Monterey City Council
January 28, 2026

Council Chamber,
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Special Meeting and
Closed Session
Wednesday, January 28, 2026
4:00 PM – Closed Session
4:30 PM – Reconvene for
Special Meeting
Mayor
Tyller Williamson
Councilmembers
Kim Barber, District 1
Ed Smith, District 2
Jean Rasch, District 3
Gino Garcia, District 4
Interim City Manager
Lew Bauman
City Attorney
M. Christine Davi
HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING:
• In-Person: At the meeting location listed above.
• Remotely via ZoomGov webinar:
o On a computer or smartphone: https://monterey-org.zoomgov.com/j/1613733318 Zoom software must be up-to-date. For help, please use our Zoom Meeting Instructions. o By telephone dial 833-568-8864 (Toll Free), 669-254-5252 (CA) or 646-828-7666 (NY). If one number doesn’t work, please try another. Enter Webinar ID: 161 373 3318 # If asked for participant ID, press #. To raise your hand (or lower it), dial *9. Once called upon, dial *6 to unmute.
• 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). • Written comment: Emailed comments to [email protected] sent no later than ½ hour before the start of the meeting (sooner preferred) are not read aloud but are made available to the Council and public at monterey.gov/submitted-comments.

PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES AND TIME LIMITS:

The total amount of time allocated for public comment on a particular issue and for each individual speaker is generally as follows:

1. Up to three minutes per speaker.

2. For regular City Council meetings, there are two 15-minute public comment periods, one in the afternoon and one in the evening. Speakers may only comment during one session.

3. The total time allocated for public comment:
a. 30 minutes per item – Public Appearance and Public Hearing items b. 15 minutes per item – All other items (including, but not limited to, Consent, Closed Session, Presentations, and Requests to Agendize)
At the time an item is considered, the Mayor will ask those attending the meeting in person to line up at the podium or raise their hands, and for remote participants to use *9 on the telephone or the “raise hand” function in Zoom, if they wish to address the City Council. The maximum amount of time for each person to speak and the total amount of time allotted for each item will be determined based on the number of people indicating an interest in speaking and the amount of business to be conducted on the agenda. In exceptional circumstances and when necessary to ensure a full opportunity for public input, the Mayor may, with the legislative body’s consent, adjust the amount of time allowed for public input and/or the time allotted for each speaker.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt. Code §84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official. Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well. The disclosure must include the name of the party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution; the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made. 1/28/2026 4:00:00 PM
2 AFTERNOON SESSION
Call to Order
Adjourn to Closed Session (4:00 p.m.)
The City Council will take public comments on closed session items before convening to closed session.

Closed Session
The City Council will take public comments on closed session items before convening to closed session.

1. Conference with Legal Counsel, Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2), (e)(1) (One Case) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Recess
Reconvene (Approx. 4:30 p.m.)
Pledge of Allegiance
Announcements from Closed Session
Consent Agenda
All matters listed under Consent Agenda are routine and will be adopted by one motion unless a member of the City Council or the public requests discussion or a separate vote.

Consent: Resolutions
A resolution is an expression of opinion or evidence of a decision made by the City Council and often relates to administrative business of the City. Resolutions generally become effective immediately upon adoption.

2. Accept Grant Funds from the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), Authorize Grant Agreement for Implementation of Monterey’s Citywide Fuel Reduction Project, Authorize an Increase in FY27 and FY28 Annual Revenues by $475,000, Appropriate Grant Funds, and Appropriate l Matching Funds of $100,000 (Approved Supplemental Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration)

3. Adopt New Resolution of Intention to Modify the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) Management District Plan to Add the City of Sand City to the District (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Appearance
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.
1/28/2026 4:00:00 PM
3 4. Receive a Presentation on the Draft Stormwater Utility Fee Study Results and Authorize Staff to Initiate the Process for Fee Adoption (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

5. Update on the Budget Deficit, Deficit Strategies, Chilled (Authorized but Unfunded) Positions, and Provide Direction on Whether to Place Ballot Measures on the June 2026 Election Ballot (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Adjournment
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.gov/submitted-comments and in the City Manager’s Office at 580 Pacific St., Room 1, Monterey, CA 93940 during regular business hours. All comments and materials provided to the Council become part of the public record. Members of the public who comment in any fashion on an agenda item may be subject to the Levine Act which requires disclosure of campaign contributions of more than $500 to an officer of the City within the preceding 12 months.

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 people with disabilities 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, including to coordinate the use of a hearing device, please contact [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 communication-related assistance, dial 711 to use the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to City offices. CRS offers free text-tospeech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

CITY OF MONTEREY 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES: (831) 646-3799 or [email protected] Upcoming city meetings are listed at monterey.gov/agendas For more information, call (831) 646-3935 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Thys Norton, Park Operations Manager
SUBJECT: Accept Grant Funds from the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), Authorize Grant Agreement for Implementation of Monterey’s Citywide Fuel Reduction Project, Authorize an Increase in FY27 and FY28 Annual Revenues by $475,000, Appropriate Grant Funds, and Appropriate l Matching Funds of $100,000 (Approved Supplemental Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration; SCH No. 2022080742)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution related to the California Wildfire Prevention Grants Program to:

1. Approve the award of $475,000 in grant funds
for FY 2026-27 budget and appropriate grant
funds and the city’s matching funds of $50,000.

2. Approve the award of $475,000 in grant funds
for FY 2027-28 and appropriate grant funds
and the city’s matching funds of $50,000.

3. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to
enter into grant agreement 25-WP-BEU79211925 to accept a $950,000 grant from CAL FIRE for Monterey’s Citywide Fuel Reduction
Project with an agreement for the City to
provide additional matching funds of $100,000.

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:

This action supports the Strategic Priority to “identify and seek grant funding opportunities for City services and
infrastructure, including parks, recreation, library,
museums, public safety, fire prevention, and planning.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City of Monterey has been
awarded $950,000 in grant funds
from CAL FIRE for the Citywide Fuel
Reduction Project, with $100,000 in
matching funds provided by the City.
• The project will focus on prescribed
grazing, thinning, and chipping
across 465 acres of greenbelts,
parks, and open spaces to reduce
wildfire risks.
• The initiative targets areas in
Moderate, High, and Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zones within the
Wildland Urban Interface.
• The project aims to remove dead
and dying trees and improve
spacing by removing structurally
compromised live trees under 12”
DBH.
• The funding will help expand
ongoing fuel reduction efforts and
enhance wildfire prevention
measures in high-risk areas.

