Council Chamber
580 Pacific St.
Monterey, California
and Teleconference Location:
Westin Boston Seaport District
425 Summer St., Room 519
Boston, Massachusetts
City Council Agenda
Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 4, 2023
4:00 PM – 6:00 PM PDT
City Council
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Kim Barber, Councilmember,
District 1
Gino Garcia, Councilmember
Alan Haffa, Councilmember
Ed Smith, Councilmember,
District 2
City Manager
Hans Uslar
How to participate in this meeting:
Written comment: Members of the public may submit comment(s) to [email protected] until ½ hour before the start of the meeting. These messages are not read aloud during the meeting but are made available to the meeting body and public at https://monterey.org/submitted-comments. All comments received become part of the record.
In-Person: Please see the meeting location listed above. Wearing a mask is recommended and encouraged.
Remote via ZoomGov Webinar:
o Join on a computer or smartphone: https://montereyorg.zoomgov.com/j/1607729333 An up-to-date version of the Zoom software must be used.
o Or join by telephone: Dial 833-568-8864 (Toll Free), 669-254-5252 (Campbell, CA) or 646-828-7666 (NY). If one number doesn’t work, please try another. Enter Webinar ID: 160 772 9333 #
If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #
To “raise your hand,” dial *9. Once called upon, dial *6 to unmute o Need help using or updating Zoom? Read our Zoom Meeting Instructions (PDF) This meeting will also stream live for viewing only on youtube.com/cityofmonterey (10 second delay) and on Comcast Channel 25 (up to 90-second delay).
TELECONFERENCE NOTICE
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54953(b)(3), this City Council meeting will include teleconference participation by Councilmember Barber from the location listed above, which shall be accessible to the public pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.3.
***Afternoon Session Agenda ***
4:00 - 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC COMMENTS (MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA)
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any subject which is within the jurisdiction of the Monterey City Council and which is 4/4/2023 4:00:00 PM
2 not on the agenda. Any person or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the City Council may do so by addressing the Council during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: City Clerk, City Hall, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact the sender concerning the details. NOTE: For regular meetings with an afternoon and evening session, Public Comments are taken during both sessions. Individuals may choose to speak once for up to three minutes at either session, but not both.
CONSENT ITEMS
CONSENT AGENDA consists of those items which are routine and for which a staff recommendation has been prepared. A member of the public or a Councilmember may request that an item be placed on the regular agenda for further discussion.
Approval of Minutes
1. March 21, 2023 Regular Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Ordinances
ORDINANCES are legislative acts by the Council, are the most permanent and binding type of Council action as they modify the City Code, and may be replaced only by a subsequent ordinance. An ordinance requires legal advertisement when introduced, and two readings at separate Council meetings. An ordinance is considered "passed to print" when approved for a second reading, and is "passed and adopted" when given final approval by the Council.
2. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 17, Section 112.4 – Wireless Communications Facilities and Finding the Same Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
3. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance to Amend City Code section 19-103 to Increase Cost Recovery for Historic Preservation Fees and Appeals; and Provide Direction to Staff on Hardship Waivers and/or Refunds of Appeal Fees (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Resolutions
RESOLUTIONS are passed to express the policy of the Council on certain items or programs, or are passed to direct certain types of administrative action. A resolution may be changed by adoption of a subsequent resolution. Resolutions only require one reading and are approved when "passed and adopted."
4. Amend Resolution 22-086, the FY 22/23 Position Control List by Adding One (1) Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Housing Manager Position and Removing One (1) Vacant FTE Administrative Analyst and Amend and Restate Resolution 23-004, the FY 22/23 Salary Schedule, to Add Salaries for the Housing Manager and the Deputy Public Works Director/Administration Positions (Not a Project Under CEQA, per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
5. Authorize a Contract with Community Human Services to Grant $72,000 for the Shuman HeartHouse, Future Emergency Homeless Shelter Located at 600 East Franklin Street (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) 4/4/2023 4:00:00 PM
3 *** End of Consent Agenda ***
PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC HEARINGS are held to receive public comment on certain items pending Council action. You are welcome to offer your comments after being recognized by the Mayor. The Council may limit the time allocated to each speaker. NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you challenge the City Council’s zoning, planning, or land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing on the matter, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at the time of or prior to the close of the public hearing. (Government Code section 65009(b).)
6. Resolution Modifying the 2019 Management District Plan of the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
PUBLIC APPEARANCE
PUBLIC APPEARANCE items are reports on non-routine issues that might stimulate public discussion, but that do not require formal noticing as public hearings. You are welcome to offer your comments after being recognized by the Mayor. The Council may limit the time each speaker is allocated.
7. Resolution Reaffirming the City of Monterey’s Opposition to the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” (Initiative 21-0042A1) (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmembers may ask a question for clarification or make a brief announcement or make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, Council may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any City matter (G.C. 54954.2).
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
The City Manager may make a brief report on his activities or a brief announcement. He may also ask for clarification or direction regarding scheduling of Council meetings and study sessions.
*** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) ***
ADJOURNMENT
Members of the public have the right to address the City Council on any item on the Agenda, before or during its consideration [G.C. §54954.3(a)]. The Mayor will formally open the floor for public comment on items such as "Public Appearance" and "Public Hearings." Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on these matters within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, are available at: monterey.org/submitted-comments and in the City Manager’s Office at 580 Pacific St., Room 1, Monterey, CA 93940 during regular business hours.
Information distributed to the Council at the Council meeting becomes part of the public record. A copy of written material, pictures, etc. should be provided for this purpose. 4/4/2023 4:00:00 PM
4 City Council Meetings are cable cast live and recorded for replay on Monterey's Government Access Channel 25 by Access Media Productions (AMP).
CITY OF MONTEREY'S 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES:
Voicemail: (831) 646-3799
Fax: (831) 646-3793
Email: [email protected]
WebPage: http://www.monterey.org
INTERPRETATION: The Monterey City Council invites and encourages public participation at its meetings. Requests for language interpretation may be made by contacting the City Clerk at [email protected] or 831-646-3935. The City Clerk will make every effort to accommodate requests for interpreter assistance. Requests should be made as soon as possible in advance of any meeting of the City Council. The City is committed to addressing language interpretation requests swiftly in order to maximize public participation.
ACCESSIBILITY: The City of Monterey is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or (831) 646-3935. Notification 30 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-
35.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. For communicationrelated assistance, dial 711 to use the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to City offices. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to the City Clerk's Office at (831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device.
Upcoming city meetings are listed at http://isearchmonterey.org More information is available by calling (831) 646-3935
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, March 21, 2023
4:00-6:30 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST. MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
AND TELECONFERENCE LOCATION: HYATT REGENCY WASHINGTON ON CAPITOL HILL, ROOM 391, 400 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 Councilmembers
Present: Barber*, Garcia, Haffa, Williamson
Absent: Smith
* Attended remotely by teleconference at the duly noticed teleconference location listed above
City Staff
Present:
City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Police Chief, Parks and Recreation Director, Finance Director, Fire Chief, Human Resources Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Recreation Manager, Public Works Administrative Services Manager, Parks Operations Manager, Principal Planner, Sports Center Manager, Assistant Fire Chief, Senior Administrative Analyst (Fire), Division Chief (Fire), Fire Captains (4), Fire Engineers (2), Firefighters (6), Administrative Assistant (Fire)
TELECONFERENCE NOTICE
This meeting was held with a combination of in-person and teleconference attendance, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Calif. Gov. Code sec. 54953(b). ***Afternoon Session Agenda***
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. He announced that Councilmember Barber was attending remotely and that Councilmember Smith was absent for the meeting.
City Clerk Klein called the roll as highlighted above, and explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually. Councilmember Barber confirmed that she could hear the meeting proceedings, had posted the agenda 72 hours prior to the meeting at the teleconference location listed above, and was providing public access from the same location, pursuant to GC 54953(b)(3). She confirmed that no member of the public was present with her at the teleconference location wishing to speak.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Mayor Haffa led the Pledge.
PRESENTATIONS
1. Recognize City Employees for Milestone Anniversaries and Retirements for 1st Quarter 2023 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Recognized City staff members for milestone anniversaries Date: 4/4/2023
Item No.: 1.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 5 City Council Minutes March 21, 2023
2 City Manager Uslar and Fire Chief Panholzer made a verbal presentation celebrating Raymond Lafontaine, Fire Captain, for his 50 years with the City of Monterey Fire Department. Lucero Valdez, Fire Captain; Robert Wilkins, Fire Engineer; and Karen Larson, Parks and Recreation Director, were also recognized for their milestone anniversaries working for to the City. Mr.
Lafontaine remarked about how much he has enjoyed his fire service career with the City. The Council made comments thanking all of the employees celebrating milestone anniversaries.
Public comment was received from Esther Malkin, who made remarks praising Mr. Lafontaine and his public service.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA)
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Tom Rowley, Steve Lightfoot, Art Pasquinelli, Lorna Moffat, Dennis Duke, Lee Whitney, Jeff Gorman, Jack Ericson, Esther Malkin, Nina Beety, and Jim Cullem.
CONSENT ITEMS
Public comment was not received on the Consent Items. Item 8 was pulled at the request of Tom Rowley.
On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council approved the CONSENT ITEMS except Item 8:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Approval of Minutes
2. March 2, 2023 Adjourned Meeting (Adjourned from February 21, 2023) (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Approved (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)
3. March 7, 2023 Regular Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Approved (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)
Ordinances
4. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending Administrative Provisions of the Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance that do not Require Voter Approval (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3659 (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent) Resolutions
5. Approve Participation in Nationwide Opioid Litigation Settlements with Teva, Allergan, CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart; and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Participation Agreements and Request Direct Payments to the City (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-028 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent) Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 6 City Council Minutes March 21, 2023
3 6. Approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the General Employees of Monterey (GEM) for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-029 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)
7. Authorize the City Manager, or his Designee, to Enter Into an Agreement for Next Generation Radio System (NGEN) Services and Governance with Multiple Public Agencies in Monterey County (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-030 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)
8. Adopt a Resolution Accepting the 2022 General Plan Annual Report (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 23-031 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)
Public comment was received from Tom Rowley, who said that land in Tarpey Flats could be annexed by the City for housing if the Highway 68 Area Plan were updated.
City Manager Uslar spoke to the requirements for annexation as would relate to the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RNHA"). Community Development Director Cole explained that the Highway 68 Area Plan was initiated by the voters.
On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-030 C.S. Accepting the General Plan Annual Report:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
9. Amend Professional Services Agreement with Dudek by $22,358.75 for a total not to exceed $121,956.25 for the development of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) and amend the agreement with the cities of Pacific Grove and Carmel-by-the-Sea for sharing the cost of the CWPP (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-032 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)
10. Authorize the City Manager to Submit a Proposal to Provide Fire Services and Ambulance Services to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea in Response to Their Request (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-033 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)
11. Adopt a Resolution Updating the Council Chamber Use Policy (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-034 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)
12. Adopt a Resolution Ratifying the City Manager’s Proclamation of a Local Emergency Related to the March 2023 Storms (Order 23-002) (Exempt from CEQA Per Article 18, Section 15269.c) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-035 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent) Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 7 City Council Minutes March 21, 2023
4 *** End of Consent Agenda ***
Adjourn to Ocean View Community Services District Meeting: Consent Agenda The Council adjourned to the Ocean View Community Services District meeting.
13. Receive Ocean View Community Services District Quarterly Report (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received report
City Attorney Davi stated that the written report in the agenda packet was the only report.
Public comment was received from Bob Faulis, who gave an update regarding the status of legal proceedings and development with regard to the Ocean View Plaza Project.
Adjourn to City Council Meeting
The Ocean View Community Services District adjourned to the City Council meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
14. Amend and Restate Resolution 22-077, Master Fee Schedule to Adjust Fees for each of the Following Departments and Divisions: City Attorney’s Office, Community Development Department, Parks and Recreation Department, City Clerk's Office, Library & Museums Department, Fire Department, Police Department, Finance Department, Public Works Department, Parking Division, and Harbor Division; 1st Reading to Amend City Code section 19-103 to Increase Cost Recovery for Historic Preservation Fees and Appeals; and Provide Direction to Staff on Hardship Waivers and/or Refunds of Appeal Fees (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) -- Continued from March 7, 2023 Meeting
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-036 C.S., as amended, and passed Ordinance to print (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)
Finance Director King gave the staff presentation outlining the proposed fees and amendments, and answered Councilmembers' questions together with Community Development Director Cole and City Manager Uslar.
Public comment was received from Tom Rowley, who asked the Council not to tie RV and boat storage fees to the Consumer Price Index ("CPI"), and Jeff Gorman, who wondered aloud about the wisdom of removing library fees.
A motion was introduced by Councilmember Haffa, and seconded by Councilmember Garcia, to approve the staff recommendation, adopting the amended resolution and passing the ordinance to print.
The Council discussed the matter. It was stated that the staff-recommended fees were reasonable and not excessive, and that they were intended to cover the costs of City government so that taxpayers weren't made to subsidize the activities of others.
The motion carried by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Williamson Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 8 City Council Minutes March 21, 2023
5 NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
PUBLIC APPEARANCE
15. Amend Resolution 22-086 Authorizing Changes to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Budget to Increase Revenues and Appropriations in the General Fund and Other Funds, Designate Funds into the Economic Uncertainty Fund and Various other Reserve Funds, and Update the Position Control List (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-037 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent) City Manager Uslar and Finance Director King gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Finance Director King noted that the amount listed in the agenda report for the Economic Uncertainty Reserve should have been listed as $2,555,886 as was correctly presented in the draft resolution.
On question from the City Attorney, the Council determined on consensus that they would keep the position control list tied with this mid-year budget update, and address the salary schedule for the new Deputy Public Works Director position at a later time.
On question from the Council, City Manager Uslar spoke about the need to pare down expenditures to balance the budget with regard to available revenues. The Council stated their desire to receive more accurate financial projections, and City Manager Uslar addressed the uncertainty and difficulty with forecasting that had been presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Public comment was received from: Tom Rowley, who spoke about the need to continue dedicating funds to addressing sea level rise and thanked City staff for their dedicated work on the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP); Bob Faulis, who spoke about economic uncertainty and the City's need to plan carefully with reserves; Mitchel Sawhney, who asked the Council to scrutinize expenditures to find ways to reduce spending; and Esther Malkin, who asked the Council to take a hard look at currently feasible revenue levels that could be expected from cannabis retail, and stressed that protecting local renters should be a priority over giving funds to MidPen Housing to create housing.
The Council discussed the matter. It was expressed that while it is positive to be planning for future expenses via reserve funds, even more proactive planning would be better in the next fiscal year's budget. Preference was expressed for moving back to biennial budgets. Future discussions were requested on the subjects of allocating funds toward reopening the Casanova Oak Knoll Park Center, protecting renters, and facade improvements.
The potential was suggested to form a budget or finance committee of residents who would be tasked with creating a more transparent budgeting process. It was stated that the NCIP backlog should be addressed and the program made more efficient before continuing to allocate funds to it. It was stressed that reserve funds should be a top priority. The upcoming sunset of existing taxes was referenced and it was stressed that the City would need to proactively plan to manage the budget, and to maintain street pavement quality, going forward after those revenue sources disappear.
On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-037 C.S. to Amend Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 5, Packet Page 9 City Council Minutes March 21, 2023
6 Resolution No. 22-086 C.S. Authorizing Changes to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Budget to Increase Revenues and Appropriations in the General Fund and Other Funds, Designate Funds into the Economic Uncertainty Fund and Various other Reserve Funds, and Update the Position Control List:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
16. Adopt a Resolution Approving the Establishment of the Section 115 Trust for Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB), Administered by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS), Authorize the Finance Director or Their Designee to be the City’s Plan Administrator, Authorize the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents to Establish the Section 115 Trust and Approve Initial Funding of $2 Million. (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 23-038 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent) Finance Director King gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions together with City Manager Uslar.
Public comment was received from Mitchel Sawhney, who suggested using more of the City’s budget surplus to pay into its unfunded pension liability.
The Council expressed support for the staff recommendation.
On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Mayor Williamson, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 23-038 C.S. Approving the Establishment of the Section 115 Trust for Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) and Other PostEmployment Benefits (OPEB), Administered by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS), Authorize the Finance Director or Their Designee to be the City’s Plan Administrator, Authorize the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents to Establish the Section 115 Trust and Approve Initial Funding of $2 Million:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Barber requested that the City write a letter to the State legislature and PG&E regarding the impact on the City of recent power losses due to the extreme weather and the need for improvements to the infrastructure.
Mayor Williamson echoed the need to address climate uncertainty and said that PG&E's reimbursements are too low to address actual losses due to electrical outages. He praised City staff for their work addressing record numbers of calls for assistance during the recent storms.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 6, Packet Page 10 City Council Minutes March 21, 2023
7 None made.
ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 6:31 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 7, Packet Page 11 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 17, Section 112.4 – Wireless Communications Facilities and Finding the Same Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act On March 2, 2023, the City Council passed the draft wireless ordinance to print, as amended to require a 100-foot setback in R-1-zoned areas and the PC-zoned areas that cover Skyline Forest.
In accordance with this direction, staff added the following clarifying language to the Ordinance:
Section 38-112.4.F.10
c. Placement of a wireless communications facility within 100 feet of any parcel either in the R-1 zoning district or in PC zones that cover Skyline Forest but not governed by a Specific Plan requires an effective prohibition showing.
Attachments: 1. Ordinance
e: All Neighborhood and Business Associations
Wireless Interest List
Former Wireless Subcommittee Members
Verizon
AT&T
Comcast
T-Mobile
Dish Wireless
Qualtek Wireless
Jean Rasch
Nina Beety
Susan Nine
Hans Jannasch
Pat Venza
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Date: 4/4/2023
Item No.: 2.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 12 ORDINANCE NO. xx
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING AND REPLACING MONTEREY CITY CODE CHAPTER 38, ARTICLE 17, SECTION 112.4 – WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND FINDING THE SAME
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:
SECTION 1:
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey currently regulates the placement, design, construction and modification of wireless communications facilities in the City of Monterey; WHEREAS, these regulations are designed to protect and promote the public’s health, safety, and welfare;
WHEREAS, the City’s aesthetics, unique historic setting, and views benefit residents, attract visitors worldwide, enhance property values, are a catalyst for economic development, and increase the City’s tax base;
WHEREAS, the City finds that wireless communications facilities should not be placed in the rights-of-way at such points or in such manner as to incommode the public use of the same, except as such placement is required under federal law; and because of the impacts on the City and its residents, should not be placed at certain points or in such manner on public or private property unless required by federal law;
WHEREAS, the City has amended its Personal Wireless Facilities Ordinance several times. The most recent amendments include Ordinance 3498 (April 15, 2014), Ordinance 3552 (October 18, 2016, and Ordinance 3586 (October 16, 2018). In addition, the City adopted Ordinance 3609 (February 4, 2020) and added Chapter 32, Article 8, to require (subject to approved deviations and certain exclusions) undergrounding of all new utilities used for communications service, regardless of the type of utility proposing the installation, in all new development and for existing utilities that are part of a redevelopment project; WHEREAS, on August 7, 2018, the City Council appointed a Wireless Subcommittee which met 20 times in 2018, and five times in 2019 until it was dissolved on December 17, 2019; WHEREAS, the Wireless Subcommittee drafted the ordinance and it was edited by staff; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council find that to avoid unsightly visual clutter that would degrade the visual character of the streets and incommode the public enjoyment and use of the rights-of-way, wireless communications facilities placed in the rightsof-way should be separated from each other and from certain non-commercial properties unless required by federal law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on August 9, September 13, September 27, 2022 and October 25, 2022, took public testimony, held a discussion, and voted to recommend City Council adoption of the Zoning Ordinance amendment;
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 13
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
2 WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023, the City Council received a presentation from outside counsel on the legal framework applicable to wireless facilities and received public comment; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the project consists of a zoning ordinance amendment to modify existing regulations affecting wireless communication facilities, which would not result in any changes in density or traffic patterns. Additionally, the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Class 8) as an action taken by a regulatory agency to assure the enhancement and protection of the environment, which includes the visual environment of the City.
Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.
Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The environment is not particularly sensitive because the project is purely a zoning ordinance amendment. Therefore, impacts would not occur. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. No cumulative impact would occur because the project is purely a zoning ordinance amendment that would regulate the visual appearance of communications structures in the City right-of-way with uniform, objective standards. Therefore, cumulative impacts would not occur.
Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. There are no unusual circumstances with this project because the project is purely a zoning ordinance amendment and the land use limitations imposed by the amendment are commonplace under Class 5 and Class 8 categorical exemptions. Therefore, significant impacts would not occur. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed on a project-by-project basis for CEQA applicability.
Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project is purely a zoning ordinance amendment, which would not damage scenic resources, but rather, assure their protection. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 14
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
3 Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The project is purely a zoning ordinance amendment regulating the visual effect of communications structures. Therefore, impacts to hazardous waste sites would not occur. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project is purely a zoning ordinance amendment that would regulate the visual effect of communications structures in the City right-of-way, and not any historic resources. Therefore, impacts to historic resources would not occur. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
NOW THEREFORE, THE MONTEREY CITY COUNCIL DECLARES, as follows:
SECTION 2: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby adopted by the City Council.
SECTION 3: CEQA The passage of the ordinance has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State and local CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The City, acting as Lead Agency, has determined the Project qualifies as being Categorically Exempt from CEQA Guidelines pursuant to Article 19, Sections 15305 and 15308, Classes 5 and 8.
SECTION 4: Section 38-112.4 is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following:
38-112.4 Wireless Communications Facilities
A. Purpose.
This section is enacted to reasonably regulate, to the greatest extent permitted under California and federal law, the placement, design, construction, and modification of wireless communications facilities within the City of Monterey. These regulations are designed to protect and promote public’s health, safety, and welfare, including by minimizing adverse aesthetic impacts and protecting persons and property from potential dangers. The City’s aesthetics, unique historic setting, and views benefit residents, attract visitors worldwide, enhance property values, are a catalyst for economic development, and increase the City’s tax base. The City’s economy, as well as the well-being of all who work, visit or live in the City depends in part on maintaining the City’s beauty.
B. Applicability.
1. The provisions in this section shall be applied to all applications for new wireless communications facilities and all applications for changes to existing wireless communications facilities filed after the effective date of this section, unless the wireless communications facility is exempt from the permitting requirement. For all other Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 15
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
4 applications, the provisions of Section 38-112.4 as it existed before the effective date shall apply.
2. This section is not intended to exempt wireless communications facilities from any applicable laws.
3. This section shall be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with state and federal law.
4. The time within which any act provided by this Section is to be done has been computed to permit the City to comply with state and federal regulations governing the time for action on applications for wireless communications facilities, and may be extended by the City Manager where an extension will not result in a violation of those state or federal regulations, or otherwise prejudice the public, or shortened by the City Manager when necessary to prevent a violation of applicable law.
C. General Requirements.
1. Every wireless communications facility, whether or not installed pursuant to a use permit, shall:
a. Comply at all times with Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) standards for radiofrequency (“RF”) emissions currently in effect or as may be amended;
b. Comply with all applicable state, federal and local laws and requirements; and, c. Comply with conditions applicable to encroachments if located in the public rights-of-way.
2. No wireless communications facilities may be installed speculatively.
3. All wireless communications facilities located within an airport safety zone as defined by the Monterey Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), or an airspace protection zone as defined by the FAA shall comply with applicable criteria in the ALUCP, and FAA standards. No work may proceed on a permit except in compliance with such standards, or without issuance of any required determinations of no hazard to aviation. No work may proceed on a permit where an applicant has failed to provide notices or seek reviews required under applicable requirements. Provided, nothing herein requires compliance with ALUCP standards where such standards have been overruled in accordance with applicable law. Without limiting the foregoing, under the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in effect as of April 1, 2022:
a. In Runway Protection Zone 1, all structures are prohibited except facilities set by aeronautical function. No objects may exceed FAR Part 77 height limits as determined by the FAA. The City shall refer all objects within Zone 1 to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and FAA.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 16
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
5 b. In Inner Airport/Departure Zone 2, Inner Turning Zone 3, and Sideline Safety Zone 5, wireless communication facilities shall comply with the following development conditions: i) Airport disclosure notice shall be provided; ii) Structures shall be located the maximum distance from extended runway centerline; and iii) The City shall refer objects greater than 35’ tall to the ALUC and FAA.
c. In Outer Approach/Departure Zone 4 and Airport Property Zone 6, wireless communication facilities shall comply with the following development conditions:
i) Airport disclosure notice shall be provided; ii) The City shall refer objects greater than 70’ tall to the ALUC and FAA.
d. In Airport Influence Area Zone 7, wireless communication facilities shall comply with the following development conditions: i) Airport disclosure notice shall be provided; ii) The City shall refer objects greater than 100’ tall to the ALUC and FAA; iii) New structures are prohibited on existing terrain that penetrates 14 CFR Part 77 surfaces; and iv) New structures require additional airspace analysis and FAA Form 7560 within the 50-foot terrain penetration buffer. e. All structures that could penetrate 14 CFR Part 77 elevations shall file Form 7460 with the FAA.
D. Planning Applications and Approvals Required
1. Use Permit Review. All new wireless communications facilities and all modifications to existing wireless communications facilities require a use permit issued pursuant to Section 38-156 et seq., except those subject to administrative review under this section.
The use permit for placement in the public rights-of-way, if granted, shall be deemed to constitute the encroachment permit required by Monterey City Code Chapter 32, Article
8. The application for a use permit shall satisfy all the requirements for an encroachment permit, and without limitation any use permit issued shall be subject to all conditions set forth in, and regulations adopted pursuant to, that Chapter.
2. Administrative Review for Temporary Wireless Communication Facilities: A use permit may be issued for a temporary wireless communications facility by the Community Development Director under this section.
a. Application. An application for a temporary wireless communications facility shall provide a detailed description of the facility including: how it will be anchored or otherwise supported; where it will be placed; how it will be designed, secured, and marked to protect against harm to persons or property; the purpose of the placement; the duration it will be in place; a certification by a California licensed structural engineer that the installation will be structurally safe; and the information required by Sections 38-112.4 (E)(3)(a),(b), (q) and (r). b. Approval. Administrative approval shall be granted if:
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 6, Packet Page 17
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
6 i. The facility meets the definition of a temporary wireless communications facility;
ii. The proposed facility will be placed and protected to prevent hazards to persons and property, and so as not to unreasonably interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic or disrupt the use and enjoyment of adjoining properties;
iii. There is an appropriate plan for removal of the facility and restoration of property affected by it; and
iv. Except in the case of an emergency, the temporary wireless communications facility is not proposed for a residential zoning district (i.e., R-E, R-1, R-2, R-3 and any PC Zone not governed by a Specific Plan).
c. Conditions. Each permit for a temporary wireless communications facility shall be granted for the shortest period of time it will take to achieve the purposes for which it was installed. The permittee’s period for removal and restoration shall be based upon the work required to remove the facility and restore affected property, and shall not exceed ten (10) days except for good cause shown as determined by the Director. Any facility that is not removed from private property by the date specified in the permit is hereby declared a public nuisance, which may be remedied pursuant to Monterey City Code Chapter 22, Article 4 and any other remedy allowed by law. Any facility that is not removed from City property by the date specified in the permit may be removed by the City and the City may restore affected property and charge the permittee the costs thereof. d. Emergency Installation. A permit shall be obtained before a facility is installed except: (1) in the case of an emergency declared by federal, state, regional, or local officials; (2) when it is necessary to install a facility to immediately address an unanticipated service outage; or (3) when immediate action by a person or agency performing a public service is required to protect life or property in response to an emergency. In such cases, an application shall be submitted within five business days after the date of installation. The time for filing may be extended by the Director as needed based on the circumstances giving rise to the need for the temporary placement. If an application is not timely filed, or is denied, in addition to being subject to any other remedy available at law or equity, the temporary wireless communications facility will constitute a public nuisance, which on private property may be remedied pursuant to Monterey City Code Chapter 22, Article 4. Without limiting the foregoing, if the temporary wireless facility is on public property, and a timely application is not filed, or is denied, the facility shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours of failure to timely file, or the denial, as applicable, unless the Director specifies a later, alternative time for removal and restoration. If the facility is not removed and property restored as required, the City may remove the facility, and restore the property, and charge for costs associated with the same.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 18
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
7 E. Applications and Submittals
1. This section establishes minimum application requirements for wireless communications facilities other than eligible facilities requests, for which applications shall be submitted and reviewed as provided in Section 38-112.4(G).
2. Application Required. Each application for a permit under this section shall be submitted on a form prescribed by the Director, in an electronic searchable format, and accompanied by a fee in the amount set by resolution. The Director may amend the submittal form and requirements as the Director deems appropriate to achieve the purposes of this section.
3. Application Content. Each application shall be signed by the owner of the wireless communications facility. If the applicant is not a provider of wireless services, it shall provide a letter from each wireless service provider that will use the facility affirming: it will use the facility proposed, if approved; that it will make available such information as the City may require to act upon the application, either directly or through applicant; and will ensure that any representations made to the City regarding the services it will provide, or equipment it will use, are true, accurate, and complete. Each application shall include at least the following:
a. Written Authorizations. A written authorization signed by the owner(s) of the property and supporting structure consenting to the placement of the wireless communications facility as proposed. An authorization is not required as part of the application for placement on City-owned or controlled property, but appropriate consents and contracts shall be obtained before a permit may issue. b. Licenses. Evidence that the applicant and operator hold all current licenses and registrations from the FCC and California Secretary of State where such license(s) or registration(s) are necessary to provide wireless services using the proposed wireless communications facility.
c. Notice and Proof of Service of Notice. Applicant shall mail notice of the application to all persons entitled to notice under Section 38-159. In addition to providing the information required by Section 38-159(D), the notice shall provide a brief description of the wireless communications facility and its location; identify what entities will own or operate any part of the wireless communications facility; state that the application may be reviewed online as posted by the Planning Department; and state that comments may be submitted to the Planning Department. The notice shall be mailed by the applicant on the day the application is filed and a proof of service on a form provided by the City shall be provided with the application.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 8, Packet Page 19
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
8 d. Effect of Deadlines. To the extent that filing of the wireless application would establish a deadline for action on any other permit, agreement, or other authorization that may be required in connection with the wireless communications facility, the application shall include complete copies of applications for every such required permit, including without limitation, electrical permits, building permits, traffic control permits, and excavation permits, with all engineering completed, and with all fees associated with each permit. Provided, such additional applications are not required if applicant agrees, in the application for the wireless communication facility, that any such deadline will not begin to run until a separate and complete application for those permits is submitted.
e. Project Description Letter. A full written description of the proposed facility and the work that will be required to install or modify it, which description shall include whether:
i. the facility will be on a new, existing, or replacement supporting structure; ii. excavation work will be required and where it will occur; iii. foundational work will be required; and
iv. if the application is for a modification to an existing wireless communications facility, or a support structure, the application shall identify whether the existing wireless facility or support structure was installed pursuant to a permit and if so provide the original permit and any permit modifications; describe any camouflage and concealment elements, and describe how the modifications to the facility or proposed support structure will maintain the concealment elements, and how it will preserve other requirements intended to camouflage or otherwise limit the visual impacts of a wireless communications facility, or support structure; and state whether the existing wireless communications facility or support structure is currently in compliance with such original permit and any permit modifications.
f. Equipment Specifications. Specifications that show the dimensions (height, width, depth, and cubic feet) for all components of the proposed wireless communications facility and the support structure, and the weight of all components of the wireless communications facility and any replacement or new support structure. If the wireless communications facility will be placed on an existing or replacement support structure, the specifications shall include:
i. a clear description of all components of the existing support structure, and how it is anchored/supported;
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 9, Packet Page 20
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
9 ii. a clear description of all attachments to the existing support structure and their dimensions; and
iii. a description of changes that will be made in connection with an attachment to, or replacement of, the existing structure, including but not limited to, steps that may be taken to strengthen or secure the supporting structure.
g. Lease Area. If the wireless communication facility will be installed pursuant to a lease or license, a plan depicting the leased or licensed area in relationship to the proposed facility.
h. Plot Plan. A plot plan of the lot, premises, or parcel of land showing the exact location of the proposed wireless facility (including all related equipment and cables), exact location and dimensions of all buildings, parking lots, walkways, property lines pertaining to the area leased or otherwise dedicated to the use of the wireless communications facility. For freestanding facilities, the plans shall indicate surrounding grade, structures, and landscaping from all sides. If new ground mounted equipment or structures (retaining walls, etc.) are proposed in the public right-of-way, a site survey with topography lines shown in 1’ intervals be submitted. The survey should show all improvements in the public right of way within 10’ of the proposed area of disturbance.
i. Licensed Site Survey. If the project involves new ground mounted equipment, grading or fill, a site survey is required.
j. Elevations and Roof Plan. Building elevations and roof plan including exact location and dimensions of equipment proposed. For freestanding facilities, the plans shall indicate surrounding grades, structures, and landscaping from all sides.
k. Screening. Proposed landscaping and maintenance plan for the life of the facility and/or non-vegetative screening (including required safety fencing) plan for all aspects of the facility.
l. Manufacturer’s Updated Specification. Manufacturer’s specifications, including installation and maintenance specifications, exact location of cables, wiring, materials, color, and any support devices that may be required. m. Photographs and Photo Simulations. Accurate color photographs and photo simulations that show the proposed facility both close up at street level and in context of the site from reasonable line-of-sight locations from public streets or other viewpoints which would reasonably be expected to sustain the most significant adverse aesthetic impacts due to such factors as proximity to the site or their elevation relative to the site, together with a map that shows the photo location of each view angle.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 10, Packet Page 21
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
10 n. Hazard Compliance Certification. For placement of wireless communications facilities on utility poles, street light poles, or towers in the public rights-of-way, as part of the safety certification required by Section 38-112.4(E)(3)(o):
i. If the application is for a wireless communications facility in a “High Hazard Zone” (“HHZ”) (as demarcated on the current version of the California Public Utility Commission Fire-Threat Map), and is to be placed on a supporting structure that applicant contends is or will be under the jurisdiction of General Order (“GO”) 95 (“GO 95”), or GO 165, or GO 166, the applicant shall submit documentation showing the HHZ where the wireless communications facility will be located and whether all required Fire Prevention Plans are in place. Applicant shall also submit documentation showing whether the supporting structure has been inspected and when; the results of the inspection (if any), and proof that the structure, any existing facilities, and planned structures and facilities will comply with standards for placement on structures in a HHZ. If existing or proposed structures or facilities are or will be non-compliant in any respect, the application shall identify what applicant will do to ensure the structure and existing and proposed facilities are compliant. ii. If the application is for a wireless communications facility in a HHZ on a supporting structure or tower that applicant contends is not under the jurisdiction of GO 95, GO 165, and GO 166, the applicant shall submit documentation showing:
a) The specific HHZ in which the wireless communications facilities will be located, as demarcated on the current version of the California Public Utility Commission Fire-Threat Map;
b) A description of the steps the applicant has taken to reduce hazards to public safety, including fire safety hazards, that may be caused by the proposed wireless communications facility or any supporting structure; and
c) What applicant will do to inspect and maintain the safety of the wireless communications facility, or any supporting structure which steps shall be at least as rigorous as if GO 95, GO 165, and GO 166 applied.
d) The documentation shall be supported by sworn statements from qualified and California licensed engineers attesting that the wireless communications facility and any supporting structure as installed will comply with applicable law, and be as safe as facilities and structures which are subject to the General Orders.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 11, Packet Page 22
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
11 o. Safety Certification. Applicant shall submit structural analyses prepared by a licensed or registered California engineer or engineers qualified to attest to the facts showing that the portions of the wireless communications facility placed on or within the tower or supporting structures will be safely supported by the tower, or supporting structure, and also showing that all components of the structure and the wireless communication facility comply with applicable safety standards. p. Noise study. A noise study certified by an acoustical engineer licensed by the State of California for the proposed facility and all associated equipment including environmental control units, sump pumps, temporary backup power generators, and permanent backup power generators, demonstrating that the facility will comply with the city’s noise regulations when fully operational. For example, if a wireless communications facility is planned to include multiple cooling units, the noise study will be performed assuming that all the units will be in place and operational. The noise study shall also include an analysis of the manufacturers’ specifications for all noise-emitting equipment and a depiction of the proposed equipment relative to all adjacent property lines. A study is not required if the proposed facility does not contain equipment that generates noise. q. Radio/antenna detail. Information regarding the radio units that are proposed to be installed at the site, including the manufacturer’s name and specifications, and the actual frequencies and power levels (in watts effective radio power [ERP]) for the proposed wireless communications facility and for any existing wireless communications facility that shall be considered in determining compliance with FCC RF standards.
r. Radio Frequency (RF) Compliance Report. Applicant shall submit a RF exposure compliance report prepared by a licensed RF engineer. The report shall include a certification by the engineer that the facility complies with FCC RF standards, be prepared in accordance with FCC guidelines, and include the calculations and information on which the engineer relied. The report shall clearly identify any areas where exposure would exceed occupational or general FCC exposure limits, vertically and horizontally, and shall include drawings that show those areas in relation to the proposed structure, adjoining buildings, and property lines. The report shall clearly identify any measures that shall be taken to ensure compliance with FCC rules. The report’s analysis will be based on a “worst case” scenario, and assuming all antennas are operating at maximum output. The report shall be signed by the licensed RF engineer and include a certification, under penalty of perjury, that the content thereof is true and correct. s. Underground vault and venting plans, if any element of the wireless communications facility will be placed underground. The underground vault and venting plans shall include manufacturer’s specifications for cover, color, materials, dimensions, and reveal at the sidewalk, and evidence that all enclosures will comply with California Public Utilities Code standards for underground utility enclosures.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 12, Packet Page 23
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
12 t. Master Plan. A master plan which identifies the location of the proposed facility in relation to all existing wireless communications facilities used by the wireless service providers that will use the facility; and if the facility proposed is part of a planned network, the approximate location of other planned facilities. u. For any wireless communications facility located within the Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area (AIA), the applicant shall provide written evidence to the City demonstrating the following: 1) applicant submittal to the FAA of the FAA Form 7460-1 (Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration) or other equivalent FAA form notifying the FAA of the proposed construction or alteration of any wireless communications facility in the AIA that has the potential to obstruct or pose a hazard to air navigation, navigational aids, or navigational facilities, or has the potential to interfere with any aircraft flight components affecting air safety, except for minor alterations that do not have this potential; 2) written authorization from the FAA or other official FAA determination of no objection to the proposed construction or alteration; and 3) compliance with all applicable FAA and FCC rules, regulations, and standards.
v. If applicant contends that denial of the application would result in an effective prohibition under federal law, or otherwise violate federal law such that the application shall be approved, it shall provide all facts that it relies upon and clear and convincing evidence for that claim. Where the applicant is not a wireless service provider, the information shall be provided for the affected wireless service providers. Applicants who claim that denial would be a “prohibition” or “effective prohibition” are encouraged to address at least the following:
i. If it is contended that compliance with an aesthetic standard is not reasonable, explain why in detail, and describe alternatives considered in determining whether service objectives for the wireless service provider could be reasonably satisfied by other means.
ii. What existing or planned personal wireless services the affected wireless service provider would be effectively prohibited from providing if the application is denied.
iii. The factual basis for any claim that denial will substantially impair a wireless service provider’s ability to provide a personal wireless service, and the information relied upon in support of that claim. iv. The factual basis for any claim that denial would result in a prohibition or effective prohibition under applicable precedent in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the information relied upon in support of that claim.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 13, Packet Page 24
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
13 v. Current signal coverage, by providing maps showing existing coverage in the area to be serviced by the proposed facilities (including areas outside the City, if applicable). In order to be treated as probative, maps shall be dated, and based on data collected within the prior six months or less, to reflect all facilities installed inside and outside of the City as of the date of the application that may affect coverage.
vi. The exact geographic area that would be served by the proposed facility, using coverage maps that describe the distances between the proposed and existing sites that show how the proposed service area fits into and is necessary to each affected wireless service provider’s provision of personal wireless services given existing facilities, and planned or pending modifications or additions to those facilities that that may affect the provision of services.
vii. Alternatives considered within and outside the City prior to the submission of the application, including but not limited to alternatives that take advantage of software capabilities or reconfiguration of existing sites; the reason the alternative chosen was selected, and the reason other alternatives were not selected with supporting evidence; and why applicant contends existing sites could not be used to provide service. viii. Provide results of drive tests within the specific geographic areas where an effective prohibition is being claimed. In order to be treated as probative, maps shall be dated, and based on data collected within the prior six months or less, to reflect all facilities installed inside and outside of the City as of the date of the application that may affect coverage.
The data shall specify the date and time of the test, the location in longitude and latitude of each point at which signal strength was recorded, and each signal strength recorded for each frequency at which the carrier provides personal wireless services to its customers. The signal strength data shall be provided in a separate table for each frequency. Drive test maps shall be submitted depicting the actual signal strengths recorded during the drive test for each frequency at which the carrier provides personal wireless services to its customers. ix. Provide dropped call records and denial of service records evidencing the number and percentage of calls within which the carrier’s customers were unable to initiate, maintain and conclude the use of the carrier’s personal wireless services without actual loss of service or interruption of service.
4. Presubmittal Conference. Before application submittal, applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule and attend a voluntary presubmittal conference with City staff for all wireless communications facilities applications. The presubmittal conference is intended to foster cooperative discussion between applicants and staff, identify potential avoidable issues, and generally streamline the application review process to occur after the applicant formally submits its application. Requests for voluntary presubmittal Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 14, Packet Page 25
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
14 conferences will not be scheduled until the city receives payment of the associated fee in the amount set by City Council resolution.
5. Application Submittal Appointment. All applications for wireless communications facilities use permits shall be submitted to the City at a prescheduled appointment with the Director. During the application submittal appointment, or thereafter, the Director shall review the application materials and determine whether the application is complete. If the application is found to be complete, the Director will refer the application to the Planning Commission. If the application is not complete, the Director shall issue a written notice of incompleteness specifying the information missing from the application.
6. Applications Available Online. Except where good cause has been shown, as determined by the Director, applications will be posted on the City website within five working days of filing or as soon thereafter as practical, along with communications between the City and the applicant regarding those filings (including additions and modifications to the filing). The City shall post notice promptly when the application is deemed “complete.” The City’s failure to post the applications by the time required shall not affect the validity of any application submitted under this section.
7. Notice of Applications Within Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area. For any wireless communication facility located within the Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area, the City shall, upon deeming such application “complete”, provide written notice of the application to the staff of the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission and the Monterey Regional Airport District.
F. Location, Design and Development Standards
1. This section establishes design and development standards for wireless communications facilities and supporting structures, other than wireless communications facilities and supporting structures modified as part of an eligible facilities request. The Planning Commission may develop and approve, for mandatory use, neighborhood specific design standards that are consistent with this section.
2. Overall Goals. It is the overall goal of the City to minimize the visual impact of wireless facilities; to minimize the number and height of supporting structures that may intrude upon view sheds; to maintain the overall visual character of individual neighborhoods, to encourage placement away from residential units; to minimize the number of structures in the public rights-of-way and prevent interference with the other uses of the public rights-of-way.
3. General Principle for All Locations. The proposed wireless communications facility, and any supporting structure (to the extent installation requires installation of a new or replacement supporting structure, or any change in the height of an existing supporting structure) shall be of the minimum size necessary to serve the defined service objectives of the wireless service provider(s) that will be using the facility.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 15, Packet Page 26
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
15 a. Exception. Section 38-112.4(F)(3) does not apply when a larger facility is consistent with a stealth design approved by the City, or appropriate as part of the incorporation of a wireless communications facility into a structure such as a street light, where the facility shall mimic the height of existing street lights.
4. Design Standards for Facilities Off the Public Rights-of-Way - General Design and Aesthetic Standards. All new facilities and changes to existing facilities shall conform to the standards in this section.
a. Concealment. Wireless communications facilities shall incorporate concealment elements sufficient to render the facility stealth, as appropriate for the proposed location and design, or otherwise incorporate elements that will camouflage or limit the visual impacts of a wireless communications facility as well or better than a stealth facility. All facilities shall be designed to visually blend into the surrounding area and shall be compatible with the character of the area in which they are located, as described in the General Plan and provisions governing development of particular areas.
b. Height. Wireless communications facilities, and any supporting structure shall not exceed the applicable height limit for structures in the applicable zoning district. c. Setbacks. Wireless communications facilities may not encroach into any applicable setback for structures in the applicable zoning district. d. Future Collocations. Applicants shall design wireless communications facilities to accommodate future collocated facilities to the extent feasible, and to the extent consistent with the other provisions of this Code.
e. Noise. A wireless communications facility shall comply with the noise standards in the City Code. Applicant may be required to install noise attenuating or baffling materials and/or other measures, including but not limited to walls or landscape features, as the City deemed necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance with noise limits.
f. Lights. Unless otherwise required under FAA or FCC regulations, applicants may install only timed or motion-sensitive light controllers and lights, and shall install such lights so as to avoid illumination impacts to adjacent properties to the maximum extent feasible. The City may, in its discretion, exempt an applicant from the foregoing requirement when the applicant demonstrates a substantial public safety need, or applicant shows that the light’s effect is negligible. All aircraft warning lighting shall use lighting enclosures that avoid illumination impacts to properties in the City to the maximum extent feasible. This section does not apply to designs that are intended to mimic or to be incorporated within lighting structures on the property where the facility will be located. g. Signs. No wireless communications facility may display any signage or advertisements unless expressly allowed by the City in a written approval, recommended under FCC regulations, or required by law or permit condition.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 16, Packet Page 27
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
16 Every facility shall at all times display signage that accurately identifies the facility owner, provides the facility owner’s unique site number, and a local or toll-free telephone number to contact the facility owner’s operations center. “Signage” does not include approved banners or directional signage used to conceal a or camouflage a wireless communications facility.
h. Fencing or Enclosures. Any fencing or enclosures proposed in connection with a wireless communications facility shall blend with the natural and/or manmade surroundings. Additional landscape features may be required to screen fences.
Barbed wire, razor ribbon, electrified fences and similar measures for securing a wireless communications facility are not permitted.
i. Landscaping. Landscaping may be required to visually screen facilities from adjacent properties or public view or to provide a backdrop to conceal the facilities. All proposed landscaping is subject to architectural review approval by the Director, unless the Director refers the landscaping plan to the Architectural Review Committee. Landscaping may be required for the purposes that include, but are not limited to, the following:
i. To preserve existing on-site and associated access way vegetation and trees to the extent feasible at all times before, during and after construction.
ii. To minimize disturbance of the existing topography. iii. To provide screening of wireless communications facilities and access roads appurtenant to the wireless communications facility which screening may require planting of additional trees and other vegetation around the facility, and along access roads.
j. Applicants shall use flat rate electric metering, if available, so that no meter is required. If a ground-mounted or pole-mounted meter is used, applicant will provide information as to available form factors and show how those can be incorporated into the design to minimize visual impacts and, where possible, make the meter stealth.
k. Ground-Mounted Equipment. Where above-ground, ground-mounted facilities are permitted, in locations visible or accessible to the public, applicants shall conceal outdoor ground-mounted equipment, with opaque fences or landscape features that mimic the adjacent structure(s) (including, but not limited to, dumpster corrals and other accessory structures).
5. Building-Mounted Facilities. These requirements are in addition to design standards in Section 38-112.4(F)(4)(a)-(g) and (k).
a. General Design Preferences. Building-mounted wireless communications facilities shall be one of the following, in this order of preference; provided that Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 17, Packet Page 28
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
17 any change to any building within the National Historic Landmark Districts, local historic district (H-D) or any change to individually zoned historic property (H-1 and H-2) shall be fully consistent with design requirements and limitations on modifications to historic properties and buildings.
i. The wireless communications facilities shall be completely concealed and architecturally integrated into the facade or rooftop-mounted base stations with no visible impacts (including shadowing) from any publicly accessible areas at ground level (examples include, but are not limited to, antennas behind existing parapet walls or facades replaced with RF-transparent material and finished to mimic the replaced materials, provided such replacement is consistent with the historic preservation of a structure); then
ii. Wireless communications facilities may be completely concealed new structures or appurtenances designed to mimic the support structure’s original architecture and proportions (examples include, but are not limited to, cupolas, steeples, chimneys and water tanks), subject to height limits applicable to the area where the facility is located, and subject to standards that apply for similar modifications that do not involve wireless communications facilities.
b. Rooftop-Mounted Equipment. Consistent with Section 112.4(F)(5), and subject to Section 38-112.4(F)(5)(a)(i), and subject to Section 112.4(F)(4)(a), the City will not approve unscreened rooftop wireless communications facilities if the applicant has the right to increase the facility height so that the equipment would become visible to public view from ground level on adjoining properties or from the public rights-of-way, unless the applicant shows that because of the design proposed, or the location, approval of the design will be no more intrusive and consistent with the goals of this section.
c. Facade-Mounted Equipment. Applicants shall conceal all facade-mounted transmission equipment behind screen walls as flush to the facade as practicable. The City may not approve any “pop-out” screen boxes unless such design is architecturally consistent with the original support structure. The City may not approve any exposed facade-mounted antennas, which includes exposed antennas painted to match the façade, unless the applicant shows that because of the design proposed, or the location, approval of the design will be no more intrusive and consistent with the goals of this section.
