Ca
http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/archives/2009/2009-Oct-22/the-weekly-editorial-boards-endorsements-for-the-upcoming-elections-on-nov-3/1/@@index
MEASURE G | Carmel Valley Incorporation
Yes
This is the Big Kahuna of this November’s election, the most hotly debated item that will impact both the residents of Carmel Valley and the county. It’s a fight that’s been nearly 20 years in the making, and could tell the future for the charm and rural character that is Carmel Valley.
Advocates for the town are deeply frustrated by the county government’s overzealous support for growth in the valley. Within a couple of decades, larger-scale developments – including Carmel Valley Ranch, Tehama, and the Preserve (Rancho San Carlos) – each controversial in its own right for lack of water and traffic impacts, have been approved and built. And the proposed county general plan calls for at least two new controversial housing projects: September Ranch and Rancho Cañada. With traffic noticeably denser over the years, the county’s best response has been a turning lane and new traffic lights, and a climbing lane on Highway 1 from Carmel Valley Road to Ocean Avenue. And despite the scarcity of water in the Carmel River aquifer – which limits the ability of individuals to add bathrooms throughout the Peninsula – thanks to high-paid attorneys, effective lobbying and questionable water studies (plus years of patience), several larger projects have found their footing (and the necessary water), resulting in huge financial payoffs for the developers.
With the current and future seating on the Board of Supervisors, the valley’s residents have less say on matters in their own backyards and have no effective right of self-determination: No one on the county board lives in the valley, or has for more than a decade. Yes on G has been endorsed by the local school board (unanimous), county supervisors Dave Potter and Jane Parker, and Assemblyman Bill Monning. Supervisor Lou Calcagno, from Moss Landing, was part of the county’s team that negotiated and approved the final fiscal agreement between the county and the proposed town, numbers that appear to be well vetted, with a town fiscally solvent from day one.
Still, opponents claim the costs will outweigh the benefits, and raise the red flag that it will lead to further development – though the anti-G campaign is largely led by developers, and their representatives, including Orange County attorney and Carmel Valley second-homeowner Frank Lunding, who sued unsuccessfully to try to keep the election from even taking place. Also fighting against G are notable Tehama developers Alan Williams and partner Clint Eastwood, who have a vested interest in the development of Rancho Cañada, plus some anti-government crusaders who won’t admit to any single positive that results from taxes or government. They claim that the town of Carmel Valley will create a whole new layer of government, but like their belief that government has no value value or benefit, they are wrong.
We believe that the gem that is Carmel Valley is at risk if the county continues to have reign. It seems inevitable that larger development projects will work their way through the process, resulting in increased traffic on an already congested and dangerous two-lane road. The rural character of Carmel Valley, with both sides claim to be fighting for, is at greater risk if the governing body who oversees it doesn’t live there, and has no personal stake in its future. It’s only right that citizens can directly participate in the decisions that affect their own lives, and we endorse the incorporation measure wholeheartedly.
Vote for town of C.V. to create local control
The Monterey County Herald
Updated: 10/16/2009 01:28:58 AM PDT
For each solid argument in favor of Carmel Valley incorporation, the anti-incorporation forces have a reasonable reply. So writing down all the pros and cons would likely create two lists of roughly equal length, which wouldn't provide much help to the undecided voter.
Ultimately, what tips the balance is the issue that set off the incorporation drive nearly a decade ago and that's local control.
Regardless of what happens over the next several years, even if a new town government might need to accommodate some growth to help pay the bills, the residents of Carmel Valley will be better off if they are the ones making the decisions about what happens in Carmel Valley instead of five county supervisors who cannot be held accountable.
Though many of the development decisions have not yet materialized in the form of new subdivisions, the supervisors have demonstrated convincingly and repeatedly for 20 years now that the interests of developers and their representatives were more important than the wishes of Carmel Valley residents. Only litigation and activism by many of the same people who are pushing Measure G on the Nov. 3 ballot have prevented the bucolic valley from becoming another example of typical California sprawl.
