Mammoth Lakes City Council
February 15, 2023

Town Council Agenda

Wednesday, February 15, 2023, 4:00 p.m.
437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite Z, Mammoth Lakes
Members of the Town Council:

Mayor John Wentworth, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser, Councilmember Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea, Councilmember Amanda Rice
NOTE: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (760) 965-3602. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 13.102-35.104 ADA Title II)
NOTE: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Town Offices located at 437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite 230 during normal business hours. Such documents are also available on the Town of Mammoth Lakes website at www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

NOTE: All comments will be limited to a speaking time of five minutes.

NOTE: This meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 361 which amends certain requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. While Suite Z is still open to the public, it is strongly encouraged that you watch the Town Council meetings on the Town of Mammoth Lakes' website at www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov , on the local government cable channel 18, or via Zoom. Public comments can be submitted to the Town Clerk at [email protected]. before and during the meeting.

ZOOM INFORMATION
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device:

Please type in or cut and paste in this URL to join. https://monocounty.zoom.us/s/92958002088 Or join by phone:

Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):

US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 646 876 9923
Webinar ID: 929 5800 2088
International numbers available: https://monocounty.zoom.us/u/acobwlnMsm Public comments can also be given through Zoom by logging in or dialing in and raising your hand.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Public Comment portion of the agenda provides the public with an opportunity to address the Town Council on matters not otherwise listed on the agenda. Under California law the Town Council is prohibited from generally discussing or taking action on items not included in the agenda; however, the Town Council may briefly respond to comments or questions from members of the public. Therefore, the Town Council will listen to all public comment, but will not generally discuss the matter or take action on it. Requests for service from the Town may also be made at the Town offices during regular business hours.

Members of the public desiring to speak on a matter appearing on the agenda should ask the Mayor for the opportunity to be heard when the item comes up for Council consideration.

4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Opportunity to add urgency items pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b)2, if necessary.

5. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENTS (AS NEEDED)

5.1 February 2023 Public Works Engineering CIP Update.

6. STAFF PRESENTATIONS

6.1 Town Budget Structure and Process.

7. CONSENT AGENDA

7.1 Approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 18, 2023.

7.2 Approve the minutes of the special meeting of January 25, 2023.

7.3 Approve the resolution re-authorizing the Town Council to meet virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic declared emergency.

7.4 Adopt the Resolution Declaring the Town’s Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District, Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes, and Set the Public Hearing for April 5, 2023 for Community Facilities District No 2023-1 (Town of Mammoth Lakes Maintenance Services.

7.5 Accept Check Register 1/05/2023 in the amount of $99,000. Accept Check Register 1/12/2023 in the amount of $1,422,948.85. Accept Check Register 1/18/2023 in the amount of $561,266.73. Accept Check Register 1/25/2023 in the amount of $160,777.27.

Accept Check Register 2/02/2023 in the amount of $410,428.94.

8. POLICY MATTERS

8.1 Consider the request for an additional $400,000 contribution to the Mammoth Lakes Housing Innsbruck Lodge Affordable Housing Project.

8.2 2023 Youth Sports Funding Recommendations.

8.3 Authorization of agreements to expand Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.

8.4 Resolution Opposing the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Ballot Initiative (AG# 21-0042A1).

8.5 Subpart C, OSV Use Designation Process, Collaborative Alternative Team Comments, and Direction to enter into an MOU with the Inyo National Forest as a cooperating Agency through the completion of the process.

9. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Informational reports from Councilmember representatives on committees, commissions, and organizations; general reports on Councilmember activities

10. ADJOURNMENT
The Town Council will adjourn to a regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 4:00 p.m.

Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: February 2023 Public Works Engineering CIP Update.

Council Meeting Date: 2/15/2023
Prepared by: Public Works
Recommended Motion: None
Summary:

The February 2023 CIP update includes most of the Town’s active construction projects. With the exception of the Community Recreation Center (CRC) most active construction projects are under winter suspension. Staff continues to plan for next summer’s construction season.

Capital Project Update
February Update
Created 2-15-23
Project Notes
CRC Some interior framing has been completed and rough ins for electrical Some Hanging Lights installed
Contractor has struggled with winter conditions
CRC - Mobility Hub Project is substantially complete
CRC - Interior Work Staff is recommending that this work be bid later.

Staff recommends contractor focus on existing contract elements.

The Parcel PH 1 Building A and B have had 3 stories of pre-fabricated building modules installed. Connectivity and running of utilities and finishing internal components are being worked on.

Installation of public “wet” utilities, including water, sewer and storm drain, is complete along Inyo St and most of Tavern Rd.

Ballfields Rehabilitation
Whitmore/Shady
This project is under winter suspension due to snow covering the ballfields. Work will resume in spring and be completed before planned field uses. Remaining work includes installation of new chainlink fencing and final grading of the infield mix that has been placed. Town staff are coordinating with relevant parties to ensure fields are ready for spring gameplay. 60 Joaquin The design-build team submitted their design review package and its currently being reviewed by Staff.

OMR Beautification No bids were received. Town staff continues talks with potential companies. Staff is targeting spring installations.

Main Street Landscaping Town staff received one bid from a local contractor to perform a portion of the work associated with this project. Town staff is now targeting spring installations.

HSIP Intersection crossings The Town is working through final details with Caltrans prior to applying for construction funding for upgrades to existing crosswalks at Laurel Mountain Rd and the Post Office. Staff anticipates bidding this winter upon formal allocation of funding and awarding, with work occurring in late winter, weather permitting.

Chaparral Extension (The
Parcel)
The contractor has completed tree removal. Construction of the remaining work to resume in the spring.

Laurel Mountain Rd Rehab
& Sidewalk
Contract has been awarded. Construction of project will occur in 2023.

Fuel Island Tanks have been inspected, lined and are back in service.

The existing slab will be removed and replaced. This work will be done in the spring. This remediation work will provide a minimum of 10 years of useful life from the existing fuel island.

Minaret MUP Staff have reviewed and commented on 90% plans and are awaiting final design plans. No construction funding has yet been identified.

New Civic Center HMC completed a workshop with Town Staff and is working on schematic designs for the office space and chambers. Staff is considering a larger outreach program to determine the scope and needs for public spaces.

Foundation Childcare AP Architects delivered some preliminary plans for Staff to review and provide input so AP Architects can move forward with final site plans and continue work on the foundation permit construction plans, and for Staff to start working towards prepping for a bid.

Main Street MUP Staff and our consultant are finalizing responses to Caltrans comments on initial plans. Town will then apply for previously programmed STIP funding to cover to the detailed engineering design phase, then continue to work with the consultant to produce construction plans. No construction funding has yet been identified.

Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Town Budget Structure and Process.

Council Meeting Date: 2/15/2023
Prepared by: Rob Patterson, Administrative Services / Finance Director Recommended Motion: No Action – Presentation Only.

Summary: This presentation is designed to introduce the current budget process and methodology used by the Town. The process is designed to walk through the budget in segments to allow better transparency and understanding. In addition to segmentation, our conservative budget practice requires frequent review of financial performance and quick action to engage available resources on strategic needs of the community. The attached presentation will walk through these segments and the quarterly meetings utilized in our current process.

Town of Mammoth Lakes
Budget Structure and Process
Rob Patterson
Administrative Services / Finance Director
February 15, 2023

Town of Mammoth Lakes – Chart of Accounts

Budget Schedule – Presentations and Workshops

Forecast Revenues

Preliminary Budget – Department Requested

Capital Project Discussion

Tentative Budget – Manager Recommended

Final Budget Presentation – Adopt Budget

Quarterly Review

Town Council of Mammoth Lakes
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 18, 2023, 4:00 p.m.
437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite Z, Mammoth Lakes
Members Present: Mayor John Wentworth, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser, Councilmember Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea,
Councilmember Amanda Rice
_____________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite Z, Mammoth Lakes.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Acting Police Chief Dan Casabian led the flag salute.

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Cheryl Wilson spoke about an issue with too many people and too many cars at a transient rental unit near her.

Brandon Brocia, owner of The Eatery, spoke about the Town adopting plastic waste reduction regulations.

Councilmember Rea arrived at 4:06 p.m.

Councilmember Rea announced that tomorrow at 5:30 p.m. the Mammoth Community Water District would be voting on wastewater testing for infectious disease.

Town Council Minutes
January 18, 2023

4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
There were no additions to the agenda.

5. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND/OR DEPARTMENTS (AS NEEDED) Town Manager Daniel C. Holler introduced Acting Police Chief Dan Casabian to the Council and the community.

Acting Police Chief Casabian gave an update regarding the recent storm issues.

There was discussion among members of Council and staff.

Mr. Holler reported that Trails Manager Joel Rathje was leaving the Town. He spoke about the snow patrol and snow removal efforts. There was discussion among members of Council and staff.

6. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Bubser requested that Agenda Item 6.5 be removed from the consent agenda for separate discussion.

Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser
Seconded by Councilmember Amanda Rice
Approve the Consent Agenda.

For (5): Mayor John Wentworth, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser, Councilmember Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea, and Councilmember Amanda Rice Carried (5 to 0)

6.1 Approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 4, 2023.

6.2 Approve the minutes of the special meeting of January 9, 2023.

6.3 Approve the resolution re-authorizing the Town Council to meet virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic declared emergency.

6.4 Adopt the resolution declaring the Council’s intention to annex territories into the Community Facilities District No. 2013-3 (Transit CFD), levying a special tax in connection therewith, and setting the time and place for the public hearing on March 1, 2023.

6.5 Approve Addendum 2 to Cardno Task Order 6 – HSIP Main Street Pedestrian Beacons.

This item was removed from the consent agenda for separate discussion.

Town Council Minutes
January 18, 2023

Councilmember Rice recused herself due to her ownership of property near the project and left the meeting at 4:32 p.m.

Councilmember Bubser spoke about her concerns with State Route 203/Main Street.

Public Works Director Haislip Hayes outlined the information in the staff report and responded to Councilmember Bubser's concerns. There was discussion among members of Council and staff.

Moved by Councilmember Chris Bubser
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser
Authorize the Town Manager to execute Addendum 2 of Cardno Task Order 6 for the HSIP Main Street Pedestrian Beacons project as part of the existing On Call Civil Engineering Services Agreement with Cardno USA, Inc (now Stantec), in an amount not to exceed $75,788 without written authorization.

For (4): Mayor John Wentworth, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser, Councilmember Chris Bubser, and Councilmember Sarah Rea Conflict (1): Councilmember Amanda Rice
Carried (4 to 0)
Councilmember Rice returned to the meeting at 4:40 p.m.

6.6 Accept the Project Closeout Report for Local Road and MUP (MultiUse Path) Rehab STIP CAP 21-002.

6.7 Approve and Adopt Resolution updating the Town of Mammoth Lakes Investment Policy to include Holding with California Asset Management Program (CAMP).

6.8 Accept Check Register 12/29/2022 in the amount of $1,357,919.89.

Accept Check Register 1/4/2023 in the amount of $89,711.92.

7. POLICY MATTERS

7.1 Housing Now! Presentation.

Community and Economic Development Director Sandra Moberly and Senior Planner - Housing Coordinator Nolan Bobroff gave a presentation

Town Council Minutes
January 18, 2023

regarding the Town's Housing Now! Program. There was discussion among members of Council and staff.

7.2 Consider the resolutions authorizing the purchase of the properties located at 165 Old Mammoth Road, Unit 53 (Sierra Manors complex) and 100 Sierra Park Road, Unit A3 (Tavern Business Park complex).

Community and Economic Development Director Sandra Moberly outlined the information in the staff report. There was discussion among members of Council and staff.

Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser
Seconded by Councilmember Amanda Rice
Approve the resolutions authorizing the purchase of the properties located at 165 Old Mammoth Road, Unit 53 and 100 Sierra Park Road, Unit A3.

For (5): Mayor John Wentworth, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser, Councilmember Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea, and Councilmember Amanda Rice
Carried (5 to 0)

8. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Councilmember Bubser attended the Eastern Sierra Transit Authority Board meeting.

Mayor Pro Tem Sauser attended the Eastern Sierra Transit Authority Board meeting.

Mayor Wentworth attended the Mono County Local Transportation Committee meeting, met with Inyo National Forest Supervisor Leslie Yen, reported that the California budget was adopted, talked to Melle North about a mural project in Town, and met with the Town Manager and the Deputy Regional Director for External Affairs from Governor Newsom's Office.

9. CLOSED SESSION
At 6:00 p.m. the Mayor announced that the Council would be entering into closed session for the purposes as stated in the agenda.

9.1 Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6.(a), Conference with Labor Negotiators, the Council will meet with its representatives, Town Manager Daniel C. Holler, Administrative Services/Finance

Town Council Minutes
January 18, 2023

Director Rob Patterson, and HR Manager Amanda Pelham with respect to the following Employee Organizations: Mammoth Lakes Police Officers Association and the Mammoth Lakes Sergeants Association.

10. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN AFTER CLOSED SESSION
The Council reconvened from closed session at 6:27 p.m. and announced that there was no reportable action taken.

11. ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned the meeting at 6:27 p.m.

Jamie Gray, Town Clerk

Town Council of Mammoth Lakes
Minutes of Special Meeting
January 25, 2023, 5:00 p.m.
437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite Z, Mammoth Lakes
Members Present: Mayor John Wentworth, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser, Councilmember Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea,
Councilmember Amanda Rice
_____________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 437 Old Mammoth Road, Suite Z, Mammoth Lakes.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Acting Police Chief Daniel Casabian led the flag salute.

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
John Urdi, Mammoth Lakes Tourism (MLT) Executive Director, handed out copies of the 2023 Visitor Guide. He announced that MLT had forwarded a letter to Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) remitters who also pay sales tax, which discussed changes made at the State level with regard to sales tax now being charged on the TBID amount in addition to the sale.

Public Works Director/Town Engineer Haislip Hayes provided an update on snow removal efforts.

Town Council Minutes
January 25, 2023

Zack Mills, long term resident, voiced concerns about the difficulty in getting housing in Mammoth and the large number of homes being used for rental income. He said that he felt that the Town should limit or cancel Short Term Rentals (STRs).

Pam Mitchell said that she thought the Main Lodge project was a good project, but voiced concerns she had about it and said she would like a meeting or workshop between the Town Council and Mammoth Lakes Housing (MLH) before the next Alterra meeting.

4. CONSENT AGENDA
Moved by Councilmember Chris Bubser
Seconded by Councilmember Amanda Rice
Approve the Consent Agenda.

For (5): Mayor John Wentworth, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Sauser, Councilmember Chris Bubser, Councilmember Sarah Rea, and Councilmember Amanda Rice Carried (5 to 0)

4.1 Adopt a resolution approving a grant application of up to $452,144.65 to the Regional Early Action Planning grants program of 2021 (REAP

2.0) to support the acquisition of vacant land for the future development of affordable housing.

4.2 Approve and adopt Side Letter 01-2023 between the Town of Mammoth Lakes (“Town”) and the Mammoth Lakes Police Officers’ Association (“MLPOA”) establishing benefits for employees in the position of Police Recruit.

5. POLICY MATTERS

5.1 Town Council Strategic Priorities and Key Objectives Review and Planning Process.

Town Manager Daniel C. Holler outlined the information in the staff report.

There was discussion among members of Council and staff.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Zack Mills asked what an EIFD was. Mr. Holler and members of the Council provided a description of, and additional information about, EIFD (Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District).

Town Council Minutes
January 25, 2023

John Urdi, Mammoth Lakes Tourism (MLT) Executive Director, asked how the Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) and air subsidy fit into the enhanced recreation economy priority. Mayor Wentworth responded.

Betsy Truax, Mammoth Lakes Foundation (MLF) Executive Director, said that she felt the partnership MLF had with the Town was successful and spoke about the land use agreement and arts and culture piece of the partnership.

Mr. Urdi spoke about the enhanced required municipal services and the importance of phone and internet service being more reliable and the safety issues that come with the inability to reach out to people especially during a big storm, as well as businesses being unable to run their business when the internet is down.

6. CLOSED SESSION
At 6:50 p.m. the Mayor announced that the Council would be entering into closed session for the purposes as stated in the agenda.

6.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Paragraph 1 of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9) Name of case:

Main Street Taxpayers Association v. Town of Mammoth Lakes.

7. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
The Council reconvened from closed session at 6:25 p.m. p.m. and announced that there was no reportable action taken.

8. ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m.

Jamie Gray, Town Clerk

RESOLUTION NO. 23-

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL

OF THE TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

RE-AUTHORIZING THE TOWN COUNCIL TO MEET VIRUTALLY DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC DECLARED EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, the Town of Mammoth Lakes supports transparency in government, and meetings of the Town Council and other legislative bodies of the Town are conducted in compliance with the Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq), so that members of the public may attend, observe, and participate; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54953(e) is a provision of the Brown Act establishing special rules that apply under specific circumstances to meetings of local government legislative bodies that are conducted remotely via teleconference; and
WHEREAS, using the special rules will facilitate continuing to conduct meetings remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council does hereby find that allowing for conducting public meetings virtually will support social distancing and reduces the potential risk to the public, elected officials and employees to be infected by or to spread COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, a required condition for the use of the Section 54953(e) rules is the existence of a state of emergency declared by the Governor pursuant to Government Code Section 8625, proclaiming the existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by conditions as described in Government Code Section 8558; and WHEREAS, an additional required condition is that state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or that the legislative body meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees; and
WHEREAS, the Governor of California declared a Statewide state of emergency due to the COVID-19 virus on Wednesday, March 4; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2020 the Mono County Health Officer declared a local health emergency, including finding “that there is an imminent and proximate threat to public health from the introduction of COVID-19 in Mono County;” and WHEREAS, the Mono County Director of Public Health has recently issued a memorandum recommending that social distancing be used as one means of reducing the spread of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on October 6, 2021, the Town Council adopted a resolution finding that pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e), the legislative bodies of the

Resolution No. 23-

Town of Mammoth Lakes shall conduct their meetings without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54953, as authorized by subdivision (e) of Section 54953, and that such legislative bodies shall comply with the requirements to provide the public with access to the meetings as prescribed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 54953; WHEREAS, as a condition of extending the use of the provisions found in Section 54953(e), the Town Council must reconsider the circumstances of the state of emergency that exists in the Town of Mammoth Lakes, and the Town Council has done so; and
WHEREAS, emergency conditions continue to exist in the Town of Mammoth Lakes, as reflected by the ongoing state of emergency declared by the Governor; and
WHEREAS, requiring the meetings of the Town Council and other legislative bodies of the Town of Mammoth Lakes to be conducted entirely in person would create a risk to the health and safety of the members of the public who might attend, the members of the Town Council, Town staff, and other persons attending meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Mammoth Lakes continues to comply with the requirements of Section 54953(e) to ensure public access to meetings of Town legislative bodies, including by providing notice and posting meeting agendas, allowing members of the public to access the meeting and provide comments via an Internet-based service option, and providing an opportunity for the public to address legislative bodies and offer comment in real time.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this resolution by this reference; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Mammoth Lakes hereby declares that a State and County emergency continues to exist due to the existence or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the Town of Mammoth Lakes due to the COVID-19 virus; and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mono County Director of Public Health has issued a memorandum recommending the continued use of social distancing as a means to reduce the spread of COVID-19, and that the COVID-19 state of emergency impacts the ability of the Town Council to safely meet in person; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mammoth Lakes Town Council finds the use of virtual meetings, as provided for under AB 361 as approved by the State Legislature and signed by the Governor, continues to be a prudent and safe means to conduct the Town’s business respecting the recommendation to use social distancing as a precaution to reduce the spread of COVID-19; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town staff and legislative bodies are hereby authorized and directed to continue taking all actions necessary to carry out the

Resolution No. 23-

intent and purpose of this Resolution including conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act; and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective until the earlier of (i) March 15, 2023, or such time the Town Council adopts a subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to extend the time during which the legislative bodies of the Town of Mammoth Lakes may continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of section 54953.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th day of February 2023.
________________________________
JOHN WENTWORTH, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
JAMIE GRAY, Town Clerk

1 TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Title: Adopt the Resolution Declaring the Town’s Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District, Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes, and Set the Public Hearing for April 5, 2023 for Community Facilities District No 2023-1 (Town of Mammoth Lakes Maintena
Meeting Date: February 15, 2023
Prepared by: Pamela Smitheman, Assistant Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that Town Council adopt the Resolution Declaring the Town’s Intention to establish a Community Facilities District, authorize the levy of special taxes, and set the public hearing for April 5, 2023 for Community Facilities District No 2023-1 (Town of Mammoth Lakes Maintenance Services).

BACKGROUND:

The Town of Mammoth Lakes develops Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) in accordance with the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982. Town Council has previously adopted local goals and policy needed for the formation of CFDs. Pursuant to that policy, all Planning Resolutions for project entitlements which allow transient use include a condition of approval requiring annexation into a CFD or the creation of a new CFD. The imposition of such a requirement ensures that the Town can satisfy the fiscal impacts of the Limelight Hotel and Residence Inn projects. NBS Consultants have assisted staff with assessment district administration and legal advice for over a decade. Staff has consulted with NBS on the formation of the proposed community facilities district.

The Town has received petitions from developers requesting the Town Council undertake and complete proceedings to form the CFD as shown on Proposed Boundary Map of Town of Mammoth Lakes Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Maintenance Services) in Exhibit A. The properties include parcels associated with the Limelight Hotel and Residence Inn projects. The petitions request the Town finance services and improvements with a special tax levied against properties included in the district.

ANALYSIS:

Given the complexity of existing CFDs, NBS and Staff have found it beneficial to form a new CFD in order to collect special taxes for services and improvements associated with the Limelight Hotel and Residence Inn projects.

It is intended that the CFD will be eligible to fund all or a portion of the direct and incidental costs of plowing and removal of snow, and maintenance of curbs/sidewalks, landscapes and streetlights and related appurtenances, within or adjacent to the CFD. This would also include any of the following related to the maintenance of the above services: obtaining,

2 constructing, reconstructing, furnishing, and operating and maintaining equipment, apparatuses or facilities related to providing the services; equipment, apparatuses, facilities, or fixtures in areas to be maintained; paying the salaries and benefits of personnel necessary or convenient to provide the services; payment of insurance costs and other related expenses; and the provision of reserves for repairs, replacements, and for the future provision of services. It is expected that the services will be provided by the Town, either with its own employees or by contract with third parties, or any combination thereof. The CFD may also fund administrative fees of the Town related to the CFD.

Adoption of this “Resolution of Intention” is a legally required step for the formation of new CFD 2023-1 and annexation of properties into the District. If the Council approves the Resolution of Intention attached hereto, the Council will then hold a public hearing on April 5, 2023. Because it has received petitions, the Council is legally required to adopt a Resolution of Intention and to hold a public hearing at the date set by the Resolution of Intention. The Council must adopt a Resolution of Intention within 90 days of its receipt of the Developers’ petitions. After holding the public hearing, the Council may decide whether or not it desires to adopt a resolution forming CFD 2023-1 and authorize the levy of special taxes therein.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Properties included in Community Facilities Districts are required to pay a special tax once they obtain certificates of occupancy for qualified residential properties (units zoned for transient use). The CFD 2023-1 maximum special tax rates for each property for the 2022/23 fiscal year are proposed to be $262.22 per hotel property unit and between $262.22 and $682.88 per condominium property unit depending upon the number of bedrooms.

