UPDATE:Council decides Fink's burger joint won't be fast food, MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, September 16, 2011
Fire department to merge with Monterey's, MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, September 16, 2011
“MINUTES”
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, September 13, 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, and Mayor McCloud
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: John Goss, Interim City Administrator
Heidi Burch, Asst. City Administrator/City Clerk
Don Freeman, City Attorney
Mike Calhoun, Interim Police Chief
Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.
A. Announcements from Closed Session.
1. Labor Negotiations – Gov’t. Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, Interim City Administrator Goss, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association and LIUNA/UPEC Local 792.
2. Existing Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - Conference with legal counsel regarding The Flanders Foundation, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, Petitioner v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Respondents – Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M99437/State of California Court of Appeals, Sixth District, Civil Case No. H035818.
There were no announcements from Closed Session.
C. Announcements from City Administrator.
1. Report from the ad hoc CalPERS Committee.
William Sharpe, Professor of Finance, Emeritus, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University (Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, 1990), presented the Carmel CalPERS Committee Interim Report Power Point Presentation. Members of the Committee: Richard Borda, Joseph Mark, Barbara Santry, William Sharpe and Laura Zehm
Carmel CalPERS Committee Interim Report September 2011
Carmel CalPERS Committee Interim Report Power Point Presentation
William F. Sharpe
September 2011
VII. Consent Calendar
E. Consideration of a Resolution entering into an employment agreement with Jason Stilwell for the position of City Administrator.
F. Consideration of a Resolution approving an agreement for relocation expenses for the City Administrator in the amount of $15,000.
G. Consideration of a Resolution ratifying a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and General Employees Association -LIUNA/UPEC Local 792, AFL-CIO.
Council Member Ken Talmage commented on Item E; he stated that Jason Stilwell was the “unanimous first choice” by the council as the new city administrator and welcomed Stilwell “enthusiastically.” And he commented on Item G; he commended the City’s general employees regarding the MOU and their understanding of the City’s CalPERS unfunded liability exceeding $20 million, new employees’ reforms, et cetera.
Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member TALMAGE moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A-I, seconded by Council Member BURNETT and carried unanimously.
VIII. Public Hearings
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review and Use Permit applications for a new restaurant located on the northeast corner of Mission Street and Seventh Avenue in the Carmel Plaza. The project applicant is David Fink.
Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager, presented the Staff Report Power Point Presentation, as follows:
Project History
• Planning Commission approved project on 8/10/11 with a 4-0 vote.
• City Administrator filed an appeal to provide Council with opportunity to review the Planning Commission’s Decision
Full Line Restaurant
Defined as providing:
“a full line of prepared food and drinks using nondisposable plates, glasses and utensils for immediate consumption on the site. These restaurants provide table service to patrons of all ages who pay after eating. Takeout service may be provided.”
Additional requirements found in CMC 17.14.040
Three Main Questions
• Does the proposal qualify as a fast food establishment?
• Is it appropriate to allow customers to pay prior to being seated?
• Is it appropriate to allow customers to order from a menu board rather than while seated?
Applicant’s Revised Proposal
• Customers will pay after eating
• Customers will have the option of ordering from the ordering counter or while seated.
Options
• Uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
• Revise the Planning Commission’s decision.
• Overturn the Planning Commission’s decision.
• Remand the project back to the Commission with instructions.
• Continue consideration of this project to a future meeting.
Staff’s Recommendation
Revise the Planning Commission’s decision to require that:
1) Customers pay after eating
2) Customers have the option of ordering while seated.
David Fink, project applicant, and owner and operation of L’Auberge Carmel and Cantinetta Luca, stated that the gourmet burger restaurant ("What’s Your Beef?") will fill “a very unique niche” and create 25 new jobs.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Jean Hubert,Le St. Tropez restaurant owner and banker Charles Chrietzberg spoke in support of the new restaurant.
Preston Kincaid warned Council against favoritism which he stated he witnessed at a Planning Commission meeting.
Barry Swift, on behalf of the Carmel Residents Association Board, spoke against the Planning Commission’s decision approving the proposal and against the precedent established by this proposal.
