Agenda packet — Coronado City Council, January 16, 2024 (part 2 of 3)

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 150

2.2 City's Right to Terminate for Default. Should CONSULTANT be in default of any covenant or condition hereof, CITY may immediately terminate this AGREEMENT for cause if CONSULTANT fails to cure the default within ten (10) calendar days of receiving written notice of the default.

2. 3 City's Right to Terminate without Cause. Without limiting its rights in the event of CONSULTANT'S default, CITY may terminate this AGREEMENT, without cause, by giving written notice to CONSULTANT. Such termination shall be effective upon receipt of the written notice. CONSULTANT shall be compensated for all effort and material expended on behalf of CITf under the terms of this AGREEMENT, up to the effective date of termination.

3. COMPENSATION.

3. 1. Total Amount. All fees for services rendered and costs billed to the CITf shall be in accordance with any terms negotiated and incorporated herein as part of Exhibit "A" Scope of Services and Fee. CONSULTANT shall bill the CITi' for work provided and shall present a written request for such payment monthly.

3. 2. Additional Services. CITY may, as the need arises or in the event of an emergency, request additional services of CONSULTANT. Should such additional services be required, CITY and CONSULTANT shall agree to the cost prior to commencement of these services.

3. 3. Costs. Any costs billed to the CITY shall be in accordance with any terms negotiated and incorporated herein as part of Exhibit "A" Scope of Services and Fee.

4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CONSULTANT is, for all purposes arising out of this AGREEMENT, an independent contractor. The CONSULTANT has and shall retain the right to exercise full control and supervision of all persons assisting the CONSULTANT in the performance of said services hereunder, the CITf only being concerned with the finished results of the work being performed. Neither CONSULTANT nor CONSULTANT'S employees shall in any event be entitled to any benefits to which CITV' employees are entitled, including, but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, workers' compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for all such matters, as well as compliance with social security and income tax withholding and all other regulations and laws governing such matters.

5. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. While performing the PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, CONSULTANT shall exercise the reasonable professional care and skill customarily exercised by reputable members of CONSULTANT'S profession practicing in the metropolitan Southern California Area, and will use reasonable diligence and best judgment while exercising its professional skill and expertise.

Page 2 of 10 ends

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 151

6. WARRANTY OF CONSULTANT'S LICENSE. CONSULTANT warrants that CONSULTANT is properly licensed with the applicable government agency(ies) for any PROFESSIONAL SERVICES that require a license. If the CONSULTANT lacks such license, this AGREEMENT is void and of no effect.

7. AUDIT OF RECORDS.

7. 1. At any time during normal business hours and as often as may be deemed necessary the CONSULTANT shall make available to a representative of CIT»' for examination all of its records with respect to all matters covered by this AGREEMENT and shall permit CIW to audit, examine and/or reproduce such records. CONSULTANT shall retain such financial and program service records for at least four (4) years after termination or final payment under this AGREEMENT.

7. 2. The CONSULTANT shall include the CIWs right under this section in any and all of their subcontracts, and shall ensure that these sections are binding upon all subcontractors.

8. CONFIDENTIALITY. All professional services performed by CONSULTANT, including but not limited to all drafts, data, correspondence, proposals, reports, research and estimates compiled or composed by CONSULTANT, pursuant to this AGREEMENT, are for the sole use of the CITY, its agents and employees. Neither the documents nor their contents shall be released to any third party without the prior written consent of the CITY. This provision does not apply to information that (a) was publicly known, or otherwise known to CONSULTANT, at the time that it was disclosed to CONSULTANT by the CITY, (b) subsequently becomes publicly known through no act or omission of CONSULTANT or (c) otherwise becomes known to CONSULTANT other than through disclosure by the CITY. Except for any subcontractors that may be allowed upon prior agreement, neither the documents nor their contents shall be released to any third party without the prior written consent of the CITf. The sole purpose of this section is to prevent disclosure of CITf's confidential and proprietary information by CONSULTANT or subcontractors.

9. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

9. 1. CONSULTANT shall at all times comply with all federal, state and local conflict of interest laws, regulations, and policies applicable to public contracts and procurement practices, including but not limited to California Government Code Sections 81000 et seq. (Political Reform Act) and Sections 1090 et seq. CONSULTANT shall immediately disqualify itself and shall not use its official position to influence in any way any matter coming before the CITY in which the CONSULTANT has a financial interest as defined in Government Code Section 87103. CONSULTANT represents that it has no knowledge of any financial interests which would require it to disqualify itself from any matter on which it might perform services for the CITY.

9.2. If, in performing the PROFESSIONAL SERVICES set forth in this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT makes, or participates in, a "governmental decision"

Page 3 of 10 ends

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 152
as described in Title 2, Section 18701(a)(2) of the California Code of Regulations, or performs the same or substantially all the same duties for the CITY that would otherwise be performed by a CITY employee holding a position specified in the department's conflict of interest code, the CONSULTANT shall be subject to a conflict of interest code requiring the completion of one or more statements of economic interests disclosing the CONSULTANT'S relevant financial interests.

9.3. LJ If checked, the CONSULTANT shall comply with all of the reporting requirements of the Political Reform Act. Specifically, the CONSULTANT shall file a Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700 (Assuming Office Statement) within thirty (30) calendar days of the CITY'S determination that the CONSULTANT is subject to a conflict of interest code. The CONSULTANT shall also file a Form 700 (Annual Statement) on or before April 1 of each year of the AGREEMENT, disclosing any financial interests held during the previous calendar year for which the CONSULTANT was subject to a conflict of interest code.

9.4. CITx' represents that pursuant to California Government Code Sections 1090 etseq., none of its elected officials, officers, or employees has an interest in this AGREEMENT.

10. DISPOSITION AND OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.

10. 1. All documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT, whether paper or electronic, shall become the property of CIT/ for use with respect to this PROJECT, and shall be turned over to the CiJY upon completion of the PROJECT or any phase thereof, as contemplated by this AGREEMENT.

10.2. Contemporaneously with the transfer of documents, the CONSULTANT hereby assigns to the CITi' and CONSULTANT thereby expressly waives and disclaims, any copyright in, and the right to reproduce, all written material, drawings, plans, specifications or other work prepared under this AGREEMENT, except upon the CIP^'s prior authorization regarding reproduction, which authorization shall not be unreasonably withheld. The CONSULTANT shall, upon request of the CITr", execute any further document(s) necessary to further effectuate this waiver and disclaimer.

11. INSURANCE

11.1. CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the AGREEMENT insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the CONSULTANT, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than "A" and "VII" unless otherwise approved in writing by the SUCCESSOR AGENCY'S Risk Manager.

Page 4 of 10 ends

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 153

11.2. CONSULTANT'S liabilities, including but not limited to CONSULTANT'S indemnity obligations, under this AGREEMENT, shall not be deemed limited in any way to the insurance coverage required herein. All policies of insurance required hereunder must provide that the CIT^ is entitled to thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation or non-renewal of the policy or policies or ten (10) days prior written notice for cancellation due to non-payment of premium. Maintenance of specified insurance coverage is a material element of this AGREEMENT.

11.3. Types and Amounts Required. CONSULTANT shall maintain, at minimum, the following insurance coverage for the duration of this AGREEMENT:

11. 3. 1. j^lCommercial General Liability (CGL). If checked the CONSULTANT shall maintain CGL Insurance written on an ISO Occurrence form or equivalent providing coverage at least as broad which shall cover liability arising from any and all personal injury or property damage in the amount of $1, 000, 000. 00 per occurrence and subject to an annual aggregate of $2, 000, 000. 00. There shall be no endorsement or modification of the CGL limiting the scope of coverage for either insured vs. insured claims or contractual liability. All defense costs shall be outside the limits of the policy.

11. 3. 2. I^ICommercial Automobile Liability. If checked the CONSULTANT shall maintain Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance for all of the CONSULTANT'S automobiles including owned, hired and non-owned automobiles, automobile insurance written on an ISO form CA 00 01 12 90 or a later version of this form or an equivalent form providing coverage at least as broad for bodily injury and property damage for a combined single limit of $1, 000, 000. 00 per occurrence. Insurance certificate shall reflect coverage for any automobile (any auto).

11. 3. 3. l^jWorkers' Compensation. If checked the
CONSULTANT shall maintain Workers' Compensation insurance for all of the CONSULTANT'S employees who are subject to this AGREEMENT and to the extent required by applicable state or federal law, a Workers' Compensation policy providing at minimum $1, 000, 000. 00 employers' liability coverage.

11.3.4. ^Professional Liability. If checked the
CONSULTANT shall also maintain Professional Liability (errors and omissions) coverage with a limit of $1, 000, 000 per claim and $2, 000, 000 annual aggregate. The CONSULTANT shall ensure both that (1) the policy retroactive date is on or before the date of commencement of the Scope of Services; and (2) the policy will be maintained in force for a period of three years after substantial completion of the Scope of Services or termination of this AGREEMENT whichever occurs last. The CONSULTANT agrees that for the time period defined above, there will be no changes or endorsements to the policy that increase the CITY'S exposure to loss. All defense costs shall be outside the limits of the policy.

11.4. Deductibles and Self-lnsured Retentions. Any deductibles or selfinsured retentions are the responsibility of the CONSULTANT and must be declared to

Page 5 of 10 ends

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 154
and approved by the CITY. At the option of the CITf, either (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the CIPr^, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, or (2) the CONSULTANT shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the CIT/ guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses.

11.5. Additional Required Provisions. The commercial general liability and automobile liability policies shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

11. 5. 1. The CITY, their officers, officials, employees, and representatives shall be named as additional insureds. The additional insured status must be reflected on additional insured endorsement form (20 10 1185 or20 10 1001 and 20 37 1001) which shall be submitted to the CIT>'.

11. 5. 2. The policies are primary and non-contributory to any insurance that may be carried by the CITY, as reflected in an endorsement which shall be submitted to the C\TY.

11.6. Verification of Coverage. CONSULTANT shall furnish the CiJY with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this Section 11. The endorsement should be on forms provided by the CIT>' or on other than these forms provided those endorsements conform to the requirements of the CIPi'.

All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the CIT>' before work commences. The CIT/ reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications at any time.

12. INDEMNIFICATION. CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CITY, and its officers, officials, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability that arise out of, or pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its employees, agents, and subcontractors in the performance of services under this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT'S duty to indemnify under this section shall not include liability for damages for death or bodily injury to persons, injury to property, or other loss, damage or expense arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct by the CITi' or its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees. CONSULTANT'S indemnification obligations shall not be limited by the insurance provisions of this AGREEMIENT. The PARTIES expressly agree that any payment, attorney's fees, costs or expense CITi' incurs or makes to or on behalf of an injured employee under the CIWs self-administered workers' compensation is included as a loss, expense, or cost for the purposes of this section, and that this section will survive the expiration or early termination of this AGREEMENT.

Page 6 of 10 ends

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 155

13. SUBCONTRACTORS.

13. 1. The CONSULTANT'S hiring or retaining of third parties (i. e. subcontractors) to perform services related to the PROJECT is subject to prior approval by the CITY.

13. 2. All contracts entered into between the CONSULTANT and its subcontractor shall also provide that each subcontractor shall obtain insurance policies which shall be kept in full force and effect during any and all work on this PROJECT and for the duration of this AGREEMENT. The CONSULTANT shall require the subcontractor to obtain, all policies described in Section 11 in the amounts required by the CIT^, which shall not be greater than the amounts required of the CONSULTANT.

13. 3. In any dispute between the CONSULTANT and its subcontractor, the CITY shall not be made a party to any judicial or administrative proceeding to resolve the dispute. The CONSULTANT agrees to defend and indemnify the CITY as described in Section 12 of this AGREEMENT should the CITY be made a party to any judicial or administrative proceeding to resolve any such dispute.

14. NON-DISCRIMINATION. CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex, race, color, age, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation. CONSULTANT shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their sex, race, color, age, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation and shall make reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities or medical conditions. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship.

CONSULTANT agrees to post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment any notices provided by CIT/ setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause.

15. NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party shall be delivered to the persons listed below. Any such written communications by mail shall be conclusively deemed to have been received by the addressee five (5) calendar days after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as noted below.

Tina Friend, City Manager
City of Coronado
1825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118
Helen Holmes Peak
Lounsbery Ferguson Altona &
Peak LLP
960 Canterbury Place, Suite 300
Escondido, CA 92025-387Q

Page 7 of 10 ends

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 156

16. ASSIGNABILITY. This AGREEMENT and any portion thereof shall not be assigned or transferred, nor shall any of the CONSULTANT'S duties be delegated or subcontracted, without the express written consent of the CITY.

17. CALIFORNIA LAW; VENUE. This AGREEMENT shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Any action brought to enforce or interpret any portion of this AGREEMENT shall be brought in the county of San Diego, California. CONSULTANT hereby waives any and all rights it might have pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 394.

18. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. The CONSULTANT shall comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, and policies of the federal, state, and local governments applicable to this AGREEMENT whether now in force or subsequently enacted. This includes maintaining a City of Coronado Business Certificate.

19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT sets forth the entire understanding of the PARTIES with respect to the subject matters herein. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements expressed or implied, oral or written, except as set forth herein. No change, alteration, or modification of the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT, and no verbal understanding of the PARTIES, their officers, agents, or employees shall be valid unless agreed to in writing by both PARTIES.

20. NO WAIVER. No failure of either the CITi' or the CONSULTANT to insist upon the strict performance by the other of any covenant, term or condition of this AGREEMENT, nor any failure to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach of any covenant, term, or condition of this AGREEMENT shall constitute a waiver of any such breach of such covenant, term or condition.

21. SEVERABILITY. The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision of this AGREEMENT shall not render any other provision unenforceable, invalid, or illegal.

22. DRAFTING AMBIGUITIES. The PARTIES agree that they are aware that they have the right to be advised by counsel with respect to the negotiations, terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT, and the decision of whether or not to seek advice of counsel with respect to this AGREEMENT is a decision which is the sole responsibility of each Party. This AGREEMENT shall not be construed in favor of or against either Party by reason of the extent to which each Party participated in the drafting of the AGREEMENT.

23. CONFLICTS BETWEEN TERMS. If an apparent conflict or inconsistency exists between the main body of this AGREEMENT and the Exhibits, the main body of this AGREEMENT shall control. If a conflict exists between an applicable federal, state, or local law, rule, regulation, order, or code and this AGREEMENT, the law, rule, regulation, order, or code shall control. Varying degrees of stringency among the main body of this AGREEMENT, the Exhibits, and laws, rules, regulations, orders, or codes

Page 8 of 10 ends

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 157
are not deemed conflicts, and the most stringent requirement shall control. Each Party shall notify the other immediately upon the identification of any apparent conflict or inconsistency concerning this AGREEMENT.

24. EXHIBITS INCORPORATED. All Exhibits referenced in this AGREEMENT are incorporated into the AGREEMENT by this reference.

25. SIGNING AUTHORITY.

25. 1. The representative for each Party signing on behalf of a corporation, partnership, joint venture or governmental entity hereby declares that authority has been obtained to sign on behalf of the corporation, partnership, joint venture, or entity and agrees to hold the other Party or PARTIES hereto harmless if it is later determined that such authority does not exist.

25. 2. Qlf checked, a proper notary acknowledgement of execution by CONSULTANT must be attached.
[THE REST OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES hereto have executed this AGREEMENT the day and year first hereinabove written.

THE CITY OF CORONADO,
By:

Tina Friend, City Manager
ATTEST:

LOUNSBERY FERGUSON ALTONA &
PEAK LL6
By:
/Helen Holmes Peak
Kelsea Holian, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Johanna N. Canlas, City Attorney

Page 9 of 10 ends

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 158
EXHIBIT "A"

SCOPE OF SERVICES AND FEE
A. SCOPE OF SERVICES.

The legal services to be provided include to assist, advise, and represent the CIPi' as may be requested in connection with the general elections in 2024.

B. COMPENSATION AND REIM@URSEMENT

1. FEES AND BILLING
Fees for legal services will be paid on a time and material basis. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, each attorney and paralegal will record time devoted to the CITi"s matters at his or her standard hourly rate. Currently, Helen Holmes Peak's hourly rate is $375. 00.

Others who may provide services on the CITY'S behalf have rates which fall within the following ranges: $375 per hour for partners, $300 per hour for associates, and $150 per hour for paralegals. Any increase in the CONSULTANT'S hourly rates requires the express consent of the CITY.

In general, CONSULTANT may incur various costs and expenses in performing legal services under this AGREEMENT. CITY agrees to pay for all costs, disbursements and expenses in addition to the hourly fees with the exception that CONSULTANT shall not be reimbursed for travel cost or mileage without the express consent of the CITr'. The costs and expenses commonly include fees fixed by law or assessed by public agencies, long distance telephone charges, messenger and other delivery fees, postage, photocopying and other reproduction costs, investigation expenses and consultants' fees and other similar items. All costs and expenses will be charged at CONSULTANT'S cost.

No consultants) will be retained on CITY'S behalf without CITY'S prior written approval.

CONSULTANT'S fee shall include and CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the payment of all federal, state, and local taxes of any kind which are attributable to the compensation received.

CONSULTANT will send monthly statements indicating attorneys' fees and costs incurred and their basis, any amounts applied from deposits, and any current balance owed. If no fees or costs are incurred for a particular month, or if they are minimal, the statement may be held and combined with the following month's billing. Any balance which is not paid within 30 days of the statement date will be subject to a late payment charge.

2. DEPOSIT FOR FEES AND COSTS
The requirement for an initial deposit in connection has been waived.

C. RETURN AND DISPOSITION OF FILES
After its services conclude, CONSULTANT will deliver to C\TY the files that it created in providing representation to CITY, along with any funds or CITY property in its possession.

Page 10 of 10 ends

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 159

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
January 16, 2024 5e
FILING OF THE TREASURER’S REPORTS ON INVESTMENTS FOR THE CITY AND THE

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE CITY OF CORONADO FOR THE QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 2023
RECOMMENDATION:

Examine the quarterly Reports on Investments and order them filed.

BACKGROUND:

In compliance with the City’s Investment Policy, staff prepares an investment report and presents this to the City Council for review following the close of each quarter. The report presents investments for both the City and the Successor Agency portfolios. Combined, the book value of these two portfolios totals approximately $256.8 million in cash and investments as of June 30, 2023.

ANALYSIS:

This report covers the period April 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023. Attached is a summary that identifies all investments. This report highlights year-to-date investment earnings relative to the annual budget.

City cash, investments and the percentage of total are as follows:

City investment earnings for the period April 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023, were $1,491,131, or 503% of the fiscal year budget projection of $296,290, with returns averaging 1.82% Book Value
% of Total
Investments
Investments:

Local Agency Investment Fund $ 74,856,236 32.96%
San Diego County Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund 98,254,695 43.27% US Bank Loan Repayment Fund* 16,242,243 7.15%
Certificates of Deposit with San Diego Private Bank 250,000 0.11% OPEB and Pension Trust Investment Portfolio with PARS** 15,433,000 6.80% Sub-Total Investments 205,036,174 90.28%
Demand Deposit Accounts:

US Bank Operating Account 21,459,943 9.45%
US Bank HRA Account 46,232 0.02%
US Bank FSA Account 84,621 0.04%
CalPrivate Bank Money Market Account 472,628 0.21%
Sub-Total Demand Deposit Accounts 22,063,424 9.72%
Total All Investments $ 227,099,598
* Resctricted for public use capital improvements
** Restricted for Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) and Pension stablization PARS Market Value as ofJune 30, 2023 totaled $18,099,362 City of Coronado Page 160
annually. The following schedule shows a comparison between the book value, market value, and year to date earnings of investments for the current period, April through June 2023, and the same period of last Fiscal Year.

Successor Agency cash, investments and the percentages of the total are as follows:

Earnings for the Community Development/Successor Agency for the period April 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023 were $92,369. Attached are investment summaries for the City and Successor Agency and monthly reports for June 30 2023, with market values for all investments.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City receives funds from many sources, which it invests according to the City of Coronado Investment Policy. All investments are made with the primary objectives of safety, liquidity, and yield, in that order. The funds of the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency are also invested according to the City of Coronado Investment Policy.

ALTERNATIVE:

None
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

Not Applicable
PUBLIC NOTICE:

No notice required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Investment Summary as of June 30, 2023 for the City of Coronado and City of Coronado acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency.

2. Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), City’s account for June 2023.

3. County of San Diego (COSD) General Ledger Statement for June 2023.

4. US Bank Loan Repayment Fund Statement for June 2023.

5. Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Account Statement for June 2023 including OPEB and Pension Trust Investment Accounts.

6. US Bank Operating Account Statement for June 2023.

7. US Bank HRA Account Statement for June 2023.

8. US Bank FSA Account Statement for June 2023.

9. Cal Private Bank Statement for Jume 2023.

10. LAIF Community Development Agency’s account for June 2023.

Book value of Market value of FYTD Investment
As of : Investments Investments Earnings
Apr - Jun FY 2021-22 $ 199,937,687 $ 197,786,685 $ 818,930 0.41% Apr - Jun FY 2022-23 205,036,174 206,106,160 3,737,636 1.82% Average Investment
AnnualReturn
City of Coronado Page 161
Submitted By: Administrative Services Department / John Kim City of Coronado Page 162
Attachment 1

TREASURER'S REPORT ON INVESTMENTS

INVESTMENT SUMMARY
June 30, 2023

CITY OF CORONADO
YTD
Date
Acquired
N/A
Serial
Number
Interest Maturity Par
Value
N/A
Book
Value
74,856,236
Market
Value
73,720,555
Investment
Earnings
1,714,463
Name Rate Date
Local Agency Invest Fund 3.150% ----
N/A San Diego County Treasurer's Pooled Fund Various Various

2.314%

1.710%
Various
----
N/A
N/A
98,254,695
16,242,243
250,000
97,794,000
16,242,243
250,000
1,645,633
375,907
1,633
0 10/04/18 US Bank Loan Repayment Fund
03/09/20 CalPrivate Bank - CD (12 mo)
03/09/20 Pension Trust Portfolio (PARS)
03/09/20 OPEB Trust Investment Portfolio (PARS)
*
03/09/24 250,000
13,358,000
2,075,000
205,036,174
14,838,792
3,260,570 **
206,106,160
0 Subtotal 3,737,636
Union Bank Operating Account
Union Bank HRA Account
21,459,943
46,232
21,459,943
46,232
0 0
0 0
Union Bank FSA Account 84,621 84,621
CalPrivate Money Market Account 472,628 472,628
Total Investments and Cash as of June 30, 2023
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget
227,099,598 228,169,584 3,737,636
296,290
* Restricted for public use capital improvements.
** As of June 30, 2023, the Trust Fund maintained with PARS had unrealized gains of $1,480,792 for Pension and $1,185,570 for OPEB. OPEB Trust established in January 2014 and Pension Trust established in October 2015.

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CORONADO YTD
Date
Acquired
Serial
Number
Interest Maturity Par
Value
N/A
Book
Value
11,751,963
17,996,087
29,748,050
Market
Value
11,573,668
17,996,087
29,569,755
Investment
Earnings
298,354
-
Name Rate Date
Various Local Agency Investment Fund
Union Bank Cash

3.150% ----
Total Investments and Cash as of June 30, 2023 298,354
Market prices used to calculate market value were obtained from Local Agency Investment Fund and Union Bank. I certify this report accurately reflects all City and Successor Agency pooled investments and conforms with all State laws and the City's Investment Policy adopted by the City Council on August 15, 2017. A copy of this policy is available at the office of the City Clerk. In Compliance with the California Code Section 53646, I certify the investment program herein provides sufficient investment liquidity and together with anticip stimated expenditures for the next six months.

John Kim, City and Successor Agency Treasurer
6/30/2023 City of Coronado Page 163
City of Coronado Page 164
Attachment 3
City of Coronado Page 165
City of Coronado Page 166

CITY OF CORONADO
PARS Post-Employment Benefits Trust 6/1/2023 to 6/30/2023 Tina Friend
City Manager
City of Coronado
1825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118
Account Summary
Source 6/1/2023 Contributions Earnings Expenses Distributions Transfers 6/30/2023 OPEB $3,164,279.53 $0.00 $97,499.34 $1,208.57 $0.00 $0.00 $3,260,570.30 PENSION $14,302,559.22 $0.00 $541,705.06 $5,472.42 $0.00 $0.00 $14,838,791.86 Totals $17,466,838.75 $0.00 $639,204.40 $6,680.99 $0.00 $0.00 $18,099,362.16 Investment Selection
Source
OPEB

PENSION
Investment Objective
Source
OPEB

PENSION
Investment Return
Source 1-Month 3-Months 1-Year 3-Years 5-Years 10-Years OPEB 3.08% 3.09% 7.63% 4.67% 4.70% - 1/7/2014
PENSION 3.79% 3.81% 9.22% 6.00% 4.26% - 10/27/2015
Information as provided by US Bank, Trustee for PARS; Not FDIC Insured; No Bank Guarantee; May Lose Value Headquarters - 4350 Von Karman Ave., Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 800.540.6369 Fax 949.250.1250 www.pars.org Account balances are inclusive of Trust Administration, Trustee and Investment Management fees Annualized Return
Investment Return: Annualized rate of return is the return on an investment over a period other than one year multiplied or divided to give a comparable one-year return.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. Performance returns may not reflect the deduction of applicable fees, which could reduce returns. Information is deemed reliable but may be subject to change.

Individual account based on Balanced HighMark PLUS. The dual goals of the Balanced Strategy are growth of principal and income. While dividend and interest income are an important component of the objective's total return, it is expected that capital appreciation will comprise a larger portion of the total return. The portfolio will be allocated between equity and fixed income investments.

Account Report for the Period
Balance as of
City of Coronado - OPEB
Balance as of
Individual account based on Moderate HighMark PLUS. The dual goals of the Moderate Strategy are growth of principal and income. It is expected that dividend and interest income will comprise a significant portion of total return, although growth through capital appreciation is equally important.

The portfolio will be allocated between equity and fixed income investments.

City of Coronado - PENSION
Plan's Inception Date
Fund 810
Fund 105
Attachment 5
City of Coronado Page 167
City of Coronado Page 168
City of Coronado Page 169
City of Coronado Page 170
City of Coronado Page 171
City of Coronado Page 172

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
January 16, 2024 5f

RESOLUTION TO EXTEND A LOCAL EMERGENCY DECLARATION DUE TO THE

DISCOVERY OF CAULERPA PROLIFERA IN THE CORONADO CAYS
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution to extend a local emergency declaration due to the discovery of Caulerpa prolifera.

BACKGROUND:

On September 21, 2023, an approximately 24 square meter patch of Caulerpa prolifera was discovered growing underneath and adjacent to boat docks along the eastern edge of Antigua Village within the Unified Port of San Diego’s (Port) jurisdictional waters of the Coronado Cays during pre-construction underwater surveys associated with the Antigua Village Dock Replacement project. Surveys conducted subsequent to the initial discovery have revealed approximately 0.25-acres of additional Caulerpa prolifera infestations on the north side of Antiqua Village and within City of Coronado jurisdictional waters.

Caulerpa prolifera can expand aggressively if left untreated and displace native habitats including the 1,900 acres of eelgrass habitat in South San Diego Bay. Any impacts to eelgrass could threaten numerous other species including 70 different fish species and 60-80 federally listed green sea turtles that rely on eelgrass as foraging and resting habitat.

The threat to sensitive marine habitats and species posed by Caulerpa prolifera prompted the City of Coronado and the Port to declare local emergencies in November 2023. The emergency declarations also satisfied conditions necessary to access state and federal grant funding to complete additional underwater surveys and initiate eradication efforts. Pursuant to state law, the City’s local emergency declaration will expire on January 21, 2024 unless extended by the City Council.

ANALYSIS:

City staff has continued to work with partner agencies and stakeholders as part of the Southern California Caulerpa Action Team (SCCAT) to identify funding opportunities and to develop an eradication plan. Since the November 2023 City Council emergency declaration, a total of $850,000 in grant funding has been secured, including a $500,000 allocation from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Cleanup and Abatement Account and $350,000 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Invasive Species Grant Program. While these grant awards are significant and will allow additional surveys and initiation of eradication efforts, it is anticipated that the total project cost will exceed $1.2 million and could escalate if additional areas of infestation are identified.

Extending the local emergency declaration would allow the City and partner agencies to continue to pursue other sources of grant funding while also recognizing that the Caulerpa infestation in City waters remains a threat until it is successfully treated and eradicated.

City of Coronado Page 173
FISCAL IMPACT:

None
ALTERNATIVE:

The City Council may choose not to extend the local emergency declaration.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

Categorically Exempt per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; Class 7, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

No notice required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2024-01 to Extend a Declaration of a Local Emergency Submitted By: Community Development Department / Richard Grunow City of Coronado Page 174
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-01

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING A DECLARATION OF

A LOCAL EMERGENCY DUE TO THE DISCOVERY OF

CAULERPA PROLIFERA IN THE CORONADO CAYS AND

DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY

EXEMPT UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15307
WHEREAS, the California Emergency Services Act, including but not limited to Government Code section 8630 and Coronado Municipal Code Chapter 2.50, empowers the City Council to proclaim the existence or threat of a local emergency; and WHEREAS, on Thursday, September 21, 2023, an approximately 24-square-meter patch of Caulerpa prolifera was discovered growing underneath and adjacent to boat docks along the eastern edge of Antigua Village within Unified Port of San Diego jurisdictional waters in the Coronado Cays, and subsequent surveys have revealed additional infestations within City of Coronado jurisdictional waters; and
WHEREAS, while Caulerpa prolifera is not harmful to humans, it is highly invasive with the ability to rapidly expand and harm native habits and sensitive native species; and WHEREAS, South San Diego Bay is home to 1,900 acres of eelgrass which could be overgrown and displaced by Caulerpa and impact the Bay’s 70 fish species and 60-80 threatened green sea turtles which reside in or forage on eelgrass; and WHEREAS, since the discovery, staff has been working diligently with the Southern California Caulerpa Action Team (SCCAT) consisting of state and federal agencies to develop and implement an immediate response plan to prevent further infestation of this algae; and WHEREAS, on October 9, 2023, the infestation of Caulerpa prolifera found in the Coronado Cays within Port jurisdiction, was treated by the placement of a benthic barrier to prevent the spread of the algae; and
WHEREAS, additional Caulerpa prolifera surveys were conducted from October 6 through October 25, 2023, which identified additional Caulerpa prolifera infestations within City jurisdictional waters in the Coronado Cays; and
City of Coronado Page 175
Attachment 1
WHEREAS, significant funding will be required to determine the extent of the Caulerpa prolifera infestation in San Diego Bay and for the eradication of the Caulerpa prolifera found to date; and
WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Cleanup and Abatement Account has up to $500,000 in funds to support the eradication efforts and the additional surveys that are required to determine the extent of the algae infestation; and WHEREAS, City staff has been informed that a local emergency declaration is required in order to secure funding through the SWRCB Cleanup and Abatement Account; and WHEREAS, The Coronado City Council adopted a Resolution to Declare a Local Emergency on November 21, 2023 which is scheduled to expire on January 21, 2024; and WHEREAS, The Caulerpa prolifera infestation in City waters will continue to pose a threat to sensitive marine habitats and species until eradication efforts have been successfully completed; and
WHEREAS, based on the facts recited hereinabove and detailed in the corresponding agenda report, the existing and threatened conditions to cause extreme peril to the safety of property within the City’s jurisdiction caused by Caulerpa prolifera; the existing and threatened conditions are, or are likely to be, beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the City, and may require the supplemental efforts and available resources of other local government entities, the state and/or federal government, and/or disaster relief organizations to help alleviate the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a local emergency now exists based on the discovery of invasive Caulerpa prolifera algae in Coronado Cays waterways; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Coronado hereby determines that this activity is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15307 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Class 7 because the project consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that during the existence of said local emergency the powers, functions, and duties of the emergency organization of this City shall be those prescribed by state law, ordinances, and resolutions of this City, and approved plans of the City of Coronado in order to mitigate the effects of this local emergency, including the receipt, processing, and City of Coronado Page 176
Attachment 1
coordination of all inquiries and requirements necessary to obtain available state and federal assistance.

PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, at a regular meeting thereof this sixteenth day of January 2024 by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
January 16, 2024 5g
ADOPTION OF “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ITS FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN TO INCORPORATE COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT CHANGES” RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, Amending its Fiscal Year 2022-23 Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan to incorporate Compensation and Benefit Changes.”
BACKGROUND:

The Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan (PACP) enumerates the number of authorized positions and classifications, as well as the approved pay ranges for all classifications. Adjustments are presented to the City Council when any compensation, benefit, or classification adjustments occur.

The complete PACP (Exhibit A) and the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) for the Coronado Police Officers’ Association (CPOA), Coronado Firefighters Association’ (CFA), and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Local 127 can be found at:
https://www.coronado.ca.us/186/City-Employment-Salaries-Memoranda-of-Un and is available for review in the City Clerk’s office.

ANALYSIS:

The City of Coronado compensation and benefit structure undergoes regular review in light of changes in state and federal law, market conditions and organizational needs. When changes in compensation, benefit, or classifications are recommended, the PACP or applicable MOU must be approved for amendment by the City Council. This provides transparency for the community and meets CalPERS process requirements.

Since the last PACP update, new state laws have been adopted and market conditions have changed for key positions. In addition, improvements to the classification structure for organizational efficiency were identified. A summary follows of the recommended changes to the PACP, which will apply to the Self-Represented, Temporary, and Executive classifications.

Proposed Change Description
1 New classification of Temporary PartTime Pool Lifeguard I / II / III (replacing Temporary Part-Time Pool Lifeguard,
Temporary Part-Time Aquatics Instructor,
Temporary Part-Time Lead Pool
Lifeguard)
This is an administrative change to
combine three existing classifications into a
single new classification with a I / II / III
series. The consolidation allows for greater
flexibility of work assignment within a shift
and efficiency of timekeeping and payroll.

Additionally, it provides a clear growth
City of Coronado Page 178
progression between the 3 classifications
primarily supporting the Aquatics division.

No new FTE.
2 Equity pay adjustments to the following
classifications: Permanent Beach
Lifeguard, Temporary Part-Time Pool
Lifeguard I, Temporary Part-Time Pool
Lifeguard II, Temporary Part-Time Pool
Lifeguard III
Comparative analysis of these positions
showed the classifications under market.

Salary adjustments re-position the
compensation to the market median.
3 Employees in the classification of
Permanent Beach Lifeguard holding
Emergency Response / First Aid / CPR
Instructor Certificate shall receive an
incentive pay of one and one-half (1.5)
percent of base salary hourly rate of pay.

This change incents a higher level of
emergency CPR/medical response skill
sets for our permanent lifeguards and
provide added capacity and opportunity for
permanent lifeguards to conduct training for
temporary lifeguards.
4 Employees in the classification of
Permanent Beach Lifeguard and Beach
Lifeguard Sergeant holding Rescue Boat
Operator Certificate, and successful
completion of the Field Training Guide,
shall receive an incentive pay of two and
one-half (2.5) percent of base salary
hourly rate of pay.

This change incents an expansion of skill
sets to operate the City’s public safety
vessel, enabling greater operating and lifesaving capacity. 5 Reclassification of one-half (0.5) FTE
Part-Time Office Assistant II, to Part-Time
Aquatics Coordinator.

This change reallocates an existing, vacant

0.5 FTE from an administrative role to
aquatics coordinator to expand capabilities
in the City’s aquatics center and boathouse.

No new FTE.
6 PACP Section 8 Exceeding Authorized
Number of Positions For a Classification:

Change the authority for longer period of
overlap from incumbent to incoming
employee from the City Council to the
City Manager.

Current policy requires any overlap greater
than two weeks of a departing incumbent
and a new employee in the same
classification to be approved by the City
Council. Shifting to City Manager
authorization allows more efficient
administrative management.
7 PACP Section 11 Leave: Update
Executives annual leave conversion to
match current accrual tiers, increasing
cash conversion from 80 to 120 hours for
6 to 9 years of service.

This change corrects an administrative
discrepancy between annual leave accrual
rates and cash conversion caps. It affects
one Executive within the accrual band of 6-
9 years of service.
8 PACP Section 11 Leave (Legislative
Update): Increase the amount of paid sick
leave Temporary Part-Time and Seasonal
Employees may use each year from 24
hours to 40 hours. This proposed change
is to comply with ‘Senate Bill 616 – Sick
days: paid sick days accrual and use’,
which became effective January 1, 2024
This change updates the PACP to comply
with new State law.

FTE = Full-time equivalent position
City of Coronado Page 179
The above amendments will not result in a change in number of FTEs, as a result, the PACP will continue to reflect a total of 253.00 authorized positions.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact of the proposed changes to the PACP include:

If approved, the total estimated fiscal impact of $85,750 will be appropriated to the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget.