Date: 1/28/2026
Item No.: 2.

Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 4 №11/25
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

CAL FIRE awarded the City $950,000 for the Monterey’s Citywide Fuel Reduction Project; this amount consists of $950,000 of reimbursable funds by CAL FIRE plus a total of $100,000 of matching City funds over the next two years. The match of annual $50,000 will be funded by existing appropriations from Forestry Contractual Services account (101-500-5230-0000-4220) and optional funding from Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) sources intended for Greenbelt Fuel Reduction/Forest Management projects.

Project Funding:

Funding Source FY2026-27 FY 2027-28 Total
CAL FIRE Grant $475,000 $475,000 $950,000
Matching City Funds $50,000 $50,000 $100,000
TOTAL $525,000 $525,000 $1,050,000
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

City greenbelt fuel reduction activities funded by the CalFire grant will fall under the City’s Greenbelt Fuel Reduction Plan. On October 25, 2022, the City of Monterey certified a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Greenbelt Fuel Reduction Plan (SCH No. 2022080742). The City has identified eight treatment areas within the City’s greenbelt system— the Skyline Forest, Veterans Park, Monte Vista, Carmelo Street, Don Dahvee, Josselyn Canyon, Fisherman Flats, and Old Capitol Site greenbelts where the fire hazard is high due to high fuel loads. Wildfire in these greenbelts could result in substantial impacts to natural resources and substantial health, safety, and welfare impacts to the built/human environment adjacent to these areas. To reduce the risk of wildfire, the City prepared a Fuel Reduction Plan (Plan) for the Plan Area and approved an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/ MND) for the Plan in 2020; however, at the time these documents were prepared, the Old Capitol Site greenbelt was not part of the Plan Area. The City acquired the Old Capitol Site greenbelt from the Pebble Beach Company as part of a deed agreement and, due to high fuel loads within this greenbelt, added it to the Plan Area. The addition of the Old Capitol Site greenbelt to the Plan Area resulted in revisions to the adopted Fuel Reduction Plan. Therefore, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental IS/MND to analyze and disclose the potentially significant environmental effects associated with the expansion of the Plan Area to include the Old Capitol Site greenbelt.

Per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted according to CEQA Section 15072 and a Draft Initial Study and Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) were circulated for public review for the required 30-day public review period, from September 1, 2022 to October 3, 2022 (CEQA Section 15073), during which time all related documents were made available at the Monterey City Hall Planning Office by appointment and on the City’s website; and the Supplemental IS/MND identifies that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts associated with biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, and mandatory findings of significance; and Mitigation Measures have been required that will reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. A Notice of Determination was filed (SCH 2022080742) according to CEQA requirements following City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of the Greenbelt Fuel Reduction Plan as amended.

Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 5 №11/25
Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Sections 15162, and based on the review of the entire record, including without limitation, the IS/MND, the City Council finds that the proposed action does not require further environmental review as: 1) no substantial changes are proposed to the project and no substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in severity of previously identified significant effects; and 2) no new information of substantial importance has come to light that (a) shows the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the IS/MND, (b) identifies significant impacts would not be more severe than those analyzed in the IS/MND, (c) shows that mitigation measures or alternatives are now feasible that were identified as infeasible and those mitigation measures or alternatives would reduce significant impacts, and (d) no changes to mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified or are required. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162(b), the City Council finds and recommends that no further analysis or environmental documentation is necessary.

Accordingly, the proposed City Council action is merely a step-in furtherance of the original project for which environmental review was performed and no supplemental or subsequent CEQA has been triggered, and no further environmental review is required.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to apply for or accept these grant funds; however, this would prevent the City from proceeding with this beneficial fire fuel reduction project at costs borne by another entity than the City.

DISCUSSION:

Pending City Council approval, the City of Monterey has been awarded $950,000 by CAL FIRE for the Greenbelt Fuel Reduction Action Plan; the City will be providing matching funds of $100,000.

The City owns and maintains 790 acres of parks, greenbelts, and open spaces. The proposed Project focuses on prescribed grazing, thinning and chipping of 465 of these acres. The park areas, greenbelts, and open spaces wind through woodland areas and neighborhoods throughout the City and are in close proximity of approximately 1,000 habitable structures. The primary focus of the project is the removal of dead and dying trees; life trees of under 12“ DBH will only be considered for removal if structurally compromised or for adequate spacing.

The City currently is administering a CAL FIRE Wildfire Prevention Grant, that is expected to close out in 2026, which focuses only on fuel reduction activities in the City’s greenbelts. The proposed Project expands these areas to include open spaces and park areas that are located in the Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). The City wants to continue fuel reduction efforts throughout the greenbelts to not only maintain, but further the substantial progress made through CAL FIRE Wildfire Prevention grant funding.

With this additional grant funding the Forestry division will be able to substantially increase the number of fuel reduction activities in these assigned park/greenbelt areas and open spaces.

NR/sg
Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 6 №11/25
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Letter of Award

3. Budget Report
e: Felicia Ming, Grant Coordinator
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.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

