work study agenda items 06-01-15

8/9/2019 Work Study Agenda Items 06-01-15

1/58

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Council Report

June 1, 2015

To: Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council

From: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Administrator

Subject: Provisional Budget Errata

At various points along the course of developing a budget, the recalculations, theadjustments, the insertion of new data must cease so the Budget Team can move along toanother chapter in the completion of the document. But events and new information continueto accrue and roll in.

Since certain parts of the Provisional Budget and CIP were “closed down” and the Teammoved on, some things have changed; some new information has been received. As anexample, the budget proposes a new Police Officer for beach related activities to occur behired in January. However, on 27 May, the Chief was notified of an existing officer’s decisionto retire as of 1 July. Because the recruitment and training process is so extensive, it isprudent to just do one recruitment for two positions rather than do one now and another laterin 2015.

The attached Errata proposes several adjustments to either the Provisional Budget or the CIPbased on recent events which are enunciated for each revised recommendation.

Council Meeting Date: 6/1/15 Agenda Item: 5.A

Page 1


2/58

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council


Subject: PROVISIONAL BUDGET: ERRATA

CENTENNIAL:Letters have been sent by Mayor Burnett to Boards and Commissions and communitygroups inviting their ideas for programs and projects for the Centennial. Some of theseefforts may need funding. Council is to receive the suggestions from the groups at itsworkshop on 6 July. The proposed monies would be separate from the recommendationin the Provisional Budget for an allocation to the Centennial Committee for costsassociated with its events for the centennial year.

RECOMMENDATION: +$40,000

PERSONNEL:

All new positions recommended in the Provisional Budget are budgeted forcommencement as of 1 January 2016 depending upon whether the City Councilauthorizes some personnel and capital and equipment expenses, which is dependentupon the status of the CDO. Since the draft budget was finalized and reproduced,several actions involving proposed positions have evolved which leads torecommendations that one position in Community Planning and Building and one in

Police be authorized as of 1 July.

In Community Planning and Building, the staff finalized the selection and interviews for asenior planner position authorized for 2014-15. However, two top candidates emerged.The City is paying monthly for contract employees. Rather than initiate a second processfor the position proposed for next fiscal year, it is recommended that the Councilauthorize that position to be filled as of 1 July utilizing some of the monies proposed forcontract work in 2015-16. There will be an overlap with contract expenses for a periodduring the time that the second new employee is oriented and becomes familiar withpending projects.

RECOMMENDATION: + $ 47,500

In the Police Department, a retirement was received on 27 May. The budget contains therecommendation for a new position for beach patrol to be approved as of 1 January2016. Rather than undertake separate recruitments for the soon to be vacant positionand then begin a separate recruitment six months later, it is recommended that theproposed new officer position in 2015-16 be authorized as of 1 July.

RECOMMENDATION: + $54,500

Council Meeting Date: 6/1/15 Agenda Item: 5.APage 2


3/58

WATER CONSERVATION PROJECTS/CIP

When the CIP was developed, the Mayor’s appointment of a water committee wasexpected to occur after 1 July. Thus, the thought was that the committee would develop

its program recommendations, get approval in latter 2015 and the monies would beavailable as of 1 January 2016. However, the Governor’s declaration, in March, of anemergency has accelerated the appointment of the members and its efforts to identifywater saving projects. Monies existed in the 2014-15 CIP for Small Water Projects; the$45,000 in the CIP for next year was to fund other efforts.

RECOMMENDATION: Move the $45,000 for Water Conservation Projects, scheduledfor the second half of 2015-16, into the first half of the fiscal year. No change to amountof allocation.

TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS: + $141,500

OFF-SETTING REVENUES: Property Tax: $141,500

Council Meeting Date: 6/1/15 Agenda Item: 5.APage 3


4/58


Council Report

June 1, 2015



Subject: Council Discretionary Grants and Subsidies, including Request fromthe Carmel Youth Center

Behind Tab #3 of the Provisional Budget is the proposal for the City Council. In thebottom right corner is the “Discretionary” line items of Account No. 01-60207. Therecommendations for 2015-16 mostly mirror the previous year with a few exceptions like

the one-time allocation to the Veterans Cemetery.The total dollar amount for this account is proposed to decrease from $87,100 to$73,600.

There are some changes, though, from 2014-15. United Way is asking for an increasefrom $2000 to $5000; the County Film Commission, which received $500 in the currentyear, is asking for “at least $500….” for the coming year.

The proposed budget continues to contain $27,500 for fee waivers per the Council’sadopted Policy C12-02, Event Fee Waivers, as revised in July 2014.

In early April, the Mayor, Council and staff received a request from the Carmel YouthCenter for an allocation of $20,000 to “subsidize the above facility improvements.” Acopy of the letter is attached. Council options for this request could include: 1) deferconsideration until mid-year budget review in early 2016; 2) deny the request; 3) partiallyfund the request; 4) fund all or part of the $20,000 from the CIP; 5) seek private fundingto assist the CYC.

Attachments:

1) CYC Letter of 31 March 20152) MEarth Letter of 13 May 20153) United Way Letter of 27 March 20154) Film Festival Letter of 17 April 2015

Council Meeting Date: 6/1/15 Agenda Item: 5.BPage 1


5/58

ATTACHMENT #1


oard of DirectorsBarbara Barr

Ben CatlinGeorge DuffeyTrevor Forster

Juliet GonzalesYvonne Hildebrand-Bowen

Executive DirectorErnest Griffin-Ortiz

Corner of 41

h & Torres

P.O. Box 2399Carmel, CA 93921 USA

Carmel Youth Center, Inc .is a CANon-Profit

Tax ID 94-1415306

I like the staff and thevariety of things to do .You can do yourhomework , you can gooutside and skate, youcan play pool , you canplay dodge ba/1, go onhe compute rs , you can

play video games .. andlike the way that you

can meet n w peopleand make new friends ."

-Leah-

I ju s t LOVE it here "-Brendan-

March 31, 20 14

Doug SchmitzCity AdministratorCarmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921

Our Mission

The Carmel Youth Center CYC) is committed to providing a positive and academi ca lly fr ien dlyenvironment that is safe, drug-alcohol -a nd -tobacco-free and designed for the community youth.We accomplish this mission by developing strong character, values, and citizenship throughencouraging volunteerism, peer mentoring, performance and visual arts, athletics, and academics.

In addition to serving as the only youth center in Carmel, and in the spirit of building a s trongcommunity, the Carmel Youth Center prov ides facility use to local nonprofits and cityorgan izations including , The Carmel Police Department, Th e Fore st Theater Guild , Th e CarmelChamber of Commerce, Pac-Rep Theater group, Carmel High School, Carmel Middle School, andmany others. Additionally, in the event of a city emergency the Carmel Youth Center is designatedas Carmel's officia l Temporary Assistance Center TAC). As such, it will be used as an evacuationcollection point for evacuees, to assess the need for evacuation to shelters, to provide light

snacks, and to diss eminate public information.

Our Needs

The Carmel Youth Center requests assi stance from the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea to help pay formuch needed facility repairs and improvements. Specifically :

1. Structural repai rs to the down stai rs Game Room repairs to southern wall to eliminateweather intru sio n and add ea rthquake reinforc eme nt, repair s to eastern wall to re pairwood rot and improve dra inag e from rain gut ters and backyard runoff) . Estima ted cost ofrepair s: 40,000 ba se d on bids from 3 independent local con t ra ctors) .

2 . Repairs and improvement s to th e Multi -purpo se Room (to repair cei ling and floor,

replace lighting fixtures with gym-appropriate fixtures, replace stairs on west and eastentrance s). Estimated cost of repairs : 50,000 ba sed on bids from 3 independ e nt localco ntractor s).

ur Request

The Carmel Youth Ce nter requ es ts at leas t 20,000 from the City of Ca rmel-by -the -Sea, tosubsidize the above facility improvement s. The remaining funds to complete the facilityimprovement projects will be provided by the Carmel Youth Center through donation s, grants,fundraising and our e ndowment fund.

As a small, privately funded nonprofit organization, the CYC wishes to thank you in advance forany support you co uld give to us to further impact the lives of the CYC membe rs and ourcommunity in a positive and safe way . Please call us with any qu est ions you may hav e (831) 624-3285 and/or email us at info@carmelyouth .com.

We thank you for your time, and hope to hear from you soon.

Executiv e Director

831.624.3285 I831.624.0130 (fax) I www.carmelyouth.com I [email protected]


6/58

ATTACHMENT #2


M ar thU CATING + INSPIR ING THROUGH

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

MEARTH STAFF

Tanja Roos

Merrie P o tter

Cassie Chapple

Rose As hbac h

Katy Crockett

Megan Leffler

Melissa Lopez

Kristin Schinske

MEARTH BOARDOF DIRECTORS

Mark Shelley

Kimberly Briggs

Nico le Saulnier

Kimberly Briggs

Charl es Franklin

Jenn Gerard

Shelby Lambert

Lewis Leader

Andrea Le wis

Bernard Trainor

Sarah Yee

May 13 , 2015

Mr. Doug Schmitz, City AdministratorMs. Sharon Friedrichsen, Special ProjectsCarmel-by-the-Sea City HallP .O. Box CCCarmel -by-the-Sea, CA 93921

Dear Mr. Schmitz and Ms . Friedrichsen:

We are very grateful to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea for the ongoing opportun ities affordedto MEarth to support restoration activities with local students and community members at thebeautiful forests and beaches of Carmel. This is a letter to update you on the progress forthis year's project and to request that the 12,000.00 of Counc il discretionary funding beapproved in the City 's fiscal year 2015-16 budget.

