streets in good condition.
5. Crack Seal – Cracks present in the street are cleaned using high-pressure air to blow out debris. Hot tar material is applied to fill the crack and smoothed using a squeegee to seal the crack. Sand is spread over the fill material to allow traffic to drive over the fill without sticking to it. This treatment extends the life of streets by eliminating moisture seeping under the asphalt into the base material. The street is usually under construction for part of a day. The life expectancy is from two to five years. This is the least expensive street maintenance activity.
ABSTRACT: At the City Council’s 1 March 2011 Meeting, the City Council unanimously approved Item E. Consideration of a Resolution Awarding a Bid to Monterey Peninsula Engineering for the Street Improvement Project on Junipero Avenue between Ocean Avenue and 8th Avenue and a total project cost of $363,662 on the CONSENT CALENDAR. The MINUTES of the meeting are reproduced; the Agenda Item Summary is reproduced and all the information originally provided under separate cover by the City is uploaded, including Agenda Item Summary, RESOLUTION 2011-10, TABULATION OF BIDS and Capital Improvement and Capital Outlay Budgets, FY 2010-11 Thru 2014-15. Progress photos of the reconstruction of Junipero Avenue between Ocean Av. and 7th Av. are presented; reconstruction, the most substantial and expensive type of repair, involves roadway excavation, furnish and place Class 2 aggregate base, furnish and place asphalt concrete and layout and paint pavement markings, et cetera. It is anticipated that all painted pavement markings will be done by Friday, April 22, at the latest.
View of completed excavation, Junipero Av. (east side, south of Ocean Av.)
View of Class 2 aggregate base, Junipero Av. (west side, south of Ocean Av.)
View of compacted Class 2 aggregate base, Junipero Av. (east side, south of Ocean Av.)
View of asphalt concrete pavement, Junipero Av. (west side, south of Ocean Av.)
View of asphalt concrete pavement and painted pavement marking, open for vehicular traffic, Junipero Av., (east side, south of Ocean Av.)
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
March 1, 2011
II. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Council Members Hazdovac, Sharp, Talmage, Mayor McCloud (Council Member Burnett participated in the meeting via phone conference from Akron, Ohio)
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk
Molly Laughlin, Deputy City Clerk
Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager
Paul Tomasi, Sergeant-at-Arms
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
E. Consideration of a Resolution Awarding a Bid to Monterey Peninsula Engineering for the Street Improvement Project on Junipero Avenue between Ocean Avenue and 8th Avenue and a total project cost of $363,662.
Council Member SHARP moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A-E, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
Meeting Date: March 1, 2011
Prepared by: Stu Ross/Margi Perotti, Public Works Dept.
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution Awarding a Bid to Monterey Peninsula Engineering for the Street Improvement Project on Junipero Avenue between Ocean Avenue and 8th Avenue and a total project cost of $363,662.
Description: This project includes the repaving of Junipero Avenue between Ocean and 8th Avenues. The lowest bid of $317,400 was provided by Monterey Peninsula Engineering.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $363,662 (total to be covered by grant funds)
Construction Bid: $317,400.00
Project Contingency: $31,740.00
Project Engineering and inspection: $9,522.00
Project soil compacting testing: $5,000.00
Grant Funds: $462,760 total TAMC funds available per the attached CIP budget.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: There are two amounts included in the Fiscal Year 2010-11 Capital Improvement Budget for this project: $291,760 and $171,000 for a total of $462,760. Junipero Avenue, one of the City’s major arteries, carries significant pedestrian and bus traffic. Its heavy usage has created the pavement to become seriously worn.
Decision Record: The Junipero Street Improvement project has been scheduled for several years and is a project recommended as “high priority” in the Nichols Engineering Pavement Management Study.
