This is an archive of a past election.
See for current information.
LWV League of Women Voters of California Education Fund If you appreciate our service to voters, please consider helping us with a donation.
Smart Voter
Monterey County, CA November 3, 2009 Election
Measure G
Proposal to Incorporate
Proposed Town of Carmel Valley

Majority Approval Required

Fail: 2,592 / 47.48% Yes votes ...... 2,867 / 52.52% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

Results as of November 19 5:59pm, 100.00%% of Precincts Reporting (7/7)
Information shown below: Impartial Analysis | Arguments |

Shall the order adopted on December 1, 2008, by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey County ordering the incorporation of the territory described in the order and designated in the order as the "Proposal to Incorporate the Town of Carmel Valley" (LAFCO File No. 03-10) be confirmed subject to the terms and conditions specified in the order?

Impartial Analysis

A "yes" vote on this measure will establish the new Town of Carmel Valley, subject to the terms and conditions in Resolution No. 08-27 of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey County.

The boundaries of the proposed new Town encompass approximately 39 square miles with an estimated population of approximately 12,100. The area of the proposed Town is generally similar to the County's Carmel Valley Master Plan area, and includes most of the primary watershed of the Carmel River from Highway 1 to just east of the Carmel Valley Village.

If approved by a majority of voters, the measure will:

�� Establish Carmel Valley as a General Law town (city) effective July 1, 2010, governed by a five-member Town Council elected at-large by voters on the same ballot as this measure.

�� Provide for appointment of a Town Manager, Town Attorney, Town Clerk and Town Treasurer by the Town Council.

�� Establish a provisional appropriations limit of $11,000,000. This temporary limit will neither increase nor decrease tax revenues. Voters will establish a permanent appropriations limit at a future election.

The Town would assume responsibility from the County for certain local services, such as police, road maintenance, land use planning, building permits and inspections, code enforcement and animal control. The Town would also assume financial responsibility for wildland fire protection in areas within its boundaries. The Council may hire staff directly or contract with the County or other entities to perform these functions. County-wide services, such as administration of justice (courts, district attorney, probation, public defender, etc.), social services, public health, library, etc., will continue to be provided by the County. Services currently provided by special districts, such as parks, fire protection, ambulance service, and wastewater, will continue to be provided by those agencies. School district and post office boundaries are not affected by this proposal.

No new or increased taxes or assessments are proposed as part of this measure. The new Town will receive some unrestricted revenues generated in the local area that currently accrue to the County, such as sales and transient occupancy (hotel) taxes, franchise fees and a portion of the property taxes. The new Town is expected to also receive new general purpose revenue directly from the State, most significantly, Motor Vehicle License Fee revenue. The State will also distribute Highway User Tax revenue to the Town for street and highway expenditures. Voter approval is required for any new or increased assessments or taxes.

The Local Agency Formation Commission approved the proposed incorporation, subject to voter ratification, with the adoption of Resolution No. 08-27 on December 1, 2008. Voters are encouraged to read the Resolution and review the map of the proposed Town. The Resolution establishes specific terms and conditions for the incorporation, such as transfer of specific assets and responsibility for existing assessments from the County to the Town. The Resolution and additional information, such as the LAFCO Executive Officer's report, the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis and the Plan for Services, are available on the LAFCO website (

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure G. If you desire a copy of the complete measure, including LAFCO Resolution No. 08-27, please call Monterey County Elections at 831/796-1499 and a copy will be mailed or e-mailed at no cost to you.

  Campaign Finance Data

Form 460

Yes on G-9/19/09

Yes on G-6/30/09 Amended

Form 465

Yes on G-9/19/09
Nonpartisan Information


Partisan Information

Yes on G

No on G
News and Analysis

KION Channel 46-video

Monterey County Weekly Monterey County Herald KCBA
This election is archived. Any links to sources outside of Smart Voter may no longer be active. No further links will be added to this page.
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.

Arguments For Measure G Arguments Against Measure G
Keep Carmel Valley Rural / Don't Yield to Developers.

Developers have their eyes on Carmel Valley. The Board of Supervisors has already approved 1,183 new housing units + with 1,052 more in planning stages. Combined with approved non-residential projects, these developments are projected to increase traffic in Carmel Valley by over 50%.

Some developments are readily apparent; others won't be seen until the housing is built. We must act now before our rural character has been paved over and Carmel Valley Road is a parking lot.

Take Rancho Canada. The Board of Supervisors is likely to approve this 300 house subdivision + and its projected 3,000 new daily car trips + unless citizens of Carmel Valley take control of the process.

Make no mistake, Measure G is about the right of the citizens of Carmel Valley to control our own destiny.

Developers are likely to spend a fortune trying to confuse you. Here are the facts:

More local control: Currently, our voice on the Board of Supervisors is 1/7 of one vote. Under Measure G, our governing body will be your neighbors + elected, unpaid,citizen volunteers + who live right here in Carmel Valley.

No tax increase: Five independent fiscal studies show the Town of Carmel Valley can provide the services we need on the revenue we currently send to the county. With incorporation, our tax dollars stay in Carmel Valley, protecting our tax base. Under state law (Props 13 & 218), the new Town Council will not have the authority to raise taxes without a vote of the people of Carmel Valley.

We'll also get: locally controlled, improved police protection and public works services.

There will be no change in ambulance service, fire protection, library, parks, schools, your mailing address or septic equirements.

On November 3rd, support our democratic right to control our own fate in Carmel Valley. Vote Yes on G.