Accessory dwelling units within the district are also proposed to be assessed a special tax as outlined in Exhibit C. Exhibit C proposes that on July 1 of each Fiscal Year, commencing on July 1, 2023, the Maximum Special Tax shall be increased by amounts equal to two percent (2%) of the Maximum Special Tax rates amount in effect for the previous Fiscal Year. The properties included in this resolution are currently vacant, however the Limelight Hotel project is entitled for 151 hotel rooms plus 15 condominium units and the Residence Inn project is entitled for 101 condominium units. All units are zoned for transient use and would be subject to levy of future taxes upon issuance of certificate of occupancy.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

The annual resolution for special taxing districts as a mechanism for funding maintenance is Categorically Exempt per section 15060(c)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 23-__: CFD 2023-1 Resolution of Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes a. Exhibit A: Town of Mammoth Lakes Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Maintenance Services) Proposed Boundary Map
b. Exhibit B: Description of Services

3 c. Exhibit C: Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax d. Exhibit D: Notice of Public Hearing

2. CFD 2023-1 Petitions

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF MAMMOTH

LAKES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH

A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF

SPECIAL TAXES THEREIN

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2023-1
(MAINTENANCE SERVICES)
WHEREAS, under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Sections 53311 and following, California Government Code; hereafter referred to as the “Act”), the Town Council of the Town of Mammoth Lakes (the “Town”) may commence proceedings for the establishment of a community facilities district; and
WHEREAS, this Town Council has received a Petition (including Waivers) from the landowners requesting that it establish a community facilities district under the Act to provide for the costs of plowing and removal of snow, and maintenance of curbs/sidewalks, landscapes and streetlights and related appurtenances, and this Town Council now desires to commence proceedings to establish a community facilities district as described herein; and
WHEREAS, this Town Council has previously adopted local goals and policies for the formation of community facilities districts within the Town; and
WHEREAS, under the Act, this Town Council is the legislative body for the proposed community facilities district and is empowered with the authority to establish the community facilities district and levy special taxes within the community facilities district; and WHEREAS, this Town Council now desires to proceed with the actions necessary to consider the establishment of the community facilities district.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Mammoth Lakes, as follows:

1. The Town Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct and establish the factual basis for the Town Council’s adoption of this Resolution.

2. This Town Council proposes to conduct proceedings to establish the community facilities district pursuant to the Act, and hereby determines that public convenience and necessity require the formation of the community facilities district to fund public services.

3. The name of the proposed community facilities district is Town of Mammoth Lakes, Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Maintenance Services) (the “District”).

4. The proposed boundaries of the District are as shown on the map of the District on file with the Town Clerk, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, which Exhibit is by this reference incorporated herein. The proposed boundaries are hereby preliminarily

approved. The Town Clerk is hereby directed to record, or cause to be recorded, the map of the boundaries of the District in the office of the Mono County Recorder no later than fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Resolution.

5. The type of services proposed to be funded by the District by proceeds of the special tax shall consist of those services described in Exhibit B hereto, which Exhibit is by this reference incorporated herein (the “Services”).

The Town Council hereby determines that the Services are necessary to meet increased demands for such services placed upon local agencies as the result of development occurring within the area of the District. The Services are in addition to those provided in the territory of the District as of the date hereof and will not supplant services already available within the territory of the District as of the date hereof.

6. Except where funds are otherwise available, a special tax sufficient to pay the costs thereof, secured by the recordation of a continuing lien against all non-exempt real property in the District, will be levied annually within the District and collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes or in such other manner as this Town Council or its designee shall determine, including direct billing of the affected property owners. The proposed rate and method of apportionment of the special tax among the parcels of real property within the District, in sufficient detail to allow each landowner within the proposed District to estimate the maximum amount such owner will have to pay, is described in Exhibit C attached hereto, which Exhibit is by this reference incorporated herein. The special tax shall be levied perpetually until the collection of the special tax by the Town ceases.

7. This Town Council finds that the provisions of Section 53313.6, 53313.7 and 53313.9 of the Act (relating to adjustments to ad valorem property taxes and schools financed by a community facilities district) are inapplicable to the District.

8. The levy of said proposed special tax shall be subject to the approval of the qualified electors of the District at a special election. The proposed voting procedure shall be by mailed or hand-delivered ballots among the landowners in the proposed District, with each landowner having one vote for each acre or portion of an acre of land such landowner owns in the District.

9. Except as may otherwise be provided by law or the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax for the District, all lands owned by any public entity, including the United States, the State of California, and/or the Town, or any departments or political subdivisions of any thereof, shall be omitted from the levy of the special tax to be made to cover the costs and expenses of the Services and any expenses of the District.

10. The Director of Public Works of the Town is hereby directed to study the proposed Services and to make, or cause to be made, and file with the Town Clerk a report required by Section 53321.5 of the Act presenting the following:

(a) A brief description of the Services.
(b) An estimate of the fair and reasonable initial annual cost of providing the Services, including the incidental expenses in connection therewith, any Town administration costs and all other related costs.

Said report shall be made a part of the record of the public hearing provided for below.

The Director of Public Works may delegate to consultants the duty to perform the study and prepare the report.

11. Wednesday, April 5, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the regular meeting place of this Town Council at Suite Z, Minaret Village Shopping Center, 437 Old Mammoth Road, Town of Mammoth Lakes, California, or virtually as noticed by the Town, are hereby appointed and fixed as the time and place when and where this Town Council, as legislative body for the District, will conduct a public hearing on the establishment of the District and consider and finally determine whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity require the formation of the District and the levy of said special tax.

12. The Town Clerk is hereby directed to cause notice of said public hearing to be given by publication one time in a newspaper published in the area of the District. The publication of said notice shall be completed at least seven (7) days before the date herein set for said hearing. The notice shall be substantially in the form of Exhibit D hereto.

13. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of February 2023.
___________________________
JOHN WENTWORTH, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
JAMIE GRAY, Town Clerk

EXHIBIT A

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2023-1
(MAINTENANCE SERVICES)

PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT

PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2023-1
(MAINTENANCE SERVICES)
FILEDINT HEOFFICEOFT HET OWNCLERKOFT HET OWNOFMAMMOT HLAKEST HIS________DAYOF______, 2023.
____________________________

T OWNCLERK

T OWNOFMAMMOT HLAKES

MONOCOUNT Y,CALIFORNIA

IHEREBYCERT IFYT HAT T HEWIT HINMAPSHOWINGT HEPROPOSEDBOUNDARIESOFT OWNOFMAMMOT HLAKES COMMUNIT YFACILIT IESDIST RICT NO.2023-1(MAINT ENANCESERVICES),T OWNOFMAMMOT HLAKES,COUNT YOF

MONO,ST AT EOFCALIFORNIA,WASAPPROVEDBYT HET OWNCOUNCILOFT HET OWNOFMAMMOT HLAKESAT A REGULAR MEET ING T HEREOF,HELD ON T HE ________DAY OF __________,2023,BY IT S RESOLUT ION NO. ____________________.
____________________________

T OWNCLERK

T OWNOFMAMMOT HLAKES

MONOCOUNT Y,CALIFORNIA
FILEDT HIS________DAYOF__________,2023,AT T HEHOUROF________O’CLOCK___M,INBOOK________OF MAPSOFASSESSMENT ANDCOMMUNIT YFACILIT IESDIST RICT SAT PAGE_______INT HEOFFICEOFT HECOUNT Y RECORDEROFT HECOUNT YOFMONO,ST AT EOFCALIFORNIA.

INST RUMENT NUMBER:__________
____________________________

COUNT YRECORDER

COUNT YOFMONO,CALIFORNIA

FORPART ICULARSOFT HELINESANDDIMENSIONSOFASSESSORPARCELS,REFERENCEISMADET OT HEMAPS OFT HEASSESSOR,COUNT YOFMONO,ST AT EOFCALIFORNIA.

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES

COUNTY OF MONO

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
o
Rt er
a
ni M
d
a
Forest Trail
Forest Trail
Hillside Drive
Hillsid
e
D
riv
e
w
ei v
ek
a
L
r
av
el u
o
B
d
033-390-004-000
033-041-011-000
033-390-007-000
3- 330
0 0- 09
0 0
0- 6
033-390-005-000
031-110-027-000
30 - 9
30 - 0
10 - 4
00 0
033-390-003-000
033-390-002-000
Forest Trail
ni M
r a
t e
oR
da
Hillsid
e
D
riv
e
Canyon Bou el
va dr
Berner Street
Main Street
Lake Mary Road
aL
ek
i v
we
oB
l u
ve
r a
d
H
o
rs
e
s
h
o
e
D
rive
Alpine Circle
Viewpoint Road
Ridgecrest Drive
Holiday Way
G
rin
delwald
R
o
a
d
Sheet 1 of 1
Source: Mono County GIS
Geographic Coordinate Reference: GCS North American 1983 Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane California III FIPS 0403 Feet «¬203
ni M r a t e dR
Meridian Blvd
Main St
Old Mammoth Rd

T OW N OF MAMMOT H LAKES T OW N OF MAMMOT H LAKES

S I T E S I T E
Legend
CFD/T axZo n eNo .1Bo un d ary
CFD/T axZo n eNo .1Parc els
Surro un d in gAreaParc els
O
0 150 300 75 Feet

EXHIBIT B

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2023-1
(MAINTENANCE SERVICES)

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
It is intended that the District will be eligible to fund all or a portion of the direct and incidental costs of plowing and removal of snow, and maintenance of curbs/sidewalks, landscapes and streetlights and related appurtenances, within or adjacent to the District.

The District may fund any of the following related to the maintenance of the services described in the preceding paragraph: obtaining, constructing, reconstructing, furnishing, and operating and maintaining equipment, apparatuses or facilities related to providing the services; equipment, apparatuses, facilities, or fixtures in areas to be maintained; paying the salaries and benefits of personnel necessary or convenient to provide the services; payment of insurance costs and other related expenses; and the provision of reserves for repairs, replacements, and for the future provision of services. It is expected that the services will be provided by the Town, either with its own employees or by contract with third parties, or any combination thereof. The District may also fund administrative fees of the Town related to the District.

The services to be financed by the District are in addition to those provided in the territory of the District before the date of creation of the District and will not supplant services already available within that territory when the District is created.

EXHIBIT C

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2023-1
(MAINTENANCE SERVICES)

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX

Town of Mammoth Lakes
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Maintenance Services) Page 1

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT

FOR TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2023-1
(MAINTENANCE SERVICES)
A Special Tax, as hereinafter defined,shall be levied and collected in Town of Mammoth Lakes Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Maintenance Services) (“CFD No. 2023-1”) each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2022/23, in an amount determined by the application of the procedures below. All Taxable Property, as hereinafter defined, unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent and in the manner herein provided.

A. DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meaning:
“Accessory Dwelling Unit” or “ADU” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Single-Family Residential Property for which a building permit(s) has been issued for an “Accessory Dwelling Unit” as defined in California Government Code Section 65852.2(j)(1), as may be amended from time to time, which is accessory to a primary Unit. The ADU may be located on the same Assessor’s Parcel as the primary Unit that is the primary Unit or on a separate Assessor’s Parcel. For purposes of clarification, where an ADU and primary Unit are on the same Assessor’s Parcel, the ADU located on such Assessor’s Parcel is considered a separate Unit from the primary Unit on such Assessor’s Parcel for purposes of the Special Tax. Should an Assessor’s Parcel contain only an ADU, such Assessor’s Parcel will be taxed as an ADU Unit only.
“Acre or Acreage” means the land area of an Assessor’s Parcel as shown on an Assessor’s Parcel Map or in the Assessor’s Data for each Assessor’s Parcel. In the event the Assessor’s Parcel Map or Assessor’s Data shows no Acreage, the Acreage for any Assessor’s Parcel shall be determined by the CFD Administrator based upon the applicable final map, parcel map, condominium plan, or other recorded County parcel map. If the preceding maps are not available, the Acreage of an Assessor’s Parcel may be determined utilizing GIS.
“Act” means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter 2.5, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State. “Administrative Expenses” means the actual or reasonably estimated costs directly related to the administration of CFD No. 2023-1 including, but not limited to, the following: the costs of computing the Annual Special Tax Requirement and of preparing the Special Tax collection schedules; the costs of collecting the Special Tax, including any charges levied by the County Auditor’s Office, Tax Collector’s Office or Treasurer’s Office; the costs of the Town or designee in complying with the disclosure requirements of the California Government Code (including the Act), including public inquiries regarding the Special Tax; the costs of the Town or designee related to an appeal of the Special Tax; and the costs of commencing and pursuing to completion any action arising from any delinquent Special Tax in CFD No. 2023-1. Administrative Expenses shall also include amounts estimated or advanced by the Town or CFD No. 2023-1 for any other administrative purposes, including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees.

Town of Mammoth Lakes
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Maintenance Services) Page 2 “Annual Services Costs” means the respective amounts determined by the CFD Administrator required to fund services authorized to be funded by CFD No. 2023-1 for the applicable yearly period.
“Annual Special Tax Requirement” means that amount with respect to CFD No. 2023-1 determined by the Town Council or designee as required in any Fiscal Year to pay: (1) the Administrative Expenses, (2) the Annual Services Costs, (3) any amount required to establish or replenish any reserve or replacement fund established in connection with CFD No. 2023-1, and (4) any reasonably anticipated delinquent Special Tax based on the delinquency rate for any Special Tax levied in the previous Fiscal Year.
“Apartment Property” means all Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property with two or more Units that share a single Assessor’s Parcel Number, are offered for rent to the general public, and cannot be purchased by individual homebuyers, according to Assessor’s Data or as otherwise known by the CFD Administrator. Apartment Property does not include Hotel Property. “Assessor’s Data” means Assessor’s Parcel Number, Units, Acreage, or other information contained in the records of the County Assessor for each Assessor’s Parcel. “Assessor’s Parcel” or “Parcel” means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor’s Parcel Map and/or Assessor’s Data with an assigned Assessor’s Parcel Number. “Assessor’s Parcel Map” means an official map of the Assessor of the County designating parcels by Assessor’s Parcel Number.
“Assessor’s Parcel Number” means, with respect to an Assessor’s Parcel, that number assigned to such Assessor’s Parcel by the County Assessor for purposes of identification. “Building Square Feet” or “BSF” means all of the square footage within the perimeter of a commercial structure or a residential structure, not including any carport, walkway, garage, overhang, patio, enclosed patio, or similar area. The determination of Building Square Feet shall be made by reference to the Assessor’s Data. If the Assessor’s Data does not show Building Square Feet, building permit(s) issued for such structure, or other records of the Town shall be used, as determined by the CFD Administrator.
“CFD Administrator” means an official of the Town, or designee thereof, responsible for determining the Annual Special Tax Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of the Special Taxes.
“CFD No. 2023-1” means the Town of Mammoth Lakes Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Maintenance Services).
“Condominium Property” means all Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property with one Unit with a single Assessor’s Parcel Number that is a condominium, pursuant the definition in Civil Code Section 4125, or a townhome.
“Commercial Property” means all Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property with a commercial use, according to Assessor’s Data or as otherwise known by the CFD Administrator.

Town of Mammoth Lakes
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Maintenance Services) Page 3 “County” means the County of Mono.
“County Assessor” means the County Assessor of the County. “Developed Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property in CFD No. 2023-1 for which a building permit for new construction was issued by the Town prior to June 30 of the preceding Fiscal Year.
“Exempt Property” means all Assessors’ Parcels within the boundary of CFD No. 2023-1 which are exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to Section E.
“Final Map Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property in CFD No. 2023-1 for which a Final Subdivision Map was approved by Town Council prior to June 30 of the preceding Fiscal Year. "Final Subdivision Map" means a subdivision of property created by recordation of a final subdivision map, parcel map or lot line adjustment, approved by the Town pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.) or recordation of a condominium plan pursuant to California Civil Code 4120, that creates individual lots for which residential building permits may be issued without further subdivision of such property. “Fiscal Year” means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30. “GIS” means a geographic information system.
“Hotel Property” means all Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property used for the purpose of temporary, overnight lodging for which a fee is paid, and reservations are required, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes any hotel, inn, tourist camp, tourist court, tourist cabin, motel or any place in which rooms, lodgings or accommodations are furnished to transients for a consideration. “Maximum Special Tax” means the maximum Special Tax authorized to fund the Annual Special Tax Requirement in any Fiscal Year that may apply to Taxable Property as described in Section C. “Mixed-Use Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property that have more than one land use category, allowing for both residential and other use types on each such Assessor’s Parcel.

For an Assessor’s Parcel of Mixed-Use Property, the Special Tax shall be calculated and levied for each use type present on the Assessor’s Parcel.
“Open Space Property” means property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2023-1 which (i) has been designated with specific boundaries and Acreage on a final subdivision map as open space, (ii) is classified by the County Assessor as open space, (iii) has been irrevocably offered for dedication as open space to the federal government, the State, the County, the Town, or any other public agency, or (iv) is encumbered by an easement or other restriction required by the Town limiting the use of such property to open space.
“Property Owner’s Association” means any property owner’s association. As used in this definition, a Property Owner’s Association includes any home-owner’s association, condominium owner’s association, master or sub-association or non-residential owner’s association.

Town of Mammoth Lakes
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Maintenance Services) Page 4 “Property Owner’s Association Property” means any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2023-1 which is (a) owned by a Property Owner’s Association or (b) designated with specific boundaries and acreage on a final subdivision map as property owner association property. “Proportionately” means for Taxable Property that the ratio of the Special Tax levy to the Maximum Annual Special Tax is equal for all Assessors’ Parcels of Taxable Property levied within each property land use classification within CFD No. 2023-1.
“Public Property” means any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2023-1 which (i) is owned by a public agency, (ii) has been irrevocably offered for dedication to a public agency, or (iii) is designated with specific boundaries and Acreage on a final subdivision map as property which will be owned by a public agency. For purposes of this definition, a public agency includes the federal government, the State, the County, the Town, school districts, or any other public agency. “Single Family Residential Detached Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit(s) has been issued for a detached residential structure intended as a single primary Unit.
“Special Tax” means the amount levied in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property to fund the Annual Special Tax Requirement.
“State” means the State of California.
“Tax Zone” means a mutually exclusive geographic area within which the Special Tax may be levied pursuant to this Rate and Method of Apportionment. All the Taxable Property within CFD No. 2023- 1 at the time of its formation is within either Tax Zone No. 1. Additional Tax Zones may be created when property is annexed to CFD No. 2023-1, and a separate Maximum Special Tax shall be identified for property within each new Tax Zone at the time of such annexation. The Assessor’s Parcels included within a new Tax Zone when such Parcels are annexed to CFD No. 2023-1 shall be identified by Assessor’s Parcel number in the annexation documents at the time of annexation. “Taxable Property” means all of the Assessor’s Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 2023-1 that are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to law or Section E below. “Town means the Town of Mammoth Lakes.
“Town Council” means the Town Council of the Town, acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 2023-1.
“Undeveloped Property” means all of the Assessor’s Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 2023- 1 that is not classified as Developed Property, Open Space Property, Property Owner’s Association Property, or Public Property.
“Unit” means (i) for Single Family Residential Detached Property, an individual single family detached residential unit, (ii) for Condominium Property, a residential condominium unit or townhome unit, (iii) for Apartment Property, an individual residential rental unit, (iv) for Hotel Property, an individual overnight lodging unit/room, and (v) and for ADUs, each residential unit. The number of Units assigned to each Assessor’s Parcel may be determined by (i) referencing Assessor’s

Town of Mammoth Lakes
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Maintenance Services) Page 5 Data, (ii) site surveys and physical unit counts, and/or (iii) other research by the CFD Administrator. “Welfare Exempt Property” means, in any Fiscal Year, all Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 2023-1 that (a) have been granted a welfare exemption by the County under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code indicated in the Assessor’s Data finalized as of January 1 of the previous Fiscal Year, and (b) are exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to Section 53340(c) of the Act.

B. DETERMINATION OF TAXABLE PARCELS
Each Fiscal Year, the CFD Administrator shall determine the valid Assessor’s Parcel Numbers for all Taxable Property within CFD No. 2023-1. If any Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are no longer valid, the CFD Administrator shall determine the new Assessor’s Parcel Number or Numbers in effect for the then-current Fiscal Year. To the extent a Parcel or Parcels of Taxable Property are subdivided, consolidated, or otherwise reconfigured, the Maximum Special Tax shall be assigned to the new Assessor’s Parcels Numbers pursuant to Section C. The CFD Administrator shall also determine: (i) the Tax Zone within which each Parcel is located; (ii) which Parcels are Taxable Property; (iii) the number of Units or Building Square Footage each Parcel contains; (iv) the property type, i.e., Condominium Property, Commercial Property, etc.; and (v) the Annual Special Tax Requirement for the Fiscal Year.

Town of Mammoth Lakes
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Maintenance Services) Page 6 C. MAXIMUM ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX RATES
The Maximum Special Taxes for each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property shall be assigned below:

1. Maximum Special Taxes
The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property within Tax Zone No. 1 shall be assigned according to Table 1 below:

TABLE 1

MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATES
TAX ZONE NO. 1
FISCAL YEAR 2022/23*
Land Use Category
Maximum Special
Tax Rate Per
Condominium Property – 1 Bedroom/Studio $262.22 Unit
Condominium Property – 2 Bedrooms 349.63 Unit
Condominium Property – 3 Bedrooms 437.04 Unit
Condominium Property – 4 Bedrooms 546.30 Unit
Condominium Property – 5 Bedrooms 682.88 Unit
Commercial Property 0.00 BSF
Apartment Property 0.00 Unit
Hotel Property 262.22 Unit
Single-Family Residential Detached Property 0.00 Unit
Accessory Dwelling Unit See below Unit
The Maximum Special Tax for an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be calculated as a percentage of the Maximum Special Tax for the primary Unit the ADU is accessory to, based on Building Square Footage. For example, if a primary Unit in Land Use Category Condominium Property – 3 Bedrooms with 2,000 BSF has an ADU of 800 BSF, the Maximum Special Tax for the ADU shall be calculated by the following steps:

1. 800 BSF / 2,000 BSF = 0.40 or 40%

2. $437.04 Maximum Special Tax per Unit x 40% = $174.81 Maximum Special Tax for such ADU
On July 1 of each Fiscal Year, commencing on July 1, 2023, the Maximum Special Tax rates for Tax Zone No. 1 shall be increased by amounts equal to two percent (2%) of the Maximum Special Tax rates amount in effect for the previous Fiscal Year.

Different Maximum Special Tax rates and tax escalation factors may be identified in Tax Zones added to CFD No. 2023-1 as a result of future annexations.

Town of Mammoth Lakes
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Maintenance Services) Page 7 In some instances, an Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property may be Mixed-Use Property. The Maximum Special Tax levied on an Assessor’s Parcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Tax for all Units and Building Square Feet of each property type on that Assessor’s Parcel.

2. Assignment of Assessor’s Parcel(s) to Property Land Use Category When an Assessor’s Parcel changes from being classified as Undeveloped Property to another land use category and is considered Developed Property, that assignment shall not change due to future changes in land use.

3. Assignment of Maximum Special Tax to Newly Created Assessor’s Parcel(s) When an Assessor’s Parcel changes or subdivides, the Maximum Special Tax shall be assigned to each newly created Assessor’s Parcel so that there is no net loss in the Maximum Special Tax revenue to be generated as a result of changes in the planned development.

When an Assessor’s Parcel changes or subdivides, and there are changes to the overall planned development for each Tax Zone within CFD No. 2023-1, the process for assigning the Maximum Special Tax to each newly created Assessor’s Parcel is as follows:

Step 1: Sum the expected Maximum Special Tax assigned to each Assessor’s Parcel that is being changed or subdivided within that Tax Zone.

Step 2: Identify the newly created Assessor’s Parcel(s) of Taxable Property created by the change or subdivision and assign the Maximum Special Tax to each newly created Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property according to the then-current Maximum Special Tax Rates within that Tax Zone for each Land Use Category. Sum the Maximum Special Tax assigned to each newly created Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property within that Tax Zone.

Step 3: Divide the total expected Maximum Special Tax in Step 1 by the total Maximum Special Tax assigned in Step 2 to arrive at a fraction for that Tax Zone.

