Del Rey Oaks City Council
April 28, 2026

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

OF THE CITY OF DEL REY OAKS CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2026 AT 6:00 PM
Del Rey Oaks City Hall is inviting you to an IN-PERSON MEETING AT CITY HALL

PLEASE NOTE THIS WILL BE LIVE STREAMED FOR VIEWING ONLY

YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ZOOM
Join Live Stream
http://bit.ly/4q8aLjm

1. ROLL CALL - Council

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: General Public Comment must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the City and the Council that are not on the Agenda. Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters not appearing on the Agenda may do so now. The public may comment on any other matter listed on the Agenda at the time the matter is being considered. There will be a time limit of not more than three minutes for each speaker. No action will be taken on matters brought up under this item and all comments will be referred to staff.

4. PROCLAMATION:

A. Celebrating Arbor Day April, 2026

5. PRESENTATION:

A. Monterey Regional Airport Update Executive Officer Chris Morello

6. CONSENT AGENDA:

A. MINUTES: (CEQA: as to all, not a project per Guidelines Article 20, Section 15378)

1. March 24, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes
1 2. February 11, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes B. MONTHLY REPORTS: (CEQA: as to all, not a project per Guidelines Article 20, Section 15378)

1. Fire Department Response Report - March 2026

2. Police Department Response Report - March 2026

3. Financial Reports - March 2026
C. MISCELLANEOUS: (CEQA: as to all, not a project per Guidelines Article 20, Section 15378)

1. Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Revised 2026 Agreement for 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Services and Governance

2. Approve the Amended Salary Schedule for FY 2025-26 with the 5% COLA for the Assistant City Manager/Chief of Police (ACM/COP), effective the pay period starting on May 2, 2026

7. OLD BUSINESS:

None

8. NEW BUSINESS:

A. Consider Approving ReGen Monterey’s Technical Advisory Committee’s Subgroup Recommendation on the 2030 Collection Franchise Planning Process.

9. STAFF REPORTS:

A. Council Reports in Packet

10. CORRESPONDENCE:

A. Correspondence in the packet

11. NEXT MEETING DATE: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 at 6:00pm.

The May meeting is a week early due to the Memorial Day holiday

12. ADJOURNMENT
Information distributed to the Council at the meeting becomes part of the public record. A copy of written material, pictures, etc. must be provided to the secretary for- this purpose.

All enclosures and materials regarding these agenda items are available for public review at the Del Rey Oaks City Hall, 650 Canyon Del Rey Road, Del Rey Oaks. 2 PROCLAMATION
The City of Del Rey Oaks City Council
Hereby Celebrates Arbor Day 2026
WHEREAS, in 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees, and WHEREAS, this holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska, and
WHEREAS, Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world, and trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce life-giving oxygen, and provide habitat for wildlife, and WHEREAS, trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires and countless other wood products, and
WHEREAS, trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our community, and
WHEREAS, trees, wherever they are planted, are a source of joy, and WHEREAS, in cooperation with the volunteers from the Del Rey Oaks Citizens Action group, the group offers an “Oak Tree Give-a-Way” to residents, and NOW, THEREFORE, I, Scott Donaldson, Mayor of the City of Del Rey Oaks, do hereby proclaim April 28, 2026 as Arbor Day in the City of Del Rey Oaks and I urge all citizens to celebrate Arbor Day now and in the future and to support efforts to protect our trees and woodlands, and I urge all citizens to plant trees to promote the well-being of this and future generations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and cause the Seal of the City of Del Rey Oaks to be affixed this 28th day of April 2026.
_________________________
Scott Donaldson, Mayor
3 Item A.

Monterey Regional Airport

THE EASY AND CONVENIENT WAY TO TRAVEL
4 Item A.

MONTEREY PENINSULA AIRPORT DISTRICT
• Public Agency formed in 1941 by the California Legislature as an Independent Special District to own and operate the Monterey Regional Airport
• Not affiliated with any other governing body and has all authority of a city or municipality
• Fully self-sufficient enterprise fund operation
• Generate all revenues through fees and charges for on-Airport activities • Responsible for public safety on Airport property, including infrastructure, maintenance, property management, and police
and fire protection
2 5
Item A.

AIRPORT VALUE AND OVERSIGHT
• MRY provides access to the movement of goods and services, and transports residents and visitors during diverse situations
• Medical emergency services
• Serve as a lifeline during emergencies
• Evacuation
• Fire fighting
• Urgent relief with supply delivery
• Community structural fire support (on-Airport ARFF facility) • Economic Development: The local economy thrives on the presence of consistent air service, Businesses large and small depend on reliable flights
• Regulatory Oversight by Federal Government Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation Security Administration, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
3 6
Item A.

MONTEREY REGIONAL AIRPORT
4 7
Item A.

HISTORICAL OPERATIONS
• Terminal Area Forecast Detail Report
https://taf.faa.gov/
5 8
Item A.

HISTORICAL OPERATIONS
• Terminal Area Forecast Detail Report
https://taf.faa.gov/
6 9
Item A.

About MRY Air Service

MONTEREY REGIONAL AIRPORT
7 10
Item A.

NONSTOP

DESTINATIONS
• 30 total combined arrivals
and departures daily
• 9 nonstop destinations • With one stop connections
across the world
• 4 commercial airlines • Alaska Airlines • Allegiant Air • American Airlines • United Airlines 8 11
Item A.

SEASONAL SUMMER

HOP-ON JET SERVICE
• Operated by JSX
• Flights depart out of and arrive at
Monterey Jet Center
• 200 Sky Park Drive, Monterey
• Seasonal service
• June through September
• Two destinations
• Operates four days per week
9 BURBANK

ORANGE COUNTY
12 Item A.

PASSENGER LEAKAGE
10 32%
24%
44%

AIRPORT OF ORIGIN
MAY 2024 (WITHIN 15 MILES)

MRY SJC SFO
37%
23%
40%

AIRPORT OF ORIGIN
MAY 2025 (WITHIN 15 MILES)

MRY SJC SFO
13 Item A.

About the Airport Master Plan

SAFETY IS ALWAYS OUR FIRST PRIORITY
11 14
Item A.
12 $200M

TOTAL SEP

COST ESTIMATE
ENSURE

COMPLIANCE

WITH FEDERAL
SAFETY

STANDARDS
FUNDED

THROUGH

FEDERAL

GRANTS AND

AIRPORT

REVENUES
COMPREHENSIVE

SUSTAINABILITY

INITIATIVES

TO-DATE

RECEIVED
$130M

FEDERAL

FUNDING
Plus/$20M
local match
15 Item A.

ULTIMATE PROJECT GOAL
• Phase 4
Shift Taxiway
1,850’ “A” – 52.5’
south to
increase
runway-taxiway
centerline to
centerline
13 16
Item A.
14 PHASE 1 NORTHEAST

GENERAL AVIATION

REPLACEMENT

INFRASTRUCTURE
Enhancements Include:

Constructed the northeast general
aviation ramp civil infrastructure
(2020)
• Constructed the replacement
Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting
Facility (ARFF) (October 2023)
Constructed the replacement
hangars (relocated from the
southside) ( November 2023)
17 Item A.

PHASE 1B CONSTRUCTED THE REPLACEMENT ARFF FACILITY 2023 PHOTOGRAPHY BY RUSSELL ABRAHAM | DESIGN BY MARJANG ARCHITECTS 15 BEFORE
AFTER
18 Item A.
16 PHASE 2 COMMERCIAL

RAMP CONSTRUCTION
Enhancements Include:
• Construct relocated airline parking
(ramp) completed September 2025
• Demolish southside Aircraft Rescue
and Firefighting Facility (ARFF)
• Demolish southside General Aviation
(GA) hangars including maintenance
hangars
• Construct temporary relocation of
passenger long term parking
(opened June 14, 2024)
19 Item A.
17 REPLACEMENT TERMINAL

PROJECT GOALS
Safety
Runway Separation
Sustainable Goals
LEED Platinum
Zero Net Energy Ready
All Electric Design
Design
Affordable, Beautiful,
Innovative
Timeless
Sense of Place
Community-Centered
20 Item A.
18 GATE LOUNGE TERMINAL AND CIRCULATION
21 Item A.

PASSIVE LOAD REDUCTION
19 Approach
• Passive Exterior Shading – Program Optimization
• Blocking 90% of solar heat before it enters the building • Using overhangs, blinds to manage heat gain while allowing for daylight • Maximize Daylight Availability – Mitigate Glare
• Evaluated daylight availability to reduce electric lighting reliance by at least 50% daily 22 Item A.

EMBODIED CARBON REDUCTION
20 Approaches
• Low Carbon Materials
• Less Material Through Optimization
• Reduced Emissions
• Mass Timber Components – Low
Embodied Carbon
• Concourse Framing – Optimize deck
and steel framing
• Concrete Mixes – Specify Low
Embodied Carbon Options
23 Item A.

INTEGRATED SYSTEMS
21 1. Mass Timber Structure

2. Acoustic Panels

3. Direct / Indirect Light Fixtures

4. HVAC Air Supply

5. Clerestory with Automated
Shades

6. HVAC Ceiling Fan Coil Unit

7. Passive Exterior Shading

8. High Performance Glazing
5 2
1 3
4 6
7 8
24 Item A.
22 GATE LOUNGE
25 Item A.
23 GATE LOUNGE
BUILDING FOOTPRINT APRIL 2026
26 Item A.
24 GATE LOUNGE
27 Item A.
25 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION RECAP
Project Description
• 62,725 sq ft passenger terminal
• 1 security checkpoint, and space for
concessions
• 5 gates with passenger boarding bridges
• Net-zero energy ready
Project Status and Timeline
• Design: Completed in 2024
• Construction: October 2025 – June 2027
• Terminal - Construction Manager-asConstructor (CMaC): Helsel Phelps • Road and Parking -Construction Manager-atRisk (CMaR): Otto Construction Highway 68

PREMIUM LOT

LONG TERM LOT
Future Frontage Rd
Fred Kane Dr

READY/RETURN

TERMINAL FACILITY

AIRFIELD

CIRCULATION AND PARKING IMPROVEMENTS
28 Item A.

Thank you!
FLY LOCAL. FLY MRY.
29 Item A.

City of Del Rey Oaks
City Hall
650 Canyon Del Rey Blvd
Del Rey Oaks, CA 93940
Action Minutes
Tuesday, March 24, 2026
6:00 PM
City Council – Regular Meeting
Del Rey Oaks City Council
Scott Donaldson – Mayor
Mike Burger – Vice Mayor
John Uy – Councilmember
Kim Shirley – Councilmember
Jeremy Hallock – Councilmember
30 Item 1.
6:00 PM – Called to Order:

The meeting was called to order by Mayor Donaldson
Roll Call: Present: Mayor Donaldson, Vice Mayor Burger, Councilmember Shirley, and Councilmember Hallock and Councilmember Uy

Absent: None
Also Present: City Manager Guertin, City Attorney Lorca, City Clerk Minami, Deputy City Clerk Batra
Pledge of Allegiance:

Led by Mayor Donaldson
Public Comment:

Ahmad Ahmadi: Wants the city to consider a community center, especially for his bridge club.

PROCLAMATIONS:

Mayor Donaldson reads American Red Cross Month
Presents to Chief Bourquin, who speaks regarding all of the good things that the American Red Cross does daily.

PRESENTATIONS:

A. Swearing in of Reserve Police Officer Guy Dobine
Chief Bourquin reviews Officer Dobine’s impressive professional background.

Officer Dobine thanks the Chief and expresses excitement at helping the Del Rey Oaks Police Department.

B. Community Human Services Update on Casa De Noche Buena and Shuman Hearthouse
The following slide show was shared, and questions and comments were given by the City Council:

PUBLIC COMMENT: None
31 Item 1.

Homeless Shelters for Women and Families:

Funding Shortfall and Program Impact
32 Item 1.

WHAT WE DO

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
• 35-bed emergency shelters serving homeless women and families • Typical length of stay: six months
• Annual number served: ~80 (~25 women and ~15 families) • Stabilize and transition people to permanent housing with improved income, self-sufficiency, and well-being

WRAP-AROUND SUPPORTS
• Basic needs: meals, hygiene supplies, laundry facilities, clothing, and computer / internet access
• Housing-focused supports: case management, housing navigation, and rapid rehousing financial assistance
• Stability supports: connections to physical and behavioral health care, mainstream benefits, employment services, and financial planning 33 Item 1.

HOUSING OUTCOMES
Statewide Benchmark
• 23% to permanent housing (Cal ICH, FY 2023-24,
crisis response exits)
Casa de Noche Buena (operated by GFW + CHS)
• 50% to permanent housing (3-year avg.)
• 24% to temporary housing
Shuman HeartHouse (operated by CHS)
• 57% to permanent housing (2-year avg.)
• 17% to temporary housing
34 Item 1.

HOW THE SHELTERS CAME TO BE

CASA DE NOCHE BUENA
• Applied/received ~$1.3m of HEAP funding
• Raised additional ~$400k from community
• Renovated the County-owned modular building

SHUMAN HEARTHOUSE
• Developed with private philanthropy funding
35 Item 1.

SUSTAINING SHELTER BEDS
• CDNB and SHH Annual Operating Costs: approx.
$1.2m per year each
• CHS and GFW established a Special Purpose
Fund through the Community Foundation, for
community fundraising
• Government grants including but not limited to:

HHAP, ESG, CDBG, community support
36 Item 1.

CURRENT & NEAR-TERM FUNDING GAP
Annual Operating Costs:
• Approximately $1.2M each
Projected Annual Funding Shortfall (Non-cumulative; assuming no new funding) Key drivers of the gap:
• FY 2025–26: HHAP-5, and City of Monterey PLHA funds are fully depleted. • FY 2026–27: CDNB Special Purpose Fund ($345,179), HHAP-3 and HHAP4, and $764,353 deferred revenue are fully depleted.

Without new funding stream(s) this marks the beginning of a structural deficit.

Fiscal Year CDNB SHH
2026–27 ~$267K ~$655K
2027–28 ~$649K ~$905K
2028–29 ~$702K ~$958K
2029–30 ~$757K ~$1.01M
37 Item 1.

IMPACT TO PROGRAMS
Objectives:
• Avoid service reductions or shelter closure
• Phase in reductions or closure while pursuing funding Without additional funding or system-level support:
• Reduction in services or capacity
• Elimination of case management
• Conversion to overnight emergency shelter or
seasonal shelter
• Partial or full program closure
Any reduction significantly weakens outcomes and
increases long-term system costs.
38 Item 1.

CONCLUSION

WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR
• Partnership in maintaining CDNB and SHH shelters
• Stabilization or bridge funding for FY26–27
• Exploration of replacement funding or coordinated system solutions
• Commitment to preserving services that foster housing and economic security
These programs work.

With support, they remain a pathway to stability.

Without it, homeless families and women remain stuck
in crisis and system costs rise.

Thank you for your partnership and consideration.
[email protected] [email protected]
39 Item 1.

C. Montage Health System Update by Mike McDermott, President and Chief Executive Officer
The following slide show was shared, and questions and comments were given by the City Council:
40 Item 1.

Mike McDermott, MD, MBA
President and CEO, Montage Health
Del Rey Oaks City Council Meeting — March 24, 2026 41
Item 1.

Before Montage Health
42 Item 1.

Our Conversation
 Access to care
 Economic and workforce vitality
 Partnering for our community
43 Item 1.

Access to Care: Primary, Specialty, and Urgent Care
Montage Medical Group
30+ specialties
230,000 patient visits annually
MoGo Urgent Care
3 locations across the peninsula
48,000 patient visits annually
NEW: Montage Orthopedics
& Sports Medicine
44 Item 1.

Access to Care: New Life-Saving Stroke Care
45 Item 1.

Economic Vitality: Workforce Recruitment & Retention
Healthcare Careers Academy MPC & CSUMB partnerships Clinical Careers Program 46
Item 1.

Economic Vitality:

Home Loan Program
 Making homeownership more
attainable for our employees
 Supporting long-term workforce
stability
47 Item 1.

Working Together for a Healthier Del Rey Oaks
48 Item 1.

PUBLIC COMMENT: None
CONSENT AGENDA:

A. MINUTES: (CEQA: as to all, not a project per Guidelines Article 20, Section 15378)

1. February 24, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes
B. MONTHLY REPORTS: (CEQA: as to all, not a project per Guidelines Article 20, Section 15378)

1. Fire Department Response Report, February 2026

2. Police Activity Report, February 2026

3. Financial Reports, February 2026
C. MISCELLANEOUS: (CEQA: as to all, not a project per Guidelines Article 20, Section 15378)

1. Consider Approval of Resolution 2026-05 for Submittal of Annual Progress Report - Housing Element Annual Progress Report for 2025

2. Consider Approval of Resolution 2026-03 Monterey Chamber of Commerce Business of the Year 2025

3. Consider Approval of Resolution 2026-02 California Cities Week, April 19-25, 2026

4. Consider Approval of Professional Services Agreement with 4LEAF, Inc. for On-Call Code Enforcement, Building Inspection, and Plan Review Services.

5. Consider Approval of Resolution 2026-04 to Authorize City Manager to sign Contract with Coastal Paving and Excavation to perform ADA Sidewalk Improvement at City Park

6. Consider Approval of the Second Reading of Ordinance 323, prohibiting the use of metal detectors on the former Ft. Ord land
Council Member Shirley pulled item C.1. Asks City Manager Guertin about the ADU numbers. Wants it mentioned in the next Acorn newsletter. Mentions the Housing Resource page on the website isn’t easy to access. Would like it translated into Spanish.

City Manager Guertin: The report is on what the City did last year, no updates tonight.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

None
A motion was made by Councilmember Shirley, seconded by Councilmember Hallock, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.

Motion passed unanimously 5-0
OLD BUSINESS: None
49 Item 1.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. Consider Approval of the FY 2025-26 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments RGS Advisor Roberto Moreno: Gave details of the mid-year budget recommendations that the Budget Committee previously approved. Unlike most cities, Del Rey Oaks is on track to balance its budget. Kudos to the City staff.

City Manager Guertin: It’s a conservative budget, and we are always under budget.

This is the first time that we plan on using some of the fund balance, which will come to future council meetings. The staff has been busy implementing and learning new budget software and STR Management software, and lots of cross-training is still going on.

City Council Member Hallock: Thanks John and the budget team, for the work.

Mayor Donaldson: Conservative budget and investment in our future. Thanks, staff, for the hard work.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

None
A motion was made by Councilmember Shirley, seconded by Councilmember Uy, to approve the Mid-Year Budget Adjustment as presented.

Motion passed unanimously 5-0
B. Consider Approval of Resolution 2026-04 to Authorize City Manager to sign Contract with Coastal Paving and Excavation to perform ADA Sidewalk Improvement at City Park
City Manager Guertin: Reviews what CDBG is all about. Community Development Block Grant funds that can be used for ADA improvements. The City has $90,000 to spend on the improvements at the park, rather than the city hall parking lot. Those improvements include: entrance to bocci ball court from FORTAG trail, expanded pads for BBQ pits areas with a better dining experience, more wheelchair access to play grounds and basketball court.

Council Member Shirley: Is in total support of the project, it will be used by all and appreciated.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

None
A motion was made by Councilmember Hallock, seconded by Councilmember Burger, to approve Resolution 2026-04 to Authorize City Manager to sign a contract with Coastal Paving and Excavation to perform ADA Sidewalk Improvement at City Park as presented.

Motion passed unanimously 5-0
A.
50 Item 1.

STAFF REPORTS: In the packet with the correspondence
NEXT MEETING DATE: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 at 6:00 pm
ADJOURNMENT: 7:35 pm
Attest:___________________________________________ Date:--------------------------------------- 51 Item 1.

City of Del Rey Oaks
City Hall
650 Canyon Del Rey Blvd
Del Rey Oaks, CA 93940
Action Minutes
Wednesday, February 11, 2026 - 6:00 PM
Planning Commission – Regular Meeting
Del Rey Oaks Planning Commission
Mike Hayworth – Chair
Denise Wood – Vice Chair
Gary Kreeger – Commissioner
Louise Goetzelt - Commissioner
Ann Ahmadi – Commissioner
Celine Pinet – Commissioner
Vince Machi – Commissioner
52 Item 2.
6:01PM – Called to Order:

The meeting was called to order by Chair Hayworth.

Roll Call:

Present: Commissioner Kreeger, Commissioner Goetzelt, Commissioner Ahmadi, Commissioner Pinet, Commissioner Machi, Vice Chair Wood, and Chair Hayworth.

Absent: None
Staff Present:

City Clerk Minami, Deputy City Clerk Batra and contract planner Denise Duffy.

Pledge of Allegiance:

Chair Hayworth led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Consent Agenda:

Adopt November 12, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes A motion to approve was made by Commissioner Kreeger and seconded by Commissioner Goetzelt. Minutes were approved 7-0.

Public Comment:

None
Reports:

Building Activity Report November 2025, Building Activity Report December 2025, and Building Activity Report January 2026 were accepted unanimously.

Old Business:

None
Chairman Hayworth: Announces that due to timing, items A and B will be reversed.

New Business:

A. Applicant’s Name: Kristin Setliss
Owner’s Name: Kelley Sedoryk
File Number: ARC #26-01
Site Location: 810 Arbor Place
Planning Area: APN #012-472-005-000
CEQA Determination: Categorically Exempt pursuant to
Guidelines § 15061(c) and 15301
53 Item 2.

Project Description: Requesting Architectural Review to add 101 square foot sun room to the front of
single-family dwelling, replace top roof
deck railing with horizontal wire railing,
relocate and reduce size of posts for roof
top deck, and increase roof pitch.

Recommended Action: Analyze provided material, make appropriate findings, impose conditions as appropriate,
and give direction to staff.

Applicant, Kristin Setliss: She further explains the project with a new entry and modest project to create a sunroom with more light for the area.

Commissioner Pinet: Looks sharp, likes the railing
Commissioner Wood: Asks about detail of the roof.

Commissioner Goetzelt: The land is a challenge, and the sunroom is a great idea.

Public Comment:

None
Commissioner Pinet makes a motion to Approve ARC 26-01, as submitted and Commissioner Ahmadi seconds the motion.

Motion passed unanimously 7-0
B. Denise Duffy presents the General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report for 2025
SECTIONS FROM SLIDE SHOW THAT WAS PRESENTED:
 Previous reporting was conducted in 2024 and submitted in April 2025 (covered the previous calendar year).
 No required reporting format for the overall City report on General Plan implementation.
 General Plan APR, combined Housing Element APR, is submitted to the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) and State Housing (HCD)  Must be submitted by April 1 of each year. City has consistently made these annual submittals as required.
 The current General Plan contains policies and programs from the City’s adopted General Plan, as well as policies from the 1997 General Plan Update for the former Fort Ord area.  Housing Element is a component of the City’s General Plan.  The most recent major amendment to the General Plan was the adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element on August 7th, 2025.
 City received approval “certification” of its 6th Cycle Housing Element in late August 2025. 54 Item 2.
*Focused on presenting progress on programs in City’s General Plan and Housing Element – status report.
*Not a General Plan update or meant to revise adopted programs* *Current 2025 APR reporting period is January 1st, 2025, through December 31st, 2026. *APR reports on local agency's progress in meeting its regional housing needs allocation (RHNA).
 Each jurisdiction must submit an annual progress report on the jurisdiction’s status and progress in implementing its housing element. (Government Code Section 65400.)  State Housing and Community Development (HCD) receives each jurisdiction’s report on number of new housing units created, with a focus on new affordable units.  Meant to address and track how each jurisdiction is meeting its RHNA – also what progress toward program implementation since previous reporting year.  Program A.4 requires the City to monitor the development of residential capacity to ensure an adequate site inventory for meeting RHNA obligations.
 City monitors residential development project against the Housing Element.  If an approval creates a shortfall of RHNA capacity, the City must identify and rezone replacement sites within 180 days (Government Code Section 65863).  The City must report on the status of the program annually by April 1, and the use of the APR for verification and reporting provides a formal procedure.

All Planning Commissioners and Denise Duffy participated in an extensive conversation about the timing and importance of this report.

Public Comment:

None
Commissioner Goetzelt makes a motion to approve that the Annual Progress Report go to the City Council in March for approval, as submitted, and Commissioner Kreeger seconds the motion.

Motion passed unanimously 7-0
Announcements:

Chairman Hayworth: Thanks Denise and staff
Next Meeting:

Wednesday, March 11, 2026 at 6pm
Adjournment:
6:50pm
All enclosures and materials regarding this agenda are available for public review at Del Rey Oaks City Hall. Information distributed to the Planning Commission at the meeting becomes part of the public Record. A copy of written material, pictures, etc. should be provided to the Secretary for this purpose.
55 Item 2.
56 Item 1.
57 Item 1.
1 City Council Report
Mar 2026
Case # Date Offense Code 1 Offense Code Description
DROMPADOJResidentialCommercial
26-056 03/01/2026 273.5(A) PC Inflict corporal injury on spouse X X 26-057 03/02/2026 Information Only Informational X X
26-058 03/04/2026 4000(a) VC Towed vehicle X X
26-059 03/05/2026 ACN Vehicle accident NON INJURY X X
26-060 03/08/2026 23152(A) VC DUI Arrest X X
26-061 03/09/2026 ACI Accident with injury X X
26-062 03/09/2026 Lost Property Lost Property X X
26-063 03/10/2026 ACN Accident NON INJURY X X
26-064 03/12/2026 ACPP Accident Private Property X X
26-065 03/12/2026 20002(A)(1) VC Hit & RUN X X
26-066 03/12/2026 Information Only Informational X X
26-067 03/13/2026 Civil Civil Matter X X
26-068 03/14/2026 ACPP Accident Private Property X X
26-069 03/14/2026 Found Property Found Property X X
26-070 03/15/2026 Information Only Informational X X
26-071 03/15/2026 14601.1(A) VC Suspended License X X
26-072 03/16/2026 Found Property Found Property X X
26-073 03/19/2026 ACN Accident NON Injury X X
26-074 03/19/2026 ACN Accident NON Injury X X
26-075 03/20/2026 ACI Accident with Injury X X
26-076 03/23/2026 Information Only Informational X X
26-077 03/23/2026 Civil Civil X X
26-078 03/24/2026 DOMESTIC Domestic Disturbance X X
26-079 03/26/2026 DROMC 10.20.040 Abatement X X
26-080 03/26/2026 484(A) PC Theft X X
26-081 03/27/2026 23152(A) VC DUI Arrest X X
26-082 03/27/2026 ACPP Accident Private Property X X
26-083 03/29/2026 ACPP Accident Private Property X X
26-084 03/31/2026 12500(A) VC Driving without License X 29 Cases
Chris Bourquin - Chief
58 Item 2.
2 Calls for Service Case Reports
Month YTD Month YTD
289 838 29 84
Alarms Citations
Residential Commercial MPAD Moving Parking Warning
Mo. YTD Mo. YTD Mo. YTD Mo. YTD Mo. YTD Mo. YTD
1 2 0 6 5 16 14 50 26 64 6 31
59 Item 2.

Offense Reported
in 2026
Reported
in 2025
Percent
Change
Offenses
Cleared
Percent
Cleared
Percent Of
Category
Rate Per
100,000*
Murder 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Negligent Manslaughter 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Justifiable Homicide 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Non-consensual Sex Offenses:

Rape 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Sodomy 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Sexual Assault with Object 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Fondling 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Aggravated Assault 1 0 NA 1 100.00% 100.00% NA
Simple Assault 0 1 -100.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Intimidation 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Kidnapping/Abduction 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Consensual Sex Offenses:

Incest 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Statutory Rape 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Human Trafficking, Commercial
Sex Acts
0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Human Trafficking, Involuntary
Servitude
0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Crimes Against Persons Total 1 1 0% 1 100% 50% NA
Robbery 0 1 -100.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Burglary/Breaking & Entering 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Larceny/Theft Offenses 1 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% NA
Motor Vehicle Theft 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Arson 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Destruction Of Property 0 1 -100.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Counterfeiting/Forgery 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Fraud Offense 0 3 -100.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Embezzlement 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Extortion/Blackmail 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Bribery 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Stolen Property Offenses 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Crimes Against Property Total 1 6 -83.33% 0 0.00% 50% NA Drug/Narcotic Violations 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Drug Equipment Violations 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Gambling Offenses 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Pornography/Obscene Material 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Prostitution 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Weapons Law Violation 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Animal Cruelty 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Crimes Against Society Total 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Agency: All
Total Group "A" Offenses 2 7 -71.43% 1 50% 100% NA
Statewide Crime Profile * Adjusted population base: 1 2026 Crime in California

Note: The Rate per 100,000 will be 'NA' when the Adjusted Population Base is Zero.

Group A Offense Report
Beginning Date: 03/01/2026 Ending Date: 03/31/2026
Printed On: 04/03/2026

60 Item 2.

Offense Reported
in 2026
Reported
in 2025
Percent
Change
Offenses
Cleared
Percent
Cleared
Percent Of
Category
Rate Per
100,000*
Murder 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Negligent Manslaughter 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Justifiable Homicide 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Non-consensual Sex Offenses:

Rape 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Sodomy 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Sexual Assault with Object 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Fondling 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Aggravated Assault 1 1 0.00% 1 100.00% 25.00% NA
Simple Assault 3 1 200.00% 1 33.33% 75.00% NA
Intimidation 0 1 -100.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Kidnapping/Abduction 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Consensual Sex Offenses:

Incest 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Statutory Rape 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Human Trafficking, Commercial
Sex Acts
0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Human Trafficking, Involuntary
Servitude
0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Crimes Against Persons Total 4 3 33.33% 2 50% 30.77% NA Robbery 0 1 -100.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Burglary/Breaking & Entering 1 0 NA 0 0.00% 16.67% NA
Larceny/Theft Offenses 4 4 0.00% 1 25.00% 66.67% NA
Motor Vehicle Theft 0 1 -100.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Arson 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Destruction Of Property 0 1 -100.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Counterfeiting/Forgery 1 0 NA 1 100.00% 16.67% NA
Fraud Offense 0 3 -100.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Embezzlement 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Extortion/Blackmail 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Bribery 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Stolen Property Offenses 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Crimes Against Property Total 6 10 -40% 2 33.33% 46.15% NA Drug/Narcotic Violations 1 1 0.00% 1 100.00% 33.33% NA
Drug Equipment Violations 1 0 NA 1 100.00% 33.33% NA
Gambling Offenses 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Pornography/Obscene Material 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Prostitution 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Weapons Law Violation 1 0 NA 0 0.00% 33.33% NA
Animal Cruelty 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% NA
Crimes Against Society Total 3 1 200% 2 66.67% 23.08% NA Agency: All
Total Group "A" Offenses 13 14 -7.14% 6 46.15% 100% NA
Statewide Crime Profile * Adjusted population base: 1 2026 Crime in California

Note: The Rate per 100,000 will be 'NA' when the Adjusted Population Base is Zero.

Group A Offense Report
Beginning Date: 01/01/2026 Ending Date: 03/31/2026
Printed On: 04/03/2026

61 Item 2.

Staff Report
DATE: April 28, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John Guertin, City Manager
SUBJECT: Receive March 2026 Financial Reports
CEQA: This action does not constitute a “project” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines section 15378 as it is an administrative activity of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

Consideration
Receive March 2026 Financial Reports.

Background
The Members of the Budget and Finance Committee routinely receive financial reports for the previous month.