6. Freestanding Towers Outside of Rights-of-Way. In addition to satisfying the requirements of Section 38-112.4(F)(4)):
a. General Design Preferences. All applicants shall, to the extent feasible and appropriate for the proposed location, design wireless communications facilities Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 18, Packet Page 29
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
18 on new towers according to the following preferences, ordered from most preferred to least preferred:
i. Faux architectural stealth structures including, but not limited to, sculptures, clock towers, and flagpoles of a size, type and proportions, and with design features consistent with the neighborhood and adjacent structures; then
ii. Faux trees in a stealth design of a size, type and proportions consistent with nearby trees, and landscaped and located near other vegetation to blend in and appear part of the natural environment.
b. Tower-Mounted Equipment. All tower-mounted equipment shall be mounted as close to the tower as possible, or integrated within it to reduce its visual profile.
Applicants shall mount non-antenna, tower-mounted equipment (including, but not limited to, remote radio units/heads, surge suppressors, and utility demarcation boxes) directly behind the antennas to the maximum extent feasible, and to the extent not inconsistent with a design under Section 38-112.4(F)(6)(a). c. Ground-Mounted Equipment. All equipment should generally be incorporated into the design of a tower proposed pursuant to Section 38-112.4(F)(6)(a)(i)-(ii).
Where that is not technically feasible, and unless undergrounded, applicants shall use a stealth design or may be permitted to conceal ground-mounted equipment with opaque fences or other opaque enclosures, consistent with Section 38-112.4(F)(4)(a) provided that the concealment can be maintained throughout the term of the permit. The City shall require, as a condition of approval, design and/or landscape features in addition to other concealment when necessary to blend the equipment or enclosure into the surrounding environment.
7. Public Rights-of-Way Facilities.
a. Limitation on facilities permitted. The only wireless communications facilities permitted in the public rights-of-way are:
i. Modified facilities which shall be permitted pursuant to an eligible facilities request, or
ii. Wireless communications facilities used in the provision of personal wireless services, which, absent a showing of effective prohibition, shall be small wireless facilities; or
iii. Wireless communications facilities, or other wireless equipment or structures that the City shall permit a person holding a state or local franchise to install pursuant to that franchise.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 19, Packet Page 30
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
19 b. Structure Preference. The City’s preference for wireless communications facilities in the public right-of-way in order of preference is as follows:
i. Locate antennas on existing or replacement light poles and other vertical structures owned or controlled by City that City chooses to make available for placement of wireless communications facilities; then ii. Locate antennas on existing or replacement supporting structures; then iii. New support structures or towers in the public rights-of-way. c. Wireless communications facilities in the public rights-of-way shall be designed in compliance with Section 38-112(F)(4), except,
i. Setback requirements applicable to private property do not apply (requirements for setbacks from curbs and walkways applicable to users of the public rights-of-way, as well as sight line requirements do apply); ii. Wireless communications facilities and any support structure shall satisfy the height requirements of this subsection 7;
iii. Fencing and enclosure requirements applicable to private property do not apply (requirements related to fencing required to prevent hazards to pedestrians or vehicles, as may be required by applicable design manuals, do apply).
d. Undergrounded Equipment. Applicants shall comply with applicable undergrounding requirements, including the requirements of Section 32-08.03-
04. Vaults shall be installed as if the same were subject to regulation by the California Public Utilities Commission, and shall satisfy that agency’s safety standards.
e. Ground-Mounted Equipment. To the extent that the applicant qualifies for a deviation or exception from an undergrounding requirement, applicants shall only install the antenna and wiring on the support structure, or tower and all other equipment shall be ground-mounted, unless:
i. ground-mounted equipment cannot be installed consistent with other applicable requirements, including the encroachment conditions; or ii. where part of an approved stealth facility, or if integrated into a design for a street light pole or other vertical structure which design conforms to, and is consistent with the design of those facilities; or iii. based on the permitted location, and available designs, placement of equipment on the support structure or tower will have a lesser overall Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 20, Packet Page 31
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
20 impact on properties affected by the placement, and on pedestrian or vehicular use of the public right-of-way.
f. In the event that the City approves ground-mounted equipment, the applicant shall conform to the following requirements:
i. Self-Contained Cabinet or Shroud. City may require placement of the equipment in a cabinet or shroud to conceal equipment, or where appropriate to protect persons or property. The equipment shroud or cabinet shall contain all the equipment associated with the facility other than the antenna, or the meter, if one is required and cannot be integrated into the cabinet. All cables and conduits associated with the equipment shall be undergrounded to the supporting structure or tower. ii. Size. The equipment, excluding the meter and disconnect and including the cabinet, shall be the smallest size feasible but no larger than 16 cu. ft., and no higher than 50 inches above ground level, except that a larger size may be approved as part of a stealth design. Electrical meters, if required, and disconnects shall be the smallest possible size available. iii. Stealth Design and Concealment. The City may require the applicant to incorporate concealment elements into the proposed design, including but not limited to public art displayed on the cabinet, or to otherwise take steps to camouflage or minimize the visual impacts of the proposed design, including strategic placement in less obtrusive locations and placement within existing or replacement street furniture, or integration into the base of an existing or replacement supporting structure. g. Pole-Mounted Equipment. Other than antennas, equipment mounted on the exterior of an existing or replacement support structure (referred to herein as “pole-mounted equipment”) is permitted if an applicant shows it is not required to install the equipment underground; that ground-mounted equipment is not required, or cannot be installed at a proposed location in a manner that complies with the requirements of this Code; and applicant cannot integrate the equipment within an existing or replacement supporting structure approved by City. Polemounted equipment other than antennas shall be installed as close to the support structure as technically and legally feasible to minimize impacts to the visual profile, and positioned on one side of the pole to minimize visibility. If a facility shall be permitted in a residential area, the wireless communications facility shall be placed to minimize visibility from doors and windows of the residential properties closest to the wireless communications facility, and subject to other provisions of this Code, to mimic other structures commonly mounted on utility poles. All required or permitted signage in the public rights-of-way shall face toward the street or otherwise be placed to minimize visibility from adjacent sidewalks and structures, except as inconsistent with the encroachment conditions in Chapter 32. All conduits, conduit attachments, cables, wires and Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 21, Packet Page 32
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
21 other connectors shall be concealed from public view to the greatest extent feasible.
h. Antennas. Antennas shall be placed in a radome at top of the pole, so that the antenna appears to be an extension of, or a design element integral to, the supporting structure or tower, and so that the cable connections, antenna mount and other hardware are concealed, with cut-outs if required for signal propagation. The total volume of each antenna shall not exceed 3 cu. ft., not including the connector to the supporting structure. GPS antennas shall be placed within the radome or directly above the radome not to exceed six inches. i. Extensions of structures and antenna height. To maintain consistency with the height of other, similar structures in the public rights-of-way, and as means of reducing and concealing the placement of an antenna, an antenna added to an existing supporting structure, or tower, including any extensions of that supporting structure or tower; or a replacement for an existing supporting structure or tower, may cumulatively add no more than four feet to the height of the existing structure, or the minimum amount required to obtain separation from electrical facilities on the pole. Provided that, City may permit a greater extension to street lights poles or other vertical structures that it owns or controls where that extension is consistent with the design of the supporting structures, and can be installed without adversely affecting the overall design of similar facilities in the same corridor.
j. Pole-Mounted Equipment Cabinets. Except when integrated within a supporting structure or tower, all equipment other than the antenna(s) and disconnect switch shall be concealed within an equipment housing. Generally, all equipment other than the meter or disconnect associated with a wireless communications facility shall be enclosed in a single equipment housing, unless applicant demonstrates that an alternative design will be less visible and more consistent with other polemounted equipment in the same portion of the public right-of-way. The equipment housing on the exterior of any supporting structure shall be centered and placed on a single side of the structure. Equipment housing mounted on the pole shall be no greater than 15 inches wide and 15 inches deep so that the housing is not readily visible to a reasonable observer on the opposite side of the pole. Wider equipment housing units are permitted where, consistent with a stealth design, such as signage placed at an appropriate height (a stop sign, for example). Equipment housing shall be of a uniform depth, not exceeding 15” from the pole to which it is attached so that it appears, as far as possible, like part of the pole. All pole-mounted equipment shall be installed as flush to the pole as possible. Any standoff mount for the equipment cage may not exceed four inches and shall include metal flaps (or “wings”) to conceal the space between the cage and the pole. Sizes are intended to be cumulative, reflecting the sizes of the equipment housings for all wireless facilities installed on a particular supporting structure. Total volume of all equipment housing on any Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 22, Packet Page 33
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
22 support structure and strand within 20 feet of the attachment shall not exceed 16 cu. ft.
k. Exterior mounted equipment housing shall be placed to avoid interfering or creating any hazard to any other use of the public rights-of-way, and with the lowest edge of any exterior mounted equipment at least eight feet above ground level. Equipment shall not project over any street unless above the level approved for placement of wires across streets.
l. Decorative Light Poles. Pole-mounted facilities are prohibited on decorative light pole fixtures where the height of the existing structure is 20 feet or less. m. Towers or New Supporting Structures. If a new supporting structure is permitted:
i. City may require or approve installation of a light pole of a stealth design and consistent in height and appearance to other light poles in the corridor, provided that the lighting is consistent with lighting plans for the area; and alternatively, the City may require or approve installation of a structure no higher than utility poles in the corridor in which it will be located, and if none, no higher than 35 feet.
ii. Unless a stealth design can be reasonably used at the proposed location, the new support structure shall be a hollow, non-wood pole, in which all elements of the wireless communications facility other than antennas, undergrounded equipment, or equipment in approved ground-mounted facilities may be concealed. It shall be colored and incorporate other elements, including camouflage and landscaping if appropriate at the location proposed, to minimize its visual impact.
iii. City shall be permitted, at no charge, to attach and maintain traffic or similar signage or other devices; and City may require, as a condition of approval, sharing of the facility with others to minimize the need for additional facilities in the public rights-of-way.
n. Strand mounting. Wireless communications facilities requiring a permit under this section may not be mounted on strand.
o. Non-reflective Finishes. All above-ground or pole-mounted equipment in the rights-of way shall be finished with non-reflective materials, colored or painted to match the structure to which it is attached, or as consistent with the concealment element for the facility.
8. General Conditions. In addition to the foregoing:
a. A wireless communications facility shall be designed to be resistant to and minimize opportunities for unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti, and Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 23, Packet Page 34
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
23 other conditions that would result in hazardous conditions, visual blight or attractive nuisances.
b. The wireless communications facility shall not unreasonably impair or diminish views of and vistas from adjacent properties and designated scenic corridors. c. The design of the facility shall be compatible with the neighborhood or community in which it is located. The City may consider factors that take into account the proposed facility in the context of its proposed location, which may include, but shall not be limited to, the proportionality and scale of the facility relative to the surrounding natural and/or constructed environment, the proximity of the facility to residential structures, the compatibility of the facility with uses on adjacent and nearby properties, and the effect, if any, on surrounding properties, the surrounding topography, the surrounding tree coverage and foliage, and the compatibility with the values and objectives expressed in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
9. Placement Preferences. The City has the following preferences. An applicant’s project plan shall show that it took these preferences into account and explain why a preferred placement or design was not used; or may show that because of the design proposed, its design and geographic placement will be more consistent with the overall goals of this section. A preferred design shall also be consistent with the other requirements of this section.
a. Preferences City-owned or controlled parcels outside of open space districts, residential zoning districts (R-E, R-1, R-2, R-3 and PC zones not governed by a Specific Plan) or the H-1, H-2, H-D, D-1 overlay zones; and other City-owned properties identified by the City as preferred by resolution. Within this area, preferred designs in order of preference are: a. Placement on existing towers off the public rights-of-way or on similar, large vertical structures, such as water towers; or within or upon existing supporting structures, other than buildings, in a stealth configuration; b. Building-mounted facilities with rooftop mounted antennas; c. Building-mounted facilities with façade-mounted antennas; d. New towers or supporting structures in a stealth design; e. Existing or replacement supporting structures (other than buildings) where the wireless facility can be camouflaged; f. Placement on existing or replacement supporting structures (other than buildings) where the wireless communications facility is not stealth or camouflaged or a new non-stealth small wireless facility whose height above ground level is the lower of 35’ or the height of the closest utility poles. The design choice between existing, replacement or new structures will be based on the overall visual impact of the facility on adjacent properties. b. Parcels and public rights-of-way in industrial districts. Within this area, preferred designs in order of preference are: a. Placement on existing towers off the public rights-of-way or on similar, large vertical structures, such as water towers; or within or upon existing supporting structures (other than buildings) in a stealth Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 24, Packet Page 35
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
24 configuration; b. Building-mounted facilities with rooftop mounted antennas; c.
Building-mounted facilities with façade-mounted antennas; d. New towers or supporting structures in a stealth design; e. Existing or replacement supporting structures (other than buildings) on private property (including easements), or in the public rights-of-way where the wireless facility can be camouflaged; f.
Placement on existing or replacement supporting structures (other than buildings) where the wireless communications facility is not stealth or camouflaged or a new non-stealth small wireless facility whose height above ground level is the lower of 35’ or the height of the closest utility poles. The design choice between existing, replacement or new structures will be based on the overall visual impact of the facility on adjacent properties. c. Parcels and public rights-of-way in commercial districts. Within this area, preferred designs in order of preference are: a. Placement on existing towers off the public rights-of-way or on similar, large vertical structures, such as water towers; or within or upon existing supporting structures (other than buildings) in a stealth configuration; b. Building-mounted facilities with rooftop mounted antennas; c. Building-mounted facilities with façade-mounted antennas; d. New towers or supporting structures in a stealth design; e. Existing or replacement supporting structures (other than buildings) on private property (including easements), or in the public rights-of-way where the wireless facility can be camouflaged; f. Placement on existing or replacement supporting structures (other than buildings) where the wireless communications facility is not stealth or camouflaged or a new non-stealth small wireless facility whose height above ground level is the lower of 35’ or the height of the closest utility poles. The design choice between existing, replacement or new structures will be based on the overall visual impact of the facility on adjacent properties. d. City-owned or controlled parcels other than those listed in Section 38- 112.4(F)(9)(a) Within this area, preferred designs in order of preference are: a.
Placement on existing towers or on similar, large vertical structures, such as water towers; or within or upon existing supporting structures (other than buildings) in a stealth configuration; b. Building-mounted facilities with rooftop mounted antennas; c. Building-mounted facilities with façade-mounted antennas; d. New towers or supporting structures in a stealth design; e. Existing or replacement supporting structures (other than buildings) where the wireless facility can be camouflaged; f. Placement on existing or replacement supporting structures (other than buildings) where the wireless communications facility is not stealth or camouflaged or a new non-stealth small wireless facility whose height above ground level is the lower of 35’ or the height of the closest utility poles.
The design choice between existing, replacement or new structures will be based on the overall visual impact of the facility on adjacent properties. e. If the provider shows it shall be permitted to place the wireless communications facility in a non-preferred area, the preferred designs in order of preference: a.
Placement on existing towers off the public rights-of-way or on similar, large Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 25, Packet Page 36
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
25 vertical structures, such as water towers; or within or upon existing structures in a stealth configuration; b. Non-residential building-mounted facilities with rooftop mounted antennas; c. Non-residential building-mounted facilities with façademounted antennas; d. Existing or replacement supporting structures (other than buildings) on private property (including easements), or in the public rights-ofway where the wireless facility can be camouflaged; e. New towers or supporting structures in a stealth design; f. Placement on existing or replacement supporting structures (other than buildings) where the wireless communications facility is not stealth or camouflaged or a new non-stealth small wireless facility whose height above ground level is the lower of 35’ or the height of the closest utility poles. The design choice between existing, replacement or new structures will be based on the overall visual impact of the facility on adjacent properties.
Additionally, if the non-preferred area is identified as a residential or historic district, placement in open space areas or the public rights-of-way adjacent to open space areas is preferred if the result is that the facility will be farther away from residences.
10. Special Considerations for Certain Districts: In addition to satisfying the standards in this section, in certain districts and at certain locations, an applicant shall show that denial of an application will result in an effective prohibition or otherwise violate federal law such that an application shall be approved and show that the design used and the placement will minimize the impact of granting the permit (these showings are referred to as an “effective prohibition showing”):
a. In H-1, H-2 and H-D, overlay zones, any wireless communications facility shall be either a stealth facility, or a facility that is not visible to the general public (a rooftop facility, for example), and is subject to conditions that would prevent it from becoming visible to the general public as a matter of right. Any other placement requires an effective prohibition showing.
b. In any residential zoning district (R-E, R-1, R-2, R-3, and PC zones not governed by a Specific Plan), placement of a wireless communications facility requires an effective prohibition showing.
c. Placement of a wireless communications facility within 100 feet of any parcel either in the R-1 zoning district or in PC zones that cover Skyline Forest but not governed by a Specific Plan requires an effective prohibition showing. d. In any portion of any district where there are no utility lines aboveground in the public rights-of-way, and no street lights or traffic signals, placement of a wireless communications facility requires an effective prohibition showing. e. For wireless communications facilities proposed for the public rights-of-way in any portion of any district (other than residential zoning districts – R-E, R-1, R-2, R-3 and PC zones not covered by a Specific Plan) with aboveground street lights or traffic signals in the public rights-of-way, but no aboveground utility poles, an effective prohibition showing is required unless the City determines that the Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 26, Packet Page 37
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
26 wireless communications facility will be integrated into those street lights or traffic signals in a manner consistent with the requirements of this Code. f. For wireless communications facilities proposed for the public rights-of-way, in order to avoid visual clutter the wireless communications facility shall meet the following spacing requirement: no proposed wireless communications facility shall be placed in the public right-of-way within 250 feet in any direction from an existing facility unless required by federal law.
g. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to wireless communications facilities proposed for the public rights-of-way, an application may be granted if applicant shows that issuance of a permit is required by state law. To the extent applicant claims that its proposed facility would not incommode the public, City will consider factors relevant to that determination under state law, including whether it diminishes public use or enjoyment, either visual or physical, of the public right of way, or of adjoining properties.
G. Eligible Facilities Requests. This section applies to eligible facilities requests, as that term is defined under federal law and applicable regulations.
1. Applications. Applications for eligible facilities requests shall contain the information required by Section 38-112.4(E)(3)(a)-(s) and (u-v), and shall be submitted in the manner required for all other applications.
2. Justification. Without limiting the foregoing, the project plan for an eligible facilities request shall specifically list every element that shall be satisfied in order for a request to be an eligible facilities request under federal law, and shall show that each element is satisfied.
3. Notwithstanding Section 38-112.4(J)(2) below, an application submitted as an eligible facilities request shall be approved by the Director if the following findings are made:
a. That the application qualifies as an eligible facilities request; b. That the proposed facility will comply with all generally-applicable laws; and c. The finding required by Section 38-112.4(J)(3), if applicable.
4. If an application submitted as an eligible facilities request is not an eligible facilities request, it shall be denied and, in addition to the notice required by Section 38- 112.4(J)(4), the Director shall provide an incompleteness notice indicating what information is required for the applicable wireless application. The Director’s decision on an eligible facilities request application is final and not appealable.
H. Abandoned or Decommissioned Facilities
1. Procedures for Abandoned or Discontinued Facilities.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 27, Packet Page 38
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
27 a. To promote the public health, safety and welfare, the Director may declare a facility abandoned or discontinued when:
i. The permittee notifies the Director that it abandoned or discontinued the use of a facility for a continuous period of 90 days; or ii. The permittee fails to respond within 30 days to a written notice sent by certified U.S. Mail, return receipt requested, from the Director that states the basis for the Director’s belief that the facility has been abandoned or discontinued for a continuous period of 90 days; or
iii. The permit expires, in the case where the permittee has failed to file a timely application for renewal.
b. If the Director declares a facility abandoned or discontinued, Director shall mail a notice of declaration to the last known address of permittee and the permittee shall have 90 days from the date of the notice(or longer time as the Director may approve in writing as reasonably necessary) to remove the facility and all improvements installed solely in connection with the facility, and restore the site to a condition compliant with all applicable codes and consistent with the thenexisting surrounding area. c. If the permittee fails to remove the facility as required by Section 38-112.4(H), the City may exercise any rights or remedies to abate the public nuisance pursuant to City Code chapter 22, Article 4, and exercise any other remedy allowed by law.
I. Transfer of Ownership. Within 30 days after a permittee transfers any interest in the facility or permit(s) in connection with the facility, the permittee shall deliver written notice to the City.
Failure to submit the notice required herein shall be a cause for the City to revoke the applicable permits pursuant to Section 38-221, and to exercise any other remedy allowed by law. The written notice required in this section shall include: 1 the transferee’s legal name; 2. the transferee’s full contact information, including a primary contact person, mailing address, telephone number and email address; and 3. a statement signed by the transferee that the transferee shall accept all permit terms and conditions.
J. Notices—Findings—Decisions.
1. Notice.
Notice Required for a Use Permit. The Planning Commission shall conduct a noticed public hearing in accordance with Section 38-159.
2. Use Permit Findings. In addition to the findings required by Section 38-161, the Planning Commission may approve an application for a use permit if, based on the record, it finds:
a. The facility will comply with Section 38-112.4(C), General Requirements; and b. The facility satisfies the applicable design standards set forth herein; or Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 28, Packet Page 39
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
28 c. The applicant proves that denial would result in an actual or effective prohibition or otherwise violate applicable law, such that the City is required to permit applicant to install a wireless communications facility, and the wireless communications facility adheres to the design standards except to the minimum extent necessary to avoid an effective prohibition. By way of example, and not limitation, if applicant shows a larger antenna is required than is permitted under the design standards, application of this section would permit a larger antenna, but not placement of cabinets aboveground.
3. Additional Finding Required for All Applications within the Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area. In addition to other findings required by this section, for a wireless communication facility located within the Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area, the Planning Commission shall find that the applicant has demonstrated the following: 1) applicant submittal to the FAA of the FAA Form 7460-1 Form, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, or other written notification to the FAA of the proposed construction or alteration of any wireless communications facility in the AIA, except for minor alterations that do not have a potential to obstruct or pose a hazard to air navigation, navigational aids, or navigational facilities; 2) written authorization from the FAA or other official FAA determination of no objection to the proposed construction or alteration; and 3) compliance with all applicable FAA and FCC rules, regulations, and standards.
4. Written Denial Decision. If the application is denied, the City shall provide the applicant written notice of the denial decision that contains both the decision and the findings for the decision or indicates how a copy of the decision and the findings may be obtained.
5. Denials Without Prejudice. The Director may deny an incomplete application without prejudice to the applicant refiling, if the applicant has not provided all of the information required by notice(s) of incompleteness to permit the City to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application, taking into account legal deadlines affecting the City conducting, or the public participating in, a timely review of the application. Such a denial may be appealed to the Planning Commission, but the appeal is limited to consideration of whether the application was properly denied for incompleteness and the decision of the Planning Commission is final and not appealable.
6. Appeals. Any interested party may appeal an action of the Planning Commission, except for any decision made pursuant to Section 38-112.4(J)(5) in accordance with Chapter 38, Article 27.
K. Independent Consultant Review.
1. Deposit. The applicant shall pay for the cost of any independent consultant retained by the City to review any issue or evidence submitted in connection with the application and for the technical consultant’s testimony in any hearing as requested by the City and shall provide a reasonable advance deposit of the estimated cost of such review with the City Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 29, Packet Page 40
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
29 prior to the commencement of any work by the technical consultant. Once the deposit is reduced to 50% the applicant shall restore the fund to its original amount. Promptly upon issuance of the final decision on the application, City shall issue an invoice, showing as a credit against the amount owed the amount deposited; return any amounts deposited in excess of the invoice; and bill for any expense not covered by the invoice, which invoice shall be paid within thirty (30) days.
L. Additional Conditions of Approval for Wireless Use Permits.
1. Standard Conditions for Use Permits. Generally, City shall include appropriate conditions consistent with other use permits it issues.
2. Permit Term. Any validly issued conditional use permit for a wireless communications facility will automatically expire at 12:01 a.m. local time exactly 10 years and one day from the issuance date, except when California Government Code Section 65964(b), as may be amended, authorizes the City to issue a permit with a shorter term. Provided that:
i. Permits for eligible facilities requests shall expire on the date the underlying permit expires.
ii. Where City is required by federal law or regulation to issue a permit, and the federal law or regulation is changed, or declared invalid, it shall be a condition of the continuing validity of the permit that the City may amend the permit to include any condition that it could have included in the absence of the changed or invalid law or regulation. Alternatively, City may terminate the permit where the placement would not have been permitted. Provided that, a permittee will be provided a reasonable opportunity to show the Planning Commission that the wireless communications facility should be allowed to remain in place under then applicable laws and regulations.
3. Ongoing Compliance. City may inspect and test wireless facilities to ensure ongoing compliance with permit conditions, and charge the cost of the inspection to persons holding wireless permits for the facilities inspected. Testing and inspection may include, but is not limited to, testing to ensure compliance with RF exposure limits. Tests may be based on complaints received, or may be part of a regular testing and inspection program. Permittee shall, within 30 days of a request therefor, provide the City with access and information it may require regarding the wireless communications facility in order to inspect or conduct testing.
4. Disconnection. The permittee shall provide the City with access to the facility to disconnect it from power in an emergency.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 30, Packet Page 41
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
30 5. Maintenance of Elements Designed to Reduce Visual Impacts. Without limiting the general obligation to maintain the site and facility, all concealment elements shall be maintained in a manner so that the concealment elements are not defeated. By way of example, if a stealth facility is approved, it shall be maintained so that color fading and damage do not result in changing the approved appearance of the facility. Likewise, requirements intended to camouflage or otherwise limit the visual impacts of a wireless communications facility, shall be maintained so that the effectiveness of the same is not diminished. By way of example and not limitation, if permittee is entitled to increase the size or number of ground cabinets, and the placement is subject to requirements designed to conceal cabinetry, the existing requirements will also be read to require concealment of the additional or larger cabinets.
6. Construction Period. Unless a permit specifically provides otherwise, in order to prevent applicants from applying for unnecessary facilities, or from stockpiling locations, it is a permit condition that a wireless communications facility shall be constructed and shall be in use for the provision of wireless services within twelve (12) months of issuance of the use permit. The period may be extended by the Director for good cause shown.
7. Modifications. No modification may be made to the approved facility without obtaining a permit required by Section 38-112.4.
8. Removal upon Termination. Upon termination of the wireless permit, unless renewed, permittee shall remove the wireless communications facility and all improvements installed in connection with the facility (including but not limited to a supporting structure, or an extension to a supporting structure), and restore the site to a condition compliant with all applicable codes and consistent with the surrounding area.
M. Post Construction Reporting.
1. Permittee shall notify the City within 30 days of completion of construction of a wireless communications facility, and shall provide as-built plans showing all elements of the wireless communications facility and supporting structure as built. The plans, without limitation, shall show the location of power and communication lines serving the facility, and the location of disconnect boxes. City shall promptly inspect the facility to ensure compliance with all permit conditions, and shall charge the permittee the costs thereof.
2. Within 30 calendar days following the activation of any wireless communications facility (including a modification that affects the RF emissions patterns of the wireless communications facility), the applicant shall provide a radio frequency emissions compliance report to the city prepared and certified by a RF licensed engineer. The report shall be prepared in accordance with FCC guidelines and shall include the calculations and information on which the engineer relied. The report shall: clearly identify any differences between the facility as proposed and the facility as built, including differences in areas where RF emissions exceed the FCC’s general and occupational levels, and any necessary mitigation measures. In addition, the report shall include:
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 31, Packet Page 42
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
31 a. A certification of compliance with all mitigation measures required by the use permit.
b. The date and time of the inspection, the methodology used to make the determination, including certification documents of test equipment. c. The name and title of the person(s) conducting the tests. d. Information on whether the levels of radio frequency emissions comply with applicable FCC standards, and identify the source or sources of any noncompliance.
3. If the report shows that FCC general and occupational exposure levels are exceeded in areas that were not reported in the application; or that necessary mitigation measures have not been implemented; the permit for any wireless communications facility that bears responsibility in whole or in part for the non-compliance will be deemed suspended pending correction. As part of the suspension, general operations shall cease until the facility is brought into compliance, and mitigation measures implemented.
If the City finds that the correction or mitigation either requires a change to the facility inconsistent with the use permit; or that the necessary mitigation measures would adversely affect the community in a manner not contemplated in the review of the application, it may require removal, relocation or modification of the wireless communications facility as a condition of ending the suspension, or take any other permitted enforcement action. The City may require applicant to provide additional reports, and may require additional independent technical evaluation of the wireless communications facility, at the applicant’s sole cost, to ensure compliance with FCC standards and to ensure appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented.
N. Municipally-Owned or Controlled Property and Supporting Structures.
1. Policy Statement. The City may negotiate agreements for use of city owned or controlled property and supporting structures for the placement of wireless communications facilities, including street light poles in the rights of way. In exercising its decision to agree to access to a City property or supporting structure, the City will generally consider factors and consider designs consistent with this section. Any design shall be consistent with the supporting structure to be used, and result in no uncompensated cost to City.
Without limitation, for example, the design for a wireless communications facility to be attached to a street light shall be consistent with designs in use along the corridor or (if more consistent with plans for the corridor) consistent with planned designs. Further, use will not be permitted if it requires the City to incur uncompensated costs, or accept risks or liability it would not otherwise face. Access will only be granted if it presents no safety issues, causes no harm to a structure, does not interfere with present or planned uses of the property or structure, and is in the City’s best interests as facilities owner. Subject to lawful limits imposed by state or federal law, the agreement shall specify the compensation to the City for use of the property or structures. Except as prohibited by Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 32, Packet Page 43
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
32 law, the person seeking the agreement shall additionally reimburse the city for all costs the city incurs in connection with its review of, and action upon, the person’s request for an agreement.
2. Requests for Use. A request for use of a City-owned property or structure may be submitted to Community Development Director. The request can be submitted before an application is submitted to the Planning Commission, so long as the requesting party agrees that the request does not trigger any shot clock with respect to any permit that may be required for deployment of the structure. Community Development Director is authorized to negotiate agreements for use of City-owned or controlled supporting structures, and to bring those agreements to the City for approval. Community Development Director may also issue a written denial of access, stating reasons therefore. If City receives multiple, conflicting requests for placement of wireless communications facilities for the same location from different entities, City, may require consolidation of wireless communications facilities or, allocate sites on any basis consistent with applicable law.
3. Compliance with RF Standards. No permit and no agreement for use of city owned or controlled supporting structures, shall be issued or effective unless it is shown that the wireless communications facility will comply with Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) regulations governing radio frequency (“RF”) emissions. Every wireless communications facility shall at all times comply with applicable FCC regulations governing RF emissions, and failure to comply shall be a treated as a material violation of the terms of any agreement.
4. Non-Interference. Before a wireless communications facility is attached to city owned or controlled supporting structure, the owner of the wireless communications facility shall submit a study showing that the attachment or modification will not interfere with thenexisting or planned City uses of the structure, including communications uses. Any request for use shall include detailed drawings and specifications so that the City may determine whether there will be interference with City uses.
O. Pre-Approval of Designs.
1. Alternative. A person who wishes to install a wireless communications facility with a design that does not comply with the design standards set forth in Section 38-112.4(F), but who believes that the design is fully consistent with the goals of this Section may submit a request for pre-approval of the design to the Planning Commission. A preapproval request is not mandatory, and is not an application for a wireless communications facility within the meaning of this section, and shall be submitted with a clear statement that consideration of the request is not subject to any FCC shot clock or other mandatory timeline for action. The purpose of permitting the request is to encourage development of, and provide a means for public consideration of those designs.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 33, Packet Page 44
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
33 2. Consideration. The proposed design will be publicly published, and the Planning Commission may conduct such investigations, and require the person requesting preapproval to submit such information, and provide such mock-ups as may be necessary to evaluate the impact of the design. If, after a full opportunity for public hearing the Planning Commission finds that the design serves the goals of this Section, it may recommend pre-approval to the City Council for the placement as a design permitted under Section 38-112.4(F)(1)-(10). The recommendation may limit areas where the facility would be pre-approved for placement. The Planning Commission may also recommend elimination or modification of any pre-approved design, after a public hearing where it finds that the design as adopted does not serve the purposes of this Section.
3. Council Action. The Council may pre-approve the design by resolution. The design will be published. Council may also eliminate or modify a pre-approval.
P. Definitions. Except where otherwise expressly incorporated into a provision of the Code, the following definitions only apply to this Section 38-112.4, and shall not be construed to define the same terms found in any other section of this code. “Accessory equipment” means any equipment associated with the installation of a wireless communication facility, including but not limited to cabling, generators, fans, air conditioning unit, electrical panels, equipment shelters, equipment cabinets, equipment buildings, pedestals, meters, vaults, splice boxes, and surface location markers. “ALUC” means the Monterey Airport Land Use Commission or successor agency. “Antenna” means any system of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs, dishes, whips or other similar devices used for transmission or receptions of electromagnetic waves. A device where the antenna is integrated with the radio unit shall be treated as an antenna. “Base station” has the same meaning as the term used in 47 CFR Section 1.6100(b)(1), as may be amended, except that, to the extent not included within the FCC definition, the term includes accessory equipment.
“Camouflage” means a wireless communications facility or supporting structure to which the applicant applies some concealment techniques in order to blend all or a portion of the facility or structure into the surrounding area or to appear to be an object that is congruent with its environment, but which is not designed to look like some feature other than a wireless communications facility to a reasonable person. “City Manager” means the City Manager or the Manager’s designee. “Community Development Director” or “Director” means the Community Development Director or the Director’s designee.
“CPUC” means the California Public Utilities Commission established in the California Constitution, Article XII, Section 5, or its duly appointed successor agency.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 34, Packet Page 45
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
34 “Eligible facilities request” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 CFR Section
1.6100(b)(3), as may be amended. “Eligible support structure” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 CFR Section 1.6100(b)(4), as may be amended. “FAA” means the Federal Aviation Administration or its duly appointed successor agency. “FCC” means the Federal Communications Commission or its duly appointed successor agency.
“Mock-up” means a temporary, full-sized, structural model built to scale chiefly for study, testing, or displaying a wireless communications facility. It is nonfunctional and has no power source.
“Modification” means a change to an existing wireless communications facility that involves a change to the size, physical configuration, appearance, height, weight or structural loading of the existing wireless communications facility or its supporting structure, or which results in an increase in the noise emitted by the wireless communications facility. Modification does not include repair, replacement or maintenance if those actions do not involve a change to the size, physical configuration, appearance, height, weight or structural loading of the existing facility or its supporting structure, or result in an increase in the noise emitted by the wireless communications facility. Modification does not include removal unless the facility is replaced, and the replacement would constitute a modification. “Mounted” means attached or supported.
“Public rights-of-way” means land which by deed, conveyance, agreement, easement, dedication, usage or process of law is reserved and dedicated to the general public for street, highway, alley, public utility or pedestrian walkway purposes, whether or not the land has been improved or accepted for maintenance by the City. Public right-of-way includes but is not limited to street, roadway, planter strip and sidewalk. “Radome” means a weatherproofed enclosure (typically constructed from fiberglass or plastic material) that protects and conceals an antenna or antennas contained therein. “RF” means “radio frequency” or electromagnetic waves between 30 kHz and 300 GHz in the electromagnetic spectrum range.
“Rooftop Mounted” means mounted directly on the roof of any building or structure, above the eave line of such building or structure.
“Shot Clock” means a timeline for action on an application for a wireless communications facility that is imposed by state or federal law or regulations. “Site” means the same as defined in 47 CFR Section 1.6100(b)(6), as may be amended.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 35, Packet Page 46
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
35 “Small wireless facility” means the same as defined in 47 CFR Section 1.6002. , as may be amended.
“Stealth” means a wireless tower or base station designed to look like some feature other than a wireless tower or base station to a reasonable person. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) wireless equipment placed completely within existing architectural features such that the installation causes no visible change to the underlying structure; (2) new architectural features that match the underlying building in architectural style, physical proportion and construction-materials quality; (3) flush-to-grade underground equipment vaults with flush-to-grade entry hatches, with wireless equipment placed completely within. “Supporting Structure” means any structure, other than a tower, capable of supporting, or supporting a Base Station. An existing supporting structure is a structure in place at the time an application is filed; a replacement supporting structure is a structure that replaces an existing structure, which structure shall be removed; a new supporting structure is a structure other than a tower, that is not in place at the time an application is filed, and that will be constructed as part of the placement of the Base Station. “Temporary wireless communications facility” means a wireless communications facilities intended or used to provide personal wireless services on a temporary or emergency basis, such as a large-scale special event in which more users than usual gather in a confined location or when a disaster requires additional service capabilities. Temporary wireless communications facilities include without limitation, cells on wheels (COW), sites on wheels (SOW) and cells on light trucks (COLTs) or other similar wireless facilities: (1) that will be in place for no more than 60 days (or such other longer time as the City may allow); (2) for which required notice is provided to the FAA; (3) that do not require marking or lighting under FAA regulations; (4) that will be less than 100 feet in height; and (5) that will either involve no excavation or involve excavation only as required to safely anchor the facility, where the depth of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth (excluding footings and other anchoring mechanisms) by at least two feet. “Tower” means the same as defined in 47 CFR Section 1.6100(b)(9), as may be amended. “Transmission equipment” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 CFR Section
1.6100(b)(8).
“Utility Pole” means any wood, steel, concrete or other structure used primarily to support overhead electric or communications lines.
“Wireless” means any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communication service transmitted over frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum. “Wireless communications facility” means all elements of a facility at a fixed location used in connection with the provision of any FCC licensed or authorized wireless service to the public, including the base station and tower, if any, but excluding the supporting structure to Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 36, Packet Page 47
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
36 which the base station is attached or within which it is enclosed. Provided that, the term does not include:
a. wireless devices entirely enclosed within an existing building outside of the rights of way, where installations does not require a modification of the exterior of the building;
b. wireless devices attached to the exterior of a building, which would constitute an accessory use of the building permitted under this Code, and where the wireless communications facility located on the exterior is less than 3 cubic feet in size; c. Amateur radio antennas (including ham and shortwave). d. Over-the-air reception devices (“OTARDs”) as defined in 47 CFR Section 1.4000 et seq., as may be amended or superseded.
e. Wireless communications facilities owned and operated by the City for its use, or by any governmental agency for its own or public safety uses. f. The exemptions under subsections (c)-(d) do not apply to the extent the facility is used for any purpose, or integrates any wireless facility such that the entire facility is not required to be treated as an “amateur radio antenna” or an OTARD under FCC rules. By way of example, if an antenna is used in the provision of personal wireless services, it is not treated as an OTARD. g. The exempt facilities remain subject to other provisions of the Code. By way of example, and not limitation, a modification to an historic structure to install a wireless communications facility exempt under this provision of the Code would be subject to review under other provisions of the Code governing modifications to historic structures.
“Wireless service provider” means the FCC licensed or authorized entity offering wireless communication services to the public.
SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, line, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, either facially or as applied, by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of Monterey hereby declare that it would have passed this ordinance, and each and every individual section, subsection, line, sentence, clause, phrase, or word without regard to any such decision.
SECTION 6: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
SECTION 7: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 37, Packet Page 48
3.2.23 FIRST READING
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
37 after its final passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 2., Item Page 38, Packet Page 49 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
AMENDING MONTEREY CITY CODE SECTION 19-103 TO FULLY RECOVER COSTS OF
APPEALS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPLICATIONS
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:
SECTION 1:
WHEREAS, on June 2, 1992, the City adopted Ordinance 3100 to recover the percentage of costs reasonably borne in providing the products or services as established in the ordinance;
WHEREAS, existing policy is to recover 10% of the City’s costs in administering appeals before the City Council and the City’s Boards and Commissions. This means that the General Fund is subsidizing 90% of third-party appeals. The cost of administering appeals ranges from $938.63 to $1,835.50. The purpose of this amendment is to recover 100% of the costs reasonably borne that are necessary to process and administer appeals; WHEREAS, the City’s current policy is to 100% subsidize Historic Rezone, Mills Act, Historic Permits, Historic Survey Reviews, and Historic Report Reviews. Staff is proposing to charge fees for properties seeking historic designation, tax incentives (Mills Act), permits and review of Historic Preservation Reports. The city at one time charged these fees, but they were eliminated to incentivize historic preservation. The amount of the City’s subsidy ranges from $3,117.50 to $4,422.58 per application. The purpose of this amendment is to recover 100% of the costs connected with historic preservation applications; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.
Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:
SECTION 2: The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.
Date: 4/4/2023
Item No.: 3.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 50 2 SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 19, Section 19-103(a)’s table of fees and service charges, (I.)(11) is hereby amended to read as follows:
I. Development Services:
(11.) Appeals 100%
VI. Administrative Services
(13.) Appeals staffed by City Attorney’s Office 100%
SECTION 4: Monterey City Code, Chapter 19, Section 19-103(a)’s table of fees and service charges, (I.)(27) is hereby amended to read as follows:
I. Development Services:
(27.) Historic Rezone, Mills Act, Historic Permits,
Historic Survey Review, Historic Report Review 100%
SECTION 5: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
SECTION 6: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 51 Council
Agenda Report
№10/13
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Amend Resolution 22-086, the FY 22/23 Position Control List by Adding One (1) Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Housing Manager Position and Removing One (1) Vacant FTE Administrative Analyst and Amend and Restate Resolution 23-004, the FY 22/23 Salary Schedule, to Add Salaries for the Housing Manager and the Deputy Public Works Director/Administration Positions (Not a Project Under CEQA, per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution to amend Exhibit A to Resolution 22-086, the 2022-23 Position Control List, by adding one (1) FTE Housing Manager position in the Community Development Housing Office and removing one (1) Vacant FTE Administrative Analyst position and amend and restate Resolution 23-004, the FY 22/23 Salary Schedule, to add salaries for the Housing Manager and the Deputy Public Works Director/Administration position to the schedule.
VALUE DRIVER:
Provide sufficient resources and support to develop, retain, and recruit a high quality city workforce.
Serve as stewards of the City’s financial resources through sound economic vitality efforts, streamlining operations, reasonable revenue enhancements, visionary long-term planning, fiscal transparency, and community partnerships.
Support efforts and policies that provide equitable access to affordable housing in Monterey and the region.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
This recommendation is consistent with City policy to ensure that critical City functions are properly staffed in the Housing Office as well as Public Works Department. In addition, the Housing Manager position supports the Affordable Housing value driver. The Deputy Public Works Director/Administration supports the fiscal stewardship value driver.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Housing Manager Position:
The Housing Office, part of the Community Development Department, is currently at its maximum expenditures in the housing funds (CDBG and Housing Successor Agency monies for administrative costs. Future fully burdened annual costs to add one Housing Manager position to replace the vacant Administrative Analyst position is $15,152 annually.
Date: 4/4/2023
Item No.: 4.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 52 The top step salary for the (1) FTE Housing Manager is a base salary of $120,456 plus the annual benefits dollar amount of $28,480 for a total compensation of $158,936 at the Top Step..
The Housing Office funding for administrative costs is approximately $245,000 in CDBG funds and $200,000 in Housing Successor Agency funds. Combined, these funds currently pay for two existing staff members, professional services and other administrative costs associated with operating the office, and there is inadequate funding in CDBG and Housing Successor Agency Funds to pay for the Housing Manager. Funding for the recommended position would come from the General Fund.
Salary shown at Step 5 for the full-time Housing Manager position:
Semi Monthly Monthly Annually Benefits (55%) Total
$5,019 $10,038 $120,456 $38,480 $158,936
Salary shown at Step 5 for the full-time Administrative Analyst position:
Semi Monthly Monthly Annually Benefits (55%) Total
$4,419 $8,838 $106,555 $37,229 $143,784
Total Funding required will be prorated for the remaining months of the fiscal year.
Deputy Public Works Director/Administration position:
The top step salary for the (1) FTE Deputy Public Works Director/Administration is a base salary of $166,416 plus the annual benefits dollar amount of $42,480 for a total compensation of $208,896 at the Top Step.
Salary shown at Step 5 for the full-time Deputy Public Works Director/Administration position:
Semi Monthly Monthly Annually Benefits Total
$6,934 $13,868 $166,416 $42,480 $208,896
This position was originally proposed and reviewed prior to the pandemic by the previous Public Works Director in an effort to assist the Public Works Director position with coordinating public works programs and operations. This position will oversee the implementation of the Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA) that supports the Army as well as evaluate current and future utilization of staff, equipment, capital assets and other resources. This position will be funded through special funds such as Parking, Marina, Tidelands as well as Measure S, Measure X and General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 53 to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The Council could choose not to add one Housing Manager position and delete one vacant Administrative Analyst from the FY 22/23 Position Control List, but that is not recommended for the efficient operations of the Housing Office, where the current staffing level is not sufficient to meet operational needs.
The Council could also choose not to add one Deputy Public Works Director/Administration position to the FY 22/23 Position Control List, but that is not recommended for the operations of the Public Works Department.
DISCUSSION:
Housing Manager:
The Community Development Department’s Housing Office develops and administers a variety of housing programs and policies that seek to enhance available housing opportunities and fulfill the community service needs of low, moderate, and workforce-income households, and other special-needs populations including disabled persons, senior citizens, and persons at risk of homelessness. The office was staffed with an Administrative Analyst (Housing) who left the position to join another City. Staff recommends upgrading this position to Housing Manager given the challenges of recruiting or retaining qualified individuals in this office. Additionally, this position is important to support Council’s priorities for affordable housing.
This Housing Manager position would lead and manage the Housing Office. This is a key position that oversees compliance with Federal and State housing programs and regulations.
The City is an entitlement jurisdiction for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG).
Current programs include purchase and resale of affordable units, housing rehabilitation and public service grants. The City’s typical CDBG program budget is approximately $1.1 million annually. The City also oversees previous Housing Successor Agency investments and properties.
Deputy Public Works Director:
On March 21, 2023, the City Council added this new position to the FY 22/23 Position Control List section of the Operating Budget, in recognition of the need for Deputy Public Works Director for Administration in the City’s largest department, which in the FY 2022/23 Operating Budget accounted for more than $63 million.
In addition, the department administers the Intergovernmental Support Agreement (IGSA) with the City of Monterey’s military partners, requiring financial reporting consistent with federal regulations. This position would enhance the operations of the entire department by assisting in further developing procedures and internal controls. This position will oversee the implementation and management of the IGSA as well as evaluate current and future utilization of staff, equipment, capital assets, and resources.
Our Public Works Department has a yearly budget comparable to a small city. This position will enhance the fiscal stewardship value driver.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 54 This action adds the salary for the position to the salary schedule.
