Street List by PCI (High to Low)
Street ID Street Name Section ID Begin Location End Location FC
ST
LNSLW Area (SF) PCI Date PCI Last M&R Date Last M&R Treatment PCI Range Condition TERRST TERRACE ST 25 ELM AVE BROADWAY AVE R O 2 535 34 18,190 08/25/2022 45 08/25/2022 BASE REPAIR DIGOUTS 50-41 Poor (50-31) AMADAV AMADOR AVE 20 CONTRA COSTA ST FREMONT BLVD R S 2 1,553 33 51,249 11/11/2021 44 05/01/1988 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)ANCOST ANCON ST 10 MESCAL ST BROADWAY AVE R A 2 1,110 33 36,630 11/06/2021 44 50-41 Poor (50-31)ELMAVE ELM AVE 15 HILLSDALE ST CALAVERAS ST R S 2 928 32 29,696 11/11/2021 44 10/15/1992 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)FERNST FERNANDO ST 10 MINGO AVE SAN PABLO AVE R A 2 1,009 21 21,189 11/03/2021 44 50-41 Poor (50-31)HAMIAV HAMILTON AVE 20 HILLSDALE ST FREMONT BLVD R S 2 915 36 32,940 11/02/2021 44 05/06/1991 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)HARCAV HARCOURT AV 20 FREMONT BLVD SIDDAL ST R S 2 970 37 35,890 08/25/2022 44 08/25/2022 BASE REPAIR DIGOUTS 50-41 Poor (50-31)LUXTPL LUXTON PL 10 JUDSON ST LUXTON ST R A 2 159 22 3,498 11/10/2021 44 05/05/1992 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)LUXTST LUXTON ST 40 BROADWAY AVE PARK PLACE R A 1 341 22 7,502 11/04/2021 44 05/13/2010 SLURRY SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)MENDPL MENDOCINO PL 10 MENDOCINO ST ST HELENA ST R A 1 150 22 3,300 11/03/2021 44 50-41 Poor (50-31)MESCST MESCAL ST 50 MERCEDES CT SAN PABLO AVE C A 2 870 36 31,320 11/06/2021 44 05/07/1992 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)METZAV METZ AVE 10 GRAND VIEW ST WARING ST R S 2 646 32 20,672 08/25/2022 44 08/25/2022 BASE REPAIR DIGOUTS 50-41 Poor (50-31)GREECT GREEN CT 10 NOCHE BUENA ST END R A 2 157 22 3,915 11/10/2021 43 05/07/2009 CRACK SEAL/ CAPE SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)HARDPL HARDING PL 10 HARDING ST FLORES ST R A 1 188 22 4,136 11/11/2021 43 50-41 Poor (50-31)KENNST KENNETH ST 40 KENNETH PL MINGO AVE R A 1 605 22 13,310 11/10/2021 43 08/15/2012 SLURRY SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)LASSST LASSEN ST 10 ORD GROVE AVE MILITARY AVE R S 2 771 32 24,672 11/03/2021 43 10/01/1990 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)LUXTST LUXTON ST 90 LA SALLE AVE ORD GROVE AVE R S 2 909 32 29,088 11/03/2021 43 05/06/1992 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)MALMRD MALMEDY ROAD 10 GIGLING RD COLONEL DURHAM ST R A 2 890 21 18,690 11/09/2021 43 50-41 Poor (50-31)MANSCT MANSELL CT 10 END MESCAL ST R A 2 180 30 5,400 11/06/2021 43 50-41 Poor (50-31)TRINAV TRINITY AVE 24 EAST SIDE SPLIT WEST SIDE SPLIT R S 2 585 40 23,400 11/10/2021 43 50-41 Poor (50-31)WANDAV WANDA AVE 50 YOSEMITE ST MESCAL ST R A 2 748 36 26,928 11/06/2021 43 50-41 Poor (50-31)WARIST WARING ST 60 WARING PL MINGO AVE R A 1 398 22 8,756 11/10/2021 43 08/15/2012 SLURRY SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)ALYNOPLM ALLEY N/O PALM 10 PALM AVE CALAVERAS ST O S 1 1,610 16 25,760 11/12/2021 42 05/01/1982 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)BAKEST BAKER ST 30 PHOENIX AVE (EAST) ECHO AVE R S 2 299 20 5,980 11/10/2021 42 50-41 Poor (50-31)DARWST DARWIN ST 80 VALLEJO PL LA SALLE AVE R A 1 1,250 22 27,500 11/11/2021 42 09/19/2011 SLURRY SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)FLORST FLORES ST 40 BROADWAY AVE MINGO AVE R A 2 1,060 36 38,160 11/10/2021 42 50-41 Poor (50-31)HARDST HARDING ST 50 LA SALLE AVE HARDING PL R A 1 1,110 22 24,420 11/11/2021 42 10/30/2013 SLURRY SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)KENNPL KENNETH PL 10 LOWELL ST KENNETH ST R A 1 153 22 3,366 11/10/2021 42 50-41 Poor (50-31)KENNST KENNETH ST 60 SAN PABLO AVE END R A 1 594 22 15,443 11/10/2021 42 05/13/2010 SLURRY SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)MESCST MESCAL ST 40 BROADWAY AV MERCEDES CT C A 2 1,350 36 48,600 11/06/2021 42 05/07/1992 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)MINGAV MINGO AV 20 MENDOCINO ST YOSEMITE ST C A 2 370 36 13,320 11/04/2021 42 10/01/1990 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)MIZPCT MIZPAH CT 10 MESCAL ST END R A 2 156 26 7,374 11/02/2021 42 50-41 Poor (50-31)PALMAV PALM AVE 20 HILLSDALE ST CALAVERAS ST R S 2 890 34 30,260 11/04/2021 42 10/09/1992 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)WESTCT WESTMINSTER CT 10 YOSEMITE ST END R A 2 242 26 9,713 11/02/2021 42 50-41 Poor (50-31)BALFCT BALFOUR CT 10 BROADWAY AVE END R A 2 163 26 6,798 11/02/2021 41 50-41 Poor (50-31)COSTST COSTA ST 10 ANCON ST BROADWAY AVE R A 2 597 33 19,701 11/06/2021 41 50-41 Poor (50-31)HAMIAV HAMILTON AVE 40 TERRACE ST NOCHE BUENA ST R S 2 1,446 32 46,272 11/02/2021 41 05/05/1992 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)HARDST HARDING ST 20 BROADWAY AVE ELM AVE R A 1 503 22 11,066 11/11/2021 41 10/30/2013 SLURRY SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)KENNST KENNETH ST 50 MINGO AVE END R A 2 304 22 9,063 11/10/2021 41 05/13/2010 SLURRY SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)LUXTST LUXTON ST 60 MINGO AVE J PLACE R A 2 550 22 12,100 11/10/2021 41 05/13/2010 SLURRY SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)OLYMAV OLYMPIA AVE 20 FREMONT WINTON ST R O 2 1,220 36 43,920 11/10/2021 41 10/10/1998 AC OVERLAY 50-41 Poor (50-31)PALMAV PALM AVE 10 DEL MONTE BLVD HILLSDALE ST R S 2 944 32 30,208 11/04/2021 41 10/09/1992 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)PLUMAV PLUMAS AV 20 NOCHE BUENA ST HIGHLAND ST C A 2 1,706 30 51,180 11/10/2021 41 05/01/1989 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)SONOAV SONOMA AV 10 CANYON DEL REY BLVD HILLSDALE ST C S 2 1,390 36 50,040 11/11/2021 41 50-41 Poor (50-31)SONOAV SONOMA AV 30 ALHAMBRA ST FREMONT BLVD C S 2 555 36 19,980 11/11/2021 41 50-41 Poor (50-31) 10/03/2022 Page 8 of 12
Packet Page 324
City of Seaside - 2022 PMP Update - Reference Reports:
Street List by PCI (High to Low)
Street ID Street Name Section ID Begin Location End Location FC
ST
LNSLW Area (SF) PCI Date PCI Last M&R Date Last M&R Treatment PCI Range Condition SOTOST SOTO ST 30 MINGO AVE BROADWAY AVE R A 1 1,018 22 22,396 11/03/2021 41 11/15/2010 SLURRY SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31) SOTOST SOTO ST 40 LA SALLE AVE MINGO AVE R A 2 1,683 22 37,026 11/03/2021 41 11/15/2010 SLURRY SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)VALLPL VALLEJO PL 10 VALLEJO ST DARWIN ST R A 1 155 22 3,410 11/11/2021 41 50-41 Poor (50-31)VILLCT VILLANOVA CT 10 END YOSEMITE ST R A 2 149 29 4,321 11/02/2021 41 05/08/2007 SLURRY SEAL 50-41 Poor (50-31)ABRACT ABRAHAM CT 20 NAPA ST END R S 2 230 25 5,750 11/03/2021 40 40-31 Poor (50-31)ALTACT ALTA VISTA CT 10 CROSS ST END R S 2 830 32 26,560 11/03/2021 40 04/01/1990 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)HILLST HILLSDALE ST 10 HARCOURT AV TRINITY AV C S 2 305 32 9,760 11/04/2021 40 40-31 Poor (50-31)JUARST JUAREZ ST 10 JUAREZ PL LA SALLE AVE R A 2 1,274 22 28,028 11/03/2021 40 10/01/1990 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)LAHOCT LA HONDA CT 10 HIGHLAND ST END R A 2 469 32 17,475 11/10/2021 40 40-31 Poor (50-31)LOUVCT LOUVAINE CT 10 END LA SALLE AVE R A 2 239 26 9,635 11/03/2021 40 40-31 Poor (50-31)LUXTST LUXTON ST 50 LUXTON PL MINGO AVE R A 1 595 22 13,090 11/10/2021 40 05/13/2010 SLURRY SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)MESCST MESCAL ST 20 HILBY AV SONOMA AV C A 2 1,279 36 46,044 11/06/2021 40 05/05/1992 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)MESCST MESCAL ST 30 SONOMA AV BROADWAY AV C A 2 1,496 36 53,856 11/06/2021 40 05/06/1992 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)WANDAV WANDA AVE 30 NOCHE BUENA ST LUZERN ST R A 2 1,863 32 59,616 11/08/2021 40 10/01/1990 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)ABRACT ABRAHAM CT 10 LINCOLN ST NAPA ST R S 2 240 32 7,680 11/03/2021 39 40-31 Poor (50-31)BALDCT BALDWIN CT 10 ORD GROVE AVE END R S 2 470 32 17,415 11/03/2021 39 04/01/1990 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)CIRCAV CIRCLE AVE 30 GRAND VIEW ST WARING ST R S 2 590 32 18,880 11/03/2021 39 40-31 Poor (50-31)DARWST DARWIN ST 20 WANDA AVE END R A 2 266 25 6,650 11/08/2021 39 40-31 Poor (50-31)HIGHST HIGHLAND ST 30 MENDOCINO ST LA SALLE AVE R S 2 1,642 33 54,186 11/02/2021 39 11/15/2010 SLURRY SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)IMPEST IMPERAL ST 10 SONOMA AVE PALM AVE R S 2 729 35 25,515 11/04/2021 39 04/08/1987 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)KENNST KENNETH ST 30 BROADWAY AVE END R A 2 345 22 7,590 11/04/2021 39 08/15/2012 SLURRY SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)LUZEPL LUZERN PL 10 LUZERN ST VALLEJO ST R A 1 171 22 3,762 11/11/2021 39 40-31 Poor (50-31)LUZEST LUZERN ST 40 BROADWAY AVE MINGO AVE R A 1 1,015 22 22,330 11/03/2021 39 09/19/2011 SLURRY SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)MERCCT MERCEDES CT 10 END MESCAL ST R A 2 134 26 6,905 11/02/2021 39 40-31 Poor (50-31)MIGUCT MIGUEL CT 10 END MESCAL ST R A 2 206 34 7,004 11/02/2021 39 40-31 Poor (50-31)STOWCT STOWE CT 10 SAN PABLO DOG BONE R A 2 180 21 3,780 11/03/2021 39 40-31 Poor (50-31)TWEEST TWEED ST 10 PLUMAS AVE KIMBALL AVE R A 2 864 32 27,648 11/10/2021 39 04/01/1990 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)YOSEST YOSEMITE ST 10 SIERRA AV HILBY AV R A 2 515 36 18,540 11/02/2021 39 40-31 Poor (50-31)YOSEST YOSEMITE ST 50 LA SALLE AVE MILITARY AVE C S 2 1,623 32 51,936 11/02/2021 39 05/08/1992 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)EUCAAV EUCALYPTAS AVE 10 BALDWIN CT LASSEN ST R A 2 552 32 17,664 11/03/2021 38 05/01/1988 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)HARRCT HARROW CT 10 HILBY AVE END R A 2 236 27 7,935 11/06/2021 38 40-31 Poor (50-31)SONOAV SONOMA AV 100 YOSEMITE ST MESCAL ST C A 2 853 36 30,708 11/11/2021 38 40-31 Poor (50-31)YOSEST YOSEMITE ST 20 HILBY AV BROADWAY AV C A 2 2,404 36 86,544 11/02/2021 38 05/08/2007 SLURRY SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)1STAVE 1ST AVE 20 LIGHTFIGHTER DR GIGLING RD R A 2 1,378 39 53,742 11/10/2021 37 40-31 Poor (50-31)DARWST DARWIN ST 60 MINGO AVE END R A 2 226 22 4,972 11/11/2021 37 09/19/2011 SLURRY SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)ELMAVE ELM AVE 10 DEL MONTE BLVD HILLSDALE ST R S 2 1,282 32 41,024 11/11/2021 37 10/15/1992 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)GRNDST GRAND VIEW ST 10 LUXTON ST ORD GROVE AVE R S 2 840 32 26,880 11/03/2021 37 05/05/1992 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)HARDST HARDING ST 30 MINGO AVE BROADWAY AVE R A 1 1,050 22 23,100 11/11/2021 37 09/19/2011 SLURRY SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)HILLST HILLSDALE ST 20 TRINITY AV SONOMA AV C S 2 600 33 19,800 11/04/2021 37 40-31 Poor (50-31)LUZEST LUZERN ST 50 MINGO AVE LA SALLE AVE R A 1 1,691 22 37,202 11/03/2021 37 09/19/2011 SLURRY SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)MENDST MENDOCINO ST 10 YOSEMITE ST MINGO AVE R A 1 670 32 21,440 11/03/2021 37 04/01/1990 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)VALMCT VALMAR CT 10 YOSEMITE ST (N) YOSEMITE ST (S) R A 2 234 24 5,616 11/06/2021 37 40-31 Poor (50-31)MINGAV MINGO AV 18 SOTO ST MENDOCINO ST C A 2 370 36 13,320 11/04/2021 36 09/19/2011 SLURRY SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)SONOAV SONOMA AV 80 HARDING ST SOTO ST C A 2 716 32 22,912 11/11/2021 36 40-31 Poor (50-31)VALLST VALLEJO ST 10 HILBY AVE END R A 2 454 24 12,015 11/06/2021 36 40-31 Poor (50-31) 10/03/2022 Page 9 of 12
Packet Page 325
City of Seaside - 2022 PMP Update - Reference Reports:
Street List by PCI (High to Low)
Street ID Street Name Section ID Begin Location End Location FC
ST
LNSLW Area (SF) PCI Date PCI Last M&R Date Last M&R Treatment PCI Range Condition WARIST WARING ST 20 KIMBALL AVE HILBY AVE R S 2 1,020 32 32,640 11/04/2021 36 10/01/1990 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31) COLOST COLONEL DURHAM STREET 10 MALMEDY RD 66' W/O 7TH AV R A 2 3,745 21 78,645 11/09/2021 35 40-31 Poor (50-31)DARWST DARWIN ST 10 HILBY AVE END R A 2 450 21 9,450 11/06/2021 35 40-31 Poor (50-31)DARWST DARWIN ST 50 BROADWAY AVE END R A 1 674 23 15,502 11/11/2021 35 09/19/2011 SLURRY SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)ELMAVE ELM AVE 30 FREMONT BLVD TERRACE ST R S 2 966 32 30,912 11/11/2021 35 40-31 Poor (50-31)FLORST FLORES ST 50 MINGO AVE LA SALLE AVE R A 2 1,755 36 63,180 11/10/2021 35 40-31 Poor (50-31)HAMIAV HAMILTON AVE 10 TRINITY AVE HILLSDALE ST R S 2 1,034 36 37,224 11/02/2021 35 05/06/1991 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)HEATCT HEATHER CT 10 HILBY AVE END R A 2 261 26 8,265 11/06/2021 35 40-31 Poor (50-31)LAJOAV LA JOLLA AVE 10 ORD GROVE AVE NOCHE BUENA ST R A 2 580 34 19,720 11/03/2021 35 01/25/1995 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 40-31 Poor (50-31)LASALA LA SALLE AV 60 LINCOLN ST (W) SANDPIPER CT C A 2 1,263 36 45,468 11/03/2021 35 01/25/1993 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 40-31 Poor (50-31)MILIAV MILITARY AV 70 PARALTA AV (W) PARALTA AV (E) R S 2 999 37 36,963 11/09/2021 35 40-31 Poor (50-31)ORDGAV ORD GROVE AV 40 CROSS ST HIGHLAND ST C A 2 1,115 36 40,140 11/03/2021 35 05/01/1984 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)SONOAV SONOMA AV 20 HILLSDALE ST ALHAMBRA ST C S 2 458 36 16,488 11/11/2021 35 40-31 Poor (50-31)SONOAV SONOMA AV 90 SOTO ST YOSEMITE ST C A 2 173 33 5,709 11/11/2021 35 40-31 Poor (50-31)STJAST ST JAMES ST 10 VALLEJO ST DARWIN ST R A 1 183 19 3,477 11/08/2021 35 40-31 Poor (50-31)VALLST VALLEJO ST 20 END WANDA AVE R A 2 140 24 3,360 11/08/2021 35 40-31 Poor (50-31)VALLST VALLEJO ST 60 LA SALLE AVE LUZERN PL R A 1 1,490 23 34,270 11/11/2021 35 09/19/2011 SLURRY SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)HPLACE H PLACE 10 DARWIN ST HARDING ST R A 2 168 21 3,528 11/11/2021 34 40-31 Poor (50-31)LINCST LINCOLN ST 10 SAN PABLO AVE LA SALLE AVE R A 1 700 22 15,400 11/03/2021 34 40-31 Poor (50-31)LUZEST LUZERN ST 20 WANDA AVE ST ELMO ST R A 1 1,040 24 24,960 11/08/2021 34 40-31 Poor (50-31)STALST ST ALBANS ST 10 DARWIN ST HARDING ST R A 1 178 18 3,204 11/08/2021 34 40-31 Poor (50-31)TERRST TERRACE ST 05 TRINITY AVE HAMILTON AVE R S 2 235 29 6,815 11/04/2021 34 10/01/1990 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)TRINAV TRINITY AVE 20 HILLSDALE ST WEST SIDE SPLIT R S 2 250 33 8,250 11/10/2021 34 04/08/1985 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)ALYNOBRD ALLEY N/O BROADWAY 10 DEL MONTE BLVD SANTA BARBARA ST O S 1 1,800 16 28,800 11/12/2021 33 10/01/1987 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)ALYNOOLYMP ALLEY N/O OLYMPIA 10 FREMONT BLVD WINTON ST O S 1 1,130 15 16,950 11/12/2021 33 40-31 Poor (50-31)CHARAV CHARLES AVE 10 CANYON DEL REY FREMONT BLVD R S 2 452 32 14,464 11/04/2021 33 05/01/1987 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)GIGLRD GIGLING RD 30 480' FROM END @ CHANGE OF PAVEMENT END C A 2 480 31 14,880 11/09/2021 33 40-31 Poor (50-31)LOWEST LOWELL ST 10 PARK PL BROADWAY AVE R A 1 358 22 7,876 11/04/2021 33 05/13/2010 SLURRY SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)LUZEST LUZERN ST 15 CHANGE OF PAVEMENT END R A 2 236 24 5,664 11/05/2021 33 40-31 Poor (50-31)NAPAST NAPA ST 10 MINGO AVE SAN PABLO AVE R S 1 1,016 21 21,336 11/03/2021 33 40-31 Poor (50-31)OLYMAV OLYMPIA AVE 07 ROBERTS AVE CONTRA COSTA R A 2 404 40 16,160 11/04/2021 33 40-31 Poor (50-31)SANLST SAN LUCAS ST 50 BROADWAY AV OLYMPIA AV R S 2 338 31 10,478 11/04/2021 33 40-31 Poor (50-31)STOWCT STOWE CT 20 W. END E. END R A 2 350 27 9,450 11/03/2021 33 40-31 Poor (50-31)WARIST WARING ST 90 LA SALLE AVE MILITARY AVE R S 2 1,730 32 55,360 11/03/2021 33 09/19/1989 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)YOLACT YOLANDA CT 10 KIMBALL AVE END R A 2 301 33 10,842 11/10/2021 33 40-31 Poor (50-31)ALYNOAMDR ALLEY N/O AMADOR 110 TERRACE ST END OF PAVEMENT O S 1 1,110 15 16,650 11/15/2021 32 40-31 Poor (50-31)SONOAV SONOMA AV 70 NOCHE BUENA ST KENNETH ST C A 2 238 32 7,616 11/11/2021 32 01/01/1995 RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) 40-31 Poor (50-31)STELST ST ELMO ST 10 LUZERN ST VALLEJO ST R A 1 188 18 3,384 11/08/2021 32 40-31 Poor (50-31)VALLST VALLEJO ST 50 N. END BROADWAY AVE R A 1 1,240 23 28,520 11/11/2021 32 09/19/2011 SLURRY SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)YOSEST YOSEMITE ST 30 BROADWAY AV MINGO AV C A 2 1,087 36 39,132 11/02/2021 32 05/08/2007 SLURRY SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)ALYNOHARCT ALLEY N/O HARCOURT 10 PROSPECT ST NOCHE BUENA O S 1 1,375 15 20,625 11/12/2021 31 40-31 Poor (50-31)HIGHST HIGHLAND ST 10 PLUMAS AV KIMBALL AV C S 2 883 36 31,788 11/10/2021 31 40-31 Poor (50-31)MESCST MESCAL ST 12 210'N-MESCAL ST HILBY AV C S 2 1,893 22 41,646 11/06/2021 31 40-31 Poor (50-31)ORDGAV ORD GROVE AV 20 NOCHE BUENA ST WARING ST C A 2 998 57 56,886 11/03/2021 31 05/01/1984 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 40-31 Poor (50-31)AMADAV AMADOR AVE 10 CANYON DEL REY IMPERAL ST R S 2 478 33 15,774 11/11/2021 30 30-21 Failed (30-0) 10/03/2022 Page 10 of 12
Packet Page 326
City of Seaside - 2022 PMP Update - Reference Reports:
Street List by PCI (High to Low)
Street ID Street Name Section ID Begin Location End Location FC
ST
LNSLW Area (SF) PCI Date PCI Last M&R Date Last M&R Treatment PCI Range Condition ASCOCT ASCOT CT 10 END ANCON ST R A 2 167 31 5,177 11/06/2021 30 30-21 Failed (30-0) LOPEAV LOPEZ AVE 20 CHANGE OF PAVEMENT FREMONT BLVD R S 2 650 28 18,200 11/04/2021 30 30-21 Failed (30-0)LUZEST LUZERN ST 30 BROADWAY AVE S. END R A 2 413 24 11,031 11/03/2021 30 30-21 Failed (30-0)HILLST HILLSDALE ST 30 SONOMA AV BROADWAY AV C S 2 1,023 34 34,782 11/04/2021 29 30-21 Failed (30-0)KIMBAV KIMBALL AV 50 BUENA ST MESCAL ST C A 2 1,540 36 55,440 11/11/2021 29 05/07/2007 CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)MARIST MARIN ST 10 CANYON DEL REY HILBY AVE R S 2 478 30 14,340 11/04/2021 29 05/14/1991 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)ALYNOELM ALLEY N/O ELM 110 W/O SAN LUCAS ST NOCHE BUENA O S 1 1,082 15 16,230 11/12/2021 28 05/01/1982 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)FARGCT FARGO COURT 10 END HILBY AVE R A 2 317 33 10,461 11/06/2021 28 30-21 Failed (30-0)ORDGAV ORD GROVE AV 30 WARING ST CROSS ST C A 2 286 66 18,876 11/03/2021 28 05/01/1984 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)ALYNOCHRLS ALLEY N/O CHARLES 10 CANYON DEL REY FREMONT BLVD O S 1 615 15 9,225 11/12/2021 27 05/01/1982 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)ALYNOPLM ALLEY N/O PALM 110 W/O SAN LUCAS ST NOCHE BUENA O S 1 1,000 15 15,000 11/12/2021 27 05/01/1989 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)SANTST SANTA BARBARA ST 20 BROADWAY AVE FREMONT BLVD R S 1 390 34 13,260 11/04/2021 27 30-21 Failed (30-0)ALHAST ALHAMBRA ST 25 ELM AVE BROADWAY AVE R S 2 515 31 15,965 11/04/2021 26 09/01/1984 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)ALYNOWILL ALLEY N/O WILLIAMS 10 MARIN FREMONT BLVD O S 1 800 15 12,000 11/12/2021 26 05/01/1982 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)BUENST BUENA ST 10 KIMBALL AVE END R S 2 590 32 18,880 11/04/2021 26 05/01/1989 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)KIMBAV KIMBALL AV 30 SHAFER ST NOCHE BUENA ST C A 2 1,443 36 51,948 11/11/2021 26 10/01/1990 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)MINGAV MINGO AV 10 NOCHE BUENA ST FLORES ST C A 2 1,054 36 37,944 11/04/2021 26 10/01/1990 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)PARKPL PARK PL 10 LUXTON ST LOWELL ST R A 1 210 22 4,620 11/04/2021 26 30-21 Failed (30-0)WILLAV WILLIAMS AVE 10 CANYON DEL REY FREMONT BLVD R S 2 753 30 22,590 11/04/2021 26 04/01/1990 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)ALYNOELM ALLEY N/O ELM 10 IMPERIAL ST CALAVERAS ST O S 1 1,775 16 28,400 11/12/2021 25 05/01/1982 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)DARWPL DARWIN PL 10 DARWIN ST HARDING ST R A 1 157 23 3,611 11/11/2021 25 30-21 Failed (30-0)FRANAV FRANCIS AVE 10 CANYON DEL REY FREMONT BLVD R S 2 1,042 30 31,260 11/04/2021 25 08/01/1988 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)HIGHPL HIGHLAND PL 10 END HIGHLAND ST R S 2 276 23 7,002 11/10/2021 25 30-21 Failed (30-0)ISABCT ISABELLE CT 10 KIMBALL AVE END R S 2 412 28 11,536 11/04/2021 25 10/01/1990 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)LORECT LORENZO CT 10 END KIMBALL AVE R S 2 743 27 20,601 11/11/2021 25 10/01/1987 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)MINGAV MINGO AV 16 FLORES ST SOTO ST C A 2 975 36 35,100 11/04/2021 25 09/19/2011 SLURRY SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)PONDAV PONDEROSA AVE 10 DEL MONTE BLVD ALHAMBRA ST R S 2 271 36 9,756 11/04/2021 25 30-21 Failed (30-0)SONOAV SONOMA AV 60 SAN LUCAS ST NOCHE BUENA ST C S 2 728 36 26,208 11/11/2021 25 30-21 Failed (30-0)ALHAST ALHAMBRA ST 30 BROADWAY AVE PONDEROSA AVE R S 2 480 36 17,280 11/04/2021 24 30-21 Failed (30-0)PALMAV PALM AVE 30 FREMONT BLVD TERRACE ST R A 2 858 25 21,450 11/04/2021 24 01/01/1995 RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC) 30-21 Failed (30-0)RICACT RICARDO CT 10 END TWEED ST R A 2 320 32 11,160 11/10/2021 24 30-21 Failed (30-0)TERRST TERRACE ST 30 BROADWAY AVE ALLEY N/O CLEMENTINA R O 2 635 34 21,590 11/04/2021 24 01/19/1998 AC OVERLAY 30-21 Failed (30-0)THERST THERESA ST 10 HILBY AVE END R S 2 200 28 5,600 11/04/2021 24 04/08/1980 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)WANDAV WANDA AVE 10 VIRGINIA ST END R S 2 360 28 10,330 11/04/2021 24 10/01/1990 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)CALAST CALAVERAS ST 05 SONOMA AVE ELM AVE R S 2 515 32 16,480 11/04/2021 23 05/01/1985 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)OLYMAV OLYMPIA AVE 10 DEL MONTE AVE ALHAMBRA ST R A 2 615 34 20,910 11/04/2021 23 30-21 Failed (30-0)SONOAV SONOMA AV 50 TERRACE ST SAN LUCAS ST C S 2 762 36 27,432 11/11/2021 23 30-21 Failed (30-0)MADECT MADERA CT 10 END KIMBALL AVE R S 2 450 26 11,700 11/04/2021 22 05/14/1991 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)SANPAV SAN PABLO AV 11 FREMONT BLVD BAKER ST C O 2 985 36 35,460 11/10/2021 22 05/22/2012 SLURRY SEAL 30-21 Failed (30-0)VALLST VALLEJO ST 35 SONOMA AVE ST JAMES ST R A 1 375 25 9,375 11/08/2021 22 30-21 Failed (30-0)GRNDST GRAND VIEW ST 20 ORD GROVE AVE CIRCLE R S 2 445 33 14,685 11/03/2021 21 30-21 Failed (30-0)SANPAV SAN PABLO AV 14 BAKER ST NOCHE BUENA C O 2 436 36 15,696 11/10/2021 20 01/15/1998 AC OVERLAY 20-11 Failed (30-0)ALHAST ALHAMBRA ST 10 HAMILTON AVE SONOMA AVE R S 2 218 32 6,976 11/04/2021 19 20-11 Failed (30-0)ALYNOAMDR ALLEY N/O AMADOR 10 CONTRA COSTA ST CALAVERAS ST O S 1 1,310 16 20,960 11/12/2021 19 20-11 Failed (30-0)ROBRD ROBERTS AVE 10 OLYMPIA AVE HOME DEPOT PARKING LOT R A 2 302 30 9,060 11/12/2021 19 20-11 Failed (30-0) 10/03/2022 Page 11 of 12