Summary & Discussion
Attached are the March 2026 financial reports.
• March 2026 Cash and Investments – The report shows where the City’s funds are invested.

The City continues to have a healthy cash balance of $13,097,523, much of which is restricted for specific purposes.
• March 2026 Check Register –This is a listing of all the payments issued during the month.

The total checks issued are $177,059.
• March 2026 General Fund Summary – This is a one-page summary of the General Fund summarized as follows:
62 Item 3.

At 75% of the year (9 months) the revenues are at 74%. Expenditure is 71% of the budget.

For the month of March 2026, the General Fund shows a deficit net revenue over expenditure of $77,090 and year-to-date deficit of $92,149.
• March 2026 Statement of Revenues and Expenditures – shows fiscal year-to-date actuals in comparison with FY 2026 Budget.
• Encumbrance Summary Report represents the purchase orders with a total outstanding balance of $888,986 as of March 31, 2026.

Fiscal Impacts
None. This is informational only.

Recommendation
Staff recommends receiving the reports.

ATTACHMENTS:
• Cash and Investments 2026-03
• Check/Voucher Register 2026-03
• General Fund Summary 2026-03
• Statement of Revenues & Expenditures 2026-03
• Encumbrance Summary 2026-03
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________________
John Guertin, City Manager
63 Item 3.

Accounts
Unrestricted
General Checking $ 1,121,146
Cash with TDS-Parking 500
Local Agency Investment Fund
Reserve for Economic Uncertainties 1,652,182
Unappropriated Funds 1,595,574
Total Unrestricted $ 4,369,402
Restricted
PARS-115 Trust Fund $ 393,077
Dev - Monterey Peninsula Partner 9,063
Fidelity Title Escrow Acct - GJM/SBR Intersection 1,056,168 Fidelity Title Escrow Acct - SBR Construction 7,269,813 Total Restricted $ 8,728,121
Total Cash and Investments $ 13,097,523
City of Del Rey Oaks
Summary of Cash & Investments
As of March 31, 2026
1 64
Item 3.

Check Number Payee Transaction Description Check Amount 23464 ABILA Annual Accounting Subscription for 02-12-26 to 02-11-27
4,843.34 3/4/2026
23465 AFLAC Premium 2026-02 1,216.16 3/4/2026
23466 AMERICAN LOCK & KEY DND Keys 37.15 3/4/2026
23467 AT&T Airport Internet Service Period 01/25/2026 to 02/24/2026

74.90 3/4/2026
AT&T Internet City Hall & PD Service Period 02-13-
26 to 03-12-26
213.29 3/4/2026
23468 AT&T CAL NET 2 Outside PD Phone Service Periods 01-19-26 to 02-18-26

31.93 3/4/2026
23469 AT&T MOBIILITY Internet Service Period 02-19 - 03-18-2026 69.25 3/4/2026 23470 Big Brand Tire & Service Flat Repair - PD Unit 97 35.00 3/4/2026 23471 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER Service Period 01/17/2026 - 02/18/2026 792.21 3/4/2026 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER Service Period 01/17/2026 to 02/18/2026 44.84 3/4/2026 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER Service Period 01/21/2026 - 02/18/2026 309.13 3/4/2026 23472 CHAVAN AND ASSOCIATES, LLP City Audit Services FY 2025 7,975.00 3/4/2026 23473 FENTON & KELLER FY25/26 Legal Services 1,539.86 3/4/2026 23474 G.P.S. SOLUTIONS FY25/26 Plan Checking & Building Inspection Services -2026-02
4,122.00 3/4/2026
23475 ID Concepts Law Enforcement ID Credential Card - R.

Langford-this cost was reimb to the city

58.67 3/4/2026
23476 I.M.P.A.C.GOVERNM'T SER 5564-9924 2026-02 7,088.34 3/4/2026 23477 JAMES DE CHALK Janitorial Services - City Hall and Park Restrooms -2026-02
1,400.00 3/4/2026
23478 MBS BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC. Konika Minolta Copier - Billing Period 02/23/26 to 05/22/26
107.75 3/4/2026
23479 MONTEREY BAY TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.

FY25/26 IT Services Retainer 2026-02 & 2026-
03 4,200.00 3/4/2026

MONTEREY BAY TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.

Reimbursment for Laptop purchase 789.52 3/4/2026
23480 County of Monterey FY25/26 9-1-1 Dispatch & Related 19,952.00 3/4/2026 23481 COUNTY OF MONTEREY CrIiminal Justice Information System October 1 - December 31, 2025
2,885.81 3/4/2026
23482 MONTEREY COUNTY TAX

COLLECTOR
Asmt #031-191-028-000 FY 2025-2026
Property Tax - 2nd Installment

35.11 3/4/2026
23483 MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY

CLASSIFIEDS
Notice Inviting Sealed Bids - Del Rey Park ADA
Sidewalk Improvments
468.00 3/4/2026
23484 PG&E Service Period 01/13/2026 - 02/11/2026 86.73 3/4/2026 23485 PRECISION ALARMS AND
AUTOMATION, INC.

Alarm Inspections & Monitoring 2026-03 170.00 3/4/2026
23486 Peace Officers Research Association
of California
ASSN ID#3162 PORAC 2026-02 283.00 3/4/2026
Peace Officers Research Association
of California
ASSN ID#3163 PORAC 2025-02 96.00 3/4/2026
23487 QUALITY PRINT & COPY, LLC. Business Cards Fucci/Nguyen 0.00 3/4/2026 QUALITY PRINT & COPY, LLC. Business Cards Garcia/J.

Andoy/Gomez/Dowson/Batra/Headley

0.00 3/4/2026
23488 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERIVCES FY25/26 Accounting Services 2026-01 19,601.08 3/4/2026 City of Del Rey Oaks
Check/Voucher Register
From 03/01/2026 Through 03/31/2026
2 65
Item 3.

Check Number Payee Transaction Description Check Amount City of Del Rey Oaks
Check/Voucher Register
From 03/01/2026 Through 03/31/2026
23489 RingCentral, Inc. Service Period 02/28/2026 to 03/28/2026 330.82 3/4/2026 23490 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DOJ Acct#145168 -Fingerpring Apps & Peace Officers- Billed
136.00 3/4/2026
23491 US Bank Equipment Finance Konika Minolta Copier Lease 2026-02 397.84 3/4/2026 23492 VSP Vision Premium 2026-03 262.81 3/4/2026
23493 AT&T MOBIILITY Aircard PW Service Period 02/03/26 to 03/02/26

40.74 3/18/2026
AT&T MOBIILITY Service Period 03/03 - 04/02/2026 45.49 3/18/2026 AT&T MOBIILITY Telephone Service Period 03-03-26 to 04-02- 26 312.36 3/18/2026
23494 Celine Pinet Travel Reimibursement - PC Celine Pinet 1,168.97 3/18/2026 23495 CivicPlus, LLC Web Open Platform Maintenance & Premium Web Open Annual 2026-05
2,822.41 3/18/2026
23496 CoPower Dental Premiums 2026-04 2,560.79 3/18/2026 23497 CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS, LLC. Software 2026-02 163.91 3/18/2026 23498 CORONADO DEISEL MOBILE
SERVICES, INC.

Ford Explorer #91 PM Lube Job and Safety
Inspection
620.64 3/18/2026

CORONADO DEISEL MOBILE
SERVICES, INC.

Ford Taurus #93 PM Lube Job and Safety
Inspection
399.66 3/18/2026
23499 Dell Marketing L.P. Computer - Stacy's Workspace 1,312.84 3/18/2026 23500 ECONOMIC&PLANNING SYSTEMS,
INC.

Del Rey Oaks Fort Ord Disposition Project
252123
6,375.02 3/18/2026
23501 ID Concepts Law Enforcement ID Credential Card - G Dobine

27.80 3/18/2026
23502 Irene Barlich Refund Park West 03/14/2026 120.00 3/18/2026 23503 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES Membership Dues for Monterey Bay Dvision 2026
900.00 3/18/2026
23504 MARTINS IRRIGATION SUPPLY, INC. Irrigation Suppilies 56.66 3/18/2026 23505 MBS BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC. Konika Minolta Copier - Billing Period 02/24/26 to 05/23/26
686.57 3/18/2026
23506 Monterey County Peace Officers MCPOA Range 10/06/2025 & 10/25/2025 280.00 3/18/2026 Monterey County Peace Officers MCPOA Range Use 09/01/2025 & 09/06/2025 280.00 3/18/2026 23507 MONTEREY BAY TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.

ESET EndPoint Protection Advanced Renewal
Period of 01-05-26 to 01-04-27
817.00 3/18/2026
23508 MONTEREY PENINSULA
ENGINEERING, INC.

Emergency Work Portola and Boronda 9,230.31 3/18/2026
23509 NEILL ENGINEERS CORP Retainer 10/01/0225 to 12/31/2025 300.00 3/18/2026 23510 ODP Business Solutions, LLC Supplies 67.90 3/18/2026 23511 PG&E Service Period 01/22/2026 to 02/22/2026 3,102.87 3/18/2026 23512 Pitney Bowes Bank Inc. Purchase
Power
Postage Meter Refill 2026-03 201.00 3/18/2026
23513 PEACE OFFICER RESEARCH ASSOC

OF CALIFORNIA
Reserve POA Dues 184.00 3/18/2026
23514 PORAC HEADQUARTERS PD Legal Defense Fund 2026-04 243.00 3/18/2026 23515 PURE WATER Supplies 2026-03 52.75 3/18/2026
23516 Stericycle, Inc. Shred Service 2026-02 194.41 3/18/2026 3 66
Item 3.

Check Number Payee Transaction Description Check Amount City of Del Rey Oaks
Check/Voucher Register
From 03/01/2026 Through 03/31/2026
23517 TERMINIX, INC. Pest Control 2026-02 124.00 3/18/2026 23518 US Bank Equipment Finance Konika Minolta Copier Lease 2026-02 230.52 3/18/2026 23519 Verizon Service Period 01/24/26 - 02/23/2026 236.06 3/18/2026 23520 YSS BUILDERS, INC. Service Call Leak in CH Restroom Celling 1,280.00 3/18/2026 23521 QUALITY PRINT & COPY, INC Business Cards Fucci/Nguyen 175.09 3/25/2026 QUALITY PRINT & COPY, INC Business Cards Garcia/J.

Andoy/Gomez/Dowson/Batra/Headley
544.26 3/25/2026
ACH 2026-03-06 7-Eleven Mastercard PD & PW Fuel Charges 2026/03 2,604.02 3/6/2026 ACH 2026-03-07 P.E.R.S.-HEALTH CalPERS 1800 Health 03/2026 43,620.75 3/6/2026 ACH 2026-03-20 ADP ADP fees 934.30 3/20/2026
ACH 2026-03-27 PERS CalPERS 1900 457 (03/27) Contribution 03/31/2026
2,900.00 3/27/2026
PERS PERS 3100 Contribution Retirement 03/07-
03/20/26 -Plan 26934
2,485.32 3/27/2026
PERS PERS 3100 Contribution Retirement 3/7-
3/20/26 -Plan 1364
706.31 3/27/2026
PERS PERS 3100 Contribution Retirement 3/7-
3/20/26 -Plan 25623
5,264.74 3/27/2026
PERS PERS 3100 Contribution Retirement 3/7-
3/20/26 -Plan 1365
3,732.95 3/27/2026
Report Total $ 177,058.96
4 67
Item 3.

FY 2026
Budget
March
2026
Actual
FY 2026
YTD Actual
Percent
Collected
/Spent
Revenues
Property Taxes 000 870,000.00 0.00 493,237.22 57%
Sales Tax 000 1,189,000.00 81,319.87 924,466.74 78%
Other Taxes 000 571,900.00 21,489.18 432,580.29 76%
Licenses and Permits 000 352,450.00 15,018.80 329,781.34 94% Fines and Forfeitures 000 25,100.00 2,616.43 22,135.47 88% Other Revenue 000 200,700.00 (12,897.96) 129,886.63 65% Grants 000 246,100.00 10,374.74 208,457.42 85%
Airport Police Services 210 1,489,000.00 124,083.00 1,104,506.50 74% Current Services 000 148,800.00 11,228.89 114,918.72 77% Total Revenues 5,093,050.00 253,232.95 3,759,970.33 74% Expenditures
Council 110 30,400.00 1,971.99 14,999.79 49%
City Clerk 111 654,800.00 45,720.04 521,831.95 80%
City Manager 120 345,115.00 22,882.64 276,734.87 80%
Finance 130 290,000.00 28,939.01 201,814.93 70%
Legal 150 89,300.00 2,007.86 27,207.18 30%
Planning & Building Regulation 160 255,400.00 10,797.02 91,306.21 36% Government Buildings 180 20,200.00 1,922.38 9,248.32 46% Non-Departmental 190 56,800.00 35.11 25,470.03 45%
Police 210 3,074,800.00 194,417.34 2,313,213.46 75%
Fire/Animal Control 220 243,300.00 0.00 121,856.50 50%
Public Works/Streets 311 258,050.00 20,755.79 212,267.12 82% Parks/Recreation 411 111,850.00 874.20 26,408.76 24%
Total Expenditures 5,430,015.00 330,323.38 3,842,359.12 71% Excess(Deficit) of Revenue Over Expenditures $ (336,965.00) $ (77,090.43) $ (82,388.79) 24% City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
100 - General Fund
From 03/01/2026 Through 03/31/2026
5 68
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
100 - General Fund
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Revenue
Non Department Specific 000
P/T-Secured 41110 599,800.00 0.00 338,949.67 56.51%
P/T-Unsecured 41120 31,200.00 0.00 30,865.67 98.92%
P/T-Prior Secured 41130 6,200.00 0.00 3,454.44 55.71%
Prior Unsecured 41140 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
P/T-Unitary Tax 41150 13,500.00 0.00 7,454.70 55.22%
P/T-Supplemental Roll (SB813) 41160 12,400.00 0.00 7,078.58 57.08% Property Tax - VLF 41170 204,500.00 0.00 103,918.50 50.81% Prop Tax-Interest/Penalty 41180 2,300.00 0.00 1,515.66 65.89% Sales Tax 42210 409,000.00 28,163.58 309,686.73 75.71%
Sales Tax - 145 (Measure S-1%) 42220 520,000.00 35,404.97 410,404.56 78.92% Sales Tax -409 (Measure R 1/2%) 42221 260,000.00 17,751.32 204,375.45 78.60% Cannabis Tax 42222 100,000.00 6,242.34 66,142.58 66.14% Transient Occupancy Tax 42230 250,000.00 0.00 226,774.73 90.70% STR Annual Licenses Fee 42231 12,000.00 0.00 10,438.24 86.98% Property Transfer Tax 42250 8,700.00 0.00 3,437.23 39.50% Sewer Impact 42290 22,000.00 0.00 22,181.41 100.82%
Business Licenses 42310 230,000.00 408.00 233,157.23 101.37% HOUP (Home Occupational User Permit) 42311 4,000.00 0.00 2,400.00 60.00% Gas Franchises 42761 8,200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Electric Franchises 42762 22,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Garbage Franchises 42763 110,000.00 0.00 83,367.48 75.78% Cable Tv Franchises 42764 26,000.00 0.00 15,430.02 59.34% Water Franchises 42765 25,000.00 15,246.84 15,246.84 60.98% SB1186 Disability Access Fund 43311 1,000.00 16.00 633.00 63.30% SB1473 Environmental Assessment Fee 43312 100.00 12.00 107.35 107.35% Variance Fee 43318 0.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 0.00%
Architectural Review (ARC) 43319 0.00 800.00 1,200.00 0.00% Building Permits 43320 64,000.00 6,020.38 52,350.58 81.79% Strong-Motion Instrumental Program (SMIP)
Fees
43322 300.00 33.57 295.17 98.39%
Cannabis Business Permit 43325 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Plan Check Fees 43330 20,500.00 1,389.85 13,640.97 66.54% Encroachment/Street Opening Permits Fees 43340 8,400.00 2,400.00 5,400.00 64.28% Plumbing Permits 43350 3,900.00 170.00 1,307.92 33.53%
Electrical Permits 43360 3,250.00 170.00 2,592.88 79.78% Tree Removal Permits 43361 0.00 100.00 1,606.00 0.00%
Other Licenses/Permits 43390 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Fines & Forfeitures 45000 2,600.00 96.43 2,101.47 80.82% Vehicle Code Fines 45510 5,500.00 775.00 3,459.00 62.89% Parking and Admin Fines 45512 17,000.00 1,745.00 16,575.00 97.50% Interest Earned 46100 175,000.00 0.00 103,149.62 58.94% Interest Earned-PARS 46101 20,000.00 (12,913.96) 15,297.82 76.48% Rental Income - Garden Center 46815 18,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 83.33% Rental Income - Airport RV 46816 39,600.00 3,912.50 35,486.10 89.61% Rental Income - PW Bldg (CHC Enterprise) 46817 24,000.00 0.00 6,000.00 25.00% HOPTR 47130 1,200.00 0.00 324.51 27.04%
Vehicle License Collection 47140 2,500.00 0.00 2,414.14 96.56% COPS 47240 194,000.00 8,333.33 176,536.62 90.99%
SB1383 Organics Recycling 47243 6,000.00 0.00 3,750.00 62.50% Prop 172 47750 20,000.00 2,041.41 14,370.03 71.85%
Wellness Program 47760 15,000.00 0.00 10,772.04 71.81%
Police Grants & Other Reimbursements 47780 2,500.00 0.00 2,503.23 100.12% 6 69
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
100 - General Fund
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
POST Reimbursements 47781 7,000.00 0.00 525.50 7.50%
Grant Other Agencies 47783 1,600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Police Service Fees 48210 1,000.00 240.00 1,090.00 109.00% Police Services-Special Events 48211 40,000.00 0.00 34,920.00 87.30% Use Permits 48805 7,000.00 4,920.00 7,510.00 107.28%
Maps/Publications 48810 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Property Inspections 48825 5,000.00 255.00 2,035.00 40.70% Miscellaneous Revenue 48840 10,000.00 171.10 4,861.82 48.61% Credit Card Processing Fee 48841 0.00 545.29 3,200.80 0.00% LAFCO Refund & Interest for FORA 48842 400.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Rental - Park 48910 3,700.00 1,185.00 4,815.00 130.13%
Day Use Permits (Park only) 48911 0.00 120.00 1,020.00 0.00% Old Town Hall Rental Fee 48912 0.00 195.00 1,065.00 0.00% Miscellaneous Refunds 48930 1,000.00 0.00 8,067.54 806.75% Total Non Department Specific 3,604,050.00 129,149.95 2,655,463.83 73.68% Police 210
Airport Police Services 48220 1,489,000.00 124,083.00 1,104,506.50 74.17% Total Police 1,489,000.00 124,083.00 1,104,506.50 74.18% Total Revenue 5,093,050.00 253,232.95 3,759,970.33 73.83% Expenditures
Council 110
Council Member Stipend 61115 7,500.00 525.00 4,725.00 63.00% Medicare-ER 61130 200.00 43.31 175.59 87.79%
Social Security-ER 61131 500.00 0.00 195.30 39.06%
Unemployment Ins-Fed & State 61132 100.00 0.00 32.56 32.56% Dental Expense 61135 8,900.00 638.01 6,380.10 71.68%
Materials/Supply 62410 200.00 0.00 540.75 270.37%
Membership Dues-Professional Org 64550 2,500.00 0.00 1,670.18 66.80% Strategic Planning 64570 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Misc Expenses 64580 2,500.00 0.00 114.64 4.58%
Travel Expenses 64610 3,000.00 765.67 1,165.67 38.85%
Total Council 30,400.00 1,971.99 14,999.79 49.34%
City Clerk 111
Payroll 61105 252,300.00 20,092.81 200,203.32 79.35%
Overtime 61110 5,000.00 308.16 2,706.93 54.13%
PERS UAL - After 06/30/18 61123 11,100.00 0.00 890.00 8.01% PERS UAL-Before 06/30/2018 61124 41,000.00 0.00 51,139.00 124.72% PERS Retirement 61125 26,700.00 851.52 15,452.94 57.87% Medicare-ER 61130 3,800.00 294.65 3,057.12 80.45%
Unemployment Ins-Fed & State 61132 1,200.00 0.00 363.99 30.33% Dental Expense 61135 5,700.00 447.25 4,472.50 78.46%
Health Insurance 61140 122,800.00 11,058.05 90,241.19 73.48% Vision Ins 61145 800.00 59.60 536.40 67.05%
Workers Comp and EAP 61150 4,000.00 0.00 10,029.05 250.72% Wellness Program 61155 1,500.00 0.00 919.72 61.31%
Educational Incentive Pay 61157 6,000.00 461.54 4,567.40 76.12% Longevity Pay 61158 3,700.00 328.70 3,229.60 87.28%
Materials/Supply 62410 6,000.00 1,524.80 3,769.70 62.82% Office Supplies 62430 7,000.00 879.80 5,279.31 75.41%
Repair/Maintenance 63505 1,000.00 0.00 801.66 80.16%
Other Outside Services 63508 10,000.00 1,733.57 8,583.55 85.83% Shredding Services 63509 1,000.00 97.20 843.04 84.30%
Short Term Rental Services 63511 17,500.00 0.00 17,500.00 100.00% 7 70
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
100 - General Fund
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Telephone 63530 3,000.00 50.54 1,723.09 57.43%
Internet 63531 1,500.00 106.64 872.53 58.16%
Website Design & Maintenance 63535 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Postage / Shipping 63540 2,000.00 201.00 1,796.30 89.81% Training 63605 11,000.00 277.51 2,684.84 24.40%
Insurance-Liability 63620 62,400.00 0.00 63,683.40 102.05% Contract Services - IT 63635 10,600.00 2,100.00 7,500.00 70.75% Software/Server Subscription 64310 15,500.00 572.41 6,372.44 41.11% Agenda Management System 64315 7,000.00 2,822.41 7,742.41 110.60% Municipal Code Service 64320 5,000.00 0.00 906.04 18.12% Membership Dues-Professional Org 64550 1,000.00 0.00 337.78 33.77% Membership Dues-Government Agency 64552 700.00 0.00 740.50 105.78% Printing / Publications 64575 2,000.00 162.91 162.91 8.14% Misc Expenses 64580 500.00 120.00 1,119.62 223.92%
Election Cost 64588 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Travel Expenses 64610 3,000.00 1,168.97 1,603.67 53.45% Total City Clerk 654,800.00 45,720.04 521,831.95 79.69% City Manager 120
Payroll 61105 207,750.00 14,414.40 145,145.88 69.86%
PERS UAL - After 06/30/18 61123 500.00 0.00 445.00 89.00% PERS Retirement 61125 16,550.00 597.64 10,332.89 62.43% Medicare-ER 61130 3,050.00 232.24 2,326.81 76.28%
Unemployment Ins-Fed & State 61132 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Dental Expense 61135 2,400.00 193.29 1,932.90 80.53%
Health Insurance 61140 48,400.00 4,342.36 36,193.24 74.77% Health Insurance -Retiree 61141 1,900.00 162.00 1,434.00 75.47% Vision Ins 61145 400.00 15.71 141.39 35.34%
Workers Comp and EAP 61150 3,000.00 0.00 7,615.64 253.85% Wellness Program 61155 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Educational Incentive Pay 61157 465.00 0.00 461.55 99.25% Admin Leave 61175 0.00 1,601.60 12,446.72 0.00%
Auto Allowance 61180 5,400.00 415.40 4,109.00 76.09%
Office Supplies 62430 300.00 0.00 30.94 10.31%
Insurance-Liability 63620 51,000.00 0.00 50,946.72 99.89% Membership Dues-Professional Org 64550 1,700.00 0.00 1,660.00 97.64% Membership Dues-Government Agency 64552 700.00 900.00 900.00 128.57% Travel Expenses 64610 1,000.00 8.00 612.19 61.21%
Total City Manager 345,115.00 22,882.64 276,734.87 80.19% Finance 130
ADP Payroll Fees 62310 8,500.00 934.30 9,513.33 111.92% Bank Service Charges 62320 6,000.00 310.29 4,183.90 69.73% Credit Card Fees 62321 5,000.00 0.00 3,208.95 64.17%
Accounting Software 62431 5,000.00 4,843.34 5,124.59 102.49% Budget Software 62433 14,000.00 0.00 14,000.00 100.00%
Audit-General 63625 42,000.00 3,250.00 36,175.00 86.13% Audit -Sales Tax 63626 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Actuarial Services 63627 4,500.00 0.00 1,550.00 34.44%
Accounting Services-RGS 63645 200,000.00 19,601.08 128,059.16 64.02% Total Finance 290,000.00 28,939.01 201,814.93 69.59%
Legal 150
Legal Services 63650 86,000.00 1,539.86 25,035.44 29.11% Legal Advert 64560 3,300.00 468.00 2,171.74 65.81%
Total Legal 89,300.00 2,007.86 27,207.18 30.47%
Planning & Building Regulation 160
8 71
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
100 - General Fund
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Economic Development Services 63639 95,000.00 6,375.02 12,315.02 12.96% Planning Services 63640 40,000.00 0.00 21,682.00 54.20% Contract Services - Housing Element 63642 50,000.00 0.00 12,293.50 24.58% Building Inspections Services 63648 62,400.00 4,122.00 44,415.69 71.17% Engineering Services 63649 5,000.00 300.00 600.00 12.00% Code Enforcement Services 63656 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Travel Expenses 64610 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Planning & Building Regulation 255,400.00 10,797.02 91,306.21 35.75% Government Buildings 180
Materials/Supply 62410 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Repair/Maintenance 63505 5,000.00 1,280.00 1,704.35 34.08% Other Outside Services 63508 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Utilities - PG&E 63520 8,000.00 642.38 3,693.97 46.17%
Janitorial Services 63660 4,200.00 0.00 3,850.00 91.66% Total Government Buildings 20,200.00 1,922.38 9,248.32 45.78% Non-Departmental 190
Materials/Supply 62410 500.00 0.00 177.78 35.55%
Insurance-Liability 63620 25,000.00 0.00 (4,091.10) (16.36)% Insurance-Property 63621 9,000.00 0.00 7,812.76 86.80%
Membership Dues-Professional Org 64550 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00% Membership Dues-Non Profit Agency Contrib 64551 15,000.00 0.00 13,575.00 90.50% Membership Dues-Government Agency 64552 5,500.00 0.00 5,161.71 93.84% Misc Expenses 64580 1,000.00 35.11 2,068.93 206.89%
S.M.I.P. 64930 200.00 0.00 198.58 99.29%
SB 1473 64940 100.00 0.00 66.37 66.37%
Total Non-Departmental 56,800.00 35.11 25,470.03 44.84% Police 210
Payroll 61105 1,167,800.00 69,858.03 717,636.18 61.45%
Overtime 61110 200,000.00 20,643.32 227,712.63 113.85%
Reserves Payroll 61120 120,000.00 11,491.28 109,042.49 90.86% PERS UAL - After 06/30/18 61123 30,400.00 0.00 25,476.01 83.80% PERS UAL-Before 06/30/2018 61124 111,000.00 0.00 115,906.99 104.42% PERS Retirement 61125 163,000.00 5,284.85 93,532.70 57.38% PERS 457 Expense 61126 32,400.00 1,200.00 20,850.00 64.35% Medicare-ER 61130 17,400.00 1,716.31 17,133.13 98.46%
Social Security-ER 61131 1,000.00 0.00 234.61 23.46%
Unemployment Ins-Fed & State 61132 13,000.00 0.00 1,189.50 9.15% Dental Expense 61135 16,200.00 1,155.26 10,392.86 64.15% Health Insurance 61140 342,300.00 24,718.06 201,824.17 58.96% Vision Ins 61145 2,500.00 171.79 1,377.03 55.08%
Workers Comp and EAP 61150 141,500.00 0.00 127,540.96 90.13% Wellness Program 61155 5,000.00 0.00 3,772.04 75.44%
Educational Incentive Pay 61157 16,800.00 1,384.64 12,060.82 71.79% Longevity Pay 61158 9,300.00 871.72 8,613.89 92.62%
Uniform Allowance 61160 10,000.00 2,250.00 8,250.00 82.50% Admin Leave 61175 0.00 8,863.68 37,625.76 0.00%
Materials/Supply 62410 15,000.00 1,544.10 7,728.18 51.52% Ammunition 62420 5,000.00 0.00 2,166.44 43.32%
Body Armor Vests 62422 3,300.00 0.00 3,281.38 99.43%
Office Supplies 62430 5,000.00 226.69 3,706.84 74.13%
Auto Operations - Supplies / Equip 62710 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Auto Operations - Fuel 62720 30,000.00 2,304.02 16,653.50 55.51% Repair/Maintenance 63505 2,200.00 0.00 2,092.65 95.12%
Other Outside Services 63508 5,000.00 1,783.11 5,052.04 101.04% 9 72
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
100 - General Fund
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Shredding Services 63509 1,000.00 97.21 843.09 84.30%
Utilities - PG&E 63520 8,000.00 642.37 3,745.94 46.82%
Telephone 63530 8,000.00 624.57 4,656.56 58.20%
Internet 63531 6,000.00 486.86 2,867.16 47.78%
Annual Maintenance-Records Mgmt Software 63537 5,000.00 0.00 4,912.00 98.24% Record Management-Historical 63538 3,600.00 0.00 3,512.38 97.56% Postage / Shipping 63540 500.00 165.08 399.18 79.83%
Training 63605 5,000.00 1,248.90 8,252.97 165.05%
Insurance-Liability 63620 290,200.00 0.00 286,763.68 98.81% Insurance-Property 63621 9,000.00 0.00 7,812.75 86.80%
Insurance-Vehicles 63622 2,550.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Insurance-ADWRP 63624 0.00 0.00 829.00 0.00%
Audit-General 63625 5,000.00 4,725.00 4,725.00 94.50%
Actuarial Services 63627 2,500.00 0.00 1,550.00 62.00%
Professional Services 63628 16,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Contract Services - IT 63635 13,500.00 2,100.00 7,500.00 55.55% Contract Services-Others 63637 4,200.00 560.00 3,538.94 84.26% Legal Services 63650 3,800.00 0.00 1,730.30 45.53%
Janitorial Services 63660 4,200.00 0.00 3,850.00 91.66% 911-NGEN Phase II Upgrade 63664 7,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 911-Radio Dispatch 63665 61,800.00 15,440.00 61,760.00 99.93% 911-Inform MDT Terminal Service 63666 1,000.00 934.00 934.00 93.40% 911-Notification System 63667 400.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
911-NGEN O&M 63668 14,400.00 3,578.00 14,312.00 99.38%
911-NGEN Debt (Capital Fee) 63669 8,100.00 0.00 8,045.00 99.32% Auto Repair/Maintenance 63730 23,000.00 1,545.91 15,197.45 66.07% Parking & Admin Citations Services 63812 9,000.00 711.87 7,891.87 87.68% Animal Regulation Fire 63820 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Fund Jail & Prisoner 63830 1,500.00 0.00 983.00 65.53%
ACJIS System 63840 9,000.00 2,885.81 5,318.32 59.09%
Software/Server Subscription 64310 22,700.00 408.50 19,475.94 85.79% Personnel Recruit & Pre-Employment 64545 3,000.00 0.00 1,499.00 49.96% Membership Dues-Professional Org 64550 8,300.00 806.00 6,041.48 72.78% Membership Dues-Non Profit Agency Contrib 64551 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00% Membership Dues-Government Agency 64552 5,700.00 0.00 6,234.50 109.37% Books and Periodicals 64565 900.00 0.00 430.96 47.88%
Printing / Publications 64575 2,000.00 381.35 381.35 19.06% Misc Expenses 64580 2,200.00 292.06 2,413.36 109.69%
Travel Expenses 64610 13,000.00 1,316.99 6,857.82 52.75% Principal-Motorola Lease-Cameras 65104 21,350.00 0.00 21,319.32 99.85% Principal-Dell 65105 5,300.00 0.00 5,276.34 99.55%
Total Police 3,074,800.00 194,417.34 2,313,213.46 75.23% Fire/Animal Control 220
Fire Seaside 63810 243,300.00 0.00 121,856.50 50.08%
Total Fire/Animal Control 243,300.00 0.00 121,856.50 50.08% Public Works/Streets 311
Payroll 61105 87,800.00 6,748.80 66,620.00 75.87%
PERS UAL - After 06/30/18 61123 500.00 0.00 445.00 89.00% PERS Retirement 61125 7,100.00 228.80 4,279.87 60.27%
Medicare-ER 61130 1,300.00 97.86 1,008.29 77.56%
Unemployment Ins-Fed & State 61132 100.00 0.00 91.01 91.01% Dental Expense 61135 1,600.00 126.98 1,269.80 79.36%
Health Insurance 61140 37,200.00 3,340.28 28,595.22 76.86% Vision Ins 61145 300.00 15.71 141.39 47.13%
10 73
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
100 - General Fund
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Workers Comp and EAP 61150 1,500.00 0.00 3,663.80 244.25% Wellness Program 61155 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Educational Incentive Pay 61157 1,200.00 92.30 913.00 76.08% Materials/Supply 62410 10,000.00 212.11 5,936.06 59.36% Office Supplies 62430 1,500.00 59.87 325.57 21.70%
Auto Operations - Supplies / Equip 62710 2,500.00 0.00 8.18 0.32% Auto Operations - Fuel 62720 5,000.00 300.00 2,240.69 44.81% Repair/Maintenance 63505 17,900.00 9,230.31 30,625.05 171.08% Other Outside Services 63508 1,000.00 0.00 100.00 10.00% Gabilan Crew 63515 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Utilities - PG&E 63520 5,000.00 (92.59) 3,105.19 62.10% Utilities - Water 63525 6,250.00 309.13 4,637.34 74.19% Telephone 63530 200.00 45.49 271.17 135.58%
Internet 63531 600.00 40.74 323.42 53.90%
Training 63605 2,000.00 0.00 758.69 37.93%
Insurance-Liability 63620 21,200.00 0.00 21,227.80 100.13% Insurance-Vehicles 63622 5,000.00 0.00 4,766.00 95.32%
SB1383 Organics Waste Regs Services 63654 14,000.00 0.00 11,500.00 82.14% Hazardous Waste Disposal 63655 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Auto Repair/Maintenance 63730 5,000.00 0.00 1,762.58 35.25% Printing / Publications 64575 1,300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Storm Water Project - Phase 4 64920 15,000.00 0.00 17,652.00 117.68% Equipment 66302 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Public Works/Streets 258,050.00 20,755.79 212,267.12 82.26% Parks/Recreation 411
Materials/Supply 62410 10,000.00 37.15 5,663.13 56.63%
Office Supplies 62430 1,000.00 0.00 106.23 10.62%
Repair/Maintenance 63505 20,000.00 0.00 15,782.18 78.91% Utilities - Water 63525 5,750.00 837.05 4,857.22 84.47% Contract Services - Consultant 63612 75,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Travel Expenses 64610 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Parks/Recreation 111,850.00 874.20 26,408.76 23.61% Total Expenditures 5,430,015.00 330,323.38 3,842,359.12 70.76% Net Revenues (336,965.00) (77,090.43) (82,388.79) 24.45% Other Financing Sources and Uses
Non Department Specific 000
Transfers Out to CIP 81003 (430,446.00) 0.00 (9,759.64) 2.26% Transfers Out to Grants 81004 (13,885.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Non Department Specific (444,331.00) 0.00 (9,759.64) 2.20% Total Other Financing Sources and Uses (444,331.00) 0.00 (9,759.64) 2.20% Net Revenues After Other Financing Sources and
Uses
(781,296.00) (77,090.43) (92,148.43)
11 74
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
210 - Gas Tax Fund
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Revenue
Non Department Specific 000
Gas Tax 2103 47010 15,000.00 1,265.95 11,421.58 76.14%
Gas Tax 2105 47020 10,100.00 819.00 7,263.80 71.91%
Gas Tax 2106 47030 9,200.00 772.46 6,790.53 73.81%
Gas Tax 2107 47040 13,700.00 858.15 9,559.46 69.77%
Gas Tax 2107.5 47050 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 100.00%
Total Non Department Specific 49,000.00 3,715.56 36,035.37 73.54% Total Revenue 49,000.00 3,715.56 36,035.37 73.54%
Expenditures
Public Works/Streets 311
Street Sweeping 63510 12,070.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Street Lighting 63910 21,900.00 1,786.61 13,390.59 61.14% Principal-PG&E 65751 2,550.00 210.83 1,686.64 66.14%
Total Public Works/Streets 36,520.00 1,997.44 15,077.23 41.28% Total Expenditures 36,520.00 1,997.44 15,077.23 41.28%
Net Revenues 12,480.00 1,718.12 20,958.14
Net Revenues After Other Financing Sources and
Uses
12,480.00 1,718.12 20,958.14
12 75
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
211 - SB1 Fund-RMRA
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Revenue
Non Department Specific 000
SB 1 Funds 47777 41,300.00 3,331.80 32,643.24 79.03%
Total Non Department Specific 41,300.00 3,331.80 32,643.24 79.04% Total Revenue 41,300.00 3,331.80 32,643.24 79.04%
Expenditures
Saucito Rd & Work Ave Improvement Project 537
Curb and Gutter Repair 66327 24,046.50 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Saucito Rd & Work Ave Improvement
Project
24,046.50 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Rosita Emergency Repairs 539
Curb and Gutter Repair 66327 65,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Rosita Emergency Repairs 65,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Expenditures 89,046.50 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Net Revenues (47,746.50) 3,331.80 32,643.24 (68.36)%
Other Financing Sources and Uses
Non Department Specific 000
Transfers Out to CIP 81003 (13,550.00) 0.00 (13,550.00) 100.00% Total Non Department Specific (13,550.00) 0.00 (13,550.00) 100.00% Total Other Financing Sources and Uses (13,550.00) 0.00 (13,550.00) 100.00% Net Revenues After Other Financing Sources and
Uses
(61,296.50) 3,331.80 19,093.24
13 76
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
212 - Measure X Fund
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Revenue
Non Department Specific 000
Measure X 47775 95,900.00 0.00 54,550.48 56.88%
Total Non Department Specific 95,900.00 0.00 54,550.48 56.88% Total Revenue 95,900.00 0.00 54,550.48 56.88%
Expenditures
Debt Service - Measure X 610
Principal - Measure X Loan 65103 83,900.00 0.00 45,795.14 54.58% Interest - Measure X 65203 12,000.00 0.00 8,755.34 72.96% Total Debt Service - Measure X 95,900.00 0.00 54,550.48 56.88% Total Expenditures 95,900.00 0.00 54,550.48 56.88%
Net Revenues 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Net Revenues After Other Financing Sources and
Uses

