How do we give us a hug Pulling people in, and I'll give folks a second on Zoom.

Recording in progress.

So we're just going to give them about ten, fifteen more seconds here.

All right, with that, we'll go ahead and call the meeting to order.

Hello, everybody.

Welcome to our special council meeting for June twenty fourth, twenty twenty-six.

With that, I will pass it to staff for roll call and to share announcements with the public.

Oh, I'll do that after.

Sorry, I skipped it.

I'll come back to that.

Okay.

Councilmember Garcia.

Councilmember Rash.

Councilmember Smith.

And Mayor Williamson.gov.agendas.

Please keep your electronic devices muted to prevent audio interference.

Consistent with the First Amendment and the Brown Act, individuals have the right to speak at public meetings, which include the right to criticize or support city policies or actions.

The city encourages your uninhibited and robust feedback on public issues affecting the city.

Thank you for participating.

Awesome.

Thank you.

And with that, I'm going to ask Councilmember Smith a few questions.

Can you hear me well?

I can.

Were you able to hear our proceedings on this end up until now?

Yes.

Do you have a copy of the agenda for the meeting?

I do.

Was the agenda posted 24 hours prior to this special meeting at your location?

Yes, it was.

Is your location accessible to the public such that any member of the public could participate from the location that you, if they wished to do so?

Yes.

My door's open and I'm in room 106 at the hotel I'm staying at.

All right, everybody hear that?

I'm just kidding.

Um is any member of the public there with you currently who would like to participate in the public comment portion of this meeting or otherwise address the any agenda item for this meeting.

Nobody here yet.

Can everyone clearly hear council member Smith?

Yes.

All right, I got some positive affirmation.

The Brown Act requires that any votes taken during this teleconference portion of this meeting be taken by roll call.

Um and with that um council member Smith, you were up next to do the Pledge of Allegiance, but since you're not here, I'll come back.

We'll come back to you next week and we'll kick it off to Councilmember Garcia.

That sounds fine.

Okay, one nation.

All right, with that, we have one public appearance item today, which is item one on the agenda to receive presentation on phase two poll of likely voters in direct two poll.

We have one public appearance item today.

It's item one on the agenda is to receive a presentation on phase two poll of likely voters and direct staff to proceed with the renewal of measure S only for the November 2026 election ballot.

Um, and with that, I'll pass it to City Manager Dante Hall.

Thank you, Mayor, and members of the city council.

Um, as we talked about at our last council meeting, um, Monterey faces an 11.6 million dollar structural deficit because our expenses are just exceeding our our revenues.

Um, obviously, uh voters rejected in June Measure D.

Um, and so it's staff's belief um that the November strategy uh should be simple and should protect our core funding and renewing measure S is a fine foundational element to our fiscal future.

And so staff is is gonna be making uh that recommendation uh after uh the presentation for council's consideration.

Um but um measure S represents um approximately 14 million dollars that we use for critical infrastructure for for the city.

As we talked to council and the community about last meeting, we're doing our part of um tightening our expenses on our sides, we're looking to control our labor costs.

We're looking for cost recovery in areas where we can, where it makes sense, and we're looking at operational efficiencies and staff will be back to the city council in August to go a little bit deeper and tell you specifically what those elements are.

Um, but um we wanted to come back to council.

We've done phase two of the polling for measure S.

We have some findings uh that we want to discuss with council.

And so at this point, I'll turn it over to our assistant city manager uh to lead the presentation.

Um, and we also have our consultant uh here as well.

Thank you very much, City Manager Hall.

Uh good afternoon, everyone.

Uh, Mayor and City Council.

Uh we're here to provide, as uh Dante mentioned, an update uh uh for you on the polling results, but also frame this with an overview as to uh uh how we're here and when why we're here.

Uh we'll talk a little bit about uh we'll spend quite most of the time talking about the results of the uh phase two poll of likely voters, specifically on measure P and S renewal, the parking tax.

Uh, uh we had a question about vacancy tax, and then also uh dive deep into uh measure S and why we believe it's important for us to focus on that as the renewal for the November 2026 election.

Uh what uh as you know, looking back, this is a two-phased approach for polling back in the fall.

The council authorized and we conducted the poll on the potential sales tax increase as well as the potential parking tax, and we did a temperature check on measure P and S, as well as a potential admissions tax and the public safety facility bond.