It has been an absolute joy for my staff to work alongside C ity Forester M ike Branson , CityContractor Joey Dorrell-Canepa , past City Forester Greg D'Ambros io and the Friends ofMission Trail Nature Preserve/Rowntree Native Plant Ga rden to help fulfill the resto rationand stewardship goals of the City .

As put forward in our proposal for this year, we successfully completed the management of1200 seedlings and 500 1-gallon plants in our native nursery, which were carried overfrom previous years . Add itionally, we held FIVE 2-hour community restoration events,instead of the originally proposed four and will host SIX high school field trips, instead of thefour originally proposed. Community enthusiasm and interest were the primary drivers of theincreased events I

By the end of this FY year, MEarth will have brought 299 community volunteers/studentsto your beautiful parks and beaches for 10 different planting events . Collective ly thesevolunteers contributed a total of 457.2 volunteer hours at the approximate value of12,042.65 (calculated y using the California volunteer value established y the

Corporation for Nationo l Community Service) . At our various volunteer events , to date,participants have removed 520 lbs and 30 large contractor bags full of invasive plants,and planted 87, 1-gallon native plants (please see attached spreadsheet for the full

details) . With four additional field trips to come , we anticipate even larger plant ing numbers .A final report will be submitted at the end of the fiscal year.

MEarth at the Hlfton Bialek HabitatPO Box 223702 Carmel CA 93922 I www .M E arthCarmel.org I 83 1 -624-1032

E IN 26-29736 25MEarth is an independent , 501 (c)(3) corporation separate from Carmel Unified School District.


7/58


ME r thUC AT ING INSPIRING THROUGH

NVIRONMEN TAL STEWARDSHIP

MEARTH STAFF

Tanja Roos

Merrie Potter

Cassie Chapple

Rose Ashbach

Katy Crockett

Megan Leffler

Melissa Lopez

Kristin Schinske

MEARTH BOARD

OF DIRECTORS

Mark Shelley

Kimberly Briggs

Nicole Saulnier

Kimberly Briggs

Charles Fra nklinJenn Gerard

Shelby Lambert

Lewis Leader

And re a Lewis

Bernard Trainor

Sarah Yee

Given the success of this year s project, we are hoping to cont inue our work with the Citynext year with a similar scope, as outlined below:

• Native Plant Propagation + Nursery Management I In preparation for theCity s Centennial Anniversary , we wou ld like to propagate up to 1000 seedlingsin support of the ongoing beautificat ion of the landscape. This w ill include sitespecific seed collection, propagation and management by MEarth staff, interns,student and volunteers, to be out-planted at various sites in the City . Yearround)

• Six, 2-hour community out planting weed pull events (for up to 3people/event) I This includes the schedul ing , marketing, volunteercoordination , planning meetings w ith site partners, p rocu rement ofmaterials/snacks/water, transport of tools/plants/other necessary mater ials tos ite by MEarth staff , interns and volunteers . November-May)

• Five field trips for local high school students I This inclu des the schedul ingand coordination of , at the minimum, five field trips for local high schoo lstudents to participate in community service and enviro nmental s tewardshipprojects at var ious locations May) .

Again, thank you for thir unique opportunity to assist the City w ith restorat ion proje ct s and

invo lve our community in meaningful environmental stewardship act ivities . Please do nothesitate to get in touch if you have quest ions or need any clarification or further informat ion :Tanja@MEarthCar mel.org or (831) 624-1032 .

Attachments : Summary o f Accomplishments YTD) nd photos from workdays

MEarth at the Hilton Bialek HabitatPO Box 223702 Carmel CA 93922 I www.MEarthCarmel.org I 831-624-1032

EIN 26-2973625MEarth is an independent , 501 c) 3) corporation separate from Carmel UnifiedSchool District.


8/58

ATTACHMENT #3


OFriCERS

Tim NylenCha ir

J(eu t HansenPast Chair

Carol KolbVic. Cha ir, Finance

Tobi Marcusl"iCt ( hair. Resource

Devdupmt lll

Dennis McCarthyVice Chair . Community

lnvestm nts

LuAnn Meadorr ic• Chair, . vfarketing

BOARD MEMBERS

Lew C BaumanSandi EasonBrett HarrellShari Hastey

Barb McGaugheyDave Mora

Ian OglesbyJonathan Price

ST FF

Mary L AdamsPrc,idcnt and CEO

One in three peop le inMonterey ounty

benefit from aUWMC-ju11ded

service each yea r .

March 27, 2015

Mayor Jason BurnettCity HallPOBoxCCCarme l-by-the-Sea

United WayMonterey ounty

Re: Support for 1 1 from Carmel by the Sea

Dear a ~ dCity Council Members:h a n k ~~ your past support of2-1-1 in the amount of$2,000. This funding

has improved quality of life in our community by ensuring people know whereto go for help . 2-1-1 continues to be well utilized and we wanted to share somehighlights with you. For calendar year 2014 , countywide we handled 14 ,061calls, an 8.5% increase over the prior year. We served those callers with29,919 referrals to local programs and agencies , a 25% increas e over 2013. Inaddition, we facilitated 9,662 online searches through the 2-1-1 website forMonterey County (www.211mc .org) .

One of the exciting things about 2-1-1 is the ability to drill down to particularneeds and uses in specific populations. We are pleased to be able to report thefollowing information on the needs of your res ident s. We responded to 201Carmel/Carmel-by-the-Sea callers making 376 referrals to local services. Thetop four areas where assistance was requested were:

Needs Number oReferrals

1. Basic Needs (Such as Food , Transportation, Housing, 102Utilities)

2 Consumer Services (Such as Consumer Assistance, 57Money Management, Tax Organizations and Services

3. Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (Such 4Mental Health And Substance Abuse Counseling , CareFacilities, Treatment and Supportive Services)

4. Individual and Family Life (Such as Individual and 38Family Supportive Services, Leisure and RecreationalActivities)

4. Income Support and Employment (Such as 38Employment, Public Assistance Programs, SocialInsurance Programs, Temporary Financial Assistance)

We continuously update the 2-1-1 database so that callers receive the mostcurrent informati on about services that match their needs.

60 Gar den Court, Suite 350, Monte rey, CA 93940 • 831.372.8026 • Fax 831.372.4945 • Tax ID 94-1322169376 Main Stree t, Salinas , CA 93901 • 831.757.3206 • Fax 831.751. 9840 • WW\\ .unitedwaymcca.org


9/58


We appreciate the opportunity to serve your residents and we look forward to continuing to do sointo the future . 2-1-1 is made possible by a variety o f funding sources including the Montere yPeninsu la Foundation Community Foundation for Monterey County the County o f MontereyHea lth Department Community Action Partnership and the Cities of Monterey SalinasCarmel-by-the-Sea and Sand City. e respectfully request 5,000 from the City of Carmelby-the-Sea to help maintain the availability of 2-1-1 around the clock free of charge topeople seeking help. Please consider including this investment in 2-1-1 in your 2015-2016Budget. f you have any questions or would like any further information please contact RonnRygg Director 2-1-1 at 372-8026 ext. 114. Th art k you for your consideration.

s i ~ y Mary L Adams

President and CEO

Cc: Doug Schmitz City Administrator


10/58

ATTACHMENT #4


MONT R YOUNTY

HlMOMMISSION

Lights, camera,and economic action

Honorary ChairpersonClintEastwood

DirectorEmeritusIn MemoriamRichard Tyler

Board of DirectorsDavid Bean

Bob BuescherJe ffClark

Gloria GargiuloTroy Kingshaven

Garland Thompson, Jr.Alan VasquezE len Wrona

StaffKaren Nordstrand

Directorof MarketingFilmProduction

Moira LaMountainOfficeAdministrator

Bianca MendietaAdministrative Intern

PO Box 111Monterey CA 93942

801 Lighthouse Ave 1 04Monterey, CA 93940

831-646-D910Fax: 831-655-9250

[email protected]

www.FilmMonterey.org

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••

Mr. Ken TalmageCouncil MemberCity of Carmel-By- The-Sea

Post Office BoxCC

Carmel, CA 93921

. April 17, 2015Crty or Carmel by the Sea

APR 2015

Received by City Clerk

Re: 2015-16 Funding for the Monterey County Film Commission

Dear Council Member Talmage:

In our continued efforts to provide services and foster economicdevelopment for Carmel-By- The-Sea, the Monterey County FilmCommission respectfully requests a monetary contribution of at least

500, for the 2015-16 fiscal year

The Film Commission works hard on your behalf to keep our regionand the gorgeous beach es, parks and open spaces in Carmel-By-TheSea at the top-of-mind with filmmakers in an increas ingly compet itiveenvironment. The County Board of Supervisors expects all of us towork collaboratively and that includes financial support from ourmunicipality partners. We would w e lcome the opportunity to make apres e ntation about our ongoing efforts to the mayor and city council.