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
14 77
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
214 - RSTP
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Revenue
Non Department Specific 000
RSTP Funds 47776 67,602.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Non Department Specific 67,602.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Revenue 67,602.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Net Revenues 67,602.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Other Financing Sources and Uses
Non Department Specific 000
Transfers Out to CIP 81003 (67,602.00) 0.00 (67,600.00) 99.99% Total Non Department Specific (67,602.00) 0.00 (67,600.00) 100.00% Total Other Financing Sources and Uses (67,602.00) 0.00 (67,600.00) 100.00% Net Revenues After Other Financing Sources and
Uses

0.00 0.00 (67,600.00) 0.00%
15 78
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
221 - FORA Habitat Management Fund
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Expenditures
Planning & Building Regulation 160
Contract Services - Habitat Management Plan 63646 14,448.00 0.00 258.25 1.78% Total Planning & Building Regulation 14,448.00 0.00 258.25 1.79% Total Expenditures 14,448.00 0.00 258.25 1.79%
Net Revenues (14,448.00) 0.00 (258.25)
Net Revenues After Other Financing Sources and
Uses
(14,448.00) 0.00 (258.25)
16 79
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
222 - FORA Land Development
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Expenditures
Planning & Building Regulation 160
Economic Development Services 63639 (2,031.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00% Legal Services 63650 2,031.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Misc Expenses 64580 8,120.23 0.00 8,120.23 100.00%
Total Planning & Building Regulation 8,120.23 0.00 8,120.23 100.00% Total Expenditures 8,120.23 0.00 8,120.23 100.00%
Net Revenues (8,120.23) 0.00 (8,120.23)
Net Revenues After Other Financing Sources and
Uses
(8,120.23) 0.00 (8,120.23)
17 80
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
231 - BSCC-Officer Wellness & Mental Health Grant
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Expenditures
Police 210
Law Enforcement Wellness App 64314 2,000.00 0.00 10,835.00 541.75% Total Police 2,000.00 0.00 10,835.00 541.75%
Total Expenditures 2,000.00 0.00 10,835.00 541.75%
Net Revenues (2,000.00) 0.00 (10,835.00)
Net Revenues After Other Financing Sources and
Uses
(2,000.00) 0.00 (10,835.00)
18 81
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
235 - Asset Forfeitures
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Revenue
Police 210
Police Grants & Other Reimbursements 47780 0.00 0.00 1,846.26 0.00% Total Police 0.00 0.00 1,846.26 0.00%
Total Revenue 0.00 0.00 1,846.26 0.00%
Net Revenues 0.00 0.00 1,846.26 0.00%
Net Revenues After Other Financing Sources and
Uses

0.00 0.00 1,846.26 0.00%
19 82
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
236 - Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Revenue
Police 210
DEA Reimbursements 47782 46,128.26 0.00 15,662.59 33.95% Total Police 46,128.26 0.00 15,662.59 33.95%
Total Revenue 46,128.26 0.00 15,662.59 33.95%
Expenditures
Police 210
Overtime-DEA 61111 46,128.26 3,754.58 37,815.75 81.97%
Total Police 46,128.26 3,754.58 37,815.75 81.98%
Total Expenditures 46,128.26 3,754.58 37,815.75 81.98%
Net Revenues 0.00 (3,754.58) (22,153.16) 0.00%
Net Revenues After Other Financing Sources and
Uses

0.00 (3,754.58) (22,153.16) 0.00%
20 83
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
242 - REAP Grant
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Other Financing Sources and Uses
Non Department Specific 000
Transfers In from GF 82003 13,885.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Non Department Specific 13,885.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Other Financing Sources and Uses 13,885.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Net Revenues After Other Financing Sources and
Uses
13,885.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
21 84
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
260 - CDBG Fund
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Revenue
Parks/Recreation 411
CDBG Grant 47765 90,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Parks/Recreation 90,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Revenue 90,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Expenditures
Parks/Recreation 411
Park Improvements 66420 90,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Parks/Recreation 90,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Expenditures 90,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Net Revenues 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Net Revenues After Other Financing Sources and
Uses

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
22 85
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
301 - Capital Projects
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Expenditures
Vehicle Replacement 533
Vehicle Replacement 66735 90,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Vehicle Replacement 90,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Saucito Rd & Work Ave Improvement Project 537
Repairs and Improvements 66322 81,150.00 0.00 81,150.00 100.00% Total Saucito Rd & Work Ave Improvement
Project
81,150.00 0.00 81,150.00 100.00%
City Hall Facility Repairs & Upgrades 541
Repairs and Improvements 66322 20,000.00 0.00 7,373.64 36.86% Total City Hall Facility Repairs & Upgrades 20,000.00 0.00 7,373.64 36.87% Council Chamber Technology Project 542
Technology Upgrades 66323 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Council Chamber Technology Project 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% PD Radio Replacement 543
PD Radio Replacement 66736 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total PD Radio Replacement 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Technology Replacement 544
Technology Replacement 66324 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Technology Replacement 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
City Hall Sewer Upgrades 545
City Hall Sewer Upgrades 66426 40,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total City Hall Sewer Upgrades 40,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% City Hall Chamber Renovations 546
City Hall Chamber Renovations 66427 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total City Hall Chamber Renovations 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% City Hall Fence Replacement 547
City Hall Fence Replacement 66428 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total City Hall Fence Replacement 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% City Hall Parking Lot Improvements 548
City Hall Parking Lot Impvts 66429 167,446.00 0.00 6,396.00 3.81% Total City Hall Parking Lot Improvements 167,446.00 0.00 6,396.00 3.82% Adair Stairs Repairs 549
Adair Stairs Repairs 66430 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Adair Stairs Repairs 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Del Rey Oaks Garden Center 550
Repair/Maintenance 63505 0.00 0.00 2,386.00 0.00%
Total Del Rey Oaks Garden Center 0.00 0.00 2,386.00 0.00% Total Expenditures 511,596.00 0.00 97,305.64 19.02%
Net Revenues (511,596.00) 0.00 (97,305.64) 19.02%
Other Financing Sources and Uses
Vehicle Replacement 533
Transfers In from GF 82003 90,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Vehicle Replacement 90,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Saucito Rd & Work Ave Improvement Project 537
Transfers In from RSTP 82006 67,600.00 0.00 67,600.00 100.00% Transfers In from SB1-RMRA 82007 13,550.00 0.00 13,550.00 100.00% Total Saucito Rd & Work Ave Improvement
Project
81,150.00 0.00 81,150.00 100.00%
City Hall Facility Repairs & Upgrades 541
Transfers In from GF 82003 20,000.00 0.00 7,373.64 36.86% Total City Hall Facility Repairs & Upgrades 20,000.00 0.00 7,373.64 36.87% Council Chamber Technology Project 542
23 86
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
301 - Capital Projects
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Transfers In from GF 82003 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Council Chamber Technology Project 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% PD Radio Replacement 543
Transfers In from GF 82003 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total PD Radio Replacement 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Technology Replacement 544
Transfers In from GF 82003 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Technology Replacement 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
City Hall Sewer Upgrades 545
Transfers In from GF 82003 40,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total City Hall Sewer Upgrades 40,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% City Hall Chamber Renovations 546
Transfers In from GF 82003 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total City Hall Chamber Renovations 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% City Hall Fence Replacement 547
Transfers In from GF 82003 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total City Hall Fence Replacement 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% City Hall Parking Lot Improvements 548
Transfers In from GF 82003 167,446.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total City Hall Parking Lot Improvements 167,446.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Adair Stairs Repairs 549
Transfers In from GF 82003 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Adair Stairs Repairs 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Del Rey Oaks Garden Center 550
Transfers In from GF 82003 0.00 0.00 2,386.00 0.00%
Total Del Rey Oaks Garden Center 0.00 0.00 2,386.00 0.00% Total Other Financing Sources and Uses 511,596.00 0.00 90,909.64 17.77% Net Revenues After Other Financing Sources and
Uses

0.00 0.00 (6,396.00) 0.00%
24 87
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
321 - SBR Engineering Fund
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Expenditures
SBR Contract-Engineering & Others 518
Contract Services - Engineering 63611 411,649.00 0.00 12,322.70 2.99% Total SBR Contract-Engineering & Others 411,649.00 0.00 12,322.70 2.99% Total Expenditures 411,649.00 0.00 12,322.70 2.99%
Net Revenues (411,649.00) 0.00 (12,322.70)
Net Revenues After Other Financing Sources and
Uses
(411,649.00) 0.00 (12,322.70)
25 88
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
331 - FHA Grant Fund
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Revenue
Non Department Specific 000
FHWA Grant 47523 543,400.00 0.00 501,655.54 92.31%
Total Non Department Specific 543,400.00 0.00 501,655.54 92.32% Total Revenue 543,400.00 0.00 501,655.54 92.32%
Expenditures
Rosita Emergency Repairs 539
Contract Services - Engineering 63611 4,019.22 0.00 1,421.00 35.35% Road Construction 66411 48,806.78 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Total Rosita Emergency Repairs 52,826.00 0.00 1,421.00 2.69% Total Expenditures 52,826.00 0.00 1,421.00 2.69%
Net Revenues 490,574.00 0.00 500,234.54
Net Revenues After Other Financing Sources and
Uses
490,574.00 0.00 500,234.54
26 89
Item 3.

City of Del Rey Oaks
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
332 - FEMA & OES
From 3/1/2026 Through 3/31/2026
Budget
FY 2026
Actual
March 2026
Actual
FY 2026 YTD
Collected/Spent
Percent
Expenditures
City Hall Facility Repairs & Upgrades 541
Repairs and Improvements 66322 4,851.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total City Hall Facility Repairs & Upgrades 4,851.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Expenditures 4,851.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Net Revenues (4,851.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Net Revenues After Other Financing Sources and
Uses
(4,851.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00%
27 90
Item 3.

Vendor Name PO Number Encumbrance Description Enc Date Encumbrance Amount Current Balance Fund
Code
DeptProject
Code
GL
Code
Access Monterey Penninsula, Inc. PO2526-36 Video operators to produce, braodcst, record and live stream DRO meetings
7/1/2025 7,200.00 6,600.00 100 111 63508
CHAVAN AND ASSOCIATES, LLP PO2526-37 City Audit Services FY 2026 7/1/2025 40,000.00 8,215.00 100 130 63625 5,000.00 275.00
45,000.00 8,490.00
Dell Financial Services LLC PO2526-38 Power Edge R660xs Server 8/26/2025 5,276.35 0.01 100 210 64318 G.P.S. SOLUTIONS PO2526-39 FY25/26 Plan Checking & Building Inspection Services
7/1/2025 54,849.28 17,984.31 100 160 63648
MONTEREY BAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. PO2526-41 FY25/26 IT Services Retainer 7/1/2025 9,000.00 3,300.00 100 111 63635 MONTEREY BAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. PO2526-41 FY25/26 IT Services Retainer 7/1/2025 9,000.00 3,300.00 100 210 63635 Total PO2526-41 FY25/26 IT Services Retainer 7/1/2025 18,000.00 6,600.00 SMITH & ENRIGHT LANDSCAPING, INC PO2526-42 FY25-26 Weekly Landscape Maintenance 8/26/2025 16,680.00 7,440.00 100 411 63505 FENTON & KELLER PO2526-44 FY25/26 Legal Services 7/1/2025 80,000.00 59,307.31 100 150 63650 FENTON & KELLER PO2526-44 FY25/26 Legal Services 7/1/2025 3,000.00 1,269.70 100 210 63650 Total PO2526-44 FY25/26 Legal Services 7/1/2025 83,000.00 60,577.01 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERIVCES PO2526-45 FY25/26 Accounting Services 9/11/2025 150,000.00 21,940.84 100 130 63645 CITY OF SEASIDE PO2526-46 FY 25/26 Fire Protection 7/1/2025 243,713.00 121,856.50 100 220 63810 County of Monterey PO2526-47 FY25/26 9-1-1 Dispatch & Related Services
7/1/2025 46,360.00 40.00 100 210 63665
County of Monterey PO2526-47 FY25/26 9-1-1 Dispatch & Related Services
7/1/2025 10,822.00 88.00 100 210 63668
County of Monterey PO2526-47 FY25/26 9-1-1 Dispatch & Related Services
7/1/2025 315.00 0.00 100 210 63669
Total PO2526-47 FY25/26 9-1-1 Dispatch & Related
Services
7/1/2025 57,497.00 128.00
MONTEREY PENINSULA ENGINEERING, PO2526-48 Slurry & restripig of the road and intersection
7/1/2025 35,000.00 35,000.00 211 539 66327
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES PO2526-52 Task 772 Former Fort Ord Planning 7/1/2025 5,000.00 612.00 100 160 63640 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES PO2526-53 Task 776 Planning & Consulting 7/1/2025 30,000.00 15,856.00 100 160 63640 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES PO2526-54 Task 779-D Adoption & Finalization HCD 7/1/2025 7,000.00 4.50 100 160 63642 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES PO2526-55 Task 779-E Housing Element Implementation
7/1/2025 43,000.00 37,702.00 100 160 63642
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES PO2526-56 Task 782 Habitat Managment Plan 7/1/2025 30,000.00 29,741.75 221 160 63646 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES PO2526-57 Task 4 - Project 2024-40 South Boundary Road Realignment
7/1/2025 90,500.00 88,110.30 321 518 63611
Whitson Engineers PO2526-59 SBR Engineering - Contract Services 7/1/2025 320,000.00 310,067.00 321 518 63611 JAMES DE CHALK PO2526-60 Janitorial Services 12/16/2025 4,900.00 4,200.00 100 180 63660 12/16/2025 4,900.00 4,200.00 100 210 63660
9,800.00 8,400.00
City of Seaside PO2526-61 Street Sweeeping 9/3/2025 12,068.16 12,068.16 210 311 63510 Coronado PO2526-62 Mobile Car Repairs 12/16/2025 13,342.97 10,385.29 100 210 63730 Coronado PO2526-62 Mobile Car Repairs 12/16/2025 1,133.17 1,133.17 100 311 63730 14,476.14 11,518.46
Neil Engineering PO2526-63 Engineering Services 10/1/2025 25,000.00 18,604.00 301 548 66429 Monterey Regional PO2526-64 FY 2026 SB1383 Implementation 7/1/2025 14,000.00 7,000.00 100 311 63654 Monterey Regional PO2526-65 Ft Ord Developemt Consulting Services 2/24/2026 75,000.00 62,684.98 100 160 63639 Report Balance $ 1,392,059.93 $ 888,985.82
City of Del Rey Oaks
Encumbrance Summary
Balance as of 03/31/2026
28 91
Item 3.

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 28, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Guertin, City Manager; Chris Bourquin, Chief of Police SUBJECT: 2026 Agreement for 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Services CEQA: This action is not a project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to execute the revised 2026 Agreement for 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Services and Governance.

BACKGROUND
The 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is a regional agreement between the County of Monterey and participating jurisdictions, including the City of Del Rey Oaks, for emergency call-taking and dispatch services.

The current 9-1-1 Services Agreement was executed in 2020. The Emergency Communications Department staff have completed a revision of the agreement, attached hereto. This item is to authorize the City Manager to execute that revision.

DISCUSSION
The revised agreement updates provisions related to the Executive Board’s composition and voting procedures. It requires the Board to meet quarterly, permits the use of alternates, and allows routine actions to be approved by a majority vote of a quorum rather than requiring unanimity. However, unanimous approval remains necessary for amendments to the Agreement or bylaws, as well as for adding or removing participating parties. The revisions also require the Operations Board to meet at least annually and formally establish its quorum as five members, with specified representation requirements.
92 Item 1.

The agreement further clarifies the relationship between the Emergency Communications Department (ECD) and the Next Generation Emergency Network (NGEN). NGEN is a countywide, consolidated radio communications system implemented by the County of Monterey to support law enforcement, fire, ambulance, and 9-1-1 dispatch services.

These updates align the 9-1-1 Services Agreement with the NGEN Services and Governance Agreement and clarify responsibilities for managing radio infrastructure under NGEN. Specifically, ECD is designated as responsible for calltaking and dispatch operations. The agreement also clarifies that ECD does not dispatch ambulances except where local arrangements exist, and defines its role in emergency medical calls as initial call-taking and transfer to the appropriate EMS provider. Additional minor revisions address emergency notification system billing, complaint handling, and reporting procedures.

FISCAL IMPACT
The revision has no fiscal impact on the City as the revision does not modify the cost sharing formula currently in place.

CEQA
This action is not a project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Agreement
93 Item 1.

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL REY OAKS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE 2026 9-1-1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

AND GOVERNANCE AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the Agreement.

PASSED AND ADOPTED on April 28, 2026.
94 Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026

AGREEMENT
FOR 9-1-1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND

GOVERNANCE
This agreement is made and entered into as of the date of last signature, by and between the County of Monterey, a political subdivision of the State of California (“County”), and the Cities, Fire Districts and other organizations listed below (County and these entities may be referred to collectively as the “Parties”):

Fire Police
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea X
City of Del Rey Oaks X
City of Gonzales X X
City of Greenfield X X
City of King X X
City of Marina X X
City of Monterey X X
City of Pacific Grove X X
City of Salinas X X
City of Sand City X
City of Seaside X X
City of Soledad X X
Monterey County Regional Fire
Protection District
X
North County Fire Protection District of
Monterey County
X
Big Sur Volunteer Fire Brigade X
Mid Coast Fire Brigade X
Miscellaneous Agencies
California State University, Monterey Bay X
Monterey Peninsula Airport District X X
Correctional Training/ Salinas Valley
State Prison
X

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to participate in a countywide public safety communicationsand emergency 9-1-1 dispatch system (System) consisting of all necessary 9-1-1 call taking, logging, dispatching, communications and other related services and technology for law enforcement, fire, emergency medical and other services; WHEREAS, the Parties desire to collaborate as partners to better serve the public with the understanding that a formal structure will enable the County to work with representatives of the Parties and users of the System to achieve clear policy direction and consistent coordination regarding emergency dispatch services;
95 Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
WHEREAS, the County, through its Department of Emergency Communications and under the governance of the Board of Supervisors, is willing and able to furnish such services through a mutually agreeable cost sharing plan;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree to utilize mutually owned and/or licensed equipment and resources including, but not limited to: facilities for housing staff or equipment, telephone system(s), a computer aided dispatch system and other shared infrastructure that exists today and may be installed in the future;
WHEREAS, the County of Monterey and participating jurisdictions have entered into a separate Services and Governance Agreement to support the Next Generation Radio System (NGEN), which provides for the shared operation, maintenance, and management of critical public safety radio infrastructure in alignment with, but independent from, this 9-1-1 Services Agreement;
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to work in partnership to provide input, direction and advisory decision-making on items such as operations, budget, strategy, and vision as they pertain to the County’s provision of emergency call taking, non-emergency call taking, fire, law enforcement and medical dispatching and associated emergency communications services; and
WHEREAS, the County has previously provided these services pursuant to a written agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. DEFINITIONS
A Assets: Real estate, structures, equipment, and intellectual property dedicated to, used by, or generated for use in the 9-1-1 communications system and associated emergency services. “County Assets” include property purchased or otherwise acquired by the County, without financial contributions from other member Agencies. “System Assets” include property purchased or otherwise acquired by the Parties in common. Those Parties that did not contribute to the purchase, acquisition, or generation of an asset do not hold ownership rights in that asset.

B County: The County has several roles as administrator of the System, provider of services, and as a recipient of services. A “County Service Department” refers to a department of the County that directly bills Emergency Communications for services.

C County Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors for the County of Monterey, pursuant to Government Code section 25000, is the governing body for the County of Monterey. It has final authority regarding all aspects 96 Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
of the 9-1-1 system, including budget, for delivery of emergency communications services.

D County-wide Cost Allocation Plan: The County-wide Cost Allocation Plan is the mechanism used by the County to bill overhead charges to County departments.

E Director: The Director of the County of Monterey Emergency Communications Department, a County employee, as further described herein.

F Emergency Communications Department (ECD): The County department responsible for providing emergency and non-emergency public safety communications services to participating jurisdictions under this Agreement.

ECD’s responsibilities include 9-1-1 call-taking, non-emergency call handling and dispatch operations for law enforcement and fire services. ECD also provides initial call triage for medical emergencies before transferring to the designated EMS provider.

G Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Agency: the Local Emergency Medical Services Agency (LEMSA) designated by the County pursuant to the California Emergency Medical Services System and the Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act. The EMS Agency is responsible for medical control, regulatory oversight, system design and provider authorization for emergency medical services within the County.

H EMS Provider: the contract ambulance service provider authorized by the EMS Agency and selected by a Participating Jurisdiction to deliver emergency and/or non-emergency medical transportation services. The EMS Provider is responsible for field response and coordination in accordance with EMS Agency protocols and the terms of its service agreement.

I Executive Board: The Executive Board is comprised of certain executives of the Parties and represents the Parties as specified in this agreement.

J Fiscal Year: A “Fiscal Year” is defined as July 1 of each year to June 30 of the following year.

K Emergency Communications Boards (EC Boards): The Emergency Communications Boards are the Executive Board and the Operations Board whose responsibilities are specified in this agreement.

L Information Technology Department (ITD): The County department responsible for providing and maintaining countywide information technology infrastructure and services, including network connectivity, cybersecurity, County-wide enterprise systems, and County-managed computer hardware 97 Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
used by the Emergency Communications Department (ECD). ITD also operates and maintains the Next Generation Radio System (NGEN) pursuant to the separate Agreement for NGEN Services and Governance.

M Operations Board: The Operations Board is comprised of certain representatives of the law enforcement and fire protection agencies that are Users, as defined below, directly receiving services as specified in this agreement.

N Parties: The County and the Cities, Fire Districts, and other organizations that are signatory to this agreement.

O User: Any entity directly receiving emergency communications services from the County through ECD, including County Departments, such as but not limited to, the County of Monterey Sheriff and the EMS provider utilized by the County of Monterey, and including the public safety departments and subentities of the Parties to this agreement. The Parties understand and agree that each Party may have one or more Users of ECD services pursuant to this agreement.

P Miscellaneous Agencies: Non-Voting Agencies that do not have all three billable factors of "population, assessed property value, workload" necessary to be charged with the Standard Cost Sharing model such as Municipal, State and Federal entities that contract for services with the County of Monterey for Emergency Communications, e.g. State College and Correctional Facilities.

2. DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
A The Director is a County of Monterey department head position.

B The duties of the Director are to plan, organize, coordinate, administer, and direct all activities of the Emergency Communications Department.

C The Director shall be selected by the County Administrative Officer (CAO).

1. In the selection of the Director, the CAO shall seek concurrence from the Executive Board, but the CAO shall retain authority to select, hire, evaluate, discipline and release the Director.

2. In reviewing the performance of the Director, the CAO shall consult with the Executive Board and shall receive a written statement from the Executive Board regarding the Director’s performance in meeting the standard herein, which will become part of the overall review. Still, all personnel evaluation decisions regarding the Director shall be the sole purview of the CAO.

D The Director will consult with the EC Boards in matters related to ECD operational priorities, financial and budgetary requirements, policies and problem-solving. ECD operational decisions shall be the sole purview of the 98 Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
County, acting through the Director.

E The Director, at the request of the Executive Board, will seek accreditation from an appropriate accreditation group.

3. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS BOARDS (EC Boards)
A The Parties agree to the formation of the EC Boards to consult and advise on the emergency communications and dispatch services provided by the ECD.

Responsibilities of the EC Boards are defined herein. For those items where the EC Boards do not have direct responsibility, such as, but not limited to, labor relations, the County shall coordinate and collaborate in good faith with the Parties through the EC Boards. The governance structure established by any other agreement affecting the delivery of 9-1-1 emergency communications is revoked to the extent that it conflicts with the governance structure established by this agreement.

B The EC Boards shall work in conjunction with the Director in developing a strategic plan for the delivery of emergency communications services.