ALTERNATIVE:

Council may not adopt the Resolution and direct staff to take different actions.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

Not Applicable.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

No notice required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2024-02
Submitted By: Administrative Services Department / John Kim Item Proposed Change Fiscal Impact Explanation
1 New Classification - Impacts three (3) classifications 2 Equity Adjustments $58,000 Impacts four (4) classifications Impacts two (2) classifications
 Emergency Response / First Aid / CPR Instructor
 Rescue Boat Operator
5 Reclassification $5,750
Reclassification to support the continued operational
improvements of the acquatics and boathouse.
6 Exceeding Authorized
Number of Positions
-
Change of authority with no direct fiscal impact
7 Annual Leave Conversion $4,000
Currently impacts one (1) Executive within the 6 to 9 years of service leave accrual tier
8 Sick Leave -
Increase the amount of paid sick leave that may be used each year from 24 hours to 40 hours. No change to sick leave earned.

TOTAL: $85,750
3 & 4 Certification Incentive $18,000
City of Coronado Page 180
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ITS FISCAL YEAR
2023-24 PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION

PLAN TO INCORPORATE COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT

CHANGES
WHEREAS, the City Council is desirous updating the Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan when approved compensation, benefit, or classification adjustments occur; and
WHEREAS, adjustment of classification title of Recreation and Golf Services Temporary Part-Time Pool Lifeguard to Temporary Part-Time Pool Lifeguard I is requested; and WHEREAS, adjustment of classification title of Recreation and Golf Services Temporary Part-Time Aquatics Instructor to Temporary Part-Time Pool Lifeguard II is requested; and WHEREAS, adjustment of classification title of Recreation and Golf Services Temporary Part-Time Lead Pool Lifeguard to Temporary Part-Time Pool Lifeguard III is requested; and WHEREAS, the hourly step adjustments for the Temporary Part-Time Pool Lifeguard I, Temporary Part-Time Pool Lifeguard II, and Temporary Part-Time Pool Lifeguard III classifications are being adjusted to address market inequities; and WHEREAS, the salary step and range adjustments for the Permanent Beach Lifeguard classification are being adjusted to address market inequities; and WHEREAS, the addition of Certification Pay for Emergency Response/First Aid/CPR Instructor Certification; and
WHEREAS, the addition of Certification Pay for Rescue Boat Operator Certification; and WHEREAS, reclassification of 0.5 position from Part-Time Recreation and Golf Services Office Assistant II to Part Time Aquatics Coordinator; and WHEREAS, the adjustment of authority for longer period of overlap in the authorized number of positions for a classification from the City Council to the City Manager; and WHEREAS, the adjustment of the annual leave conversion for the Executives to match current accrual tiers; and
WHEREAS, the adjustment of the amount of paid Sick Leave Part-Time and Seasonal Employees may use each year; and
City of Coronado Page 181
Attachment 1
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan (FY 2023-24 PACP) is attached herein as Exhibit “A.”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado as follows:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the above recitations are true; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that amended classification title from Recreation and Golf Services Temporary Part-Time Pool Lifeguard to Temporary Part-Time Pool Lifeguard I is reflected in Section 1 and 3 of the PACP; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that amended classification title from Recreation and Golf Services Temporary Part-Time Aquatics Instructor to Temporary Part-Time Pool Lifeguard II is reflected in Section 1 and 3 of the PACP; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that amended classification title from Recreation and Golf Services Temporary Part-Time Lead Pool Lifeguard to Temporary Part-Time Pool Lifeguard III is reflected in Section 1 and 3 of the PACP; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Sections 1 and 2 of the FY 2023-24 PACP have been amended to reflect the salary step and range adjustments for the Permanent Beach Lifeguard classifications; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Sections 1 of the FY 2022-23 PACP have been amended to reflect the hourly step adjustments for the Temporary Part-Time Pool Lifeguard I, Temporary Part-Time Pool Lifeguard II, and Temporary Part-Time Pool Lifeguard III; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Section 17 of the FY 2023-24 PACP – Certification Pay have been amended to add 1.5% of base salary for Emergency Response/First Aid/CPR Instructor Certification ; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Section 17 of the FY 2023-24 PACP – Certification Pay have been amended to add 2.5% of base salary for Rescue Boat Operator Certification and completion of the Field Training Guide for Rescue Boat Operations; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that reclassification of 0.5 position from Recreation and Golf Services Part-Time Office Assistant II to Aquatics Coordinator is reflected in Section 1 and 3 of the PACP; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Section 8 of the FY 2023-24 PACP – Exceeding Authorized Number of Positions for a Classification have been amended to Change the authority for longer period of overlap from the City Council to the City Manager; and City of Coronado Page 182
Attachment 1
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Section 11 of the FY 2023-24 PACP – Leave have been amended to update the Executives annual leave conversion to match current accrual tiers, increasing cash conversion from 80 to 120 hours for 6 to 9 years of service; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Section 11 of the FY 2023-24 PACP – Leave have been amended to Increase the amount of paid sick leave Temporary Part-Time and Seasonal Employees may use each year from 24 hours to 40 hours; and PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, at a regular meeting thereof this Sixteenth day of January, 2024, by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

CITY OF

CORONADO
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan
Fiscal Year 2023-2024
Amended January 16, 2024
Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 184

PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN
FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
1 Classified Regular Positions………………………………………………………. 1
2 Unclassified Positions…………………………………………………………… 4
3 Authorized Regular Full-Time & Part-Time Positions, Categorized by Function and Department…………………………………………………………………… 5
4 Executive and Exempt Classifications ............................................................................. 9 5 Classifications Represented by Employee Associations…………………………… 9 6 Self-Represented Classifications………………………………………………… 10 7 Temporary Part-Time and Seasonal Classifications (Non-Benefited) .............................. 11 8 Exceeding Authorized Number of Positions for a Classification ...................................... 12 9 Salaries ....................................................................................................................... 12 10 Retirement .................................................................................................................. 12 11 Leave .......................................................................................................................... 13 12 Health/Cafeteria Benefit Plan ........................................................................................ 15 13 Tuition Reimbursement................................................................................................ 16 14 Holidays ..................................................................................................................... 16 15 Overtime ..................................................................................................................... 17 16 Use and Accrual of Compensatory Time ....................................................................... 17 17 Certification Pay…........…............................................... 18 18 Bilingual Pay…........….......................................................................................... 18 19 Special Project Premium Pay…............................................................................. 18 20 Out-Of-Class Assignments ........................................................................................... 18 21 Uniform, Clothing and Safety Equipment ....................................................................... 18 22 City Paid Life Insurance…..................…............................................................... 19 23 City Paid Short Term Disability Insurance............................................................... 19 24 City Paid Long Term Disability Insurance. ..................................................................... 19 25 Educational Incentives.…....................................................................................... 20 26 Longevity Pay .............................................................................................................. 20 27 Rounding of Salaries ..................................................................................................... 20 28 "Z" Rated Salaries….............................................…............................................. 20 29 Vehicle Allowance ...................................................................................................... 21 30 Conflict with Civil Services Rules and Memoranda of Understanding....................... 21 Fiscal Year 2023-2024
Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 185
PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Section 1. Classified Regular Positions
A. REGULAR FULL-TIME POSITIONS (Biweekly Salary)
A1. AFSCME
No. Job Class Range Description A B C D E F G
1 A490 01 Electrician 2,668.41 2,801.83 2,941.92 3,089.01 3,243.46 3,405.64 2,541.34 0 A500 02 Engineering Technician II 2,743.05 2,880.20 3,024.21 3,175.42 3,334.20 3,500.91 2,612.43 0 A575 03 Heavy Equipment Operator 2,364.26 2,482.48 2,606.60 2,736.93 2,873.78 3,017.47 2,251.68 5 A600 04 Lead Maintenance Worker 2,364.26 2,482.48 2,606.60 2,736.93 2,873.78 3,017.47 2,251.68 1 A610 05 Lead Pump Mechanic 2,668.41 2,801.83 2,941.92 3,089.01 3,243.46 3,405.64 2,541.34 0 A700 06 Maintenance Worker I 1,762.00 1,850.10 1,942.61 2,039.74 2,141.72 2,248.81 1,678.10 18 A705 07 Maintenance Worker II 1,951.97 2,049.56 2,152.04 2,259.64 2,372.63 2,491.26 1,859.01 6 A710 08 Maintenance Worker III 2,144.99 2,252.24 2,364.86 2,483.10 2,607.25 2,737.62 2,042.85 1 A730 09 Master Mechanic 3,018.16 3,169.06 3,327.52 3,493.89 3,668.59 3,852.02 2,874.43 1 A735 10 Mechanic I 2,264.62 2,377.85 2,496.75 2,621.58 2,752.66 2,890.30 2,156.78 3 A740 11 Mechanic II 2,514.88 2,640.63 2,772.66 2,911.29 3,056.86 3,209.70 2,395.13 1 A750 12 Motor Sweeper Operator 2,225.23 2,336.50 2,453.32 2,575.99 2,704.79 2,840.02 2,119.27 1 A969 13 Special Equipment Mechanic I 2,036.96 2,138.81 2,245.75 2,358.04 1,939.97 2,599.74 2,475.94 1 A970 14 Special Equipment Mechanic II 2,263.62 2,376.80 2,495.64 2,620.42 2,751.44 2,889.02 2,155.83 1 A990 16 Tree Trimmer 2,144.99 2,252.24 2,364.86 2,483.10 2,607.25 2,737.62 2,042.85 0 A975 17 Utility Systems Operator I 1,779.62 1,868.60 1,962.03 2,060.13 2,163.14 2,271.30 1,694.88 4 A980 18 Utility Systems Operator II 1,971.48 2,070.06 2,173.56 2,282.24 2,396.35 2,516.17 1,877.60 2 A985 19 Utility Systems Operator III 2,166.44 2,274.77 2,388.50 2,507.93 2,633.33 2,764.99 2,063.28

46.00 A2. FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION
No. Job Class Range Description A B C D E F G
6 F550 01 Fire Captain 3,763.41 3,951.58 4,149.16 4,356.62 4,574.45 4,803.18 3,584.20 6 F560 02 Fire Engineer 3,207.73 3,368.12 3,536.52 3,713.35 3,899.02 4,093.97 3,054.98 15 F572 11 Firefighter/Paramedic 3,137.89 3,294.79 3,459.53 3,632.50 3,814.13 4,004.83 2,988.47

27.00 A3. POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION
No. Job Class Range Description A B C D E F G
1 P505 01 Evidence and Property Technician 2,634.49 2,766.22 2,904.53 3,049.76 3,202.25 3,362.36 2,509.04 6 P807 12 Police Corporal 3,712.19 3,897.80 4,092.69 4,297.32 4,512.19 4,737.80 3,535.42 9 P815 03 Police Dispatcher 2,577.47 2,706.34 2,841.66 2,983.74 3,132.93 3,289.57 2,454.73 1 P818 10 Police Dispatch Supervisor 3,028.75 3,180.19 3,339.20 3,506.16 3,681.47 3,865.54 2,884.53 28 P825 04 Police Officer 3,478.34 3,652.26 3,834.87 4,026.62 4,227.95 4,439.35 3,312.71 7 P830 05 Police Sergeant 4,323.13 4,539.29 4,766.25 5,004.57 5,254.80 5,517.53 4,117.27 0 P835 06 Police Services Officer I 1,966.88 2,065.23 2,168.49 2,276.91 2,390.76 2,510.30 1,873.22 6 P840 07 Police Services Officer II 2,221.41 2,332.48 2,449.10 2,571.56 2,700.14 2,835.14 2,115.63

58.00 A4. SELF-REPRESENTED
No. Job Class Range Description A B C D E F G
2 S100 01 Accountant 3,241.21 3,403.27 3,573.43 3,752.11 3,939.71 4,136.70 3,086.87 5 S105 02 Accounting Technician I 2,075.34 2,179.11 2,288.07 2,402.47 2,522.59 2,648.72 1,976.52 1 S106 16 Accounting Technician II (Payroll) 2,274.00 2,387.70 2,507.08 2,632.44 2,764.06 2,902.26 2,165.71 0 S135 04 Administrative Secretary 2,211.29 2,321.85 2,437.95 2,559.84 2,687.84 2,822.23 2,105.99 3 S160 39 Aquatics Coordinator 1,996.29 2,096.10 2,200.91 2,310.95 2,426.50 2,547.83 1,901.23 1 S170 05 Aquatics Supervisor 2,941.71 3,088.80 3,243.24 3,405.40 3,575.67 3,754.46 2,801.63 1 S205 58 Assistant Director of Public Services & Eng 5,087.25 5,341.62 5,608.70 5,889.13 6,183.59 6,492.77 6,817.41 2 S210 06 Assistant Engineer 3,122.82 3,278.96 3,442.90 3,615.05 3,795.80 3,985.59 2,974.11 1 S220 07 Assistant Planner 2,767.41 2,905.78 3,051.07 3,203.62 3,363.80 3,531.99 2,635.63 Effective July 1, 2023
Effective July 1, 2023
Effective July 1, 2023
Effective July 1, 2023
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan
Sections 1 through 3 Page 1
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Amended January 16, 2024
Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 186
PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 A4. SELF-REPRESENTED (Continued)
No. Job Class Range Description A B C D E F G
0 S230 52 Assistant to the City Manager 4,083.78 4,287.97 4,502.36 4,727.48 4,963.86 5,212.05 3,889.31 1 S350 13 Associate Architect 3,608.94 3,789.39 3,978.86 4,177.80 4,386.69 4,606.03 3,437.09 2 S240 08 Associate Engineer 3,608.94 3,789.39 3,978.86 4,177.80 4,386.69 4,606.03 3,437.09 1 S245 03 Associate Human Resources Analyst 2,498.67 2,623.60 2,754.78 2,892.52 3,037.14 3,189.00 3,348.45 3 S250 09 Associate Planner 3,050.36 3,202.88 3,363.02 3,531.17 3,707.73 3,893.12 2,905.11 4 S300 47 Beach Lifeguard * 1,898.00 1,992.90 2,092.55 2,197.17 2,307.03 2,422.39 1,807.62 1 S305 43 Beach Lifeguard Captain 4,027.57 4,228.94 4,440.39 4,662.41 4,895.53 5,140.31 3,835.78 3 S315 11 Beach Lifeguard Sergeant 2,532.21 2,658.82 2,791.76 2,931.35 3,077.92 3,231.81 2,411.63 0 S325 54 Building Inspector I 2,591.05 2,720.60 2,856.63 2,999.46 3,149.43 3,306.90 2,467.66 2 S330 12 Building Inspector II 2,856.63 2,999.46 3,149.43 3,306.90 3,472.25 3,645.86 2,720.60 1 S335 48 Building Official 5,072.45 5,326.07 5,592.38 5,872.00 6,165.60 6,473.88 4,830.91 1 S358 57 Communications and Engagement Officer 3,527.72 3,704.10 3,889.31 4,083.78 4,287.96 4,502.36 4,727.48 2 S360 49 Community Development Technician 2,040.42 2,142.44 2,249.57 2,362.04 2,480.15 2,604.15 2,734.36 2 S365 27 Department Administrative Assistant 1,764.21 1,852.43 1,945.05 2,042.30 2,144.41 2,251.63 2,364.22 3 S366 04 Department Administrative Coordinator 2,105.99 2,211.29 2,321.85 2,437.95 2,559.84 2,687.84 2,822.23 1 S370 56 Deputy City Clerk 2,623.60 2,754.78 2,892.52 3,037.14 3,189.00 3,348.45 2,498.67 1 S515 04 Executive Assistant to the Police Chief 2,105.98 2,211.28 2,321.85 2,437.94 2,559.84 2,687.84 2,822.23 1 S530 15 Finance Manager 5,072.45 5,326.07 5,592.37 5,871.99 6,165.59 6,473.87 4,830.90 4 S555 24 Fire Division Chief 5,341.62 5,608.70 5,889.13 6,183.59 6,492.77 6,817.41 5,087.25 0 S568 59 Fire Prevention Aide 1,852.43 1,945.05 2,042.30 2,144.41 2,251.63 2,364.22 1,764.21 1 S570 17 Golf Superintendent 3,782.73 3,971.86 4,170.46 4,378.98 4,597.93 4,827.82 3,602.60 1 S578 24 Human Resources Analyst 3,086.87 3,241.21 3,403.27 3,573.43 3,752.11 3,939.71 2,939.87 1 S580 18 Human Resources and Risk Manager 4,830.90 5,072.45 5,326.07 5,592.37 5,871.99 6,165.59 6,473.87 0 S585 19 Human Resources Technician 2,274.00 2,387.70 2,507.08 2,632.44 2,764.06 2,902.26 2,165.71 1 S590 20 Information Technology Manager 5,072.45 5,326.07 5,592.37 5,871.99 6,165.59 6,473.87 4,830.90 0 S593 51 Information Technology Network Admin I 2,916.10 3,061.90 3,215.00 3,375.75 3,544.54 3,721.76 3,907.85 4 S591 45 Information Technology Network Admin II 3,215.00 3,375.75 3,544.54 3,721.76 3,907.85 4,103.25 4,308.41 1 S592 28 Information Technology Technician 2,165.71 2,274.00 2,387.70 2,507.08 2,632.44 2,764.06 2,902.26 5 S635 21 Librarian II 2,688.54 2,822.97 2,964.12 3,112.33 3,267.94 3,431.34 2,560.52 1 S645 22 Library Assistant II 2,002.70 2,102.83 2,207.98 2,318.37 2,434.29 2,556.01 1,907.33 0 S650 46 Library Assistant III 2,303.10 2,418.26 2,539.17 2,666.13 2,799.44 2,939.41 2,193.43 1 S680 40 Library Services Analyst 2,944.43 3,091.65 3,246.23 3,408.54 3,578.97 3,757.92 2,804.22 0 S690 23 Library Technician 2,587.65 2,717.03 2,852.88 2,995.53 3,145.31 3,302.57 2,464.43 5 S720 24 Management Analyst 3,086.87 3,241.21 3,403.27 3,573.43 3,752.11 3,939.71 2,939.87 2 S120 03 Management Assistant 2,623.60 2,754.78 2,892.52 3,037.14 3,189.00 3,348.45 2,498.67 0 S770 25 Office Assistant I 1,511.99 1,587.59 1,666.97 1,750.32 1,837.84 1,929.73 1,440.00 0 S775 26 Office Assistant II 1,680.07 1,764.08 1,852.28 1,944.90 2,042.14 2,144.25 1,600.07 0 S780 27 Office Specialist 1,852.43 1,945.05 2,042.30 2,144.41 2,251.63 1,764.21 2,364.22 0 S790 16 Payroll Specialist 2,274.00 2,387.70 2,507.08 2,632.44 2,764.06 2,902.26 2,165.71 2 S801 44 Police Captain 5,695.71 5,980.49 6,279.52 6,593.49 6,923.17 7,269.33 5,424.48 1 S805 29 Police Com. Relations Coord. 3,086.87 3,241.21 3,403.27 3,573.43 3,752.11 3,939.71 2,939.87 2 S802 30 Police Lieutenant 5,001.74 5,251.83 5,514.42 5,790.14 6,079.65 6,383.63 4,763.56 0 S824 50 Police Officer Recruit 2,641.76 2,773.84 2,912.54 3,058.16 3,211.07 3,371.63 2,515.96 3 S828 27 Police Records Specialist 1,852.43 1,945.05 2,042.30 2,144.41 2,251.63 2,364.22 1,764.21 1 S845 31 Police Support Services Manager 3,791.19 3,980.75 4,179.79 4,388.78 4,608.22 4,838.63 3,610.66 1 S355 14 Principal Architect 4,797.49 5,037.36 5,289.23 5,553.69 5,831.37 6,122.94 4,569.03 1 S865 32 Principal Engineer 4,797.49 5,037.36 5,289.23 5,553.69 5,831.37 6,122.94 4,569.03 1 S870 33 Principal Librarian 3,385.99 3,555.29 3,733.05 3,919.71 4,115.69 4,321.48 3,224.75 1 S872 60 Principal Planner 4,291.88 4,506.47 4,731.80 4,968.39 5,216.81 5,477.65 4,087.50 1 S874 55 Public Services Administration Supvsr/Mngr 3,971.96 4,170.56 4,379.09 4,598.05 4,827.95 5,069.34 3,782.82 3 S875 34 Public Services Supervisor 3,971.86 4,170.46 4,378.98 4,597.93 4,827.82 5,069.22 3,782.73 0 S880 35 Public Services Technician 2,203.54 2,313.72 2,429.40 2,550.87 2,678.41 2,812.34 2,098.61 4 S905 38 Recreation Coordinator 1,996.29 2,096.10 2,200.91 2,310.95 2,426.50 2,547.83 1,901.23 3 S915 36 Recreation Services Supervisor 2,941.71 3,088.80 3,243.24 3,405.40 3,575.67 3,754.46 2,801.63 1 S940 37 Secretary to the City Manager 2,573.81 2,702.50 2,837.63 2,979.51 3,128.48 3,284.91 2,451.25 2 S953 41 Senior Human Resources Analyst 3,704.10 3,889.31 4,083.78 4,287.96 4,502.36 4,727.48 3,527.72 2 S955 40 Senior Librarian 2,944.43 3,091.65 3,246.23 3,408.54 3,578.97 3,757.92 2,804.22 3 S960 41 Senior Management Analyst 3,704.10 3,889.31 4,083.78 4,287.96 4,502.36 4,727.48 3,527.72 1 S965 42 Senior Planner 3,704.10 3,889.31 4,083.78 4,287.96 4,502.36 4,727.48 3,527.72 105.00
236.00 Total Regular Full-Time Classified Positions
Effective July 1, 2023
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan
Sections 1 through 3 Page 2
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Amended January 16, 2024
Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 187
PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 B. SELF-REPRESENTED PART-TIME (Hourly Rate)
No. Job Class Range Description A B C D E F G

0.75 R105 02 Accounting Technician I 25.94 27.24 28.60 30.03 31.53 33.11 24.71

0.00 R135 04 Administrative Secretary 27.64 29.02 30.47 32.00 33.60 35.28 26.32

0.50 R160 39 Aquatics Coordinator 24.95 26.20 27.51 28.89 30.33 31.85 23.77

0.75 R365 27 Department Administrative Assistant 23.16 24.31 25.53 26.81 28.15 29.55 22.05

0.75 R568 59 Fire Prevention Aide 23.16 24.31 25.53 26.81 28.15 29.55 22.05

0.00 R635 21 Librarian II 33.61 35.29 37.05 38.90 40.85 42.89 32.01

1.50 R645 22 Library Assistant II 25.03 26.29 27.60 28.98 30.43 31.95 23.84

0.75 R650 46 Library Assistant III 28.79 30.23 31.74 33.33 34.99 36.74 27.42

0.50 R720 24 Management Analyst 38.59 40.52 42.54 44.67 46.90 49.25 36.75

0.00 R775 26 Office Assistant II 21.00 22.05 23.15 24.31 25.53 26.80 20.00

0.00 R780 27 Office Specialist 23.16 24.31 25.53 26.81 28.15 29.55 22.05

1.50 R905 38 Recreation Coordinator 24.95 26.20 27.51 28.89 30.33 31.85 23.77

7.00 7.00 Total Regular Part-Time Classified Positions
C. TEMPORARY PART-TIME AND SEASONAL (Hourly Rate)
No. Job Class Range Description A B C D E F G
T130 01 Administrative Intern 16.48 - - - - - -
T165 02 Aquatics Instructor 19.56 20.54 18.63 - - - -
T300 03 Beach Lifeguard 21.60 22.68 23.81 25.00 26.25 27.56 20.57 T320 38 Beach Lifeguard Trainee 16.48 - - - - - -
T360 35 Community Development Technician 26.78 28.12 29.53 31.00 32.55 34.18 25.51 T505 20 Evidence and Property Technician 32.93 34.58 36.31 38.12 40.03 42.03 31.36 T572 19 Firefighter/Paramedic 28.02 29.42 30.89 32.43 34.05 35.76 26.68 T630 05 Librarian I 28.27 29.69 31.17 32.73 34.36 36.08 26.93 T640 06 Library Assistant I 21.77 22.86 24.01 25.21 26.47 27.79 20.74 T665 07 Library Monitor 18.01 18.91 19.86 20.85 21.89 22.99 17.16 T675 08 Library Page 16.48 - - - - - -
T695 09 Lifeguard Assistant (Beach) 16.48 - - - - - -
T705 33 Maintenance Worker II 24.40 25.62 26.90 28.25 23.24 29.66 31.14 T720 31 Management Analyst 38.59 40.52 42.54 44.67 46.90 49.25 36.75 T780 22 Office Specialist 23.16 24.31 25.53 26.81 28.15 29.55 22.05 T815 32 Police Dispatcher 32.22 33.83 35.52 37.30 39.16 41.12 30.68 T850 10 Pool Lifeguard 18.41 19.34 17.53 - - - -
T851 24 Pool Lifeguard I * 19.86 20.85 18.91 - - - -
T852 25 Pool Lifeguard II * 20.72 21.76 19.73 - - - -
T853 26 Pool Lifeguard III * 20.67 22.79 23.93 - - -
T855 30 Pool Lifeguard (Lead) 20.71 21.75 22.83 19.72 - - - T900 11 Recreation Assistant 16.48 - - - - - -
T910 12 Recreation Leader 18.41 19.34 17.53 - - - -
T925 13 Recreation Specialist 20.71 21.74 22.83 19.72 - - - T935 14 Seasonal Maintenance Assistant I 17.88 18.77 19.71 20.70 21.75 22.83 17.04 T936 15 Seasonal Maintenance Assistant II 19.68 18.75 20.67 21.71 22.79 23.93 25.13 T960 27 Senior Management Analyst 46.30 48.62 51.05 53.60 56.28 59.09 44.10 D. Z-RATED POSITIONS (Biweekly Salary)
D1. AFSCME
Job Class Range Description A B C D E F G
W740 07 Mechanic II 2,523.46 2,649.63 2,782.11 2,921.22 3,067.28 3,220.64 2,403.29 * Job classifications notated with an asterisk (*) include rate changes and/or new classifications effective January 27, 2024.

Please refer to the originally adopted FY24 PACP for rates that were effective July 1, 2023.

Effective July 1, 2023
Effective July 1, 2023
Effective July 1, 2023
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan
Sections 1 through 3 Page 3
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Amended January 16, 2024

21.70 Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 188
PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Section 2. Unclassified Positions
A. EXECUTIVE POSITIONS (Monthly Rate)
No. Job Class Description Min Max Band
1 E375 City Clerk 9,387.43 12,702.45 1
0 E440 City Engineer 10,980.12 15,082.58 2
0 E450 Director of Golf Course Operations 10,980.12 15,082.58 2 1 E455 Director of Library Services 10,980.12 15,082.58 2 0 E470 Director of Recreation 10,980.12 15,082.58 2
1 E425 Director of Administrative Services 14,358.62 17,133.81 3 1 E475 Director of Comm Devlp, Redevelopment/Housing Srvcs 14,358.62 17,133.81 3 1 E480 Director of Recreation & Golf 14,358.62 17,133.81 3 1 E200 Assistant City Manager 15,927.20 18,943.72 4
1 E445 Director of Fire Services 15,927.20 18,943.72 4
1 E460 Director of Police Services 15,927.20 18,943.72 4 1 E465 Director of Public Services & Engineering 15,927.20 18,943.72 4 1 E385 City Manager * - 21,666.67
*Contract amendment approved by the City Council on December 6, 2022. New rate effective December 17, 2022.

10.00 Total Unclassified Positions
253.00 Total Regular Full-Time Classified, Regular Part-Time Classified, and Unclassified Positions (full time equivalent) C. ELECTED POSITIONS (Monthly Rate)
Salary Expense Allowance
Council Member 913.50 150.00
Mayor 913.50 225.00
Effective July 1, 2023
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan
Sections 1 through 3 Page 4
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Amended January 16, 2024
Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 189
PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Function
Department Unclassified Classified Unclassified Classified Position Title Section 2 Section 1 Section 2 Section 1
General Government
City Clerk
City Clerk 1
Deputy City Clerk 1
Administrative Secretary 0
Total 1 1 0 0
City Manager
City Manager 1
Assistant City Manager 1
Assistant to the City Manager 0
Communications and Engagement Officer 1
Secretary to the City Manager 1
Senior Management Analyst 2
Total 2 4 0 0
Administrative Services
Director of Administrative Services 1
Accountant 2
Accounting Technician I 1
Accounting Technician II (payroll) 1
Associate Human Resources Analyst 1
Department Administrative Assistant 1
Finance Manager 1
Human Resources Analyst 1
Human Resources Manager 1
Human Resources Technician 0
Information Technology Manager 1
Information Technology Network Admin. I 0
Information Technology Network Admin. II 4
Information Technology Technician 1
Management Analyst 1
Management Assistant 0
Office Specialist 0
Payroll Specialist 0
Senior Human Resources Analyst 2
Senior Management Analyst 0
Total 1 18 0 0
Planning & Building Services
Community Development, Redevelopment & Housing Services Director of Community Development, 1
Redevelopment & Housing Services
Administrative Secretary 0
Assistant Planner 1
Associate Planner 3
Building Inspector I 0
Building Inspector II 2
Building Official 1
Community Development Technician 2
Department Administrative Coordinator 1
Principal Planner 1
Senior Planner 1
Total 1 12 0 0
Section 3. Authorized regular full-time and part-time positions categorized by function and department:

Authorized Full-Time Regular Part-Time
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan
Sections 1 through 3 Page 5
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Amended January 16, 2024
Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 190
PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Function
Department Unclassified Classified Unclassified Classified Position Title Section 2 Section 1 Section 2 Section 1
Section 3. Authorized regular full-time and part-time positions categorized by function and department:

Authorized Full-Time Regular Part-Time
Public Safety
Fire & Beach Lifeguard Services
Director of Fire Services 1
Accounting Technician I 0 0.75
Beach Lifeguard Captain 1
Beach Lifeguard Sergeant 3
Beach Lifeguard 4
Fire Captain 6
Fire Division Chief 4
Fire Engineer 6
Fire Prevention Aide 0 0.75
Firefighter/Paramedic 15
Management Analyst 1
Management Assistant 0
Office Specialist 0
Total 1 40 0 1.50
Police Services
Director of Police Services 1
Accounting Technician I 1
Administrative Secretary 0
Evidence & Property Technician 1
Executive Assistant to the Police Chief 1
Management Analyst 1
Management Assistant 0
Office Specialist 0
Police Captain 2
Police Community Relations Coordinator 1
Police Corporal 6
Police Dispatcher 9
Police Dispatch Supervisor 1
Police Lieutenant 2
Police Officer 28
Police Records Specialist 3
Police Sergeant 7
Police Services Officer II 6
Police Support Services Manager 1
Total 1 70 0 0.00
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan
Sections 1 through 3 Page 6
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Amended January 16, 2024
Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 191
PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Function
Department Unclassified Classified Unclassified Classified Position Title Section 2 Section 1 Section 2 Section 1
Section 3. Authorized regular full-time and part-time positions categorized by function and department:

Authorized Full-Time Regular Part-Time
Culture & Leisure
Library Services
Director of Library Services 1
Accounting Technician I 0
Administrative Secretary 0
Department Administrative Coordinator 1
Librarian II 5 0.00
Library Assistant II 1 1.50
Library Assistant III 0 0.75
Library Services Analyst 1
Library Technician 0
Management Assistant 1
Principal Librarian 1
Senior Librarian 2
Total 1 12 0 2.25
Recreation & Golf Course Operations
Director of Recreation & Golf 1
Accounting Technician I 1
Administrative Secretary 0
Aquatics Coordinator 3
Aquatics Supervisor 1
Department Administrative Assistant 0 0.75
Management Assistant 1
Management Analyst 0
Office Assistant II 0

0.50 Office Specialist 0 0.00
Recreation Coordinator 4 1.50
Recreation Services Supervisor 3
Senior Management Analyst 1
Maintenance Worker II (Golf) 7
Maintenance Worker III (Golf) 2
Golf Superintendent 1
Lead Maintenance Worker (Golf) 1
Special Equipment Mechanic II (Golf) 1
Total 1 26 0 2.75
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan
Sections 1 through 3 Page 7
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Amended January 16, 2024

0.00 Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 192
PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 Function
Department Unclassified Classified Unclassified Classified Position Title Section 2 Section 1 Section 2 Section 1
Section 3. Authorized regular full-time and part-time positions categorized by function and department:

Authorized Full-Time Regular Part-Time
Construction & Maintenance
Public Services and Engineering
Director of Public Services and Engineering 1
City Engineer 0
Administrative Secretary 0
Assistant Director of Public Services & Eng. 1
Assistant Engineer 2
Associate Architect 1
Associate Engineer 2
Accounting Technician I 2
Department Administrative Assistant 1
Department Administrative Coordinator 1
Electrician 1
Lead Maintenance Worker 4
Lead Pump Mechanic 1
Management Analyst 2 0.50
Maintenance Worker II 11
Maintenance Worker III 4
Master Mechanic 1
Mechanic I 1
Mechanic II 3
Motor Sweeper Operator 1
Office Specialist 0
Principal Architect 1
Principal Engineer 1
Public Services Administration Supvsr/Mngr 1
Public Services Supervisor 3
Public Services Technician 0
Senior Management Analyst 0
Special Equipment Mechanic I 1
Utility Systems Operator II 4
Utility Systems Operator III 2
Tree Trimmer 1
Total 1 53 0 0.50
Total Full & Permanent Part Time Positions 10 236 0 7.00 Grand Total - Full-time Equivalent Authorized Positions 253.00 Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan
Sections 1 through 3 Page 8
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Amended January 16, 2024
Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 193
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan Fiscal Year 2023-24 Sections 4 through 30 Amended January 16, 2024

Page 9 ends

Section 4. EXECUTIVE AND EXEMPT CLASSIFICATIONS
A. Unclassified/EXECUTIVE Classifications
The following classifications are Unclassified/EXECUTIVE (FLSA Exempt):

Assistant City Manager
City Clerk
City Engineer
City Manager
All Department Directors
B. Classified/EXEMPT Classifications
The following full-time classifications are Classified/FLSA Exempt:

Accountant
Assistant to the City Manager Library Services Analyst
Assistant Director of Public Services & Engineering Management Analyst Associate Architect Police Captain
Aquatics Supervisor Police Community Relations Coordinator Associate Engineer Police Lieutenant
Associate Planner Police Support Services Manager
Beach Lifeguard Captain Principal Architect
Building Official Principal Engineer
Communications and Engagement Officer Principal Librarian Finance Manager Principal Planner
Fire Division Chief Public Services Administration Supvsr/Mngr Emergency Management Coordinator Public Services Supervisor Golf Superintendent Recreation Services Supervisor
Human Resources and Risk Manager Senior Librarian
Human Resources Analyst Senior Management Analyst
Information Technology Manager Senior Planner
Senior Human Resources Analyst
Section 5. CLASSIFICATIONS REPRESENTED BY EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATIONS (listed by Association)
A. The following classifications are represented by the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 127
(AFSCME):

Electrician Mechanic I
Engineering Technician II Mechanic II
Heavy Equipment Operator Motor Sweeper Operator
Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 194
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan Fiscal Year 2023-24 Sections 4 through 30 Amended January 16, 2024

Page 10 ends

Lead Maintenance Worker Special Equipment Mechanic I
Lead Pump Mechanic Special Equipment Mechanic II
Maintenance Worker I Tree Trimmer
Maintenance Worker II Utility Systems Operator I
Maintenance Worker III Utility Systems Operator II
Master Mechanic Utility Systems Operator III
B. The following classifications are represented by the CORONADO FIREFIGHTERS’ ASSOCIATION (CFA):

Firefighter Firefighter/Paramedic
Fire Captain Fire Engineer
C. The following classifications are represented by the CORONADO POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION (CPOA):

Evidence & Property Technician Police Officer
Police Corporal Police Sergeant
Police Dispatcher Police Services Officer I
Police Dispatch Supervisor Police Services Officer II
Section 6. SELF-REPRESENTED CLASSIFICATIONS
SELF-REPRESENTED classifications are those regular full time and regular part-time positions (defined as employees who work a fixed schedule greater than twenty (20) hours but fewer than forty (40) hours per week and identified in the Annual Budget as regular part-time), which are not classified as Executive and are not represented by an Association.

The following classifications are SELF-REPRESENTED:

Accountant Information Technology Network Admin I
Accounting Technician I Information Technology Network Admin II Accounting Technician II (Payroll) Information Technology Technician Administrative Secretary Librarian II
Aquatics Coordinator Library Assistant II
Aquatics Supervisor Library Assistant III
Assistant Director of Public Services & Eng Library Services Analyst Assistant Engineer Library Technician
Assistant Planner Management Analyst
Assistant to the City Manager Management Assistant
Associate Architect Office Assistant I
Associate Engineer Office Assistant II
Associate Human Resources Analyst Office Specialist
Associate Planner Payroll Specialist
Beach Lifeguard Police Captain
Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 195
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan Fiscal Year 2023-24 Sections 4 through 30 Amended January 16, 2024

Page 11 ends

Beach Lifeguard Captain Police Com. Relations Coord.