We know budgets are tight, but even a small production can b ring20- 30,000 into town for a weekend shoot. We realiz e that difficult

budg et decisions need to be made, but please r e member that the

Monterey County Film Commission is a small non-profit organizationthat is a revenue produ er for Carmel -By-The-Sea. With a very smallbudget, we are directly responsible for bringing an annual average of$3 million dollars into the area (a ROI of v 20: 1). Without ourproact ive and responsive efforts, these green productions could easi lygo to other areas wh e re their needs would be met by other filmcommissions. We need to keep these TOT dollars as well as associatedincome from goods and services coming to our local communities

We greatly appreciate your thoughtful conside ration and financialsupport and welcome the opportunity to work with you .

Sincerely,

The MontereyCounty Film Commission is a non-profitorganization proactively marketing Monterey County as a destination for the motion pcture, television and relatedindustries, for the purpose of st imulating economic development creating jobs providing and supporting educational opportunities in those areas .


11/58


Council Report

June 1, 2015



Subject: FY 2015-16 Issues and Options Policy Papers

The Issues and Options Policy Papers were distributed to the Mayor, City Council andpublic on May 5, 2015. “The Papers” are intended to focus the discussion of the Counciland the community on the larger policy matters of the Budget and direct where municipalmonies should be utilized or future planning undertakings crystallized. The Papersprovide an alternative to the time consuming and sequential process of a line-itemreview.

RECOMMENDATION: Address issues and options outlined in the policy papers andprovide direction to staff, as appropriate.

Attachment: Letter from Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau President &CEO Tammy Blount

Council Meeting Date: 6/1/15 Agenda Item: 5.CPage 1


12/58

ATTACHMENT 1


May 28 , 2015

Mr. Doug SchmitzCity AdministratorCity of Cannel-by-the-SeaPOBoxCCCannel, CA 93921

Dear Mr . Schmitz,

M O NTEREY\ t l l f 1 ) ' I ' 1.,

I 1'- t f o I

A few members of the community contacted us regarding some of your budget studyconsiderations for the next fiscal year. They asked us to provide any feedback we might have tohelp inform Council's considerations as you examine Cannel-by-the-Sea's 2015-16 marketinginvestments. The items forwarded included :

I Extend Burghart +Dore contract2. Because Burghartdt+Dore has held the contract since 2006, the city should rebid .3. Marketing Economic Development budget should be redirected to off season" since the

city is filled with visitors during the summer months4. The budget should be considered for reduction since '' times are good"5 The budget should be considered for reduction because the city's "carrying capacity" is

maxed.6 . The regional marketing effort should be given more money; the local effort should be

reduced .

In the matters of tems 1 and 2 there are no doubt policies and other items you will consider thatwill inform those discussions. For items 3-6 we would like to offer the following best-practicethoughts for your consideration:

• Marketing must be done year-round in order to maintain market presence in core markets,though bigger "pushes" or promotions are generally employed at times action is needed to bestimulated

• Marketing doesn't get immediate gratification- meaning reducing or eliminating marketpresence can have long-term negative effects particularly on existing customer base . If we'renot marketing, others are - aggressively - and they are looking to take our market share

• If carrying capacity really is maxed that 's a terrific dilemma .. but not a reason to stopmarketing- just a good reason to change how we're marketing. Presence must be maintainedto retain business and replace what will naturally drop off for a myriad of reasons

J . t • ' • j I

SeeMonterey .com ·I

I . • ' . . I 1 :1 1 f • I• • l h I• I .. ; •.• · l J. ' f ' '· t f I - I c i . . . i • • II . I t I • ' l l ••


13/58


MONTEREYI ) ( ~ T 1 ' . I .

I 1 ,_Lt.: '

• There is an increasing strategic need to market for the future and position the destination foryounger/new audiences (Gen X, Millennials, other)

• Not all travelers are created equal. Marketing investment should be considered in terms of

the audience value (prioritized); even during high season, being full with the right travelersvs lower value travelers can have big effect in economic impact

• Regional marketing will have the biggest impact given the reach and ability to bring andkeep customers in the long term; however integration of both regional and local investment isimportant. Local servicing and experience design is critical to feeding the social channels,backing up authenticity, connecting with locals and our culture. Visitor centers in particularwe know extend stays and influence spending, not just give information. If we attract visitorsand then fall short on fulfilling expectations we ve set, we re not made the best use of ourtime and money

• Research-driven programs will always provide the best RO - it s the only way we can refine

investments - so continual research in understanding customer behavior is critical

It s good to know the City is discussing these issues. It is often tempting to reduce marketing ingood times ; however, that's when competitors seize the day . Good times should be used for

reinforcing messaging and supporting the market, so when the market turns, there 's integrity inthe reach for new customers. That continued, authentic approach is valued by customers andreflected in their choices.

As always, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has our commitment to work with all partnersinvolved in the marketing and economic development of the City and our region. Integratingplans and working together will help further leverage investments and maximize impact.

Please let us know if we can be of service or provide more information to aid in yourdiscussions. We look forward to working with you to grow our tourism economy.

Best regards,

Tammy BlountPresident CEO

cc Mayor Burnet t & CouncilCarmel Chamber of Commerce

t , r • I

SeeMontetey.com :j I

t . L t t ,, • r I l l I I , - :~ · • q t I HI . s '


14/58


Council Report

June 1, 2015

To: Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council,Douglas J. Schmitz, City Administrator

From: Sharon Friedrichsen

Subject: Responses to Questions from the City Council and the Public

Council received the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Provisional Budget and accompanying Issues andOptions Papers on 5 May 2015. Council and the member of the public were invited to submitquestions on these documents by 22 May 2015. Attached for reference are the responses tothese various questions, which will be discussed during the 1 June 2015 budget workshop.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Consolidated Questions and Responses

Council Meeting Date: 6/1/15 Agenda Item: 5.DPage 1


15/58

1

1. The 3 year period vice 5 years and bifurcated ‘15-16 period seem prudent under thecircumstances.

No response needed.

2. QUESTION: Road repaving caused by PG&E work. Is this to be paid for entirely by

PG&E?RESPONSE: The City is currently in negotiation with PG&E regarding the settlementrelated to the pipeline replacement project, including recovering the costs associatedwith repaving the streets impacted by the utility work.

3. If the Sunset leaks are not repaired by Sept, steps should be taken to simulate the leakswith fire hoses as the repairs are long overdue and resultant damage inside is increasing.

RESPONSE: The project is in the beginning stages of design to develop biddocuments. The project is anticipated to be completed by the end of September 2015.If the project is delayed into the raining season staff will perform preventive maintenanceto ensure that the building is watertight, which might incorporate water testing (i.e. “fire

hoses”).4. New costly projects should only be undertaken when the current City infrastructure is in

good condition. New projects I refer to are the $1,265,000 for Rio Road reconstruction(which I understand is mostly County), the Larson Field/Rio Park Trail $565,000 and the 8thSt. north pathway $50,000 for a total of almost $2,000,000. The condition of our streets intown has been a constant complaint over the years and the City side of Rio Road isn’t bad,it is from the City boundary at the north entrance to Larson field parking to Highway 1 whichis in terrible condition. The budget does not even mention the Public Works roof problem.

RESPONSE: The public works roof project is currently funded and anticipated to be outto bid late June/early July, with Council to award the contract in August and work to becompleted in September.

5. Labor for some of the projects such as invasive tree management and Dunes HabitatRestoration have in the past been handled by prison (Gavilan) trustees thereby greatlyreducing cost. (In the trivia department, Soledad prisoners refurbished and recovered thepublic chairs in Chambers.)

RESPONSE : The Dunes Habitat restoration project is currently under contract with abiologist and the City will also partner with MEarth and other volunteers for assistancewith various seed replanting and other restoration work. The City anticipates utilizing atree service company for the removal of trees, but will consider other options as wellsuch as the California Conservation Corp and other labor sources.

6. QUESTION: Carpenter Street—is this just for one block from 1st

to 2nd

? This and otherrepaving should concentrate first on the entrances to Carmel and most used streets by ourvisitors and in the case of Carpenter should continue to Ocean Ave. Would this mean thatthe last block of Carpenter onto Ocean would be cement covered by 7” of asphalt? I wouldhope that we could also add welcome to CBTS signs on Carpenter, San Carlos, Scenic(from Carmel Gate), Ocean (from Highway 1) and Rio Rd. (you could add Atherton Avetoo.)



16/58

2

RESPONSE: The project includes drainage from the City limits to 2nd. Yes, thissegment of Carpenter would have 7 inches of asphalt: 2 inches originally, an addition 2inches added in 1982 and the proposed 3 inches as part of the truck route repavingeffort (Phase II of the 2014 Streets Project).