Packet Page 327
City of Seaside - 2022 PMP Update - Reference Reports:
Street List by PCI (High to Low)
Street ID Street Name Section ID Begin Location End Location FC
ST
LNSLW Area (SF) PCI Date PCI Last M&R Date Last M&R Treatment PCI Range Condition ALYNOSONMA ALLEY N/O SONOMA 10 CANYON DEL REY BLVD CALAVERAS ST O S 1 2,270 15 34,050 11/12/2021 18 05/01/1989 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 20-11 Failed (30-0) GIGLRD GIGLING RD 10 286' E/O PARKER FLATS CUT OFF RD 70' E/O 7TH AV A A 2 2,179 26 56,654 11/09/2021 18 20-11 Failed (30-0)TIERST TIERRA ST 10 WILLIAMS AVE HILBY AVE R S 2 490 35 17,150 11/04/2021 18 04/01/1990 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 20-11 Failed (30-0)VIRGST VIRGINIA ST 05 HILBY AVE HARCOURT AVE R A 2 325 21 6,825 11/04/2021 18 10/01/1987 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 20-11 Failed (30-0)ALYNOHIBY ALLEY N/O HILBY 110 PROSPECT ST NOCHE BUENA O S 1 1,560 15 23,400 11/12/2021 17 20-11 Failed (30-0)ALYNOTRINY ALLEY N/O TRINITY 20 SAN LUCAS ST TERRACE ST O S 1 730 15 10,950 11/05/2021 16 20-11 Failed (30-0)CARSST CARSON ST 20 KIMBALL AVE END R S 2 381 33 13,333 11/11/2021 16 20-11 Failed (30-0)ALYNOHIBY ALLEY N/O HILBY 10 VIRGINIA ST SIDDAL ST O S 1 932 18 16,776 11/12/2021 15 20-11 Failed (30-0)TRINAV TRINITY AVE 26 EAST SIDE SPLIT FREMONT BLVD R S 2 190 33 6,270 11/10/2021 15 20-11 Failed (30-0)HILLST HILLSDALE ST 40 BROADWAY AVE OLYMPIA AVE C S 2 255 32 8,160 11/04/2021 14 20-11 Failed (30-0)ALYNOSONMA ALLEY N/O SONOMA 120 115' W/O SAN LUCAS ST 137' E/O SAN LUCAS ST O S 1 252 12 3,072 11/12/2021 9 10-0 Failed (30-0) ALYNOHAMTN ALLEY N/O HAMILTON 10 TERRACE ST NOCHE BUENA O G 1 1,376 15 20,640 0 N/A N/A ALYNOPLM ALLEY N/O PALM 50 FREMONT BLVD EAST END AT PARKING LOT O P 1 180 15 2,700 0 10-0 Failed (30-0) ALYNOSONMA ALLEY N/O SONOMA 110 TERRACE ST 115' W/O SAN LUCAS ST O G 1 600 12 7,200 0 N/A N/A ALYNOSONMA ALLEY N/O SONOMA 130 137' E/O SAN LUCAS ST NOCHE BUENA O G 1 597 12 4,068 0 N/A N/AALYNOTRINY ALLEY N/O TRINITY 10 NOCHE BUENA SAN LUCAS ST O G 1 715 11 7,865 0 N/A N/A 10/03/2022 Page 12 of 12
Packet Page 328
Current PCI Condition
Printed: 2/13/2023 (without Alleys)
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Test
Feature Legend
Category I - Very Good (100-70)
Category II - Good (Non-Load) (69-50)
Category III - Good (Load) (69-50)
Category IV - Poor (49-25)
Category V - Very Poor (24-0)
Packet Page 329
Appendix A
Summarized System Information
Packet Page 330
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Network Summary Statistics
Printed: 9/15/2022
Total Sections Total Center Miles Total Lane Miles Total Area (sq. ft.) PCI Arterial 48 15.37 37.00 3,279,931 75
Collector 97 17.86 37.31 3,543,818 61
Residential/Local 341 42.11 73.70 6,425,775 52
Other 19 3.92 3.92 319,862 27
Total 505 79.26 151.93
Overall Network PCI as of 1/31/2022: 59
** Combined Sections are excluded from totals. These Sections do not have a PCI Date - they have not been inspected or had a Treatment applied. **Combined 5 0.60 0.60 N/A
13,569,386
42,473
Other 1 0.03 0.03 2,700 N/A
Gravel 4 0.57 0.57 39,773 N/A
Criteria: As of Date = 1/31/2022 1 MTC StreetSaver
Packet Page 331
Functional Class Surface Type Lane Miles Unit Cost/
Square Foot
Cost To Replace/ (in
thousands)
Pavement Area/
Square Feet
Arterial AC 28.2 $31.17 2,594,491 $80,861
AC/AC 4.6 $31.17 364,333 $11,355
AC/PCC 3.9 $31.17 300,832 $9,376
ST 0.3 $31.17 20,275 $632
Collector AC 24.0 $27.50 2,301,014 $63,278
AC/AC 6.8 $27.50 650,362 $17,885
ST 6.5 $27.50 592,442 $16,292
Other AC 0.0 $23.83 1,800 $43
PCC 0.0 $23.83 2,700 $64
ST 3.9 $23.83 318,062 $7,580
Proposed; Private; Non-County AC 0.1 $23.83 6,000 $143
Residential/Local AC 40.8 $23.83 3,630,703 $86,532
AC/AC 4.7 $23.83 419,355 $9,995
ST 28.2 $23.83 2,375,717 $56,621
Network Replacement Cost
Printed: 10/03/2022
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
Grand Total: 152.0 13,578,086 $360,657
Packet Page 332
Arterial AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $3.15 3 Surface Treatment LIGHT MAINTENANCE $9.10 7
Restoration Treatment LIGHT REHAB $78.33 2
II - Good, Non-Load Related HEAVY MAINTENANCE $37.26 7
III - Good, Load Related LIGHT REHAB $78.33
IV - Poor HEAVY REHAB $120.14
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $280.50
AC/AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $3.15 3 Surface Treatment LIGHT MAINTENANCE $9.10 7
Restoration Treatment LIGHT REHAB $78.33 2
II - Good, Non-Load Related HEAVY MAINTENANCE $37.26 7
III - Good, Load Related LIGHT REHAB $78.33
IV - Poor HEAVY REHAB $120.14
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $280.50
AC/PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $3.15 3 Surface Treatment LIGHT MAINTENANCE $9.10 7
Restoration Treatment LIGHT REHAB $78.33 2
II - Good, Non-Load Related HEAVY MAINTENANCE $37.26 7
III - Good, Load Related LIGHT REHAB $78.33
IV - Poor HEAVY REHAB $120.14
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $280.50
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional
Class
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825 Printed: 10/3/2022
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:
Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
Selected Treatment is not a Surface Seal
Packet Page 333
Arterial PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99 Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 15
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99
II - Good, Non-Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00
III - Good, Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00
IV - Poor DO NOTHING $0.00
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $280.50
ST I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $3.15 3
Surface Treatment LIGHT MAINTENANCE $9.10 7
Restoration Treatment LIGHT REHAB $78.33 2
II - Good, Non-Load Related HEAVY MAINTENANCE $37.26 7
III - Good, Load Related LIGHT REHAB $78.33
IV - Poor HEAVY REHAB $120.14
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $280.50
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional
Class
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825 Printed: 10/3/2022
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:
Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria: 2 MTC StreetSaver
Selected Treatment is not a Surface Seal
Packet Page 334
Collector AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $2.80 4 Surface Treatment LIGHT MAINTENANCE $8.19 8
Restoration Treatment LIGHT REHAB $72.74 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related HEAVY MAINTENANCE $26.54 8
III - Good, Load Related LIGHT REHAB $72.74
IV - Poor HEAVY REHAB $102.11
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $247.50
AC/AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $2.80 4 Surface Treatment LIGHT MAINTENANCE $8.19 8
Restoration Treatment LIGHT REHAB $72.74 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related HEAVY MAINTENANCE $26.54 8
III - Good, Load Related LIGHT REHAB $72.74
IV - Poor HEAVY REHAB $102.11
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $247.50
AC/PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $2.80 4 Surface Treatment LIGHT MAINTENANCE $8.19 8
Restoration Treatment LIGHT REHAB $72.74 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related HEAVY MAINTENANCE $26.54 8
III - Good, Load Related LIGHT REHAB $72.74
IV - Poor HEAVY REHAB $102.11
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $247.50
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional
Class
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825 Printed: 10/3/2022
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:
Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria: 3 MTC StreetSaver
Selected Treatment is not a Surface Seal
Packet Page 335
Collector PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99 Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 15
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99
II - Good, Non-Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00
III - Good, Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00
IV - Poor DO NOTHING $0.00
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $247.50
ST I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $2.80 4
Surface Treatment LIGHT MAINTENANCE $8.19 8
Restoration Treatment LIGHT REHAB $72.74 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related HEAVY MAINTENANCE $26.54 8
III - Good, Load Related LIGHT REHAB $72.74
IV - Poor HEAVY REHAB $102.11
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $247.50
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional
Class
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825 Printed: 10/3/2022
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:
Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria: 4 MTC StreetSaver
Selected Treatment is not a Surface Seal
Packet Page 336
Residential/Local AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $2.45 5 Surface Treatment LIGHT MAINTENANCE $7.35 9
Restoration Treatment LIGHT REHAB $67.13 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related HEAVY MAINTENANCE $23.14 9
III - Good, Load Related LIGHT REHAB $67.13
IV - Poor HEAVY REHAB $86.81
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $214.50
AC/AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $2.45 5 Surface Treatment LIGHT MAINTENANCE $7.35 9
Restoration Treatment LIGHT REHAB $67.13 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related HEAVY MAINTENANCE $23.14 9
III - Good, Load Related LIGHT REHAB $67.13
IV - Poor HEAVY REHAB $86.81
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $214.50
AC/PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $2.45 5 Surface Treatment LIGHT MAINTENANCE $7.35 9
Restoration Treatment LIGHT REHAB $67.13 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related HEAVY MAINTENANCE $23.14 9
III - Good, Load Related LIGHT REHAB $67.13
IV - Poor HEAVY REHAB $86.81
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $214.50
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional
Class
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825 Printed: 10/3/2022
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:
Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria: 5 MTC StreetSaver
Selected Treatment is not a Surface Seal
Packet Page 337
Residential/Local PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99 Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 15
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99
II - Good, Non-Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00
III - Good, Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00
IV - Poor DO NOTHING $0.00
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $214.50
ST I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $2.45 5
Surface Treatment LIGHT MAINTENANCE $7.35 9
Restoration Treatment LIGHT REHAB $67.13 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related HEAVY MAINTENANCE $23.14 9
III - Good, Load Related LIGHT REHAB $67.13
IV - Poor HEAVY REHAB $86.81
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $214.50
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional
Class
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825 Printed: 10/3/2022
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:
Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria: 6 MTC StreetSaver
Selected Treatment is not a Surface Seal
Packet Page 338
Other AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $2.45 5 Surface Treatment LIGHT MAINTENANCE $7.35 9
Restoration Treatment LIGHT REHAB $67.13 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related HEAVY MAINTENANCE $23.14 9
III - Good, Load Related LIGHT REHAB $67.13
IV - Poor HEAVY REHAB $86.81
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $214.50
AC/AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $2.45 5 Surface Treatment LIGHT MAINTENANCE $7.35 9
Restoration Treatment LIGHT REHAB $67.13 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related HEAVY MAINTENANCE $23.14 9
III - Good, Load Related LIGHT REHAB $67.13
IV - Poor HEAVY REHAB $86.81
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $214.50
AC/PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $2.45 5 Surface Treatment LIGHT MAINTENANCE $7.35 9
Restoration Treatment LIGHT REHAB $67.13 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related HEAVY MAINTENANCE $23.14 9
III - Good, Load Related LIGHT REHAB $67.13
IV - Poor HEAVY REHAB $86.81
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $214.50
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional
Class
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825 Printed: 10/3/2022
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:
Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria: 7 MTC StreetSaver
Selected Treatment is not a Surface Seal
Packet Page 339
Other PCC I - Very Good Crack Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99 Surface Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 15
Restoration Treatment DO NOTHING $0.00 99
II - Good, Non-Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00
III - Good, Load Related DO NOTHING $0.00
IV - Poor DO NOTHING $0.00
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $214.50
ST I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $2.45 5
Surface Treatment LIGHT MAINTENANCE $7.35 9
Restoration Treatment LIGHT REHAB $67.13 3
II - Good, Non-Load Related HEAVY MAINTENANCE $23.14 9
III - Good, Load Related LIGHT REHAB $67.13
IV - Poor HEAVY REHAB $86.81
V - Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE (AC) $214.50
# of Surface
Seals before
Overlay
Functional
Class
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825 Printed: 10/3/2022
Decision Tree
Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Yrs Between Crack Seals
Yrs Between
Surface Seals
Cost/Sq Yd,
except Seal
Cracks in LF:
Functional Class and Surface combination not used
Criteria: 8 MTC StreetSaver
Selected Treatment is not a Surface Seal
Packet Page 340
Appendix B
Budget Scenarios
Packet Page 341
Page | 72
Needs Analysis
&
Zero Budget
($94.5 Million over 5 Years)
Projected PCI/Cost Summary
Packet Page 342
Year PCI Treated PCI Untreated PM Cost Rehab Cost Cost
2023 91 58 $2,295,416 $83,116,575 $85,411,991
2024 85 55 $69,700 $779,208 $848,908
2025 84 52 $282,372 $947,156 $1,229,528
2026 82 49 $76,239 $766,782 $843,021
2027 82 46 $572,319 $5,627,318 $6,199,637
Total Cost
$94,533,085
PM Total Cost
$3,296,046
% PM
3.49% $91,237,039
Rehab Total Cost
Needs - Projected PCI/Cost
Summary
Printed: 10/3/2022
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Interest: 0.00% Inflation: 0.00%
Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
Packet Page 343
Page | 74
Increase PCI by 5
($51.8 Million over 5 Years)
Pavement Network Condition Lane Miles
Network Condition Summary
Cost Summary
Packet Page 344
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Interest: 0%
Target-Driven Scenarios
Pavement Network Condition Lane Miles
Inflation: 0% Printed: 10/3/2022
Year Arterial
Annual budget needs to meet target objectives
Collector Res/Loc Other Total
Preventative
Maintenance
Target: By Year
Scenario: Increase by 5
Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI
Year Value Year Value Year Value Year Value
Year 1 60 Year 2 61 Year 3 62 Year 4 63
Year 5 64
2023 $1,389,171 $373,409 $2,322,152 $0 $2,295,416 $4,084,732 2024 $206,794 $2,287 $9,155,163 $0 $69,700 $9,364,244
2025 $2,041,256 $3,067,743 $5,839,310 $0 $282,372 $10,948,309 2026 $1,778,364 $2,314,465 $10,043,420 $0 $73,770 $14,136,249 2027 $2,374,747 $240,965 $10,671,891 $0 $566,016 $13,287,603 Scenarios Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
Pavement Network prior to treatments in lane miles.
Pavement Network after schedulable treatments applied in lane miles.
Grand Total: $51,821,137
Average Yearly Total: $10,364,227
PCI
Percentage of the
Network in Very
Good Condition
Percentage of the
Network in Poor or
Very Poor Condition
Remaining
Functional Class Life
Arterial 74 17.6% 1.8% 18
Collector 59 12.0% 10.2% 11
Other 20 0.0% 2.4% 0
Residential 51 9.5% 27.1% 11
Packet Page 345
Pavement Network after schedulable treatments applied in lane miles.
Scenarios Criteria: 2 MTC StreetSaver
2023
PCI
Percentage of the
Network in Very
Good Condition
Percentage of the
Network in Poor or
Very Poor Condition
Remaining
Functional Class Life
Arterial 77 73.4% 7.5% 20
Collector 60 45.8% 39.2% 12
Other 20 0.0% 100.0% 0
Residential 53 23.2% 54.9% 12
2024
PCI
Percentage of the
Network in Very
Good Condition
Percentage of the
Network in Poor or
Very Poor Condition
Remaining
Functional Class Life
Arterial 75 69.6% 10.5% 20
Collector 57 40.6% 40.6% 11
Other 13 0.0% 100.0% 0
Residential 58 38.4% 44.1% 16
2025
PCI
Percentage of the
Network in Very
Good Condition
Percentage of the
Network in Poor or
Very Poor Condition
Remaining
Functional Class Life
Arterial 76 70.6% 7.5% 20
Collector 58 48.6% 36.2% 12
Other 8 0.0% 100.0% 0
Residential 60 48.5% 38.9% 18
2026
PCI
Percentage of the
Network in Very
Good Condition
Percentage of the
Network in Poor or
Very Poor Condition
Remaining
Functional Class Life
Arterial 76 79.1% 7.5% 20
Collector 57 57.4% 36.2% 13
Other 5 0.0% 100.0% 0
Residential 63 57.1% 33.4% 20
2027
PCI
Percentage of the
Network in Very
Good Condition
Percentage of the
Network in Poor or
Very Poor Condition
Remaining
Functional Class Life
Arterial 77 80.8% 7.5% 21
Collector 54 55.8% 36.2% 12
Other 3 0.0% 100.0% 0
Residential 66 65.7% 27.8% 22
Packet Page 346
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Target-Driven Scenarios
Network Condition Summary
Interest: 0.00% Inflation: 0.00% Printed: 10/3/2022
Projected Network Average PCI by year
Year Never Treated With Selected Treatment Without Selected Treatment Target: By Year
Scenario: Increase by 5
Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI
Year Value Year Value Year Value Year Value
Year 1 60 Year 2 61 Year 3 62 Year 4 63
Year 5 64
2023 58 60 58
2024 55 61 55
2025 52 62 52
2026 49 63 49
2027 46 64 46
Percent Network Area by Functional Classification and Condition Class Condition in base year 2023, prior to applying treatments.
Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 17.6% 12.0% 9.5% 0.0% 39.0%
II / III 4.8% 3.9% 10.8% 0.0% 19.5%
IV 1.4% 6.7% 23.9% 0.8% 32.8%
V 0.4% 3.5% 3.2% 1.6% 8.7%
Total 24.2% 26.1% 47.4% 2.4% 100.0%
Condition in year 2023 after schedulable treatments applied.
Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 17.7% 12.0% 11.0% 0.0% 40.7%
II / III 4.6% 3.9% 10.4% 0.0% 18.9%
IV 1.4% 6.7% 22.8% 0.8% 31.7%
V 0.4% 3.5% 3.2% 1.6% 8.7%
Total 24.2% 26.1% 47.4% 2.4% 100.0%
Condition in year 2027 after schedulable treatments applied.
Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 19.5% 14.6% 31.1% 0.0% 65.2%
II / III 2.8% 2.1% 3.1% 0.0% 8.0%
IV 1.4% 0.0% 4.3% 0.1% 5.9%
V 0.4% 9.4% 8.8% 2.2% 20.9%
Total 24.2% 26.1% 47.4% 2.4% 100.0%
Scenarios Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
Packet Page 347
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Target-Driven Scenarios - Cost Summary
Interest: 0% Inflation: 0% Printed: 10/3/2022
Target: By Year
Scenario: Increase by 5
Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI
Year Value Year Value Year Value Year Value
Year 1 60 Year 2 61 Year 3 62 Year 4 63
Year 5 64
2023 $131,772
$213,058
$1,444,480
$2,295,378
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $1,789,309
$0
$4,084,687 $81,327,114
2024 $420,932
$162,220
$8,711,355
$69,694
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $9,294,506
$0
$9,364,201 $82,194,364
2025 $579,076
$0
$10,086,843
$282,368
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $10,665,919
$0
$10,948,286 $84,294,822
2026 $1,592,776
$0
$4,093,692
$73,754
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $14,062,455
$8,375,987
$14,136,209 $84,981,415
2027 $163,321
$247,866
$3,753,857
$566,001
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $12,721,569
$8,556,524
$13,287,570 $82,645,434
Year Rehabilitation Preventive Maintenance Total Cost Deferred Scenarios Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
Rehabilitation Prev. Maint. Summary
$5,949,264 $1,841,026
$5,303,491 $695,347
$0 $0
Functional Class
Arterial
Collector
Other
Residential/Local $37,281,003 $750,822
Total: $48,533,758 $3,287,195 Grand Total: $51,820,953
Packet Page 348
Page | 79
Maintain Current PCI
($34.2 Million over 5 Years)
Pavement Network Condition Lane Miles
Network Condition Summary
Cost Summary
Packet Page 349
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Interest: 0%
Target-Driven Scenarios
Pavement Network Condition Lane Miles
Inflation: 0% Printed: 10/3/2022
Year Arterial
Annual budget needs to meet target objectives
Collector Res/Loc Other Total
Preventative
Maintenance
Target: Overall 59
Scenario: Maintain 59
Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI
2023 $1,176,113 $373,409 $444,112 $0 $1,993,634 $1,993,634 2024 $206,794 $2,287 $6,419,903 $0 $371,482 $6,628,984
2025 $100,339 $301,773 $7,065,779 $0 $282,372 $7,467,891 2026 $2,847,022 $3,410,204 $2,295,204 $0 $73,698 $8,552,430 2027 $2,891,432 $692,477 $5,962,118 $0 $566,016 $9,546,027 Scenarios Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
Pavement Network prior to treatments in lane miles.
Pavement Network after schedulable treatments applied in lane miles.
Grand Total: $34,188,966
Average Yearly Total: $6,837,793
PCI
Percentage of the
Network in Very
Good Condition
Percentage of the
Network in Poor or
Very Poor Condition
Remaining
Functional Class Life
Arterial 74 17.6% 1.8% 18
Collector 59 12.0% 10.2% 11
Other 20 0.0% 2.4% 0
Residential 51 9.5% 27.1% 11
2023
PCI
Percentage of the
Network in Very
Good Condition
Percentage of the
Network in Poor or
Very Poor Condition
Remaining
Functional Class Life
Arterial 77 72.6% 7.5% 20
Collector 60 45.8% 39.2% 12
Other 20 0.0% 100.0% 0
Residential 51 20.1% 57.2% 11
Packet Page 350
Pavement Network after schedulable treatments applied in lane miles.
Scenarios Criteria: 2 MTC StreetSaver
2024
PCI
Percentage of the
Network in Very
Good Condition
Percentage of the
Network in Poor or
Very Poor Condition
Remaining
Functional Class Life
Arterial 75 68.8% 10.5% 19
Collector 57 40.6% 40.6% 11
Other 13 0.0% 100.0% 0
Residential 54 29.8% 51.1% 13
2025
PCI
Percentage of the
Network in Very
Good Condition
Percentage of the
Network in Poor or
Very Poor Condition
Remaining
Functional Class Life
Arterial 73 65.0% 11.8% 19
Collector 54 41.7% 43.0% 10
Other 8 0.0% 100.0% 0
Residential 57 41.2% 43.7% 16
2026
PCI
Percentage of the
Network in Very
Good Condition
Percentage of the
Network in Poor or
Very Poor Condition
Remaining
Functional Class Life
Arterial 75 71.9% 7.5% 20
Collector 55 50.1% 39.2% 12
Other 5 0.0% 100.0% 0
Residential 56 45.8% 42.9% 16
2027
PCI
Percentage of the
Network in Very
Good Condition
Percentage of the
Network in Poor or
Very Poor Condition
Remaining
Functional Class Life
Arterial 77 80.0% 7.5% 20
Collector 52 52.8% 39.2% 11
Other 3 0.0% 100.0% 0
Residential 57 52.4% 40.3% 17
Packet Page 351
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Target-Driven Scenarios
Network Condition Summary
Interest: 0.00% Inflation: 0.00% Printed: 10/3/2022
Projected Network Average PCI by year
Year Never Treated With Selected Treatment Without Selected Treatment Target: Overall 59
Scenario: Maintain 59
Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI
2023 58 59 58
2024 55 59 55
2025 52 59 52
2026 49 59 49
2027 46 59 46
Percent Network Area by Functional Classification and Condition Class Condition in base year 2023, prior to applying treatments.
Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 17.6% 12.0% 9.5% 0.0% 39.0%
II / III 4.8% 3.9% 10.8% 0.0% 19.5%
IV 1.4% 6.7% 23.9% 0.8% 32.8%
V 0.4% 3.5% 3.2% 1.6% 8.7%
Total 24.2% 26.1% 47.4% 2.4% 100.0%
Condition in year 2023 after schedulable treatments applied.
Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 17.6% 12.0% 9.5% 0.0% 39.0%
II / III 4.8% 3.9% 10.8% 0.0% 19.5%
IV 1.4% 6.7% 23.9% 0.8% 32.8%
V 0.4% 3.5% 3.2% 1.6% 8.7%
Total 24.2% 26.1% 47.4% 2.4% 100.0%
Condition in year 2027 after schedulable treatments applied.
Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 19.3% 13.8% 24.8% 0.0% 57.9%
II / III 3.0% 2.1% 3.5% 0.0% 8.6%
IV 1.4% 0.8% 6.2% 0.1% 8.6%
V 0.4% 9.4% 12.8% 2.2% 24.9%
Total 24.2% 26.1% 47.4% 2.4% 100.0%
Scenarios Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
Packet Page 352
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Target-Driven Scenarios - Cost Summary
Interest: 0% Inflation: 0% Printed: 10/3/2022
Target: Overall 59
Scenario: Maintain 59
Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI
2023 $0
$0
$0
$1,993,602
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $0
$0
$1,993,602 $83,418,200
2024 $299,444
$162,220
$5,795,812
$371,471
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $6,257,476
$0
$6,628,947 $87,020,704
2025 $335,489
$0
$6,850,013
$282,368
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $7,185,502
$0
$7,467,870 $92,519,668
2026 $465,890
$0
$8,012,828
$73,683
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $8,478,718
$0
$8,552,401 $98,789,998
2027 $1,287,364
$0
$3,753,857
$566,001
$0
$0
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Project
Total $8,979,989
$3,938,768
$9,545,990 $99,947,730
Functional Class Rehabilitation Prev. Maint. Summary
Arterial $5,380,704 $1,840,955
Collector $4,084,774 $695,347
Other $0 $0
Residential/Local $21,436,207 $750,822
Total: $30,901,686 $3,287,124 Grand Total: $34,188,809
Year Rehabilitation Preventive Maintenance Total Cost Deferred Scenarios Criteria: 1 MTC StreetSaver
Packet Page 353
Page | 84
Current Budget
($7.1 Million over 5 Years)
Network Condition Summary
Cost Summary
Section Selected for Treatment
Maps by Scenario Year
Packet Page 354
Year Budget PM Year Budget PM Year Budget PM
2023 $2,450,720 $0
2024 $1,046,516 $26,277
2025 $1,089,280 $0
2026 $1,024,750 $63,402
2027 $1,009,282 $68,297
Projected Network Average PCI by Year
With Selected Treatment Treated Centerline
Miles
Treated Lane
Miles
Year Never Treated
2023 58 59 1.69 2.46
2024 55 57 1.68 2.98
2025 52 54 0.32 0.65
2026 49 51 0.83 1.67
2027 46 49 1.09 1.68
Percent Network Area by Functional Class and Condition Category Condition
Condition in base year 2023, prior to applying treatments.
Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 17.6% 12.0% 9.5% 0.0% 39.0%
II / III 4.6% 3.9% 10.9% 0.0% 19.5%
IV 1.4% 6.7% 23.9% 0.8% 32.8%
V 0.4% 3.5% 3.2% 1.6% 8.7%
Total 24.0% 26.1% 47.5% 2.4% 100.0%
Condition
Condition in year 2023 after schedulable treatments applied.
Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 17.6% 12.0% 11.3% 0.0% 40.8%
II / III 4.6% 3.9% 10.5% 0.0% 19.1%
IV 1.4% 6.7% 22.6% 0.8% 31.5%
V 0.4% 3.5% 3.1% 1.6% 8.6%
Total 24.0% 26.1% 47.5% 2.4% 100.0%
Condition
Condition in year 2027 after schedulable treatments applied.
Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total
I 14.5% 10.0% 11.4% 0.0% 35.9%
II / III 5.2% 4.8% 7.6% 0.0% 17.5%
IV 4.0% 2.0% 16.8% 0.1% 23.0%
V 0.4% 9.3% 11.7% 2.2% 23.6%
Total 24.0% 26.1% 47.5% 2.4% 100.0%
Scenarios - Network Condition Summary
Printed: 1/23/2023
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Scenario: 2023-2027 w/ Option2
Interest: 0.00% Inflation: 0.00%
Criteria: MTC StreetSaver
Scenarios Criteria: Current PCI <= 85
1 Packet Page 355
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Scenarios - Cost Summary
Interest: 0.00% Inflation: 0.00% Printed: 1/23/2023
Scenario: 2023-2027 w/ Option2
2023 $0 $2,450,720
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0 $78,840,884 $0
$214,674
$0
$2,450,716
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
2024 $26,277 $1,046,516
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0 $88,510,642 $0
$3,781
$26,276
$1,020,237
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
2025 $0 $1,089,280
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0 $99,938,980 $0
$4,219
$0
$1,089,278
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
2026 $63,402 $1,024,750
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0 $112,462,558 $0
$4,471
$63,401
$961,346
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
2027 $68,297 $1,009,282
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0 $122,547,694 $0
$4,591
$68,296
$940,984
II
III
IV
V
NonProject
Project
Funded
Unmet
Project
Total
Functional Class Rehabilitation Prev. Maint. Stop Gap
Summary
Stop Gap
Funded Unmet
Arterial $0 $0 $0 $20,005
Collector $630,208 $157,973 $0 $70,199
Other $0 $0 $0 $20,789
Residential/Local $5,832,353 $0 $0 $120,744
Grand Total: $6,462,561 $157,973 $0 $231,737
Year PM Budget Rehabilitation Surplus PM Deferred Stop Gap Preventative
Maintenance
Criteria:
Scenarios Criteria:
1 MTC StreetSaver
Packet Page 356
Year Budget PM Year Budget PM Year Budget PM
2023 $2,450,720 $0
2024 $1,046,516 $26,277
2025 $1,089,280 $0
2026 $1,024,750 $63,402
2027 $1,009,282 $68,297
Area ID
Year:
Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2023
**FLORES PL WARING ST FLORES ST FLORPL 10 169 23 3,887 R AC 3 50 50 100 $28,997 19,802 LIGHT REHAB **WARING ST HILBY AVE SONOMA AVE WARIST 30 1,330 20 26,600 R AC 3 52 53 100 $198,436 19,426 LIGHT REHAB **WARING ST SONOMA AVE BROADWAY AVE WARIST 40 1,057 20 21,140 R AC 3 52 53 100 $157,704 19,426 LIGHT REHAB Treatment Total $385,137
**FLORES ST BROADWAY AVE MINGO AVE FLORST 40 1,060 36 38,160 R AC 3 39 39 100 $368,244 16,405 HEAVY REHAB **FLORES ST MINGO AVE LA SALLE AVE FLORST 50 1,755 36 63,180 R AC 4 32 32 100 $609,687 16,728 HEAVY REHAB **GRAND VIEW ST LUXTON ST ORD GROVE 4
AVE
GRNDST 10 840 32 26,880 R ST 32 32 100 $259,392 14,926 HEAVY REHAB **HARDING ST BROADWAY AVE ELM AVE HARDST 20 503 22 11,066 R AC 3 38 38 100 $106,787 16,463 HEAVY REHAB **HARDING ST MINGO AVE BROADWAY AVE HARDST 30 1,050 22 23,100 R AC 3 34 34 100 $222,915 16,663 HEAVY REHAB **LINCOLN ST SAN PABLO AVE LA SALLE AVE LINCST 10 700 22 15,400 R AC 7 31 31 100 $148,610 16,758 HEAVY REHAB Treatment Total $1,715,635
**GRAND VIEW ST ORD GROVE AVE CIRCLE GRNDST 20 445 33 14,685 R ST 4 12 12 100 $349,944 6,068 RECONSTRUCT Treatment Total $349,944
Year 2023 Area Total 244,098 Year 2023 Total $2,450,716 Area ID
Year:
Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2024
**CLEMENTINA AVE DEL MONTE BLVD 1ST 6
ROUNDABOUT
CLEMAV 10 350 30 10,500 C AC 88 86 92 $9,555 26,246 LIGHT MAINTENANCE **CLEMENTINA AVE 1ST 6
ROUNDABOUT
FREMONT BLVD CLEMAV 15 525 35 18,375 C AC 88 86 92 $16,721 26,249 LIGHT MAINTENANCE Treatment Total $26,276
**CONTRA COSTA ST HAMILTON AVE SONOMA AVE CONTST 10 214 33 7,062 R ST 1 53 51 100 $18,149 21,958 HEAVY MAINTENANCE **CONTRA COSTA ST SONOMA AVE BROADWAY AVE CONTST 20 1,060 31 32,860 R ST 2 56 54 100 $84,450 20,354 HEAVY MAINTENANCE **HARCOURT AV CANYON DEL REY 1
BLVD
FREMONT BLVD HARCAV 10 1,815 42 76,230 C ST 56 54 100 $224,879 17,734 HEAVY MAINTENANCE Interest: 0.00%
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment
Inflation: 0.00% Printed: 1/23/2023
Scenario: 2023-2027 w/ Option2
Scenarios Criteria: Current PCI <= 85
** - Treatment from Project Selection 1 MTC StreetSaver Packet Page 357
Area ID
Year:
Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2024
**MILITARY AV CROSS ST HIGHLAND ST MILIAV 40 1,331 37 49,247 C ST 4 53 51 100 $145,279 19,116 HEAVY MAINTENANCE **TORO CT END CARSON ST TOROCT 10 366 26 10,066 R ST 1 56 54 100 $25,870 20,327 HEAVY MAINTENANCE Treatment Total $498,626
**CARSON ST WHEELER ST KIMBALL AVE CARSST 10 1,021 25 25,525 R ST 1 50 47 100 $190,417 18,364 LIGHT REHAB **JUDSON ST SONOMA AVE HILBY AVE JUDSST 30 1,325 17 22,525 R ST 3 51 48 100 $168,037 18,235 LIGHT REHAB **JUDSON ST MINGO AVE LUXTON PL JUDSST 40 625 22 13,750 R AC 3 51 49 100 $102,575 19,991 LIGHT REHAB **RAINIER CT END MILITARY AVE RAINCT 10 221 26 8,121 R ST 7 52 50 100 $60,583 18,082 LIGHT REHAB Treatment Total $521,611
Year 2024 Area Total 274,261 Year 2024 Total $1,046,513 Area ID
Year:
Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2025
**ALHAMBRA ST SONOMA AVE ELM AVE ALHAST 15 501 35 17,535 R ST 2 51 45 100 $130,811 18,563 LIGHT REHAB Treatment Total $130,811
**ALHAMBRA ST HAMILTON AVE SONOMA AVE ALHAST 10 218 32 6,976 R ST 1 9 0 100 $166,238 6,068 RECONSTRUCT **ALHAMBRA ST ELM AVE BROADWAY AVE ALHAST 25 515 31 15,965 R ST 2 18 0 100 $380,446 6,068 RECONSTRUCT **ALHAMBRA ST BROADWAY AVE PONDEROSA 6
AVE
ALHAST 30 480 36 17,280 R ST 16 0 100 $411,782 6,068 RECONSTRUCT Treatment Total $958,466
Year 2025 Area Total 57,756 Year 2025 Total $1,089,278
Area ID
Year:
Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2026
**NOCHE BUENA ST PLUMAS AV HILBY AV NOCHST 10 1,883 37 69,671 C AC/AC 5 79 74 83 $63,401 33,622 LIGHT MAINTENANCE Treatment Total $63,401
**LUXTON ST LA SALLE AVE ORD GROVE 4
AVE
LUXTST 90 909 32 29,088 R ST 39 25 100 $280,699 14,986 HEAVY REHAB **TRINITY AVE HILLSDALE ST WEST SIDE 1
SPLIT
TRINAV 20 250 33 8,250 R ST 28 7 100 $79,613 14,986 HEAVY REHAB Interest: 0.00%
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment
Inflation: 0.00% Printed: 1/23/2023
Scenario: 2023-2027 w/ Option2
Scenarios Criteria: Current PCI <= 85
** - Treatment from Project Selection 2 MTC StreetSaver Packet Page 358
Area ID
Year:
Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2026
**TRINITY AVE WEST SIDE SPLIT EAST SIDE 1
SPLIT
TRINAV 22 585 40 23,400 R ST 48 38 100 $225,810 14,769 HEAVY REHAB **TRINITY AVE EAST SIDE SPLIT WEST SIDE
SPLIT
TRINAV 24 585 40 23,400 R ST 39 25 100 $225,810 14,986 HEAVY REHAB Treatment Total $811,932
**TRINITY AVE EAST SIDE SPLIT FREMONT BLVD TRINAV 26 190 33 6,270 R ST 1 4 0 100 $149,414 6,068 RECONSTRUCT Treatment Total $149,414
Year 2026 Area Total 160,079 Year 2026 Total $1,024,746 Area ID
Year:
Street Name Begin Location End Location Street ID Section ID FC Surface
Type Cost Rating Treatment
Current
Length Width Area PCI
PCI
Before
PCI
After
Treatment
2027
**AUTO CENTER 6
PRKWY
CLEMENTINA AVE ROUNDABOUT
@ ECHO AVE
AUTOPK 10 1,225 26 31,850 C AC 78 68 78 $28,984 21,660 LIGHT MAINTENANCE **AUTO CENTER 6
PRKWY
ROUNDABOUT @
ECHO
DEL MONTE
BLVD
AUTOPK 20 720 60 43,200 C AC 77 67 77 $39,312 20,963 LIGHT MAINTENANCE Treatment Total $68,296
**LUZERN ST BROADWAY AVE S. END LUZEST 30 413 24 11,031 R AC 3 26 14 100 $106,449 16,823 HEAVY REHAB **LUZERN ST BROADWAY AVE MINGO AVE LUZEST 40 1,015 22 22,330 R AC 3 36 24 100 $215,485 16,823 HEAVY REHAB **LUZERN ST MINGO AVE LA SALLE AVE LUZEST 50 1,691 22 37,202 R AC 4 34 22 100 $358,999 16,823 HEAVY REHAB **SONOMA AV HARDING ST SOTO ST SONOAV 80 716 32 22,912 C AC 3 30 7 100 $260,051 11,350 HEAVY REHAB Treatment Total $940,984
Year 2027 Area Total 168,525 Year 2027 Total $1,009,280 Grand Total Section Area: 904,719 Grand Total $6,620,533 Interest: 0.00%
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Scenarios - Sections Selected for Treatment
Inflation: 0.00% Printed: 1/23/2023
Scenario: 2023-2027 w/ Option2
Scenarios Criteria: Current PCI <= 85
** - Treatment from Project Selection 3 MTC StreetSaver Packet Page 359
LINCST - 10
FLORST - 50 FLORST - 50 FLORST - 40
HARDST - 20 HARDST - 30
WARIST - 30 WARIST - 30 WARIST - 40
GRNDST - 20
GRNDST - 20
Scenario Treatments
2023-2027 w/ Option2- 2023 Project Period- Printed: 1/23/2023
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Test
Feature Legend
HEAVY REHAB
LIGHT REHAB
RECONSTRUCT
Packet Page 360
HARCAV - 10
HARCAV - 10
MILIAV - 40
CONTST - 10
TOROCT - 10
CONTST - 20
CLEMAV - 10
RAINCT - 10
JUDSST - 40 JUDSST - 30
Scenario Treatments
2023-2027 w/ Option2 - 2024 Project Period - Printed: 1/23/2023
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Test
Feature Legend
HEAVY MAINTENANCE
LIGHT MAINTENANCE
LIGHT REHAB
Packet Page 361
ALHAST - 15 ALHAST - 15 ALHAST - 10 T - 30 SAHLA ALHAST - 30 ALHAST - 25 ALHAST - 25 Scenario Treatments
2023-2027 w/ Option 2 - 2025 Project Period- Printed: 1/23/2023
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Test
Feature Legend
LIGHT REHAB
RECONSTRUCT
Packet Page 362
TRINAV - 20
LUXTST - 90
LUXTST - 90
NOCHST - 10 NOCHST - 10
TRINAV - 26
Scenario Treatments
2023-2027 w/ Option2 - 2026 Project Period - Printed: 1/23/2023
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Test
Feature Legend
HEAVY REHAB
LIGHT MAINTENANCE
RECONSTRUCT
Packet Page 363
LUZEST - 50 LUZEST - 50 LUZEST - 30 LUZEST - 40
SONOAV - 80
AUTOPK - 20
K - 10
POTUA
Scenario Treatments
2023-2027 w/ Option2 - 2027 Project Period - Printed: 1/23/2023
CITY OF SEASIDE
440 HARCOURT AVENUE
SEASIDE, CA 93955
(831) 899-6825
Test
Feature Legend
HEAVY REHAB
LIGHT MAINTENANCE
Packet Page 364
Appendix C
Definitions
Packet Page 365
A p p e n d i x C P a g e | 96
DEFINITIONS
This section is intended to define important pavement design acronyms and terms used when discussing a Pavement Management Program (PMP).
GENERAL TERMS
PMP - Pavement Management Program - A program to aid in tracking the condition of roads and a means to help quantify the cost of maintaining the roads in a given area.
TI - Traffic Index - Cars and light trucks have little impact on the pavement structure.
Larger/Heavier trucks have very significant impacts on the pavement due to the high axle weights. The total EALs is converted into a design Traffic Index (TI). The design TI is the total number of EALs that the pavement will support before it begins to fail, regardless of the passage of time. Normally for a new pavement, the EALs over a 20_year period are used. For rehabilitation procedures such as overlays, 10 years is generally used.
PCI - Pavement Condition Index - A rating scale for the condition of a road segment. 100 represents no defects and recent major rehabilitation.
CRITICAL PCI - The PCI value at which the rate of loss increases with time, or the cost of applying a maintenance treatment increases significantly.
CLS / FC - Functional Classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of traffic service that they are intended to provide. There are three highway functional classifications: arterial, collector, and local roads. All streets and highways are grouped into one of these classes, depending on the character of the traffic.
Arterials - provide the highest level of service at the greatest speed for the longest uninterrupted distance, with some degree of access control.
Collectors - provide a less highly developed level of service at a lower speed for shorter distances by collecting traffic from local roads and connecting them with arterials.
Residential/Local - consists of all roads not defined as arterials or collectors and primarily provides access to land with little or no through movement. • (Excerpted from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration web site on “Functional Classification”.) EMULSION - A chemical added to water and asphalt that keeps the asphalt in a stable suspension in the water.