Attachments:
• Tabulation of Bids prepared by Neill Engineering
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
Street Improvement Project Junipero Avenue
Street Improvement Project on Junipero Avenue between Ocean Avenue and 8th Avenue
Agenda Item Summary
RESOLUTION 2011-10
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AWARDING A BID TO MONTEREY PENINSULA ENGINEERING FOR THE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ON JUNIPERO AVENUE BETWEEN OCEAN AND EIGHTH AVENUES AND A TOTAL PROJECT COST OF $363,662
TABULATION OF BIDS
ENGINEERER’S ESTIMATE ($374,220.00)
MONTEREY PENINSULA ENGINEERING ($317,400.00) LOW BID
THE DON CHAPIN COMPANY ($318,000.00)
GRANITE ROCK CO. PAVEX CONSTRUCTION DIV. ($331,830.00)
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION ($358,420.00)
GARCIA ENGINEERING ($368,717.50)
ROBERT F. ENZ CONSTRUCTION ($455,670.00)
Capital Improvement and Capital Outlay Budgets
FY 2010-11 Thru 2014-15
ADDENDUM:
Repair and Maintenance Treatments
High quality streets are maintained by using one or more of five different treatments. Which treatment is applied is determined by the pavement’s condition and the volume and size of vehicles regularly traveling on the street. The goal is to provide safe, efficient thoroughfares, while minimizing long-term maintenance costs. The following treatments are ranked in order of most to least substantial and expensive repairs.
1. Reconstruction – The complete removal of curbs, roadway, and base followed by the new construction of the street and curb. Usually, the sidewalks and utilities under the roadway surface are included in this project. The street is under construction for weeks to months. This treatment is the most disruptive to the neighborhood. The life expectancy is at least fifteen years. This is the most expensive treatment usually reserved for the busiest bus and truck routes and streets in very poor condition.
2. Overlay – The edge of the roadway is usually ground down to the depth of the new paving layer to keep the original flow line or gutter line intact. The street surface is oiled to help the new asphalt adhere to the existing layer. A paving machine is used to lay asphalt in lane-width or wider passes to apply a level and smooth structural layer of asphalt (usually at least two inches thick). The street is under construction for usually two different days – one day to grind and one day to pave. The life expectancy is between ten and fifteen years depending on use and traffic. This is the next most expensive treatment and used on the busiest streets where significant bus and truck traffic are present.
3. Chip Seal – The surface of the street is coated with a thin hot temperature emulsion layer containing melted rubber. Small rock chips are spread over the emulsion and rolled into place. The excess rock chips are swept clean. Normally, the City covers the chip seal with a slurry seal to provide a finished look to the street and hold the chips in place. The street is usually under construction for three different days – one day to prepare the street, one day to chip seal, and one day to slurry seal. The life expectancy is seven to twelve years. This is a mid-priced treatment that is typically used on neighborhood streets.
4. Slurry Seal – The surface of the street is coated with a thin emulsion with liquid rubber and course sand layer that requires up to eight hours to cure. The street is usually under construction for two days, one day to prepare the street and one day to slurry seal. The life expectancy is five to seven years. This is a lower cost treatment used to keep good condition streets in good condition.
5. Crack Seal – Cracks present in the street are cleaned using high-pressure air to blow out debris. Hot tar material is applied to fill the crack and smoothed using a squeegee to seal the crack. Sand is spread over the fill material to allow traffic to drive over the fill without sticking to it. This treatment extends the life of streets by eliminating moisture seeping under the asphalt into the base material. The street is usually under construction for part of a day. The life expectancy is from two to five years. This is the least expensive street maintenance activity.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS at Carmel High School
ABSTRACT: The recently completed, multi-million dollar CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS at Carmel High School was designed by architects Peter Kasavan and Bart Wolfe and built by general contractor DMC Construction. The state-of-the-art facility features a new theater of 360 seats, including "plush red seats and matching carpet, an orchestra pit, control and sound booth, dressing rooms and broadcast studio" and a Black Box theater of 100 seats. It will host “a variety of visual and performing arts, including choral groups, instrumental groups, plays and student-produced film screenings by means of an overhead projector.” INFORMATIONAL HIGHLIGHTS ON CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS AT CARMEL HIGH SCHOOL are presented from recently published articles, including New Performing Arts Center at Carmel High School (Peninsula Reviews), IT'S SHOWTIME: Carmel High School introduces performing arts center (The Monterey County Herald) and Packed house greets performing arts debut (THE SANDPIPER).