Step 4: Apportion the total Maximum Special Tax from Step 1 to each newly created Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property by multiplying each newly created Assessor’s Parcel fraction, determined in Step 3, by the then-current Maximum Special Tax Rates within that Tax Zone for each Land Use Category.

Step 5: The Maximum Special Tax assigned to each newly created Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property shall be the greater of the Maximum Special Tax assigned in Step 2 or the Maximum Special Tax calculated in Step 4 for the Tax Zone.

When an Assessor’s Parcel changes or subdivides, and there are no changes to the planned development for each Tax Zone within CFD No. 2023-1, the Maximum Special Tax shall be assigned according to Table 1 for Tax Zone No. 1, or similar table for each successive Tax Zone.

Town of Mammoth Lakes
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Maintenance Services) Page 8 The planned development for Tax Zone No. 1 is provided in the table below:

Land Use Category
Planned
Development
Condominium Property – 1 Bedroom/Studio 101 Units
Condominium Property – 2 Bedrooms 4 Units
Condominium Property – 3 Bedrooms 4 Units
Condominium Property – 4 Bedrooms 4 Units
Condominium Property – 5 Bedrooms 3 Units
Hotel Property 149 Units
Once created, if a newly created Assessor’s Parcel(s) of Taxable Property further changes or subdivides, the above steps shall be repeated to determine the Maximum Special Tax for the additional newly created Assessor’s Parcel(s) of Taxable Property created from the change or subdivision.

D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAXES
All Taxable Property shall be subject to the Special Tax defined as follows. The Special Tax shall be levied each Fiscal Year by the CFD Administrator.

The Annual Special Tax Requirement shall be apportioned to each Parcel within CFD No. 2023-1 by the method shown below.

First: Determine the Annual Special Tax Requirement.

Second: Levy the Special Tax on each Parcel of Developed Property, Proportionately, up to the applicable Maximum Special Tax.

Under no circumstances will the Special Taxes on any Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property be increased by more than 10% as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other Assessor’s Parcel within CFD No. 2023-1.

E. EXEMPTIONS
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax, no Special Tax shall be levied on Open Space Property, Property Owner’s Association Property, Undeveloped Property, Assessor’s Parcels with public or utility easements making impractical their utilization for any use other than the purposes set forth in the easement, or Public Property, except as otherwise provided in Sections 53317.3, 53317.5 and 533401 of the Act.

No Special Tax shall be levied on any Assessor’s Parcel in any Fiscal Year in which such Assessor’s Parcel is classified as Welfare Exempt Property.

F. APPEAL OF SPECIAL TAX LEVY
Any property owner may file a written appeal of the Special Tax with the CFD Administrator claiming that the amount or application of the Special Tax is not correct. The appeal must be filed not later

Town of Mammoth Lakes
Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Maintenance Services) Page 9 than one calendar year after having paid the Special Tax that is disputed, and the appellant must be current in all payments of the Special Tax. In addition, during the term of the appeal process, all Special Tax levied must be paid on or before the payment date established when the levy was made.

The appeal must specify the reasons why the appellant claims the Special Tax is in error. The CFD Administrator shall review the appeal, meet with the appellant if the CFD Administrator deems necessary, and advise the appellant of its determination.

If the property owner disagrees with the CFD Administrator’s decision relative to the appeal, the owner may then file a written appeal with the Town Council whose subsequent decision shall be final and binding on all interested parties. If the decision of the CFD Administrator or subsequent decision by the Town Council requires the Special Tax to be modified or changed in favor of the property owner, then an adjustment shall be made to credit the Special Tax in future years.

This procedure shall be exclusive and its exhaustion by any property owner shall be a condition precedent to filing any legal action by such owner.

G. INTERPRETATIONS OF RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
The Town reserves the right to make minor administrative and technical changes to this document that do not materially affect the rate and method of apportioning the Special Tax. In addition, the interpretation and application of any section of this document shall be at the Town’s discretion.

Interpretations may be made by the Town Council by ordinance or resolution for purposes of clarifying any vagueness or ambiguity in this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax.

H. MANNER AND DURATION OF SPECIAL TAX
The Special Tax shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes, provided that the Town may directly bill the Special Tax, may collect the Special Tax at a different time or in a different manner if needed to meet the financial obligations of CFD No. 2023-1, and may collect delinquent Special Taxes through available methods.

Special Taxes shall continue to be levied and collected within CFD No. 2023-1, as needed to fund the Annual Special Tax Requirement, in perpetuity.

I. PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
The Special Tax may not be prepaid.

J. REPEAL OF SPECIAL TAX
If the levy of the Special Tax is repealed by initiative or any other action participated in by the owners of Assessor’s Parcels in CFD No. 2023-1, the Town shall cease to levy the Special Tax and shall cease to be obligated to provide the authorized services for which the Special Tax was levied. The obligations to provide the authorized services previously funded by the repealed Special Tax shall become the joint obligations of the property owners of Assessor’s Parcels within CFD No. 2023-1.

EXHIBIT D

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2023-1
(MAINTENANCE SERVICES)

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Town Council of the Town of Mammoth Lakes will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, April 5, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Town Council Chambers located at Suite Z, Minaret Village Shopping Center, 437 Old Mammoth Road, Town of Mammoth Lakes, California, or virtually as noticed by the Town, to consider the following:

TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2023-1
(MAINTENANCE SERVICES)
On February 15, 2023, the Town Council of the Town of Mammoth Lakes adopted a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Mammoth Lakes, State of California, Declaring Its Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein” (the “Resolution of Intention”). Reference is hereby made to the Resolution of Intention on file in the office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Mammoth Lakes for further particulars.

In the Resolution of Intention, the Town Council declared its intention to form the Town of Mammoth Lakes Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Maintenance Services) (the “District”) to fund the costs of plowing and removal of snow, and maintenance of curbs/sidewalks, landscapes and streetlights and related appurtenances; and related appurtenances, as further identified in an exhibit to the Resolution of Intention. The proposed boundaries of the District were identified in another exhibit to the Resolution of Intention, and the Resolution of Intention identified a proposed special tax to be levied on real property to be included in the District to pay for the costs of the services.

In the Resolution of Intention, the Town Council provided that the levy of the special tax will be subject to a mailed ballot election among the owners of land in the District. The Town Council ordered the Town’s Director of Public Works to prepare a report on the District, and the Town Council called for a public hearing on the District.

At the hearing, the testimony of all interested persons or taxpayers for or against the establishment of the District, the extent of the District or the furnishing of specified types of services will be heard. Any person interested may file a protest in writing with the Town Clerk. If fifty percent or more of the registered voters, or six registered voters, whichever is more, residing in the territory proposed to be included in the District, or the owners of one-half or more of the area of land in the territory proposed to be included in the District and not exempt from the special tax file written protests against the establishment of the District and the protests are not withdrawn to reduce the value of the protests to less than a majority, the Town Council of the Town shall take no further

action to establish the District or authorize the special taxes for a period of one year from the date of the decision of the Town Council, and if the majority protests of the registered voters or the landowners are only against the furnishing of a type or types of services within the District, or against levying a specified special tax, those types of services, or the specified special tax, will be eliminated from the proceedings to form the District.

Any person interested in these matters is invited to attend and present testimony either for or against the above item. If you challenge the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council during or prior to the public hearing. /s/ Jamie Gray
Town Clerk
Town of Mammoth Lakes

PETITION (With Waivers)
To Create a Community Facilities District and Related Matters To The Honorable Town Council
Town of Mammoth Lakes
PO Box 1609
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
Dear Councilmembers:

This is a petition to create a community facilities district and with respect to related matters under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Sections 53311 and following of the California Government Code (“Act”). The undersigned hereby states as follows:

1. Petitioner. This petition is submitted by the persons (whether one or more) identified below as, or for, the fee title owners of the parcels of land identified below. By submitting this petition, such persons warrant to the Town of Mammoth Lakes (“Town”) that they are authorized to execute this petition.

2. Proceedings Requested. The Petitioner asks that the Town Council of the Town undertake and complete proceedings under the Act to create a community facilities district to be designated “Town of Mammoth Lakes, Community Facilities District No. 2023-1 (Maintenance Services)” (“CFD”), and to levy special taxes in the CFD.

3. Boundaries of CFD. The Petitioner asks that the territory to be included in the boundaries of the CFD consist of the parcels of land identified below.

4. Purpose of CFD. The Petitioner asks that the CFD be created, and the special taxes be levied to pay for the costs of plowing and removal of snow, and maintenance of curbs/sidewalks, landscapes and streetlights and related appurtenances, and to pay other costs as shall be more fully identified during the course of the legal proceedings to form the CFD.

5. Special Tax. The Petitioner agrees that the Town will, subject to the approval of the Petitioner in the proceedings for the CFD, be authorized to levy a Special Tax in the CFD to pay for the Services, subject to the completion of all proceedings by the Town under the Act.

6. Election. The Petitioner asks that the election, to be held under the Act to authorize the special taxes and to establish any appropriations limits for the CFD, be consolidated into a single election, that the election be conducted by the Town and its officials using mailed or hand-delivered ballots, and that such ballots be opened and canvassed and the results certified at the same meeting of the Town Council as the public hearing on the CFD under the Act or as soon thereafter as possible.

7. Waivers. To expedite the completion of the proceedings for the CFD, all notices of hearings and all notices of election, applicable waiting periods under the Act for special elections, and all ballot analysis or arguments for the election are hereby waived.

8. Authority Warranted. The Petitioner warrants to the Town that the presentation of this Petition, any waivers contained herein, casting of ballots at the property owner election and other actions mandated by the Town for the formation of the CFD shall not constitute or be construed as events of default or delinquencies under any existing or proposed financing documents entered into or to be entered into by the Petitioner for the Property, including any “due-on-encumbrance” clauses under any existing security instruments secured by the Property. If requested by the Town, the Petitioner agrees, at its expense, to supply to the Town current title evidence so that the Town may supply any notice and ballot required under the Act for the establishment of the CFD.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EDD1B788-C39F-4A55-A138-08B455BDA90A

9. Due-Diligence and Disclosures. The Petitioner agrees to cooperate with the Town, its attorneys and consultants and to provide all information and disclosures required by the Town about the Special Tax to purchasers of the Property or any part of it.

10. Agreements. The Petitioner further agrees to execute such additional or supplemental agreements as may be required by the Town to provide for any of the actions and conditions under this Petition, including any amount of cash deposit required to pay for the Town’s costs in establishing the CFD. Petitioner agrees that this Petition shall not be considered as filed with the Town for purposes of commencing proceedings for the CFD under the Act unless and until deemed filed by the Town in its absolute discretion.

By executing this petition, the person(s) below agree(s) to all of the above.

The Property subject to this Petition is identified as Mono County Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 033-041-011- 000, 039-030-014-000.

The Property consists of a total of 2.10 acres.

The record owner of the Property is: GREENS BERNER STREET LLC Executed on ___________, 2023 By __________________________________ Title: ________________________________
The address to which the ballot for the CFD annexation election is to be sent:

GREENS BERNER STREET LLC
8815 RESEARCH DRIVE
IRVINE, CA 92618
DocuSign Envelope ID: EDD1B788-C39F-4A55-A138-08B455BDA90A Feb. 6th
CFO

Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Consider the request for an additional $400,000 contribution to the Mammoth Lakes Housing Innsbruck Lodge Affordable Housing Project.

Council Meeting Date: 2/15/2023
Prepared by: Nolan Bobroff, Senior Planner / Housing Coordinator Recommended Motion: Adopt the resolution approving an additional $400,000 contribution to the Mammoth Lakes Housing Innsbruck Lodge Affordable Housing Project contingent on the specified terms.

Summary: In January 2022, the Town Council authorized a joint grant application with Mammoth Lakes Housing, Inc. (MLH) to the State’s Homekey Program for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Innsbruck Lodge located at 913 Forest Trail into a 16-unit affordable housing project (15 affordable units and 1 manager’s unit). At the time of application, the estimated cost of the project was $5.96M, with $4.4M coming from the State program, $1M from the Town, and $550K from Mono County. The Town and MLH were successful in the grant application and an award announcement was made in May 2022 followed up by the acquisition of the property in August 2022. After acquiring the property, MLH completed the construction drawings and executed a contract with a local contractor to complete the rehabilitation work. Demolition work is ongoing at the site and the building permit is currently in plan review. Construction is expected to be completed in late-2023 with a target occupancy date of early-2024.

Through the course of developing the construction drawings and detailed scope of work, the total anticipated construction budget rose from $5.9M to $6.8M primarily due to increases in construction costs and a more in-depth review of the interior of the ~50 year old structure that couldn’t happen until acquisition was complete. Due to the increase in construction costs, there is a funding gap of approximately $884K. MLH has secured an additional grant award of $343,338 from the Eastern Sierra Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (HHAP) Round 1 & 2 funds and has committed a non-refundable capital contribution of MLH funds of $141,131. With those additional contributions, the funding gap for the project is now $400K, which is being asked for from the Town.

The Town has identified available funding in the Housing Now! program to contribute the additional $400K beyond the $1M previously committed to the project. Staff recommends that the $400K be committed to the project with the following contingency on the use of the funds:

1. All other funding sources, including, but not limited to, the budgeted $120,000 in contingency funds, the $31,019 in budgeted reserves, and the $141,161 from MLH, shall be drawn down prior to any use of the additional $400,000 from the Town.

With this additional $400K contribution from the Housing Now! program, there remains adequate funding for the previously made financial commitments, including, but not limited to, the Access Apartments project ($1.5M), the 60 Joaquin small unit development project ($2.42M), Bridge program (~1M), and the Creative Housing Public/Private Partnership (TBD - $1.5M).

The Homekey Program is a State housing financial assistance program that is intended to rapidly expand the inventory of housing for people who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of

homelessness and who are, thereby, inherently impacted by or at increased risk for medical diseases or conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic or other communicable diseases. Homekey is an opportunity for state, regional, and local public entities to develop a broad range of housing types, including but not limited to hotels, motels, hostels, single-family homes and multifamily apartments, adult residential facilities, and manufactured housing, and to convert commercial properties and other existing buildings to Permanent or Interim Housing for the Target Population.

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF

MAMMOTH LAKES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AN
ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTION OF $400,000 FROM THE
HOUSING NOW! PROGRAM TO THE INNSBRUCK LODGE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED AT 913 FOREST TRAIL
(APN NUMBER: 033-041-006-000)
WHEREAS, the Town Council’s strategic priorities updated on June 20, 2022 include a priority to “Expand availability and affordability of Community Housing”; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has authorized funding for the implementation of several housing policy directives and programs, branded as the “Housing Now!” initiative; and WHEREAS, implementation of Town housing programs includes the dedication of Town resources to provide a range of community housing that is available and affordable to those working in the community; and
WHEREAS, the Town was approached by Mammoth Lakes Housing, Inc. (MLH) in January 2022 with an opportunity to partner on an affordable housing project through the State Homekey Program (“Grant”) to acquire and renovate the Innsbruck Lodge located at 913 Forest Trail (“Property”) into a 16-unit affordable housing project consisting of 15 affordable units available to households earning at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI) and 1 manager’s unit (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Town committed $1,000,000 towards the Project in January 2022 together with a match of $550,000 from Mono County; and WHEREAS, the Town and MLH were successful in the Grant application and were awarded $4,410,000 in funding from the State in May 2022 for the Project; and WHEREAS, through the development of the complete construction drawings for the Project and a comprehensive inspection of the property with the contractor, it was determined that there is a funding gap of approximately $884,000; and WHEREAS, through additional donations and commitments from local partners and MLH’s own financial reserves, the funding gap was reduced to $400,000; and WHEREAS, MLH has requested from the Town an additional $400,000 contribution towards the Project to close the funding gap; and
WHEREAS, there is a sufficient fund balance in the Housing Now! program for the additional contribution together with the previously made affordable housing financial commitments.

Resolution No. 23-__

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Mammoth as follows:

Section 1. The above findings are true and correct and the Town Council finds the use of Town resources to secure workforce housing within the Town of Mammoth Lakes a public purpose. The Town faces an acute shortage of housing available to the local workforce, and the rehabilitation of the Property into a 16-unit multi-family residential complex, including 15 affordable units available to households earning at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI), will assist in providing such affordable housing.

Section 2. The Town Council authorizes the additional contribution of $400,000 towards the Project, in addition to the previously committed $1,000,000, subject to the following funding condition. The $1,400,000 contribution towards the Project is deemed to be “for the public benefit” for purposes of Government Code Section 37350.

Funding Condition: All other funding sources, including, but not limited to, the budgeted $120,000 in contingency funds, the $31,019 in budgeted reserves, and the $141,161 from Mammoth Lakes Housing, shall be drawn down prior to any use of the additional $400,000 from the Town.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15
th day of February 2023.
___________________________________
JOHN WENTWORTH, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
JAMIE GRAY, Town Clerk

Town Council
Town of Mammoth Lakes
ATTN: Nolan Bobroff, Housing Coordinator
Via email: [email protected]
February 7, 2023
RE: Additional Funding Request for the Innsbruck Lodge
Affordable Housing Development
913 Forest Trail, Mammoth Lakes, CA
Dear Town Council,
Mammoth Lakes Housing acquired the Innsbruck Lodge in August 2022, through a Project Homekey grant in partnership with the Town of Mammoth Lakes. The project is slated to become 15 affordable studio and one-bedroom apartments, and one manager’s unit. This adaptive reuse of an aging and neglected structure promotes the revitalization of our neighborhoods, animation of our commercial zones, and meets an urgent housing need.

TIMELINE
This project will serve households earning below 80% of Area Median Income. Mammoth Lakes Housing will own and operate the project, as a local nonprofit housing agency and Community Housing Development Organization.

Award May 2022
Architecture Contract June
Acquisition August
Building Permit App. October
Demo-Only Contract December
Rehab Contract January 2023
Demo Start January
Secure Final Funding February
Rehab Start February
Construction Deadline December
Occupancy Required February 2024
P.O. Box 260
587 Old Mammoth Road #4
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
(760) 934-4740

The site is in proximity and walkable to a variety of amenities including free public transit, job centers, shopping, and childcare.

COMMUNITY NEED
Smaller apartments were cited
in the 2017 Needs Assessment
as a desirable home size to meet
the needs of those living in their
cars, young professionals,
single parents, and many others
in our community.

MLH administers a waiting list
for 82 affordable apartments on
which there is currently 160
households waiting for an
affordable home.

Of those, 46% represent
households of either one- or
two- people.

While Phase 1 of The Parcel project, facilitated by the Town and Pacific Companies, will add some relief, the addition of sixteen units at the Innsbruck Lodge will bring housing diversity to our toolbox of solutions.

FUNDING
The funding for this project compiles contributions from both the public and private sector including:
 The Town of Mammoth Lakes
 Mono County
 Eastern Sierra Continuum of Care
 Mammoth Lakes Housing, Inc.

Innsbruck Lodge
Funding Sources Amount Budget Final Development Budget
Project Homekey $4,410,000 Land and Acquisition $3,503,887 Town of Mammoth Lakes $1,000,000 Rehab Costs $2,364,928 Mono County $550,000 Architecture &
Soft Costs $824,635
Continuum of Care 343,338 Operating Reserve $31,019
Contingency $120,000
TOTAL $6,303,338 $6,844,469
GAP
$541,131

To complete this project and move expediently forward with the rehabilitation of the Innsbruck Lodge into affordable housing, MLH is requesting an additional contribution of $400,000 from the Town of Mammoth Lakes.

Mammoth Lakes Housing has contributed to the ongoing carrying costs of the project, is moving forward with demolition knowing that this project is a community priority, and taken on the risk.

At their January 2023 meeting, the MLH Board of Directors authorized an additional investment of MLH capital to this project.

While the total development cost may seem high, the price per day to house someone at this project for 55 years is only $23.

Additionally, a total Town contribution of $1,400,000 towards these eleven affordable units represents an investment of $87,500 per unit.

Finally, we recognize the importance of our public-private partnership. We hope that together we can leverage our individual strengths for collective success towards our mutual goal. Thank you for considering an additional investment in this project which is just one piece of the puzzle.

Sincerely,
Patricia Robertson
Executive Director

ATTACHMENT

1. Innsbruck Lodge Outreach Flier

(760) 934-4740
Innsbruck Lodge
Workforce Housing
MLH purchased this 1960's lodge in Mammoth Lakes
through a CA Homekey grant in the amount of $4.56M.

The nonprofit will rehabilitate the project into 15 studio apartments with private baths and kitchenettes, 1 manager's unit, common area laundry room and storage locker room. $6,155,000

FUNDS SECURED
Mammoth Lakes Housing, Inc.
$7,297,494

FUNDS NEEDED

MammothLakesHousing.org

PROJECT BUDGET

DEVELOPMENT BUDGET
Acquisition: 3,503,887
Rehab: $2,364,928
A&E + Soft Costs: $824,635
Operating Reserve: $31,019
Contingency: $120,000

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT
COST
$6,844,469

AWARDED BUDGET
CA Project Homekey: $2,700,000
Homekey Local Match:
$1,550,000
Application Bonus: $160,000
Town of Mammoth Lakes:
$1,000,000
Mono County: $550,000
Continuum of Care: $343,338

TOTAL AWARDED
$6,303,338
Project Details
Mammoth Lakes Housing, Inc.
$541,131
TOTAL

FUNDING GAP
16-32
# of potential
residents
55 Years of
Affordability
80%
Area Median
Income
Income Limit
1 ppl - $45,300
Fall 2023
Expected
Occupancy
Date
160
# of households
waiting for
affordable housing
46% 1-2 ppl
$21
Cost per day
to house one
household at this
project

Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: 2023 Youth Sports Funding Recommendations.

Council Meeting Date: 2/15/2023
Prepared by: Stuart Brown, Parks and Recreation Director Katrina Kelly, Recreation Manager
Recommended Motion: Approve the 2023 Youth Sports Funding Recommendations.

Summary: The Town of Mammoth Lakes annually awards funds to supplement organized, nonprofit, youth sports programs to help sustain these valuable community programs, provide enhanced programing, or to foster greater participation from low-income residents.

The sum of $45,000 is identified in the FY2022/23 Parks and Recreation Department budget for allocation to the 2023 Youth Sports Funding Program. This sum includes $10,000 of funds from Mono County in support of county-wide youth sports programs.

The application period for the 2023 Youth Sports Funding Program award opened on Monday, January 9 and closed on Tuesday, January 31, 2023. A total of nine Youth Sports Funding applications were filed and received by the Parks and Recreation Department.

Complete funding applications are posted for public review on the dedicated Youth Sports Funding page.

On February 7, 2023 the Parks and Recreation Commission participated in discussion regarding the allocations, received public comments from the respective youth sports organizations, and unanimously approved by motion the funding Youth Sports Funding Program allocation of $45,000 as presented in Table 1, and in detail in Attachment A to the youth sports organizations for 2023.

MAMMOTH LAKES TOWN COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
1 Council Meeting Date: February 15, 2023 Date Prepared: February 8, 2023 Prepared by: Katrina Kelly, Recreation Manager
Stuart Brown, Parks and Recreation Director
Title: 2023 Youth Sports Funding Recommendations
Agenda: Discussion item
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the 2023 Youth Sports Funding allocations as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission for a total award of $45,000.

BACKGROUND
The Town of Mammoth Lakes annually awards funds to supplement organized, non-profit, youth sports programs to help sustain these valuable community youth programs, provide enhanced programing or to foster greater participation from low-income residents.

The sum of $45,000 is identified in the FY2022/23 Parks and Recreation Department budget for allocation to the 2023 Youth Sports Funding Program. This sum includes $10,000 of funds from Mono County in support of county-wide youth sports programs.