AC - Asphaltic Concrete - A plant mixed asphalt binder (asphalt cement that is classified according to the Standard Specification for Performance Graded Asphalt Binder) and aggregate (rocks) thoroughly mixed and compacted into a mass.
Packet Page 366
A p p e n d i x C P a g e | 97
PCC - Portland Cement Concrete
OVERLAY - The placement of asphaltic concrete mix over an existing asphaltic concrete or portland cement concrete surface.
Light Overlay - would include any overlay of less than 2 inches of asphalt.
Heavy Overlay - is a thicker layer of asphalt and might include such items/operations as, but not limited to fabric, milling/grinding and reconstruction.
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE - Provides budget dollars for localized pavement repairs such as digouts and crack filling.
SLURRY SEAL - Includes a graded aggregate along with emulsion and water. Generally squeegeed and generally consists of two layers.
REFLECTIVE CRACKING - Cracks that occur in new “thin” overlays that are identical to the cracks that were present in the existing pavement.
ALLIGATOR CRACKING - Alligator or fatigue cracking is a series of interconnecting cracks caused by fatigue failure of the asphalt concrete surface under repeated traffic loading. Cracking begins at the bottom of the asphalt surface (or stabilized base) where the stress and strain are highest under a wheel load. The cracks propagate to the surface initially as a series of parallel longitudinal cracks. After repeated traffic loading, the cracks connect, forming many sided, sharp-angled pieces that develop a pattern resembling chicken wire or the skin of an alligator. Alligator cracking occurs only in areas subjected to repeated traffic loading, such as wheel paths. (Pattern-type cracking that occurs over an entire area not subjected to loading is called “block cracking,” which is not a loadassociated distress.) BLOCK CRACKING - Block cracks are interconnected cracks that divide the pavement into approximately rectangular pieces. Block cracking is caused mainly by shrinkage of the asphalt concrete and daily temperature cycling (which results in daily stress/strain cycling). It is not load-associated. Block cracking usually indicates that the asphalt has hardened significantly. Block cracking normally occurs over a large portion of the pavement area, but sometimes will occur only in non-traffic areas. This type of distress differs from alligator cracking in that alligator cracks form smaller, many-sided pieces with sharp angles. Also, unlike block, alligator cracks are caused by repeated traffic loadings, and are therefore found only in traffic areas (i.e., wheel paths).
LONGITUDINAL / TRANSVERSE CRACKING - Longitudinal cracks are parallel to the pavement’s centerline or laydown direction. Transverse cracks extend across the pavement at approximately right angles to the pavement centerline or direction of laydown. These types of cracks are not usually load-associated.
Packet Page 367
A p p e n d i x C P a g e | 98
WEATHERING & RAVELING - Weathering and raveling is the wearing away of the pavement surface due to a loss of asphalt or tar and dislodged aggregate particles. These distresses indicate that either the asphalt binder has hardened appreciably or that a poor quality mixture is present. In addition, raveling may be caused by certain types of traffic, i.e., tracked vehicles. Softening of the surface and dislodging of the aggregates due to oil spillage are also included under raveling.
BUMPS & SAGS - Bumps are small, localized, upward displacements of the pavement surface. They are different from shoves in that shoves are caused by unstable pavement.
Sags are small, abrupt, downward displacements of the pavement surface. If bumps appear in pattern perpendicular to traffic flow and are spaced at less than 3 m (10 ft), the distress is called corrugation. Distortion and displacement that occur over large areas of the pavement surface causing large and/or long dips in the pavement should be recorded at “swelling.”
RUTTING / SHOVING - A rut is a surface depression in the wheel paths. Pavement uplift may occur along the sides of the rut, but, in many instances, ruts are noticeable only after a rainfall when the paths are filled with water. Rutting stems from a permanent deformation in any of the pavement layers or subgrades, usually caused by consolidated or lateral movement of the materials due to traffic load.
Shoving is a permanent, longitudinal displacement of a localized area of the pavement surface caused by traffic loading. When traffic pushes against the pavement, it produces a short, abrupt wave in the pavement surface. This distress normally occurs only in unstable liquid asphalt mix (cutback or emulsion) pavements.
PATCHING & UTILITY CUTS - A patch is an area of pavement that has been replaced with new material to repair the existing pavement. A patch is considered a defect no matter how well it is performing (a patched area or adjacent area usually does not perform as well as an original pavement section). Generally, some roughness is associated with this distress.
POTHOLES - Most often are structurally related distresses and should not be confused with raveling and weathering.
PAVEMENT PRESERVATION - Applying the Right Treatment to the Right Pavement at the Right Time using the Right Materials.
R-VALUE - A test to evaluate the base, subbase and subgrades of an area to be used in pavement designing for thickness of asphalt.
ESAL - The impact of trucks is measured in equivalent single 18,000 pound axle loads (EALs).
Packet Page 368
A p p e n d i x C P a g e | 99
STREETSAVER DEFINITIONS
MANAGEMENT SECTION - This is used to maintain an inventory of all the roads and road sections in your jurisdiction.
EVENTS – This provides for viewing and maintaining of Events or changes that have been made on a management section. The Events that are included are:
• Management Section Creation.
• Results from Maintenance and Rehabilitation treatments that have been applied to the Management Section.
• Results from Visual Inspections of Management Sections. • Listing of changes/edits of information on a Management Section.
DETERIORATION CURVE - This provides a graphical representation of the current pavement condition index and the historical PCIs for each section of road in your jurisdiction.
MAINTENANCE/REHABILITATION - This is used to review the proposed maintenance, new maintenance, and rehabilitation for any road section in your jurisdiction.
BRANCH - Generally a road name or a road name with a direction of travel.
SECTION - Usually a branch or road is large and needs to be divided into smaller pieces to maintain. These smaller pieces are labeled as “sections” and designated with a number and a beginning and ending location.
DISTRESSES - Defects found in asphalt concrete pavements or portland cement concrete. These defects degrade the condition of the road.
RATING - The rating is the weight cost - effectiveness ratio of the recommended treatment.
% OF ENVIRONMENT - The percentage of the pavement distress in a management section that is an environment related distress.
% LOAD RELATED - The percentage of the pavement distress in a management section that is load related distress (caused by excessive weight on the pavement surface). % OTHER - Is the percentage of the pavement section that is not a load related or environment related distress.
ACTIVE - Indicates whether or not the current record is active.
Packet Page 369
A p p e n d i x C P a g e | 100
AREA - Contains the area of a section in square feet. This is automatically calculated using the values that are entered in the Length and Width fields. However, if the section is irregularly shaped the area can be entered by the user.
AREA ID - Is an optional, jurisdiction defined field to identify the area in which the section is located. For example, each neighborhood or subdivision, or each geographic type (mountain, valley, coast, etc.) in the jurisdiction may be assigned a letter of the alphabet.
BASE BUDGET - Provides an area for you to enter the dollar amount of your base budget.
BASE BUDGET INCREASE FACTOR - Stores the percent that the base budget will increase each year.
BASE PM SPLIT - Percent of the base budget that has been set aside for preventive maintenance.
BEGINNING LOCATION - Identifies the point that defines the beginning of the section.
This is generally the name of a cross road or other landmark.
CONDITION - Column lists the condition levels (2-5) that require stop-gap treatments.
COST/ SQ YD - Indicates the cost per square yard of road for the suggested treatment.
CURRENT PCI - Calculated from either a visual inspection or a maintenance treatment.
DESCRIPTION - Displays a description of the item named in the previous column in a grid.
DISTRESS - Contains the type of distress present on a section of a road.
END LOCATION - Identifies the point that defines the end of the section. This is generally the name of a cross road or other landmark.
EVENT ACTIVE - Indicates whether an Event is currently part of the active history for the current Section.
EVENT PCI - The PCI after the selected Event occurred.
EVENT TRANSACTION TYPE - Includes: Creation, Inspection, Treatment, Split, Combine, Attribute Change and Core Data Change.
EVENT VALID - Indicates if an Event can be activated and made part of the valid events for the current section.
Packet Page 370
A p p e n d i x C P a g e | 101
FUNDING SOURCE - Is an optional, jurisdiction defined field to identify the funding source for the section; an example might be G for general fund.
GENERAL CODE - Is an optional, jurisdiction defined field used to identify sections of pavement sharing common characteristics, i.e., drainage type.
INFLATION RATE - Is the inflation used throughout your jurisdiction. You may wish to consult your financial department with this value.
INSPECTION AREA - Is the total area of the inspection unit.
INTEREST RATE - Contains the interest rate used throughout your jurisdiction.
LIFE EXTENSION - Is the number of years that a maintenance treatment extends the life of a pavement surface.
MAINTENANCE DATE - Displays the date the maintenance was completed.
MANAGEMENT UNIT - Relates a project to a management unit.
MILEPOSTS - Display the beginning and ending points of a management section.
NEW PCI - Stores the PCI value that was calculated after a treatment was applied.
NUMBER OF SURFACE SEALS BEFORE OVERLAY - Displays the recommended number of surface seals before the application of an overlay.
OLD PCI - Displays the pavement condition index before a treatment was applied.
OTHER - Displays the weighting factor applied to management sections with functional classes other than arterial, collector, and residential.
OVERLAY - Displays the overlay code that corresponds to an overlay procedure.
OVERLAY CODE - Is an identifier for the treatment type; use one of the six codes from the pop-up list that appears when this is activated.
PCI CAP - Stores the maximum PCI value that will be included in needs and scenario calculations. If a PCI value is larger than the PCI Cap value, it will not be included.
PCI EFFECTIVENESS CUT-OFF - Contains the minimum PCI value used in calculating the area under the projected performance curve. That area is used in ranking sections needing work, and the area below the PCI Cut-Off value is not included in that area. It should generally be the lowest PCI value that defines the minimum acceptable condition for all of the pavement types and functional classification groupings.
Packet Page 371
A p p e n d i x C P a g e | 102
PCI HIGH - LOW > 25 - Is marked if the difference between the high and low PCI values is greater than 25.
PCI HIGH VALUE - Is the maximum PCI value for an inspection unit used in the last PCI calculation for a management unit.
PCI LOW VALUE - Is the minimum PCI value for an inspection unit used in the last PCI calculation for a management unit.
PM% - Scenarios based on a yearly budget, this column stores the percent that has been set aside for preventive maintenance.
REPLACEMENT COST - Is the cost per square yard to install a new pavement surface.
RESIDENTIAL $ - Indicates the cost of a stop-gap treatment per square yard when applied to a road with a residential functional class and a given condition.
ROAD ID - Contains a two-character identifier that was assigned to the road. The combination of Road Number, Road Name, and Road ID must be unique for each road section.
ROAD NAME - Displays the name of the road that corresponds to the road number and road ID. The combination of Road Number, Road Name, and Road ID must be unique for each road section.
ROAD NUMBER - Contains the number that was assigned to a road. The combination of Road Number, Road Name, and Road ID must be unique for each road section.
SECTION ID - Is an identifier that is unique for each section of a given street. Note that the Street ID and the Section ID combined describe the individual section. Therefore, that combination must be unique. The same Section ID can be reused as long as it is used in conjunction with a different Street ID each time.
SEGMENT LENGTH - Is the length in feet of the management section.
SELECT MANAGEMENT SECTIONS - Allows you to calculate PCI values based on selected management sections. If this button is marked, the management sections that have had records updated since the last calculations are displayed in a grid. Select the management sections you want included in the calculations from this grid.
SPECIAL - Check box is marked if the displayed inspection unit is non-representative of a section as a whole.
Packet Page 372
A p p e n d i x C P a g e | 103
SPECIAL UNIT - The information will either be Y or blank. Y is an indication that this inspection unit is in some way non-representative of the section as a whole, and would receive a different maintenance/rehabilitation treatment from the rest of the section.
STANDARD INSPECTION UNITS - Is the typical number of inspection units that would be used for a particular management section.
STOP-GAP APPLICATION INTERVAL - Indicates the number of years between the applications of stop-gap treatments.
STREET ID - Is an identifier that is unique for each street. The Street ID usually bears some similarity to the actual street name.
STREET NAME - Is the full name of the street including “Street”, “Way”, “Court” etc.
TREATMENT - Contains the type of treatment the road received or will receive.
TREATMENT COST - Is an optional field giving the cost in dollars and cents of the treatment.
UNIT OF MEASURE - Displays the units of measure used to measure an item.
UNIT PRICE - Displays the price paid for an inventory item.
VISUAL PCI - Used to identify PCI calculations that have been determined based upon a visual inspection. If this check box is blank, then the PCI was extrapolated based upon the maintenance treatment that has been applied to a management section.
WEIGHTING FACTORS - Section displays the weighting factors established by your jurisdiction for the functional classes.
YEAR OF MAINTENANCE - Stores the proposed year of a treatment.
YEARS BETWEEN CRACK SEALS - Displays the number of years between the application of crack seals for the functional class with a specific severity.
YEARS BETWEEN SURFACE SEALS - Displays the recommended number of years that should come between surface seal application for the functional class with the indicated severity.
YEARS TO CALCULATE - Stores the number of years you want to include in the Budget Needs calculation. The number of years cannot be less than 5 or more than 20.
Packet Page 373
A p p e n d i x C P a g e | 104
REPORT DEFINITIONS
ZONES - Geographical areas of the city defined by city staff to aid in the development of a maintenance plan for residential roads.
CL - Centerline Mile - a measuring of the length of a road regardless of the width of the road.
LM - Lane Mile - a measurement of the length of all the lanes for a given FC or area.
ACTION / TREATMENT - A proposed type of rehabilitation work that should be used on a given road segment, based on PCI, FC and engineering evaluation.
ANNUAL BUDGET - The amount of money that is available each year to be used for pavement maintenance. These funds can come from various sources and can vary from year to year, although it is generally a fixed figure.
Packet Page 374
SAN PABLO
FREMONT
FREMONT
PORTOLA
HIG
HLA
N
D
MINGO
W
H
E
ELE
R
LA SALLE
CARLTON
MILITARY
KIMBALL
FR
E
M
O
N
T
ENGLISH
N
O
C
H
E
B
U
E
N
A
HILBY
MESCAL
CANYON
DEL
REY
YOSEMITE
PLUMAS
DEL MONTE
BROADWAY
GENERAL JIM
MOORE
Y
O
S
E
MIT
E
Phase 1 -Completed 2018
Phase 2 -Completed 2019
Phase 3 - Comp leted 2021
FY 21/22 Pvmnt Rehab - In Progress
Completed by other projects
T:\Projects\CurrentProjects\PMP\Map\UpdatedPavementRehab_2022.pdf 0 1,800 3,600
Feet
Playa
Pavement Rehabilitation
2016-2022
Packet Page 375
CITY OF SEASIDE
STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 10.C.
TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Nisha Patel, Public Works Director/City Engineer
DATE: February 16, 2023
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WALLACE
GROUP TO EVALUATE ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS IN THE WELL
SITING STUDY FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $94,046.00
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the professional services agreement with Wallace Group to evaluate additional locations in the well siting study for an amount not to exceed $94,046.00
BACKGROUND
On March 15, 2022, the Wallace Group entered into a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with the City to provide a well siting study and well design documents for $187,700.00. The study scope envisioned a water well that could serve both as the second well in the Seaside Municipal Water System (SMWS) and provide supply for the Campus Town development.
The well siting study focused on locations within the SMWS service area and over the deeper portion of the groundwater basin. Based on feedback from the public and staff, additional sites outside the SMWS service area should be considered as well. The amended scope includes additional groundwater modeling, coordination with the Seaside Basin Watermaster and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, and participating in public information events. The additional effort will add approximately 2-months to the overall design schedule.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Council approved including 10% of the agreement amount for the City Manager to Packet Page 376
Item No. 10.C. Page 2 of 2
authorize amendments with the PSA approved on March 15th so that total potential PSA value was $206,470.00. Staff is now recommending the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the professional services agreement with Wallace Group in the amount of $94,046.00 and additional amendments up to $9,405.00 for total amendment no. 1 value of $103,451.00. This would result in a total potential PSA value of $309,921.00. The professional service agreement will be charged to the Well Replacement Account (No. 401-8910-9569), where there are sufficient funds in the fiscal year 2022/23 budget.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Amendment 1 to the PSA
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 377
RESOLUTION NO. 23-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE
AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH WALLACE GROUP TO EVALUATE ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS IN THE WELL SITING STUDY FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $94,046.00 WHEREAS, ON March 15, 2022, the City approved a professional services agreement (PSA) with Wallace Group to prepare a water augmentation - well siting study, with a not to exceed budget of $187,700.00 and a 10% agreement contingency of $18,770.00 for a total agreement value up to $206,470.00; and, WHEREAS, the original study focused on potential well locations within the Seaside Municipal Water System service area; and,
WHEREAS, Staff has requested that additional well sites outside the Seaside Municipal Water System service area be evaluated; and,
WHEREAS, Wallace Group submitted a proposal to evaluate additional well sites in the amount of $94,046.00; and,
WHEREAS, Staff has determined that the proposed scope of work and budget are reasonable and within the approved budget; and,
WHEREAS, an amount of $9,405.00 contingency, 10% of the amendment value, should be authorized on an as required basis for a total amendment no. 1 value of $103,451.00; and
WHEREAS, including the work in amendment no. 1 to the scope of work for the Wallace Group professional services agreement would result in a total PSA value of $309,921.00; and,
WHEREAS, the adopted fiscal year 2022/23 budget for the Water Replacement Account (No. 401-8910-9569) is $1,500,000.00; and
WHEREAS, there are sufficient funds in the Water Replacement account to fund the additional evaluation for the well siting study;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Seaside does hereby adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the professional services agreement with Wallace Group to evaluate additional well Packet Page 378
locations for an amount not to exceed $94,046.00 and a total study budget of $281,746.00, and written amendments such that the total Agreement does not exceed $309,921.00.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular City Council meeting of the City of Seaside duly held on the 16th day of February, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
______________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
Packet Page 379
CONTRACT AMENDMENT #1
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 22-044
City of Seaside
Date: February 7, 2023 Change Requested by: _X_ City/District _ _ Consultant Contract Date Project Name
04/08/2022 Water Well Siting Study
To (Consultant): Wallace Group, 612 Clarion Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 You are directed to make the following changes to the Contract Documents or amend the following described work not included in the contract documents for this project.
The purpose of this addendum is to provide additional professional services related to the project named above. The contract terms and conditions shall not be modified except for as stated herein.
MODIFY the following text in Section 2, “Services.”
Consultant shall perform the tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A and A1 attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A and A1.
MODIFY the following text in Section 22, “Contents of Request for Proposal and Proposal.” Consultant is bound by the contents of City's Request for Proposal, Exhibit "D" hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and the contents of the proposal submitted by the Consultant, Exhibit A and A1 attached hereto. In the event of conflict, the requirements of Agency's Request for Proposals and this Agreement shall take precedence over those contained in the Consultant's proposals.
Original Contract
Amount
Previous CCO Total (Not
including this
Amendment)
This
Amendment
Total
Revised Contract
Amount
$187,700.00 $0 $94,046.00 $281,746.00
Original Contract
Time
Original Completion Date
Days To Date
(Including This
Amendment)
Revised Completion
Date
4 Months June 30, 2022 28 Months June 30, 2024
Packet Page 380
Packet Page 381
CONTRACT AMENDMENT
Project Name: City of Seaside Water Augmentation CA No. 1 Client Name: City of Seaside Project/Phase No. 1284-0026 Attention: Nisha Patel, PE Date: February 1, 2023
Address: 440 Harcourt Avenue, Seaside, California, 93955 Wallace Group requests the Client’s authorization to proceed with revisions to the contract agreement for the above referenced project as herein described. Approval below incorporates this document as a part of the original contract signed April 8, 2022. If approved, please return one signed original Contract Amendment to Wallace Group.
Description and Purpose of the Revision(s)
On December 29, 2022, Wallace Group, along with staff from Schaaf & Wheeler, delivered a presentation via video teleconference to the public to discuss the proposed water well and respond to concerns. One of the concerns was that the City had not adequately studied alternatives to the proposed well siting within either Havana Soliz Park or Lincoln Cunningham Park. City staff requested Wallace Group provide a siting study that considers additional areas. Based on our discussion, the following Scope of Services has been prepared for your consideration.
The original project scope was to provide a groundwater well siting study considering up to three locations; Lincoln Cunningham Park, or Havana Soliz Park, or near the existing golf courses reservoir well. These locations are labeled as areas 1 and 2 on the attached Figure 1. Additional locations to be considered in the siting study are labeled as areas 3 through 5 and are described as follows:
3. Area east of General Jim Moore Blvd and Mingo Ave.
4. Adjacent to Seaside Municipal Well #4.
5. MPUSD Property on Ord Terrace School adjacent to Ord Grove Ave.
The well siting study would present the technical constraints and site-specific budgetary estimated costs. Wallace Group will retain Cleath-Harris Geologists (Cleath-Harris) to provide professional services to provide technical constraints and budgetary costs for the five alternative locations described above. Cleath-Harris’s proposed scope of work is incorporated to the CA and attached hereto.
The study would provide budgetary cost estimates for the constructing a groundwater well and infrastructure to deliver water to the nearest point of connection to the Seaside Municipal Water System. However, the study would not include the following:
1. Estimated costs for environmental documents required in support of the project. We will, however, provide an allowance for CEQA compliance.
2. Geotechnical investigations.
3. Engineered plans and specifications.
4. Detailed Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Costs.
5. Well installation or testing
6. Negotiations for permits or agreements with any third parties, such as the Seaside Basin Watermaster, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, or others
7. Permits
8. CEQA compliance, project status determination, or documentation
9. Topographic Survey
10. Review of existing water facilities
11. Land acquisition or land use rights
12. Bid phase services
EXHIBIT A
Packet Page 382
CA #1
City of Seaside
February 1, 2023
Task 1 – Project Management & Meetings
Wallace Group has provided and will provide additional project management and meetings support for the proposed siting study. The table below, "Summary of Out-Of-Scope Work Completed," shows the additional hours for work already completed included in this CA. Also included are 16 professional service hours to attend up to 4 future remote meetings lasting up to 2 hours each. This effort is based on the schedule duration of four (4) months.
Task 1 Deliverables:
Meeting Agendas (PDF)
Meeting Minutes (PDF
Task 2 – Well Siting Study
Wallace Group and Cleath-Harris have provided and will provide additional professional services for the proposed expanded siting study. To date, we have provided additional project support and documentation for evaluating the two park sites, Lincoln Cunningham and Havana Soliz; and for modifying the bidding documents to include federal procurement requirements, well capacity testing for 2 wells, and for researching and plotting the golf course boundary. Also included in this task are 64 professional service hours to prepare a draft and final siting study and attend up to one site visit lasting up to 4 hours.
Deliverables:
Draft Technical Memorandum (PDF)
Final Technical Memorandum (PDF)
Revision(s) Represent: Revision(s) Fee:
( ) a change in previous instructions (x) hourly (time & materials) $94,046 (x) a change in Scope of Services ( ) progress billing: $ ( ) other: ( ) not-to-exceed w/o authorization: $
Revision(s) will be invoiced as:
(x) increase to an item within the existing contract
( ) a new item added to existing contract
Issued by,
WALLACE GROUP, a California Corporation APPROVED BY CLIENT:
Kari Wagner, PE C66026 ____________________________________ Principal Signature
612 Clarion Court ____________________________________
San Luis Obispo Printed Name
California 93401 ____________________________________
T 805 544-4011 Title
F 805 544-4294 ____________________________________
www.wallacegroup.us Date
Attachments
Figure 1 – Proposed Well Siting Study Areas
Exhibit A – Proposal by Cleath-Harris
Exhibit B - Budget Estimate
EXHIBIT A
Packet Page 383
11 Seaside Wells 3 (inactive)
& 4 (active)
Cal Am Luzern Cal Am Ord Grove
Cal Am Paralta
ASR Wells 3 & 4
ASR Wells 1 & 2
Ord Terrace Fault Line
PWM Injection
Wells
Cal Am Military
Cal Am Proposed
Golf Course
Well
Potential Well Sites
DRAFT Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Figure 1 - Proposed Well Siting Study Areas
EXHIBIT A
Packet Page 384
Cleath-Harris Geologists, Inc.