Supervisor Dave Potter, who represents the valley, has lost more than his share of 4-1 votes on Carmel Valley issues. Environmentalist Jane Parker's ascension to the board has changed the numbers but not the result.
When the economy recovers and home building begins again in earnest, those who want Carmel Valley to stay as it is—Carmel Valley residents on both sides of the incorporation divide— will continue to be at a huge disadvantage under the current governmental arrangement.
It took tremendous resolve and patience for supporters of incorporation to get the process this far, and even if Carmel Valley voters decide against incorporation, just getting the issue on the ballot is a major victory for democracy. Unfortunately, the debate leading to the vote has been shrill.
Incorporation supporters at times have exaggerated the threat of development, failing to acknowledge their ability to tie some projects up in court. At the same time, some of the leading incorporation opponents have taken the low road, playing litigation games of their own, raising every conceivable issue and manufacturing some.
Some have argued repeatedly that the mere formation of a city would increase everything from property taxes to flood insurance premiums. That simply isn't so.
Still, the anti-incorporation camp certainly has legitimate concerns. There are reasonable questions about economic viability as well as the potential for a new set of unnecessary rules and regulations.
Even the best-financed cities are struggling to balance service and costs. And, of course, there are no guarantees that the town council will always be made up of able people, such as most of those campaigning to be part of the first council.
Rising to the top of a strong field, in our view, are three candidates from the pro-incorporation slate—Larry Bacon, Glenn Robinson and Karin Strasser Kauffman—and two from the anti-incorporation side—Ernie Bizzozero and Scott Dick.
Bacon is a banker and investment consultant who provides the financial acumen the new town would need to create a workable budget, long and short-term.
Robinson, an instructor at the Naval Postgraduate School, has done as much as anyone to get this issue to the ballot. His persistence and patience, along with his considerable intellect, would prove invaluable.
Strasser Kauffman's record of public service is unmatched among the candidates and includes nine years on the Board of Supervisors. Her knowledge of Carmel Valley and the ins and outs of local government is unsurpassed by anyone involved in the current debate.
Bizzozero and Dick would provide much-needed balance and would be effective representatives of those who oppose incorporation. They are mature enough to avoid any temptation to sabotage the fledgling government, which some of their supporters might propose.
Bizzozero is a retired Coast Guard captain who could be described as the common-sense candidate. His straight-forward approach would help keep a pro-town majority from letting a ballot box victory go to their heads.
Dick, likewise, is well-suited to the role of challenging the status quo and keeping the politicians honest. He, too, is a retired military man and he is adept at crunching numbers.
In this election, voters throughout Carmel Valley also will decide how council elections will be conducted in the future if a city is formed. Passage of the companion Measure H would establish that future elections be conducted by voting districts rather than at large. That is a good idea, largely because it would assure reasonable representation for the sparsely populated inland areas while preventing the more populated mouth of the valley from dominating every decision.
Voters who like the valley the way it is, and who value local control, would be wise to say yes to Measures G and H and to mark their ballots for Bacon, Robinson, Strasser Kauffman, Bizzozero and Dick.
Yes or no on G, both yearn to keep C.V. rural
Confusion, high emotions in vote about incorporation
By LAITH AGHA
Herald Staff Writer
Updated: 10/13/2009 01:27:10 AM PDT
Click photo to enlarge
Carmel Valley residents will vote on incorporation Nov. 3, when they... (VERN FISHER/The Herald)
Taking the 15-minute drive from Highway 1 to Carmel Valley Village, you will pass horse ranches, five-star resorts, vineyards and golf courses. There are no fast-food restaurants or big-box stores. Look east as you drop into Carmel Valley from Laureles Grade, and for a moment, the place can be reminiscent of Yosemite. Without Half Dome.
It's obvious why residents of Carmel Valley are such fierce guardians of this bucolic paradise that offers an escape from the hustle of city life.
Indeed, if there is one thing opposing sides in the debate over turning Carmel Valley into a formal "town" can agree, it is that keeping the valley rural is a primary goal.