Beach Lifeguard Sergeant Police Lieutenant
Building Inspector I Police Officer Recruit
Building Inspector II Police Records Specialist
Building Official Police Support Services Manager
Communications and Engagement Officer Principal Architect Community Development Technician Principal Engineer
Department Administrative Assistant Principal Librarian Department Administrative Coordinator Principal Planner Deputy City Clerk Public Services Administration Supvsr/Mngr Executive Assistant to the Police Chief Public Services Supervisor Finance Manager Public Services Technician
Fire Division Chief Recreation Coordinator
Fire Prevention Aide Recreation Services Supervisor
Golf Superintendent Secretary to the City Manager
Human Resources Analyst Senior Human Resources Analyst
Human Resources and Risk Manager Senior Librarian
Human Resources Technician Senior Management Analyst
Information Technology Manager Senior Planner
Section 7. TEMPORARY PART-TIME AND SEASONAL CLASSIFICATIONS (Non-Benefited) A. TEMPORARY PART-TIME AND SEASONAL positions do not work regularly scheduled hours. These positions are non-regular, do not accrue benefits, and are exempt from provisions of the Civil Service Rules per Civil Service Rule II:

Classification of Positions, Section 4, Page 4.

B. The following classifications and/or any other classifications listed in Section 3, Section 4, Section 5 and Section 6 may be utilized when hiring TEMPORARY PART-TIME positions:

Administrative Intern Lifeguard Assistant (Beach)
Beach Lifeguard Pool Lifeguard I/II/III
Beach Lifeguard Trainee Recreation Assistant
Librarian I Recreation Leader
Library Assistant I Recreation Specialist
Library Monitor Seasonal Maintenance Assistant I
Library Page Seasonal Maintenance Assistant II
C. The salary range steps for the following classifications will keep pace with the established California minimum wage rate. The California minimum wage may change after the publication of the Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 196
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan Fiscal Year 2023-24 Sections 4 through 30 Amended January 16, 2024

Page 12 ends

and any steps below the minimum wage for all TEMPORARY PART-TIMEAND SEASONAL classifications will be adjusted accordingly on the next revision.

Administrative Intern
Beach Lifeguard Trainee
Library Page
Lifeguard Assistant (Beach)
Recreation Assistant
Section 8. EXCEEDING AUTHORIZED NUMBER OF POSITIONS FOR A CLASSIFICATION Departments shall be allowed to exceed the authorized number of positions in a classification for up to two (2) weeks to enable an employee who is vacating a position to participate in the training of his/her replacement. Longer periods of overlap may be approved by the City Manager
Section 9. SALARIES
A. All employees, except City Manager and Unclassified Executive employees, shall receive salaries as shown in Section 1.

B. The salaries for all Unclassified Executive Employees are set by the City Manager within the salary bands as shown in Section 2A.

C. The City Manager’s salary is set by the City Council and is shown in Section 2A.

Section 10. RETIREMENT
A. BENEFIT FORMULAS

1. The City shall provide retirement benefits through the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) to all classified regular full-time and part-time and all unclassified EXECUTIVE employees.

2. For all public safety employees (sworn police and fire positions) hired prior to January 1, 2013, and for all public safety employees that meet the definition of a “classic” member as determined by CalPERS, the City will provide the “3% at 50” retirement benefit formula.

In compliance with the Public Employee Pension Reform Act of 2012, for all public safety employees (sworn police and fire positions) hired after January 1, 2013, who do not meet the CalPERS definition of a “classic” member, the City will provide the “2.7% at 57” retirement benefit formula.

3. For all miscellaneous, non-safety (non-sworn) employees hired prior to January 1, 2013, and for all miscellaneous, non-safety employees that meet the definition of a “classic” member as determined by CalPERS, the City will provide the “3% at 60” retirement benefit formula.

Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 197
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan Fiscal Year 2023-24 Sections 4 through 30 Amended January 16, 2024

Page 13 ends

In compliance with the Public Employee Pension Reform Act of 2012, for all miscellaneous, non-safety (non-sworn) employees hired after January 1, 2013, who do not meet the CalPERS definition of a “classic” member, the City will provide the “2% at 62” retirement benefit formula.

B. EMPLOYEE MEMBER CONTRIBUTION

1. All City employees shall be responsible for paying their respective required CalPERS member contribution. For employees who are not classified as “classic” members, the CalPERS member contribution will be determined annually based upon the CalPERS actuarial.

2. Effective July 6, 2019, the CalPERS contribution rate for all classic miscellaneous, non-safety members will be 9.5% (previously 8%), and 10.5% for all classic safety members (previously 9%). The formula for new members, enrolled in CalPERS on or after January 1, 2013, is 2% at 62 with a required employee contribution of 7.50%.

C. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION (ALL CATEGORIES)
The City will pay the actuarially determined CalPERS employer contribution for all regular positions.

Section 11. LEAVE
A. ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE

1. Administrative Leave is in lieu of overtime and compensatory time as authorized by the City Manager.

2. Unclassified EXECUTIVE positions and those classified as FLSA/EXEMPT POLICE CAPTAIN shall receive eighty (80) hours of Administrative Leave.

3. Those positions classified FLSA/EXEMPT, excluding FIRE DIVISION CHIEFS, shall receive sixty (60) hours of Administrative Leave.

4. Administrative Leave is accrued on July l and is to be used in the fiscal year in which it is earned in accordance with Civil Service Rule VI, Holidays and Leaves, Section 17. It has no cash value. Unused Administrative Leave shall expire on June 30.

5. Eligible employees hired after July 1 of a fiscal year will receive a pro-rated credit.

B. ANNUAL LEAVE (in lieu of sick leave and vacation)

1. All SELF-REPRESENTED employees, shall accrue annual leave on a biweekly basis as follows (which includes both employment with Coronado and lateral Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 198
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan Fiscal Year 2023-24 Sections 4 through 30 Amended January 16, 2024

Page 14 ends

service credit, as applicable):

LEAVE ACCRUAL TIER
(YEARS OF SERVICE)

HOURS PER
YEAR
0-5 144
>5-10 192
>10-20 216
>20 232
Maximum accumulation is 480 hours.

Employees working a 56-hour work week shall earn annual leave based upon the hours per year shown above but converted by a multiplier of 1.4.

2. Effective July 1, 2018, POLICE LIEUTENANT and POLICE CAPTAIN classifications, similar to sworn law enforcement employees represented by the CORONADO POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION will receive annual leave accruals based on years of full-time sworn law enforcement experience including service time spent with other agencies.

3. SELF-REPRESENTED NON-EXEMPT and EXEMPT EMPLOYEES may convert the following annual leave to cash each fiscal year based on their leave accrual tier (which includes both employment with Coronado and lateral service credit, as applicable) :

MAX CONVERSION (HOURS)

LEAVE ACCRUAL TIER
(YEARS OF SERVICE)

SELF REPRESENTED

NON-EXEMPT

EMPLOYEES

SELF REPRESENTED

EXEMPT EMPLOYEES
0 - 5 40 80
>5 - 10 80 80
>10 - 20 120 120
>20 120 120
The City Manager may convert up to one-hundred and twenty (120) hours of annual leave to cash each fiscal year.

4. Unclassified EXECUTIVES shall accrue annual leave on a biweekly basis as follows , and be allowed to convert annual leave to cash each fiscal year based on their leave accrual tier (which includes both employment with Coronado and lateral service credit, as applicable):

LEAVE ACCRUAL TIER
(YEARS OF SERVICE)

HOURS PER
YEAR

MAX CONVERSION
(HOURS)
0-5 184 80
6+ 224 120
Maximum accumulation is 480 hours.

Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 199
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan Fiscal Year 2023-24 Sections 4 through 30 Amended January 16, 2024

Page 15 ends

5. SELF-REPRESENTED and unclassified EXECUTIVE employees are eligible to receive Lateral Service Credit. Benefitted full and part-time employees hired with prior public sector experience may receive credit for prior service through annual leave accrual rates for their years of service with other public agencies.

Public sector experience is defined as employment in a city, county, state, federal government, or special district. This does not include military service time. Prior service applies to benefitted full-time and part-time regular positions.

Employees must submit proof of prior service time within 30 days of appointment for time to be recognized. New leave accruals will be effective the pay period following the date of prior service documentation submission.

6. Refer to respective MOUs for specific details on AFSCME, CPOA, and CFA Leave.

C. SICK LEAVE

1. Temporary Part-Time and Seasonal Employees employed on or after July 1, 2015 and who work for 30 or more days within a year, and who do not accrue other paid leaves, will accrue paid sick leave in compliance with the Healthy Workplace, Healthy Families Act of 2014. Leave will accrue at a rate of one hour for every 30 hours worked beginning on the first day of employment or July 1, 2015, whichever is later. Subject to limitations, a Temporary Part-Time or Seasonal employee may use sick leave only after the 90th day of employment and up to 40 hours in one calendar year. Upon separation of employment or appointment to a probationary/permanent position, any unused sick leave will be cashed out at the current rate of pay.

2. Refer to respective CFA MOU for specific details on Sick Leave.

D. BEREAVEMENT LEAVE

1. Unclassified EXECUTIVE and SELF-REPRESENTED employees, shall receive up to five (5) work days of leave without loss of base pay or deductions from other leave balances in order to attend customary obligations arising from the death of a relative who is a member of employee’s immediate family.

2. The “immediate family” shall be defined as: spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild; the aforementioned either natural, legally adopted, step or in-law, or any person over which the employee acts as legal guardian; or similar relationships as determined by the City Manager or designee.

Section 12. HEALTH/CAFETERIA BENEFIT PLAN
A. The annual allotment for calendar year 2022 and 2023 for Health/Cafeteria Benefit Plan for SELF-REPRESENTED employees, employees represented by the CORONADO FIREFIGHTERS’ ASSOCIATION, CORONADO POLICE
OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION, and the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 200
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan Fiscal Year 2023-24 Sections 4 through 30 Amended January 16, 2024

Page 16 ends

COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 127 shall be as follows:

January 1 – December 31, 2023: $1,825/month
January 1 – December 31, 2024: $2,030/month
B. The annual allotment for Health/Cafeteria Benefit Plan for EXECUTIVE employees shall be as follows:

January 1 – December 31, 2023: $2,070/month
January 1 – December 31, 2024: $2,303/month
C. The annual allotment for Health/Cafeteria Benefit Plan for retired employees participating in CalPERS health plans shall be as follows:

January 1 – December 31, 2023: $151/month
January 1 – December 31, 2024: $157/month
D. The Health/Cafeteria Benefit Plan allotment is pro-rated on a calendar year basis.

Section 13. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT
A. SELF-REPRESENTED and unclassified EXECUTIVE employees are eligible to receive $2,000 per year for both college classes leading to a degree and non-graded classes or short-term seminars that benefit the employee in the performance of city work upon written verification of satisfactory course work completion, per Administrative Procedure 131. Additionally, SELF-REPRESENTED and unclassified EXECUTIVE employees are able to utilize this benefit for student loan. Reimbursement may be requested, up to the annual maximum as specified in the approved salary resolution, for any eligible unreimbursed expenses incurred on or after July 1st of current fiscal year.

B. Refer to respective MOUs for specific details on AFSCME, CPOA, and CFA Tuition Reimbursement.

Section 14. HOLIDAYS
A. Unclassified EXECUTIVE and SELF-REPRESENTED employees, excluding FIRE DIVISION CHIEFS, receive eleven (11) paid holidays per year.

B. Unclassified EXECUTIVE and SELF-REPRESENTED employees, excluding FIRE DIVISION CHIEFS, are given twenty-seven (27) hours credit on July 1 of each year for Lincoln’s Birthday, Caesar Chavez’ Birthday and Juneteenth to be used as FLOATING HOLIDAYS. In order to accrue this time, an employee must be employed by the City within the pay period including July 1 of the fiscal year.

C. FIRE DIVISION CHIEFS are given thirty-three and three-quarter (33.75) hours credit on July 1 of each year in recognition of Lincoln’s Birthday, Caesar Chavez’ Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 201
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan Fiscal Year 2023-24 Sections 4 through 30 Amended January 16, 2024

Page 17 ends

Birthday and Juneteenth to be used as a FLOATING HOLIDAY. In order to accrue this time, an employee must be employed by the City within the pay period including July 1 of the fiscal year.

D. FIRE DIVISION CHIEFS who are assigned to and work on a twenty-four (24) hour shift basis shall be paid a holiday premium of ½ their regular rate of pay for all hours worked on a holiday.

E. Unclassified EXECUTIVE and SELF-REPRESENTED employees, excluding FIRE DIVISION CHIEFS, whose normal day off falls on a holiday will receive a FLOATING HOLIDAY, equivalent to an employee’s regular work hours, added to their leave bank in lieu of time off. If a non- exempt employee is required to work on a holiday, time worked will be paid at the rate of one and one-half times the forty (40) hour work week rate.

F. All FLOATING HOLIDAY leave time must be used in the fiscal year in which it is accrued. Employees who terminate on or before June 30 will be paid straighttime for every hour of unused floating holiday leave time.

G. Refer to respective MOUs for specific details on AFSCME, CPOA, and CFA Holidays.

Section 15. OVERTIME
A. All earned overtime shall be payable in overtime wages or Compensatory Time Off (CTO), except as limited by FLSA and on CTO accrual and usage limits described below.

B. The City has established a twenty-eight (28) day, 212 hour work period for FIRE DIVISION CHIEFS. Any hours worked in excess of this schedule shall be paid at straight-time. DIVISION CHIEFS will be compensated portal to portal when assigned to strike team or pre-positioned emergency response, consistent with other fire personnel and where the City is reimbursed for its participation.

C. Any non-exempt SELF-REPRESENTED employees shall receive one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for overtime worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

During any work cycle in which an employee has paid annual leave, comp time off, scheduled holiday, or floating holiday, said leave hours will be counted as work hours for the purpose of calculating entitlement to overtime during any work cycle.

D. Refer to respective MOUs for specific details on AFSCME, CPOA, and CFA Overtime and CTO as applicable.

Section 16. USE AND ACCRUAL OF COMPENSATORY TIME
A. SELF-REPRESENTED employees may not accumulate in excess of two hundred and forty (240) hours of compensatory time.

B. Prior to an appointment to a position in an EXEMPT classification, a non-exempt Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 202
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan Fiscal Year 2023-24 Sections 4 through 30 Amended January 16, 2024

Page 18 ends

employee shall be paid for any accrued compensatory time earned.

Section 17. CERTIFICATION PAY
A. Employees in the Permanent/Probationary Beach Lifeguard classification who possess an Medical Response/First Aid/CPR Instructor Certification are eligible to receive 1.5% of their base salary in certification pay.

B. Employees in the Beach Lifeguard Sergeant or Permanent/Probationary Beach Lifeguard classifications who possess a Rescue Boat Operator certification and have successfully completed the Field Training Guide for Rescue Boat Operations are eligible to receive 2.5% of their base salary in certification pay.

Section 18. BILINGUAL PAY
A. Bilingual pay will be provided to employees in administrative classifications that are required to use bilingual skills to meet the needs of the public. Bilingual skills must be used in the course of work and approved by the appointing authority. In order to receive bilingual pay, employees must successfully pass a bilingual fluency examination. Once designated, eligible employees shall receive fifty cents ($0.50) per hour worked.

B. Refer to respective MOUs for specific details on CPOA, and CFA Bilingual Pay.

Section 19. SPECIAL PROJECT PREMIUM PAY
A. Information Technology Network Administrators will receive an additional $25 per day special project pay during the time that they are assigned to be on call and are available for work.

Section 20. OUT-OF-CLASS ASSIGNMENTS
A. SELF-REPRESENTED employees shall be compensated for out-of-class assignments when temporarily assigned to the same higher-level class for more than 80 consecutive working hours. Higher level class is defined as a class with a higher salary range. Employees who meet this criterion shall be compensated by an additional five (5) percent of base salary for each consecutive hour worked in the out-of-class assignment from the 81st hour to the end of the out-of-class assignment.

B. Refer to respective MOUs for specific details on AFSCME, CPOA, and CFA Outof-Class Assignments.

Section 21. UNIFORM, CLOTHING AND SAFETY EQUIPMENT
A. The DIRECTOR OF POLICE SERVICES, POLICE CAPTAIN, and POLICE LIEUTENANT classifications shall receive a uniform allowance at the same time and equal to the amount provided to other sworn police officers.

Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 203
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan Fiscal Year 2023-24 Sections 4 through 30 Amended January 16, 2024

Page 19 ends

B. The DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES and FIRE DIVISION CHIEF classifications shall receive a uniform allowance at the same time and equal to the amount provided to other sworn fire personnel.

C. Employees represented by the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 127 will be required to wear and maintain in presentable fashion City provided work clothes. The City will report to CalPERS the monetary value for providing and maintaining the employees’ required uniforms. The city will report the uniform allowance on an annual basis to CalPERS in June of each year. The uniform allowance amount reported to CalPERS will derive from the City’s total fiscal year expended amount for providing and maintaining the employees’ uniforms, not to exceed $300 per year, per employee.

D. Refer to respective MOUs for specific details on AFSCME, CPOA, and CFA Uniform, Clothing and Safety Equipment.

Section 22. CITY PAID LIFE INSURANCE
A. All SELF-REPRESENTED and CORONADO FIREFIGHTERS’ ASSOCIATION employees shall receive City paid group term life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D) insurance in an amount equal to one times annual salary or $50,000, whichever is greater.

B. All AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 127 and CORONADO POLICE OFFICERS’
ASSOCIATION employees shall receive City paid group term life and AD&D insurance equal to $25,000.

C. All unclassified EXECUTIVE employees shall receive City paid group term life and AD&D insurance in an amount equal to one times annual salary plus $25,000.

D. The City Manager shall receive City paid group term life and AD&D insurance equal to $400,000.

Section 23. CITY PAID SHORT-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE
Unclassified EXECUTIVE, SELF REPRESENTED employees, employees represented by the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES LOCAL 127, and all NON-SWORN employees in the CORONADO POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION shall receive City paid group short term disability insurance for a maximum period of twelve (12) weeks.

Section 24. CITY PAID LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE
Unclassified EXECUTIVE, SELF-REPRESENTED employees, employees represented by the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES LOCAL 127, and all NON-SWORN employees in the CORONADO Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 204
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan Fiscal Year 2023-24 Sections 4 through 30 Amended January 16, 2024

Page 20 ends

POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION shall receive City paid long term disability insurance at 66 2/3% of the first $5,000 of monthly earnings to normal retirement age as defined by the policy.

Section 25. EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVES
Employees in the classifications of POLICE LIEUTENANT and POLICE CAPTAIN holding an Advanced P.O.S.T Certificate shall receive the equal amount paid to other sworn police officers for the equivalent level of certification.

Section 26. LONGEVITY PAY
SELF-REPRESENTED and unclassified EXECUTIVE employees are eligible to receive longevity pay in recognition for their years of uninterrupted service to the City. Longevity pay will be issued as a one-time lump payment paid on the closest pay period following the employee’s anniversary date. Longevity pay is not cumulative.  Employees who have ten (10) years of uninterrupted service with the City will receive $1,000.
 Employees who have fifteen (15) years of uninterrupted service with the City will receive $1,500.
 Employees who have twenty (20) years of uninterrupted service with the City will receive $2,000.
 Employees who have twenty-five (25) years of uninterrupted service with the City will receive $2,500.
 Employees will receive $2,500 for every additional five (5) years of uninterrupted employment with the City thereafter.

Section 27. ROUNDING OF SALARIES
All salaries shown in Sections 1 and 2 have been rounded to the nearest two (2) decimal places. Payroll calculations are made to six (6) decimal places.

Section 28. “Z” RATED SALARIES
A. The “Z” rate for any classification is hereby defined as any rate of pay for a specific salary step in excess of the corresponding step of the regular range for the class. An employee shall be paid the “Z” rate solely under one of the following two conditions:

1. Upon the reduction of the salary range for a class, an employee having other than provisional status who, immediately prior to the reduction of the salary range, was paid at a higher rate for such class, than the new maximum rate shall, in the absence of any contrary orders by the City Council for economic reasons, continue to be paid at the former rate.

2. Any employee whose position is reallocated from a class in which the employee Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 205
Personnel Authorization and Compensation Plan Fiscal Year 2023-24 Sections 4 through 30 Amended January 16, 2024

Page 21 ends

has acquired permanent status to a class with a lower range shall, in the absence of any contrary orders by the City Council for economic reasons, continue to be paid at the former rate.

B. In the event an across-the-board salary increase is granted to a class held by an employee being paid at the “Z” rate, the employee shall receive the across the board increase. Once a position held by a “Z” rated employee is vacated, the position shall be paid at the regular rate.

Section 29. VEHICLE ALLOWANCE
EXECUTIVE positions identified by the City Manager shall receive an auto allowance of up to $350.00 per month.

Section 30. CONFLICT WITH CIVIL SERVICES RULES AND MEMORANDA OF

UNDERSTANDING
In case of conflict, this Compensation Plan supersedes Civil Service Rules. Memoranda of Understandings contain additional detail and supersede this Compensation Plan if there is conflict.

Attachment 1
Exhibit A
City of Coronado Page 206

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
January 16, 2024 5h
APPROVAL OF THE 2024 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES AND FOCUSED

LEGISLATIVE GOALS
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt amendments to the City of Coronado Legislative Policy Guidelines and the City’s Focused Legislative Goals for 2024.

BACKGROUND:

The Legislative Policy Guidelines set forth the City’s policy on legislative issues and provide direction to staff and legislative advocates. They are utilized as a guideline to develop appropriate positions and forward position letters to members of the California Legislature or the U.S. Congress in urgent situations, as a timely response is often critical in impacting whether a bill is passed or defeated in a committee.

Staff reviews the Policy Guidelines annually and presents any recommended changes to the guidelines based upon shifting legislative priorities of the City and/or CalCities (previously the League of California Cities), which advocates for member cities at the State level.

ANALYSIS:

Staff proposes minor edits to the City’s 2024 Legislative Policy Guidelines, which are included in Attachment 2 in redline form. They include:
• Language supporting legislation for a State income tax exclusion of retirement pay received by uniformed services members from the federal government during the taxable year. Support an additional State income tax exclusion of income annuity payments received by a surviving spouse of a member of the uniformed services (page 5).
• General language supporting legislation that would help law enforcement address crime and recover costs from those committing crimes (page 8). • Support legislation that explores innovation efforts and pilot programs that enable emergency providers to control costs (page 9).
• Support legislation that would reduce the amount of time City emergency medical and ambulance services must wait at hospitals until patients can be released from their care (page 9).
• Support legislation that would allow local governments to establish reasonable controls and regulations over electric bikes and other electric modes of transportation (page 12). • Support legislation that provides authority to the International Boundary and Water Commission to accept funding from other State and Federal agencies to fund improvements to sewage infrastructure (page 16).
• Support reform legislation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process to provide cities with more flexibility meeting State housing law and more direct authority into the methodologies used to assign housing units to respective cities (page 18). • Oppose legislation that penalizes a city if units identified in the Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) are not constructed (page 18).

City of Coronado Page 207
In an effort to provide additional focus to the assessment of the 4,000 pieces of legislation typically introduced during the State legislative session, staff has also provided a policy document as Attachment 1 that outlines four areas of continuing importance for the City. These include improving beach water quality, increasing infrastructure funding, increasing the supply and affordability of housing while retaining local decision-making, and supporting fiscal sustainability.

Staff seeks City Council feedback on these four focus areas. New for 2024 is a statement opposing the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” which would jeopardize the ability of state and local governments in California to levy taxes and fees to support critical services. The measure is scheduled to appear on the November 2024 ballot.

Staff will continue to focus legislative analysis on bills of specific interest to Coronado or which are highly important to local government in general. Staff will continue to seek clarification from the Council when there is a discrepancy between the City of Coronado’s Legislative Policy Guidelines and a proposed position or request for support on a measure. In addition, in accordance with Council Policy #26, Legislative correspondence signed by the Mayor shall be presented to the full City Council, subject to agenda deadlines, at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting as a non-action item under the Agenda Heading of written communications.

Staff has also included a copy of CalCities 2024 Legislative Policy Priorities as adopted by their board for reference.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact for adopting the 2024 Legislative Policy Guidelines or Focused Legislative Goals.

ALTERNATIVE:

The City Council may make any desired changes to the Legislative Policy Guidelines.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

Not Applicable.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

No notice required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City Focused Legislative Goals for 2024

2. City 2024 Legislative Policy Guidelines - Redlined

3. CalCities 2024 Legislative Priorities
Submitted By: City Manager's Office / Tony Winney
City of Coronado Page 208
Attachment 1
Focused Coronado Legislative Goals 2024

1. Improve Beach Water Quality and Ocean Pollution Safeguards a. Prevent Cross-Border Pollution Flows Impacting Coronado and other South Bay Communities
i. Support the current suite of projects by the EPA and International Boundary Water Commission to design and construct infrastructure to reduce transboundary flows of untreated wastewater (sewage), trash, and sediment that enter the U.S. from Mexico via the Tijuana River, its tributaries, and across the maritime boundary along the San Diego County coast.
ii. Support Federal and State legislation that provides continued and adequate funding for these pollution prevention projects. b. Ensure Fair and Accurate Water Quality Testing Procedures of Local Ocean Waters
i. Monitor any new or reviewed requirements by County, State or Federal agencies for testing water quality and water body closures and advocate for accurate testing procedures that properly inform our residents and visitors without creating unnecessary closures of local beach resources.

2. Increase Infrastructure Funding
a. Support Federal and State legislation and grant programs that provide funding for recycled water, wastewater and storm water infrastructure. b. Support legislation to provide funding for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit compliance and other mitigation measures and projects to reuse, divert, or treat urban runoff. c. Increase access to funding programs for major capital projects such as utility undergrounding, solar panels, vehicle charging stations, parks rehabilitation, coastline remediation, fire station construction and climate resiliency.

3. Increase The Supply And Affordability Of Housing While Retaining Local Decision-Making. Secure Long-Term, Sustainable Funding Tools For The Construction Of Housing At All Income Levels And Ensure Cities Retain Flexibility To Achieve Local And State Housing Goals.
a. Support legislation that amends Regional Needs Housing Allocation law to reduce barriers and provide cities with full credit for housing units contained and/or constructed at directly adjacent Federal military installations.

City of Coronado Page 209
Attachment 1
b. Support legislation to prevent the attribution of military installation jobs to adjacent local jurisdictions.
c. Require HCD and Regional Planning Agencies to consider growth limitations imposed by other state and regional planning agencies, such as the Coastal Commission and airport authorities, when analyzing Housing Elements for compliance.
d. Advocate for state legislation that allows cities to provide funding to neighboring jurisdictions that have affordable, developable land to receive RHNA credit for those units produced via offset agreements. e. Oppose legislation that takes a punitive approach to City General Plan Housing Element reform and the imposition of any extraordinary powers in State agencies with regard to City Housing Elements.
f. Oppose legislation, or other agency actions, that would usurp local control of land use decision-making.
g. Oppose legislation that would impose State-mandated development standards or procedures that are contrary to the Coronado General Plan or local land use policy.
h. Support reform legislation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process to provide cities with more flexibility meeting State housing law and more direct authority into the methodologies used to assign housing units to respective cities.
i. Oppose legislation that penalizes a city if units identified in the Regional Housing Need Assessment are not constructed.

4. Safeguard Local Revenues and Support Fiscal Sustainability a. Protect, increase, and modernize revenue streams for local priorities.

Oppose efforts that would reduce or eliminate funding for cities, including unfunded mandates.
b. Oppose the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” which would jeopardize the ability of state and local governments in California to levy taxes and fees to support critical services. The measure is scheduled to appear on the November 2024 ballot.

City of Coronado Page 210
Attachment 2

C I T Y O F C O R O N A D O
20232024

LEGISLATIVE

POLICY GUIDELINES
January 176, 20232024
City of Coronado Page 211

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 1

INTRODUCTION
The following guidelines shall be utilized to take positions on state and federal legislative issues affecting the City of Coronado. These guidelines allow for the efficicent transmittal of correspondence from the City to advocate for desired policy outcomes.

In accordinace with the guidelines, staff is authorized to communicate the City’s position, engage with the City’s state and federal advocacy teams and prepare correspondence on behalf of the City for the Mayor’s or City Manager’s signature, if the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore are unavailable to sign. If there are new factors not contemplated in the guidelines, the issue shall go to the City Council for direction.

Additionally, in accordance with Council Policy #26, legislative correspondence signed by the Mayor shall be presented to the full City Council, subject to agenda deadlines, at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting as a non-action item under the Agenda Heading of COMMUNICATIONS – WRITTEN.

As needed, staff will provide periodic updates on important legislative issues at regular City Council meetings. City Council will then have an opportunity to make a position statement on the issues or specific legislation.

These guidelines are reviewed annually by the City Council and revised to reflect positions the Council has taken on previous legislative issues or may want to take based on recommendations from staff.

City of Coronado Page 212

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
A. State-Federal Mandated Programs 4
B. Long-Term Financing of Local Agencies 4
C. Revenue, Fees and Taxes 4
D. Border Area Economic Development 5
E. Local Educational Funding 5
II. GENERAL GOVERNMENT
A. Workers’ Compensation 6
B. Unemployment Compensation 6
C. Labor Relations 6
D. State and Local Government Relations 6
E. Pension Reform 7
III. PUBLIC PROTECTION
A. Crimes 8
B. Drugs 8
C. Fire Protection 9
D. Medical Care 9
E. Homeland Security 9
F. Emergency Preparedness 9
G. San Diego-Coronado Bridge 9
IV. TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS
A. Transportation 11
B. Solid Waste and Recycling 12
C. Public Rights-of-Way 12
D. Public Works 12
V. RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
A. California Environmental Quality Act 13
B. Offshore Drilling 13
C. Waterfront 13
D. Water 14
E. Storm Drain and Sewer 14
F. Tijuana River Valley Sewage 14
G. Regional Growth Management 15
H. Air Quality 15
I. Wetlands 15
J. Energy 15
K. Land Use 15
City of Coronado Page 213

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 3
VI. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DISSOLUTION
A. Housing 17
B. Successor Agencies 17
C. Redevelopment Mechanisms 17
VII. RECREATION 18
VIII. CITY-NAVY RELATIONS 19
City of Coronado Page 214

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 4
I. LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
A. State-Federal Mandated Programs

1. Support legislation requiring the State and Federal Government to provide full cost reimbursement to cities for all mandated programs and for all programs resulting in revenue losses.

2. Oppose legislation that fails to provide adequate funding for State and Federally mandated programs.

3. Oppose any measure that mandates procedures (such as maintenance-of-effort) that would make local government more dependent on the State for financial stability.

4. Support legislation that further protects local government revenue from being taken, confiscated, shifted, diverted or otherwise used to fund State government operations and responsibilities.

B. Long-Term Financing of Local Agencies

1. Support legislation to stabilize local government financing, to increase funding to local agencies and to permit the most cost-efficient management of State- mandated programs.

2. Oppose legislation which shifts revenue from local government to the State for any purpose or reduces local discretion in the use of local government revenues.

3. Oppose legislation that would punitively reduce local government funding for transportation or other discretionary funding for not meeting state housing goals.

C. Revenues, Fees and Taxes

1. Support legislation which increases local revenues or improves local government’s ability to generate revenue.

2. Oppose legislation that would change the property tax allocation method or formula that would result in less property tax to the City of Coronado.

3. Oppose legislation that would transfer a local government’s reserves, or designated reserves, to the state or other agency, caps a local government’s reserves or reduces local government revenue due to the level of reserves it maintains.

4. Support legislation to protect and preserve local control over locally imposed taxes (such as transient occupancy tax and franchise fees).

City of Coronado Page 215

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 5

5. Support legislation that would repeal FY 92-93 and FY 93-94 property tax shift from cities.

6. Support legislation to protect critical local programs and services from State budget cuts during the current legislative session.

7. Support legislation that would create cost recovery for local police, fire, and emergency medical services to state/military properties, including military housing.

8. Support legislation that would create cost recovery for local non-safety public services to state/military properties, including military housing.

9. Support legislation that would amend the State Constitution Article XIID, Section

6.C. to include storm drain fees among the list of types of fees that are exempt from the voting requirements imposed by Proposition 218.

10. Support legislation that would provide an exclusion from retirement pay received by uniformed services members from the federal government during the taxable year. Support an additional exclusion from income annuity payments received by a surviving spouse of a member of the uniformed services.

D. Border Area Economic Development

1. Support legislation which would provide aid to and assist in the development of the economies of South Bay and border cities.

E. Local Educational Funding

1. Support legislation that guarantees Federal Impact Aid Funds to Coronado schools.

2. Support legislation that provides flexibility for use of 2% pass-through funds (Health & Safety Code section 33676) on school district operations.

City of Coronado Page 216

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 6
II. GENERAL GOVERNMENT
A. Workers’ Compensation

1. Oppose legislation which would increase employee benefits without system reforms which would offset increased employer costs.

2. Oppose legislation which would provide presumptive eligibility for the award of benefits for Workers’ Compensation or other employee health benefits.

3. Support legislation which would remove existing presumptive eligibility for the award of benefits for Workers’ Compensation or other employee health benefits.

4. Support legislation which would reform the Workers’ Compensation system to reduce employer costs through the reduction of system abuse.

B. Unemployment Compensation

1. Oppose legislation which would increase employer liability for unemployment compensation or which would reduce local discretion to manage this risk.

C. Labor Relations

1. Oppose legislation which would impede local administration of labor relations.

2. Oppose legislation which would require, impose, or expand compulsory binding arbitration for public employees.

3. Oppose legislation which would increase the cost of benefits, the cost of administering benefits, or mandate that a special group health and welfare benefit be provided to all employees.

4. Oppose legislation which reduces local control over public employee disputes and/or imposes regulations from an outside agency.

5. Oppose legislation which makes disciplinary proceedings for public safety employees similar to criminal proceedings, making it virtually impossible for employers to prove an administrative violation.

6. Oppose legislation restricting the availability of evidence in administrative investigations and hearings involving public safety employees.

D. State and Local Government Relations

1. Oppose legislative efforts that restrict the City from contacting and representing itself on issues of importance before state agencies and commissions.

City of Coronado Page 217

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 7
E. Pension Reform

1. Support legislation consistent with the League of California Cities’ recommendations for pension reform that provides sustainable pensions for local government employees.

City of Coronado Page 218

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 8
III. PUBLIC SAFETY
A. Crimes

1. Oppose efforts that would impede local law enforcement from addressing crime within the community and recovering costs resulting from a crime committed by a guilty party.

1.2. Support legislation that would protect the public from the dangerous and improper use of weapons and enact necessary regulations to control their use.

2.3. Oppose legislation which would weaken the authority of local law enforcement to control the issuance of concealed weapon permits.

3.4. Support legislation which strengthens State graffiti law and provides local government revenue and resources for graffiti abatement.

4.5. Support legislation that would protect the public from identity theft.

5.6. Support legislation that would provide funds for local law enforcement technology.

6.7. Support legislation that would provide funds for additional equipment, services, and/or personnel.

7.8. Support legislation that would prohibit transient rental hosting platforms from facilitating occupancy of a residential unit offered for tourist or transient use in violation of any ordinance, regulation, or law of the city; and require transient rental hosting platforms to report quarterly activities sufficient to enforce local transient rental regulations and zoning.

8.9. Support legislation that would increase the ability of local law enforcement officers to issue a citation to any motor vehicle (including motorcycles) that emit an excessively loud or disturbing noise not necessary for its operation.

9.10. Support legislation that would allow a local agency to develop their own bail schedule for violations of the Vehicle Code by bicyclists and/or allow a local agency to develop its own municipal code for said purpose.

10.11. Support legislation that broadens the threshold for auto burglary by removing the requirement for a vehicle to have locked doors and rolled-up windows in order to meet the definition.

B. Drugs

1. Support legislation which strengthens State and Federal drug laws to give local government the power to restrict or regulate the sale, manufacture and the use of alcohol and/or controlled substances.

2. Oppose legislation that would limit a city’s authority to regulate, permit, license, or prohibit the cultivation, distribution, or sale of marijuana.

City of Coronado Page 219

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 9

3. Support legislation which would provide a greater share of seized assets to localities.

C. Fire Protection

1. Support legislation protecting local discretion regarding building and fire code standards.

2. Support legislation that provides funding for local emergency operations including equipment, services and personnel.

2.3. Support legislation that explores innovation efforts and pilot programs that enable emergency providers to control costs.

D. Medical Care

1. Support legislation protecting or increasing municipal discretion regarding the provision of emergency medical services.