On February 7, 2023 the Parks and Recreation Commission participated in a discussion regarding the allocations, received public comment from the respective youth sports organizations and unanimously approved by motion the funding Youth Sports Funding Program allocation of $45,000 as presented in Table 1, and in detail in Attachment A to the youth sports organizations for 2023.

In 2022, the sum of $36,800 was approved for allocation to the 2022 Youth Sports Funding Program, however, on May 4, 2022, Town Council voted to allocate an additional $12,700 in funds to the Parks and Recreation budget, to be awarded to the Youth Sports organizations based on funding allocations recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission. On June 7, 2022, the Commission allocated a total of $49,500, representing each Youth Sports Organizations funding request in full, but limited the award to a 100% match of their initial 2021 youth sports funding award.

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
Community Funding Opportunities
To better coordinate the community funds awarded by the Town (Youth Sports Funding), Mammoth Lakes Recreation (Measure U) and Mammoth Lakes Tourism (special events), it was agreed by representatives from the respective entities, that the individually managed funding efforts would benefit from a more coordinated and transparent manner. The intent was to synchronize the funding cycles and to post respective grant opportunities and timelines on a “Community Funding” page on the Town’s website. The Community Funding page went live in

2 late 2022 and includes specific language and pre-determined filters to direct applicants to the applicable and eligible funding source. In addition, the dedicated webpage also includes other community funding partners such as Mono County (Community Event Marketing Fund) and the Mammoth Mountain Community Foundation (MMCF). The coordination between the three main community funding partners included clear and concise language on the categories of available funding, and who is and who is not eligible for the funds.

Community Funding Categories:

1. Special Events (one-time events)
a. Defn: Special Events in Mammoth Lakes that are organized, occur annually (onetime) that historically have included, but are not limited to: festivals/fairs, sporting events, and community-based events.
b. Managed by Mammoth Lakes Tourism

2. Programming (on-going programs)
a. Segmented into two categories:
i. Organized Youth Sports Organizations

1. Defn: Organized, non-profit youth sports programs that may be in need of additional funding to provide enhanced programming or to foster greater participation from low-income residents throughout Mono County

2. Managed by TOML/Parks and Recreation Commission
ii. Recreation, Arts and Culture Entities

1. Defn: Entities that provide diverse and enhanced recreation, arts & culture programs for the residents and visitors of Mammoth Lakes

2. Managed by Mammoth Lakes Recreation
It was agreed by the respective funding entities that if the mission and primary function of an entity qualifies them into one programming category, they cannot apply to another programming category. In essence, the mission and primary function of an entity will determine which programming category they may apply to. In addition, programming entities can apply for special event funding, but entities cannot include this one-time funding request in the programming application. Additional information about the Community Funding program can be found on the Town’s website.

Youth Sports Funding Application Process
The application period for the 2023 Youth Sports Funding Program award opened on Monday, January 9 and closed on Tuesday, January 31, 2023. A total of nine Youth Sports Funding applications were filed and received by the Parks and Recreation Department. A summary of 2023 funding applications can be viewed in Table 1 and in detail in Attachment A. Complete funding applications are posted for public review on the dedicated Youth Sports Funding page. 2023 Youth Sports Funding Methodology
Based on the fluctuating available funds year over year, the diverse operating environments that each youth sporting organization experiences, the disparate number of participants that each

3 organization serves and the different types of non-profits and their respective missions, staff developed a more equitable and data-driven funding methodology.

The new methodology was endorsed by the Parks and Recreation Commission on February 7, 2023 and is as follows. Each organization is categorized and placed in a tier, and based on the average cost per player or participant of the many varying sports and the associated expenses (i.e. swimming/hockey has a higher facility cost versus soccer or baseball based on Town facility use agreements), staff assigned a revenue amount per participant. The established revenue amount is then multiplied by the number of participants identified in the funding application by each youth sporting organization.

The Youth Sports Organization Tiers and revenue amount per participant are as follows:

Tier Definition Revenue
per
participant
One Youth Sports Organizations that use Town facilities and pay <$1/year $28 Two Youth Sports Organizations that have facility fees AND staff costs $55 Three Youth Sports Organizations that have facility fees OR staff costs $35 Four A non-profit organization that provides valuable youth programming for the community
Set Amount
Tony Colasardo Scholarship Fund
The Tony Colasardo Scholarship Fund provides full and partial scholarships for recreation programs provided, and supported, by the Mammoth Lakes Parks and Recreation Department.

Scholarships are awarded on an annual, calendar-year basis, and provide either a 50%, 75% or 90% discount. It is the intent of staff to work with each Youth Sports Organization during their registration period to extend the scholarship discount to individual participants who may need financial assistance. The purpose is to further promote youth participation and inclusivity throughout Mono County and the Town of Mammoth Lakes.

4 Table 1:

STAFFING CONSIDERATION:

The administration of the Youth Sports Funding Program is incorporated in the existing staff workplan.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

The sum of $45,000 is identified in the FY2022/23 Parks and Recreation Department budget for allocation to the 2023 Youth Sports Funding Program. This sum includes $10,000 of funds from Mono County in support of county-wide youth sports programs.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:

None.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:

None.
$45,000 Funding Level
Organization
2023
Recommendations 2023 Request 2022 Award 2022
Participants
Tier One - Youth Sports Organizations that use Town facilities and pay <$1/year AYSO - Mammoth Lakes Region 316 $ 12,290.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 13,000.00 439 Mammoth Track Club $ 1,231.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 44
Mono County Little League $ 7,167.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 7,000.00 256 Tier Two - Youth Sports Organizations that have facility fees AND staff costs Mammoth Lakes Swim Team $ 5,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 100 Tier Three - Youth Sports Organizations that have facility fees OR staff costs Mammoth Lakes Youth Hockey $ 3,930.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 4,450.00 114 Eastern Sierra Nordic Ski Association $ 4,622.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 5,000.00 134 Mammoth Club Volleyball $ 2,760.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 2,500.00 80 Tier Four - A non-profit organization that provides valuable community youth programming Disabled Sports Eastern Sierra $ 1,500.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,500.00 19 MUSD Husky Club $ 6,000.00 $ 8,050.00 $ 8,050.00 97
TOTAL $ 45,000.00 $ 58,350.00 $ 49,500.00 1,283
2023 Youth Sports Funding Recommendations

5 ATTACHMENT A:
$45,000 Funding Level
Organization
2023
Recommendations
2023 Request 2022 Award 2022 Request 2021 Award 2022
Participants
2021
Participants
2023 Request
per
Participant
2023
Recomm.
per
Participant
% Total
Participants
% Total Growth
Participants
AYSO - Mammoth Lakes 316 12,290.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 11,825.00 $ 439 305 34.17 $ 28.00 $ 34.22% 43.93% Disabled Sports Eastern Sierra 1,500.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 19 20 94.74 $ 78.95 $ 1.48% -5.00%Eastern Sierra Nordic Ski Association 4,622.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 2,950.00 $ 134 128 44.78 $ 34.49 $ 10.44% 4.69% Mammoth Club Volleyball 2,760.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 80 60 62.50 $ 34.50 $ 6.24% 33.33%Mammoth Lakes Swim Team 5,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 4,900.00 $ 100 100 60.00 $ 55.00 $ 7.79% 0.00% Mammoth Lakes Youth Hockey 3,930.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 4,450.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 2,225.00 $ 114 76 57.02 $ 34.47 $ 8.89% 50.00%Mammoth Track Club 1,231.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 44 106 45.45 $ 27.98 $ 3.43% -58.49% Mono County Little League 7,167.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 4,900.00 $ 256 236 31.25 $ 28.00 $ 19.95% 8.47%MUSD Husky Club 6,000.00 $ 8,050.00 $ 8,050.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 97 97 82.99 $ 61.86 $ 7.56% 0.00% TOTAL 45,000.00 $ 58,350.00 $ 49,500.00 $ 49,500.00 $ 36,800.00 $ 1,283 1,128 100.00% 2023 Youth Sports Funding Recommendations

1 Town Council, February 15, 2023 Page 95 of 175
Program Information
2 • The Town of Mammoth Lakes annually awards funds to supplement organized, non-profit, youth sports programs to help sustain these valuable community youth programs, provide enhanced programing or to foster greater participation from low-income residents. • The sum of $45,000 is identified in the FY2022/23 Parks and Recreation Department budget for allocation to the 2023 Youth Sports Funding Program. This sum includes $10,000 from Mono County in support of county-wide youth sports programs. • On February 7, 2023 the Parks and Recreation Commission participated in a discussion regarding the allocations, received public comment from the respective youth sports organizations and unanimously approved by motion the funding Youth Sports Funding Program allocation of $45,000. Page 96 of 175
Community Funding
3 • The Town of Mammoth Lakes (Youth Sports Funding), Mammoth Lakes Recreation (Measure U) and Mammoth Lakes Tourism (special events) now coordinate the many community funding opportunities available to youth sporting organizations, arts and culture entities and special event organizers.
• The collective funding cycles are now synchronized with similar timelines along with clear and concise grant information and predetermined filters listed on the Community Funding page that directs applicants to the applicable and eligible funding source. • The dedicated webpage also includes other community funding partners such as Mono County (Community Event Marketing Fund) and the Mammoth Mountain Community Foundation (MMCF).

Community Funding Categories
4 Special Events (one-time events)
• Special Events in Mammoth Lakes that are organized, occur annually (one-time) that historically have included, but are not limited to: festivals/fairs, sporting events, and community-based events.
• Managed by Mammoth Lakes Tourism (MLT)
Programming (on-going programs)
• Organized Youth Sports Organizations
• Organized, non-profit youth sports programs that may be in need of additional funding to provide enhanced programming or to foster greater participation from low-income residents throughout Mono County
• Managed by TOML/Parks and Recreation Commission
• Recreation, Arts and Culture Entities
• Entities that provide diverse and enhanced recreation, arts & culture programs for the residents and visitors of Mammoth Lakes
• Managed by Mammoth Lakes Recreation (MLR)

5 YSF Organizations
Mammoth Club Volleyball
• 80 participants (+20)
• Funds used to scholarship 13 players
• Uses High School gym and Snowcreek Athletic Club
• Do not currently use Town facilities
• https://mammothclubvolleyball.com/
Eastern Sierra Nordic Ski Association
• 134 participants (+6)
• Awarded 5 scholarships
• Funds used to update and expand summer and fall dryland training equipment (roller skis and poles and high visibility shirts) and to provide partial athlete grant to defray expenses for five athletes who qualified for US Junior National Championships.
• Utilize Tamarack Cross Country Ski Center, Shady Rest Park & Whitmore Track • https://esnsa.org/ Page 99 of 175
6 YSF Organizations
Mammoth Lakes Swim Team
• 100 participants (0)
• Funds use to subsidize facility use fees (Youth swim pass), coaches' salaries, and scholarships (2).
• Utilize Whitmore Pool from mid-May to Mid-August.
• https://www.teamunify.com/team/pcmlst/page/home
Mono County Little League
• 256 participants (+20)
• 13 scholarships
• Funds used to purchase equipment and uniforms
• Utilize Shady Rest Park and Whitmore Recreation Area
• https://mcll.teampages.com/

7 YSF Organizations
Mammoth AYSO
• 439 participants (+134)
• 25 scholarships
• Funds were spent on field equipment, uniforms, volunteer training to provide a “Safe Haven”, volunteer coach and official training, volunteer background screening, reduced registration costs, scholarships, and tournament registration. • Utilize Shady Rest Park and Whitmore Recreation Area
• https://www.ayso316.org/
Disabled Sports Eastern Sierra
• 19 participants (-1)
• 9 students signed up for a total of 81 lessons from Mammoth Elementary School. • Anticipating Mammoth Middle School and Mammoth High School will have 10 students sign up for approx. 60 total lessons.
• Approximately 40% of lessons are fully or partially scholarshipped • https://disabledsportseasternsierra.org/

8 YSF Organizations
Mammoth Track Club
• 44 participants (-62)
• Operated 2 weekly camps in 2021 – only 1 in 2022.
• Funds were spent on assistant coaches (MTC Elite Athletes), snacks for the kids during practice and promotional materials sent to all three Mammoth Schools. • Utilize Whitmore Track and Sports Field
• https://www.mammothtrackclub.com/
Mammoth Husky Club
• 97 participants (0)
• The largest amount of the funds pay for transportation to the Whitmore Pool and various locations for hiking. The rest of the funds went to purchase new team sports equipment: soccer nets and balls, tether ball, baseball bats and balls, volleyball net and balls, and footballs.
• Utilize Mammoth Creek Park, Trails End Park, Shady Rest Park and the Whitmore Pool each Friday.

9 YSF Organizations
Mammoth Lakes Youth Hockey
• 114 participants (+38)
• 9 scholarships
• Funds were used to purchase new player equipment, subsidized LA Kings Lil’ Kings equipment, added a weekly game for all levels (8U, 10U, 12U, 14U) with paid referee and purchased new mini scoreboard for games and tournaments. • Program currently utilizes the Mammoth Ice Rink
• https://mammothlakesyouthhockey.com/

Application Details
10 • The application period for the 2023 Youth Sports Funding Program award opened on Monday, January 9 and closed on Tuesday, January 31, 2023.
• A total of nine Youth Sports Funding applications were filed and received by the Parks and Recreation Department.
• Complete funding applications are posted for public review on the dedicated Youth Sports Funding page.

Scholarship Program
11 • The Tony Colasardo Scholarship Fund provides full and partial scholarships for recreation programs provided, and supported, by the Mammoth Lakes Parks and Recreation Department.
• Scholarships are awarded on an annual, calendar-year basis, and provide either a 50%, 75% or 90% discount.
• It is the intent of staff to work with each Youth Sports Organization during their registration period to extend the scholarship discount to individual participants who may need financial assistance. • The purpose is to further promote youth participation and inclusivity throughout Mono County and the Town of Mammoth Lakes.

Funding Methodology
12 • Based on the fluctuating available funds year over year, the diverse operating environments that each youth sporting organization experiences, the disparate number of participants that each organization serves and the different types of entities, staff developed a more equitable and data-driven funding methodology. • The new methodology was endorsed by the Parks and Recreation Commission on February 7, 2023.
• Each organization is categorized and placed in a specific tier and based on the average cost per player or participant of the many varying sports and the associated expenses, a revenue amount per participant is assigned.
• The revenue amount per participant is then multiplied by the number of participants identified in the funding application by each youth sporting organization to calculate a recommended allocation.

Funding Methodology
13 The Youth Sports Organization specific Tiers and revenue amount per participant are as follows:

Tier Definition
Revenue
per
Participant
One Youth Sports Organizations that use Town facilities and pay <$1/year
$28
Two Youth Sports Organizations that have facility fees AND staff costs
$55
Three Youth Sports Organizations that have facility fees OR staff costs
$35
Four A non-profit organization that provides valuable youth programming for the community
Set
Amount

Recommendation
14 Approve the 2023 Youth Sports Funding allocations as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission for a total award of $45,000. $45,000 Funding Level
Organization
2023
Recommendations 2023 Request 2022 Award 2022
Participants
Tier One - Youth Sports Organizations that use Town facilities and pay <$1/year AYSO - Mammoth Lakes Region 316 $ 12,290.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 13,000.00 439 Mammoth Track Club $ 1,231.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 44
Mono County Little League $ 7,167.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 7,000.00 256 Tier Two - Youth Sports Organizations that have facility fees AND staff costs Mammoth Lakes Swim Team $ 5,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 100 Tier Three - Youth Sports Organizations that have facility fees OR staff costs Mammoth Lakes Youth Hockey $ 3,930.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 4,450.00 114 Eastern Sierra Nordic Ski Association $ 4,622.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 5,000.00 134 Mammoth Club Volleyball $ 2,760.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 2,500.00 80 Tier Four - A non-profit organization that provides valuable community youth programming Disabled Sports Eastern Sierra $ 1,500.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,500.00 19 MUSD Husky Club $ 6,000.00 $ 8,050.00 $ 8,050.00 97
TOTAL $ 45,000.00 $ 58,350.00 $ 49,500.00 1,283
2023 Youth Sports Funding Recommendations

15

1 TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Title: Authorization of agreements to expand Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.

Meeting Date: February 15, 2023
Prepared by: Haislip Hayes, PE Public Works Director
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Town Council take the following actions:
 Authorize the Town Manager to execute a lease agreement between the Town and Electrify America for space at the Hillside Parking Lot for electric vehicle charging stations.
 Authorize the Town Manager to execute a lease agreement between the Town and EV Range for space at the Park n’ Ride lot on Tavern Road for electric vehicle charging stations.
 Authorize the Town Manager to sign a “Site Verification Form” supporting a grant application by EV Range.

BACKGROUND:

In September 2015, the Town Council authorized the execution of a lease agreement with Tesla Motors for the use of portions of the Park-n-Ride lot (Corner of Tavern Road and Old Mammoth Road). Tesla thereafter completed the construction of 8 supercharger stations. These stations have been operational and in a good state of repair since installed.

The existing stations provide on average 1200 charging sessions per month and are regularly overextended on holiday weekends. In February 2022, Town Council authorized an additional Tesla installation at the Community Recreation Center (CRC). This second installation includes 12 supercharger and 4 free to the public level 2 universal chargers (J1772). The installation should be operational this spring/summer. Tesla engaged the Town in order to secure these locations. Staff have from time to time received inquiries to place charging stations in other locations. Additionally, Town Staff have been reaching out to other charging station providers to bring additional universal fast chargers to Mammoth Lakes for some time. This outreach has resulted in new opportunities.

ANALYSIS:

Tesla has its own proprietary charging port and charger that are exclusive to the brand.

With many auto manufacturers developing and selling electric vehicles the need for “nontesla” charging stations has increased significantly. Staff sees this growth negatively impacting the Town as there are limited opportunities to charge the mix of electric vehicle

2 types in Town. It appears that demand is outpacing private sector implementation. Staff is regularly contacted with complaints and requests to install chargers to support these vehicles. Staff is willing to meet the growing demand for chargers by our residents and visitors; however, solutions are not simple. Installing fast charging stations is expensive, costing upwards of $140,000 per charger. Charging stations need to be located near sufficient electric capacity and locations need to have space for the large transformers and equipment that support the chargers. There is also a preference to place chargers near amenities to support local businesses and provide owners something to do while vehicles charge. Charging stations require maintenance and oversight, which is something the Town is not equipped, trained, or staffed to manage. These impediments limit our opportunity sites and ability to construct our own network. Most communities are reliant on private companies constructing installations. These private companies must also deal with similar constraints but are often subsidized with grants to make their programs viable. Staff has offered providers land leases at no cost and snow removal to further incentivize bringing their networks to the Town of Mammoth Lakes.

The Town has been in regular communication with Electrify America and EV Range. At this time, it appears both companies are willing to provide services in Town. There is an immediate need to provide these services within Town. These installations will help with current demand; however, as the segment grows the Town will need to evaluate how it supports and incentivizes installations. Staff does not believe that municipal installations alone will support demand long term. Longer term the Town may want to consider policy changes that would require lease payments for use of TOML land and ways to incentivize or require private installations. Policies and practices will need to be evaluated and progress as demand increases and as the EV market evolves. However, at this time Staff is only reacting to expressed demand and is not presenting any policy changes. There is very limited data at this time to inform a thoughtful policy discussion.

Electrify America (EA) has nationwide charging network that supports most vehicles. The Town has come to terms with EA on a lease at the Hillside Parking Lot (Exhibit A). The installation would provide 6 public fast chargers on a 10-year lease. The installation would include ADA accessible spaces as shown in Exhibit B. The Town expects that construction would occur this next summer subject to weather and permitting.

3 Exhibit A – EA Location Map
Exhibit B – Site layout and example charger
EV Range also provides fast DC charging for most vehicles. EV Range is a smaller network compared to EA however, they have experience with installations in similar environments such as Palisades and Northstar near Lake Tahoe. EV Range and the Town are working on a lease agreement for use of the Park n’ Ride lot located on the corner of Old Mammoth Road and Tavern Road (Exhibit C). The size and configuration have not been determined.

The installation is envisioned to be complimentary to the existing Tesla chargers. EV Range is seeking grant funding to support their installation and have asked the Town to

4 execute a document effectively granting our permission for them to use our land for a future installation if awarded the grant.

Exhibit C – Location of Park n’ Ride Lot
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

There is no financial request or impact to the Town at this time. The Town already provides snow removal and maintenance in these Town owned parking lots. The Town plans to continue with these services at our cost after the installations are complete.

Mammoth Lakes Town Council
Agenda Action Sheet
1 Title: Resolution Opposing the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Ballot Initiative (AG# 21-0042A1).

Council Meeting Date: 2/15/2023
Prepared by: Daniel C. Holler, Town Manager
Recommended Motion: Adopt Resolution opposing the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (AG# 21-0042A1).

BACKGROUND
On Feb. 1, 2023, the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act,” or AG# 21- 0042A1, qualified for the November 2024 ballot. This anti-local control measure will decimate vital local and State services to the benefit of wealthy corporations. The measure is sponsored by the California Business Roundtable (CBRT).

On February 1, 2023, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber issued a memo to all county clerks/registrars of voters announcing that proponents of Initiative 21-0042A1, or Initiative 1935 as now numbered by the Secretary of State, had filed the necessary number of valid signatures to make it eligible for the November 5, 2024 General Election ballot. Proponents now have until June 27, 2024 to consider withdrawing the initiative before the Secretary of State officially certifies it for the ballot.

The following information was provided to the Town by Cal Cities. Town staff has not had time to fully review the proposed Ballot Measure and there are several unknown potential impacts on the Town’s revenues and the applicability of the measure. Based on the initial review staff is recommending the Town oppose the measure. Cal Cities, along with a broad coalition of local governments, labor, public safety, education, and infrastructure advocates, strongly oppose this initiative.

SUMMARY
The initiative limits voters’ authority, adopts new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and may make it more difficult to hold violators of State and local laws accountable.

Effective date
• The act is retroactive. All new or increased taxes or fees adopted by the Legislature, a city council, or the local voters after Jan. 1, 2022, must comply with the Act’s new rules.

State taxes
• All new or increased State taxes will require majority voter approval.

Local taxes
• New requirements for voter approval:
o when an existing tax is applied to a newly annexed territory. o when an existing tax is applied to a new service or product, for example when a utility user tax is applied to a new service.

• All new or increased taxes adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, must include a sunset date.

Fees and charges
• Requires that charges for access, use, and rental of government property be “reasonable” such as fees charged for use of government facilities and public works infrastructure to oil companies, utilities, gas companies, cable companies, and other corporations. • Fees and charges for services and permits may not exceed the “actual cost” of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. “Actual cost” is the “minimum amount necessary.” Examples include planning services, excavation and encroachment permits, preparation of candidate statement, and permit parking. • State and cities have burden of proving by “clear and convincing evidence” that a fee/charge is not a tax, that the amount is reasonable, and that it does not exceed the “actual cost.” • No fee or charge or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be imposed on new development.

Fines and penalties [administrative enforcement of state law and municipal codes] • May require voter approval of fines and penalties for corporations and property owners that violate State and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties. Examples include nuisance abatement, organic waste reduction requirements, and failure to maintain a vacant property.

Voters
• Local advisory measures are prohibited. No measure may appear on the ballot asking for approval of a general tax that would express the voters' preference for how the tax revenue should be used.
• Overturns Upland decision so taxes proposed by initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council.
• Voters may not amend a city charter to impose, extend, or increase a tax or fee.

Fiscal
• Puts approximately $2 billion from fees and charges at risk each year, subject to legal peril. • Puts approximately $2 billion of annual tax revenue at risk. Many tax measures approved between 2022-2024 will need to be resubmitted to voters to comply and be reapproved.

DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 23 – ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING BALLOT INITIATIVE 21-0042A1
WHEREAS, an association representing California’s wealthiest corporations and developers is spending millions to push a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2024 statewide ballot; and
WHEREAS, the measure includes provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure, and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and
WHEREAS the measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure and our environment; and
WHEREAS the measure may make it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to local services at risk and could force cuts to law enforcement, parks and recreational facilities services and programs, affordable housing, infrastructure, and more.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Mammoth Lakes opposes Initiative 21-0042A1; BE IT FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Mammoth Lakes will join the No on Initiative 21-0042A1 coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, education, labor, local government, and infrastructure groups throughout the state.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th day of February 2023.
________________________________
JOHN WENTWORTH, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
JAMIE GRAY, Town Clerk

BELL, McANDREWS & HILTACHK, LLP
Anabel Renteria
Initiative Coordinator
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSEL-ORS AT I.AW
455 C APITO L MALL, S UITE 600
SACRAMENTO, CALIFOE=INIA 95014
(916) 44;a-7757
FAX [916) 44-;a-77 59
www.bmhlaw.com
January 4, 2022
2 1 - 0 0 4 2

RECEIVED
JAN O 4 2022
Office of the Attorney General
State of California

INITIATIVE COORDINATOR

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
PO Box 994255
Sacramento, CA 94244-25550
Re: Initiative 21-0042 - Amendment Number One
Dear Initiative Coordinator:

Pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 9002 of the Elections Code, enclosed please find Amendment #1 to Initiative No. 21-0042 "The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act." The amendments are reasonably germane to the theme, purpose or subject of the initiative measure as originally proposed.

I am the proponent of the measure and request that the Attorney General prepare a circulating title and summary of the measure as provided by law, using the amended language.

Thank you for your time and attention processing my request.

Sincerely,
Thomas W.
~ Hiltachk

2 1 - 0 0 4 2 Arndt. # /
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act [Deleted codified text is denoted in strikeout. Added codified text is denoted by italics and underline.] Section 1. Title
This Act shall be known, and may be cited as, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.

Section 2. Findings and Declarations
(a) Californians are overtaxed. We pay the nation's highest state income tax, sales tax, and gasoline tax. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, California's combined state and local tax burden is the highest in the nation. Despite this, and despite two consecutive years of obscene revenue surpluses, state politicians in 2021 alone introduced legislation to raise more than $234 billion in new and higher taxes and fees.
(b) Taxes are only part of the reason for California's rising cost-of-living crisis. Californians pay billions more in hidden "fees" passed through to consumers in the price they pay for products, services, food, fuel, utilities and housing. Since 2010, government revenue from state and local "fees" has more than doubled.
(c) California's high cost of living not only contributes to the state's skyrocketing rates of poverty and homelessness, they are the pushing working families and job-providing businesses out of the state. The most recent Census showed that California's population dropped for the first time in history, costing us a seat in Congress. In the past four years, nearly 300 major corporations relocated to other states, not counting thousands more small businesses that were forced to move, sell or close. (d) California voters have tried repeatedly, at great expense, to assert control over whether and how taxes and fees are raised. We have enacted a series of measures to make taxes more predictable, to limit what passes as a "fee," to require voter approval, and to guarantee transparency and accountability. These measures include Proposition 13 (1978), Proposition 62 (1986), Proposition 218 (1996), and Proposition 26 (2010).
(e) Contrary to the voters' intent, these measures that were designed to control taxes, spending and accountability, have been weakened and hamstrung by the Legislature, government lawyers, and the courts, making it necessary to pass yet another initiative to close loopholes and reverse hostile court decisions.

Section 3. Statement of Purpose
(a) In enacting this measure, the voters reassert their right to a voice and a vote on new and higher taxes by requiring any new or higher tax to be put before voters for approval. Voters also intend that all fees and other charges are passed or rejected by the voters themselves or a governing body elected by voters and not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.
(b) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is to increase transparency and accountability over higher taxes and charges by requiring any tax measure placed on the ballot1

either at the state or local level-to clearly state the type and rate of any tax, how long it will be in effect, and the use of the revenue generated by the tax.
(c) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is to clarify that any new or increased form of state government revenue, by any name or manner of extraction paid directly or indirectly by Californians, shall be authorized only by a vote of the Legislature and signature of the Governor to ensure that the purposes for such charges are broadly supported and transparently debated. (d) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is also to ensure that taxpayers have the right and ability to effectively balance new or increased taxes and other charges with the rapidly increasing costs Californians are already paying for housing, food, childcare, gasoline, energy, healthcare, education, and other basic costs of living, and to further protect the existing constitutional limit on property taxes and ensure that the revenue from such taxes remains local, without changing or superseding existing constitutional provisions contained in Section 1{c) of Article XIII A. (e) In enacting this measure, the voters also additionally intend to reverse loopholes in the legislative twothirds vote and voter approval requirements for government revenue increases created by the courts including, but not limited to, Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, Chamber of Commerce v. Air Resources Board, Schmeer v. Los Angeles County, Johnson v. County of Mendocino, Citizens Assn. of Sunset Beach v.

Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission, and Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir.

Section 4. Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution is amended to read:

Sec. 3(a} Every levy, charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by state law is either a tax or an exempt charge.
illlJ1l ~ Any change in state statute Jaw which results in any taxpayer paying a new or higher tax must be imposed by an act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature, and submitted to the electorate and approved by a maiority vote, except that no new ad valorem taxes on real property, or sales or transaction taxes on the sales of real property, may be imposed. Each Act shall include:
(A) A specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed and an estimate of the annual amount expected to be derived from the tax.
(BJ A specific and legally binding and enforceable limitation on how the revenue from the tax can be spent.

If the revenue from the tax can be spent for unrestricted general revenue purposes. then a statement that the tax revenue can be spent for "unrestricted general revenue purposes" shall be included in a separate, stand-alone section. Any proposed change to the use of the revenue from the tax shall be adopted by a separate act that is passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature and submitted to the electorate and approved by a maiority vote. (2) The title and summary and ballot label or question required for a measure pursuant to the Elections Code shall. for each measure providing for the imposition of a tax, including a measure proposed by an elector pursuant to Article II, include:
{A) The type and amount or rate of the tax;
(BJ The duration of the tax: and
2

(CJ The use of the revenue derived from the tax.
(c} Any change in state law which results in any taxpayer paying a new or higher exempt charge must be imposed by an act passed by each of the two houses of the Legislature. Each act shall specify the type of exempt charge as provided in subdivision (e ), and the amount or rate of the exempt charge to be imposed.

Ml._fbt As used in this section and in Section 9 of Article II, "tax" means every aA1f levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by the State state law that is not an exempt charge. e1<eept the follo•Ning:
(e) As used in this section. "exempt charge" means only the following:
(1) a el:iarge imposes fer a s1=1eeifie eenefit eonferreEl or pri'+'ilege granteEl aireetly to tl:ie 13ayor tl:iat is not 1=1ro>viaeEl to tl:iose not et:iargeEI, anEI whiel:i aoes not e1<ceeEl tl:ie reasonal3Ie costs to tl:ie State of eonferring the benefit or granting the pri¥ilege to the 1=1a¥OF.
ill {-2+ A reasonable charge irnposeEl for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the rnasonable actual costs to the State of providing the service or product to the payor. f.11 ~ A charge in,poseEl for the reasonable regulatory costs to the State incident to issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof. (3) A levy, charge. or exaction collected from local units of government. health care providers or health care service plans that is primarily used by the State of California for the purposes of increasing reimbursement rates or payments under the Medi-Cal program, and the revenues of which are primarily used to finance the non-federal portion of Medi-Cal medical assistance expenditures. (4) A reasonable charge iR'l13oseEl for entrance to or use of state property, or the purchase. rental, or lease of state property, except charges governed by Section 15 of Article XI. (5} A fine, or penalty, or other monetary el:large including any applicable interest for nonpayment thereot imposed by the judicial branch of government or the State, as a result of a state administrative enforcement agency pursuant to adiudicatorv due process, to punish a violation of law. (6} A levy, charge, assessment, or exaction collected for the promotion of California tourism pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 13995) of Part 4.7 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. flL~Any tax or exempt charge adopted after January 1, 2022 ~, but prior to the effective date of this act, that was not adopted in compliance with the requirements of this section is void 12 months after the effective date of this act unless the tax or exempt charge is reenacted B'l the begislatuFe anel signea into law ey tl:ie <iio¥ernoF in compliance with the requirements of this section. [gl[.JlJG:} The State bears the burden of proving by a preponEleranee oftl:le clear and convincing evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is an exempt charge and not a tax. The State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the amount of the exempt charge is reasonable and that the amount charged does not exceed the actual cost of providing the service or product to the payor. ,tR-a-t tl:ie amouRt is RO n,ore tl:ian neeessary to cover the reasonable costs of the go•.•emn,ental actii,•i:t>,• ane 3

that the manner in •Nhiel.:i these cests are allecated ts a pa·1er bear a fair er reasenable relatienshi13 ts the 13a·1or's b1:1relens on, or benefits reeei11eel from, the go•.ieFRmental actit.iit'( (2) The retention ofrevenue by, or the payment to. a non-governmental entity ofa levv. charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by state law, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy. charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.
(3) The characterization of a levy, charge, or exaction of any kind as being voluntary, or paid in exchange for a benefit, privilege, allowance, authorization, or asset, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or an exempt charge. /4} The use of revenue derived from the levy, charge or exaction shall be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge. (h) As used in this section:
(1) "Actual cost" of providing a service or product means: (i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service or product to the payor, and {ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In computing "actual cost" the maximum amount that may be imposed is the actual cost less all other sources of revenue including, but not limited to taxes, other exempt charges, grants, and state or federal funds received to provide such service or product.
(2) "Extend" includes, but is not limited to, doing any of the following with respect to a tax or exempt charge: lengthening its duration. delaying or eliminating its expiration, expanding its application to a new territory or class ofpayor, or expanding the base to which its rate is applied. (3) "Impose" means adopt, enact, reenact, create, establish, collect, increase or extend. (4) "State law" includes, but is not limited to. any state statute, state regulation, state executive order. state resolution, state ruling, state opinion Jetter, or other legal authority or interpretation adopted, enacted. enforced, issued, or implemented by the legislative or executive branches of state government. "State law" does not include actions taken by the Regents of the University of California, Trustees of the California State University, or the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges.

Section 5. Section 1 of Article XIII C of the California Constitution is amended, to read:

Sec. 1. Definitions. As used in this article:
{a) "Actual cost" of providing a service or product means: (i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service or product to the payor. and {ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In computing "actual cost" the maximum amount that may be imposed is the actual cost less all other sources of revenue including, but not limited to taxes. other exempt charges, grants, and state or federal funds received to provide such service or product.
(b) "Extend" includes, but is not limited to. doing any of the following with respect to a tax. exempt charge, or Article XIII D assessment. fee, or charge: lengthening its duration, delaying or eliminating its expiration. expanding its application to a new territory or class of payor, or expanding the base to which its rate is applied.
4

.lfl..W 11General tax" means any tax imposed for general governmental purposes. (d} "Impose" means adopt, enact, reenact, create, establish, collect, increase, or extend. {clJb} "Local government" means any county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, any special district, or any other local or regional governmental entity, or an elector pursuant to Article fl or the initiative power provided by a charter or statute.
(f) "Local law" includes. but is not limited to, any ordinance, resolution, regulation. ruling, opinion letter, or other legal authority or interpretation adopted, enacted, enforced, issued, or implemented by a local government.
{gl_{t} "Special district" means an agency of the State, formed pursuant to general law or a special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions with limited geographic boundaries including, but not limited to, school districts and redevelopment agencies. f11L{d} "Special tax" means any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund.
111 i@} As used in this article, and in Section 9 of Article II, "tax" means every aRV-levy, charge, or exaction of any kind, imposed by a local go,;ernmeRt law that is not an exempt charge., exeept tl=le fellowiRg:
(i) As used in this section, "exempt charge" means only the following:
(1) A cl=large imposeel fer a speeifie beAefit eoAferreel or pri,;ilege graAteel eliFeetl')' to tl=le pa1,ior tl=lat is Rot pre1,•ieleel to these Rot ehargea, aA£l which £lees Rot exeeeel tl=le reaseAable costs to tl=le loeal gm,·ernFAeAt of conferriAg the beAefit or graAting tl:1e pri¥ilege.
ill R} A reasonable charge imposes for a specific local government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasoAable actual costs to the local government of providing the service or product. fl1 WA charge im13ose£l for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.

W {4t A reasonable charge imposeel for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property.

Ml. fSt A fine, or penalty, or other FAOA@tar,· eharge including any applicable interest for nonpayment thereat imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government administrative enforcement agency pursuant to adiudicatorv due process, as a res1,1lt of to punish a violation of law. ill -f6t A charge imposed as a condition of property development. No levv, charge, or exaction regulating or related to vehicle miles traveled may be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy. f.i1 f7t An AssessFAeRts a Rel property relate el fees assessment. fee. or charge imJ;1oseel iA aeeoraanee witl=l the pro¥isio A5 of subject to Article XI 11 D, or an assessment imposed upon a business in a tourism marketing district, a parking and business improvement area, or a property and business improvement district. 5

(7) A charge imposed for a specific health care service provided directly to the payor and that is not provided to those not charged. and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the health care service. As used in this paragraph, a "health care service" means a service licensed or exempt from licensure by the state pursuant to Chapters 1. 1.3, or 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code.

The local government bears the b1:1rden of proving by a preponderance of the e .. ·ielence that a lew, charge, or other exaction is not a ta1<, that the amo1:1nt is no more than necessaPJ' to cover the reasonable costs of the go•,ernfflental acti•.«ity anel that tJ:ie manner in which those costs are allocateel to a pa•ror bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the pa•ror's blslrdens on, or bene:fits receiveel from, the go1a1ernmental acfa•ity.

Section 6. Section 2 of Article XIII C of the California Constitution is amended to read:

Sec. 2. Local Government Tax Limitation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution:
(a) Every levy. charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by local law is either a tax or an exempt charge. All taxes imposed by any local government shall be deemed to be either general taxes or special taxes. Special purpose districts or agencies, including school districts, shall have no power to levy general taxes. (b) No local Jaw go,.·ernment whether proposed by the governing body or by an elector, may impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote. A general tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. The election required by this subdivision shall be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body. (c) An•r general tax imposed, el<tended, or increaseel, •.-.iitho1:1t •.·oter approval, lay any local go,.·ernment on or after Janlslary 1, 1995, ana prior ta the effecti,.·e date of this article, shall contin1:1e to be imposed only if appro,.·ea b1• a majority vote of the voters voting in an election OR the issye of the in:iposition, whicl::i election sl::iall be l::ield witl::iin t•Ne 1•ears ef the effectii.ie date of this article and in com13liance with slslbdi\·isien (b}. {El) No local law government. whether proposed by the governing body or by an elector. may impose, eMteRd, er increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. A special tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. {d) The title and summary and ballot label or question required for a measure pursuant to the Elections Code shall. for each measure providing for the imposition of a tax, include:
(1) The type and amount or rate of the tax;
(2) the duration of the tax; and
(3) The use of the revenue derived from the tax. If the proposed tax is a general tax. the phrase "for general government use" shall be required, and no advisory measure may appear on the same ballot that would indicate that the revenue from the general tax will. could. or should be used for a specific purpose. (e) Only the governing body of a local government. other than an elector pursuant to Article II or the initiative power provided by a charter or statute. shall have the authority to impose any exempt charge.

The governing body shall impose an exempt charge by an ordinance specifying the type of exempt charge 6

as provided in Section l(i) and the amount or rate of the exempt charge to be imposed. and passed by the governing body. This subdivision shall not apply to charges specified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (i) of Section 1.
ff) No amendment to a Charter which provides for the imposition, extension, or increase of a tax or exempt charge shall be submitted to or approved by the electors. nor shall any such amendment to a Charter hereafter submitted to or approved by the electors become effective for any purpose. (q) Any tax or exempt charge adopted after January 1, 2022, but prior to the effective date of this act, that was not adopted in compliance with the requirements of this section is void 12 months after the effective date of this act unless the tax or exempt charge is reenacted in compliance with the requirements of this section.
{h)(1) The focal government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a levy, charge or exaction is an exempt charge and not a tax. The local government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the amount of the exempt charge is reasonable and that the amount charged does not exceed the actual cost of providing the service or product to the payor. (2} The retention of revenue by, or the payment to, a non-governmental entity of a levy. charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local law, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.
(3) The characterization of a levy. charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by a local law as being paid in exchange for a benefit. privilege, allowance, authorization, or asset, shall not be factors in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or an exempt charge. (4) The use of revenue derived from the levy, charge or exaction shall be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.

Section 7. Section 3 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution is amended, to read:

Sec. 3. Property Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges Limited (a) No tax, assessment, fee, 6f charge, or surcharge, including a surcharge based on the value ofpropertv, shall be assessed 13y a Ry ageRC'f upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an incident of property ownership except:
(1) The ad valorem property tax impeseEI p1::1rsYaRt te described in Section 1(a) of Article XIII and Section 1/a) of Article XIII A, and described and enacted pursuant to the voter approval requirement in Section 1/b) Q[Article XII I A.
(2) Any special non-ad valorem tax receiving a two-thirds vote of qualified electors pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIII A, or after receiving a two-thirds vote of those authorized to vote in a community facilities district by the Legislature pursuant to statute as it existed on December 31, 2021. (3) Assessments as provided by this article.
(4) Fees or charges for property related services as provided by this article. 7

(b) For purposes of this article, fees for the provision of electrical or gas service shall not be deemed charges or fees imposed as an incident of property ownership.

Section 8. Sections 1 and 14 of Article XIII are amended to read:

Sec. 1 Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or the laws of the United States:
(a) All property is taxable and shall be assessed at the same percentage of fair market value. When a value standard other than fair market value is prescribed by this Constitution or by statute authorized by this Constitution, the same percentage shall be applied to determine the assessed value. The value to which the percentage is applied, whether it be the fair market value or not, shall be known for property tax purposes as the full value.
(b) All property so assessed shall be taxed in proportion to its full value. (c) All proceeds from the taxation of property shall be apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

Sec. 14. All property taxed by state or local government shall be assessed in the county, city, and district in which it is situated. Notwithstanding any other provision of/aw, such state or local property taxes shall be apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

Section 9. General Provisions
A. This Act shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purposes.

B. (1) In the event that this initiative measure and another initiative measure or measures relating to state or local requirements for the imposition, adoption, creation, or establishment of taxes, charges, and other revenue measures shall appear on the same statewide election ballot, the other initiative measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure. In the event that this initiative measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and the provisions ofthe other initiative measure or measures shall be null and void. (2) In furtherance of this provision, the voters hereby declare that this measure conflicts with the provisions of the "Housing Affordability and Tax Cut Act of 2022" and "The Tax Cut and Housing Affordability Act," both of which would impose a new state property tax (called a "surcharge") on certain real property, and where the revenue derived from the tax is provided to the State, rather than retained in the county in which the property is situated and for the use of the county and cities and districts within the county, in direct violation of the provisions of this initiative. (3) If this initiative measure is approved by the voters, but superseded in whole or in part by any other conflicting initiative measure approved by the voters at the same election, and such conflicting initiative is later held invalid, this measure shall be self-executing and given full force and effect.

C. The provisions of this Act are severable. If any portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, or application of this Act is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Act. The People of the State of California hereby declare that they would have adopted this Act and each and every portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, and application not 8

declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this Act or application thereof would be subsequently declared invalid.

D. If this Act is approved by the voters of the State of California and thereafter subjected to a legal challenge alleging a violation of state or federal law, and both the Governor and Attorney General refuse to defend this Act, then the following actions shall be taken:
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter 6 of Part 2 of Division 3 ofTitle 2 of the Government Code or any other law, the Attorney General shall appoint independent counsel to faithfully and vigorously defend this Act on behalf of the State of California. (2) Before appointing or thereafter substituting independent counsel, the Attorney General shall exercise due diligence in determining the qualifications of independent counsel and shall obtain written affirmation from independent counsel that independent counsel will faithfully and vigorously defend this Act. The written affirmation shall be made publicly available upon request. (3) A continuous appropriation is hereby made from the General Fund to the Controller, without regard to fiscal years, in an amount necessary to cover the costs of retaining independent counsel to faithfully and vigorously defend this Act on behalf of the State of California. (4) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the proponents of this Act, or a bona fide taxpayers association, from intervening to defend this Act.
9

CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
Fiscal and Program Effects of
Initiative 21-0042A1 on Local Governments
If Initiative 21-0042A1 is placed on the ballot and passed by voters, it will result in:
 Billions of local government fee and charge revenues placed at heightened legal peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for transportation, and public facility use.  Hundreds of millions of dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax and bond measures approved by voters between January 1, 2022 and November 9, 2022 subject to additional voter approval if not in compliance with the initiative.
 Indeterminable legal and administrative burdens and costs on local government from new and more empowered legal challenges, and bureaucratic cost tracking requirements.  The delay and deterrence of municipal annexations and associated impacts on housing and commercial development.
 Service and infrastructure impacts including in fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention and mental health services.

1. Local Government Taxes and Services Threatened
With regard to taxes, Initiative 21-0042A1:
 Prohibits advisory, non-binding measures as to use of tax proceeds on the same ballot. o Voters may be less informed and more likely to vote against measures.  Eliminates the ability of special tax measures proposed by citizen initiative to be enacted by majority voter approval (Upland).
o Because the case law regarding citizen initiative special taxes approved by majority vote (Upland) is so recent, it is unknown how common these sorts of measures might be in the future. This initiative would prohibit such measures after the effective date of the initiative. Any such measures adopted after January 1, 2022 through November 8, 2022 would be void after November 9, 2023.
 Requires that tax measures include a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed. This seems to require that all tax increases or extensions contain a sunset (end date). o This would require additional tax measures to extend previously approved taxes at additional cost to taxpayers.
 Requires that a tax or bond measure adopted after January 1, 2022 and before the effective date of the initiative (November 9, 2022) that was not adopted in accordance with the measure be readopted in compliance with the measure or will be void twelve months after the effective date of the initiative (November 9, 2023).
o If past election patterns are an indication, dozens of tax and bond measures approving hundreds of millions of annual revenues may not be in compliance and would be subject to reenactment.

Most will be taxes without a specific end date. Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, measures not in compliance would need to be placed on a special election ballot for approval before November 9, 2023 or the tax will be void after that date. General tax measures would require declaration of emergency and unanimous vote of the governing board.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616
Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952
Rev. January 7, 2022

– 2 – rev January 7, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
 Requires voter approval to expand an existing tax to new territory (annexations). This would require additional tax measures and would deter annexations and land development in cities. o If a tax is "extended" to an annexed area without a vote after January 1, 2022, it will be void 12 months later until brought into compliance. Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, such extensions for general taxes would, under current law, each require unanimous vote of the agency board to be placed on a special election ballot or would be void after November 9, 2023.

1.a. Number of Measures and Value of Local Taxes at Risk1 In 2020, voters in California approved 293 local tax and bond measures for cities, counties, special districts and schools (95 in March and 198 in November). The approved measures enacted $3.85 billion in new annual taxes including $1.3 billion for cities, $302 million for counties, $208 million for special districts (fire, wastewater, open space and transit districts), and $2.037 billion for schools (including for school bonds).

Most tax measures go to the ballot during a presidential or gubernatorial primary or general election in an even year. However, some tax measures are decided at other times. During 2019, there were 45 approved tax and bond measures (24 city, 14 special district, 7 school) adopting $154.0 million in new annual taxes ($124.0 million city, $10.5 million special district and $19.2 million school).