4. EXECUTIVE BOARD
A Voting members: Comprised of four City Managers---one city manager representing Salinas, one city manager representing the South County Cities of Gonzales, Greenfield, Soledad, and King City, one city manager representing the North Peninsula Cities of Marina, Seaside, and Sand City, and one city manager representing the South Peninsula Cities of Carmel-by-the Sea, Monterey, Del Rey Oaks, and Pacific Grove; plus one representative of the Fire Districts, one representative of the County of Monterey Sheriff, and the CAO, for a total of seven (7) voting Executive Board members. Each of these positions shall also have an Alternate who may act as a full Board Member in the absence of the Board Member. The Alternate must be set in advance through an agendized notification to the ECD Executive Board. The three City Managers representing the South County Cities, North Peninsula Cities, and the South Peninsula Cities will be selected by members of the Monterey Bay Area Manager’s Group. The Fire District Representative will be selected by the Monterey County Fire District's and Volunteer Fire Company Association. The Alternates will be selected by the same groups with the City of Salinas and the County of Monterey Sheriff selecting their own Alternates.

B Each Voting Member will have one equally weighted vote. Voting Members must be Present for their vote to count. To be considered Present a Voting Member must attend in person or through Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code section 54950-54963 (Brown Act) compliant remote attendance for their vote to count. The weight of each vote shall be dependent upon how many voting members are present with the total weight always equaling 100% and a quorum 99 Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
must be present for voting to occur.

C A quorum for conducting business shall consist of at least four Executive Board members representing at least 50% of the total dispatch center funding as defined by the current cost-sharing formulas.

D Approval of actions by the Executive Board shall require a majority vote of the Executive Board members present at a meeting where quorum is established.

E All operational and financial decisions within the scope of the approved budget shall remain under the exclusive authority of the Director of the ECD.

F A unanimous vote of the quorum shall be required to: Amend this Agreement, create or amend the bylaws, or admit or remove a Participating Party.

1. All recommendations and other actions taken by the Executive Board pursuant to this agreement require a vote of a quorum at a duly noticed and conducted meeting, that includes the following non- voting advisors:
1 County of Monterey ECD Director or their designee

2. The following non-voting advisors of the Executive Board are NOT required to be present at a meeting for a vote on any recommendation or action are:
1 County of Monterey EMS Bureau Chief
2 Chief Information Officer for the County of Monterey
3 Operations Board Chairperson or Vice Chair

3. The presence or absence of an advisor at a meeting of the Executive Board shall not count towards establishing a quorum.

G The Executive Board shall meet at least four times per Fiscal Year and shall give reasonable notice of all meetings to all Users and all Parties. Meetings of the Executive Board shall be conducted in compliance with the requirements of the Brown Act.

H Executive Board meeting agendas will be physically posted and electronically posted on the ECD web site in accordance with Brown Act requirements.

I The Executive Board shall elect a chair and such other officers as it sees fit.The Executive Board may establish procedures for its business and operations, create committees composed of the Party representatives or other persons, and perform such other acts that do not violate the terms of this agreement, the bylaws adopted by the Executive Board or applicable law. 100
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
J Tenure: In the event of removal, resignation, or death of a voting member of the Executive Board, the entity responsible for appointment of that member shall promptly appoint a successor to fill the position.

K Executive Board Duties

1. The Parties understand and agree that the Executive Board has the responsibility, under this agreement, to make recommendations that affect the costs, nature and scope of the emergency communications services provided to their organizations; recommendations regarding the costs, nature, and scope of the emergency communications services provided to the Parties under this agreement shall be made at Executive Board meetings at which a quorum of voting members is present; all recommendations made by the Executive Board shall be enacted by a vote of the quorum following voting rules set forth in this agreement.

2. From time to time, ECD’s budget may be augmented pursuant to this Agreement to provide special funding as needed for reasons such as, but not limited to, purchase of special or upgraded equipment, replacement of failed equipment, purchase of emergency communications system software and hardware; the Executive Board shall recommend equitable apportionment of such special costs among the Parties, as otherwise provided in this agreement.

3. The Executive Board may recommend that the County, acting through the Board of Supervisors, enter into binding service agreements on behalf of all Parties or it may recommend that a service be referred to the affected Users’ governing bodies for approval before a service is implemented.

4. The Executive Board may make recommendations to the County, through ECD, regarding emergency communications services program and budget-related issues. Executive Board members shall be responsible for providing information on emergency communications services program and budget issues to the Users that they represent.

Users shall present such information to their governing bodies, as they deem appropriate.

5. The Executive Board shall have the responsibility to propose to the Parties fiscal policies that affect the Parties and Users.

6. The Executive Board shall meet at least four times per fiscal year, provided a quorum can be present, to receive reports from the Director or designee on all policy matters pertaining to budget, personnel, equipment, operations, or fiscal issues which could affect costs to Users. The Executive Board may review items presented by 101
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
the County, items initiated by members of the Executive Board and items initiated by Parties and Users.

7. Notwithstanding the duties of the Executive Board to recommend policies regarding emergency communications services, where services provided or administered by ECD are not used by all the Parties, the representatives of those Parties using the respective services shall have primary responsibility for recommending policies with respect to those services; these policies shall not conflict with the County’s policies or other ECD departmental policies. Any costs of special services shall be the responsibility of the using Party(s). The County will determine policy on unique services used by specified Parties, taking into account their recommendations, made pursuant to this provision.

8. The Executive Board may appoint Standing and Ad Hoc Committee(s) as necessary to advise it on technical matters or to consider special issues.

9. The Executive Board shall provide policy recommendations and input to the ECD Director. Operational decisions on the delivery of 9-1-1 services shall be the sole purview of the County, acting through the Director as provided in Section 2, subsection D of this Agreement.

10. The Executive Board may request financial or performance audit(s) of the ECD, including that the auditor be independent from the County. The costs of an independent financial audit shall be borne, proportionally, by the Parties as specified in this agreement. Upon the Executive Board’s request for an audit, the Emergency Communications Department will cooperate in such audits.

11. Bylaws. The Executive Board may adopt bylaws consistent with this agreement, which may be amended from time to time. These by-laws shall serve as the guiding governance document for the Executive Board in performing its duties under this agreement. In the event of a conflict between the Executive Board’s Bylaws and this agreement, this agreement shall prevail.
1 The Executive Board shall provide 30-day advance notice to the Parties of any scheduled Executive Board meeting at which it will consider a proposal to amend the by-laws.
2 Amendments to the bylaws must be approved by a vote of the Executive Board per the voting requirements in Section 4 of this Agreement.
102
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026

5. OPERATIONS BOARD
A Membership of the Operations Board consists of executives, or their designees, from two law enforcement agencies, two fire protection agencies, and the County of Monterey Sheriff, City of Salinas Police Chief, City of Salinas Fire Chief, and the Director of the County’s ECD, for a total of eight members.

B Representatives of the law enforcement agencies and the fire protection agencies will be selected by their respective Chiefs associations.

C The Parties agree that attendance and full participation by all Operations Board members are crucial. A quorum shall be defined as five voting members. It must include at least one representative from the City of Salinas and at least one law and one fire representative from any agency (the City of Salinas representative may count). Designees shall count towards quorum and must verbally identify themselves during roll-call. A quorum shall be established for each meeting of the Operations Board. After three unexcused absences by any one member of the Operations Board, the entity or entities represented by that member shall appoint a different individual to serve as a member of the Operations Board.

D Each member has one vote; there shall be no weighted voting.

E The affirmative vote by a majority of a quorum of the voting members present at an Operations Board meeting is required for the Operations Board to take action.

F Key responsibilities of the Operations Board include:

1. Creating and tasking internal User Groups to resolve issues, develop protocols; investigate technologies, and address other operational issues associated with emergency communications and dispatch services.

These User Groups may include:
1 Dedicated Fire Dispatch (DFD) subcommittee of the Monterey County Fire Chiefs Association
2 The Monterey County Law Enforcement Agency Association (MCLEAA) subcommittee of the Monterey County Chief Law
Enforcement Officers Association.
3 Other User Groups as needed.

2. Providing recommendations to the Executive Board on operational policies, goals, and operational enhancements, including those that have budgetary implications.

G Meets at least once annually and as needed to provide input and make recommendations on operational issues that impact multiple Parties. Duties

1. The Operations Board may provide operational policy recommendations. 103
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026

2. The Operations Board shall have responsibility to provide recommendations regarding matters pertaining to operating policies that affect multiple Parties.

3. The Operations Board may receive reports from the Director or designee on major operational issues that impact multiple Parties.

4. The Operations Board may review items presented by the County, initiated by members of the Operations Board, and initiated by Users and Parties.

5. Where services are provided or administered by ECD, and are not used by all the Parties, the representatives of those Parties using the respective services shall have primary responsibility for recommending operational policies with respect to those services; these policies shall not conflict with County-wide policies or with ECD departmental policies.

Any costs of special services shall be the responsibility of the using Party(s). County will determine policy on unique services used by specified Parties, taking into account their recommendations, made pursuant to this provision.

6. The Operations Board may appoint Standing and Ad Hoc Committee(s) as necessary to advise it on technical matters or to consider special issues.

7. In advance of addition of new technology or services that increase costs to User Agencies, the Operations Board shall identify and recommend cost sharing and funding mechanisms. This shall include technology and services that are funded by grants but that may have future additional costs such as for maintenance.

8. The Operations Board will recommend to the Executive Board, as it sees fit, programmatic performance audits and reviews of the Emergency Communications Department.

9. Bylaws. The Operations Board may adopt bylaws consistent with this agreement, which may be amended from time to time. These by-laws shall be the guiding governance document for the Operations Board in performing its duties under this agreement. In the event of a conflict between the By-Laws and this agreement, this agreement shall prevail. 1 The Operations Board shall provide 30-days advance notice to the Parties of any scheduled Operations Board meeting at which it will consider a proposal to amend the by-laws.
2 Amendments to Operations Board bylaws must be approved by all members of the Operations Board.
104
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026

6. COUNTY OBLIGATIONS
A The County shall provide 9-1-1 call-taking and dispatch services through ECD, excluding radio infrastructure support and maintenance. The County, through the IT Department, provides radio services through the Agreement for NGEN Services and Governance.

B The County shall provide all answering services for calls made to Users’ nonemergency telephone number (one number per User).

C The County shall dispatch User law enforcement, fire, and in jurisdictions where specific local arrangements apply emergency medical field units and shall provide associated services, including status reporting and activity reports.

D The County, through its Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Agency, contracts separately for ambulance dispatch and transport under the Ambulance Services Agreement. The Emergency Communications Department (ECD) does not dispatch ambulance units under this 9-1-1 Services Agreement, except in jurisdictions where specific local arrangements apply. ECD’s role is limited to initial call-taking, defined as the receipt and processing of telephone calls, including the entry of basic location and incident information into the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system, followed by the transfer of the call to the designated ambulance dispatch provider. Responsibility for ambulance unit deployment and oversight remains solely with the EMS Agency and the contracted provider under the Ambulance Services Agreement.

E The County shall, upon agreement with the individual Parties, provide responses to urgent or emergency data inquiries made by Users’ field units.

F At the request of a User agency, the County may provide additional public safety call-taking or dispatch-related services beyond the scope of this Agreement. Such services shall be considered upon recommendation by the Operations and Executive Boards and are subject to final approval by the Director of Emergency Communications. All costs for additional services shall be the responsibility of the requesting agency and shall be memorialized in a separate written agreement.

G The County shall provide and maintain all necessary consoles, and telephone systems, located in its communications center(s).

H The County shall operate and maintain the telecommunications systems and associated infrastructure necessary to support the Emergency Communications Department’s 9-1-1 call-taking and dispatch functions.

Equipment and transmission systems that are exclusively used by an individual User agency—such as mobile, portable, base station, or remote radio and data terminals—shall be the sole responsibility of that User agency and 105
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
maintained at that agency’s expense. This section does not apply to infrastructure or services governed under the Agreement for NGEN Services and Governance.

I County shall coordinate, administer, and maintain all systems defined by the EC Boards to benefit all Parties and Users, including development of standard operating procedures that may include training of Parties’ and Users’ staff to meet their responsibilities. All systems shall be maintained and operated consistent with applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules and regulations such as the State of California Department of Justice and Federal Communications Commission.

J The County, on behalf of all Parties, may pursue grant opportunities and other external funding sources as appropriate. Applications shall be made with authorization from the County Board of Supervisors. Any funds awarded shall be applied to proportionately offset the Parties’ share of applicable project expenses.

K County shall provide technical expertise in emergency communications and dispatch services and as well as associated administrative services such as, but not limited to, human resources, budgeting, auditor, treasurer, and technical support.

L The County shall notify the Executive Board of finalized decisions that may materially affect the cost or delivery of emergency communications services under this Agreement, including implemented salary or benefit adjustments, layoffs, or scheduling impacts such as winter recess. The County shall not disclose pending labor negotiations or confidential matters related to collective bargaining. However, the County will consider feedback from the EC Boards on the operational impacts of such decisions once formally adopted.

M With the approval of the County Board of Supervisors, County shall be the signatory on agreements with third-party vendors for services such as, but not limited to, support of systems required under this agreement.

N The County shall provide appropriate management, supervision, and administrative support for all emergency communications and dispatch services delivered through this Agreement. The EC Boards may make recommendations regarding service enhancements or alternative approaches to support operational efficiency. The County shall consider such recommendations in good faith, consistent with applicable laws, fiscal constraints, and operational requirements.

O The County shall bill to Users all costs associated with providing 9-1-1 emergency call taking, non-emergency call-taking, law enforcement dispatch, fire dispatch, emergency medical dispatch, and other emergency 106
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
communications or associated services in accordance with Section 13 ofthis agreement.

P The County will support, participate in, and cooperate with financial and programmatic audits and reviews of the Emergency Communications Department as recommended by the Executive and Operations Boards.

Q For direct and indirect costs that County will bill to Users as part of this agreement, County shall provide invoices or other available supporting documents in a timely manner and in accordance with Section 13 ofthis agreement.

R County-requested projects requiring contribution from the Parties shall be submitted by the County, through the Director, to the Executive Board, in advance of incurring costs. The Executive Board shall make recommendations to the County on the projects and costs.

7. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE USERS AND PARTIES
A Each Party, through its representative on the EC Boards, shall support the effective management and operation of the emergency communications system by providing technical and operational input to inform system design, functionality, and usage. Such input will help ensure the system meets both individual and collective public safety needs, while operational authority remains with the County.

B Each Party shall be responsible for communicating with its constituents and governing bodies about the emergency communications systems.

C Each Party shall, at its own cost, be responsible for the procurement, maintenance, and replacement of its assets that are not System Assets Such assets must be (1) compatible with the systems used by County of Monterey Emergency Communications Department, (2) serve an individual User, and (3) used by that User’s personnel at that Party’s expense. Each Party shall pay all costs associated with those assets.

D Each Party utilizing Mobile Data Communications System (MDCS) services shall, at its own expense, be responsible for the procurement, maintenance, and use of equipment that is compatible with the County’s technology infrastructure in effect at that time and coordinate directly with the County’s Information Technology Department (ITD), and any associated costs shall be borne by the Party. These services and expenses are separate from the emergency communications services and budget administered by ECD.

E The Executive Board, with input from the Operations Board, may recommend to the County cost-sharing formulas on behalf of all Users for additional future emergency communications services provided by the County under 107
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
this Agreement. This excludes services governed by separate agreements.

F All Parties shall provide information requested by the County or the EC Boards such as device inventory, in a timely manner.

G Each Party shall comply with future requirements as recommended by the EC Boards. This may include but is not limited to required operational agreements, training, or upgrades of systems to comply with state or federal requirements.

H Where applicable and feasible, and at the request of the Executive Board, all Parties shall cooperate in supporting the acquisition of external funding such as grants or earmarks. Parties are not obligated to seek or administer grants independently but may assist when opportunities align with mutual goals or operational needs. If any portion of the emergency communications system is funded through grants, contracts, or earmarks secured by any Party, all Parties shall comply with applicable provisions of such agreements to the extent required. Upon request, the Party awarded the funding shall provide a copy of the relevant documentation to any requesting Party at no cost.

8. TERM AND RENEWAL OF THE AGREEMENT
A The Effective Date of this agreement shall be the date that all Parties have signed the agreement, with the County signing last. Simultaneous to the effective date of the agreement, the County and the Parties agree that the following agreements are revoked and are no longer in effect:

1. All pre-existing 9-1-1 Services Agreements including by-laws, addressing emergency communications and dispatch services in the County of Monterey.

B The initial term of this agreement shall be for three years plus the remainder of the fiscal year that the agreement is executed, unless terminated sooner by mutual consent of all Parties.

1. Any Party seeking to withdraw may do so starting with the end of year three of the agreement and only after providing a two-year advance notice to the Executive Board and to all other Parties as specified in Section 8, subsection G below.

C Upon completion of the initial three-year term, this agreement shall automatically be renewed for successive periods of two years.

D Any Party seeking to withdraw may do so only after providing a two-year (24 months) advance written notice to (1) the Executive Board and (ii) to all other Parties. Notices of intention to withdraw shall be mailed or delivered to (i) each member of the Executive Board and (ii) to each Party at the address identified on the signature pages of this agreement.

E If a Party withdraws pursuant to this Section, the agreement will remain valid for 108
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
those Parties that have elected to remain party to this agreement and any costs that are shared among the Parties shall be reallocated to reflect proportionate share for the Parties continuing to participate. All costs for the remainder of the fiscal year that a party withdraws in is the responsibility of the withdrawing party.

F In the event of withdrawal by a Party which is providing resources (such as licenses, site, or other resources) to the benefit of all Users, that resource shall be left intact and in service and that Party shall negotiate in good faith with the County and remaining Parties for continuing use of that resource.

G Voluntary Withdrawal.

1. A withdrawing Party shall provide the EC Boards with written notice of intent to withdraw 24 months before the effective date of withdrawal, a written timetable for withdrawal, and a description of the way the withdrawal will be conducted. The withdrawing Party’s plan for withdrawal shall minimize disruption to other Parties and Users. The withdrawing Party shall provide any other appropriate information requested by the EC Boards or the Director, to allow the development of strategies to mitigate disruption to the remaining Users.

2. Such withdrawing Party shall continue to fund its portion of the Emergency Communications budget pursuant to this agreement for 24 months plus the remainder of the fiscal year in which the withdrawal occurs after issuance of its notice of withdrawal.

3. A withdrawing Party shall agree to a buy-out agreement to retire any financial obligations of the withdrawing Party. The Party will remain responsible for any services that will continue to be provided by the County.

4. Upon withdrawal, the withdrawing Party relinquishes all rights to System Assets.

5. A withdrawing Party that is a member of an EC Board shall notify the applicable appointing authority of its intention to withdraw at the same time that it notifies the other Parties of its withdrawal. If a withdrawing Party holds a seat on an EC Board representing other parties, that Party’s seat shall be reassigned immediately upon receipt of the written notice to withdraw.

6. A Party that has withdrawn from its participation in this Agreement shall not be entitled to refund of any costs that it has incurred for the system through to the date of termination.

H Termination for Cause. The County, in consultation with the Executive Board, may terminate the participation of any Party for cause, including a Party’s failure to fully fund or fully pay budgeted costs, as well as any other breach of 109
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
this agreement (default). Cause for termination includes compliance with any requirement imposed upon the Parties as specified in this agreement.

1. The Termination for Cause process shall include the following steps:
1 Written notice by the Director of the Emergency Communications Department or designee to the Party, with a copy to Executive Board members. Such notice shall advise the Party of the reason for possible termination. The notice shall further advise that the Party may cure its default within 30 days of the notice and thereby avoid termination.
2 If the defaulting Party begins to cure such default, the 30-day cure period will be extended by additional 30-day extensions, for as long as the defaulting Party continues to diligently prosecute such a cure to completion.
3 If the defaulting Party does not cure the default within 30 days, termination of the defaulting Party shall be placed on the agenda for next Executive Board meeting. The Executive Board shall request in writing that the defaulting Party attend that meeting.

The defaulting Party shall be asked to provide either (1) a plan for curing its default or (2) a plan for withdrawal, as detailed below.
4 If the Executive Board finds the defaulting Party’s plan for curing its default unacceptable, the Executive Board may determine by majority vote to recommend to the County that it terminate the defaulting Party’s participation in this Agreement or to take other appropriate measures (e.g. lien).
5 If the Executive Board decides to recommend termination of the defaulting Party from this Agreement, the Executive Board shall provide written notice to the defaulting Party that it recommends to the County that services provided under this agreement be terminated, effective 24 months following the date of delivery of the notice. A copy of the written notice of recommended termination delivered to a defaulting Party shall be provided to County. The County retains final authority and discretion to terminate a defaulting party and to determine the date that services provided under this agreement will be terminated. 6 A Party terminated by the County for cause remains liable for its portion of emergency communications system costs up to the effective termination date, as well as applicable damages, collection costs, and interest.
110
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
7 The Executive Board may recommend to the County allocation of remaining System Assets among the Parties to the County or it may recommend to the County allowing the terminated Party to retain the value of its System Assets, with the stipulation that use of the system will not be made available to that Party, unless and until the Party agrees to cure all defaults/breaches as set out above.

2. The terminated Party forfeits all other rights.

3. Rights of Remaining Parties. Once the un-depreciated value of the system assets used by the defaulting Party is determined, the Executive Board may recommend to the County reallocating the system value and allocating system costs proportionally among the remaining parties. A Party that has been terminated by the County or that has withdrawn from participation shall not be entitled to refund of any costs that it has incurred for the system to the date of termination.

I Dissolution. This agreement may be voluntarily terminated by the agreement of all the Parties. As part of the termination of this agreement and dissolution of the system, the County, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, shall distribute System Assets in proportion to the contribution made by all Parties.

9. SERVICE QUALITY AND CONDITIONS
A The quality of system services to be provided to all Parties and Users shall, in the absence of explicitly adopted exceptions, be equal to or above established industry standards. The adopted standards and best practices shall be based upon those established by APCO, NFPA, NENA, POST, ISO, CalOES 9-1-1 Branch, and others identified by the EC Boards. In those areas where there are no industry standards, or where the established standard is not appropriate for the County of Monterey, the Director shall recommend standards and advise the EC Boards regarding budgetary, service level and other resources required to meet those standards. The EC Boards shall consider those recommendations and agree to appropriate System standards in good faith.

B Emergency Communications systems performance shall be measured in accordance with those standards developed as indicated above. The Director shall report at least annually to Parties and Users through the EC Boards regarding performance. The EC Boards may review the level of performance being achieved for each agency/User and for the whole operation in comparison to the standards and in comparison, to the levels of performance achieved in previous periods.
111
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
In reviewing system performance, the EC Boards shall consider staffing, technology, or other limitations impacting the ability to meet standards. The reporting interval may differ for different standards.

C The County, in consultation with the EC Boards, will evaluate the feasibility of accreditation by appropriate accrediting groups, (i.e., CALEA, APCO, etc.), taking into account the investment of County staffing levels and County resources required. Final decision regarding pursuit of accreditation will remain in the sole discretion of the County. The accreditations referred to by this provision of this Agreement do not refer to or include accreditation of the County’s contract ambulance services provider.

D During the budget development process, the Director shall recommend, and the EC Boards shall evaluate, the nature and scope of services to be provided to Users. The Director shall consider requests from Users desiring increased levels of service; such requests may be recommended to the County through the Executive Board.

E Procedures related to dispatch operations will be developed by the Director, with input, as needed, from recognized advisory groups (e.g., Law Chiefs or Fire Chiefs.) Any dispute or conflict regarding a dispatch procedure will first be addressed by the Director to determine if a resolution can be reached. If no resolution can be agreed to by the affected parties, the EC Boards may be consulted, with the final determination of appropriate action to be made by the County, acting through the Director.

F The Director or their designee will promptly investigate all complaints received from any User or member of the public and will respond in a timely manner to the complaining party. The Director shall provide a summary of complaints and their resolution to the EC Boards or individual Users upon request. As Users contract with the County for 9-1-1 services, the handling of complaints is considered a core operational responsibility and will not be subject to routine reporting unless specifically requested. If a User is directly involved in a complaint, the Department will ensure that User is kept informed of any new or relevant information throughout the course of the investigation.

10. ADDITION OF NEW MEMBERS
A Any government organization that is not a party to this agreement on the effective date of this agreement may become a Party upon: (a) the recommendation of the Emergency Communications Department; (b) the recommendation of the Executive Board by majority vote; (c) payment of a pro rata share of all previously incurred costs that the County determines will benefit the requesting organization and are thereby appropriate to assess to the 112
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
organization; and (d) execution of a written agreement with the County subjecting the requesting organization to the terms and conditions of this agreement. The County may execute an amendment to this agreement to include a new Party.

B The Executive Board may recommend by majority vote, imposing one-time fees upon new Parties to offset costs incurred in previous fiscal years (buy-in fees).

Buy-in fees include but are not limited to facility construction, major equipment purchases, and software. Buy-in fees will be incorporated into the budget for emergency communications services.

C Under special circumstances, such as but not limited to manmade or natural disaster, acts of God, and acts of civil unrest, temporary access to the emergency communications services may be provided to non-Parties. The Director may approve non-party access and notify the EC Boards. Non-Parties may be required by the County to reimburse the County or Parties and Users any costs resulting from temporary emergency access.

11. BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
A Program and budget related decisions shall be developed by the County with input from the EC Boards, and ECD staff. The Executive Board will review staff recommendations and provide final recommendations to the County. The County Board of Supervisors shall have final authority over program and budget related decisions.

B The Executive Board shall review the Emergency Communications Department’s annual budget request prior to County’s budget hearings. The County shall provide all relevant information, including information about indirect costs, in a timely manner, allowing sufficient time for the Executive Board to evaluate and make requests for information.

C The Executive Board will advise regarding the Emergency Communications Department budget and service levels to be proposed to the Board of Supervisors and to the Parties’ governing bodies, as applicable, in the form of recommended budgets and augmentation requests, in accordance with procedures established by the County. The Executive Board may provide recommendations to staff working with County service departments in reviewing charges and levels of service provided by the Emergency Communications Department. In the event that the Executive Board does not concur with the County’s Recommended Budget, the Director and the Chair of the Executive Board shall present the Executive Board’s recommendations regarding emergency communications budget and service levels directly to the County Board of Supervisors. Final 113
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
budget approval regarding budgets and funding of service levels are the responsibility of the County Board of Supervisors.

D The County of Monterey Emergency Communications Department will provide reports on future budgets, current year budget management and cost control, personnel (recruitment, hiring, retention), and special project status on an ongoing and annual basis as requested by the Executive Board.

E County Administrative Office staff will present ECD annual forecasts and recommended budgets for the County Board of Supervisors’ consideration, including information on alternative funding/service levels and Countywide service department charges.

12. 9-1-1 RESERVE ACCOUNT
A The Emergency Communications Department shall regularly report accounting for the 9-1-1 Reserve Account to the Executive Board. As authorized by the County Board of Supervisors, the 9-1-1 Reserve Account will be restricted for expenditures as recommended by the EC boards, with final determination on expenditures to be made by the County and will be maintained in an interestbearing restricted fund, until the funds are expended.

B The purpose of the 9-1-1 Reserve Account is to fiscally support capital expenditures, the future acquisition of major equipment (such as computer systems), and to spread out major expenditures over time, thereby reducing the need for large assessments to the Parties. The 9-1-1 Reserve Account will enable County and the Parties to better prepare budgets and facilitate long term fiscal planning.

C Funds in the 9-1-1 Reserve Account shall be readily accessible to the Emergency Communications Department to use for appropriate expenditures that benefit the Parties and Users.

D The Director shall present 9-1-1 Reserve Account accounting reports to the Executive Board annually or as requested.

E Accumulation of interest in the 9-1-1 Reserve Account will accrue to the benefit of the emergency communications dispatch fund.

13. STANDARD COST SHARING PLAN FOR PARTIES AND USERS
A Until such time that the Department of Emergency Management (DEM) establishes the Emergency Notification Governance and Financing Agreement, Emergency Notification System fees may be billed by the County.

1. DEM, as the administrator of the system, must seek annual approval from the ECD Executive Board to authorize this charge.

2. All other payment provision in this agreement shall apply. 114
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
B ECD will invoice each Party separately, either annually, biannually, or quarterly for fees for Dispatch Services, Inform Mobile Licensing, and other special charges to Parties and Users and may include administrative fees that will be recovered to support dispatch operations when invoices are sent for nondispatch/call-taking services (i.e. NGEN & Emergency Notification System).

County will consult with the Executive Board at least 10 days before the start of each fiscal year regarding the frequency of billing and methodology of billing to actual expenses or budgeted expenses per subsection 1 below. The County, through ECD, may exercise its discretion in the timing of invoicing, in order to maintain adequate reserves in the special revenue fund dedicated to provision of 9-1-1 services.
1 In consideration of the foregoing, each Party will pay to the County, on an annual, biannual, or quarterly basis, an amount derived by the formula set forth below based on the year-to-date actual costs or budgeted costs.
2 Invoices shall be sent via email to the email address listed in the signature block of this Agreement. Invoices will be mailed via certified mail ONLY at the written request of the Party or User Agency to the ECD. This mailing address and email address may be changed only with written notice to ECD. An email to the current Director will suffice. 3 The funding formula for user agencies may include 5.0% of the County of Monterey’s total Proposition 172 revenue from the two-year prior audited actual Proposition 172 revenue to offset the total charges incurred by all Parties to this agreement as determined annually by the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors during the budget process.
4 ECD may provide administrate support, including invoicing, to the Parties of this Agreement and may collect fees for this support. 5 The Countywide Cost Allocation Plan will be utilized to capture and bill the indirect costs incurred by the County which are associated with the operations of the County of Monterey Emergency Communications Department.
(remainder of page intentionally left blank)
115
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
C Formula Definitions:

A
Actual or budgeted cost of dispatch service (Source: County of Monterey Auditor/Controller’s expenditure or budget report for the Billing Period.) B
Revenues from Miscellaneous Agencies, Administrative Fees, offsetting fund balance, other revenues from entities who are not party to this Agreement including the Ambulance Provider and reimbursements from the State of California.

C Actual or Budgeted Annual cost subject to percentage distribution.

D Most recently available total assessed valuation of real property of the Party per County Assessor.
(Source: “County of Monterey Tax Rates” for the Billing Year.) E Most recently available assessed valuation of real property in the County of Monterey less the assessed valuation of real property attributed to organizations not receiving direct dispatch services. (Source: “Monterey County Tax Rates” per County Assessor for the billing year.) F Most recently available resident population of each Party. (source: for county and cities, “State of California Department of Finance Data” for the billing year and for Fire Districts, “Inventory of Local Agencies” as provided by the Local Agency Formation Commission for the County of Monterey.)
G Most recently available total population of the County of Monterey, less the population of agencies not receiving direct dispatch services. (Source: for county and cities, “State of California Department of Finance Data” and for Fire Districts, “Inventory of Local Agencies” as provided by the Local Agency Formation Commission for the County of Monterey.) H Annual Workload total for each Party from the most recently available calendar year. (Source: Workload totals compiled by the County of Monterey Emergency Communications Department, following review by the Operations Board.)
I Annual Workload total for all law enforcement, fire, special emergency, and other emergency response units for the most recently available calendar year. (Source: Workload totals compiled by the County of Monterey Emergency Communications Department, following review by the Operations Board.)
J Party net percentage (Derived by applying equal weight to Party Percentage of Assessed Valuation, Resident Population and Dispatch Workload.) For Fire Districts and Fire Only Users this net percentage is multiplied by 10%.

Effective July 1, 2026:
• Current Parties to this Agreement who transition to Fire-Only service will no longer be eligible for the 10% multiplier.