Don Bentz, Carmel Plaza Senior Property Manger, stated that the new restaurant is a “perfect fit,” a high quality restaurant.
Michael Adamson, spoke in support of the proposal, and read a letter in support of the proposal by Dennis LeVett.
Kent Torrey, owner of the Cheese shop, Carmel Plaza, spoke in support of David Fink (“a visionary”) and his proposal.
Adam Moniz spoke of the proposal’s similarity with Carmel Belle.
Barbara Livingston spoke that the proposal violated the spirit and letter of the law.
Monte Miller spoke of his confusion about the appeal process.
Gerard Rose stated that the proposal is not a fast food restaurant and the project is good for Carmel.
Carolyn Hardy requested the Council remand the project to the Planning Commission to “look at the codes.”
Peter Baird spoke in support of the proposal and stated that leasing business is down by 40%. He stated that the proposal will occupy a space which has been vacant for over three years in the Carmel Plaza. He stated the proposal is not “a fast food restaurant.”
Rich Pepe stated that the proposal is “precedent setting.”
Roberta Miller spoke against the proposal and urged the Council to deny the proposal.
Lisa, associated with David Fink, thanked those individuals supporting the proposal.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
City Attorney Don Freeman commented that the Council’s decision needs to be limited to the land use aspect of the proposal.
Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager, clarified the issues as to whether or not it qualifies as a fast food restaurant and order at counter and/or seated.
CMC 17.70
Fast Food Establishment. A business where food is consumed on or off the site and food is (1) pre-made and wrapped before customers place orders, and/or (2) served with disposable tableware for on-site food consumption. A fast food establishment also exhibits two or more of the following characteristics:
1. Food is ordered from a wall menu at a service counter;
2. Food consumed on the premises is ordered while customers are standing;
3. Payment is made by customers before food is consumed;
4. The service counter is closer to an entry/exit than is the seating/dining area; and/or
5. The business interior is brightly illuminated (greater than eight candlefoot power as measured in a horizontal plane three feet above the floor).
Council Member Burnett discussed the portion of the Carmel Municipal Code, as follows:
3. Restaurant, Full Line.
e. Customers shall be provided with individual menus while seated at a table or counter.
He stated a variance is therefore required to approve the proposal.
Council Member Talmage inquired as to whether or not the proposal represents a precedent that changes the rules for Carmel restaurants in “a serious way?”
Council Member Hazdovac stated that there is a need for this proposal, a place for something “simple” to eat.
Mayor McCLOUD moved to accept the findings of decision, as amended on 9/13/2011, to approve Design Review and Use Permit applications for a new restaurant located on the northeast corner of Mission Street and Seventh Avenue in the Carmel Plaza, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC.
Council Member TALMAGE moved to add “Customers shall order from a menu while seated or order from the counter,” seconded by Mayor McCLOUD, and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC, SHARP, TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
XI. Orders of Council
A. Consideration of a Report concerning the provision of Fire Service.
John Goss, Interim City Administrator, presented the PROVISION OF FIRE SERVICE Power Point Presentation.
PROVISION OF FIRE SERVICE September 2011
PROVISION OF FIRE SERVICE Power Point Presentation
John Goss, Interim City Administrator
September 2011
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Gerard Rose advocated for an opt-out ability through an extension with Monterey for a hybrid model.
David Banks, Carmel Residents Association Board of Directors, agreed with Recommendations 1, 2 and 3; and disagreed with Recommendation 5 because of loss of local control. CRA advocated for the headquarters model.
Demetrius Kastros stated fire protection is a “team effort.” With Monterey, Carmel has a collaborative team effort now and advocated for the staff’s recommendation.
Jerry Floyd, an advocate for fire service consolidation, spoke in support of Recommendation 5.
Roberta Miller spoke against the full merger with Monterey because of a loss of a sense of community. She requested Council define the service which best suits Carmel and craft RFPs for Monterey and Cal Fire based on Council direction.