"They don't want a lot of growth, just like us," Lawrence Samuels, a Carmel Valley resident and incorporation opponent, said of those pushing for township.
But how that should be handled is where the two sides part ways. And it is the crux of the emotionally charged, decade-long battle over whether to create a local governing body to control growth, or whether Carmel Valley is just fine as it is — under county supervision.
Finally, on Nov. 3, residents of the valley will vote on the incorporation question when they cast their ballots either for or against Measure G.
Along with deciding whether to incorporate, they will vote for town council members and whether to select council members from districts or at large. The results of these council-related votes won't matter if incorporation is voted down.
Emotions run high
Over the last several years, public comment periods on incorporation at Board of Supervisor meetings were marked by emotional pleas and diatribes. Some argued against incorporation and were accused of being aligned with developers. Others fought for the right to vote on the matter and were accused of living in a fiscal dreamworld.
Campaign signs litter Carmel Valley's roads and front yards. The proponents' green signs carry messages such as "Don't Yield to Developers" and "Keep Carmel Valley Rural." The opponents' red signs read "Save Carmel Valley" and "Keep Our Valley Rural."
Arguments have been passionate and creative. Some opponents have gone as far as to denounce cityhood because of what they consider the cultural differences between those who live at the mouth of the valley and those in Carmel Valley Village.
Proponents of incorporation say that Carmel Valley is underrepresented at the county level, that officials with no personal or political stake in Carmel Valley make land-use decisions that are not in the best interest of its residents.
"We've outgrown the county," said Karin Strasser Kauffman, a council candidate and former county supervisor. "It's really time to take charge and have our own local control so that the folks who live here can make the decisions for themselves."
But with self-governance comes responsibility. Opponents of incorporation say that a local government will lead to more hassles and to possible financial disaster.
"It's just a matter of time before the citizens pass a tax on themselves," said Scott Dick, a town council candidate opposed to incorporation.
The two sides don't even see eye-to-eye on how to classify an incorporated Carmel Valley. Those pushing for incorporation prefer to call the proposed municipality a "town" instead of a "city."
Legally, there is no difference between the two designations, but proponents are adamant about calling it a town because townhood implies a different "state of mind" than does cityhood, said Priscilla Watson, a member of the pro-town slate.
Opponents of incorporation dismiss that as a matter of semantics.
LAFCO approval
The Local Agency Formation Commission, a seven-person board made up of county and city officials, as well as a representative from the general public, approved incorporation last November after determining that the proposed town was financially viable and that the county would be properly compensated for the revenue it would lose if Carmel Valley incorporates.
Supervisor and LAFCO commissioner Lou Calcagno, who represents North County and is chairman of the Board of Supervisors, said that incorporation's viability is not up to county officials or advocates on either side of the issue to decide. Rather, it is in the hands of the 8,000 registered Carmel Valley voters.
"There is enough information where the voters have to basically not listen to either side," Calcagno said. They "have to look at numbers and really look at the issues and then make the decision with their own interpretation of how those numbers read."
The proposal
The proposed town, which would be home to about 12,000 people, would encompass more than 40 square miles — slightly smaller than San Francisco, stretching about 12 miles from Highway 1 to east of Carmel Valley Village. The town would be responsible for maintaining about 67 miles of road, providing police protection and making land-use decisions.
Services would continue to be provided almost as they are now according to the proponents' plan, which is laid out in the comprehensive fiscal analysis. The town would contract with the county Public Works Department. The Sheriff's Office would provide law enforcement as it does now, and would take over traffic police duties now handled by the California Highway Patrol.
If voters approve incorporation, townhood would begin July 1, 2010. If the voters turn it down, incorporation probably wouldn't appear on a ballot anytime in the near future. This is a one-time shot, proponents say.
Included in the boundaries are three major commercial areas — at the mouth of the valley, mid-valley and the village — and various hotels, including three high-end resorts. The fiscal viability of the proposed town was reviewed in a comprehensive fiscal analysis, a report prepared by an independent consultant. According to the report, which was approved by LAFCO and the the Board of Supervisors, an incorporated Carmel Valley can be financially secure.