Miscellaneous Agencies will continue to not be eligible. • New Parties joining the Agreement after July 1, 2026, that provide both Law and Fire services will also not be eligible for the 10% multiplier. Miscellaneous Agencies will continue to not be eligible.

K Party Gross Bill.

L Party’s Prop 172 offset shall be computed by taking the Party’s original billing and dividing that by the total billing of all Parties subject to Prop 172 reduction, which is a percentage of the total billing. That percentage is multiplied by the total gross Prop 172 amount to derive the individual Party’s percentage share of the Prop 172 funding. 116
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
D Cost Allocation Formula:

E In addition to the foregoing formula, the County may, after consultation and recommendations with the EC Boards, augment the formula on a pro rata basis to include provisions of special funding for any purpose such as, but not limited to, adding to the 9-1-1 Reserve Account, supporting needed projects to replace software, hardware, dispatch furniture, major building repair, etc. Withdrawals from the 9-1-1 Reserve Account shall be recommended to the County through the Executive Board.

F The County may consult with the Executive Board and may choose to select other source documents to replace those defined in the Formula Definitions above if the County determines that the new documents provide more accurate information.

G The Workload component of the billing formula will be annually reviewed as part of the budget process. Changes to the Workload component may be recommended to the County by the Executive Board, which changes may be implemented by the County, in its discretion, as appropriate.

H Delinquency. If a Party does not pay its fees for service as set forth above on or before the Due Date, the amount unpaid shall be deemed delinquent. A “Delinquency Fee” in the amount of five percent (5 %) of the delinquent amount shall be added to the amount owed and charged to the Party. The delinquency fee shall be applied to the amount owed (the amount owed includes any previously added delinquency fee) every 30 days until such time the bill is paid in full. If a Party does not pay the delinquent amount and any delinquency fee within 90 calendar days from the original due date from the first invoice, the County is authorized to withhold and offset from any lawful source whatsoever otherwise due to the Party, including the regular apportionment of property tax revenue, an amount sufficient to satisfy the delinquent amount and delinquency fees.
117
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
I Billing Dispute: If a Party disputes any portion of an invoice issued under this agreement, it shall notify the County in writing within 15 calendar days of receipt. The notice must include sufficient detail for the County to review and respond. The County shall provide the requested information within 15 calendar days of receiving the notice. If the County is unable to respond within 15 calendar days, the disputing Party shall be relieved of any delinquency fees or penalties on the disputed amount until 15 calendar days after the County provides the requested information. The Party shall pay all undisputed amounts by the original due date. If the dispute remains unresolved after the County’s response, the matter may be escalated to the Executive Board for recommendation. No delinquency fees shall be assessed on the disputed amount while the matter is pending Executive Board review, provided the dispute was submitted in good faith and in compliance with this section. Once the Executive Board has issued a recommendation, the County shall make a final determination in good faith based on that recommendation. Delinquency fees, if any, shall only apply beginning 15 calendar days after the final determination is issued.

14. PAYMENT PROVISIONS FOR MISCELLANEOUS AGENCIES
A ECD shall invoice each Miscellaneous Agency in alignment with the invoicing schedule as outlined in Section 13, subsection B of this Agreement.

B The formula to determine costs is as follows:

Formula Definitions:

A Miscellaneous Agency Workload for the last available calendar year (Source: Workload totals compiled by the County of Monterey Emergency Communications Department, following review by the Operations Board.)
B Annual Workload total for the most recently available calendar year for all law enforcement, fire, special emergency, and other emergency response units for the billing period. (Source: Workload totals compiled by the County of Monterey Emergency Communications Department, following review by the Operations Board.)
C Miscellaneous Agency net percentage
D Actual or budgeted cost of dispatch service (Source: County of Monterey Auditor/Controller’s expenditure or budget report for the Billing Period.) E Charge to the Miscellaneous Agency for the billing year.

Cost Allocation Formula for Miscellaneous Agencies:
118
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
C In addition to the foregoing formula, the County may, after consultation and recommendations with the EC Boards, augment the formula on a pro rata basis to include provisions of special funding for any purpose such as, but not limited to, adding to the 9-1-1 Reserve Account, supporting needed projects to replace software, hardware, dispatch furniture, major building repair, etc. Withdrawals from the 9-1-1 Reserve Account shall be recommended to the County through majority vote of the Executive Board.

D The County may consult with the Executive Board and may choose to select other source documents to replace those defined in the Formula Definitions above if the County determines that the new documents provide more accurate information.

E The County of Monterey Emergency Communications Department shall bill each Miscellaneous Agency with the same timing as the other Parties to this Agreement.

F Delinquency. If a Miscellaneous Agency does not pay its fees for service as set forth above on or before the Due Date, the amount unpaid shall be deemed delinquent. A “Delinquency Fee” in the amount of five percent (5 %) of the delinquent amount shall be added to the amount owed and charged to the Miscellaneous Agency. The delinquency fee shall be applied to the amount owed (the amount owed includes any previously added delinquency fee) every 30 days until such time the bill is paid in full. If a Miscellaneous Agency does not pay the delinquent amount and any delinquency fee within 90 calendar days from the Due Date of the original invoice, the County is authorized to withhold and offset from any lawful source whatsoever otherwise due to the Miscellaneous Agency, including the regular apportionment of property tax revenue, an amount sufficient to satisfy the delinquent amount and delinquency fees.

G Billing Dispute: If a Miscellaneous Agency(s) dispute payment owed to County, each Miscellaneous Agency shall notify County within 15 calendar days of its receipt of its invoice. This notice shall include sufficient details about the dispute for County to review and act. County shall provide any requested information within 15 calendar days. If County is unable to respond within 15 calendar days, the Miscellaneous Agency disputing the billing shall be relieved of any delinquency payment until 15 days after the information is provided.

15. ONGOING USE OF 9-1-1 DISPATCH CENTER
A As provided in the Agreement for the Construction and Funding of a Consolidated Dispatch Center for 9-1-1 emergency communications, effective on July 1, 2001, County shall provide the land located at 1322 Natividad Road, 119
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
Salinas at no cost to the Parties and Users for the duration of its use for the purposes set forth in that agreement and in this agreement.

B The County shall permit ECD to provide the Users emergency communications and dispatch services from the 9-1-1 Dispatch Center of the consolidated Emergency Services Center including its equipment, fixtures, and furnishings for the period of time that the facility is used for 9-1-1 dispatch services.

C The County and the Parties shall be jointly responsible for costs of maintenance of the 9-1-1 Dispatch Center.

16. RECORDS AND CONFIDENTIALITY
A Confidentiality: County and the Parties and Users and their officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws which provide for the confidentiality of records and other information. No Party shall disclose any confidential information, any confidential records, or other confidential information received from any Party to this agreement or prepared in connection with the performance of this agreement, unless the other Party specifically permits such disclosure of records or information. All requests for disclosure of confidential information shall be promptly transmitted to the owner of the information. Notwithstanding these duties of confidentiality, the Parties acknowledge that the Parties and the County are government agencies subject to the California Public Records Act, which requires disclosure of public records subject to exceptions. The Parties and the County will mutually cooperate to comply with the California Public Records Act disclosure obligations, consistent with these confidentiality obligations.

B Maintenance of Records: The County shall prepare, maintain, and preserve all reports and records that may be required by federal, state, or local rules and regulations related to services performed under this agreement. The County shall maintain such records in accordance with the provisions of the County and ECD Record Retention policies. The Parties shall maintain such records inaccordance with their records retention policies. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit exception, or other action relating to this agreement is asserted, the County and the Parties shall retain such records until such action is resolved.

17. COUNTY INDEMNIFICATION OF PARTIES AND PARTIES’ WAIVER OF CLAIMS

AGAINST THE COUNTY
A County hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless each Party, its officers, agents, employees, and authorized volunteers from any and all claims, demands, judgments or decrees made or rendered against each Party, its officers, agents or employees by reason of any injury, death or damage suffered or sustained by 120
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
any person or entity caused by, or alleged to have been caused by or arising out of the provision of the emergency communications services by the County as set forth in this agreement.

B Further, County, at its own cost, expense and risk, shall defend any and all suits, actions, or other legal proceedings arising from the provision of emergency communications services by the County pursuant to this agreement that may be brought or instituted by third parties against each Party, its officers, agents, employees, or authorized volunteers, and shall pay and satisfy any judgment or decree that may be rendered against each Party, its officers, agents or employees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceedings. Each Party agrees to promptly notify County of any suit, action, or other legal proceeding asserted against it by third parties which arises from the provision of emergency communications services as specified in this agreement and each Party agrees to cooperate with County in the defense of such claims.

C In return for and in recognition of County’s acceptance of liability, as set forth above, each Party agrees that it will not sue, make any demand or claim, or otherwise prosecute or assert liability against the County for any claim, demand, judgment, or decree of any nature caused by or arising out of the provision of the emergency communications services by the County set forth in this agreement. This waiver of liability against the County by the Parties applies to claims, demands, judgments or decrees which are asserted by third parties and to claims, demands, judgments or decrees which could be asserted by the Parties against the County.

D Survival of Indemnification and Waiver of Liability Obligations

1. The indemnification and defense obligations assumed by County and the waiver of liability against the County agreed to by the Parties, established above, shall survive the termination of this agreement, the withdrawal of any Party from this Agreement, and the termination of any Party from this Agreement. These obligations and the waiver of liability shall extend to the expiration of the statute of limitations applicable to any claims arising from this agreement and the provision of emergency communications services pursuant to this agreement.

18. INSURANCE
A Without limiting the foregoing indemnification, all Parties shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this agreement, a policy or policies of insurance as follows, and in the minimum limits of liability as stated herein:

B Comprehensive general liability, including but not limited to premises, personal 121
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
injuries, products, and completed operations for combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.

C Comprehensive automobile liability, including but not limited to property damage, bodily injury, and personal injuries for combined single limit of notless than $1,000,000 per occurrence.

D Workers’ Compensation covering statutory requirements of the State of California and Employer’s Liability of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.

E In the event any Party is lawfully self-insured in any or all of the aforementioned insurance areas, upon the request of a Party a letter certifying those areas of coverage, and in the minimum amounts as set forth in this agreement, shall be furnished to the requesting party prior to execution of this agreement.

F Except with respect to Workers’ Compensation insurance, each Party maintaining commercial insurance or excess insurance shall provide an endorsement naming the County, its officers, agents, and employees as additional insureds and shall provide that such commercial insurance is primary to any other commercial insurance maintained by the County; and the County shall, under any commercial insurance or excess insurance itmaintains, provide an endorsement naming each Party, its officers, agents, and employees as additional insureds and shall provide that such commercial insurance is primary to any other commercial insurance maintained by each Party.

19. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A Amendment. This agreement may be amended or modified only by an instrument in writing signed by all the Parties hereto; except for an Amendment of adding a new Party as described in Section 10 of this Agreement.

B Effect on Existing Agreements:

1. Agreement for 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Dispatch Services (the City and Fire District 9-1-1 Service Agreement): Upon final execution of this agreement by the County and all Parties, the 9-1-1 Service Agreement executed by the County in 2020 and any amendments to that agreement shall terminate and shall no longer be of any force or effect.

2. Agreement for 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Dispatch Services for Miscellaneous Agencies (the miscellaneous agency 9-1-1 Service Agreements): Upon final execution of this agreement by the County and miscellaneous agencies, the 9-1-1 Service Agreement executed by the County in 2020 and any amendments to that agreement shall terminate and shall no longer be of any force or effect.
122
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
C Waiver. Any waiver of any terms and conditions hereof must be in writing and signed by the Parties hereto. A waiver of any of the terms and conditions hereof shall not be construed as a waiver of any other terms or conditions in this agreement.

D Successors and Assigns. This agreement and the rights, privileges, duties, and obligations of the Parties hereunder, to the extent assignable or delegable, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors, permitted assigns, and heirs.

E Assignment. No Party may assign, sell, or otherwise transfer its interest or obligations in this agreement without the prior written consent of the County upon the recommendation of the Executive Board. Any organization wishing to participate in this system shall participate through this agreement and may not participate through agreements with other participating agencies. Any such purported assignment is null and void.

F Compliance with Applicable Law. The Parties shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations in performing this agreement.

G Severability. If any part, term or provision of this agreement shall be held void, illegal, unenforceable, or in conflict with any law of a Federal, State or Local Government having jurisdiction over this agreement, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected thereby.

H Heading. The section and paragraph headings are for convenience only and shall not be used to interpret the terms of this agreement.

I Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in each and all of the provisions of this agreement.

J Governing Law. This agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. Venue of any dispute arising from this agreement shall be in the Superior Court of California, in the County of Monterey.

K Construction of Agreement. The Parties agree that each Party has fully participated in the review and revision of this agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party shall not apply in the interpretation of this agreement or any amendment hereto.

L Counterparts. This agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.

M Authority. Any individual executing this agreement on behalf of a Party represents and warrants hereby that he or she has the requisite authority to 123
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
enter into this agreement on behalf of such Party and to bind the Party to the terms and conditions of the same.

N Integration. This agreement, including the exhibits hereto, shall represent the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and shall supersede all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral, between the Parties as of the effective date hereof.

O Change of Address. The mailing addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and Party contacts may change and it is the responsibility of the Parties to notify the County as specified in paragraph (P) within ten days of said change.

P Notices. Notices required under this agreement shall be emailed or delivered personally or by first-class, postage pre-paid mail as follows:

COUNTY OF MONTEREY
Director of Emergency Communications
1322 Natividad Road
Salinas, CA 93906
831.769.8880 [email protected]
124
Item 1.
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY and each of the Agencies have caused this agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representative as of the day and year written above.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY:

Name (printed)
Signature:

Date:

Director of Emergency Communications
Address:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Name (printed)
Signature:

Date:

Deputy County Counsel
APPROVED AS TO FISCAL PROVISIONS:

Name (printed)
Signature:

Date:

Auditor-Controller
125
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Signature:

Date:

Title
Mailing Address:

Email:
126
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Del Rey Oaks
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
127
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Gonzales
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
128
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Greenfield
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
129
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of King
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
130
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Marina
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
131
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Monterey
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
132
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Pacific Grove
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
133
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Salinas
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
134
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Sand City
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
135
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Seaside
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
136
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
City of Soledad
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
137
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
Monterey County Regional Fire Protection District
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
138
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
Monterey Peninsula Airport District
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
139
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
North County Fire Protection District of Monterey County Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
140
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
Big Sur Volunteer Fire Brigade
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
141
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
Mid-Coast Fire Brigade
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
142
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
California State University, Monterey Bay
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
143
Item 1.

Parties (one per page)
9-1-1 Emergency Services and Governance Agreement

2026
Correctional Training/ Salinas Valley State Prison
Duly Authorized Representative
Name (printed)
Title
Signature:

Date:

Mailing Address:

Email:
144
Item 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-06

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL REY OAKS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE 2026 9-1-1 EMERGENCY

COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND GOVERNANCE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Services Agreement (“Agreement”) between the County of Monterey and participating jurisdictions establishes the governance and financing of emergency call-taking and dispatch services; and WHEREAS, the City of Del Rey Oaks is a participating agency in the regional emergency communications system; and
WHEREAS, the County of Monterey Emergency Communications Department has completed a revision to the Agreement originally executed in 2020; and WHEREAS, the revised Agreement updates governance structure, clarifies operational roles, and aligns with the Next Generation Emergency Network (NGEN) system; and WHEREAS, this action is not a “project” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del ReyOaks as follows:

1. The City Council hereby approves the 2026 Agreement for 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Services and Governance.

2. The City Manager is authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City of Del Rey Oaks.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL REY OAKS, this 28 th day
of April, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:

Scott Donaldson, Mayor Karen Minami, City Clerk
145
Item 1.

DATE: April 28, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Guertin, City Manager
SUBJECT: Approve the Amended Salary Schedule for FY 2025-26 CEQA: This action does not constitute a “project” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines section 15378 as it is an organizational activity of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

Recommendation
Approve the Amended Salary Schedule for FY 2025-26 with the 5% COLA for the Assistant City Manager/Chief of Police (ACM/COP) effective the pay period starting on May 2, 2026.

Background
The FY 2025-2026 Budget was approved at June 24, 2025, Regular City Council Meeting per Resolution No. 2025-10.

Summary & Discussion
The City Manager has approved a 5% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for the ACM/COP. On April 13, 2026, the Budget Committee supported the City Manager’s recommendation. The attached Salary Schedule amendment will implement the COLA.

Fiscal Impacts
The fiscal impact is limited to the 5% salary adjustment, equal to $8,800 annually. The increase will be incorporated into the existing budget. No additional financial resources are required for this action.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amended Salary Schedule for FY 2025-26
Staff Report
146
Item 2.

Title Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Contract
City Manager Per Contract
Monthly 17,349.83
Bi-weekly 8,008.00
Hourly Rate 100.10
Annual 208,198.00
Assistant City Manager & Chief of Police Per Contract
Monthly 15,400.00
Bi-weekly 7,107.69
Hourly Rate 88.85
Annual - - - - - 184,800.00
City Clerk
Monthly 7,323.33 7,689.08 8,073.83 8,477.75 8,902.42
Bi-weekly 3,380.00 3,548.80 3,726.40 3,912.80 4,108.80
Hourly Rate 42.25 44.36 46.58 48.91 51.36
Annual 87,880.00 92,269.00 96,886.00 101,733.00 106,829.00 Deputy City Clerk/Permit Clerk
Monthly 5,550.17 5,827.50 6,118.67 6,425.50 6,746.17
Bi-weekly 2,561.60 2,689.60 2,824.00 2,965.60 3,113.60
Hourly Rate 32.02 33.62 35.30 37.07 38.92
Annual 66,602.00 69,930.00 73,424.00 77,106.00 80,954.00 Administrative Services Technician
Monthly 5,550.17 5,827.50 6,118.67 6,425.50 6,746.17
Bi-weekly 2,561.60 2,689.60 2,824.00 2,965.60 3,113.60
Hourly Rate 32.02 33.62 35.30 37.07 38.92
Annual 66,602.00 69,930.00 73,424.00 77,106.00 80,954.00 Police Commander
Monthly 8,952.58 9,400.33 9,869.83 10,363.08 10,881.75
Bi-weekly 4,131.96 4,338.60 4,555.32 4,782.96 5,022.36
Hourly Rate 49.19 51.65 54.23 56.94 59.79
Annual 107,431.00 112,804.00 118,438.00 124,357.00 130,581.00 Police Sergeant
Monthly 7,900.58 8,295.58 8,710.50 9,145.50 9,602.33
Bi-weekly 3,646.44 3,828.72 4,020.24 4,221.00 4,431.84
Hourly Rate 43.41 45.58 47.86 50.25 52.76
Annual 94,807.00 99,547.00 104,526.00 109,746.00 115,228.00 Police Officer
Monthly 6,814.08 7,154.42 7,513.00 7,887.92 8,282.83
Bi-weekly 3,144.96 3,302.04 3,467.52 3,640.56 3,822.84
Hourly Rate 37.44 39.31 41.28 43.34 45.51
Annual 81,769.00 85,853.00 90,156.00 94,655.00 99,394.00 Police Officer - Reserve
Hourly Rate 45.51
Public Works Supervisor
Monthly 5,938.42 6,234.83 6,546.83 6,874.42 7,311.17
Bi-weekly 2,740.80 2,877.60 3,021.60 3,172.80 3,374.40
Hourly Rate 34.26 35.97 37.77 39.66 42.18
Annual 71,261.00 74,818.00 78,562.00 82,493.00 87,734.00 Temporary/Part Time EE

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS
SALARY SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026
Effective 05/02/2026
147
Item 2.

Hourly Rate At the discretion of the City Manager 50.00

1. Mayor and City Council Members shall be paid the sum of $100.00 per month for attendance at all regular and special council meetings unless previously granted a leave of absence with pay, or unless excused by the Mayor.

2. The Mayor is paid an additional $125 per month for promoting and advertising the City.

3. All employees of the City pay the full employee paid percent contribution to each employee's PERS account.

4. The Police Chief and the City manager's salaries are per individual contract.

5. Police Reserve officers are paid at a rate of $45.51 per hour worked (5th Step Police Officer). 6 Police Officers Uniform Allowance $1,000 annually
7 City Manager: Auto Allowance $450/month ($5,400 annual) 8 PD works 84 hours/ pay period
9 Educational Incentive:
$100 per month for Associate's degree
$200 per month for Bachelor's degree
10 Longevity Pay:
2% longevity pay for individual's working over 10 years 4% longevity pay for individual's working over 20 years 11 Wellness: $500.00 per year
12 Effective July 1, 2025 Council approved a 5% Cost of Living for all full time employees except City Manager Guertin, and Chief of Police, Bourquin.
13 Effective August 09, 2025 (Beginning of Pay Period) City Manager 3% Salary Adjustment 14 Effective May 2, 2026 (Beginning of Pay Period) Assistant City Manager 5% Salary Adjustment

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS
SALARY SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026
148
Item 2.

DATE: April 28, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Guertin, City Manager
SUBJECT: Receive a presentation and consider approving ReGen Monterey’s Technical Advisory Committee’s Subgroup recommendation on the 2030 Collection Franchise Planning Process.

Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution approving the recommendation from ReGen Monterey’s (ReGen) Technical Advisory Committee’s (TAC) Subgroup to initiate a competitive request for proposal (RFP) process for solid waste, recycling, and organics collection services, allowing GreenWaste Recovery, LLC (GreenWaste) and other service providers to compete for the franchise and approve the Process Integrity Policy.

Background
Seven participating agencies, including the Cities of City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Seaside, and Pebble Beach Community Services District (Member Agencies) of ReGen Monterey’s (ReGen) nine member agencies, hold an exclusive franchise agreement with GreenWaste for solid waste, recycling, and organics collection services, expiring in 2030. As the agreements near expiration, the Member Agencies began to evaluate future service options and consider whether to issue a competitive RFP or negotiate a sole-source agreement with GreenWaste.

In early 2025, a TAC Subgroup was formed to prepare and plan. In August 2025, the ReGen Board approved a contract with HF&H Consultants, LLC (HF&H) to support the Subgroup and Member Agencies in this effort. Since that time, the Subgroup has been and will continue working on a range of activities to support collection franchise planning, including a public and stakeholder engagement process, RFP process support, negotiations, and solicitation, design, and drafting of a future franchise agreement. Since August 2025, HF&H has worked with ReGen’s Communications staff (Staff) and the TAC’s Subgroup to conduct phase one, public and stakeholder engagement.

Staff Report
149
Item A.

Discussion
Stakeholder Engagement Process
Community and stakeholder input provides important context for evaluating whether to pursue a competitive RFP or a sole-source negotiation for future solid waste, recycling, and organics collection services. Over the past several months, the TAC Subgroup, supported by HF&H, conducted a comprehensive engagement process across four key sectors: residential, multi-family, commercial, and industry. This included partnering with Probolsky Research to conduct a statistically valid survey of residential customers designed to assess current service satisfaction, identify community priorities, and gauge interest in additional services that are not currently provided. In addition to the survey, we hosted a number of virtual and in-person events that were intended to allow more nuanced conversations with specific customer types. This included hosting community meetings, direct outreach to multi-family property owners and building managers, discussions with leaders in the business community, and meetings with potential service providers.

In parallel with community engagement, several industry stakeholders were engaged to better understand market conditions and to identify opportunities and potential challenges associated with providing services in the region. Industry feedback consistently identified the seven Member Agencies’ service area as an ideal market, citing operational efficiencies, established infrastructure, and long-term service viability. Multiple respondents expressed interest in proposing services, indicating that the region is well-positioned to attract competitive proposals should an RFP be issued.

Detailed information regarding the engagement methodology, outreach activities, and sectorspecific results is provided in Attachments A through E. The discussion below summarizes key themes from the engagement process and highlights the primary factors considered by the TAC’s Subgroup when recommending a competitive RFP process for future collection services.

Community Input
The TAC Subgroup reviewed results from the stakeholder engagement process and found, across engagement efforts, overall satisfaction with current service was generally high.

However, affordability emerged as the highest-rated and most strongly expressed priority across sectors (99.1%), followed closely by service quality (98.9%), convenience (98.2%), and environmental impact (96.0%).

Survey results show that perceptions of cost are mixed, with only 47% of residents indicating their garbage and recycling bill is “just about right,” while nearly 33% feel rates are too high and a significant share remain unsure, reflecting caution around affordability. When asked to evaluate community values, affordability ranked higher than any other factor, exceeding priorities such as environmental impact, convenience, and quality of service. This underscores the importance of rate impacts in residents’ evaluation of future service decisions. Survey responses also indicate limited appetite for new or expanded programs that could increase 150
Item A.
costs, reinforcing a clear expectation that decision-makers will weigh this evaluation criterion heavily. Multi-family and commercial outreach echoed these findings, with property managers and business representatives identifying rates, cost control, and predictability as primary concerns alongside service reliability.

Collectively, feedback from residential, multi-family, and commercial stakeholders demonstrates strong alignment around the need to prioritize affordability and carefully evaluate any approach that could result in rate increases. This consistent emphasis on cost sensitivity establishes affordability as a central consideration in determining the appropriate procurement path for future collection services.

Key Considerations
Good Governance:

A competitive RFP process provides the Member Agencies with a clear, transparent, and defensible path to securing a contractor that represents the best value for the community by allowing multiple qualified service providers to compete on price, service levels, reliability, environmental protection, and other relevant factors. This approach is widely regarded as the most transparent and publicly accountable method for awarding long-term franchise agreements, supporting public confidence in the decision-making process.

Affordability:

During the engagement process, GreenWaste shared an indicative range of potential future cost increases associated with continuing service under a sole-source approach. While it would be inappropriate to share the numerical values publicly, the amounts were greater than a typical inflationary amount and included some trade-offs for the Member Agencies and customers. At the level of rate adjustment suggested in this preliminary discussion, the TAC Subgroup expressed that competitive proposals would be important to better understand cost drivers, validate pricing, and ensure that future service decisions are informed by objective, marketbased information.

Satisfaction with Service:

The TAC Subgroup notes that there is a very high level of satisfaction with the current service provider throughout the service area. This is a credit to GreenWaste and especially their frontline drivers and customer service employees who interact with customers on a daily basis. The high level of satisfaction was significant to the TAC Subgroup, and the members of the Subgroup expressed their desire for GreenWaste to participate in the competitive process for the next contracts. It was also noted that there was a high level of satisfaction with Waste Management (WM) in the contract prior to GreenWaste taking over in 2015 and that many of the drivers transitioned to GreenWaste from WM in 2015. The RFP would contain a provision requiring that any current employees displaced by a change in contractors would be offered positions at the new company. As a result, many of the front-line employees that are 151
Item A.
responsible for the high quality of service would likely continue to serve the Member Agencies as they do today.

Assignment Risk:

GreenWaste was acquired by a private investment fund during the term of the current agreements and there was a greater level of turnover in executive and management staff than was expected at the time of the initial acquisition. In addition, at the time of the acquisition, the acquiring company disclosed that it typically divests itself of assets like this in seven to 10 years.

That same investment firm has recently divested itself of other solid waste assets in the United States. While GreenWaste has maintained a high level of satisfaction, the new executive and management team have a different perspective and approach than was conveyed when GreenWaste proposed to get the current contracts. An RFP process would allow the Member Agencies to consider changes to the contracts that would provide greater protection for the ratepayers and Member Agencies in the event of a future acquisition.

Infrastructure and Readiness
ReGen has made significant long-term investments over many years to create an operational environment that supports efficient, reliable service delivery for the Member Agencies it represents. ReGen owns the collection Truck Yard and Maintenance Facility currently leased and used by the incumbent service provider, and has established on-site processing of recyclables and organics, as well as control over disposal through its landfill. Together, these assets create a turnkey operational setting that reduces barriers to entry and enables any qualified collection operator to efficiently serve the agencies in the future. In other markets, the private ownership of these assets creates significant incumbency advantages. In this case, the public ownership of the assets ensures cost-effectiveness and competitiveness.

RFP Timeline and Next Steps
To meet the schedule of the expiring franchise agreements in 2030, the Member Agencies would begin the RFP process in late 2026. While a typical RFP process lasts 12 to 18 months and includes drafting and finalizing an RFP, soliciting proposals, responding to prospective operators’ questions, interviewing proposers, evaluating proposals, negotiating contract terms, and seeking final approval by Member Agencies’ elected bodies, the multi-jurisdictional nature of this effort is expected to extend the overall timeline. The process will require ongoing coordination among Member Agencies, collaboration and updates with multiple elected bodies throughout key decision points, and subsequent jurisdiction-specific negotiations to tailor services and rate outcomes following a group decision. As a result, the RFP process is anticipated to extend through 2027, with the potential award of the new franchise in the first half of 2028, and the intent to maintain current services with the existing service provider through 2030, subject to the direction and outcome of the negotiations. This will allow approximately two years for the selected service provider to address any infrastructure needs, acquire vehicles, 152
Item A.
establish new programs or services, and conduct community outreach and engagement to ensure the public is aware of any changes.

Process Integrity Policy
To support a fair, transparent, and competitive procurement process, many public agencies adopt a Process Integrity Policy to guide interactions among participating agencies, proposers, advisors, and other stakeholders throughout the solicitation and evaluation phases. The policy is intended to ensure consistent treatment of all proposers, protect the integrity of the process, and maintain public confidence in the outcome. Key principles include clear communication protocols, defined roles and responsibilities, and safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest or the appearance of preferential treatment. The policy also protects the Member Agencies, their elected officials, and their staff from potential challenges to the process or public claims of impropriety.

The Process Integrity Policy establishes expectations for professionalism, confidentiality, and adherence to established procedures during the procurement process. Adoption of this policy provides a clear framework to support objective evaluation, informed decision-making, and compliance with applicable legal and ethical standards. The Process Integrity Policy is included as Attachment F, which has been reviewed by ReGen’s legal counsel.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to initiate a competitive RFP for solid waste, recycling, and organics collection services. ReGen is temporarily incurring costs from the consultants supporting the Member Agency procurement process, estimated at $534,620 in total, which will be reimbursed to ReGen by the seven participating Member Agencies through the recently approved Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). While the Member Agencies will be responsible for their share of the costs, please note that local government procurement costs are typically reimbursed to Member Agencies by the selected franchise service provider.

Conclusion
Staff requests that the Council adopt a resolution approving the recommendation from ReGen TAC Subgroup to initiate a competitive RFP process for solid waste, recycling, and organics collection services, allowing GreenWaste and other service providers to compete for the franchise and approve the Process Integrity Policy included in Attachment F.

Attachment
A. Probolsky Research Survey Results
B. Residential Community Meetings
C. Multi-Family Engagement
153
Item A.

D. Commercial Engagement
E. Industry Engagement
F. Process Integrity Policy
G. Resolution 2026-07
Respectfully Submitted,
_______________________________
John Guertin
City Manager
154
Item A.

Attachment A: Probolsky Research Survey Results
155
Item A.

Attachment B: Residential Community Meetings
Methodology
HF&H hosted three virtual community meetings to solicit feedback on current service satisfaction, identify community priorities, and gauge interest in additional services not currently provided for Member Agency residents. To support broad participation, HF&H developed bilingual (English/Spanish) outreach materials for distribution by ReGen and the Member Agencies. To accommodate varying schedules and convenience, HF&H hosted the virtual meetings at two different times across three separate days:
• Tuesday, February 24, 2026 from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. • Wednesday, February 25, 2026 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. • Thursday, February 26, 2026 from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

To support Spanish-speaking residents, Spanish-language interpretation was provided during the February 26 meeting. Each meeting included a brief overview of the agenda, purpose, and background information before moving into an anonymous poll. This poll was followed by an open discussion period where participants could share what is working well—or not—with current solid waste, recycling, and organics collection service programs, identify which services matter most to residents moving forward, and indicate how they would prioritize value for these services.