2. Support legislation to regularly update the Geographic Practice Cost Index to provide for adequate reimbursement schedules for physicians in San Diego County who treat Medicare and Medicaid patients.

3. Support legislation that provides State and Federal funding for local hospital operations and capital improvement projects.

4. Support legislation that would enhance or provide funding sources for the delivery of emergency medical and ambulance transportation services.

4.5. Support legislation that would reduce the amount of time City emergency medical and ambulance services must wait at hospitals until patients can be released from their care.

E. Homeland Security

1. Support legislation that would provide funding for Homeland Security measures.

2. Support legislation that would require communicating with city officials regarding threats to local safety, as threats occur.

F. San Diego-Coronado Bridge

1. Support legislation for the establishment and allocation for state and federal funding of a suicide prevention barrier for the Coronado Bridge.

2. Support legislation that seeks City of Coronado concurrence to any modifications to the appearance of the Coronado Bridge as it relates to the establishment of a suicide prevention barrier. City of Coronado Page 220

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 10

3. Oppose legislation that would require the City of Coronado to pay, or otherwise diverts funding intended for the benefit of Coronado, for the purpose of a study or construction of a suicide prevention barrier for the Coronado Bridge.

City of Coronado Page 221

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 11
IV. TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS
A. Transportation

1. Seek and support legislation that would provide Department of Defense/Department of Navy funding and encourage participation in congestion relief for the SR 75/282 Transportation Corridor.

2. Support legislation which provides equitable amounts of State and Federal funding for roads and highways and facilitates the timely construction of local transportation projects.

3. Support legislation which reaffirms State responsibility for highway funding and oppose legislation that would relinquish State Routes to local governments without appropriate consideration or concurrence.

4. Support legislation which assures Federal and State funding efforts for local transportation projects and for alternative forms of transportation.

5. Support legislation providing funds for local agencies to establish peak hour traffic management plans.

6. Support legislation to authorize State financial incentives for employees who commute to work in car pools or use public transportation.

7. Support legislation that allows the use of speed cameras in 25 M.P.H. school zones and residential neighborhoods based solely on safety concerns.

8. Support legislation that would allow the lowering of the speed limit on State Route 282 and State Route 75/Silver Strand Highway.

9. Support legislation for active transportation methods and the implementation of complete streets in the City of Coronado to improve bikeability and walkability throughout the City.

10. Support legislation to facilitate the expedited relinquishment of State Routes 75 and 282, should the City of Coronado decide to take ownership of all or a portion of these roadways.

11. Support legislation that would allow local governments to establish reasonable control and regulations over taxicabs that operate within their jurisdictions.

12. Support legislation that enhances funding for commuter ferry service to and from Coronado and neighboring military bases, including the use of alternative fuel and/or electric vessels for this service.

City of Coronado Page 222

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 12

12. Support legislation that would allow local governments to establish reasonable controls and regulations over electric bikes and other electric modes of transportation.

City of Coronado Page 223

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 13
B. Solid Waste and Recycling

1. Support legislation for local agencies provindg assistance to help prepare and implement recycling plans.

2. Support legislation which encourages the State to provide funding for added costs of implementing mandatory solid waste, household hazardous waste, organic waste, and recycling programs to local agencies.

3. Support legislation which sets reasonable and flexible recycling standards.

4. Support legislation that would exempt a city from AB 939 penalties due to a federal installation’s excessive contribution to the city’s waste stream.

5. Support legislation encouraging active development of markets for recycled goods.

6. Support legislation requiring local agencies to prepare and implement household hazardous waste collection plans and provide state funding for the development of those efforts.

7. Support legislation which reduces local government's superfund liability for solid waste.

C. Public Rights-of-Way

1. Support legislation to retain local control over public rights-of-way.

2. Oppose legislation that would limit the City’s ability to regulate or prohibit activity in the public rights-of-way or on public property.

D. Public Works

1. Support legislation that provides cities the ability to impose consequences regarding future work opportunities on contractors selected under low bid contract requirements that deliver unsatisfactory contract performance.

2. Support legislation that would allow general law cities to use design build or other delivery methods for constructing capital improvement programs.

3. Support legislation that would provide greater flexibility in the use of City forces to complete minor Public Works contracts.

4. Support legislation that would allow general law cities to use a two-step, best value contract acquisition method for service contracts.

City of Coronado Page 224

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 14
V. RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
A. California Environmental Quality Act

1. Support legislation which improves CEQA requirements to aid in a thorough environmental review of future projects.

2. Support legislation that would exempt local agencies from completing CEQA or obtaining additional permits from State or Federal agencies for temporary events such as aerial fireworks displays.

B. Offshore Drilling

1. Oppose legislation which includes any San Diego coastal areas in the lease/sale program until environmental protection has been assured and the need for this resource has been demonstrated.

2. Support legislation which provides for oil spill prevention and response.

3. Support legislation which creates a Coastal Sanctuary which prohibits a State agency from entering into a new lease for the extraction of oil in State waters.

C. Waterfront

1. Support legislation which provides funding for waterfront coastal restoration, protection, and enhancement.

2. Monitor efforts to improve or modify facilities at Silver Strand State Beach with the intent of preserving the environment for the Coronado residents who are adjacent to the State Beach.

3. Monitor the status of legislation and seek state cooperation and funding for protecting the Silver Strand and Coronado Bridge Scenic Highways, including maintenance and operations of the Silver Strand State Park, master planning efforts, ridge line fence improvements, and rehabilitating and upgrading the environmental preserve north of the bayside beach picnic area.

4. Oppose projects that diminish or have a negative impact on the Silver Strand and Coronado Bridge Scenic Highways.

5. Support legislation to fund advance planning and mitigation efforts for the potential of sea- level rise.

City of Coronado Page 225

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 15
D. Water

1. Support legislative efforts to feasibly improve the water quality in San Diego Bay.

2. Support legislation to provide Southern California with a stable source of water.

3. Support legislation which would provide incentives and funding for alternative water sources and for water conservation measures sponsored by local agencies.

4. Support legislation that would advance the opportunity to secure and utilize reclaimed/recycled water.

5. Support legislation that would support the development of a Long-Range Regional Water Reuse Plan that would not preclude a local agency from pursuing its own reclaimed water initiative.

6. Support legislation that would expand the ability of local government officials, staff, and the public to serve on the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

E. Storm Drain and Sewer

1. Support legislation to provide funding for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit compliance and other mitigation measures and projects to reuse, divert, or treat urban runoff.

2. Oppose legislation that imposes more stringent requirements on storm drain runoff without providing funding and/or consideration of the feasibility of monitoring and mitigation of such requirements.

3. Monitor any new or reviewed requirements by State or Federal agencies for testing water quality and water body closures.

4. Support legislation that would provide funding for the Transbay wastewater system and other projects in the sewer and storm water master plans.

5. Support Federal and State legislation to allow for smaller secondary equivalency at the Point Loma Wastewater Plant (including the proposed Pure Water San Diego Program) rather than upgrading the plant to full secondary treatment as long as the discharges from the plant are not harming the environment.

6. Support legislation to fund programs for the proper disposal of prescription drugs.

F. Tijuana River Valley SewageCross Border Water Pollution

1. Support Federal and State legislation that provides Federal and State funding for the study, construction, maintenance and operation of remediation of improved inadequacies in Tijuana’s sewerage infrastructure facilities in Mexico and the United States..

City of Coronado Page 226

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 16

1. 2. Support Federal and State legislation that provides funding for remediation efforts and pollution prevention efforts in the Tijuana River Valley.

Support Federal and State legislation that assigns the responsibility for the funding, construction, maintenance and operation of projects to remediate and prevent pollution in the Tijuana River Valley to the appropriate Federal or State agencies.

3.2. Support legislation that provides authority to the International Boundary and Water Commission to accept funding from other State and Federal agencies to fund improvements to sewage infrastructure.

G. Regional Growth Management

1. Support legislation that would produce additional resources, including adequate funding, to local agencies to address regional growth issues.

2. Support legislation that would authorize local agencies to establish regional authorities to address growth management issues on a voluntary basis.

3. Support legislation which provides for regional governance but does not compromise the City of Coronado’s membership or role in regional governance issues or local municipal land use authority.

4. Support legislation that would return the SANDAG Executive Board voting structure to a tally vote rather than a weighted vote which currently disenfranchises smaller cities within the San Diego region.

H. Air Quality

1. Support legislation to feasibly improve the air quality in San Diego County.

2. Support legislation which allocates State and/or Federal funds for compliance with Federal and State air quality standards.

3. Support legislation that would provide funding for alternative fuel vehicles and charging stations for electric vehicles.

I. Wetlands

1. Oppose legislation which adversely impacts wetlands adjacent to Coronado.

J. Energy

1. Support legislation that effectively stabilizes energy availability and reduces energy costs.

2. Support legislation that would provide funding for alternative energy sources, energy efficiency and conservation measures.

City of Coronado Page 227

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 17
K. Land Use

1. Oppose legislation that takes a punitive approach to City General Plan Housing Element reform and the imposition of any extraordinary powers in State agencies with regard to City Housing Elements.

2. Oppose legislation, or other agency actions, that would usurp local control of land use decision-making.

3. Oppose legislation that would impose State-mandated development standards or procedures that are contrary to the Coronado General Plan or local land use policy.

4. Oppose legislation that would circumvent a local agency’s land use authority by requiring a local agency to allow commercial uses in residential zones or residential uses in commercial zones.

5. Oppose land use legislation that is inflexible and cannot be modified through local review.

6. Oppose proposals that would alter air traffic that could result in negative impacts to Coronado.

7. Support actions by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) related to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) that do not adversely impact properties in Coronado based on the Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) study from the Navy.

7. City of Coronado Page 228

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 18
VI. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DISSOLUTION
A. Housing

1. Oppose legislation which restricts local discretion in the use of housing funds or in the assessment of housing needs.

2. Support legislation which exempts military jobs from Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) formulas or provides credit for housing units contained within adjacent military installations.

3. Support reform legislation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process to provide cities with more flexibility meeting State housing law and more direct authority into the methodologies used to assign housing units to respective cities.

4. Oppose legislation that penalizes a city if units identified in the Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) are not constructed.

2.5. Support legislation which provides a funding source, e.g. tax increment financing, for affordable housing projects and programs similar to the former redevelopment affordable housing set-aside.

3.6. Support efforts that provide funding and resources to assure local governments have the ability to address the needs of the homeless in their communities, and protects the City’s ability to preserve public safety and livability.

B. Successor Agency

1. Oppose legislation which reduces the amount of Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) revenues allocable to successor agencies.

2. Oppose legislation which shifts revenue from successor agencies to the State to cure State budget deficits.

3. Oppose legislation which authorizes other agencies to assess successor agencies in excess of costs for actual services rendered.

4. Oppose legislation that prohibits a successor agency from repaying loans from a City that were provided to the agency for a lawful purpose.

City of Coronado Page 229

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 19
VII. RECREATION
A.1. Support legislation that would provide funds for local and regional recreation areas, parks, facilities, and services.

B.2. Support legislation that provides funding from SANDAG, the State, and/or the Federal Government to complete and maintain the Bayshore Bikeway project around the entire San Diego Bay and other bikeway networks in San Diego County.

City of Coronado Page 230

CITY OF CORONADO
20234 LEGISLATIVE POLICY GUIDELINES
Revised January 176, 20234 20
VIII. CITY- NAVY RELATIONS
A. Support the Navy on matters of mutual concern that are consistent with the City’s best interests to maintain a high quality of life for the community, dealing with base security, mission priorities, training facilities, air traffic safety, and ground traffic congestion.

B. Support the Navy’s efforts in retaining Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) as a longterm, exclusive military facility under BRAC.

C. Oppose efforts for joint use of commercial air passenger or cargo use of Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI).

D. Oppose legislation that interferes with the City’s land use authority to retain existing uses and allow for reasonable expansion of structures within any landing zones.

E. Support Navy policy interpretation that provides for public participation in the preparation of an Air Installation Compatible Use Zone study for NASNI.

F. Support efforts to reintroduce passenger ferry service as a commuter ferry service to and from Coronado and neighboring military bases.

City of Coronado Page 231
League of California Cities 2024 Advocacy Priorities

1. Safeguard local revenues and bolster local economic development.

Cities are the engine of the state economy. With a looming state budget deficit, it is critical to counter efforts by the state and corporations to erode or skim local revenue.

Cal Cities supports increasing local revenue streams for local governments and opposes any effort to reduce or eliminate existing funding to cities. Cal Cities will use every tool in the toolbox — legislative, legal, and grassroots mobilization — to fight a 2024 ballot measure that represents an existential threat to local control. The measure, sponsored by the California Business Roundtable, would put at risk billions of dollars for essential local services. Cal Cities also supports legislation that will fund a state-local partnership to enhance economic development in these uncertain fiscal times.

2. Strengthen climate change resiliency and disaster preparedness.

The threat of climate change is no less during tough economic times. The state needs to accelerate its efforts to prepare, reduce, and adapt to the ever-changing risks posed by climate change — especially in vulnerable and under-resourced communities.

These risks include wildfires, flooding, drought, and other extreme weather events. Cal Cities will pursue funding strategies, including potentially a bond, that provide cities with the necessary resources to improve community and infrastructure resiliency. Cal Cities will also seek to advance a partnership with state and federal agencies to strengthen essential infrastructure, including modernizing the state’s water supply and energy grid.

3. Improve public safety in California communities.

A spike in retail theft, violent smash-and-grab robberies, fentanyl deaths and illicit drug use, and back-to-back natural disasters, as well as strained social services are creating challenges beyond the capacity of local governments. Cal Cities will partner with the state to advance solutions that help reduce crime, increase emergency service capacity, and provide more support to those residents struggling with substance abuse.

We will work with the Legislature, the Governor, and allies to craft legislation that will reform Proposition 47, while avoiding a return to the days of mass incarceration.

4. Expand investments to prevent and reduce homelessness and increase the supply of affordable housing.

California cities are doing more than ever to get residents off the streets and into safe, stable, and affordable housing. However, the homelessness crisis in the world’s fifthlargest economy continues unabated — fueled in part by a lack of affordable housing.

Cal Cities is calling on the state to provide ongoing funding to bolster local efforts to support individuals experiencing, or at risk of, homelessness as well as strengthen state and local partnerships to improve access to wraparound services, including mental health and substance use treatment. Cal Cities also supports ongoing funding for cities to jumpstart the construction of affordable housing, while ensuring cities retain local decision-making and flexibility to achieve community and state housing goals.

Attachment 3
City of Coronado Page 232

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
January 16, 2024 5i

CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A RETIRED ANNUITANT AS

INTERIM DIRECTOR OF POLICES SERVICES/POLICE CHIEF AND APPROVING THE

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH RICHARD MARTINEZ
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, Appointing Richard Martinez as Interim Director of Police Services and Approve Retired Annuitant Interim Employment Agreement.”
BACKGROUND:

In December, Chuck Kaye announced his retirement as Director of Police Services/Police Chief of Coronado. Chief Kaye’s last day was January 4, 2024.

The City Manager retained the services David Morgan of Ralph Andersen to conduct the recruitment for the position on December 20, 2023. It is anticipated the recruitment process will take approximately 120 days to complete. The selection and onboarding of a new Director of Police Services is expected by summer 2024. The City Manager has selected Mr. Richard Martinez to serve as Interim Director of Police Services/Police Chief until the permanent Chief is installed.

Mr. Richard Martinez is a 30-year veteran of the San Cruz Police Department, retiring in 2019 at the rank of Deputy Chief, a post he held for a decade. In that role, Mr. Martinez oversaw the Administration and Operations Divisions and served as Interim Chief of Police for the department of 95 sworn and 25 non-sworn personnel that delivered a full suite of police services with a call volume of 100,000 annually. Mr. Martinez worked in patrol, neighborhood services, investigations, professional standards, police administration, and as the commander of the Emergency Services Unit. Mr. Martinez is well-qualified to support the City of Coronado and Police Department during the Chief of Police transition.

Mr. Martinez is a retiree under the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS).

In order to work for Coronado, a CalPERS employer, Mr. Martinez can only work pursuant to a retired annuitant appointment with related restrictions including work limited to 960 hours in a fiscal year and compensation at the hourly rate of a regular employee in the same capacity.

Under Government Code Section 212221(h), an agreement with Mr. Martinez must be adopted by resolution by the City Council.

ANALYSIS:

The proposed terms of the retired annuitant employment agreement with Mr. Martinez provide the following:

LIMITED TERM: The appointment shall be limited from January 17, 2024 contingent upon successful completion of pre-employment requirements. The agreement shall expire as of the first of the following to occur: (i) upon the employment commencement date of a permanent Director City of Coronado Page 233
of Police Services employed by the City; (ii) upon Mr. Martinez working his 960th hour for the City during any fiscal year as a retired annuitant; or (iii) upon termination of the agreement by either party as provided in the agreement.

COMPENSATION: As the Interim Director of Police Services, the hourly rate shall be $109.00 per hour. This is based on the publicly available pay schedule for the position of Police Chief of $18,943.72 divided by 173.333 to equal an hourly rate as required by statute. There shall be no benefits, incentives, compensation in lieu of benefits, or other forms of compensation in addition to the hourly pay rate.
960 HOUR LIMIT: The hours worked will not exceed 960 hours in a fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) for employment with all CalPERS employers combined.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: Mr. Martinez will warrant that he has not received unemployment insurance payments in the last 12 months for previous retired annuitant work with any CalPERS employer.

EMPLOYMENT SCHEDULE: Mr. Martinez shall devote the time necessary to adequately perform his duties as Interim Director of Police Services. The parties anticipate that he will work up to forty (40) hours per week during normal business hours as well as outside of the normal business hours as appropriate.

RECORDING AND REPORTING HOURS WORKED: Mr. Martinez will comply with all applicable CalPERS regulations governing employment after retirement including recording and reporting all hours worked for the City to CalPERS as may be required.

It is recommended the City Council consider the information provided, adopt the resolution appointing Richard Martinez as Interim Director of Police Services, and approve the Retired Annuitant Interim Employment Agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The net costs to the City from the appointment of the Interim Director of Police Services are $109.00 per hour, as specified in the agreement. If working the full 960 hours per fiscal year, the costs will not exceed $104,640.00. There will be savings in the 2023-2024 fiscal year budget from the vacancy of the Director of Police Services to fully offset the costs of employing a retired annuitant.

ALTERNATIVE:

Provide direction as needed.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

Not Applicable.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

No notice required.

City of Coronado Page 234
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2024-03

2. Retired Annuitant Interim Employment Agreement
Submitted By: City Attorney's Office / Johanna N Canlas City of Coronado Page 235
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-03

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO,

CALIFORNIA, APPOINTING RICHARD MARTINEZ INTERIM DIRECTOR OF POLICE

SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF CORONADO (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 21221(h))
WHEREAS, Government (Gov.) Code section 21221(h) of the Public Employees’ Retirement Law permits the governing body to appoint a CalPERS retiree to a vacant position requiring specialized skills during recruitment for a permanent appointment, and provides that such appointment will not subject the retired person to reinstatement from retirement or loss of benefits so long as it is a single appointment that does not exceed 960 hours in a fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Coronado (“City”) desires to appoint Richard Martinez as an interim appointment retired annuitant as Interim Director of Police Services for the City under Gov. Code section 21221(h), effective January 17, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City has an immediate need for an individual with specialized skills to serve in the capacity of an Interim Director of Police Services while the City recruits to permanently fill the vacant position; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, the City and Richard Martinez certify that he has not and will not receive a Golden Handshake or any other retirement-related incentive; and WHEREAS, an appointment under Gov. Code section 21221(h) requires the retiree is appointed into the interim appointment during recruitment for a permanent appointment; and
WHEREAS, the recruitment process to fill the position of Director of Police Services commenced on December 20, 2023; and
WHEREAS, this Gov. Code section 21221(h) appointment shall only be made once and therefore will end as of the first of the following to occur: (i) upon the employment commencement date of a permanent Director of Police Services employed by City; or (ii) upon working his 960th hour for City including hours worked for other CalPERS Agencies during any fiscal year as a retired annuitant; or (iii) upon termination of the employment by either party; and
WHEREAS, the entire employment agreement between Richard Martinez and the City has been reviewed and approved by this City Council and is attached herein as Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, the compensation paid to retirees cannot be less than the minimum nor exceed the maximum monthly base salary paid to other employees performing comparable duties, divided by 173.333 to equal the hourly rate; and City of Coronado Page 236
Attachment 1
WHEREAS, the maximum base salary for this position is $18,943.72 and the hourly equivalent, rounded to the nearest dollar, is $109.00; and WHEREAS, the hourly rate paid to Richard Martinez will be $109.00; and WHEREAS, Richard Martinez has not and will not receive any other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefit or other form of compensation in addition to this hourly pay rate.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado as follows:

1. That the above recitations are true.

2. That City Council hereby certifies the nature of the employment of Richard Martinez as described herein and detailed in the attached employment agreement and that this appointment is necessary to fill the critically needed position of Interim Director of Police Services for the City of Coronado by January 17, 2024 because the previous Director of Police Services and resigned effective January 4, 2024 thus leaving a critical position vacant; and the orderly functioning of the City to achieve compliance with the Municipal Code, relevant state laws and the direction of the Coronado City Manager requires a capable and competent person be in place as the Interim Director of Police Services.

PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, at a regular meeting thereof this Sixteenth day of January, 2024, by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
____________________________________
RICHARD BAILEY, Mayor of the
City of Coronado, California
ATTEST:
__________________________________
KELSEA HOLIAN, City Clerk of the
City of Coronado, California
City of Coronado Page 237
Attachment 2
1 RETIRED ANNUITANT INTERIM EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This RETIRED ANNUITANT EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE POSITION OF INTERIM DIRECTOR OF POLICE SERVICES (“AGREEMENT”) is entered into and made by and between the CITY OF CORONADO, a municipal corporation (“CITY”) and Richard “Rick” Martinez, an individual (“MARTINEZ”).

RECITALS
A. The CITY’S current Director of Police Services is retiring on January 4, 2024.

B. CITY desires to employ the services of MARTINEZ, as its Interim Director of Police Services, temporarily, to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the Director of Police Services as provided for by the City Municipal Code, in consideration of and subject to the terms, conditions, and benefits set forth in this AGREEMENT.

C. MARTINEZ desires to accept employment as Interim Director of Police Services in consideration of and subject to the terms, conditions, and benefits set forth in this AGREEMENT.

D. CITY has commenced an open recruitment to permanently fill the vacant position of Director of Police Services. During the recruitment period, the CITY has an immediate need for an Interim Director of Police Services, a position involving specialized skills and training and which is critically necessary to the on-going duties and functions of the CITY.

E. MARTINEZ represents that he is a retired annuitant and person receiving a benefit from the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) within the meaning of Government Code §§ 7522.56 and 21221(h). MARTINEZ acknowledges that he is restricted to working no more than a combined 960 hours for CITY, a state agency, or other CalPERS contracting agencies (collectively “CalPERS Agencies”) during CITY’S 2023-2024 fiscal year, and that his compensation is statutorily limited as provided in Government Code § 21221(h). MARTINEZ represents that he has not received any unemployment compensation from any CalPERS Agencies during the 12-month period preceding the effective date of this AGREEMENT. MARTINEZ further represents his CalPERS retirement date became effective prior to the 180-day period preceding the effective date of this AGREEMENT, that he has not received a retirement incentive upon retirement within the meaning of Government Code § 7522.56(g), and that he has attained normal retirement age within the meaning of Government Code § 21220.5.

F. CITY has determined that it is necessary to hire MARTINEZ by virtue of his significant experience in local government as Deputy Police Chief for other agencies.

City of Coronado Page 238
Attachment 2
2 OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
In consideration of the promises and covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

1. Position and Duties.

1.1 Position. CITY hereby employs MARTINEZ as the Interim Director of Police Services for the CITY to perform the functions and duties of the Director of Police Services as provided under the Coronado Municipal Code section 2.08.110 and to perform such other legally permissible and proper functions and duties as the City Manager shall, from time-to-time, direct or assign. MARTINEZ shall perform these functions and duties in an efficient, competent, and ethical manner and shall devote his best efforts and full-time attention thereto.

1.2 Term. This AGREEMENT shall become effective on January 17, 2024 and MARTINEZ shall commence the performance of his duties as the Interim Director of Police Services on this date contingent upon successful completion of pre-employment requirements (background check, medical evaluation, and psychological examination).

This AGREEMENT shall expire as of the first of the following to occur: (i) upon the employment commencement date of a permanent Director of Police Services employed by CITY; or (ii) upon MARTINEZ working his 960th hour for CITY including hours worked for other CalPERS Agencies during any fiscal year as a retired annuitant; or (iii) upon termination of the AGREEMENT by either MARTINEZ or CITY as provided in Section 4 [Termination] of this AGREEMENT.

1.3 At-Will. MARTINEZ acknowledges that he is an at-will temporary employee of the CITY who shall serve at the will and pleasure of the City Manager at all times during the period of his service hereunder and that his employment may be terminated at any time, for any or no reason, with or without cause as provided in Section 4 [Termination] of this Agreement and/or by operation of California or federal law. Nothing in this AGREEMENT is intended to, or does, confer upon MARTINEZ any right to any property interest in continued employment, or any due process right to a hearing before or after a decision by CITY to terminate his employment, except as is expressly provided in Section 4 [Termination] of this AGREEMENT and/or by operation of California or federal law.

Nothing contained in this AGREEMENT shall in any way prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of CITY to terminate the services of MARTINEZ as provided in Section 4 [Termination]. Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of MARTINEZ to resign at any time from the position with CITY, subject only to the provisions set forth in Section 4 [Termination] of this AGREEMENT.

The terms of the CITY’S personnel rules, policies, procedures, ordinances, resolutions, or Municipal Code (collectively, “Personnel Policies”) shall not apply to MARTINEZ to the extent such Personnel Policies conflict with this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT is not intended to limit, in any way, any right that MARTINEZ may have under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, as set forth in California Government Code Sections 3300-3313 (“POBRA”).

City of Coronado Page 239
Attachment 2
3 1.4 Duties. MARTINEZ shall serve as the Interim Director of Police Services and shall be for the term of this AGREEMENT vested with the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Director of Police Services as set forth in ordinances and resolutions of the CITY, including without limitation, those set forth in the CITY’S Municipal Code and to perform other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as the City Manager may from time-to-time assign. Without additional compensation, MARTINEZ shall provide such other services as are customary and appropriate to the position of Interim Director of Police Services. MARTINEZ shall devote his best efforts and full-time attention to the performance of these duties.

1.5 Hours of Work. MARTINEZ shall devote the time necessary to adequately perform his duties as Interim Director of Police Services. The parties anticipate that MARTINEZ will work up to forty (40) hours per week during normal CITY business hours as well as outside of the normal business hours as appropriate. However, in no event shall MARTINEZ be required or permitted to work in excess of nine hundred sixty (960) hours per fiscal year. The position of Interim Director of Police Services shall be deemed an exempt position under Federal and California wage and hour law.

1.6 Other Activity. In accordance with Government Code Section 1126, during the period of his employment, MARTINEZ shall not accept, without the express prior written consent of the City Manager, any other employment or engage, directly or indirectly, in any other business, commercial, or professional activity, whether or not to pecuniary advantage, that is or may be competitive with CITY, that might cause a conflictof-interest with CITY, or that otherwise might interfere with the business or operation of CITY or the satisfactory performance of MARTINEZ's duties as Interim Director of Police Services.

1.7 Reimbursement. CITY shall reimburse MARTINEZ for reasonable and necessary travel, subsistence and other business expenses incurred by MARTINEZ in the performance of his duties. All reimbursements shall be subject to and in accordance with California law and applicable CITY reimbursement policies.

2. Compensation.

2.1 Rate of Pay. For all services performed by the Interim Director of Police Services under this AGREEMENT, CITY shall pay MARTINEZ compensation at the rate of One Hundred and Nine Dollars ($109.00) per hour according to the payroll schedule in place for CITY employees paid bi-weekly subject to the limitations provided below.

MARTINEZ shall submit all itemized requests for payment to the City Manager who shall approve all requests for payment under this AGREEMENT.

2.2 Compliance with CalPERS Requirements. It is the intent of the parties to compensate MARTINEZ only to the extent permitted under Government Code Sections 21221(h) and 7522.56(d) and corresponding CalPERS regulations and policy statements.

The parties acknowledge and agree that the rate of pay set forth above does not exceed the salary limitations established by CalPERS based on the salary as set forth in the CITY’S publicly available salary schedule. The monthly base salary for the position of City of Coronado Page 240
Attachment 2
4 Director of Police Services as listed on the publicly available pay schedule is Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Three and Seventy-Two Cents ($18,943.72) The Rate of Pay is calculated by taking the monthly base salary of Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Three and Seventy-Two Cents ($18,943.72) and dividing it by 173.333 to equal an hourly rate of One Hundred and Nine Dollars ($109.00) rounded to the nearest dollar.

2.2.1 Recording and Reporting of Hours Worked. MARTINEZ will comply with all applicable CalPERS regulations governing employment after retirement including recording and reporting of all hours worked for CITY to CalPERS as may be required. CITY shall assist in any such reporting obligations to CalPERS. Additionally, MARTINEZ shall keep CITY continually apprised of any hours worked by MARTINEZ for other CalPERS Agencies during the term of this AGREEMENT.

2.3 Benefits.

2.3.1 No Benefits. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 21221(h), 21224, and related CalPERS regulations and policy statements, MARTINEZ shall not receive from CITY any benefits CITY commonly provides to its employees including, without limitation, health, dental, or vision insurance coverage, life insurance, employee assistance programs, and similar benefits.

3. Vacation and Leave.

3.1 No Leave. MARTINEZ and CITY agree that MARTINEZ shall not be provided or accrue any personal time off, vacation, sick leave, administrative leave, paid holidays or similar leave benefits.

4. Termination.

4.1 By CITY. This AGREEMENT may be terminated by CITY for any reason after five (5) days' notice in writing to MARTINEZ of such termination. CITY’s only obligation in the event of such termination will be payment to MARTINEZ of all compensation then due and owing as set forth in Section 2.1 [Rate of Pay] up to and including the effective date of termination. However, this AGREEMENT may be terminated immediately if necessitated by changes to CalPERS statutory or regulatory requirements.

4.2 By MARTINEZ. This AGREEMENT may be terminated by MARTINEZ for any reason after thirty (30) days’ notice in writing to CITY of such termination. CITY shall have the option, in its complete discretion, to make MARTINEZ's termination effective at any time prior to the end of such period, provided CITY pays MARTINEZ all compensation as set forth in Section 2.1 [Rate of Pay] then due and owing him through the last day actually worked.

4.3 No Notice for Expiration. Nothing in this Section 4 [Termination] shall be construed to require either party to give advance written notice in order for the AGREEMENT to expire as set forth in Section 1.2 [Term].

City of Coronado Page 241
Attachment 2
5 4.4 Termination Obligations. MARTINEZ agrees that all property, including, without limitation, all equipment, tangible Proprietary Information (as defined below), documents, records, notes, contracts, and computer-generated materials furnished to or prepared by him incident to his employment belongs to CITY and shall be returned promptly to CITY upon termination of MARTINEZ's employment. MARTINEZ's obligations under this subsection shall survive the termination of his employment and the expiration of this AGREEMENT.

4.5 Benefits upon Termination. All benefits to which MARTINEZ's entitled under this AGREEMENT shall cease upon MARTINEZ's termination in accordance with this Section 4, unless expressly continued either under this AGREEMENT, under any specific written policy or benefit plan applicable to MARTINEZ, or unless otherwise required by law.

5. Conflict Of Interest.

MARTINEZ represents and warrants to CITY that he presently has no interest, and represents that he will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or interfere in any way with performance of his services under this AGREEMENT.

6. General Provisions.

6.1 Recitals. The recitals, inclusive of all facts and representations, are incorporated into this AGREEMENT as if set forth in the Operative Provisions.

6.2 Vehicle Operation. MARTINEZ shall operate any vehicle used in connection with the performance of his duties as Interim Director of Police Services in a safe manner and otherwise in observance of all established traffic safety laws and ordinances and shall maintain a valid California automobile’s driver’s license during the period of employment.

6.3 Proprietary Information. “Proprietary Information” is all information and any idea pertaining in any manner to the business of CITY (or any CITY affiliate), its employees, clients, consultants, or business associates, which was produced by any employee of CITY in the course of his/her employment or otherwise produced or acquired by or on behalf of CITY. All Proprietary Information not generally known outside of CITY’S organization, and all Proprietary Information so known only through improper means, shall be deemed “Confidential Information.” During his employment by CITY, MARTINEZ shall use Proprietary Information, and shall disclose Confidential Information, only for the benefit of CITY and as is or may be necessary to perform his job responsibilities under this AGREEMENT. Following termination, MARTINEZ shall not use any Proprietary Information and shall not disclose any Confidential Information, except with the express written consent of CITY. MARTINEZ's obligations under this Section shall survive the termination of his employment and the expiration of this AGREEMENT.

6.4 CITY Documents. All data, studies, reports and other documents prepared by MARTINEZ while performing his duties during the term of this AGREEMENT shall be City of Coronado Page 242
Attachment 2
6 furnished to and become the property of the CITY, without restriction or limitation on their use. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other materials either created by or provided to MARTINEZ in connection with the performance of this AGREEMENT shall be held confidential by MARTINEZ to the extent permitted by applicable law, except as may be required by any governmental agency or court of competent jurisdiction. Such materials shall not be used by MARTINEZ for any purpose other than the performance of his duties. Additionally, no such materials may be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of services under this AGREEMENT, except as required by (a) law, (b) any governmental agency, (c) subpoena, or (d) an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.

6.5 Notices. All notices, requests, demands and other communications under this AGREEMENT shall be in writing and shall be effective upon delivery by hand or email or three (3) business days after deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered, and addressed to CITY at the address below, and/or at the last known address maintained in MARTINEZ's personnel file. MARTINEZ agrees to notify CITY in writing of any change in his address during his employment with CITY. Notice of change of address shall be effective only when accomplished in accordance with this Section.

City’s Notice Address:

City of Coronado
1825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118
Attn: Mayor and City Council
Interim Director of Police Services’ Address:

Address on file in MARTINEZ’s personnel file

6.6 Indemnification. Subject to, in accordance with, and to the extent provided by the California Tort Claims Act [Government Code Section 810 et seq.] CITY will indemnify, defend, and hold MARTINEZ harmless from and against any action, demand, suit, monetary judgment or other legal or administrative proceeding, and any liability, injury, loss or other damages, arising out of any act or omission occurring during MARTINEZ's tenure as Interim Director of Police Services.

6.7 AB1344. Assembly Bill 1344, which was subsequently enacted as Government Code Sections 53243 - 53243.4, sought to provide greater transparency in local government and institute certain limitations on compensation paid to local government executives. These statutes also require that contracts between local agencies and its employees include provisions requiring an employee who is convicted of a crime involving an abuse of his office or position to provide reimbursement to the local agency for the following forms of payment: (i) paid leave salary; (ii) criminal defense costs; (iii) cash settlement payments; and (iv) any non-contractual settlement payments.

Accordingly, the Parties agree that it is their mutual intent to fully comply with these Government Code sections and all other applicable law as it exists as of the date of City of Coronado Page 243
Attachment 2
7 execution of this AGREEMENT and as such laws may be amended from time to time thereafter. Specifically, the following Government Code sections are called out and hereby incorporated by this AGREEMENT:
§ 53243. Reimbursement of paid leave salary required upon conviction of crime involving office or position.
§ 53243.1. Reimbursement of legal criminal defense upon conviction of crime involving office or position.
§ 53243.2. Reimbursement of cash settlement upon conviction of crime involving office or position.
§ 53243.3. Reimbursement of noncontractual payments upon conviction or crime involving office or position.
§ 53243.4. “Abuse of office or position” defined.

6.8 Effect of Conviction on Termination. If MARTINEZ is convicted of a crime involving an abuse of his office or position, as defined in Government Code section 53243.4, the following restrictions will apply: (i) any paid leave given to MARTINEZ pending an investigation shall be fully reimbursed to CITY, (ii) any funds expended by CITY for the legal MARTINEZ defense of MARTINEZ shall be fully reimbursed to CITY, (iii) any cash settlement paid to MARTINEZ shall be fully reimbursed. Upon conviction of a covered felony under Government Code sections 7522.72 or 7522.74, MARTINEZ may forfeit the benefits in accordance with those sections.

6.9 Independent Legal Advice. The CITY and MARTINEZ represent and warrant to each other that each has received legal advice from independent and separate legal counsel with respect to the legal effect of this AGREEMENT, or had the opportunity to do so, and the CITY and MARTINEZ further represent and warrant that each has carefully reviewed this entire AGREEMENT and that each and every term thereof is understood and that the terms of this AGREEMENT are contractual and not a mere recital. This AGREEMENT shall not be construed against the party or its representatives who drafted it or who drafted any portion thereof.