INFORMATIONAL HIGHLIGHTS ON CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS AT CARMEL HIGH SCHOOL:
• The new theater at CHS seats 360, plus there is a “black box” multi use space for smaller theatrical productions. The electronic capabilities are fabulous with state-of-the-art sound boards for lighting, amplification and recordings in both theatrical spaces. One other component of the Performing Arts Center is skillful melding of an adjacent building that contains three class rooms, which can also be used for dressing rooms for large choral or instrumental ensembles, or for theatrical casts.
• District Superintendent Marvin Biasotti said the $10 million theater project was made possible by passage of a $21.5 million bond issue in 2005.
• ...the extraordinary coordinated civic and community effort it took to get a major bond issue approved, plus the raising of substantial additional funds through FOCUS (Friends of the Carmel School District)...two plaques honoring Carmel Unified School District Board members
and also, individually, Bertie Bialek Elliot, whose generous initial contribution of $500K in seed money to jumpstart the funding project was trumped by her later donation of $1M, representing approximately 10% of the cost to build the new Performing Arts Center.
• The imposing theater, built on a rise at the entrance to the campus, was designed by architects Peter Kasavan and Bart Wolfe. It was built by general contractor DMC Construction of Monterey.
• The facility features plush red seats and matching carpet, an orchestra pit, control and sound booth, dressing rooms and broadcast studio.
• It will be able to host a variety of visual and performing arts, including choral groups, instrumental groups, plays and student-produced film screenings by means of an overhead projector.
• The facility also has a Black Box theater that seats 100 for more intimate, smaller-scale productions.
• “We wanted to be able to seat at least half the school,” Wolfe (chief architect Barton Wolfe of Kasavan Architects) added. “There are 360 seats in there, and we arranged the seats in curved rows. You begin to get a sense of interacting with other people, and it becomes more of a collective experience.”
• “You kind of wish that as grand as this thing is, there would be more seating,” board member Matthew Fuzie said. “It’s the chief complaint I hear—‘It can’t even accommodate all of the students.’
SOURCES:
NEW PERFORMING ARTS CENTER AT CARMEL HIGH SCHOOL
Posted: Apr 4, 2011
Category: Reviews
By Lyn Bronson
IT'S SHOWTIME: CARMEL HIGH SCHOOL INTRODUCES PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
By JOHN SAMMON Herald Correspondent
Posted: 03/16/2011
Packed house greets performing arts debut
Written by Mackenzie Dooner
Friday, 18 March 2011
THE SANDPIPER
carmel high school student newspaper
ADDENDUM:
Kasavan Architects
Performing Arts Building & Media Arts Center
Carmel, CA
(Includes Exterior and Interior Photographs)
New performing arts building with a 350 seat theater, 50-100 seat black box theater, TV studio, control room & productions classrooms.
Carmel High
A California Distinguished School
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
CITY COUNCIL Closed Session: Public Employment Title: Interim City Administrator
ABSTRACT: Tomorrow, the City Council is scheduled to meet in Closed Session at 12:30 P.M. at City Hall to consider Public Employment Title: Interim City Administrator. Additionally, agenda item Interviews with representatives of selected firms interested in conducting the recruitment of the City Administrator, originally scheduled for April 13, 2011, will be “rescheduled to a future meeting.” Both notices are reproduced.
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
Closed Session
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 – 12:30 p.m.
The City Council will meet at City Hall on the east side of Monte Verde
between Ocean and Seventh Avenues.