Attachments: 1. Resolution
C: Brette Neal, Human Resources Director
Rafaela King, Finance Director
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 55 RESOLUTION NO. __ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№12/12
AMENDING RESOLUTION 22-086, THE FY 22/23 POSITION CONTROL LIST BY ADDING ONE (1) FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) HOUSING MANAGER POSITION AND REMOVING ONE (1) VACANT FTE ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST AND AMEND AND RESTATE RESOLUTION 23-004, THE FY 22/23 SALARY SCHEDULE, TO ADD THE SALARIES FOR
THE HOUSING MANAGER AND THE DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR POSITIONS WHEREAS, the City of Monterey would be better served by amending the Position Control List for the Community Development Housing Office by adding one Housing Manager and removing one Administrative Analyst;
WHEREAS, the Administrative Analyst has an annual salary of $106,555 with Benefits of $37,229 for a total compensation package of $143,784; WHEREAS, the Senior Facility Attendant has an annual salary of $120,456 with Benefits of $38,480 for a total compensation package of $158,936; WHEREAS, on March 21, 2023, the City Council approved adding the new Deputy Public Works Director position to the FY 22/23 position control list; WHEREAS, the Deputy Public Works Director would have an annual salary of $166,416 with Benefits of $42,480 for a total compensation package of $208,896; WHEREAS, the Council has previously authorized the establishment of all employee classification and salaries for regular full-time and regular part-time employees; WHEREAS, the Council adopted the current salary schedule on January 17, 2023 with the adoption of Resolution 23-004;
WHEREAS, this amendment will add the new Housing Manager and Deputy Public Works Director positions to the salary schedule;
WHEREAS, California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5 requires governing bodies of local agencies contracting with CalPERS to adopt a pay schedule that is immediately available for public review during normal business hours or is posted on the city’s website; WHEREAS, the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action has no potential to cause any effect on the environment, this matter is not a project. Because the proposed action does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 56 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:
1. Amends Exhibit A to Resolution 22-086, the FY 2022/23 Position Control List which is set forth in pages 77- 86, as follows:
Department Adopted Amended
Community Development Department
Housing Manager 0 1
Administrative Analyst 1 0
2. Amends and Restates Resolution 23-004, the FY 22/23 Salary Schedule set forth in Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 6, Packet Page 57 CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT Administration
Community
Resources/
Education City Clerk Total Allocation
Fund 101 0210 0211 0321
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.83 0.83
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Total City Manager Dept 2.83 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.83 Conference Center Administration Sales
Event
Operations Maintenance Total Allocation
Fund 101 6210 6220 6231 6232
1.00 1.00
Custodian 1.75 1.75
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Event Coordinator 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
2.25 2.25
Operations Coordinator 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Senior Facility Attendant 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Total Conference Center 2.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 13.00
INFORMATION RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT
Information
Resources Total Allocation
Fund 710 0340
1.00 1.00
0.17 0.17
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Senior Information Tech Specialist 1.00 1.00
IT Application Engineer II 3.00 3.00
1.00 1.00
Total Information Services Dept 9.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.17
CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT
City Attorney
Administration Total Allocation
Fund 101 0500
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Total City Attorney Dept 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 HUMAN RESOURCES Administration (1)
Workers' Comp/
Employee
Benefits(2) Total Allocation
Fund 101(1)/715(2) 0600 0612
1.00 1.00
Assistant HR Director 0.50 0.50 1.00
Human Resources Coordinator 2.00 2.00
0.75 0.25 1.00
Senior Human Resouces Analyst 1.00 1.00
Total Human Resources Dept 4.25 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 FINANCE DEPARTMENT Finance (1) Revenue Accounting Revenue(2) Risk
Management (3) Total Allocation
Legal Secretary
Human Resources Analyst
Human Resources Director
Network Engineer II
Information Technology Specialist
Systems & Network Administrator
Assistant City Attorney
City Attorney
Deputy City Attorney
Asst. Director of Information Resourc
Assistant City Manager
GEO Info System (GIS) Coordinator
City Clerk
Executive Assistant
Conference Center General Mgr
Event & Sales Assistant
Sales Coordinator
Event Supervisor
AMENDED POSITION CONTROL LIST
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
Administrative Analyst
Administrative Assistant
Assistant City Manager
City Manager
Facility Attendant
Operations Supervisor
Senior Craftsworker
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 7, Packet Page 58 Fund 101(1)/807(2)/716(3) 1110 1120 1130 1120 1143
1.00 3.00 4.00
Accounting Assistant 1.00 1.00
1.70 2.00 0.30 4.00
1.00 1.00
Business License Inspector 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 2.00
0.75 0.25 1.00
Finance Manager 1.00 1.00 2.00
Risk Manager 1.00 1.00
Total Finance Dept 1.750 5.70 9.00 0.300 1.25 0.00 18.00 POLICE DEPARTMENT Administration Field Operations Support Investigations/
Community
Services
Investigations/
Community
Services(2) Total Allocation
Fund 101(1)/807(2) 2110 2120 2130 2140 2120
Assistant Police Chief 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Police Officer 33.00 5.00 1.00 39.00
7.00 2.00 9.00
2.00 1.00 3.00
Community Service Officer 2.00 2.00
1.00 2.00 3.00
Police Services Technician 7.00 7.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
3.00 3.00
Total Police Dept 4.00 44.00 13.00 8.00 1.00 0.00 70.00 FIRE DEPARTMENT Administration
Fire Prevention
& Emerg.
Preparedness Fire Operations Fire Training Total Allocation Fund 101 2510 2520 2530 2540
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
3.00 1.00 4.00
Fire Captain 21.00 21.00
24.00 24.00
30.00 30.00
1.00 1.00
Total Fire Dept 5.00 1.00 78.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 85.00
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Administration(1
)
Neighborhood
Improvement
Fund Admin(2)
Presidio Maint.
Admin(3) Total Allocation
Fund 101(1)/216(2)/650(3) 3110 3110 3110
1.00 1.00
Accounting Assistant 1.00 1.00
0.50 0.25 0.75
0.20 0.20
0.50 0.25 0.75
Engineering Projects Manager 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Total Administration 4.00 1.00 2.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.70 Engineering Engineering(1)
Sewer Line
MaintenanceEngineering(2)Storm Drain
Engineering(3)
Presidio Proj
Engineering &
Admin(4) Total Allocation
Fund 101(1)/279(2)/280(3)/650(4) 3121 3121 3121 3159
2.00 2.00
Deputy PW Director/Admin
Executive Assistant
Senior Administrative Analyst
Public Works Director
Administrative Assistant
Firefighter
Senior Adminstrative Analyst
Accounting Specialist
Deputy PW Director/City Engineer
PW Administrative Services Mgr
Executive Assistant
Fire Chief
Fire Prevention Technician
Deputy Fire Marshal
Division Chief
Fire Engineer
Police Lieutenant
Police Services Assistant
Police Records/Detention Supervisor
Senior Administrative Analyst
Senior Police Services Technician
Assistant Fire Chief
Assistant Finance Director
Executive Assistant
Finance Analyst
Finance Director
Police Chief
Police Sergeant
Accountant/Auditor
Accounting Specialist
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 8, Packet Page 59
1.00 1.00
2.85 0.15 2.00 5.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.13 0.20 0.20 0.53
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Engineering Project Manager 1.00 1.00 2.00
1.00 1.00 2.00
3.40 0.30 0.30 1.00 5.00
1.00 1.00
0.42 0.58 1.00
0.14 0.86 1.00
Total Engineering 16.38 1.21 1.94 5.00 0.00 0.00 24.53
Vehicle Management -Mechanical Mechanical Total Allocation Fund 708 3154
4.00 4.00
Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Total Vehicle Mgmt.-Mechanical 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 Building Maintenance
Building
Maintenance(1)
Presidio Maint.
Bldgs(2)
Presidio Camp
Roberts(2)
Presidio Naval
Research(2) Total Allocation
Fund 101(1)/650(2) 3152 3152 3163 3164
1.00 11.00 1.00 1.00 14.00
1.00 3.00 4.00
0.15 0.85 1.00
0.25 0.75 1.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
1.00 2.00 1.00 4.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 1.00 3.00
1.00 4.00 5.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Building Maintenance 5.40 33.60 4.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 Streets/Sewer/Stormdrain
Maintenance Maintenance(1)
Presidio Maint.
Streets(2)
Sewer
Maintenance(3)
Storm Drain
Maintenance(4) Total Allocation
Fund 101(1)/650(2)/279(3)/280(4) 3151 3151 3153 3155
0.30 0.20 0.30 0.20 1.00
0.37 0.30 0.08 0.75
0.02 0.01 0.03
0.02 0.01 0.03
1.00 2.00 1.00 4.00
1.00 1.00
0.74 1.13 0.13 2.00
2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 6.00
1.00 1.00 2.00
Total Streets 6.41 2.33 5.77 2.30 0.00 0.00 16.81
Custodial Services Custodial Total Allocation
Fund 101 3172
7.00 7.00
Lead Custodian 1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
Total Custodial Services 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 Marina/Harbor
Administration(1
) Maintenance(1) Security(1)
Administration(2
) Maintenance(2) Security(2) Total Allocation
Deputy PW Director/Admin
Custodian
Senior Custodian
PW Administrative Services Mgr
Senior Street Maintenance Worker
Sign Craftsworker
Street Maintenance Leadworker
Street Maintenance Worker
Street & Utilities Supervisor
HVAC Senior Technician
Senior Craftsworker
Senior Locksmith
Senior Parts Clerk
Streets & Utilities Operations Manag
Administrative Assistant
Administrative Analyst
Administrative Assistant
Building Maintenance Supervisor
Building Maintenance Worker
Facilities Maintenance Coordinator
Historic Facilities Sr. Craftsworker
Fleet Manager
Lead Mechanic
Building Maintenance Craftsworker
Electrician
General Srvc Superintendent
Maintenance Technician
Senior Engineer
Senior Public Works Inspector
Environmental Reg. Analyst
Environmental Reg. Manager
Automotive Mechanic
Parts Clerk
City Traffic Engineer
Construction Project Manager
Deputy PW Director/City Engineer
Engineering Assistant II
Engineering Technician
Public Works Inspector
Engineering Programs Analyst
Associate Civil Engineer
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 9, Packet Page 60 Fund 600(1)/807(2) 3310 3320 3330 3410 3420/3440 3430
0.50 0.50 1.00
Harbor Coordinator 1.00 1.00 2.00
1.50 1.50
0.80 0.20 1.00
0.04 0.03 0.07
0.05 0.05 0.10
0.04 0.03 0.07
1.00 1.00 2.00
0.50 0.50 1.00
2.775 0.98 3.75
Total Marina/Harbor 2.43 1.50 2.775 1.81 3.00 0.98 12.49 Parking Administration Enforcement Maintenance
Parking
Services Total Allocation
Fund 625 3510 3520 3530 3540
2.75 2.75
1.00 1.00
0.75 0.75
1.00 1.00
0.15 0.15
0.17 0.17
0.15 0.15
8.00 8.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
4.00 4.00
0.50 0.50 1.00
4.50 4.50
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Total Parking 6.47 10.00 9.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 31.47
Community Development Department Planning
Building Safety
& Inspection Total Allocation
Fund 101 4400 4410
2.00 1.75 3.75
1.00 1.00
0.40 0.40
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Planning Manager 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Total Community Development 10.40 6.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.15 Housing & Property Management
Property
Mgmt(1)
Property
Mgmt(2)
Housing
Admin(3)
Housing
Admin(4)
Housing
Projects(4)
Housing
Projects(5) Total Allocation
Fund 101(1)/807(2)/268(3)/270(4)/274(5) 4300 4300 4305 4305 4310 4310
0.50 0.50 1.00
0.15 0.85 0.50 0.25 0.25 2.00
0.10 0.30 0.20 0.60
0.50 0.50 1.00
Housing Manager 1.00 1.00
0.15 0.85 1.00
Total Housing & Property Mgmt 1.40 2.00 1.70 1.25 0.25 0.00 6.60 Parks & Recreation Department Administration Total Allocation Recreation
Deputy PW Director/Admin
Community Development Director
HCD Coordinator - Projects/Prgm.
Property Manager
Building Technician
Chief Of Inspct Srvc/Bldg Off.
Senior Building Inspector
Inspector
Administrative Analyst
Administrative Assistant
Principal Planner
Senior Associate Planner
Code Compliance Coordinator
Sustainability Manager
Sustainability Assistant
Plans Examiner
Parking Services Representative
Parking Services Specialist
Senior Parking Controls Technician
Administrative Assistant
Associate Planner
Community Development Director
Senior Parking Enforcement Off.
Parking Controls Technician
Parking Maintenance Supervisor
Parking Maintenance Leadworker
Parking Maintenance Worker
Parking Services Coordinator
Administrative Assistant
Parking Superintendent
Deputy PW Director/City Engineer
PW Administrative Services Mgr
Parking Enforcement Officer
Parking Enforcement Supervisor
Deputy PW Director/Admin
PW Administrative Services Mgr
Harbor Maintenance Craftsworker
Harbor Maintenance Leadworker
Harbor Security Worker
Accounting Assistant
Accounting Specialist
Harbormaster
Facility Attendant (RPT)
Marina Harbor Assistant
Deputy PW Director/City Engineer
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 10, Packet Page 61 Fund 101 5110
1.00 1.00
0.34 0.34
1.00 1.00
Total Recreation 2.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.34
Recreation Centers Youth Center Senior Center
Hilltop Park
Center
Cona Park
Center
Special
Programs &
Events Sports Total Allocation
Fund 101 5121 5122 5124 5125 5130 5160
1.00 1.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
Sports Coordinator 1.00 1.00
Lead Preschool Instructor 0.75 0.75
0.50 1.00 0.50 2.00
Total Centers 1.50 1.00 1.75 0.00 1.00 1.50 6.75
Monterey Sports Center Operations Maintenance Total Allocation Fund 101 5180 5189
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Fitness Supervisor 1.00 1.00
0.33 0.33
1.00 1.00
Sports Coordinator 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Total Sports Center 6.33 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.33
Parks Maintenance(1)
Presidio
Maintenance(2)
Street
Maintenance
District(3)
Urban
Forestry(1) Cemetery (4) Parking (5) Total Allocation
Fund 101(1)/650(2)261-262(3)610(4)625(5) 5210 3210 5210 5230 5240 5210
0.75 0.25 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Park Maintenance Leadworker 2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
Park Maintenance Worker 9.10 0.40 0.50 1.00 11.00
0.80 0.03 0.15 0.02 1.00
0.33 0.33
3.00 3.00
0.50 0.50 1.00
Greenbelt Coordinator 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Total Parks 18.98 0.53 0.40 2.90 2.52 1.00 26.33
Museum Administration Total Allocation
Fund 101 5610
Artifact Specialist 0.75 0.75
0.25 0.25
Total Museum 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
LIBRARY Administration (1)
Administration
Trust (2)
Support
Services (1)
Reference
Services (1)
Youth Services
(1)
Reader's
Services (1) Total Allocation
Fund 101(1)/810(2) 5510 550-5510 5520 5530 5540 5550
0.75 0.75
1.00 1.00
0.75 0.75
1.00 0.75 2.00 3.75
1.00 1.00
2.00 1.00 3.00
1.00 1.00
Total Library 1.75 0.00 2.75 2.00 2.75 2.00 11.25
Library Assistant I
Library Assistant II
Technology Services Mgr
Librarian
Library Manager
Urban Forester
Cemetery Coordinator
Cemetery Maintenance Worker
Administrative Assistant
Administrative Assistant
Library Director
Park Maintenance Craftsworker
Park Maintenance Supervisor
Park Operations Manager
Parks & Rec Director
Senior Park Maintenance Worker
Assistant Urban Forester
Parks & Rec Director
Sports Center Manager
Building Maintenance Craftsworker
Senior Craftsworker
Maintenance Technician
Park Attendant
Recreation Coordinator
Recreation Supervisor
Recreation Specialist
Administrative Assistant
Aquatics Coordinator
Facility Coordinator
Administrative Assistant
Parks & Rec Director
Recreation Manager
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 11, Packet Page 62 GRAND TOTAL 135.79 116.37 143.79 33.56 11.77 5.48 446.75
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 12, Packet Page 63 City of Monterey
Full-Time and Regular Part-Time
Salary Schedule FY 22/23
Effective: 07-01-22 to 06-30-23
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 13, Packet Page 64 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (COUNC) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 8101 COUNCIL MEMBER ft counc Step: 1301 215.00 5,160.00 301 8101 MAYOR ft counc Step: 1300 338.00 8,112.00 300
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 14, Packet Page 65 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MEMEA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 1122 ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER ftconfidential Step: 5010 9,620.00 230,880.00 010 9201 CITY ATTORNEY pt contract Step: 5002 10,240.00 245,760.00 002 1101 CITY MANAGER ftcontract Step: 5001 10,893.00 261,432.00 001 1110 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ftexec Step: 5006 8,103.00 194,472.00 006 1106 FINANCE DIRECTOR ftconfidential Step: 5004 8,103.00 194,472.00 004 9200 FIRE CHIEF pt exec Step: 5 9,525.00 228,600.00 005 1112 HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR ftconfidential Step: 5277 8,103.00 194,472.00 277 1105 LIBRARY DIRECTOR ftexec Step: 5003 8,103.00 194,472.00 003 1292 PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR ftexec Step: 5014 8,103.00 194,472.00 014 1111 POLICE CHIEF ftexec Step: 5007 9,525.00 228,600.00 007 1116 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ftexec Step: 5009 8,808.00 211,392.00 009 oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 15, Packet Page 66 3/27/2023 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MEA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 1203 ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST ft mea Step: 1015 3,635.00 87,240.00 015 1203 ft mea Step: 2015 3,818.00 91,632.00
1203 ft mea Step: 3015 4,008.00 96,192.00
1203 ft mea Step: 4015 4,209.00 101,016.00
1203 ft mea Step: 5015 4,419.00 106,056.00
1207 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ft mea Step: 1200 6,875.00 165,000.00 200 1207 ft mea Step: 2200 7,237.00 173,688.00
1207 ft mea Step: 3200 7,618.00 182,832.00
1207 ft mea Step: 4200 8,019.00 192,456.00
1207 ft mea Step: 5200 8,441.00 202,584.00
1264 ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR ft mea Step: 1263 5,703.00 136,872.00 263 1264 ft mea Step: 2263 5,988.00 143,712.00
1264 ft mea Step: 3263 6,288.00 150,912.00
1264 ft mea Step: 4263 6,603.00 158,472.00
1264 ft mea Step: 5263 6,934.00 166,416.00
1298 ASSISTANT HR DIRECTOR ft mea Step: 1370 5,703.00 136,872.00 370 1298 ft mea Step: 2370 5,988.00 143,712.00
1298 ft mea Step: 3370 6,288.00 150,912.00
1298 ft mea Step: 4370 6,603.00 158,472.00
1298 ft mea Step: 5370 6,934.00 166,416.00
1208 ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER ft mea Step: 1018 4,413.00 105,912.00 018 1208 ft mea Step: 2018 4,633.00 111,192.00
1208 ft mea Step: 3018 4,865.00 116,760.00
1208 ft mea Step: 4018 5,107.00 122,568.00
1208 ft mea Step: 5018 5,362.00 128,688.00
1290 ASST DIR OF INFO RESOURCES ft mea Step: 1357 5,703.00 136,872.00 357 1290 ft mea Step: 2357 5,988.00 143,712.00
1290 ft mea Step: 3357 6,288.00 150,912.00
1290 ft mea Step: 4357 6,603.00 158,472.00
1290 ft mea Step: 5357 6,934.00 166,416.00
General Info\SALARY SCHEDULES\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 16, Packet Page 67 3/27/2023 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MEA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 1270 CHIEF OF INSPCT SRVC/BLDG OFF. ft mea Step: 1311 6,083.00 145,992.00 311 1270 ft mea Step: 2311 6,384.00 153,216.00
1270 ft mea Step: 3311 6,708.00 160,992.00
1270 ft mea Step: 4311 7,041.00 168,984.00
1270 ft mea Step: 5311 7,392.00 177,408.00
1221 CITY CLERK ft mea Step: 1031 4,703.00 112,872.00 031 1221 ft mea Step: 2031 4,996.00 119,904.00
1221 ft mea Step: 3031 5,291.00 126,984.00
1221 ft mea Step: 4031 5,584.00 134,016.00
1221 ft mea Step: 5031 5,878.00 141,072.00
1254 CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER ft mea Step: 1050 5,703.00 136,872.00 050 1254 ft mea Step: 2050 5,988.00 143,712.00
1254 ft mea Step: 3050 6,288.00 150,912.00
1254 ft mea Step: 4050 6,603.00 158,472.00
1254 ft mea Step: 5050 6,934.00 166,416.00
1266 CONFERENCE CENTER GENERAL MGR ft mea Step: 1303 5,387.00 129,288.00 303 1266 ft mea Step: 2303 5,658.00 135,792.00
1266 ft mea Step: 3303 5,939.00 142,536.00
1266 ft mea Step: 4303 6,238.00 149,712.00
1266 ft mea Step: 5303 6,547.00 157,128.00
1287 CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER ft mea Step: 1345 4,414.00 105,936.00 345 1287 ft mea Step: 2345 4,639.00 111,336.00
1287 ft mea Step: 3345 4,868.00 116,832.00
1287 ft mea Step: 4345 5,107.00 122,568.00
1287 ft mea Step: 5345 5,362.00 128,688.00
1121 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY II ft mea Step: 1037 4,567.00 109,608.00 037 1121 ft mea Step: 2037 4,795.00 115,080.00
1121 ft mea Step: 3037 5,036.00 120,864.00
1121 ft mea Step: 4037 5,286.00 126,864.00
1121 ft mea Step: 5037 5,548.00 133,152.00
General Info\SALARY SCHEDULES\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 2 of 8
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 17, Packet Page 68 3/27/2023 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MEA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE DEPUTY PW DIRECTOR/ADMIN mea Step: 1 5,703.00 136,872.00 017 mea Step: 2 5,988.00 143,712.00
mea Step: 3 6,288.00 150,912.00
mea Step: 4 6,603.00 158,472.00
mea Step: 5 6,934.00 166,416.00
1247 DEPUTY PW DIRECTOR/CITY ENGNR ft mea Step: 1046 6,048.00 145,152.00 046 1247 ft mea Step: 2046 6,351.00 152,424.00
1247 ft mea Step: 3046 6,668.00 160,032.00
1247 ft mea Step: 4046 6,999.00 167,976.00
1247 ft mea Step: 5046 7,351.00 176,424.00
1286 ENGINEERING PROJECTS MANAGER ft mea Step: 1344 4,413.00 105,912.00 344 1286 ft mea Step: 2344 4,633.00 111,192.00
1286 ft mea Step: 3344 4,865.00 116,760.00
1286 ft mea Step: 4344 5,107.00 122,568.00
1286 ft mea Step: 5344 5,362.00 128,688.00
4108 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS MGR. ft mea Step: 1334 4,304.00 103,296.00 334 4108 ft mea Step: 2334 4,521.00 108,504.00
4108 ft mea Step: 3334 4,741.00 113,784.00
4108 ft mea Step: 4334 4,983.00 119,592.00
4108 ft mea Step: 5334 5,234.00 125,616.00
1252 FINANCE ANALYST ft mea Step: 1294 3,635.00 87,240.00 294 1252 ft mea Step: 2294 3,818.00 91,632.00
1252 ft mea Step: 3294 4,007.00 96,168.00
1252 ft mea Step: 4294 4,209.00 101,016.00
1252 ft mea Step: 5294 4,419.00 106,056.00
1277 FINANCE MANAGER ft mea Step: 1051 5,182.00 124,368.00 051 1277 ft mea Step: 2051 5,442.00 130,608.00
1277 ft mea Step: 3051 5,714.00 137,136.00
1277 ft mea Step: 4051 6,001.00 144,024.00
1277 ft mea Step: 5051 6,294.00 151,056.00
General Info\SALARY SCHEDULES\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 3 of 8
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 18, Packet Page 69 3/27/2023 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MEA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6307 FLEET MANAGER ft mea Step: 1360 4,127.00 99,048.00 360 6307 ft mea Step: 2360 4,334.00 104,016.00
6307 ft mea Step: 3360 4,550.00 109,200.00
6307 ft mea Step: 4360 4,780.00 114,720.00
6307 ft mea Step: 5360 5,019.00 120,456.00
1272 GENERAL SRVC SUPERINTENDENT ft mea Step: 1313 5,530.00 132,720.00 313 1272 ft mea Step: 2313 5,802.00 139,248.00
1272 ft mea Step: 3313 6,096.00 146,304.00
1272 ft mea Step: 4313 6,400.00 153,600.00
1272 ft mea Step: 5313 6,719.00 161,256.00
3602 GEO INFO SYS (GIS) COORDINATOR ft mea Step: 1248 3,982.00 95,568.00 248 3602 ft mea Step: 2248 4,181.00 100,344.00
3602 ft mea Step: 3248 4,390.00 105,360.00
3602 ft mea Step: 4248 4,609.00 110,616.00
3602 ft mea Step: 5248 4,840.00 116,160.00
1210 HARBORMASTER ft mea Step: 1020 5,182.00 124,368.00 020 1210 ft mea Step: 2020 5,442.00 130,608.00
1210 ft mea Step: 3020 5,714.00 137,136.00
1210 ft mea Step: 4020 6,001.00 144,024.00
1210 ft mea Step: 5020 6,294.00 151,056.00
1289 HOUSING MANAGER ft mea Step: 1368 4,127.00 99,048.00 368 1289 ft mea Step: 2368 4,334.00 104,016.00
1289 ft mea Step: 3368 4,550.00 109,200.00
1289 ft mea Step: 4368 4,780.00 114,720.00
1289 ft mea Step: 5368 5,019.00 120,456.00
1250 HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST ft mea Step: 1267 3,635.00 87,240.00 267 1250 ft mea Step: 2267 3,818.00 91,632.00
1250 ft mea Step: 3267 4,008.00 96,192.00
1250 ft mea Step: 4267 4,209.00 101,016.00
1250 ft mea Step: 5267 4,419.00 106,056.00
General Info\SALARY SCHEDULES\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 4 of 8
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 19, Packet Page 70 3/27/2023 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MEA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE IT NETWORK ENGINEER I mea Step: 1 4,591.60 110,198.40 380 mea Step: 2 4,819.36 115,664.64
mea Step: 3 5,056.48 121,355.52
mea Step: 4 5,313.36 127,520.64
mea Step: 5 5,573.36 133,760.64
1255 LIBRARY MANAGER ft mea Step: 1028 4,382.00 105,168.00 028 1255 ft mea Step: 2028 4,600.00 110,400.00
1255 ft mea Step: 3028 4,827.00 115,848.00
1255 ft mea Step: 4028 5,072.00 121,728.00
1255 ft mea Step: 5028 5,322.00 127,728.00
1284 NETWORK ENGINEER ft mea Step: 1338 4,413.00 105,912.00 338 1284 ft mea Step: 2338 4,633.00 111,192.00
1284 ft mea Step: 3338 4,865.00 116,760.00
1284 ft mea Step: 4338 5,107.00 122,568.00
1284 ft mea Step: 5338 5,362.00 128,688.00
1283 PARK OPERATIONS MANAGER ft mea Step: 1337 4,127.00 99,048.00 337 1283 ft mea Step: 2337 4,334.00 104,016.00
1283 ft mea Step: 3337 4,550.00 109,200.00
1283 ft mea Step: 4337 4,780.00 114,720.00
1283 ft mea Step: 5337 5,019.00 120,456.00
1212 PARKING SUPERINTENDENT ft mea Step: 1022 5,182.00 124,368.00 022 1212 ft mea Step: 2022 5,442.00 130,608.00
1212 ft mea Step: 3022 5,714.00 137,136.00
1212 ft mea Step: 4022 6,001.00 144,024.00
1212 ft mea Step: 5022 6,294.00 151,056.00
PLANNING MANAGER mea Step: 1 5,703.00 136,872.00 025
mea Step: 2 5,988.00 143,712.00
mea Step: 3 6,288.00 150,912.00
mea Step: 4 6,603.00 158,472.00
mea Step: 5 6,934.00 166,416.00
General Info\SALARY SCHEDULES\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 5 of 8
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 20, Packet Page 71 3/27/2023 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MEA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 1267 PRINCIPAL PLANNER ft mea Step: 1307 4,629.00 111,096.00 307 1267 ft mea Step: 2307 4,862.00 116,688.00
1267 ft mea Step: 3307 5,103.00 122,472.00
1267 ft mea Step: 4307 5,360.00 128,640.00
1267 ft mea Step: 5307 5,627.00 135,048.00
1259 PROPERTY MANAGER ft mea Step: 1030 4,703.00 112,872.00 030 1259 ft mea Step: 2030 4,996.00 119,904.00
1259 ft mea Step: 3030 5,291.00 126,984.00
1259 ft mea Step: 4030 5,584.00 134,016.00
1259 ft mea Step: 5030 5,878.00 141,072.00
1234 PW ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MGR pt mea Step: 1036 5,182.00 124,368.00 036 1234 pt mea Step: 2036 5,442.00 130,608.00
1234 pt mea Step: 3036 5,714.00 137,136.00
1234 pt mea Step: 4036 6,001.00 144,024.00
1234 pt mea Step: 5036 6,294.00 151,056.00
1230 RECREATION MANAGER ft mea Step: 1291 5,182.00 124,368.00 291 1230 ft mea Step: 2291 5,442.00 130,608.00
1230 ft mea Step: 3291 5,714.00 137,136.00
1230 ft mea Step: 4291 6,001.00 144,024.00
1230 ft mea Step: 5291 6,294.00 151,056.00
9205 RISK MANAGER pt mea Step: 1052 4,154.00 99,696.00 052 9205 pt mea Step: 2052 4,360.00 104,640.00
9205 pt mea Step: 3052 4,575.00 109,800.00
9205 pt mea Step: 4052 4,804.00 115,296.00
9205 pt mea Step: 5052 5,044.00 121,056.00
1263 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT ft mea Step: 1262 4,154.00 99,696.00 262 1263 ft mea Step: 2262 4,360.00 104,640.00
1263 ft mea Step: 3262 4,575.00 109,800.00
1263 ft mea Step: 4262 4,804.00 115,296.00
1263 ft mea Step: 5262 5,044.00 121,056.00
General Info\SALARY SCHEDULES\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 6 of 8
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 21, Packet Page 72 3/27/2023 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MEA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 1265 SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST ft mea Step: 1284 4,154.00 99,696.00 284 1265 ft mea Step: 2284 4,360.00 104,640.00
1265 ft mea Step: 3284 4,575.00 109,800.00
1265 ft mea Step: 4284 4,804.00 115,296.00
1265 ft mea Step: 5284 5,044.00 121,056.00
1246 SENIOR ENGINEER ft mea Step: 1256 5,268.00 126,432.00 256 1246 ft mea Step: 2256 5,546.00 133,104.00
1246 ft mea Step: 3256 5,838.00 140,112.00
1246 ft mea Step: 4256 6,145.00 147,480.00
1246 ft mea Step: 5256 6,468.00 155,232.00
SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCS ANALYST mea Step: 1 4,154.00 99,696.00 376 mea Step: 2 4,360.00 104,640.00
mea Step: 3 4,575.00 109,800.00
mea Step: 4 4,804.00 115,296.00
mea Step: 5 5,044.00 121,056.00
1258 SPORTS CENTER MANAGER ft mea Step: 1217 5,182.00 124,368.00 217 1258 ft mea Step: 2217 5,440.00 130,560.00
1258 ft mea Step: 3217 5,713.00 137,112.00
1258 ft mea Step: 4217 5,997.00 143,928.00
1258 ft mea Step: 5217 6,294.00 151,056.00
9214 STREETS & UTILITIES OPERAT MGR ft mea Step: 1363 4,127.00 99,048.00 363 9214 ft mea Step: 2363 4,334.00 104,016.00
9214 ft mea Step: 3363 4,550.00 109,200.00
9214 ft mea Step: 4363 4,780.00 114,720.00
9214 ft mea Step: 5363 5,019.00 120,456.00
1295 SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER ft mea Step: 1365 4,127.00 99,048.00 365 1295 ft mea Step: 2365 4,334.00 104,016.00
1295 ft mea Step: 3365 4,550.00 109,200.00
1295 ft mea Step: 4365 4,780.00 114,720.00
1295 ft mea Step: 5365 5,019.00 120,456.00
General Info\SALARY SCHEDULES\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 7 of 8
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 22, Packet Page 73 3/27/2023 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MEA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 1291 SYSTEMS AND NETWORK ADMIN ft mea Step: 1358 4,983.00 119,592.00 358 1291 ft mea Step: 2358 5,233.00 125,592.00
1291 ft mea Step: 3358 5,494.00 131,856.00
1291 ft mea Step: 4358 5,770.00 138,480.00
1291 ft mea Step: 5358 6,052.00 145,248.00
1253 URBAN FORESTER ft mea Step: 1321 3,821.00 91,704.00 321 1253 ft mea Step: 2321 4,013.00 96,312.00
1253 ft mea Step: 3321 4,212.00 101,088.00
1253 ft mea Step: 4321 4,422.00 106,128.00
1253 ft mea Step: 5321 4,646.00 111,504.00
General Info\SALARY SCHEDULES\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 23, Packet Page 74 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 3310 ACCOUNTANT/AUDITOR ft gem Step: 1076 3,173.00 76,152.00 076 3310 ft gem Step: 2076 3,333.00 79,992.00
3310 ft gem Step: 3076 3,501.00 84,024.00
3310 ft gem Step: 4076 3,674.00 88,176.00
3310 ft gem Step: 5076 3,857.00 92,568.00
3313 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT ft gem Step: 1268 2,271.00 54,504.00 268 3313 ft gem Step: 2268 2,385.00 57,240.00
3313 ft gem Step: 3268 2,504.00 60,096.00
3313 ft gem Step: 4268 2,630.00 63,120.00
3313 ft gem Step: 5268 2,762.00 66,288.00
3320 ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST ft gem Step: 1285 2,790.00 66,960.00 285 3320 ft gem Step: 2285 2,928.00 70,272.00
3320 ft gem Step: 3285 3,072.00 73,728.00
3320 ft gem Step: 4285 3,228.00 77,472.00
3320 ft gem Step: 5285 3,389.00 81,336.00
3307 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ft gem Step: 1373 2,060.00 49,440.00 373 3307 ft gem Step: 2373 2,163.00 51,912.00
3307 ft gem Step: 3373 2,271.00 54,504.00
3307 ft gem Step: 4373 2,385.00 57,240.00
3307 ft gem Step: 5373 2,504.00 60,096.00
3307 ft gem Step: 6373 2,630.00 63,120.00
3307 ft gem Step: 7373 2,762.00 66,288.00
5303 AQUATICS COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1114 3,095.00 74,280.00 114 5303 ft gem Step: 2114 3,250.00 78,000.00
5303 ft gem Step: 3114 3,413.00 81,912.00
5303 ft gem Step: 4114 3,584.00 86,016.00
5303 ft gem Step: 5114 3,762.00 90,288.00
5301 AQUATICS SPECIALIST II ft gem Step: 1302 1,941.00 46,584.00 302 5301 ft gem Step: 2302 2,037.00 48,888.00
5301 ft gem Step: 3302 2,139.00 51,336.00
5301 ft gem Step: 4302 2,246.00 53,904.00
5301 ft gem Step: 5302 2,358.00 56,592.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 1 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 24, Packet Page 75 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6722 ASSISTANT URBAN FORESTER ft gem Step: 1320 3,254.00 78,096.00 320 6722 ft gem Step: 2320 3,416.00 81,984.00
6722 ft gem Step: 3320 3,588.00 86,112.00
6722 ft gem Step: 4320 3,766.00 90,384.00
6722 ft gem Step: 5320 3,957.00 94,968.00
4202 ASSOCIATE PLANNER ft gem Step: 1097 3,673.00 88,152.00 097 4202 ft gem Step: 2097 3,858.00 92,592.00
4202 ft gem Step: 3097 4,051.00 97,224.00
4202 ft gem Step: 4097 4,254.00 102,096.00
4202 ft gem Step: 5097 4,468.00 107,232.00
6301 AUTOMOTIVE MECHANIC ft gem Step: 1132 2,881.00 69,144.00 132 6301 ft gem Step: 2132 3,023.00 72,552.00
6301 ft gem Step: 3132 3,180.00 76,320.00
6301 ft gem Step: 4132 3,335.00 80,040.00
6301 ft gem Step: 5132 3,503.00 84,072.00
6501 BUILDING MAINT. CRAFTSWORKER ft gem Step: 1135 2,677.00 64,248.00 135 6501 ft gem Step: 2135 2,810.00 67,440.00
6501 ft gem Step: 3135 2,955.00 70,920.00
6501 ft gem Step: 4135 3,096.00 74,304.00
6501 ft gem Step: 5135 3,252.00 78,048.00
6502 BUILDING MAINT. SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1136 3,408.00 81,792.00 136 6502 ft gem Step: 2136 3,580.00 85,920.00
6502 ft gem Step: 3136 3,759.00 90,216.00
6502 ft gem Step: 4136 3,945.00 94,680.00
6502 ft gem Step: 5136 4,143.00 99,432.00
6503 BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORKER ft gem Step: 1137 2,048.00 49,152.00 137 6503 ft gem Step: 2137 2,151.00 51,624.00
6503 ft gem Step: 3137 2,258.00 54,192.00
6503 ft gem Step: 4137 2,371.00 56,904.00
6503 ft gem Step: 5137 2,489.00 59,736.00
6503 ft gem Step: 6137 2,613.00 62,712.00
6503 ft gem Step: 7137 2,744.00 65,856.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 2 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 25, Packet Page 76 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 4306 BUILDING TECHNICIAN ft gem Step: 1196 3,260.00 78,240.00 196 4306 ft gem Step: 2196 3,423.00 82,152.00
4306 ft gem Step: 3196 3,596.00 86,304.00
4306 ft gem Step: 4196 3,775.00 90,600.00
4306 ft gem Step: 5196 3,966.00 95,184.00
BUSINESS LICENSE INSPECTOR gem Step: 1 3,023.00 72,552.00 247 gem Step: 2 3,180.00 76,320.00
gem Step: 3 3,335.00 80,040.00
gem Step: 4 3,503.00 84,072.00
gem Step: 5 3,675.00 88,200.00
6702 CEMETERY COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1157 3,095.00 74,280.00 157 6702 ft gem Step: 2157 3,250.00 78,000.00
6702 ft gem Step: 3157 3,413.00 81,912.00
6702 ft gem Step: 4157 3,584.00 86,016.00
6702 ft gem Step: 5157 3,762.00 90,288.00
6710 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE WORKER ft gem Step: 1165 2,369.00 56,856.00 165 6710 ft gem Step: 2165 2,489.00 59,736.00
6710 ft gem Step: 3165 2,614.00 62,736.00
6710 ft gem Step: 4165 2,744.00 65,856.00
6710 ft gem Step: 5165 2,881.00 69,144.00
4308 CODE COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1326 3,586.00 86,064.00 326 4308 ft gem Step: 2326 3,765.00 90,360.00
4308 ft gem Step: 3326 3,954.00 94,896.00
4308 ft gem Step: 4326 4,151.00 99,624.00
4308 ft gem Step: 5326 4,361.00 104,664.00
6805 COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER ft gem Step: 1353 2,429.00 58,296.00 353 6805 ft gem Step: 2353 2,553.00 61,272.00
6805 ft gem Step: 3353 2,680.00 64,320.00
6805 ft gem Step: 4353 2,812.00 67,488.00
6805 ft gem Step: 5353 2,956.00 70,944.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 3 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 26, Packet Page 77 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6510 CUSTODIAN ft gem Step: 1143 1,602.00 38,448.00 143 6510 ft gem Step: 2143 1,684.00 40,416.00
6510 ft gem Step: 3143 1,767.00 42,408.00
6510 ft gem Step: 4143 1,854.00 44,496.00
6510 ft gem Step: 5143 1,950.00 46,800.00
6203 ELECTRICIAN ft gem Step: 1124 3,095.00 74,280.00 124 6203 ft gem Step: 2124 3,250.00 78,000.00
6203 ft gem Step: 3124 3,413.00 81,912.00
6203 ft gem Step: 4124 3,584.00 86,016.00
6203 ft gem Step: 5124 3,762.00 90,288.00
6727 ENGINEERING ASSISTANT I ft gem Step: 1343 3,173.00 76,152.00 343 6727 ft gem Step: 2343 3,333.00 79,992.00
6727 ft gem Step: 3343 3,501.00 84,024.00
6727 ft gem Step: 4343 3,674.00 88,176.00
6727 ft gem Step: 5343 3,857.00 92,568.00
6728 ENGINEERING ASSISTANT II ft gem Step: 1364 3,587.00 86,088.00 364 6728 ft gem Step: 2364 3,763.00 90,312.00
6728 ft gem Step: 3364 3,959.00 95,016.00
6728 ft gem Step: 4364 4,151.00 99,624.00
6728 ft gem Step: 5364 4,361.00 104,664.00
1297 ENGINEERING PROGRAMS ANALYST ft gem Step: 1040 3,673.00 88,152.00 040 1297 ft gem Step: 2040 3,858.00 92,592.00
1297 ft gem Step: 3040 4,051.00 97,224.00
1297 ft gem Step: 4040 4,254.00 102,096.00
1297 ft gem Step: 5040 4,468.00 107,232.00
6725 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN ft gem Step: 1090 2,882.00 69,168.00 090 6725 ft gem Step: 2090 3,024.00 72,576.00
6725 ft gem Step: 3090 3,177.00 76,248.00
6725 ft gem Step: 4090 3,335.00 80,040.00
6725 ft gem Step: 5090 3,503.00 84,072.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 4 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 27, Packet Page 78 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 1276 ENVIRONMENTAL REG ANALYST ft gem Step: 1329 3,673.00 88,152.00 329 1276 ft gem Step: 2329 3,858.00 92,592.00
1276 ft gem Step: 3329 4,051.00 97,224.00
1276 ft gem Step: 4329 4,254.00 102,096.00
1276 ft gem Step: 5329 4,468.00 107,232.00
6517 EVENT & SALES ASSISTANT ft gem Step: 1086 2,271.00 54,504.00 086 6517 ft gem Step: 2086 2,385.00 57,240.00
6517 ft gem Step: 3086 2,504.00 60,096.00
6517 ft gem Step: 4086 2,630.00 63,120.00
6517 ft gem Step: 5086 2,762.00 66,288.00
6507 EVENT COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1140 3,095.00 74,280.00 140 6507 ft gem Step: 2140 3,250.00 78,000.00
6507 ft gem Step: 3140 3,413.00 81,912.00
6507 ft gem Step: 4140 3,584.00 86,016.00
6507 ft gem Step: 5140 3,762.00 90,288.00
6513 EVENT SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1144 3,409.00 81,816.00 144 6513 ft gem Step: 2144 3,580.00 85,920.00
6513 ft gem Step: 3144 3,759.00 90,216.00
6513 ft gem Step: 4144 3,945.00 94,680.00
6513 ft gem Step: 5144 4,143.00 99,432.00
3318 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT I ft gem Step: 1288 2,500.00 60,000.00 288 3318 ft gem Step: 2288 2,627.00 63,048.00
3318 ft gem Step: 3288 2,759.00 66,216.00
3318 ft gem Step: 4288 2,896.00 69,504.00
3318 ft gem Step: 5288 3,043.00 73,032.00
3324 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT II ft gem Step: 1289 2,767.00 66,408.00 289 3324 ft gem Step: 2289 2,904.00 69,696.00
3324 ft gem Step: 3289 3,052.00 73,248.00
3324 ft gem Step: 4289 3,204.00 76,896.00
3324 ft gem Step: 5289 3,365.00 80,760.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 5 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 28, Packet Page 79 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 5209 FACILITIES MAINT. COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1305 3,673.00 88,152.00 305 5209 ft gem Step: 2305 3,858.00 92,592.00
5209 ft gem Step: 3305 4,050.00 97,200.00
5209 ft gem Step: 4305 4,254.00 102,096.00
5209 ft gem Step: 5305 4,468.00 107,232.00
6504 FACILITY ATTENDANT ft gem Step: 1138 2,257.00 54,168.00 138 6504 ft gem Step: 2138 2,370.00 56,880.00
6504 ft gem Step: 3138 2,489.00 59,736.00
6504 ft gem Step: 4138 2,614.00 62,736.00
6504 ft gem Step: 5138 2,744.00 65,856.00
5205 FACILITY COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1111 3,095.00 74,280.00 111 5205 ft gem Step: 2111 3,250.00 78,000.00
5205 ft gem Step: 3111 3,413.00 81,912.00
5205 ft gem Step: 4111 3,584.00 86,016.00
5205 ft gem Step: 5111 3,762.00 90,288.00
3109 FIELD ASSISTANT ft gem Step: 1172 2,184.00 52,416.00 172 3109 ft gem Step: 2172 2,293.00 55,032.00
3109 ft gem Step: 3172 2,408.00 57,792.00
3109 ft gem Step: 4172 2,529.00 60,696.00
3109 ft gem Step: 5172 2,656.00 63,744.00
FIRE PREV PLANS EXAM/INSPECTOR gem Step: 1 3,620.00 86,880.00 369 gem Step: 2 3,802.00 91,248.00
gem Step: 3 3,991.00 95,784.00
gem Step: 4 4,192.00 100,608.00
gem Step: 5 4,399.00 105,576.00
3329 FIRE PREVENTION TECHNICIAN ft gem Step: 1324 2,745.00 65,880.00 324 3329 ft gem Step: 2324 2,882.00 69,168.00
3329 ft gem Step: 3324 3,024.00 72,576.00
3329 ft gem Step: 4324 3,177.00 76,248.00
3329 ft gem Step: 5324 3,335.00 80,040.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 6 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 29, Packet Page 80 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 5212 FITNESS SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1375 3,996.00 95,904.00 375 5212 ft gem Step: 2375 3,800.00 91,200.00
5212 ft gem Step: 3375 3,989.00 95,736.00
5212 ft gem Step: 4375 4,188.00 100,512.00
5212 ft gem Step: 5375 4,397.00 105,528.00
6810 FUND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1356 3,021.00 72,504.00 356 6810 ft gem Step: 2356 3,173.00 76,152.00
6810 ft gem Step: 3356 3,330.00 79,920.00
6810 ft gem Step: 4356 3,496.00 83,904.00
6810 ft gem Step: 5356 3,671.00 88,104.00
6720 GREENBELT COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1115 2,664.00 63,936.00 115 6720 ft gem Step: 2115 2,798.00 67,152.00
6720 ft gem Step: 3115 2,936.00 70,464.00
6720 ft gem Step: 4115 3,088.00 74,112.00
6720 ft gem Step: 5115 3,241.00 77,784.00
GUEST SERVICE SPECIALIST gem Step: 1 2,025.00 48,600.00 372 gem Step: 2 2,128.00 51,072.00
gem Step: 3 2,235.00 53,640.00
gem Step: 4 2,346.00 56,304.00
gem Step: 5 2,462.00 59,088.00
6111 HARBOR COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1359 3,095.00 74,280.00 359 6111 ft gem Step: 2359 3,250.00 78,000.00
6111 ft gem Step: 3359 3,413.00 81,912.00
6111 ft gem Step: 4359 3,584.00 86,016.00
6111 ft gem Step: 5359 3,762.00 90,288.00
6110 HARBOR MAINT. CRAFTSWORKER ft gem Step: 1269 2,677.00 64,248.00 269 6110 ft gem Step: 2269 2,810.00 67,440.00
6110 ft gem Step: 3269 2,955.00 70,920.00
6110 ft gem Step: 4269 3,096.00 74,304.00
6110 ft gem Step: 5269 3,252.00 78,048.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 7 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 30, Packet Page 81 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6102 HARBOR MAINTENANCE LEADWORKER ft gem Step: 1186 2,881.00 69,144.00 186 6102 ft gem Step: 2186 3,023.00 72,552.00
6102 ft gem Step: 3186 3,180.00 76,320.00
6102 ft gem Step: 4186 3,335.00 80,040.00
6102 ft gem Step: 5186 3,503.00 84,072.00
6105 HARBOR SECURITY WORKER ft gem Step: 1120 2,429.00 58,296.00 120 6105 ft gem Step: 2120 2,551.00 61,224.00
6105 ft gem Step: 3120 2,681.00 64,344.00
6105 ft gem Step: 4120 2,813.00 67,512.00
6105 ft gem Step: 5120 2,956.00 70,944.00
4208 HCD COORDINATOR-PROJ &PROGRAMS ft gem Step: 1230 3,268.00 78,432.00 230 4208 ft gem Step: 2230 3,430.00 82,320.00
4208 ft gem Step: 3230 3,602.00 86,448.00
4208 ft gem Step: 4230 3,783.00 90,792.00
4208 ft gem Step: 5230 3,972.00 95,328.00
6512 HISTORIC FAC. SR. CRAFTSWORKER ft gem Step: 1203 3,017.00 72,408.00 203 6512 ft gem Step: 2203 3,170.00 76,080.00
6512 ft gem Step: 3203 3,331.00 79,944.00
6512 ft gem Step: 4203 3,499.00 83,976.00
6512 ft gem Step: 5203 3,671.00 88,104.00
HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT gem Step: 1 2,184.00 52,416.00 335 gem Step: 2 2,293.00 55,032.00
gem Step: 3 2,408.00 57,792.00
gem Step: 4 2,529.00 60,696.00
gem Step: 5 2,656.00 63,744.00
HUMAN RESOURCES COORDINATOR gem Step: 1 3,095.00 74,280.00 361 gem Step: 2 3,250.00 78,000.00
gem Step: 3 3,413.00 81,912.00
gem Step: 4 3,584.00 86,016.00
gem Step: 5 3,762.00 90,288.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 8 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 31, Packet Page 82 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 3322 HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST ft gem Step: 1280 2,790.00 66,960.00 280 3322 ft gem Step: 2280 2,928.00 70,272.00
3322 ft gem Step: 3280 3,072.00 73,728.00
3322 ft gem Step: 4280 3,228.00 77,472.00
3322 ft gem Step: 5280 3,389.00 81,336.00
4307 HVAC SENIOR TECHNICIAN ft gem Step: 1306 3,112.00 74,688.00 306 4307 ft gem Step: 2306 3,269.00 78,456.00
4307 ft gem Step: 3306 3,430.00 82,320.00
4307 ft gem Step: 4306 3,603.00 86,472.00
4307 ft gem Step: 5306 3,783.00 90,792.00
3107 INFORMATION TECH SPECIALIST ft gem Step: 1378 3,095.00 74,280.00 378 3107 ft gem Step: 2378 3,250.00 78,000.00
3107 ft gem Step: 3378 3,414.00 81,936.00
3107 ft gem Step: 4378 3,584.00 86,016.00
3107 ft gem Step: 5378 3,762.00 90,288.00
3108 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ANALYST ft gem Step: 1377 3,673.00 88,152.00 377 3108 ft gem Step: 2377 3,858.00 92,592.00
3108 ft gem Step: 3377 4,051.00 97,224.00
3108 ft gem Step: 4377 4,254.00 102,096.00
3108 ft gem Step: 5377 4,468.00 107,232.00
4301 INSPECTOR ft gem Step: 1100 3,587.00 86,088.00 100 4301 ft gem Step: 2100 3,763.00 90,312.00
4301 ft gem Step: 3100 3,959.00 95,016.00
4301 ft gem Step: 4100 4,151.00 99,624.00
4301 ft gem Step: 5100 4,361.00 104,664.00
3206 IT APPLICATION ENGINEER I ft gem Step: 1255 3,532.00 84,768.00 069 3206 ft gem Step: 2255 3,710.00 89,040.00
3206 ft gem Step: 3255 3,895.00 93,480.00
3206 ft gem Step: 4255 4,090.00 98,160.00