Arguments for, against
Proponents say that self-governance is doable, since Carmel Valley is one of the most affluent areas in the county.
"There's more money that comes out of here in tax revenues over the years than what the county has ever put back in in services," said pro-town slate candidate Larry Bacon.
Opponents dismiss the fiscal analysis, saying that it understates the financial needs of a city and relies on stale data from the 2002-03 fiscal year. The final draft of the analysis was completed in November.
Calcagno and 5th District Supervisor Dave Potter, who represents Carmel Valley on the county board, both worked on the revenue neutrality agreement — a financial settlement in which the town would pay the county $15.9 million over the first 13 years after incorporating. It would serve as compensation for the net revenue the county would lose if Carmel Valley breaks away.
The payments were factored into the town's fiscal viability.
Payments would not begin until the town's third fiscal year. Without inflation, $2.7 million general fund surplus is projected by 2022-23, the final fiscal year in which the town would repay the county. With neutrality payments completed, the projected surplus increases by $1.3 million a year without factoring in inflation, and $2 million a year with inflation.
Bacon said that at nearly $3.5 billion in the last fiscal year, the total assessed real estate value in Carmel Valley remained stable from the previous year, despite the worst recession in nearly 80 years. The assessed value is about 50 percent higher than it was six years ago.
The total loss in tax revenue from Carmel Valley's commercial sector was about $500,000, Bacon said, which is a manageable amount considering that the drop occurred "during the worst of times."
Fact and fiction
Depending on who you're talking to at the heat of the moment, someone will tell you that the "other side" is unfairly waging a campaign of misinformation and distorted speculation.
Last year the Carmel Valley Association, a largely pro-incorporation group, circulated a newsletter saying Carmel Valley had "dodged a bullet" when county supervisors failed to secure funding for a state prison, which would have been located in Carmel Valley.
The article, which was written by John Dalessio, a Peninsula Regional Parks District board member and Carmel Valley resident in favor of incorporation, goes so far as to cite the mouth of the valley as the hypothetical prison's probable location.
"That never happened," Potter said. "It was brought up by a North County constituent, basically throwing a stone over to the 5th District" which includes Carmel Valley.
"It never saw the light of day."
Some of the claims in literature opposed to incorporation have also been shaky.
A recently circulated "No on G" information sheet contends that taxes will have to go up to pay for a new city hall, police station and other government buildings. But the plan for incorporation calls for council meetings to be held in an existing structure and for the contracting of services with existing agencies, such as the Sheriff's Office and county Public Works department.
Any tax increase would have to be approved by a super majority of voters.
There also was a claim that every city in the county has a redevelopment agency. That is incorrect. Carmel, for instance, does not have one, Carmel City Manager Rich Guillen said. Such an agency is generally formed by cities looking to improve areas of "blight," which Carmel and Carmel Valley do not have.
A claim that affordable housing would be mandated under state law is another point of contention.
The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, or AMBAG, determines how much affordable housing a jurisdiction is responsible for, and the state monitors whether cities are fulfilling their obligations.
Several county and city officials said that affordable housing allocations are not strictly enforced and that cities are not forced to build affordable housing units to meet quotas, as the "No on G" sheet indicates.
Political infighting
The least contentious point on the "No on G" sheet is that forming the Town of Carmel Valley would lead to "political infighting."
The political battle already takes place at the county administration building, said Glenn Robinson, one of the most vocal proponents of Carmel Valley townhood. Instead of driving to Salinas to contend with land-use issues, Robinson suggests, why not move the debate to Carmel Valley?
"That's democracy," Robinson said.
Laith Agha can be reached at 646-4358 or lagha@montereyherald.com.
Carmel Valley Incorporation A three-part series Today: An overview of Measure G and the campaigns for and against it. Wednesday: Is Carmel Valley about to be overrun with development, or is that just campaign hyperbole? Thursday: How financially secure would the Town of Carmel Valley really be?