ACCEPTING GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE

PROTECTION (CAL FIRE), AUTHORIZING GRANT AGREEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF MONTEREY’S CITYWIDE FUEL REDUCTION PROJECT, AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN FY27 AND FY28 ANNUAL REVENUES BY $475,000, APPROPRIATING GRANT FUNDS, AND APPROPRIATING MATCHING FUNDS OF $100,000 FOR FY27 AND FY28 WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of California in cooperation with the California State Legislature has enacted State of California Climate lnvestments, which provides funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for fire prevention programs; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has been delegated the responsibility the administration of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures governing application by local agencies nonprofit organizations, and others under the program, and
WHEREAS, the City will enter into an agreement with the State of California to implement Monterey’s Citywide Fuel Reduction project; and WHEREAS, the City greenbelt fuel reduction activities funded by the CalFire grant will fall under the City’s Greenbelt Fuel Reduction Plan. On October 25, 2022, the City of Monterey certified a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Greenbelt Fuel Reduction Plan (SCH No. 2022080742). The City has identified eight treatment areas within the City’s greenbelt system—the Skyline Forest, Veterans Park, Monte Vista, Carmelo Street, Don Dahvee, Josselyn Canyon, Fisherman Flats, and Old Capitol Site greenbelts where the fire hazard is high due to high fuel loads. Wildfire in these greenbelts could result in substantial impacts to natural resources and substantial health, safety, and welfare impacts to the built/human environment adjacent to these areas. To reduce the risk of wildfire, the City prepared a Fuel Reduction Plan (Plan) for the Plan Area and approved an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/ MND) for the Plan in 2020; however, at the time these documents were prepared, the Old Capitol Site greenbelt was not part of the Plan Area. The City acquired the Old Capitol Site greenbelt from the Pebble Beach Company as part of a deed agreement and, due to high fuel loads within this greenbelt, added it to the Plan Area. The addition of the Old Capitol Site greenbelt to the Plan Area resulted in revisions to the adopted Fuel Reduction Plan. Therefore, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental IS/MND to analyze and disclose the potentially significant environmental effects associated with the expansion of the Plan Area to include the Old Capitol Site greenbelt.

Per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted according to CEQA Section 15072 and a Draft Initial Study and Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) were circulated for public review for the required 30-day public review period, from September 1, 2022 to October 3, 2022 (CEQA Section 15073), during which time all related documents were made available at the Monterey City Hall Planning Office by appointment and on the City’s website; and the Supplemental IS/MND identifies that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts associated with biological resources, cultural resources, Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 8 2 geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, and mandatory findings of significance; and Mitigation Measures have been required that will reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. A Notice of Determination was filed (SCH 2022080742) according to CEQA requirements following City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of the Greenbelt Fuel Reduction Plan as amended.

Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Sections 15162, and based on the review of the entire record, including without limitation, the IS/MND, the City Council finds that the proposed action does not require further environmental review as: 1) no substantial changes are proposed to the project and no substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in severity of previously identified significant effects; and 2) no new information of substantial importance has come to light that (a) shows the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the IS/MND, (b) identifies significant impacts would not be more severe than those analyzed in the IS/MND, (c) shows that mitigation measures or alternatives are now feasible that were identified as infeasible and those mitigation measures or alternatives would reduce significant impacts, and (d) no changes to mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified or are required. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162(b), the City Council finds and recommends that no further analysis or environmental documentation is necessary.

Accordingly, the proposed City Council action is merely a step-in furtherance of the original project for which environmental review was performed and no supplemental or subsequent CEQA has been triggered, and no further environmental review is required NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the COUNCIL of the CITY OF MONTEREY:

1. Approved the filing of an application for "California Climate Investments Wildfire Prevention Grants Program"; and

2. Certifies that the City of Monterey has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project, and,

3. Certifies that funds under the jurisdiction of the City of Monterey are available to begin the project.

4. Certifies that said the City of Monterey will expend grant funds prior to February 15, 2029.

5. Authorizes the CITY MANAGER, or a designee, to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests, and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project.

6. Authorizes the Finance Director to amend the FY2026-2027 and 2027-2028 budget in increasing grant revenues by $475,000; and appropriate annual matching funds of $50,000 for the two applicable fiscal years.

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:

Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 6, Packet Page 9 3 APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor “The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection serves and safeguards the people and protects the property and resources of California.”

DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION
P.O. Box 944246
SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2460
(916) 653-7772
Website: www.fire.ca.gov
December 12, 2025
City Of Monterey
23 Ryan Ranch Road
Monterey, CA 93940
RE: PROJECT APPLICATION FOR THE CAL FIRE CALIFORNIA CLIMATE INVESTMENTS (CCI) WILDFIRE PREVENTION (WP) GRANTS
Dear Applicant:

The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is pleased to inform you that your application for the grant project entitled Monterey'S Citywide Fuel Reduction Project (25-WPBEU-79211925) has been selected for funding.

You will receive the full agreement with instructions via email within 90 days. All documents must be returned to CAL FIRE no later than April 30, 2026. Failure to return documents by this date may result in loss of funding. It is important that you do not start on your grant project until you have received a confirmation that your grant agreement has been fully executed.

Please coordinate with your appropriate region staff to validate the polygons that were previously submitted for your project application. In addition, you may be required to provide information to complete the required emissions calculations for your project per the required Quantification Methodology. You will be contacted if this information is needed.

We look forward to working with you on your grant project. If you have any additional questions, please contact Tim Montgomery at (831) 601-6547 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Natalie Burke
Staff Services Manager I
Wildfire Prevention Grants Program Manager
ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 8, Packet Page 11

CAL FIRE California Investments (CCI) Program –
FY 2025-26 Wildfire Prevention Grant Awards
1 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 9, Packet Page 12