Most tax and bond measures comply with the new rules in Initiative 21-0042Amdt#1 except:
 Dozens of taxes would require end dates. This would require additional measures in future years to extend the taxes further. Very few extensions of existing local taxes fail.  Majority vote general tax measures could not be accompanied on the same ballot with an advisory, non-binding measure as to use of tax proceeds.  Special taxes placed on the ballot via citizen initiative would require two-thirds voter approval.

Bond measures have fixed terms. Historically, about 20 percent of other tax measures have included specific durations (i.e. sunsets). Advisory measures as to use of revenues are uncommon. I do not expect the provisions of 21-0042A1 to have any substantial effect on passage rates. However, some 2022 approved measures would likely have to put back on the ballot.

Based on history, a reasonable estimate of the annualized tax revenues estimated to be approved by 1 Source: Compilation and summary of data from County elections offices.

– 3 – rev January 7, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
voters in 2022 and placed at risk by this initiative is at least $1.5 billion, including $1.0 billion from cities and $500 million from counties and special districts. 2 1.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Tax Provisions In addition to service delays and disruption due to new tax revenues placed at greater legal risk, there will be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The deterrence of taxes for annexations will delay and deter municipal annexations.

2. “Exempt Charges” (fees and charges that are not taxes) and Services Threatened With regard to fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2022, Initiative 21-0042A1:
 Subjects new fees and charges for a product or service to a new "actual cost” test defined as “(i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service to the payor, and (ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In addition, subjects these same charges to a new, undefined, “reasonable” standard.
 Subjects fees and charges for entrance to local government property; and rental and sale of local government property to a new, undefined, “reasonable” test.  Subjects a challenged fee or charge to new, higher burdens of proof if legally challenged.  Prohibits a levy, charge or exaction regulating or related to vehicle miles traveled, imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.

2.a. Value on New Local Government Fees and Charges at Risk3 Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates and charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities. Most of these would be subject to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies and increases in those fees simply to accommodate inflation, the amount of local government fee and charge revenue placed at risk is about $1 billion per year including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Of this $1 billion, about $570 million is for special districts, $450 million is cities, and $260 million is counties.4
Major examples of affected fees and charges are:

1. Nuisance abatement charges - such as for weed, rubbish and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.

2. Commercial franchise fees.

3. Emergency response fees - such as in connection with DUI.

4. Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.

5. Document processing and duplication fees.

6. Transit fees, tolls, parking fees, public airport and harbor use fees.

7. Facility use charges, fees for parks and recreation services, garbage disposal tipping fees.

In addition to fees and charges, the measure puts fines and penalties assessed for the violation of state and 2 This does not include citizen initiative special tax approved by majority but not two-thirds. Because this approach is new, the number of these measures and amount of revenue involved cannot be estimated. 3 Source: California State Controller Annual Reports of Financial Transactions concerning cities, counties and special districts, summarized with an assumed growth due to fee rate increases (not population) of 2 percent annually. 4 School fees are also affected but the amount is negligible by comparison.

– 4 – rev January 7, 2022
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
local law at risk, making them taxes subject to voter approval under certain circumstances.

2.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Fee/Charge Provisions In addition to service delays and disruptions due to fee and charge revenues placed at greater legal risk, there would be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The risk to fees and charges will make infrastructure financing more difficult and will deter new residential and commercial development. ***********
mc

1 TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Title: Subpart C, OSV Use Designation Process, Collaborative Alternative Team Comments, and Direction to enter into an MOU with the Inyo National Forest as a cooperating Agency through the completion of the process.

Meeting Date: February 15, 2023
Prepared by: Daniel C. Holler, Town Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Subpart C, OSV Use Designation process Pre-Scoping Comments are informational and Staff is requesting Council Direction to enter into a Cooperating Agency MOU with the Inyo National Forest through the completion of this process.

BACKGROUND:

The Forest Service is completing the Inyo National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle (OSV) Use Designation Process, in accordance with the 2005 (Amended in 2015) Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212, Subparts B and C; Travel Management Rule). The process includes completion of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process and the preparation of the environmental impact statement (EIS). To start the process the Inyo National Forest initiated an Over-Snow Vehicle Travel Management Collaborative Alternative Team (CAT). This effort was facilitated by Austin T. McInerny with Sacramento State College.

The CAT is an independent community-based body of stakeholders. The primary goal of the CAT is to develop a stakeholder-based recommendation that balances over-snow vehicle (OSV) travel, various forms of winter recreation, and minimization of impacts to forest natural and cultural resources, sensitive habitats, and all visitors to the public lands.

The CAT seeks to minimize conflict between different forms of recreation and between recreation of all types and the environment. CAT recommendations will be based on the best information available to the group. Recommendations will be submitted to the Forest Supervisor for review and consideration in the project development and review effort. The Forest Supervisor is committed to considering recommendations of all stakeholders and recognizes the unique contributions the CAT could make to the development of alternatives. The information gained in this process will assist the Forest Service in preparing for the formal scoping process, which allows for public comments on the items to be addressed through the NEPA process. Attached is the final write up from this process which was submitted to the Forest Service for consideration. The Town participated in this process and provided comments that are included in the attached write up. The Town’s comments include references to previous Town Plans and other related work products.

2 To complete the OSV use designation process, the Forest Service plans to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable statutes and regulations such as the Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, etc.

The Town of Mammoth Lakes may continue to participate in this process as a cooperating agency with respect to the OSV use designation process, pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.8. The Forest Services is supportive of the Town participating as a cooperating agency. A formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will need to be approved by the Town and the Forest Service. Forest Service and Town staff initiated the development of an MOU and will ask Council to consider it on March 1, 2023. The Town has the option to continue to be engaged in the process without being designated as a cooperating agency.

A team of Inyo National Forest interdisciplinary resource specialists, known as the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), will be assigned to prepare the EIS and OSV Use Designation Plan. The final outcome of this decision will be an over-snow vehicle use map (OSVUM), showing where, and under what conditions, areas and trails will be designated for OSV use. OSVs are defined as, “a motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow and that runs on a track or tracks and/or a ski or skis, while in use over snow.” (36 CFR 212.1).

The Forest Supervisor of the Inyo National Forest is the responsible official for development and approval of the OSV Use Designation Project. Under the provisions of the Council for Environmental Quality's Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508):

The Forest Service may designate a State, County, or local government agency as a “cooperating agency” to assist the Forest Service in preparing an EIS for a project on National Forest System lands (40 CFR 1501.8 and 1508.1). Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise on environmental issues related to the project. A cooperating agency may provide special expertise or assistance to the lead agency in analyzing the effects of the lead agency’s proposed action.

The Town would serve as a cooperating agency with special expertise relevant to the preparation of the EIS for the OSV Use Designation Process, with the rights and duties of a cooperating agency as set forth in this MOU and the CEO regulations at 40 CFR 1501.8.

This ensures various planning documents of the Town are used through the process and for early and continued dialogue between the Town and the Forest Service.

Staff is recommending Council support to proceed with the finalization of the MOU designating the Town as a cooperating agency.

OVER SNOW MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS AND

POTENTIAL IMPACT MINIMIZATION STRATEGIES

BACKGROUND AND PROCESS OVERVIEW
Between late September and late December 2022, representatives from the entities listed below met both in facilitated meetings and limited site visits to develop stakeholder-based recommendations that balance over-snow vehicle (OSV) travel, various forms of winter recreation, and minimization of potential impacts to forest natural and cultural resources, sensitive habitats, and all visitors on lands managed by the Inyo National Forest. See Attachment 1, “Collaborative Alternative Team Process,” for an overview of the meeting process and schedule.

Representatives from the following organizations and communities participated with a core group of approximately twenty individuals attending all four meetings:
- Bishop Paiute Tribe
- Blue Ribbon Coalition
- Boulder Lodge
- California Off-Road Vehicle
Association
- Community Members from Town of
Mammoth Lakes
- Community Members from around
June Lake
- Friends of the Inyo
- Mammoth Lakes Recreation
- Mammoth Lakes Trails and Public
Access Foundation
- Mammoth Mtn Ski Area
- Mono County
- Nevada Off-Road Association
- Pacific Crest Trail Association
- Sierra Snowmobile Foundation
- Town of Mammoth Lakes
- Valley Outdoors
- Winter Wildlands Alliance
Participating individuals affirmed their commitment to work together as a “Collaborative Alternative Team” in the pursuit of developing proposals to minimize conflict between different forms of recreation and between recreation of all types and the environment (see Attachment 2, “Collaborative Alternative Team Charter and Participant Commitments”). Participants agreed that by coming together to talk before the formal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process was initiated and providing information and sharing ideas for how to creatively address concerns could result in productive dialogue and, ultimately, implementable proposals.

The memorandum and the accompanying table (Attachment 3) is the end-product of this process and is presented to the Inyo National Forest Supervisor for review and consideration as the Inyo National Forest proceeds with undertaking its formal planning process in compliance with the Travel Management Rule, NEPA, and relevant National Forest rules and regulations.

PROPOSALS & POTENTIAL IMPACT MITICATION STRATEGIES DEVELOPMENT After an explanation of the United States Forest Service Travel Management Rule requirements and the steps previously taken to initiate formal OSV planning on the Inyo National Forest, participants were asked to discuss current and desired OSV access use and issues across the entire Inyo National Forest starting in the north and progressing south. Over the course of three in-person meetings, site visits at four locations1 and one final virtual meeting, participants developed and discussed over thirty different locations across the Inyo National Forest.

The facilitator2 worked with the Inyo National Forest planner to document the discussions and to reference specific reviewed areas on base maps that were made publicly available. After iterative rounds of proposal generation and review, the facilitator created a worksheet listing all generated ideas and had the Inyo National Forest Staff add potential issues for each proposal that would need to be mitigated before being considered as part of a formal NEPA proposed action. Then, the worksheet was distributed after the last meeting, and all participants were asked to individually identify any additional concerns not already identified by the Inyo National Forest staff that they believe need to be considered while developing the proposed action.

Participants were specifically asked to provide details regarding what their issue is in terms of:
• Resources: Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources.
• Wildlife/Habitat: Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats.
• Use Conflicts: Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses and conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands. Compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, considering sound, emissions, and other factors.
1 Site tours were attended by a subset of participants on October 4 to visit the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area Main Lodge parking lot, the Earthquake Fault Visitor Parking Area and the Cinder Shed along Highway 203 and on October 25 to visit Shady Rest Park. 2 The facilitator is an employee of the California State University Sacramento Department of Continuing Education and was under contract to the US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region.

Completed worksheets were returned from nearly all participating organizations3 and then the facilitator and the Inyo National Forest project planner consolidated all generated potential issues and suggestions for addressing potential issues into a second iteration of the worksheet that was then distributed back out to all participants for their consideration.

Participants were asked to review the collected input from their peers and to add any new potential management techniques and strategies to reduce potential impacts or conflicts resulting from OSV use in the areas under discussion. After an extended nearly month-long review period, completed worksheets4 were consolidated, and the results are shared in Attachment 3. The following thirty-six specific locations as well as a few forest-wide concepts were discussed (Note: the reference numbers below correspond to the item numbers in Attachment 3 to help those interested in learning more about any particular location quickly identify the details in the attached table).

1. Hartley Springs/Obsidian Dome
Nordic ski area and surrounding
closure

2. Sand flat south of Wilson Butte

3. Saddlebag Lake/ Tioga Pass area

4. Parker Bench

5. Silver Lake Resort and the Hwy 158
area when closed due to snow

6. South side of Mono Lake

7. Currently closed area east of White
Wing Mtn. in Upper Deadman area

8. Cherry stem on Deadman Creek –
currently closed to OSV use

9. Closed area right by MCWD private
land

10. Linkage between Shady Rest and
Sherwin areas

11. Rock Creek
3 The initial worksheets were submitted by: Blue Ribbon Coalition, Friends of the Inyo, Mammoth Lakes Recreation, Mammoth Mtn Ski Area, Pacific Crest Trail Ass, Residents of the Town of Mammoth Lakes, Sierra Snowmobile Foundation, Town of Mammoth Lakes, and Winter Wildlands Alliance. 4 The second iteration of the worksheet was submitted by: Town of Mammoth Lakes and the Mammoth Lakes Trails and Public Access Foundation.

12. Crater Flats

13. Ancient Bristlecone Pine
Forest/White Mountains

14. Reds Meadow area

15. Closed areas at Minaret Vista

16. Cinder Shed Parking

17. Snow play/sledding areas along the
scenic loop, near intersection with
Hwy 203

18. Earthquake Fault Parking

19. Earthquake Fault/Dry Creek area
that is currently closed to OSV use

20. Kennedy Meadows

21. Woolly’s permit area

22. Lakes Basin Tamarack

23. June Mountain Ski Area

24. OSV parking area at F-trail near
intersection of new road accessing
Parcel A

25. Inyo Crater Trailhead

26. Panorama Dome

27. Shady Rest Park

28. Solitude Canyon/ Sherwins area

29. June Lake Junction

30. Bald Mountain Road (east of Hwy
395)

31. Snow Play area at Deadman

32. West Portal overlook

33. Highway 203 between winter
closure and Minaret Vista

34. Wheeler Crest

35. Boy Scout Camp access road off
Highway 120

36. Lundy Lake\ Canyon

37. Forest-Wide
The organizations and individuals who participated in this effort hope the Inyo National Forest will seriously consider the outcomes resulting from this work as the NEPA process for OSV Travel Management on the Inyo National Forest begins.

REFLECTIONS AND FEEDACK ON PROCESS AND OUTCOMES
This was a challenging process. To begin, several of the invited parties have long histories of opposing one another on similar projects concerning motorized access on publicly managed lands. These same parties have made formal objections to OSV decisions on other National Forests in California and several of the parties are currently engaged in a legal challenge on the Stanislaus National Forest’s OSV proposed management plan. The level of trust between some parties is quite low and with no snow on the ground when this effort was undertaken, site visits were challenging as it was hard to visualize the situation for over-snow recreation. Tension amongst OSV enthusiasts in the community were high as their perception is that the OSV management effort will result in reduced legal access for snowmobiles. Moreover, unresolved questions and challenges with past projects in the planning area have increased tension between many parties. Of particular concern are long-standing issues concerning design and management of public access at Shady Rest Park and in the Sherwins and Solitude Canyon areas.

However, within this context, the facilitator held many phone calls between meetings with various participants and encouraged their continued involvement and outreach to their respective constituents to bring proposals and feedback to the discussions. By conducting site visits and creating a productive meeting environment in which all parties were able to respectfully share ideas and concerns, proposals were generated and discussed. In the end, the Town of Mammoth Lakes representative observed, “Overall process generated some good discussions and identified a few areas of mutual agreement.” With this said, many of the comments on various proposals detailed in Attachment 3 simply reflect the “position” or opinion of the commentor and may not be grounded in known facts or

legal findings. In conversations with a few of the participants as they reviewed the second iteration of the proposal worksheet, it became clear that many were frustrated by the “unfounded” and/or “unsubstantiated” comments that they saw in response to many of the proposals. Accusations that allowing OSV access in some areas would promote incursions into Federally designated Wilderness areas and generalized statements about perceived motorized aggression made it challenging for some to continue to engage in the effort as they did not want to get into “back-and-forth” arguments. Some participants further requested that the facilitator “scrub” the language in Attachment 3 to remove certain statements that they perceived to be unjustly accusing OSV enthusiasts of illegal behavior unless sufficient documentation could be provided. This was not done, and Attachment 3 was left unedited to provide the Inyo National Forest the “raw” results of the process.

While there was wide disagreement on the extent of OSV access that should be allowed, most participants do agree that there is a need for the Inyo National Forest to make credible representations for their capacity and willingness to provide management, outreach, interpretive, regulatory, grooming, enforcement, and a myriad of related capacities on behalf of the final OSV plan when it is developed. The success of the OSV plan’s implementation will be largely dependent on the National Forest’s capacity to deliver on its obligations and the community’s willingness to collaborate to make sustainable decisions that both protect the environment and serve the needs of responsible recreationists. Participants in this process want the Forest Service to be transparent and straightforward with the public on its abilities to perform in support of implementation and monitoring of the plan. According to one participant, “Sustainable Recreation, and the National Forest’s reliance on partners, should be acknowledged as a strategy for implementation, and the National Forest should make it clear as to their willingness to work with partners for success.” Another participant, Michael Lueders provided a letter (Attachment 4) to detail his final thoughts concerning the effort.

Ultimately, the NEPA process will need to work through the conflicting comments and concerns identified thru this process, and it is hoped that the range of proposals that this effort generated will be of utility to the Inyo National Forest as they undertake their formal OSV planning process. Also, looking forward, for collaboration on issues as contentious as this, more face-to-face time in the field closely looking at the “real-world” conditions is necessary if implementable recommendations are to be developed.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Collaborative Alternative Team Process
Attachment 2: Collaborative Alternative Team Charter and Participant Commitments Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Table Attachment 4: Letter from Participant Michael Lueders, Valley Outdoors

ATTACHMENT 1: Inyo National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Travel Management Collaborative Alternative Team Proposed Process 1
ATTACHMENT 1
Inyo National Forest
Over-Snow Vehicle Travel Management
Collaborative Alternative Team Process
To support the efforts of the Inyo National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Travel Management Collaborative Alternative Team (CAT), the Town of Mammoth Lakes has offered free space for meetings and a facilitator is being provided from the California State University, Sacramento, College of Continuing Education, Consensus and Collaboration Program (CCP). The following proposed meeting process will be reviewed and discussed at the first meeting.

Pre-Meeting #1 Work

1. Share and review relevant documents from user groups to help inform and guide conversations

2. Review base maps to begin identifying areas of concern and areas of opportunity

3. Develop list of topics of interest

4. Consider why Inyo National Forest is important to you and be willing to share at meeting

5. Review draft charter and process

6. Review letter from Inyo NF Supervisor detailing pertinent regulations, sideboards and intent

7. Develop and bring list of technical questions to first meeting Meeting #1 (September 20, 2022): In-Person (Mammoth Lakes, CA)

1. Overview and Introductions – why convene dialogue and participants to share why they are here

2. Charter Review: how does the dialogue work and what are participant’s responsibilities

3. Planning Process: what this dialogue is and isn’t and how it relates to the NEPA process

4. Organizational Perspectives: each participant to briefly share what is important to them and where they see opportunities and constraints on Inyo NF

5. What’s Next: identification of 2-3 participants to help between meetings and review of between meeting work
Between Meeting Work

1. Each participant to create map showing their identified opportunities and constraints on Inyo NF

2. Develop list of participant’s identified interests and concerns

3. Possible site visit(s)
Meeting #2 (October 4, 2022): In-Person (Mammoth Lakes, CA)

1. Sharing of participant maps showing Areas of OSV Opportunity and Areas of OSV Concern

2. Minimization Criteria discussion. Ideas for how to minimize the following:
a. Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources; b. Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats;

ATTACHMENT 1: Inyo National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Travel Management Collaborative Alternative Team Proposed Process 2
c. Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands; and d. Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands.

3. Identification of possible site tour location(s)

4. Review of between meeting work
Between Meeting Work

1. Provide summary from Meeting #2 and share online survey to gauge level of agreement/disagreement on topics

2. Possible site visit(s)
Meeting #3 (October 25, 2022): In-Person (Mammoth Lakes, CA)

1. Education: Ideas for how best to educate and inform visitors to Inyo NF on final OSV decision

2. Enforcement: Recommended strategies and techniques to ensure compliance with OSV decision

3. Evaluation: How should final decision be monitored and evaluated going forward? What is recourse if minimization criteria are not adequately working?

4. Which topics require additional discussion?

5. Review of between meeting work
Between Meeting Work

1. Provide summary from Meeting #3 and share online survey to gauge level of agreement/disagreement on topics

2. Possible site visit(s)
Meeting #4 (November 17, 2022): Virtual

1. Review of which topics are in agreement / disagreement

2. Agreement of what is presented to Inyo NF

3. Next steps / Timeline for Inyo NF formal NEPA planning process

4. Thanks for contributing

ATTACHMENT 2: Inyo National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Travel Management Collaborative Alternative Team Charter and Participant Commitments 1 ATTACHMENT 2
Inyo National Forest
Over-Snow Vehicle Travel Management
Collaborative Alternative Team
Charter and Participant Commitments
PURPOSE: The Inyo National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Travel Management Collaborative Alternative Team (CAT) is an independent community-based body of stakeholders. The primary goal of the CAT is to develop a stakeholder-based recommendation that balances over-snow vehicle (OSV) travel, various forms of winter recreation, and minimization of impacts to forest natural and cultural resources, sensitive habitats, and all visitors to the public lands. The CAT seeks to minimize conflict between different forms of recreation and between recreation of all types and the environment.

CAT recommendations will be based on the best information available to the group.

Recommendations will be submitted to the Forest Supervisor for review and consideration in the project development and review effort.

The Forest Supervisor is committed to considering recommendations of all stakeholders and recognizes the unique contributions the CAT could make to the development of alternatives.

COLLABORATIVE SCOPE: Collaboration could include, but is not limited to, discussion of the following:
• Identification of where there is already agreement on OSV areas and routes, both groomed and ungroomed.
• Discussion of potential minimization criteria and their applicability to the alternatives. • Identification of which routes or geographical areas have potential for collaborative resolution.
• Discussion of specific routes or geographical areas with the intent of finding common ground – developing consensus – and documenting where agreement is reached.

Areas/routes of non-agreement are also documented.
• Discussion on any other issues that the group chooses to tackle, where they think there is potential to reach consensus resolution.

MEMBERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITIES: Members of the group are by their personal knowledge, association, constituency, or organization involved in or related to winter activities in the Inyo National Forest. Members have a local perspective, topical, on-the-ground knowledge, and the ability to work collaboratively with people having views different from their own. Members are expected to:
• As appropriate act as a liaison and communicate information to and from their organizations. • Offer the perspective of a good citizen, an independent thinker and trustworthy individual. • Build trust among all stakeholders.
• Contribute data/information to clarify issues and eliminate false assumptions. • Will not represent individual views as views of the CAT or make public confidential conversations.

ATTACHMENT 2: Inyo National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Travel Management Collaborative Alternative Team Charter and Participant Commitments 2 • Work to ensure acceptance and understanding of the OSV management planning process and environmental review when undertaken.

ATTENDANCE: Attendance at meetings is important for the continuity of the group. Those unable to fully participate will be asked to re-evaluate their membership.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS: This is a consensus seeking process. The full group will consider all decisions or recommendations. To determine a degree of consensus, members will note their level of support for items as ranging from Unqualified Support, Strong Support, General Support, Qualified Support, to Fundamental Disagreement. Issues without out a broad degree of support will not move forward as representing the views of CAT. The level of support for various items will be recorded. If an item receives a level of Fundamental Disagreement, the group will be asked to continue working until it appears a resolution is not attainable or move on to an area where more agreement is possible. At that time the members will note the nature of the disagreement and decide as to the best way to proceed in the particular issue area.

Minor and major decisions: Not all decisions will have the same level of impact. Simple voting may be adopted for procedural or non-policy matters.

Select decision process in advance: Proposals for action should include the decision process to be used in considering the item.

Members are expected to always contribute their best personal thinking, regardless of the initial positions of their sponsoring organizations. Collaboration cannot be effective unless all parties, including sponsoring organizations, are open to modifying their initial positions. Members are responsible for promoting understanding of CAT recommendations to the organizations they represent.

GROUND RULES

1. Use standing meeting ground rules (see attachment)

2. When discussing the work of CAT, meeting attendees will avoid attributing statements to individuals.

3. Items presented as confidential will not be disclosed in other forums or used in a way to disadvantage any member of the group.

4. Members shall act in good faith in all aspects of this consensus-building process.

5. Members shall communicate their interests and positions.

6. Members shall not engage in personal attacks or stereotyping.

7. Members shall refrain from impugning the motivations or intentions of others.

8. Members shall not make commitments they do not intend to follow through.

9. Members shall act consistently in the CAT and other forums where similar issues are being discussed, including with the press.