Carmel Valley development fears fuel town fight
Measure G opponents say threat is a scare tactic
By LAITH AGHA
Herald Staff Writer
Updated: 10/14/2009 09:13:43 AM PDT
Click photo to enlarge
The Storage PRO self-storage facility in mid-Carmel Valley is nearly full. (VERN FISHER/The Herald)2
|
Question of the Day |
||
|
Should Carmel Valley voters say yes to Measure G? |
||
|
||
|
Voting Requires Javascript |
Related Articles
- Carmel Valley Incorporation
- Oct 13:
- Yes or no on Measure G, both yearn to keep Carmel Valley rural
Glenn Robinson, one of the most vocal proponents of Carmel Valley townhood, has circulated a map of the area included in the Carmel Valley Master Plan.
The map has arrows pointing to the locations of about 20 proposed residential and commercial developments that are in different phases — anywhere from the proposal stage to some that are completed.
The map represents what many Carmel Valley residents fear — that their rural community is on the verge of being overrun with development. They say the county supervisors, who make land-use decisions in all unincorporated areas of the county, do not act in the interests of Carmel Valley when approving development projects.
Proponents of Measure G believe that incorporating Carmel Valley will change that. The measure's opponents feel the development threat is simply a scare tactic. Residents will decide on Nov. 3.
As well as deciding whether to incorporate, they will vote for members of the town council and whether, in the future, council members will be chosen from districts or at large. The results of these council-related votes won't matter if incorporation is voted down.
Boom overstated?
"This community is better off because the election was scheduled, because we are having a dialogue finally about where we want to be in 25 or 50 years," said former Supervisor Karin Strasser Kauffman, a proponent of incorporation who is running for town council. "That is a very necessary endeavor."
Opponents say Robinson's map is a scare tactic that gives the false impression a population boom is imminent in Carmel Valley.
"It looks like a straw man," said Ernie Bizzozero, a valley resident of 23 years, who is also running for town council. "Where's the development?"
Favorable treatment or approval of the proposed Rancho Cañada and September Ranch housing developments, high-end communities Tehama and the Santa Lucia Preserve, and a self-storage facility at mid-valley all point to a trend of county officials rubber-stamping projects without much consideration for the community, proponents say.
"You've seen it time and time again where our elected representatives (for Carmel Valley) have one opinion on something in Carmel Valley and get outvoted by the other planning commissioners or the other supervisors," Robinson said. "We can see it project after project."
Supervisor Dave Potter, whose district includes Carmel Valley, said he agrees with the proponents' claim that Carmel Valley is not fairly represented at the county level. Potter said he is routinely outvoted 4-to-1 on land-use issues in that area, and said Carmel Valley residents would probably be better off with local control.
"There are those of us who do look down the road and say that at some point, you have to put the brakes on" development, Potter said. "You can't just let the system proliferate at will if you want to hang onto the community. You can look all over at areas of the state and the country that did not realize that they were compromising their quality of life."
Rancho Cañada
The proposed Rancho Cañada development near the mouth of the valley is at the crux of the incorporation movement. The proposal floated around for several years as a 281-home subdivision south of Carmel Middle School. It would link to Carmel Valley Road through Rancho Cañada Golf Club's existing entrance.
During a special Carmel Unified School District board meeting recently, developer Alan Williams unveiled a revamped plan, reducing the number of dwellings to 180 and opening up a large portion of the property as park land.
The original plan was proposed by longtime Peninsula businessman Nick Lombardo. Williams and his business partner, Hollywood heavyweight and former Carmel Mayor Clint Eastwood, took over the project after Lombardo died four years ago. Eastwood also owns Tehama.
Even in its reduced version, proponents say the subdivision would add a significant amount of traffic to the mouth of the valley, potentially wiping out the traffic relief created a few years ago by adding a climbing lane on Highway 1 that goes north from Carmel Valley Road to the high school.
The traffic impact depends largely on how many residents of the proposed subdivision would work in the Carmel area, including people who already work in the Carmel area and commute from other parts of the county. Half the dwellings would be affordable or work force units, Williams said.