3206 ft gem Step: 5255 4,296.00 103,104.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 9 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 32, Packet Page 83 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE IT APPLICATION ENGINEER II gem Step: 1 4,243.00 101,832.00 038 gem Step: 2 4,455.00 106,920.00
gem Step: 3 4,678.00 112,272.00
gem Step: 4 4,911.00 117,864.00
gem Step: 5 5,156.00 123,744.00
IT APPLICATION ENGINEER III gem Step: 1 4,590.00 110,160.00 080 gem Step: 2 4,819.00 115,656.00
gem Step: 3 5,060.00 121,440.00
gem Step: 4 5,313.00 127,512.00
gem Step: 5 5,576.00 133,824.00
6508 LAUNDRY ATTENDANT ft gem Step: 1250 1,165.00 27,960.00 250 6508 ft gem Step: 2250 1,226.00 29,424.00
6508 ft gem Step: 3250 1,284.00 30,816.00
6508 ft gem Step: 4250 1,351.00 32,424.00
6508 ft gem Step: 5250 1,414.00 33,936.00
LEAD CUSTODIAN gem Step: 1 2,256.80 54,163.20 142
gem Step: 2 2,370.16 56,883.84
gem Step: 3 2,488.72 59,729.28
gem Step: 4 2,613.52 62,724.48
gem Step: 5 2,743.52 65,844.48
6304 LEAD MECHANIC ft gem Step: 1254 3,023.00 72,552.00 254 6304 ft gem Step: 2254 3,180.00 76,320.00
6304 ft gem Step: 3254 3,335.00 80,040.00
6304 ft gem Step: 4254 3,503.00 84,072.00
6304 ft gem Step: 5254 3,675.00 88,200.00
3316 LEGAL SECRETARY ft gem Step: 1078 2,500.00 60,000.00 078 3316 ft gem Step: 2078 2,627.00 63,048.00
3316 ft gem Step: 3078 2,759.00 66,216.00
3316 ft gem Step: 4078 2,896.00 69,504.00
3316 ft gem Step: 5078 3,043.00 73,032.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 10 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 33, Packet Page 84 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 5101 LIBRARIAN ft gem Step: 1104 2,962.00 71,088.00 104 5101 ft gem Step: 2104 3,108.00 74,592.00
5101 ft gem Step: 3104 3,265.00 78,360.00
5101 ft gem Step: 4104 3,426.00 82,224.00
5101 ft gem Step: 5104 3,597.00 86,328.00
3101 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I ft gem Step: 1063 2,082.00 49,968.00 063 3101 ft gem Step: 2063 2,185.00 52,440.00
3101 ft gem Step: 3063 2,294.00 55,056.00
3101 ft gem Step: 4063 2,410.00 57,840.00
3101 ft gem Step: 5063 2,530.00 60,720.00
3102 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II ft gem Step: 1064 2,271.00 54,504.00 064 3102 ft gem Step: 2064 2,385.00 57,240.00
3102 ft gem Step: 3064 2,504.00 60,096.00
3102 ft gem Step: 4064 2,630.00 63,120.00
3102 ft gem Step: 5064 2,762.00 66,288.00
3104 LIBRARY ASSISTANT III ft gem Step: 1066 2,404.00 57,696.00 066 3104 ft gem Step: 2066 2,526.00 60,624.00
3104 ft gem Step: 3066 2,653.00 63,672.00
3104 ft gem Step: 4066 2,785.00 66,840.00
3104 ft gem Step: 5066 2,926.00 70,224.00
6718 MAINTENANCE SPECIALIST ft gem Step: 1299 2,170.00 52,080.00 299 6718 ft gem Step: 2299 2,279.00 54,696.00
6718 ft gem Step: 3299 2,393.00 57,432.00
6718 ft gem Step: 4299 2,510.00 60,240.00
6718 ft gem Step: 5299 2,637.00 63,288.00
6109 MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN ft gem Step: 1216 2,709.00 65,016.00 216 6109 ft gem Step: 2216 2,845.00 68,280.00
6109 ft gem Step: 3216 2,985.00 71,640.00
6109 ft gem Step: 4216 3,136.00 75,264.00
6109 ft gem Step: 5216 3,293.00 79,032.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 11 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 34, Packet Page 85 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 3328 MARINA HARBOR ASSISTANT ft gem Step: 1298 2,878.00 69,072.00 298 3328 ft gem Step: 2298 3,020.00 72,480.00
3328 ft gem Step: 3298 3,174.00 76,176.00
3328 ft gem Step: 4298 3,332.00 79,968.00
3328 ft gem Step: 5298 3,500.00 84,000.00
MEDIA SPECIALIST gem Step: 1 2,184.00 52,416.00 094
gem Step: 2 2,293.00 55,032.00
gem Step: 3 2,408.00 57,792.00
gem Step: 4 2,529.00 60,696.00
gem Step: 5 2,656.00 63,744.00
MEDICAL RECORDS ASSISTANT gem Step: 1 2,184.00 52,416.00 711 gem Step: 2 2,293.00 55,032.00
gem Step: 3 2,408.00 57,792.00
gem Step: 4 2,529.00 60,696.00
gem Step: 5 2,656.00 63,744.00
6515 OPERATIONS COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1322 3,095.00 74,280.00 322 6515 ft gem Step: 2322 3,250.00 78,000.00
6515 ft gem Step: 3322 3,413.00 81,912.00
6515 ft gem Step: 4322 3,584.00 86,016.00
6515 ft gem Step: 5322 3,762.00 90,288.00
6506 OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1139 3,409.00 81,816.00 139 6506 ft gem Step: 2139 3,580.00 85,920.00
6506 ft gem Step: 3139 3,759.00 90,216.00
6506 ft gem Step: 4139 3,945.00 94,680.00
6506 ft gem Step: 5139 4,143.00 99,432.00
6703 PARK ATTENDANT ft gem Step: 1158 2,429.00 58,296.00 158 6703 ft gem Step: 2158 2,553.00 61,272.00
6703 ft gem Step: 3158 2,680.00 64,320.00
6703 ft gem Step: 4158 2,812.00 67,488.00
6703 ft gem Step: 5158 2,956.00 70,944.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 12 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 35, Packet Page 86 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6704 PARK MAINTENANCE CRAFTSWORKER ft gem Step: 1194 2,489.00 59,736.00 194 6704 ft gem Step: 2194 2,614.00 62,736.00
6704 ft gem Step: 3194 2,744.00 65,856.00
6704 ft gem Step: 4194 2,881.00 69,144.00
6704 ft gem Step: 5194 3,023.00 72,552.00
6705 PARK MAINTENANCE LEADWORKER ft gem Step: 1160 2,743.00 65,832.00 160 6705 ft gem Step: 2160 2,880.00 69,120.00
6705 ft gem Step: 3160 3,020.00 72,480.00
6705 ft gem Step: 4160 3,171.00 76,104.00
6705 ft gem Step: 5160 3,333.00 79,992.00
6701 PARK MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1156 3,173.00 76,152.00 156 6701 ft gem Step: 2156 3,333.00 79,992.00
6701 ft gem Step: 3156 3,501.00 84,024.00
6701 ft gem Step: 4156 3,674.00 88,176.00
6701 ft gem Step: 5156 3,857.00 92,568.00
6706 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER ft gem Step: 1161 2,048.00 49,152.00 161 6706 ft gem Step: 2161 2,151.00 51,624.00
6706 ft gem Step: 3161 2,258.00 54,192.00
6706 ft gem Step: 4161 2,371.00 56,904.00
6706 ft gem Step: 5161 2,489.00 59,736.00
6706 ft gem Step: 6161 2,613.00 62,712.00
6706 ft gem Step: 7161 2,744.00 65,856.00
6606 PARKING CONTROLS TECHNICIAN ft gem Step: 1274 2,826.00 67,824.00 274 6606 ft gem Step: 2274 2,966.00 71,184.00
6606 ft gem Step: 3274 3,113.00 74,712.00
6606 ft gem Step: 4274 3,273.00 78,552.00
6606 ft gem Step: 5274 3,434.00 82,416.00
6601 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ft gem Step: 1145 2,429.00 58,296.00 145 6601 ft gem Step: 2145 2,553.00 61,272.00
6601 ft gem Step: 3145 2,680.00 64,320.00
6601 ft gem Step: 4145 2,812.00 67,488.00
6601 ft gem Step: 5145 2,956.00 70,944.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 13 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 36, Packet Page 87 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6605 PARKING ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1149 3,408.00 81,792.00 149 6605 ft gem Step: 2149 3,580.00 85,920.00
6605 ft gem Step: 3149 3,759.00 90,216.00
6605 ft gem Step: 4149 3,945.00 94,680.00
6605 ft gem Step: 5149 4,143.00 99,432.00
6615 PARKING MAINTENANCE LEADWORKER ft gem Step: 1159 2,881.00 69,144.00 159 6615 ft gem Step: 2159 3,023.00 72,552.00
6615 ft gem Step: 3159 3,180.00 76,320.00
6615 ft gem Step: 4159 3,335.00 80,040.00
6615 ft gem Step: 5159 3,503.00 84,072.00
6604 PARKING MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1148 3,408.00 81,792.00 148 6604 ft gem Step: 2148 3,580.00 85,920.00
6604 ft gem Step: 3148 3,759.00 90,216.00
6604 ft gem Step: 4148 3,945.00 94,680.00
6604 ft gem Step: 5148 4,143.00 99,432.00
6608 PARKING MAINTENANCE WORKER ft gem Step: 1151 2,048.00 49,152.00 151 6608 ft gem Step: 2151 2,151.00 51,624.00
6608 ft gem Step: 3151 2,258.00 54,192.00
6608 ft gem Step: 4151 2,371.00 56,904.00
6608 ft gem Step: 5151 2,489.00 59,736.00
6608 ft gem Step: 6151 2,613.00 62,712.00
6608 ft gem Step: 7151 2,744.00 65,856.00
6616 PARKING SERVICES COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1116 3,676.00 88,224.00 116 6616 ft gem Step: 2116 3,858.00 92,592.00
6616 ft gem Step: 3116 4,050.00 97,200.00
6616 ft gem Step: 4116 4,254.00 102,096.00
6616 ft gem Step: 5116 4,468.00 107,232.00
6617 PARKING SERVICES REPRESENTATIV ft gem Step: 1117 2,258.00 54,192.00 117 6617 ft gem Step: 2117 2,371.00 56,904.00
6617 ft gem Step: 3117 2,489.00 59,736.00
6617 ft gem Step: 4117 2,613.00 62,712.00
6617 ft gem Step: 5117 2,744.00 65,856.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 14 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 37, Packet Page 88 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6618 PARKING SERVICES SPECIALIST ft gem Step: 1118 2,790.00 66,960.00 118 6618 ft gem Step: 2118 2,928.00 70,272.00
6618 ft gem Step: 3118 3,072.00 73,728.00
6618 ft gem Step: 4118 3,228.00 77,472.00
6618 ft gem Step: 5118 3,389.00 81,336.00
6711 PARKS CRAFTS LEADWORKER ft gem Step: 1264 2,637.00 63,288.00 264 6711 ft gem Step: 2264 2,769.00 66,456.00
6711 ft gem Step: 3264 2,904.00 69,696.00
6711 ft gem Step: 4264 3,049.00 73,176.00
6711 ft gem Step: 5264 3,205.00 76,920.00
6305 PARTS CLERK ft gem Step: 1253 2,258.00 54,192.00 253 6305 ft gem Step: 2253 2,371.00 56,904.00
6305 ft gem Step: 3253 2,489.00 59,736.00
6305 ft gem Step: 4253 2,613.00 62,712.00
6305 ft gem Step: 5253 2,744.00 65,856.00
4305 PLANS EXAMINER ft gem Step: 1258 3,765.00 90,360.00 258 4305 ft gem Step: 2258 3,954.00 94,896.00
4305 ft gem Step: 3258 4,151.00 99,624.00
4305 ft gem Step: 4258 4,360.00 104,640.00
4305 ft gem Step: 5258 4,575.00 109,800.00
3201 POLICE RECORDS/DETENTION SUP. ft gem Step: 1191 3,673.00 88,152.00 191 3201 ft gem Step: 2191 3,858.00 92,592.00
3201 ft gem Step: 3191 4,051.00 97,224.00
3201 ft gem Step: 4191 4,254.00 102,096.00
3201 ft gem Step: 5191 4,468.00 107,232.00
3209 POLICE SERVICES ASSISTANT ft gem Step: 1346 2,271.00 54,504.00 346 3209 ft gem Step: 2346 2,385.00 57,240.00
3209 ft gem Step: 3346 2,504.00 60,096.00
3209 ft gem Step: 4346 2,630.00 63,120.00
3209 ft gem Step: 5346 2,762.00 66,288.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 15 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 38, Packet Page 89 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 3205 POLICE SERVICES TECHNICIAN ft gem Step: 1068 2,745.00 65,880.00 068 3205 ft gem Step: 2068 2,882.00 69,168.00
3205 ft gem Step: 3068 3,024.00 72,576.00
3205 ft gem Step: 4068 3,177.00 76,248.00
3205 ft gem Step: 5068 3,335.00 80,040.00
4105 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR ft gem Step: 1092 3,267.00 78,408.00 092 4105 ft gem Step: 2092 3,429.00 82,296.00
4105 ft gem Step: 3092 3,603.00 86,472.00
4105 ft gem Step: 4092 3,785.00 90,840.00
4105 ft gem Step: 5092 3,973.00 95,352.00
4102 QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTOR ft gem Step: 1234 3,587.00 86,088.00 234 4102 ft gem Step: 2234 3,763.00 90,312.00
4102 ft gem Step: 3234 3,959.00 95,016.00
4102 ft gem Step: 4234 4,151.00 99,624.00
4102 ft gem Step: 5234 4,361.00 104,664.00
5208 RECREATION COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1292 3,095.00 74,280.00 292 5208 ft gem Step: 2292 3,250.00 78,000.00
5208 ft gem Step: 3292 3,413.00 81,912.00
5208 ft gem Step: 4292 3,584.00 86,016.00
5208 ft gem Step: 5292 3,762.00 90,288.00
9581 RECREATION SPECIALIST ft gem Step: 1323 2,106.00 50,544.00 323 9581 ft gem Step: 2323 2,213.00 53,112.00
9581 ft gem Step: 3323 2,324.00 55,776.00
9581 ft gem Step: 4323 2,440.00 58,560.00
9581 ft gem Step: 5323 2,561.00 61,464.00
5201 RECREATION SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1259 3,621.00 86,904.00 259 5201 ft gem Step: 2259 3,800.00 91,200.00
5201 ft gem Step: 3259 3,989.00 95,736.00
5201 ft gem Step: 4259 4,188.00 100,512.00
5201 ft gem Step: 5259 4,397.00 105,528.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 16 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 39, Packet Page 90 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE RISK SPECIALIST gem Step: 1 2,683.00 64,392.00 371
gem Step: 2 2,815.00 67,560.00
gem Step: 3 2,954.00 70,896.00
gem Step: 4 3,104.00 74,496.00
gem Step: 5 3,259.00 78,216.00
6516 SALES COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1081 3,095.00 74,280.00 081 6516 ft gem Step: 2081 3,250.00 78,000.00
6516 ft gem Step: 3081 3,413.00 81,912.00
6516 ft gem Step: 4081 3,584.00 86,016.00
6516 ft gem Step: 5081 3,762.00 90,288.00
4201 SENIOR ASSOCIATE PLANNER ft gem Step: 1251 4,024.00 96,576.00 251 4201 ft gem Step: 2251 4,226.00 101,424.00
4201 ft gem Step: 3251 4,437.00 106,488.00
4201 ft gem Step: 4251 4,656.00 111,744.00
4201 ft gem Step: 5251 4,890.00 117,360.00
4302 SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR ft gem Step: 1101 3,765.00 90,360.00 101 4302 ft gem Step: 2101 3,954.00 94,896.00
4302 ft gem Step: 3101 4,151.00 99,624.00
4302 ft gem Step: 4101 4,360.00 104,640.00
4302 ft gem Step: 5101 4,575.00 109,800.00
6511 SENIOR CRAFTSWORKER ft gem Step: 1205 3,017.00 72,408.00 205 6511 ft gem Step: 2205 3,170.00 76,080.00
6511 ft gem Step: 3205 3,331.00 79,944.00
6511 ft gem Step: 4205 3,499.00 83,976.00
6511 ft gem Step: 5205 3,671.00 88,104.00
6514 SENIOR CUSTODIAN ft gem Step: 1257 1,843.00 44,232.00 257 6514 ft gem Step: 2257 1,935.00 46,440.00
6514 ft gem Step: 3257 2,033.00 48,792.00
6514 ft gem Step: 4257 2,136.00 51,264.00
6514 ft gem Step: 5257 2,244.00 53,856.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 17 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 40, Packet Page 91 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6505 SENIOR FACILITY ATTENDANT ft gem Step: 1211 2,676.00 64,224.00 211 6505 ft gem Step: 2211 2,810.00 67,440.00
6505 ft gem Step: 3211 2,947.00 70,728.00
6505 ft gem Step: 4211 3,095.00 74,280.00
6505 ft gem Step: 5211 3,253.00 78,072.00
SENIOR INFORMATION TECH SPECIA gem Step: 1 3,447.00 82,728.00 084 gem Step: 2 3,619.00 86,856.00
gem Step: 3 3,800.00 91,200.00
gem Step: 4 3,990.00 95,760.00
gem Step: 5 4,190.00 100,560.00
1279 SENIOR LOCKSMITH ft gem Step: 1331 3,017.00 72,408.00 331 1279 ft gem Step: 2331 3,170.00 76,080.00
1279 ft gem Step: 3331 3,331.00 79,944.00
1279 ft gem Step: 4331 3,499.00 83,976.00
1279 ft gem Step: 5331 3,671.00 88,104.00
6707 SENIOR PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER ft gem Step: 1162 2,489.00 59,736.00 162 6707 ft gem Step: 2162 2,614.00 62,736.00
6707 ft gem Step: 3162 2,744.00 65,856.00
6707 ft gem Step: 4162 2,881.00 69,144.00
6707 ft gem Step: 5162 3,023.00 72,552.00
6613 SENIOR PARKING CONTROLS TECH. ft gem Step: 1275 3,095.00 74,280.00 275 6613 ft gem Step: 2275 3,250.00 78,000.00
6613 ft gem Step: 3275 3,414.00 81,936.00
6613 ft gem Step: 4275 3,585.00 86,040.00
6613 ft gem Step: 5275 3,762.00 90,288.00
6611 SENIOR PARKING ENFOR. OFFICER ft gem Step: 1154 2,783.00 66,792.00 154 6611 ft gem Step: 2154 2,922.00 70,128.00
6611 ft gem Step: 3154 3,066.00 73,584.00
6611 ft gem Step: 4154 3,222.00 77,328.00
6611 ft gem Step: 5154 3,383.00 81,192.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 18 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 41, Packet Page 92 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6803 SENIOR PARTS CLERK ft gem Step: 1347 2,677.00 64,248.00 347 6803 ft gem Step: 2347 2,810.00 67,440.00
6803 ft gem Step: 3347 2,955.00 70,920.00
6803 ft gem Step: 4347 3,096.00 74,304.00
6803 ft gem Step: 5347 3,252.00 78,048.00
3207 SENIOR POLICE SERVICES TECH. ft gem Step: 1070 2,882.00 69,168.00 070 3207 ft gem Step: 2070 3,024.00 72,576.00
3207 ft gem Step: 3070 3,177.00 76,248.00
3207 ft gem Step: 4070 3,335.00 80,040.00
3207 ft gem Step: 5070 3,503.00 84,072.00
4104 SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR ft gem Step: 1093 3,587.00 86,088.00 093 4104 ft gem Step: 2093 3,763.00 90,312.00
4104 ft gem Step: 3093 3,959.00 95,016.00
4104 ft gem Step: 4093 4,151.00 99,624.00
4104 ft gem Step: 5093 4,361.00 104,664.00
6206 SENIOR STREET MAINT. WORKER ft gem Step: 1126 2,489.00 59,736.00 126 6206 ft gem Step: 2126 2,614.00 62,736.00
6206 ft gem Step: 3126 2,744.00 65,856.00
6206 ft gem Step: 4126 2,881.00 69,144.00
6206 ft gem Step: 5126 3,023.00 72,552.00
6212 SIGN CRAFTSWORKER ft gem Step: 1183 2,677.00 64,248.00 183 6212 ft gem Step: 2183 2,810.00 67,440.00
6212 ft gem Step: 3183 2,955.00 70,920.00
6212 ft gem Step: 4183 3,096.00 74,304.00
6212 ft gem Step: 5183 3,252.00 78,048.00
SPECIAL EVENT COORDINATOR gem Step: 1 2,976.00 71,424.00 106 gem Step: 2 3,125.00 75,000.00
gem Step: 3 3,282.00 78,768.00
gem Step: 4 3,446.00 82,704.00
gem Step: 5 3,617.00 86,808.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 19 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 42, Packet Page 93 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 5102 SPECIAL SERVICES COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1199 3,143.00 75,432.00 199 5102 ft gem Step: 2199 3,298.00 79,152.00
5102 ft gem Step: 3199 3,464.00 83,136.00
5102 ft gem Step: 4199 3,637.00 87,288.00
5102 ft gem Step: 5199 3,820.00 91,680.00
5204 SPORTS COORDINATOR ft gem Step: 1110 3,095.00 74,280.00 110 5204 ft gem Step: 2110 3,250.00 78,000.00
5204 ft gem Step: 3110 3,413.00 81,912.00
5204 ft gem Step: 4110 3,584.00 86,016.00
5204 ft gem Step: 5110 3,762.00 90,288.00
6204 STREET & UTILITIES SUPERVISOR ft gem Step: 1252 3,023.00 72,552.00 252 6204 ft gem Step: 2252 3,173.00 76,152.00
6204 ft gem Step: 3252 3,333.00 79,992.00
6204 ft gem Step: 4252 3,501.00 84,024.00
6204 ft gem Step: 5252 3,674.00 88,176.00
6208 STREET MAINTENANCE LEADWORKER ft gem Step: 1128 2,743.00 65,832.00 128 6208 ft gem Step: 2128 2,880.00 69,120.00
6208 ft gem Step: 3128 3,020.00 72,480.00
6208 ft gem Step: 4128 3,171.00 76,104.00
6208 ft gem Step: 5128 3,333.00 79,992.00
6209 STREET MAINTENANCE WORKER ft gem Step: 1129 2,048.00 49,152.00 129 6209 ft gem Step: 2129 2,151.00 51,624.00
6209 ft gem Step: 3129 2,258.00 54,192.00
6209 ft gem Step: 4129 2,371.00 56,904.00
6209 ft gem Step: 5129 2,489.00 59,736.00
6209 ft gem Step: 6129 2,613.00 62,712.00
6209 ft gem Step: 7129 2,744.00 65,856.00
5308 SUSTAINABILITY ASSISTANT ft gem Step: 1374 3,173.00 76,152.00 374 5308 ft gem Step: 2374 3,333.00 79,992.00
5308 ft gem Step: 3374 3,501.00 84,024.00
5308 ft gem Step: 4374 3,674.00 88,176.00
5308 ft gem Step: 5374 3,857.00 92,568.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 20 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 43, Packet Page 94 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (GEM) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 3103 TECHNOLOGY SVCS. SPECIALIST ft gem Step: 1271 2,790.00 66,960.00 271 3103 ft gem Step: 2271 2,928.00 70,272.00
3103 ft gem Step: 3271 3,072.00 73,728.00
3103 ft gem Step: 4271 3,228.00 77,472.00
3103 ft gem Step: 5271 3,389.00 81,336.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 21 of 21
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 44, Packet Page 95 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MFCOA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 2205 ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF ft fma Step: 1325 7,537.00 180,888.00 325 2205 ft fma Step: 2325 7,911.00 189,864.00
2205 ft fma Step: 3325 8,310.00 199,440.00
2205 ft fma Step: 4325 8,725.00 209,400.00
2205 ft fma Step: 5325 9,160.00 219,840.00
1209 DIVISION CHIEF ft fma Step: 1019 6,429.00 154,296.00 019 1209 ft fma Step: 2019 6,751.00 162,024.00
1209 ft fma Step: 3019 7,089.00 170,136.00
1209 ft fma Step: 4019 7,442.00 178,608.00
1209 ft fma Step: 5019 7,815.00 187,560.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 45, Packet Page 96 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MFFA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 2204 DEPUTY FIRE MARSHALL ft mffa Step: 1209 4,648.00 111,552.00 209 2204 ft mffa Step: 2209 4,880.00 117,120.00
2204 ft mffa Step: 3209 5,125.00 123,000.00
2204 ft mffa Step: 4209 5,377.00 129,048.00
2204 ft mffa Step: 5209 5,647.00 135,528.00
2201 FIRE CAPTAIN ft mffa Step: 1059 4,425.00 106,200.00 059 2201 ft mffa Step: 2059 4,646.00 111,504.00
2201 ft mffa Step: 3059 4,878.00 117,072.00
2201 ft mffa Step: 4059 5,120.00 122,880.00
2201 ft mffa Step: 5059 5,376.00 129,024.00
2203 FIRE ENGINEER ft mffa Step: 1060 3,822.00 91,728.00 060 2203 ft mffa Step: 2060 4,012.00 96,288.00
2203 ft mffa Step: 3060 4,214.00 101,136.00
2203 ft mffa Step: 4060 4,425.00 106,200.00
2203 ft mffa Step: 5060 4,646.00 111,504.00
2206 FIREFIGHTER ft mffa Step: 1062 3,466.00 83,184.00 062 2206 ft mffa Step: 2062 3,638.00 87,312.00
2206 ft mffa Step: 3062 3,822.00 91,728.00
2206 ft mffa Step: 4062 4,012.00 96,288.00
2206 ft mffa Step: 5062 4,214.00 101,136.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 46, Packet Page 97 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (PLMA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 6724 ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF ft plma Step: 1340 7,463.00 179,112.00 340 6724 ft plma Step: 2340 7,835.00 188,040.00
6724 ft plma Step: 3340 8,228.00 197,472.00
6724 ft plma Step: 4340 8,639.00 203,336.00
6724 ft plma Step: 5340 9,071.00 217,704.00
1214 POLICE LIEUTENANT ft plma Step: 1024 6,476.00 155,424.00 024 1214 ft plma Step: 2024 6,800.00 163,200.00
1214 ft plma Step: 3024 7,144.00 171,456.00
1214 ft plma Step: 4024 7,501.00 180,024.00
1214 ft plma Step: 5024 7,874.00 188,976.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 47, Packet Page 98 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY FULL-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (MPA) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE Group Semi-Monthly Rate Annual Rate GRADE 2103 POLICE OFFICER ft mpa Step: 1057 4,183.00 100,392.00 057 2103 ft mpa Step: 2057 4,392.00 105,408.00
2103 ft mpa Step: 3057 4,615.00 110,760.00
2103 ft mpa Step: 4057 4,841.00 116,184.00
2103 ft mpa Step: 5057 5,081.00 121,944.00
2105 POLICE SERGEANT ft mpa Step: 1058 5,106.00 122,544.00 058 2105 ft mpa Step: 2058 5,359.00 128,616.00
2105 ft mpa Step: 3058 5,629.00 135,096.00
2105 ft mpa Step: 4058 5,909.00 141,816.00
2105 ft mpa Step: 5058 6,210.00 149,040.00
oll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch-Annual2.rpt Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 48, Packet Page 99 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (RPT) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9373 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT rpt rpt 673Step: 1 26.22 673
9373 rpt rpt 673Step: 2 27.53
9373 rpt rpt 673Step: 3 28.91
9373 rpt rpt 673Step: 4 30.36
9373 rpt rpt 673Step: 5 31.89
9329 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT rpt rpt 643Step: 1 23.77 643 9329 rpt rpt 643Step: 2 24.96
9329 rpt rpt 643Step: 3 26.21
9329 rpt rpt 643Step: 4 27.53
9329 rpt rpt 643Step: 5 28.91
9329 rpt rpt 643Step: 6 30.36
9329 rpt rpt 643Step: 7 31.89
9999 AQUATICS SPECIALIST I ptrpt 000Step: 1 18.69 475
9999 ptrpt 000Step: 2 19.62
9999 ptrpt 000Step: 3 20.61
9999 ptrpt 000Step: 4 21.64
9999 ptrpt 000Step: 5 22.75
9534 ARTIFACT SPECIALIST rpt rpt 485Step: 1 26.22 485
9534 rpt rpt 485Step: 2 27.53
9534 rpt rpt 485Step: 3 28.90
9534 rpt rpt 485Step: 4 30.35
9534 rpt rpt 485Step: 5 31.87
CULTURAL ARTS ASSISTANT rpt Step: 1 25.21 639
rpt Step: 2 26.47
rpt Step: 3 27.80
rpt Step: 4 29.19
rpt Step: 5 30.66
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 49, Packet Page 100 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (RPT) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9339 CUSTODIAN rpt rpt 471Step: 1 18.47 471
9339 rpt rpt 471Step: 2 19.42
9339 rpt rpt 471Step: 3 20.38
9339 rpt rpt 471Step: 4 21.41
9339 rpt rpt 471Step: 5 22.50
9664 FACILITY ATTENDANT rpt rpt 545Step: 1 26.02 545
9664 rpt rpt 545Step: 2 27.35
9664 rpt rpt 545Step: 3 28.69
9664 rpt rpt 545Step: 4 30.13
9664 rpt rpt 545Step: 5 31.62
9615 HARBOR SECURITY WORKER rpt rpt 713Step: 1 28.04 713 9615 rpt rpt 713Step: 2 29.42
9615 rpt rpt 713Step: 3 30.91
9615 rpt rpt 713Step: 4 32.44
9615 rpt rpt 713Step: 5 34.07
LAUNDRY ATTENDANT rpt Step: 1 13.48 580
rpt Step: 2 14.11
rpt Step: 3 14.84
rpt Step: 4 15.54
rpt Step: 5 16.32
9526 LEAD PRESCHOOL INSTRUCTOR rpt rpt 525Step: 1 22.44 525 9526 rpt rpt 525Step: 2 23.54
9526 rpt rpt 525Step: 3 24.73
9526 rpt rpt 525Step: 4 25.97
9526 rpt rpt 525Step: 5 27.25
9515 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I rpt rpt 547Step: 1 24.97 547
9515 rpt rpt 547Step: 2 26.24
9515 rpt rpt 547Step: 3 27.53
9515 rpt rpt 547Step: 4 28.93
9515 rpt rpt 547Step: 5 30.36
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 2 of 4
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 50, Packet Page 101 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (RPT) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9513 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II rpt rpt 548Step: 1 26.24 548
9513 rpt rpt 548Step: 2 27.53
9513 rpt rpt 548Step: 3 28.91
9513 rpt rpt 548Step: 4 30.36
9513 rpt rpt 548Step: 5 31.89
9524 LIFEGUARD rpt rpt 492Step: 1 15.17 492
9524 rpt rpt 492Step: 2 15.86
9524 rpt rpt 492Step: 3 16.70
9524 rpt rpt 492Step: 4 17.52
9524 rpt rpt 492Step: 5 18.40
9665 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER rpt rpt 482Step: 1 28.04 482 9665 rpt rpt 482Step: 2 29.42
9665 rpt rpt 482Step: 3 30.91
9665 rpt rpt 482Step: 4 32.44
9665 rpt rpt 482Step: 5 34.07
9662 PARKING SERVICES REPRESENTATIV rpt rpt 714Step: 1 26.05 714 9662 rpt rpt 714Step: 2 27.36
9662 rpt rpt 714Step: 3 28.71
9662 rpt rpt 714Step: 4 30.14
9662 rpt rpt 714Step: 5 31.66
9518 PHYSICAL THERAPIST rpt rpt 535Step: 1 47.48 535
9518 rpt rpt 535Step: 2 49.86
9518 rpt rpt 535Step: 3 52.36
9518 rpt rpt 535Step: 4 54.96
9518 rpt rpt 535Step: 5 57.71
9528 RECREATION SPECIALIST rpt rpt 476Step: 1 24.29 476 9528 rpt rpt 476Step: 2 25.51
9528 rpt rpt 476Step: 3 26.79
9528 rpt rpt 476Step: 4 28.12
9528 rpt rpt 476Step: 5 29.56
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 3 of 4
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 51, Packet Page 102 12/13/2022 CITY OF MONTEREY PART-TIME SALARY SCHEDULE (RPT) Effective 7/01/2022 Through 6/30/2023
POS # POSITION TITLE GRADE Group
9519 SITE DIRECTOR/AFTERSCHOOL rpt rpt 513Step: 1 16.93 513 9519 rpt rpt 513Step: 2 17.78
9519 rpt rpt 513Step: 3 18.67
9519 rpt rpt 513Step: 4 19.59
9519 rpt rpt 513Step: 5 20.59
TOT ACTIVITY LEADER rpt Step: 1 16.93 491
rpt Step: 2 17.78
rpt Step: 3 18.67
rpt Step: 4 19.59
rpt Step: 5 20.59
9716 WHARF ATTENDANT rpt rpt 707Step: 1 25.06 707
9716 rpt rpt 707Step: 2 26.29
9716 rpt rpt 707Step: 3 27.60
9716 rpt rpt 707Step: 4 28.98
9716 rpt rpt 707Step: 5 30.43
ayroll\402-01-Payroll General Info\CRYSTAL REPORTS\SalarySch Part-time.rpt Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 4., Item Page 52, Packet Page 103 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Authorize a Contract with Community Human Services to Grant $72,000 for the Shuman HeartHouse, Future Emergency Homeless Shelter Located at 600 East Franklin Street (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with Community Human Services to give $72,000 for the Shuman HeartHouse, future Emergency Homeless Shelter located at 600 East Franklin Street.
VALUE DRIVERS:
Support efforts and policies that provide equitable access to affordable housing in Monterey and the region.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The proposed emergency homeless shelter complies with the City of Monterey Municipal Code - Emergency Shelter Overlay Zoning District. State law requires cities to develop operational and management criteria to administratively allow emergency homeless shelters versus a discretionary Planning Commission hearing process. The City Council adopted its regulations in 2017. Key operational and management criteria are set forth in City Code section 33-99.3, including:
A. The maximum number of beds or persons to be served nightly by an emergency shelter shall be 35.
B. Off-street parking shall be based upon demonstrated need; provided, that parking for an emergency shelter shall not be more than that required for other uses permitted in the underlying district.
C. Projects shall design to and maintain the following maximum light levels and spacinin g:
1. Buildings. Spacing to meet average maintained illumination levels of a minimum 0.5 footcandles and maximum 1.0 footcandles.
2. Primary Building Entry. Not to exceed average maintained illumination levels of a maximum 5.0 footcandles.
3. Parking Lots. Spacing to meet average maintained illumination levels of a maximum of
0.5 footcandles and a 15:1 maximum to minimum uniformity ratio.
4. Service Areas. Ten footcandles maximum.
Date: 4/4/2023
Item No.: 5.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 104 D. The size of indoor waiting areas shall be sufficient to accommodate the expected number of clients. Any spillover onto public right-of-way shall allow at least four feet of unobstructed sidewalk.
E. On-site management shall be provided at all times the facility is in operation.
F. Security shall be provided during the hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.
G. The maximum length of stay by a homeless person in an emergency shelter shall be six months.
H. An emergency shelter shall not be located within 300 feet of another emergency shelter.
I. No individual or household shall be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The City is proposing to give $72,000 to the CHS Shuman HeartHouse towards its construction budget for a homeless shelter. The City of Monterey received this $72,000 as a condition of a Developer Agreement to build two single-family, market rate housing units at 20 and 22 Spray (Attachment 2). The proposed homeless shelter will incentivize housing for our most vulnerable and at-risk residents.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) because the project consists of re-purposing an existing building for a homeless shelter with only minor modifications consistent with the City of Monterey Zoning requirements. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.
Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The environment is not particularly sensitive because the building exists today and is being remodeled for a new use consistent with the City of Monterey Zoning requirements.
Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. No cumulative impact would occur because the project complies with the City of Monterey Zoning requirements that require a 300’ separation between facilities.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 105 Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. There are no unusual circumstances with this project due to its limited scope to repurpose an existing building.
Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project is not near or visible from a scenic highway.
Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The project site is not included on any list.
Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project reutilizes an existing historic building and all changes are isolated to the interior of the building that has been remodeled several times in the past. The project will not have an impact on the exterior of the historic resource.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The City Council could decide not to adopt the Resolution to give the funds to CHS for the Shuman HeartHouse.
Alternatives to providing funding to CHS for the Shuman HeartHouse include distributing the funds to other service providers such as Gathering for Women, Interim Inc., and I-HELP for emergency shelter, transitional housing, or other efforts.
DISCUSSION
Community Human Services is remodeling existing structures at 600 East Franklin Street to open an emergency homeless shelter. This agenda item authorizes the City Manager to enter a contract with CHS to grant $72,000 towards the project.
Background
The 2022 Monterey County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report reports that the County of Monterey homeless population has decreased from 2,407 persons in 2009 to 2,047 persons in 2022 (See Table 1). The decline in homelessness was reflected in all the jurisdictions’ individual counts as well. The City of Monterey homeless population was reported to have significantly declined between 338 persons in 2017 to 101 persons in 2022, representing a 50% decrease. Seaside and Marina also experienced declining population numbers, 16% and 10% respectively (See Table 2).
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 106 Figure 1
Total Point in Time Count of Persons Experiencing Homelessness in Monterey County Source: 2022 Monterey County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, Page 10 Figure 2
Homeless Population By Jurisdiction
Source: 2022 Monterey County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report, Page 12 Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 107 After the opening of the Shuman HeartHouse, the City will have 47 beds available for homeless persons. The Shuman HeartHouse will provide 35 beds and the existing Safe Place provides 12 beds (reduced to 8 during Covid) for individuals between the ages of 18-24 years old. Safe Place occupancy ranges between 4-6 persons nightly. Both facilities provide additional services.
According to the CHS website:
When it opens in the summer of 2023, Shuman HeartHouse will accommodate up to 35 individuals, providing much needed temporary housing and meals, and offer a variety of supportive services designed to lead to permanent housing.
Shuman HeartHouse will build on the success of Casa De Noche Buena, CHS’ shelter for women and families in Seaside, where approximately 70% of shelter guests have exited to transitional or permanent housing.
The project has been in the works since the spring of 2021 when local businessman and philanthropist, Mark Shuman donated $3M to CHS to purchase the building at 600 E. Franklin St. in Monterey for a homeless shelter for single women and families with children. “Everybody has a right to a safe place to sleep and a comfortable place to wake up in the morning,” says Shuman says. “I know CHS has the experience and know-how to help make this happen. Their proven track record of managing finances and successfully operating various types of facilities is evident to me.”
In addition to shelter, Safe Place provides dinner/breakfast, social recreation activities, essentials (clothing, hygiene products, PPE, etc.), access to washer/dryer, access to computer/internet, counseling, and information and referral to ancillary services and housing (Safe Passage). According to CHS, pets, partners (over age 24), personal stuff, severe mental illness, and no in-and-out privileges all affect shelter utilization.
Analysis
The City of Monterey received $72,000 as a condition of extending a Developer Agreement to build two single-family, market rate housing units at 20 and 22 Spray Avenue (Attachment 2).
The City received these funds, and staff is proposing to designate the funds to CHS for the Shuman HeartHouse to address the housing needs of our most vulnerable residents.
Attachments: 1. Resolution Authorizing a Contract with Community Human Services for $72,000 for the Shuman HeartHouse, Future Emergency Homeless Shelter Located at 600 East Franklin
2. City Ordinance 3640 C.S.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 108 RESOLUTION NO. __ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES TO GRANT $72,000
FOR THE SHUMAN HEARTHOUSE, FUTURE EMERGENCY HOMELESS SHELTER LOCATED AT 600 EAST FRANKLIN STREET
WHEREAS, Community Human Services is remodeling existing structures at 600 East Franklin Street to open an emergency homeless shelter;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey is proposing to give $72,000 to the CHS Shuman HeartHouse towards its construction budget for a homeless shelter. The City of Monterey adopted Ordinance 3640 and received this $72,000 as part of extending a Developer Agreement to build two single-family, market rate housing units at 20 and 22 Spray Avenue.
The proposed homeless shelter will provide housing for our most vulnerable and at-risk residents;
WHEREAS, The 2022 Monterey County Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report reports that the County of Monterey homeless population has decreased from 2,407 persons in 2009 to 2,047 persons in 2022;
WHEREAS, the decline in homelessness was reflected in all Monterey County jurisdictions’ individual counts as well. The City of Monterey homeless population was reported to have significantly declined between 338 persons in 2017 to 101 persons in 2022, representing a 50% decrease. Seaside and Marina also experienced declining population numbers, 16% and 10% respectively;
WHEREAS, despite these declines in homeless population, there continues to be an unmet need for homeless persons;
WHEREAS, the Community Human Services Shuman HeartHouse will help bridge that continued gap in services and will build on the success of Casa De Noche Buena, CHS’ shelter for women and families in Seaside where approximately 70% of shelter guests have exited to transition or permanent housing;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) because the project consists of re-purposing an existing building for a homeless shelter with only minor modifications consistent with the City of Monterey Zoning requirements.
Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.
Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The environment is not particularly sensitive because the building exists today and is being remodeled for a new use consistent with the City of Monterey Zoning requirements.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 109 2 Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. No cumulative impact would occur because the project complies with the City of Monterey Zoning requirements that require a 300’ separation between facilities.
Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. There are no unusual circumstances with this project due to its limited scope to repurpose an existing building.
Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project is not near or visible from a scenic highway.
Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The project site is not included on any list.
Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project reutilizes an existing historic building and all changes are isolated to the interior of the building that has been remodeled several times in the past. The project will not have an impact on the exterior of the historic resource.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the City Manager to enter into a contract with Community Human Services to grant $72,000 for the Shuman HeartHouse, Future Emergency Homeless Shelter Located at 600 East Franklin Street and the Planning Office can pay this obligation from its Professional Services Account #101-400-4400-0000-4240.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 4th day of April, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 7, Packet Page 110 ORDINANCE NO. 3640 C.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
ADOPTING THE FIRST AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR THE DEL MONTE BEACH COMMUNITY PROJECT
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
A. In order to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, Section 65864, et seq., of the Government Code and Monterey Municipal Code chapter 38, part V, article 23, authorize the City, and any person having a legal or equitable interest in the real property, to enter into a development agreement and establish certain development rights in the property. Pursuant to Government Code section 65868 and Monterey Municipal Code 38-176, development agreements may be amended by mutual consent of the parties.
B. In 2002, the City and predecessors in interest to the owners of the property that is the subject of the proposed amendment entered into a development agreement (“Agreement”) for The Del Monte Beach Community Project (the “Project”), which included:
(1) resubdivision of forty-eight (48) then existing legal lots, of which the City owned ten (10), the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District (“Park District”) owned nine (9), and the then owners owned twenty-nine (29), into eleven (11) legal lots; and (2) resubdivision of twelve (12) adjacent then existing lots owned by other parties into three (3) legal lots. The Agreement generally vested the right to proceed with development of the Project described therein, subject to the terms and conditions therein, for a maximum period of twenty (20) years. Since 2002, the Project has built out, except for three (3) remaining parcels, two of which are the subject of this proposed Amendment.
C. Chi Kim Hoang (“Owner”) acquired title to the two (2) parcels located at 20 and 22 Spray Avenue within the Project in 2014.
D. The City and Owner now desire to amend the Agreement for the two (2) parcels by mutual consent pursuant to section 10.2 of the Agreement, and as authorized by California Government Code section 65868 and Monterey Municipal Code section 38-176.
E. The amendment will extend the term of the Agreement for the two subject parcels until January 17, 2028, in exchange for payment of additional funds to the City for the DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E93901-0EB7-4189-98D9-EBF85E0EC957 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 8, Packet Page 111 2 continued reservation of water and planning processing and other considerations provided therein.
F. The Amendment to the Agreement will not have a significant adverse impacts on the environment. It will not result in any direct physical change to the environment, or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Any potential environment impacts were previously analyzed in the certified environmental impact report for the Project.
G. On July 27, 2021, the City Planning Commission, serving as City’s planning agency for purposes of development agreement review pursuant to Government Code section 65867, held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council regarding this Amendment. On September 7, 2021, pursuant to Government Code section 65867 and Monterey Municipal Code section 38-172, the City Council held a public hearing regarding this Amendment and considered all comments received in writing and all testimony received at the public hearing.
Section 2: Findings.
Therefore, on the basis of: (a) the foregoing recitals, which are hereby incorporated herein; (b) the City of Monterey's General Plan and General Plan EIR; (c) Del Monte Beach ReSubdivision Environmental Impact Report; and the written and oral record at the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds and determines that:
A. The First Amended Development Agreement for the Project, attached to this Ordinance and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A (“the First Amended Development Agreement”), is consistent with Monterey Municipal Code chapter 38, part V, article 23 because the Agreement as amended includes all the required contents of said article, and was considered and processed in conformance with said article.
B. The First Amended Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan in that: (a) The subject parcels remain Low Density residential consistent with the General Plan and zoning; (b) the project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan with respect to Policy a.1 that states: Implement the Land Use Plan using the Land Use Plan Map (Figure 3) and the following land use categories: Residential. The Residential category is further divided into the following three sub-categories, one of which, Low Density Residential, applies to single-family residential areas where the average density is between two to eight dwellings per acre, such as the parcels that are the subject of the First Amended Development Agreement; and, (c) the First Amended Development Agreement would extend the term of the Agreement for the subject parcels, allowing time for completing the original project and complying with the City’s land use vision for the site; and (d) the First Amended Development Agreement is consistent with General Plan goals, policies and programs for water allocation and affordable housing because the subject DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E93901-0EB7-4189-98D9-EBF85E0EC957 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 9, Packet Page 112 parcels have existing water allocations and a sum will be collected to incentivize affordable housing.
C. The City Council has considered the effects of the First Amended Development Agreement on the housing needs of the City and balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. The First Amended Development Agreement will allow the build-out and infill of a nearly completed existing residential subdivision with no additional allocation of or demand for public services beyond those allocated and approved when the Project and Development Agreement were previously approved.
D. The First Amended Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare, nor will it adversely affect the orderly development of property, or the preservation of property values in that the Project will proceed in accordance with the programs and policies of the General Plan.
Section 3: Approval of Amended and Restated Development Agreement.
The City Council hereby approves the First Amended Development Agreement, attached to this Ordinance and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, and authorizes the City Manager to sign the amended First Amended Development Agreement after the effective date of this Ordinance.
Section 4: Recordation
Within ten (10) days after the First Amended Development Agreement is executed by the City Manager, the City Clerk shall submit the amendment to the County Recorder for recordation.
Section 5: Severability.
If any section, subsection, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect the remaining portions of this Ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. This City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the Ordinance be enforced.
Section 6: Publication and Effective Date.