I. Orders of Council
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 et seq. of the State of California, the City Council will adjourn to Closed Session to consider the following:
A. Public Employment
Title: Interim City Administrator.
II. Announcements in Open Session (if any).
III. Adjournment
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall is an accessible facility. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Telecommunications device for the Deaf/Speech Impaired (T.D.D.) number is 1-800-735-2929.
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
Please be advised that the City Council meeting to hear the following item, originally scheduled for Wednesday, April 13, 2011, will be rescheduled to a future meeting.
IV. Orders of Council
A. Interviews with representatives of selected firms interested in conducting the recruitment of the City Administrator.
Thank you,
Heidi Burch
Asst. City Administrator/City Clerk
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
(831) 620-2000
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
Closed Session
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 – 12:30 p.m.
The City Council will meet at City Hall on the east side of Monte Verde
between Ocean and Seventh Avenues.
I. Orders of Council
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 et seq. of the State of California, the City Council will adjourn to Closed Session to consider the following:
A. Public Employment
Title: Interim City Administrator.
II. Announcements in Open Session (if any).
III. Adjournment
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall is an accessible facility. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Telecommunications device for the Deaf/Speech Impaired (T.D.D.) number is 1-800-735-2929.
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
Please be advised that the City Council meeting to hear the following item, originally scheduled for Wednesday, April 13, 2011, will be rescheduled to a future meeting.
IV. Orders of Council
A. Interviews with representatives of selected firms interested in conducting the recruitment of the City Administrator.
Thank you,
Heidi Burch
Asst. City Administrator/City Clerk
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
(831) 620-2000
Sunday, April 10, 2011
CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION: Public Employee Appointment – Government Code Section 54957. Title: Interim City Administrator.
ABSTRACT: Tomorrow, the City Council is scheduled to meet in Closed Session at 8:45 A.M. to consider Public Employee Appointment – Government Code Section 54957. Title: Interim City Administrator. Immediately following Closed Session, Announcements in Open Session (if any) will be communicated to the public. The City Council Closed Session Agenda is reproduced.
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
Closed Session
Monday, April 11, 2011 – 8:45 a.m.
The City Council will meet at City Hall on the east side of Monte Verde between Ocean and Seventh Avenues.
I. Roll Call
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Public Comment
IV. Orders of Council
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:
1. Public Employee Appointment – Government Code Section 54957.
Title: Interim City Administrator.
V. Announcements in Open Session (if any).
VI. Adjournment
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall is an accessible facility. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea telecommunications device for the Deaf/Speech Impaired (T.D.D.) number is 1-800-735-2929.
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
Closed Session
Monday, April 11, 2011 – 8:45 a.m.
The City Council will meet at City Hall on the east side of Monte Verde between Ocean and Seventh Avenues.
I. Roll Call
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Public Comment
IV. Orders of Council
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:
1. Public Employee Appointment – Government Code Section 54957.
Title: Interim City Administrator.
V. Announcements in Open Session (if any).
VI. Adjournment
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall is an accessible facility. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea telecommunications device for the Deaf/Speech Impaired (T.D.D.) number is 1-800-735-2929.
Friday, April 08, 2011
‘MINUTES’ for Seven Noteworthy 5 April 2011 City Council Agenda Items
“MINUTES”
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Archived video streaming
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
II. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Council Members Burnett, Hazdovac, Sharp, Talmage, Mayor McCloud
ABSENT: None
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
K. Authorize a letter to the County to proceed with the dissolution of the JPA-managed ambulance response agency, provide notice of intent to retain the 1797.201 rights and authorize the City to submit an application for advanced life support (ALS) certification.