7. I do hope that this coming FY will see the Water Conservation Project include theinstallation of the cistern in the City Hall parking lot. This was to have been done as theCity’s part of the project but was cancelled unilaterally by the City. All the pipes are in totake the run-off from the steep City Hall roofs to the cistern and then use that water tomaintain the gardens. This then could be a role model for example to residents with abrochure describing the cistern collection system and the drought resistant plants.

RESPONSE: While the City Hall cistern was not previously funded, it has been includedwithin the small water conservation projects. Additionally, the Errata Provisional Budgetreflects the reallocation of funding from existing capital projects to water conservationprojects so that these types of projects can be started sooner.

8. QUESTION: 8 th Ave. Pathway—why is one needed on the north side when a very nice

one has just been built on the south side. As someone who drives that street virtually dailythere is not enough foot traffic to warrant doing the north side as well. My experience isthat most of the walkers are coming from east of Junipero where there are no sidewalks—ifyou have money to spare build a sidewalk from Junipero to Torres on 8 th.

RESPONSE: A sidewalk on the north side will help address the accessibility of theScout House.

9. QUESTION: The median in front of the Mission and the entrance to MTNP. With theprojected increase in visitors to the Mission Basilica, we should probably be consideringsome sort of an installation of porta-potties inside the entrance to MTNP. Is it possible thatthe Mission would chip in on the median redo and porta-potty cost?

RESPONSE: Staff are in discussion with the Mission regarding preparing for the influx ofvisitors as part of the Serra canonization including discussion on buses and restrooms.

10. BUDGET PRIORITIES 15-1611. QUESTION: What are the criteria for each category? See the tabulation below for the 20

projects in the CIP. Seems incredible that Water Conservation is ranked last and that thereare 3 projects with monies designated but they are N/A. What does that mean? 10 of theprojects are in varying degrees of importance…less, middle and more—probably adifference w/o a distinction.

12. 1 critical: Guadalupe storm drain $350k13. 1 critical: Safety improvements $50k14. 1 critical: Street repairs $2,447m15. 1 critical: Sidewalk repairs $100k16. 1 critical: Forest Theater $2,000m17. 1` critical: Vista Lobos roof $70k18. 2 very important: Larson/Rio Park $565k19. 2 very important: Parking $200k—agree it needs a go or no go decision20. 2 very important: Carpenter drainage $170k21. 2 very important: MTNP tree maintenance $50k22. 2 very important: Shoreline implementation $500k23. 2 very important: MTNP entrance $80k



17/58

3

24. 3 important: Beach fires $50k25. 3 important: 4 th Ave meter $20k26. 3 important: Dunes restoration $80,250k27. 4 less important : 8 th St. north path $50k28. QUESTION: 5 future consideration: WATER CONSERVATION $45k… a drop in the

bucket! We surely should be able to start planning for a CDO or greatly reduced watersupply. Shouldn’t the recently formed staff Water Committee contract with someone whohas such planning experience and therefore might surface options the committee might notbe aware of?

29. N/A: ADA plan $100k30. N/A: Sunset projects $143,750k31. N/A: Rio Road reconstruction $700k

RESPONSE: The criteria for the capital projects was based on methodology from theprevious capital improvement plan (CIP) as an effort to help prioritize funding ofprojects, especially in light of seventy projects being included within the CIP.The categories included:

• Urgency 1: The project is urgent and/or mandated, and must be completed quickly.

The City could face severe consequences if the project is delayed, possiblyimpacting the health, safety, or welfare of the community, or having a significantimpact on the financial well-being of the City. The project must be initiated orfinancial/opportunity losses will result.

• Urgency 2: The project is very important and addressing it is necessary. The projectimpacts safety, law enforcement, health, welfare, economic base, and/or quality oflife in the community.

• Urgency 3: The project is important and would enhance the quality of life and wouldprovide a benefit to the community.

• Urgency 4: The timing of the project is less important but completion of the projectwould improve the community providing cultural, recreational, and/or aestheticeffects.

• Urgency 5: The project would be an improvement to the community, but need not becompleted within a five-year CIP.

Some projects, such as water conservation, were carried forward to the proposed 2015-2018 CIP and the previous category, in this case, “5”, was not changed before printing thenew CIP. Similarly, several new projects were added to the updated CIP, such as the ADAPlan, Sunset Center Projects and Rio Road Reconstruction, and the category inadvertentlyomitted for these projects. Water conservation projects in particular are also recommendedfor funding earlier than originally proposed within the CIP as reflected in the Errata andwould thus have a category rating of “1.”

As noted by the proposer of these questions, the categories do have some degree ofoverlap and subjectivity. However, despite the category assigned to these projects, the

inclusion of these 20 projects on the three year CIP illustrate the City Administrator’srecommendation that all of these projects are worthwhile and should be undertaken in thenear future, contingent on the status of the CDO and the City’s overall financial health.

32. Why should the city pay the Chamber such a whopping amount when for the last severalyears the city has budgeted under 50,000?

RESPONSE: Please see Issues and Options Paper # 7 on Marketing and EconomicDevelopment.



18/58

4

33. How effective is our code compliance effort? Citations appears to be only a slap on thehand. Why can’t the city issue fines as do other cities. A significant fine would capture theattention of those who perpetually ignore our codes and others who ignore the permittingprocess and take the chance they won’t be caught.

RESPONSE: The City has made significant progress on Code Compliance in the lastcouple of years. The City does have the ability to issue citations; however, in most cases,we achieve compliance voluntarily without need to issue citations. The City progressivelyramps up compliance efforts for most cases: starting with a verbal notification or warning,then the issuance of a Failure to Comply notice if the violation is repeated or not corrected.If either or both of these steps do not achieve compliance, the next step is a letter to theviolator (and property owner, if a separate party) with the corrective action specified alongwith a deadline and a notice that a citation may be issued for failure to comply. If the letterdoes not achieve compliance, the City can issue the citation. Generally, the earlier stagesof progressive compliance achieve resolution. However, if compliance is not achieved andrecurring violations continue, the City has the ability to issue citations. For example if twoinfractions subsequently occur and the City has issued progressive fines associated with

these infractions and violations still occur, the City may seek additional corrective action.Such action includes citing the violation as a misdemeanor with an associated fine of up to$1,000 and/or 6 months in jail.

34. Why is our short term rental ordinance not being enforced? Everyone knows it is a jokebecause home owners violate the ordinance all over the town.

RESPONSE: The Mayor, City Administrator and City Attorney are meeting to discuss thecurrent ordinance and options regarding short-term rentals, including monitoring actionstaken by other cities in addressing this issue.

35. 270k for paid parking what if the program does not go forward? How do we make up the270k? Full picture please.

RESPONSE: The $270,000 is projected revenue received from the parking pilot programand revenue received from the tour bus zone. Included in the revenue projection is moniesreceived from the tour bus zone (the current FY 14-15 year to date total is $35,500). If theparking program does not proceed forward as a pay to park system, there is no alternativeplan in place to replace the lost revenue; however, monthly revenue will continue from thetour bus zone. If the parking program does proceed forward money from parking will helpoffset improving the program. The City did receive yearly revenue from paid parking at theNorth Sunset Center lot but that was changed to unrestrictive parking in 2014.

36. Why did United Way go up and other went down or stayed the same? Any other groupsasking for monies? Why does the city not give the non-profits (local 93921) that make our4th of July so great and other city functions/events?

RESPONSE: The FY 15-16 provisional budget recommends the same level of funding asthe FY 14-15 Adopted budget as a placeholder, pending Council deliberations. Theexceptions are the Veterans Cemetery, which was considered a one-time contribution andthe Centennial Celebration, which is recommended for funding within the non-departmentalaccount instead of within the Council’s budget. The funding for United Way’s 211 system



19/58

5

increased by $1,000 from FY 2013-14 to FY 2014-15. The Provisional Budget for FY 15-16recommends the same amount as the prior fiscal year of $2,000. However, United Way isrequesting $5,000 for FY 15-16. The City has received funding requests from the CarmelYouth Center, MEarth, United Way and the Film Festival.

Council has the discretion to fund the local organizations that participate in the July 4thevent and/or to increase the funding to the Library and Community Services’ Departmentto pay for the cost of food that has historically been provided by organizations as part ofthe event. The City has celebrated the 4th of July in Devendorf Park since 2002, whenformer mayor Sue McCloud wrote a guest column in the Carmel Pine Cone asking thecommunity for ideas for a July 4th celebration. The food was donated by communitygroups helping to sponsor the event, and that tradition has continued to this day. OtherCity-sponsored events, including Memorial Day, the Sandcastle contest, and Veterans’Day, benefit from these City/community group partnerships. Rather than the City givingfunds to the non-profit organizations that sponsor the 4th of July celebration, theCommunity Activities department could include the costs of food for the event in its

departmental budget. The City’s partner non-profit organizations could still serve the food,thereby carrying on the important established traditions of the celebration.

37. Why is there new expense for car week at 30k?

RESPONSE: This budget item is to pay for items related to the event such signage,dumpsters and portable toilets.