Within fifteen (15) days after adoption, a summary of this Ordinance shall be published once in the Monterey Herald, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Monterey County and circulated in the City of Monterey, in accordance with Government DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E93901-0EB7-4189-98D9-EBF85E0EC957 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 10, Packet Page 113 4 Code section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 21st day of September, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E93901-0EB7-4189-98D9-EBF85E0EC957 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 11, Packet Page 114 Exhibit A
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Document entitled to free recording
Government Code Section 6103
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Monterey
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Attn: City Clerk
(SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER’S USE)
FIRST AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR THE DEL MONTE BEACH
COMMUNITY PROJECT
DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E93901-0EB7-4189-98D9-EBF85E0EC957 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 12, Packet Page 115 1 FIRST AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This First Amended Development Agreement (“Amendment”) is entered into as of this ___ day of ______________, 2021, by and between the CITY OF MONTEREY, a municipal corporation (“City”), and Chi Kim Hoang (“OWNER”), pursuant to the authority of Government Code section 65864 et. seq. and City of Monterey Municipal Code section 38-176. City and Developer are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties” and singularly as “Party.”
RECITALS
A. Authorization. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, California Government Code section 65864, et seq. and Monterey Municipal Code chapter 38, part V, article 38, authorize City and any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property to enter into a development agreement, establishing certain development rights in the property which is the subject of a development project application.
B. Development Agreement. In 2002, the City and predecessors in interest to OWNER entered into a development agreement (“Agreement”) for “The Del Monte Beach Community Project” which included: (1) resubdivision of forty-eight (48) then existing legal lots, of which the City owned ten (10), the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District (“Park District”) owned nine (9), and the then owners owned twenty-nine (29), into eleven (11) legal lots; and (2) resubdivision of twelve (12) adjacent then existing lots owned by other parties into three (3) legal lots. The Agreement generally vested the right to proceed with development of the project described therein, subject to the terms and conditions therein, for a maximum period of twenty (20) years. Since 2002, the Del Monte Beach Community Project has built out, except for three (3) remaining parcels, two of which are the subject of this proposed Amendment.
C. Property. OWNER owns in fee title that certain area consisting of two (2) parcels located in the City of Monterey, County of Monterey, more particularly described in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, attached hereto (“Property”). With respect to the Property, OWNER is successor and assign in interest of the rights and obligations of the owners who entered into the Agreement.
This Amendment applies only to the Property, not to any other property that was the subject of the Agreement.
D. Proposed Amendment. The City and OWNER now desire to amend the Agreement by mutual consent pursuant to section 10.2 of the Agreement, and as authorized by California Government Code section 65868 and Monterey Municipal Code section 38-176.
E. Public Hearing and Approval of this Amendment. On July 27, 2021, the City Planning Commission, serving as City’s planning agency for purposes of development agreement review pursuant to Government Code section 65867, held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council regarding this Amendment. On ___________, 2021, pursuant to Government Code section 65867 and Monterey Municipal Code section 38-172, the City Council held a public hearing regarding this Amendment. Following the hearing, the City Council introduced City of City of Monterey Ordinance No. XX-2021 approving this Amendment.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E93901-0EB7-4189-98D9-EBF85E0EC957 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 13, Packet Page 116 2 The City Council approved Ordinance XX- 2021 on _________________, 2021, and it became effective on ___________, 2021.
F. Environmental Review. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), on _______________, 2021, the City Council determined that any potential environmental impacts of this Amendment were previously analyzed in the certified environmental impact report for the Project.
G. Consistency with General Plan. Having duly examined and considered this Amendment and having held properly noticed public hearings hereon, in City Ordinance No. XX2021, City found that this Amendment satisfies Government Code section 65867.5, Monterey Municipal Code 38-176, and that this Amendment is consistent with the requirements of the General Plan.
H. Approval. The City and OWNER have taken all actions mandated by, and fulfilled all requirements set forth in, the Agreement, California Government Code section 65864, et seq., and Monterey Municipal Code chapter 38, part V to approve this Amendment.
I. Negotiations. The Parties have, in good faith, negotiated terms set forth in this Amendment, which terms are intended to carry out the legislative purposes of California Government Code section 65864, et seq., and Monterey Municipal Code chapter 38, part V, and which provide for the mutually desirable development of the Property, consistent with the intent of the Agreement.
AGREEMENT
1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Preamble, the Recitals, all defined terms set forth herein, and all exhibits attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into this Amendment as if set forth herein in full.
2. Relationship of City and Developer. This Amendment is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and OWNER. Neither Party is an agent of the other Party. City and OWNER renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them. Nothing contained in this Agreement, or in any document executed in connection with this Agreement, may be construed as making City and OWNER joint venturers or partners.
3. Effective Date. The effective date of this Amendment (“Effective Date”) is __________________, 2021, which is the effective date of City Ordinance No. XX-2021, adopting this Amendment.
4. Term. Section 18 of the Agreement “Term of the Agreement” is deleted and replaced with the following:
“18. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall terminate on January 17, 2029, notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement, unless either (i) the Agreement is terminated on January 17, 2028, by operation of section 7 of this Agreement, (ii) the Agreement is terminated pursuant to section 11, or (iii) the Parties agree to amend this Agreement by mutual consent.” DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E93901-0EB7-4189-98D9-EBF85E0EC957 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 14, Packet Page 117 3 5. Timing of Construction and Completion of Project. Section 7 of the Agreement “Time for Construction and Completion of Project” is deleted and replaced with the following:
“7. Time for Construction and Completion of Project. This Agreement shall automatically terminate if, on or before January 17, 2028, OWNER, or her successor in interest, does not secure building permits and all other required permits, and commence construction of single-family homes on lots 20 and 22 as depicted on the Subdivision Map approved by the City on ___________ and recorded at __________________ (“Lots 20 and 22”), which as of _______ 2021, were two (2) of the last remaining three (3) undeveloped parcels in the Project.”
6. Force Majeure. Section 16 of the Agreement “Force Majeure” is deleted.
7. Water Allocations. Immediately upon approval of this Amendment by the City, OWNER shall pay the City the sum of $72,000 (seventy-two thousand dollars) for the continued reservation of water to the Project until the termination of this Agreement. Section 4.2 of the Agreement in Section 4 “Reservation of Water” is replaced with the following:
“If water reserved to the Project by this Agreement is not allocated within the term of this Agreement, said water allocation shall revert to the City Water Allocation without further proceedings or action.”
8. Design. Immediately upon approval of this Amendment by the City, OWNER shall pay the City the sum of $50,000 (fifty thousand dollars), which the City intends to expend on planning, consulting and legal services related to the processing of the City’s Local Coastal Program, including portions of the Local Coastal Program which apply to the design of the Project as approved in the Agreement. Section 9(c) of the Agreement “Design” is unchanged by this Amendment. OWNER hereby acknowledges and agrees that it requires her to propose designs for and to construct the single family homes on Lots 20 and 22 in compliance with the design guidelines approved by the City Council on January 2, 2002which were the design standards for the ten (10) homes already constructed pursuant to the Agreement, including, without limitation, the maximum building height of one story and sixteen (16) feet.
9. Hold Harmless and Indemnity. Section 8 of the Agreement is replaced with the following:
“8. Hold Harmless & Indemnify.
8.1 The OWNER agrees, to defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the City and its agents, officers, attorneys, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as “proceeding”) brought against the City or its agents, officers, attorneys or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul:
a. Any approval of the Project or approval of permits approved to implement it by City; and/or
b. An action taken to provide related environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or City Council.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E93901-0EB7-4189-98D9-EBF85E0EC957 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 15, Packet Page 118 4 The indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Property Owner/Lessee, the City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding other than that arising from the City’s or gross negligence, willful misconduct, or criminal action.
8.2 The OWNER agrees to indemnify the City for all of the City’s costs, fees, and damages incurred in enforcing the indemnification provisions of this Agreement.
8.3 In the event that the OWNER is required to defend the City in connection with such proceeding, the City shall retain the right to reasonably approve:
a. The counsel to so defend the City;
b. All significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted; and
c. Any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
The City shall also have the right not to participate in the defense, except that the City agrees to cooperate with the OWNER in the defense of the proceeding. If the City chooses to have counsel of its own defend any proceeding where the applicant has already retained counsel to defend the City in such matters, the fees and expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the City. Notwithstanding the immediately preceding sentence, if the City Attorney’s Office participates in the defense, all City Attorney fees and costs shall be paid by the OWNER.
8.4 The defense and indemnification of the City set forth herein shall remain in full force and effect throughout all stages of litigation including appeals of any lower court judgments rendered in the proceeding.”
10. Notices. The Parties hereby give the each other notice in writing pursuant to Section 19 of the Agreement that all notices to the pursuant to the Agreement and this Amendment shall be addressed as follows:
Notice required to be given to OWNER shall be addressed as follows:
With a copy to:
Chi Kim Hoang
37 Farallones Street
San Francisco, CA 94112
Notice required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows:
City Community Development Director
570 Pacific Street
DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E93901-0EB7-4189-98D9-EBF85E0EC957 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 16, Packet Page 119 5 Downstairs in Colton Hall
Monterey, CA 93940
Copy to:
City Attorney
512 Pierce St.
Monterey, CA 93940
11. Costs of Legal and Staff Time Related to Amendment. OWNER shall reimburse the full cost for all staff, attorney, and consultant fees and costs incurred by the City in connection with this Amendment, including all such fees and costs accruing from the date of OWNER’S first inquiry to the City regarding an extension of the term of the Agreement, through and including the recordation of the Amendment. OWNER shall make payment pursuant to this Section within fifteen days (15) days of request by the City. If OWNER fails to make any payment requested by the City under this Section, the City may stop processing the Amendment, including not signing or recording the Amendment. OWNER is obligated under this Section regardless of approval or disapproval of the Amendment.
12. No Other Changes. Except as provided herein, the Agreement remains unchanged, in full force and effect, and binding on the Parties.
13. City Manager Authorization. The City of Monterey, a municipal corporation, has authorized this Development Agreement to be executed in duplicate by its City Manager and attested to by its City Clerk under the authority of Ordinance No. ____________ adopted by the Council of the City on the __ day of ____________, 2021, and has caused this Agreement to be executed.
“CITY”
CITY OF MONTEREY,
a municipal corporation
By: _________________________________
Name: Hans Uslar
Its: City Manager
Date: _______________________________
“OWNER”
By: ______________________
Name: Chi Kim Hoang
Date: _______________________________
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Clementine Bonner, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E93901-0EB7-4189-98D9-EBF85E0EC957 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 17, Packet Page 120 6 _________________________________
Christine Davi, City Attorney
Date: ____________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E93901-0EB7-4189-98D9-EBF85E0EC957 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 18, Packet Page 121
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit A: Map of the Property
Exhibit B: Legal Description of the Property
DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E93901-0EB7-4189-98D9-EBF85E0EC957 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 19, Packet Page 122
EXHIBIT A
DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E93901-0EB7-4189-98D9-EBF85E0EC957 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 20, Packet Page 123
EXHIBIT B
20 Spray Avenue:
The real property in the City of Monterey, County of Monterey, State of California, described as:
Lot 11, as said lot is shown on that certain map entitled, "Tract No. 1421, Monterey Shores Estates" filed for record on
June 30, 2004 in Volume 22 of Cities and Towns, at page 58, Monterey County Records.
APN: 011-591-010
22 Spray Avenue:
The real property in the City of Monterey, County of Monterey, State of California, described as:
Lot 12, as said lot is shown on that certain map entitled, "Tract No. 1421, Monterey Shores Estates" filed for record on
June 30, 2004 in Volume 22 of Cities and Towns, at page 58, Monterey County Records.
APN: 011-591-011
3738046.10
DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E93901-0EB7-4189-98D9-EBF85E0EC957 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 5., Item Page 21, Packet Page 124 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Modifying the 2019 Management District Plan of the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council hold a final hearing and adopt a resolution to modify the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) 2019 Management District Plan by ending the term on June 30, 2023, and declare results of the majority protest proceeding.
VALUE DRIVERS:
Serve as stewards of the City’s financial resources through sound economic vitality efforts, streamlining operations, reasonable revenue enhancements, visionary long-term planning, fiscal transparency, and community partnerships.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
None.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
No immediate fiscal impact. The City will continue to receive one percent (1%) of the amount collected within the City of Monterey to cover its costs of administration. Because the MCTID programs are intended to increase visitation to the City, there may be an increase in transient occupancy tax and sales tax collections should the current MCTID be expired on June 30, 2023 and the renewed district function beginning July 1, 2023. By having the renewed district begin on July 1, 2023 instead of December 31, 2023, the MCTID would generate $2,461,477 more revenue.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
Date: 4/4/2023
Item No.: 6.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 125 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The City Council could choose not to adopt this resolution. Staff does not recommend this option, since the MCTID has requested this change to the MDP.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed modification would end the current MCTID on June 30, 2023 instead of its current expiration date of December 31, 2023. The MCTID requested this change to the MDP to allow the existing district to expire and the renewed district to subsequently function beginning July 1, 2023.
The MCTID is a benefit assessment district designed to fund marketing and sales promotion efforts for MCTID lodging businesses. The current MCTID includes all lodging businesses located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, and Seaside. The City of Monterey serves as the lead public agency for the MCTID.
On February 21, 2023, the Monterey City Council adopted a resolution declaring results of majority protest proceedings and renewed the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID). This renewed district, among other actions, increased the assessment amount lodging properties would be assessed.
The Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code §36600 et seq., allows for the Owners’ Association to request the City to modify the MDP. The MCTID Owners’ Association, the Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB), has provided a written request to the City Council to modify the MCTID to authorize the term of the current district to be ended early. A copy of the request letter is included as Attachment 2.
MCTID Management District Plan Modification Process
March 7, 2023 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION HEARING (COMPLETED) Upon the written request by the MCTID, the Council may adopt a resolution of intention which states the proposed modification to the MCTID MDP. The MCTID provided a written request for the proposed modification to the Council dated February 14, 2023.
Receipt of this written request allowed the Council to initiate proceedings for MCTID MDP modification, which took place at the Monterey City Council Meeting on March 7, 2023.
March 24, 2023 NOTICE (COMPLETED)
The Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 requires the City to publish the Resolution of Intention in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least seven (7) days before the public hearing and mail a complete copy of the Resolution of Intention to each business owner affected by the proposed modification at least ten (10) days before the public hearing.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 126 April 4, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING & RESOLUTION OF MODIFICATION The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed MCTID MDP modifications.
If the City Council, following the public hearing, decides to modify the MCTID, the City Council shall adopt a Resolution of Modification.
Attachments: 1. Resolution
2. Request Letter to Modify from Owners’ Association, dated Feb. 14, 2023
3. Modified 2019 Management District Plan
c: City Attorney
MCTID Executive Director, c/o Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau HG/NR
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 127 RESOLUTION NO. 23- ___ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№09/22
MODIFYING THE MONTEREY COUNTY TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (MCTID)
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monterey (“City”) initially created the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (“MCTID”) in 2006 under the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 by Ordinance No. 3376; and, WHEREAS, the City converted the MCTID in 2019 under the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 by Resolution No. 18-147, and adopted the Management District Plan of the MCTID; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2023, the City Council renewed the MCTID with a new Management District Plan (“MDP”) that is effective July 1, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code §36600 et seq., allows cities to modify the Management District Plan (“MDP”) at the request of the MCTID owners’ association, the Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (“MCCVB”); and WHEREAS, the MCCVB has requested modification of the 2019 MCTID MDP; and WHEREAS, a modified 2019 MDP has been prepared, and will modify the term of the MCTID to end early on June 30, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2023, at 4:00 p.m., at the City of Monterey Council Chambers, at City Hall, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to modify the 2019 MDP, Resolution No. 23-023; and WHEREAS, the public hearing to consider the modification of the MCTID 2019 MDP has been properly noticed in accordance with Streets and Highways Code §36623; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2023, at 4:00 p.m., at City of Monterey Council Chambers, at City Hall, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940, the City Council held a public hearing regarding the modification of the MCTID 2019 MDP, and the City Council heard and received objections and protests, if any, to the modification of the MCTID 2019 MDP; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that there was no majority protest. A majority protest is defined as written protests received from owners of lodging businesses in the proposed district which would pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessments proposed to be levied. Protests are weighted based on the assessment proposed to be levied on each lodging business.
WHEREAS, The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 128 2 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.
Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby Modifies the MCTID 2019 MDP to end the term on June 30, 2023.
1. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 4th day of April, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Mayor of Monterey
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 129 ATTACHMENT 2 Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 130 2019-2023
MONTEREY COUNTY TOURISM
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
October 22,
2018January 25,
2023
February 2, 2023
Prepared pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code section 36600 et seq.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 7, Packet Page 131
CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................2 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................4 III. BOUNDARY.......................................................................................................................................6 IV. BUDGET AND SERVICES.............................................................................................................8 A. Annual Service Plan ........................................................................................................8 B. Annual Budget...............................................................................................................10 C. California Constitutional Compliance ............................................................................11 D. Assessment....................................................................................................................12 E. Penalties and Interest.....................................................................................................13 F. Time and Manner for Collecting Assessments ...............................................................14 V. GOVERNANCE...............................................................................................................................15 A. Owners’ Association......................................................................................................15 B. Brown Act and California Public Records Act Compliance ...........................................15 C. Annual Report ...............................................................................................................15 APPENDIX 1 – LAW....................................................................................................................................16 APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES .............................................................................................27 APPENDIX 3 – TOURISM ECONOMICS STUDY..............................................................................39 Prepared by
Civitas
(800)999-7781
www.civitasadvisors.com
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 8, Packet Page 132 MCTID Management District Plan 2
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
I. OVERVIEW
Developed by the Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB), the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) is an assessment district proposed to provide specific benefits to payors, by funding group sales and services and marketing communications programs for assessed businesses. This approach has been used successfully in other destination areas throughout the country to provide the benefit of additional room night sales directly to payors.
Location: The proposed MCTID includes all lodging businesses located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, and Seaside. The proposed MCTID has been divided into two (2) benefit zones, as shown on the map in Section III.
Services: The MCTID is designed to provide specific benefits directly to payors by generating room night sales. Group sales and services and marketing communications programs will generate overnight tourism and market Monterey County as a tourist, meeting and event destination, thereby generating room night sales for assessed businesses.
Budget: The total MCTID annual budget for the initial year of its four (4) years and six (6) months five (5) year operation is anticipated to be approximately $4,307,000. This budget is expected to fluctuate as room sales and the assessment rates do, over the MCTID’s term.
Cost: The annual assessment rate in Zone 1 is $2.00 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $1.00 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses. The annual assessment rate in Zone 2 is $2.50 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $1.50 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses. Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on: stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; stays at vacation time-share facilities; stays at vacation rentals; stays at RV parks; stays by any Federal or State of California officer or employee when on official business; and stays by any officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of Federal law or international treaty.
During the MCTID’s four (4) years and six (6) months five (5) year term, the assessment rate may be increased by the MCCVB’s TID Committee to a maximum of $3.00 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $1.50 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses in Zone 1 and $3.50 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $2.00 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses in Zone 2.
The maximum assessment increase in any year shall be $0.30 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $0.15 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 9, Packet Page 133 MCTID Management District Plan 3
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Collection: The cities and County will be responsible for collecting the assessment on a monthly, bi-monthly or quarterly basis (including any delinquencies, penalties and interest) from each lodging business located in the boundaries of the MCTID. The cities and County shall take all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each lodging business.
Duration: The proposed MCTID will have a four (4) years and six (6) months five (5) year life, beginning January 1, 2019 through December 31June 30, 2023. Once per year, beginning on the anniversary of MCTID formation, there is a thirty (30) day period in which owners paying fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessment may protest and initiate a Monterey City Council hearing on MCTID termination.
Management: The Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau will serve as the MCTID’s Owners’ Association. The Owners’ Association is charged with managing funds and implementing programs in accordance with this Plan, and must provide annual reports to the Monterey City Council.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 10, Packet Page 134 MCTID Management District Plan 4
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
II. BACKGROUND
TIDs are an evolution of the traditional Business Improvement District. The first TID was formed in West Hollywood, California in 1989. Since then, one hundred (100) California destinations have followed suit. In recent years, other states have begun adopting the California model – Montana, South Dakota, Washington, Colorado, Texas and Louisiana have adopted TID laws. Several other states are in the process of adopting their own legislation. The cities of Wichita, Kansas and Newark, New Jersey used an existing business improvement district law to form a TBID. And, some cities, like Portland, Oregon and Memphis, Tennessee have utilized their home rule powers to create TIDs without a state law.
California’s TIDs collectively
raise over $250 million for local
destination marketing. With
competitors raising their
budgets, and increasing rivalry
for visitor dollars, it is
important that Monterey
County lodging businesses
invest in stable, lodgingspecific marketing and sales
programs.
TIDs utilize the efficiencies of
private sector operation in the
market-based promotion of tourism districts. TIDs allow lodging business owners to organize their efforts to generate room night sales. Lodging business owners within the TID pay an assessment and those funds are used to provide services that generate room night sales.
In California, TIDs are formed pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994. This law allows for the creation of a benefit assessment district to raise funds within a specific geographic area. The key difference between TIDs and other benefit assessment districts is that funds raised are returned to the private non-profit corporation governing the district.
There are many benefits to TIDs:
• Funds must be spent on programs that provide a specific benefit to those who pay; • Funds cannot be diverted to general government programs; • They are customized to fit the needs of payors in each destination; • They allow for a wide range of services;
• They are designed, created and governed by those who will pay the assessment; and • They provide a stable, long-term funding source for tourism promotion. 1 2 4
6 9
12 19
25 29 32
38 46
61 64
70 75
88 95 99 100
0 20
40 60
80 100
19891995200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017 Number of Districts Operating in California
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 11, Packet Page 135 MCTID Management District Plan 5
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Monterey County TID Background
In 2017, the MCCVB engaged Tourism Economics to analyze market share and the return on investment of the publicly funded TID. In addition to this analysis, the report reviews the performance of Monterey County’s tourism sector, the role of the MCCVB in attracting visitors to the area, the economic rationale for tourism promotion, and case studies of changes in destination marketing organization (DMO) funding. The full report is included in Appendix 3, key highlights include:
Monterey County’s Tourism Sector Overview and Recent Performance Visitors to Monterey County spent $2.7 billion in 2015. This spending directly generates (i.e. not including indirect and induced effects) 24,390 jobs, $1.1 billion in income, and $240 million in state and local taxes. 10% of all jobs and 5% of all income in Monterey County is directly attributable to tourism.
MCCVB Performance
A study of the MCCVBs media campaigns showed that 38% of individuals that recall seeing media produced by the MCCVB reported that they intend to visit in the future.
Competitive Analysis of Funding
An analysis of public DMO funding in comparison to the size of similar and competing destinations indicates that the MCCVB is considerably underfunded. While the MCCVB receives only slightly less total public funding than its average competitor, the MCCVB represents a much larger tourism sector than its typical competitor. Analysis also revealed that Monterey County’s TID assessment rate of
0.7%, is well below the average rate of 2.3%. In fact, Monterey County levies the lowest assessment of any destination examined.
Impacts of the TID on Monterey County’s Economy
On a cumulative basis, from 2018-2022, the study forecasts that the Monterey County TID will contribute $518 million in visitor spending. This spending in turn delivers a total of $36 million in state and local tax revenue. Additionally, 782,000 total room nights and $174 million in room revenue result from the TID. To put this into perspective, a medium-sized hotel (100 rooms) with a destination average ADR ($222) gains 1,600 rooms and $360,000 in room revenue.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 12, Packet Page 136 MCTID Management District Plan 6
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
III. BOUNDARY
The MCTID will include all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, available for public occupancy within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, and Seaside.
Lodging business means: any building, portion of any building, or group of buildings in which there are guest rooms or suites, including housekeeping units for transient guests, where lodging with or without meals is provided. Lodging business does not include:
• Vacation time-share facilities;
• Vacation rentals, defined as a single family home, townhome, or condominium that is available for rent; and
• Recreational vehicle (RV) parks.
Full service lodging business means: an upscale, upper upscale, or luxury lodging business with a wide variety of onsite amenities, such as restaurants, meeting spaces, exercise rooms, or spas.
Limited service lodging business means: a lodging business that offers limited facilities and amenities, typically without a full-service restaurant. Limited service lodging businesses are often in the economy, midscale, or upper midscale class.
The boundary, as shown in the map below, currently includes 257 lodging businesses. A complete listing of lodging businesses within the proposed MCTID can be found in Appendix 2.
The proposed MCTID is divided into two (2) benefit zones, based on the special benefits and privileges granted to lodging businesses in each zone. The boundaries of each zone are shown in the map on the following page. A description of the boundaries of each zone is provided below:
Zone 1: Includes the unincorporated area of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, and Seaside.
Zone 2: Includes the City of Salinas. The boundaries of Zone 2 shall be the boundaries of the City of Salinas as may be amended from time to time.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 13, Packet Page 137 MCTID Management District Plan 7
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 14, Packet Page 138 MCTID Management District Plan 8
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
IV. BUDGET AND SERVICES
A. Annual Service Plan
Assessment funds will be spent to provide specific benefits conferred or privileges granted directly to the payors that are not provided to those not charged, and which do not exceed the reasonable cost to the City of Monterey of conferring the benefits or granting the privileges. The privileges and services provided with the MCTID funds are group sales and services and marketing communications programs available only to assessed lodging businesses.
A service plan budget has been developed to deliver services that benefit the assessed lodging businesses. A detailed annual budget will be developed and approved by MCCVB. The table below illustrates the initial annual budget allocations. The total initial budget is $4,307,000.
Although actual revenues will fluctuate due to market conditions, the proportional allocations of the budget shall remain the same in subsequent years. However, with the exception of the Zone 2 budget category, the TID Committee shall have the authority to adjust budget allocations between the categories by no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total budget per year. Any changes to the budget category allocations shall be included in the annual report to the City. A description of the proposed programs for the initial year of operation is below. The same programs are proposed for subsequent years. In the event of a legal challenge against the MCTID, any and all assessment funds may be used for the costs of defending the MCTID.
Each budget category includes all costs related to providing that service, in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures (GAAP). For example, the marketing communications budget includes the cost of MCCVB staff time dedicated to overseeing and implementing the marketing communications program. Staff time dedicated purely to administrative tasks is allocated to the MCCVB administration and operations portion of the budget. The costs of an individual staff member may be allocated to multiple budget categories, as appropriate in accordance with GAAP. The staffing levels necessary to provide the services below will be determined by the MCCVB on an as-needed basis.
Group Sales &
Services,
$1,777,754 , 41%
Marketing
Communications,
$1,777,754 , 41%
Salinas Visitor
Services, $130,000
, 3%
MCCVB
Administration &
Operations,
$578,422 , 14%
City/County
Administration Fee,
$43,070 , 1%
Initial Annual Budget - $4,307,000
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 15, Packet Page 139 MCTID Management District Plan 9
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Group Sales & Services
The group sales and services program will develop business leads for meetings and events that convert to room nights for assessed businesses. The group sales and services program will have a central theme of promoting Monterey County as a desirable place for overnight group visits. The program will have the goal of generating overnight visitation and room night sales at assessed businesses, and may include the following programs:
• Group marketing initiatives to ensure target customer destination familiarity to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses;
• A business development model ensuring highly qualified leads and efficient use of Owners’ Association resources in developing new business opportunities to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses;
• Focus on business development platform: engage, action, transaction, participation to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; • Familiarization trips (FAMs) and site inspections to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses;
• Strategic client services designed to makes visitors’ destination choice easier to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses;
• Visitor services programs designed to extend stays at assessed businesses and increase visitor spending;
• Strategic business development services designed to identify, qualify, and pursue new business opportunities that best fit the destination’s profile, targeting the ideal opportunities from key deployed markets to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; and • Tour and travel sales programs to fill shoulder seasons and need periods for the destination to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses.
Marketing Communications
The marketing communications program will promote assessed businesses as tourist, meeting, and events destinations. The marketing communications program will have a central theme of promoting Monterey County as a desirable place for overnight visits. The program will have the goal of generating overnight visitation and room sales at assessed businesses, and may include the following programs:
• Programs that develop and distribute content via paid, owned and earned channels to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; • Partnership marketing initiatives with Monterey Regional Airport for domestic marketing, plus cooperative programs for international marketing to reach farther-out prospective visitors to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; • Focus on high-priority, high-impact initiatives to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses;
• Drive familiarity and engagement for group audiences through targeted direct marketing and retargeting programs to complement Group Sales’ business development focus to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; and • Expand international marketing to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 16, Packet Page 140 MCTID Management District Plan 10
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Salinas Visitor Services
The Salinas visitor services portion of the budget shall be utilized for funding visitor services programs for the benefit of generating overnight visitation and room night stays at Zone 2 lodging businesses.
The Salinas visitor services program will provide visitors with brochures, maps, and information regarding local events. The Salinas visitor services budget shall be the amount collected from the additional assessment in Zone 2.
MCCVB Administration and Operations
The MCCVB administration and operations portion of the budget shall be utilized by the MCCVB for administrative staffing costs, office costs, advocacy, and other general administrative costs such as insurance, legal, and accounting fees.
City/County Administration Fee
The cities and County may retain a fee equal to one percent (1%) of the amount of the assessment collected, within their respective jurisdictions, to cover their costs of collection and administration.
B. Annual Budget
The total four (4) years and six (6) months five (5) year program budget is projected at approximately $4,307,000 annually, or $29,101,666$25,529,609 through June 30, 2023 if the maximum assessment rate increases are adopted. This amount is expected to fluctuate as occupancy rates increase at assessed businesses and if the assessment rate is increased. If the maximum annual assessment rate increases are adopted by the TID Committee, the annual budget will increase as estimated in the table below.
During the MCTID’s four (4) years and six (6) months five (5) year term, the assessment rate may be increased by the MCCVB’s TID Committee to a maximum of $3.00 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $1.50 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses in Zone 1 and $3.50 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $2.00 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses in Zone
2. The maximum assessment increase in any year shall be $0.30 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $0.15 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses.
The assessment rate may or may not increase starting in 2020, the increase may be implemented beginning in 2020 or in later years at the discretion of the TID Committee. The following table demonstrates the estimated maximum budget, based on existing lodging businesses, with the assumption that the assessment rate will be increased in both Zones by $0.30 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $0.15 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses in 2020, 2021, and 2022 and by $0.10 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $0.05 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses in 2023, as it is a required disclosure, it is not the anticipated course of action. Any new lodging businesses that commence business within the MCTID during the four (4) years and six (6) months five (5) year term shall be assessed using the same methodology listed in Section IV (D).
Additionally, a three percent (3%) annual increase in the total budget is shown in both tables, to account for estimated increased room occupancy as a result of MCTID efforts. This three percent (3%) annual increase is a conservative estimate based on the effects of similarly sized TID budgets.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 17, Packet Page 141 MCTID Management District Plan 11
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Estimated Annual Budget If Maximum Assessment Rates Are Adopted Year Group Sales
& Services
Marketing
Communications
Visitor
Services
(Zone 2
Only)
MCCVB
Administration
& Operations
City/County
Administration
Fee
Total
2019 $1,777,754 $1,777,754 $130,000 $578,422 $43,070 $4,307,000 2020 $2,091,805 $2,091,805 $152,965 $680,604 $50,679 $5,067,858 2021 $2,422,575 $2,422,575 $177,153 $788,225 $58,692 $5,869,220 2022 $2,771,049 $2,771,049 $202,636 $901,607 $67,135 $6,713,475 2023
$1,474,400
2,948,799
$1,474,400
2,948,799
$107,817
215,634
$479,721
959,441
$35,721
71,441
$3,572,057
7,144,114
Total
$10,537,581
12,011,981
$10,537,581
12,011,981
$770,571
878,388
$3,428,578
3,908,299
$255,296
291,017
$25,529,609
29,101,666
Estimated Annual Budget If Maximum Assessment Rates Are Not Adopted Year
Group
Sales &
Services
Marketing
Communications
Visitor
Services
(Zone 2 Only)
MCCVB
Administration
& Operations
City/County
Administration
Fee
Total
2019 $1,777,754 $1,777,754 $130,000 $578,422 $43,070 $4,307,000 2020 $1,831,087 $1,831,087 $133,900 $595,775 $44,362 $4,436,210 2021 $1,886,019 $1,886,019 $137,917 $613,648 $45,693 $4,569,296 2022 $1,942,600 $1,942,600 $142,055 $632,057 $47,064 $4,706,375 2023
$1,000,439
2,000,878
$1,000,439
2,000,878
$73,158
146,316
$325,510
651,019
$24,238
48,476
$2,423,784
4,847,566
Total
$8,437,898
9,438,337
$8,437,898
9,438,337
$617,030
690,188
$2,745,411
3,070,921
$204,426
228,664
$20,442,664
22,866,448
The two tables above were calculated based on the following methodology. The initial year’s budget was determined based on actual collections in the prior year. The amounts collected from each category of assessed business were increased annually by the applicable percentage increase for each business category’s assessment rate. The increased amounts for each business category were added together and then increased by an additional three percent (3%) to account for the estimated increased occupancy as a result of MCTID efforts.
C. California Constitutional Compliance
The MCTID assessment is not a property-based assessment subject to the requirements of Proposition 218. Courts have found Proposition 218 limited the term ‘assessments’ to levies on real property.1 Rather, the MCTID assessment is a business-based assessment, and is subject to Proposition 26. Pursuant to Proposition 26 all levies are a tax unless they fit one of seven exceptions.
Two of these exceptions apply to the MCTID, a “specific benefit” and a “specific government service.” Both require that the costs of benefits or services do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of Monterey of conferring the benefits or providing the services.
1. Specific Benefit
Proposition 26 requires that assessment funds be expended on, “a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the 1 Jarvis v. the City of San Diego (1999) 72 Cal App. 4th 230 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 18, Packet Page 142 MCTID Management District Plan 12
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
privilege.”2 The services in this Plan are designed to provide targeted benefits directly to assessed lodging businesses, and are intended only to provide benefits and services directly to those businesses paying the assessment. These services are tailored not to serve the general public, businesses in general, or parcels of land, but rather to serve the specific lodging businesses within the District. The programs described in this Plan are specifically targeted to generate room night sales for assessed lodging businesses within the boundaries of the District, and are narrowly tailored. MCTID funds will be used exclusively to provide the specific benefit of generated room night sales directly to the assessees. Assessment funds shall not be used to feature non-assessed lodging businesses in MCTID programs, or to directly generate sales for non-assessed businesses. The programs paid for from assessment revenues are business services constituting and providing specific benefits to the assessed businesses.
The assessment imposed by this District is for a specific benefit conferred directly to the payors that is not provided to those not charged. The specific benefit conferred directly to the payors is the generation of room night sales. The specific benefit of the generation of room night sales for assessed lodging businesses will be provided to lodging businesses paying the district assessment, with MCTID programs promoting lodging businesses paying the district assessment. The MCTID programs will be designed to generate room night sales at assessed lodging businesses. Because they are necessary to provide the MCTID programs that specifically benefit the assessed lodging businesses, the MCCVB administration and operations services also provide the specific benefit of generated room night sales to the assessed lodging businesses.
Although the District, in providing specific benefits to payors, may produce incidental benefits to non-paying businesses, the incidental benefit does not preclude the services from being considered a specific benefit. The legislature has found that, “A specific benefit is not excluded from classification as a ‘specific benefit’ merely because an indirect benefit to a nonpayor occurs incidentally and without cost to the payor as a consequence of providing the specific benefit to the payor.”3
2. Specific Government Service
The assessment may also be utilized to provide, “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 reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.” 4 The legislature has
recognized that marketing services like those to be provided by the MCTID are government services within the meaning of Proposition 265. Further, the legislature has determined that “a specific government service is not excluded from classification as a ‘specific government service’ merely because an indirect benefit to a nonpayor occurs incidentally and without cost to the payor as a consequence of providing the specific government service to the payor.”6
3. Reasonable Cost
District services will be implemented carefully to ensure they do not exceed the reasonable cost of such services. The full amount assessed will be used to provide the services described herein.
Excluding Zone 2 funds managed by the City of Salinas, funds will be managed by the MCCVB, and reports submitted on an annual basis to the City of Monterey. Lodging businesses that do not pay the MCTID assessment will not be featured in marketing materials, receive sales leads generated from 2 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(1)
3 Government Code § 53758(a)
4 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(2)
5 Government Code § 53758(b)
6 Government Code § 53758(b)
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 19, Packet Page 143 MCTID Management District Plan 13
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
district-funded programs, be featured in advertising campaigns, or benefit from other district-funded services.
D. Assessment
The annual assessment rate in Zone 1 is $2.00 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $1.00 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses. The annual assessment rate in Zone 2 is $2.50 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $1.50 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses. Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on: stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; stays at vacation time-share facilities; stays at vacation rentals; stays at RV parks; stays by any Federal or State of California officer or employee when on official business; and stays by any officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of Federal law or international treaty.
During the MCTID’s four (4) years and six (6) months five (5) year term, the assessment rate may be increased by the MCCVB’s TID Committee to a maximum of $3.00 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $1.50 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses in Zone 1 and $3.50 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $2.00 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses in Zone
2. The maximum assessment increase in any year shall be $0.30 per paid occupied room per night for full service lodging businesses and $0.15 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses. Any assessment rate increase shall not increase the amount of the assessment in Zone 2 allocated to the Salinas visitor services budget category. It is not the intent of the TID Committee to raise the assessment rate. However, if the TID Committee finds it necessary to increase the assessment rate in order to ensure competitive funding, the TID Committee has the authority to increase the assessment rate. Any assessment rate increase must be approved by a two-thirds (2/3) votes of the full membership of the TID Committee.
The assessment is levied upon and a direct obligation of the assessed lodging business. However, the assessed lodging business may, at its discretion, pass the assessment on to transients. The amount of assessment, if passed on to each transient, shall be disclosed in advance and separately stated from the amount of rent charged and any other applicable taxes, and each transient shall receive a receipt for payment from the business. The assessment shall be disclosed as the “MCTID Assessment.” The assessment is imposed solely upon, and is the sole obligation of the assessed lodging business even if it is passed on to transients. The assessment shall not be considered revenue for any purposes, including calculation of transient occupancy taxes.
Bonds shall not be issued.
E. Penalties and Interest
The MCTID shall reimburse the cities and County for any costs associated with collecting unpaid assessments. If sums in excess of the delinquent MCTID assessment are sought to be recovered in the same collection action by the cities or County, the MCTID shall bear its pro rata share of such collection costs. Assessed businesses which are delinquent in paying the assessment shall be responsible for paying:
1. Original Delinquency: Any lodging business that fails to remit any assessment imposed within the time required shall pay a penalty of ten percent (10%) of the amount of the assessment in addition to the amount of the assessment or the estimated assessment.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 20, Packet Page 144 MCTID Management District Plan 14
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
2. Continued Delinquency: Any lodging business that fails to remit any delinquent assessment on or before a period of thirty (30) days following the date on which the assessment first became delinquent shall pay a second delinquency penalty of ten percent (10%) of the amount of the assessment in addition to the amount of the assessment and the ten percent (10%) penalty first imposed.
3. Fraud: If the cities or County determine that the nonpayment of any remittance due is due to fraud, a penalty of twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the assessment shall be added thereto, in addition to the penalties stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section.
4. Interest: In addition the penalties imposed, any lodging business that fails to remit any assessment imposed shall pay interest at the rate of one percent (1%) per month or fraction thereof on the amount of the assessment, exclusive of penalties, from the date on which the remittance first became delinquent until paid.
5. Penalties Merged with Assessment: Every penalty imposed and such interest as accrues under the provisions of this section shall become a part of the assessment required to be paid.
6. Audit Deficiency: If, upon audit by the cities or County, a lodging business is found to be deficient in either its return or its remittances or both, the cities or County shall immediately invoice the lodging business for the amount of the net deficiency plus a penalty of ten percent (10%) of the net deficiency. If the lodging business fails or refuses to pay the deficient amount and applicable penalties within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice, an additional ten percent (10%) penalty shall be added to the original deficiency. In addition to the penalties imposed, any lodging business that fails to remit payment of billed audit deficiencies within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice shall pay interest at the rate of one percent (1%) per month or fraction thereof on the amount of the assessment, exclusive of penalties.
F. Time and Manner for Collecting Assessments
The MCTID assessment will be implemented beginning January 1 , 2019 and will continue four (4) years and six (6) months for five (5) years through December 31June 30, 2023. The cities and County will be responsible for collecting the assessment on a monthly, bi-monthly or quarterly basis (including any delinquencies, penalties and interest) from each lodging business located in their respective jurisdictions. The cities and County shall take all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each lodging business. The cities and County shall forward the assessments collected to the Owners’ Association, except for the additional assessments in Zones 2.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 21, Packet Page 145 MCTID Management District Plan 15
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
V. GOVERNANCE
A. Owners’ Association
The Monterey City Council, through adoption of this Management District Plan, has the right, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36651, to identify the body that shall implement the proposed program, which shall be the Owners’ Association of the MCTID as defined in Streets and Highways Code §36612. The Monterey City Council has determined that the Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) will serve as the Owners’ Association for the MCTID. The MCCVB Board shall create a TID Committee comprised solely of assessed lodging business representatives. The number of seats on the TID Committee from each MCTID jurisdiction shall reflect the proportional assessment revenue derived from each MCTID jurisdiction. Except as noted below, the TID Committee shall have full decision-making authority over the expenditure of MCTID funds. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the City of Salinas shall have full decision-making authority over the expenditure of funds raised by the extra $0.50 full and limited service assessment in Zone 2.
B. Brown Act and California Public Records Act Compliance An Owners’ Association is a private entity and may not be considered a public entity for any purpose, nor may its board members or staff be considered to be public officials for any purpose. The Owners’ Association is, however, subject to government regulations relating to transparency, namely the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. These regulations are designed to promote public accountability. The Owners’ Association acts as a legislative body under the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code §54950 et seq.). Thus, meetings of the MCCVB board and certain committees must be held in compliance with the public notice and other requirements of the Brown Act. The Owners’ Association is also subject to the record keeping and disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. Accordingly, the Owners’ Association shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action.
C. Annual Report
The MCCVB shall present an annual report at the end of each year of operation to the Monterey City Council pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36650 (see Appendix 1). The annual report shall include:
• Any proposed changes in the boundaries of the improvement district or in any benefit zones or classification of businesses within the district.
• The improvements and activities to be provided for that fiscal year. • An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements and the activities for that fiscal year. • The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for that fiscal year.
• The estimated amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year.
• The estimated amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this part.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 22, Packet Page 146 MCTID Management District Plan 16
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
APPENDIX 1 – LAW
*** THIS DOCUMENT IS CURRENT THROUGH THE 2018 SUPPLEMENT *** (ALL 2017 LEGISLATION)
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
DIVISION 18. PARKING
PART 7. PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LAW OF 1994 CHAPTER 1. General Provisions
ARTICLE 1. Declarations
36600. Citation of part
This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994.” 36601. Legislative findings and declarations; Legislative guidance
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Businesses located and operating within business districts in some of this state’s communities are economically disadvantaged, are underutilized, and are unable to attract customers due to inadequate facilities, services, and activities in the business districts. (b) It is in the public interest to promote the economic revitalization and physical maintenance of business districts in order to create jobs, attract new businesses, and prevent the erosion of the business districts. (c) It is of particular local benefit to allow business districts to fund business related improvements, maintenance, and activities through the levy of assessments upon the businesses or real property that receive benefits from those improvements.
(d) Assessments levied for the purpose of conferring special benefit upon the real property or a specific benefit upon the businessesin a business district are not taxesfor the general benefit of a city, even if property, businesses, or persons not assessed receive incidental or collateral effects that benefit them. (e) Property and business improvement districts formed throughout this state have conferred special benefits upon properties and businesses within their districts and have made those properties and businesses more useful by providing the following benefits:
(1) Crime reduction. A study by the Rand Corporation has confirmed a 12-percent reduction in the incidence of robbery and an 8-percent reduction in the total incidence of violent crimes within the 30 districts studied.
(2) Job creation.
(3) Business attraction.
(4) Business retention.
(5) Economic growth.
(6) New investments.
(f) With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies throughout the state, property and business improvement districts have become even more important tools with which communities can combat blight, promote economic opportunities, and create a clean and safe environment. (g) Since the enactment of this act, the people of California have adopted Proposition 218, which added Article XIII D to the Constitution in order to place certain requirements and restrictions on the formation of, and activities, expenditures, and assessments by property-based districts. Article XIII D of the Constitution provides that property-based districts may only levy assessments for special benefits. (h) The act amending this section is intended to provide the Legislature’s guidance with regard to this act, its interaction with the provisions of Article XIII D of the Constitution, and the determination of special benefits in property-based districts.
(1) The lack of legislative guidance has resulted in uncertainty and inconsistent application of this act, which discourages the use of assessments to fund needed improvements, maintenance, and activities in property-based districts, contributing to blight and other underutilization of property. (2) Activities undertaken for the purpose of conferring special benefits upon property to be assessed inherently produce incidental or collateral effects that benefit property or persons not assessed.
Therefore, for special benefits to exist as a separate and distinct category from general benefits, the ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 23, Packet Page 147 MCTID Management District Plan 17
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
incidental or collateral effects of those special benefits are inherently part of those special benefits.
The mere fact that special benefits produce incidental or collateral effects that benefit property or persons not assessed does not convert any portion of those special benefits or their incidental or collateral effects into general benefits.
(3) It is of the utmost importance that property-based districts created under this act have clarity regarding restrictions on assessmentsthey may levy and the proper determination ofspecial benefits.
Legislative clarity with regard to this act will provide districts with clear instructions and courts with legislative intent regarding restrictions on property-based assessments, and the manner in which special benefits should be determined.
36602. Purpose of part
The purpose of this part is to supplement previously enacted provisions of law that authorize citiesto levy assessments within property and business improvement districts, to ensure that those assessments conform to all constitutional requirements and are determined and assessed in accordance with the guidance set forth in this act. This part does not affect or limit any other provisions of law authorizing or providing for the furnishing of improvements or activities or the raising of revenue for these purposes.
36603. Preemption of authority or charter city to adopt ordinances levying assessments
Nothing in this part is intended to preempt the authority of a charter city to adopt ordinances providing for a different method of levying assessments for similar or additional purposes from those set forth in this part. A property and business improvement district created pursuant to this part is expressly exempt from the provisions of the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 (Division 4 (commencing with Section 2800)). 36603.5. Part prevails over conflicting provisions
Any provision of this part that conflicts with any other provision of law shall prevail over the other provision of law, as to districts created under this part.
36604. Severability
This part is intended to be construed liberally and, if any provision is held invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Assessments levied under this part are not special taxes.
ARTICLE 2. Definitions
36606. “Activities”
“Activities” means, but is not limited to, all of the following that benefit businesses or real property in the district:
(a) Promotion of public events.
(b) Furnishing of music in any public place.
(c) Promotion of tourism within the district.
(d) Marketing and economic development, including retail retention and recruitment. (e) Providing security, sanitation, graffiti removal, street and sidewalk cleaning, and other municipal services supplemental to those normally provided by the municipality. (f) Other services provided for the purpose of conferring special benefit upon assessed real property or specific benefits upon assessed businesses located in the district. 36606.5. “Assessment”
“Assessment” means a levy for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, installing, or maintaining improvements and providing activities that will provide certain benefits to properties or businesses located within a property and business improvement district.
36607. “Business”
“Business” means all types of businesses and includes financial institutions and professions.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 24, Packet Page 148 MCTID Management District Plan 18
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
36608. “City”
“City” means a city, county, city and county, or an agency or entity created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, the public member agencies of which includes only cities, counties, or a city and county, or the State of California. 36609. “City council”
“City council” means the city council of a city or the board of supervisors of a county, or the agency, commission, or board created pursuant to a joint powers agreement and which is a city within the meaning of this part. 36609.4. “Clerk”
“Clerk” means the clerk of the legislative body.
36609.5. “General benefit”
“General benefit” means, for purposes of a property-based district, any benefit that is not a “special benefit” as defined in Section 36615.5.
36610. “Improvement”
“Improvement” means the acquisition, construction, installation, or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or more including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Parking facilities.
(b) Benches, booths, kiosks, display cases, pedestrian shelters and signs. (c) Trash receptacles and public restrooms.
(d) Lighting and heating facilities.
(e) Decorations.
(f) Parks.
(g) Fountains.
(h) Planting areas.
(i) Closing, opening, widening, or narrowing of existing streets. (j) Facilities or equipment, or both, to enhance security of persons and property within the district. (k) Ramps, sidewalks, plazas, and pedestrian malls.
(l) Rehabilitation or removal of existing structures.
36611. “Management district plan”; “Plan”
“Management district plan” or “plan” means a proposal as defined in Section 36622. 36612. “Owners’ association”
“Owners’ association” means a private nonprofit entity that is under contract with a city to administer or implement improvements, maintenance, and activities specified in the management district plan. An owners’ association may be an existing nonprofit entity or a newly formed nonprofit entity. An owners’ association is a private entity and may not be considered a public entity for any purpose, nor may its board members or staff be considered to be public officials for any purpose. Notwithstanding this section, an owners’ association shall comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code), at all times when matters within the subject matter of the district are heard, discussed, or deliberated, and with the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code), for all records relating to activities of the district. 36614. “Property”
“Property” means real property situated within a district.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 25, Packet Page 149 MCTID Management District Plan 19
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
36614.5. “Property and business improvement district”; “District”
“Property and business improvement district,” or “district,” means a property and business improvement district established pursuant to this part.