75 Zaca Lane, Suite 110
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-1413
Well Siting and Design, City of Seaside CA 1/27/2023
27 January 2023
Rick Riedl
Wallace Group
201 John Street, Suite H
Salinas, CA 93901
[email protected]
Subject: Proposal for Additional Well Siting and Design Work, City of Seaside California Dear Mr. Riedl:
Per your request Cleath-Harris Geologists (CHG) presents a proposal for additional well siting and design work for the City of Seaside, California. CHG would perform this work for Wallace Group under their contract with City of Seaside.
PROJECT APPROACH
The project would:
• Locate and evaluate four additional well sites beyond the previously evaluated LincolnCunningham Park and Havana-Soliz Parks in the four areas identified by the City of Seaside (map attached).
• Define the hydrogeology of these areas based on available information and site geologic/hydrologic reconnaissance and estimate depths of the aquifers at the well sites; • Compare preliminary well designs, costs, and constraints at the identified well sites in the four areas.
• Determine what exploration may be necessary to verify the potential capacity and quality of groundwater resources in the project area and prepare an exploration program • Complete preliminary design and bidding paperwork for the City preferred site.
Exhibit A
1284-0026 EXHIBIT A
Packet Page 385
Proposal, Technical Memorandum Review, Seaside, CA 2 1/27/2023
SCOPE OF WORK
The tasks involved in performing the work are presented below.
1. Meetings. Attend “Zoom” meetings with City and Wallace Group to discuss issues related to the study and to update the City regarding progress. Anticipated meetings are as follows:
• Four zoom meetings (1-2 hours each) are anticipated to handle issues related to well siting and design
• Administrative Draft Report Review
2. Hydrogeologic Research. Review published geologic/hydrogeologic reports and well logs, capacities and water quality information for existing wells which may be representative of a new municipal well constructed on the potential properties identified by the City.
3. Site Reconnaissance. Visit proposed areas to observe any geologic/hydrologic features and critical constraints/setbacks.
4. Estimated Capacity and Quality. Based on available information, estimate maximum potential capacity and resulting water quality of groundwater produced from a new municipal well, as well as whether there could be potential impacts on other existing wells in the vicinity when the new well is operated at that capacity.
5. Physical Constraints for Well Siting. Review site constraints and required setbacks, along with existing surface and underground constructed features, to identify the preferred location for a new municipal well.
6. Well Drilling Method and Preliminary Design. Recommend the drilling method and preliminary casing and screen schedule for use in developing cost estimates.
7. Exploratory Test Hole/Test Well. Determine whether a test hole or small-diameter test well would be a satisfactory method of confirming the conditions anticipated to be accessed by a new municipal well. Make recommendations as noted above for the drilling method and casing schedule (or borehole depth) required for the test hole or test well.
8. Potential Impacts Analysis Scope of Work. If it is anticipated that the new supply well could have adverse impacts on existing wells, formulate a scope of work with testing procedures to address those impacts, as well as to develop any appropriate mitigation measures. While residence time would be preliminarily screened in the impacts assessment based on available data, this analysis would not include modeling or model related assessment required to fully evaluate residence times between the proposed well sites and ASR injection wells.
9. Cost Estimate. Provide the estimated cost of the test hole or test well (if any), and for the fully developed supply well, including production testing to confirm long term capacity. Also provide an estimated cost to evaluate potential adverse effects on existing wells in the vicinity, based on the developed scope of work.
EXHIBIT A
Packet Page 386
Proposal, Technical Memorandum Review, Seaside, CA 3 1/27/2023
10. Report. The findings, conclusions and recommendations from will be presented in a memorandum to the City Department of Public Works, initially as a draft report that will be formalized into a final report with modifications that respond to comments and incorporate City edits. This report would summarize and compare the well designs, the potential yield, well construction costs, site constraints and potential impacts for the selected well sites in the City-identified groundwater development areas (attached figure).
PROPOSED TIMELINE
ADDITIONAL WORK-OUT OF SCOPE (Completed)
Additional work was completed to evaluate and complete preliminary well designs for HavanaSoliz Park. This work was outside the initial scope of work and included:
• Assessed drilling site at Havana-Soliz Park
• Created preliminary design and bid paperwork for Havana-Soliz Park Well • Developed Figures to Support Discussions Regarding Alternate Well Siting Locations • Responded and updated Havana-Soliz Park Well design following review • Attended City and Wallace Group meetings related to Havana-Soliz Park Well Site Task Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13 Week 14 Tentative Date Feb 6-10 Feb 13-27 Feb 20-24 Feb 27-
Mar 3
Mar 6-10 Mar 13-17 Mar 20-24 Mar 27-31 Apr 3-7 Apr 20-24 May 1-5 May 8-12 May 15-
19 May 22-
26 Site Reconnaissance X X
Physical Constraints on
Drilling X X
Hydrogeologic Research X
Estimate Capacity and
Quality X
Well Drilling Method X
Preliminary Design X X
Impacts Analysis X X
Cost Estimate X X X
Report
Report Edits/Comment
Review
X X X X
Finalize Report X X
EXHIBIT A
Packet Page 387
Proposal, Technical Memorandum Review, Seaside, CA 4 1/27/2023
FEES AND CONDITIONS
The work would be performed on an hourly rate plus expenses basis with Terms of Fees and Conditions attached to this proposal. The hourly rates for 2023 are presented below. We estimate the budget for the services would be $56,000 for the additional well siting study and additional out of scope design work completed to date.
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
Principal
Hydrogeologist $ 184.00
Senior Hydrogeologist $ 173.00
Project Geologist $ 157.00
Environmental Scientist $ 140.00
Staff Geologist II $ 140.00
Staff Geologist I $ 125.00
Expenses at cost plus
10%
Mileage $0.70/mile
AGREEMENT
If the above scope of work and fees are acceptable, this proposal will serve as the basis for agreement with your signature affixed below.
Very truly yours,
CLEATH-HARRIS GEOLOGISTS
Timothy S. Cleath, President
____________________
Authorizing Person
___________________________________
___________________________________
Address
____________________
Date
EXHIBIT A
Packet Page 388
Proposal, Technical Memorandum Review, Seaside, CA 5 1/27/2023
TERMS OF FEES AND CONDITIONS
1 Invoices will be submitted monthly. The invoice is due and payable upon receipt.
2. In order to defray carrying charges resulting from delayed payments, simple interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum (but not to exceed the maximum rate allowed by law) will be added to the unpaid balance of each invoice. The interest period shall commence 30 days after date of original invoice and shall terminate upon date of payment. Payments will be first credited to interest and then to principle. No interest charge would be added during the initial 30 day period following date of invoice.
3. The fee for services will be based on current hourly rates for specific classifications and expenses. Hourly rates and expenses included in the attached schedule are reevaluated on January 1 and July 1 of each year.
4. Documents including tracings, maps, and other original documents as instruments of service are and shall remain properties of the consultant except where by law or precedent these documents become public property.
5. If any portion of the work is terminated by the client, then the provisions of this Schedule of Fees and Conditions in regard to compensation and payment shall apply insofar as possible to that portion of the work not terminated or abandoned.
If said termination occurs prior to completion of any phase of the project, the fee for services performed during such phase shall be based on the consultant's reasonable estimate of the portion of such phase completed prior to said termination, plus a reasonable amount to reimburse consultant for termination costs.
6. If either party becomes involved in litigation arising out of this contract or the performance thereof, the court in such litigation shall award reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, to the party justly entitled thereto. In awarding attorney's fees the court shall not be bound by any court fee schedule, but shall, if it is in the interest of justice to do so, award the full amount of costs, expenses, and attorney's fees paid or incurred in good faith.
7. All of the terms, conditions and provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, provided, however, that no assignment of the contract shall be made without written consent of the parties to the agreement.
EXHIBIT A
Packet Page 389
Exhibit B
1284-0026
Exhibit B - Wallace Group Team Resource Estimate for the City of Seaside Water Augmentation - Contract Amendment #1 PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ENGINEER ASSISTANT ENGINEER Cleath Harris Geologist Misc. Direct Costs TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL TASK DESCRIPTION HRS HRS HRS HRS Cost HRS LABOR COST
RATE $260 $240 $165 $ $
1 Project Management & Meetings 2 58 10 $225 70 $16,090 $16,315 2 Well Siting Study 34 30 $163 64 $69,110 $69,273
SUB-TOTALS 2 92 40 $388 134 #REF! $85,588
WALLACE GROUP LABOR COSTS $520 $22,080 $6,600 $29,200
WALLACE GROUP DIRECT COSTS $388
SUBCONSULTANT DIRECT COSTS $56,000 $56,000
DIRECT COSTS OVERHEAD @ 15% $8,458
TOTAL $94,046
Task Budgets may fluctuate within Overall Budget PHASE/TASK Fee Seaside Well CA1.xlsx Summary Page 1 2/1/2023
EXHIBIT A
Packet Page 390
CITY OF SEASIDE
STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 10.D.
TO: City Council
BY: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
DATE: February 16, 2023
SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION GRANTING OR
DENYING CONSENT TO THE CITY OF MONTEREY TO RENEW
THE MONTEREY COUNTY TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
(MCTID) AND INCLUDE THE CITY OF SEASIDE IN THE MCTID
PURPOSE & RECOMMENDATION
Consider adoption of a resolution granting or denying consent to the City of Monterey to renew the MCTID, and include the City of Seaside in the MCTID.
BACKGROUND
First launched in 2006 under the Property and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (’89 Law), the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) is a benefit assessment district proposed to continue as a revenue source to help fund marketing and sales promotion efforts for lodging businesses in Monterey County. In 2018, an effort to modernize the MCTID led to the disestablishment of the ’89 Law district and re-establishing the MCTID pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (’94 Law). The five-year term of the MCTID is set to expire on December 31, 2023, and the required number of lodging business owners have submitted a written petition to renew the district. Pending successful renewal of the MCTID, the Owner’s Association will request to modify the current MCTID term to end early on June 30, 2023, with the renewed district beginning on July 1, 2023.
The 94 Law allows for the renewal of multi-jurisdictional tourism improvement districts, with consent of the included jurisdictions, and being granted to one “lead” jurisdiction.
The City of Monterey has requested consent to continue to act as the lead jurisdiction in the renewal of MCTID (ATTACHMENT 2), and administering MCTID countywide.
Adopting this resolution will give the City of Monterey authority to include the City of Seaside in the renewed MCTID.
Packet Page 391
Item No. 10.D. Page 2 of 4
Management District Plan
The Management District Plan (Attachment 3) includes the proposed boundary of the renewed MCTID, a service plan and budget, and a proposed means of governance. The MCTID shall include all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-bythe-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad. The MCTID is divided into two (2) benefit zones as described in the Plan.
The cities and county shall continue to 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 within the boundaries of the MCTID. The cities and County shall make all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each lodging business. The cities and County shall forward the assessments to Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB), serving as the MCTID Owner’s Association, which will have the responsibility of managing MCTID programs as provided in the Management District Plan.
Lodging business owners decided to pursue renewal of the MCTID in order to continue a revenue source devoted to marketing Monterey County as a tourist, meeting, and event destination. If renewed, the MCTID would generate an initial annual budget of approximately $8,856,266.00, increasing biennially as assessment rates increase, for the promotion of travel and tourism specific to Monterey County.
Adoption of a resolution granting consent to the City of Monterey (ATTACHMENT 1) to renew the MCTID and include the City of Seaside in the MCTID, will enable the City of Monterey and the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) to move forward with the MCTID renewal process. Upon successful renewal, the MCTID will continue to be governed by the TID Oversight Committee and the Management District Plan (MDP), facilitated by the Monterey City Council and the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (the Owner’s Association). As a result of Seaside's City Attorney review, an amended resolution (ATTACHMENT 4) granting or denying consent to the City of Monterey, is included with amendments to section 2 that indicate every subsequent renewal period will be reconsidered by the Council by the adoption of resolution.
Staff received MCCVB's request to present the MCTID to Council on December 27, 2023 (during the holiday season). The request was incomplete, lacking the notice of intent as well as financial and performance information. Staff requires needs more time to fully analyze the above-mentioned information as well as what services will be provided by the MCTID format that would be of value to the City of Seaside hotel industry. The staff inquired with the City Attorney's office of the City of Monterey, if the Monterey City Packet Page 392
Item No. 10.D. Page 3 of 4
Council had the legal authority to continue the hearing to February 21, 2023, with a date certain. Staff was informed that City of Monterey City Attorney could not provide "legal advice" to the City of Seaside.
In order to fully assess the MCCVD's current impact on our local hotels, staff is conducting a survey of all hotels within the City of Seaside. The data was not available in time for this report. In lieu, the General Managers of the hotels in Seaside have been invited to attend the Council meeting and make a statement during the public comment period.
The direct fiscal impact of the TID plan is considered "pass through" from an accounting point of view, because businesses pay the TID amount. However, the cost is impactful from an economic point of view, because the "market cost" is picked up by the consumer. The cost that impacts the City is the administrative cost of collecting the TID and remitting it to the Monterey County Convention & Visitors' Bureau. It is estimated that the current administrative cost is close to $2,000.00 per fiscal year to perform the administration of the TID for the City's existing 13 motels and hotels. The City is reimbursed 1% of TID collected per the agreement. In fiscal year 21-22, the City was reimbursed $2,128.56 for administration costs for the TID program.
The new Seaside Grand Hyatt hotel will incur a higher TID assessment of $7 to $7.50 per room rented compared to the $1 to $2 assessed for the existing hotels and motels in the City of Seaside, meaning that the administrative cost reimbursement will likely increase due to future developments. it is expected that the increased administration cost reimbursement in the agreement due to the new hotel development will modestly exceed the actual cost the City will incur in managing the TID collection for this program in the future.
Total TID collected and remitted in FY 21-22 to MCCVB from existing hotels = $210,727.00
Total annual TID that is estimated to be collected from existing hotels at new rates = $399,564.00
Estimated TID to be collected from the new Seaside Grand Hyatt Hotel at the Golf course when completed = $584,303.00
The total estimated collection including the new Seaside Grand Hyatt Hotel under the new agreement = $983,867.00 (*assuming the hotel has 330 rooms and a 70% occupancy rate.)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Monterey Tourism Improvement District Resolution
Packet Page 393
Item No. 10.D. Page 4 of 4
2. City of Monterey Resolution
3. Monterey Tourism Improvement District Management District Plan
4. Seaside's Amendments for Monterey Tourism Improvement District Resolution
Packet Page 394
1 RESOLUTION NO.___________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONSENT TO THE CITY OF MONTEREY TO
RENEW THE MONTEREY COUNTY TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
(MCTID)
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey initially created the MCTID in 2006 under the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989; and
WHEREAS, the MCTID was converted in 2019 under Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 by Resolution No. 18-147 for a five (5) year term, which ends December 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monterey has requested consent to renew the MCTID in the City of Seaside with adoption of Monterey City Council Resolution No. 22-169, dated December 20, 2022;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Seaside, that:
Section 1: The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2: The City of Monterey is hereby granted consent to include the City of Seaside in the MCTID, for the renewal of the MCTID and future renewals.
Section 3: The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the Clerk of the City of Monterey City Council.
Section 4: This Resolution is effective upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside, State of California, held on this 16th day of February 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
__________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Dominique Davis, City Clerk
Packet Page 395
2 AS TRUE TO FORM:
______________________________
Sheri L. Damon
Packet Page 396
RESOLUTION NO. 22-169 C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
REQUESTING CONSENT OF THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY AND CITIES OF CARMEL-BYTHE-SEA, DEL REY OAKS, GONZALES, GREENFIELD, KING CITY, MARINA, PACIFIC
GROVE, SALINAS, SAND CITY, SEASIDE, AND SOLEDAD TO CREATE THE MONTEREY
COUNTY TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monterey desires to begin proceedings to form the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID); WHEREAS, certain lodging business owners have requested that the City Council of the City of Monterey create the MCTID; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the territory proposed to be included in the MCTID lies within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of the County of Monterey and the cities of Carmelby-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad (the “Granting County and Cities”), as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by such attachment; and WHEREAS, the area of the unincorporated areas of the County of Monterey and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad which lies within the boundaries of the proposed MCTID will, in the opinion of the City Council of the City of Monterey, be benefited by the improvements and activities, and the purpose sought to be accomplished by the work can best be accomplished by a single comprehensive scheme of work; 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:
Section 1: The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2: Consent of the County of Monterey and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad, through their Board of Supervisors and City Councils, is hereby requested to create DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E Packet Page 397
2 the MCTID, and to grant to the City Council of the City of Monterey jurisdiction for all the purposes in connection with the creation, operation and future renewals of the proposed MCTID.
Section 3: The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the clerks of the Granting County and Cities.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 20th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7C7CC4F7-A107-4C52-A72C-6C5DA3EF5E6E Packet Page 398
EXHIBIT A
Packet Page 399
2023-2033
MONTEREY COUNTY
TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
November 2, 2022 Prepared pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code section 36600 et seq.
Packet Page 400
CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................3 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................5 III. BOUNDARY.......................................................................................................................................7 IV. ASSESSMENT BUDGET AND SERVICES................................................................................9 A. Annual Service Plan ....................................................................................................9 B. Annual Assessment Budget........................................................................................11 C. California Constitutional Compliance ........................................................................12 D. Assessment................................................................................................................13 E. Penalties and Interest .................................................................................................14 F. Time and Manner for Collecting Assessments ...........................................................15 V. GOVERNANCE...............................................................................................................................16 A. Owners’ Association..................................................................................................16 B. Brown Act and California Public Records Act Compliance........................................16 C. Annual Report ...........................................................................................................16 APPENDIX 1 – LAW....................................................................................................................................17 APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES .............................................................................................28 APPENDIX 3 – BENEFITS BY HOTEL TYPE....................................................................................35 APPENDIX 4 - TOURISM ECONOMICS STUDY ..............................................................................37 Prepared by
Civitas
(800)999-7781
www.civitasadvisors.com
Packet Page 401
MCTID Management District Plan 3
November 2, 2022
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 which provides specific benefits to payors by funding group sales and services and marketing communications activities 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. The MCTID was initially created in 2006 pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 and was converted in 2019 pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 for a five (5) year term. MCCVB and Monterey County lodging businesses now wish to renew the MCTID for a ten (10) year term. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36620.5, the City of Monterey shall continue to act as the lead jurisdiction for renewing the MCTID. The City of Monterey shall continue to receive MCTID annual reports. Funds raised through the MCTID are meant to supplement the Jurisdiction Partnership investments so as to have a competitive budget and business plan.
Location: The renewed 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, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad. The MCTID is divided into two (2) benefit zones, as shown on the map in Section IV.
Services: The MCTID is designed to provide specific benefits directly to payors by increasing demand for room night sales. Group business development and marketing communications activities will increase demand for overnight tourism and market Monterey County as a tourist, meeting and event destination, thereby increasing demand for room night sales for assessed businesses.
Budget: The total MCTID annual assessment budget for the initial year of its ten (10) year operation is anticipated to be approximately $8,856,266. This assessment budget is expected to increase as the assessment rate increases are adopted pursuant to this Plan, but this budget is expected to fluctuate as room sales do.
Cost: The assessment is a fixed amount per occupied room per night. The assessment is based on the business hotel type. Based on the benefit received, assessments shall not be collected on: stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; stays at vacation timeshare 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. Initial assessment rates are:
Hotel Type Zone 1 Zone 2
Luxury $7.00 $7.50
Non-Luxury Full Service $4.50 $5.00
Limited Service $1.50 $2.00
Based on the provision of additional services and additional benefit to the lodging businesses, the assessment rate shall automatically increase biennially beginning in FY Packet Page 402
MCTID Management District Plan 4
November 2, 2022
2025-26, unless the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee votes not to implement the automatic increase based upon circumstances that they deem significant. If the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee elects to cancel the automatic increase for that year, the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee may implement a cumulative increase at the next regularly scheduled rate increase.
Collection: The cities and County shall 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 make all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each lodging business.
Duration: The renewed MCTID shall have a ten (10) year life, beginning July 1, 2023, or as soon as possible thereafter, and end ten (10) years from its start date. Once per year, beginning on the anniversary of MCTID renewal, 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 MCCVB Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a.
Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) shall continue to serve as the Owners’ Association for the MCTID. The MCCVB Board’s TID Committee shall continue to have full decision-making authority over the expenditure of MCTID funds as defined in Section V. The Owners’ Association is charged with managing funds and implementing activities in accordance with this Plan and must provide annual reports to the Monterey City Council.
Packet Page 403
MCTID Management District Plan 5
November 2, 2022
II. BACKGROUND
A. Tourism Improvement District Overview
TIDs are an evolution of the traditional Business Improvement District. The first TID was formed in West Hollywood, California in 1989. Since then, over 100 California destinations have followed suit. In recent years, other states have begun adopting the California model – Massachusetts, 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 TID. 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 $300 million
annually for local destination
marketing. With competitors
raising their budgets, and
increasing rivalry for visitor
dollars, it is important
that Monterey County lodging
businesses continue to invest
in stable, lodging-specific
marketing 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 increase demand for room night sales. Lodging business owners within the TID pay an assessment and those funds are used to provide services that increase demand for room night sales.
In California, most 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.
B. Tourism Improvement District Benefits
There are many benefits to TIDs:
• Funds must be spent on services and improvements that provide a specific benefit only 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.
Packet Page 404
MCTID Management District Plan 6
November 2, 2022
C. MCTID History and Partnerships with Jurisdictions
The history of the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) is one of partnership.
The MCTID was first established in 2006 because the region’s hospitality industry recognized that TIDs create a reliable funding source for destination marketing.
Municipalities and the County of Monterey have historically demonstrated a commitment to fund tourism promotion. The renewed and expanded MCTID has been developed with this partnership in mind. The continued partnership is critical to the MCTID’s success, as the funds raised through both the TID, the municipalities and the County of Monterey will allow a competitive budget and business plan for the region’s destination marketing.
D. Looking Ahead
Market share, revenue, improved community connectivity
Focus Currently Investment in a Better Future
Sphere of Marketing
Reach
Primarily Regional paid media
advertiser
National Brand with paid media reach into
Midwest, East Coast – high value travelers
Meetings &
Conferences
Five-person sales team; primarily
focused on regional meetings;
limited booking incentive
Expand sales team; increase sales activities;
aggressive booking incentive; intensify focus
on corporate, incentive and Tour & Travel
Event Attraction &
Promotion
No proactive event attraction
effort; promotion limited to
social and PR (no paid media)
Dedicated program to attract advantageous
events; paid media support for select events
Transportation
Development
Tactical and reactive; lacking a
well-supported MCCVB/
Community strategy
Annual dedicated budget; strategically proactive
International Marketing One sales executive, limited coop (VCA, Brand USA) marketing Multi-country sales representation, significant
increase in direct sales and marketing
Luxury Initiative
Direct sales through involvement
with Virtuoso, ILTM, VCA;
limited marketing
Significant expansion (2-3X) of both sales and
marketing programs
Sustainable/Responsible
Travel
Consistent messaging through
unpaid (social & PR), limited
paid media; implementation of
See Monterey app
On-going paid media campaign; support shuttle
programs/promotion; in-market
collateral/signage;
Packet Page 405
MCTID Management District Plan 7
November 2, 2022
III. BOUNDARY
The renewed MCTID shall 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, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad.
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. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, 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.
There are three types of lodging businesses in the MCTID: luxury, non-luxury full service, and limited service.
• Luxury lodging business means: a lodging business with an average daily rate of $500 or more, based on the previous year’s performance, with premium services and the highest quality ratings. Lodging businesses whose average daily rate increases to $500 or more will be assessed upon determination of the increase; likewise, lodging businesses whose average daily rate decreases to below $500 will not be assessed as a luxury lodging business upon determination of the decrease. Average daily rate figures shall be updated annually. Luxury lodging businesses may have restaurants, meeting spaces, exercise rooms, or spas, and have characteristics of five (5) star hotels. The luxury lodging business type includes properties classified as all-inclusive, boutique, and destination resorts by Smith Travel Research. • Non-luxury full service lodging business means: a lodging business with a wide variety of onsite amenities, such as restaurants, meeting spaces, exercise rooms, or spas. non-luxury full service lodging businesses are often in the upscale or upper upscale class as defined by Smith Travel Research.
• 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 as defined by Smith Travel Research.