38. Why is there new expense 35K for the 2016 election?

RESPONSE: This is the cost to administer the municipal election for Mayor and twoCouncil seats in April 2016. The cost includes such items as printing and mailing ballots,

holding the election at various polling sites and assisting in tabulating the results of theelection. The $35,000 budget is based on the cost incurred by the City in 2014 toadminister a similar election.

39. Community Planning and Building seem extremely large at over 315k why? Options in thisnumber with hiring our own staff?RESPONSE: This amount is for the use of contractual services related to buildinginspection/plan check, code compliance, permit technician and planning. As referenced inthe Errata, the senior planner is proposed to be funded in July, rather than mid-year, tooffset the use of contractual services.

40. Library and Community Services fine art/maint/Preservation only 5k seems low to handleour most prized items in our collection thoughts/suggestions?

RESPONSE: The City contracted with Bonhams this year to conduct an insuranceappraisal of the art collection. The field work has concluded, and the appraisal isscheduled to be delivered in June. One of the specifications in the RFP for Fine Arts

Appraisal Services that was issued by the City was that the chosen vendor would provide areport addressing the following: 1. the current level of security and 2. Recommendations



20/58

6

toward long-term conservation of the artworks that are displayed in various City buildings.Because the appraisal results have not yet been received, staff requested $5,000 to begin

to address the issues and recommendations which will be outlined in the appraisal.Subsequent fiscal year budget requests will be based on actual costs to implement theappraisers’ recommendations.

41. Do we have a long term maintenance plan for all of city owned facilities including cityowner land?

RESPONSE: Not at this time. A Facilities Assessment Report was completed in January2014. City staff are currently addressing immediate deferred maintenance needs onvarious facilities. A maintenance plan could either be created in-house by staff onceseveral major capital projects are completed or outsourced to a consultant.

42. Marketing and Economic Development 160k in play Need to have a study session ASAPwhen?

RESPONSE: A study session is proposed in the Issues and Options Policy Paper #7.

43. Some groups to be asking for an excessive amount? Why? Record level

RESPONSE: Details pertaining to the funding requests can be found in the variousagencies funding request letters, which are contained in Issues and Options Policy Paper#7 or as supplemental material provided to the Council.

44. Option # 8 we should be consider meeting monthly or quarterly and talk as a Village andCommunity about these issues one by one. What is your vision?

RESPONSE: This is at the discretion of Council.

45. CDO and new water sources: Desal and other potential new water sources will not meetthe 12/31/2016 CDO deadline. The budget is structured around an extension by theSWRCB to the CDO by 10/1/2015 or 12/31/2015. Locally we are working diligently toresolve this ambiguity ASAP, but the SWRCB may delay, to maximize its leverage. CBTShas to move forward, cautiously. A year from now the CDO may not yet have beenextended. What is plan “B” if SWRCB delays after 12/31/2015? Wouldn’t a thorough reviewof the city’s reserve funds potentially change these dates and city actions? (See #2 below.)

46. Given the potential economic impacts from the drought, the CDO and its extension, thetiming of new water sources, and increased payments to CalPERS - more emphasis needsto be paid to CBTS’s balance sheet and reserve funds. These will be relied upon, giventhese major uncertainties. Every few years there has been a thorough review of thereserves. Isn’t it time to do so again?

RESPONSE: (Questions 45 and 46)-Issues and Options Policy Paper #2 addresses "PlanB." It states "Should the CDO remain unchanged for the entire fiscal year, the positionswould go unfilled in 2015-16." The same would apply for major capital projects and



21/58

7

equipment purchases. Policy Paper #2 proposes quarterly City Council "check points"---October 2015 and January 2016. A third check point would be April 2016 if there is noadjustment to the CDO. The quarterly checks allow the City Council at any time to adjustits policy based upon water conservation edicts or emergencies. The "trigger dates" forauthorization to hire or purchase are proposed to make sure the City finances are in the

most secure position if the need for water conservation becomes more severe.In regard to reserves, the Staff has undertaken a review of the status and balances of thefunds. It is estimated that as of 30 June 2015, reserves would be $10.5 million. There areseveral prospective matters which may arise for which the reserves would need to beutilized. As examples:

1) The CIP forecasts for 2017-18, $500,000 for shoreline related costs. This estimate wasa holding number since David Shonman's Shoreline Assessment had not been completed.Based upon the number of items needing to be addressed, the $500,000 will not beadequate. 2) The Police-Public Works complex needs significant renovations. No monieshave been placed in the CIP for this project and the magnitude will be such that I doubt theoperating budget could absorb the expense while simultaneously dealing with the risingPERS "side fund" costs. 3) PERS. While the purpose of the recommended establishmentof the new fund is to smooth the "hit" on the operating budget in future years, the annualrates will continue to rise concurrently with the "side fund." PERS only establishes rates fortwo years. Thus, we do not know the increase for 2017-18 and beyond. 4) The UnitedStates economy has had almost eighty months of "recovery." At some time, a bear marketwill replace the current bull run.

For these reasons, the Staff recommends that the Council proceed with adopting Issuesand Options Policy Paper #2, Option #2, to establish "trigger dates" for review during theforthcoming fiscal year.

47. Carmel beach and urban forest. Yes, staffing has been reduced from 8 to 2½ FTE, pluscontract labor. Upkeep, maintenance and preservation of the beach area, Carmel’s mostrecognized and renowned asset (Carmel-by-the-Sea) is not acceptable. Replacement ofthe urban forest is not keeping up with trees being cut down. Financial hardship, millions ofvisitors, a lack of rain…these are the reasons why. We must acknowledge them, andaddress the stewardship of these critical assets, now. A “Marshall Plan” type effort isneeded before these assets deteriorate further. How do we structure the budget to do this?

RESPONSE: The Budget and the CIP address Carmel Beach and the forest. In theBudget, two new positions are proposed for the Forest and Beach Division and thewatering person position is proposed to be increased to full time. In the CIP, the secondyear of the Dunes restoration is budgeted. Since the preparation and reproduction of theCIP and Provisional Budget, the Shoreline Assessment has been finalized. The Year-End2014-15 proposes amendments so that certain maintenance aspects of the shoreline beundertaken immediately.



22/58

8

48. There are a significant number of new or to be hired employees, plus a need for stafftraining for current employees. A focused staff training effort will improve productivity,morale, professionalism and knowledge of Carmel’s history and traditions. Boards andCommissions and Council should be included. What is the plan and the cost for this effort?

RESPONSE: For board and commission training, the City Clerk is working to schedule asingular workshop for presentation of aspects common to all public bodies and a review ofthe Brown Act. Training for City staff is currently assigned to each department. However,one of the first assignments to be given to the new HR Manager is to develop ofcomprehensive training program for employees including presentations on the history andculture of Carmel by the Sea.

49. CBTS’s computer systems and programming is two decades old and outdated. They needto be replaced. CBTS should purchase off the shelf software and hardware used andrecommended by similar sized cities in CA. Given the financial uncertainties ahead, betterand more timely information is needed now. The finance programming should come first,

followed by a records management system. Is this initiative fully funded in this budget?RESPONSE: The Budget’s new Equipment and Vehicle Fund contains $ 567,000 forimplementation of the IT Plan, of which the first effort is for the financial system program.

50. CBTS is in better financial shape than most small communities, but the economic future isnot bright, given increasing CalPERS $ requirements, years of deferred maintenance, theeconomic cycle, etc. Raising taxes again and again is not viable. Non-profits run capitalcampaigns periodically. Carmel should consider bringing in professional fund raisingadvice, to develop public-private capital partnerships for its key assets...Sunset, ForestTheatre, the beach and urban forest. The model exists in the Carmel Public Library

Foundation. This should be considered in renewing the Sunset lease. How do we replicatethis concept and at what cost?

RESPONSE: Should Council determine it desires a development program for Carmel bythe Sea assets such as the Forest Theater, beach and forest, Sunset Center, it shouldindicate that to staff.

51. 2016 is Carmel-by-the-Sea’s centennial. The Committee has events planned, especiallythe birthday party in the fall. What is the comprehensive plan and is it fully funded in thebudget?

RESPONSE: The Provisional Budget contains $40,000 for usage by the CentennialCommittee for “seed” money for matters which will need funding prior to FY 2016-17. TheErrata contains $40,000 for Council determination based upon ideas presented by theboards and commissions and community groups on 6 July. Full costs of all aspects of thecentennial year are not known at this time and monies will be included in the FY 2016-17budget to cover those expenses.



23/58

9

52. Yes, the Municipal code needs to be reviewed. Sections dating to 1940 (and others) mayneed to be updated, after 75 years. However, given the urgency of other issues mentionedin this memo, I doubt this is an initiative for FY 2015-2016. Can’t whatever costs thebudget contains for this priority be reallocated?

RESPONSE: This is at Council’s discretion to fund in part, in it’s entirely or not at all.