36614.6. “Property-based assessment”
“Property-based assessment” means any assessment made pursuant to this part upon real property. 36614.7. “Property-based district”
“Property-based district” means any district in which a city levies a property-based assessment. 36615. “Property owner”; “Business owner”; “Owner”
“Property owner” means any person shown as the owner of land on the last equalized assessment roll or otherwise known to be the owner of land by the city council. “Business owner” means any person recognized by the city as the owner of the business. “Owner” means either a business owner or a property owner. The city council has no obligation to obtain other information as to the ownership of land or businesses, and its determination of ownership shall be final and conclusive for the purposes of this part. Wherever this part requires the signature of the property owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the property owner shall be sufficient. Wherever this part requires the signature of the business owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the business owner shall be sufficient. 36615.5. “Special benefit”
“Special benefit” means, for purposes of a property-based district, a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in a district or to the public at large. Special benefit includes incidental or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of property-based districts even if those incidental or collateral effects benefit property or persons not assessed. Special benefit excludes general enhancement of property value.
36616. “Tenant”
“Tenant” means an occupant pursuant to a lease of commercial space or a dwelling unit, other than an owner.
ARTICLE 3. Prior Law
36617. Alternate method of financing certain improvements and activities; Effect on other provisions
This part provides an alternative method of financing certain improvements and activities. The provisions of this part shall not affect or limit any other provisions of law authorizing or providing for the furnishing of improvements or activities or the raising of revenue for these purposes. Every improvement area established pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 36500) of this division) is valid and effective and is unaffected by this part.
CHAPTER 2. Establishment
36620. Establishment of property and business improvement district
A property and business improvement district may be established as provided in this chapter. 36620.5. Requirement of consent of city council
A county may not form a district within the territorial jurisdiction of a city without the consent of the city council of that city. A city may not form a district within the unincorporated territory of a county without the consent of the board of supervisors of that county. A city may not form a district within the territorial jurisdiction of another city without the consent of the city council of the other city.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 26, Packet Page 150 MCTID Management District Plan 20
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
36621. Initiation of proceedings; Petition of property or business owners in proposed district
(a) Upon the submission of a written petition, signed by the property or business owners in the proposed district who will pay more than 50 percent of the assessments proposed to be levied, the city council may initiate proceedings to form a district by the adoption of a resolution expressing its intention to form a district.
The amount of assessment attributable to property or a business owned by the same property or business owner that is in excess of 40 percent of the amount of all assessments proposed to be levied, shall not be included in determining whether the petition is signed by property or business owners who will pay more than 50 percent of the total amount of assessments proposed to be levied. (b) The petition of property or business owners required under subdivision (a) shall include a summary of the management district plan. That summary shall include all of the following:
(1) A map showing the boundaries of the district.
(2) Information specifying where the complete management district plan can be obtained. (3) Information specifying that the complete management district plan shall be furnished upon request.
(c) The resolution of intention described in subdivision (a) shall contain all of the following:
(1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, the amount of the proposed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property or businesses within the district, a statement as to whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements do not need to be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the improvements, maintenance, and activities, and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) A time and place for a public hearing on the establishment of the property and business improvement district and the levy of assessments, which shall be consistent with the requirements of Section 36623.
36622. Contents of management district plan
The management district plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(a) If the assessment will be levied on property, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and, if businesses are to be assessed, each business within the district. If the assessment will be levied on businesses, a map that identifies the district boundaries in sufficient detail to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries. If the assessment will be levied on property and businesses, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries.
(b) The name of the proposed district.
(c) A description of the boundaries of the district, including the boundaries of benefit zones, proposed for establishment or extension in a manner sufficient to identify the affected property and businesses included, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The boundaries of a proposed property assessment district shall not overlap with the boundaries of another existing property assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a district created pursuant to this part to overlap with other assessment districts established pursuant to other provisions of law, including, but not limited to, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 36500)). This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with another business assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with a property assessment district created pursuant to this part. (d) The improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation of the district and the maximum cost thereof. If the improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation are the same, a description of the first year’s proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities and a statement that the same improvements, maintenance, and activities are proposed for subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision.
(e) The total annual amount proposed to be expended for improvements, maintenance, or activities, and debt service in each year of operation of the district. If the assessment is levied on businesses, this amount may be estimated based upon the assessment rate. If the total annual amount proposed to be expended in each year of operation of the district is not significantly different, the amount proposed to be expended in the initial ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 27, Packet Page 151 MCTID Management District Plan 21
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
year and a statement that a similar amount applies to subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision.
(f) The proposed source or sources of financing, including the proposed method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each property or business owner to calculate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her property or business. The plan also shall state whether bonds will be issued to finance improvements.
(g) The time and manner of collecting the assessments.
(h) The specific number of years in which assessments will be levied. In a new district, the maximum number of years shall be five. Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years. Notwithstanding these limitations, a district created pursuant to this part to finance capital improvements with bonds may levy assessments until the maximum maturity of the bonds. The management district plan may set forth specific increases in assessments for each year of operation of the district. (i) The proposed time for implementation and completion of the management district plan. (j) Any proposed rules and regulations to be applicable to the district. (k) (1) A list of the properties or businesses to be assessed, including the assessor’s parcel numbers for properties to be assessed, and a statement of the method or methods by which the expenses of a district will be imposed upon benefited real property or businesses, in proportion to the benefit received by the property or business, to defray the cost thereof. (2) In a property-based district, the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined exclusively in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the activities. An assessment shall not be imposed on any parcel that exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and a property-based district shall separate the general benefits, if any, from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a property-based district that are owned or used by any city, public agency, the State of California, or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the governmental entity can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit. The value of any incidental, secondary, or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of a property-based district and that benefit property or persons not assessed shall not be deducted from the entirety of the cost of any special benefit or affect the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel. (l) In a property-based district, the total amount of all special benefits to be conferred upon the properties located within the property-based district.
(m) In a property-based district, the total amount of general benefits, if any. (n) In a property-based district, a detailed engineer’s report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California supporting all assessments contemplated by the management district plan. (o) Any other item or matter required to be incorporated therein by the city council. 36623. Procedure to levy assessment
(a) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased property assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 53753 of the Government Code. (b) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased business assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 54954.6 of the Government Code, except that notice shall be mailed to the owners of the businesses proposed to be assessed. A protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person. Every written protest shall be filed with the clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. The city council may waive any irregularity in the form or content of any written protest. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a description of the business in which the person subscribing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business and, if a person subscribing is not shown on the official records of the city as the owner of the business, the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscribing is the owner of the business or the authorized representative. A written protest that does not comply with this section shall not be counted in determining a majority protest. If written protests are received from the owners or authorized representatives of businesses in the proposed district that will pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than 50 percent, no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment against such businesses, as contained in the resolution of intention, shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the city council.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 28, Packet Page 152 MCTID Management District Plan 22
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
(c) If a city council proposes to conduct a single proceeding to levy both a new or increased property assessment and a new or increased business assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the property assessment shall comply with subdivision (a), and the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the business assessment shall comply with subdivision (b). If a majority protest is received from either the property or business owners, that respective portion of the assessment shall not be levied. The remaining portion of the assessment may be levied unless the improvement or other special benefit was proposed to be funded by assessing both property and business owners.
36624. Changes to proposed assessments
At the conclusion of the public hearing to establish the district, the city council may adopt, revise, change, reduce, or modify the proposed assessment or the type or types of improvements, maintenance, and activities to be funded with the revenues from the assessments. Proposed assessments may only be revised by reducing any or all of them. At the public hearing, the city council may only make changes in, to, or from the boundaries of the proposed property and business improvement district that will exclude territory that will not benefit from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities. Any modifications, revisions, reductions, or changes to the proposed assessment district shall be reflected in the notice and map recorded pursuant to Section 36627. 36625. Resolution of formation
(a) If the city council, following the public hearing, decides to establish a proposed property and business improvement district, the city council shall adopt a resolution of formation that shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, the amount of the proposed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property, businesses, or both within the district, a statement on whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements need not be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the improvements, maintenance, and activities and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) The number, date of adoption, and title of the resolution of intention. (3) The time and place where the public hearing was held concerning the establishment of the district.
(4) A determination regarding any protests received. The city shall not establish the district or levy assessments if a majority protest was received.
(5) A statement that the properties, businesses, or properties and businesses in the district established by the resolution shall be subject to any amendments to this part. (6) A statement that the improvements, maintenance, and activities to be conferred on businesses and properties in the district will be funded by the levy of the assessments. The revenue from the levy of assessments within a district shall not be used to provide improvements, maintenance, or activities outside the district or for any purpose other than the purposes specified in the resolution of intention, as modified by the city council at the hearing concerning establishment of the district.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, improvements and activities that must be provided outside the district boundaries to create a special or specific benefit to the assessed parcels or businesses may be provided, but shall be limited to marketing or signage pointing to the district. (7) A finding that the property or businesses within the area of the property and business improvement district will be benefited by the improvements, maintenance, and activities funded by the proposed assessments, and, for a property-based district, that property within the district will receive a special benefit.
(8) In a property-based district, the total amount of all special benefits to be conferred on the properties within the property-based district.
(b) The adoption of the resolution of formation and, if required, recordation of the notice and map pursuant to Section 36627 shall constitute the levy of an assessment in each of the fiscal years referred to in the management district plan.
36626. Resolution establishing district
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 29, Packet Page 153 MCTID Management District Plan 23
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
If the city council, following the public hearing, desires to establish the proposed property and business improvement district, and the city council has not made changes pursuant to Section 36624, or has made changes that do not substantially change the proposed assessment, the city council shall adopt a resolution establishing the district. The resolution shall contain all of the information specified in Section 36625. 36627. Notice and assessment diagram
Following adoption of the resolution establishing district assessments on properties pursuant to Section 36625 or Section 36626, the clerk shall record a notice and an assessment diagram pursuant to Section 3114. No other provision of Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100) applies to an assessment district created pursuant to this part. 36628. Establishment of separate benefit zones within district; Categories of businesses
The city council may establish one or more separate benefit zones within the district based upon the degree of benefit derived from the improvements or activities to be provided within the benefit zone and may impose a different assessment within each benefit zone. If the assessment is to be levied on businesses, the city council may also define categories of businesses based upon the degree of benefit that each will derive from the improvements or activities to be provided within the district and may impose a different assessment or rate of assessment on each category of business, or on each category of business within each zone. 36628.5. Assessments on businesses or property owners
The city council may levy assessments on businesses or on property owners, or a combination of the two, pursuant to this part. The city council shall structure the assessments in whatever manner it determines corresponds with the distribution of benefits from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, provided that any propertybased assessment conforms with the requirements set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (k) of Section 36622. 36629. Provisions and procedures applicable to benefit zones and business categories
All provisions of this part applicable to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of a property and business improvement district apply to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of benefit zones or categories of business. The city council shall, to establish, modify, or disestablish a benefit zone or category of business, follow the procedure to establish, modify, or disestablish a property and business improvement district. 36630. Expiration of district; Creation of new district
If a property and business improvement district expires due to the time limit set pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 36622, a new management district plan may be created and the district may be renewed pursuant to this part.
CHAPTER 3. Assessments
36631. Time and manner of collection of assessments; Delinquent payments
The collection of the assessments levied pursuant to this part shall be made at the time and in the manner set forth by the city council in the resolution levying the assessment. Assessments levied on real property may be collected at the same time and in the same manner as for the ad valorem property tax, and may provide for the same lien priority and penalties for delinquent payment. All delinquent payments for assessments levied pursuant to this part may be charged interest and penalties.
36632. Assessments to be based on estimated benefit; Classification of real property and businesses; Exclusion of residential and agricultural property
(a) The assessments levied on real property pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the real property within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify properties for purposes of determining the benefit to property of the improvements and activities provided pursuant to this part.
(b) Assessments levied on businesses pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the businesses within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 30, Packet Page 154 MCTID Management District Plan 24
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
businesses for purposes of determining the benefit to the businesses of the improvements and activities provided pursuant to this part.
(c) Properties zoned solely for residential use, or that are zoned for agricultural use, are conclusively presumed not to benefit from the improvements and service funded through these assessments, and shall not be subject to any assessment pursuant to this part.
36633. Time for contesting validity of assessment
The validity of an assessment levied under this part shall not be contested in any action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding is commenced within 30 days after the resolution levying the assessment is adopted pursuant to Section 36626. Any appeal from a final judgment in an action or proceeding shall be perfected within 30 days after the entry of judgment.
36634. Service contracts authorized to establish levels of city services
The city council may execute baseline service contracts that would establish levels of city services that would continue after a property and business improvement district has been formed. 36635. Request to modify management district plan
The owners’ association may, at any time, request that the city council modify the management district plan. Any modification of the management district plan shall be made pursuant to this chapter. 36636. Modification of plan by resolution after public hearing; Adoption of resolution of intention
(a) Upon the written request of the owners’ association, the city council may modify the management district plan after conducting one public hearing on the proposed modifications. The city council may modify the improvements and activities to be funded with the revenue derived from the levy of the assessments by adopting a resolution determining to make the modifications after holding a public hearing on the proposed modifications. If the modification includes the levy of a new or increased assessment, the city council shall comply with Section 36623. Notice of all other public hearings pursuant to this section shall comply with both of the following:
(1) The resolution of intention shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city once at least seven days before the public hearing.
(2) A complete copy of the resolution of intention shall be mailed by first class mail, at least 10 days before the public hearing, to each business owner or property owner affected by the proposed modification.
(b) The city council shall adopt a resolution of intention which states the proposed modification prior to the public hearing required by this section. The public hearing shall be held not more than 90 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention.
36637. Reflection of modification in notices recorded and maps
Any subsequent modification of the resolution shall be reflected in subsequent notices and maps recorded pursuant to Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100), in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 36627.
CHAPTER 3.5. Financing
36640. Bonds authorized; Procedure; Restriction on reduction or termination of assessments
(a)The city council may, by resolution, determine and declare that bonds shall be issued to finance the estimated cost of some or all of the proposed improvements described in the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to Section 36625, if the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to that section provides for the issuance of bonds, under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10 (commencing with Section 8500)) or in conjunction with Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985 (Article 4 (commencing with Section 6584) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code). Either act, as the case may be, shall govern the proceedings relating to the issuance of bonds, although proceedings under the Bond Act of 1915 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 31, Packet Page 155 MCTID Management District Plan 25
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
may be modified by the city council as necessary to accommodate assessments levied upon business pursuant to this part.
(b) The resolution adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall generally describe the proposed improvements specified in the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to Section 36625, set forth the estimated cost of those improvements, specify the number of annual installments and the fiscal years during which they are to be collected. The amount of debt service to retire the bonds shall not exceed the amount of revenue estimated to be raised from assessments over 30 years.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, assessments levied to pay the principal and interest on any bond issued pursuant to this section shall not be reduced or terminated if doing so would interfere with the timely retirement of the debt.
CHAPTER 4. Governance
36650. Report by owners’ association; Approval or modification by city council
(a) The owners’ association shall cause to be prepared a report for each fiscal year, except the first year, for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the improvements, maintenance, and activities described in the report. The owners’ association’s first report shall be due after the first year of operation of the district. The report may propose changes, including, but not limited to, the boundaries of the property and business improvement district or any benefit zones within the district, the basis and method of levying the assessments, and any changes in the classification of property, including any categories of business, if a classification is used.
(b) The report shall be filed with the clerk and shall refer to the property and business improvement district by name, specify the fiscal year to which the report applies, and, with respect to that fiscal year, shall contain all of the following information:
(1) Any proposed changes in the boundaries of the property and business improvement district or in any benefit zones or classification of property or businesses within the district. (2) The improvements, maintenance, and activities to be provided for that fiscal year. (3) An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements, maintenance, and activities for that fiscal year.
(4) The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each real property or business owner, as appropriate, to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her property or business for that fiscal year.
(5) The estimated amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year.
(6) The estimated amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this part.
(c) The city council may approve the report as filed by the owners’ association or may modify any particular contained in the report and approve it as modified. Any modification shall be made pursuant to Sections 36635 and 36636.
The city council shall not approve a change in the basis and method of levying assessments that would impair an authorized or executed contract to be paid from the revenues derived from the levy of assessments, including any commitment to pay principal and interest on any bonds issued on behalf of the district. 36651. Designation of owners’ association to provide improvements, maintenance, and activities
The management district plan may, but is not required to, state that an owners’ association will provide the improvements, maintenance, and activities described in the management district plan. If the management district plan designates an owners’ association, the city shall contract with the designated nonprofit corporation to provide services.
CHAPTER 5. Renewal
36660. Renewal of district; Transfer or refund of remaining revenues; District term limit
(a) Any district previously established whose term has expired, or will expire, may be renewed by following the procedures for establishment as provided in this chapter. (b) Upon renewal, any remaining revenues derived from the levy of assessments, or any revenues derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues, shall be transferred to the renewed district. If the renewed ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 32, Packet Page 156 MCTID Management District Plan 26
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
district includes additional parcels or businesses not included in the prior district, the remaining revenues shall be spent to benefit only the parcels or businesses in the prior district. If the renewed district does not include parcels or businesses included in the prior district, the remaining revenues attributable to these parcels shall be refunded to the owners of these parcels or businesses. (c) Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years, or, if the district is authorized to issue bonds, until the maximum maturity of those bonds. There is no requirement that the boundaries, assessments, improvements, or activities of a renewed district be the same as the original or prior district.
CHAPTER 6. Disestablishment
36670. Circumstances permitting disestablishment of district; Procedure
(a) Any district established or extended pursuant to the provisions of this part, where there is no indebtedness, outstanding and unpaid, incurred to accomplish any of the purposes of the district, may be disestablished by resolution by the city council in either of the following circumstances:
(1) If the city council finds there has been misappropriation of funds, malfeasance, or a violation of law in connection with the management of the district, it shall notice a hearing on disestablishment. (2) During the operation of the district, there shall be a 30-day period each year in which assessees may request disestablishment of the district. The first such period shall begin one year after the date of establishment of the district and shall continue for 30 days. The next such 30-day period shall begin two years after the date of the establishment of the district. Each successive year of operation of the district shall have such a 30-day period. Upon the written petition of the owners or authorized representatives of real property or the owners or authorized representatives of businesses in the district who pay 50 percent or more of the assessments levied, the city council shall pass a resolution of intention to disestablish the district. The city council shall notice a hearing on disestablishment. (b) The city council shall adopt a resolution of intention to disestablish the district prior to the public hearing required by this section. The resolution shall state the reason for the disestablishment, shall state the time and place of the public hearing, and shall contain a proposal to dispose of any assets acquired with the revenues of the assessments levied within the property and business improvement district. The notice of the hearing on disestablishment required by this section shall be given by mail to the property owner of each parcel or to the owner of each business subject to assessment in the district, as appropriate. The city shall conduct the public hearing not less than 30 days after mailing the notice to the property or business owners. The public hearing shall be held not more than 60 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention. 36671. Refund of remaining revenues upon disestablishment or expiration without renewal of district; Calculation of refund; Use of outstanding revenue collected after disestablishment of district
(a) Upon the disestablishment or expiration without renewal of a district, any remaining revenues, after all outstanding debts are paid, derived from the levy of assessments, or derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues, or from bond reserve or construction funds, shall be refunded to the owners of the property or businesses then located and operating within the district in which assessments were levied by applying the same method and basis that was used to calculate the assessments levied in the fiscal year in which the district is disestablished or expires. All outstanding assessment revenue collected after disestablishment shall be spent on improvements and activities specified in the management district plan. (b) If the disestablishment occurs before an assessment is levied for the fiscal year, the method and basis that was used to calculate the assessments levied in the immediate prior fiscal year shall be used to calculate the amount of any refund.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 33, Packet Page 157 MCTID Management District Plan 27
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Adams Motel 2086 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service Adobe Inn Dolores St & 8th Ave
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Full Service
Aloha Motel 235 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Americas Best Value
Presidents Inn on Munras 1150 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Andril Cottages 569 Asilomar Ave Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Anton Inn 1095 Lighthouse Ave Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service Arbor Inn 1058 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Asilomar Conference
Center 800 Asilomar Ave Pacific Grove, CA Full Service
Barlocker's Rustiling Oaks
Ranch 25252 Limekiln Rd. Salinas, CA 93908 Limited Service Bay Park Hotel 1425 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service Bayside Inn 2055 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Beachcomber Inn 1996 Sunset Dr Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Bernardus Lodge 415 Carmel Valley Rd. Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Full Service Best 5 Motel Salinas 1010 Fairview Ave Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Best Value Stage Coach
Lodge 1111 10th St Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service
Best Value Surf Inn 1200 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Best Western Beach
Dunes Inn 3290 Dunes Dr. Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service Best Western Carmel Bay
View Inn Junipero btwn 5th & 6th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Best Western Carmel's
Townhouse Lodge
N.W. Corner San Carlos &
Fifth Ave.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Best Western DeAnza Inn 2141 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Best Western Magic
Carpet Lodge 1875 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 34, Packet Page 158 MCTID Management District Plan 28
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Best Western Monarch
Resort 1111 Lighthouse Ave Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Best Western Monterey
Inn 825 Abrego St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service
Best Western Park Crest
Motel 1100 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Best Western Plus
Victorian Inn 487 Foam St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Best Western Salinas
Monterey Hotel 175 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Best Western Salinas
Valley Inn & Suites 187 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Best Western The Inn &
Suites Pacific Grove 660 Dennett Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Bide-A-Wee Inn &
Cottages 221 Asilomar Ave Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Big Sur Campground Inc. 47000 Hwy 1 Big Sur, CA 93920 Limited Service Big Sur Lodge Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park Big Sur, Ca 93920-0190 Full Service Big Sur River Inn Hwy 1 at Pheneger Creek Big Sur, CA 93920 Full Service Blue Sky Lodge 10 Flight Rd. Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Limited Service Borg's Oceanfront Motel 635 Ocean View Blvd Pacific Grove Ca 93950 Limited Service Briarwood Inn San Carlos btwn 4th & 5th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Budget Inn Salinas 219 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Butterfly Grove Inn 1073 Lighthouse Ave Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Cabana Holiday Cabins 8710 Prunedale North Rd. Prunedale, CA 93907 Limited Service California Inn 736 N. Main St Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service Candle Bay Inn 2118 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Candlelight Inn (Inns by
the Sea)
San Carlos between 4th &
5th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Cannery Row Inn 200 Foam St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Capitol Motel 2110 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 35, Packet Page 159 MCTID Management District Plan 29
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Captain's Inn at Moss
Landing Moss Landing Rd. Moss Landing, CA 95039 Limited Service Carmel Cottage Inn
San Antonio and (Box
5805), Eighth St
Carmel-By-The-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Country Inn Dolores St. & 3rd Ave.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Fireplace Inn San Carlos & 4th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Forest Lodge
Ocean Ave at Torres & Mt.
View
Carmel-By-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Garden Court Inn 4th & Torres
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Green Lantern Inn Casanova at 7th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Inn and Suites N.E. 5th & Junipero
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Lodge San Carlos & 5th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Mission Inn 3665 Rio Rd. Carmel, CA 93923 Full Service Carmel Oaks Inn 5th & Mission St.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel Resort Inn Carpenter & 2nd Ave.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carmel River Inn Hwy 1 @ Oliver Road Carmel, CA 93922 Limited Service Carmel Valley Lodge
Carmel Valley Rd. at Ford
Rd. Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Limited Service
Carmel Valley Manor 8545 Carmel Valley Road Carmel, CA 93923 Full Service Carmel Valley Ranch 1 Old Ranch Rd. Carmel, CA 93923 Full Service Carmel Wayfarer Inn 4th Ave. at Mission
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Carriage House Inn (Inns
by the Sea) Junipero btwn 7th & 8th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Casa de Carmel Inn Monte Verde & 7th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Casa Linda Motel 1109 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service Casa Munras, A Larkspur
Hotel 700 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service
Casa Palmero Pebble
Beach 1518 Cypress Dr. Pebble Beach, CA 93953 Full Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 36, Packet Page 160 MCTID Management District Plan 30
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Casa Verde Inn 2113 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Castroville Motel 11656 Merritt St. Castroville, CA 95012 Limited Service Centrella Inn 612 Central Ave Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service Ciudad Del Rey Motel 50620 Mesa Verde Rd King City, CA 93930 Limited Service Coachman's Inn San Carlos btwn 7th & 8th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Colonial Terrace Inn
San Antonio btwn 12th &
13th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Colton Inn 707 Pacific St.. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Comfort Inn - Carmel Hill 1252 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Comfort Inn - Carmel-bythe-Sea Ocean Ave. & Torres St.Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921 Limited Service
Comfort Inn - Monterey
Bay 2050 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Comfort Inn - Monterey
Peninsula Airport 1200 Olmsted Rd Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Comfort Inn - Munras
Avenue 1262 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Comfort Inn & Suites -
Marina 140 Reservation Rd. Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service Comfort Inn &
Suites/Quality Inn Salinas 181 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Contenta Inn 20 Via Contenta Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Limited Service Continental Motel 1165 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service Country Inn 126 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Courtyard by Marriott
Salinas Monterey 17225 El Rancho Way Salinas, CA 93907 Full Service Cypress Inn Lincoln & 7th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Days Inn 1226 De La Torre St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Days Inn of Monterey 1288 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service De Tierra Vineyards 503 Corral De Tierra Rd Salinas, CA 93908-8950 Limited Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 37, Packet Page 161 MCTID Management District Plan 31
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Deer Haven Inn & Suites 740 Crocker Ave Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Deetjen's Big Sur Inn 48865 Hwy 1 Big Sur, CA 93920 Full Service Del Monte Pines Motel 1298 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Discovery Inn 1106 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Downtown Monterey -
San Carlos Days Inn 850 Abrego St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Econo Lodge - Salinas 180 S. Sanborn Rd. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Econo Lodge Bay Breeze 2049 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Econo Lodge Monterey
Fairgrounds 2042 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Economy Inn Salinas 214 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Economy Inn Seaside 1131 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Edgemere Cottages
San Antonio btwn 13th St.
and Santa Lucia
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
El Adobe Inn 936 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service El Castell Motel 2102 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service El Dorado Motel 1351 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service El Llano Motel 861 Abbott St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service El Rey Motel 443 West Market St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service El Sombrero Motel 210 Abbott St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Embassy Suites Hotel &
Conference Center 1441 Canyon Del Rey Seaside, CA 93955 Full Service Esalen Institute 55000 Hwy One Big Sur, CA 93920 Full Service Fernwood Resort
(Hotel/Motel) 47200 Hwy 1 Big Sur, CA 93920 Limited Service Fireside Lodge-Monterey 1131 10th St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Gateway Lodge Motel 1909 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 38, Packet Page 162 MCTID Management District Plan 32
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Good Nite Inn 545 Work St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Gorda Springs Resort Hwy 1 Gorda, CA 93920 Limited Service Gosby House Inn 643 Lighthouse Ave Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service Green Gables Inn 301 Ocean View Blvd. Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service Hacienda Guest Lodge PO Box 631 Jolon, CA 93928 Limited Service Hampton Inn & Suites
Salinas 523 Work St Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service
Happy Landing Inn
Monte Verde btwn 5th &
6th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Hidden Valley Inn
(Country Garden Inns) 102 W. Carmel Valley Rd. Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Limited Service Highlands Inn, Hyatt
Vacation Club 120 Highlands Dr. Carmel, CA 93923 Full Service Hilton Garden Inn
Monterey 1000 Aguajito Rd. Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service Hofsas House San Carlos & 4th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Holiday Inn Express -
Cannery Row Hotel 443 Wave St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Holiday Inn Express -
Monterey Bay 1400 Del Monte Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Holiday Inn Express &
Suites - Marina 189 Seaside Cir. Marina, CA 93955 Limited Service Holman Ranch 60 Holman Rd Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Limited Service Horizon Inn/Ocean View
Lodge Junipero & 3rd
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Hotel 1110 1110 Del Monte Ave Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Hotel Abrego 755 Abrego St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Hotel Carmel 4th & San Carlos
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Hotel Pacific (Inns of
Monterey) 300 Pacific St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Howard Johnson Inn -
Salinas 131 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service
Howard Johnson Inn
Marina at Monterey Bay 416 Reservation Rd. Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 39, Packet Page 163 MCTID Management District Plan 33
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Hyatt Regency Monterey
Resort & Spa 1 Old Golf Course Rd. Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service IHG Army Hotels Buildings
366 & 367 Presido Of Monterey Monterey, CA 93944 Limited Service Inn at The Pinnacles
32025 Stonewall Canyon
Rd Soledad, CA 93960 Limited Service
Inns of California Salinas 555 Airport Blvd. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Intercontinental The
Clement Monterey 750 Cannery Row Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service Knights Inn Carmel Hill
Lodge 1374 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service La Playa Hotel 8th & Camino Real
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Full Service
La Quinta Inn Monterey 2401 Del Monte Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Laguna Lodge 430 Reservation Rd. Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service Lake San Antonio Resort
(Hotel/Motel) 74255 San Antonio Rd. Bradley, CA 93426 Limited Service Lamp Lighter Inn Ocean & Camino Real
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
L'Auberge Carmel Monte Verde & 7th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Full Service
Laurel Inn & Conference
Center 801 W. Laurel Dr. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service Lighthouse Lodge & Suites 1249 Lighthouse Ave Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Lincoln Green Inn 26200 Carmelo Street
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921-2747 Limited Service
Lobos Lodge
Ocean Ave. & Monte
Verde
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Lone Oak Lodge 2221 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Los Laureles Lodge 313 W. Carmel Valley Rd. Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Full Service Lovers Point Inn 625 Ocean View Blvd Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Lucia Lodge 62400 Hwy 1 Lucia, CA 93920 Limited Service Mariposa Inn 1386 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Martine Inn 255 Ocean View Blvd Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 40, Packet Page 164 MCTID Management District Plan 34
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Merritt House Inn 386 Pacific St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Mission Ranch Resort 26270 Dolores St. Carmel, CA 93923 Full Service Monte Verde Inn
Monte Verde & Ocean
Ave.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Monterey Bay Inn (Inns of
Monterey) 242 Cannery Row Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Monterey Bay Lodge 55 Camino Aguajito Rd. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Monterey Bay Travelodge 2030 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Monterey Beach Dunes
Inn 3280 Dunes Dr. Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service
Monterey Downtown
Travelodge 675 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Monterey Fireplace Inn 2362 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Monterey Hostel 778 Hawthorne St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Monterey Marriott Hotel 350 Calle Principal Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service Monterey Oceanside Inn 2030 Del Monte Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Monterey Peninsula Inn 1101 Lighthouse Ave Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service Monterey Plaza Hotel &
Spa 400 Cannery Row Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service
Monterey Tides 2600 Sand Dunes Dr. Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service Motel 6 - Marina 100 Reservation Rd. Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service Motel 6 - Monterey 2124 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Motel 6 - Monterey
Downtown 1240 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Motel 6 - Salinas #639 1257 De La Torre St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Motel 6 - Salinas North
#1370 140 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service
Motel 6 (Artichoke Inn) 10341 Merritt St. Castroville, CA 95012 Limited Service Munras Lodge 1010 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Normandy Inn Ocean Ave & Monte Verde
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 41, Packet Page 165 MCTID Management District Plan 35
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Old Marina Inn 3110 Del Monte Blvd. Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service Old Monterey Inn 500 Martin St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Old St Angela Inn 321 Central Ave Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Pacific Best Inn 1141 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Pacific Gardens Inn 701 Asilomar Blvd Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Pacific Inn Monterey 2332 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Padre Oaks Motel 1278 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service PAL Rest Easy LLC 11580 Great Oaks Way Jolon, CA 93928 Limited Service Paraiso Hot Springs Resort 34358 Paraiso Springs Rd Soledad, CA 93960 Limited Service Parkfield Inn
70410 Parkfield Coalinga
Rd. Parkfield, CA 93451 Limited Service
Pelican Inn Monterey 1182 Cass St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Pine Inn
Ocean Ave. & Monte
Verde
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Full Service
Portola Hotel and Spa at
Monterey Bay 2 Portola Plaza Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service Post Ranch Inn 47900 Hwy 1 Big Sur, CA 93920 Full Service Prunedale Motor Lodge 1017 El Camino Real N
Prunedale, CA 93907-
3359 Limited Service
Quail Lodge 8205 Valley Greens Dr. Carmel Valley, CA 93923 Full Service Quality Inn - Monterey
Fairgrounds 2075 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Quality Inn Salinas 144 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Ramada Inn - Marina 323 Reservation Rd. Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service Ramada Limited 2058 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Red Roof Inn and Suites 2227 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Residence Inn by Marriott 17215 El Rancho Way Salinas, CA 93907 Full Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 42, Packet Page 166 MCTID Management District Plan 36
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Rex Motel 305 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Ripplewood Resort Hwy 1 Big Sur, CA 93920 Full Service
Riverside Campgrounds
and Cabins Hwy 1 Big Sur, CA 93920 Limited Service
Rodeway Inn Monterey 2041 Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Rosedale Inn 775 Asilomar Blvd Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Royal Hotel/Cortes Hotel 201 E. Market St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Salinas Inn 1030 Fairview Ave. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Salinas Valley Motel 2100 North Main St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Sanctuary Beach Resort 3295 Dunes Drive Marina, Ca 93933 Full Service Sandcastle Inn 1011 Autocenter Pkwy. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Sandpiper Inn-by-the-Sea 2408 Bay View Ave. Carmel, CA 93923 Limited Service Sea Breeze Inn & Cottages
(Monterey Peninsula Inns) 1100 Lighthouse Ave Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service Sea Lamp Inn 2201 Del Monte Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Sea View Inn
Camino Real btwn 11th &
12th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Seaside Inn 1986 Del Monte Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Seven Gables Inn 555 Ocean View Blvd Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service Spindrift Inn 652 Cannery Row Monterey, CA 93940 Full Service SpringHill Suites The
Dunes on Monterey Bay 215 10th St Marina, CA 93933 Limited Service Star Motel 1161 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service Stargazer Inn and Suites 1046 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Steinbeck Lodge 109 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Stonepine Estate Resort 150 E. Carmel Valley Rd. Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Full Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 43, Packet Page 167 MCTID Management District Plan 37
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Sunset House 2 SE Camino Real
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Sunset Inn 133 Asilomar Blvd Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Limited Service Super 8 - Fremont 2120 N. Fremont St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Super 8 - Munras 1300 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Sure Stay Inn by Best
Western 1893 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service Svendsgaard's Inn (Inns by
the Sea) 4th & San Carlos
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Tally Ho Inn Monte Verde & 6th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Tassajara Zen Mountain
Center 39171 Tassajara Rd.
Tassajara Hot Springs, CA
93924 Limited Service
The Bunkhouse 34750 Fort Romie Rd Soledad, CA 93960-9672 Limited Service The Getaway Ocean & Junipero
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
The Glen Oaks 47080 Hwy 1 Big Sur, CA 93920 Limited Service The Hideaway Junipero btwn 7th & 8th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
The Holly Farm 9200 Carmel Valley Rd. Carmel, CA 93923 Limited Service The Homestead Lincoln at 8th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93923 Limited Service
The Inn at Spanish Bay 2700 17 Mile Drive Pebble Beach, CA 93953 Full Service The Jabberwock 598 Laine St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service The Lodge at Pebble
Beach 1700 17 Mile Dr. Pebble Beach, CA 93953 Full Service The Monterey Hotel 406 Alvarado St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service The Olympia Lodge 1140 Lighthouse Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service The Tradewinds at Carmel Mission & 3rd
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Thunderbird Motel 1933 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 44, Packet Page 168 MCTID Management District Plan 38
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
Business Name Business Address City/State/ZIP Type
Tickle Pink Inn 155 Highland Dr.
Carmel Highlands, CA
93923 Limited Service
Travel Inn Salinas 425 Monterey St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Traveler's Hotel 16 1/2 East Gabilan St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service Treebones Resort 71895 Hwy 1 Big Sur, CA 93920 Limited Service Vagabond Inn Salinas 131 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Vagabond's House Inn Dolores & 4th
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Vendange Carmel Inn &
Suites 24815 Carpenter St.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Ventana Inn & Spa Highway 1 South Big Sur, CA 93920 Full Service Villa Franca Inn 900 Munras Ave. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Vision Quest Safari Bed &
Breakfast 400 River Rd. Salinas, CA 93908 Limited Service Wagon Wheel Motel 1217 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Service Wave Street Inn 571 Wave St. Monterey, CA 93940 Limited Service Wayside Inn (Inns by the
Sea) 7th & Mission
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
93921 Limited Service
Western Skylodge Motel 6 South Wood St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Service Wilkies Inn, The 1038 Lighthouse Ave Pacific Grove CA 93950 Limited Service Willow Lodge 719 South Main St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Service ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 45, Packet Page 169 MCTID Management District Plan 39
October 22, 2018January 25, 2023 February 2, 2023
APPENDIX 3 – TOURISM ECONOMICS STUDY
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 46, Packet Page 170 Competitive Analysis of Funding:
Monterey, California
March 2017
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 47, Packet Page 171 Table of Contents
| Tourism Economics 2
Executive Summary 3
1) Monterey’s Tourism Sector Overview and Recent Performance 8 2) Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau Performance 15 3) Competitive Analysis of Funding 21
4) Impacts of the TID on Monterey County’s Economy 26
Appendix 1: Methodology 36
Appendix 2: The Economic Rationale for Destination Marketing 40 Appendix 3: Case Study Review 52
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 48, Packet Page 172 Executive Summary
| Tourism Economics 3
Overview
The Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) engaged Tourism Economics (“we”) to analyze market share and the return on investment of the publicly funded TID. In addition to this analysis, our report reviews the performance of Monterey County’s tourism sector, the role of the MCCVB in attracting visitors to the area, the economic rationale for tourism promotion, and case studies of changes in destination marketing organization (DMO) funding. This executive summary follows the structure of the accompanying report, with eight main sections.
1) Monterey County’s Tourism Sector Overview and Recent Performance
Visitors to Monterey County spent $2.7 billion in 2015. This spending directly generates (i.e. not including indirect and induced effects) 24,390 jobs, $1.1 billion in income, and $240 million in state and local taxes. 10% of all jobs and 5% of all income in Monterey County is directly attributable to tourism (source: BEA).
Monterey County’s share of the state’s total room demand has increased slightly to 2.21% in 2016 from 2.12% in 2011. While a 0.09 percentage point increase in the share of rooms booked may appear slight, travelers booked 141 million rooms in California in 2016, and therefore a 0.09% increase in share equates to 118,000 more room nights in Monterey County.
Key tourism indicators in Monterey County
Dollar figures are in millions
2015 value
Share of Central
Coast total
Share of
California total
Total visitor spending $2,709 33.5% 2.2%
Earnings $1,111 39.5% 2.7%
Employment 24,390 30.8% 2.4%
State and local taxes $240 34.8% 1.5%
Source: Dean Runyan Associates
2.12% 2.12%
2.15%
2.17%
2.19%
2.21%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2.0%
2.1%
2.1%
2.2%
2.2%
2.3%
Monterey County's market share
Source: STR
Percent of California's total room demand
*Central Coast, Central Valley, San Fransisco Bay Area
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 49, Packet Page 173 Executive Summary
| Tourism Economics 4
2) MCCVB Performance
In 2016, the MCCVB sales team facilitated 87,500 room nights for groups, or 2.8% of all room nights in Monterey County. These bookings generated $74 million in local economic impact.
The MCCVB also manages media campaigns targeted toward the leisure market. Study results demonstrate the campaign’s effectiveness. 38% of individuals that recall seeing media produced by the MCCVB (“Aware”) report that they intend to visit in the future vs only 26% of those not aware of the MCCVB’s advertisements.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 50, Packet Page 174 Executive Summary
| Tourism Economics 5
3) Competitive Analysis of Funding
An analysis of public DMO funding in comparison to the size of similar and competing destinations indicates that the MCCVB is considerably underfunded. While the MCCVB receives only slightly less total public funding than its average competitor, the MCCVB represents a much larger tourism sector than its typical competitor. On a per hotel room basis, we find that the MCCVB receives only 43% of the funding suggested by its benchmark set.
Analysis reveals that Monterey County’s TID assessment rate (hotel tax rate) of 0.7%, is well below the average rate of 2.3%. In fact, Monterey County levies the lowest assessment of any destination examined.
$2,628
$2,234
$1,698
$1,254
$1,152
$926
$875
$686
$545
$540
Newport Beach
Palm Springs
Napa Valley
Average
Sonoma County
San Jose
Laguna Beach
South Lake Tahoe
Monterey County
Santa Barbara
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000
Public funding per hotel room
Sources: DMAI; STR; DMO annual reports Dollars
0.7%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.3%
2.3%
2.9%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
4.0%
Monterey County
Mendocino County
Los Angeles
Orange County
San Diego
Napa Valley
Sonoma County
San Francisco
Average
Pasadena
Palm Springs
Huntington Beach
Newport Beach
Stockton
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
Assessment rates in California TIDs
Sources: DMAI; STR; DMO annual reports Percent
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 51, Packet Page 175 Executive Summary
| Tourism Economics 6
4) Impacts of the TID on Monterey County’s Economy
Monterey county relies on the TID to be competitively funded in comparison to competing destinations. The TID comprises 83% of the public funding necessary to compete suggested by our benchmarking analysis.
To analyze the impact of the TID, we create two scenarios, a Non-TID Scenario (or Absence of TID) and a Baseline Scenario in which the TID remains in place. We estimate the fiscal and economic impacts of these two scenarios
In 2020, our Baseline Scenario forecasts MCCVB receiving $7.6 million in public funding. In the Non-TID Scenario, the MCCVB receives $3.2 million in public funding, a decrease of $4.4 million. We estimate that this level of funding would result in $128.9 million of lost visitor spending.
On a cumulative basis, from 2018-2022, we forecast that the TID for Monterey County contributes $518 million in visitor spending. This spending in turn delivers a total of $36 million in state and local tax revenue. Additionally, 782,000 total room nights and $174 million in room revenue result from the TID. To put this into perspective, a medium-sized hotel (100 rooms) with a destination average ADR ($222) gains 1,600 rooms and $360,000 in room revenue.
DMO revenue and visitor spending in two scenarios, 2020 Dollar figure in millions Baseline
Scenario
Absence of TID
Scenario
TID revenue $4.4 --
Hotel tax revenue $2.9 $2.9
Private revenue $0.3 $0.3
Total MCCVB revenue $7.6 $3.2
Total Funding decrease relative to baseline -- $4.4
Total decrease in marketing spending (90%) -- $4.0
Anticipated total ROI on lost marketing spending -- 32-to-1 Decrease in visitor spending -- $128.9
Total visitor spending $3,067 $2,938
Sources: Tourism Economics
2015 2016 2017 2018* 2019* 2020 2021 2022
$2.2
$2.4
$2.6
$2.8
$3.0
$3.2
$3.4 Thousands
losses
cut2 Baseline Scenario Absence of TID Scenario
Visitor spending in two scenarios
*Cool-down years in which the full impact of funding decrease is not realized Source: Tourism Economics Nominal dollars, billions
$518 million in total lost
visitor spending 2018-2022
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 52, Packet Page 176 Executive Summary
| Tourism Economics 7
Appendix 1: Methodology
We combine previous research and widely accepted techniques to calculate how increased DMO funding will increase visitor spending and the economic impacts of tourism on the Monterey County economy.
Appendix 2: The economic rationale for destination
marketing
The case for destination marketing is broad and compelling. The need for strong destination marketing is connected to the characteristics of the tourism sector, the dynamics of travel markets, and proven economic returns of effective marketing. Destination marketing plays an integral and indispensable role in the competitiveness of the local tourism economy by addressing three challenges. In addition to addressing key challenges, catalytic impacts make tourism promotion integral to Monterey County’s tourism sector and economy as a whole.
Appendix 3: Case study review
A case study review demonstrates the important role of the destination marketing organization (DMO) on the local tourism economy, and validates the need for competitive destination funding. When destinations such as Colorado and San Diego significantly reduced destination marketing, profound negative impacts on visitation soon followed. Conversely, providing increased levels of funding has been shown to drive tourism growth and positively contribute to regional and national perceptions, such as the case with the “Pure Michigan” campaign.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 53, Packet Page 177 1) Monterey’s Tourism Sector
Overview and Recent Performance
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 54, Packet Page 178 Tourism is a major driver of the
Monterey County economy
| Tourism Economics 9
In 2015, visitors spent $2.7 billion in
Monterey County, generating 24,400 jobs
and $1.1 billion in local income
The following pages detail the
size of Monterey County’s
tourism sector along with trends
in the tourism sector.
Visitors to Monterey County
spent $2.7 billion in 2015. The
majority of this spending accrues
to the accommodations and food
services sectors.
This spending directly generates
(i.e. not including indirect and
induced effects) 24,390 jobs,
$1.1 billion of income, and $240
million in state and local taxes.
10% of all jobs and 5% of all
income in Monterey County is
directly attributable to tourism
(source: BEA).
Monterey County represents
approximately one-third of the
Central Coast region’s tourism
sector and over 2% of the state’s
tourism sector.
Key tourism indicators in Monterey County
Dollar figures are in millions
2015 value
Share of Central
Coast total
Share of
California total
Total visitor spending $2,709 33.5% 2.2%
Accommodations $680 36.2% 2.9%
Food Service $797 36.1% 2.8%
Food Stores $73 27.2% 2.0%
Local Tran. & Gas $203 22.0% 1.2%
Arts, Ent. & Rec. $356 35.7% 2.2%
Retail Sales $491 34.7% 2.9%
Visitor Air Tran. $18 28.6% 0.3%
Other travel spending $91 27.9% 0.9%
Earnings $1,111 39.5% 2.7%
Employment 24,390 30.8% 2.4%
State and local taxes $240 34.8% 1.5%
Source: Dean Runyan Associates
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 55, Packet Page 179 Visitor spending is distributed
throughout the county
| Tourism Economics 10
While the city of Monterey receives the
most visitor spending, all local communities
benefit from the tourism sector
31% of all spending in Monterey
County, or $845 million, occurs in
the City of Monterey. While the
City of Monterey receives the
most spending, smaller cities like
Marina and Pacific Grove receive
over $100 million annually.
Monterey
$845
31%
Salinas
$354
Carmel 13%
$231
Pacific Grove 9%
$158
6%
Marina
$109
4%
Other cities and
unicoporated
county
$1,011
37%
Visitor spending in Monterey County, 2015
Source: Dean Runyan Associates
Nominal dollars, millions,
and percent of total
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 56, Packet Page 180 The impact of tourism is rapidly
increasing
| Tourism Economics 11
Visitor spending is up 30% in six years
Visitor spending reached $2.7
billion in 2015, up from $2.1
billion in 2009, a 30% increase in
six years. Over the same period,
employment is up 18%, income is
up 31%, and tax revenue is up
27%.
0 10
20 30
40 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0 Thousands Thousands
Spending (left axis)
Earnings (left axis)
Employment (right axis)
Key tourism impacts in Monterey County
Source: Dean Runyan Associates
Nominal dollars, billions Jobs, 000's
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 57, Packet Page 181 Hotel sector KPIs are rising steadily
| Tourism Economics 12
ADR reached $194 and RevPAR reached
$140 in 2016
Hotel sector KPIs (key
performance indicators) have
grown at a steady rate since
2011.
• ADR (average daily rate)
increased to $194 from $158.
• RevPAR (revenue per
available room) increased to
$140 from $96.
• Occupancy rate increased to
72% from 61%.
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$50
$80
$110
$140
$170
$200
ADR (left axis)
RevPAR (left axis)
Occupancy (right axis)
Key hotel metrics in Monterey County
Source: STR
Nominal dollars Percent
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 58, Packet Page 182 Total room demand is growing at a
healthy rate
| Tourism Economics 13
Monterey County has grown at a similar
rate as competing destinations
Room demand in Monterey
County has grown 17% since
2012. This is higher than Santa
Barbara’s growth, and roughly
equivalent to growth in Napa
County and Sonoma County.
This indicates that Monterey
County is growing at a similar
rate as its nearby competitive
destinations.
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
100
105
110
115
120
125
130 Napa County, CA
Santa Barbara/Santa Maria, CA
Sonoma County, CA
Monterey County, CA
Growth in hotel room demand, 2012-2016
Source: STR
Index (2012=100)
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 59, Packet Page 183 Monterey County’s share of room
demand in the state has increased
| Tourism Economics 14
The increase may appear slight, but
represents 118,000 additional room nights
Room demand may be the best
measure of change in market
share as it directly reflects the
size of the overnight tourism
market, and overnight tourists
account for the majority of visitor
spending.