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, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad.
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.
Packet Page 406
MCTID Management District Plan
8 November 2, 2022
Packet Page 407
MCTID Management District Plan 9
November 2, 2022
IV. ASSESSMENT BUDGET AND SERVICES
A. Annual Service Plan
Assessment funds shall 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 business development and marketing communications activities available only to assessed lodging businesses. The assessment rate for each hotel type will be commensurate with privileges and services provided to assessed businesses in each hotel type as detailed in Appendix 4.
A service plan assessment budget has been developed to deliver services that benefit the assessed businesses. A detailed annual assessment budget shall be developed and approved by MCCVB. The table below illustrates the initial annual assessment budget allocations. The total initial assessment budget is $8,856,266.
Although actual revenues will fluctuate due to market conditions, the proportional allocations of the assessment budget shall remain the same. However, with the exception of the Zone 2 assessment budget category of Salinas Visitor Services, the MCCVB TID Committee shall have the authority to adjust assessment budget allocations between the categories by no more than fifteen percent (15%) of the total assessment budget per year. Any changes to the assessment budget category allocations shall be included in the annual report to the City of Monterey. A description of the proposed improvements and activities for the initial year of operation is below. The same activities 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 assessment budget category includes all costs related to providing that service. For example, the marketing communications assessment 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 administrative portion of the assessment budget. The costs of Marketing
Communications,
$3,985,320 , 45%
Group Business Development,
$3,152,831 , 35.6%
Contingency Reserve,
$885,627 , 10%
City/County
Administration Fee,
$88,563 , 1%
Administration & Operations,
$619,939 , 7%
Salinas Visitor Services,
$123,988 , 1.4%
Initial Annual Assessment Budget - $8,856,266
Packet Page 408
MCTID Management District Plan 10
November 2, 2022
an individual staff member may be allocated to multiple assessment budget categories. The staffing levels necessary to provide the services below shall be determined by the MCCVB on an as-needed basis.
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 activities:
• 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;
• Collaborations with transportation partners to make it easier to get to and around Monterey County to drive ideal 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.
Group Business Development
The group business development program will develop business leads for meetings and events that convert to room nights for assessed businesses. The group business development 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 activities:
• 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 make attendee’s 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.
Packet Page 409
MCTID Management District Plan 11
November 2, 2022
Salinas Visitor Services
The Salinas Visitor Services portion of the assessment budget shall be utilized for funding visitor services activities 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 assessment budget shall be the amount collected annually from the additional $0.50 assessment in Zone 2.
MCCVB Administration and Operations
The MCCVB administration and operations portion of the assessment budget shall be utilized by the MCCVB for administrative staffing costs, office costs, 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.
Contingency/Reserve
The assessment budget includes a contingency line item to account for lower than anticipated collections or higher than anticipated program costs, if any. Up to ten percent (10%) of the assessment budget may be allocated to the contingency/reserve in any given year. If there are contingency funds collected, they may be held in a reserve fund or utilized for other program, administration or renewal costs at the discretion of the TID Committee. Policies relating to contributions to the reserve fund, the target amount of the reserve fund, and expenditure of monies from the reserve fund shall be set by the TID Committee. Contingency/reserve funds may be spent on TID activities or administrative and renewal costs in such proportions as determined by the Committee. The reserve fund may be used for the costs of renewing the TID.
B. Annual Assessment Budget
The assessment is a fixed amount per occupied room per night. The assessment is based on the business hotel type. Based on the provision of additional services and additional benefit to the lodging businesses, the assessment rate shall automatically increase biennially beginning in FY 2025-26 for both Zone 1 and Zone 2, unless the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee votes not to implement the automatic increase based upon circumstances that they deem significant. If the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee elects to cancel the automatic increase for that year, the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee may implement a cumulative increase at the next regularly scheduled rate increase. Because services shall remain constant for the Salinas Visitor Services program (brochures, maps, and information regarding local events for visitors), the additional rate of $0.50 per annum in Zone 2 shall remain static over the life of the district. The biennial assessment increase in both Zone 1 and Zone 2 (notwithstanding the static $0.50 rate in Zone 2), shall be $0.90 per paid occupied room per night for luxury lodging businesses, $0.60 per paid occupied room per night for non-luxury full service lodging businesses, and $0.20 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses.
The assessment budget is projected at an initial budget of $8,856,266, increasing biennially for a total of $111,645,780 through 2033. This amount is expected to fluctuate as occupancy rates increase at assessed businesses and when the assessment rate is increased. The following table demonstrates the estimated assessment budget over the life of the district, based on existing lodging businesses, following the rate increase schedule. Any new lodging businesses that commence business within the MCTID during the ten (10) year term shall be assessed using the same methodology listed in Section IV (D).
Packet Page 410
MCTID Management District Plan 12
November 2, 2022
Estimated Annual Assessment Budget
Fiscal
Year
Marketing
Comm.
Group Bus.
Devel.
Salinas Visitor
Services
(Zone 2 Only)
Contingency
/ Reserve
Admin &
Operations
City/County
Admin Fee Total
2023-24 $3,985,320 $3,152,831 $123,988 $885,627 $619,939 $88,563 $8,856,266 2024-25 $3,985,320 $3,152,831 $123,988 $885,627 $619,939 $88,563 $8,856,266 2025-26 $4,504,690 $3,563,710 $140,146 $1,001,042 $700,730 $100,104 $10,010,422 2026-27 $4,504,690 $3,563,710 $140,146 $1,001,042 $700,730 $100,104 $10,010,422 2027-28 $5,024,060 $3,974,590 $156,304 $1,116,458 $781,520 $111,646 $11,164,578 2028-29 $5,024,060 $3,974,590 $156,304 $1,116,458 $781,520 $111,646 $11,164,578 2029-30 $5,543,430 $4,385,469 $172,462 $1,231,873 $862,311 $123,187 $12,318,734 2030-31 $5,543,430 $4,385,469 $172,462 $1,231,873 $862,311 $123,187 $12,318,734 2031-32 $6,062,801 $4,796,349 $188,620 $1,347,289 $943,102 $134,729 $13,472,890 2032-33 $6,062,801 $4,796,349 $188,620 $1,347,289 $943,102 $134,729 $13,472,890 Total $50,240,601 $39,745,898 $1,563,041 $11,164,578 $7,815,205 $1,116,458 $111,645,780 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 cities and County 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 privilege.”2 The services in this Plan are designed to provide targeted benefits directly to assessed 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 businesses within the MCTID. The activities described in this Plan are specifically targeted to increase demand for room night sales for assessed lodging businesses within the boundaries of the MCTID, and are narrowly tailored. MCTID funds shall be used exclusively to provide the specific benefit of increased demand for room night sales directly to the assessees. Assessment funds shall not be used to feature non-assessed lodging businesses in MCTID activities, or to directly generate sales for non-assessed businesses. The activities paid for from assessment revenues are business services constituting and providing specific benefits to the assessed businesses.
The assessment imposed by this MCTID 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 increased demand for room night sales for assessed lodging businesses shall be provided only to lodging businesses paying the district assessment, with MCTID activities promoting lodging businesses paying the MCTID assessment. The MCTID activities will be designed to generate room night sales at each assessed lodging businesses. Because they are necessary to provide the MCTID activities that specifically benefit the assessed lodging 1 Jarvis v. the City of San Diego 72 Cal App. 4th 230
2 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(1)
Packet Page 411
MCTID Management District Plan 13
November 2, 2022
businesses, the administration and contingency services also provide the specific benefit of increased demand for room night sales to the assessed lodging businesses.
Although the MCTID, 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 and promotions 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
MCTID services will be implemented carefully to ensure they do not exceed the reasonable cost of such services. The full amount assessed shall be used to provide the services described herein.
Excluding Zone 2 funds managed by the City of Salinas, funds shall be managed by the MCCVB, and reports submitted on an annual basis to the City of Monterey. Only assessed lodging businesses will be featured in marketing materials, receive sales leads generated from MCTID-funded activities, be featured in advertising campaigns, and benefit from other MCTID-funded services. Non-assessed lodging businesses will not receive these, nor any other, MCTID-funded services and benefits.
The MCTID-funded activities are all targeted directly at and feature only assessed businesses. It is, however, possible that there will be a spill over benefit to non-assessed businesses. If non-assessed lodging businesses receive incremental room nights, that portion of the promotion or program generating those room nights shall be paid with non-MCTID funds. MCTID funds shall only be spent to benefit the assessed businesses, and shall not be spent on that portion of any program which directly generates incidental room nights for non-assessed businesses.
D. Assessment
The assessment is a fixed amount per occupied room per night. The assessment is based on the business hotel type. Based on the provision of additional services and additional benefit to the lodging businesses, the assessment rate shall automatically increase biennially beginning in FY 2025-26, unless the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee votes not to implement the automatic increase based upon circumstances that they deem significant. If the MCCVB Board’s TID Committee elects to cancel the automatic increase for that year, the MCCVB Board may implement a cumulative increase at the next regularly scheduled rate increase. Because services shall remain constant for the Salinas Visitor Services program (brochures, maps, and information regarding local events for visitors), the additional rate of $0.50 per annum in Zone 2 shall not be increased over the life of the district. The biennial assessment 3 Government Code § 53758(a)
4 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(2)
5 Government Code § 53758(b)
6 Government Code § 53758(b)
Packet Page 412
MCTID Management District Plan 14
November 2, 2022
increase shall be $0.90 per paid occupied room per night for luxury lodging businesses, $0.60 per paid occupied room per night for non-luxury full service lodging businesses, and $0.20 per paid occupied room per night for limited service lodging businesses. Based on the benefit received, assessments shall 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. The assessment increase schedule is illustrated in the table below.
Zone 1 Zone 2
Fiscal
Year Luxury Non-Luxury Full Service
Limited
Service Luxury Non-Luxury Full Service
Limited
Service
2023-24 $ 7.00 $ 4.50 $ 1.50 $ 7.50 $ 5.00 $ 2.00
2024-25 $ 7.00 $ 4.50 $ 1.50 $ 7.50 $ 5.00 $ 2.00
2025-26 $ 7.90 $ 5.10 $ 1.70 $ 8.40 $ 5.60 $ 2.20
2026-27 $ 7.90 $ 5.10 $ 1.70 $ 8.40 $ 5.60 $ 2.20
2027-28 $ 8.80 $ 5.70 $ 1.90 $ 9.30 $ 6.20 $ 2.40
2028-29 $ 8.80 $ 5.70 $ 1.90 $ 9.30 $ 6.20 $ 2.40
2029-30 $ 9.70 $ 6.30 $ 2.10 $ 10.20 $ 6.80 $ 2.60
2030-31 $ 9.70 $ 6.30 $ 2.10 $ 10.20 $ 6.80 $ 2.60
2031-32 $ 10.60 $ 6.90 $ 2.30 $ 11.10 $ 7.40 $ 2.80
2032-33 $ 10.60 $ 6.90 $ 2.30 $ 11.10 $ 7.40 $ 2.80
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. If the MCTID assessment is identified separately it shall be disclosed as the “MCTID Assessment.” As an alternative, the disclosure may include the amount of the MCTID assessment and the amount of the assessment imposed pursuant to the California Tourism Marketing Act, Government Code §13995 et seq. and shall be disclosed as the “Tourism 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 purpose, 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.
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 Packet Page 413
MCTID Management District Plan 15
November 2, 2022
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 shall be implemented beginning July 1, 2023, or as soon as possible thereafter, and end ten (10) years from its start date. The cities and County shall 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 make 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.
Packet Page 414
MCTID Management District Plan 16
November 2, 2022
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. Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) shall continue to serve as the Owners’ Association for the MCTID. The MCCVB Board’s TID Committee shall continue to have full decision-making authority over the expenditure of MCTID funds. The TID Committee shall be 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. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the City of Salinas shall have full decision-making authority over the expenditure of funds raised by the additional $0.50 assessment rate on all lodging business types 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.
Packet Page 415
MCTID Management District Plan 17
November 2, 2022
APPENDIX 1 – LAW
*** THIS DOCUMENT IS CURRENT THROUGH THE 2022 SUPPLEMENT *** (ALL 2021 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 Packet Page 416
MCTID Management District Plan 18
November 2, 2022
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.
Packet Page 417
MCTID Management District Plan 19
November 2, 2022
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 (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) 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.
Packet Page 418
MCTID Management District Plan 20
November 2, 2022
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.
Packet Page 419
MCTID Management District Plan 21
November 2, 2022
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 Packet Page 420
MCTID Management District Plan 22
November 2, 2022
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 Packet Page 421
MCTID Management District Plan 23
November 2, 2022
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. (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.
36627. Notice and assessment diagram
Packet Page 422
MCTID Management District Plan 24
November 2, 2022
Following adoption of the resolution establishing district assessments on properties pursuant to Section 36625, 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 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.
Packet Page 423
MCTID Management District Plan 25
November 2, 2022
36633. Time for contesting validity of assessment
The validity of an assessment levied under this part shall not be contested in an action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding is commenced within 30 days after the resolution levying the assessment is adopted pursuant to Section 36625. An 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 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 Packet Page 424
MCTID Management District Plan 26
November 2, 2022
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 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.
Packet Page 425
MCTID Management District Plan 27
November 2, 2022
(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.
Packet Page 426
MCTID Management District Plan 28
November 2, 2022
APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES
Business Name Business Address City/State/Zip Type
ABV Presidents Inn MUNRAS MTY 1150 MUNRAS AVE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Adams Motel/Boronda Inn 2086 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited ADOBE INN 1919 GRAND CANAL BL.#B5 STOCKTON CA 95207 Full Aloha Motel 235 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited
ANDRIL MOTEL & COTTAGES 569 ASILOMAR BLVD PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-3701 Limited ARAMARK Sports & Entertainment 800 ASILOMAR BLVD PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-3704 Limited AUBERGE CARMEL PO BOX J CARMEL CA 93921 Luxury
BAYSIDE INN 2055 NORTH FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited BEACHCOMBER INN 1996 SUNSET DR PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-3787 Limited Bernardus Lodge 415 W CARMEL VALLEY RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9417 Luxury Best 5 Motel/Lakshmi Hotel Group 1010 Fairview Ave. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited BEST WESTERN DE ANZA INN 2141 NORTH FREMONT ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Best Western Marina State Beach 3290 DUNES DR MARINA, CA 93933 Limited BEST WESTERN MONTEREY INN 825 ABREGO MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Best Western Salinas
Monterey/Western Hotel Corp 175 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Best Western Salinas Valley Inn 187 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited BEST WESTERN INN AND SUITES 4258 CESAR CHAVEZ ST San Francisco, CA 94131-1815 Limited BEST WESTERN-PARK CREST 1100 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited BIDE A WEE INN AND COTTAGES 221 ASILOMAR BLVD PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2093 Limited Big Sur Campground & Cabins 47000 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9556 Limited Big Sur Lodge 47225 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9542 Full Big Sur River Inn 46800 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9693 Full
BLU PACIFIC HOTEL (FORMERLY
COMFORT INN-MTY BAY) 2050 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Blue Sky Lodge 10 FLIGHT RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9617 Limited BORGS MOTEL 1315 SKYVIEW DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010-6236 Limited Budget Inn Motel/BMN LLC 219 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited BUTTERFLY GROVE INN 1073 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2357 Limited Cabana Holiday 8710 Prunedale North Rd SALINAS, CA 93907-1371 Limited California Inn Motel 736 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited CANDLE BAY INN 2118 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited CANDLELIGHT INN P.O. Box 101 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CANNERY ROW INN 200 FOAM ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Capitol Motel/Jainika Corporation 2110 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Captain's Inn At Moss Landing 8122 MOSS LANDING RD Moss Landing, CA 95039-9617 Limited CARMEL BAY VIEW INN 700 UNIVERSITY AV.#150 SACRAMENTO CA 95825 Limited CARMEL COTTAGE INN PO BOX 5805 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CARMEL COUNTRY INN PO BOX 3756 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CARMEL FIREPLACE INN INC. P.O. BOX 5245 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited CARMEL GARDEN INN PO BOX 5547 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CARMEL GREEN LANTERN INN PO BOX 1114 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited Packet Page 427
MCTID Management District Plan 29
November 2, 2022
CARMEL INN & SUITES P.O. BOX 1295 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited CARMEL LODGE P.O.BOX 4235 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Carmel Mission Inn 3665 RIO RD CARMEL, CA 93923-8609 Full CARMEL OAKS INN P.O. BOX 3696 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CARMEL RESORT INN P.O. BOX 2106 MONTEREY CA 93942 Limited Carmel River Inn 26600 OLIVER RD CARMEL, CA 93923-9219 Limited CARMEL TRADEWINDS INN P. O. BOX 3403 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited Carmel Valley Lodge 8 FORD RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9511 Limited Carmel Valley Manor 8545 CARMEL VALLEY RD CARMEL, CA 93923-9556 Full Carmel Valley Ranch 1 OLD RANCH RD CARMEL, CA 93923-8551 Luxury CARMEL WAYFARER INN P.O. BOX 1896 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited CARMEL'S TOWN HOUSE LODGE P.O. BOX 3574 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited CARRIAGE HOUSE INN PO BOX 101 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Casa Linda Motel 1109 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited CASA MUNRAS HOTEL 700 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full Casa Palmero 1518 CYPRESS DR PEBBLE BEACH, CA 93953 Luxury CASA VERDE INN 2113 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited CENTRELLA INN 612 CENTRAL AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2611 Limited Ciudad Del Rey Motel 50620 MESA VERDE RD KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited CLARION HOTEL 1046 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited COACHMAN'S INN PO BOX 3073 MONTEREY CA 93940 Limited
COLTON INN 707 PACIFIC ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
COMFORT INN 140 RESERVATION RD MARINA, CA 93933-2522 Limited Comfort Inn & Suites/Shakti LLC 181 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Comfort Inn Monterey Airport 1200 OLMSTED RD MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited COMFORT INN-CARMEL BY THE SEA P.O. BOX 3838 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited Contenta Inn 20 VIA CONTENTA Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9501 Limited Continental Motel 1165 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited COUNTRY INN & SUITES 3288 DUNES DR MARINA, CA 93933 Limited Country Inn/Meldi Inc 126 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Courtyard Salinas 17225 EL RANCHO WAY SALINAS, CA 93907-1732 Limited CVI INVESTORS PO BOX 3185 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CVI INVESTORS PO BOX 3185 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
CYPRESS INN P.O. Box Y CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Days Inn 1130 Broadway St KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited
DAYS INN 1288 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
DAYS INN - SAN CARLOS 850 ABREGO MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited DEER HAVEN INN 750 CROCKER AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-3727 Limited Deetjen's Big Sur Inn 48865 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9512 Full Discovery Inn 1106 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited
ECONO LODGE (MONTEREY
FAIRGROUNDS INN) 2042 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited EconoLodge Bay Breeze Inn 2049 Fremont Blvd Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Economy Inn 214 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited
Economy Inn 1131 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Packet Page 428
MCTID Management District Plan 30
November 2, 2022
EL CASTELL MOTEL 2102 NORTH FREMONT MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited El Dorado Motel/Café Main Street 1351 N. Main Salinas, CA 93906 Limited El Rey Motel 443 W. Market St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited El Sombrero Motel/Ramesh J. Patel 210 Abbott St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Embassy Suites 1441 Canyon Del Rey Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Full Esalen Institute 55000 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9546 Full Fairview Inn 1060 Fairview Ave. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Fernwood Resort 47200 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9542 Limited Fireside Inn 640 Broadway St KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited FOREST LODGE PO BOX 6286 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Gateway Lodge 1909 Fremont Blvd. #3128 Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Glen Oaks Big Sur 47080 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9556 Limited Gorda Cabin Rental 7801 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920 Limited GOSBY HOUSE INN 643 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2691 Limited GREEN GABLES INN PO BOX 3073 MONTEREY, CA 93942-3080 Limited H.I. Resort Condominium Assoc, Inc 120 HIGHLAND DR CARMEL, CA 93923-9607 Full Hacienda House 505 CORRAL DE TIERRA RD SALINAS, CA 93908-8950 Limited HAMPTON INN 17777 Center Court Dr. #725 MARINA, CA 93933 Limited Hampton Inn & Suites/Salinas Hotel
Investors 523 Work St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited
HAMPTON INN (formerly LaQuinta) 2401 DEL MONTE AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited HHLP SANCTUARY ASSOCIATES 3295 DUNES RD MARINA, CA 93933-2002 Full Hidden Valley Inn 102 W CARMEL VALLEY RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9573 Limited Highlands Inn 140 HIGHLAND DR CARMEL, CA 93923-9607 Limited HILTON GARDEN INN 1000 AGUAJITO RD MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full HOFSAS HOUSE INC. P.O. BOX 1195 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited Holiday Inn Express 1400 Del Monte Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS 443 WAVE STREET MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Holiday Inn Express & Suites 195 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Holiday Inn Express & Suites
Marina 189 SEASIDE AVE MARINA, CA 93933-2505 Limited
Holman Ranch, LLC 60 HOLMAN RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9620 Limited HOME 2 SUITES 1534 Fremont Blvd Suite D MARINA, CA 93933 Limited HORIZON INN P. O. BOX 1693 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
HOTEL 1110 1110 DEL MONTE AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited HOTEL ABREGO 755 ABREGO ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full
HOTEL CARMEL 8000 S Arizona Grand Pkwy PHOENIX AZ 85044 Limited HOTEL PACIFIC 300 PACIFIC STREET MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited HOWARD JOHNSON 416 RESERVATION RD MARINA, CA 93933-3320 Limited Howard Johnson Inn/Ambakari, Inc 131 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited HYATT REGENCY MONTEREY ONE OLD GOLF COURSE RD. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full IHG ARMY POM Presidio of Monterey MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full Inn at King City 4 Broadway Cir. KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited Inn At Moss Landing Point 8425 MOSS LANDING RD D Moss Landing, CA 95039-9679 Limited Packet Page 429
MCTID Management District Plan 31
November 2, 2022
Inn At Spanish Bay, Attn: David
Hoopingarner 2700 17 MILE DR PEBBLE BEACH, CA 93953 Luxury Inn at the Pinnacles 32025 Stonewall Canyon Rd SOLEDAD, CA 93960 Limited INN BY THE BAY MONTEREY 936 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Inns of California 1215 De La Torre Salinas, CA 93905 Limited INTERCONTINENTAL – The Clement 750 CANNERY ROW MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full JABBERWOCK 598 LAINE ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