6.10 Integration. This AGREEMENT is intended to be the final, complete, and exclusive statement of the terms of MARTINEZ's employment by CITY. This AGREEMENT supersedes all other prior and contemporaneous agreements and statements, whether written or oral, express or implied, pertaining in any manner to the employment of MARTINEZ's and it may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior or contemporaneous statements or agreements. To the extent that the practices, policies, or procedures of CITY, now or in the future, apply to MARTINEZ and are inconsistent with the terms of this AGREEMENT, the provisions of this AGREEMENT shall control.

6.11 Amendments. This AGREEMENT may not be amended except in a written document signed by MARTINEZ approved by the City Manager.

6.12 Waiver. Failure to exercise any right under this AGREEMENT shall not constitute a waiver of such right.

City of Coronado Page 244
Attachment 2
8 6.13 Assignment. MARTINEZ shall not assign any rights or obligations under this AGREEMENT. CITY may, upon prior written notice to MARTINEZ , assign its rights and obligations hereunder.

6.14 Severability. If a court or arbitrator holds any provision of this AGREEMENT to be invalid, unenforceable, or void, the remainder of this AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect.

6.15 Governing Law. This AGREEMENT shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, with venue proper only in San Diego, State of California.

6.16 Interpretation. This AGREEMENT shall be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning, and not in favor of or against any party. By way of example and not in limitation, this AGREEMENT shall not be construed in favor of the party receiving a benefit nor against the party responsible for any particular language in this AGREEMENT. Captions are used for reference purposes only and should be ignored in the interpretation of the AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT may be altered, amended or modified only by an instrument in writing, executed by the parties to this AGREEMENT and by no other means. Each party waives their future right to claim, contest or assert that this AGREEMENT was modified, cancelled superseded or changed by any oral agreement, course of conduct, waiver or estoppel.

6.17 Acknowledgment. MARTINEZ acknowledges that he has had the opportunity to consult legal counsel in regard to this AGREEMENT, that he has read and understands this AGREEMENT, that he is fully aware of its legal effect, and that he has entered into it freely and voluntarily and based on his own judgment and not on any representations or promises other than those contained in this AGREEMENT.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY has caused this AGREEMENT to be signed and executed on its behalf by its City Manager and MARTINEZ has signed and executed this AGREEMENT, as of the date first indicated above.

INTERIM DIRECTOR OF POLICE SERVICES CITY OF CORONADO
____________________________ __________________________ Richard “Rick” Martinez Tina Friend, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Johanna N. Canlas
City Attorney
City of Coronado Page 245

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
January 16, 2024 5j
ADOPTION OF “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE RECEIPT AND APPROPRIATION OF $22,328 IN FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE FISCAL YEAR 2021 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAM (SHSP) THROUGH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO”
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, Authorizing the Receipt and Appropriation of $22,328 in funds provided by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) through the County of San Diego.” BACKGROUND:

In recent years, the State of California has been awarded grant funding from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The State, in turn, awards a portion of this funding to each county. Local law enforcement agencies may apply for these funds through the county.

In prior years, the Fire Department has used a portion of the funds to replace and update their portable radios and stop-bleed kits. The Police Department has used prior funding for a variety of projects, including security cameras, portable radios, and ballistic plates.

ANALYSIS:

Public Safety would like to purchase boating equipment for the City’s recently acquired marine vessel, Guardian. This equipment will assist public safety’s mission of patrolling Glorietta Bay and neighborhoods in Coronado on the San Diego Bay. Public safety will engage in water rescues, medical aid, boater assistance and education, and environmental protection. The requested marine equipment will support public safety’s mission of patrolling the aquatic environment around Coronado.

FISCAL IMPACT:

San Diego County has been allocated FY 2021 State Homeland Security grant funds. The City of Coronado is eligible to receive $22,328 of these grant funds. The expenditure and reimbursement revenue will be recorded to the City's Federal Grant Fund 24021000 and may be subject to Federal single audit reporting requirements. These funds must be spent by February 29, 2024.

ALTERNATIVE:

The City Council may choose not to accept the grant funds or direct that the grant funds be used to purchase other equipment.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

Not Applicable.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

No notice required.

City of Coronado Page 246
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2024-04
Submitted By: Police Services Department / Dustin Kulling City of Coronado Page 247
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-04

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE RECEIPT AND
APPROPRIATION OF $22,328 IN FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE
FISCAL YEAR 2021 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAM
(SHSP) THROUGH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
WHEREAS, the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) provides grant funds to local governments to support terrorism preparedness by building or enhancing capabilities that relate to the prevention of, protection from, or response to and recovery from terrorism; and WHEREAS, the City of Coronado Police and Fire Departments are eligible to receive a portion of these grant funds provided by the State Homeland Security Program through the County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services, and the City Council is authorized to approve and accept the receipt of grant funds when the funds are made available.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, that the City Council approves and authorizes the receipt and appropriation of $22,328 in grant funds provided by the State Homeland Security Program administered through the County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these funds, which must be spent by February 29, 2024, be budgeted for expenditure from the Federal Grants Fund 24021000 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24.

PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, at a regular meeting thereof this Sixteenth day of January, 2024, by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item 10a: Report on Inter-Agency Committees, Board Assignments, and Meetings for Councilmember Mike Donovan
Period of report: December 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 Date Activity
12/1 Coronado Holiday Parade.
12/5 Facilitating Access to Coordinated Transportation (FACT) Board Meeting.

Met with City Manager Tina Friend.
12/6 City Employee Holiday Breakfast.
12/7 SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group meeting. 12/9 Coronado Historical Association HdC Laundry Truck 100th Anniversary. 12/11 Cal Cities, San Diego County Division meeting.
12/12 Navy League / Military Officers of America Dinner meeting. 12/13 San Diego Military Advisory Council breakfast meeting. 12/14 San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Board of Directors meeting.

Port Master Plan Update review meeting (virtual).
12/15 SANDAG Public Safety Committee meeting.
12/19 Met with City Manager Tina Friend.
12/22 Met with Emerald Keepers founder and resident Amy Steward. 12/28 Met with residents Susan Blanco and Laura Crenshaw.

Item 10a.

Councilmember Donovan
City of Coronado Page 249

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
January 16, 2024 10b

CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT OF ONE MEMBER TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO SERVE A THREE-YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE JANUARY 31, 2027
RECOMMENDATION:

Consider for reappointment one member to serve a three-year term to expire January 31, 2027 on the Parks and Recreation Commission.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Coronado Administrative Procedure No. 204 and Council policy limits the time an individual may serve on a board, commission, or committee to a maximum of two terms or eight years, whichever is less. City Council Policies No. 6 and No. 23 set forth the process for reappointing eligible incumbents and the competitive process to fill vacancies on City boards, commissions, and committees.

ANALYSIS:

Commissioner Andrew Koczon was appointed to the Parks and Recreation Commission on July 19, 2022, and is seeking reappointment for a three (3) year term.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ALTERNATIVE:

The City Council could decline to make the reappointment and direct the City Clerk to advertise for additional applicants.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

Not Applicable.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

The notice of vacancy was published in the Coronado Eagle & Journal. Notices were posted at City Hall, Coronado Community Center, Coronado Public Library, John D. Spreckels Center, on the City’s website, and in the City Manager’s Update.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Letter of Interest - Andrew Koczon
Submitted By: City Clerk's Office / Kelsea Holian
City of Coronado Page 250
City of Coronado Page 251

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
January 16, 2024 10c

ORANGE AVENUE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT FOCUSED ENHANCEMENTS RECOMMENDATION:

Receive a report and provide direction to staff regarding proposed focused enhancements to Orange Avenue.

BACKGROUND:

Orange Avenue is one of the City’s primary entrances and home to the central business district that serves residents and visitors alike. The City of Coronado has a long history of making strategic investments in the downtown to improve the quality of life for residents and the desirability of the destination for visitors. Since 1991, numerous projects have blended strategic planning, community involvement, and successful project execution to create a vibrant and appealing downtown. Over the past three decades, the City of Coronado has undergone significant downtown transformation driven by dedicated efforts to enhance economic vitality as well as the village atmosphere.

Key initiatives guided by collaborative efforts involving citizens and organizations have shaped the downtown landscape. Three focused community planning efforts were undertaken in the last 30 years: the Coronado Business Area Development Plan (1993), the Orange Avenue Corridor Specific Plan (2003) and the Wayfinding Signage Program (2015). Major projects have included Adella Plaza (2000), Downtown Enhancement Project Phase 1 (DTEP1) (2001) and Phase II (DTEP2) (2002) and the Rotary Park expansion (2009).

Past projects on the 800 block of Orange Avenue have included the restoration of the Village Theatre and the exterior terrazzo sidewalk (2011) and most recently the remodel and expansion of Vons (2022).

To continue the work along Orange Avenue, the City previously created a Capital Improvement Project known as the Downtown Enhancement Phases III and IV (DTEP) concentrating on making comparable improvements of the first two phases on the 800 and 100 blocks of Orange Avenue respectfully.

In an effort to garner community support and feedback on proposed improvements, on April 6, 2021 Discover Coronado presented their Orange Avenue Beautification Report to the City Council. The report included a broad set of potential improvements to Orange Avenue to enhance the quality of life for residents and the experience of visitors. City Council directed staff to review Discover Coronado’s proposal and develop a menu of options and returned to Council for further consideration.

Due to the COVID pandemic, staff did not return to City Council until March 1, 2022. Staff categorized project ideas from the Discover Coronado report into short-, mid-, and long-term projects and created a matrix showing potential timing and associated implementation steps. City Council reviewed the menu of items and provided consensus direction on high priority City of Coronado Page 252
improvements to Orange Avenue. A copy of the March 1, 2022 meeting minutes is attached summarizing City Council comments and direction.

ANALYSIS:

Stakeholder Committee
Based upon the input received from City Council at their March 1, 2022 meeting, staff conducted a thorough inventory of the existing streetscape to quantify furnishings and their condition, entering the information into the City’s Geographic Information System to enable effective estimation. Staff then developed a more focused menu of options for consideration and convened the Orange Avenue Beautification Stakeholder Committee comprised of the executive directors of Coronado MainStreet, Discover Coronado, and the Coronado Chamber of Commerce in late 2023 and early 2024 to review those options.

Through a series of meetings, the Committee members were asked to review the menu of targeted enhancements to beautify Orange Avenue and enhance its sense of place as a top destination for dining, shopping and entertainment. The Committee’s goals were as follows:
• Beautify Orange Avenue to benefit residents, business owners, and guests. • Enhance consistency of streetscape and furnishings.
• Maintain harmony between historic architecture and streetscape improvements. • Improve lighting and pedestrian crossings to increase safety. • Consider longevity and maintenance requirements.
• Focus on potential 800 and 100 "demonstration" blocks.

Similar to the last major upgrade in downtown in 2002 on the 900 block, staff focused on replacing existing sidewalks, installing sidewalk-mounted historic style light poles, new trash receptacles, benches, tree grates and decorative lighting. The 100 and 800 blocks of Orange Avenue could serve as updated “model” blocks for future improvements to other segments of Orange Avenue, or could be integrated into a larger scale project that includes the entire expanse of Orange Avenue starting on the 100 block through the 1300 block to RH Dana. Improvements to each block are dependent upon the existing street furnishings and surrounding environment.

Staff has outlined four potential options for improvements to Orange Avenue below for consideration:

Option 1: 100 and 800 Blocks - Full Scope Enhancements
Please refer to Attachment 1 for a full list of proposed streetscape improvements and the associated recommendations provided by the Orange Avenue Beautification Stakeholder Committee. The list of streetscape improvements on the 100 and 800 blocks represent the most cost intensive areas along Orange Avenue in comparison to the remaining blocks from 200 through 1300 that have received prior upgrades or are less commercial in nature.

City Council may choose to do some or all of the items presented at this time; however, it is important to note that sidewalk replacements must be done in tandem with electrical and irrigation conduit installations to enable installation of new historic light poles and potential decorative lighting of trees and/or new historic light poles.

Option 1 would be programmed into Fiscal Year 2024/25 Capital Improvement Budget with design starting in July 2024. Caltrans permits for the 800 block would be secured by Spring 2025 with the start of construction starting in Fall 2025 and estimated completion in Spring 2026.

City of Coronado Page 253
Option 1A: 100 and 800 Blocks – Street Furnishings Only City Council could choose to have only street furnishings installed on the 100 and 800 blocks.

Street furnishings include new trash receptacles, benches, trees, tree grates, news racks and bike racks, but not historic street lighting, sidewalk improvements or decorative lighting.

Option 1A would shorten the estimated timeline with the project starting in July 2024 with completion in June 2025.

Option 2: 100 through 1300 Blocks to RH Dana – Full Scope Enhancements A second option would be to expand the scope of the Downtown Beautification Project to include all of the remaining portions of Orange Avenue starting at the 100 block through RH Dana. The scope would include all of the same items in Option 1 listed above, with notable exceptions. Due to the more mixed-use/residential nature of the 200 through 600 blocks, staff only included replacement of missing trees in the right-of-way and addition of historic street lighting in associated cost estimates.

Option 2 estimated project start would be July 2024 with completion slated for Fall 2026.

Option 2A: 100 through 1300 Blocks to RH Dana – Street Furnishings Only City Council could also direct staff to move forward with replacement of street furnishings only for the 100 block through 1300 block to RH Dana.

Option 2A project schedule would be similar to that of Option 1A and would shorten the estimated timeline with the project starting in July 2024 with completion in June 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Below is a summary of potential funding sources and costs of the four options:

Appropriated Funding Amount
2023/24 CIP Budget - Downtown Enhancement Phase $100,000 Unappropriated Funding
City Council unfunded prior General Fund commitment $500,000 Von’s Development Impact Fee Fund (frontage improvements) $150,000 Total Potential City Funding Sources $750,000
Cost Comparisons (includes landscape design and contingency) Option 1: 100 and 800 Blocks Full Scope $4,026,908
Option 1A: 100 and 800 Blocks - Replace Street Furnishings Only $705,515 Option 2: All Blocks (100 block through RH Dana) - Full Scope $8,728,098 Option 2A: All Blocks (100 block through RH Dana) – Replace Street Furnishings Only
$1,599,035
City of Coronado Page 254
In addition, Discover Coronado previously discussed contribution of up to $500,000 for the project.

A formal request would need to be submitted to Discover Coronado for consideration by their board once the scope is determined.

The City Council could choose to appropriate project costs as part of the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Capital Improvement Budget in June.

Regardless of the option chosen by City Council, City staff would work directly with local businesses, the Chamber of Commerce and Coronado MainStreet to notify them of construction schedules and to help minimize impacts to those nearby businesses. The project scope would also include reviewing the right-of-way improvements for compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.

ALTERNATIVE:

The City Council could direct staff to research additional options or provide additional direction on the Downtown Beautification Project.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

Not Applicable. Once the aspects of the enhancement project have been identified, environmental review will be conducted under CEQA.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

No notice required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. List of Full Scope Streetscape Element Options

1. City Council Meeting Minutes – March 1, 2022 (Item 10C) Submitted By: City Manager's Office / Tony Winney, Assistant City Manager Kelly Purvis, Sr. Management Analyst
City of Coronado Page 255
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Orange Avenue Beautification Project
Streetscape Elements Options

1. Sidewalks
• Recommendation: Replacement where needed using Coronado’s established pattern and color. Include installation of electrical for lights and water for tree wells.
• Rationale: Sidewalks on these two blocks do not have consistent colors or patterns. The 800 and 100 Block were identified as the next phases of the Downtown Enhancement Project.

2. Village Theater Terrazzo Sidewalk (800 Block Only)
• Recommendation: Replace existing terrazzo with existing historic pattern. • Rationale: The City made significant effort to save the historical terrazzo in front of the Village Theater but in just over 10 years the terrazzo has continued to crack and fade significantly. The historic terrazzo is smooth and with rain presents a slipping hazard to pedestrians. An terrazzo would retain the historic feel of the sidewalk and renew the entrance of the theater while creating a safer surface for high pedestrian traffic.

3. Trees & Grates
• Recommendation: Install new and refurbish existing tree grates as needed and plant Queen Palms as needed.
• Rationale: Historically, Queen Palms have been planted on Orange Avenue.

Queen Palms consume less water, create less debris on the sidewalk, and only require yearly maintenance. They also provide sufficient canopy clearance for downtown business signage visibility.

4. Street Lighting
• Recommendation: Retain existing gray historical lamp posts. Investigate a pole green scarf, shade diffuser and a crown finial.
• Rationale: The current historical lamps were recently used for the Ocean Blvd. sidewalk project as well as the Hotel Del Coronado Masterplan work on Avenida del Sol and Orange Avenue. The lights do well in the coastal environment and add to the historic vibe of the downtown.

5. Decorative Lighting (excludes 200-600 blocks)
• Recommendation: Wrap historic light poles throughout the downtown with festive lights seasonal or year-round.

City of Coronado Page 256
Attachment 1
• Rationale: Lighting adds to the festive mood of a vibrant downtown as well as a safer walking environment.

6. Benches
• Recommendation: Retain the existing wooden benches but upgrade the wrought iron color to Coronado Green and the wood to modified Red Oak. Red oak will reduce maintenance costs. Include a Coronado City Logo medallion in the center of the new benches.
• Rationale: The existing DuMor Model 57 is a standard in the downtown.

Switching to a Coronado Green wrought iron and the maintenance friendly slats and a logo emblem will be a subtle change to an already proven bench. Where needed a center bar may be added to deter sleeping on benches and skateboarding. As other benches in the downtown area are retired you can replace with this new specification.

7. Trash and Recycling Receptacles
• Recommendation: Install of new steel trash and recycling receptacles that were made specifically to complement the existing wood benches. • Rationale: The steel containers are the same capacity as the current cement waste cans with a more modern look. The proposed receptacles match the benches recommended. They have bonnet lids and steel shields to hide the liners and trash cans. Includes City logo and labels on lids for type of trash.

8. Bike Racks and Bike Corrals (excludes 200-600 blocks) • Recommendation: Keep the existing “bike rider” single bike racks in Coronado green as standard, as also recommended by the Mobility and Cultural Arts Commissions.
• Rationale: After trying several proposed bike rack models, the “bike rider” single bike racks are the standard recommended.

9. Newsracks – (existing locations)
• Recommendation: Retain the existing 13 newsracks throughout the community.

Professionally paint them Coronado green. Evaluate usage and make recommendations to move to more appropriate locations if warranted. • Rationale: In 2016 the City established a newsrack ordinance. The current racks are in good condition and painting will increase their life expectancy. The existing vendor is no longer in business. Staff will research options for replacement racks for future review.

City of Coronado Page 257
Attachment 1

10.Utility Box Public Art – (9 existing locations)
• Recommendation: Continue the City’s existing Utility Box Public Art program, and update designs as necessary.
• Rationale: In 2017, the City Council approved a Utility Box Public Art program, wrapping utility boxes in Coronado’s downtown from Third and Orange Avenue to Avenida de las Arenas. The life expectancy of the wraps is 5-7 years due to exposure to weather. The Cultural Arts Commission will bring new replacement designs forward to the City Council in spring 2024.

11.Crosswalks/Truncated Domes/Walk your Wheels Decals
• Recommendation: Work with Caltrans to install two new crosswalks at 9th and Orange Avenue with Caltrans approved Continental design in thermoplastic.

Change out truncated domes to Caltrans approved gray and install “Walk Your Wheels” Decals as needed.
• Rationale: Crosswalks throughout the Coronado downtown area have no consistency of pattern, placement, or maintenance.

12.Traffic Light and Sign Maintenance
• Recommendation: Request of Caltrans repair or replacement of traffic light faces and any signs found that are showing wear and tear along Orange Avenue. • Rationale: Stop lights along Orange Avenue are showing significant fading and peeling and need to be repaired/replaced.

City of Coronado Page 258
March 1, 2022 Coronado City Council Minutes Page 39

MINUTES OF THE

REGULAR MEETING OF THE
City Council of the City of Coronado
and the
City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado
Held in the Council Chamber at:
1825 Strand Way
Coronado, California 92118
Tuesday, March 1, 2022
3:00 p.m. Closed Session Special Meeting
4:00 p.m. Regular Meeting

1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
The Closed Session Special Meeting of the City Council was called to order at 3:01 p.m. on Tuesday, March 1, 2022 in the City Council Chamber at City Hall with Mayor Bailey presiding.

A Quorum of members was present to conduct a meeting with the following results.

Present: (5) Councilmember Donovan; Councilmember Heinze; Councilmember Sandke; Councilmember Tanaka; Mayor
Bailey;
Also
Present
(3) City Manager/Agency Executive Director Tina Friend
City Attorney/Agency Counsel Johanna N. Canlas
City Clerk/Agency Secretary Jennifer Ekblad

2. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION

3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.6
a. Labor Negotiations
Agency Designated Representative: Tina Friend, City Manager Employee Organization(s): Self Represented and Executive Management Officers' Association (POA)
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 259
March 1, 2022 Coronado City Council Minutes Page 40

4. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8
a. Real Property Negotiations
Property: State Routes 75 and 282
City Negotiator: Tina Friend, City Manager
Negotiating Parties: State of California
Under Negotiation: Terms

5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1)
a. Jason Clements v. City of Coronado
Claim No. 568713

6. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2)
a. One (1) Potential Case

7. COMMUNICATIONS ORAL: None.

8. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION: 3:01 P.M.

Mayor Bailey announced that the Closed Session Special Meeting adjourned at 3:58 p.m. and the Regular Meeting would begin at 4:05 p.m.

1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
The Regular Meeting of the City Council was called to order at 4:05 p.m. on Tuesday, March 1, 2022 in the City Council Chamber at City Hall with Mayor Bailey presiding.

A Quorum of members was present to conduct a meeting with the following results.

Present: (5) Councilmember Donovan; Councilmember Heinze; Councilmember Sandke; Councilmember Tanaka; Mayor
Bailey
Also
Present
(3) City Manager/Agency Executive Director Tina Friend
City Attorney/Agency Counsel Johanna N. Canlas
City Clerk/Agency Secretary Jennifer Ekblad

2. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Girl Scout Troop 6530 lead the Pledge of Allegiance.

At this time, Mayor Bailey decided to present the Proclamation for Girl Scout Week.

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 260
March 1, 2022 Coronado City Council Minutes Page 41

4. CEREMONIAL PRESENTATIONS:

Mayor Bailey presented the proclamation for Girl Scout Week to Troop 6530.

Carol Dedrich, Chief Executive Officer of San Diego Girl Scouts provided comments and thanked the City Council.

3. MINUTES
Approval of the minutes of the Regular meeting of February 15, 2022. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Councilmember Tanaka and seconded by Councilmember Heinze.

The motion carried by the following results.

Yes: (5) Councilmember Donovan; Councilmember
Heinze; Councilmember Sandke;
Councilmember Tanaka; Mayor Bailey

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion to approve this Consent Calendar was made by Councilmember Donovan and seconded by Councilmember Heinze.

This motion carried by the following results.

Yes: (5) Councilmember Donovan; Councilmember
Heinze; Councilmember Sandke;
Councilmember Tanaka; Mayor Bailey
5a. Approval of Reading by Title and Waiver of Reading in Full of Ordinances on this Agenda
Approval of Reading by Title and Waiver of Reading in Full of Ordinances on this Agenda
This item was approved under the Consent Calendar.
5b. Review and Approve that the Warrants, as Certified by the City/Agency Treasurer, are all Correct, Just, and Conform to the Approved Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22
Review and Approve that the Warrants, as Certified by the City/Agency Treasurer, are all Correct, Just, and Conform to the Approved Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-

22. This Financial Report was approved under the Consent Calendar. 5c. or the City and the
Successor Agency of the Community Development Agency for the City of Coronado for the Quarter ending December 31, 2021
Examine the quarterly Reports on Investments and order them filed.

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 261
March 1, 2022 Coronado City Council Minutes Page 42
This Report was approved under the consent agenda.
5d. Authorize the 2022 Summer Shuttle Program, Appropriate $192,312 from the General Fund Reserve, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract with the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) to Operate the Free Summer Shuttle
Authorize the 2022 Summer Shuttle Program, appropriate $192,312 from the General Fund Reserve, and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) to: 1) operate the Free Summer Shuttle (FSS) from May 27 through September 5, 2022, at 15-minute intervals; 2) operate a free bus service from the Coronado Cays to the Community Center on Monday, July 4, at 30-minute intervals; and 3) make an initial purchase of 1,000 MTS day passes for distribution to the Coronado Cays This Contract was approved under the consent agenda.
5e. Authorize the City Manager to Award a Sole Source Agreement for Split Cycle Optimization Technique (SCOOT) 360 Software Licensure and Technical Support Services to Yunex, LLC, in an mount not to exceed $180,000 for a Three75
Authorize the City Manager to execute a sole source agreement with Yunex LLC, for SCOOT 360 software licensure and technical support in an amount not to exceed $180,000 for a three75 (SR-75).

This Contract was approved under the consent agenda.
5f. Authorize the City Manager to Award a Service Agreement with Merjan Enterprises, Inc. doing Business as SOV Security for Design, Technical Support, Preventive Maintenance and As-Needed Repairs of City-Wide Security Alarms, Access Controls, Intercom Systems, Monitoring, and Camera Systems in an Amount Not to Exceed $398,668, and Authorize the City Manager to Exercise Two One-Year Renewal Options
Authorize the City Manager to execute a service agreement with Merjan Enterprises, Inc., doing business as (dba) SOV Security for design, technical support, and scheduled monthly and annual preventive maintenance and asneeded repairs of the security alarms, access controls, intercom system, monitoring and camera systems at all city locations in an amount not to exceed $398,668 for a three-year term; and authorize the City Manager to exercise two renewal option years, for a maximum five-year contract term.

This Contract was approved under the consent agenda.
5g. Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning (HVAC) Preventive Maintenance and Repair Service Agreement with Countywide Mechanical Systems, Inc. for an Additional $62,982 and a Not to Exceed Maximum Contract Sum $412,886 Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 262
March 1, 2022 Coronado City Council Minutes Page 43
Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the HVAC Preventive Maintenance and Repair Service Agreement with Countywide Mechanical Systems, Inc. to increase the preventive maintenance and repair service agreement by $62,982 and approve a not-to-exceed maximum contract sum of $412,886.

This Contract was approved under the consent agenda.

6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Carolyn Rogerson provided comments regarding term limits for councilmembers and emphasized consideration potential impacts.

7. CITY MANAGER REPORT: None.

8. PUBLIC HEARING:
8a. PC 2022-02 - 1417 Orange Avenue - Request for a Change in the Project Description and Permit Amendments to the Villa Capri Hotel Replacement Project (Special Use Permit (PC 2019-05), Coastal Permit (CP2019-03), and Parking Plan (PC 2019-07))
Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) to (1) approve the proposed amendments to the Villa Capri Hotel Replacement Project (Project) that changes the Project description, decreases excavation, and replaces the on-site underground parking with utilization of existing excess parking spaces on the property immediately to the north at 1415 Orange Avenue to satisfy the P
extend Project approvals to March 3, 2024; and (3) find that these actions do not trigger subsequent or supplemental environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or require a supplement or amendment to the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).

Jesse Brown, Senior Planner, presented the staff report utilizing a PowerPoint presentation.

Councilmember Heinze inquired if the elevations would change.

Mr. Brown indicated that they would not.

Councilmember Tanaka asked about consequences if the hotel did not operate a 24/7 valet and what the penalties would be.

Mr. Brown answered that the resolution provided for enforcement options.

Johanna Canlas, City Attorney, answered that the municipal code provides for administrative remedies, criminal penalties, or civil injunctive relief.

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 263
March 1, 2022 Coronado City Council Minutes Page 44
Mayor Bailey opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak on this item in any way. No one asked to be heard; therefore, he closed the public hearing.

A motion to adopt this resolution was made by Councilmember Tanaka and seconded by Councilmember Sandke.

The motion carried by the following results.

Yes: (5) Councilmember Donovan; Councilmember
Heinze; Councilmember Sandke;
Councilmember Tanaka; Mayor Bailey

9. COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: None.

10. COUNCIL BUSINESS
10a. Council Reports on Inter-Agency Committee and Board Assignments Councilmember Sandke recognized the work of MTS on the Summer Shuttle Program and reported working with them regarding the ferry and bus service.

Councilmember Tanaka reported attending the Winn Room Subcommittee meeting.

Councilmember Heinze reported attending the Winn Room Subcommittee meeting and noted they had asked staff to provide additional lower cost options. 10b. Extension of Temporary Outdoor Dining Allowances
Extend the temporary outdoor seating permit program and the waiver of parking requirements through September 30, 2022.

Rich Grunow, Director of Community Development, presented the staff report and was available for questions.

Councilmember Donovan inquired how many businesses have taken over parking spaces.

Mr. Grunow estimated 4-6 businesses that are using parking spaces for outdoor dining.

Councilmember Sandke inquired as to any changes related to parking availability.

Mr. Grunow indicated he had not heard any complaints.

Mayor Bailey asked if there were any current issues with the parking situation.

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 264
March 1, 2022 Coronado City Council Minutes Page 45
Mr. Grunow answered that many of the businesses are very compliant and that he was not aware of any parking issues.

Councilmember Heinze asked for a comparison of outdoor dining before and after the pandemic, Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) rules related to outdoor dining, path of travel, and regulations regarding tents.
right of way and path of travel s position related to tents.

Karla Robles, Executive Director of MainStreet Coronado, voiced support for the outdoor dining program and emphasized concerns related parking.

Eddie Warner spoke in favor of the outdoor dining program and expressed concerns related to parking.

Rena Clancy, Executive Director of Coronado Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the outdoor dining program and requested the City Council consider an indefinite extension of the program.

Councilmember Donovan questioned if there were legal issues associated continuing to extend the outdoor dining program.

Johanna Canlas, City Attorney, answered that at this time there is no recognized vulnerability.

Councilmember Donovan provided comments in favor of this item but expressed he is not supportive of extending indefinitely.

Councilmember Heinze expressed concerns regarding public safety related to this program and spoke in favor of extending the program through September or until the state of emergency is ended. Councilmember Heinze also requested the Council change the path of travel to 7.5 feet for consistency.

Councilmember Tanaka agreed with Councilmembers Donovan and Heinze regarding their comments. Councilmember Tanaka also voiced support for the staff recommendation and expressed he could support of extending the path of travel to 7.5 feet.

Councilmember Sandke provided comments related to parking and voiced support for the staff recommendation.

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 265
March 1, 2022 Coronado City Council Minutes Page 46
Mayor Bailey provided comments and spoke in favor of the outdoor dining program.

Mayor Bailey also expressed support for supporting the program indefinitely and requested staff return to Council by September with the option to extend the program on an indefinite basis.

Councilmember Sandke asked the City Attorney how businesses would go about requesting an indefinite extension.

Ms. Canlas responded that the current municipal code does not contemplate an indefinite option, a change would require staff to assess permanent options, and all businesses would need to be treated equally.

Councilmember Sandke emphasized supporting the staff recommendation as his motion.

Mayor Bailey clarified that he was suggesting that staff return to Council in September regarding options for extending the outdoor dining program indefinitely.

Councilmember Donovan expressed concerns regarding the wording, particularly the regarding outdoor dining along with suggested changes to City regulations.

Mayor Bailey confirmed that was his suggestion.
the motion included the 5 foot or 7.5-foot path of travel and indicated he could not support the motion without the 7.5-foot path of travel.

Councilmember Donovan asked for clarification from Mayor Bailey regarding his friendly amendment.

Mayor Bailey clarified that based on community support, he would like to examine alternatives that would accomplish the program being extended.

Tina Friend, City Manager, confirmed the motion for staff to return with recommendations for alternatives to extending outdoor dining no later than September.

Councilmember Tanaka emphasized supporting the staff recommendation and expressed concerns about outdoor dining in parking spaces. Councilmember Tanaka commented that he does not want to incentivize businesses to use parking spaces for outdoor dining.

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 266
March 1, 2022 Coronado City Council Minutes Page 47
A motion to approve the staff recommendation and direct staff to return to the City Council no later than September with alternatives for continuing the outdoor dining program was made by Councilmember Sandke and seconded by Mayor Bailey.

The motion carried by the following results.

Yes: (3) Councilmember Donovan; Councilmember
Sandke; Mayor Bailey
No: (2) Councilmember Heinze; Councilmember
Tanaka
10c. Report on Process Options for Implementing
Orange Avenue Improvement Recommendations
Receive report and provide direction on the projects proposed in Discover Kelly Purvis, Senior Management Analyst, presented the staff report utilizing a PowerPoint presentation.

Mayor Bailey complimented staff on the staff report and asked Councilmembers to provide feedback in order to provide direction to staff.

Councilmember Sandke noted the 800 block of Orange and improvements at Vons should be a priority, expressed concern about bulb outs related to Caltrans, spoke in favor of activating the median and downtown lighting, voiced support for bicycle corrals as well as lighting and street signage, was supportive of branding and crown branding, and spoke in favor of all the short term goals.

Sandke regarding bulb outs. Councilmember Tanaka was supportive of the lists as is and indicated he would be supportive of identifying the 800 block of Orange as a priority.

Councilmember Heinze was supportive of the short-term goals but indicated hanging flower baskets could be removed and emphasized prioritizing the first four items.

Councilmember Heinze commented that he had no objections to the mid-term and longterm lists, agreed with Councilmember Sandke about the bulb outs. Councilmember Heinze also expressed support for the 800 block of Orange.

Councilmember Donovan was supportive of the short-term items and agreed with Councilmember Heinze regarding the hanging flower baskets. Councilmember Donovan provided comments in support of pavers or textured crosswalks as well as lighting on the trees and spoke in opposition to way finding signs under mid-term items, to activating the median, and bulb outs on Orange Avenue. Councilmember Donovan also voiced support for the sidewalk treatments with priority to the 800 block of Orange.

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 267
March 1, 2022 Coronado City Council Minutes Page 48
Mayor Bailey voiced support for new trashcans and hanging flower baskets, emphasized the consistent sidewalk treatments on the 800 block of Orange.

Councilmember Tanaka noted including the 100 block of Orange.

Mayor Bailey agreed with Councilmember Tanaka regarding the 100 block of Orang and with Councilmember Donovan regarding the pedestrian crossing.

Councilmember Tanaka noted challenges with Caltrans approval, suggested the pavers for City-owned intersections, and to consider alternatives.

Mayor Bailey clarified Council consensus on wayfinding signage to replace current signs, but the Council was not supportive of additional wayfinding signage and to strike it from the list.

Councilmember Heinze requested clarification from Ms. Purvis.

Ms. Purvis explained the signage was in reference to directional A-frame signs related to design.

Mayor Bailey continued to the long-term projects and noted Council was in support of prioritizing sidewalk treatments on the 100 block and 800 block of Orange and different lighting options.

Councilmember Tanaka clarified the meaning of bistro (café) lights and spoke in support of the lighting options and
suggestions.

Mayor Bailey made a moot
A motion to approve the short, medium, and long-term items discussed and that were agreed upon by Council consensus was made by Mayor Bailey and seconded by Councilmember Sandke.

The motion carried by the following results.

Yes: (5) Councilmember Donovan; Councilmember
Heinze; Councilmember Sandke;
Councilmember Tanaka; Mayor Bailey

13. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Bailey adjourned the Regular meeting at 5:26 p.m.

Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 268
March 1, 2022 Coronado City Council Minutes Page 49
Approved: March 15, 2022 ___________________________________ RICHARD BAILEY, Mayor of the City of Coronado
Attest: ___________________________________________ JENNIFER EKBLAD, City Clerk of the City of Coronado
Attachment 2
City of Coronado Page 269

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
January 16, 2024 10d
RECEIVE THE TREASURER’S REPORT ON THE OVERVIEW OF CASH AND INVESTMENTS, AND REVIEW AND APPROVE THE CITY OF CORONADO’S INVESTMENT POLICY RECOMMENDATION:

Review and receive the report on the overview of cash and investments, and review and approve the City of Coronado’s investment policy.

BACKGROUND:

The City receives funds from several sources and invests according to the City of Coronado Investment Policy, see Attachment 1. As of June 30, 2023, the book value of the City’s investment portfolio is approximately $205 million.

All investments are made with the primary objectives of safety, liquidity and return on investment, in that order. The City’s investment policy establishes the framework for these investment activities. The investment policy specifies all permissible investments by type and requirements for diversification and credit quality. The policy also discusses reporting requirements, safekeeping and custody, and internal controls.

The authority to manage the City's investment program is derived from California Government Code Section 53607. Management responsibility for the operation of the investment program is delegated to the City Treasurer and subject to review and renewal each year pursuant to this section. Therefore, review and approval of the City’s investment policy would be inclusive of renewal of delegated authority for a period of one-year.