Proponents also worry that the development would fill in part of the flood plain north of the Carmel River, and that the development is too close to Carmel Middle School. They are concerned about the impact the additional population could have on elementary school service boundaries.
Williams said the flood plain concerns are unwarranted because steps have been taken to create flood relief in the Odello fields west of Highway 1.
"If it floods this year, we're better off than we've ever been," Williams said.
September Ranch
September Ranch has been another contentious development. It is a 95-home development proposed on an 891-acre site about three miles east of Highway 1 on Carmel Valley Road. It is going through the county approval process.
With a proposed density of one house every nine acres, the development would be akin to Tehama and Monterra, which are low density with low visual and traffic impacts. Nearly half the houses in these communities are second homes.
Other projects on the map include the new Safeway at the mouth of the valley, which replaced an older Safeway in the same shopping center, and the Storage PRO self-storage facility at mid-valley. Both were completed more than two years ago and have arguably reduced traffic in and out of the valley.
The new, bigger Safeway was built to be competitive with grocery stores in the Monterey area, ostensibly making it less likely area residents will drive north on Highway 1 to shop for groceries.
While proponents condemn the self-storage facility, it has proven popular with locals looking for storage space. Steve Mirabito, the facility's owner who lives in the East Bay, said the facility is nearly full and that 90 percent of its users either live or work in Carmel Valley.
"The first day we opened for business," Mirabito said, "it was incredible how many people who were commuting outside of the area (for self-storage) were lined up because of the pressure to drive outside of the valley to get storage."
If Carmel Valley residents are no longer making trips to Sand City or Seaside to visit a self-storage unit, that means less traffic on the road.
No one project is a threat
But the threat to Carmel Valley's rural character does not come from any one project, proponents of township say. They are concerned about the cumulative impact of many residential and commercial developments. Those include projects currently in the pipeline, future proposals they fear county officials would approve, and about 500 legal lots of record that can be developed once water becomes available.
If Carmel Valley residents have local control, proponents say, they will be able to manage the valley's rate of growth.
"You can never stop growth, but you can slow it down and make sure it reflects the community's values," Robinson said.
Board of Supervisors Chairman Lou Calcagno, who represents North County, said some development will happen either way, but forming a town will likely give Carmel Valley residents more control over their community.
"It will have some growth, whether it's a city or not," Calcagno said. "A city would have more say."
Opponents say that little has been built in recent years, and as long as water and traffic are impeding factors, Carmel Valley will not likely experience a boom in new construction.
"The fact that there is a subdivision moratorium because of traffic and water, doesn't that become academic?" Dick said. "They float a map out there when they know there is a subdivision moratorium."
But the moratorium will last only as long as the county has a water shortage, Potter said, adding the Monterey area is only a few years away from developing a water supply solution. Once that happens, he said, traffic on Carmel Valley Road would be the only factor limiting development.
Laith Agha can be reached at 646-4358 or lagha@montereyherald.com.
Incorporation foes focus on town budget
Opponents say fiscal analysis doesn't add up
By LAITH AGHA
Herald Staff Writer
Updated: 10/15/2009 01:30:06 AM PDT
Lawrence Samuels, a vocal opponent of Carmel Valley incorporation,... (VERN FISHER/The Herald)
Dozens of miles in roads. Millions of dollars in repairs.
Fixing potholes, sealing asphalt cracks and occasionally repaving stretches of roadway can be expensive.
And that is one of the biggest arguments being made by the opponents of Measure G, which would incorporate Carmel Valley.
Some of the more vocal Carmel Valley residents who oppose townhood say the rural community's 67 miles of roads will require a lot more of the prospective town's budget than is projected by those pushing for a town.
On Nov. 3, residents will have a chance to cast their votes. As well as deciding whether to incorporate, they will vote for members of the town council and whether, in the future, council members will be chosen from districts or at large. The results of these council-related votes won't matter if incorporation is voted down.