Keefers Inn 615 Canal St KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited
LA PLAYA HOTEL 8000 S Arizona Grand Pkwy PHOENIX AZ 85044 Luxury LAGUNA LODGE 430 RESERVATION RD MARINA, CA 93933-3320 Limited LAMPLIGHTER INN PO BOX 6286 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Laurel Inn 801 W. Laurel Dr. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited
Lincoln Green Inn 26200 CARMELO ST CARMEL, CA 93923-9134 Limited LOBOS LODGE P.O. Box L-1 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
LONE OAK MOTEL 2221 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Los Laureles Lodge 313 W CARMEL VALLEY RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9415 Full LOVERS POINT INN 9600 Blue Larkspur Ln Ste 101 MONTEREY, CA 93940-6585 Limited Lucia Lodge 62400 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9533 Limited MARIPOSA INN 1386 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MARRIOTT SPRINGHILL SUITES 215 10TH ST MARINA, CA 93933-6004 Limited MARTINE INN PO BOX 330 PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-0321 Limited MERRITT HOUSE 386 PACIFIC ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Mission Ranch 26270 DOLORES ST CARMEL, CA 93923-9218 Full Monarch Inn 633 Broadway St. KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited MONARCH RESORT 1111 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2312 Limited MONTE VERDE INN PO BOX 394 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
MONTE VERDE INN EAST P.O.BOX 394 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited MONTEREY BAY INN 242 CANNERY ROW MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY BAY LODGE 55 CAMINO AGUAJITO MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY FIREPLACE INN 2362 N. Fremont MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY FIRESIDE MOTEL 1131 TENTH ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY HOSTEL 778 HAWTHORNE ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY HOTEL 406 ALVARADO MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
MONTEREY MARRIOTT 350 CALLE PRINCIPAL MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full MONTEREY OCEANSIDE INN 2030 DEL MONTE AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY PENINSULA INN 1101 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2312 Limited Monterey Pines Inn 1298 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY PLAZA 400 CANNERY ROW MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full
MONTEREY SURF INN 1200 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited MONTEREY TIDES HOTEL 2600 SAND DUNES DRIVE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full MOTEL 6 2124 NORTH FREMONT MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
Motel 6 #0639/G6 Hospitality
Property LLC 1257 De La Torre Salinas, CA 93905 Limited MOTEL 6 #1026 100 RESERVATION RD MARINA, CA 93933-2517 Limited Packet Page 430
MCTID Management District Plan 32
November 2, 2022
Motel 6 #1370/G6 Hospitality
Property LLC 140 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited
MOTEL 6 MONTEREY DOWNTOWN 1240 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Motel 6 Soledad 152 San Felipe Rd Soledad CA 93960 Limited Mountain Paradise 17717 CACHAGUA RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9319 Limited MUNRAS INN 1010 MUNRAS AVE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
NORMANDY INN 700 UNIVERSITY AV.#150 SACRAMENTO CA 95925 Limited OCEAN VIEW LODGE P. O. BOX 1693 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited OCM LIGHTHOUSE LODGE LLC 1150 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2360 Limited OLD MARINA INN 3110 DEL MONTE BLVD MARINA, CA 93933-3049 Limited OLD MONTEREY INN 500 MARTIN STREET MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited OLD SAINT ANGELA INN 321 CENTRAL AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2934 Limited OLYMPIA MOTOR LODGE PO BOX 51907 PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-6907 Limited Pacific Best Inn 1141 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited PACIFIC GARDENS INN 701 ASILOMAR BLVD PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-3701 Limited PACIFIC GROVE INN PO BOX 2106 MONTEREY, CA 93942-2215 Limited PACIFIC GROVE PLAZA PO BOX 476 PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-0476 Limited PACIFIC INN MONTEREY 2332 NORTH FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited PADRE OAKS MOTEL 1278 MUNRAS AVE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Pal Rest Easy LLC 196 Infantry RD Fort Hunter Liggett, CA 93928 Limited Parkfield Inn 70403 PARKFIELD RD SAN MIGUEL, CA 93451 Limited PELICAN INN 2058 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Pessagno Winery 1645 RIVER RD SALINAS, CA 93908-8751 Limited PINE ACRES LODGE 1380 LEAD HILL BLVD 201 ROSEVILLE, CA 95661-2997 Limited PINE INN P.O. Box 250 CARMEL CA 93921 Full
PORTOLA HOTEL & SPA 2 PORTOLA PLAZA MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full Post Ranch Inn 47900 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9576 Luxury Prunedale Motor Lodge 1017 EL CAMINO REAL N PRUNEDALE, CA 93907-3359 Limited Prunedale Motor Lodge Cabins 1017 EL CAMINO REAL N PRUNEDALE, CA 93907-3359 Limited Quail Lodge And Golf Club 8205 VALLEY GREENS DR CARMEL, CA 93923-9512 Luxury Quality Inn 1190 Broadway St. KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited QUALITY INN - FAIRGROUNDS 2075 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited QUALITY INN - MUNRAS (Arbor Inn) 1058 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Quality Inn/Om Namah 144 Kern St Salinas, CA 93905 Limited RAMADA INN 323 RESERVATION RD MARINA, CA 93933-3218 Limited RAMADA LTD. CARMEL HILL 1182 CASS STREET MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
RED LION INN (FORMERLY BAY
PARK HOTEL) 1425 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full
RED ROOF INN 2227 N FREMONT ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Residence Inn Salinas 17215 EL RANCHO WAY SALINAS, CA 93907-1732 Limited Rex Motel/Parshottambhai M Ahir 305 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93905 Limited Ripplewood Resort 47047 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920 Full Riverside Campground 47020 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9556 Limited RODEWAY INN 2041 FREMONT ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
Rodeway Inn (Formerly Knights Inn) 1374 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Packet Page 431
MCTID Management District Plan 33
November 2, 2022
ROSEDALE INN 4781 SAN LUCAS WAY SAN JOSE, CA 95135-2345 Limited Sai Enterprises DBA Motel 6 3 Broadway Cir. KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited Salinas Travel Inn/MJ Nahal Inc 425 Monterey St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited Salinas Valley Motel/Aatray Hotels,
Inc/BAPS LLC 2100 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Sand Castle Inn 1011 La Salle Ave. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Sand Dollar Inn (formerly Magic
Carpet Inn) 1875 Fremont Blvd Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Sandpiper Inn 2408 BAY VIEW AVE CARMEL, CA 93923-9118 Limited SEA VIEW INN 35 W.POPLAR AV. SAN MATEO CA 94402 Limited SeaLamp Inn 2201 Del Monte Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Seaside Inn 1986 Del Monte Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited SEVEN GABLES INN 301 N CANON DR STE 302 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210-4724 Limited Silver Saddle 705 Broadway St KING CITY, CA 93930 Limited Soledad Motel 8 1013 Front St Soledad CA 93960 Limited
SPINDRIFT INN 652 CANNERY ROW MONTEREY, CA 93940 Full
STAGE COACH LODGE 1111 10 ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Steinbeck Lodge/Travelodge/J S Inc 109 John St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited STONEHOUSE INN 5130 COMMERCIAL CIRCLE CONCORD CA 94520 Limited Stonepine Estate Resort 150 E CARMEL VALLEY RD Carmel Valley, CA 93924-9605 Full SUNSET HOUSE PO BOX 6286 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
SUNSET INN 133 ASILOMAR BLVD PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2094 Limited SUPER 8 - FREMONT 2120 NO. FREMONT ST. MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited SUPER 8 - MUNRAS 1300 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Super 8/Ram Hotels LLC 131 Kern St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited Sure Stay Hotel 1893 Fremont Blvd. Seaside, CA 93955 Limited SVENDSGAARD'S INN PO BOX 101 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
TALLY HO INN P.O. Box 3726 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Tehama Golf Club, LLC 25000 Via Malpaso Canada
Woods CARMEL, CA 93923 Limited
THE BRIARWOOD INN PO BOX 5245 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
THE BRIARWOOD INN II PO BOX 5245 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited THE COLONIAL TERRACE P.O. BOX 1375 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited The Holly Farm 9200 CARMEL VALLEY RD CARMEL, CA 93923-9574 Limited THE HOMESTEAD 26270 DOLORES ST. CARMEL CA 93923 Limited The Inn at 1252 Monterey 1252 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited The Inn at 1252 Monterey 1262 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited The Lodge At Pebble Beach Attn:
David Hoopingarner 1500 CYPRESS DR PEBBLE BEACH, CA 93953 Luxury THE SEA BREEZE INN 1100 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2362 Limited THE STEVENSON MONTEREY 675 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited THE VAGABOND'S HOUSE PO BOX 2747 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited Thunderbird Motel 1933 Fremont Blvd. #3128 Seaside, CA 93955 Limited Tickle Pink Motor Inn 155 HIGHLAND DR CARMEL, CA 93923-9601 Limited TRAVELODGE - FAIRGROUNDS 2030 N. FREMONT ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Packet Page 432
MCTID Management District Plan 34
November 2, 2022
Treebones Resort 71895 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9573 Limited Vendange Carmel Inn & Suites 24815 CARPENTER ST CARMEL, CA 93923 Limited Ventana Big Sur 48123 HIGHWAY 1 BIG SUR, CA 93920-9538 Luxury VICTORIAN INN 487 FOAM STREET MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
VILLA FRANCA (FORMERLY EL
DORADO INN) 900 MUNRAS AVENUE MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited Vision Quest Safari Bed & Breakfast 400 RIVER RD SALINAS, CA 93908-9627 Limited Wagon Wheel Motel 1217 N. Main St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited
WAVE STREET INN (PREVIOUSLY
OTTER INN) 571 WAVE ST MONTEREY, CA 93940 Limited
WAYSIDE INN PO BOX 101 CARMEL CA 93921 Limited
Western Motel/Western Skylodge
LLC 6 S. Wood St. Salinas, CA 93906 Limited
WILKIES INN 1038 LIGHTHOUSE AVE PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950-2424 Limited Willow Lodge 719 S. Main St. Salinas, CA 93901 Limited
Zen Mtn Center/Tassajar Springs
C/O Ccao Controlle 39171 TASSAJARA RD CARMEL VALLEY, CA 93924-9316 Limited *List as of October 2022
Packet Page 433
MCTID Management District Plan 35
November 2, 2022
APPENDIX 3 – BENEFITS BY HOTEL TYPE
PROGRAMS / ACTIVITIES Luxury
NonLuxury
Full
Service
Limited
Service
General: Inclusion in Sales, Marketing, and Promotional Opportunities* X X X General: Listing on www.SeeMonterey.com with direct link to hotel page X X X General: Inclusion on SeeMonterey Online travel planning app X X X General: Inclusion on SeeMonterey Consumer Brochures X X X General: Access to SeeMonterey research reports and insights X X X General: Represented by SeeMonterey at industry conferences & events X X X Consumer: Opportunity to participate in Consumer Marketing Campaigns X X X Consumer: Public Relations participation opportunities X X X Consumer: Familiarization Tour (Press & Influencer) Opportunities X X X Consumer: Inclusion Opportunity in Social Media Efforts X X X Consumer: Inclusion Opportunity in Destination Video & Photo Shoots X X X Consumer: New project & special event opportunities X X X Travel Trade: Trade Show Opportunities X X X
Travel Trade: Sales Mission Opportunities X X X
Travel Trade: Lead Opportunities X X X
Travel Trade: Familiarization Tour Leads (Press & Travel Trade) Opportunities X X X
Meetings/Group: Brochure Inclusion (Mention) X X X
Meetings/Group: Familiarization Tours X X
Meetings/Group: Tradeshow Participation X X
Meetings/Group: Site Inspections X X
Meetings/Group: Marketing Campaigns X X
Meetings/Group: Brochure Inclusion (Full Page) X X
Inclusion in SeeMonterey destination partnership with Virtuoso Network X Packet Page 434
MCTID Management District Plan 36
November 2, 2022
Representation a luxury travel conferences (e.g. ILTM) X Representation at VCA luxury travel week X
Featured in Luxury Advertising Campaign X
Featured in Luxury Public Relations Campaign X
* Each property that meets the minimum criteria of the client, journalist, or meeting planner will be promoted.
Packet Page 435
MCTID Management District Plan 37
November 2, 2022
APPENDIX 4 - TOURISM ECONOMICS STUDY
Packet Page 436
2 Introduction
Monterey visitor economy: overview and trends
MCCVB performance
Growing the visitor economy
Competitive funding analysis
Impact of TID funding on Monterey’s economy
Appendix 1: The impact of TIDs
Appendix 2: The ROI of destination marketing
1 2
3 4
5 6
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Packet Page 437
1 Introduction
Packet Page 438
4 In 2019, visitors to Monterey County spent a total of $3.2 billion locally and booked 3.1 million rooms. Total visitor spending increased 43% from 2011 to 2019. The revenue generated by the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (TID) and the work performed by the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) is a major factor in this accelerated growth.
This report provides a comprehensive overview of the TID and its impact on Monterey’s tourism sector and overall economy. It highlights key trends over the past decade and quantifies how TID funding benefits hotels across the county.
Right now, Monterey is experiencing a strong recovery from the pandemic. Continued support and a renewal of the TID will support these trends into the future and ensure that the county’s visitor economy reaches its full potential.
Introduction
Packet Page 439
5 In 2019, visitors spent
$3.2 billion in Monterey
County, supporting
40,480 jobs and $2.1
billion in local income
(including direct,
indirect, and induced
impacts).
Key findings
From 2011 to 2019,
spending in Monterey
increased 43%, faster
than the state and
region.
MCCVB’s group sales
team was increasing its
bookings prior to the
pandemic and provided
an ROI of 14-1.
MCCVB sales and
marketing are integral
to increasing spending
per visitor and driving
visitation in the offseason.
Monterey County’s TID
will generate $2.3 billion
in visitor spending over
the next decade.
Adopting the MCCVB’s
proposed assessment
would generate an
additional $2.2 billion,
greatly accelerating postpandemic growth.
Packet Page 440
Monterey Visitor Economy: 2 Overview and Trends
Packet Page 441
7 Importance of the visitor economy
Visitors to Monterey County spent $3.2 billion in 2019. Most of this spending accrued to the accommodations and food services sectors.
This spending directly generated (i.e., not including indirect and induced effects) 27,160 jobs, $1.4 billion of income, and $298 million in state and local taxes.
Monterey County represents approximately one-third of the Central Coast region’s tourism sector and 2% of the state’s tourism sector. *Much of this report focuses on 2019 (fiscal or calendar year) as a benchmark for a typical year.
In 2019*, visitors spent $3.2 billion in Monterey County, supporting 40,480 jobs and $2.1 billion in local income** Key tourism indictors in Monterey County, 2019
Dollar figures in millions
Sources: Dean Runyan Associates, Tourism Economics
**totals include indirect and induced impacts calculated by Tourism Economics Monterey Visitor Economy:
Overview and Trends
Total visitor spending $3,241
Accommodations $879
Food Service $967
Food Stores $78
Local Tran. & Gas $267
Arts, Ent. & Rec. $394
Retail Sales $520
Visitor Air Tran. $24
Other $112
Total Earnings** $2,161
Direct earning $1,420
Total jobs** 40,480
Direct jobs 27,160
Total S&L taxes** $398
Direct S&L taxes $298 Packet Page 442
8 Trends in the visitor economy
Meanwhile earning and jobs increased 65% and 32%, respectively.
Visitor spending increased 43% from 2011 to 2019. Growth of the visitor economy* in Monterey Dollar figures in billions
Source Dean Runyan Associates
*earnings and jobs include direct impacts only
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 $0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Thousands
Spending (left axis)
Earnings (left axis)
Jobs (right axis)
Monterey Visitor Economy:
Overview and Trends
Packet Page 443
9 Hotel sector KPIs
From FY2016-2019, ADR grew from $192 to $224, a 17% increase over three years
RevPAR grew to $164 from $137, a 20% increase.
Hotel occupancy increased to 73% from 71%.
Hotel performance metrics were all strengthening in the years prior to the pandemic.
Hotel sector KPIs in Monterey County
Dollars
Source Dean Runyan Associates
Monterey Visitor Economy:
Overview and Trends
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Occupancy (right axis)
ADR (left axis)
RePAR (left axis)
Packet Page 444
10 Visitor spending share
In 2019, Monterey County accounted for 34.7% of all spending in the Central Coast region, up from 32.5% in 2011. This increase of 2.2% may seem small; but given that visitors spent $9.4 billion dollars in the region in 2019, the 2.2% increase represents an additional $202 million in visitor spending injected into Monterey’s economy.
Monterey has been capturing an increasing share of the
region's tourism market.
Monterey share of visitor spending in the Central Coast region Share of total regional spending
Source: Dean Runyan Associates
* Includes Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties
31.0%
31.5%
32.0%
32.5%
33.0%
33.5%
34.0%
34.5%
35.0%
35.5%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Monterey Visitor Economy:
Overview and Trends
Packet Page 445
11 Visitor spending comparisons
Monterey County outpaced three of four nearby leisure-oriented counties from 2011-2019, including Sonoma, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara.
Monterey exhibited strong growth compared to other nearby leisure-oriented counties.
Visitor spending growth in Monterey and local competitors Index (2011=100)
Source: Dean Runyan Associates
90 100
110
120
130
140
150
160
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Monterey
Sonoma
Napa
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
Monterey Visitor Economy:
Overview and Trends
Packet Page 446
12 Tourism employment growth comparisons
Direct employment in Monterey County reached 27,160 in 2019, up from 20,510 in 2011. This represents an increase of 32% over that time period, which is slightly faster than growth in the state and region.
Direct tourism employment in Monterey has grown at an
accelerated rate.
Direct tourism employment growth in Monterey, the region, and the state Index (2011=100)
Source: Dean Runyan Associates
90 95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Monterey
Central Coast
California
Monterey Visitor Economy:
Overview and Trends
Packet Page 447
13 Hotel sector growth comparisons
Hotel room revenue in Monterey outpaced 10 competing destinations and grew almost 8% faster than the state.
Monterey led its competition in terms of room revenue
growth over the three years prior to the pandemic.
Room revenue growth in Monterey and competitors, FY2017-2019* Percent total growth
Source: STR
*We use a shorter time horizon due to data limitations
17.8%
17.6%
11.8%
10.3%
10.2%
10.0%
9.4%
8.8%
8.3%
7.1%
6.6%
4.3%
0% 10% 20%
Monterey County
South Lake Tahoe
San Francisco/San Mateo
Sonoma County,
San Jose/Santa Cruz
California
San Diego
Palm Springs
Santa Barbara/Santa Maria
Newport Beach/Dana Point
Napa County
Laguna Beach
Monterey Visitor Economy:
Overview and Trends
Packet Page 448
14 Visitor spending comparisons
While Monterey’s strong performance is notable over the entire decade, the county achieved particularly robust growth in the later half of the decade.
Between 2015 and 2019, visitor spending in Monterey increased 20%, outpacing both the region (+17%) and the state (+19%).
Visitor spending increased at a faster rate in Monterey than in the state or region.
Visitor spending growth in Monterey, the region, and the state Index (2011=100)
Source: Dean Runyan Associates
90 100
110
120
130
140
150
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Monterey
Central Coast
California
Monterey Visitor Economy:
Overview and Trends
Packet Page 449
3 MCCVB Performance
Packet Page 450
16 Advertising ROI
In the first half of FY2022, media campaigns run by the MCCVB generated awareness of Monterey County as a tourism destination in 4.2 million households in both drive and fly markets. These newly aware households made 115,261 trips to Monterey County and spent $136.8 million locally.
These ads produced an ROI of 75-to-1.
MCCVB advertising generates a significant ROI in drive and fly markets.
MCCVB advertising performance by market type, mid-year FY2022 Source: SMARI
MCCVB Performance
Drive Fly Total
Aware households created 2,500,000 1,700,000 4,200,000
Influenced trips to Monterey 45,857 69,404 115,261
Influenced visitor spending (millions) $44.0 $92.8 $136.8 Ad spending (millions) $0.7 $1.1 $1.8
ROI 62-to-1 84-to-1 75-to-1 Packet Page 451
17 Group sales performance
The sales teams booked 255 events in FY2019, up from 250 in FY2016.
Meanwhile, rooms booked increased to 69,000 from 61,200, a 13% increase over the same time period.
The average size of events also increased in this time period, growing to 271 rooms per event from 245.
The MCCVB’s group sales team was increasing its bookings prior to the pandemic.
MCCVB Performance
MCCVB group sales
Rooms booked
Source: MCCVB
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2016 2017 2018 2019
Rooms
Events
Packet Page 452
18 Group sales return on investment
The events booked by the MCCVB sales team resulted in 96,800 total room sales and $44 million in visitor spending. This provided an ROI of 14-to-1 when measured against their $3.1 million budget.
The MCCVB’s group sales team generated a substantial ROI in FY2019.
MCCVB Performance
MCCVB group sales performance, FY2019
Source: MCCVB; Tourism Economics
*This includes bookings in the event room block and an estimation of outside the block bookings from Tourism Economics’ and Destination International‘s Event Impact Calculator. ** Includes spending by the event organizer.
Total event rooms* 96,800
Spending per room** $455
Total Spending (millions) $44.0
Sales and group services expenses (millions) $3.1
Group sales ROI 14-to-1Packet Page 453
19 Group sales and seasonality
While group sales* remain low in November and December, they create a substantial boost in the shoulder months of Jan.-Apr. and Sep.-Oct. when transient (i.e., not group or contract) room bookings are lower. *As reported by STR, which includes additional rooms beyond what the MCCVB books.
Group sales help fill out the off-peak “shoulder” seasons for the Monterey visitor economy.
MCCVB Performance
Seasonality of room bookings in Monterey County, 2018
Monthly share of annual rooms
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Transient rooms
Group rooms
Source: STR
Packet Page 454
4 Growing the Visitor Economy
Packet Page 455
21 Overcoming supply constraints
This section reviews ways to increase the economic impact of tourism given current supply constraints
While a 73% occupancy rate may leave an impression that there are numerous available rooms, this is close to full capacity for a leisure destination. It is rare to see non-urban destinations (cities fill weekdays and ‘low’ seasons with business travelers) maintain annual occupancy rates above 75%.
Therefore, increasing the economic impact of tourism in Monterey County largely depends on some combination of increasing room inventory, increasing visitor spending per booked room, and filling out the shoulder periods (especially weekdays).
Monterey’s pre-pandemic occupancy rate was nearing full capacity.
Growing the Visitor Economy
Occupancy rate in Monterey County and competing destinations, FY2019 Source: STR
82%
78%
75%
75%
75%
73%
73%
72%
71%
70%
68%
62%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
San Francisco/San Mateo
San Diego
California
San Jose/Santa Cruz
Sonoma County
Monterey County
Newport Beach/Dana Point
Laguna Beach,
Napa Valley
Santa Barbara/Santa Maria
South Lake Tahoe
Palm Springs Packet Page 456
22 Importance of visitor value
To maximize the value of each visitor, the MCCVB can concentrate on the domestic-fly and overseas markets. The domestic-fly market spends 42% more than the drive market, and the overseas* market spends 192% more than the domestic drive market.
*The overseas spending estimate is a statewide average that comes from Tourism Economics’ International State Travel database and includes data inputs from a dozen sources including the NTTO, the BEA, and VisaVue Travel. This includes spending in California, but not spending on travel to the US.
Visitors from greater distances spend significantly more per trip.
Growing the Visitor Economy
Spending per trip by origin market
Sources: SMARI; Tourism Economics Dollars per trip
*California figure – calendar year 2020, other figures FY2021 $959
$1,364
$2,799
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000
Domestic drive
Domestic fly
Overseas*
Packet Page 457
23 Importance of visitor value
Compared to the domestic drive market, the domestic fly market spends 31% more per night, the business conference market spends 158% more, and the overseas* market spends 190% more.
*The overseas origin market estimate uses San Jose data, the closest available data point, and comes from Tourism Economics’ Global City Travel database. This uses data inputs from a dozen sources including the NTTO, the BEA, and VisaVue Travel.
This includes spending in San Jose, but not spending on travel to the US.
Visitors from greater distances spend significantly more per night.
Growing the Visitor Economy
Spending per night by origin market
Sources: SMARI; Tourism Economics Dollars per night
*San Jose figure – calendar year 2020, other figures FY2021 ** Includes spending by the event organizer.
$153
$201
$455
$561
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600
Domestic drive
Domestic fly
Business conference**
Overseas*
Packet Page 458
24 Boosting the low season
While Monterey’s 73% annual occupancy rate is quite high for a non-urban leisure destination, MCCVB can realize the opportunity to increase lowseason bookings.
If the six low-season months (average occupancy 64%) matched the occupancy rate of the six high-seasons months (80%), Monterey would see an increase of 354,000 rooms booked—a 10% increase over its current total.
MCCVB is also well-positioned to increase off-season
bookings.
Growing the Visitor Economy
Seasonality and potential new booking in Monterey, 2019 Sources: STR; Tourism Economics
*Potential new room bookings if these months could match the high-season occupancy rate of 80%.
Rooms booked Occupancy rate Potential new bookings*
Jan 214,000 56% 93,000
Feb 215,000 64% 53,000
Mar 253,000 68% 44,000
Apr 277,000 75% 18,000
May 290,000 76% --
Jun 302,000 82% --
Jul 319,000 84% --
Aug 317,000 83% --
Sep 291,000 79% --
Oct 295,000 77% --
Nov 248,000 67% 49,000
Dec 210,000 55% 97,000
Total 3,231,000 354,000Packet Page 459
5 Competitive Funding Analysis
Packet Page 460
26 TID overview
Full-service hotels are assessed $2.00 and other hotels are assessed $1.00. In FY2019, the TID (tourism improvement district) generated $4.2 million of funding dedicated for tourism promotion through the MCCVB and represented the largest source of funding for tourism promotion in the county.
The Monterey County TID assessment that funds the MCCVB ranges from $1.00 to $2.00.