L. Authorize the City to retain Bill Ross as Special Counsel to review and advise the City on ambulance services.
M. Authorize the Mayor to submit responses to the Grand Jury report on behalf of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Ken Hutchinson, Vice President, Carmel Professional Firefighters, agreed with the Civil Grand Jury report, as follows:
• the negative factors of 401(k) outweigh any potential positive factors;
• maintain participation in CalPERS with corrections to increase stability and sustainability for the future;
• a buyout is not realistic or financially viable or practical;
• all public employees have a vested right to the retirement plan which was in place at the time of hire;
• advocate for their participation in formal talks involving CalPERS prior to a final decision on fire services (if conducted), their participation is an “integral element” to process and they are dedicated to the goal of achieving a "mutually beneficial agreement in a timely manner."
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member TALMAGE moved to approve Consent Agenda Items M, seconded by Council Member BURNETT and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
VIII. Public Hearings
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit, multi-family residential project for a site located on San Carlos Street 3 SE of 7th Avenue. The appellant is Old Mill Properties LLC.
B. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit, multi-family residential project for a site located on Mission Street 3 SW of 7th Avenue. The appellant is Old Mill Properties, LLC.
City Attorney recused himself due to his ownership of property across the street from the proposed project and Council Member Ken Talmage recused himself due to his living across the street from the project.
Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to continue the appeals at the request of the appellant to the 3 May 2011 City Council meeting and hire land use attorney Brian Finegan to represent the City, seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
X. Resolutions
C. Consideration of a Resolution to lend 30 Edward Weston photographs to the Monterey Museum of Art from May 9 through October 14, 2011 for an exhibition titled “Edward Weston, American Photographer: Landscapes, Portraits, Still Lifes, Nudes”.
Council Member Burnett recused himself due to the fact that his wife is on the Monterey Museum of Art Board.
Janet Bombard, Library Director, presented the Staff Report.
Mayor McCloud asked for clarification of dates and inclusion of La Mirada as exhibition venue.
Michael Whittington, Executive Director, stated the exhibition is a “homecoming” to celebrate the career and accomplishments of one of the great artists of the 20th century of the United States and resident of this area. Whittington encouraged the adoption of the resolution and urged the public to attend the exhibition. He stated that he anticipates a total of 120 photographs spanning Weston’s earliest career to photographs before his death.
Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to approve Resolution to lend 30 Edward Weston photographs to the Monterey Museum of Art from May 9 through October 14, 2011 for an exhibition titled “Edward Weston, American Photographer: Landscapes, Portraits, Still Lifes, Nudes,” seconded by Council Member TALMAGE and carried by the following roll call vote
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE:
XI. Orders of Council
A. Approve amendments to City’s revised Harassment Prevention Policy.
Attorney Jon Giffen, Kennedy, Archer & Harray, presented changes to the Third Draft of the City’s revised Harassment Prevention Policy, including, as follows (changes in bold):
• IV. TYPES OF HARASSMENT PROHIBITED
visual behaviors (to include other electronic communications, such as twitter)
• VI. COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
1) Employee’s Responsibility When Subjected to Harassment
Any employee who believes he or she has been subjected to harassment prohibited by this policy is required to immediately report that behavior to any one of the following individuals: his or her supervisor; the City’s Human Resources Personnel Officer (“Personnel Officer”); the City Administrator; or the Mayor or Vice Mayor or any city council member.
• 2) Supervisor Responsibilities
If for any reason the Personnel Officer is implicated in the alleged harassment or is otherwise unavailable to respond to the complaint, then the supervisor must report the harassing behavior to either the City Administrator, the Mayor or the Vice Mayor or any city council member instead of the Personnel Officer. In those instances, either the City Administrator, Mayor or Vice Mayor or any city council member will be responsible for meeting with the complainant as specified in the preceding paragraph.
• 3) Investigating Officer’s Responsibilities
The Investigating Officer will have the duty to immediately bring all harassment and/or retaliation complaints to the confidential attention of the City Administrator, the Mayor or Vice Mayor or any city council member.
• C) General Investigation Guidelines
5. If during the course of the investigation, the alleged harassment is reported to be continuing, the Investigating Officer must notify the City Administrator, the Mayor or Vice Mayor or any council member who will take such emergency or immediate action as may be necessary or appropriate under the circumstances.