The financial question
In addition to the road repair issue, there are more than a dozen reasons opponents cite against incorporating Carmel Valley.
"Their budget data is just not wrapped tight," opponent Scott Dick said of the yearly allocation for road maintenance stated in the comprehensive fiscal analysis. With the length of road that needs to be maintained, "it tells me the proponents — I don't know what they're thinking."
The fiscal analysis, prepared by Berkeley-based independent consultant Economic and Planning Systems, projects the proposed town's revenues and expenditures in the first 15 years of townhood. The
numbers are based largely on property, sales and transportation occupancy taxes generated in Carmel Valley and services provided to Carmel Valley by the county.
Incorporation opponents have not conducted a formal fiscal analysis to counter the one prepared by EPS.
Larry Bacon, a financial adviser and proponent running for town council, said the financial projections — for road maintenance and all other services — are conservative. He expects the town's expenditures to be less than what the analysis projects.
But since the report came out, Quail Lodge has shut down its hotel, which takes away a big chunk of transient occupancy tax, and Carmel Valley Ranch sold for $20million.
That's $60million less than its previous sale price, meaning that if the ranch's most recent sale price is used as its reassessed value, the ranch will contribute about $65,000 less in property tax annually.
In the last fiscal year, Quail Lodge and Carmel Valley Ranch combined to pay $521,000 in transient occupancy tax, according to the Monterey County Tax Collection Office.
Opponents say these two revelations significantly weaken the proposed town's fiscal viability.
Long-term impact
Opponents of Measure G say the road maintenance issue is another example of proponents failing to see the long-term impact of forming a local government. Incorporating is the ultimate act of development, Dick said.
"If I wanted to live in a city, I would live in a city," Dick said. "Do you want to be left alone, or do you want somebody peeking over your fence to see if you have violated city ordinance?"
Opponents say that a variety of things can go wrong with a city government, all of which will eventually lead to increased taxes. They point to the financial turmoil of other cities in the county, such as Pacific Grove, Seaside and Salinas, as examples of why incorporation is a bad idea.
"All of the cities are having trouble right now," said Lawrence Samuels, a vocal Measure G opponent. "We're not."
Samuels said an incorporated Carmel Valley would eventually run into financial problems, compelling the town council to seek residential or commercial developments in order to increase the tax base.
"They wouldn't do anything at first, but eventually (Carmel Valley) will look like a city," Samuels said.
Measure G opponents say the fiscal analysis is flawed because it underestimates the cost of services and anticipates a smaller bureaucracy than would be needed to run a city.
"It's hypothetical numbers from the first page to the last page," Dick said.
Tehama's effect
A high-end community, Tehama, was originally included in the proposed town and was part of the fiscal evaluation. But it was later removed from the town's boundaries. Opponents say the loss of property tax revenue from those multi-million-dollar homes — most of the lots have not been built out yet — is a major hit to the town's viability.
The bottom line, said opponent candidate Ernie Bizzozero, is that change is unnecessary.
"We want to keep it the way it is," Bizzozero said. "When we've asked for things from the county, they provide it. Are we going to get the same kind of service from a city? I'm not too sure."
The roads
The fiscal analysis allocates a little more than $500,000 in the first year of incorporation to cover maintenance of Carmel Valley's 67 miles of roads. The projected expenditures gradually escalate each year to nearly $800,000 in the tenth year.
According to the fiscal analysis, road maintenance services cover "operational activities such as striping, sweeping, mowing, drainage, signs, bridges, lighting, signals, trees, patching, grading, storm drainage, culverts and encroachment inspection."
For years, opponents have argued that the town would go bankrupt paying for expensive road projects, saying there is up to $150million in deferred maintenance for Carmel Valley's "failing road system."
A "No on G" information sheet refers to the valley's 144 "lane" miles — essentially counting mileage in both directions on the road and turn lanes — and claims $40million to $60million in "needed road construction in the near future."
The figures come from a speech Lew Bauman gave to the Carmel Valley Rotary Club nearly eight years ago. Bauman, now county administrative officer, was head of the Public Works department at the time.