Competitive Funding Analysis
Monterey hotel sector and TID details by scale, FY2019
Source: MCCVB, STR
ADR Room revenue % of Revenue
Current Avg TID per
Room Assumption
Current TID
Contribution
Contribution % of
Total TID
Luxury $455 $294,000,000 41% $2.00 $1,293,000 31%
Upper Upscale $229 $134,000,000 19% $1.50 $875,000 21%
Upscale $180 $48,000,000 7% $1.25 $333,000 8%
Upper Midscale $185 $75,000,000 10% $1.15 $468,000 11%
Midscale $179 $39,000,000 5% $1.00 $218,000 5%
Economy $132 $133,000,000 18% $1.00 $1,013,000 24%
Total $231 $724,000,000 100% $0.00 $4,201,000 100% Packet Page 461 27 TID rate comparison
This set includes the MCCVB’s competitive set and additional DMOs that disclosed their assessment rate to Destinations International (DI).
Since the assessment is a major source of revenue for the MCCVB (and the majority of other DMOs on this list), this results in a limited tourism promotion budget for Monterey County. Increasing the TID assessment rate could generate additional funding and provide competitive funding for tourism promotion in Monterey County.
*Monterey’s per room assessment scheme results in an overall rate of 0.6% of room revenue.
Monterey’s TID assessment of 0.6%* is much lower than the competitive set average of 2.1%.
Competitive Funding Analysis
TID assessment rates in Monterey and competitors
TID assessment rate
Sources: Dean Runyan Associates; Tourism Economics
4.0%
4.0%
3.0%
3.0%
2.9%
2.3%
2.1%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
1.0%
0.6%
0% 2% 4% 6%
Stockton
Huntington Beach
Newport Beach
Palm Springs
Pasadena
San Francisco
Average
Anaheim
Portland
Sonoma County
Napa Valley
San Diego
Orange County
Los Angeles
San Luis Obispo
Mendocino County
Monterey County Packet Page 462
28 Napa County, CA
Monterey
County, CA
Santa Barbara, CA
Sonoma
County, CA
Stockton, CA
Ventura,
CA
San Luis
Obispo, CA***
Huntington
Beach, CA
Palm Springs,
CA
Lake Tahoe, CA
Newport,
CA
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Thousands
Competitive funding analysis
This analysis compares destinations’ DMO budgets relative to the size of the local tourism sector (as measured by hotel room inventory). This analysis shows that Monterey County tourism promotion is underfunded compared to the line of best fit (the dotted line).
We chose to conduct a pre-pandemic analysis to provide perspective on a ‘normal’ level of DMO spending and room inventory, as the pandemic has caused severe swings.
Tourism promotion in Monterey County is underfunded
relative to local competitors.
Competitive Funding Analysis
Hotel, rooms (000’s)
Sources: Tourism Economics, DI, STR
*2018 or 2019 depending on destination’s reporting
** San Luis Obispo has greatly increased their DMO’s budget recently. The destination will likely spend close to $10m in 2022, up from $4.6m in this analysis.
Hotel rooms and DMO revenue in competing destinations, pre-pandemic* DMO budget, millions
Competitive
funding line
Packet Page 463
29 Competitive funding analysis
Examining the same data as the prior slide, we see that Monterey County provides $630 of tourism promotion spending for every hotel room, 38% below the set average.
Monterey County’s tourism promotion budget is 38% below the set average.
Competitive Funding Analysis
Funding dollars per hotel room
Sources: Tourism Economics, DI, STR
*2018 or 2019 depending on destination’s reporting
** San Luis Obispo has recently increased their DMO’s budget, and their figure may double in 2022.
Tourism promotion funding per room in select destinations, pre-pandemic $2,000
$1,536
$1,328
$1,310
$1,031
$1,012
$865
$687
$634
$630
$624
$484
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000
Huntington Beach, CA
Napa County, CA
Palm Springs, CA
Sonoma County, CA
Santa Barbara, CA
Average
Newport, CA
Lake Tahoe, CA
Ventura, CA
Monterey County, CA
Stockton, CA
San Luis Obispo, CA** Packet Page 464
Impact of TID Funding on the 6 Monterey Economy
Packet Page 465
31 Importance of visitor value
Increasing or decreasing the TID assessment rate would do little to change Monterey’s price competitiveness amongst its main competitors. Economically, elimination 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 highly 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 impact of the loss of tourism promotion funding would in all likelihood far exceed any possible negative effect of higher room costs. We also note that from FY2016-2019, ADR increased 17% while the occupancy rate grew to 73% from 71%. This indicates that price sensitivity does not seem to be a major factor for visitors.
In sum, eliminating the TID would not impact hotels’ price competitiveness but would appreciably undercut Monterey’s competitive market position in the absence of concerted destination sales and marketing.
Changing the TID assessment rate would not impact local hotels’ price competitiveness.
Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Dollars
Source: STR
* The US Open boosted room rates in Monterey County FY2019.
Average room rate in Monterey and competitors, FY2019*
$353
$333
$251
$226
$224
$200
$199
$181
$172
$171
$169
$131
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400
Laguna Beach
Napa County
San Francisco/San Mateo
Newport Beach/Dana Point
Monterey County
Santa Barbara/Santa Maria
San Jose/Santa Cruz
Sonoma County,
Palm Springs
California
San Diego
South Lake Tahoe Packet Page 466
32 Importance of visitor value
Based on prior calculations of paid media and group sales ROIs, we estimate that the MCCVB has an organizational ROI of 47-to-1 (i.e., one dollar of MCCVB funding generates $47 of visitor spending).
The MCCVB generated an ROI of $47-to-$1.
Sources: SMARI; MCCVB; Tourism Economics
MCCVB organizational ROI calculations
Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Value Source / calculation
Paid media ROI on visitor spending 75-to-1 See 'MCCVB Performance' section Paid Media expenses share of total DMO budget 56% MCCVB Group Sales ROI on visitor spending 14-to-1 See 'MCCVB Performance' section Group sales share of total DMO budget 33% MCCVB
Organization ROI on visitor spending 47-to-1 (75 * 61%) + (14 * 33%) Packet Page 467 33 Scenario development
Here we evaluate the impact of changes to the TID structure via three scenarios. In the Baseline Scenario the TID structure remains the same, in the TID elimination scenario the TID is removed, and in the Alternative TID Scenario the TID structure is changed to a three-tiered flat assessment that begins at $1.50 for limited-service hotels, $4.50 for full-service hotels, and $7.00 for luxury properties with biennial escalators.
We provide additional details on the three scenarios in fiscal year 2025, as this is the first year without a “cool-down” or “ramp-up” effect (i.e. the full effect of a funding increase/decrease will not be felt in the first two years of budget changes as lags exists between assessments being collected, distributed, media spending being increased/decreased, consumers making travel plans, and visitors actually traveling).
In 2025, our Baseline Scenario forecasted MCCVB’s revenue is $9.0 million.
In the TID Elimination Scenario, the MCCVB receives $4.0 million, a decrease of $5.0 million. We estimate a 47-to-1 ROI on this lost funding spending, which results in $233 million of lost visitor spending.
Changes in the TID could create an impact of several hundred million dollars.
Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
MCCVB revenue and visitor spending in three scenarios, FY2025 Dollar figures in millions
TID Elimination
Scenario
Baseline
Scenario
Alternative
Assessment Scenario
TID revenue $0.0 $5.0 $9.8
Jurisdiction investment $4.0 $4.0 $4.0
Total MCCVB revenue $4.0 $9.0 $13.8
Revenue change relative to baseline -$5.0 -- $4.8
Anticipated ROI revenue change* 47-to-1 -- 42-to-1
Change in visitor spending -$233 -- $204
Total visitor spending $3,157 $3,391 $3,594
Sources: SMARI; MCCVB; Tourism Economics
In the Alternative Assessment Scenario, the MCCVB receives $13.8 million in revenue, an increase of $4.8 million. To be conservative and account for diminishing marginal returns on new funding, we estimate a 42-to-1 ROI on this new funding, which results in $204 million of gained visitor spending.
Packet Page 468
34 '19-'32
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Growth Spending $3,189 $2,529 $2,197 $2,751 $3,295 $3,342 $3,391 $3,440 $3,525 $3,576 $3,627 $3,680 $3,733 $3,787 17% Earnings $1,387 $1,239 $991 $1,179 $1,405 $1,418 $1,431 $1,445 $1,473 $1,487 $1,501 $1,515 $1,529 $1,543 10% Jobs 26,895 23,765 19,342 24,226 28,431 28,265 28,100 27,936 28,053 27,890 27,727 27,565 27,404 27,244 2% Local taxes $168 $130 $114 $143 $172 $175 $178 $182 $186 $190 $193 $196 $200 $204 19% Sales tax $72 $58 $50 $63 $75 $76 $77 $78 $80 $81 $82 $83 $83 $84 15% TOT $71 $53 $47 $60 $72 $74 $76 $78 $80 $82 $84 $86 $88 $90 23% State taxes $142 $109 $96 $115 $143 $147 $153 $156 $159 $162 $164 $166 $169 $171 19% 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Spending 100 79 69 86 103 105 106 108 111 112 114 115 117 119 Earnings 100 89 71 85 101 102 103 104 106 107 108 109 110 111 Jobs 100 88 72 90 106 105 104 104 104 104 103 102 102 101 Local taxes 100 78 68 85 103 105 106 108 111 113 115 117 119 121 Sales tax 100 81 70 87 104 105 106 108 110 111 113 114 115 117 TOT 100 75 66 84 101 104 106 109 112 115 117 120 123 126 State taxes 100 77 68 81 101 104 108 110 113 114 116 118 119 121 Baseline Scenario forecast
In our Baseline Scenario, visitor spending grows to $3.8 billion in FY2032**.
Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Monterey County’s visitor economy, Baseline Scenario*
Dollar figures in millions
Sources: SMARI; MCCVB; Tourism Economics
*Fiscal years
**Based on MCCVB projections of hotel revenue
Monterey County’s visitor economy, Baseline Scenario
Index, (FY2019=100)
Packet Page 469
35 TID Elimination scenario
The TID Elimination scenario results in $2.3 billion dollars of lost spending over the next decade.
Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Monterey County’s visitor economy, TID Elimination Scenario Dollar figures in millions
Source: Tourism Economics
*annual average
These spending losses result in losses of $939 million in earnings, $120 million in local taxes, and an average of 1,759 jobs annually. 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Total losses Baseline Scenario visitor spending $3,189 $2,529 $2,197 $2,751 $3,295 $3,342 $3,391 $3,440 $3,525 $3,576 $3,627 $3,680 $3,733 $3,787 -- Lost TID Scenario visitor spending -- -- -- -- $3,221 $3,192 $3,157 $3,201 $3,280 $3,325 $3,370 $3,416 $3,463 $3,510 -- Lost spending -- -- -- -- $73 $150 $233 $239 $245 $251 $257 $263 $270 $277 $2,259 Lost earnings -- -- -- -- $31 $64 $98 $100 $102 $104 $106 $108 $111 $113 $939 Lost jobs* -- -- -- -- 633 1,270 1,933 1,941 1,949 1,957 1,966 1,974 1,982 1,990 1,759 Lost local taxes -- -- -- -- $3.8 $7.9 $12.3 $12.6 $12.9 $13.3 $13.7 $14.1 $14.5 $14.9 $120 Sales tax -- -- -- -- $1.7 $3.5 $5.4 $5.5 $5.6 $5.8 $5.9 $6.0 $6.2 $6.3 $52 TOT -- -- -- -- $1.6 $3.2 $5.1 $5.3 $5.4 $5.6 $5.8 $6.0 $6.2 $6.4 $51 Lost state taxes -- -- -- -- $3.2 $6.6 $10.6 $10.8 $11.1 $11.4 $11.6 $11.9 $12.2 $12.5 $102 Packet Page 470 36 TID Elimination scenario
The TID elimination scenario results in $2.3 billion dollars of lost spending over the next decade.
Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Future visitor spending growth in Monterey, two scenarios Dollars, billions
Source: Tourism Economics
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
Thousands
Lost
Repeat
Baseline
TID Elimination
$2.3bn lost
over 10 years
Packet Page 471
37 Alternative Assessment Scenario
The Alternative Assessment Scenario results in $2.2 billion dollars of gained spending over the next decade.
Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Monterey County’s visitor economy, Alternative Assessment Scenario Dollar figures in millions
These spending gains result in gains of $920 million in earnings, $118 million in local taxes, and an average of 1,716 jobs annually. 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Total gains Baseline Scenario visitor spending $3,189 $2,529 $2,197 $2,751 $3,295 $3,342 $3,391 $3,440 $3,525 $3,576 $3,627 $3,680 $3,733 $3,787 -- Alternative Assessment Scenario visitor spending -- -- -- -- $3,349 $3,448 $3,594 $3,638 $3,766 $3,812 $3,906 $3,953 $4,048 $4,096 -- Gained spending -- -- -- -- $55 $106 $204 $199 $242 $236 $279 $273 $316 $310 $2,218 Gained earnings -- -- -- -- $23 $45 $86 $83 $101 $98 $115 $112 $129 $126 $920 Gained jobs* -- -- -- -- 471 896 1,688 1,613 1,923 1,842 2,132 2,047 2,317 2,228 1,716 Gained local taxes -- -- -- -- $2.9 $5.6 $10.7 $10.5 $12.8 $12.5 $14.8 $14.6 $16.9 $16.7 $118 Sales tax -- -- -- -- $1.7 $3.5 $5.4 $5.5 $5.6 $5.8 $5.9 $6.0 $6.2 $6.3 $52 TOT -- -- -- -- $1.6 $3.2 $5.1 $5.3 $5.4 $5.6 $5.8 $6.0 $6.2 $6.4 $51 Gained state taxes -- -- -- -- $2.4 $4.7 $9.2 $9.0 $10.9 $10.7 $12.6 $12.4 $14.3 $14.0 $100 Source: Tourism Economics
*annual average
Packet Page 472
38 Alternative Assessment Scenario
The Alternative Assessment Scenario results in $2.2 billion dollars of gained spending over the next decade.
Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Future visitor spending growth in Monterey, two scenarios Dollars, billions
Source: Tourism Economics
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
$5.0
Thousands
Lost
Repeat
Baseline
Alternative Assessment
$2.2bn gained
over 10 years
Packet Page 473
39 Scenario comparison
The changes in TID funding create a notable impact on the future path of the visitor economy.
Impact of TID Funding on the Monterey Economy
Future visitor spending growth in Monterey, three scenarios Dollars, billions
Source: Tourism Economics
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
Thousands
Alternative Assessment
Baseline
TID Elimination
Packet Page 474
Appendix: The National Impact of
Tourism Improvement Districts
Packet Page 475
41 National study of TID benefits
The study finds that tourism improvement districts (TIDs) provide a competitive advantage for destinations. By examining TID impacts on room demand, revenue, and visitor spending, this white paper explores that ground-breaking research and explains how TIDs enhance economic impacts in destinations.
The following pages review a collaborative research project on the impact of TIDs performed by Tourism Economics.
The Impact of Tourism Improvement Districts
Packet Page 476
42 Destination sample
The analysis covers 100 cities, including 29
TID destinations and 71 non-TID
destinations.
The Impact of TIDs
Cities included in Tourism Economics’ TID impact analysis Packet Page 477
43 Room demand regression model
Our approach to estimate the effect of TID on room demand included:
1. 100 US destinations (counties); 29 TID destinations and 71 non-TID destinations
2. Oxford Economics databank was utilized for relevant macroeconomic indicators, namely, GDP and employment (at county level)
3. The final panel dataset consisted of 100 cross-sections and 30 time periods (1990-2019), totaling 3,000 observations
The Impact of TIDs
log 𝑅𝑜𝑜𝑚 𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 = 𝑏1 + 𝑏2 × log 𝐴𝑟𝑡𝑠&𝑅𝑒𝑐 𝐺𝐷𝑃
+𝑏3 × log 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝐷𝑃 + 𝑏4 × 𝑇𝐼𝐷𝑑𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑦 + 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟
Where 𝑇𝐼𝐷𝑑𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑦 = 1 for a TID city, and 0 otherwise.
• The model sought to test whether a positive and significant relationship existed between the dependent variable, 𝑅𝑜𝑜𝑚 𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑, and the independent variable 𝑇𝐼𝐷𝑑𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑦 ; a positive 𝑏4 coefficient with a small p-value. • The other two independent variables, Arts & Rec 𝐺𝐷𝑃 and 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝐷𝑃, were employed as control variables to control for a destination’s size and its relative importance as a tourist destination.
• Below are the regression results indicating a positive and highly significant 𝑏4 coefficient.
• The results suggest that when controlled for size and importance of a destination as a tourist destination, across our sample of 100 cities, there was an average
2.12% difference in room demand between years in which a destination had an active TID and years without a TID. Results are statistically significant with a 99% confidence level.
Packet Page 478
44 High-level view
Visually, we can observe that TID destinations outperformed non-TID markets in the latest upcycle.
The Impact of TIDs
Total hotel room revenue
TID vs. non-TID cities growth
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Total hotel room revenue
TID vs. Non-TID cities growth
Source: STR, Civitas, Tourism Economics
TID cities
Non -TID cities
Total hotel room revenue
TID vs. non-TID cities (2002=100)
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%
220%
240%
260%
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Total hotel room revenue
TID vs. Non-TID cities (2002=100)
Source: STR, Civitas, Tourism Economics
TID cities
Non -TID cities
Packet Page 479
45 TID growth premium: demand
The Impact of TIDs
Room demand growth premium*
2003-2019
-0.12%
0.34%
-0.20%
-0.10%
0.00%
0.10%
0.20%
0.30%
0.40%
Before TID After TID
The demand premium is calculated as the difference between an average 3-year growth in TID cities and non-TID cities prior to the TID (“Before TID”) and post the TID (“After TID”).
• Before authorizing a TID, growth in cities that eventually had a TID was 12 basis points slower compared to growth in TID cities. • After authorizing a TID, growth in TID cities was 34 basis points faster compared to non-TID cities.
• Swing of 0.5% in room demand.
On average, a destination gains 0.5% in demand growth per year after a TID is put in place.
“Premium” is measured as the difference in growth rates between TID and non-TID destinations Source: STR, Tourism Economics
Packet Page 480
46 TID growth premium: revenue
The Impact of TIDs
Room revenue growth premium*
2003-2019
The revenue premium is calculated as the difference between an average 3-year growth in TID cities and non-TID cities prior to the TID (“Before TID”) and post the TID (“After TID”).
• Before authorizing a TID, growth in TID cities was 24 basis points faster compared to growth in non-TID cities
• After authorizing a TID, growth in TID cities was 130 basis points faster compared to non-TID cities
• Gain of 1.1% in room revenue.
On average, a destination gains 1.1% in revenue growth per year after a TID is put in place.
“Premium” is measured as the difference in growth rates between TID and non-TID destinations Source: STR, Tourism Economics
0.24%
1.30%
0.00%
0.20%
0.40%
0.60%
0.80%
1.00%
1.20%
1.40%
Before TID After TIDPacket Page 481
47 TID room demand lift
The Impact of TIDs
Average annual hotel room demand
TID cities
The 29 TID destinations in our model grew to generate 7,027,654 rooms in 2019. Without the boost generated by the TIDs, these destinations would have only generated 6,878,260 rooms.
On average, our modeling indicates that TIDs produce a 2.1% lift in hotel room demand.
Sources: STR, Civitas, Tourism Economics
6,878,260
7,027,654
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,000,000
6,500,000
7,000,000
7,500,000
Average annual hotel room demand
TID cities
Source: STR, Civitas, Tourism Economics
Actual room
demand
Estimated room
demand in
absence of TID
Packet Page 482
48 TID room demand lift
The Impact of TIDs
Average annual hotel room demand
TID cities (millions)
The 29 TID destinations in our model grew to generate $1.12 billion in room revenue in 2019. Without the boost generated by the TIDs, these destinations would have only generated $1.07 billion in room revenue.
On average, our modeling indicates that TIDs produce a 4.5% lift in hotel room revenue.
Sources: STR, Civitas, Tourism Economics
$1,067
$1,118
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
$1,100
$1,200
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 Average annual hotel room revenue
TID cities (millions)
Actual room revenue
Estimated room
revenue in
absence of TID
Packet Page 483
49 Economic benefits of TIDs
Tourism promotion funding provided by TIDs results in more visitors and visitor spending, and this spending represents a new injection to the local economy with many downstream benefits . In total, benefits are felt on three levels.
• Direct Impacts: Visitors create direct economic value within a discreet group of sectors (e.g., recreation, transportation). This supports a relative proportion of jobs, wages, taxes, and GDP within each sector. • Indirect Impacts: Each directly affected sector also purchases goods and services as inputs (e.g., food wholesalers, utilities) into production.
These impacts are called indirect impacts.
• Induced Impacts: Lastly, the induced impact is generated when employees whose wages are generated whether directly or indirectly by visitors, spend those wages in the local economy.
The impacts of TIDs go beyond just the hotel and tourism sector.
The Impact of Tourism Improvement Districts
RETAIL
ENTERTAINMENT/REC
FOOD & BEVERAGE
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
LODGING
AIR TRANSPORTATION
SALES
GDP
JOBS
INCOME
TAXES
Packet Page 484
Appendix 2: The ROI of Destination Marketing
Packet Page 485
51 The ROI of Destination Marketing
Many state and local CVBs and 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 CVB. 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.
Tourism Economics summarized the estimates of incremental visitor spending per dollar of advertising campaign spending from these studies in the table on the following page
Packet Page 486
52 The ROI of Destination Marketing
Estimates of incremental visitor spending per dollar of advertising campaign spending from the set of studies we analyzed is summarized in the adjacent table, supporting the following observations:
Overall, we observe that recent marketing campaigns by destination marketing organizations at the metro/regional level have generated approximately $53 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 CVB 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 CVB 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).
Marketing ROI matrix
Sources: Local studies compiled by Tourism Economics
Packet Page 487
53 For more information:
[email protected]
Tourism Economics is an Oxford Economics company with a singular objective: combine an understanding of the travel sector with proven economic tools to answer the most important questions facing our clients. More than 500 companies, associations, and destination work with Tourism Economics every year as a research partner. We bring decades of experience to every engagement to help our clients make better marketing, investment, and policy decisions. Our team of highly-specialized economists deliver:
• Global travel data-sets with the broadest set of country, city, and state coverage available • Travel forecasts that are directly linked to the economic and demographic outlook for origins and destinations • Economic impact analysis that highlights the value of visitors, events, developments, and industry segments • Policy analysis that informs critical funding, taxation, and travel facilitation decisions • Market assessments that define market allocation and investment decisions Tourism Economics operates out of regional headquarters in Philadelphia and Oxford, with offices in Belfast, Dubai, Frankfurt, and Ontario.
Oxford Economics is one of the world’s foremost independent global advisory firms, providing reports, forecasts and analytical tools on 200 countries, 100 industrial sectors and over 3,000 cities. Our best-of-class global economic and industry models and analytical tools give us an unparalleled ability to forecast external market trends and assess their economic, social and business impact. Headquartered in Oxford, England, with regional centers in London, New York, and Singapore, Oxford Economics has offices across the globe in Belfast, Chicago, Dubai, Miami, Milan, Paris, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington DC, we employ over 400 full-time staff, including 300 professional economists, industry experts and business editors—one of the largest teams of macroeconomists and thought leadership specialists.
About Tourism Economics
Packet Page 488
1 RESOLUTION NO. 23-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE
[GRANTING OR DENYING] CONSENT TO THE CITY OF MONTEREY TO RENEW
THE MONTEREY COUNTY TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (MCTID) WHEREAS, the City of Monterey initially created the MCTID in 2006 under the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989; and
WHEREAS, the MCTID was converted in 2019 under Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 by Resolution No. 18-147 for a five (5) year term, which ends December 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monterey has requested consent to renew the MCTID in the City of Seaside with adoption of Monterey City Council Resolution No. 22-169, dated December 20, 2022;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Seaside, that:
Section 1: The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2: The City of Monterey is hereby granted consent to include the City of Seaside in the MCTID, for the renewal of the MCTID for the term beginning December 31, 2023 and will reconsider future renewals by adoption of a resolution during each renewal period.
Section 3: The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the Clerk of the City of Monterey City Council.
Section 4: This Resolution is effective upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside, State of California, held on this 16th day of February 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Packet Page 489
2 __________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
APPROVED TO FORM:
______________________________
Sheri L. Damon, City Attorney
Packet Page 490