• C) General Investigation Guidelines
6. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer must prepare a written report of his/her findings as soon as reasonably possible but in no event later than 30 days from completion of the investigation. If, at the conclusion of the investigation, it is found that harassment has occurred, the Investigating Officer must forward his or her written findings, along with any recommendations to the City Administrator, Mayor or Vice Mayor, or any city council member for implementation of the disciplinary process, if any.
• VII. MISCELLANEOUS GUIDELINES
1) Complaints Against Volunteers or City Council Appointees
Employees who believe they have been harassed by any of the above must follow the complaint procedure previously specified including immediately reporting that behavior to any one of the following individuals: his or her supervisor; the City’s Human Resources Personnel Officer; the City Administrator; or the Mayor; or any city council member.
• 2. If the alleged harasser is a member of a Board, Commission, or Committee, or is the City Attorney, the City Engineer, or City Treasurer: the report must be given to the Mayor, the Vice Mayor and the City Administrator or any city council member. The Mayor or Vice Mayor will oversee implementation of appropriate disciplinary action.
• 3. If the alleged harasser is the City Administrator: the report must be given to the Mayor or Vice Mayor or any city council member. The Mayor or Vice Mayor must review the findings and make recommendations accordingly to the entire City Council.
• 2) Complaints Against Elected Officials
This policy applies equally to the Mayor, the Vice Mayor and members of the City Council. Employees who believe they have been harassed by an elected official must follow the complaint procedure previously specified including immediately reporting that behavior to any one of the following individuals: his or her supervisor; the Personnel Officer; the City Administrator; or the Mayor or Vice Mayor or any city council member.
• 3) Complaints Against Outside Parties (Non-Employees)
If the complaint is against an outside party or other non-employee not previously addressed in this policy, then the complainant must follow the complaint procedure previously specified including immediately reporting that behavior to any one of the following individuals: his or her supervisor; the Personnel Officer; the City Administrator; or the Mayor or Vice Mayor or any city council member.
Council Member Talmage referred to a memo from the General Employee Association concerning a potential violation of the “meet and confer” process received by the City Council at the time of the meeting.
City Attorney Don Freeman implied that there was not a violation of “meet and confer” because the policy is an ordinance which is not a negotiable item and not therefore not subject to negotiation.
Council Member Burnett expressed concern about the concerns the City employees expressed in the memo.
Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Heidi Burch stated that all City associates, unions and all at-will employees received the draft policy in response to Council Member Talmage’s query.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Adam Moniz stated that the City’s Harassment Prevention Policy is “only as good as your commitment to enforce it.”
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Attorney Jon Giffen addressed Carolyn Hardy’s concern about favoritism, “favoritism” not included in IV. TYPES OF HARASSMENT PROHIBITED and not contained in the draft policy.
Council Member Burnett expressed concern about City employees’ questions and Jon Giffen’s answers which stated “No further changes contemplated.”
Council Member Paula Hazdovac expressed concern about employee union question about person wrongfully accused of harassment and administrative leave.
City Attorney Don Freeman stated the City has a zero tolerance for harassment policy. Freeman advocated finalizing policy one time.
Council Member Talmage suggested that memo be responded to, to include draft policy to associations, unions and all at-will employees, and call for comments by date certain.
Council Member Hazdovac suggested employees’ responses by Friday, April 22.
Attorney Jon Giffen agreed to rewrite draft policy by April 26.
The City’s amended revised Harassment Prevention Policy will appear on the City Council’s 3 May 2011 Meeting.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Archived video streaming
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
II. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Council Members Burnett, Hazdovac, Sharp, Talmage, Mayor McCloud
ABSENT: None
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
K. Authorize a letter to the County to proceed with the dissolution of the JPA-managed ambulance response agency, provide notice of intent to retain the 1797.201 rights and authorize the City to submit an application for advanced life support (ALS) certification.