Monterey County’s share of the
state’s total room demand has
increased slightly to 2.21% in
2016 from 2.12% in 2011.
While a 0.09 percentage point
increase in the share of rooms
booked may appear small,
travelers booked 141 million
rooms in California in 2016, and
therefore a 0.09% increase in
share equates to 118,000 more
room nights in Monterey County.
All trends examined indicate that
tourism in Monterey County is
experiencing healthy growth.
2.12% 2.12%
2.15%
2.17%
2.19%
2.21%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2.0%
2.1%
2.1%
2.2%
2.2%
2.3%
Monterey County's market share
Source: STR
Percent of California's total room demand
*Central Coast, Central Valley, San Fransisco Bay Area
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 60, Packet Page 184 2) MCCVB Performance
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 61, Packet Page 185 The Monterey County Convention &
Visitor Bureau (MCCVB) is an
engine that drives the growth of
Monterey County’s tourism sector
| Tourism Economics 16
The MCCVB utilizes a variety of
complementary channels to encourage
potential travelers to visit and spend the
night in Monterey County
Hosting SeeMonterey.com
Creating online and social media
campaigns
Working with industry professionals
Catering to Group Sales
experiences
Engineered a major reconfiguration of
the site in 2016 based on stakeholder
feedback
Created a “Utrip” feature which allows
visitors to create customized itineraries
Hosted 1.7 million unique visitors in
2016
Partners with LATimes.com and
SFGate.com to create an online
Monterey content hub that garnered
121,000 story reads
The Big Blue Live Sweepstakes earned
1.3 billion(!) total media impressions
Engages over 100k Facebook fans, 18k
Twitter Followers, and 13k Instagram
followers
Hosted 14 FAM tours with 144 agents
and operators
Facilitated 87,500 room nights for
groups, or 2.8% of all room nights in
Monterey County
The MCCVB’s Strategic Client
Services Department works to create
programs that add additional value to
group experiences
Site inspections allow potential
meeting professionals to see the
hotels and venues
Microsites and custom maps ensure
that each group’s unique needs and
desires are catered to
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 62, Packet Page 186 Booking large groups and
generating millions of dollars in
economic impact
| Tourism Economics 17
In 2016, the MCCVB sales team facilitated
87,500 room nights and created a total
economic impact of $79 million
The following slides detail the
major impacts that the MCCVB
has on the Monterey County
tourism sector and the Monterey
County brand.
The MCCVB sales team actively
pursues group bookings for
Monterey County hotels.
In 2016, the sales team facilitated
87,500 rooms for group bookings;
this equates to 2.8% of all
Monterey County room nights.
These bookings generated $79
million in local economic impact.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 63, Packet Page 187 Influencing visitors to spend the
night
| Tourism Economics 18
Visitor Services Specialists work to
encourage visitors to lengthen their stays
and spend more money in Monterey
County
The Monterey Visitors Center
serves as a local tourism hub and
encourages inquisitive visitors to
stay in Monterey longer and
spend more money at local
businesses. In 2016, 62% of
visitors served by Visitor Services
Specialists extended their stay as
a result of their interaction.
In addition to influencing visitors
at the official visitors center, the
MCCVB operated satellite
services at 43 local events and
conferences. In 2015-16,
108,000 visitors were assisted by
specialists, these meetings
generated 90,700 incremental
room nights and $29 million in
additional visitor spending.
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
0 20
40 60
80 100
120 Thousands
Influenced incremental room nights (left axis)
Economic impact of influenced room nights (rights axis) Visitor services
Source: MCCVB
Room nights generated, 000's Nominal dollars, millions
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 64, Packet Page 188 Promoting Monterey County as a
destination
| Tourism Economics 19
Media campaigns increase perceptions of
Monterey County and make travelers more
likely to visit Monterey County
The MCCVB has partnered with
Strategic Marketing & Research
Inc. (SMARI) to measure the
impact of its advertising
campaigns.
SMARI’s research indicates that
individuals that have seen media
produced by the MCCVB have
more positive association with the
Monterey brand and are more
likely to visit in the future.
38% of individuals that recall
seeing media produced by the
MCCVB (“Aware”) report that
they intend to visit in the future vs
only 26% of those not aware of
the MCCVB’s advertisements.
4.17 4.06
3.4 3.6
3.8 4.0
4.2 4.4 Aware Unaware
Source: SMARI
Positive brand image measure*
38%
26%
Intent to visit
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Aware Unaware
Source: SMARI
Percent intending to visit
Ad campaigns effect on key indicators
*Measures the degree with which survey respondents have positive associations with the Monterey brand ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 65, Packet Page 189 Targeting the international market
| Tourism Economics 20
The MCCVB engages with the rapidly
growing international market to ensure that
the County does not miss out on the
increasingly lucrative segment
► Targeted tour operator promotion
resulting in over 4700 bookings
(average 3-5 room nights each)
over 3 month promo period
► Gained over 50,000 Weibo (China’s
main social media site) followers
► Hosted China-ready training
seminars for hospitality
professionals in Monterey County
► Partnered with Brand USA to
host the Jeni and Olly Show, a
popular Travel Channel show
with an estimated 1.7 million
viewers
► Partnered with San Jose and
Santa Cruz CVBs to launch
Expedia and British Airways
promotions
Conducted Brand USA campaigns
and Visit California media & sales
missions to Mexico
► Campaign delivered social
reach of 8.7MM
► Presented to 240 travel agents;
► Held one-on-one meetings with
10 largest tour operators
► Targeted travelers with an ad
campaign on Expedia Canada
receiving 338,000 impressions
and booked over 2,500 rooms
during the campaign
► Ran a print campaign in Air
Canada's in-flight magazine in
promoting new flights to the
region
Canada
Mexico
The United
Kingdom
China
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 66, Packet Page 190 3) Competitive Analysis of Funding
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 67, Packet Page 191 Funding comparison (1 of 3)
| Tourism Economics 22
The MCCVB receives less funding than five
of its eight competitors.
The following slides will analyze the MCCVB’s level of public funding compared to competing and similar destinations. To analyze the appropriateness of funding for tourism promotion in Monterey County, we analyze a competitive set of eight destination marketing organizations (DMOs). These are the destinations that the MCCVB considers major competitors for the leisure market. This analysis provides key benchmarks in understanding an appropriate level of funding for the MCCVB.
With total public funding (city, county, and assessments) of $6.9 million, the MCCVB receives less funding than five of its eight competitors but slightly more funding than the set average of $6.8 million.
$12.0
$8.4
$8.3
$7.7
$7.0
$6.9
$6.8
$5.0
$4.7
$1.0
Palm Springs
Newport Beach
San Jose
Napa Valley
Sonoma County
Monterey County
Average
Santa Barbara
South Lake Tahoe
Laguna Beach
$0 $5 $10 $15
Total public funding* for competitive
DMOs
*Fiscal year 2015 or 2016, depending on source
data availability
Sources: DMAI; STR; DMO annual reports
Dollars, millions
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 68, Packet Page 192 Funding comparison (2 of 3)
| Tourism Economics 23
Monterey County has low DMO funding
relative to its hotel inventory
To more fairly compare the
appropriateness of DMO funding
across the competitors, we
evaluate the size of the tourism
sector in these destinations (as
measured by the number of hotel
rooms) compared to the amount
of public funding they receive
(from the city, county, or special
assessment).
Plotting the data reveals that a
number of competing
destinations receive greater
public funding than the MCCVB
despite representing a smaller
tourism sector.
Palm Springs
Monterey
County
San Jose
Newport
Beach
Napa Valley
Santa
Barbara
Sonoma
County
South Lake
Tahoe
Laguna Beach
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14 Millions Public funding and destination size
Sources: DMAI; STR; DMO annual reports
Public funding
Rooms, 000's
DMOs with greater public
funding than the MCCVB
despite representing
fewer hotel rooms
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 69, Packet Page 193 Funding comparison (3 of 3)
| Tourism Economics 24
Monterey County has the second lowest
per room funding of the destinations in its
competitive set
Continuing our analysis, we calculate the amount of public funding per hotel room to benchmark an appropriate level of public funding for the MCCVB. We find that the MCCVB receives only 43% of the funding suggested by this benchmark. Only Santa Barbara receives less funding than Monterey. This analysis demonstrates that the MCCVB is not funded at a competitive level.
To reach the average of its competitive set, the MCCVB would need to receive 130% more funding or approximately $7.8 million in additional public funds.
$2,628
$2,234
$1,698
$1,258
$1,152
$926
$875
$686
$583
$540
Newport Beach
Palm Springs
Napa Valley
Average
Sonoma County
San Jose
Laguna Beach
South Lake Tahoe
Monterey County
Santa Barbara
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000
Public funding per hotel room
Sources: DMAI; STR; DMO annual reports Dollars
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 70, Packet Page 194 The relatively low assessment rate
in Monterey County impacts the
destination’s competitiveness
| Tourism Economics 25
Adjustments to the TID assessment rate
are worth consideration
To benchmark an appropriate assessment rate for the MCCVB , we analyze TID assessments in a number of California TIDs. These TIDs include the MCCVB’s competitive set and additional DMOs that disclosed their assessment rate to Destination Marketing Association International (DMAI) to Monterey’s competitive set (data on the entire competitive set was not available).
Analysis reveals that Monterey County’s TID assessment rate of 0.7% (while the assessment is levied on a per room basis, its equals 0.7% of room revenue) is well below the average rate of 2.3%. In fact, Monterey County levies the lowest assessment of any destination examined.
Since the assessment is the primary source of revenue for the MCCVB (and the vast majority of other DMOs on this list), this results in a limited tourism promotion budget for Monterey County.
0.7%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.3%
2.3%
2.9%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
4.0%
Monterey County
Mendocino County
Los Angeles
Orange County
San Diego
Napa Valley
Sonoma County
San Francisco
Average
Pasadena
Palm Springs
Huntington Beach
Newport Beach
Stockton
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
Assessment rates in California TIDs
Sources: DMAI; STR; DMO annual reports Percent
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 71, Packet Page 195 4) Impacts of the TID on Monterey
County’s Economy
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 72, Packet Page 196 The TID makes Monterey more
competitive
| Tourism Economics 27
ADR is below the average competitive
destination, and the benefits of DMO
funding far exceed any benefit of room cost
reduction
The following slides detail the potential impact of MCCVB’s work without benefit of the TID in Monterey County.
While the analysis in section 3 demonstrated that the MCCVB is underfunded, the TID comprises a significant portion of the funding for the MCCVB, and makes the destination more competitive.
This is important for the MCCVB and the tourism sector of Monterey County as the TID must be re-approved by the City Council on an annual basis.
Economically, absence of the TID is unlikely to produce any positive benefit on room demand. Tourism Economics modeling on behalf of STR has consistently found hotel room demand to be inelastic at the market level. That is, while an individual property may gain or lose share within a market based on price, a market-wide shift in rate has no appreciable impact on room demand. The one caveat is that the market ADR remains competitive. Analysis shows that ADR in Monterey County is below average for its competitive set, so customers are not ‘priced out’ of Monterey County.
The absence of tourism promotion funding would in all likelihood far exceed any possible negative effect of higher room costs. We also note that while Monterey County’s ADR has increased 23% since 2011, total room demand has increased 17%. This indicates that price sensitivity does not seem to be a major factor for visitors. In sum, we believe that the absence of the TID would not have an
appreciable positive effect on room demand in Monterey County. $325
$306
$231
$211
$203
$194
$189
$180
$161
$159
$155
$120
Laguna Beach
Napa County
San Francisco
Newport Beach
Average
Monterey County
Santa Barbara
San Jose-Santa Cruz
Sonoma County
Palm Springs
San Diego
South Lake Tahoe
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400
ADR in competitive destinations
Source: STR Dollars
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 73, Packet Page 197 Scenario Development (1 of 2)
| Tourism Economics 28
The TID is a critical component of Monterey
County’s tourism promotion
competitiveness
To analyze the impact of the TID, we create two scenarios, an Absence of TID Scenario and a Baseline Scenario in which the TID remains in place. We estimate the fiscal and economic impacts of these two scenarios
To provide an example of the fiscal impact for the MCCVB, we examine fiscal year 2017’s forecasted revenue. If the TID did not exist, the MCCVB would lose $4.2 million in public funding. This is equal to 59% of its total revenue or 62% of its total public funding.
Without the TID, Monterey would be severely underfunded in comparison to competing destinations. Without the TID, Monterey would receive only $214 of public funding per hotel room, or 17% of the public funding amount suggested by our benchmarking analysis. $2,628
$2,234
$1,698
$1,258
$1,152
$926
$875
$686
$583
$540
$214
Newport Beach
Palm Springs
Napa Valley
Average
Sonoma County
San Jose
Laguna Beach
South Lake Tahoe
Monterey County
Santa Barbara
Monterey w/o TID
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000
Public funding per hotel room
Sources: DMAI; STR; DMO annual reports Dollars
Two Scenarios example, fiscal year 2017
Dollar figure in millions
Baseline
Scenario
Absence of TID
Scenario
TID revenue $4.2 --
Hotel tax revenue $2.6 $2.9
Private revenue $0.3 $0.3
Total MCCVB revenue $2.9 $3.2
Source: MCCVB
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 74, Packet Page 198 Scenario Development (2 of 2)
| Tourism Economics 29
Without TID, Monterey County could lose
$129 million in visitor spending
We provide additional details on the two scenarios in fiscal year 2020, as this is the first year without a “cool-down” effect (i.e. while immediate effects would be felt, the full effect of a funding decrease will not be felt in the first two years of budget cuts as lags exists between taxes being collected, distributed, media spending being curtailed, consumers making travel plans, and visitors actually traveling).
In 2020, our Baseline Scenario forecasts MCCVB receiving $7.6 million in public funding. In the Absence of TID Scenario, the MCCVB receives $3.2 million in public funding, a decrease of $4.4 million. We assume 90% of this funding would have been spent on marketing efforts (or $4.0 million). Based on a meta-analysis of ROI and conversion studies performed on DMO marketing efforts, we conservatively estimate a 32-to-1 ROI on this lost marketing spending (see Appendix 1 for additional details on methodology). This results in $128.9 million of lost visitor spending.
This lost spending is split into five visitor spending categories and then input into an economic model of the Monterey County economy created in the IMPLAN modeling software. The model calculates the direct impact of this lost spending (the impact from the initial visitor spending), as well as the indirect (supply-chain) effects, and induced (income) effects. The model reports the impact on Monterey County sales, income, employment, and taxes.
DMO revenue and visitor spending in two scenarios, 2020 Dollar figure in millions Baseline
Scenario
Absence of TID
Scenario
TID revenue $4.4 --
Hotel tax revenue $2.9 $2.9
Private revenue $0.3 $0.3
Total MCCVB revenue $7.6 $3.2
Total Funding decrease relative to baseline -- $4.4
Total decrease in marketing spending (90%) -- $4.0
Anticipated total ROI on lost marketing spending -- 32-to-1 Decrease in visitor spending -- $128.9
Total visitor spending $3,067 $2,938
Sources: Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 75, Packet Page 199 Benefits of TID – five year forecast
| Tourism Economics 30
Over the next five years, the TID will result
in an additional $518 million in visitor
spending, and $36 million in state and local
tax revenue
On a cumulative basis, from
2018-2022, we forecast that
eliminating the TID would cost
Monterey County $518 million in
less visitor spending. This lost
spending costs a total of $36
million in state and local tax
revenue.
Additionally, 782,000 total room
nights and $174 million in room
revenue would be lost.
Note that all indicators increase
in the Non-TID Scenario,
however the rate of increase is
slower than in the Baseline
Scenario.
Forecast: fiscal years 2017-2021
Dollar amounts in millions of nominal dollars 2018-2022 2018-2022 2017 2018* 2019* 2020 2021 2022 Total Annual average
Baseline Scenario
Total MCCVB funding $7.1 $7.3 $7.4 $7.6 $7.8 $8.0 $38 $7.6 Visitor spending $2,774 $2,869 $2,966 $3,067 $3,171 $3,279 $15,352 $3,070.4 Room demand, 000's 3,181 3,245 3,310 3,376 3,444 3,513 16,888 3,378 Room revenue $637 $672 $709 $749 $790 $834 $3,754 $750.8 State and local taxes $251 $259 $268 $277 $287 $296 $1,387 $277.5 Losses in Absence of TID Scenario
Total MCCVB funding -- $4.2 $4.3 $4.4 $4.4 $4.5 $22 $4.4 Visitor spending -- $41.0 $83.5 $128.9 $131.3 $133.7 $518 $103.7 Room demand, 000's -- 68.5 133.8 198.0 193.3 188.8 782 156 Room revenue -- $14.4 $28.8 $43.6 $43.5 $43.5 $174 $34.8 State and local taxes -- $2.9 $5.9 $9.1 $9.2 $9.4 $36 $7.3 Absence of TID Scenario
Total MCCVB funding $7.1 $3.1 $3.2 $3.3 $3.4 $3.4 $16 $3.3 Visitor spending $2,774 $2,828 $2,883 $2,938 $3,040 $3,145 $14,834 $2,966.8 Room demand, 000's 3,181 3,176 3,176 3,178 3,251 3,325 16,106 3,221 Room revenue $637 $658 $680 $705 $747 $790 $3,580 $716.0 State and local taxes $251 $256 $262 $268 $277 $287 $1,351 $270.2 *"Cool-down" years in which the reduction in impact of reduced funding is not fully realized Source: Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 76, Packet Page 200 Benefits of TID – visualization
| Tourism Economics 31
In the Non-TID scenario, visitor spending
still grows but at a diminished rate; losses
in visitor spending total $518 million over 5
years
2015 2016 2017 2018* 2019* 2020 2021 2022
$2.2
$2.4
$2.6
$2.8
$3.0
$3.2
$3.4 Thousands
losses
cut2
Baseline Scenario
Absence of TID Scenario
Visitor spending in two scenarios
*Cool-down years in which the full impact of funding decrease is not realized Source: Tourism Economics
Nominal dollars, billions
$518 million in total lost
visitor spending 2018-2022
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 77, Packet Page 201 Benefits of TID – 2020 details
| Tourism Economics 32
In the Non-TID Scenario, $4.4m in lost TID funding results in $128.9m in lost spending in Monterey County, which in turn costs:
• $176.9m in total business sales;
• $50.5m in total income;
• 1,042 total jobs; and
• $9.1m in state and local taxes.
201 jobs are lost in industries not typically thought of as in the tourism sector.
Losses in Absence of TID Scenario - FY 2020
Dollar amounts in 2020 dollars, millions
Decrease in DMO funding $4.4
Impacts on Monterey County
Lost visitor spending $128.9
Total economic output $176.9
Direct expenditures $128.9
Indirect and induced output $48.1
Total income $50.5
Direct income $33.9
Indirect and induced income $16.6
Total jobs 1,042
Direct jobs 685
Indirect and induced jobs 357
State tax revenue $3.4
Sales $1.8
Personal income $0.1
Corporate $0.2
Excise, fees, and other taxes $1.4
Local government tax revenue $5.6
Sales $0.6
Lodging tax $4.2
Excise, fees, and other taxes $0.8
Key Ratios
Business sales lost per $1 of funding decrease $39.90
Jobs lost per $1,000,000 of funding decrease 235
Income lost per $1 of funding decrease $11.40
State and local taxes lost per $1 of funding decrease $2.00 Source: Tourism Economics
Recreation
153
Retail trade
89 Lodging
260 Food and
beverages
271
Transportation
in destination
67 Other
201
Lost jobs in Absence of TID Scenario
Jobs
Source: RACVB Source: Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 78, Packet Page 202 Benefits of TID – 2020 conservative
estimate on hotel impact
| Tourism Economics 33
Occupancy rates could drop 4% and hotels
could see a substantial decline in room
revenue
The loss of visitors and visitor
spending would have major
effects on the local hotel sector.
We created two estimates of the
possible impact.
In our conservative estimate of
potential losses, ADR still grows
at the same rate in both
scenarios, reaching $222 in
2020. Even with this assumption,
the loss of visitors and visitor
spending would have a major
impact on local hotels.
• A small hotel (50 rooms) with
a below average ADR ($166)
could lose 800 rooms and
$130,000 in room revenue.
• A medium sized hotel (100
rooms) with a destination
average ADR ($222) could
lose 1,600 rooms and
$360,000 in room revenue.
• A large hotel (200 rooms) with
an above average ADR ($333)
could lose 3,300 rooms and
$1,100,000 in room revenue.
Examples
Examples
Examples Hotel KPIs in two scenarios - alternative estimate, 2020 Dollar figures are nominal
Annual rooms sold
Annual room
revenue (000's) Occupancy ADR RevPAR
Monterey County totals 3,376,000 $748,600 75% $222 $167 Baseline Scenario
50 room economy 13,300 $2,210 73% $166 $121
100 room midscale 27,500 $6,100 75% $222 $167
200 room upscale 55,900 $18,590 77% $333 $255
Annual rooms sold
Annual room
revenue (000's) Occupancy ADR RevPAR
Monterey County totals 3,277,100 $693,100 73% $211 $150 Absence of TID Scenario
50 room economy 13,100 $2,100 72% $159 $115
100 room midscale 26,700 $5,600 73% $211 $153
200 room upscale 53,700 $17,000 74% $317 $233
Annual rooms sold
Annual room
revenue (000's) Occupancy ADR RevPAR
Monterey County totals 98,900 $55,500 2% $10 $17
Losses in Absence of TID Scenario
50 room economy 200 $110 1% $8 $6
100 room midscale 800 $500 2% $10 $14
200 room upscale 2,200 $1,590 3% $15 $22
Source: Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 79, Packet Page 203 Benefits of TID – 2020 alternative
estimate on hotel impact
| Tourism Economics 34
If ADR does not grow at its forecasted rate,
the revenue impact on hotels could be even
greater
In our alternative estimate, hotels
react to falling occupancy rates
by reducing ADR. In this
estimate, ADR still increases
from its present level, but at only
half the speed as the Baseline
Scenario. The reduced rates do
have a positive effect on
occupancy and lost room nights
are cut in half.
• A small hotel (50 rooms) with
a below average ADR ($159)
could lose 200 rooms and
$110,000 in room revenue.
• A medium sized hotel (100
rooms) with a destination
average ADR ($211) could
lose 800 rooms and $500,000
in room revenue.
• A large hotel (200 rooms) with
an above average ADR ($317)
could lose 2,200 rooms and
$1,590,000 in room revenue.
Examples
Examples
Examples Hotel KPIs in two scenarios - conservative estimate 2020 Dollar figures are nominal
Annual rooms sold
Annual room
revenue (000's) Occupancy ADR RevPAR
Monterey County totals 3,376,000 $748,600 75% $222 $167 50 room economy 13,300 $2,210 73% $166 $121
100 room midscale 27,500 $6,100 75% $222 $167
200 room upscale 55,900 $18,590 77% $333 $255
Annual rooms sold
Annual room
revenue (000's) Occupancy ADR RevPAR
Monterey County totals 3,178,000 $705,000 71% $222 $157 50 room economy 12,500 $2,080 69% $166 $114
100 room midscale 25,900 $5,740 71% $222 $157
200 room upscale 52,600 $17,490 72% $333 $240
Annual rooms sold
Annual room
revenue (000's) Occupancy ADR RevPAR
Monterey County totals 198,000 $43,600 4% $0 $10
50 room economy 800 $130 4% $0 $7
100 room midscale 1,600 $360 4% $0 $10
200 room upscale 3,300 $1,100 4% $0 $15
Source: Tourism Economics
Losses in Absence of TID Scenario
Baseline Scenario
Absence of TID Scenario
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 80, Packet Page 204 Report summary
| Tourism Economics 35
Visitors spending reached $2.7b in Monterey County
in 2015
24,400 local jobs are directly generated by tourism
Market share analysis indicates that Monterey
County is gaining a larger share of the state’s and
region’s overnight travel market
Media campaigns increase perceptions of Monterey
County and make travelers more likely to visit
In 2016, the sales team facilitated 87,500 room
nights. These bookings generated $74m in local
economic impact.
The MCCVB operates in the international market
Tourism is a major driver of
Monterey's economy 1
In 2020, $4.4m in lost TID funding could results in
$128.9m in lost spending which in turn costs:
• $50.5m in total income;
• 1,042 total jobs;
• $9.1m in state and local taxes; and
• $44m in room revenue.
The absence of a TID would result in
significant economic and fiscal losses 5
A number of local competitors receive higher funding
than the MCCVB despite representing fewer hotels
Monterey would need to receive $8.8m in additional
public funding to reach its benchmark average
Monterey County’s TID assessment rate of 0.7% is
well below the average rate of 2.3%
The MCCVB is underfunded in
comparison to local competitors 4
The MCCVB drives visitors to
Monterey County 2
From 2013-2017, the increased assessment rate
raised visitor spending by $220 million.
This spending generated a total of $16 million in tax revenue, 403,000 total room nights, and $76 million
in room revenue would be lost.
The 2012 assessment increase
boosted growth in the tourism sector 3
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 81, Packet Page 205 Appendix 1) Methodology
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 82, Packet Page 206 Methodology
| Tourism Economics 37
Gains Due to TID Assessment Increase
To calculate potential loss in the No Assessment Increase Scenarios, we first estimate the impact on visitor spending by examining a number of sources detailing the impact of DMO funding cuts and increases on visitor spending.
SMARI estimates an ROI on the MCCVB’s marketing campaigns of over 200-to-1 using a proprietary survey and derives marketing exposure to a DMA (Designated Market Area) to gauge incremental marketing campaign effectiveness. Our metaanalysis of the ROI of tourism promotion which suggests that every dollar spent on tourism advertising for metro and regional DMOs typically generates $51 in visitor spending (see following slides). We choose to rely heavily on the meta analysis in order to 1) remain conservative in case these higher ROIs cannot be maintained with additional funding, 2) reflect that the MCCVB advertises to a wider audience than the DMA measured by SMARI, and 3) remain conservative in case the MCCVB is not able to commit a high percentage of its budget to incremental marketing.
Given uncertain future economic conditions and the possibility of diminishing marginal returns on additional marketing investment, we assume an ROI of 40-to-1 on the first million dollars of lost DMO funding and a 30-to-1 ROI on additional lost funding. Additional spending is calculated by multiplying the decrease in DMO marketing (assumed to be 90% of the decrease in funding) in the two scenarios by the ROIs described above.
The Baseline Scenario forecast is based on a combination of historical data on Monterey County and the Tourism Economics / STR forecast of the nearby San Francisco-San Mateo market. The Absence of TID Scenario forecast is calculated by subtracting the estimated losses from the Baseline Scenario Forecast.
To spread visitor spending through a number of sectors, we used SMARIs estimates of visitor spending in Monterey County (note that the raw dollar figures are not used, only the percent spending across the different categories). We then input lost visitor spending into an economic model of the Monterey County economy created in IMPLAN. The model calculates the direct impact of this lost spending (the impact from the initial visitor spending), as well as the indirect (supply-chain) effects, and induced (income) effects. The model reports the losses on sales, income, employment, and taxes.
How visitor spending flows through the economy
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 83, Packet Page 207 Destination promotion ROI in other
markets (1 of 2)
| Tourism Economics 38
Many state and local DMOs conduct periodic assessments of marketing effectiveness. There are several goals of these studies, including understanding how specific marketing campaigns are perceived by households, how effective the campaigns are in having an impact on households’ intent to travel to a given destination, and which target markets are showing differing level of responsiveness to marketing. Frequently these studies include a specific analysis of the ROI of marketing spending in the form of a quantitative assessment of the level of incremental visitor spending and tax revenues that are attributable to destination marketing.
These studies use a variety of methods, and are measuring the impact of a range of different campaigns across different situations. For example, a specific study may look at incremental visitors attracted by a state-level marketing campaign conducted by a state that attracts travelers from a range of national markets, while another study may focus on the results of a more targeted regional campaign carried out by a city-level DMO. While the results of a specific study pertain most directly to the situation that was analyzed, and the corresponding assumptions, it is appropriate to consider broader inferences from the research.
We analyzed recent studies that included an estimate of the incremental visitor spending attributable to advertising campaign spending. For example, in a fairly typical approach, a study would:
use a survey to analyze the effect of a specific advertising campaign on households’ travel to a given destination, such as by analyzing the impact on actual travel among those that had observed the advertising or by analyzing the impact on
households’ intentions to travel;
project that effect to the broader set of households in the marketing area to estimate the number of incremental visits attributable to the campaign;
apply typical levels of spending per visitor to estimate incremental visitor spending; and,
compare incremental visitor spending to the level of advertising spending to estimate the ROI.
We summarized the estimates of incremental visitor spending per dollar of advertising campaign spending from these studies in the table on the following page.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 84, Packet Page 208 Destination promotion ROI in other
markets (2 of 2)
| Tourism Economics 39
Estimates of incremental visitor spending per dollar of advertising campaign spend from the set of studies we analyzed is summarized in the adjacent table, supporting the following observations:
• The results range from as low as $12 for an analysis conducted for Syracuse, NY to as high as $326 for the average of several analyses conducted for California.
• Overall, we observe that recent marketing campaigns by destination marketing organizations at the metro/regional level have generated approximately $51 of incremental visitor spending per dollar of advertising spending.
These ROI estimates relate directly to advertising spending. It is also appropriate to consider a visitor spending ROI relative to total DMO operating costs, or relative to public funding. As an example of the former approach, Meet Minneapolis reports the ratio of visitor spending associated with events tracked in its group sales management system to total DMO operating costs has averaged $33 in recent years. This excludes almost all leisure visitor spending.
As an example of an ROI based on public funding, the Florida state government recently analyzed the return on investment for public funding of Visit Florida. The analysis attributed Visit Florida’s public funding (excluding, for example, significant private funding for cooperative advertising and promotions) to generating $11.2 billion of visitor spending during the three-year-period through FY 2013, representing a visitor spending ROI of $97, and a state tax revenue ROI of $3.2 ($3.20 of state tax revenue generated by each $1 of state funding).
Monterey County’s Visitor spending per dollar in 2015 was $397. Region Timing Visitor spending
per ad dollar
States
California Average 2009 to 2013 $326
Arizona Average 2007, '11, '12, '15 $221
Georgia Average 2011 and 2012 $211
Colorado 2012 $200
Florida 2011 $177
Maryland 2012 $160
Wyoming Average 2012, '13, '14 $156
Kentucky 2014 $151
Missouri 2013 $131
North Dakota Average 2010, '12, '14 $101
Utah Average 2010, '11, '13 $83
New Mexico 2013 to 2015 $72
Virginia 2006 $71
Michigan Average 2006 to 2014 $69
Large metros and regions
Philadelphia, PA 2009/10 $100
Kansas City, MO 2013 $65
Washington, DC 2013 $27
San Diego, CA 2013 $19
Smaller metros and regions
Branson, MO 2012 $79
Springfield, MO 2011 $61
Finger Lakes Wine Country, NY 2012 $44
Syracuse, NY 2008 $12
Average of states $152
Average of larger metros and regions $53
Average of smaller metros and regions $49
Marketing ROI matrix
Sources: Local studies compiled by Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 85, Packet Page 209 Appendix 2: The Economic Rationale
for Destination Marketing
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 86, Packet Page 210 The vital role of destination
promotion
| Tourism Economics 41
Destination marketing plays an integral and
indispensable role in the competitiveness of
the local tourism economy by addressing its
unique challenges
Destination marketing plays an integral and indispensable role in the competitiveness of the local visitor economy by addressing three challenges.
Challenge #1: The visitor economy is fragmented
The visitor economy is diverse with benefits accruing across various industries (e.g. hotels, restaurants, retail stores, transportation, performance venues and other attractions), and in many cases, these establishments are operated as small businesses that lack the capacity to conduct certain types of marketing. Moreover, certain benefits accrue across the economy rather to just an individual business.
Because a visitor’s spending is spread across businesses, any single business may not capture sufficient share of a visitor’s spending to justify marketing to attract visitors to a destination. For example, an individual hotel could market the attractiveness of a destination, but it would only benefit from those additional visitors who not only choose the destination, but also choose that particular hotel; and the hotel would only benefit directly from the visitor’s spending at the hotel. In other words, at the level of an individual business, the returns on independent marketing to attract visitors to a destination can be less compelling. However, when viewed at the level of the destination, there is a more direct connection. The destination captures a substantial dollar amount per visitor, and in aggregate there are compelling returns on effective destination marketing.
Solution: destination promotion provides the scale and
strategic vision supporting a wide array of individual
businesses
Destination promotion organizations also play a role furthering the strategic potential of the visitor economy. Destination marketing organizations (DMOs) can take a long term view of the development of the destination and pursue tactics to help develop a visitor economy that better fits the goals of local residents and businesses. For example, many destinations have a mix of peak, shoulder, and low season periods. DMOs take steps to build shoulder season and low season demand and help fill slower days of the week, supporting a more stable base of employment and helping ongoing operations achieve a “break even” level of profitability. Similarly, DMOs can play a role helping to find solutions that balance the development of the visitor economy with the constraints and goals of a given destination, such as fostering the development of geographic areas with greater capacity for growth.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 87, Packet Page 211 The vital role of destination
promotion
| Tourism Economics 42
The fundamental motivation driving a visit is
not usually the offerings of a single
business—instead it is the destination
Challenge #2: The primary motivator of a trip is usually the experience of a destination, extending beyond the
offerings marketed by a single business
The fundamental motivation driving a visit to a given destination is frequently not the offerings of a single business—instead it is the destination, including a range of attractions and the overall experience of a place. This experience is comprised of a visitor’s interaction with, and patronage of, numerous businesses and local experiences: hotels and other accommodations; restaurants; shopping and galleries; conferences; performances and other events; family activities; sports and other recreation; and cultural sites and attractions.
Marketing efforts that focus on only one sub-sector of the visitor market, such as communicating the offering of a specific hotel or other business, do not also adequately address the core motivation for potential visitors.
Solution: destination promotion articulates the brand
message that is consistent with consumer motivations
Through coordinated destination promotion, the destination is represented collectively, driving demand for all segments of the visitor economy. Stand-alone marketing efforts would almost certainly be less effective than a collective destination marketing campaign.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 88, Packet Page 212 The vital role of destination
promotion
| Tourism Economics 43
The scale of collaborative destination
marketing is more effective than what
individual businesses could accomplish
Challenge #3: Effective marketing requires scale to reach potential visitors across multiple markets
Effective destination marketing requires significant and consistent funding with the aim of gaining a sufficient “share of voice” to be heard and make an impact. Whether in the form of advertising or public relation efforts scale produces efficiencies that maximize the share of funding that goes to actual marketing and advertising, drives down per unit advertising costs, and enables higher impact, and more specialized efforts. As a result, the larger scale of collaborative destination marketing is more effective than what individual businesses could accomplish. Simply put, the whole of destination marketing is greater than the sum of its individual parts.
Solution: destination promotion pools resources to
provide the economies of scale and marketing
infrastructure required to generate impact
One of the benefits of coordinated marketing facilitated by a DMO is the ability to have a stable organization and funding base to support destination marketing. As a result, DMOs are able to efficiently leverage the brand, infrastructure and relationships that have been built over time.
For example, DMOs:
Conduct marketing that leverages a base level of awareness of the destination than has already been established with some target customers, allowing annual marketing spend to be more effective at activating and reinforcing key messages;
Use existing infrastructure, such as websites and publications, that are updated on a recurring basis;
Employ a staff with established relationships with local tourismsector businesses and marketing service providers; and, Support market research, such as visitor profile studies, that help individual businesses better target market opportunities, but which would likely not be economical for individual businesses to conduct independently.
Through these economic factors, destination promotion helps expand the visitor economy in ways that are consistent with local priorities, building the types of opportunities that are a critical part of economic development.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 89, Packet Page 213 Travel has proven its resilience
| Tourism Economics 44
As incomes rise, consumer spending on
travel has grown at an even faster rate and
employment in the travel economy has led
growth during the recent economic
recovery
Across the US, favorable tail
winds have supported above
average growth in the visitor
economy. As income levels rise,
consumers are dedicating a
greater share of spending to
travel and tourism. For example,
in the span of slightly more than a
generation, per capita consumer
spending on hotel stays in the US
has increased 200% since 1980,
even as per capita GDP – as a
measure of income levels – has
increased only 75%.
Travel has proven its resilience,
with a strong recovery from the
most recent economic downturn.
As the visitor economy has
recovered, it has contributed job
growth since the end of the
recession at a faster rate than the
US average. As of March 2016,
employment in key sectors of the
visitor economy was 11.3%
ahead of its June 2009 level,
compared to a 9.7% gain for the
broader economy.
95 100
105
110
115
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Visitor economy employment trends
Compared to total nonfarm employment
Index (June 2009=100)
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Tourism Economics
Visitor
economy
Total nonfarm
employment
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 90, Packet Page 214 The visitor economy represents an
export, drawing new dollars into the
local economy
| Tourism Economics 45
Nationally, hospitality and tourism has
outperformed the aggregate of all other
traded cluster export sectors since 1998,
with employment expanding more than
12.2% while all others grew only 2.1%
The visitor economy represents a
valuable locally-produced export
for many regional economies.
The resulting visitor spending
supports jobs, incomes, tax
revenues and local business
sales that represent part of the
region’s economic base, critically
important in providing demand for
local supporting sectors. In this
sense, whether referred to as an
“export” or a set of “traded” goods
and services, the visitor economy
plays an important role in the
“base” economy of many regions.
As developed through research
by Michael Porter, the term
“traded cluster” refers to
“geographic concentrations of
interconnected companies and
institutions in a particular field”
that sell products and services
across regions.
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013
Traded cluster employment gains over time (US)
Index, cumulative percentage points of employment growth since 1998 Hospitality and
tourism traded
clusters
All other traded
clusters in
aggregate
+ 12.2%
+ 2.1%
Source: US Cluster Mapping Project; Census Bureau; Tourism Economics ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 91, Packet Page 215 Destination promotion helps drive
economic development (1 of 6)
| Tourism Economics 46
Destination promotion supports the visitor
economy, but it also acts as a catalyst of
broader economic development
In recent research1, Tourism Economics / Oxford Economics identified four primary channels through which destination promotion drives broader economic development and growth.
1) Attracting strategic events
By securing meetings and conventions, DMOs attract the very prospects that economic development agencies target. Not only do these events create valuable exposure among business decision makers, they create direct opportunities for economic development agencies to deepen connections with attendees.
“Economic clusters and conventions have become synergistic” Tom Clark
Metro Denver Economic
Development Corporation
2) Raising the destination profile
Destination promotion builds awareness, familiarity, and relationships in commercial, institutional and individual networks that are critical in attracting investment.
“We are learning a lot from Visit California by how they brand California and how to take their model and apply it to economic development.”
Brook Taylor
Deputy Director
Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) 3) Building transport networks
By developing the visitor economy, destination promotion supports transportation infrastructure, providing greater accessibility and supply logistics that are important in attracting investment in other sectors. “Air service is profoundly important to corporate
investment and location decisions... This is one of
tourism’s most significant contributions since the
levels of air service at New Orleans far exceed what
local demand could support.”
Stephen Moret
Secretary
Louisiana Economic Development
4) Raising the quality of life
Visitor spending helps support a broader and higher quality set of local amenities than an area could otherwise sustain. The cultural, entertainment, culinary, and retail attractions that visitors support make a place more attractive to investors.
“Traveler attractions are the same reason that CEOs
choose a place.”
Jeff Malehorn
President & CEO, World Business Chicago
1Oxford Economics (2014, November) “Destination Promotion: An Engine of Economic Development: How destination promotion drives economic development.” Produced in connection with Destination & Travel Foundation.
Link to http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/engine
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 92, Packet Page 216 Destination promotion helps drive
economic development (2 of 6)
| Tourism Economics 47
Conventions and trade shows can help
target economic development on key
industries
Channel of impact: By securing meetings, conventions and trade shows for local facilities, DMOs attract the very prospects that economic development organizations target. Not only do such visits create valuable exposure among business decision makers, they create direct opportunities for economic
development organizations to deepen connections with
attendees.
DMOs are typically on the front lines of selling their destinations to meeting and event planners. These conventions and trade shows often attract the very prospects that economic development organizations (EDOs) target. As Steve Moore, CEO of the Greater Phoenix CVB states, “Our EDO doesn’t have to fly to DC or China.
The low hanging fruit is coming here for events.” EDOs, such as Cleveland’s Department of Economic Development, regularly host special events, tours, and receptions for attendees of key events. Our research, including discussions with both DMOs and EDOs, yielded many such examples of this channel at work. But the discussions also pointed to the further opportunities that exist in many areas for collaborative targeting.
Today’s knowledge-based and innovation-driven economies benefit from face-to-face connections, and relationships. In this context, industry conventions position an economy to acquire knowledge, innovate, and grow. Knowledge-based workers benefit from greater potential to access and encounter specialized knowledge and sustain social connections, and connections to other markets provide access to a wider base of suppliers and access to new production techniques.
This makes existing firms more productive, serves to help attract additional investment, and fuels innovation.
Oxford Economics conducted a national survey of 300 business travelers in 2012 and asked them to score the impact of conferences and conventions across a number of potential benefits. Nearly 80% of respondents rated “industry insights” as an area of high impact, scoring this benefit as a four or five on a one-to-five scale. Industry insights were cited more consistently as a high impact return on conferences and conventions than any other potential benefit. 0 10 20 30 40 50
Popular
Worry Free
Entertainment
Affordable
Exciting
Adult Atmosphere
Family Destination
Sightseeing
Unique
Sports & Recreation
Aware
Unaware
Marketing positively influences perceptions of a region Pure Michigan 2014 campaign impact on perceptions of Michigan as a national tourism destination Percent who strongly agree
Source: Longwoods International (2015, July) "Destination Marketing and Economic Development: Creating a Singular Place Brand"
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 93, Packet Page 217 Destination promotion helps drive
economic development (3 of 6)
| Tourism Economics 48
Destination marketing contributes to a “halo
effect” as advertising campaigns positively
impact perceptions of a region
Channel of impact: Destination promotion builds awareness, familiarity, and relationships in commercial networks
(institutional, companies, individuals) that are critical in attracting investment. Similarly, destination promotion raises the destination profile among potential new residents, supporting skilled workforce growth that is critical to economic
development.
Destination promotion activities support understanding of a destination’s distinct positioning and raise awareness of the destination. Most importantly, by increasing visits, destination promotion activities provide firsthand experience with a destination, resulting in familiarity with a destination that is critically important for economic development. These three components – building a brand, raising awareness, and increasing familiarity – make up the effect which we’ve labeled “raising the destination profile.” As is emphasized in the following sections, these inter-related concepts have the collective impact of supporting economic development efforts to attract investment and build a skilled workforce.
For example, Lake Erie Shores and Island’s 2014 tourism marketing campaign boosted perceptions of the area as a good place to start a career. Among those who were aware of the advertising, 43.2% strongly agreed with the statement that the area was a good place to start a career, representing a 173% increase relative to the 15.8% who strongly agreed among those unaware of the advertising1. 0 20 40 60 80
...start a career
...start a business
...attend college
...retire
...purchase a vacation
home
...live
Aware
Unaware
Marketing influences perceptions on key decision criteria Lake Erie Shores and Islands 2014 campaign impact on the region's economic development image Percent who strongly agree
Note: Percentages indicate the increase in "ad aware" respondents who strongly agree relative to "unaware".
Source: Longwoods International (2015, July) "Destination Marketing and Economic Development: Creating a Singular Place Brand"
+173%
+157%
+107%
+161%
+147%
+128%
"A good place to..."
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 94, Packet Page 218 Destination promotion helps drive
economic development (4 of 6)
| Tourism Economics 49
Tourism supports building enhanced
transportation networks and connecting to
new markets
Channel of impact: By developing the visitor economy,
destination promotion supports development of transportation infrastructure, providing greater accessibility and supply logistics that are, in turn, important in attracting investment in other sectors.
Connectivity to other cities, historically by canal and railways, and more recently by road and air, has been long appreciated for its importance to economic growth. Indeed, face-to-face interactions are as important as ever.
How can a region best support the expansion of its transportation infrastructure, including airports? While public investment certainly has a role, as leading cities have long recognized, airlines ultimately choose to expand service to markets that demonstrate passenger demand. Destination promotion efforts build inbound travel volumes that support expanded service, with greater frequency of connections to a greater number of destinations. Inbound business, leisure and group segments each play a role providing the base of demand that supports airlift. Indeed airline cost structures are such that a route with insufficient inbound leisure demand, and therefore lulls in travel around holidays and off-peak periods, is less profitable, or even unprofitable.
As a result, successful destinations experience greater levels of air service. For example, roughly half of all passenger demand for Cleveland is generated by visitors, according to OAG bookings data for 2013. Frontier Airlines, a low-cost carrier which recently entered Cleveland, has continued to expand its schedule from the city, building on leisure business but offering direct flights on routes that are key for business travelers, such as Dallas Ft. Worth.
In turn, improved air connectivity becomes a marketing point that supports economic development. So it is not surprising that collaboration between DMOs and economic development
organizations can be successful.
For example: Phoenix touts its connectivity as one of its key economic development assets. This includes extensive service to Mexico and Latin America. Connectivity to Canada is also a major selling point for economic development and exists almost entirely because of the visitor market. Only 20 direct flights to Canada existed six years ago and Phoenix now has over 100 scheduled flights. The Greater Phoenix CVB and the Community and Economic Development office are seeking increased international service. These routes are needed to dually support the convention and investor markets. While air service development is led by the airport, the Community and Economic Development office and the Greater Phoenix CVB support marketing to airlines with market information. Overall, 60% of current Phoenix airlift is supported by visitors.
This impact is hardly rare, and numerous studies (including those listed below) have confirmed a connection between the long-term impacts of improved air transportation and overall economic development.
Jan Brueckner, “Airline Traffic and Urban Economic Development,” Urban Studies 40, no. 8 (July 2003): 1455–69.
Richard K. Green, “Airports and Economic Development,” Real Estate Economics 35, no. 1 (2007): 91–112.
Michael D. Irwin and John D. Kasarda, “Air Passenger Linkages and Employment Growth in US Metropolitan Areas,” American
Sociological Review, 1991, 524–37.
Kenneth Button, Rui Neiva, and Junyang Yuan, “Economic
Development and the Impact of the EU–US Transatlantic Open Skies Air Transport Agreement,” Applied Economics Letters 21, no. 11 (2014): 767–70.
IATA, Measuring the Economic Rate of Return on Investment in the Aviation Industry, Aviation Economic Benefits, July 2007 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 95, Packet Page 219 Destination promotion helps drive
economic development (5 of 6)
| Tourism Economics 50
Intelligent tourism development can raise
destinations’ quality of life and attract
investors from other sectors
Channel of impact: The visitor economy that is fueled by destination promotion supports amenities and a quality of life that are integral to attracting investment in other sectors.
Parks and public areas, dining and nightlife in walkable districts, services and transportation along waterfront areas, creative arts and cultural institutions - these are just some of the facilities and services that benefit from the visitor economy but are also valued by residents and—by extension—site locators, investors, and business executives.
Research suggests that this occurs as:
• Visitors provide substantial demand for amenities and generate returns in terms of quality of life improvements for residents, helping raise the quality of life.
• Economic research and real-world business location decisions demonstrate that such amenities and lifestyle characteristics are important in driving economic growth.
• Leading practices in economic development leverage these visitorsupported quality of life assets.
Visitor spending helps support a broader and higher quality set of amenities than an area could otherwise sustain. For many businesses, whether on the smaller scale of a restaurant or on the larger scale of a sports facility or National Park, the difference between breaking even or running at a loss can be thin. As an incremental source of business above and beyond what can be supported locally, visitors provide demand for businesses as well as many not-for-profit institutions, such as museums.
Richard Florida, an urban theorist and author of several popular books, provides an introduction to these concepts, noting that economists and geographers have long looked at the role that the availability of talent has played in the location decisions of firms, but have only more recently turned to the factors that attract talent. Florida writes1:
For important new investment bids, EDOs will coordinate with DMOs for the best possible pitch. Given the importance of destination characteristics in the decisions of investors and site locators, NTOs and DMOs can provide the marketing content and experiences to visitors to strengthen the bid
All of the EDOs frequently collaborate with the DMOs, including the use of collateral and media originally developed by DMOs. For example, the Cleveland Department of Economic Development has an entire section on its website called “Living Here” that focuses on amenities and attractions including arts, culture, and entertainment. 1 Florida, Richard (2005). Cities and the creative class. Routledge. New York.
“A growing stream of research suggests that amenities,
entertainment, and lifestyle considerations are important elements of the ability of cities to attract both firms and people.” The “traditional view offered by economists is that places attract people by matching them to jobs and economic opportunity.
More recent research suggests that places attract people by providing a range of lifestyle amenities.”