53. In some of the job descriptions (IOPP #5), the description mentions the Mayor and the CityCouncil (see Director of Budget and Contracts) and some mention the City Council (seeLibrary and Community Activities Director). Unless there is a reason for the difference,shouldn’t these be the same and shouldn’t they reference the City Council (since theMayor is a member of the City Council). Further, it generally seems preferable to reinforcethe line of command whereby the City Council provides direction to the City Administrator,not directly to staff. This is often a management issue for City Councils and I think the jobdescriptions should emphasize our muni code in this respect. (See page 4 of Library andCommunity Activities Director in sentence “[i]identify and respond to community, City

Administrator, City Council, and Library Board issues, concerns and needs.” Should CityCouncil be listed?

RESPONSE: See revised job descriptions under separate cover.

54. Minor typo…. In IOPP#5 for job description of Director of Budget and Contracts on page 1,“[c]losely monitors department and district-wide accounting...” Shouldn’t it be “city-wideaccounting...?"


55. In each of the job descriptions I would encourage a review to determine whether it isappropriate to add in “volunteer groups” and/or “city support groups.” I think that the cityorganization could do a better job engaging volunteers and a good place to start might bewith an explicit statement in relevant job descriptions. Engaging volunteers effectively is askill that we might consider recruiting and/or training for as appropriate.


56. In the “Future of Retail in the Village” section of IOPP #8, would be helpful to have ananalysis of our sources of retail and their vulnerability to competition from online sources.How much of our sales tax comes from sources that are in direct competition with Amazonand how much (such as restaurants) are unlikely to be in direct competition in theforeseeable future?

RESPONSE: This analysis will be part of the proposed study session.

57. In IOPP #9, I would encourage expanding the scope to include volunteer efforts. Seecomment #3 above. We should be open to people contributing in a variety of waysincluding financial, through their brawn and through their brains.



24/58

10

RESPONSE: This is at Council’s discretion to expand or modify the scope.

58. In the Provisional Budget tab 1 General Fund revenue, I can’t seem to find the FY 14-15. Isthis missing?

RESPONSE: Fiscal Year 2014-15 was not included.

59. In past budgets we’ve seen trends for both revenues and expenditures (past and projectedfuture) in graphic (chart) form. I’ve found this helpful and would suggest it be providedwhen the City Council meets to discuss.

RESPONSE: Staff will work on an updated chart for discussion during the budget hearing.

60. The Police budget includes an "overall decrease of $149,000 in FY 15-16 salaries andbenefits.” What is the source of this decrease? Why don’t we see a similar decrease inFire?

RESPONSE: The decrease consists primarily of $119,000 in reduced retirement, althoughsome of this cost has shifted to the creation of the PERS “side fund.” Fire services arefunded through a contract with Monterey and the projected contract amount is based onseveral factors, including salary increases as well as reduction in retirement costs.

61. It would help me to know (1) what is the average and variance in time for issuing certainpermits and (2) whether what we should expect the mid-year hiring of the Senior Plannerto mean in terms of such metrics. Another example is from the Public Works Department.The community has asked for and the City Council has agreed with the goal of increasingtree planting and care along with maintenance of the beach. What can be expected in theway of addressing these goals from the proposed additional personnel?

RESPONSE: The need for additional Planning staff is more of a function of keeping pacewith an increasing workload than it is to decrease application review turn-around times.The volume of Planning Permits and Building Permits is sharply up over the last 2 years.For Planning Permits, there were 305 applications in 2013, 288 applications in 2014, andthe projected number of applications by year end 2015 is 446 (through May 28th, we therehave been 186 applications). The projected 2015 Planning activity is a 46% increase incomparison to 2013.

Many Building Permits also need Planning review before issuing, and the Building Permitvolume is also sharply up. There were 280 Building Permit applications in 2013, 414

applications in 2014, and the projected number for 2015 (based on the 207 applicationsreceived through May 28th) is 500. The projected 2015 Building Permit activity is a 79%increase in comparison to 2013.

Despite these very substantial increases in permit activity, Community Planning andBuilding staff have been able to maintain, if not slightly decrease, typical turn-around timesin the application review process. However, this has required substantial assistance fromcontract staff: approximately 1.5 FTE in contract planners and approximately 0.5 FTE in



25/58

11

contract building staff. The Departmental workload has also required certain positions suchas the Senior Planner working out of class on assistant- and associate-level cases.Furthermore, it has put a strain on both full-time and contract staff and has precluded theCity from keeping up with Long Range Planning requirements and initiatives.If workloads return to a more normal level, the requested increase in staffing levels should

enable the City to make more progress on long range planning needs and can continue towork on improving permit review turn-around times, as well as administrative needs suchas refining permit procedures and providing clearer and more accessible information onthe City’s permit requirements.

The addition of the Assistant Forester has the primary purpose of adding an additionalforester position to the Forest and Beach Department. This position will be focused onhelping the City’s current forester maintain the City’s forest, provide updates for thecommissions and community regarding both the replacement of trees and the overallhealth of our forest. The assistant forester will fulfill a role in meeting therecommendations outlined in the Forest Management Plan, the Mission Trail Nature

Preserve Master Plan, the Del Mar Master plan and the Shoreline Management Plan,including implementing recommendations from the current Shoreline Assessment. Havingan assistant forester also ensures succession planning in this department.

The Gardener position will be utilized by the City to maintain the shoreline and parks. Thisposition will work within the Forest and Beach department under the direction of theforester providing upkeep and maintenance primarily of the shoreline and parks. Thisposition will assist the department in meeting recommendations made by council and theforest and beach commission. The gardener position will be beneficial in working with thebeach community as the City works towards a solution to concerns surrounding beachfires. The Police officer will primarily serve the beach and parks as well and be

responsible for education and enforcing residents and visitors to the beach about theMunicipal Codes pertaining to beach fires, slope cutting, littering, animal control and otheractivities. The goal of such a position would be the decrease in activities such as illegalfires (fires north of 10th, not out by 10 pm, etc.), less slope cutting on the bluffs, and lesslittering on the beach.

62. Forest Theater- What is the cost for the terraced bowl option with all its related costs VS.The original bowl design with all its related costs?

RESPONSE: The cost estimate by the architect, based on a schematic sketch, for theterraced bowl option is $35,000 above the cost of the “original bowl design”, as presented

to Council. The cost of the original bowl is estimated at $500,000.

63. Forest Theater- What is the cost of the 1:20 "west path" and all its railing, restroom, andother requirements VS. The 1:12 "east path" and all its railing, restroom, and otherrequirements?

RESPONSE: Assume this question referencing “the 1:20 west path and all its railing,restroom, and other requirements” is the same path within the design titled “”West Forest



26/58

12

Study Path”, then the staff estimate is $350,000The staff estimate for the “1:12 "east path"and all its railing, restroom, and other requirements” is roughly $150,000. Staff estimates anew restroom building would cost roughly $250,000.

64. Forest Theater- What is the cost of the current emergency egress provisions at Guadalupe

VS a direct 1:20 path from the flex seating row?

RESPONSE: Based upon staff’s initial review of the information at hand, estimates thecost of the Guadalupe exist is roughly $70,000 and a direct path from the flex seatingwould be roughly $100,000.

65. Forest Theater- What is the cost of the egress provisions at Josselyn Path, includingelectrical and other safety upgrades that would be triggered for the city's path?

RESPONSE: Staff estimates this cost to be work to be roughly $130,000. There is nodesign or plan to perform safety upgrades to the “city’s path” i.e. the Josselyn Path,however staff estimates costs would be roughly at $100,000.

66. Forest Theater- What is the cost of the re-engineered single ADA parking spot locatedwithin the “outdoor lobby” area with its raised roadway, railings, retaining walls, steppedentry path, and other related items VS. One or more ADA parking spots in the lower lotwith a 1:20 path leading to the “outdoor lobby” area?

RESPONSE: Staff estimates the cost of the ADA parking spot located within the “outdoorlobby” to be roughly at $250,000. Staff estimates the cost for one or more ADA parkingspots with a 1;20 path leading to the “outdoor lobby” area would be roughly at $500,000.

67. Forest Theater- What is the cost of the proposed 1:12 ramp to the east of the back deck,

which appears to be in anticipation of a future master plan item?RESPONSE: Based upon staff’s initial review of the information at hand, the estimatedcosts for this ramp to be roughly $10,000.

68. Forest Theater- What is the cost of the provision of permeable or softer surfaces (such aspermeable asphalt and/or decomposed granite) for new hardscape areas VS. Theproposed standard concrete and asphalt and any additional drainage equipment thisrequires?

RESPONSE: The Building Official will not allow the use of DG for the paths at this facility.

69. The city presently does not have any formal grant request process. No form is yetavailable. As a result, the city funds non-profit and cultural events on a sporadic basis andit's all rather confusing as to how to apply for funding. When this program was in placemany years ago, it was a fairly simple process handled by the Cultural Commission. Isthere any provision for cultural grants to be re-instated, as discussed at some of theleadership meetings?



27/58

13

RESPONSE : The reinstatement of the grant process will be at the discretion of Counciland the applicable policies and process would need to be updated accordingly.

70. What is the projected rent/income from the Forest Theater? Are rental rates expected tostay the same for the resident theatre groups?