Regardless of the infrastructure maintenance and repair cost estimates, Bauman said, it is important that the road costs are put in context.
If Carmel Valley incorporates, the town would be responsible for road maintenance and improvement projects. The timing and allocation of those costs would be a management decision made by the new town. Costs would be paid from tax revenues and offset by any grants awarded to the local jurisdiction, Bauman said.
Expenses and level of service were factored into the fiscal analysis.
The county has employed a "pretty rigorous" approach to maintaining Carmel Valley's roads, Bauman said, using grants to pay for resurfacing, construction and reconstruction projects.
"The issue for any city is how much they are willing to invest," he said. If a city falls behind in maintaining its roads, "you accrue a significant downstream liability."
Several county officials opted not to give definitive answers on the cost of Carmel Valley road maintenance because of the political nature of the issue.
Laith Agha can be reached at 646-4358 or lagha@montereyherald.com.
Town of Woodside shares issues with Carmel Valley
By LAITH AGHA
Herald Staff Writer
Updated: 10/15/2009 01:33:31 AM PDT
The main road through town is shared by BMW drivers and horseback riders.
The property values are high, and the wooded hills offer its residents an escape from their suburban work environments. It offers a rustic village with restaurants and a general store.
It's not Carmel Valley, but Woodside comes close.
Nestled in San Mateo County's part of the Santa Cruz Mountains, Woodside has been an incorporated town for more than 50 years.
And it has faced many of the same challenges Carmel Valley has — which could be meaningful to local residents who are poised to vote on Measure G, the measure to incorporate, on Nov. 3.
While the Bay Area's population doubled to more than 7million since Woodside incorporated, the town's residents managed to keep the growth out of their community.
Mayor Peter Mason said local control has been key to keeping his community quaint.
"If you're really after preserving your community and you want to have a say in how your community looks and feels, having a town is a big deal," Mason said. "The reason you move to Woodside is because you want to live in the country. The county, they really don't care what (your community) looks like. Do you want them making decisions for you?"
Government structure
The town meets its affordable housing requirements mainly with accessory living quarters, which are similar to guest houses in that they share properties with larger houses. The town has never received pressure from
the state to build low-income subdivisions.
The government structure proposed by those pushing for Carmel Valley incorporation resembles Woodside's government in many ways.
Woodside's town council is made up of volunteer positions, just as Carmel Valley proponents propose, and the town contracts with the San Mateo County Sheriff for law enforcement, just as the town of Carmel Valley would do.
Woodside has about 30 employees, including six in the public works department, which is about 50 percent more staffing than the 18 to 20 employees Carmel Valley is planning to have in the first year. Woodside's budget of about $8million is a little less than Carmel Valley's projected budget.
But there are some notable differences between the two communities.
At 14 square miles, Woodside has more land than most small towns, but is considerably smaller than the 42 square miles encompassed by the proposed town boundaries of Carmel Valley. And Woodside's population of 5,300 is less than half of Carmel Valley's 12,000 residents.
Home to several billionaires, including Oracle CEO Larry Ellison and Apple CEO Steve Jobs, Woodside real estate is considered to be high-end and thus generates more residential property tax per capita.
Commercial tax income
But Woodside does not have the resorts and golf courses that make Carmel Valley a tourist destination, so it does not generate much commercial tax income.
Mason said the town's commercial taxes come from two wineries and a downtown area very similar to the commercial area in Carmel Valley Village.
Paul Nagengast, director of Woodside's public works department, said that during the recent economic downturn, real estate values remained stable and the town did not take a significant tax revenue hit.
The one service area in which Woodside and the proposed Carmel Valley town differ is in road maintenance. The Carmel Valley proposal allocates a little more than $500,000 to maintain 67 miles of roads in the first year of townhood.
Woodside spends about $2million a year to maintain about one-third as much road surface, said Town Manager Susan George. The expenditures cover the salaries and benefits of the town's three public works employees, but most of the $2million goes toward materials and equipment use, said George, who graduated from Monterey High School.