Tom Frutchey, Pacific Grove City Manager, stated that none of the fears about loss of local control have occurred. He emphasized the advantages of the full merger with Monterey.
Carolyn Hardy spoke of a concern about loss of control and that the City never resolved credibility issues involving Monterey. She stated that the best compromise now is to maintain headquarters model or administrative model.
Pat Sipple stated it is time to take action and merge with Monterey.
Monte Miller advocated due diligence by formulating a good set of requirements and then seek competitive proposals/bids.
Adam Moniz spoke of the need for a conclusion and finality and “long-term certainty.” “The time for action is perhaps right now.”
Ken Hutchinson, Vice President, Carmel Professional Firefighters, stood with members of the Carmel Fire Department, and stated that the staff recommendation is the best possible solution for a permanent, sustainable, professional fire service.
David Jedinak, Fire Ambulance Paramedic, advocated for the staff recommendation.
Barbara Livingston advocated for the current headquarters model for at least another year.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
John Goss, Interim City Administrator, stated that the City’s effort was to give a “balanced presentation,” a logical step-by-step process. Goss queried, as follows: Is fire service being provided successfully? Yes. Are there problems with that fire service that needs to be addressed?” No. Is there an argument for making a change in fire service? No. Are we almost totally merged already between the two operations? Yes. He stated that the relationship with Monterey is beyond a headquarters model; the relationship has evolved into more than that and recommended a complete merger. He stated the agreement with Monterey is for a term of five years. And he commented on “paralysis by analysis.”
Council Member Talmage commented on the City’s investment in the Fire Department, that is, the retrofit of the fire station, increase in the number of firefighters and compensation, purchase of new fire engine and ambulance. Monterey will not continue with headquarters model, therefore City needs to decide. 1166 annual calls and the City need to find an answer for “everything.” Staff presentation solves fire services, but does not solve medical and other calls. He believes there is a need to address fire service and ambulance in a fully integrated way (hybrid model) and have all cross-trained personnel. Question: Will Monterey continue headquarters model for five years?
John Goss, Interim City Administrator, stated that firefighters are an “insurance policy,” available to respond to emergencies. Ambulance service has improved under the fire contract with Monterey. And he emphasized advantages of being part of a larger system.
Fire Chief Andrew Miller stated that CRFA has always operated as a hybrid; Monterey has integrated CRFA with Carmel-Monterey Fire. Miller emphasized advantages of a larger integrated system and the rebuilding of Carmel Fire Department since Carmel’s association with Monterey. Miller recommended staff recommendation; Monterey has a proven record, no questions of trust or not being able to perform. And the tri-city relationship is the best fire protection service solution. Lastly, Miller stated that presently there is the opportunity to negotiate a contract and Carmel is protected through the language in the contract.
Mayor McCloud spoke of more ambulance calls than fire calls historically. She emphasized shared service movement. She apologized for statements about credibility issues with Monterey. Lastly, she stated the issue is about the public health and safety of the citizens in Carmel and the need to make a decision for the best possible fire service and give direction to staff.
Council Member Burnett agreed with Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4, but not yet ready to support Recommendation 5 based on questions about integration of fire and ambulance. And he emphasized the need for “a clear process for backing out” and “budgetary control.”
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to direct staff to prepare a draft agreement with the City of Monterey based on the Goss Report Recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 5, seconded by Council Member SHARP, and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC; SHARP & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT, TALMAGE
Council Member TALMAGE suggested Recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 5 expanded including fully merged or long-term headquarters model and clearly address all 1200 of annual emergency calls.
Mayor McCloud stressed relationship with Monterey and expressed support for draft agreement for merger based on Goss Recommendations.
4 comments:
During Interim City Administrator John Goss’ oral report on the Provision of Fire Service at the Council meeting, he stated, as follows:
“My purpose and the purpose of this report is to seek Council direction and action on how the City should provide its fire service. Often staff reports do not give a recommendation nor do they ask for council consideration and direction, but I believe it is staff’s responsibility to offer our best professional judgment on an issue and offer recommendations in what direction the City should take, in this case, in providing fire service. Whether or not you agree with those recommendations at least it gives you a target upon which to focus.”