RESPONSE: No revenue has been included within the FY 15-16 budget from the use ofthe Forest Theatre. The projected revenue is unknown at this time as it will depend on: (1)any Council approved adjustment to the rates and (2) the type of performances to occur atthe Theatre and the projected revenue of forthcoming performances.

71. Currently, AC Concrete Paths are proposed for the Forest Theater. Would it save moneyfor the city to consider DG paths, like we have on Scenic, instead of asphalt or concrete?What is the cost difference between DG paths and concrete paths?

RESPONSE: The Building Official will not allow the use of DG for the paths at this facility.

72. On 8th St. at Mission, the new sidewalk looks to be DG, with 4"x4" pressure treated posts,framing the sidewalk, and going up a significant grade. It's very simple and economical.Would this type of border cost less than the extensive rock facing and natural stone curbsbeing proposed for much of the Forest Theater?

RESPONSE: The site conditions at 8th Street at Mission differ greatly to the ForestTheater. The use of pressure treated lumber at 8th and Mission is for defining the border /or curbing of the sidewalk to retain the DG in place. Whereas the site conditions at manyareas of the Forest Theater the sidewalk/paths are cut into a steep slope, or supportengineered fill, and therefore the path boarder is retaining significant lateral loads in theseinstances. 2) Staff nor the architect have cost data on what lumber/timber retaining

walls/boarders would cost if implemented into this project, therefore an accurate costcomparison cannot be made at this time. However, staff’s assumption is that woodborders/retaining walls are typically less expensive than stone. The architect chose the useof stone retaining walls/curbing in lieu of wood in order to be consistent with the historicdesign fabric of the site and stone lasts longer, which was approved by the City Council.Thus, changing to the use of lumber/timber would require direction from the City Council.

73. Based on the CAW budget estimate for the Forest Theater, 1:12 paths appear to be morethan twice as expensive as 1:20 paths, due to 1:12 having more extensive retaining wallsand the requirement for handrails. The council has directed handrails be reduced oreliminated. To save costs, are there any 1:12 ramps in the design that can be extended orredesigned to accommodate 1:20?”

RESPONSE: It is feasible to redesign any ramp from a 1:12 slope to a 1:20 slope, but thereare also associated costs.



28/58

14

74. As per #5, can the Josselyn Path exit be adjusted to a 1:20 DG path, instead ofconcrete steps and handrails, in order to realize a cost savings and eliminateadditional handrails? (This question is mute if the Josselyn Exit were to be deletedcompletely for a cost savings.)

RESPONSE: It is feasible to change the Josselyn Path exist to a 1:20 path, but not usingDG as previously noted in answer to Question #70. In order to determine if there is costsavings with such a design change a re-design and related estimates would need to beperformed by the architect, as directed and approved by Council.

75. The Forest Theater design calls for the removal of the side-lighting positions on top of theonstage sheds. CAW is recommending replacing with removal trusses, which must beacquired separately from the triage project. The purchase price is approximately $7,000. Isthis accounted for somewhere in the city budget? If not, can it be?

RESPONSE: This is not accounted for within the budget. Staff is currently working on acost estimate to provide new towers and trusses, with an anticipated completion within thenext few weeks. Funding this item is at the discretion of Council.

76. What are the potential costs of valet parking, if required for city events at the ForestTheater, such as the centennial celebration or other community events? Where in thebudget would these funds come from?

RESPONSE: Staff has been/is continuing working on identifying alternatives to valetparking as well as listing various ‘methods of operations’ for a valet parking program, afterwhich time cost estimates would be developed. Staff anticipates having this informationcompleted within the next few months. If the valet parking is truly associated with a Citysponsored Centennial event, Council may wish to fund the valet parking through theCentennial budget line item.



29/58


Council Report

June 1, 2015



Subject: Three Year Provisional Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)

The Three Year Provisional CIP for July 1, 2015 - June 30, 2018 was distributed to theMayor, City Council and public on May 5, 2015. The CIP time compendium of threeyears is a variance from recent years due to the uncertainties outlined in the TransmittalLetter in Section 1.

The CIP was reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission on April 8, 2015.The Commission adopted a resolution determining that the City’s CIP for FY 2015-16conforms to the City’s General Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: Review the CIP and provide direction to staff, as appropriate.

Council Meeting Date: 6/1/15 Agenda Item: 5.EPage 1


30/58


Council Report

June 1, 2015


From: Sharon Friedrichsen

Subject: FY 2015-16 Fee Schedule

In accordance with the City’s adopted financial policies C94-01, the “City’s fees andcharges for services shall be adjusted annually, based upon the San Francisco-OaklandConsumer Price Index.” The proposed fees schedule reflects an increase of 2.4 percent,as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the San Francisco-Oakland-San JoseConsumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers as of April 2015. The services includethose provided by Administrative Services, Library, Public Safety and PublicWorks/Forestry. Community Building and Planning fees are currently under review.

RECOMMENDATION: Receive the fee schedule and provide direction to staff, asappropriate.

Attachment: Proposed FY 15-16 Fee Schedule for all departments but CommunityBuilding and Planning, which will be distributed under separate cover.

Council Meeting Date: 6/1/15 Agenda Item: 5.FPage 1


31/58

DESCRIPTION CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE COMMENTS2.4%

ADMINISTRATIVE

ServicesResidential Parking Sticker (per year) $20.00 $20.48 all Adm inistrative fees CPI adjusted Tree Pruning/Removal Application $25.00 $25.60

Business License Tax $1.03 per $1,000.00 gross $1.05 per $1,000.00 gross

Construction Parking Permit (per truck; daily) $25.00 $25.60Construction Parking Permit (per dumpster;daily) $30.00 $30.72

Construction Parking Permit (per pod; weekly) $30.00 $30.72Photocopies $0.10 $0.10DVD Copies (meetings) $2.00 $2.05

Research Service

$7.75 per half hour (orportion thereof), first 15

minutes FREE

$7.94 per half hour (orportion thereof), first 15

minutes FREESale of Official Tapes $27.00 $27.65

Mailing of Requested Documents $2.07 each; $2.12 plus actual postage plus actual postage

Business License ApplicationsFixed Location $376.00 $385.02In & About $51.00 $52.22Home License $151.00 $154.62Change Business Name $251.00 $257.02

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEACOST FOR SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE

PROPOSED July 2015 through June 2016 Fees

Administrative Fee Schedule Page 1 of 10

M

D


32/58


33/58

DESCRIPTION CURRENT FEE COMMENTSPROPOSED July 2015 through June 2016 Fees

COMMUNITY SERVICES

Special EventSpecial Event Non-refundable Processing Fee $155.00

Special Event PermitsSound Permit $27.00 in l ine wi th Paci f ic Grove fee Film Permit $266.00 CPI adjus tm ent

Beach EventBeach Permit $400.00Refundable Damage Deposit $200.00

Devendorf ParkDevendorf Park Permit (1st four hours) $401.00Devendorf Park (after four hours) $300.00 per hr Refundable Damage Deposit $351.00

Event Equipment A-Frames $25.00 eachBarricades $65.00 eachTraffic Cones $3.00 each"NO PARKING" Sign $3.00 each

Street Closure $365.00 per block* * No charge for neighborhood functions

Event ParkingParking Stall $100.00 per stall per dayCar Week, PGA Golf Events, Last 2 Weeks inDecember $200.00 per stall per dayValet Service - private events (2 stall minimum) $201.00

Event Staff Off-duty Police $119/hr ref lec ts current pay ra tes Off-duty Public Works $69/hr ref lec ts current pay ra tes

Event Tent Inspection Fees200 - 1000 (square foot tent) $78.00 City of Monterey fee schedule

Library/Community Fee Schedule Page 3 of 10

M

D


34/58

DESCRIPTION CURRENT FEE COMMENTSPROPOSED July 2015 through June 2016 Fees

1001 - 2000 (square foot tent) $117.00 City of Monterey fee schedule 2000 - above (square foot tent) $156.00 City of Monterey fee schedule

Facility RentalVista Lobos $25/hr Refundable Cleaning Deposit $100.00

Homecrafters EventJury Fee $25.00Booth Fee $170.00 las t ra ised 2009 Parking $25.00

City Art Classes8-Week Session $125.00 (Carmel Adult School fee)6-Week Session $100.00 (12 wk class = $90)

Library/Community Fee Schedule Page 4 of 10

M

D


35/58

DESCRIPTION CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE COMMENTSCPI =2.4%

POLICE DEPARTMENT

Administrative Fees Police Department a l l Pol ice Adminis t ra t ive serv ices increased by CPI Alarm - Annual $20.67 $21.17

False Alarm - 1st Activation $41.33 $42.32False Alarm - 2nd Activation $62.00 $63.49False Alarm - 3rd Activation $82.66 $84.64

Animal Impound $64.06 $65.60 Animal Transport $77.50 $79.36Citation Sign-off $15.50 $15.87Court Witness $284.15 $290.97Dispatch Tape Duplication $31.00 $31.74

FingerprintsLivescan Fee/Rolling fee $18.60 $19.05DOJ Fees Fingerprints $33.07 $33.86FBI Fees Fingerprints $17.57 $17.99Child Abuse Central Index Fingerprints $15.50 $15.87