CAL FIRE California Investments (CCI) Program - FY 2025 - 2026 Fire Prevention Grant Recipient List Tracking number Applicant Project Title County Awarded
Amount Project Description
25-WP-BEU-79211925 City of Monterey Monterey's Citywide Fuel Reduction Project
Monterey
County $ 950,000.00
Monterey is highly susceptible to wildfire and CAL FIRE's newly updated FHSZ map reflects an increase in 2,751
FHSZ acres for the city. The need for increasing wildfire prevention efforts has reached a critical stage. Following the city's adopted CWPP and Greenbelt Fuel Reduction
Plan, the city proposes fuel reduction activities through clearing, chipping, and prescribed grazing, in 465 acres of city-owned greenbelts, parks and open spaces. The goal
is to reduce high fuel loads, prevent catastrophic
wildfires and protect approximately 1,000 homes in the
Project area.
25-WP-BEU-79327559 Big Sur Fire
Big Sur Strategic
Community Fuel Break
Maintenance
Monterey
County * $ 581,970.89
The Big Sur Strategic Community Fuel Break
Maintenance Project will increase Big Sur Fire's in-house capabilities to maintain roadside fuel breaks with a
masticator. This project will continue to decrease
catastrophic wildfire spread to communities identified as High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The
project area includes critical infrastructure, serving over 2,060 residents and thousands of daily visitors. The
project includes up to 25 feet of clearance on each side of 220 miles of private roads, allowing for safer
emergency ingress/egress, totaling 1,850 acres of fuel
breaks.
25-WP-BEU-79717867 Santa Lucia
Conservancy
Santa Lucia Hazardous
Fuels Reduction
Monterey
County $ 622,215.84
The project supports California's wildfire resilience goals by using prescribed goat and cattle grazing to reduce fine fuels and brush across 3,900 acres of grassland and oak savannah on the 20,000-acre Santa Lucia Preserve. Goats target brush and ladder fuels; cattle maintain fine fuels across broader areas. The project strengthens existing
fuel breaks and helps reduce fire spread to nearby HighRisk Communities: Carmel Highlands, Carmel-by-the-Sea, and Carmel Valley.
6 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 10, Packet Page 13 Passthrough Agency: Report Date: 12/18/2025
Program: Requested By: Thys Norton
Project Name/Title: [email protected]
Org Name: City of Monterey
Stage: Pre-Award
Budget Items
Category Title Description Units Unit Cost Extended Cost Direct Cost Indirect Cost GL Account Cost Share Assistant Urban Forester Hours 500 $51.36 $25,680.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,680.00 500 $51.36 $25,680.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,680.00
Assistant Urban Forester Hours 500 $41.45 $20,725.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20,725.00 500 $41.45 $20,725.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20,725.00
Fuel Reduction Contractor /
Grazing Contractor
Cost per acre is
$2,158.26. Listing LS
Unit Cost to have total
cost at $950,000.
1 $950,000.00 $950,000.00 $950,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Fuel Reduction Contractor /
Grazing Contractor
Cost per acre is
$2,158.26. Listing LS
Unit Cost to have total
cost at $53,595.
1 $53,595.00 $53,595.00 $0.00 $0.00 $53,595.00
2 $1,003,595.00 $1,003,595.00 $950,000.00 $0.00 $53,595.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
To be used by CAL FIRE staff
only
To be used by CAL
FIRE staff only
0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Other
Category Title Description Units Unit Cost Extended Cost Direct Cost Indirect Cost GL Account Cost Share 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
1002 $1,003,687.81 $1,050,000.00 $950,000.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 Budget Report, Created by Thys Norton, [email protected], 12/18/2025 Source: Euna™ Portal
http://www.ecivis.com/
Budget Report
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) FY 2025-2026 Wildfire Prevention Grants
Monterey’s Citywide Fuel Reduction Project
Salaries & Wages
Salaries & Wages Total
Employee Benefits
Employee Benefits Total
Contractual
Contractual Total
Travel & Per Diem
Travel & Per Diem Total
Supplies
Supplies Total
Indirect Cost Total
Other
Other Total
Grant Total
Equipment
Equipment Total
Other Costs
Other Costs Total
Indirect Cost
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 11, Packet Page 14 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt New Resolution of Intention to Modify the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) Management District Plan to Add the City of Sand City to the District (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 new resolution expressing its intention to modify the Monterey County Tourism
Improvement District (MCTID) Management District
Plan in order to extend the boundary of the MCTID to
include the City of Sand City.

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.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

It is within the City Council’s purview to consider
modifying the MCTID boundary to include the City of
Sand City. The MCTID requested this change to the
Management District Plan to further the MCTID’s efforts to increase demand for overnight tourism and to
promote Monterey County as a tourist, meeting, and
event destination. The City of Monterey initiated the
formation of this district in 2018 with the adoption of Resolution 18-147 and is the designated lead agency in
the adopted Management District Plan.

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.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is recommended
to adopt a resolution of intention
to modify the MCTID Management
District Plan to include Sand City.
• The MCTID aims to increase
overnight tourism and promote
Monterey County as a destination.
• The proposed change will allow
assessments to be collected in
Sand City starting on April 1,
2026, shortly after the recent
opening of a new 215-room hotel.
• The City of Monterey will continue
to receive 1% of collected
assessments for administrative
costs.
• The modification process includes
public hearings, notices to
affected businesses, and
opportunities for protests before
final approval.

Date: 1/28/2026
Item No.: 3.

Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 15 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 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 Council could choose not to adopt this resolution. Staff does not recommend this option, since the MCTID has requested this change to the Management District Plan.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The MCTID is a benefit assessment district designed to fund marketing and sales promotion efforts for lodging businesses such as hotels and motels within the district’s participating jurisdictions. The success of lodging businesses is beneficial to the participating jurisdictions, both directly through the collection of business license and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues and indirectly through collection of sales tax generated by visitors. 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, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, and Seaside. The City of Monterey serves as the lead public agency for the MCTID pursuant to the Management District Plan.

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) for a 10-year term.

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 Management District Plan (MDP). The MCTID Owners’ Association, the Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. See Monterey (formerly the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau) has provided a written request to the City Council to modify the MCTID to authorize the inclusion of the City of Sand City within the boundary of the MCTID. A copy of the request letter is included as Attachment 2. The 215-room Sand City Courtyard and Residence Inn by Marriott opened in January 2026. The proposed modification would allow the MCTID to begin collecting assessments in the City of Sand City on April 1, 2026.

The MCTID requested this change to the MDP to advance its mission of increasing overnight visitation and promoting Monterey County as a leading destination for tourism, meetings, and events. This matter previously came before the Council but was tabled due to a noticing discrepancy with See Monterey. For the upcoming meeting and hearing, the City will mail all notices to the affected businesses.

Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 16 MCTID Management District Plan Modification Process
January 28, 2026 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION HEARING
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 October 15, 2025, which is included as Attachment 2. Receipt of this written request allows the Council to initiate proceedings for MCTID MDP modification at the January 28, 2026 meeting.

January 30, 2026 NOTICE TO PROPOSED NEW LODGING BUSINESSES The 1994 Law requires the City to mail written notice to the owners of all businesses proposed to be within the MCTID. Mailing the notice begins a mandatory forty-five (45) day period prior to the public hearing in which owners may protest MCTID modification. The notice is a joint notice of both the public meeting and the public hearing, and must be mailed at least 10 days before the public meeting. The City will mail the notice to the business owners, and will be reimbursed for these expenses by See Monterey.