Results and Analysis
Seventeen residents participated across all three meetings and, of those, 13 submitted answers to the anonymous poll.

Residents indicated generally high satisfaction levels with their current collection services during the community meetings and in their poll responses, with 69% of participants satisfied with GreenWaste’s collection services and 69% satisfied with the helpfulness and professionalism of its customer service team. However, residents also expressed interest in targeted improvements. Although 67% reported receiving educational materials, 62.5% of those recipients found the information could have been clearer, and 25% of residents who provided additional input requested more education and outreach on available programs. Additionally, 17% expressed interest in greater service customization, such as the ability to choose cart sizes or types. During open discussion, several residents also expressed sensitivity to rate increases, noting concerns that recent rate increases were not always accompanied by perceived service improvements and emphasizing the importance of avoiding large, across-the-board increases that could disproportionately affect community members. These results indicate that, while GreenWaste is largely meeting community needs, opportunities remain to enhance education, service customization, and overall customer experience. 156
Item A.

Attachment C: Multi-Family Engagement
Methodology
To support multi-family dwelling (MFD) engagement, a comprehensive information list of all MFDs was requested from GreenWaste, including their addresses and contact information, within the Member Agency service area. Priority MFDs were identified by Member Agency staff to support targeted outreach, while ensuring appropriate representation across participating Member Agencies.

A standardized set of questions was developed for property managers to assess satisfaction with current collection services, identify priorities for a future collection agreement, evaluate outreach effectiveness, and gauge awareness of the bulky item collection program. Outreach was conducted with the objective of engaging at least one property manager within each participating Member Agency. Where available, property managers were surveyed by phone; when unavailable, follow-up outreach was conducted through voicemail, email, or in-person visits, as appropriate.

Results and Analysis
Forty-six MFDs were engaged and, of those, seven provided responses to the developed questions.

Approximately 85% of the MFDs surveyed are satisfied with GreenWaste’s services.

GreenWaste had performed outreach at approximately 66% of the surveyed MFDs, but none of them knew about the bulky program. The property managers were interested in a bulky program to collect large items when residents move out. Overall, many MFDs expressed that GreenWaste has reliable and consistent collection services with responsive customer service.

However, property managers identified several service-related concerns, including challenges with container lid closure, service conditions classified as “difficult to service,” occasional missed pickups, and damaged containers. Issues that could be readily addressed were generally resolved by customer service in a timely manner. Looking ahead, MFD property managers identified quality of service, customer service responsiveness, and low rates as their highest priorities for a future collection agreement.
157
Item A.

Attachment D: Commercial Engagement
Methodology
To support commercial sector engagement, the TAC Subgroup sought to engage business and sustainability associations within the Member Agency service area to gather insight into current and future collection services. A comprehensive list of commercial businesses, including addresses and contact information was compiled. Priority commercial businesses were identified through coordination with GreenWaste and participating Member Agencies to support targeted outreach and ensure appropriate representation across jurisdictions. The outreach list was refined based on these prioritizations and agency representation.

A standardized set of questions was developed for business owners and managers to assess satisfaction with current collection services, identify key priorities for a future collection agreement, evaluate the cost and value of existing services, and assess the effectiveness of outreach efforts.

Outreach was conducted with the objective of engaging at least one commercial business within each participating Member Agency. Where available, interviews were conducted by phone. When a business owner or manager was unavailable, follow-up outreach was conducted through voicemail messages or email correspondence, as appropriate.

Results and Analysis
Thirty-four commercial businesses were engaged and, of those, 15 provided responses to the developed questions.

Approximately 60% of the commercial businesses surveyed are satisfied with GreenWaste’s services, but only 40% of them thought GreenWaste’s rates are reasonable. GreenWaste had performed outreach at approximately 58% of the commercial businesses surveyed. Overall, many businesses expressed that GreenWaste has reliable and consistent recycling and solid waste services with responsive customer service. However, many businesses also expressed frustration regarding GreenWaste’s immediate increases in price after they took over for WM in 2015, coupled with GreenWaste’s additional charges for non-curbside service, pushing and/or pulling containers, opening gates, and extra organics carts. In Pacific Grove, downtown businesses are unhappy with GreenWaste’s charges for bundles of cardboard and lack of assistance to help maximize space for extra containers. For a future collection agreement, most commercial businesses selected quality of service and low rates as their top priorities. They also expressed interest in additional services such as free cardboard pickup, container cleaning services, and everyday collection. 158
Item A.

Attachment E: Industry Engagement
Methodology
To better understand industry capacity, market interest, and potential considerations associated with future collection services, the TAC Subgroup, with support from HF&H, conducted targeted outreach to private solid waste collection service providers active in California and similar regional markets. A list of firms that had either previously expressed interest in providing collection services within the Member Agency service area or were identified by the Subgroup as relevant potential proposers based on market presence and experience.

Each identified service provider was invited to participate in a formal in-person presentation to the TAC Subgroup. Presentations were structured to allow approximately 20 minutes for each company to present its qualifications, business model, and perspective on operating within the Member Agency service area, followed by a 30-minute question-and-answer session with Subgroup members. This format was intended to support a consistent, transparent exchange of information and allow for direct dialogue regarding operational considerations, infrastructure readiness, and potential partnership models.

Five service providers participated in the industry engagement presentations:
• Mid Valley Disposal
• Recology
• Republic Services
• Waste Connections
• Waste Management
In addition, GreenWaste was invited to present to the Subgroup to provide perspective on its experience serving the region and its interest in future service arrangements.

Results and Analysis
Across all presentations, industry participants expressed interest in future partnerships within the Member Agency service area. Multiple presenters characterized the region as an attractive and operationally viable market due to its service density, established customer base, and publicly owned infrastructure. All service providers noted that ReGen’s ownership of key facilities— including collection yards and processing and disposal infrastructure—creates a turnkey operational environment that reduces barriers to entry and enhances market competitiveness.

GreenWaste Recovery expressed enthusiasm for continuing to provide service to the community and indicated openness to negotiating a future agreement under a sole-source approach. During preliminary discussions, GreenWaste shared an estimated range of potential future rate impacts associated with continuing service under a non-competitive negotiation. GreenWaste also noted that changes in ownership or a future asset sale or acquisition are inherent risks in the solid waste industry, particularly given broader market consolidation trends. 159
Item A.

Attachment F: Process Integrity Policy
160
Item A.

Monterey Peninsula
Franchise Collection Service Provider
Survey
Results Presentation
February 2026
Opinion Research on
Elections and Public Policy

PROBOLSKY RESEARCH
23 Corporate Plaza Suite 150 Newport Beach CA 92660
Newport Beach
(949) 855-6400
San Francisco
(415) 870-8150
Washington DC
(202) 559-0270 161
Item A.

Monterey Peninsula – Franchise Collection Service Provider Survey
Survey Methodology*
1 Survey Details
Mode Phone (inbound and outbound)
Online (mail, email, and text to web)
Language English and Spanish
Length 10 minutes
Target
Respondents
Monterey Peninsula communities
Survey
Fielding
February 6 – 23, 2026
Margin of
Error
+/-4.7%
Survey
Participants
450
Sample
The sample was developed from the consumer data.

We mailed, called, emailed, and texted residents. We
matched the demographics of ReGen Monterey service
area residents.

Data Collection Explained
Interviews were conducted with live interviewers by
phone (4%) and online survey methods (96%). Phone
participants were interviewed through outbound (68%)
and inbound (32%) calls. Online participants were
invited by mail (57%), email (31%), and text message
(12%) to access the survey by computer, tablet, or
smart phone.

Respondents in all modes chose their preferred
language, English (99%) and Spanish (1%).

Security measures precluded individuals from
completing the survey more than once.
*Due to rounding, totals shown on charts may not add up to 100% Probolsky Research is a Latina- and woman-owned market and opinion research firm with corporate, election, government, and non-profit clients.

35.1%

24.9%

17.8%

5.6%

5.6%

5.6%

5.6%
Seaside
Marina
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Carmel-by-the-Sea
PBCSD
Sand City
The distribution reflects the geographic
composition of respondents within the Monterey
Peninsula service area. To ensure adequate
representation, a minimum of 25 responses were
collected in each jurisdiction, with Del Rey Oaks,
Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pebble Beach Community
Services District, and Sand City intentionally
oversampled..
162
Item A.
93% are satisfied with the services provided by
GreenWaste Recovery
Question 3: In general, how satisfied are you with the services provided by GreenWaste Recovery including collecting and transporting garbage, recyclables, and organic material? 2 92.9%

6.4%

0.7%
Satisfied Unsatisfied Unsure
163
Item A.

Among those satisfied, 66% are very satisfied
Question 3: In general, how satisfied are you with the services provided by GreenWaste Recovery including collecting and transporting garbage, recyclables, and organic material? 3 92.9%

6.4%

0.7%
Total
Very satisfied

66.0%
Somewhat satisfied

34.0%
Among those who said satisfied
Very unsatisfied

27.6%
Somewhat unsatisfied

72.4%
Among those who said unsatisfied
164
Item A.

Results by gender, age group, and home type
4 91.5%

94.6%
100.0%

95.9%

90.4%

91.7%

91.7%

94.0%

93.1%

94.3%

92.9%

89.9%
100.0%
100.0%

7.5%

5.0%

4.1%

9.6%

6.7%

7.4%

5.3%

6.6%

5.7%

7.1%

7.6%
Male
Female
An identity not listed
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Own a single-family home
Rent a single-family home
Own condo, or townhome
Rent apartment, condo, or townhome
Own mobile home
Other
Satisfied
Unsure
Unsatisfied
Question 3: In general, how satisfied are you with the services provided by GreenWaste Recovery including collecting and transporting garbage, recyclables, and organic material? 165
Item A.

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
5 89.2%

91.8%

90.5%

96.2%

96.2%

92.1%

84.0%

96.0%

94.6%

95.0%

96.0%

96.0%

90.5%

10.8%

8.2%

9.5%

1.9%

3.8%

7.9%

16.0%

4.0%

4.5%

3.8%

4.0%

4.0%

8.9%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Satisfied
Unsure
Unsatisfied
Question 3: In general, how satisfied are you with the services provided by GreenWaste Recovery including collecting and transporting garbage, recyclables, and organic material? 166
Item A.

Results by survey language and survey mode
6 92.8%
100.0%

92.8%

95.1%

88.0%

94.2%

94.7%

92.3%
100.0%

6.5%

6.5%

4.5%

10.5%

5.8%

5.3%

7.7%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Satisfied
Unsure
Unsatisfied
Question 3: In general, how satisfied are you with the services provided by GreenWaste Recovery including collecting and transporting garbage, recyclables, and organic material? 167
Item A.

Among the 29 who are unsatisfied, high cost
compared to the level of service is the main reason
Question 4: Why aren’t you satisfied with the services provided by GreenWaste Recovery? Select all that apply. [IF ANSWERED UNSATISFIED TO Q3]
7 44.8%

24.1%

10.3%

3.4%

37.9% (11 responses)
High cost compared to the level of service
Containers are frequently missed
Containers are incorrectly placed after pickup
Not enough available programs
Other

92.9%

6.4%

0.7%
Question asked of
respondents unsatisfied
with GreenWaste
Recovery, representing
6% of the total sample or
29 individuals.
168
Item A.
8 Verbatim responses for other
Other
Do not like compost in yard waste
They don't collect everything. I have to bring batteries to Home Depot. They wouldn't take my small Christmas tree. I had to pay someone to haul it away. The green waste bin is always full and is very toxic from food waste. I was told compostables are not compostable and you can't put food waste in compostable bags. There is mold growing in the bin
Containers are often not fully emptied
Would like to separate food waste, but like so many residences in PG, we don't have yards or enough yard waste to mix with food. Seems unsanitary to place in container for a week
Not letting us use compostable bags for indoor compost collection! Green container would not allow any bags, compostable or otherwise.

There are not enough recycle bins at our apartment complex. Previous to living here we rented a duplex in Seaside. Although there was the occasional issue, whenever we contacted Greenwaste they were helpful and kind. Overall I like greenwaste, so not sure if the issue I have is with my landlord or greenwaste No containers for batteries and motor oil
Do not like putting organic waste from kitchen in yard waste, make bin stink and creates a fly problem ive had to call them to pick my garbage up when the other neighbors garbage have been picked up, they also make amess when picking up garbage from our street t's because of the pick up schedule, they only collect after 5:30 PM.

Question 4: Why aren’t you satisfied with the services provided by GreenWaste Recovery? Select all that apply. [IF ANSWERED UNSATISFIED TO Q3 (11 responses)]
169
Item A.
67% have not contacted GreenWaste Recovery
within the past 12 months
Question 5: Have you contacted GreenWaste Recovery customer service in the past 12 months? 9 30.0%

67.3%

2.7%
Yes No Unsure
170
Item A.

Results by gender, age group, and home type
Question 5: Have you contacted GreenWaste Recovery customer service in the past 12 months? 10 28.6%

32.4%

25.0%

13.7%

40.4%

31.7%

34.3%

31.3%

34.7%

32.9%

14.3%

15.2%

50.0%

18.2%

69.0%

65.3%

75.0%

82.2%

57.7%

65.0%

65.7%

66.0%

63.7%

58.6%

85.7%

83.5%

50.0%

81.8%
Male
Female
An identity not listed
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Own a single-family home
Rent a single-family home
Own condo, or townhome
Rent apartment, condo, or townhome
Own mobile home
Other
Yes
Unsure
No
171
Item A.

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
11 27.7%

34.1%

31.1%

22.6%

50.0%

28.9%

40.0%

32.0%

25.9%

28.8%

32.0%

20.0%

32.9%

69.2%

61.2%

68.9%

77.4%

46.2%

68.4%

56.0%

68.0%

70.5%

68.8%

68.0%

80.0%

63.9%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Yes
Unsure
No
Question 5: Have you contacted GreenWaste Recovery customer service in the past 12 months? 172
Item A.

Results by survey language and survey mode
12 30.0%

33.3%

30.9%

32.9%

33.8%

13.5%

10.5%

7.7%

16.7%

67.3%

66.7%

66.4%

64.6%

64.7%

78.8%

89.5%

92.3%

83.3%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Yes
Unsure
No
Question 5: Have you contacted GreenWaste Recovery customer service in the past 12 months? 173
Item A.

Extra pick-ups and cart replacements are the top
reasons residents contact GreenWaste
Question 6: What was the reason for your last call to GreenWaste Recovery customer service? [IF ANSWERED YES TO Q5]
13 37.8%

27.4%

15.6%

9.6%

2.2%

5.9%

1.5%
Schedule an extra pick-up or bulk pick-up
Replace cart or bin
Missed pick-up
Question about service
Pay my bill
Other
Unsure

30.0%

67.3%

2.7%
Question asked of
respondents who have
contacted GreenWaste
Recovery in the last 12
months, representing 30%
of the total sample or 135
individuals.
174
Item A.
93% report their issue was resolved during their
first contact with GreenWaste
Question 7: Was your concern resolved with the first call or contact to GreenWaste Recovery customer service? [IF ANSWERED YES TO Q5]
14 92.6%

5.9%

1.5%
Yes No Unsure

30.0%

67.3%

2.7%
Question asked of
respondents who have
contacted GreenWaste
Recovery in the last 12
months, representing 30%
of the total sample or 135
individuals.
175
Item A.

50.0%

25.0%

12.5%

12.5%
Large item collection
Holiday tree collection
Trash pick-up
Payment issues
Among unresolved cases (8), large item collection
is the most frequently mentioned issue
Question 8: What was not resolved in your first call or contact with GreenWaste Recovery? [IF ANSWERED NO TO Q7]
[OPEN-ENDED QUESTION]
15 95.7%

2.3%

2.0%
Question asked of
respondents who didn’t
have their issue resolved
in the first call,
representing 2% of the
total sample or 8
individuals.
176
Item A.
77% remember receiving information or
educational material from GreenWaste
Question 9: Have you received any information or educational material about garbage, recycling, or organics from GreenWaste Recovery? 16 77.3%

11.6% 11.1%
Yes No Unsure
177
Item A.

Results by gender, age group, and home type
Question 9: Have you received any information or educational material about garbage, recycling, or organics from GreenWaste Recovery? 17 81.2%

74.3%
100.0%

49.3%

73.1%

83.3%

88.0%

83.3%

84.2%

70.0%

78.6%

65.8%
100.0%

63.6%

10.3%

11.3%

13.7%

11.5%

13.3%

9.3%

10.0%

9.7%

15.7%

14.3%

11.4%

8.5%

14.4%

37.0%

15.4%

3.3%

2.8%

6.7%

6.2%

14.3%

7.1%

22.8%

36.4%
Male
Female
An identity not listed
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Own a single-family home
Rent a single-family home
Own condo, or townhome
Rent apartment, condo, or townhome
Own mobile home
Other
Yes
Unsure
No
178
Item A.

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
18 67.7%

77.6%

83.8%

90.6%

88.5%

78.9%

56.0%

68.0%

84.8%

81.3%

72.0%

76.0%

75.9%

12.3%

7.1%

10.5%

24.0%

24.0%

9.8%

7.5%

12.0%

4.0%

20.0%

15.3%

10.8%

3.8%

3.8%

10.5%

20.0%

8.0%

5.4%

11.3%

16.0%

20.0%

13.3%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Yes
Unsure
No
Question 9: Have you received any information or educational material about garbage, recycling, or organics from GreenWaste Recovery? 179
Item A.

Results by survey language and survey mode
19 77.3%

83.3%

77.5%

80.9%

85.0%

42.3%

73.7%

76.9%

66.7%

11.3%

11.6%

11.4%

9.8%

17.3%

11.5%

16.7%

10.9%

7.7%

5.3%

40.4%

26.3%

23.1%

33.3%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Yes
Unsure
No
Question 9: Have you received any information or educational material about garbage, recycling, or organics from GreenWaste Recovery? 180
Item A.
96% say the information was clear, educational,
and easy to understand
Question 10: Was the information about garbage, recycling, or organics from GreenWaste Recovery clear, educational, and easy to understand? [IF ANSWERED YES TO Q9]
20 95.7%

2.3% 2.0%
Yes No Unsure

77.3%

11.6%

11.1%
Question asked of
respondents who have
received information from
GreenWaste, representing
77% of the total sample or
348 individuals.
181
Item A.
79% have had their carts emptied on their
regularly scheduled collection day every time
during the past 12 months
Question 11: Excluding holidays where service is delayed by one day, during the past 12 months, was there a time when GreenWaste Recovery did not empty any of your containers on your regularly scheduled collection day?
21 10.0%

78.9%

11.1%
Yes No Unsure
182
Item A.

Results by gender, age group, and home type
Question 11: Excluding holidays where service is delayed by one day, during the past 12 months, was there a time when GreenWaste Recovery did not empty any of your containers on your regularly scheduled collection day?
22 9.9%

10.4%

6.8%

21.2%

5.0%

11.1%

8.7%

9.7%

11.4%

14.3%

8.9%

25.0%

9.1%

11.7%

9.5%

50.0%

21.9%

13.5%

13.3%

8.3%

5.3%

3.9%

8.6%

50.0%

32.9%

9.1%

78.4%

80.2%

50.0%

71.2%

65.4%

81.7%

80.6%

86.0%

86.5%

80.0%

35.7%

58.2%

75.0%

81.8%
Male
Female
An identity not listed
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Own a single-family home
Rent a single-family home
Own condo, or townhome
Rent apartment, condo, or townhome
Own mobile home
Other
Yes
Unsure
No
183
Item A.

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
23 9.2%

14.1%

9.5%

1.9%

15.4%

10.5%

28.0%

4.0%

8.9%

11.3%

12.0%

4.0%

8.9%

27.7%

7.1%

14.9%

11.3%

7.9%

12.0%

8.0%

13.4%

15.0%

4.0%

8.0%

9.5%

63.1%

78.8%

75.7%

86.8%

84.6%

81.6%

60.0%

88.0%

77.7%

73.8%

84.0%

88.0%

81.6%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Yes
Unsure
No
Question 11: Excluding holidays where service is delayed by one day, during the past 12 months, was there a time when GreenWaste Recovery did not empty any of your containers on your regularly scheduled collection day?
184
Item A.

Results by survey language and survey mode
24 10.1%

10.4%

10.2%

12.8%

5.8%

11.3%

11.4%

8.5%

12.8%

21.2%

5.3%

7.7%

78.6%
100.0%

78.2%

81.3%

74.4%

73.1%

94.7%

92.3%
100.0%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Yes
Unsure
No
Question 11: Excluding holidays where service is delayed by one day, during the past 12 months, was there a time when GreenWaste Recovery did not empty any of your containers on your regularly scheduled collection day?
185
Item A.

Among missed collections, the top reason reported
is service not arriving as scheduled
Question 12: What was the reason your containers were not emptied by GreenWaste Recovery on their scheduled collection day? Select all that apply. [IF ANSWERED YES TO Q11]
25 40.0%

11.1%

2.2%

26.7%

24.4%
Greenwaste recovery did not arrive for service as scheduled The containers were blocked by a vehicle or other obstruction My household did not put out our containers (e.g., forgot, on vacation)
Other
Unsure

10.0%

78.9%

11.1%
Question asked of
respondents who reported
that their container was
not emptied on their
scheduled day,
representing 10% of the
total sample or 45
individuals.
186
Item A.

Holiday tree and battery collection are the most
recognized programs
Question 13: GreenWaste Recovery offers a variety of programs to customers. Prior to taking this survey, which services were you aware of? Select all that apply. 26 59.1%

58.9%

48.2%

26.9%

20.0%

1.1%

22.4%
Holiday tree collection
Household battery collection
Large item/Electronic waste collection
Used cooking oil and motor-oil collection
Water based paint collection
Backyard service*
I was not aware of any of these programs
*Only included in Pacific Grove and PBCSD. 187
Item A.
27 Program utilization
Question 14: Has your household ever utilized__________? [PROGRAMS SELECTED IN Q13]

44.0%

73.2%

57.1%

31.4% 34.4%

40.0%

55.3%

24.5%

41.5%

66.1%

61.1% 60.0%

0.8% 2.3% 1.4% 2.5% 4.4%
Holiday tree collection Household battery
collection
Large item/electronic
waste collection
Used cooking oil and
motor-oil collection
Water based paint
collection
Backyard service
Yes No Unsure
Among 59% of the
total sample or 266
individuals.

Among 59% of the
total sample or 265
individuals.

Among 48% of the
total sample or 217
individuals.

Among 27% of the
total sample or 121
individuals.

Among 20% of the
total sample or 90
individuals.

Among 1% of the
total sample or 5
individuals.
188
Item A.
28 Program utilization barriers
Question 15: What prevents your household from participating in __________? [PROGRAMS SELECTED IN Q13]
[IF ANSWERED NO TO Q14]
Among 32% of the
total sample or 142
individuals.

Among 14% of the
total sample or 63
individuals.

Among 20% of the
total sample or 90
individuals.

Among 17% of the
total sample or 78
individuals.

Among 12% of the
total sample or 55
individuals.

Among 1% of the
total sample or 3
individuals.

3.5%

0.7%

0.7%

62.7%

29.6%

3.5%
Not sure
where to set
items out
Schedule
conflicts
Inconsistent
service
Other
Not
interested
Unsure

19.0%

4.8%

4.8%

39.7%

19.0%

14.3%
Not sure
where to set
items out
Don't know
what items
are accepted
It’s
inconvenient
Other
Not
interested
Unsure

21.1%

16.7%

2.2%

1.1%

38.9%

24.4%

6.7%
Not sure where to
set items out
Don't know what
items are accepted
It’s inconvenient
Schedule conflicts
Other
Not interested
Unsure

16.7 %

15.4 %

2.6%

41.0 %

24.4 %

7.7%
Not sure
where to set
items out
Don't know
what items
are accepted
It’s
inconvenient
Other
Not
interested
Unsure

12.7%

10.9%

47.3%

29.1%

3.6%
Not sure
where to set
items out
Don't know
what items
are accepted
Other
Not
interested
Unsure

33.3%

66.7%
Other
Not
interested
Holliday tree
collection
Household battery
collection
Large item/electronic
waste collection
Used cooking oil and
motor-oil collection
Water based paint
collection Backyard service
189
Item A.
29 Program satisfaction
Question 16: Were you satisfied or dissatisfied with __________? [PROGRAMS SELECTED IN Q13]
[IF ANSWERED YES TO Q14]

97.4% 98.5% 97.6% 94.7% 96.8%

50.0%

2.6% 1.5% 0.8% 5.3%

50.0%

1.6% 3.2%
Holiday tree collection Household battery
collection
Large item/electronic
waste collection
Used cooking oil and
motor-oil collection
Water based paint
collection
Backyard service
Satisfied Dissatisfied Unsure
Among 26% of the
total sample or 117
individuals.

Among 43% of the
total sample or 194
individuals.

Among 28% of the
total sample or 124
individuals.

Among 8% of the
total sample or 38
individuals.

Among 7% of the
total sample or 31
individuals.

Among <1% of the
total sample or 2
individuals.
190
Item A.
30 Reasons for dissatisfaction
Question 16: Why are you dissatisfied with __________?
[PROGRAMS SELECTED IN Q13]
[IF ANSWERED DISSATISDIED TO Q15]
Large item/electronic waste collection
They didn't pick up the items.

Used cooking oil and motor-oil collection
Do not always receive a replacement oil filter bag for the one I put out. they used to leave a container: SWAP OUT. No, I have to call and container seems to always be oily on the outside Household battery collection
I FOUND THE BAGGED BATTERIES ON THE STREET AFTER THE TRUCK LEFT.

We can't put button-cell batteries with regular alkaline batteries on top of our recycling bin. I've been told that we have to take them to the recycling station.

Don't like having to use a plastic baggie
Holiday tree collection
Too short
The dates that were given to remove the tree was not accurate or they just didnt p/u my tree? They didn't pick up our tree this year or last year.

Backyard service
There were many occasions when the truck broke many tree and bush branches on their way up the driveway. They also broke the raised asphalt were we park our car at the top of the driveway. The company did eventually repair it but took almost a year to do so. The truck also did cause erosion of the asphalt driveway although we do realize that this was not the fault of the driver but rather the weight of the truck itself. 191
Item A.
47% think their garbage and recycling bill is just
about right
Question 18: Thinking about your quarterly garbage and recycling bill, would you say the amount you pay is:
31 28.9%

46.9%

0.7%

23.6%
Too high Just about right Too low Unsure
192
Item A.

Results by gender, age group, and home type
Question 18: Thinking about your quarterly garbage and recycling bill, would you say the amount you pay is:
32 31.9%

25.2%

50.0%

19.2%

40.4%

18.3%

29.6%

32.0%

31.3%

35.7%

14.3%

17.7%

18.2%

46.9%

48.2%

38.4%

44.2%

58.3%

46.3%

48.7%

57.1%

40.0%

28.6%

24.1%

75.0%

45.5%

20.2%

26.1%

50.0%

42.5%

15.4%

21.7%

24.1%

18.0%

10.8%

24.3%

57.1%

57.0%

25.0%

36.4%
Male
Female
An identity not listed
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Own a single-family home
Rent a single-family home
Own condo, or townhome
Rent apartment, condo, or townhome
Own mobile home
Other
Too high
Just about right
Too low
Unsure
193
Item A.

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
33 35.4%

23.5%

28.4%

20.8%

38.5%

18.4%

40.0%

28.0%

25.9%

28.8%

24.0%

16.0%

32.3%

27.7%

45.9%

52.7%

62.3%

46.2%

60.5%

24.0%

52.0%

53.6%

37.5%

60.0%

60.0%

45.6%

36.9%

29.4%

17.6%

15.1%

15.4%

21.1%

36.0%

20.0%

20.5%

32.5%

16.0%

20.0%

21.5%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Too high
Just about right
Too low
Unsure
Question 18: Thinking about your quarterly garbage and recycling bill, would you say the amount you pay is:
194
Item A.

Results by survey language and survey mode
34 28.8%

33.3%

29.0%

27.2%

35.3%

21.2%

26.3%

15.4%

50.0%

47.1%

33.3%

46.9%

47.6%

47.4%

42.3%

47.4%

61.5%

16.7%

23.4%

33.3%

23.7%

24.8%

17.3%

34.6%

21.1%

15.4%

33.3%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Too high
Just about right
Too low
Unsure
Question 18: Thinking about your quarterly garbage and recycling bill, would you say the amount you pay is:
195
Item A.
99% say affordability is important
35 99.1%

0.4% 0.4%
Important Not important Unsure
Question 19: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Affordability 196
Item A.

Among those who say important, 79% say very
important
Question 19: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Affordability 36 99.2%

0.4%

0.4%
Total
Very important

79.1%
Somewhat important

20.9%
Among those who said important
Not very important
100.0%
Among those who said not important
197
Item A.

Results by gender, age group, and home type
37 98.6%

99.5%
100.0%

98.6%

98.1%
100.0%

99.1%

99.3%

99.6%
100.0%
100.0%

96.2%
100.0%
100.0%
Male
Female
An identity not listed
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Own a single-family home
Rent a single-family home
Own condo, or townhome
Rent apartment, condo, or townhome
Own mobile home
Other
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 19: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Affordability 198
Item A.

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
38 96.9%

97.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

99.1%
100.0%
100.0%

92.0%

99.4%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 19: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Affordability 199
Item A.

Results by survey language and survey mode
39 99.1%
100.0%

99.3%
100.0%

98.5%

98.1%

94.7%

92.3%
100.0%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 19: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Affordability 200
Item A.
98% say convenience for residents is important
40 98.2%

1.6% 0.2%
Important Not important Unsure
Question 20: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Convenience for residents 201
Item A.

Among those who say important, 81% say very
important
Question 20: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Convenience for residents 41 98.2%

1.6%

0.2%
Total
Very important

80.5%
Somewhat important

19.5%
Among those who said important
Not very important
100.0%
Among those who said not important
202
Item A.

Results by gender, age group, and home type
42 98.6%

98.2%
100.0%

97.3%

96.2%
100.0%

99.1%

98.0%

98.8%

97.1%
100.0%

97.5%
100.0%
100.0%
Male
Female
An identity not listed
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Own a single-family home
Rent a single-family home
Own condo, or townhome
Rent apartment, condo, or townhome
Own mobile home
Other
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 20: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Convenience for residents 203
Item A.

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
43 98.5%

96.5%

97.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

96.0%
100.0%

96.4%

98.8%
100.0%
100.0%

98.7%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 20: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Convenience for residents 204
Item A.

Results by survey language and survey mode
44 98.2%
100.0%

98.1%

98.8%

97.7%

96.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 20: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Convenience for residents 205
Item A.
96% say environmental impact is important
45 96.0%

3.6% 0.4%
Important Not important Unsure
Question 21: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Environmental impact 206
Item A.

Among those who say important, 82% say very
important
Question 21: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Environmental impact 46 96.0%

3.6%

0.4%
Total
Very important

81.7%
Somewhat important

18.3%
Among those who said important
Not important at all

25.0%
Not very important

75.0%
Among those who said not important
207
Item A.