/s/ May Waldroup Former Owner, Barnyard Shopping Village

/s/ Randy Randazzo Former Owner, Carmel Valley Market

/s/ Milt Kegley Former President, Del Mesa Carmel HOA

/s/ Marcy Rustad Carmel Unified School District Board Member

/s/ Rita Dalessio Chair, Sierra Club (Ventana Chapter)

Rebuttal to Arguments For
Carmel Valley does not have the property tax and business revenue to support itself on its current tax base. It will have to find other financing methods to survive. Reliance upon outdated financial data does not change this fact nor solve the problem of solvency.

Reality is better suggested by the pending reassessment of Carmel Valley Ranch from $80,000,000 to $18,000,000. Reality is the "town" facing lower property, sales and transient occupancy taxes over the foreseeable future. And it is reality that requires the City to borrow $4,000,000 from the County just to survive the first two years.

Nor is the argument for "local control" persuasive. Carmel Valley has distinct social and economic segments. If council members are elected at large, the more populous and financially viable will control. If elected by district, each district will only have a 1/5th vote. Either plan is destined to exacerbate local differences in the 39 square mile proposed city, particularly when the issues include creating new sources of revenue, the placement of hundreds of mandated affordable housing units and even the location of City Hall and related public facilities.

Protect Carmel Valley from insolvency and infighting. Vote NO on Measure G.

/s/ David J. Churchill President, Carmel Knolls Property Association

/s/ Michael Hl. Collins President, Carmel Valley Trail and Saddle Club Foundation

/s/ Franklin J. Lunding Attorney

/s/ Robert Sinotte Past President, Carmel Views Community Association

/s/ Joan F. Vandervort Carmel Valley Village Trade Center

As the Monterey County Herald editorialized on June 21, 2009... "Had Carmel Valley become a city five years ago, it could've been insolvent by now."

The proposed City will have lower revenues than projected. The transit occupancy, sales and property tax revenue projections are unrealistic in this economy. The threat of insolvency will hang over the City from the first day of incorporation as it struggles with the revenue gap.

The proposed City will have increased expenses. It has no budget for road capital improvements (no budget for even a new traffic light). No flood control improvements and no required affordable housing or transit costs are covered.

The proposed City will depend upon new development and fees to survive. It will require increased revenues: higher taxes and fees for businesses and residents (i.e., business licenses, animal licenses, parking meters, etc.) plus increased development to obtain higher hotel, sales and property tax revenues and to meet State law mandates for affordable housing units.

The proposed City cannot possibly provide public services at the same or higher levels, they can only deteriorate. The proposed town will contract with the County for most public services. State and county budget constraints will likely force the county to pass on additional costs or to reduce services. The revenue pie is only shrinking, not expanding, for everyone.

Personal living costs can rise as a result of incorporation. Carmel Valley now enjoys Monterey County's excellent flood insurance rate. Upon incorporation, that rate will be increased for all replacement policies. Additionally, State environmental laws may require the development of an area-wide sewer system similar to the one at the mouth of the Valley, a major cost to those property owners now using septic systems.

Vote No on Measure G. Protect Carmel Valley from incorporation.

/s/ David J. Churchill President, Carmel Knolls Property Association

/s/ Michael H. Collins President, Carmel Valley Trail and Saddle Club Community Foundation Inc

/s/ Franklin J. Lunding Attorney

/s/ Robert Sinotte Past President, Carmel Views Community Association

/s/ Joan F. Vandervort Carmel Valley Village Trade Center

Rebuttal to Arguments Against
The author of the argument opposing Measure G is an attorney closely tied to big developers. More shocking: he's at the center of a political scandal in Orange County to funnel over $100,000 into electing pawns for developers (, October 28, 2008).

Developers fear that huge projects like Rancho Caņada may never be built if Carmel Valley residents claim local control over decisions about development + thereby eliminating the pro-growth Board of Supervisors from the process.

So they'll stop at nothing to defeat Measure G + including making false and misleading arguments. Here are the facts.

Fact: The Town of Carmel Valley has met the legal requirement to prove that no additional taxes would be required to create a new, independent town.

Fact: Five independent fiscal analyses of the Town of Carmel Valley + taking into account transportation, flood control, sheriff services and public works + all show the Town of Carmel Valley will be able to fund vital services with existing taxes.

Fact: Incorporation will not change flood insurance rates, septic systems, or bring state mandated affordable housing. These are all just scare tactics.

The November 2008 independent Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis by LAFCO verified that the Town of Carmel Valley would be fiscally sound + accumulating $5 million in reserves after two years of operation (Table 1a).

So why will developers spend so much money + and twist so many facts + opposing Measure G? Because they're terrified at the prospect of Carmel Valley residents vetoing their visions of lucrative development.

Don't let opponents fool you. Keep Carmel Valley rural. Don't yield to developers. Vote YES on G.

/s/ Peter Coakley Past President, Carmel Valley Chamber of Commerce

/s/ Mary Ann "Corky" Matthews Past President, California Native Plant Society(Monterey Bay Chapter)

/s/ David Epel Past Board Member, Carmel Knolls Homeowners Association

/s/ Michael S. Raydo Past President, Rancho Tierra Grande Homeowners Association

/s/ Peter Neumeier Chartered Financial Analyst

Monterey Home Page || Statewide Links || About Smart Voter || Feedback
Created: December 29, 2009 12:06 PST
Smart Voter <>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.