10. Members agree to provide requested information to other members or explain the reason why not.

11. The commitment to work for consensus means that members will:
• Participate in the give and take of the process in a way that seeks to understand the interests of all,
• Actively generate proposals thought to be workable for all, and • Work together to reach consensus.

ATTACHMENT 2: Inyo National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Travel Management Collaborative Alternative Team Charter and Participant Commitments 3

STANDING GROUND RULES
There will be continuous opportunities for group discussion. You are asked to subscribe to several key agreements to allow for productive outcomes
USE COMMON CONVERSATIONAL COURTESY - Don't interrupt; use appropriate language, no third-party discussions, etc.

HUMOR IS WELCOME AND IMPORTANT, BUT humor should never be at someone else's expense.

ALL IDEAS AND POINTS OF VIEW HAVE VALUE - You may hear something you do not agree with, or you think is "silly" or "wrong." Please remember that the purpose of the forum is to share ideas. All ideas have value in this setting. The goal is to achieve understanding. Simply listen, you do not have to agree.

PARTICIPANTS MAY CHANGE THEIR MIND - During the course of the sessions, some participants may change their perspective regarding one or more items. Group members reserve the right to change their mind and not be held to a previous position. 50-MILE RULE - Most of the participants have demanding responsibilities outside of the meeting room. Your attention is needed for the full meeting. Please turn cell phones, or any other communication item with an on/off switch to “silent.” If you do not believe you will be able to participate fully, please discuss your situation with the facilitator.

BE COMFORTABLE - Please feel free to help yourself to refreshments or take personal breaks.

If you have other needs, please let the facilitator know.

SPELLING DOESN’T COUNT - writing on a vertical surface (like blackboards or flipcharts) increases the number of spelling errors – ideas are more important than spelling.

HONOR TIME - We have an ambitious agenda, in order to meet our goals, it will be important to follow the time guidelines given by the facilitator.

AVOID EDITORIALS - It will be tempting to analyze the motives of others or offer editorial comments. Please talk about YOUR ideas and thoughts.

VOTING – We are not voting unless we say we are voting. Silence is not consent. Decision making will be clear.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 1 ATTACHMENT 3
OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions
Presented to Inyo National Forest
Overview: Each location that was discussed was assigned an Item number and a Map ID number that was placed on large maps that were posted on the meeting room walls to assist in the discussion (Note: visit the USFS website here and look in the folder named “OSV Current Condition Maps and GIS Files” to see the actual maps). All proposal ideas from participants were captured and are presented in the table. Potential issues, feedback on the proposal and suggestions for addressing potential issues are presented in the table as provided by the participants. Participant’s comments and feedback have not been edited nor revised.

Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
1 1-A,
1-G
Hartley
Springs/Obsi
dian Dome
Nordic ski
area and
surrounding
closure
a. Maintain as groomed
Nordic ski area and
surrounding closure
as-is.
- No reason for OSV closure all the way to the June
Lake loop to the North.
- The existence of a groomed xc ski trail has
precluded far too much cross country OSV use in
the area.
- Because most of this area is closed to OSV use
through Wilderness, any areas that can allow OSV
use needs to be prioritized.
- There is no reason to have the entire area closed,
because that area is not heavily used for
backcountry skiing.
- Increased law enforcement, signage, and education
- Good location for trail hosts

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 2 b. Reduce the size of the
OSV closure area,
leaving a smaller
buffer around the
groomed trails only.
- The larger area is important to retain as nonmotorized because it provides the only dedicated non-motorized area outside of Lakes Basin.
- Yet skiers must stage alongside snowmobilers, and
we see increasing motorized encroachment and
aggressive behavior.
- Reducing the size of OSV closure would lead to
more incursions into Nordic ski area and/or
Wilderness.
- This is an increasingly popular backcountry skiing
access corridor to Chicken Wing etc.
- Consider effects to pine marten – this is an area of
important habitat.
- Known goshawk habitat.
- If there is not significant scientific evidence OSV use within the forest is negatively impacting the Pine
Marten, then this should not be taken into
consideration and used as a reason to limit OSV use.
- Add rock creek as another option for groomed non-motorized along with entire wilderness for non-groomed non-motorized -
- Sign the area accordingly to delineate motorized from the nonmotorized areas. Use natural features to make life easier. - Noise for Nordic skiers should not be listed as a potential issue. The amount of time Nordic skiers encounter OSV use is minimal. If you are considering noise for Nordic skiers, then you need to consider issues for OSV users because of Nordic skiers.
- Partner with user groups to help develop education, outreach, signs, trail markings, and other materials to inform all users. - Improve education, signage, and create more user-friendly maps (digital and hard copy) so boundaries are better understood on the ground.
- If more area is opened, better signs and a designated crossing for the cross-country ski area, with a slow zone at the existing G-trail crossing. This should prevent noise increases for skiers and will keep OSVs out of groomed trails.
- Use natural barriers to delineate wilderness / closed areas. - Appropriate area for trail hosts/ambassadors.
- “Possible Wilderness incursion” is not reason to restrict and limit use. If this is happening, with evidence, then better management needs to occur rather than not allowing OSV use.
- There should not be “buffer zones” to Wilderness. If Congress wanted these areas to be off-limits to OSV use and recreation, they would have designated this area as Wilderness.
- Potential impacts to at-risk species (threatened, endangered, species of conservation concern, and others called out in the land management plan) will be evaluated in the NEPA process. Each species will be analyzed separately to determine whether, how, and to what degree OSV use can impact the species.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 3 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
c. Improve parking
situation by
separating uses at the
staging area, realign
Nordic and OSV
groomed trails, and
designated OSV
routes that avoid the
Nordic area. Could
include creating a
better highway
crossing
- Could be expensive
- May require more ground disturbance and resource
impact from that ground disturbance.
- If groups are separated by parking areas, there
must be a legal way to cross the road.
- Sign and enforce the groomed OSV trail so that one side is nonmotorized and the other is motorized. May require wider groomed trail at this location.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 4 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
2 1-B Sand flat
south of
Wilson Butte
Closure line across the
southern side of area is
impossible to see when
you’re on an OSV and
should be moved to
somewhere visible to the
users.
- Area may have been recently burned and possible
impacts to vegetation need to be considered.
- Open to OSV use up to the first groomed trail at the
south end of this area
- Clear and visible signage.
- Use the tree line as a natural barrier
- Open the entire area around Wilson Butte.
- Improve digital maps.
- Education may help with any issues related to recent burns. - Explain how a recent burn would affect OSV designation. It likely has no bearing because OSV use is over snow.
- If the area was recently burned, follow the BAER report for appropriate recommendations and mitigations.
3 1-C Saddlebag
Lake/ Tioga
Pass area
a. Designate for OSV use
everywhere outside
of Wilderness
- Yosemite toad effects in spring, which is time when
the area is most likely to be used by OSVs, need to
be considered.
- Access to this area via OSV relies entirely on snow
coverage on the south facing Tioga Pass Rd. If this is
even possible, there is feet to tens of feet up on the
pass. No hibernating frog will be disturbed.
- Bighorn sheep effects from noise and presence of
OSVs need to be considered.
- Sierra Nevada Red Fox effects need to be
considered.
- World class non-motorized backcountry ski and
Nordic touring zones. Snowmobiling is not expected
or appropriate. The area outside of Wilderness and
National Park is too small to support cross-country
snowmobiling without significantly impacting
soundscape and diminishing the natural experience.

OSV use in this area would greatly adversely impact
- Potential impacts to at-risk species (threatened, endangered, species of conservation concern, and others called out in the land management plan) will be evaluated in the NEPA process. Each species will be analyzed separately to determine whether, how, and to what degree OSV use can impact the species.
- Domestic sheep disease killed the bighorns, not OSVs. - Consult with California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service.
- Consult with Caltrans on any plan.
- If incursion is an issue, then better management practices need to be implemented rather than closures or restrictions. However, real evidence of incursion needs to be provided before any changes occur. Don’t create a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. - Clear and visible signage and maps to delineate Research Natural Area and Wilderness areas.
- If law enforcement and access is an issue, consider prohibiting OSV use.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 5 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
a natural area and the experience of the many for
the benefit of a very small few.
- Major Avalanche danger on 120 during early and
mid-winter; after 120 is plowed, Saddlebag Road is
hardly worth snowmobiling just for ski access (esp.
as it diminishes everyone else’s ski experience for
the sake of a few people getting a bump of a couple
extra miles)
- Invites incursion into the Research Natural Area.
- Perhaps identify a section for OSV access to skiing and hunting without allowing the whole area. Limited OSV use to Saddlebag Road
- Nothing open ‘invites’ anything. No one knows maps and boundaries as well as OSV users because we have to. Every forest in the nation has closures up to wilderness or other boundaries.

This is a made up ‘problem’.
b. Continue with current
OSV management,
with closure around
Saddlebag Lake
- Need to consult with owners of Tioga Pass Resort
and Saddlebag Resort.
- Seasonal concerns can/should be addressed
through management, not closures.
- How are these non-motorized users getting up
Tioga Road in winter?
c. Close entire area to
OSV use. It is not used
often by OSVs and it
diminishes the
experience for many
to benefit only a few.
- Highway 120 is not under the jurisdiction of the
Forest Service, and therefore this decision cannot
cover highway 120. The decision does need to
consider area outside of 120 right-of-way and
Saddlebag Lake Road.
- Consider allowing use only on Saddlebag Road
- It is not possible to remain only on Saddlebag Lake
Road because it becomes heavily wind drifted from
the trees along the road acting as wind screens. The
meadow below/west of the road must be open to
allow travel.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 6 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
- Saying saddlebag lake road is hardly worth
snowmobiling is an opinion and one that is not
shared by those who have snowmobiled up to the
Lake. This provides access for backcountry skiing in
the area.
4 1-U Parker Bench Consider need for
seasonal restrictions for
sage-grouse leks and
wintering areas. Could be
speed limits, restrictions
on cross-country travel,
or seasonal closures.
- Could affect backcountry access to Mt. Woods and
nearby areas which are popular for backcountry
skiing, often accessed via snowmobile.
- Allow one or two corridors for OSV access, where it could avoid important sage-grouse areas.
- Monitor for effects of OSV use on sage-grouse
5 1-D Silver Lake
Resort and
the Hwy 158
area when
closed due to
snow
a. Close Highway 158
footprint (June Lake
Loop) to OSVs at the
Rush Creek
Powerhouse closure,
to the Silver Lake
Resort, for nonmotorized access.
- The entire length of Highway 158 is a State
Highway and therefore the type of use that occurs
on the road itself is not under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service
- Closure might affect OSV access from the Town of
June Lake to the north.
- Dog walking can impact wildlife and habitat just as
any other type of recreation. All recreation should
be allowed and can be accommodated here
- OSV users can drive over the lake or to the east of Silver Lake to access areas to the north.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 7 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
b. Allow OSV use on the
entire length of
Highway 158 beyond
winter closures
(current condition)
- This is a popular pedestrian zone in winter for dog
walkers, ice skaters, ice climbers and backcountry
ski access. Turning this into and promoting as a
snowmobile route would greatly impact the
activities of most people with soundscape/noise
issues for ice climbers and general motorized
conflict (noise, exhaust, etc.) for pedestrians—
again for the benefit of very few users.
- Multi-use should be available on Highway 158.

There isn’t a better place for both motorized and
non-motorized than an existing roadway where
separation can be provided.
c. Allow OSV use on
Highway 158, but not
between Highway 158
and Silver Lake along
the shoreline.
6 1-F South side of
Mono Lake
Allow OSV use in the area
that is currently closed,
along the shore on the
South Side of Mono Lake.
- The area was closed in the Mono Basin Scenic Area
Plan and opening the area to OSV use would
require an amendment to that plan.
- The land ownership of the relicted lands along the
lake shore is not clear. All I can find on who owns
the relicted lake shore is a ruling by the 9th district court of appeals in 1987 that said the land is owned
by the federal government.
- System connectivity is important.
- Engage with the State. What does their management plan say? - Review system connectivity between USFS groomed trail system and popular riding areas like the Bodie Hills. Do we want to create dead end trails or work to create a corridor to maintain connectivity?

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 8 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
7 1-H Currently
closed area
east of White
Wing Mtn. in
Upper
Deadman
area
a. Allow OSV use in this
area.
- Open the closed red circle-ish area, if you keep
anything closed, keep the cherry stem closed.
b. Do not allow OSV use
in this area.
- High use established backcountry ski zone.
8 1-I Cherry stem
on Deadman
Creek –
currently
closed to
OSV use
a. Keep this cherry stem
closed to OSV use. It
is a small area, does
not provide a lot of
terrain to OSVs, and is
an area with
documented
Wilderness incursion.
- This area is not wilderness and should not be
treated as such. It provides access to backcountry
skiing via OSV.
- Access does not encourage incursions. There are
many open areas adjacent to Wilderness areas on
the Inyo National Forest.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 9 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
b. Open the area to OSV
use.
- Difficult to delineate Wilderness in this drainage
- Wild and scenic river corridor needs to be analyzed.

Limit use to non-motorized in areas that are part of
the Wild and Scenic River corridor to protect water
quality and riparian habitat
- It is a road and therefore wild and scenic river
corridor is already eroded; OSVs will not cause any
greater impact than a road.
- Allowing OSV use in this canyon would impact the
natural soundscape and greatly diminish the
backcountry skiing experience and invite Wilderness
trespass. Folks can access the base of the canyon by
snowmobile (at Deadman CG) and proceed from
there on skis.
- Possibly allow OSV use on the road only, which is almost the way it is cherry stemmed in anyway.
- Sign the Wilderness boundary better
9 1-J Closed area
right by
MCWD
private land
Fix the mapping error

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 10 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
10 1-K Linkage
between
Shady Rest
and Sherwin
areas
Provide tunnel to allow
OSV access underneath
highway
- If it needs to cross private land or areas under
jurisdiction of the Town or other agency, the Forest
Service may not be able to decide on OSV use of
this tunnel
- OSV access under highway between RV park and
Shady Rest to access broader OSV network makes
great sense so that snowmobilers don’t have to
trailer their sleds across the road. Establishing a
designated route between Shady Rest and the
eastern end of the Sherwins is a whole different can
of worms given the likelihood of impacts to
neighborhoods and town MUPs.
- Also, would benefit those storing their snowmobiles
at the industrial park, and they would not have to
trailer and take up parking elsewhere.
- Management would need to occur along with
signage. Two different pieces to using the tunnels
that allows access across 203 & Meridian BLVD.

Both access points can assist in separation of uses
and access to different areas.
- Tunnel may not be designed for motorized use.
- The USFS can acquire a right-of-way to allow access through private land.
- Work with Town of Mammoth Lakes.
- This would be TOML lead planning effort.
- Potentially expensive/much more detailed plans & research would need to be done.
- Coordinate with Caltrans if it would be within the Hwy 203 right-ofway

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 11 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
11 2-A Rock Creek a. Open to OSV use. Not
being groomed for
Nordic anymore. Why
should that be
closed? Could provide
good access to skiers.
- Established Nordic area
- Area may be groomed again in the future
- Resort owner has not been consulted yet.
- The SnoPark in Rock Creek Canyon is very popular
as a dedicated non-motorized trailhead for
pedestrians, Nordic skiers, and backcountry ski
access. Providing access up this road snowmobiles
would greatly diminish the experience and displace
a great many non-motorized users and impact the
natural soundscape in the whole canyon.
- Staging area/parking area space is limited could be
a conflict issue if open to OSV.
- Talk to resort owner.
- Allow one side for motorized and one for non-motorized. - Work with Rock Creek Resort and possible coordination with snopark program. Potential for joint use access area.
- Try pilot OSV grooming program and assess impacts.
- If rock creek road is not getting groomed for XC skiing, or other non-motorized use, then motorized should be allowed.
b. Do not open this area
to OSV use. It is an
established Nordic
and backcountry ski
area
- No longer being groomed for Nordic skiing. A past
use should not dictate current use.
- Special use permittees do not have exclusive use of
National Forest. One resort should not dictate use
for the entire canyon.
- Data on special use permits need to be analyzed
before implementing as these often cater to certain
classes and groups of people.
12 1-M Crater Flats Remove the small slivers
of closed area adjacent to
Wilderness. Currently
closed areas do not make
sense.
- The Wilderness boundary may not be clear in this
area on-the-ground. It may be clearer to have the
OSV use boundary be something that can be seen
on the ground, such as tree line.
- Buffer zones to Wilderness should not exist.

Remove these closed areas.
- Better maps for users plus up-to-date GIS layers on personal navigation apps. Signage.
- The boundary should conform with the Wilderness boundary unless these are drawn to conform with actual topographical features. Should be analyzed.
- MMSA could be a good partner in this area, since Snowmobile Adventures is a major user of this area, signage, trail marking, etc.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 12 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
13 3-A Ancient
Bristlecone
Pine
Forest/White
Mountains
a. Continue to allow
OSV use as described
in the Forest Plan –
no cross-country OSV
use in the Ancient
Bristlecone Pine
Forest. No restrictions
for the areas outside
of Wilderness and
Bristlecone Pine
Forest.
- Bi-state sage-grouse wintering habitat is in the
White Mountains and may be susceptible to noise
or direct mortality from OSVs colliding with the
birds.
- Sage grouse are generally not found when the area
has enough snow for snowmobile use.
- The non-wilderness areas are tiny compared to the
entire White Mountains; consider that when
analyzing effects to sage grouse.
- Are studies available to show winter sage grouse
using this area? Studies not being done are not an
excuse to exclude users.
- Incursion into the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest,
potential impacts to young Bristlecones and
cryptobiotic soils
- Allowing OSVs when there is sufficient snow could
create staffing/enforcement difficulties as levels in
the whites are often spotty. Levels would have to
be tracked and sufficient snow depths/ resource
damage would need to be studied and defined.
- To not allow use due to potential wilderness
incursions is to create additional wilderness without
congressional designation.
- Please provide documentation of sage grouse
getting hit by snowmobiles at over 10K feet in
winter.
- Cryptobiotic soils would be buried in snow.
- Better signage will help OSV users know what is allowed. Sign key areas to keep people on the road or out of Schulman/Patriarch grove.
- Practical minimum snow depth requirement and communication needed to protect resources in this zone. Monitoring and enforcement.
- Potential impacts to at-risk species (threatened, endangered, species of conservation concern, and others called out in the land management plan) will be evaluated in the NEPA process. Each species will be analyzed separately to determine whether, how, and to what degree OSV use can impact the species.
- The Forest Service and USGS has good information on sage grouse locations throughout the year and will use that information in the analysis.
- There is a maze of dirt roads up there, are sage grouse getting hit by cars/OHVs?
- Many miles of trails in the bristlecones, are crypto soils a concern in summer when it is actually exposed? Tons of off trail travel with folks trying to get to methuselah.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 13 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
b. Allow OSV use only
on the main White
Mountain Road,
throughout the entire
White Mountains
area.
- The road may be difficult to travel, due to
windblown berms. A limitation to one road only
may de-facto prohibit OSV use.
- Decision already made. A change would require
Forest Plan Amendment. Forest Plan does allow onroad OSV use. - How would we keep OSVs on system road and not
cross-country
- Area would receive limited OSV use, but one of the
most scenic places to ride an OSV on the planet.
- Clear maps/apps, signage, monitoring, enforcement
- The road is already marked with snow stakes for research station access via snowmobile and snowcat.
14 M-D Reds
Meadow
area
a. There are some areas
signed as not
available to OSV use
in the Reds Meadow
Area, but they are not
on our maps for this
project. Put those on
our map to be
accurate, or if not
closed, take out signs.
b. Keep some vault
toilets in Reds open if
they can be
maintained.
- This closure is not on winter rec map and the Forest
does not have record of a Forest Order. FS
uncertain why there are signs.
- Signs could be over concerns for wetlands/sensitive
animal species.
- Need to maintain adequate buffer between
motorized use and PCT.
- No OSVs on 2-mile section of the PCT corridor
- The signs were placed by the park service, and the
owner of Reds Meadow lodge. They are not legally
placed on USFS land.
- Accurate signage to discourage Wilderness and NP encroachment (people have logged snowmobile tracks deep in John Muir and Ansel Adams Wilderness coming out of Reds Meadow). Keep restrooms open all winter at Reds Meadow CG (with user group commitment to maintenance) to reduce human waste at sensitive Reds Creek and hot springs zone.
- Sign the PCT crossing areas. Sign the monument if it is closed to OSV use.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 14 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
c. Do NOT designate
cross-country OSV
use west of the
Minaret Summit
Road, which would
serve as a physical
feature that is easily
identifiable as the
motorized boundary
(to prevent OSV use
of the PCT)
- PCT – Congressionally designated area (nonmotorized). Potential conflicts of use near Agnew Meadows where PCT outside of Wilderness.
- Continue to allow OSV use on Minaret Summit
Road and on the MVUM route to Agnew Meadows.

This would result in a motorized crossing of the PCT
between Minaret Summit Road and Agnew
Meadows that already exists in all other seasons.
- Geographic features on the landscape that are easily identified by users are the most appropriate control points for drawing up boundaries of OSV use areas (roads, creeks/drainages, ridges, meadows, etc.). The Lassen National Forest has implemented this in their OSV decision, and the Plumas National Forest has also moved in that direction.
15 M-E Closed areas
at Minaret
Vista
a. Remove all closures in
the Minaret Vista/San
Joaquin Ridge area
except those on the
north side where it is
very steep
- The area should be open to users. The Forest
Service should not dictate whether areas are too
steep for OSV users. The users should.
- Steep terrain is erroneous. This should be removed.

The USFS doesn’t manage for steepness.
- Users can absolutely get an OSV up the north side
of minaret summit. There are more gullies than
cliffs. Rider ability is not a concern of the agency.
- Simplify boundaries based on terrain and communicate with maps/apps and signs.
b. Remove all closures in
the Minaret Vista
/San Joaquin Ridge
area.
- Simplify boundaries based on terrain and communicate with maps/apps and signs.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 15 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
16 M-A Cinder Shed
Parking
Plow the Cinder Shed
parking area again.

Improve it by enlarging
the site, making it flatter,
and paving it.

Allow different entity to
maintain access and
coordination with
Caltrans as needed.
- Unsure if any resources at the site that would be
adversely affected
- This is better and more sustainable access to
groomed snowmobile trails, especially in low snow
years. and especially if we can also improve nonmotorized access at Earthquake Fault. - There is a need for high elevation public parking
access. Parking for minaret vista is badly needed for
OSV users. This would help.
- May conflict with existing uses of SCE & Caltrans
and future driveway exit from Woolly’s Adventure
Summit. Earthquake Fault would be a good
alternative.
- Will require opening of associated terrain to the
north of HWY203 to OSV access.
- Complete effects analysis for all relevant resources as part of the project analysis.
- I understand there’s cost but as a community we need to invest in public access winter amenities of this sort.
- Consider parking area through NEPA for expansion, coordinate with Caltrans, and look to partners for winter parking area management.
- Solidify who would maintain the parking area.
- USFS has made clear that cinder shed is not a priority nor is it MMSA’s responsibility to maintain. High elevations OSV access does not seem to be a concern for the USFS.
17 M-P Snow
play/sledding
areas along
the scenic
loop, near
intersection
with Hwy
203
a. Consider designating
OSV trails or
otherwise reducing
OSVs traveling
through areas that
are used by sledders
and kids playing in
the snow along the
west and east sides of
the Scenic Loop Road.
b. Designate a sled hill
- Smart route designation planning needed for the
reasons stated. Better parking for snow play and
winter camping. Snow play area that doesn’t send
kids into roadway. Year-round restrooms!!
- As far as I know there have been no issues, this area should be left open
-

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 16 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
18 M-B /
M-L
Earthquake
Fault Parking
a. Plow the Earthquake
Fault parking area in
the winter for multiuse parking.