Results by gender, age group, and home type
47 93.9%

98.2%
100.0%

98.6%

92.3%

93.3%

96.3%

97.3%

94.2%

97.1%
100.0%

98.7%
100.0%
100.0%
Male
Female
An identity not listed
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Own a single-family home
Rent a single-family home
Own condo, or townhome
Rent apartment, condo, or townhome
Own mobile home
Other
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 21: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Environmental impact 208
Item A.

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
48 98.5%

97.6%

95.9%

98.1%

96.2%

97.4%

96.0%

92.0%

96.4%

93.8%

88.0%

92.0%

99.4%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 21: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Environmental impact 209
Item A.

Results by survey language and survey mode
49 95.9%
100.0%

96.1%

94.7%

97.0%
100.0%

94.7%

92.3%
100.0%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 21: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Environmental impact 210
Item A.
50 99% say quality of service is important

98.9%

0.9% 0.2%
Important Not important Unsure
Question 22: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Quality of service 211
Item A.

Among those who say important, 85% say very
important
51 98.9%

0.9%

0.2%
Total
Very important

84.7%
Somewhat important

15.3%
Among those who said important
Not important at all

25.0%
Not very important

75.0%
Among those who said not important
Question 22: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Quality of service 212
Item A.

Results by gender, age group, and home type
Question 22: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Quality of service 52 98.6%

99.5%
100.0%
100.0%

96.2%

96.7%
100.0%

99.3%

98.8%
100.0%
100.0%

98.7%
100.0%
100.0%
Male
Female
An identity not listed
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Own a single-family home
Rent a single-family home
Own condo, or townhome
Rent apartment, condo, or townhome
Own mobile home
Other
Important
Unsure
Not important
213
Item A.

Results by household income and Jurisdiction
53 98.5%

98.8%
100.0%

98.1%

96.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

96.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

99.4%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999 a year
$100,000 - $149,999 a year
$150,000 - $199,999 a year
$200,000 - $249,999 a year
$250,000 or more a year
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Marina
Pacific Grove
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Sand City
Seaside
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 22: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Quality of service 214
Item A.

Results by survey language and survey mode
54 98.9%
100.0%

98.8%

99.6%

97.7%

98.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
English
Spanish
Online [NET]
Mail
Email
Text
Phone [NET]
Outbound call
Inbound call
Important
Unsure
Not important
Question 22: How important are each of the following community values when thinking about your garbage and recycling services? Quality of service 215
Item A.

Residents show greatest interest in household
hazardous waste pickup among potential new services
Question 23: GreenWaste Recovery may offer additional services that would come at an increased cost. Please indicate which of the following services you would be interested in.

Select all that apply.
55 32.4%

18.9%

18.4%

15.6%

15.1%

7.1%

6.0%

3.6%

26.0%

10.4%
Household hazardous waste pickup such as pesticides,
cleaning chemicals, or fluorescent light bulbs
Ability to stop and start service due to a vacation
Assistance programs for low-income residents
Smaller cart size options for recycle or organics
Extra yard trimming disposal
Smaller cart size options for garbage
Backyard/Sideyard pickup service*
Collection of carts in alleyways
Not interested in any of these
Unsure
*Only included in Marina, Seaside, Del Rey Oaks, and Sand City. 216 Item A.

Residents prefer receiving program information
by mail, followed by email
Question 35: How would you prefer to receive information about garbage and recycling programs? Select all that apply. 56 67.3%

40.0%

18.7%

15.6%

6.4%

6.2%

0.4%

3.1%
Mail to your home
Email
Greenwaste recovery website
Text message
Public events/Meetings
Social media
Other
Unsure
217
Item A.

Demographics
57 218
Item A.
58 19.1%

59.6%

3.1%

8.0%

5.8%

4.4%
Latino/Hispanic
White/Caucasian
Black/AfricanAmerican
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Other
Prefer not to
answer

47.3%

49.3%

0.9%

2.4%
Male
Female
An identify not listed
Prefer not to answer

16.2%

11.6%

13.3%

24.0%

33.3%

1.6%
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65+
Prefer not to
answer
Respondent demographics by gender, age group, ethnicity, home type, container type, income, and City
Gender Age Group Ethnicity Home type

57.6%

15.6%

17.6%

3.1%

0.2%

0.9%

2.4%

2.7%
Own a single-family
home
Rent a single-family
home
Rent apartment,
condo, or townhome
Own apartment,
condo, or townhome
Rent mobile home
Own mobile home
Other
Prefer not to answer
Container type Income City

81.6%

18.2%

0.2%
Individual container
Shared container
Unsure

14.4%

18.9%

16.4%

11.8%

5.8%

8.4%

24.2%
$49,999 a year or less
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $249,999
$250,000
Prefer not to answer

35.1%

24.9%

17.8%

5.6%

5.6%

5.6%

5.6%
Seaside
Marina
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Carmel-by-the-Sea
PBCSD
Sand City 219
Item A.

Questions?
Dr. Adam Probolsky, President
O: 949-855-6400 | M: 949-697-6726
E: [email protected]
Sergio Martinez, Research Analyst
E: [email protected]
Opinion Research on
Elections and Public Policy

PROBOLSKY RESEARCH
23 Corporate Plaza Suite 150 Newport Beach CA 92660
Newport Beach
(949) 855-6400
San Francisco
(415) 870-8150
Washington DC
(202) 559-0270 220
Item A.

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS FRANCHISE PROCUREMENT PROCESS

INTEGRITY POLICY
City of Del Rey Oaks is currently in the process of drafting a new franchise agreement for the collection and processing of solid waste, recyclables, and organics, and procuring vendor(s) to provide the franchised services. The intent of this City of Del Rey Oaks Process Integrity Policy (“Policy”) is to provide a fair opportunity for all Respondents to compete to provide franchised services, create an impartial climate during the procurement proceeding, streamline the procurement process, and achieve favorable terms of service for the public.

The City of Del Rey Oaks City Council, City of Del Rey Oaks staff, and consultants involved in the franchise procurement intend to employ careful, uniform, and equitable application of this Policy and the franchise procurement process and procedures (including Request for Proposal [RFP] deadlines and requirements) developed by City of Del Rey Oaks to advance the agency’s purposes and the public interest.

A sample schedule of this Policy is attached as a reference tool; the actual timeframe, sequence, and steps are subject to change.

All references herein to “Respondents” includes respondents and prospective respondents to a RFP or a request for sole source negotiations related to franchise agreement(s), and all employees, agents, consultants, lobbyists, and other entities or individuals acting on their behalf.

I. Campaign Contributions
Under state law Government Code section 84308, City of Del Rey Oaks City Council Members cannot accept from Respondents, and Respondents cannot provide, campaign contributions greater than $250 in the aggregate while the franchise procurement proceeding is pending and for 12 months after the City Council makes the final decision in the franchise proceeding.

The City of Del Rey Oaks franchise procurement proceeding is pending from the date this Policy is adopted until the date the City Council awards the final franchise agreement in the proceeding (or the agency formally terminates the franchise procurement proceeding). Note that City of Del Rey Oaks may award franchise agreements sequentially over the course of the proceeding; the proceeding is expected to be complete when the City Council awards the final franchise agreement. Because the franchise procurement proceeding may be pending for two or more years, more than one election cycle may be affected. If a candidate accepts the $250 contribution limit from a Respondent in one election cycle, they may not be able to accept a contribution of any amount from the Respondent in the next election cycle.

State law provides certain opportunities for City Council Members to cure; if the City Council Member returns at least the portion of the campaign contribution that exceeds $250 within 30 days from the time the City Council Member knows, or should have 221
Item A.
known, about the contribution and the franchise procurement proceeding, the City Council Member would be permitted to participate in the franchise procurement proceeding.

The state law limit on campaign contributions applies to any person that is not a current City of Del Rey Oaks City Council Member but is running for City/Town Council or Board of Directors and that is appointed to the City of Del Rey Oaks City Council after their election. Candidates that are newly appointed to the City Council may need to promptly return campaign contributions greater than $250 that were received from a Respondent within the last 12 months in order to participate in a City of Del Rey Oaks franchise decision.

In summary, to assist City Council Members and Respondents in complying with Government Code section 84308:

Respondents: (a) shall not make campaign contributions greater than $250 in the aggregate to any City of Del Rey Oaks City Council Member from the date of the adoption of this Policy until 12 months after the date the City Council awards the final franchise agreement in the proceeding (or the agency formally terminates the franchise procurement proceeding); and (b) shall disclose on the record of the franchise procurement proceeding any contribution greater than $250 made to a City of Del Rey Oaks City Council Member within the 12 months before a City Council decision in the franchise procurement proceeding.

City of Del Rey Oaks City Members: (a) should not accept campaign contributions greater than $250 in the aggregate from any Respondent from the date of the adoption of this Policy until 12 months after the date the City Council awards the final franchise agreement in the proceeding (or the agency formally terminates the franchise procurement proceeding); and (b) if a [Insert Council or Board] Member has received a campaign contribution greater than $250 from a Respondent within 12 months prior to a decision on a franchise agreement, the City Council Member must disclose receipt of the campaign contribution on the record, and will be disqualified from participating in the franchise proceeding, unless the City Council Member returns the portion of the campaign contribution that exceeds $250 within 30 days from the time the City Council Member knows, or should have known, about the contribution and the franchise procurement proceeding.

Candidates for City/Town Council and Board of Directors: if appointed to the City of Del Rey Oaks City Council, should be prepared promptly to return campaign contributions greater than $250 from a Respondent received within 12 months prior to the candidate’s participation in a decision on a franchise agreement.

This Policy is intended to provide guidance to City Council Members and Respondents on how the state law is expected to apply to City of Del Rey Oaks’s 222
Item A.
franchise procurement proceeding; to the extent of any inconsistency, state law governs over summaries or interpretations provided in this Policy.

II. Gifts.

Under state law Government Code sections 81000 et seq. (the “Political Reform Act”), and the City of Del Rey Oaks Conflict of Interest Code,City of Del Rey Oaks City Council Members, City of Del Rey Oaks staff and certain consultants that make or participate in making decisions for City of Del Rey Oaks must report on their Form 700 “Gifts” (as defined in the Act) from a single reportable source of $50 to $590 (in the aggregate), and may not accept Gifts from a single reportable source totaling more than $590 (in the aggregate) in a calendar year (2023-2024 dollar thresholds; subject to change under state law).

This Policy prohibits Gifts of any value from a Respondent to a City of Del Rey Oaks City Council Member, staff, or consultant involved in the franchise procurement from the date this Policy is adopted and for 12 months after the City Council makes the final decision in the franchise proceeding (or the agency formally terminates the franchise procurement proceeding). Thus, this Policy is intended to be more restrictive than state law.

New appointees to the City of Del Rey Oaks City Council should be prepared promptly to return upon appointment to the City of Del Rey Oaks City Council any Gifts that were received from a Respondent after the date of adoption of this Policy.

City of Del Rey Oaks intends to apply the Fair Political Practices Commission regulations, interpretations, and other guidance on matters such as defining what constitutes a Gift, exceptions to the definition of Gift, determining the source of a Gift, and determining whether a payment is a behested payment.

In summary:

Respondents: shall not make Gifts of any value to City of Del Rey Oaks City Council Members, or City of Del Rey Oaks staff or consultants involved in the franchise procurement, from the date of the adoption of this Policy until 12 months after the date the [Insert Council or Board] awards the final franchise agreement in the proceeding (or the agency formally terminates the franchise procurement proceeding).

City of Del Rey Oaks City Council: should not accept Gifts of any value from any Respondent from the date of the adoption of this Policy until 12 months after the date the City Council awards the final franchise agreement in the proceeding (or the agency formally terminates the franchise procurement proceeding).
223
Item A.

City of Del Rey Oaks Staff and Consultants Involved in the Franchise Procurement: shall not accept Gifts of any value from any Respondent from the date of the adoption of this Policy until 12 months after the date the [Insert Council or Board] awards the final franchise agreement in the proceeding (or the agency formally terminates the franchise procurement proceeding).

Nothing in this Policy is intended to relieve City of Del Rey Oaks City Council Members, staff, or consultants from complying with the provisions of the Political Reform Act, the agency’s Conflict of Interest Code, or other applicable law.

III. Communications
Respondents, City of Del Rey Oaks City Council Members, and City of Del Rey Oaks staff and consultants involved in the franchise procurement are expected to adhere to the communications protocols described here.

This Policy applies to communications regarding the franchise procurement proceeding and the future provision of franchise solid waste, recycling, or organics services in the City of Del Rey Oaks’s jurisdiction. This Policy does not apply to casual social communications, communications regarding the current franchise agreements, or communications unrelated to the new franchise procurement process or the provision of future franchise services. This Policy does not apply to oral communications made on the record at open and noticed public meetings, or written communications submitted to the full City Council and that are part of the public record of City of Del Rey Oaks. The Policy does not apply to communications at meetings organized by City of Del Rey Oaks staff with Respondents.

A. Prior to Release of Procurement Documents
From the date of adoption of this Policy until the date City of Del Rey Oaks first releases procurement documents for some or all future franchise services (e.g., RFP or request for sole source negotiations), communication between Respondents and City Council Members about the franchise procurement process or provision of any future services in City of Del Rey Oaks’s jurisdiction is permitted, subject to the disclosure requirements set forth herein.

Communications, oral or written, between Respondents and City Council Members about the franchise procurement process or provision of any future franchise services in City of Del Rey Oaks’s jurisdiction, shall either (1) be disclosed orally by the City Council Member to the Del Rey Oaks City Council at the next City Council meeting, or (2) be disclosed in writing to the City Clerk prior to the next City Council meeting; the City Clerk shall maintain such written disclosures as part of the public record of the City of Del Rey Oaks and promptly provide copies of the written disclosure to the other City Council Members. The disclosure shall apprise the City Council and the public of the content of the communication.
224
Item A.

B. After Release of Procurement Documents
After the date, the City of Del Rey Oaks first releases procurement documents for some or all future franchise services, communications about the franchise procurement process or provision of any future services in the City of Del Rey Oaks’s jurisdiction shall be made only through a person or persons designated by the Executive Director as the point of contact for the agency.

The procurement documents will provide instructions for Respondents to make requests for clarification, object to the structure or content of the RFP, ask questions about the procurement, and make other inquiries, and the process the City of Del Rey Oaks will follow to respond to such communications.

Note that the City of Del Rey Oaks may release procurement documents for franchise services sequentially over the course of the proceeding; this section III.B applies when the first procurement documents in the proceeding are released. This communication protocol will expire when the Board awards the final franchise agreement in the proceeding (or the agency formally terminates the franchise procurement proceeding).

C. Civility
To preserve civility in the franchise procurement proceeding, the City of Del Rey Oaks requests that Respondents focus their communications on the positive aspects of their company, proposal, and offered services, and refrain from engaging in disparaging communications about other Respondents. In extreme cases, (e.g., slander, libel) publicly engaging in such disparaging communications may result in the City of Del Rey Oaks disqualifying a Respondent from award of a franchise.

IV. Further Restrictions for the City of Del Rey Oaks Consultants City of Del Rey Oaks consultants involved in the franchise procurement shall not do any work for any Respondent in connection with this City of Del Rey Oaks franchise procurement process from the date of the adoption of this Policy (or the date they are retained, whichever is later) until the consultant is no longer involved in the City of Del Rey Oaks franchise procurement.

V. Application
Respondents: By participating in the procurement, Respondents agree to adhere to this Policy, and are responsible for ensuring compliance with this Policy on behalf of their employees, agents, consultants, lobbyists, or other entities or individuals acting on their behalf. A Respondent’s failure to adhere to any section of this Policy may result in the City of Del Rey Oaks disqualifying the Respondent from award of a franchise.
225
Item A.

City of Del Rey Oaks City Council Members: A City of Del Rey Oaks City Council Member’s failure to adhere to any section of this Policy may result in the City Council Member being disqualified from participating in any franchise decisions.

Staff and Consultants: Staff and consultants who do not adhere to the Policy may be disqualified from working on the franchise procurement, and [Insert Agency Name] staff who do not adhere to the Policy may be subject to discipline.

All federal, state, and local laws (and any updates to those laws) continue to apply. To the extent that a member agency of the City of Del Rey Oaks has adopted campaign contribution laws that are more restrictive than state law or this Policy, this Policy is not intended to supersede those more restrictive laws.

Attachments:
- Sample Schedule
226
Item A.

Sample Schedule and Application of Process Integrity Policy * Actual Timeframes, Sequence, and Steps Subject to Change * Process Collection RFP Collection FA 12 Months New FA
Integrity Policy
Adopted
Released Awarded After
Collection FA
Awarded
Begins
April/May
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Blackout on Campaign Contributions > $250 (aggregate)
Blackout on Gifts of Any Amount
Ex Parte Communications Permitted if Disclosed
Blackout on Ex Parte Communications
227
Item A.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-07

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL REY OAKS APPROVING THE

REGEN MONTEREY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUBGROUP RECOMMENDATION TO

INITIATE A COMPETITIVE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PROCESS FOR SOLID WASTE,

RECYCLING, AND ORGANICS COLLECTION SERVICES AND ADOPTING A PROCESS

INTEGRITY POLICY
WHEREAS, the City of Del Rey Oaks is a member agency of ReGen Monterey (ReGen), a regional joint powers authority responsible for solid waste management services; and WHEREAS, the City, along with six other member agencies, is currently a party to an exclusive franchise agreement with GreenWaste Recovery, LLC (GreenWaste) for solid waste, recycling, and organics collection services, which is set to expire in 2030; and WHEREAS, ReGen and its member agencies have undertaken a comprehensive planning process to evaluate options for future collection services, including formation of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Subgroup and engagement of HF&H Consultants, LLC to assist with analysis, public outreach, and procurement planning; and
WHEREAS, an extensive stakeholder engagement process was conducted, including residential surveys, community meetings, and outreach to multi-family, commercial, and industry stakeholders, which identified affordability, service quality, convenience, and environmental impact as key community priorities; and
WHEREAS, the stakeholder engagement process also demonstrated strong interest from multiple qualified service providers, indicating a competitive market for future collection services; and WHEREAS, the TAC Subgroup evaluated key considerations including good governance, affordability, customer satisfaction, assignment risk, and regional infrastructure readiness; and WHEREAS, the TAC Subgroup determined that a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process provides a transparent, fair, and defensible method to secure the best value for the community while allowing the current service provider, GreenWaste, and other qualified firms to compete; and WHEREAS, ReGen’s publicly owned infrastructure, including collection facilities and processing assets, supports a competitive procurement environment and reduces barriers to entry for proposers; and
WHEREAS, to ensure a fair and transparent procurement process, a Process Integrity Policy has been developed to establish communication protocols, define roles and responsibilities, and prevent conflicts of interest; and
WHEREAS, initiation of the RFP process is anticipated to begin in late 2026, with contract award anticipated in 2028, allowing sufficient time for transition prior to expiration of the current agreements; and
WHEREAS, there is no direct financial impact to the City for initiating the RFP process, as procurement-related costs will be reimbursed through existing agreements and ultimately by the selected franchise service provider;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del ReyOaks as follows:

1. Approval of Recommendation: The City Council hereby approves the recommendation of 228
Item A.

ReGen Monterey’s Technical Advisory Committee Subgroup to initiate a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process for solid waste, recycling, and organics collection services.

2. Participation in RFP Process: The City of Del Rey Oaks shall participate with other ReGen member agencies in the development and implementation of the regional RFP process, allowing GreenWaste Recovery, LLC and other qualified service providers to compete for the franchise.

3. Adoption of Process Integrity Policy: The City Council hereby adopts the Process Integrity Policy, attached to the staff report as Attachment F, to guide all participants and ensure a fair, transparent, and legally defensible procurement process.

4. Authorization of City Manager: The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to take all actions necessary to implement this Resolution, including coordination with ReGen Monterey and participating member agencies throughout the RFP process.

5. Effective Date: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL REY OAKS, this 28 th day
of April, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:

Scott Donaldson, Mayor Karen Minami, City Clerk
229
Item A.

Mayor Donaldson Report
Below is a summary of board meetings:

Transportation Agency for Monterey County
(TAMC)
March 25, 2026
TAMC Board Approves Request to Program Funds for the Toro Park Lane Closure Project
The Board of Directors of the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) approved a request from the County of Monterey to program Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Fair Share Allocation funds for the Toro Park Lane Closure Project in the amount of $20,888.86.

The Toro Park Lane Closure Project proposes installing permanent measures, including a remotely operated gate and centerline delineators, to continue efforts to help the community stay safe during school pick-up and drop-off hours and reduce conflicts with cut-through traffic to Route 68.

TAMC receives RSTP funds, which total approximately $6 million per year, and distributes them to the Cities and County in two methods: fair share and competitive share. TAMC distributes $1.2 million per year as the fair share component to the cities and County based on population and lane miles. The County of Monterey has a balance in its fair share reserve in the amount of $20,888.86 and has requested the balance of these funds for the Toro Park Lane Closure Project.

RSTP was established by the State of California to utilize gas tax revenues on a wide variety of local transportation projects. TAMC receives these funds and is tasked with reviewing projects proposed for fair share monies and approving the funding if the project is deemed eligible under state law.

Monterey County Regional Vision Zero Safety Action Plan 230
Item A.

TAMC’s Board of Directors received a presentation on the development of the Regional Vision Zero Safety Action Plan. Vision Zero is a global strategy to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries in a certain timeframe by treating them as preventable events.

In the U.S., the Vision Zero strategy led to the adoption of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Safe System Approach. This is a holistic roadway safety guide that recognizes that humans make mistakes, that our transportation network should be designed to prevent fatal mistakes from happening in the first place, and to minimize the injury severity when a crash occurs.

The Monterey County Regional Vision Zero Plan will be a comprehensive, data-driven roadmap that unites agencies and communities to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries through targeted strategies, infrastructure improvements, and the Safe System Approach. As part of this work, the Agency must adopt a goal statement, and this is expected to be a template for the safety action plans for other jurisdictions.

TAMC is developing the Monterey County Regional Vision Zero Safety Action Plan and individual safety action plans for the following jurisdictions that do not already have one:

Carmel by the Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Soledad, and the County of Monterey (note: the Cities of Monterey, Seaside and Salinas have already adopted comprehensive safety action plans, or are in the process of developing safety action plans using federal Safe Streets for All funds). This comprehensive project reflects collaboration with partner agencies and other stakeholders to promote coordinated solutions to reduce fatalities and injuries due to traffic collisions in Monterey County.

Following the presentation and a robust discussion, the Board of Directors adopted the following goal statement for its safety action plan and recommends other agencies use it as a template:

TAMC and Monterey County jurisdictions believe that everyone deserves to travel safely. To achieve this vision, TAMC has set an ambitious and achievable goal to reduce fatal and serious injuries by 30% by 2030 with the goal of eliminating fatal and serious injuries by 2040.

State Route 68 Corridor Status Report
TAMC’s Board of Directors received a status report on two projects currently being developed to address traffic issues along State Route 68 linking the Salinas Valley to the Monterey Peninsula: implementing adaptive signal operations at all signalized intersections; and constructing roundabouts at the intersections of Corral de Tierra, San 231
Item A.

Benancio, and Laureles Grade. The two projects are intended to address traffic issues without adding roadway capacity in this environmentally sensitive area.

Adaptive Traffic Signal Project
TAMC has allocated $1.5 million towards the project to upgrade signal equipment for adaptive traffic signal operations. This technology uses artificial intelligence (AI) to automatically adjust signal parameters in response to changing traffic conditions. Caltrans procured and installed the adaptive system at all nine intersections along the Scenic State Route 68 Corridor.

The project team is collecting performance data to establish baseline (i.e., "before") project conditions. Caltrans staff will start adaptive operations once training is completed in March, and adjustments will be made through April. The team expects the adaptive operations to be optimized in early May when traffic data will be collected to establish "after” conditions while schools are in session. TAMC hired a third-party consultant team, GHD, to conduct a "before and after study" that will use travel times and other signal performance measures to evaluate traffic signal operations along the corridor and quantify the benefits of the adaptive signal project.

Phase 1 Roundabout Project
After a lengthy environmental analysis compliant with state and federal laws, Caltrans selected the long-term traffic solution along the Scenic Highway 68 corridor to be the construction of roundabouts at all nine signalized intersections and five wildlife crossings under the state highway. Phase 1 of this project will construct two wildlife crossings and roundabouts at the three eastern intersections of the corridor: San Benancio Road, Corral de Tierra, and Laureles Grade. Caltrans anticipates using the "hybrid" roundabout project design like that constructed at the intersection of Highway 1, Holman Highway, and the Pebble Beach gate. The Phase 1 Roundabout Project is funded through the design phase and the construction bid package is expected to be ready for listing before December 2027.

Next Steps
Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) Grant: Applications will be due in November 2026 for the next cycle of funding. To qualify for the SB 1 grant, the project bid documents must be ready to list by December 2027. The current schedule has this work being completed by October 2027.

The critical path schedule relates to design work, and Caltrans expects to complete the 95% plans before the end of 2026.

Benefit-Cost Analysis: The team expects to complete the benefit-cost analysis in May and present it to the TAMC Board at the May or June meeting. This item is expected to include a staff recommendation regarding the continued effort to complete designs and the SB 1 grant application.
232
Item A.

Monterey One Water (M1W)
March 30, 2026
233
Item A.

Kim Shirley’s Council Report
for Tuesday, April 28, 2026
Friday, March 20th- ReGen Monterey Board Meeting- This month’s meeting began with public comments from the CEO of GreenWaste Recovery, who shared more about their outreach/education plans and their efforts to address performance issues. He did this while also requesting that we move forward with an amended franchise agreement, which will be addressed at next month’s meeting. We also had a comment from one of the labor unions, which was also giving support for an agreement with GreenWaste.

After the consent agenda, we moved on to the main topic for this meeting, which was a discussion regarding a rate increase for the FY 26-27. The reason we needed to address this topic early in the budget season is that ReGen needed to notify the waste haulers so they could incorporate this increase into their rates for the new fiscal year, and so ReGen could use the anticipated changes in its budget planning, too. I reviewed this topic in last month’s Finance Committee report, so let me copy and paste it here in case you missed it:
“We’re looking at a roughly 5% increase for solid waste and other waste materials, recycling, and commercial food scraps, and a 10% increase for clean wood and residential organics. This equates to a $0.44 increase for residential services in DRO and a $2.75 increase for commercial. This increase still keeps us well below the average rate for disposal when compared to other local landfills in Monterey County, Santa Cruz County, and San Jose. Several reasons for this increase include funding our CalPERS unfunded liability costs, increasing cost of capital expenditures, higher cost of employment, regulatory mandates, and inflation. Another large consideration is working little by little to close a future funding gap we’ll experience when our largest outside waste contract ends in 2036. Slowly increasing our rates so that we’re essentially self-sufficient at that time allows us to lessen the impact of that loss, while also building revenue that can help fund infrastructure maintenance and new projects that will provide us with a return on investment (landfill gas projects). It also allows us to negotiate favorable out-of-district contracts when we reduce our reliance on those contracts.” After a discussion, the Board unanimously voted for the rate increase and showed much appreciation to the staff for their considerate planning for the future of our agency.

Next, we got the latest update on the 2030 Collection Franchise Planning. The subcommittee of our TAC has been working hard to collect the needed information to make a recommendation to the Board. In April’s Board meeting, they will be providing us with a summary of the public outreach that was done (thanks to those who completed the surveys!). They’ll also be providing a recommendation for our Board. In May, the member City Councils will need to vote on this recommendation. Ideally, all of the member jurisdictions will agree with the recommendation, so we can move forward together, which 1 234
Item A.
undoubtedly will get us a better outcome, whether that’s an amended contract or a new RFP.

The last item on the agenda was voting for the alternate member for our LAFCO representative. One of the candidates, Bill Lipe, attended our meeting and provided public comment. We were also able to ask about his positions, and with that, a motion was made to vote for Bill, which was a unanimous vote in support of moving him forward.

Tuesday, March 24th- City Council Meeting- We began our meeting with a proclamation honoring the American Red Cross for March. Following that were three presentations. The first was the swearing in of Guy Dobine, who is our newest reserve police officer in Del Rey Oaks. He comes from LA and is very experienced, so our city will benefit from the knowledge he’ll bring. Next was a presentation from Community Human Services talking about their services, specifically Casa De Noche Buena and Shuman Hearthouse, which has a very high rate of successfully sheltering women and their families and getting them the services they need to be able to find housing of their own. Their main talking point was sharing their financial shortfall, because of changes in their funding structures, mostly coming from the state and federal government. It made me wonder how much we contribute as a city, so I made a note to talk about this during our budget meetings. Our last presentation was from the CEO of Montage Health Systems. I was happy to hear they’re focusing on increasing access to medical care, as I know finding a doctor on the peninsula is often a very difficult and time-consuming process. They’re also working on making it easier for their workforce to live on the peninsula. In addition, he spoke about partnerships, as well as their acquisition of the orthopedic and sports medicine, and the new stroke care they’re now offering. I was very happy to see that in the end, the CEO made a note about reaching out to Community Human Services, since having Community Human Services operating to their full capacity ultimately saves Montage money through fewer hospital visits from the unhoused population.

Next was passing our consent agenda. I asked to pull our annual General Plan progress report because I had the following questions.

1. Can the newly created "Housing Resources Page" on our website have a direct link from the homepage? I see that it's listed on the "Community" section of our website, which is great, but there is no direct link to housing information on the "Community" drop-down list from the homepage.

2. What's the plan for having the housing information translated into Spanish?

3. Will this housing information be provided in the next Acorn? If so, when will it be published?

4. In program C.2, it was noted that the "City provides updates on the number of new ADU's that are being built each year in the APR..."- Can you point out where that's located in the report?
2 235
Item A.

5. It was noted in the report that "The City drafted a Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance; The City is in the process of completing." I'm wondering when we might see this, especially since this was supposed to be done by the end of 2025.

After asking my questions, City Manager Guertin said that he couldn’t answer my questions and asked that I email them to him, which I did the next day. Disappointingly, I never received a response, so I asked him again in person, several weeks later, after our finance meeting. Here are his responses:

1. He will have Laura Batra work on this when she can, but she’s very busy, so not sure when it will be done.

2. There is no plan to translate the housing resources information because it is too expensive (even though we said we’d do it in our annual report).

3. I didn’t reask this question. I’m going to assume it will be in the next Acorn.

4. He could not tell me where to find this number in the report.

5. The City Manager did not know what the Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance was.

Side Note: A month ago, I also emailed the City Manager to ask to be sent the letter that went out to the developers who showed interest in our Ft. Ord Property. The City Manager never replied to my email, and as of 4/20/26, I have not received anything (even after asking him again when I was getting my questions answered about annual report questions). I’ll keep asking.

After passing all of the consent items, we moved on to New Business and started with the mid-year budget adjustments. We had reviewed this item at the Finance Committee meeting, so all of my questions were answered there, and I did not have any further questions.

Our last item was approving a resolution allowing our City Manager to sign a contract for ADA sidewalk improvements in Del Rey Park. Although it wasn’t noted in the staff report, we used Community Development Block Grant funding for this project. This item was unanimously approved.

Wednesday, April 1st- Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster Board Meeting- After passing our consent agenda, our first item was approving new legal services for the Watermaster. Luckily, there was another lawyer in the same firm who had experience dealing with adjudicated basins and who was willing to represent us at the same cost. Staff had interviewed him and felt he would work well, so after meeting him over Zoom, we approved the change.