The City also participates in a multi-employer trust in accordance with Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code. The trust was established as an irrevocable, exclusive benefit trust to fund pension and retiree health care benefits (Other Post-Employment Benefits-OPEB). Assets held in this trust are administered by the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) and allow for a greater range of investment options, similar to that of CalPERS.

AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS
The City of Coronado is empowered by California Government Code Section 53601 et seq. to generally invest in the following types of securities:
• United States Treasury Bills, Bonds, Notes, and Certificates of Indebtedness • Federal Agency or United States Government-sponsored Enterprise Obligations, Participations, or other Instruments
• Registered Treasury Notes or Bonds of any of the other 50 states. • Bonds, notes, warrants, Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (NCDs) Time Deposits, Medium-Term Notes, Commercial Paper, Bankers’ Acceptances, Repurchase Agreements, Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP), Money Market Funds. • Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF).
• County of San Diego Treasury (County Pool).

City of Coronado Page 270

PROHIBITED INVESTMENTS
Under the provisions of Government Code Sections 53601.6, the City of Coronado shall not invest any funds covered by its Investment Policy:
• Inverse floaters, range notes, interest-only strips derived from mortgage pools, or any investment that may result in a zero-interest accrual if held to maturity • Any security having an interest rate derived from an index, commodity price or other variable; i.e., securities commonly known as derivatives • Stocks, speculate, deal in futures or options, or buy on the margin ANALYSIS:

As of June 30, 2023, City’s cash, investments, and percentage of totals are as follows:

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and San Diego County Treasurer’s Pooled Investment Fund (SD County Fund) is primarily comprised of treasury instruments, agency instruments, certificates of deposits, bank notes, time deposits, and commercial paper, among others.

Accordingly, these funds provide diversified exposure to many of the authorized investment types allowed under the City’s investment policy.

HISTORICAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT
The table below summarizes interest and investment earnings for Coronado’s investment, annual yields for LAIF and SD County Funds, and PARS pension stabilization fund for comparison purposes. Coronado’s earnings generally align with LAIF and SD County Funds due to their concentration in the two funds. PARS, in contrast, shows higher volatility in its earnings, which is expected based on the objective of this investment and corresponding asset allocation, including significant exposure to stock equities.

Book Value
% of Total
Investments
Investments:

US Bank Operating Account 21,459,943 9.45%
US Bank HRA Account 46,232 0.02%
US Bank FSA Account 84,621 0.04%
CalPrivate Bank Money Market Account 472,628 0.21%
Sub-Total Demand Deposit Accounts 22,063,424 9.72%
Total All Investments $ 227,099,598
* Resctricted for public use capital improvements
** Restricted for Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) and Pension stablization PARS Market Value as ofJune 30, 2023 totaled $18,099,362 City of Coronado Page 271
FISCAL YEAR CORONADO* LAIF SD County
Funds PARS
FY 16/17 0.96% 0.75% 0.99% 12.36%
FY 17/18 1.91% 1.38% 1.56% 7.92%
FY 18/19 1.62% 2.27% 2.27% -0.53%
FY 19/20 1.83% 1.93% 2.06% 4.03%
FY 20/21 0.69% 0.50% 1.02% 26.43%
FY 21/22 0.41% 0.37% 0.77% -13.77%
FY 22/23 2.21% 2.17% 2.71% 9.22%
Nov-23 N/A 3.84% 3.70% 7.20%
*Per Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports for quarters ending on June 30, excluding PARS and Loan Repayment Fund.

OPTIONS AND ANALYSIS
After nearly a decade of a historically low-interest rate environment, the Federal Reserve has gone through more than eleven rate increases since early 2022, reaching 5.5% as of July 2023.

Accordingly, the yield rates of the City’s two primary investment funds, LAIF and SD County Fund, have both steadily increased to 3.84% and 3.70%, respectively, as of November 2023.

Staff reviewed the City’s current investments and evaluated alternate asset allocation and strategies. As a result, the City implemented and plans to make the following changes to the current investment allocation. Actual implementation may change subject to market conditions:
• Allocate $20M towards higher yield 6- and 12-month Certificate of Deposits with a local financial institution, yielding an annual interest rate of 4.75%-5.15%. This has been placed as of December 28, 2023.
• Reduce the LAIF and SD County Fund balances to a combined total of $90M, approximating the Fiscal Year 2023-24 approved budget. This balance will ensure sufficient liquidity for the cash’s operating expenditures. • Allocate all or part of the remaining excess cash towards 3- and 6-month US Treasury Bills, yielding a blended interest rate of 5.25%*
• Conduct quarterly investment review for adjustments based on liquidity needs, interest rate changes, and other relevant factors.
*Rates as of January 2, 2024
Staff currently provide quarterly Treasurer’s report on investment, including asset balance, allocation, and year-to-date average investment return. Starting with the Treasurer’s report for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, staff will include any adjustments made from the quarterly investment review.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the overview of City’s cash, investment, and related policy for the City of Coronado. However, recently implemented and planned changes projects to positively impact the City’s actual investment earnings for the Fiscal Year 2023-24, depending on the various assets' actual yields and interest rate changes.

City of Coronado Page 272
ALTERNATIVE:

City Council may not receive the report and/or direct amendments to the City of Coronado’s Investment Policy.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

Not Applicable.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

No notice required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City of Coronado Statement of Investment Policy
Submitted By: Administrative Services Department / John Kim City of Coronado Page 273

CITY OF CORONADO

STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY
Effective September 3, 2019

1. Purpose
This statement provides guidelines for the prudent investment of the temporary idle cash of the City of Coronado (hereafter referred to as City), and outlines the policies for maximizing the efficiency of the City's cash management system. The goal is to enhance the economic status of the City while protecting its pooled cash.

2. Scope
This investment policy applies to all financial assets of the City. For purposes of this policy, the City of Coronado includes the Community Development Successor Agency, and the Coronado Financing Authority which are component units of and are controlled by the City Council, share the same administrative services of the City, and are “related entities” of the City. These funds are accounted for in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and include:

General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Capital Project Funds
Permanent Funds
Enterprise Funds
Trust and Agency Funds
The investment of bond proceeds held with trustees is directed by the City, but is governed by the restrictions on permitted investments in the applicable bond indenture, or similar agreements.

The City retirement plans are with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, and the City has no authority or oversight over the investments in any of these plans. The City participates in a multi-employer trust in accordance with Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code. The trust was prepared as an irrevocable exclusive benefit trust to fund pension and retiree health care benefits (Other Post-Employment Benefits-OPEB). Assets held in this trust are administered by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS). Further, the City administers deferred compensation and health savings plans through the ICMA-Retirement Corporation (ICMA-RC). Assets held in this plan are held in trust for the participants, and are not assets managed by the City. The City does not have any authority over the investments held in this trust.

3. Policy
The City's cash management system is designed to accurately monitor and forecast expenditures and revenues, and allows the City to invest funds to the fullest extent possible. The City attempts to obtain the highest possible yield while meeting the criteria established for safety and liquidity.

It is the policy of the City of Coronado, a general law city, to invest public funds in a manner which will provide maximum security with the highest investment return while meeting the daily cash flow demands of the City.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 274

4. Standard of Prudence
Investments shall be made with judgment and care. The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the "prudent investor" standard (Govt. Code Section 53600.3) and shall be applied in the context of managing an overall portfolio. All governing bodies of local agencies or persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of those local agencies investing public funds are trustees and, therefore, fiduciaries subject to the prudent investor standard. When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency. Investment officers, acting in accordance with written procedures and the Investment Policy, and exercising due diligence, shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments.

5. Objectives
The primary objectives, in priority order, of the City's investment activities shall be:

5.1. Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program.

Investments of the City shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. To attain this objective, diversification is required in order that potential losses on individual securities do not exceed the income generated from the remainder of the portfolio.

5.2. Liquidity: The City's investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all operating requirements which might be reasonably anticipated.

5.3. Return on investment: The City's investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the City's investment risk constraints and the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio.

6. Delegation of Authority
Authority to manage the City's investment program is derived from California Government Code Section 53607. Management responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated to the City Treasurer, who will maintain written procedures for the operation of the investment program.

Such procedures shall include explicit delegation of authority to persons responsible for investment transactions. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this Policy and the procedures established by the Treasurer.

7. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest
The investment responsibility carries with it the added duties of ensuring that investments placed are done so without the appearance of improper influence. The Administrative Services personnel involved in the investment function shall adhere to the state's Code of Economic Interest and to the following:

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 275

7.1. All persons authorized to place or approve investments shall not personally or through a close relative maintain any accounts, interest, or private dealings with any firm through which the City places investments, with the exception of regular savings, checking and money market accounts, or other similar transactions that are offered on a non-negotiable basis to the general public. Such accounts shall be disclosed annually to the City Clerk in conjunction with annual disclosure statements of economic interest.

7.2. All persons authorized to place or approve investments shall report to the City Clerk kinship relations with principal employees of firms with which the City places investments.

7.3. Return on Investment: The investment portfolio of the City of Coronado shall be designed to attain a market average rate of return during budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the City's investment risk constraint and the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio. All brokers or investment advisors dealing with the City will be required to disclose any fees paid or received in connection with the purchase of said securities. The City strives to maintain a 100% investment level of idle funds, less required reserve, through daily and projected cash flow determinations. Cash management of idle funds is the responsibility of the Administrative Services Department.

7.4. Maintaining the Public Trust: All participants in the investment process shall seek to act responsibly as custodians of the public trust. Investment officials shall avoid any transaction that might impair public confidence in the City of Coronado's ability to govern effectively.

8. Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions
The Treasurer will maintain a list of financial institutions authorized to provide direct investment services. In addition, a list will also be maintained of approved security broker/dealers selected by credit worthiness, who maintain an office in the State of California. These may include "primary" dealers or regional dealers that qualify under Securities & Exchange Commission Rule 15C3-1 (uniform net capital rule). No public deposit shall be made except in a qualified public depository as established by State laws.

All financial institutions and broker/dealers who desire to become qualified bidders for investment transactions directly with the City must supply the Treasurer with the following: proof of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) certification; trading resolution; proof of State of California registration; personal resume; certification of having read the City's investment policy; and depository contracts. An annual review of the financial condition and registrations of qualified bidders will be conducted by the Treasurer.

An audited financial statement shall be reviewed annually for each financial institution and broker/dealer with which the City invests.

Before engaging in investment transactions with a broker/dealer, the City Treasurer shall have received from said firm a signed letter. This letter shall attest that the individual responsible for the City’s account with that firm has reviewed the City of Coronado Investment Policy and that the firm understands the policy and intends to present investment recommendations and transactions to the City that are appropriate under the terms and conditions of the Investment Policy.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 276

9. Authorized and Suitable Investments
The City of Coronado is empowered by California Government Code Section 53601 et seq. to generally invest in the following types of securities1
:

9.1 United States Treasury Bills, Bonds, Notes, and Certificates of Indebtedness, or those for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pledged for payment of principal and interest.

9.2 Federal Agency or United States Government-sponsored Enterprise Obligations, Participations, or other Instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States government-sponsored enterprises.

9.3 Registered Treasury Notes, Warrants, or Bonds of the State of California, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by the state or by a department, board, agency, or authority of the state.

9.4 Registered Treasury Notes or Bonds of any of the other 49 states in addition to California, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by a state or by a department, board, agency, or authority of any of the other 49 states, in addition to California.

9.5 Bonds, notes, warrants, or other evidences of indebtedness of a local agency within this state, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by the local agency, or by a department, board, agency, or authority of the local agency.

9.6 Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (NCDs) issued by a nationally or state chartered bank, a state or federal savings and loan association, or by a federally- or state-licensed branch of a foreign bank, provided that the senior debt obligations of the issuing institution are rated A or its equivalent, or better (without regard to any gradations within such categories by numerical qualifier or otherwise) by a nationally recognized statistical-rating organization (NRSRO). NCDs shall not collectively exceed 30% of the market value of the portfolio.

9.7 Time Deposits. The City may invest in non-negotiable time deposits collateralized in accordance with California Government Code Section 53630 et seq., in those banks and savings and loans associations that meet the State’s requirements for investment in a Time Certificate of Deposit.

The maximum term for deposits shall be five years. The City, at its discretion, may waive the collateralization requirements for any portion that is covered by federal insurance. The City shall have a signed agreement with the depository per Government Code Section 53649.

9.8 Medium-Term Notes. Corporate and depository institution debt securities with a maximum remaining maturity of five years or less, issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the U.S. or any state and operating within the U.S. Medium-term corporate notes shall be rated A or better (without regard to any gradations within such categories by numerical qualifier or otherwise) by a NRSRO. The aggregate total of all purchased medium-term notes may not exceed 30% of the cost value of the investment portfolio. No more than 5% of cost value of the portfolio may be invested in notes issued by any one corporation.
1 Section 53601 provides additional guidance for the authorized investment of the City’s money and should be referred to for specific restrictions on these, and any other, permitted investments.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 277

9.9 Commercial Paper. Commercial paper of “prime” quality of the highest ranking or of the highest letter and number rating as provided for by a nationally recognized statistical-rating organization. The entity that issues the commercial paper shall meet all of the following conditions in either paragraph 1 or paragraph 2:

1. The entity meets the following criteria: (i) is organized and operating in the United States as a general corporation; (ii) has total assets in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000); (iii) has debt other than commercial paper, if any, that is rated “A” or higher by at least two nationally recognized statistical-rating organizations.

2. The entity meets the following criteria: (i) is organized within the United States as a special purpose corporation, trust, or limited liability company; (ii) has program-wide credit enhancements including, but not limited to, over collateralization, letters of credit, or surety bond; (iii) has commercial paper that is rated “A-1” or higher, or the equivalent, by at least two nationally recognized statistical-rating organizations.

Eligible commercial paper shall have a maximum maturity of 270 days or less. The aggregate total of all commercial paper may not exceed 15% of the cost value of the investment portfolio. The City may purchase no more than 10% of the outstanding commercial paper of any single issuer.

9.10 Bankers’ Acceptances issued by domestic or foreign banks, which are eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System, the short-term paper of which is rated in the highest letter and number rating category by one or more nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (NRSRO). Bankers’ acceptances purchased may not exceed 180 days to maturity. No more than 40% of the market value of the portfolio may be invested in bankers’ acceptances and no more than 30% of the market value of the portfolio may be invested in bankers’ acceptances issued by any one bank.

9.11 Repurchase Agreements used solely as short-term investments not to exceed 30 days.

The City may enter into Repurchase Agreements only with primary dealers of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The City shall have properly executed a PSA agreement with each counter party with which it enters into repurchase agreements. The following collateral restrictions will be observed: only U.S. Treasury securities or Federal Agency securities are acceptable collateral. All securities underlying repurchase agreements must be delivered to the City's custodian bank versus payment or be handled under a properly executed tri-party repurchase agreement. The total market value of all collateral for each repurchase agreement must equal or exceed 102 percent of the total dollar value of the money invested by the City for the term of the investment. For any repurchase agreement with a term of more than one day, the value of the underlying securities must be reviewed on an ongoing basis according to market conditions. Market value must be calculated each time there is a substitution of collateral. The City or its trustee shall have a perfected first security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code in all securities subject to repurchase agreement. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be invested in repurchase agreements. Reverse repurchase agreements will not be allowed.

9.12 Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). The City may invest in the Local Agency Investment Fund established by the State Treasurer for the benefit of local agencies up to the maximum amount permitted.

9.13 County of San Diego Treasury (County Pool). The City may invest in the County of San Diego Investment Pool up to the maximum amount permitted.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 278

9.14 Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP). Shares of beneficial interest issued by a joint powers authority. Purchases are limited to those pools that seek to maintain a constant net asset value.

9.15 Money Market Funds. Shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies that are money market funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 80a-1, et seq.). To be eligible for investment pursuant to this subdivision, these companies shall (1) have (a) attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations or (b) an investment advisor registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years’ experience managing money market mutual funds and with assets under management in excess of $500,000,000; and (2) invest solely in securities issued by the U.S. Treasury and agencies of the federal government, and repurchase agreements collateralized with U.S. Treasury and federal agency obligations. No more than 20% of the investment portfolio shall be invested in money market funds. Additionally, no more than 10% of the City’s funds may be invested in shares of beneficial interest of any one mutual fund.

Credit criteria and maximum percentages are calculated based on market value at the time the security is purchased.

Prohibited Investments: Under the provisions of Government Code Sections 53601.6, the City of Coronado shall not invest any funds covered by this Investment Policy in inverse floaters, range notes, interest-only strips derived from mortgage pools, or any investment that may result in a zero interest accrual if held to maturity.

10. Safekeeping and Custody
All security transactions, including collateral for repurchase agreements, entered into by the City shall be conducted on a delivery-versus-payment (DVP) basis. Securities will be held by a third-party custodian designated by the Treasurer and evidenced by safekeeping receipts. The only exception to the foregoing shall be depository accounts and securities purchases made with: (i) local government investment pools; (ii) time certificates of deposit; and (iii) money market mutual funds, since the purchased securities are not deliverable. Evidence of each these investments will be held by the Treasurer.

11. Diversification
The City will diversify its investments by security type and institution. With the exception of U. S.

Treasury securities and authorized pools, no more than 33% of the market value of the City's total investment portfolio will be invested in a single security, U.S. Government agency, or with a single financial institution.

12. Maximum Maturities
To the extent possible, the City will attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. With the exception of securities received as part of the Frances G. Harpst bequest, the City will not invest in securities maturing more than five years from the date of purchase unless matched to a specific cash flow and approved by the City Council, either specifically or as part of an investment no less than three months prior to the investment. The City will not invest in securities with maturities of greater than five years for the Frances G. Harpst bequest unless the securities are U.S. Treasury, Government Sponsored Enterprises (Federal Agencies) or state or local government obligations.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 279

13. Internal Control
The Treasurer shall establish an annual process of independent review by an external auditor. This review will provide internal control by assuring compliance with policies and procedures.

14. Reporting
The Treasurer is charged with the responsibility of preparing a quarterly report to the City Council.

This report will include quarterly performance, a list of the current investments, and transactions which occurred during each month of the quarter. Reporting shall be on the basis of both cost and market.

The Policy recognizes that reporting on a market basis will periodically cause market gains or losses to be reported. In most instances, such gains or losses will not be realized since individual securities with specific maturities are purchased based upon projected cash flows and normally will not be liquidated prior to maturity.

15. Investment Policy Review
Any changes to this investment policy shall be reviewed and approved annually by the City Council.

When the City has funds on deposit with the State or County Pool or other local government investment pools, the Treasurer shall review annually the written investment policy of such pools.

Documentation shall also be reviewed annually that such investment pools are operated in conformance with their investment policies.

16. Other Constraints
The City shall make its investments in conformance with California Government Code Section 53601 et seq. (see Section 8) and other self-imposed constraints. The City shall not purchase stocks, speculate, deal in futures or options, or buy on the margin. In addition, the City will not purchase inverse floaters, range notes, interest-only strips or any security having an interest rate derived from an index, commodity price or other variable; i.e., securities commonly known as derivatives.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 280

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
January 16, 2024 10e

AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD CONTRACTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF

THE AQUATIC DECK REPLACEMENT AND POOL PLASTER PROJECT AND ASSOCIATED

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES (INCLUDING PROJECT CONTINGENCY) IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,450,703, AND APPROPRIATE AN ADDITIONAL $2,838,049 FROM THE FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND (436)
RECOMMENDATION:

In a form approved by the City Attorney, authorize the City Manager to award contracts or amend Task Orders to (1) California Waters Development, Inc, dba California Waters in an amount of $3,631,052 for the construction of the Aquatic Deck Replacement and Pool Plaster Project; (2) The Barrie Company in an amount not-to-exceed $220,000 for construction observation services; (3) Michael Baker International in an amount not-to-exceed $20,120 for construction administration support; (4) Kleinfelder in an amount not-to-exceed $29,531 for quality assurance testing. In addition, (1) approve a project contingency of $550,000; (2) appropriate an additional $2,838,049 from the Facilites Replacement Fund (436); and (3) authorize the City Manager to execute change orders in excess of 10% of the contract, but within the project contingency.

BACKGROUND:

In 2006, the Coronado Aquatics Center pool and pool deck were constructed as part of the Glorietta Bay Masterplan. Upon completion, the pool deck was sealed. However, the protective sealant was too slippery and subsequently removed by acid wash. By 2009, deterioration of the concrete pool deck was observed. From 2009 to 2013, the City contracted with three separate engineering firms to investigate the cause of the deterioration. The engineers were unable to determine if the scaling and spalling were due to inadequate design requirements or improper installation. As a result of the deterioration, there is exposed aggregate within the pools’ splash zones and heavily used areas such as near the diving boards and near the staff office door. The pool plaster is approximately 18 years old and has greatly exceeded its 10-year life expectancy. Several pool tiles are missing or chipped, the tile grout is stained and crumbling, the Competition Pool’s bulkhead is in disrepair, and due to improper drainage, water ponds next to the bayside stem wall.

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 Capital Improvement Program published in June of 2016, identified two separate maintenance projects for the aquatic center: the Aquatic Center Deck Rehabilitation project budgeted at $1,000,000 and the Pool Plaster and Grouting project budgeted at $300,000. The projects were planned for initiation in FY 2018-19 but no funds were appropriated.

In the FY 2019-20 CIP, the two maintenance projects were combined into a single project pending future funding with a budget set at $1,335,000.

In the FY 2019-20 CIP the Pool Heater Replacement and Installation project was prioritized over the Pool Deck, Plaster, and Grouting project.

In the FY 2022-23 CIP, the Aquatic Deck Replacement and Pool Plaster Project was formally adopted and a budget of $1,800,000 was appropriated from the Facilities Replacement Fund.

City of Coronado Page 281
In early 2023 a field meeting between Public Services and Engineering staff and Recreation and Golf Services staff was held at the project site to discuss and define the scope of the project. The agreed upon scope includes replacement of the pool plaster and required repairs to the pool floors and walls, replacement of the pool tile and grout, replacement of gutter grating, repair of the concrete gutters, partial replacement of the pool deck and associated drainage, water proofing of the gutters and surge tanks, and refinishing existing grabrails and handrails. Also included were four additive alternates, expanding the extent of deck replacement to replace the entire pool deck, replacing existing turf, replacing rather than repairing the existing Competition Pool bulkhead, and refinishing the existing Recreation Pool water feature.

Between February and April of 2023, task orders were issued to two of the City’s on-call consultants, Michael Baker International (MBI) and Kleinfelder, Inc. The nature of the design work required MBI to subcontract with a firm with a specialty in aquatics, Aquatic Design Group (ADG). MBI performed the site survey, ADG provided the project’s construction drawings and technical specifications, and Kleinfelder performed geotechnical field investigations, laboratory testing, analysis, and report preparation to satisfy the information requested by ADG’s engineer.

ANALYSIS:

On December 29, 2023, four bids were received in response to the Request for Bids (RFB) published on November 20, 2023 in accordance with the California Municipal Code 8.07 and Public Contract Code 20160 full and open bidding procedures. Two contractors (U.S.

Construction, LLC, and Mission Pools) were deemed non-responsive. The City notified both bidders of the nonresponsive determination and no communications have been received in response to the notifications. Two contractors, California Waters and California Commercial Pools, were deemed responsive. The City received two protests for the initial apparent low bidder, U.S.A. Construction, LLC. Protest concerns were consistent with the City’s findings regarding the contractor’s responsiveness to the RFB requirements. Staff reviewed the bid package, insurance, bonding, and references beginning with the lowest eligible bidder.

The bids results are as follows:

BIDDER BID
California Waters - Base Bid $2,723,181
Alternate No. 1: Complete Removal and Replacement of Pool Deck $502,362 Alternate No. 2: Complete Removal and Replacement of Turf Area $54,872 Alternate No. 3: Complete Removal and Replacement of Floating Bulkhead $341,915 Alternate No. 4: Refinish Activity Pool Interactive Water Feature $8,722 Basis of Bid Determination (Base Bid+1+2+3+4) $3,631,052 California Commercial Pools, Inc. - Base Bid $3,013,000 Alternate No. 1: Complete Removal and Replacement of Pool Deck $430,000 Alternate No. 2: Complete Removal and Replacement of Turf Area $42,000 Alternate No. 3: Complete Removal and Replacement of Floating Bulkhead $225,000 Alternate No. 4: Refinish Activity Pool Interactive Water Feature $18,000 Basis of Bid Determination (Base 1+2+3+4) $3,728,000
City of Coronado Page 282
California Waters meets the City’s bid requirements. In accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, California Waters is the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. Public contracting law requires the City award the contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, in this case, California Waters.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This project is included in the FY 2022-23 Capital Improvement Program (41070000 – 98987 – AQDPP) with an allocation of $250,000 for design and $1,550,000 for construction, with a total budget of $1,800,000. To date, $178,855 for design and $8,491 for newspaper advertisement and building permit fees have been expended. An additional appropriation of $2,838,049 will be required to complete the Aquatic Deck Replacement and Pool Plaster Project. The project was funded from the Facilities Replacement Fund 436 (41070000). The Fund 436 balance is currently $11,075,089 and with the requested appropriation, $8,237,040 would remain in the fund.

PROJECT BUDGET
Capital Improvement Program Project Budget $1,800,000
Civil, Aquatic, and Geotechnical Design Fees $178,855
Additional Expenses $8,491
Total Remaining Budget $1,612,654

CONSTRUCTION
Construction Contract Award $3,631,052
Contingency (~15%) $550,000
Construction Support/Inspections $240,120
Materials Testing $29,531
Total Construction Cost Estimate $4,450,703

ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION
Total Construction Cost Estimate $4,450,073
Total Remaining Budget $1,612,654
Additional Appropriation Required $2,838,049
ALTERNATIVE:

The Council may elect to cancel the project or reject all bids and rebid.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

Categorically Exempt per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline; Class 1, Existing Facilities.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

No notice required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. None
Submitted By: Public Services and Engineering Department / Ruby Carr City of Coronado Page 283

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
January 16, 2024 10f

CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE

CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT RELATED TO COMPENSATION AND

BENEFITS
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council consider adoption of the resolution approving the Second Amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement between Christina J. Friend and the City of Coronado; authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment reflecting a three percent adjustment in base salary, and an additional contribution in the amount of $5,200 annually to a qualified Section 457 Plan; and amend the Personnel Authorization & Compensation Plan (PACP) accordingly.

BACKGROUND:

After a nationwide search in the spring of 2021, the City Council appointed City Manager Tina Friend on July 20, 2021. The City and Ms. Friend entered into a “City Manager Employment Agreement” effective September 16, 2021, (the “Agreement”), which established the terms and conditions for employment as the City Manager and chief executive officer of the City of Coronado and the municipal corporation. On December 6, 2022, the City Council approved the First Amendment to the Agreement.

ANALYSIS:

State law requires that compensation of all City executive officers’ compensation be approved on a duly noticed public meeting in open session.

The Agreement between the City and Ms. Friend requires annual performance review to coincide with the close of the fiscal year and anniversary date of the City Manager’s employment with the City. The performance evaluation concluded this fall and warranted changes to the benefits and compensation to the City Manager.

The action before the City Council is the consideration of an amendment to the City Manager’s Employment Agreement reflecting a base salary adjustment of three (3%) to $267,000, and an additional contribution in the amount of $5,200 to a qualified Section 457 Plan for a total annual contribution of $17,200. These changes are effective the pay period immediately after December 19, 2023.

The changes to the compensation and benefits outlined above require an amendment to the Agreement between the City and Ms. Friend.

The proposed Second Amendment to the Agreement is attached.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Should the amendment be approved, there are sufficient funds in the adopted fiscal year 2023- 24 budget to cover the three percent base salary increase, and the additional $5,200 contribution to a qualified Section 457 Plan.

City of Coronado Page 284
ALTERNATIVE:

Provide direction as needed.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

Not a project under CEQA.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

No notice required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2024-05

2. Second Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement Between the City of Coronado, a Municipal Corporation, and Christina J. Friend
Submitted By: City Attorney's Office / Johanna N Canlas City of Coronado Page 285
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-05

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SECOND

AMENDMENT TO THE CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CHRISTINA J. FRIEND AND THE CITY
OF CORONADO; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
THE AMENDMENT; AND AMENDING THE PERSONNEL

AUTHORIZATION & COMPENSATION PLAN (PACP)

ACCORDINGLY
WHEREAS, the City Council appointed City Manager Tina Friend on July 20, 2021 and WHEREAS, The City and Ms. Friend entered into a “City Manager Employment Agreement” effective September 16, 2021, (the “Agreement”), which established the terms and conditions for employment as the City Manager and chief executive officer of the City of Coronado and the municipal corporation, and
WHEREAS, the First Amendment to the Agreement was approved on December 6, 2022; and
WHEREAS, The Agreement between the City and Ms. Friend requires annual performance review to coincide with the close of the fiscal year and anniversary date of the City Manager’s employment with the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted the performance review this fall and determined changes to the benefits and compensation to the City Manager are warranted.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado as follows:

1. That the above recitations are true.

2. That the City Council of the City of Coronado approve the Second Amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement establishing the compensation and benefits for the City Manager which is attached as Exhibit A.

3. That the City Council approve amending the Personnel Authorization & Compensation Plan (PACP) to reflect the terms of the Second Amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement.

City of Coronado Page 286
Attachment 1
PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, at a regular meeting thereof this Sixteenth day of January, 2024 by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

SECOND AMENDMENT TO

CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made and entered into this 16th day of January, 2024, by and between the City of Coronado, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City" and Christina J. Friend, hereinafter referred to as "Officer".

RECITALS

1. WHEREAS, City and Officer entered into a “City Manager Employment Agreement,” effective September 16, 2021, (the "Agreement"), by which City and Officer established the terms and conditions for employment of the Officer, by the City, as the City Manager and chief executive officer of the City of Coronado.

2. WHEREAS, on December 6, 2022, the City Council approved the First Amendment amends and incorporates the Agreement (“Amended Agreement”).

3. WHEREAS, the terms of the Agreement provide, among other things, benefits and compensation payable to the Officer.

4. WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and conducted an evaluation of the Officer’s performance after the second anniversary of employment and determined changes to the compensation payable to the Officer are warranted.

5. WHEREAS, the City and Officer intend that all terms of the Amended Agreement shall remain effective to the extent they are not amended by this Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained the parties agree to this Second Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement as follows:

Section 1. Section 4(A)(1)(a) of the Amended Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

Base Salary
The annual base salary for the position of City Manager shall be $267,800, effective the first pay period after December 19, 2023.

Section 2. The City’s annual contribution under Section 4(B)(5)(a) is adjusted to $17,200.

Section 3. This Second Amendment is effective as of December 19, 2023.

Section 4. Except as modified in this Second Amendment, each and every term City of Coronado Page 288 CM Agreement: Second Amendment
January 16, 2024

Page 2 of 2 ends

and condition of the Amended Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. “City” “Officer”

CITY OF CORONADO
a municipal corporation
By _______ _______ _______________________
Richard Bailey, Mayor Christina J. Friend

ATTEST:

By:___________________________
Kelsea Holian, MMC, CPM
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Johanna N. Canlas, City Attorney
City of Coronado Page 289

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
January 16, 2024 10g
CONSIDERATION OF FORMALIZING THE CITY’S POLICY REGARDING THE FLAG

DISPLAYS AT CITY PROPERTIES
RECOMMENDATION:

Consider whether to formalize the long-standing practice of displaying the United States, State of California, and/or City of Coronado flags at City properties, the POW MIA flag at the Stockdale Memorial at the Library, the federal and city flags along Orange Avenue medians, and the flags of all the military branches at Star Park.

If the Council decides to adopt a written policy, the Council may:
1) Adopt a resolution approving City Council Policy 30; or 2) Introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 52.50 titled “Flag Policy” to the Coronado Municipal Code.

BACKGROUND:

At the November 7, 2023, meeting, the City Council approved a Policy 2 request to place an item on the agenda to consider establishing a policy or municipal code that enshrines current flag display practice.

While not in writing, the City maintains flag poles and has a long-standing practice of displaying the United States, State of California, and/or the City of Coronado flags outside the following facilities:

ANIMAL CONTROL 1395 FIRST STREET
BOATHOUSE\CLUBROOM 1985 STRAND WAY
CITY HALL 1825 STRAND WAY
FIRE DEPARTMENT (VILLAGE) 1001 SIXTH STREET
FIRE DEPARTMENT (CORONADO CAYS) 101 GRAND CARIBE CWY
GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE 2000 VISALIA ROW
HARBOR MASTER OFFICE 101 GRAND CARIBE CWY
LIBRARY 640 ORANGE AVENUE
LITTLE LEAGUE (VERNETTI STADIUM) 165 B AVENUE
POLICE STATION 700 ORANGE AVENUE
PUBLIC SERVICES 101 B AVENUE
RECREATION CENTER 1845 STRAND WAY
SENIOR CENTER 1019 SEVENTH STREET
At the Library, in addition to the federal and state flags, the POW MIA commemorative flag has been on display since 2006 to fly over the installed Stockdale memorial. U.S. Navy Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale was a prisoner of war for seven years during the Vietnam War. He retired and resided in Coronado until his death on July 5, 2005.

City of Coronado Page 290
Along the Orange Avenue medians, the flags of the United States and the City of Coronado are also on display.

In addition, the flags of the different branches of the military are on display at Star Park. While no records were found when the practice was established, a review of the minutes of the Planning Commission from November 11, 1956 reflects the approval the American Legion Post #450’s request to designate Star Park as a “Memorial Park” and the creation of a Veterans Memorial at the center of Star Park. The action of the Planning Commission appears to support the timehonored display and maintenance of military flags at the site by the City.

Anecdotally, there has been no other instance in recent memory when another flag, commemorative or otherwise, has been flown on City-controlled flagpoles other than those specified above.

There is no City program that allows private groups to raise their own flags at city facilities.

ANALYSIS:

When a government speaks for itself, it does not have to provide access for all views. However, when a public forum is provided by the government for debate, it may provide time, place manner restrictions but it may not discriminate based on speech or viewpoint of the speakers. The United States Supreme Court in Shurtleff v. City of Boston Mass.1 (Attachment 1), found that if a city reserves its flagpole to communicate its own message, it may choose which flags it want to fly without consideration of the First Amendment’s free speech clause. When a city creates a public forum by opening up its flagpoles for citizens to express their own views, the city cannot deny groups from flying their flag based on viewpoint.

Historically, Coronado reserves its flagpoles for government speech. As previously mentioned, the government flags of the United States, California, and the City of Coronado are displayed at City facilities. The POW MIA flag is on display at the Stockdale Memorial at the Library. The United States and the City of Coronado flags are on display along the Orange Avenue medians.

In addition, military flags are displayed at Star Park.

A survey of the cities in San Diego County found nine (9) cities without a formal written policy and eight (8) municipalities with adopted policies (Attachment 2). Of those, 7 cities adopted their policies via resolution while Imperial Beach adopted its flag regulation as an ordinance (Attachment 3).

Should the City Council wish to formalize the existing practice in writing, the Council may do so by adopting a resolution approving a City Council Policy or by ordinance. A resolution takes effect immediately while an ordinance requires an introduction and a second reading to be adopted. An ordinance becomes effective 30 days after its adoption.

A draft resolution along with a draft City Council Policy #30, (Attachment 4) memorializing the City’s practice have been prepared for review and consideration. Additionally, a draft ordinance adding Chapter 52.50 titled “Flag Policy” to the Municipal Code is attached should the Council decides to formalize its policy that way (Attachment 5). 1 In 2022, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the City of Boston violated a Christian group’s free speech when it denied their request to raise their flag over City Hall. The decision is based on factspecific analyses including the City of Boston’s program that allowed private groups to have their flags flown outside Boston City.

City of Coronado Page 291
FISCAL IMPACT:

Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVE:

The Council may provide direction as needed or take no action.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

Not a project under CEQA.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

No notice required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. United States Supreme Court in Shurtleff v. City of Boston Mass

2. Survey of San Diego County Cities

3. Sample Flag Policies

4. Draft Resolution No. 2024-06 with Council Policy #30 as Exhibit A

5. Draft Ordinance No. 2024-01
Submitted By: City Attorney's Office / Johanna N Canlas City of Coronado Page 292

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
SHURTLEFF ET AL. v. CITY OF BOSTON ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 20–1800. Argued January 18, 2022—Decided May 2, 2022 Just outside the entrance to Boston City Hall, on City Hall Plaza, stand three flagpoles. Boston flies the American flag from the first pole and the flag of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from the second. Boston usually flies the city’s own flag from the third pole. But Boston has, for years, allowed groups to hold ceremonies on the plaza during which participants may hoist a flag of their choosing on the third pole in place of the city’s flag. Between 2005 and 2017, Boston approved the raising of about 50 unique flags for 284 such ceremonies. Most of these flags were other countries’, but some were associated with groups or causes, such as the Pride Flag, a banner honoring emergency medical service workers, and others. In 2017, Harold Shurtleff, the director of an organization called Camp Constitution, asked to hold an event on the plaza to celebrate the civic and social contributions of the Christian community; as part of that ceremony, he wished to raise what he described as the “Christian flag.” The commissioner of Boston’s Property Management Department worried that flying a religious flag at City Hall could violate the Establishment Clause and found no past instance of the city’s having raised such a flag. He therefore told Shurtleff that the group could hold an event on the plaza but could not raise their flag during it. Shurtleff and Camp Constitution (petitioners) sued, claiming that Boston’s refusal to let them raise their flag violated, among other things, the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. The District Court held that flying private groups’ flags from City Hall’s third flagpole amounted to government speech, so Boston could refuse petitioners’ request without running afoul of the First Amendment. The First Circuit affirmed. This Court granted certiorari to decide whether the flags Boston allows others to fly express government speech, and whether Boston could, consistent with the Free Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 293

2 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
Syllabus
Speech Clause, deny petitioners’ flag-raising request.