“If cities are to remain strong, they must attract workers on the basis of quality of life as well as on the basis of higher wages.” ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 96, Packet Page 220 Destination promotion helps drive
economic development (6 of 6)
| Tourism Economics 51
The four channels of catalytic impacts
generate benefits that extend beyond direct
effects of driving visitation
Oxford Economics (2014, November) “Destination Promotion: An Engine of Economic Development: How destination promotion drives economic development.” Produced in connection with Destination & Travel Foundation.
Link to http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/engine
Destination marketing supports economic development through four catalytic channels, extending its impact well beyond the effects of visitor spending. Destination marketing builds transport accessibility, attracts major events that build awareness, raises the quality of life for residents, and raises the profile of a destination among potential investors.
As a result, cities and states that succeed as destinations are more likely to succeed in broader economic terms.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 97, Packet Page 221 Appendix 3: Case Study Review
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 98, Packet Page 222 Case study: Pure Michigan success
(1 of 2)
| Tourism Economics 53
Michigan successfully invested in
destination marketing as part of a strategy
to ignite growth.
Budget increases in other US destinations provide case study examples of what has happened when government agencies increase or decrease destination marketing funding. We have summarized several of these case studies in this section, beginning with Michigan and the internationally recognized “Pure Michigan” campaign. While the campaign’s advertisements are visually stunning, less appreciated are the important decisions the state took during a period of economic recession to expand the campaign as an investment in future growth.
Bill Siegel, CEO of Longwoods, recently summarized this success story1. The following highlights key points:
The “Pure Michigan” campaign had its fledgling start in 2006 as a regional campaign in an environment of relatively low funding. In preceding years, Michigan’s state tourism budget had declined, falling to as little as $7.9 million in FY2005 according to US Travel data. For several years, as the campaign ran in regional markets, research demonstrated that it was building equity in the marketplace, impacting Michigan’s image positively and generating positive financial returns.
In 2009, with the national economy still in recession, and Michigan’s manufacturing base hit particularly hard, the state legislature saw tourism as a potential growth opportunity, and approved a one-time doubling of the Travel Michigan budget to $28 million. This allowed the state to promote itself nationally for the first time, and “Pure Michigan” was well-suited to the opportunity.
In its first year, the national campaign dramatically increased unaided awareness of Michigan as a place in the Midwest US “you would really enjoy visiting”. Michigan moved to 2nd place among regional competitors in this metric after the campaign, up from 9th place before the campaign. Three out of ten national travelers were aware of the campaign, and the campaign was recognized by Forbes as among the 10 all-time best travel campaigns, and. 1 Longwoods International (2015) Michigan: 2014 tourism advertising evaluation and image study. $15.7
$6.2
$32.6
$12.4
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Budget Advertising
2006 2014
Michigan state tourism budget
Index (2006=100)
State tourism budget
increase since 2006: 108%
State tourism advertising
increase since 2006: 100%
Source: Longwoods International
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 99, Packet Page 223 Case study: Pure Michigan success
(2 of 2)
| Tourism Economics 54
Michigan successfully invested in
destination marketing as part of a strategy
to ignite growth.
The summer 2009 campaign was estimated to have generated almost two million additional trips to Michigan. As a result, based on a $12.2 million media budget, the campaign is estimated to have generated $588 million of incremental visitor spending and $41.0 million of state taxes, equivalent to $3.36 of state taxes per ad dollar.
In total from 2006 to 2014, Longwoods estimated that “Pure Michigan” results generated 22.4 million out-of-state trips to Michigan and $6.6 billion of visitor spending at Michigan businesses. This implies a visitor spending return on investment (“ROI”) of $69 based on out-of-state visitors, and a state tax ROI of $4.81.
Michigan built on the initial success by maintaining annual funding slightly ahead of $30 million. From 2006 to 2014, Michigan invested over $95 million in “Pure Michigan” advertising. As a result, “Pure Michigan” has become the singular brand for Michigan, with the state expanding its use across multiple lines of business to promote state objectives, such as economic development.
Longwoods International (2015) Michigan: 2014 tourism advertising evaluation and image study.
$0.0
$0.2
$0.4
$0.6
$0.8
$1.0
$1.2
$1.4
06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14
New visitor spending in Michigan
Annual out-of-state visitor
spending generated by
advertising Michigan state tourism advertising is
estimated to generate $1.2 billion of new
out-of-state visitor spending annually.
$1.2
billion
Source: Longwoods International
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 100, Packet Page 224 Case study: Influence of DMO
content
| Tourism Economics 55
Visitor information supported by TBID
funding consistently influences potential
visitors.
Among respondents who had made an overnight visit to Mendocino County, 25.7% reported that the Visit Mendocino website had been “very influential” in their decision.
Of approximately 160,000 unique website visitors (April 2013 to March 2014), 47.8% made a trip to Mendocino County, of which an estimated
20.2% were influenced to visit by the website.
38% of prospective visitors who received information from Visit Oceanside were influenced by the content and subsequently visited Oceanside.
Among those visitors who were influenced by the visitor information, more than half indicated that they decided to visit an attraction or site that they had not already planned to visit and 17% added additional nights to their stay.
12.2%
16.2%
45.9%
25.7%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
Not at all influential
Not very influential
Somewhat influential
Very influential
Website information influences traveler decisions
Visit Mendocino follow-up survey of website visitors
Percent of respondents
Question: How influential was the Visit Mendocino website in your decision to take an overnight trip to Mendocino County in the past six months? (Follow-up survey to website visitors, among those respondents who had made an overnight trip to Mendocino County.) Source: Strategic Marketing Group "DMO Influence/Conversion Study", on behalf of Visit Mendocino/Mendocino County Lodging Association
4.1%
16.9%
30.8%
42.1%
52.3%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0%
Other changes in your plans
To stay overnight or add nights
To stay a few hours longer than
planned
To visit additional attractions beyond
those originally planned
To visit an attraction not already
planned
Visitor information influences visitors to stay
longer
Visit Oceanside visitor survey
Percent of respondents
Question: Which of the following were you influenced to do in Oceanside based on information you received from Visit Oceanside? (Among visitors to Oceanside whose plans were influenced by CWC or Visit Oceanside information.)
Source: Horizon Consumer Science (2013, May) "Visitor Profile/Economic & Fiscal Impacts study - CY2012", on behalf of Visit Oceanside California
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 101, Packet Page 225 Case study: the creation of Brand
USA boosts tourism arrivals and
spending in the US
| Tourism Economics 56
Brand USA has maintained a strong ROI
and helped revitalize the US as an
international destination
Before 2011, the US did not have
a national tourism organization. A
decade of stagnation of
international travel suggested
that the lack of an organization
that could effectively promote the
US’ global brand was costing the
country billions of dollars in lost
potential visitor expenditures.
Brand USA was created to
reinvigorate the country’s global
brand, and positive effects have
been realized quickly. The
organization has raised the
profile of the US as a destination
and generated almost one million
incremental visitors annually.
Spending by these visitors
generated $457 million in federal
taxes, approximately triple the
organizations total operating
expenses. In 2015, Tourism
Economics estimated an 19:1
ROI on total operating costs.
Source: Tourism Economics
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 102, Packet Page 226 Case study: Colorado cuts state
funding
| Tourism Economics 57
Within two years, Colorado lost 30% of its
US visitor market share
Conversely, budget cuts in other destinations provide case study examples of what has happened when destination marketing spending is reduced. The US state of Colorado represents a particularly powerful example of the impact of a dramatic reduction in destination marketing spending:
Prior to 1993, the Colorado Tourism Board (CTB) had a $12 million marketing budget, funded by a 0.2% tax on most tourism spending.
Within two years of repealing its tourism funding in 1993, Colorado lost 30% of its US visitor market share, which translated into the equivalent of over $1.4 billion annually in lost revenues. By the late 1990s, this had escalated to $2.4 billion a year.
After having moved from 14th to 1st position in the states’ summer resorts category, Colorado slipped to 17th in 1994. It also shifted back to being more of a regional drive destination opposed to being a national fly-in venue and attracting fewer international visitors.
The subsequent establishment of the Colorado Travel & Tourism Authority, which was an attempt to market the state with private sector funding in co-operation with the CTB, failed. This was attributed to the fact that private sector companies had separate priorities.
The new Colorado Tourism Office opened with a $5 million budget and in 2003, $9 million was approved for tourism promotion. A campaign conducted from October 2003 through December 2004 resulted in 5.3 million incremental visits, representing 17% of total visitation to the state. In 2004, this generated $1.4 billion of additional spending and $89.5 million in state and local taxes. These estimates are equivalent to an implied visitor spending return-on-investment (ROI) per marketing dollar of $140 (i.e. each dollar change in marketing spending resulted in a change in visitor spending of $140).
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 103, Packet Page 227 Case study: San Diego TMD funding
frozen by litigation
| Tourism Economics 58
San Diego market share declined when
tourism marketing was curtailed in 2013
A series of events in San Diego resulted in a temporary reduction in tourism marketing spending, providing a case study of short-term impacts:
The San Diego Tourism Marketing District (SDTMD) was
established in 2008 with the support of the lodging sector to provide stable funding for marketing and promotion based on a hotel room assessment. For example, in FY2012, the SDTMD allocated more than $25 million in assessment fees.
As a result of litigation-related risks, funds intended for the SDTDM were held in limbo through much of calendar year 2013, curtailing its funding to local tourism marketing groups. The San Diego Tourism Authority (SDTA), the region’s primary destination marketing organization, was one of the groups impacted. SDTA depends largely on SDTDM funding and was forced to cancel its important spring 2013 advertising campaign.
Later, as the funding challenges persisted, SDTA laid off 40% of its staff in July 2013 and prepared to operate a bare-bones operation with only 15% of the funding that it previously received from SDTDM. SDTDM funding to other groups and events
promoting tourism was also curtailed.
Ultimately, in late-November 2013, the local city council released a portion of the funds previously being withheld and the SDTA restored its advertising in January 2014. As a result, the cutbacks in destination marketing were largely contained in calendar year 2013, and San Diego tourism marketing resumed strongly in 2014. The impact of the reduced funding was reflected in the performance of the San Diego hotel industry, as room demand leveled off in 2013, and occupancy rates and price levels increased more slowly than in competing markets. Overall, the city’s performance trailed other regional and national destinations that had maintained funding levels and marketing programs. The graph below shows San Diego’s reduced hotel room demand market share relative to a competitive set (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Anaheim, Phoenix and Seattle) and top 25 US metro markets during the period of reduced funding, and subsequent recovery when marketing was restored.
3.80 3.84
3.88 3.92
3.96 4.00
15.6 15.7
15.8 15.9
16.0 11 12 13 14
Comp set (L)
Top 25 (R)
San Diego room demand market share
San Diego's % of total room nights, relative to...
Sources: STR, Tourism Economics
Defunding of
SDTA
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 104, Packet Page 228 Case Study: Pennsylvania’s cuts
DMO budget while NY increases
spending; predictable results follow
| Tourism Economics 59
Major budget cuts and increases are
followed by corresponding losses and gains
in market share
Pennsylvania’s DMO saw their budget slashed from $36.3 million in 2007 to $7.3 million in 2015. During this time, Pennsylvania has realized sizable declines in its market share relative to competitive states:
Pennsylvania’s share of overnight marketable leisure trips declined from 17.6% in 2007, to 14.7% in 2014, representing a decline of 16.9% (2.9 percentage points).
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania’s share of day marketable leisure trips declined from 23.2% in 2008 (earliest available data), to 19.4% in 2014, representing a decline of 16.4% (3.8 percentage points). In 2008, Pennsylvania was the second most popular state in the US measured on the basis of marketable day trips. By 2014, Pennsylvania had declined to fourth.
Pennsylvania’s market share decline is partly attributable to the strong competitive growth of New York State. New York has more than doubled its state tourism budget (from $15.0 million in FY2008- 09 to $37.3 million in FY2014-15), and has shown the largest market share gain among competitive states.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Ohio Virginia
Budget (FY08-09) Trips (2009) Budget (FY14-15) Trips (2014) Market share and budget share
Share of nine-state total
Note: Trips measured on the basis of marketable overnight trips.
Source: Longwoods International; US Travel Association; Tourism Economics New York increased its budget and
gained market share...
...Pennsylvania cut its
budget and reduced its
market share.
Between FY2008-09 and FY2014-15, New York increased its state tourism market budget from $15.0 million to $37.3 million, a 148% increase. This funding helped back the successful “I Love New York” campaign, which was relaunched in 2008. This marketing supported New York’s substantial gain in market share. Between 2009 and 2014, New York’s share of marketable overnight trips in the ninestate region increased 46.1%.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 105, Packet Page 229 About Tourism Economics
| Tourism Economics 60
Tourism Economics is an Oxford Economics company with a singular objective: combine an understanding of tourism dynamics with rigorous economics in order to answer the most important questions facing destinations, developers, and strategic planners. By combining quantitative methods with industry knowledge, Tourism Economics designs custom market strategies, destination recovery plans, tourism forecasting models, tourism policy analysis, and economic impact studies.
With over four decades of experience of our principal consultants, it is our passion to work as partners with our clients to achieve a destination’s full potential.
Oxford Economics is one of the world’s leading providers of economic analysis, forecasts and consulting advice. Founded in 1981 as a joint venture with Oxford University’s business college, Oxford Economics enjoys a reputation for high quality, quantitative analysis and evidence-based advice. For this, it draws on its own staff of more than 120 professional economists; a dedicated data analysis team; global modeling tools, and a range of partner institutions in Europe, the US and in the United Nations Project Link. Oxford Economics has offices in London, Oxford, Dubai, Philadelphia, and Belfast.
For more information:
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 6., Item Page 106, Packet Page 230 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Reaffirming the City of Monterey’s Opposition to the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” (Initiative 21-0042A1) Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution reaffirming the City of Monterey’s opposition to the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” (Initiative 21-0042A1). The proposed ballot initiative would negatively impact how the City initiates future revenue-generating measures.
VALUE DRIVER:
Serve as stewards of the City’s financial resources through sound economic vitality efforts, streamlining operations, reasonable revenue enhancements, visionary long-term planning, fiscal transparency, and community partnerships.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The City of Monterey advocates on behalf of the community’s interests at the regional, state, and federal level. The City Council weighs in on proposed legislation and ballot initiatives on an as-needed basis. The “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” would have drastic consequences to the fiscal health of the City of Monterey and communities throughout California. On March 1, 2022, the Monterey City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-017, opposing the initiative. At the time, proponents of the ballot initiative needed to submit nearly one million signatures by April 29, 2022 to qualify for the November 2022 ballot. The initiative’s proponents withdrew the initiative from consideration in November 2022. On February 1, 2023, the measure qualified for the November 2024 ballot. The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) are encouraging cities to take a hard stand against this initiative.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Should the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” (Initiative 21-0042A1) be passed by California voters in November 2024, the City of Monterey could stand to lose $13 million in Cannabis Tax revenue over ten years, and an unknown number of potentially lost revenue from other measures by the City of Monterey should they not be renewed. There are no costs incurred in connection with adopting this resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general Date: 4/4/2023
Item No.: 7.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 231 rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The City could choose not to oppose the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act”. This is not recommended, as the City would not have the ability to place a tax measure on the ballot without a sunset date. This could result in the loss of millions of dollars in potential future revenue, affecting future general and special tax measures, bond measures, and potentially other revenues the City of Monterey depends on to provide services to the community.
DISCUSSION:
Overview of the Proposed Initiative
In 2018, the “Tax Fairness, Transparency and Accountability Act” (AG# 17-0050 Amdt. #1), was being circulated to qualify for the November 2018 ballot. This initiative would have drastically limited local revenue authority.
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (“Initiative”) would amend the California Constitution with provisions that limit voters’ authority and input, adopt new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and may make it more difficult to impose fines and penalties for violation of state and local laws. The measure puts billions of local government tax and fee revenues at risk statewide with related core public service impacts. The measure would have significant negative impacts on the City of Monterey’s operations and service delivery, affecting the City’s Cannabis Tax, property management revenue and leases, garbage and refuse service contracts, parking fees, nuisance abatement charges, parks and recreation fees, harbor use fees, and other revenue sources. The Initiative would shift fees and charges that are currently market-based to below-market rates by introducing a new legal standard on the definition of “reasonable” fees.
Through the successful work and advocacy of the League of California Cities (which Monterey belongs to, along with California’s 482 cities) and its coalition partners, the measure’s proponents withdrew the initiative from the ballot in June 2018.
On January 4, 2022, the California Business Roundtable filed the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (AG# 21-0042A1). This measure is far more detrimental to cities than the measure filed in 2018, because it would decimate vital local and state revenuegenerating methods.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 232 During its December 2-3, 2021 meeting, the League of California Cities’ Board of Directors voted unanimously to oppose the initiative. Following the Board’s unanimous decision, a coalition of public safety, labor, local government and infrastructure advocates have joined together to fight against this potential measure. The Attorney General released the Title and Summary on February 3, 2022. On March 1, 2022, the Monterey City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-017, opposing the ballot measure. The proponents of the measure did not submit the nearly one million required signatures in order to qualify for the November 2022 ballot by the Secretary of State’s recommended deadline of April 29, 2022. However, on February 1, 2023, the measure qualified for the November 2024 ballot.
Major Provisions of the Initiative
Fees and Charges1:
Except for licensing and other regulatory fees, fees and charges 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.” The burden to prove the fee or charge does not exceed “actual cost” is changed to “clear and convincing” evidence. Requires fees and charges paid for the use of local and state government property and the amount paid to purchase or rent government property to be “reasonable.” These fees and charges are currently allowed to be market-based. Whether the amount is “reasonable” (introducing a new legal standard aiming to force below market fee and charge amounts) must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.”2 The standard may significantly reduce the amount large companies (e.g., oil, utilities, gas, railroads, garbage/refuse, cable, and other corporations) will pay for the use of local public property.
Prohibits fees on new development based on vehicle miles traveled.
Taxes3:
Taxes and fees adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules, are void unless reenacted4
.
Invalidates Upland decision that allows a majority of local voters to pass special taxes.
The measure specifies that taxes proposed by the initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council.
Expressly prohibits local advisory measures which allow local voters to express a preference for how local general tax dollars should be spent.5 1 Initiative No. 21-0042A1 (pgs.4-6; Section 1 (a)-(j)
2 Initiative No. 21-0042A1 (pg.5; (3))
3 Initiative No. 21-0042A1 (pgs.4-6; Section 1 (a)-(j)
4 Initiative No. 21-0042A1 (pg.7; Section 6 (Sec. 2)(g) 5 Initiative No. 21-0042A1 (pg.6 (3))
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 233 Requires voter approval to expand existing taxes (e.g., Utility, Transient Occupancy) to new territory (e.g., annexations) or to expand the tax base (e.g., new utility service) New taxes can only be imposed for a specific time period. City charters may not be amended to include a tax or fee. All state taxes require majority voter approval.
Fines and Penalties6:
May require voter approval of fines, penalties, and levies 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.
Statewide Impacts and Consequences
According to Michael Coleman, a local government finance expert, and advisor to the League of California Cities, should Initiative 21-0042A1 be placed on the ballot and passed by voters, it would result in the following statewide consequences:
Over $20 billion of local government fee and charge revenues over 10 years placed at heightened legal peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for drinking water, sewer sanitation, and public health and safety
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.
Fees and Taxes
Local government revenue-raising authority is currently substantially restricted by state statute and constitutional provisions, including the voter-approved provisions of Proposition 13 of 1978, Proposition 218 of 1996, and Proposition 26 of 2010. The Taxpayer Protection and 6 Initiative No. 21-0042A1 (pg. 5 (4))
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 234 Government Accountability Act adds and expands restrictions on voters and local government tax and fee authority.
Local governments levy a variety of fees and other charges to provide core public services.
Examples of the City of Monterey’s affected fees and charges are:
Cannabis tax.
Nuisance abatement charges, such as for weed, rubbish, and general nuisance abatement to fund code enforcement programs.
Commercial franchise fees.
Emergency response fees, and costs for service such as special event charges for Police services
Document processing and duplication fees.
Parking, harbor, campground, and cemetery fees
Facility use charges, and fees for parks and recreation services.
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, including counciladopted increases to simply accommodate inflation, Cal Cities estimates the amount of local government fee and charge revenue at risk is approximately $2 billion per year, including those adopted since Jan. 1, 2022. Over ten years, $20 billion of local government fee and charge revenues will be at heightened legal peril.
Fines and Penalties
Under existing law, cities are required to provide due process before imposing a penalty or fine for violation of its municipal code:
1. A local agency must adopt administrative procedures that govern imposing fines and penalties, including providing a reasonable period of time for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or remedy the violation [Gov't Code 53069.4].
2. Notice must be given to the violating party before imposing the penalty; and give the party an opportunity to be heard and present any facts or arguments [Merco Construction Engineers v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1969) 274 CA 2d 154, 166].
3. The fine may not be "excessive" [U.S. Constitution amendments VIII and XIV].
The initiative converts administratively-imposed fines and penalties into taxes unless a new, undefined, and ambiguous “adjudicatory due process” is followed. This provision may put at risk authority to impose fines and penalties for violations of state and local law.
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 235 Impacts on Current and Future Revenue Generation in Monterey Hundreds of local tax measures were approved in 20227 that likely do not comply with the provisions of the initiative. Nearly $2 billion of annual revenues from these voter-approved measures will cease a year after the effective date of the measure, reducing the local public services funded by these measures, unless the tax is re-submitted for voter approval.
Reductions on local government tax revenues have impacts on core services and infrastructure including fire and emergency response, law enforcement, streets and roads, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention, and mental health services.
Impacts to the City of Monterey’s affected revenue measures include:
Measure S (Special Sales Tax). On November 6, 2018, Monterey voters approved Measure S, authorizing the City to renew the local sales tax dedicated to funding repairs of streets, sidewalks, and sewers at the existing rate of 1 percent for eight years. This special tax measure required a two-thirds supermajority vote (82.09% voted in favor).
Under the proposed statewide initiative, renewal of this measure, if presented to voters for approval in 2026, would need to be approved by a two-thirds supermajority vote and contain a sunset date.
Measure G (General Sales Tax). On March 3, 2020, Monterey voters approved the Measure G sales tax measure, which imposes a ½-cent sales tax for nine years. This general tax measure required a majority vote (63.43% voted in favor). Under the proposed statewide initiative, renewal of this measure, if presented to voters for approval in 2029, would need to be approved by a majority vote and contain a sunset date. Measure Y (Transient Occupancy Tax). On November 3, 2020, Monterey voters approved the Measure Y measure to increase the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), also known as hotel tax, from 10% to 12%. This special tax required the approval of twothirds supermajority vote (71.70% voted in favor). There was no sunset date for this tax, and because it was approved before January 1, 2022, this measure would not need to be readopted under the statewide initiative.
Measure J (Cannabis Tax). The measure, if passed, would directly impact City of Monterey’s Measure J cannabis tax, approved by Monterey voters in November 2022.
Measure J is estimated to bring in up to $1.3 million annually to the City’s General Fund.
Since Measure J stated that it would be imposed “until ended by voters,” Initiative 21- 0042A1 would force Measure J to expire one year after the effective date of the initiative, estimated to be December 2025. The City could put the measure back on the ballot in 2026 for readoption.
It is recommended that the City adopt a resolution opposing the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (AG# 21-0042A1).
7 http://www.californiacityfinance.com/Votes2211final.pdf Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 6, Packet Page 236 c: League of California Cities
Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce
Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
2. Initiative 21-0042A1
3. Summary Outline of Initiative, League of California Cities
4. Fiscal and Program Effects of Initiative 21-0042A1 on Local Governments, CaliforniaCityFinance.com (Michael Coleman)
5. List of CBRT Board Members
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 7, Packet Page 237 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
REAFFIRMING THE CITY OF MONTEREY’S OPPOSITION TO THE
“TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT” (INITIATIVE 21-0042A1)
WHEREAS, the California Business Roundtable filed the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (AG# 21-0042A1), which qualified for the November 2024 ballot and if approved by California voters, would decimate vital local and state revenue-generating methods;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.
Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability; WHEREAS, the measure creates barriers for cities to maintain and generate revenue to provide services to communities, including local infrastructure, protecting our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources;
WHEREAS, the measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure; WHEREAS, the League of California Cities’ Board of Directors voted unanimously to oppose the initiative. Following the Board’s unanimous decision, a coalition of public safety, labor, local government and infrastructure advocates have joined together to fight against this potential measure;
WHEREAS, according to Michael Coleman, a local government finance expert and advisor to the League of California Cities, should Initiative 21-0042A1 be placed on the ballot and passed by voters, 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; WHEREAS, this initiative would directly affect Measure J Cannabis Tax, approved by Monterey voters in November 2022. It would also affect the City’s fees, fines, and other revenue to provide core services;
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 8, Packet Page 238 2 WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to state and local services at risk, and could force cuts to fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, harbors, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby opposes Initiative 21-0042A1, deceivingly called the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act,” and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Monterey will join the NO on Initiative 21- 0042A1 coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, labor, local government, infrastructure advocates, and other organizations throughout the state.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 9, Packet Page 239 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
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 10, Packet Page 240 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 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 11, Packet Page 241 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 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 12, Packet Page 242 (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 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 13, Packet Page 243 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 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 14, Packet Page 244 .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 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 15, Packet Page 245 (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 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 16, Packet Page 246 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 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 17, Packet Page 247 (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 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 18, Packet Page 248 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 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 19, Packet Page 249 1 The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Initiative No. 21-0042A11
Feb. 1, 2023
Effective date: Any new or increased tax or fee adopted by the Legislature, a city council, or the local voters after January 1, 2022, must comply with the Act’s new rules.
Voters
• Local advisory measures are prohibited. No measure may appear on the ballot asking for approval of a general tax that would allow the voters to express a preference for how the revenue from the general tax will, could, or should be used.
• Overturns Upland decision which upheld a special tax that had been placed on the ballot by the voters to be approved by a majority vote. Taxes proposed by initiative will be 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.
Local taxes
• Requires voter approval in order to apply an existing tax:
o to territory that is annexed.
o 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.
State taxes
• All new or increased state taxes require statewide voter approval. • Prohibits a property tax “surcharge” (increase). Prohibits any allocation of property tax to the state.
1 This is a summary of some of the more significant provisions of the Act. Please review the Act for a complete understanding of the changes it makes to the Constitution.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 20, Packet Page 250 2 Fees and charges
• 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 the 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 “actual cost.”
• Franchise fees — historically considered fees, not taxes — will more likely be considered taxes due to the elimination of an existing category of “fee” and the requirement that charges to entrance, purchase, rental, or lease of government property be “reasonable.” The state and cities issue franchises to oil companies, utilities, gas companies, railroads, garbage companies, cable companies, and other corporations.
• No fee or charge or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.
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.
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 21, Packet Page 251 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:
Over $20 billion of local government fee and charge revenues over 10 years placed at heightened legal peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for drinking water, sewer sanitation, and public health and safety. About $2 billion of revenues each year from fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2021 subject to legal peril.
1 Over $2 billion dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax measures approved by voters between January 1, 2022 and the effective date of the act2 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.
Substantially higher legal and administrative cost of public infrastructure financing which will delay and deter new residential and commercial development.
Service and infrastructure declines 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).3
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 the effective date of the Act should it pass would be void a year after the effective date of the initiative. 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. A city charter may not be amended to impose, extend, or increase a tax might interfere with the ability of cities that do not already have such authority in their charters to adopt Property Transfer Taxes. o There are no more than a few of these every few years, but it is a valuable tax for those that adopt it.
1 Assumes fee increases since January 1, 2022 would be subject to possible legal challenge if not adopted in compliance with the Initiative.
2 The effective date of the initiative would be sometime in December 2024, the date the California Secretary of State certifies the election results of the November 5, 2024 election.
3 Unlike the initiative 17-0050, this initiative does not eliminate that ability of cities and counties to adopt general taxes by majority voter approval.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616
Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952
Rev. January 14, 2023
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 22, Packet Page 252 – 2 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Requires that a tax measure adopted after January 1, 2022 and before the effective date of the initiative 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. o If past election patterns and elections in 2022 are an indication, over 200 tax measures approving more than $2 billion annual revenues to support local public services would not be in compliance and would be subject to reenactment. Most will be taxes without a specific end date and special taxes (including parcel taxes). Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, the measures would each require declaration of emergency and unanimous vote of the governing board to be placed on a special election ballot within a year for approval or the tax will be void after that date. I would expect most to succeed, but some will not, in particular citizen initiative majority vote special taxes which would have to meet a higher voter approval threshold to continue. 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 would each require unanimous vote of the agency board to be placed on a special election ballot or would be void a year later.
1.a. Number of Measures and Value of Local Taxes at Risk4 Over a hundred local measures were approved in 2022 that likely do not comply with the provisions of Initiative 21-0042A1. Nearly $2 billion of annual revenues from these voter approved measures will cease a year after the effective date of the measure, reducing the local public services funded by these measures. We can expect a similar volume of measures in 2024 and a similar volume of non-compliance. So the combined total of annual local funding directly affected by Initiative 21-0042A1 due to its retroactivity provision is about $4 billion.
Citizen Initiative Special Taxes in 2022.
Special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and approved after January 1, 2022 by a majority but less than two-thirds of the voters are out of compliance with Initiative 21-0042A1.
On June 7, 2022, there were three local special tax measures placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Two failed to get majority voter approval. A one percent transactions and use tax (sales tax) for the John C. Fremont Healthcare District in Mariposa County received 69.6 percent approval, over the two thirds needed for any special tax under California Constitution Article XIIIC. So this measure was passed in compliance with Initiative 21- 0042A1.
On November 8, 2022, there were 14 local special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Seven of these 4 Source: Compilation and summary of data from County elections offices.
June 2022 Initiative Special Taxes - majority voter approval Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
John C. Fremont
Healthcare District Mariposa Measure N Transactions & Use Tax 1 cent $ 150,000 hospital 40yrs 69.6% PASS County of Kings Kings Measure F Transactions
& Use Tax 1/2 cent $ 11,700,000 fire none 37.6% FAIL
Manhattan Beach
USD Los Angeles Measure A School Parcel Tax $1095/yr $ 12,000,000 schools 12yrs 31.2% FAIL ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 23, Packet Page 253 – 3 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
measures failed with less than majority voter approval. The other seven measures received majority, but less than two-thirds, voter approval. These measures passed under current law but are out of compliance with Initiative 21- 0042A1. Taken together these seven taxes will provide estimated annual revenues of from $900,000 to $1.4 billion in support of parks and recreation, zoo, library, affordable housing, transportation, homelessness prevention, and schools in these communities.
Non-Specific Tax Durations in 2022
Voters approved 106 measures in June 2022 (10) and November 2022 (96) that do not provide a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed (end date). Typically, the ballot titles for these measures state that the tax would be imposed “until ended by voters.” Four of these measures also did not include any estimate of the annual revenues that the tax would generate, another violation of initiative 21-0042A1. Taken together, these approved local measures generate $561 million per year that will expire a year after the effective date of the initiative if Initiative 21-0042A1 passes.
November 2022 Initiative Special Taxes - majority voter approval Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Crockett Community
Services District Contra Costa Measure L Parcel Tax $50/parcel $ 60,000 parks/recr none 62.8% PASS Oakland Alameda Measure Y Parcel Tax $68/parcel $ 12,000,000 zoo 20yrs 62.5% PASS County of Mendocino Measure O Transactions
& Use Tax
1/8 cent then 1/4
cent in 2027 $ 4,000,000 library none 60.8% PASS
Los Angeles Los Angeles Measure ULA Property
Transfer Tax
4% if >$5m, 5.5%
if >$10m $600 m to $1.1 b affordable housing none 57.3% PASS County of Sacramento Measure A Transactions
& Use Tax same 1/2 cent $ 212,512,500 transportati
on
40yrs 55.3% PASS
San Francisco Proposition M Business
Operations Tax
$2500-$5000/
vacant resid unit $ 20,000,000 housing 30yrs 54.5% PASS Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure GS Property
Transfer Tax
$56/$1000 if
>$8m $ 50,000,000
schools,
homelessne
ss, afford.
housing
none 53.3% PASS
Total $900,000 to
$1.4 billion
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Estimated
Annual Revenue Use Sunset YES%
County of Calaveras Measure A Transactions
& Use Tax 1 cent $ 5,000,000 fire none 49.4% FAIL
South San Francisco
(for Schools) San Mateo Measure DD School Parcel Tax $2.50/sf $ 55,900,000 schools none 47.2% FAIL County of Fresno (for CSU ) Measure E Transactions
& Use Tax
1/5 ct,
1/40 ct (Reedley) $ 36,000,000 Calif State Univ 20yrs 46.9% FAIL Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Measure N Parcel Tax $6k/vacant SFU xxx vacant property
xxx 44.2% FAIL
County of Monterey Measure Q Parcel Tax $49/parcel $ 5,500,000 childcare 10yrs 41.1% FAIL San Francisco City
College
San
Francisco Measure O School Parcel Tax $150/sfu $ 37,000,000 schools 10yrs 36.7% FAIL Morro Bay San Luis
Obispo Measure B Parcel Tax $120+/parcel $ 680,000 harbor none 36.0% FAIL Inverness Public
Utility District Marin Measure O Parcel Tax $0.20/sf, $150/vacant $ 276,000 fire none 27.0% FAIL ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 24, Packet Page 254 – 4 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Oakland Alameda Measure T Business Tax
General various $ 20,900,000 none 71.4% PASS
Culver City Los Angeles Measure BL Business Tax
General various $ 10,000,000 none 60.5% PASS
El Segundo Los Angeles Measure BT Business Tax
General various $ 3,000,000 none 51.2% PASS
Pico Rivera Los Angeles Measure AB Business Tax
General various $ 5,800,000 none 75.5% PASS
Santa Ana Orange Measure W Business Tax
General various neutral none 64.8% PASS
Tracy San Joaquin Measure B Business Tax
General various $ 3,200,000 none 72.6% PASS
Burlingame San Mateo Measure X Business Tax
General various $ 2,500,000 none 75.1% PASS
Los Gatos Santa Clara Measure J Business Tax
General various $ 1,100,000 none 53.4% PASS
Santa Clara Santa Clara Measure H Business Tax
General
$45/employee,
$15/rental unit $ 6,000,000 none 59.5% PASS
Brisbane San Mateo Measure O Business Tax
lodging busn $2.50/rm/day $ 250,000 none 69.2% PASS
East Palo Alto San Mateo Measure L Business Tax
resid. rentals
2.5%
grossRcpts $ 1,480,000 none 69.9% PASS
County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated Measure C Busn Tax - disp cups 12.5cents/cup $ 700,000 none 68.2% PASS
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado Measure G Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail,
manufacturing $ 950,000 none 62.9% PASS
McFarland Kern Measure O Busn Tax
Cannabis
8% of gross
receipts retail, $ 1,800,000 none 63.5% PASS
Avenal Kings Measure C Busn Tax
Cannabis
$25+/sf or
15% gr rcpts $ 600,000 none 61.8% PASS
Baldwin Park Los Angeles Measure CB Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%
grossRcpts $ 300,000 none 51.3% PASS
Claremont Los Angeles Measure CT Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%-7% gr
rcpts, $1- $ 500,000 none 61.1% PASS
County of Los Angeles Unincorporated Measure C Busn Tax Cannabis
4% gross
receipts retail, $ 15,170,000 none 60.1% PASS
Cudahy Los Angeles Measure BA Busn Tax
Cannabis
15%
grossRcpts $ 3,600,000 none 54.0% PASS
El Segundo Los Angeles Measure Y Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
GrossRcpt, $ 1,500,000 none 72.8% PASS
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles Measure T Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
GrossRcpt, $ 1,500,000 none 67.6% PASS
Lynwood Los Angeles Measure TR Busn Tax
Cannabis 5%to10% $ 3,000,000 none 66.4% PASS
Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure HM Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% gross
Rcpts $ 5,000,000 none 66.4% PASS
South El Monte Los Angeles Measure CM Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% special
excise tax on $ 126,000 none 53.7% PASS
Monterey Monterey Measure J Busn Tax
Cannabis 6% grossRcpt $ 1,300,000 none 65.2% PASS
Pacific Grove Monterey Measure N Busn Tax
Cannabis 6% grossRcpt $ 300,000 none 70.8% PASS
Huntington Beach Orange Measure O Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail, 1%
other $ 600,000 none 54.7% PASS
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 25, Packet Page 255 – 5 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Notes
?= Ballot measure title did not include an estimate of annual revenues, also not in compliance with Initiative 21-0042A1. n/a*= Arcadia Measure SW passed but sports betting remains illegal after the failure of Propositions 26 and 27 on the November statewide ballot.
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Laguna Woods Orange Measure T Busn Tax
Cannabis
4%-10% of
gross receipts $ 750,000 none 61.1% PASS
Corona Riverside Measure G Busn Tax
Cannabis
9% of gross
receipts for $ 5,000,000 none 61.6% PASS
Montclair San Bernardino Measure R Busn Tax
Cannabis
7%
grossRcpts $ 3,500,000 none 70.3% PASS
County of San Diego Unincorporated Measure A Busn Tax
Cannabis
6% retail, 3%
distribution, $ 5,600,000 none 57.4% PASS
Encinitas San Diego Measure L Busn Tax
Cannabis
4% to 7% of
gross receipts $ 1,400,000 none 65.1% PASS
Healdsburg Sonoma Measure M Busn Tax
Cannabis 8% grossRcpt $ 500,000 none 72.7% PASS
Exeter Tulare Measure B Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% retail and
other, $10/sf ? none 66.5% PASS
Tulare Tulare Measure Y Busn Tax
Cannabis
10% retail and
other, $10/sf ? none 65.2% PASS
Woodland Yolo Measure K Busn Tax
Cannabis
10%
grossRcpts
? none 66.2% PASS
Redlands San Bernardino Measure J Busn Tax
Distrib centers
from $0.047/sf
to $0.105/sf $ 530,000 none 53.5% PASS
Arcadia Los Angeles Measure SW Busn Tax
Sports Betting
5%
grossRcpts
n/a* none 63.9% PASS
Albany Alameda Measure K ParcelTax $0.074+/sf $ 1,950,000 fire/EMS none 76.0% PASS Cameron Park Airport
District El Dorado Measure J ParcelTax by $600 to $900/parcel $ 117,900 airport/ streets none 78.2% PASS Highlands Village
Lighting Benefit Zone El Dorado Measure L ParcelTax $140+/parcel $ 10,920 streets none 86.3% PASS Knolls Property
Owners CSD El Dorado Measure P ParcelTax by $300+ to $600+/parcel $ 8,400 streets none 75.5% PASS Sundance Trail Zone of
Benefit El Dorado Measure C ParcelTax $600+/yr $ 24,000 roads none 73.2% PASS South Pasadena Los Angeles Measure LL ParcelTax xxx ? library none 86.2% PASS River Delta Fire District Sacramento Measure H ParcelTax $90/yr $ 130,000 fire none 72.1% PASS Emeryville Alameda Measure O PropTransfTax $15/$1000 if $1m-$2m, $ 5,000,000 none 71.6% PASS
San Mateo San Mateo Measure CC PropTransfTax by 1% to 1.5% if >$10m $ 4,800,000 none 71.8% PASS
Alameda Alameda Measure F TOT by 4% to 14% $ 910,000 none 59.2% PASS Clovis Fresno Measure B TOT by 2% to 12% $ 500,000 none 69.7% PASS Kerman Fresno Measure G TOT 10% $ 40,000 none 62.3% PASS Trinidad Humboldt Measure P TOT by 4% to 12% $ 65,000 none 77.6% PASS Imperial Imperial Measure G TOT by 4% to 12% $ 600,000 none 56.2% PASS Arcadia Los Angeles Measure HT TOT by 2% to 12% $ 730,000 none 54.1% PASS Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure CS TOT by 1%, 3%
home shares $ 4,100,000 none 73.7% PASS
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 26, Packet Page 256 – 6 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Anaheim Orange Measure J TOT online travel
companies $ 3,000,000 none 59.2% PASS
La Palma Orange Measure P TOT by 4% to 12% $ 200,000 none 71.1% PASS Colfax Placer Measure B TOT by 2% to10% $ 29,000 none 73.5% PASS Rocklin Placer Measure F TOT by 2% to 10% $ 300,000 none 59.8% PASS Roseville Placer Measure C TOT by 4% to 10% $ 3,000,000 none 73.0% PASS Big Bear Lake San Bernardino Measure P TOT by 2% to 10% $ 1,300,000 none 54.4% PASS Grand Terrace San Bernardino Measure M TOT new 10% $ 250,000 none 51.9% PASS Yucca Valley San Bernardino Measure K TOT by 5% to 12% $ 1,300,000 none 71.9% PASS Imperial Beach San Diego Measure R TOT by 4% to 14% $ 400,000 none 67.4% PASS El Paso de Robles San Luis ObispoMeasure F TOT by 1% to 11% $ 750,000 none 61.2% PASS Belmont San Mateo Measure K TOT by 2% to 14% $ 600,000 none 79.3% PASS Millbrae San Mateo Measure N TOT by 2% to 14% $ 1,500,000 none 75.8% PASS County of Humboldt Unincorporated Measure J TOT by 2% to 12% $ 3,080,000 none 63.3% PASS County of Placer -
North Tahoe TOT Area Measure A TOT by 2% to 10% $ 4,000,000 none 90.0% PASS County of Santa Cruz Unincorporated Measure B TOT by 1% to 12% $ 2,300,000 none 69.2% PASS County of El Dorado -
East Slope Tahoe Measure S TOT 2/3 by 4% to 14% $ 2,500,000 none 81.8% PASS Chico Butte Measure H TrUT 1 cent $ 24,000,000 none 52.4% PASS Mendota Fresno Measure H TrUT 1.25 cent $ 493,498 none 57.2% PASS Blue Lake Humboldt Measure R TrUT 1 cent $ 30,000 none 55.4% PASS Rio Dell Humboldt Measure O TrUT 3/4cent $ 400,000 none 53.3% PASS County of Kern unincorporated areas Measure K TrUT 1 cent $ 54,000,000 none 50.8% PASS McFarland Kern Measure M TrUT 1 cent $ 579,662 none 62.2% PASS Tehachapi Kern Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 4,000,000 none 57.2% PASS Avenal Kings Measure A TrUT 1 cent $ 500,000 none 72.5% PASS Susanville Lassen Measure P TrUT 1 cent $ 1,750,000 none 54.7% PASS Baldwin Park Los Angeles Measure BP TrUT 3/4 cent $ 6,000,000 none 58.1% PASS Malibu Los Angeles Measure MC TrUT 1/2 cent $ 3,000,000 none 52.6% PASS Monterey Park Los Angeles Measure MP TrUT 3/4 cent $ 6,000,000 none 58.5% PASS Torrance Los Angeles Measure SST TrUT 1/2 cent $ 18,000,000 none 55.0% PASS Larkspur Marin Measure G TrUT 1/4 cent $ 700,000 none 59.4% PASS Sand City Monterey Measure L TrUT by 1/2cent to
1.5cents $ 1,400,000 none 68.7% PASS
Hemet Riverside Measure H TrUT same 1 cent $ 15,000,000 none 58.0% PASS Elk Grove Sacramento Measure E TrUT 1 cent $ 21,000,000 none 54.1% PASS Galt Sacramento Measure Q TrUT 1 cent $ 3,600,000 none 52.4% PASS Colton San Bernardino Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 9,500,000 none 66.8% PASS Ontario San Bernardino Measure Q TrUT 1 cent $ 95,000,000 none 53.2% PASS Solana Beach San Diego Measure S TrUT 1 cent $ 3,000,000 none 66.7% PASS Brisbane San Mateo Measure U TrUT 1/2 cent $ 2,000,000 none 63.9% PASS Goleta Santa Barbara Measure B TrUT 1 cent $ 10,600,000 none 64.7% PASS Solvang Santa Barbara Measure U TrUT 1 cent $ 1,600,000 none 63.1% PASS ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 27, Packet Page 257 – 7 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Co-temporal Advisory Measures in 2022
At the November 2022 election, there was just one local general tax measure that was accompanied by an advisory measure as to the use of funds. The City of Santa Monica’s Measure DT property transfer tax failed with just 34 percent approval as voters instead chose the citizen initiative Measure GS.
There was also just one such tax use advisory measure on the June 2022 election. Susanville’s voters passed Measure P, a 1 percent transactions and use (sales) tax that generates $1.75 million per year5 for general city services. The measure was accompanied by advisory Measure Q, accompanied the city’s It asked, “If Measure P passes, should the revenues be used to balance the budget to maintain and enhance existing public safety services (police and fire), and provide funding to support street infrastructure improvements and provide funding to support economic development efforts designed to increase businesses, jobs and visitors to Susanville?” Both measures passed. Under Initiative 21-0042A1, the tax will expire a year after the effective date of the initiative (i.e., in December 2025).
1.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Tax Provisions Assuming a similar volume of local measures through 2024 as we saw in 2022, there will be over 200 local measures that will need to be redrafted to comply with the Initiative and placed back on the ballot for the taxes to continue after December 2025. The costs of re-drafting, re-placing and re-voting on these measures, previously legally approved by voters, will be in the tens of millions in total statewide.
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 and reasonable test." Subjects fees and charges for entrance to local government property; and rental and sale of local government property to a new, undefined, “reasonable” test. Allows legal challenge to any tax adopted before the effective date of the initiative and after January 1, 5 The Susanville measure also did not include a specific end date and so is included in the list and totals of those measures.
Measures in 2022 with Non-Specific Durations
Agency Name County Tax/Fee Rate
Annual
Revenue Use Sunset YES%
Watsonville Santa Cruz Measure R TrUT 1/2 cent $ 5,000,000 none 64.4% PASS Vallejo Solano Measure P TrUT 7/8 cent $ 18,000,000 none 54.7% PASS Modesto Stanislaus Measure H TrUT 1 cent $ 39,000,000 none 62.8% PASS County of Colusa Measure A TrUT 2/3 1/2 cent $ 2,400,000 EMS none 69.4% PASS Atwater Merced Measure B TrUT 2/3 same 1 cent $ 4,000,000 police/fire none 73.7% PASS Truckee Nevada Measure U TrUT 2/3 by 1/4 cent to
1/2 cent $ 3,000,000 open space / trails none 76.4% PASS Palo Alto Santa Clara Measure L UtilityTransfer 18% gas $ 7,000,000 none 77.7% PASS Santa Clara Santa Clara Measure G UtilityTransfer 5 % $ 30,000,000 none 84.2% PASS Hercules Contra Costa Measure N UUT 8% $ 3,600,000 none 69.3% PASS Carson Los Angeles Measure UU UUT 2% electr, gas $ 8,000,000 none 78.4% PASS Sebastopol Sonoma Measure N UUT 3.75% (same) $ 700,000 none 83.5% PASS ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 28, Packet Page 258 – 8 – rev January 14, 2023
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
2022. Such a lawsuit could enjoin (stop) the enactment of the tax pending the outcome of the legal challenge.
Subjects a challenged fee to new, higher burdens of proof if legally challenged.
2.a. Value on New Local Government Fees and Charges at Risk6 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 $2 billion per year including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Of $2 billion, about $900 million (45 percent) is for special districts, $800 million (40 percent) is cities, and $300 million (15 percent) is counties.7 Major examples of affected fees and charges are:
1. Certain water, sanitary sewer, wastewater, garbage, electric, gas service fees.
2. Nuisance abatement charges - such as for weed, rubbish and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.
3. Emergency response fees - such as in connection with DUI.
4. Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.
5. Business improvement district charges.
6. Fees for processing of land use and development applications such as plan check fees, use permits, design review, environmental assessment, plan amendment, subdivision map changes.
7. Document processing and duplication fees.
8. Facility use charges, parking fees, tolls.
9. Fines, penalties.
10. Fees for parks and recreation services.
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
6 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. 7 School fees are also affected but the amount is negligible by comparison.
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 29, Packet Page 259 Business Roundtable Board
Aera Energy
Albertsons
Altria (tobacco)
Anthem Blue Cross
Automobile Club of Southern California
Bittle Enterprises (Enterprise
Rent-a-car)
Blackstone
Caruso Management (Rick Caruso)
Chevron
C.J. Segerstrom & Sons
Dart Container
DLA Piper (Law Firm)
Douglas Emmett
Eli Lilly & Company
Exxon
Farmers Group (Insurance)
Fivepoint (Developer)
Global Medical Response Solution
Grimmway Farms
Irvine Company
KB Homes
Kilroy Realty
LevatoLaw
Majestic Realty
Marathon Petroleum Corp.
McKinsey & Company
National CORE
PepsiCo
PhRMA
Sempra
State Farm
Sutter Health
Union Pacific Railroad
United Airlines
UPS
Valero
Western National Group
Wells Fargo
Wellpoint (insurance)
Western National Group
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 4/4/2023, Item No. 7., Item Page 30, Packet Page 260