No later than
March 6 & 10, 2026 NOTICE TO CURRENTLY ASSESSED LODGING BUSINESSES The Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 requires the City to mail a complete copy of the Resolution of Intention to each lodging business owner affected by the proposed modification at least ten (10) days before the public hearing (by Friday, March 6, 2026) and to publish the Resolution of Intention in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least seven (7) days before the public hearing (by March 10, 2026). The City will mail the notice to the business owners and publish the resolution of intention in the Monterey Herald, and will be reimbursed for these expenses by See Monterey.

February 17, 2026 PUBLIC MEETING AND INTRODUCTION
Allow public testimony on the modification of the MCTID and levy of assessments. No City Council action is required.

March 17, 2026 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 MDP, the City Council shall adopt a Resolution of Modification.

Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Request Letter to Modify from the Owners’ Association

3. Proposed Timeline

4. Proposed Modified Management District Plan
c: MCTID Executive Director, c/o Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 17 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.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 4, Packet Page 18 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
EXPRESSING THE COUNCIL’S INTENTION TO MODIFY THE MONTEREY COUNTY

TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (MCTID) MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN TO

ADD THE CITY OF SAND CITY TO THE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey 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. This district was disestablished on December 20, 2018 pursuant to Ordinance No. 3587;
WHEREAS, the existing MCTID was established effective January 1, 2019 under Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 by Resolution No. 18-207 for a five (5) year term;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey renewed the MCTID with a new Management District Plan (“MDP”) on February 21, 2023 that was effective July 1, 2023; WHEREAS, the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code §36600 et seq., allows cities to modify the MDP at the request of the owners’ association;
WHEREAS, the MCTID owners’ association, the Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. See Monterey (formerly the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau) has requested modification of the MDP; 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 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.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY THAT:

1. The recitals set forth herein are adopted by the City Council as findings and they are true and correct.

2. The City Council declares its intention to modify the MCTID MDP.

Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 5, Packet Page 19 2 3. The proposed modification of the MCTID MDP will amend the MCTID boundary to include the City of Sand City.

4. The time and place for a public hearing on modification of the MCTID MDP is set for 4:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard on March 17, 2026 at City of Monterey Council Chambers, at City Hall, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940.

5. The City Clerk, or designee, is directed to take all necessary actions to process the request for modification of the MDP.

6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution of Intention was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on this ___ day of _________ 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 6, Packet Page 20 ATTACHMENT 2
888.221.1010
[email protected]
99 Pacific Street, Bldg 375B
Monterey, CA 93940
SeeMonterey.com Big Sur | Carmel-by-the-Sea | Carmel Valley | Marina | Monterey | Moss Landing Pacific Grove | Pebble Beach | Salinas | Salinas Valley | Sand City | Seaside | South County 10/15/2025
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
City of Monterey
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Re: Monterey County Tourism Improvement District
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:

As the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) Owners Association, Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. See Monterey (SM) (formerly the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau) hereby requests modification of the MCTID Management District Plan (Plan), pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36635.

The desired modification to the Plan will have the effect of expanding the MCTID boundary, allowing SM to remain competitive in promoting Monterey County as a visitor destination. In the current Plan, the MCTID boundary includes all lodging businesses located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas and Seaside. We request modifying the Plan to expand the MCTID boundary to include the City of Sand City. The modification is also projected to result in increased visitor spending, which would increase Transient Occupancy Tax and sales tax revenue for the City.

We ask that you consider a resolution of intention on this item at your November 4, 2025 meeting.

If you have any questions regarding the MCTID or the requested modification, please contact me at (831) 657-6425.

Best Regards,
Rob O’Keefe
President & CEO
See Monterey
p| 657.6425
e| [email protected]
Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 7, Packet Page 21 Monterey County TID
Modification Timeline
October 14, 2025
Action Date Responsible
Party
Submit Modification Request to City October 2025 Civitas, See Mont.

Develop modified Management District Plan (MDP) October 2025 Civitas Submit Modified MDP, resolutions and notice to City October 2025 Civitas City Council – Resolution of Intention
Resolution of Intention to modify District January 28, 2026 City Council Mail
• Notice of Public Meeting/Hearing – CA Gov Code Section 54954.6 (2) The legislative body shall provide at least 45 days’ public notice of the public hearing at which the
legislative body proposes to enact the assessment.
• The legislative body shall provide notice for the public meeting at the same time and in the same document as the notice for the public hearing, but the meeting shall occur prior to the hearing.

AND
• Copy of ROI - SHC Section 36636 (a)(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.

City Staff
Publish
• Resolution of intention – Must be published at least seven days before the public hearing.

No later than: March
10, 2026 City Staff
Prior to Mar. 17,
, 2026
Final Hearing
Sand City
City Council
City Council – Public Meeting
• Public Meeting – No action required. Must be held at
least 10 days after Notice of Public Meeting/Hearing is mailed and at least 7 days before Public Hearing is held.

February 17, 2026 City Council
City Council – Public Hearing
• Modification Public Hearing & Adopt Resolution of
Modification – Must be held at least 45 days after Notice is mailed.

March 17, 2026 City Council
Modified MTID begins collecting assessment from Sand City hotels April 1, 2026 Sand City Lodging Businesses
MONTEREY CITY COUNCIL MEETS ON THE 1
ST AND 3RD TUESDAY OF THE MONTH AT 4:00 PM.