His statement, “I believe it is staff’s responsibility to offer our best professional judgment on an issue and offer recommendations in what direction the City should take, in this case, in providing fire service,” is crucial. Goss, in stark contrast to his predecessor City Administrator Rich Guillen, believes it is his job to offer his “best professional judgment” on an issue. For the last decade, Guillen constantly asked for “policy direction” on nearly every item from the Council, a body not capable, not tasked with, managing the City. As a result, Carmel has been “managed” by the mayor who is unqualified and incompetent. For too long the public has expected and/or allowed the Council (Mayor) to manage the City, when it is the city administrator who is charged with the management of the City. To the extent the City Council is still a dysfunctional body, it is largely because members use nearly every agenda item opportunity to micromanage, instead of limiting their attention to providing broad policy direction and allowing the professional manager to manage the City.
Hopefully, with a new, permanent city administrator in Jason Stilwell, the Mayor and Council will have enough respect for his abilities that they will allow Stilwell to do his job, including being responsive to all citizens' queries and concerns, and managing the City in an effective and competent manner.
Re: “Side Fund” Debt, Carmel CalPERS Committee Interim Report
In 2003, CalPERS placed Carmel in a pool with about 200 other cities based upon estimates of past underfunding. CalPERS paid $6.2 million for the City as a loan in exchange for a “credit card-like revolving debt” with interest charged at 7.75% per year. Then and now the Side Fund Debt is $6.2 million and interest charged at 7.75% per year. The City could of and can voluntarily pay of the Side Fund Debt at any time. William Sharpe stated that reserve funds total about $9 million (most funds designated for different obligations, although many are at the discretion of the City). He said it “would be lovely” to be able to pay off the entire Side Fund Debt because the City’s reserve funds “at the moment are earning less than 0.5% which is a far distance from what we are paying a 7.75%.” Therefore, a combination of reserve funds and bonds which investment bankers tell ICA John Goss would cost the City about 6% to issue bonds to pay off Side Fund Debt and as Sharpe stated “6% is better than 7.75%.
Context: In 2003, the Mayor and City Council adopted a policy of encouraging early retirement for senior management employees. However, the Council never provided financial justification for these so-called “golden handshakes,” nor addressed how much taxpayer monies would be saved by adopting this policy or whether or not this policy of getting rid of senior employees was a wise governance decision. Later, from Jane Miller’s lawsuit, it was discovered that over $500,000 in taxpayer monies were paid to these employees as claims against the City for harassment, discrimination and retaliation.
Conclusion: 2003 was the year a competent city administrator would have done his homework on the Side Fund Debt and recommend that the City Council designate reserve funds to pay off the Side Fund Debt. Eight years later, Sharpe et al. recommend the City pay off the Side Fund Debt “as soon as we can.”
Question: How much taxpayer monies could have been saved had the City used reserve funds between 2003 to the present to pay off the Side Fund Debt?
ADDENDUM:
June 30, 2010:
Governmental Funds (General Fund & Special Revenue Funds):
$11,000,000 (decrease of $523,000 from FY 2008/09)
$ 613,000 Reserved
$ 9,100,000 Designated for Capital Acquisitions for Replacements & Future Expenditures
$ 1,200,000 Neither Reserved or Designate
Between FY 2004/2005 and FY 2009/201), the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has had reserve funds “Neither Reserved or Designated” of $1,240,439 (FY 2004/2005), $3,000,000 (FY 2005/2006), $2,377,543 (FY 2006/2007), $1,979,756 (FY 2007/2008), $1,484,300 (FY 2008/2009) and $1,200,000 (FY 2009/2010).
Source:
MARCELLO & COMPANY CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
Annual Financial Reports
Interest paid on $6,200,000 @ 7.75% per year for 8 years: $3,844,000.
Devastating critiques on city hall - the city manager was fiscally inept and councils did not perform due diligence and oversight. Carmel residents need to wake up and fast. The city is making fools of us and many of us do not have the commonsense to see it.
Post a Comment