Photo Reproduction (per 3X5 color picture) $5.17 $5.29Photo Reproduction (per disc) $15.50 $15.87Report Copies per Page 10 pages $0.10 $0.10Residential Parking Permit $20.67 $21.17Sign Abatement (per sign) $15.50 $15.87Travel Letter $48.56 $49.73Vehicle Abatement $144.66 $148.13Vehicle Impound Release $103.33 $105.81VIN Verification $15.50 $15.87Norton Court Garage $350 per Quarter (37 spaces) $1,446.61 $1,481.33 (yearly per vehicle)



Public Safety Fee Schedule Page 5 of 10

M

D


36/58

DESCRIPTION CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE COMMENTSPROPOSED July 2015 through June 2016 Fees

Business Taxes, Licenses, and RegulationsCity License Required $30.00 $30.00Tree Service License Requirements $100.00 $100.00Soliciting Without a License $55.00 $55.00

AnimalsUnlicensed dog $30.00 $30.00

Animals in Business District $30.00 $30.00Dog Running at Large $30.00 $30.00

Animals in Residential District $30.00 $30.00Dogs on Beaches $30.00 $30.00Dogs on Scenic Path $25.00 $25.00Dogs in Devendorf Park $30.00 $30.00Vicious Dogs $55.00 $55.00Female Dog in Heat Running at Large $30.00 $30.00

Aggressive Dog off Property $25.00 $25.00Pasturing and Grazing Animals $25.00 $25.00Excessive Noise from Animals $35.00 $35.00Driving Over Fire Hose $30.00 $30.00Interference with Fire Apparatus $30.00 $30.00Illegal/Large Fire $100.00 $100.00Discharging Fireworks; Not Permitted $30.00 $30.00

Abandoned Vehicle $20.00 $20.00Combustion Engine Blower $25.00 $25.00Maintenance of Property - waste on premises $30.00 $30.00

Public Peace Morals and WelfareHandbills on Private Property $30.00 $30.00Drinking Alcoholic Beverage in Public Place $30.00 $30.00Unlawful to Remain on Business Premises $100.00 $100.00Handbills in Public $30.00 $30.00Handbills on Vehicle $30.00 $30.00Curfew/Minors $0.00 $0.00Discharge Firearm in City Limits $100.00 $100.00

Vehicles and Traffic


M

D


37/58


Bicycles on Sidewalk $15.00 $15.00One Way Streets $7.00 $7.00Faulty Parking $30.00 $30.00Parking in Red Zone $25.00 $25.00Overtime Parking $30.00 $30.00Sales from Vehicle $10.00 $10.00Vehicle Posted for Sale $25.00 $25.00Unlawful Parking; sales from vehicle, veh for hire $20.00 $20.00Vehicles for Hire $10.00 $10.00Vehicles for Sale $25.00 $25.00Camper Parked for Over 6 Hours $20.00 $20.00RV Parking Over 6 Hours **** $20.00 $20.00Oversized Vehicle $25.00 $25.00Parking on Private Property $25.00 $25.00Parking in Construction Area $25.00 $25.00Unauthorized Parking @ Vista Lobos $25.00 $25.00Oversized Vehicle on Torres $20.00 $20.00Parking on Scenic/Del Mar Lot $25.00 $25.00Overtime Parking/Sunset Center $30.00 $30.00Overtime Parking in Tour Bus Zone $30.00 $30.00Double Parking of Commercial Vehicle $20.00 $20.00Limited Parking $40.00 $40.00Special Purpose Parking $40.00 $40.00Stopped or Parked with Engine Running $100.00 $100.00Removing or concealing a mark (evading) $100.00 $100.00Parking in Alley $20.00 $20.00Commercial Loading Zone $25.00 $25.00Parking in Loading Zone $20.00 $20.00Parking in Passenger Zone $25.00 $25.00Loading or Unloading places $10.00 $10.00Skateboarding in Business Area $30.00 $30.00Wheeled Vehicle Within Public Parks $25.00 $25.00Skateboarding on Scenic Road $25.00 $25.00Driving on Beaches $30.00 $30.00Truck Routes $50.00 $50.00Tour Buses - Use on Certain Streets $40.00 $40.00


M

D


38/58


Tour Buses - Use in Residential Districts $40.00 $40.00Tour Buses - Use in Commercial Districts $40.00 $40.00Tour Buses - Parking, stopping or standing $40.00 $40.00Overtime Tour Bus $40.00 $40.00Tour Buses - Signs $40.00 $40.00Pedestrians Crossing Roadway where Prohibited $12.00 $12.00Parking for more than 48 Hours Consecutively $25.00 $25.00No Parking Zone $25.00 $25.00Parking in No Parking Area $20.00 $20.00Parking in Restricted Residential Area w/o Permit $25.00 $25.00Sleeping in Vehicle $30.00 $30.00

Streets, Sidewalks and Public PlacesDischarge of Water Only Public Property $30.00 $30.00Permit for Removal of Trees on Public Prop $100.00 $100.00Removal of Trees/Need Permit: misdo $200.00 $200.00Removal of Trees/Need Permit: infraction $100.00 $100.00Cutting Trees on Private Property: infraction $100.00 $100.00Cutting Trees on Private Property: misdo $100.00 $100.00Urinating in Public $55.00 $55.00Climbing on Structures $100.00 $100.00Dumping of Trash $105.00 $105.00Vending and Advertising $100.00 $100.00Smoking Where Prohibited $25.00 $25.00Outdoor Fire on Public Beach $100.00 $100.00Walk Over Any Slope or Area Between Scenic Rd. $100.00 $100.00Unlawful to Land Sea Vessel $100.00 $100.00Throwing/kicking ball or riding wheeled vehicle(Devendorf Park) $30.00 $30.00Camping on Public Lands $25.00 $25.00

Buildings and ConstructionViolation of Building Code $25.00 $25.00Hours of Construction $100.00 $100.00Dangerous Building Code $100.00 $100.00


M

D


39/58


ZoningProhibited Motel Unit $100.00 $100.00Replacement Housing Required $100.00 $100.00Unlawful Commercial Use $100.00 $100.00Operating from Non-fixed Place of Business $100.00 $100.00Commercial Sales - Prohibited Use $100.00 $100.00Use of House Prohibited $100.00 $100.00Unapproved Signs $100.00 $100.00Display of Prohibited Sign/No Permit $100.00 $100.00

Appearance of Signs; Viewed by Public $100.00 $100.00Unlawful Sign Display $100.00 $100.00Commercial Design Review/Approval Required $100.00 $100.00Use Permits - Unlawful Commercial Exterior Disp $100.00 $100.00Nuisances - Abatement $100.00 $100.00

Violation CodesParking 18" from Curb $25.00 $25.00Parking in Front of Driveway $25.00 $25.00Double Parking $25.00 $25.00Parking on Sidewalk $25.00 $25.00Parking within 15' of Fire Hydrant $35.00 $35.00Parking Space for the Disabled $275.00 $275.00Parking on Sidewalk $25.00 $25.00Parking within Intersection $25.00 $25.00Parking in Mini Bus Zone $25.00 $25.00Unattended Vehicle $25.00 $25.00No Current Tab Displayed $99.00 $99.00Parked in Fire Lane $25.00 $25.00No Front Plate $99.00 $99.00


M

D


40/58

DESCRIPTION CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE COMMENTS2.40%

PUBLIC WORKS

Tree Removal al l Publ ic Service fees CPI adjusted Removal/Pruning No Construction $32.51 $33.29Tree Removal with Construction $234.05 $239.67 Public Property $234.05 $239.67 (per tree and application)



Public Works Fee Schedule Page 10 of 10

M

D


41/58


Council Report

June 1, 2015



Subject: Other Budget and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Related Matters

If there are other budget or CIP related matters not yet addressed, this would be anappropriate time to raise them for discussion and possible action.

Staff brought forth a number of new job descriptions as part of the 2015-2016 proposedbudget. Based on comments received, the job descriptions have been amended and arepresented in the attached staff report

RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the attached revisions to proposed job descriptionsand provide any additional direction to staff on the Provisional Budget or the Three YearCIP, as appropriate.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Revisions to Proposed Job Descriptions

Council Meeting Date: 6/1/15 Agenda Item: 5.GPage 1


42/58


Council Report

June 1, 2015

To: Honorable Mayor Burnett, Members of the City Council, andDouglas J. Schmitz, City Administrator

From: Sullivan Carey-Lang, Special Projects Manager

Subject: Revisions to Proposed Job Descriptions

RECOMMENDATION(S): Authorize the revisions to the Job Descriptions presented as Issues and Options Paper#5.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Staff brought forth a number of new job descriptions as part of the 2015-2016 proposedbudget. Based on comments received, the job descriptions have been amended.

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION :

A number of personnel job specifications and salary adjustments are proposed in the2015-2016 budget, which were brought to the Council in the Issues and Options Paper#5. The Paper covered job descriptions (revisions to existing and adopting new

positions) and changes in salary ranges.

The below job descriptions went through a supplemental review and adjustments sinceinitially released:

• Assistant Forester