ATTACHMENT 3
Sand City City Council – Resolution Granting Consent
Completed 11/4/2025 (Sand City Resolution 25-066)
January 29-30, 2026
Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 8, Packet Page 22 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 9, Packet Page 23 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 10, Packet Page 24 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 11, Packet Page 25 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 12, Packet Page 26 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 13, Packet Page 27 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 14, Packet Page 28 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 15, Packet Page 29 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 16, Packet Page 30 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 17, Packet Page 31 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 18, Packet Page 32 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 19, Packet Page 33 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 20, Packet Page 34 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 21, Packet Page 35 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 22, Packet Page 36 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 23, Packet Page 37 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 24, Packet Page 38 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 25, Packet Page 39 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 26, Packet Page 40 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 27, Packet Page 41 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 28, Packet Page 42 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 29, Packet Page 43 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 30, Packet Page 44 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 31, Packet Page 45 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 32, Packet Page 46 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 33, Packet Page 47 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 34, Packet Page 48 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 35, Packet Page 49 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 36, Packet Page 50 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 37, Packet Page 51 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 38, Packet Page 52 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 39, Packet Page 53 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 40, Packet Page 54 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 41, Packet Page 55 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 42, Packet Page 56 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 43, Packet Page 57 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 44, Packet Page 58 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 45, Packet Page 59 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 46, Packet Page 60 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 47, Packet Page 61 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 48, Packet Page 62 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 49, Packet Page 63 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 50, Packet Page 64 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 51, Packet Page 65 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 52, Packet Page 66 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 53, Packet Page 67 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 54, Packet Page 68 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 55, Packet Page 69 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 56, Packet Page 70 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 57, Packet Page 71 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 58, Packet Page 72 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 59, Packet Page 73 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 60, Packet Page 74 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 61, Packet Page 75 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 62, Packet Page 76 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 63, Packet Page 77 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 64, Packet Page 78 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 65, Packet Page 79 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 66, Packet Page 80 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 67, Packet Page 81 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 68, Packet Page 82 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 69, Packet Page 83 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 70, Packet Page 84 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 71, Packet Page 85 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 72, Packet Page 86 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 73, Packet Page 87 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 74, Packet Page 88 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 75, Packet Page 89 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 76, Packet Page 90 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 77, Packet Page 91 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 78, Packet Page 92 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 79, Packet Page 93 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 80, Packet Page 94 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 81, Packet Page 95 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 82, Packet Page 96 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 83, Packet Page 97 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 84, Packet Page 98 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 85, Packet Page 99 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 86, Packet Page 100 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 87, Packet Page 101 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 88, Packet Page 102 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 89, Packet Page 103 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 90, Packet Page 104 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 91, Packet Page 105 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 92, Packet Page 106 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 93, Packet Page 107 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 94, Packet Page 108 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 95, Packet Page 109 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 96, Packet Page 110 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 97, Packet Page 111 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 98, Packet Page 112 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 99, Packet Page 113 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 100, Packet Page 114 Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 101, Packet Page 115 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, PE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Rebecca Baggott, Environmental Regulations Analyst SUBJECT: Receive a Presentation on the Draft Stormwater Utility Fee Study Results and Authorize Staff to Initiate the Process for Fee Adoption (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation on the
stormwater utility fee study results, including the community survey, draft fee report, and proposed rate structure, and authorize staff to initiate the process for fee adoption. .

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.

Foster a local government that is transparent and
collaborative; and solicits, welcomes and appreciates input from all.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with the City Council’s strategic initiatives related to long-term infrastructure planning, regulatory compliance, and ensuring a sustainable funding approach for essential public services, including stormwater management. Establishing a dedicated stormwater funding source would ensure mandatory regulatory obligations are met while preserving General Fund capacity for other critical City services and priorities.

When deemed necessary, the City Council has the authority to authorize staff to proceed with Proposition 218
procedures to allow property owners to consider a
stormwater utility fee to fund the operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and regulatory compliance of the City’s stormwater system. Proposition 218 establishes procedural and substantive requirements for adopting property-related fees, including proportionality, notice, public hearing, and property owner approval requirements.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City of Monterey is considering
a dedicated stormwater utility fee to
address funding needs for
stormwater operations,
maintenance, and regulatory
compliance.
• Current stormwater funding relies
on a depleting Stormwater Fund
balance, with projected costs of
$1.343 million annually by FY
2026/27.
• A community survey showed 42.9%
support for a proposed $7.72
monthly stormwater fee per Single
Family Equivalent, which is below
the majority threshold.
• Without a dedicated funding source,
the City risks financial strain on the
General Fund and potential fines for
non-compliance with state and
federal water quality regulations.
• The City Council will review survey
results and fee study findings to
guide future policy and funding
decisions.

Date: 1/28/2026
Item No.: 4.

Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 116 №11/25
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications related to receiving this presentation and providing recommendations to Staff. Any future consideration of a stormwater utility fee will require City Council action and compliance with applicable legal requirements.

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 to cause 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 Council could choose not to receive the presentation on the stormwater fee study and community survey results. However, this is not recommended, as understanding current funding needs, community perspectives, and long-term program requirements is essential for future policy and budget discussions. Additionally, any delay in schedule or decision by the Council to delay the process would defer implementation of the stormwater utility fee by at least one year.

The City would have to bear the cost of operations and compliance out of the General Fund; these costs are estimated at $1.3 million annually.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey operates and maintains a stormwater system that protects public and private property from flooding, reduces pollution entering Monterey Bay and local waterways, and supports mandatory compliance with state and federal water quality regulations, including the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES permit. Stormwater services include routine and preventative maintenance, trash and debris removal, infrastructure repair and replacement, and implementation of projects that address drainage, water quality, and climate-related risks.

Currently, the City's stormwater program relies on the existing Stormwater Fund balance; however, this balance is projected to be depleted in the near future. At that point, the stormwater program will need to be funded annually through the General Fund. The projected operating costs and regulatory compliance for the stormwater system for FY 2026/27 are approximately $1,343,000. This amount does not include improvements to the stormwater system, such as capital projects, trash capture projects, pipeline renewal and replacement.

Funding stormwater operations through the General Fund is an option, however, General Funds are a valuable City resource that is stretched, given the structural deficit. Additionally, while Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 117 №11/25
maintenance and rehabilitation activities are eligible for Measure S funds use, stormwater operations and compliance with permits are not.

Measure S is set to sunset in March of 2027, if not renewed by voters. Adequate stormwater funding is critical not only for regulatory compliance and infrastructure maintenance, but also to preserve General Fund resources for other essential City services and priorities that support police, fire, parks, recreation, and other community services. Without a dedicated funding source, the City faces ongoing constraints that limit its ability to meet increasing state and federal water quality requirements, this could potentially result in hefty fines.