Held: 1. Boston’s flag-raising program does not express government speech. Pp. 5–12.
(a) The Free Speech Clause does not prevent the government from declining to express a view. See Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460, 467–469. The government must be able to decide what to say and what not to say when it states an opinion, speaks for the community, formulates policies, or implements programs. The boundary between government speech and private expression can blur when, as here, the government invites the people to participate in a program.

In those situations, the Court conducts a holistic inquiry to determine whether the government intends to speak for itself or, rather, to regulate private expression. The Court’s cases have looked to several types of evidence to guide the analysis, including: the history of the expression at issue; the public’s likely perception as to who (the government or a private person) is speaking; and the extent to which the government has actively shaped or controlled the expression. See Walker v.

Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U. S. 200, 209–213.

Considering these indicia in Summum, the Court held that the messages of permanent monuments in a public park constituted government speech, even when the monuments were privately funded and donated. See 555 U. S., at 470–473. In Walker, the Court found that license plate designs proposed by private groups also amounted to government speech because, among other reasons, the State that issued the plates “maintain[ed] direct control over the messages conveyed” by “actively” reviewing designs and rejecting over a dozen proposals. 576 U. S., at 213. On the other hand, in Matal v. Tam, the Court concluded that trademarking words or symbols generated by private registrants did not amount to government speech because the Patent and Trademark Office did not exercise sufficient control over the nature and content of those marks to convey a governmental message. 582 U. S.___, ___. Pp. 5–6.
(b) Applying this government-speech analysis here, the Court finds that some evidence favors Boston, and other evidence favors Shurtleff.

The history of flag flying, particularly at the seat of government, supports Boston. Flags evolved as a way to symbolize communities and governments. Not just the content of a flag, but also its presence and position have long conveyed important messages about government.

Flying a flag other than a government’s own can also convey a governmental message. For example, another country’s flag outside Blair House, across the street from the White House, signals that a foreign leader is visiting. Consistent with this history, flags on Boston’s City Hall Plaza usually convey the city’s messages. Boston’s flag symbolAttachment 1 City of Coronado Page 294

Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 3
Syllabus
izes the city and, when flying at halfstaff, conveys a community message of sympathy or somber remembrance. The question remains whether, on the 20 or so times a year when Boston allowed private groups to raise their own flags, those flags, too, expressed the city’s message. The circumstantial evidence of the public’s perception does not resolve the issue. The most salient feature of this case is that Boston neither actively controlled these flag raisings nor shaped the messages the flags sent. To be sure, Boston maintained control over an event’s date and time to avoid conflicts, and it maintained control over the plaza’s physical premises, presumably to avoid chaos. But the key issue is whether Boston shaped or controlled the flags’ content and meaning; such evidence would tend to show that Boston intended to convey the flags’ messages as its own. And on that issue, Boston’s record is thin. Boston says that all (or at least most) of the 50 unique flags it approved reflect particular city-endorsed values or causes.

That may well be true of flying other nations’ flags, or the Pride Flag raised annually to commemorate Boston Pride Week, but the connection to other flag-raising ceremonies, such as one held by a community bank, is more difficult to discern. Further, Boston told the public that it sought “to accommodate all applicants” who wished to hold events at Boston’s “public forums,” including on City Hall Plaza. App. to Pet. for Cert. 137a. The city’s application form asked only for contact information and a brief description of the event, with proposed dates and times. The city employee who handled applications testified that he did not request to see flags before the events. Indeed, the city’s practice was to approve flag raisings without exception—that is, until petitioners’ request. At the time, Boston had no written policies or clear internal guidance about what flags groups could fly and what those flags would communicate. Boston’s control is therefore not comparable to the degree of government involvement in the selection of park monuments in Summum, see 555 U. S., at 472–473, or license plate designs in Walker, see 576 U. S., at 213. Boston’s come-one-come-all practice— except, that is, for petitioners’ flag—is much closer to the Patent and Trademark Office’s policy of registering all manner of trademarks in Matal, see 582 U. S., at ___, ___. All told, Boston’s lack of meaningful involvement in the selection of flags or the crafting of their messages leads the Court to classify the third-party flag raisings as private, not government, speech. Pp. 6–12.

2. Because the flag-raising program did not express government speech, Boston’s refusal to let petitioners fly their flag violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. When the government does not speak for itself, it may not exclude private speech based on “religious viewpoint”; doing so “constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.” Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U. S.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 295

4 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
Syllabus
98, 112. Boston concedes that it denied petitioners’ request out of Establishment Clause concerns, solely because the proposed flag “promot[ed] a specific religion.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 155a. In light of the Court’s government-speech holding, Boston’s refusal to allow petitioners to raise their flag because of its religious viewpoint violated the Free Speech Clause. Pp. 12–13.
986 F. 3d 78, reversed and remanded.

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.

GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS, J., joined.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 296

_________________
_________________
Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 1
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 20–1800
HAROLD SHURTLEFF, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY
OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
[May 2, 2022]
JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.

When the government encourages diverse expression—
say, by creating a forum for debate—the First Amendment prevents it from discriminating against speakers based on their viewpoint. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 828–830 (1995). But when the government speaks for itself, the First Amendment does not demand airtime for all views. After all, the government must be able to “promote a program” or “espouse a policy” in order to function. Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U. S. 200, 208 (2015). The line between a forum for private expression and the government’s own speech is important, but not always clear.

This case concerns a flagpole outside Boston City Hall.

For years, Boston has allowed private groups to request use of the flagpole to raise flags of their choosing. As part of this program, Boston approved hundreds of requests to
raise dozens of different flags. The city did not deny a single request to raise a flag until, in 2017, Harold Shurtleff, the director of a group called Camp Constitution, asked to fly a Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 297

2 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
Opinion of the Court
Christian flag. Boston refused. At that time, Boston admits, it had no written policy limiting use of the flagpole based on the content of a flag. The parties dispute whether, on these facts, Boston reserved the pole to fly flags that communicate governmental messages, or instead opened
the flagpole for citizens to express their own views. If the former, Boston is free to choose the flags it flies without the constraints of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.

If the latter, the Free Speech Clause prevents Boston from refusing a flag based on its viewpoint.

We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the
raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech. That means, in turn, that Boston’s refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution raise their flag based on its religious viewpoint “abridg[ed]” their “freedom of speech.” U. S. Const., Amdt. I.

I
A
The flagpole at issue stands at the entrance of Boston
City Hall. See Appendix, infra. Built in the late 1960s, Boston City Hall is a raw concrete structure, an example of the brutalist style. Critics of the day heralded it as a public building that “articulates its functions” with “strength, dignity, grace, and even glamor.” J. Conti, A New City Hall:

Boston’s Boost for Urban Renewal, Wall Street Journal,
Feb. 12, 1969, p. 14. (The design has since proved somewhat more controversial. See, e.g., E. Mason, Boston City Hall Named World’s Ugliest Building, Boston Herald
(Nov. 15, 2008), https://www.bostonherald.com/2008/11/15/ boston-city-hall-named-worlds-ugliest-building.) More to the point, Boston City Hall sits on City Hall Plaza, a 7-acre expanse paved with New England brick. Inspired by open
public spaces like the Piazza del Campo in Siena, the plaza was designed to be “‘Boston’s fairground,’” a “public gathering spac[e]” for the people. N. DeCosta-Klipa, Why Is Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 298
Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 3
Opinion of the Court
Boston City Hall the Way It Is? Boston.com (July 25, 2018), https://www.boston.com/news/history/2018/07/ 25/bostoncity-hall-brutalism.

On the plaza, near City Hall’s entrance, stand three 83- foot flagpoles. Boston flies the American flag from the first pole (along with a banner honoring prisoners of war and soldiers missing in action). From the second, it flies the flag of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And from the
third, it usually (but not always) flies Boston’s flag—a sketch of the “City on a Hill” encircled by a ring against a blue backdrop.

Boston makes City Hall Plaza available to the public for events. Boston acknowledges that this means the plaza is a “public forum.” Brief for Respondents 27. The city’s policy is, “[w]here possible,” “to accommodate all applicants seeking to take advantage of the City of Boston’s public forums,” including the plaza and the area at the flagpoles’ base. App. to Pet. for Cert. 133a, 137a.

For years, since at least 2005, the city has allowed groups to hold flag-raising ceremonies on the plaza. Participants may hoist a flag of their choosing on the third flagpole (in place of the city’s flag) and fly it for the duration of the event, typically a couple of hours. Most ceremonies have involved the flags of other countries—from Albania to Venezuela—marking the national holidays of Bostonians’ many countries of origin. But several flag raisings have been associated with other kinds of groups or causes, such as Pride Week, emergency medical service workers, and a community bank. All told, between 2005 and 2017, Boston approved about 50 unique flags, raised at 284 ceremonies.

Boston has no record of refusing a request before the events that gave rise to this case. We turn now to those events.

B
In July 2017, Harold Shurtleff, the director of an organization called Camp Constitution, asked to hold a flagAttachment 1 City of Coronado Page 299

4 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
Opinion of the Court
raising event that September on City Hall Plaza. The event would “commemorate the civic and social contributions of the Christian community” and feature remarks by local
clergy. Id., at 130a–131a. As part of the ceremony, the organization wished to raise what it described as the “Christian flag.” Id., at 131a. To the event application, Shurtleff attached a photo of the proposed flag: a red cross on a blue field against a white background.

The commissioner of Boston’s Property Management Department said no. The problem was “not the content of the Christian flag,” but “the fact that it was the Christian flag or [was] called the Christian flag.” App. in No. 20–1158 (CA1), at 212–213 (deposition of then-commissioner Gregory T. Rooney, hereafter Rooney deposition). The commissioner worried that flying a religious flag at City Hall could violate the Constitution’s Establishment Clause and found no record of Boston ever having raised such a flag. He told Shurtleff that Camp Constitution could proceed with the event if they would raise a different flag. Needless to say, they did not want to do so.

C
Shurtleff and Camp Constitution (petitioners) sued Boston and the commissioner of its Property Management Department (respondents). Petitioners claimed that Boston’s refusal to let them raise their flag violated, among other things, the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. They
asked for an immediate order requiring Boston to allow the flag raising, but the District Court denied the request. See 337 F. Supp. 3d 66 (Mass. 2018), aff ’d, 928 F. 3d 166 (CA1 2019). The parties engaged in discovery. At its close, they filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties
agreed to all relevant facts and submitted a joint statement setting them out. App. to Pet. for Cert. 128a–160a.

On that record, the District Court held that flying private Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 300
Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 5
Opinion of the Court
groups’ flags from City Hall’s third pole amounted to government speech. See 2020 WL 555248, *5, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___ (Mass., Feb. 4, 2020). Hence, the city acted within its constitutional authority in declining to raise Camp Constitution’s flag. Id., at *3, *5. The District Court therefore granted summary judgment for Boston. The First Circuit
affirmed. See 986 F. 3d 78 (2021).

Shurtleff and Camp Constitution next petitioned this
Court for certiorari. We agreed to decide whether the flags Boston allows groups to fly express government speech, and whether Boston could, consistent with the Free Speech
Clause, deny petitioners’ flag-raising request.

II
A
The first and basic question we must answer is whether
Boston’s flag-raising program constitutes government
speech. If so, Boston may refuse flags based on viewpoint.

The First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause does not prevent the government from declining to express a view. See Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460, 467–469
(2009). When the government wishes to state an opinion, to speak for the community, to formulate policies, or to implement programs, it naturally chooses what to say and what not to say. See Walker, 576 U. S., at 207–208. That must be true for government to work. Boston could not easily congratulate the Red Sox on a victory were the city powerless to decline to simultaneously transmit the views of disappointed Yankees fans. The Constitution therefore relies first and foremost on the ballot box, not on rules against viewpoint discrimination, to check the government when it speaks. See Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v.

Southworth, 529 U. S. 217, 235 (2000).

The boundary between government speech and private
expression can blur when, as here, a government invites the people to participate in a program. In those situations, Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 301

6 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
Opinion of the Court
when does government-public engagement transmit the
government’s own message? And when does it instead create a forum for the expression of private speakers’ views? In answering these questions, we conduct a holistic inquiry designed to determine whether the government intends to speak for itself or to regulate private expression.

Our review is not mechanical; it is driven by a case’s context rather than the rote application of rigid factors. Our past cases have looked to several types of evidence to guide the analysis, including: the history of the expression at issue; the public’s likely perception as to who (the government or a private person) is speaking; and the extent to which the government has actively shaped or controlled the expression. See Walker, 576 U. S., at 209–214.

Considering these indicia in Summum, we held that the
messages of permanent monuments in a public park constituted government speech, even when the monuments were privately funded and donated. See 555 U. S., at 470–473.

In Walker, we explained that license plate designs proposed by private groups also amounted to government speech because, among other reasons, the State that issued the plates “maintain[ed] direct control over the messages conveyed” by “actively” reviewing designs and rejecting over a dozen proposals. 576 U. S., at 213. In Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. ___ (2017), on the other hand, we concluded that trademarking words or symbols generated by private registrants did not amount to government speech. Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 14–18). Though the Patent and Trademark Office
had to approve each proposed mark, it did not exercise sufficient control over the nature and content of those marks to convey a governmental message in so doing. Ibid. These precedents point our way today.

B
Applying the government-speech analysis to this record, Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 302
Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 7
Opinion of the Court
we find that some evidence favors Boston, and other evidence favors Shurtleff.

To begin, we look to the history of flag flying, particularly at the seat of government. Were we to consider only that general history, we would find that it supports Boston.

Flags are almost as old as human civilization. Indeed,
flags symbolize civilization. From the “primordial rag
dipped in the blood of a conquered enemy and lifted high on a stick,” to the feudal banner bearing a lord’s coats of arms, to the standards of the Aztecs, nearly every society has taken a piece of cloth and “endow[ed] it, through the circumstances of its display, with a condensed power” to speak for the community. W. Smith, Flags Through the Ages and Across the World 1–2, 32, 34 (1975). Little wonder that the Continental Congress, seeking to define a new nation,
“[r]esolved” on June 14, 1777, “[t]hat the Flag of the . . .

United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white:
that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.” 8 Journals of the Continental Congress 1774–1789, p. 464 (W. Ford ed. 1907). Today, the American flag continues to symbolize our Nation, a constellation of 50 stars standing for the 50 States.

Other contemporary flags, both state and local, reflect their communities. Boston’s flag, for instance, bears the city’s seal and motto rendered in blue and buff—the colors of the Continental Army’s Revolutionary War uniforms.

See Symbols of the City of Boston, City of Boston (July 16, 2016), https://www.boston.gov/departments/tourism-sportsand-entertainment/symbols-city-boston (Symbols of Boston).

Not just the content of a flag, but also its presence and position have long conveyed important messages about government. The early morning sight of the stars and stripes above Fort McHenry told Francis Scott Key (and, through his poem, he told the rest of us) that the great experiment— Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 303

8 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
Opinion of the Court
the land of the free—had survived the British attack on Baltimore Harbor. See C. Lineberry, The Story Behind the Star Spangled Banner, Smithsonian Magazine (Mar. 1,
2007). No less familiar, a flag at halfstaff tells us that the government is paying its “respect to th[e] memory” of someone who has died. 4 U. S. C. §7(m). (Congress has explained, across several sections of the U. S. Code, the meaning we should take from the “position,” “manner,” “time,” and “occasions” of the American flag’s display. §§6, 7.) And the presence of the Royal Standard flying from Windsor
Castle’s Round Tower says the Queen is home. See Windsor Castle Today, Royal Collection Trust, www.rct.uk/visit/ windsor-castle/windsor-castle-today.

The flying of a flag other than a government’s own can
also convey a governmental message. A foreign flag outside Blair House, across the street from the White House, signals that a foreign leader is visiting and the residence has “becom[e] a de facto diplomatic mission of the guest’s home nation.” M. French, United States Protocol: The Guide to Official Diplomatic Etiquette 298 (2010). And, according to international custom, when flags of two or more nations are displayed together, they cannot be flown one nation above the other “in time of peace.” 4 U. S. C. §7(g).

Keeping with this tradition, flags on Boston’s City Hall Plaza usually convey the city’s messages. On a typical day, the American flag, the Massachusetts flag, and the City of Boston’s flag wave from three flagpoles. Boston’s flag, when flying there at full mast, symbolizes the city. When flying at halfstaff, it conveys a community message of sympathy or somber remembrance. When displayed at other public
buildings, it marks the mayor’s presence. See Symbols of Boston. The city also sometimes conveys a message by replacing its flag with another. When Boston’s mayor lost a bet with Montreal’s about whose hockey team would win a playoff series, Boston, duty-bound in defeat, hoisted the Canadiens’ banner. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 54–55.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 304

Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 9
Opinion of the Court
While this history favors Boston, it is only our starting point. The question remains whether, on the 20 or so times a year when Boston allowed private groups to raise their own flags, those flags, too, expressed the city’s message. So we must examine the details of this flag-flying program.

Next, then, we consider whether the public would tend to view the speech at issue as the government’s. In this case, the circumstantial evidence does not tip the scale. On an ordinary day, a passerby on Cambridge Street sees three government flags representing the Nation, State, and city.

Those flags wave “in unison, side-by-side, from matching flagpoles,” just outside “‘the entrance to Boston’s seat of government.’” 986 F. 3d, at 88. Like the monuments in the public park in Summum, the flags “play an important role in defining the identity that [the] city projects to its own residents and to the outside world.” 555 U. S., at 472. So, like the license plates in Walker, the public seems likely to see the flags as “‘conveying some message’” on the government’s “‘behalf.’” 576 U. S., at 212 (quoting Summum, 555 U. S., at 471).

But as we have said, Boston allowed its flag to be lowered and other flags to be raised with some regularity. These other flags were raised in connection with ceremonies at the flagpoles’ base and remained aloft during the events. Petitioners say that a pedestrian glimpsing a flag other than Boston’s on the third flagpole might simply look down onto the plaza, see a group of private citizens conducting a ceremony without the city’s presence, and associate the new flag with them, not Boston. Thus, even if the public would ordinarily associate a flag’s message with Boston, that is not necessarily true for the flags at issue here. Again, this evidence of the public’s perception does not resolve whether Boston conveyed a city message with these flags.

Finally, we look at the extent to which Boston actively controlled these flag raisings and shaped the messages the flags sent. The answer, it seems, is not at all. And that is Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 305

10 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
Opinion of the Court
the most salient feature of this case.

To be sure, Boston maintained control over an event’s
date and time to avoid conflicts. It maintained control over the plaza’s physical premises, presumably to avoid chaos.

And it provided a hand crank so that groups could rig and raise their chosen flags. But it is Boston’s control over the flags’ content and meaning that here is key; that type of control would indicate that Boston meant to convey the
flags’ messages.

On this issue, Boston’s record is thin. Boston says that all (or at least most) of the 50 unique flags it approved reflect particular city-approved values or views. Flying flags associated with other countries celebrated Bostonians’
many different national origins; flying other flags, Boston adds, was not “wholly unconnected” from a diversity message or “some other day or cause the City or Commonwealth had already endorsed.” Brief for Respondents 8, 35. That may well be true of the Pride Flag raised annually to commemorate Boston Pride Week. See Brief for Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. as Amici Curiae 25–26 (citing reports that the then-mayor of Boston gave remarks as the Pride Flag was raised). But it is more difficult to discern a connection to the city as to, say, the Metro Credit Union flag raising, a ceremony by a local community bank.

In any event, we do not settle this dispute by counting noses—or, rather, counting flags. That is so for several reasons. For one thing, Boston told the public that it sought “to accommodate all applicants” who wished to hold events at Boston’s “public forums,” including on City Hall Plaza.

App. to Pet. for Cert. 137a. The application form asked only for contact information and a brief description of the event, with proposed dates and times. The city employee who handled applications testified by deposition that he had previously “never requested to review a flag or requested changes to a flag in connection with approval”; nor did he even see flags before the events. Id., at 150a. The city’s Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 306

Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 11
Opinion of the Court
practice was to approve flag raisings, without exception. It has no record of denying a request until Shurtleff ’s. Boston acknowledges it “hadn’t spent a lot of time really thinking about” its flag-raising practices until this case. App. in No. 20–1158 (CA1), at 140 (Rooney deposition). True to its word, the city had nothing—no written policies or clear internal guidance—about what flags groups could fly and what those flags would communicate.

Compare the extent of Boston’s control over flag raisings with the degree of government involvement in our most relevant precedents. In Summum, we emphasized that Pleasant Grove City always selected which monuments it would place in its park (whether or not the government funded those monuments), and it typically took ownership over
them. 555 U. S., at 472–473. In Walker, a state board
“maintain[ed] direct control” over license plate designs by “actively” reviewing every proposal and rejecting at least a dozen. 576 U. S., at 213. Boston has no comparable record.

The facts of this case are much closer to Matal v. Tam.

There, we held that trademarks were not government
speech because the Patent and Trademark Office registered all manner of marks and normally did not consider their viewpoint, except occasionally to turn away marks it
deemed “offensive.” 582 U. S., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 14, 22). Boston’s come-one-come-all attitude—except, that is, for Camp Constitution’s religious flag—is similar.

Boston could easily have done more to make clear it
wished to speak for itself by raising flags. Other cities’ flagflying policies support our conclusion. The City of San Jose, California, for example, provides in writing that its “‘flagpoles are not intended to serve as a forum for free expression by the public,’” and lists approved flags that may be flown “‘as an expression of the City’s official sentiments.’” See Brief for Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. as
Amici Curiae 18.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 307

12 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
Opinion of the Court
All told, while the historical practice of flag flying at government buildings favors Boston, the city’s lack of meaningful involvement in the selection of flags or the crafting of their messages leads us to classify the flag raisings as private, not government, speech—though nothing prevents Boston from changing its policies going forward.

III
Last, we consider whether Boston’s refusal to allow
Shurtleff and Camp Constitution to raise their flag
amounted to impermissible viewpoint discrimination.

Boston acknowledges that it denied Shurtleff ’s request because it believed flying a religious flag at City Hall could violate the Establishment Clause. And it admits this concern proceeded from the premise that raising the flag would express government speech. See Brief in Opposition 23 (explaining that “viewpoint neutrality” was “incompatible” with Boston’s view of its program). But we have rejected that premise in the preceding pages. We must therefore
consider Boston’s actions in light of our holding.

When a government does not speak for itself, it may not exclude speech based on “religious viewpoint”; doing so “constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.”
Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U. S. 98, 112 (2001). Applying that rule, we have held, for example, that a public university may not bar student-activity funds from reimbursing only religious groups. See Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 830–834. Here, Boston concedes that it denied Shurtleff ’s request solely because the Christian flag he asked to raise “promot[ed] a specific religion.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 155a (quoting Rooney deposition). Under our precedents, and in view of our government-speech holding here, that refusal discriminated based on religious viewpoint and violated the Free Speech Clause.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 308
Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 13
Opinion of the Court
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Boston’s flagraising program does not express government speech. As a result, the city’s refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution fly their flag based on its religious viewpoint violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. We reverse the First Circuit’s contrary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 309

APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT
The flagpoles outside Boston City Hall fly the American flag, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts flag, and the city flag, side by side, on an ordinary day.

Source: Preservation Priorities, Boston Preservation Alliance (Feb. 3, 2022), https://boston-preservation. org/news-item/preservation-priorities-letter-mayor-wu
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 310

_________________
_________________
Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 1
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 20–1800
HAROLD SHURTLEFF, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY
OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
[May 2, 2022]
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring.

This dispute arose only because of a government official’s mistaken understanding of the Establishment Clause. A
Boston official believed that the City would violate the Establishment Clause if it allowed a religious flag to briefly fly outside of City Hall as part of the flag-raising program that the City had opened to the public. So Boston granted requests to fly a variety of secular flags, but denied a request to fly a religious flag. As this Court has repeatedly made clear, however, a government does not violate the Establishment Clause merely because it treats religious persons, organizations, and speech equally with secular persons, organizations, and speech in public programs, benefits, facilities, and the like. See, e.g., Zelman v.

Simmons-Harris, 536 U. S. 639 (2002). On the contrary, a government violates the Constitution when (as here) it excludes religious persons, organizations, or speech because of religion from public programs, benefits, facilities, and the like. See, e.g., Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U. S. ___ (2020); Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U. S. 98 (2001); McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U. S. 618 (1978).

Under the Constitution, a government may not treat religious persons, religious organizations, or religious speech as second-class.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 311
_________________
_________________
Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 1
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 20–1800
HAROLD SHURTLEFF, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY
OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
[May 2, 2022]
JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and
JUSTICE GORSUCH join, concurring in the judgment.

I agree with the Court’s conclusion that Boston (hereafter City) violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech when it rejected Camp Constitution’s application to fly what it characterized as a “Christian flag.” But I cannot go along with the Court’s decision to analyze this case in terms of the triad of factors—history, the public’s perception of who is speaking, and the extent to which the government has exercised control over speech—that our decision in Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U. S. 200 (2015), derived from Pleasant Grove City v.

Summum, 555 U. S. 460 (2009). See ante, at 6–12. As the Court now recognizes, those cases did not set forth a test that always and everywhere applies when the government
claims that its actions are immune to First Amendment
challenge under the government-speech doctrine. And
treating those factors as a test obscures the real question in government-speech cases: whether the government is
speaking instead of regulating private expression.

I
The government-speech doctrine recognizes that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment “restricts government regulation of private speech” but “does not regulate Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 312

2 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
government speech.” Summum, 555 U. S., at 467. That
doctrine presents no serious problems when the government speaks in its own voice—for example, when an official gives a speech in a representative capacity or a governmental body issues a report. But courts must be very careful when a government claims that speech by one or more private speakers is actually government speech. When that occurs, it can be difficult to tell whether the government is using the doctrine “as a subterfuge for favoring certain private speakers over others based on viewpoint,” id., at 473, and the government-speech doctrine becomes “susceptible to dangerous misuse,” Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2017) (slip op., at 13–14).

In Tam, for example, the United States defended a statutory provision that permitted the Patent and Trademark Office to deny federal registration to “disparag[ing]” marks, 15 U. S. C. §1052(a), on the theory that “the registration of a trademark converts the mark into government speech.”
582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 17). We rejected that argument and held that because the Government’s role in registration was limited to applying a standard of assessment to marks generated by private parties, registered marks are not government speech. Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 12–14). But the Government’s position had radical implications: If registration transforms trademarks into government speech, the same logic would presumably hold for other speech included on systems of government registration. Books on the copyright registry, for example, would count as the Government’s own speech—presumably subject to editorial control. And the Government would be free to exclude authors from copyright protection based on their views. Id., at ___– ___ (slip op., at 17–18).

To prevent the government-speech doctrine from being
used as a cover for censorship, courts must focus on the identity of the speaker. The ultimate question is whether the government is actually expressing its own views or the Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 313

Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 3
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
real speaker is a private party and the government is surreptitiously engaged in the “regulation of private speech.” Summum, 555 U. S., at 467. But our precedent has never
attempted to specify a general method for deciding that question, and the Court goes wrong in proceeding as though our decisions in Walker and Summum settled on anything
that might be considered a “government-speech analysis.” Ante, at 6. In both cases, we employed a fact-bound totalityof-the-circumstances inquiry that relied on the factors that appeared helpful in evaluating whether the speech at issue was government or private speech. See Walker, 576 U. S., at 210–213; Summum, 555 U. S., at 470–478. We did not
set out a test to be used in all government-speech cases, and we did not purport to define an exhaustive list of relevant factors. And in light of the ultimate focus of the government-speech inquiry, each of the factors mentioned in those cases could be relevant only insofar as it sheds light on the identity of the speaker. When considered in isolation from that inquiry, the factors central to Walker and Summum
can lead a court astray.

Consider first “the extent to which the government has
actively shaped or controlled the expression.” Ante, at 6.

Government control over speech is relevant to speaker identity in that speech by a private individual or group cannot constitute government speech if the government does not attempt to control the message. But control is also an essential element of censorship. Consider this example. The British Licensing Act of 1737, 10 Geo. II c. 28, §1, in 17 Eng.

Stat. at Large 140 (1765), as amended by the Theatres Act of 1843, 6 & 7 Vict. c. 68, §2 (1843), prohibited the performance of any “interlude, tragedy, comedy, opera, play, farce, or other entertainment” without a patent issued by the King of England or a “License from the Lord Chamberlain of Her Majesty’s Household.” Ibid. This regime attracted criticism precisely because it gave the Lord Chamberlain extensive “control over the nature and content,” Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 314

4 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
ante, at 6, of covered performances. One of the leading critics of the Act—the playwright George Bernard Shaw—was denied permission to perform several plays, including Mrs.

Warren’s Profession, The Shewing-up of Blanco Posnet, and Press Cuttings.1 But had the Lord Chamberlain approved
these plays, would anyone seriously maintain that those plays were thereby transmuted into the government’s
speech?
As this illustration shows, neither “control” nor “final approval authority” can in itself distinguish government speech from censorship of private speech, and analyzing that factor in isolation from speaker identity flattens the distinction between government speech and speech tolerated by the censor. And it is not as though “actively” exercising control over the “nature and content” of private expression makes a difference, as the Court suggests, ibid.

Censorship is not made constitutional by aggressive and direct application.

Next, turn to the history of the means of expression. Ibid.

Historical practice can establish that a means of expression “typically represent[s] government speech.” Summum, 555 U. S., at 470 (emphasis added); Tam, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 17). But in determining whether speech is the government’s, the real question is not whether a form of expression is usually linked with the government but whether the speech at issue expresses the government’s own message. Governments can put public resources to novel uses.

And when governments allow private parties to use a resource normally devoted to government speech to express their own messages, the government cannot rely on historical expectations to pass off private speech as its own. Cf.

Summum, 555 U. S., at 480 (explaining that even though
monuments in parks are normally government speech, that —————— 1See generally L. Hugo, Edwardian Shaw: The Writer and His Age 197–230 (1999).

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 315
Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 5
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
would not be true if “a town created a monument on which all of its residents (or all those meeting some other criterion) could place the name of a person to be honored or some other private message”).

This case exemplifies the point. Governments have long
used flags to express government messages, so this factor provides prima facie support for Boston’s position under the Court’s mode of analysis. Ante, at 7–9. But on these facts, the history of flags clearly cannot have any bearing on whether the flag displays express the City’s own message.

The City put the flagpoles to an unorthodox use—allowing private parties to use the poles to express messages that were not formulated by City officials. Treating this factor as significant in that circumstance loads the dice in favor of the government’s position for no obvious reason.

Now consider the third factor: “the public’s likely perception as to who (the government or a private person) is speaking.” Ante, at 6. Our earlier government-speech precedents recognized that “the correct focus” of the government-speech inquiry “is not on whether the . . . reasonable viewer would identify the speech as the government’s,” Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Assn., 544 U. S. 550, 564, n. 7 (2005), and with good reason. Unless the public is assumed to be omniscient, public perception cannot be relevant to whether the government is speaking, as opposed merely appearing to speak. Focusing on public perception encourages courts to categorize private expression as government
speech in circumstances in which the public is liable to misattribute that speech to the government. This case once again provides an apt illustration. As the Court rightly notes, “[a] passerby on Cambridge Street” confronted with a flag flanked by government flags standing just outside the entrance of Boston’s seat of government would likely conclude that all of those flags “conve[y] some message on the government’s behalf.” Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 316

6 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
omitted). If that is the case, this factor supports the exclusion of private parties from using the flagpoles even though the government allows private parties to use the flagpoles to express private messages, presumably because those
messages may be erroneously attributed to the government.

But there is no obvious reason why a government should be entitled to suppress private views that might be attributed to it by engaging in viewpoint discrimination. The government can always disavow any messages that might be mistakenly attributed to it.

The factors relied upon by the Court are thus an uncertain guide to speaker identity. But beyond that, treating these factors as a freestanding test for the existence of government speech artificially separates the question whether the government is speaking from whether the government
is facilitating or regulating private speech. Under the Court’s factorized approach, government speech occurs
when the government exercises a “sufficient” degree of control over speech that occurs in a setting connected with government speech in the eyes of history and the contemporary public, regardless of whether the government is actually merely facilitating private speech. This approach allows governments to exploit public expectations to mask censorship.

And like any factorized analysis, this approach cannot
provide a principled way of deciding cases. The Court’s analysis here proves the point. The Court concludes that two of the three factors—history and public perception—favor the City. But it nonetheless holds that the flag displays did not constitute government speech. Why these factors drop out of the analysis—or even do not justify a contrary conclusion—is left unsaid. This cannot be the right way to determine when governmental action is exempt from the
First Amendment.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 317

Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 7
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
II
A
I would resolve this case using a different method for determining whether the government is speaking. In my view, the minimum conditions that must be met for expression to count as “government speech” can be identified by considering the definition of “government speech” and the rationale for the government-speech doctrine. Under the resulting view, government speech occurs if—but only if— a government purposefully expresses a message of its own through persons authorized to speak on its behalf, and in doing so, does not rely on a means that abridges private speech.

Defined in literal terms, “government speech” is “speech” spoken by the government. “Speech,” as that term is used in our First Amendment jurisprudence, refers to expressive activity that is “intended to be communicative” and, “in context, would reasonably be understood . . . to be communicative.” Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U. S. 288, 294 (1984); see also Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S 557, 569 (1995). Our government-speech precedents have
worked with largely the same definition. See, e.g., Summum, 555 U. S., at 472 (accepting monument for placement in a city park “constitute[d] government speech” because the monuments were “meant to convey and have the effect of conveying a government message”); Walker, 576 U. S., at 214 (similar). And although this definition of “speech” is not fully precise, the purposeful communication of the
speaker’s own message generally qualifies as “speech.”
For “speech” to be spoken by the government, the relevant act of communication must be government action.

Governments are not natural persons and can only communicate through human agents who have been given the power to speak for the government. When individuals
charged with speaking on behalf of the government act
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 318

8 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
within the scope of their power to do so, they “are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes.” Garcetti v.

Ceballos, 547 U. S. 410, 421 (2006). And because “speech” requires the purposeful communication of the speaker’s
own message, the message expressed must have been formulated by a person with the power to determine what messages the government will communicate. In short, the government must “se[t] the overall message to be communicated” through official action. Johanns, 544 U. S., at 562.

Government speech is thus the purposeful communication of a governmentally determined message by a person exercising a power to speak for a government. But not all governmental activity that qualifies as “government
speech” in this literal and factual sense is exempt from First Amendment scrutiny. For although we have said that the
Free Speech Clause “has no application” when a government is “engaging in [its] own expressive conduct,” Summum, 555 U. S., at 467, we have also recognized that “the Free Speech Clause itself may constrain the government’s speech” under certain conditions, as when a “government seeks to compel private persons to convey the government’s speech.” Walker, 576 U. S., at 208; see also Wooley v.

Maynard, 430 U. S. 705 (1977); West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v.

Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943).

That is because the government-speech doctrine is not
based on the view—which we have neither accepted nor rejected—that governmental entities have First Amendment rights. See United States v. American Library Assn., Inc., 539 U. S. 194, 210–211 (2003); Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 139, and n. 7 (1973) (Stewart, J., concurring).2 Instead, the —————— 2The text of the First Amendment also seems to exclude the possibility that the Federal Government has a constitutional right to speak, since it prohibits “Congress” and other federal entities and actors from “abridging the freedom of speech.” A different analysis might be called for in a Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 319

Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 9
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
doctrine is based on the notion that governmental communication—and the exercise of control over those charged by law with implementing a government’s communicative
agenda—do not normally “restrict the activities of . . . persons acting as private individuals.” Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173, 198–199 (1991); see also Summum, 555 U. S., at 467 (“The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech”); Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 833–835 (1995). So government speech in the literal sense is not exempt from First Amendment attack if it uses a means that restricts private expression in a way that “abridges” the freedom of speech, as is the case with compelled speech. Were it otherwise, virtually every government action that regulates private speech would, paradoxically, qualify as government speech unregulated by the First Amendment. Naked censorship of a speaker based on viewpoint, for example, might well constitute “expression” in the thin sense that it conveys the government’s disapproval of the speaker’s message. But
plainly that kind of action cannot fall beyond the reach of the First Amendment.