The next item was a bit complicated, agenda-wise, so it took much discussion and a few motions before we settled. The issue was that one of our producers, Mission Memorial Park, did not replace the meter when the well was put back into production last September, and therefore, they were not able to provide production data for the first quarter. With the help of our new legal counsel, the staff provided the board with an added policy to our 3 236
Item A.

Rules and Regulations to guide us in deciding how to assign a production amount when there is no working meter. After discussing some of the specifics of the language and receiving public comment from MPWMD speaking to the ease of estimating water usage based on neighboring comparisons, we directed staff to finalize the language of the policy (essentially tabling the item for next time) and approving the idea of working with the producer to finalize the estimate. It’s amazing to think that this had not happened before, so I’m glad that we’re working on a policy to address this issue.

Our last item before getting into the informational reports was honoring Laura Paxton for her service to the Watermaster. Everyone had many thoughtful things to say about her many years of dedication to the Watermaster. She had a very important job, which she took very seriously, and we were all so grateful for the work she had done for our basin.

Monday, April 6th- Monterey-Salinas Transit Board Meeting- Please see the MST board highlights in our agenda packet.

Wednesday, April 8th- Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster Technical Advisory Committee- Our first discussion item today was receiving an update on the new shallow monitoring well that the Watermaster and MPWMD would like to install near our Sentinel well #4. Representatives from both parties had just met with State Parks, which owns the land where our Sentinel well #4 is located, to share the importance of this new well and the need for it to be located very close to well #4. Unfortunately, the road that leads up to our Sentinel well #4 is being “rewilded,” so it sounds like it will take some additional discussions before everyone can reach a consensus on exactly where the new well might be located.

Our next item was a discussion about whether we’d want to perform the same geophysical imaging in the area of Sentinel well #4 that we did last year. After the staff spoke with several hydrogeological experts, everyone was of the same opinion that it was not necessary at this time. Moving ahead with the monitoring well, and if we see an increase in conductivity with our induction logging, then that may be the time to conduct another round of imaging. Staff will budget this for 2027, but it was voted that we would not perform the imaging this year.

Our last item was receiving a status report on the update to our Seaside Basin Groundwater Model. This work has been on hold while the seawater intrusion model for the Salinas Valley Basin comes to completion. Once that’s done, our consultant will be able to review the model and prepare recommendations for the update of our model. Since we are skipping our May meeting, our consultant will take that time to develop a scope of work and present his recommendations for the proposal at the June TAC meeting.

Monday, April 13th- City Finance Committee Meeting- The only item on our agenda was talking about budget projections for next year. The short story is what you might 4 237
Item A.
imagine. Expenses are going up, especially with insurance costs, and our revenues will likely only increase by a fraction (1-2%). With that in mind, there won’t be many changes to our budget, although the City Manager did mention a 5% increase for our Police Chief since he did not receive the same raise as others have in previous years. It seems that all of our revenue is spent on operations, and the few reserves we have are for police cars and technology replacements. The good news is that we have a “rainy day” reserve that would essentially cover us for one year of police service. We also have a decent amount of fund balance or money that has not been spent but can be used for projects within the city.

That money is also in an interest-bearing account and accounts for our 5th-highest revenue source, which seems like a discussion that the council should have regarding the amount we might want to leave in versus the amount we want to spend on capital projects.

And since we don’t have a reserve fund for capital projects, our capital projects will be the place where we should be having the most discussions. With that in mind, I have asked for descriptions of the capital projects we will need to review. I’m hoping we’ll see that at our next finance meeting in May. I also asked about smaller projects, such as no-smoking signs for the park and new trash cans for the park. I was told projects such as those would come out of the Public Works budget, and so I asked for a brief narrative that shares information such as that, so the public and the council will know additional smaller projects that will be happening in the city. This past year, the city purchased a new budgeting software, so I’m hoping we’ll see the benefits of this software with informative visual graphs and additional information that will help residents and council members to interpret these topics that are not always easy to grasp.

Wednesday, April 15th- M1Water Special Board Meeting- I’m an alternate for Mayor Scott Donaldson on M1W, and he was not able to attend this mid-day meeting, so I was happy to attend. We were receiving a rate study that had been done to project the rates they would need to charge for the next 5 years in order to meet all of their operational and maintenance requirements, as well as their capital projects for wastewater. I was happy to hear they slimmed their budget by 5% and cut over $28 million in capital projects to come to their final numbers, which raises the rates by 8-9% every year for the next 5 years. They did make several financial assumptions in order to come to this rate structure, so this does reflect the maximum amount they’d be able to raise our rates. The Board in future years could decide to go lower if its financial outcome changes. The Board accepted and passed this rate study after a few questions, and now M1W will initiate the Proposition 218 process, where they will notify customers in May, asking for feedback, and then hold a public hearing in June as the final step.

Friday, April 17th- ReGen Monterey Board Meeting- To begin today’s meeting, we introduced our new Director of Finance and Administration, Roseanna Guerrero. After passing the consent agenda and receiving the financial report (looking good), we recognized two employees who work in our Materials and Recovery Center as Sorters, for their 20 years of service.
5 238
Item A.

Our first discussion item was a big one, where we received a report from the Technical Advisory Committee’s Franchise Agreement Subgroup recommending that a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) be initiated for a new waste hauler since our contract with GreenWaste Recovery ends in 2030. Our consultant, Rob Hilton from HF&H, whom we’ve hired to help us through this process, provided the overall survey results from their outreach to residents, multi-family units, and commercial. Although the surveys showed generally positive results for service, one of the main concerns was cost. Given that issue and after presentations from GreenWaste Recovery and other interested haulers, the subcommittee decided not to extend the contract for GreenWaste and instead invited them and others to submit a proposal for an “RFP” (request for proposal) process. The committee felt this would be the most transparent, public process, which would help us to arrive at a competitively priced contract. After questions from the directors and public comments from GreenWaste and Recylogy, a waste hauler who is interested in bidding, the board of directors agreed with the recommendation and unanimously voted to accept the recommendation. They will now be taking this recommendation around to the jurisdictions that have the ultimate say in the process for their own city, but in all likelihood, will vote for the RFP process in order to take advantage of this economy-of-scale process.

In addition, the cities will also be asked to pass a “Process Integrity Policy” which dictates when we can speak to waste haulers as they go through the bidding process. I appreciated the work our subcommittee did to arrive at this process and was happy the board supported it as well.

Our next item was a bit of a no-brainer. We collect the methane gas that’s produced in our landfill, and this item was voting to award a contract for the construction of a gas collection system that will improve our current collection. It will start in this fiscal year and end in the next, so we’ll be able to use both budgets to cover this work.

The last item of discussion was approving to move forward with a public hearing for May 22, 2026, for our disposal fee increases, which we discussed and approved last month.

Sunday, April 19th- Seaside’s Earth Day Event- Wow, what a fabulous day! I spent the day tabling for Sustainable Del Rey Oaks, and with the wonderful weather and the joint event celebrating 50 years of Laguna Grande Park, it was a busy 3-hour event. We focused on the future opening of the DRO portion of FORTAG, with people very interested in viewing the renderings after having driven past much of the construction this past year.

They are excited to both use it and visit the Frog Pond. I ran an art activity by repurposing nature cards, cutting out animals and plants that could be used for personal collages. Kids and adults both enjoyed the opportunity to sit, look through the piles of beautiful pictures, and create their own artwork. I also had a gratitude board where people can share what they were grateful for, because I don't know about you, but I need those small reflections of gratitude more and more these days.
6 239
Item A.

Council Report from Councilmember John Uy, Ed.D. 1
Council Report from Councilmember John Uy
April 28, 2026 Meeting
I. Council Report: Regular Meeting of the DRO City Council on March 24, 2025 Dear Del Rey Oaks Neighbors,
At our March 24, 2026 regular City Council meeting, the Council considered a number of important items that directly affect the quality of life in Del Rey Oaks, from public safety and health care access to homelessness response, fiscal stewardship, housing reporting, code enforcement support, and accessibility
improvements in our public spaces. The agenda included a proclamation for American Red Cross Month, presentations from Community Human Services and Montage Health, several
consent items, and two significant new business items: the City’s mid-year budget adjustments and an ADA sidewalk improvement project at City Park.

One of the evening’s uplifting moments was the swearing in of a new Reserve Police Officer, Guy Dobine. In a small city like Del Rey Oaks, every public safety professional matters.

Recruiting people who are willing to serve our community is important, and I am grateful for those who step forward to help protect our residents. This kind of investment in local service helps strengthen the safety and responsiveness our community expects and deserves.

We also received a presentation from Community Human Services regarding Casa de Noche Buena and Shuman HeartHouse, which serve women and families experiencing homelessness.

The presentation showed that these shelters are producing outcomes that exceed the statewide benchmark for transitions to permanent housing. Casa de Noche Buena reported a three-year average of 50% of clients moving to permanent housing, and Shuman HeartHouse reported a two-year average of 57%, compared with a statewide benchmark of 23%. At the same time, the presentation made clear that both programs are facing serious and growing funding gaps beginning in fiscal year 2026–27, with potential consequences that could include service reductions, loss of case management, conversion to overnight-only sheltering, or even closure.

For me, this issue is about both compassion and practical governance. When a program is helping vulnerable women and families stabilize their lives and find permanent housing, the question is not only whether we care, but whether we are willing to understand the higher cost of doing too little. If funding cuts reduce case management and housing navigation, those costs do not disappear. They often reappear elsewhere — in emergency rooms, law enforcement contacts, and broader public system strain. That is why I believe homelessness discussions must be grounded not just in sympathy, but in accountability and long-term thinking. My focus is on making sure we ask hard questions about outcomes, sustainability, and what underfunding today may cost all of us tomorrow.
240
Item A.

Council Report from Councilmember John Uy, Ed.D. 2
The Council also heard a presentation from Montage Health. The presentation emphasized three broad themes: access to care, economic and workforce vitality, and partnership with local communities. Montage highlighted its primary, specialty, and urgent care system; more than 30 specialties; approximately 230,000 annual patient visits in the Montage Medical Group; 48,000 annual visits through MoGo Urgent Care; new stroke care capabilities; educational partnerships with MPC and CSUMB; and programs intended to help support workforce recruitment and retention, including a home loan program for employees.

This was an important conversation because health care is not abstract. It affects our seniors, working families, employees, and residents who need timely care close to home. From my perspective, regional growth in a health system is meaningful only if communities like Del Rey Oaks actually feel the benefit in practical ways, such as improved access, shorter wait times for medical appointments, and better preventive care. I also believe there is room for deeper partnership between health institutions and cities, especially around prevention, behavioral health navigation, and senior wellness. A healthier community is not built only inside hospitals.

It is also built through strong local collaboration.

One of the more important business items was the FY 2025–26 mid-year budget adjustment.

According to the staff report, the City’s mid-year review uses actual revenues and expenditures through December 31, 2025. The proposed adjustments would increase General Fund estimated revenues by only $1,850, while increasing appropriations and transfers by $158,800.

The February financial report also states that the City had a healthy cash balance of $13,246,360, though much of that balance is restricted for specific purposes.

My concern on budget matters is always to be responsible, careful, and honest with the public about the difference between one-time adjustments and ongoing obligations. It is not enough to say that the City has cash on hand. We also have to ask how much is truly flexible, whether current spending pressures could carry into the next fiscal year, and how we preserve our ability to respond to future uncertainties. Good budgeting is not only about balancing numbers in the present. It is about protecting the City’s long-term stability, maintaining essential services, and avoiding decisions that quietly create pressure down the road. That is the lens I bring to budget review.

The Council also considered Resolution 2026-04 authorizing the City Manager to sign a contract with Coastal Paving and Excavation for ADA sidewalk improvements at City Park. This project involves ADA-compliant sidewalks, curb ramps, and related improvements within the park footprint, funded through a Community Development Block Grant administered by Monterey County, with a contract amount of $69,450 and a 10% contingency of $6,945.

I strongly support improving accessibility in our public spaces. ADA improvements are not cosmetic. They are about dignity, mobility, and ensuring that residents of all ages and abilities can safely use and enjoy our shared facilities. At the same time, I believe it is important to ask practical oversight questions whenever grant-funded construction is involved: Are 241
Item A.

Council Report from Councilmember John Uy, Ed.D. 3
reimbursement and compliance requirements well managed? What unexpected conditions could affect cost? And does this project fit within a broader accessibility strategy for the park and the City as a whole? In a small city, every capital dollar matters, so we should always aim to make each improvement part of a larger, coherent plan rather than a stand-alone fix.

More broadly, what stood out to me from this meeting is that many of the issues before us are connected. Public safety, homelessness, health access, responsible budgeting, code enforcement, and ADA improvements may appear as separate agenda items, but they all speak to the same question: what kind of city do we want Del Rey Oaks to be? I believe our residents want a city that is safe, caring, fiscally responsible, transparent, and thoughtful about the future. That is the standard I continue to bring to my work on the Council.

Thank you, as always, for staying engaged in the work of our City. Local government matters because it is where daily life becomes policy, where budgets affect services, where infrastructure affects access, and where community values are translated into action. I remain committed to asking careful questions, advocating for practical and people-centered solutions, and serving Del Rey Oaks with integrity and heart.

II. Council Report: Regular Meeting of the Seaside County Sanitation District (SCSD) Board of Directors – April 14, 2026
Dear Del Rey Oaks neighbors,
At the April 14, 2026 meeting of the Seaside County Sanitation District Board, we reviewed important operational and
maintenance updates that may not always be visible to the public, but are absolutely essential to protecting public health, keeping our sewer infrastructure functioning, and preventing costly failures before they happen. While sanitation work often happens underground and behind the scenes, it is some of the most important work we do as public servants because residents depend on these systems every single day.

One of the main items before the Board was the March 2026 Operations Report. According to the report, the District continued significant system maintenance activity during the month.

Districtwide, 10,790 feet of main line were jetted in March, bringing the fiscal year total to 346,523 feet. The report also shows 2,545 feet of main line video inspection in March, and 6,922 feet of grease-control treatment, with a year-to-date total of 64,280 feet treated. These numbers matter because preventive maintenance is one of the best ways to reduce blockages, overflows, and emergency repairs that can disrupt neighborhoods and create much larger costs later.
242
Item A.

Council Report from Councilmember John Uy, Ed.D. 4
For Del Rey Oaks specifically, the report shows that 494 feet of sewer main line were jetted in March, with a fiscal year total of 37,257 feet. The report also shows 262 feet of grease-control treatment in Del Rey Oaks during the month, for a year-to-date total of 3,662 feet. Importantly, the March report indicates no mainline stoppages, no lateral stoppages, and no overflow locations in Del Rey Oaks for the month covered by the report. That is encouraging and reflects the value of steady, disciplined maintenance work.

Another important item before the Board was the Quarterly FOG Inspection Report and Annual Report Update. “FOG” refers to fats, oils, and grease, which are a major cause of sewer blockages when not properly managed by food service establishments. The report states that the District’s FOG Management Program includes routine inspections of food service establishments once or twice per year, depending on facility type. The packet notes that there are 165 food service establishments within the District, and that staff conduct 285 routine inspections annually, not including follow-up inspections for violations.

For the third quarter of fiscal year 2025–26, staff reported that they performed 34 inspections between January 1 and March 25, 2026, and notably, none of those inspected locations had FOG and solids over 25% in their interceptors. That is a very positive sign. It suggests that compliance efforts, inspections, and education are helping reduce risk in the system. Preventing grease buildup before it enters the sewer network is one of the most cost-effective forms of infrastructure protection, and it helps avoid backups and spills that can affect residents, businesses, and the environment.

I believe this meeting was a strong reminder that good government is not only about major public projects or high-profile debates. It is also about the consistent, technical, and often unnoticed work that keeps essential services running. Sewer maintenance, grease inspections, video inspection, and flushing schedules may not always make headlines, but they are exactly the kinds of responsibilities that protect community health, preserve infrastructure, and save public money over time.

As a Board member, I remain committed to supporting practical, preventive, and fiscally responsible infrastructure management. My priority is to make sure that the Sanitation District continues to operate in a way that is proactive, accountable, and focused on long-term reliability. Residents deserve confidence that these basic systems are being maintained carefully and professionally, and that is the standard I will continue to support.

Thank you for staying engaged and for taking an interest in the work of the Seaside County Sanitation District. Even when this work is out of sight, it should never be out of mind. Reliable sanitation infrastructure is one of the foundations of a healthy and well-functioning community. 243
Item A.

Council Report from Councilmember John Uy, Ed.D. 5
III. Council Report: AMBAG Board of Directors Meeting – March 11, 2026 The regularly scheduled meeting of the AMBAG
Board of Directors has been canceled due to a lack
of business items for discussion.
244
Item A.

Transportation Agency for Monterey County
• 55-B Plaza Circle • Salinas, California 93901-2902
(831) 775-0903 FAX (831) 775-0897 • E-mail: [email protected] www.tamcmonterey.org

TRANSPORTATION AGENCY FOR MONTEREY COUNTY
www.tamcmonterey.org

HIGHLIGHTS
March 25, 2026
TAMC Board Approves Request to Program Funds for the Toro Park Lane Closure Project The Board of Directors of the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) approved a request from the County of Monterey to program Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Fair Share Allocation funds for the Toro Park Lane Closure Project in the amount of $20,888.86.

The Toro Park Lane Closure Project proposes installing permanent measures, including a remotely operated gate and centerline delineators, to continue efforts to help the community stay safe during school pick-up and drop-off hours and reduce conflicts with cut-through traffic to Route 68.

TAMC receives RSTP funds, which total approximately $6 million per year, and distributes them to the Cities and County in two methods: fair share and competitive share. TAMC distributes $1.2 million per year as the fair share component to the cities and County based on population and lane miles. The County of Monterey has a balance in its fair share reserve in the amount of $20,888.86 and has requested the balance of these funds for the Toro Park Lane Closure Project.

RSTP was established by the State of California to utilize gas tax revenues on a wide variety of local transportation projects. TAMC receives these funds and is tasked with reviewing projects proposed for fair share monies and approving the funding if the project is deemed eligible under state law.

Monterey County Regional Vision Zero Safety Action Plan TAMC’s Board of Directors received a presentation on the development of the Regional Vision Zero Safety Action Plan. Vision Zero is a global strategy to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries in a certain timeframe by treating them as preventable events.

In the U.S., the Vision Zero strategy led to the adoption of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Safe System Approach. This is a holistic roadway safety guide that recognizes that humans 245
Item A.

Transportation Agency for Monterey County
55-B Plaza Circle • Salinas, California 93901-2902
(831) 775-0903 FAX (831) 775-0897 • E-mail: [email protected] www.tamcmonterey.org
make mistakes, that our transportation network should be designed to prevent fatal mistakes from happening in the first place, and to minimize the injury severity when a crash occurs.

The Monterey County Regional Vision Zero Plan will be a comprehensive, data-driven roadmap that unites agencies and communities to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries through targeted strategies, infrastructure improvements, and the Safe System Approach. As part of this work, the Agency must adopt a goal statement, and this is expected to be a template for the safety action plans for other jurisdictions.

TAMC is developing the Monterey County Regional Vision Zero Safety Action Plan and individual safety action plans for the following jurisdictions that do not already have one: Carmel by the Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Soledad, and the County of Monterey (note: the Cities of Monterey, Seaside and Salinas have already adopted comprehensive safety action plans, or are in the process of developing safety action plans using federal Safe Streets for All funds). This comprehensive project reflects collaboration with partner agencies and other stakeholders to promote coordinated solutions to reduce fatalities and injuries due to traffic collisions in Monterey County.

Following the presentation and a robust discussion, the Board of Directors adopted the following goal statement for its safety action plan and recommends other agencies use it as a template:

TAMC and Monterey County jurisdictions believe that everyone deserves to travel safely. To achieve this vision, TAMC has set an ambitious and achievable goal to reduce fatal and serious injuries by 30% by 2030 with the goal of eliminating fatal and serious injuries by 2040.

State Route 68 Corridor Status Report
TAMC’s Board of Directors received a status report on two projects currently being developed to address traffic issues along State Route 68 linking the Salinas Valley to the Monterey Peninsula:
implementing adaptive signal operations at all signalized intersections; and constructing roundabouts at the intersections of Corral de Tierra, San Benancio, and Laureles Grade. The two projects are intended to address traffic issues without adding roadway capacity in this environmentally sensitive area.

Adaptive Traffic Signal Project
TAMC has allocated $1.5 million towards the project to upgrade signal equipment for adaptive traffic signal operations. This technology uses artificial intelligence (AI) to automatically adjust 246
Item A.

Transportation Agency for Monterey County
55-B Plaza Circle • Salinas, California 93901-2902
(831) 775-0903 FAX (831) 775-0897 • E-mail: [email protected] www.tamcmonterey.org
signal parameters in response to changing traffic conditions. Caltrans procured and installed the adaptive system at all nine intersections along the Scenic State Route 68 Corridor.

The project team is collecting performance data to establish baseline (i.e., "before") project conditions. Caltrans staff will start adaptive operations once training is completed in March, and adjustments will be made through April. The team expects the adaptive operations to be optimized in early May when traffic data will be collected to establish "after” conditions while schools are in session. TAMC hired a third-party consultant team, GHD, to conduct a "before and after study" that will use travel times and other signal performance measures to evaluate traffic signal operations along the corridor and quantify the benefits of the adaptive signal project.

Phase 1 Roundabout Project
After a lengthy environmental analysis compliant with state and federal laws, Caltrans selected the long-term traffic solution along the Scenic Highway 68 corridor to be the construction of roundabouts at all nine signalized intersections and five wildlife crossings under the state highway.

Phase 1 of this project will construct two wildlife crossings and roundabouts at the three eastern intersections of the corridor: San Benancio Road, Corral de Tierra, and Laureles Grade. Caltrans anticipates using the "hybrid" roundabout project design like that constructed at the intersection of Highway 1, Holman Highway, and the Pebble Beach gate. The Phase 1 Roundabout Project is funded through the design phase and the construction bid package is expected to be ready for listing before December 2027.

Next Steps
Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) Grant: Applications will be due in November 2026 for the next cycle of funding.

To qualify for the SB 1 grant, the project bid documents must be ready to list by December 2027.

The current schedule has this work being completed by October 2027. The critical path schedule relates to design work, and Caltrans expects to complete the 95% plans before the end of 2026.

Benefit-Cost Analysis: The team expects to complete the benefit-cost analysis in May and present it to the TAMC Board at the May or June meeting. This item is expected to include a staff recommendation regarding the continued effort to complete designs and the SB 1 grant application.
247
Item A.

MST HIGHLIGHTS
Board of Directors Meeting
April 6, 2026

RECOGNIZED APRIL MST EMPLOYEES OF THE MONTH
The MST Board adopted Resolution 2026-16 recognizing Tiziano “Tim” Minelli, Antonio Sanchez, Hardy Culp, Omarr Wilson, and Martin Mendoza as Employees of the Month for April 2026 for their outstanding contribution to MST and the entire community.

RECEIVED MEASURE Q OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE LETTER
The MST Board received a letter from the Measure Q Oversight Committee reporting that FY 2025 funds were spent on eligible expenses.

AUTHORIZED PURCHASE OF SEVEN TOYOTA CAMRY HYBRID SEDANS The MST Board authorized the General Manager/CEO to purchase seven Toyota Camry Hybrid sedans at the lowest price/best options available at the time of purchase in an amount not to exceed $222,000.

AUTHORIZED CONSULTANT CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR ADDITIONAL

DESIGN SERVICES
The MST Board authorized the General Manager/CEO or their designee to enter into a contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for additional design services during construction for the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project in amount not to exceed $317,011.

AUTHORIZED TO AMEND THE PURCHASE OF 90 SPORTWORKS APEX+3 BIKE

RACKS AND MOUNTING KITS
The MST Board authorized the General Manager or their designee to amend the purchase of up to 90 Sportworks Apex+3 bike racks and mounting deployment kits for an additional $33,077 to account for shipping and taxes for a total amount not to exceed $244,229.

APPROVED MEASURE Q OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEMBER APPOINTMENT The MST Board appointed new member, Selena Solis to the Measure Q Oversight Committee with a 3-year term.
248
Item A.

ADOPTED REVISED MST ZERO TOLERANCE DRUG ANTI-DRUG USE AND

ALCOHOL MISUSE POLICY
The MST Board of Directors unanimously approved the revised MST Zero-Tolerance Anti-Drug Use and Alcohol Misuse Policy.

NEXT MST BOARD MEETING
The next regular MST Board meeting is scheduled for May 11, 2026. 249
Item A.
926 East Blanco Road
Salinas, CA 93901
(831) 422-6438 p
Office Hours:

Monday – Friday
8 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Jeff Cecilio
Board Chair
County at Large
Don Cranford
Vice Chair
County at Large
Jennifer McAdams
City of Marina
Ian Oglesby
Trustee
City of Seaside
Ray Coopersmith
Trustee
County at Large
MaryAnn Carbone
Trustee
CityofSandCity
LouiseGoetzelt
Trustee
CityofDelReyOaks
JimTashiro
Trustee
City of Salinas
Jeff Glass
Trustee
City of Monterey
887th REGULAR MEETING
OF THE

BOARD OF TRUSTEES
926 East Blanco Road
Salinas, CA. 93901
April 14th, 2026 ~AGENDA~ 12:00 P.M. Noon
We strive to host inclusive, accessible meetings that enable all individuals, including individuals with disabilities, to engage fully. To request an accommodation or for inquiries about accessibility, please contact the District.

A. CALL TO ORDER/ PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE:

B. AGENDA MANAGEMENT:

C. ROLL CALL – ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:

D. PUBLIC INPUT: (Limited to 3 minutes)
The consent calendar includes routine items than can be approved with a single motion and vote. A member of the Board of Trustees may request that any item be pulled from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration
E. CONSENT CALENDAR:

A. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:

B. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 4TH, 2026
C. PAYROLL WARRANTS: March 2026 $83,246.54
D. COMMERICAL WARRANTS: March 2026 $87,412.82
E. UMPQUA BANK: March 2026 $6,454.88
F. BALANCE SHEET: March 2026
G. SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES: March 2026
F. BUSINESS ITEMS:

A. CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Gov. Code § 54957) Title: District Manager
B. Finance Committee Report (Trustee Tashiro)
C. Consideration and Approval of Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Projected Revenues E. Consideration and Approval of Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Budget F. Consideration and Approval of Agreement with Cagwin & Dorward Clean up and Maintenance Plan
G. Consideration and Approval of Accounting Services Contract with McGilloway Ray Brown and Kauffman (MRBK)
H. LAFCO Elections – Consideration and Selection of Candidate I. SDA Dinner – April 21, 2026, Discussion and Direction Regarding Attendance 250
Item A.

G. AMERICAN MOSQUITO CONTROL ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE REPORTS :

H. MONTHLY ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Ken Klemme, District Manger I. TRUSTEE COMMENTS:

Adjournment to May 12th , 2026
251
Item A.

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE 886th REGULAR

MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE

MONTEREY COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT
March 10th, 2026
A meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Monterey County Mosquito Abatement District was held on March 10th, 2026, at the District Office in Salinas, California.

MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT:

Jeff Cecilio, Chair, County of Monterey Ken Klemme, District Manager Don Cranford, Vice Chair, County of Monterey Kelli Gutierrez, Administrative Assistant Ian Oglesby, City of Seaside
Ray Coopersmith, County of Monterey
Jeff Glass, City of Monterey
Louise Goetzelt, City of Del Rey Oaks
Jim Tashiro, City of Salinas
Mary Ann Carbone, City of Sand City
Jenny McAdams, City of Marina

1. CALL TO ORDE, PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE:

Board Chair Jeff Cecilio called the 885
th Regular Meeting to order at 12:00PM

2. AGENDA MANAGEMENT:

3. ROLL CALL:

Administrative Assistant Kelli Gutierrez called roll; it was determined that a quorum was present

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE

5. CONSENT CALENDAR:

A. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: February 2026
B. PAYROLL WARRANTS: February 2026 $83,031.21
C. COMMERCIAL WARRANTS: February 2026 $40,148.61
D. UMPQUA BANK: February 2026 $12,492.08
E. BALANCE SHEET: February 2026
F. SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES: February 2026
252
Item A.

Trustee Cranford made an inquirie about the difference in Two schedules, Trustee McAdams moved to approve the consent calendar as presented, Trustee Tashiro seconded; the motion was passed unanimously.

6. BUSINESS ITEMS:

A. Discussion and Possible Action: Appointment of an Ad Hoc Budget Committee for FY 2026-2027 Budget Development
It was suggested to keep Jim Tashiro, Don Cranford and Ray Coopersmith on the Finance Committee.

After discussion, Trustee Oglesby made a motion to approve the ad – hoc finance committee for fiscal year 2026/2027 budget, Trustee McAdams seconded; the motion was passed unanimously.

B. Annual Compliance Reminder: Ethics Training, Sexual Harassment Prevention Training, and Form 700 Fillings
District manager Klemme reminded the board about the due date of 700 Form. Ethics Training and Sexual Harassment is due this year for everyone, we will get both Trainings done at a future meeting.

C. Discussion and Possible Action: Designation of Authorized Signatories for Comerica Bank Accounts
Administrative Assistant Gutierrez gave update about Refeshing the bank signatories with new Trustees.

7. MONTHLY ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Ken Klemme, District Manager District Manger gave updates about the field

8. TRUSTEE COMMENTS:

Trustees commented about the Brown Act changes regaurding Zoom. 253
Item A.

9. ADJOURNMENT:

With no further inquiries, Board Chair Cecilio adjourned the meeting at 12:15 PM. _______________________________
Jeff Cecilio, Board Chair
ATTEST:______________________________
Don Cranford, Vice Chair
254
Item A.

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL

MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE

MONTEREY COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT
March 4
th, 2026
A meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Monterey County Mosquito Abatement District was held on March 4
th
, 2026, at the District Office in Salinas, California.

MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT:

Jeff Cecilio, Chair, County of Monterey Ken Klemme, District Manager Don Cranford, Vice Chair, County of Monterey Kelli Gutierrez, Administrative Assistant Ray Coopersmith, County of Monterey Philip Maschmeyer, Operations Supervisor Jeff Glass, City of Monterey Raul Vasquez, Technician
Jim Tashiro, City of Salinas Silvestre Onofre-Zamudio, Technician Mary Ann Carbone, City of Sand City
ABSENT:

Jennifer McAdams, City of Marina
Ian Oglesby, City of Seaside
Louise Goetzelt, City of Del Rey Oaks

1. CALL TO ORDER,
Board Chair Jeff Cecilio called the Special Meeting to order at 1:00PM

2. ROLL CALL:

Administrative Assistant Kelli Gutierrez called roll; it was determined that a quorum was present

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE

4. LIVE WEBINAR: SB 827 FISCAL & FINANCIAL TRAINING:

A comprehensive overview of the new mandates under Senate Bill 827, which require local agency officials to complete fiscal and financial training. Topics include municipal budgeting, financial reporting, capital financing, debt management, and ethical stewardship of public resources. For officials commencing service on or after January 1, 2026, this training must be completed by no later than six months from the first day of service with the local agency. Every local agency official in a local agency’s service as of January 1, 2026, and commenced that service proior to January 1, 2026, must receive this training before January 1, 2028
255
Item A.

8. TRUSTEE COMMENTS:

None.

9. ADJOURNMENT:

With no further inquiries, Board Chair Cecilio adjourned the meeting at 3:01 PM.
_______________________________
Jeff Cecilio, Board Chair
ATTEST:______________________________
Don Cranford, Vice Chair
256
Item A.