L. Authorize the City to retain Bill Ross as Special Counsel to review and advise the City on ambulance services.
M. Authorize the Mayor to submit responses to the Grand Jury report on behalf of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Ken Hutchinson, Vice President, Carmel Professional Firefighters, agreed with the Civil Grand Jury report, as follows:
• the negative factors of 401(k) outweigh any potential positive factors;
• maintain participation in CalPERS with corrections to increase stability and sustainability for the future;
• a buyout is not realistic or financially viable or practical;
• all public employees have a vested right to the retirement plan which was in place at the time of hire;
• advocate for their participation in formal talks involving CalPERS prior to a final decision on fire services (if conducted), their participation is an “integral element” to process and they are dedicated to the goal of achieving a "mutually beneficial agreement in a timely manner."
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member TALMAGE moved to approve Consent Agenda Items M, seconded by Council Member BURNETT and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
VIII. Public Hearings
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit, multi-family residential project for a site located on San Carlos Street 3 SE of 7th Avenue. The appellant is Old Mill Properties LLC.
B. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit, multi-family residential project for a site located on Mission Street 3 SW of 7th Avenue. The appellant is Old Mill Properties, LLC.
City Attorney recused himself due to his ownership of property across the street from the proposed project and Council Member Ken Talmage recused himself due to his living across the street from the project.
Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to continue the appeals at the request of the appellant to the 3 May 2011 City Council meeting and hire land use attorney Brian Finegan to represent the City, seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
X. Resolutions
C. Consideration of a Resolution to lend 30 Edward Weston photographs to the Monterey Museum of Art from May 9 through October 14, 2011 for an exhibition titled “Edward Weston, American Photographer: Landscapes, Portraits, Still Lifes, Nudes”.
Council Member Burnett recused himself due to the fact that his wife is on the Monterey Museum of Art Board.
Janet Bombard, Library Director, presented the Staff Report.
Mayor McCloud asked for clarification of dates and inclusion of La Mirada as exhibition venue.
Michael Whittington, Executive Director, stated the exhibition is a “homecoming” to celebrate the career and accomplishments of one of the great artists of the 20th century of the United States and resident of this area. Whittington encouraged the adoption of the resolution and urged the public to attend the exhibition. He stated that he anticipates a total of 120 photographs spanning Weston’s earliest career to photographs before his death.
Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to approve Resolution to lend 30 Edward Weston photographs to the Monterey Museum of Art from May 9 through October 14, 2011 for an exhibition titled “Edward Weston, American Photographer: Landscapes, Portraits, Still Lifes, Nudes,” seconded by Council Member TALMAGE and carried by the following roll call vote
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE:
XI. Orders of Council
A. Approve amendments to City’s revised Harassment Prevention Policy.
Attorney Jon Giffen, Kennedy, Archer & Harray, presented changes to the Third Draft of the City’s revised Harassment Prevention Policy, including, as follows (changes in bold):
• IV. TYPES OF HARASSMENT PROHIBITED
visual behaviors (to include other electronic communications, such as twitter)
• VI. COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
1) Employee’s Responsibility When Subjected to Harassment
Any employee who believes he or she has been subjected to harassment prohibited by this policy is required to immediately report that behavior to any one of the following individuals: his or her supervisor; the City’s Human Resources Personnel Officer (“Personnel Officer”); the City Administrator; or the Mayor or Vice Mayor or any city council member.
• 2) Supervisor Responsibilities
If for any reason the Personnel Officer is implicated in the alleged harassment or is otherwise unavailable to respond to the complaint, then the supervisor must report the harassing behavior to either the City Administrator, the Mayor or the Vice Mayor or any city council member instead of the Personnel Officer. In those instances, either the City Administrator, Mayor or Vice Mayor or any city council member will be responsible for meeting with the complainant as specified in the preceding paragraph.