Increased parking
could reduce
pressure on other
areas and reduce
conflict.
- Long road to plow for parking. The earthquake fault
itself is a hazard for OSV use if they traveled east
into the crack.
- Dry creek drainage has Tribally identified cultural
resources
- Sign the area well, place snow stakes, and include education and warnings to avoid the Earthquake Fault cliffs.
- All relevant resources would be analyzed by the Forest Service in this project’s NEPA document if this were to be a proposal, including cultural resources.
b. Develop as a
dedicated nonmotorized access and
snow play area. Has
restrooms. Better
than Scenic Loop for
pedestrians and
Nordic touring access.

Geologic/interpretive
interest in all seasons.
- It is an open area for OSV use now and should be
left that way. However, I don’t feel that at this
time it would make a good trailhead. Parking laid
out wrong and too much area to plow for the small
amount of usefulness. Could be re-examined in the
future as use grows.
19 M-O Earthquake
Fault/Dry
Creek area
that is
currently
closed to
OSV use
a. Open the entire
currently closed OSV
area to cross-country
use.
- Overall, there is a lack of dedicated sledding/snow
paly areas. Enhancing this amenity may reduce
conflicts between non-motorized users (still parking
concerns) and increase safety of staging area for
OSV.
- Needs to be necessarily linked to OSV specific offhighway parking at Earthquake Fault (see Item #18).

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 17 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
b. Open most of the
area to OSV use,
except the steep
area west of the
scenic loop closed –
steep with dense
trees and so not a
special opportunity
for OSV use and
used commonly for
backcountry skiing.
- Support OSV use access. FS is not the expert on user
technical skills. If an area is closed simply because
most people don’t have the technical skill, then the
FS is arbitrarily picking which type of users to allow
and not. Different areas provide different
recreational opportunities for OSV users.
- Popular close-in backcountry ski (esp. storm skiing)
zone on steep NE side of Earthquake Dome should
remain non-motorized—too steep and tight for
sleds anyway--to also include some buffer for
accessible sections of blue diamond ski trail.
- Better plowing for parking along the bend of scenic
loop (or new small non-motorized parking area to
complement motorized parking at Inyo Craters
Road).
- No need to close if too steep - machines will
naturally not go.
- More contradictions to exclude. If the area is
“steep and tight” that nobody uses it, why does it
need to be closed?
- Move snowflake on map to the “P”. Identify slow zones where uses may interact or trails cross.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 18 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
20 5-A Kennedy
Meadows
Continue to allow OSV
use on route 21S08 from
County Road J41 and use
this as the OSV area
boundary. Also
incorporate ridges as
geographic features to
help define the
boundaries and provide a
non-motorized
experience for PCT users.
- Does this area warrant OSV use designation? Snow
accumulation is minimal as compared to many
other areas on the forest.
- PCT – Congressionally designated area (nonmotorized). Potential conflicts of use near Kennedy Meadows where PCT is outside of designated
Wilderness and in-between other units and
agencies.
21 M-F Woolly’s
permit area
MMSA Would like a few
hundred-foot buffer for
any designated OSV area
to keep users away from
Woollys.
- Special use permit holders do not determine uses
outside of their permit area.
- There should be no buffer zones. Where do the
closures end if everything is buffered. The boundary
is the boundary.
- A buffer would be okay unless it cuts off OSV
access. Shrink buffer if necessary to maintain access
or create a slow zone corridor.
- Is a defined buffer needed? Can they simply define
their boundary in a way people cannot pass through
it?
- The boundary signs could be put at the most logical place to avoid accidental entry into areas being used by Wooly’s visitors - Need to mark OSV access around the tube park for access to other open areas. Not sure if this is possible with increase in current buffer.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 19 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
22 M-G Lakes Basin
Tamarack
a. Retain current
management of the
Lakes Basin/Tamarack
area, with the area
only open after
Tamarack closure
(April 17). Public OSV
use is not compatible
with their crosscountry ski area.
- Need to clarify management outside of the
Tamarack ski area permit boundary, but within the
Lakes Basin. Would the entire Lakes Basin area open
after April 17, or only the permit area (with the
remaining area always closed to OSV use)?
- Consider allowing e-bikes on public access side with
proper etiquette and signage
- Largely speaking, the OSV community is fine with
this existing management….if and ONLY if places
like the Sherwins and Solitude Canyon remain open.

Close those and this area needs to be opened,
season-long.
- Keep closing more places and you’ll really need to
be concerned about ‘incursions’
b. Allow the area
outside of Tamarack
cross-country ski area
boundary to be open
to OSV use. It is
effectively a buffer on
wilderness as is.
- Possible Sierra Nevada Red Fox habitat, consult
California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
c. The entire area
should be open to
OSV use, including
the ski area permit
boundary.
- The decision to close this area was made previously,
with NEPA and public input, and the Forest
Supervisor is not required to revisit that decision to
comply with Subpart C.
- Increase signage and education and make better maps.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 20 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
d. Allow OSV access only
on designated routes
- When permit season ends, given ongoing
nonmotorized use (multiple use: pedestrian,
bicycle, Nordic and backcountry skiing) throughout
the basin, plus increasing Wilderness encroachment
(over Mammoth pass and up Coldwater into JMW)
snowmobiles should only be allowed on designated
routes.
23 1-N June
Mountain Ski
Area
Allow OSV access on
mountain after ski
operations close, but
there is still adequate
snow coverage
- May interfere with June Mountain post-season
operations and maintenance. The ski area
management would not like to allow this but is
willing to discuss it further.
- OSV users avoid driving over vehicles and
equipment all the time. No one is going to interfere
with post season operations, which are
concentrated at the mid mountain lodge. Stevens
Pass, Mt Rose Ski Area, tons of USFS lease ski areas
allow this use.
- This is public land. MMSA does not get eminent
domain over it when their use is not occurring.
- There is rarely enough snow for OSV access after
June Mountain closes.
- Leave it up to Mammoth Mountain Ski Area.
- Discuss OSV use with Mammoth Mountain Ski Area.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 21 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
24 M-H OSV parking
area at F-trail
near
intersection
of new road
accessing
Parcel A
Add a public OSV parking
area to the
redevelopment proposal
to provide high-elevation
parking for OSVs that
keeps getting lost
through their
development.
- How would the area be “reserved” for public OSV
users instead of being filled up by skiers. Would it
be paid or permit parking?
- MMSA needs to provide access at main lodge for
public parking for OSV access, because they
removed it in the first place.
- Develop a plan with MMSA to provide for public OSV parking in/adjacent to their permit area.
25 M-I Inyo Crater
Trailhead
Consider constructing a
staging area that could
hold more trailers.
- Unsure if any resources at the site that would be
adversely affected
- Currently, only a few trailers can park at the
trailhead, and parking is often taken by dispersed
campers and skiers.
- Only two trailers MAX could fit at Inyo Craters.
- Complete effects analysis for all relevant resources as part of the project analysis.
- Would need to designate entity to maintain the parking area. - Area may be expanded for added parking. Can also be limited when the scenic loop is closes.
26 M-J Panorama
Dome
Develop a better parking
situation at the winter
closure of the Lakes Basin
Road
- This parking is not used for OSVs (except after April 17th in the few years there is snow remaining at that
date), and therefore it is not likely relevant to this
OSV designation project.
- The road may not be USFS jurisdiction
- Could be addressed outside of this planning process. It is important to address the situation, which is a mess with the current level of non-motorized use.
- Can green sticker funding be used to address trailhead congestion and parking considering the limited OSV use up there? Sno-Park? - The road is in the Forest Service database as a Forest Service system road at the point of the winter closure. The Forest Service will clarify road jurisdiction as part of this process.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 22 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
27 M-K Shady Rest
Park
Reconfigure the Shady
Rest Winter Parking as
follows:
- One motorized
parking lot at the
parking lot right on
Hwy 203, by the RV
dump. One-way traffic
in the RV Dump/
parking lot loop.
- Groom an OSV trail on
the MUP, along the
Shady Rest/Sawmill
Cutoff Road.
- Non-motorized users
would be encouraged
to park at the visitor
center front parking
lot.
- Uncertain whether winter motorized use can be
allowed on the Town’s multi-use paths.
- Uncertain who would plow the multi-use paths.
- Would affect all winter users’ access point.
- Need to ensure that all Ormat activities and
requirements for their new construction and
maintenance are well understood and incorporated
into the analysis and proposal.
- Need to consider the Shady Rest Nordic Trails
- This would allow for better access and staging for all user groups, not any one group. The groomer has to
get from the garage to the trail system so even if
road has to be plowed there could be motorized
access from this staging area.
- Build overpasses/bridges for pipes that interfere with OSV use or this specific proposal.
- Improve partnership with Ormat for improvement and
sustainability of groomed trail infrastructure.
- USFS should consider program to work with local partners to assist with grooming trails and annual markings/signage to designate use areas. Include considerations for enhanced groomed XC trails and staging areas for this use.
- Ensure coordination with CG concessionaire.
- It does not appear that the proposal considers existing decisions made by past Mammoth District Rangers re: OSV / OHV staging in Shady Rest please see this link for more information
https://mltpa.org/projects/planning/focused-planningefforts/shady-rest-motorized-staging-project-2011 - As stated in person during at least two of the project meetings, the USFS and all parties must enforce and abide by the mitigation measures authorized in the final NEPA / CEQA decisions for the ORMAT project. USFS and ORMAT have consistently ignored these mitigation measures. Please see separately provided documents which are excerpted from the NEPA decision and which support some of the suggested solutions for item #26.
- It was also requested during the project meetings that USFS, USGS, BLM, Mono County, and any other relevant agencies of authority produce a definitive set of documents with relevant citations and clearly articulated summaries of the responsible parties to assist in the management of the Shady Rest recreation area. That needs to be a stipulated part of any final proposal.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 23 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
28 M-M
&
M-N
Solitude
Canyon/
Sherwins
area
a. Allow the entire
Sherwins/ Solitude
Canyon area to
remain open to OSV
use, outside of
Wilderness (current
condition).
- Possible Sierra Nevada red fox habitat.
- Safety and noise concerns in the community of Old
Mammoth
- Look closely at effects to mule deer, particularly in Solitude canyon.
- Spring mule deer migration corridor, if open to OSVs
needs to at minimum have a closure of April 1.
- There are no mule deer in Solitude Canyon in
Winter.
- OSV users have been using that location for decades
with no known negative affect.
- Impacts on plants and animals need to be identified.
- Potential for collisions with families engaging in
snow play, off leash dogs/coyotes, and noise apply
to this same as Item 28. Multiple interests will need
to be weighed as a multi-use area.
- More erroneous references to “only a handful of
OSV users” being in the area yet there are so many
conflicts the area must be closed to them? This is
contradictory.
- Remove references to snowmobiles hitting people.

Are there any documented cases of snowmobiles
hitting family, dogs, and coyotes in the Sherwins?
- Potential impacts to at-risk species (threatened, endangered, species of conservation concern, and others called out in the land management plan) will be evaluated in the NEPA process. Each species will be analyzed separately to determine whether, how, and to what degree OSV use can impact the species.
- Identify one single “safety” issue that has occurred in the last 20 years where someone’s “safety” was compromised.
- Access in the Sherwins and separation of uses should follow recommendations in the SHARP Documents as previously noted. - Remove references to snowmobiles hitting people. Are there any documented cases of snowmobiles hitting family, dogs, and coyotes in the Sherwins?
-
b. Close the area west
of the tank farm
parking to OSV use,
and designate for
- Economic analysis needs to be done with ANY type
of loss of recreational opportunity for OSV users.
- East of the Tank Farm is already open. Further
closures in the Sherwins are non-negotiable in the
OSV community. There is nowhere else on the
- See SHARP report and map for recommendations for this area. The SHARP plan was developed through a collaborative process and addressed several concerns raised regrading OSV / XC / Back County skiing in the area.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 24 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
OSV use east of the
tank farm
Forest with this kind of reliable snow coverage and
terrain. This is all OSV users have.
- Everything east of the tele bowls should remain
open. Sherwins are one of the few high elevation
areas. Areas need to remain open unless studies
prove negative impacts, not the other way around.
- Someone’s opinion or dislike of a use does not
constitute a conflict. Documentation of the number
and scope of complaints and activities such as high
pointing up the hose will assist in management
planning.
- This would be a major improvement for a large
majority of winter recreation users and property
owners and signal a firm commitment on the part of
the forest and TOML to providing world-class
nonmotorized close-access backcountry skiing and
public access Nordic skiing amenities, while
impacting only a handful of OSV users.
- There are many off-leash dogs/children & family
engaging in snow play west of the tank farm every
day. Closing the west and opening the east would
allow OSV users to navigate areas without these
potential collisions.
- Solitude Canyon is literally the ONLY steep mountain
terrain open on the entire forest. Closing it is
unacceptable. There is no other place in the INYO
with this kind of terrain that gets RELIABLE snow
coverage. Glass Mountain has the terrain, but it is
- Would non-motorized be prohibited from east of the tank farm? It is unfair that only motorized use is regulated.
- The 2009 Sherwins Area Recreation Plan (SHARP) is an adopted policy document of the Town of Mammoth Lakes including
programmatic CEQA, and the Town will assert its interests with regards to the plan. The Winter Recreation Proposal makes numerous references to OSV activity, and it should be linked and incorporated into the proposal for item #27. Here is the link to the Winter component of SHARP:
https://mltpa.org/images/downloads/SHARP%20SWG%20Winter% 20Proposal.pdf
- And here is a link to the SHARP project page with additional information: https://mltpa.org/projects/planning/collaborativeprocesses/sharp-2009

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 25 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
too finicky with coverage from year to year. Further
closures will cause OSV users to use Wilderness and
other closed areas.
- Because of the large amount of Wilderness so close
to communities, particularly the Town of Mammoth
Lakes and June Lake, the Sherwins/Solitude Canyon
is the only place for this type of steep terrain, and it is of course near town because Wilderness is
everywhere else. Being near town is not an excuse
to prohibit OSVs.
29 1-P June Lake
Junction
Continue to sign and
manage this area as an
OSV staging area.
30 1-Q Bald
Mountain
Road (east of
Hwy 395)
Continue to use this as an
OSV staging area. Add
warning signs at highway
crossing
31 1-R Snow Play
area at
Deadman
Consider methods for
reducing conflict or safety
issues. Very congested
with sledders, but also
provides access to H and
G Trails (groomed OSV
trails)
- Work to address these issues to minimize conflicts
and maximize user fun.
- Expand parking area as needed. An expanded
parking area should be part of the NEPA process.
- TOML Trail hosts cannot be deployed at Deadman,
because it is out of the Town’s Jurisdiction.
- Trail hosts
- Signage

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 26 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
32 1-S West Portal
overlook
Continue to allow OSV
staging - Can access
Mono Craters from the
Front side, and get on the
“I” trail, get into Big Sand
Flat, and back side of
craters (1-T)
- Possible bi-state sage grouse impacts.
- See same comments on Item #14.
- Practical minimum snow depth requirement and communication needed to protect resources in this zone. Monitoring and enforcement.
33 M-C Highway 203
between
winter
closure and
Minaret Vista
Separate non-motorized
and motorized use along
the roadway. Either with
a trail groomed
specifically for OSVs, off
the road, or by
designating one side of
the road for OSVs and
one for non-motorized.
- Is there evidence showing real user conflict making
this an issue? All users should be accommodated.
- The ski area uses a short section of this as a return groomer and does rope it off. There are no issues
here that have arisen in the decades of current use.

The largest issue is public parking for OSV access.
- Uncertain where grooming for OSV trail off the main
road would be. There is no room. How would
creating a new OSV trail be less impactive?
- Significant conflict between motorized and nonmotorized uses on this highly popular route simply because of unnecessary overlap. Users without
snowmobiles have argued for closing Minaret Vista
to OSVs due to snowmobile ruts, noise, exhaust.
- Need to coordinate with Mammoth Mountain Ski
Area. They would likely need to do the grooming
and place signage because part of this is within their
permit area.
- Cannot overstate the benefit that would come from separating access corridors to Minaret Vista, maintaining access for all users but limiting unnecessary and incompatible overlap. One groomed snowmobile access trail and another separate groomed Nordic access trail would turn this zone into a true amenity for all. Let’s work together with MMSA and make this happen!
- USFS will need to determine how to support management of regulations implemented including here.

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 27 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
- MMSA runs snowcat tours to Minaret Vista so
consideration needs to be taken when determining
non-motorized route, if separating.
- MMSA currently grooms to Minaret Vista although
not specifically for XC.
- Support separation but will place added
management responsibility on USFS and to manage
it and maintain it. This wouldn’t be cheap.
- More contradictions. There are mentions of noise
and how negative that is for users but then there is
support for separate trails a couple hundred feet
from each other. Is noise no longer a concern then?
Or simply being used in specific areas?
34 2-B Wheeler
Crest
Continue to allow OSV
use on the Wheeler Crest
Access Road.
- Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep critical habitat.
- The access is blocked by the Rock Creek closure
- Note from Erin – a review of the map shows that there is currently an open corridor on the very east side of the Canyon between the closure and the Wilderness to allow access to Wheeler Crest. If the area remains closed, consider whether a different configuration is necessary to allow true, viable access.
35 1-V Boy Scout
Camp access
road off
Highway 120
Keep this road open to
OSV use. It is an
important access point
36 1-W Lundy Lake\
Canyon
Keep this area open to
OSV use. It is an
important area

Attachment 3: OSV Management Proposals and Minimization Suggestions Page 28 Item
#
Map
ID
Area /
Location
Proposal Potential Issues /
Proposal Feedback
Suggestions for Addressing
Potential Issues
37 NA Forest wide a. Set a 12-inch
minimum snow depth
for off-road OSV use.
- Minimum snow depths are arbitrary. Don’t create a
solution to a problem that cannot be proved to be
there. If there is no evidence that OSV use on areas
with insufficient snow is impacting areas, then the
FS should not implement snow depth requirements.
- There is no data to show that snow depth
requirements are needed now.
- Clarify how enforcement would work with snow depth and what that snow depth would be used for.
- USFS MUST be onboard to manage snow depth. If they cannot manage this daily in winter, no snow depth should be set. b. Do not set any
minimum snow depth
for OSV use. The
requirement should
only be to prevent
resource damage as
per existing CFRs.
- The Region 5 Programmatic Agreement with the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), sets “12
inches of compacted snow” as the snow depth that
protects archeological resources on the ground.
- Setting a snow depth makes it easier to analyze
effects.
- Work with SHPO to set up monitoring or other ways to minimize impacts to archaeological resources, if no minimum snow depth is defined.
c. Treat over snow
electric bicycles (fat
tire e-bikes) as OSVs
for this designation
process.

Attachment 4: Letter from Michael Lueders, Valley Outdoors 1 ATTACHMENT 4
OSV Management Concepts Presented to Inyo National Forest Proposal & Issues
I would like to thank each and every participant in this process and would also like to that the Inyo NF for opening the table up for discussions.

I had started to go point by point through each line item to address resource issues, Wildlife and Habitat issues and use conflicts but as I started to list each for each line item it became clear a common theme emerged. First, lets set the stage for clarity. The United States is seeing a sharp increase in recreational users of all types, all backgrounds, and all abilities. A purpose of public lands is a means for all users to experience the outdoors for generations to come. Having said that, to single out a user group with a management plan is really counter intuitive. Much as a project can not be pieced together to avoid environmental review, a travel management plan should not be piecemealed either but here we are.

My main points across the board for all areas discussed:

Inyo National Forest should be considering, in all cases, adding more staging areas to distribute users over a wider area. Concentrating any user group only leads to environmental impacts. Be it walk, hiking, fishing, or motorized use.

Inyo National Forest should be addressing education and enforcement across all user groups and forest wide. All user groups have their bad apples, no exceptions. Enforcement without education is a short-term solution likewise, education without enforcement is as well.

As far as environmental impacts are concerned, any lens through which motorized use is viewed must also be used for all other recreation user groups. No special treatments or exemptions for any groups. And all impacts looked at in totality PERIOD. All criteria for assessing motorized impacts should be applied equally to all uses and recreation endeavors. No segregation of rules or enforcement.

The Inyo National Forest should be looking at future recreation needs. A plan that meets the needs currently will be out paced by the growth of recreation users very shortly. Likewise, ALL user groups should be working together to help define the type of recreation opportunities we and our successors will have.

A shared use policy and ethos must be core to any plan. No one type of recreation favored nor any type of lawful recreation discounted. Users must be educated to adopt a shared forest mentality. It is not any one user groups “private playground” no matter how loud the voice.

Attachment 4: Letter from Michael Lueders, Valley Outdoors 2 Any described “potential” issues must have solid merit. For example, to simply state a trail or area may lead to trespass into another area is so broad and open that it implies no access is only option. If one follows this philosophy to its broadest sense, all trails and all recreation has the potential to cause impacts and therefore should be prohibited.

Inyo National Forest should be looking to partner with any and all grass roots groups to help manage, maintain, educate, and protect everyone’s public lands.

No one agency or group can do it alone. This must be a cultural shift, no “us”, “we”, “them”…change it to ALL.

It is my deepest wish Inyo National Forest listens to all user groups and takes into meaningful consideration the needs for all and does not acquiesce to those groups who yell loudest or have the deepest pockets.

Shared use for all.

Once again, my deepest gratitude for the opportunity to take part in this process and my most heartfelt thank you to all who participated.

Sincerely,
Michael Lueders
Valley Outdoors.

Agenda Item ________
File No. ____________

AGENDA BILL
Subject: Councilmember Reports
Initiated by: Jamie Gray
______________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND:

Each member of the Town Council is appointed to serve as a Town representative to a number of committees, commissions, and organizations.

These groups meet infrequently and from time to time the representatives will report to the rest of the Council at a regularly scheduled meeting.

In addition, Councilmembers on occasion participate in meetings, conferences and seminars, and their reports on these educational opportunities are of benefit to the rest of the Council.

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:

California Government Code requirements pertaining to the open meeting act stipulate that all items for discussion must be listed on the agenda before the matter can be discussed and/or acted upon. To meet this requirement, and the intent of the Brown Act, Councilmember Reports are listed on each agenda to allow representatives to report to the rest of the Council at these meetings.

The following is a list of the commission/committees on which members of the Council serve:

Land Use:

Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) – Rea, Rice, and Bubser as alternate
Airport Land Use Commission – Rea, Rice, and Bubser as the alternate Mono County Collaborative Planning Team (CPT) – Community and Economic Development Director and Rice as alternate
Intergovernmental Relations:

Town and County Liaison Committee – Sauser, Bubser, and Town Manager and Rea as alternate
Desert Mountain Division of the League of California Cities – Sauser and Town Manager as alternate
Eastern Sierra Council of Governments (ESCOG) – Bubser, Wentworth, and Sauser as alternate
Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District – Wentworth and Bubser as alternate

League of California Cities City Voting Delegate – Sauser and the Town Manager as the alternate
California Joint Powers Insurance Authority Board – Rea and Assistant to the Town Manager as alternate
Transportation:

Local Transportation Commission (LTC) – Wentworth, Sauser, and Paul Chang; Town Manager as alternate
Eastern Sierra Transit Authority (ESTA) Board – Bubser and Sauser Local Issues:

Mammoth Lakes Tourism (MLT) Board – Sauser
Mammoth Lakes Recreation (MLR) Board – Rea
Mammoth Lakes Housing (MLH) Board – Rice
Treasury Oversight Committee – Finance Director; Town Manager as alternate LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:

According to the California Open Meeting Act, commonly referred to as the Brown Act, the agenda must reflect every matter to be discussed by a governing body.

RECOMMENDATION(S):

This agenda bill is submitted for information only.