At its December 3, 2024 meeting, the City Council directed staff to conduct public opinion research to better understand community priorities and assess potential support for a dedicated stormwater funding source. An independent third-party consultant conducted a statistically valid, bilingual (English and Spanish) mailed survey of a random sample of resident and business property owners within the City. Respondents were also provided with the option to complete the survey online. All responses are confidential and reported to the City only in aggregate form.

When presented with a potential stormwater utility fee of approximately $7.72 per month per Single Family Equivalent (SFE), which was calculated based on projected operating costs for FY 2026/27 More details will be presented by the consultant during the presentation. Survey results indicated that 15.0% of respondents indicated “Definitely Yes,” 27.9% “Probably Yes,”

14.7% “Probably No,” and 42.5% “Definitely No,” resulting in 42.9% overall support, which did not reach a majority threshold.

The survey asked respondents to consider how stormwater funding could be reinvested locally and to indicate the importance of various stormwater-related services and outcomes, including flood protection, proactive storm drain maintenance, trash and pollution prevention, environmental sustainability, infrastructure resilience to extreme weather and sea level rise, potential stormwater reuse, and the value of having dedicated funding for stormwater services.

Respondents were also asked to indicate their level of support for a potential monthly stormwater fee and were given the opportunity to provide written comments regarding their priorities and concerns. An educational brochure was also included in the survey packet.

The consultant will present the survey results to the City Council, including response rates, demographic information, overall support levels, willingness-to-pay analysis, and key themes from written comments. The complete report, which will further discuss how fees were calculated, will be made available. This information is intended to inform future policy discussions related to stormwater funding and program needs. The requested action is to authorize the initiation of a Proposition 218 process to adopt a stormwater utility fee.

AR/rb
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.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 118 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Rafaela T. King, Finance Director
Prepared By: Kyle Olsen, Finance Analyst
SUBJECT: Update on the Budget Deficit, Deficit Strategies, Chilled (Authorized but Unfunded) Positions, and Provide Direction on Whether to Place Ballot Measures on the June 2026 Election Ballot (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive an update from City staff on the status of the City’s structural deficit, the City’s work towards addressing and reducing the deficit, chilled positions and provide direction on whether to place
ballot measures on the June 2026 election ballot.

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:

This Agenda report does not directly impact City policy; however, the discussion surrounding the City’s deficit
and the strategies adopted by City Staff and City Council will impact City policy.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

This Agenda report does not directly impact the City’s finances; however, the discussion surrounding the City’s deficit and the strategies adopted by City Staff and City Council will impact the City’s finances.

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”), Agenda Report Highlights
• The City of Monterey faces a $10
million structural deficit for FY 2026-
27, projected to grow to $12 million
to $14 million without corrective
action.
• Current fiscal year (FY 2025-26) is
balanced using one-time solutions,
which will not be available for the
next fiscal year.
• Revenue-generating strategies
include potential tax measures such
as sales tax increases, admissions
tax, and parking tax for the June
2026 ballot.
• The City Council provided direction
to use $3 million to $4 million in
NCIP funding to address the deficit
while exploring sustainable
solutions.

Date: 1/28/2026
Item No.: 5.

Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 119 №11/25
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.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Maintaining the status quo is not a viable option for the City. The City is currently facing a $10 million structural deficit that will only continue to grow in subsequent fiscal years.

DISCUSSION:

Addressing the City’s continued $10 million Structural Deficit for FY 26/27 Current Fiscal Year: FY 2025-26 is balanced.

The City’s expenses outpace the City’s revenue. For our current fiscal year, FY 2025-26, the City is projecting a total of $120,663,607 in expenses for the General Fund (11% above the FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget). The City was able to balance the budget for the current fiscal year utilizing salary savings from vacant positions, reduced spending, inclusive of limiting spending to essential needs for the last six months of FY24-25, a 7% overall reduction to the operations and maintenance accounts, reduced contributions to reserve accounts and “chilling” of selected positions. While these strategies enabled the City to present a balanced FY 2025-26 budget, these strategies were largely one-time options that may not be available to the City in FY 2026-

27. The City’s projected expenditures, or the cost of providing services, exceeds projected revenues by approximately $10 million, largely due to increases in liability and property insurance premium, as well as higher salary, health insurance, and employee benefit costs for employees, which is typical for both municipal organizations as well as the private sector. The $10 million deficit is calculated separately from the City’s contributions to reserve funds. The deficit is the operational gap between the City’s expected revenue and expenditures. In FY 2025-26 the City reduced reserve contributions in order to keep the City’s unassigned fund balance at a comfortable level throughout the fiscal year.

Next Fiscal Year: FY 2026-27 – work to balance the budget is still ahead The continued $10m structural deficit cannot be solved with one-time solutions; it is, by definition, a structural deficit because it requires ongoing solutions. If it is not addressed, the deficit will continue to grow in future fiscal years. Without corrective action, the FY 2026-27 deficit may reach $12 million to $14 million.

In the fall of 2025, City staff developed and presented multiple revenue generating options for Council to consider. Throughout multiple meetings, Councilmembers were able to ask questions, provide direction, and express support for certain revenue generating initiatives.

Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 120 №11/25
In order to fully balance the budget in a sustainable and meaningful way, expenditures must be reduced along with increasing revenues.

Staff will continue to explore and implement options for decreasing expenditures overall during the regular budget cycle and will bring back recommendations at the Budget Primer Study Session on April 28, 2026.

City Council Input from Fall 2025 on Revenue Generation Strategies Earlier Council direction from the card exercise in Fall 2025 included the following:

The deficit-reduction strategies discussed included solutions that fall into three categories:

1. Direct impacts on the General Fund (solutions benefitting the General Fund – these can be new revenues or new cost savings)

2. Indirectly relieve General Fund obligations (solutions which help avoid General Fund expenditures through other means, i.e. Measure P/S is a tax measure which funds road improvements otherwise being funded through the General Fund)