• 3) Investigating Officer’s Responsibilities
The Investigating Officer will have the duty to immediately bring all harassment and/or retaliation complaints to the confidential attention of the City Administrator, the Mayor or Vice Mayor or any city council member.
• C) General Investigation Guidelines
5. If during the course of the investigation, the alleged harassment is reported to be continuing, the Investigating Officer must notify the City Administrator, the Mayor or Vice Mayor or any council member who will take such emergency or immediate action as may be necessary or appropriate under the circumstances.
• C) General Investigation Guidelines
6. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer must prepare a written report of his/her findings as soon as reasonably possible but in no event later than 30 days from completion of the investigation. If, at the conclusion of the investigation, it is found that harassment has occurred, the Investigating Officer must forward his or her written findings, along with any recommendations to the City Administrator, Mayor or Vice Mayor, or any city council member for implementation of the disciplinary process, if any.
• VII. MISCELLANEOUS GUIDELINES
1) Complaints Against Volunteers or City Council Appointees
Employees who believe they have been harassed by any of the above must follow the complaint procedure previously specified including immediately reporting that behavior to any one of the following individuals: his or her supervisor; the City’s Human Resources Personnel Officer; the City Administrator; or the Mayor; or any city council member.
• 2. If the alleged harasser is a member of a Board, Commission, or Committee, or is the City Attorney, the City Engineer, or City Treasurer: the report must be given to the Mayor, the Vice Mayor and the City Administrator or any city council member. The Mayor or Vice Mayor will oversee implementation of appropriate disciplinary action.
• 3. If the alleged harasser is the City Administrator: the report must be given to the Mayor or Vice Mayor or any city council member. The Mayor or Vice Mayor must review the findings and make recommendations accordingly to the entire City Council.
• 2) Complaints Against Elected Officials
This policy applies equally to the Mayor, the Vice Mayor and members of the City Council. Employees who believe they have been harassed by an elected official must follow the complaint procedure previously specified including immediately reporting that behavior to any one of the following individuals: his or her supervisor; the Personnel Officer; the City Administrator; or the Mayor or Vice Mayor or any city council member.
• 3) Complaints Against Outside Parties (Non-Employees)
If the complaint is against an outside party or other non-employee not previously addressed in this policy, then the complainant must follow the complaint procedure previously specified including immediately reporting that behavior to any one of the following individuals: his or her supervisor; the Personnel Officer; the City Administrator; or the Mayor or Vice Mayor or any city council member.
Council Member Talmage referred to a memo from the General Employee Association concerning a potential violation of the “meet and confer” process received by the City Council at the time of the meeting.
City Attorney Don Freeman implied that there was not a violation of “meet and confer” because the policy is an ordinance which is not a negotiable item and not therefore not subject to negotiation.
Council Member Burnett expressed concern about the concerns the City employees expressed in the memo.
Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Heidi Burch stated that all City associates, unions and all at-will employees received the draft policy in response to Council Member Talmage’s query.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Adam Moniz stated that the City’s Harassment Prevention Policy is “only as good as your commitment to enforce it.”
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Attorney Jon Giffen addressed Carolyn Hardy’s concern about favoritism, “favoritism” not included in IV. TYPES OF HARASSMENT PROHIBITED and not contained in the draft policy.
Council Member Burnett expressed concern about City employees’ questions and Jon Giffen’s answers which stated “No further changes contemplated.”
Council Member Paula Hazdovac expressed concern about employee union question about person wrongfully accused of harassment and administrative leave.
City Attorney Don Freeman stated the City has a zero tolerance for harassment policy. Freeman advocated finalizing policy one time.
Council Member Talmage suggested that memo be responded to, to include draft policy to associations, unions and all at-will employees, and call for comments by date certain.
Council Member Hazdovac suggested employees’ responses by Friday, April 22.
Attorney Jon Giffen agreed to rewrite draft policy by April 26.
The City’s amended revised Harassment Prevention Policy will appear on the City Council’s 3 May 2011 Meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)