ABSTRACT: The AGREEMENT Between CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, A Municipal Corporation And SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER, INC. A California Not-For-Profit Corporation, June 8, 2004, is uploaded. This Agreement is in effect presently; SCC Board of Trustees notified the Mayor and Council members in December 2009 that SCC was exercising its option under the Agreement for a second contract renewal of three years beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2013. The current three-year Agreement renewal is the final extension provided in the Agreement. The Agreement does not have a three-year budget commitment like the original Agreement; the FY 2010/2011 City subsidy is $650,000 and FY 2011/12 City subsidy and FY 2012/13 City subsidy will be determined during the City’s budget process, according to Assistant Director Barbara Davison.
City _ SCC Agreement
AGREEMENT Between CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, A Municipal Corporation And SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER, INC. June 8, 2004
6 comments:
Hopefully, in 2013, Carmel will have a new mayor, new councilmembers and a new city administrator to give us an objective, critical review of SCC and an opportunity to address the pros and cons of non-profit management versus city management of Sunset Center. A major disadvantage of SCC operation has been the large, constant drain on annual budgets leaving insufficient monies for the other community and cultural assets. An advantage of city management would be a more equitable management of all the of city’s assets, not merely the Sunset Center. It is deplorable that we cannot be proud of the condition of all our public community and cultual assets.
The legal reading is simple. The Sunset Center is a singular gem for the City, its businesses, and its residents, and is unique glue for a diverse town. There seem to be two issues. Is the SCC management doing what it should under the contract, and could it do better? Under the strict wording of the contract the answer to the first question appears to be yes. Based on the recent actions and the many comments, the answer to the second question appears to be no.
For the record, most cities with such a venue underwrite its activities, especially one with so many community responsibilities like the SCC. Even the private Pac Rep theater in Carmel would be under water without 40-50% of its revenues covered by outside donations; that is, their expenses are almost double their performance revenue. The City initially committed to a certain level of support under the contract with SCC and has not had to exceed it.
But is that enough to declare success? Probably not. The Center could put on more shows, it could have its own, active fundraising for now and the future, and it could improve the patron’s experience with some physical changes. It could also actively involve more of the town’s and surrounding businesses, residents, and institutions to help preserve and perpetuate this marvelous asset. Finally, the Friends of the Sunset Foundation could be better used and there could be better management stability.
In addition, it should be free of politics. While the City owns the facility, it fully contracted the operations to the SCC. If the SCC fulfills its contractual mission, the mayor and staff should stay out of it. Further, the operation is too big, too complex, and too unique to be managed by some city administrator or staff. It needs dedicated management and City involvement would just add more costs to the City budget.
But the political interference issue appears to be a problem. It is similar to the Forest Theater’s failure to achieve its recent refurbishment goals. There seems to be a force preventing success and controlling the outcomes that is impeding positive progress in Carmel.
The Forest Theater project outcome was a disappointing example. Who made the decisions that led to failure; decisions to have a high priced out of town architect who came up with an unfeasible, high cost design; and who it turns out was simultaneously working with a local private business; and why did the major improvement project die after so much citizen support and work? Just whose interests are being served?
Could the same thing happen with the Sunset Center? This controversy, negativity, lack of visibility, lack of confidence, and the possible under-usage of a prized asset are too much to be ignored. The answer for the SCC could be simple. The City could terminate the contract and start over, but it may have no legal cause. So even better, it (and we as concerned citizens) could ask the current SCC board to reconstitute itself with a new dynamism and added and respected leadership. The current board and chairman have worked hard to get us to this place; is it is time to make a mid-course correction?
Since they are legally constituted, maybe it is time for the current SCC board to step up and openly receive and make positive recommendations for change. There is a legal, contractual approach to this dilemma, or a positive, coming-together approach. Wise people can make this happen.
From my reading of the agreement, the agreement ends in 2013 after the initial three year period (2004-2007), the first renewal period (2007-2010) and the second and final renewal period (2010-2013). In 2013, the city council can elect to write a new agreement or end the association with SCC and create and fund a Community & Cultural Department with a Director to manage all the city's community and cultural assets, including the Sunset Center.
One effect of SCC has been its distorting influence on the city council and city policy. Practically speaking, the city council has budgeted reflexively $700,000 annually to SCC with no consistent budgeting schedule for maintenance and upkeep and improvements for the city’s other community and cultural assets, including the Forest Theater, Scout House, Youth Center, Flanders Mansion and Public Works building. As a result, Carmelites cannot take pride in all our community and cultural assets as we should be able to.
I guess you can chalk it up to the quirkiness of Carmel, but I wonder if Carmelites have thought of the dichotomy between the Sunset Center building and the residential design guidelines. Setting aside the historic designation of Sunset Center, this former grammar school is a hulk of a building on almost two full city blocks surrounded on three sides by residences on 40’ x 100’ lots. The residential design guidelines were formulated to address mass, scale and bulk of houses by lessening the visual impact of residences. On the one hand then we have a planning goal of encouraging architects and builders to lessen the mass, scale and bulk of designed homes, while on the other hand we have the “crown jewel” of Carmel, the Sunset Center, an oversized, hulk of a entertainment venue casting permanent shadows over cottage-size houses in its vicinity. The dichotomy is stark and weird, in my opinion.
Regarding the hulk of the Sunset Center, the same thing applies even more so to the Pac Rep theater on Monte Verde. The massive building takes up four entire lots in the middle of a totally residential neighborhood, and totally violates the design standards. And I hear they are raising money and soon going to be adding to it, making it stand out even more while adding new capability to further impose on the residential neighborhood.
Could it be that the "powers that be" are channeling their priorities to it from the Forest Theater and the Sunset Center? Is that why the City facilities are being short changed for a separate private priority of the mayor? Just wondering--too much of a coincidence.
Anonymous wrote, So even better, it (and we as concerned citizens) could ask the current SCC board to reconstitute itself with a new dynamism and added and respected leadership. The current board and chairman have worked hard to get us to this place; is it is time to make a mid-course correction?
This current board like the boards before it have all taken orders from the current mayor and until the current mayor is gone, no amount of asking will do any good!
Post a Comment