3. One-time or other revenue supporting the General Fund Direct Strategies identified as “yes” by all Councilmembers:
• Additional Sales Tax on June 2026 ballot (+$4.5m revenue) • Veterans Park Campground Opportunities (+$125k revenue) • Renew Measure G (continue $6m in annual revenue)
Direct Strategies identified as “yes” by 80% (4/5ths) of Councilmembers:
• Admissions Tax (+$3.9m revenue)
• Vacancy Tax (+$2m revenue), pending court decisions
• First Responder Fee (+$700k revenue); Update: not as feasible as originally thought, staff refining options.
• Streaming Tax (+$440k revenue), pending court decisions • Property Transfer Tax (+$228k revenue)
Direct Strategies identified as “yes” by at least 60% (3/5ths) of Councilmembers • Parking Tax (+$450k revenue) – 3 “yes,” 1 “maybe” and 1 “no” Indirect Strategies identified as “yes” by all Councilmembers:
• Renew Measure P/S (continue $12m in annual revenue)
• Reinstitute Stormwater Fees ($1.2m)
Indirect Strategies identified as “maybe” by at least 60% (3/5ths) of Councilmembers • Public Safety Building Bond Measure (up to $100m in one-time revenue) – 1 “yes” and 4 “maybe”
Public Opinion Research Approach
At the December 2, 2025, Council Meeting, City staff presented the preliminary results of polling conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) in the fall of 2025. The poll focused on voter sentiment regarding a sales tax increase or extension and potential parking Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 121 №11/25
tax. Another round of polling was conducted in late 2025 and early 2026 and results were presented to City Council on January 20, 2026.

Overall, the results of the survey suggested that voters in Monterey may be open to tax increases/adjustments. At the January 20, 2026 meeting all Council members agreed a viable next step would be to place a 0.375% percent sales tax measure on the June 2026 ballot. The Council also reached consensus to direct staff to continue exploring the potential placement of measures for parking tax, and admissions tax on the June 2026 ballot, and to postpone further near-term consideration of a vacancy tax pending resolution of legal issues in other jurisdictions.

At the January 28, 2026 Special Council Meeting, staff will provide Council with a summary of tax measure revenue options, proposed ballot dates, polling results, and additional considerations.

City Council Input on Expenditure Reduction Strategies
In the fall of 2025, City Council also reviewed strategies to reduce expenditures. One of these strategies is to utilize adjusting the Position Control List (PCL) to decrease salary, benefit, and retirements costs. As of the writing of this report, there are a total of 488 Full Time and Regular Part Time positions on the PCL.

Background On the PCL
The (PCL) is the official count of the City’s Full Time (FT) and Regular Part Time (RPT) positions. The PCL is approved on annually with the operating budget by City Council and cannot be changed without Council approval. Part Time Seasonal positions are not counted in the PCL. As mentioned above, the total count of FT and RPT positions is 488 full time equivalent (FTE) positions. Within the 488 FTE, there is a total of 473 FT positions (counted as 1 FTE each) and 20 RPT positions (counted as 0.75 FTE each).

In 2020, the City made the difficult decision to remove 71.5 FTE from the PCL to reduce salary and benefits costs during the COVID-19 pandemic. At that time, the total PCL count was 415.75. Since 2020, the City has added back 72.5 FTE to reach the 488 FTE total referenced above. Many of the positions were added as part of the annual budget process as well as additional service delivery to contract agencies where the City provides fire and ambulance services such as Carmel-by-the-Sea.

Positions can be added at any time throughout the fiscal year with Council approval. For example, in the most recent budget cycle for the FY 2025-26 budget, the City added 5.25 FTE with the adoption of the FY 2025-26 operating budget on June 3, 2025 and another six FTE in the meeting after the budget was adopted on June 20, 2025. Whether added during the budget cycle or in a standalone, the positions impact the City’s budget and, in these economic times, add to the City’s deficit when there is no or limited cost recovery associated with those positions.

Per City policy, each FTE on the PCL is included in the City’s budget regardless of whether the position is filled or unfilled. This is a widely accepted best practice in government accounting/budgeting.

Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 122 №11/25
Unfilled Positions
As of December 31, 2025, the City has a total of 65 unfilled FT positions and 2 unfilled RPT positions. As mentioned above, these positions are included in the budget and between salary and benefits total approximately $10.6 million. These unfilled positions are throughout the City and while the majority of unfilled positions (47) are in the General Fund, valued at approximately $7.8 million, unfilled positions can also be found in the Storm Water Utility Fund, Marina Fund, Parking Fund, Presidio Fund, Vehicle Maintenance Fund, Information Services Fund, and the Liability and Property Insurance Fund.

Chilled Positions
A chilled position is authorized but not funded. It allowed staff to identify cost savings without hindering the ability to fill positions during the year for operating needs.

As a cost savings measure in the FY 2025-26 budget, leadership in the City Manager’s Office made the decision to chill certain positions. By chilling a position, City staff are able to decrease the City’s operating deficit and/or ensure a certain level of savings through vacant positions at the end of the fiscal year.

City management has been flexible and has worked with departments to identify solutions when a department would like to fill a position that has been chilled in the FY 2025-26 budget. In these cases, City management has worked with each department to identify savings with other positions or other areas in order to ensure that City operations remain strong and that City staff are supported. This process has allowed for flexibility to address the needs of the City and maximize opportunities for savings throughout the fiscal year.

This is intended to offer a big picture overview of unfilled and chilled positions. At a future City Council meeting, staff will share a detailed list of all vacant and chilled positions, and service delivery impacts associated with freezing or removing specific positions from the Position Control List (PCL).

City staffing is only one of several options available to Council and the City to decrease expenditures.

Other Sources of Funding for a Balanced Budget for FY 2026-27 To date, the City Council has identified a range of $3 million to $4 million in NCIP funding to address the $10 million deficit.

Staff recommend that the City Council continue focusing on using existing funding options such as those that are currently available and under budgetary control of the Council. The outcomes of the tax measures are uncertain. It is recommended that staff continue to strive for solutions which are fiscally responsible and within existing revenues.

Next Steps
At its Special meeting on January 28, 2026, the Council is expected to receive updates on the budget deficit, strategies to reduce the deficit, and receive an overview of the Position Control List (PCL) and factors concerning unfilled positions. At this meeting, Council is requested to provide additional direction on placing ballot measure(s) on the June 2026 Election Ballot.

Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 123 №11/25
In future meetings, staff will provide the City Council with additional information on unfilled positions, potential cost savings through position attrition, and discuss additional revenue and cost-savings strategies.

RTK/kro
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.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Special Meeting, 1/28/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 124