It follows that to establish that expression constitutes government speech exempt from First Amendment attack,
the government must satisfy two conditions. First, it must show that the challenged activity constitutes government speech in the literal sense—purposeful communication of a governmentally determined message by a person acting
within the scope of a power to speak for the government.

Second, the government must establish it did not rely on a ——————
case in which the Federal Government attempts to restrict the speech of another sovereign. If the States had First Amendment rights against the Federal Government at the time of ratification, it is not obvious why that right would be eliminated by the incorporation of the speech rights of private citizens against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 320

10 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
means that abridges the speech of persons acting in a private capacity. It is only then that “the Free Speech Clause has no application.” Summum, 555 U. S., at 467.

This framework explains the conditions under which government communication that relies on private parties can constitute government speech. Our precedents recognize
two ways in which a government can speak using private
assistance. First, the government can prospectively “enlis[t] private entities to convey its own message,” Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 833, by deputizing private persons as its agents. See Johanns, 544 U. S., at 560–562, and n. 4; Rust, 500 U. S., at 192–200. In that kind of situation, private persons assume a public or quasi-public capacity that empowers them to speak on behalf of the government. So
long as this responsibility is voluntarily assumed, speech by a private party within the scope of his power to speak for the government constitutes government speech.

Second, the government can “adop[t]” a medium of expression created by a private party and use it to express a government message. Summum, 555 U. S., at 473–474. In
that circumstance, private parties are not deputized by the government; instead a private person generates a medium of expression and transfers it to the government. Id., at 472–474. For the adopted expression to qualify as the government’s, the private party must alienate control over the medium of expression to the government. And government
actors must put the medium to use to intentionally express a government message. Compare id., at 473–475 (holding
that a government adopted donated monument because it
“took ownership of that monument and put it on permanent display in a park that it owns and manages”), with Tam, 582 U. S., at ___, ___–___ (slip op., at 5, 12–15) (no adoption occurred because governments neither produced nor took
ownership of privately generated trademarks). Otherwise, the government is simply providing a forum for private parties to submit their own productions and usual First Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 321

Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 11
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
Amendment principles apply. And to avoid running afoul
of the prohibition on compelled speech, that alienation must be voluntary.3
This approach also explains the circumstances in which
we have concluded that the government is not speaking.

We have repeatedly held that the government-speech doctrine does not extend to private-party speech that is merely subsidized or otherwise facilitated by the government. See, e.g., Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez, 531 U. S. 533, 542 (2001); Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v.

Southworth, 529 U. S. 217, 229 (2000); Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 833–834. Facilitating speech by private persons cannot constitute government speech unless the government assigns a power to speak to those persons or appropriates the products of their expressive activity to express its own message. When the government’s role is limited to applying a standard of assessment to determine a speaker’s eligibility for a benefit, the government is regulating private speech, and ordinary First Amendment principles apply. Tam, 582 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 13–14).

For analogous reasons, private-party expression in any
type of forum recognized by our precedents does not constitute government speech. A forum, by definition, is a space —————— 3The place of Walker within this framework warrants comment. In that case, properly understood, the government claimed to have adopted specialty-license-plate designs submitted by private parties and actually did “ow[n] the designs on its license plates,” Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U. S. 200, 212 (2015). But it was not obvious how designs such as “Rather Be Golfing” could possibly express a government message. Id., at 222 (ALITO, J., dissenting). In other words, although the private parties alienated control over the plate designs, the government did not have any purpose to communicate, and instead allowed private parties to use personal plates to communicate their own messages. This expansive understanding of government speech by adoption should be confined to government-issued IDs. As we have said, Walker “likely marks the outer bounds of the governmentspeech doctrine.” Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 17).

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 322

12 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
for private parties to express their own views. The government can of course speak as a participant in a forum, but the creation of a space for private discourse does not involve expressing a governmental message, deputizing private
parties to express it, or adopting a private party’s contribution as a vehicle of government speech. So when examination of the government’s “policy and practice” indicates that the government has “intentionally open[ed] a nontraditional forum for public discourse,” a court may immediately infer that private-party expression in the forum is not government speech. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed.

Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 802 (1985). There is no need to consider history, public perception, or control in the abstract.

B
Analyzed under this framework, the flag displays were
plainly private speech within a forum created by the City, not government speech. The record attests that the City’s application materials—which were the only written form of guidance available on the program prior to the adoption of a written policy in 2018—characterized the flagpoles as one of the City’s “public forums.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 137a.

The application guidelines did not enumerate any criteria for access to the flagpoles that go beyond those typical of a resource that has been made generally available to the public. Id., at 137a–140a. The first rejection of an application was the denial of Camp Constitution’s application in 2017.

Id., at 150a–158a. Prior to then, the City never rejected any request to raise a flag submitted by any private party. And private speakers accounted for 78% of the flag-raising applicants. See Reply Brief 8.

A program with this design cannot possibly constitute
government speech. The City did nothing to indicate an intent to communicate a message. Clark, 468 U. S., at 294.

Nor did it deputize private speakers or appropriate privateAttachment 1 City of Coronado Page 323
Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 13
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
party expressive content. The flags flown reflected a dizzying and contradictory array of perspectives that cannot be understood to express the message of a single speaker. For example, the City allowed parties to fly the gay pride flag, App. to Pet. for Cert. 142a, but it allowed others to fly the flag of Ethiopia, id., at 174a, a country in which “homosexual act[s]” are punishable by “imprisonment for not less than one year.” The Crim. Code of Fed. Democratic Republic of Eth. 2004, Arts. 629 and 630, Proclamation No. 414/2004. Indeed, the City disclaimed virtually all messages expressed by characterizing the flagpoles as a “public forum” and adopting access criteria consistent with generalized public use. The City’s policy and practice thus squarely indicate an intent to open a public forum for any private speakers who met the City’s basic criteria. The requirement of viewpoint neutrality applies to any forum of this kind. Cornelius, 473 U. S., at 802.

As the Court rightly holds, denying Shurtleff ’s application to use that forum constituted impermissible viewpoint discrimination. Ante, at 12–13. The City’s stated reason for rejecting Camp Constitution’s application was an unwritten “policy and practice” of “ ‘refrain[ing] from flying non-secular flags on the City Hall flagpoles.’” App. to Pet. for Cert. 153a–154a. But as we have recognized, religion constitutes a viewpoint, and “speech discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be excluded from a limited public forum on the ground that the subject is discussed from a religious point of view.” Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U. S. 98, 112 (2001); Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 835.

The City’s decision was grounded in a belief that “[e]stablished First Amendment jurisprudence” prohibits a government from allowing a private party to “fly a [r]eligious flag on public property.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 153a–154a. But “[m]ore than once,” this Court has “rejected the position Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 324

14 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
that the Establishment Clause even justifies, much less requires, a refusal to extend free speech rights to religious speakers who participate in broad-reaching government
programs neutral in design.” Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 839; see also Good News Club, 533 U. S., at 112; Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508
U. S. 384 (1993). Indeed, excluding religious messages from public forums that are open to other viewpoints is a “denial of the right of free speech” indicating “hostility to religion” that would “undermine the very neutrality the Establishment Clause requires.” Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 845–846; see also Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens, 496 U. S. 226, 248 (1990) (plurality opinion).

Although developments in City policy postdating the denial of Shurtleff ’s application are not relevant to whether that act constituted a First Amendment violation, it should be emphasized that the City’s adoption of a written policy in October 2018 did not to convert the flag displays into government speech. The policy’s principal provision specified that the City will not “display flags deemed to be inappropriate or offensive in nature or those supporting discrimination, prejudice, or religious” viewpoints. App. in No. 20– 1158 (CA1), p. 570 (App).4 That provision did not identify a —————— 4The policy included six other rules specifying that: (1) flag raisings must occur on “a normal business work day, generally between the hours of 10:00 am and 3:00 pm”; (2) flag raisings must be open to the public and “[g]uests must adhere to the City of Boston policy not to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion, etc.”; (3) guests must deliver the “guest flag” to City personnel before the raising and retrieve it after; (4) events must be consistent with the City’s “sustainability” policy; (5) flags may be lowered to comply with the U. S. Flag Code; and (6) flags will normally be flown for 24 hours or fewer. App. 570. These criteria do not suggest purposeful communication of a government message. The policy also reserved “sole and complete discretion” to refuse to fly any flag. Id., at 569.

But this reservation unbridled discretionary control over access to a government-owned medium of expression cannot establish that a speaker permitted to speak through the medium is speaking for the government.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 325

Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 15
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
message the City intended to express; it simply codified the City’s prior exclusion of speakers expressing a “religious viewpoint” and extended it to messages deemed “offensive,” despite the “bedrock First Amendment principle” that
“[s]peech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” Tam, 582 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 1–2).

In briefing before this Court, counsel for the City argued that despite all appearances to the contrary, the City actually did intend to express a message through the flag-raising program: The City’s support for “the diverse national heritage of the City’s population.” Brief for Respondents 19.

All other flag raisings, the City claims, occurred “in connection with some publicly designated date of observance.” Ibid. This argument is a transparent attempt to reverse engineer a governmental message from facts about the flag raisings that occurred. It is true that many of the flag raisings from 2007 to 2015 celebrated nationalities. App. to Pet. for Cert. 173a–187a. But these events were conducted by private organizations to express their own support for the relevant national communities. Neither the City’s application guidance nor the 2018 written policy singled out a connection with a nationality commemoration as a condition of access to the flagpoles. The City never cited this purported requirement in its rejection of the applications it denied. And the City approved flags that had nothing to do with nationality or official holidays, such as the “Metro Credit Union Flag Raising” mentioned by the Court.

Even if the City had reserved the flagpoles for nationality commemorations and official holidays, that would only
mean that the City had reserved the flagpoles “for certain groups or for the discussion of certain topics” and created a nonpublic forum, not that it had engaged in government
——————
Instead, such discretionary authority is a hallmark of a standardless system of censorship.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 326

16 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
speech. Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 829; see also Perry Ed.

Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 49 (1983) (“Implicit in the concept of the nonpublic forum is the right to make distinctions in access on the basis of subject matter and speaker identity”). Had the City restricted use of the flagpoles to these subject matters, it could have relied on the forum’s topical limitations to deny applications to host events. But it could not have employed viewpoint-discriminatory criteria to bar otherwise-eligible speakers from expressing their own views on those subjects.

On this record, however, the only viable inference is that the City had no policy restricting access to the forum apart from the modest access conditions articulated in the application materials. Having created a forum with those characteristics, the City could not reject Shurtleff ’s application on account of the religious viewpoint he intended to express.

For that reason, I agree with the Court’s ultimate conclusion and concur in the judgment.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 327

GORSUCH, J., concurring
_________________
_________________
Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 1
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 20–1800
HAROLD SHURTLEFF, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY
OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
[May 2, 2022]
JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins,
concurring in the judgment.

The real problem in this case doesn’t stem from Boston’s mistake about the scope of the government speech doctrine or its error in applying our public forum precedents. The trouble here runs deeper than that. Boston candidly admits that it refused to fly the petitioners’ flag while allowing a secular group to fly a strikingly similar banner. And the city admits it did so for one reason and one reason only: It thought displaying the petitioners’ flag would violate “‘the [C]onstitution’s [E]stablishment [C]lause.’” App. to Pet. for Cert. 157a; see also id., at 153a–154a. That decision led directly to this lawsuit, all the years of litigation that followed, and the city’s loss today. Not a single Member of the Court seeks to defend Boston’s view that a municipal policy allowing all groups to fly their flags, secular and religious alike, would offend the Establishment Clause.

How did the city get it so wrong? To be fair, at least some of the blame belongs here and traces back to Lemon v.

Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971). Issued during a “‘bygone era’” when this Court took a more freewheeling approach to interpreting legal texts, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 8), Lemon sought to devise a one-size-fits-all test for resolving Establishment Clause disputes. That project bypassed any Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 328

GORSUCH, J., concurring
2 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment
inquiry into the Clause’s original meaning. It ignored
longstanding precedents. And instead of bringing clarity to the area, Lemon produced only chaos. In time, this Court came to recognize these problems, abandoned Lemon, and
returned to a more humble jurisprudence centered on the Constitution’s original meaning. Yet in this case, the city chose to follow Lemon anyway. It proved a costly decision, and Boston’s travails supply a cautionary tale for other localities and lower courts. *
To see how all this unfolded, start with Lemon itself.

Lemon held out the promise that any Establishment Clause dispute could be resolved by following a neat checklist focused on three questions: (1) Did the government have a secular purpose in its challenged action? (2) Does the effect of that action advance or inhibit religion? (3) Will the government action “excessive[ly] . . . entangl[e]” church and state? 403 U. S., at 612–613 (internal quotation marks
omitted). But from the start, this seemingly simple test produced more questions than answers. How much
religion-promoting purpose is too much? Are laws that
serve both religious and secular purposes problematic?
How much of a religion-advancing effect is tolerable? What does “excessive entanglement” even mean, and what (if anything) does it add to the analysis? Putting it all together, too, what is a court to do when Lemon’s three inquiries point in conflicting directions? More than 50 years later, the answers to all these questions remain unknown.

The only sure thing Lemon yielded was new business for
lawyers and judges. Before Lemon, this Court had never
held a flag or other similar public display to constitute an unconstitutional “establishment” of religion. See Congressional Research Service, C. Brougher, Public Display of the Ten Commandments and Other Religious Symbols 1–2
(2011) (Brougher); M. McConnell, No More (Old) Symbol
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 329
GORSUCH, J., concurring
Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 3
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment
Cases, 2019 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 91 (2019) (Symbol Cases).

After Lemon, cases challenging public displays under the Establishment Clause came fast and furious. And just like the test itself, the results proved a garble. May a State or local government display a Christmas nativity scene? Some courts said yes, others no.1 How about a menorah? Again, the answers ran both ways.2 What about a city seal that features a cross? Good luck.3
If anything, the confusion grew with time. In the years following Lemon, this Court modified its “effects” test by requiring lower courts to ask whether a “reasonable observer” would consider the government’s challenged action to be an “endorsement” of religion. See, e.g., County of Allegheny v.

American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U. S. 573, 593 (1989); id., at 630 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). But rather than fix Lemon’s problems, this new gloss compounded
them. Some argued that any reasonable observer worthy of the name would consider all the relevant facts and law, just as a judge or jury must. See Capitol Square Review and
Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U. S. 753, 778–781 (1995)
(O’Connor, J., concurring in part). Others suggested that a reasonable observer could make mistakes about the law or fail to consider all the facts. See, e.g., American Atheists, Inc. v. Duncan, 616 F. 3d 1145, 1160–1161 (CA10 2010).

And that suggestion only raised even more questions. Just —————— 1Compare Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668, 671–672 (1984) (yes), and American Civil Liberties Union of Ky. v. Wilkinson, 895 F. 2d 1098, 1099– 1100, 1104 (CA6 1990) (yes), with County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U. S. 573, 578–579 (1989) (no), and Smith v. County of Albemarle, 895 F. 2d 953, 955, 958– 960 (CA4 1990) (no). 2Compare Allegheny, 492 U. S., at 578–581 (yes), and Skoros v. New York, 437 F. 3d 1, 3–4 (CA2 2006) (yes), with Kaplan v. Burlington, 891 F. 2d 1024, 1025–1026, 1030–1031 (CA2 1989) (no).
3Compare Murray v. Austin, 947 F. 2d 147, 149 (CA5 1991) (yes), with Harris v. Zion, 927 F. 2d 1401, 1402 (CA7 1991) (no).

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 330

GORSUCH, J., concurring
4 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment
how mistake-prone might an observer be and still qualify as reasonable? On what authority may courts exercise the awesome power of judicial review to declare a duly enacted law unconstitutional thanks only to (admitted) errors about the relevant facts or law? See American Atheists, Inc. v.

Davenport, 637 F. 3d 1095, 1108–1110 (CA10 2010) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).

Ultimately, Lemon devolved into a kind of children’s
game. Start with a Christmas scene, a menorah, or a flag.

Then pick your own “reasonable observer” avatar. In this game, the avatar’s default settings are lazy, uninformed about history, and not particularly inclined to legal research. His default mood is irritable. To play, expose your avatar to the display and ask for his reaction. How does he feel about it? Mind you: Don’t ask him whether the proposed display actually amounts to an establishment of religion. Just ask him if he feels it “endorses” religion. If so, game over.

Faced with such a malleable test, risk-averse local officials found themselves in an ironic bind. To avoid Establishment Clause liability, they sometimes felt they had to discriminate against religious speech and suppress religious exercises. But those actions, in turn, only invited liability under other provisions of the First Amendment. The hard truth is, Lemon’s abstract and ahistoric test put “[p]olicymakers . . . in a vise between the Establishment Clause on one side and the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses on the other.” Pinette, 515 U. S., at 767–768 (plurality opinion).

Our case illustrates the problem. The flags of many nations bear religious symbols. So do the flags of various private groups. Historically, Boston has allowed them all. The city has even flown a flag with a cross nearly identical in size to the one on petitioners’ flag. It was a banner presented by a secular group to commemorate the Battle of Bunker Hill. See Appendix, infra (photographs). Yet when Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 331
GORSUCH, J., concurring
Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 5
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment
the petitioners offered their flag, the city flinched. Perhaps it worried: Would the assigned judge’s imagined “reasonable observer” bother to learn about its generous policy for secular groups? Would this observer take the trouble to consult the long tradition in this country allowing comparable displays? Or would he turn out to be an uninformed passerby offended by the seeming incongruity of a new flag flying beside those of the city, State, and Nation? Who could tell. Better to err on the safe side and reject the petitioners’ flag. As it turned out, though, that route only invited years of litigation and a unanimous adverse decision because no government may discriminate against religious speech in a public forum. To avoid a spurious First Amendment problem, Boston wound up inviting a real one. Call it a Lemon trade.4
*
While it is easy to see how Lemon led to a strange world in which local governments have sometimes violated the
First Amendment in the name of protecting it, less clear is why this state of affairs still persists. Lemon has long since —————— 4 It seems possible, too, that these spurious Establishment Clause concerns embolden government officials to treat religion with hostility even when they don’t rely on Lemon by name. Sometimes colleges seek to prevent students from engaging in religious speech, labeling expressions of faith “fighting words.” See Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2021) (slip op., at 1–3). Certain public transit systems that sell advertising space on trains and buses ban religious messages. See Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 589 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (GORSUCH, J., respecting denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 1–2); Northeastern Pa. Freethought Soc. v. County of Lackawanna Transit Sys., 938 F. 3d 424, 428–431 (CA3 2019). And some governments seek to exclude religious groups from using public facilities or designations available to others. See InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA v. University of Iowa, 5 F. 4th 855, 860–862 (CA8 2021); Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Ed., 750 F. 3d 184, 192 (CA2 2014). All of these trades resulted in less First Amendment protection and more needless litigation.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 332

GORSUCH, J., concurring
6 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment
been exposed as an anomaly and a mistake.

From the birth of modern Establishment Clause litigation in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, this Court looked primarily to historical practices and analogues to guide its analysis. 330 U. S. 1, 9–15 (1947). So, for example, while the dissent in Everson disagreed with some of the majority’s conclusions about what qualifies as an establishment of religion, it readily agreed that “[n]o provision of the Constitution is more closely tied to or given content by its generating history than the religious clause of the First Amendment.” Id., at 33–49 (Rutledge, J., dissenting). This approach fit, too, with this Court’s usual course in other areas. Often, we have looked to early and long-continued historical practices as evidence of the Constitution’s meaning at the time of its adoption.5 And, in the years following Everson, the Court followed this same path when interpreting the Establishment Clause. Agree or disagree with the conclusions in these cases, there can be little doubt that the Court approached them in large part using history as its guide.6 —————— 5See, e.g., McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 767–770 (2010); Giles v. California, 554 U. S. 353, 358 (2008); see also The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655, 689 (1929). 6See, e.g., Walz v. Tax Comm’n of City of New York, 397 U. S. 664, 680 (1970) (upholding tax exemptions for churches because they were supported by “more than a century of our history and uninterrupted practice”); School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 294 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring) (“[T]he line we must draw between the permissible and the impermissible is one which accords with history and faithfully reflects the understanding of the Founding Fathers”); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 437–440 (1961) (assessing “the place of Sunday Closing Laws in the First Amendment’s history”); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U. S. 488, 490 (1961) (concluding that religious-test oaths were one of the elements of “the formal or practical” religious establishments that “many of the early colonists left Europe and came here hoping to” avoid). JUSTICE THOMAS has raised important questions about this Court’s incorporation of the Establishment Clause against the States in these cases. But “[e]ven assuming” incorporation, the Clause “would only protect against an ‘establishment’ of religion as understood at the founding.” Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U. S. ___, Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 333
GORSUCH, J., concurring
Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 7
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment
Lemon interrupted this long line of precedents. It offered no plausible reason for ignoring their teachings. And, as we have seen, the ahistoric alternative it offered quickly proved both unworkable in practice and unsound in its results. Nor is it as if Lemon vanquished the field even during its heyday. Often, this Court continued to look to history to resolve certain Establishment Clause disputes outside the context of religious displays.7 And several early decisions applying Lemon were themselves rapidly overruled in part or in whole.8 All of which in time led Justice after Justice to conclude that Lemon was “flawed in its fundamentals,” “unworkable in practice,” and “inconsistent with our history and our precedents.” County of Allegheny, 492 U. S., at 655, 669 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).9 ——————
___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 2). 7See, e.g., Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783, 786 (1983) (surveying history to determine that “[f]rom colonial times through the founding of the Republic and ever since, the practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom”). 8See, e.g., Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 236 (1997) (overruling School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U. S. 373 (1985), and Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U. S. 402 (1985)); Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U. S. 793, 835 (2000) (plurality opinion) (overruling Wolman v. Walter, 433 U. S. 229 (1977), and Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U. S. 349 (1975)). 9See also, e.g., Salazar v. Buono, 559 U. S. 700, 720–721 (2010) (plurality opinion of Kennedy, J., joined in full by ROBERTS, C. J., and in part by ALITO, J.); Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U. S. 677, 699–700 (2005) (BREYER, J., concurring) (noting “Lemon’s checkered career in the decisional law of this Court” (internal quotation marks omitted)); id., at 692–693 (THOMAS, J., concurring) (“This case would be easy if the Court were willing to abandon the inconsistent guideposts it has adopted for addressing Establishment Clause challenges”); McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U. S. 844, 890 (2005) (Scalia, J., joined in full by Rehnquist, C. J., and THOMAS, J., and in part by Kennedy, J., dissenting) (“[A] majority of the Justices on the current Court . . . have, in separate opinions, repudiated the brain-spun ‘Lemon test’ ”); Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U. S. 687, 720 (1994) Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 334

GORSUCH, J., concurring
8 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment
Recognizing Lemon’s flaws, this Court has not applied its test for nearly two decades. In Town of Greece v. Galloway, this Court declined an invitation to use the Lemon test. See 572 U. S. 565, 577 (2014); Brief for Respondents in Town of Greece v. Galloway, O. T. 2013, No. 12–696, pp. 58–60. Instead, the Court explained that the primary question in Establishment Clause cases is whether the government’s conduct “accords with history and faithfully reflects the understanding of the Founding Fathers.” 572 U. S., at 577 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court observed
that this form of analysis represents the rule rather than “an exception” within the “Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence.” Id., at 575–577 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In American Legion v. American Humanist Association
we underscored the message. 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 25). Again we expressly refused to apply Lemon, this time in a challenge to a public display—the very kind of dispute Lemon’s test ushered into existence and where it once held sway. 588 U. S., at ___– ___ (slip op., at 13–16). Again we explained that “[i]f the Lemon Court thought that its test would provide a framework for all future Establishment Clause decisions, its expectation has not been met.”10 Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). ——————
(O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); Committee for Public Ed. and Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U. S. 646, 671 (1980) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (disparaging “the sisyphean task of trying to patch together the ‘blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier’ described in Lemon”). 10See also American Legion, 588 U. S., at ___ (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7) (“[B]ecause the Lemon test is not good law, we ought to say so”); id., at ___ (GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7) (“Lemon was a misadventure. It sought a ‘grand unified theory’ of the Establishment Clause but left us only a mess”); id., at ___ (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring) (slip op., at 1) (“As this case again demonstrates, this Court no longer applies the old test articulated in Lemon”).

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 335

GORSUCH, J., concurring
Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 9
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment
And again we stressed that the right place to look for guidance lies in “‘“historical practices and understandings.”’” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 25) (quoting Town of Greece, 572 U. S., at 576).
*
With all these messages directing and redirecting the inquiry to original meaning as illuminated by history, why did Boston still follow Lemon in this case? Why do other localities and lower courts sometimes do the same thing, allowing Lemon even now to “si[t] up in its grave and shuffl[e] abroad”? Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free
School Dist., 508 U. S. 384, 398 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). There may be other contributing factors, but let me address two.

First, it’s hard not to wonder whether some simply prefer the policy outcomes Lemon can be manipulated to produce.

Just dial down your hypothetical observer’s concern with facts and history, dial up his inclination to offense, and the test is guaranteed to spit out results more hostile to religion than anything a careful inquiry into the original understanding of the Constitution could sustain. Lemon may promote an unserious, results-oriented approach to constitutional interpretation. But for some, that may be more a virtue than a vice.

There is more than a little in the record before us to suggest this line of thinking. As city officials tell it, Boston did not want to “‘display flags deemed to be inappropriate or offensive in nature or those supporting discrimination, prejudice, or religious movements.’” App. to Pet. for Cert. 160a.

Instead, the city wanted to celebrate only “a particular kind of diversity.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 85–86. And if your policy goal is to lump in religious speech with fighting words and obscenity, if it is to celebrate only a “particular” type of diversity consistent with popular ideology, the First Amendment is not exactly your friend. Dragging Lemon from its grave Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 336

GORSUCH, J., concurring
10 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment
may be your only chance.

To the extent this is why some still invoke Lemon today, it reflects poorly on us all. Through history, the suppression of unpopular religious speech and exercise has been among the favorite tools of petty tyrants. See Pinette, 515 U. S., at 760; Feldman v. United States, 322 U. S. 487, 501 (1944) (Black, J., dissenting). Our forebears resolved that this Nation would be different. Here, they resolved, each individual would enjoy the right to make sense of his relationship with the divine, speak freely about man’s place in creation, and have his religious practices treated with respect. See West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943). The day governments in this country forage for ways to abandon these foundational promises is a dark day for the cause of individual freedom.

Besides, even for those whose policy ambitions run in this direction, invoking Lemon is a myopic tactic. For as long as the First Amendment means anything, government policies that discriminate against religious speech and exercise will only invite litigation and result in losses like Boston’s. Today’s case is just one more in a long line of reminders about the costs associated with governmental efforts to discriminate against disfavored religious speakers. See Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U. S. 98, 120 (2001); Lamb’s Chapel, 508 U. S., at 392–397; Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 823–824, 845–846 (1995).

Second, it seems that Lemon may occasionally shuffle
from its grave for another and more prosaic reason. By demanding a careful examination of the Constitution’s original meaning, a proper application of the Establishment Clause no doubt requires serious work and can pose its
challenges. Lemon’s abstract three-part test may seem a simpler and tempting alternative to busy local officials and lower courts. But if this is part of the problem, it isn’t without at least a partial remedy. For our constitutional history Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 337

GORSUCH, J., concurring
Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 11
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment
contains some helpful hallmarks that localities and lower courts can rely on.

Beyond a formal declaration that a religious denomination was in fact the established church, it seems that founding-era religious establishments often bore certain other telling traits. See M. McConnell, Establishment and Disestablishment at the Founding, Part I: Establishment of Religion, 44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2105, 2110–2112, 2131 (2003) (Establishment and Disestablishment). First, the government exerted control over the doctrine and personnel of the established church. Second, the government mandated attendance in the established church and punished people for failing to participate. Third, the government punished dissenting churches and individuals for their religious exercise. Fourth, the government restricted political participation by dissenters. Fifth, the government provided financial support for the established church, often in a way that preferred the established denomination over other
churches. And sixth, the government used the established church to carry out certain civil functions, often by giving the established church a monopoly over a specific function.

See id., at 2131–2181. Most of these hallmarks reflect
forms of “coerc[ion]” regarding “religion or its exercise.” Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 587 (1992); id., at 640 (Scalia, J., dissenting); Van Orden, 545 U. S., at 693 (THOMAS, J., concurring).

These traditional hallmarks help explain many of this
Court’s Establishment Clause cases, too. This Court, for example, has held unlawful practices that restrict political participation by dissenters, including rules requiring public officials to proclaim a belief in God. See Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U. S. 488, 490 (1961). It has checked government efforts to give churches monopolistic control over civil functions. See Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U. S. 116, 127 (1982). At the same time, it has upheld nondiscriminatory public financial support for religious institutions alongside Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 338

GORSUCH, J., concurring
12 SHURTLEFF v. BOSTON
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment
other entities. See Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (slip op., at 18–22); Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2017) (slip op., at 14–15); Zelman v. SimmonsHarris, 536 U. S. 639, 662–663 (2002). The thread running through these cases derives directly from the historical hallmarks of an establishment of religion—government
control over religion offends the Constitution, but treating a church on par with secular entities and other churches does not. See Establishment and Disestablishment 2205–
2208.

These historical hallmarks also help explain the result in today’s case and provide helpful guidance for those faced with future disputes like it. As a close look at these hallmarks and our history reveals, “[n]o one at the time of the founding is recorded as arguing that the use of religious symbols in public contexts was a form of religious establishment.” Symbol Cases 107. For most of its existence, this country had an “unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life.” Lynch, 465 U. S., at 674.11 In fact and as we have seen, it appears that, until Lemon, this Court had never held the display of a religious symbol to —————— 11So, for example, when designing a seal for the new Nation in 1776, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson proposed a familiar Biblical scene—Moses leading the Israelites across the Red Sea. J. Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic 50–51 (1998) (Hutson).

The seal ultimately adopted by Congress in 1782 features “the Eye of Providence” surrounded by “glory” above the motto Annuit Coeptis—“He [God] has favored our undertakings.” Dept. of State, Bureau of Pub. Affairs, The Great Seal of the United States 4–6 (July 2003). This Court has recognized that President Washington’s 1789 Thanksgiving Day Proclamation referred to “a day of public thanksgiving and prayer” and the role of a “Supreme Being” in “the foundations and successes of our young Nation.” Van Orden, 545 U. S., at 686–687. And President Jefferson allowed various religious groups to use the Capitol for weekly worship services. Hutson 84–94.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 339

GORSUCH, J., concurring
Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 13
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment
constitute an establishment of religion. See Brougher 1–2; Symbol Cases 91. The simple truth is that no historically sensitive understanding of the Establishment Clause can be reconciled with a rule requiring governments to “roa[m] the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine.” American Legion, 588 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 20). Our Constitution was not designed to erase religion from American life; it was designed to ensure “respect and tolerance.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 31).
*
To justify a policy that discriminated against religion, Boston sought to drag Lemon once more from its grave. It was a strategy as risky as it was unsound. Lemon ignored the original meaning of the Establishment Clause, it disregarded mountains of precedent, and it substituted a serious constitutional inquiry with a guessing game. This Court long ago interred Lemon, and it is past time for local officials and lower courts to let it lie.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 340
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF GORSUCH, J.

The Bunker Hill Flag The Camp Constitution Flag
Source: App. to Pet. for Cert. 132a
Source: App. to Pet. for Cert. 146a
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 341
Attachment 2
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SURVEY – FLAG POLICIES

CITY WRITTEN FLAG POLICY
Carlsbad No
Chula Vista Yes*
Del Mar No
El Cajon No
Encinitas No
Escondido Yes*
Imperial Beach Yes*
La Mesa Yes*
Lemon Grove No
National City Yes*
Oceanside No
Poway Yes*
San Diego No
San Marcos No
Santee Yes*
Solana Beach No
Vista Yes*
*Copies of the written policies are provided in Attachment 3.

City of Coronado Page 342

COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHtJLA VISTA
SUBJECT: FLAG - DISPLAY POLICY
NUMBER

EFFECTIVE

DATE PAGE
102-01 07-02-68 1 OF 1
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 4808 I DATED: 07-02-68

BACKGROUND
The City Council wishes to adopt a uniform policy to direct and authorize the City Manager to display the flag at half-mast as a mark of respect in the event of the death of certain persons.

PURPOSE
Establishing a policy relating to the display of the flag of the United States of America at half-mast as a mark of respect.

POLICY
The City Manager is directed and authorized to display the flag of the United States of America at half-mast in accordance with the rules set forth below and at such times as the President of the United States, the Governor of the State of California, or the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista may, by proclamation, prescribe such action.

Rules for displaying the Stars and Stripes at half-mast are as follows:

1. In case of the death of a governor of a state, territory or possession, the flag shall be at half-staff on all ships and stations in such state, territory or possession from day of death until interment.

2. Any rule or custom pertaining to the display of the flag of the United States as set forth in Public Law 829, may be altered, modified or repealed, or additional rules with respect thereto may be prescribed, by the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, whenever he deems it to be appropriate or desirable, and any such alteration or additional rule shall be set forth in a proclamation.

3. The flag should fly at half-mast for:
a. Thirty days from the day of death of a President or former President. b. Ten days from the day of death of a Vice President, Chief Justice or retired Chief Justice of the U.S., or a Speaker of the House of Representatives. c. From the day of death until interment for an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a member of the Cabinet, a former Vice President, or the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
d. On the day of death and on the following day for a United States senator, representative, territorial delegate, or resident commissioner of Puerto Rico . within the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia; on the day of death until interment within the state, congressional district, territory or commonwealth. The latter provision also applies to the death of a governor of a state, territory or possession.

Attachment 3
City of Coronado Page 343

CITY OF ESCONDIDO

CITY MANAGER'S

ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
Directive No. 11
Date: Rev, Nov.2016
Originating Dept.CMO
SUBJECT: DISPLAY OF FLAGS
PURPOSE:

Establishing a policy relating to the display of the flag of the United States of America at half-staff as a show of respect.

POLICY:

The City Manager is directed and authorized to display the United States flag at half-staff in accordance with the rules set forth below and at such times as the President of the United States, the Governor of the State of California, or the Mayor of the City of Escondido may, by proclamation with concurrence of the City Council, prescribe such action.

Requirements for displaying the flag at half-staff:
o When placing the flag at half-staff, it should first be hoisted to the peak for an instant and then lowered to a position half way between the top and bottom of the staff. When the American flag is flown at half-staff, state and city flags should be removed or flown at half-staff too.

Duration of flags to be flown at half-staff:
o Thirty days from the day of death of a President or former President.
o Ten days from the day of death of a Vice President, Chief Justice of the United States, or a Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
o The day of death until interment for a United States Senator from California or San Diego County Congressional Representative, the Governor of the State of California, and any current elected official of the City of Escondido.
o The day of death until interment of Peace Officers or Fire Safety Personnel within the State of California killed in the line of duty o The day of interment of current employees of the City of Escondido.

Attachment 3
City of Coronado Page 344

CITY OF
LAMESA
Number A-12
Department City ManaQer
Issued 11/13/2012
JEWEL of the HILLS Revised 6/24/20
Pages 3
Signed
'V
Policy & Procedure

POLICY FOR THE DISPLAY OF FLAGS AT CITY FACILITIES

1. POLICY
A. General
It is the policy of the City of La Mesa to fly the United States flag, POW/MIA flag, State of California flag, City of La Mesa flag, and any flag related to a proclamation issued pursuant to La Mesa Municipal Code Section 2.12.065, in accordance with the Federal flag code as outlined in United States Codes Title 36 (attached) and subsequent amendments to the code and public law related to the flying of flags as outlined in this policy.

The purpose of this policy is to set a standard for flag protocol that is consistent with protocol followed throughout the United States and to ensure that all flags flown outdoors at City facilities are flown properly in accordance with federally adopted protocols.

B. Flying the United States Flag at Full Staff
The United States flag will be flown at City facilities at full staff unless otherwise designated by Federal law or by proclamation of the President of the United States, the Governor of California or as outlined in this policy.

When more than one flagpole exists at a City facility, the POW/MIA, State, City flags may be flown only when the United States flag is at full staff and in accordance with flag protocol.

C. Flying the United States Flag at Half Staff
United States flags located on City of La Mesa property will be lowered to half staff as described below in accordance with the Federal flag code and public law. If additional flags are normally flown on the same halyard or adjacent flag poles, the additional flags will be removed, leaving only the United States flag at half staff.

There are four designated days each year that the United States flag is flown at half staff in accordance with Federal law:

Attachment 3
City of Coronado Page 345
Administrative Instruction No. A-12
Display of Flags at City Facilities

Page 2 ends

Coronado City CouncilJanuary 16, 2024

Coronado City Council
January 16, 2024