Phase two is the polling that we just conducted this month for the November ballot as council directed, focusing on the PS renewal and then some feedback on the parking tax as well.

What we have, as uh Dante mentioned, is a uh 11.7 million dollar uh general fund deficit.

And uh this budget that was approved by council last meeting assumes that measure S is renewed in November of 2026, and it relies on that Measure S special fund revenue for roads sidewalks, ADA and related repairs.

When you look at why is it so important for us to uh pursue a sales tax measure, it's because there are very few additional revenues for the city overall.

Uh overall, cities in Monterey County typically receive only six percent of property tax revenue.

And this is a graphic from the Monterey County Treasurer Tax Collector's Office.

A lot of folks think I pay so much in property taxes, why can't the city afford all the services that we provide?

Well, we only receive roughly six percent as a city.

When you look at sales tax, we only receive one uh ten cents of the base sales tax on a purchase price of ten dollars.

If you look, only one percent goes to the city by default.

But when we pursue a special tax like Measure S, all of that money, though in this case of Measure S renewal, one percent goes to the city of Monterey.

So it really does uh does support the city, unlike the small fraction of sales tax that was generated.

And when you look at a typical city in California compared to the city of Monterey for overall revenue, and this is a graphic that we like to share when we talk to uh groups, students, uh the public, about how does a typical city in California get its revenue and how does the city of Monterey get this get its revenue?

Where the revenues are from uh these uh these uh sources of revenue that are non-restricted, and and of course, this chart on the right includes NCIP revenue.

But most cities in California don't have hotels, so 7% goes to come from hotel tax, 23% from sales tax, and the sheer majority is property tax.

That's the case for many of the cities, including the cities that both Dante and I used to work for, uh, property tax being number one.

Here in Monterey, we rely on hotel tax, then sales tax, and we have such a very low property tax uh revenue base that uh we rely on on these other two and why we look at sales tax for revenue generation.

Now let's uh let's look at measure P and S history.

So Measure P was adopted in 2015 when we knew that roads were deteriorating and we didn't have mechanisms to fund it.

General fund could not support roads, sidewalks, storm drains, and the community came together and we had support to create measure P.

And it was a for very short term, 2015 to 2019, and it got renewed in 2018.

Uh, first Measure P adopted, approved at 74%, Measure S renewed at 82%.

Since then, 88.8 million dollars funded to support street sidewalks and storm drains in our community.

And when you look at uh if measure S would be is renewed if we take it to uh voters in November of 2026, it will range between 12.5 million dollars in uh the first year or next year, next fiscal year, 27-28, 13 million, and then projected to uh increase to 17.1 million by 2034-35.

And so uh significant amount of money for an important need.

One of the largest sources uh of uh one of the largest uh expenses for any city when it comes to infrastructure are roadways, roadways, sidewalk projects, and and this is dedicated funding for that.

Uh when you uh look at PCI score over time, this is called the pavement condition index.

We've been able to since uh 2021 maintain that strong PCI level of uh of 79, which is good.

It's where we want to be, it's in the green.

But um, but um it will continue to deteriorate if we don't continue to uh to fund it.

You can look at uh some of the history and uh and and how PCI ranges depending on the type of roadway, residential local streets at 80 PCI, collectors at 82, local streets at 69.

Uh it it does range, but it allows us to maintain the pavement condition.

And why is this why is that important?

It's the pavement life cycle.

When you look at the first number of years, uh the first uh 15 years of uh pavement life is maintained, but once there's a sheer cliff that drops off once we stop maintaining uh pavement.

And so uh I know there's been some comments about well, you know, we supported measure PS with pavement uh and road infrastructure.

Let's move on to other things.

Well, what will happen if we don't continue to maintain funding for pavement and for roads is that those roads will deteriorate and it will actually cost five times more between years 15 to 20 to where the entire road needs to be rehabilitated and uh the cost are just uh just astronomically increase.

And that's when the pavement goes down to poor or failed roads, and you have major potholes and other issues beyond what we we can maintain.

So that continuity of maintenance is important and uh is is why we uh believe measure p and s needs to uh continue because that quality control uh drops.

Now uh just take a quick look back uh of pavement specific projects.

We've increased the PCI score from 54 to 79 uh since its inception, 61.7 million dollars in investments, and uh most of these are uh are the streets that we drive on each and every day, and uh that residents and our businesses and and commerce relies on.

So um those are the pavement projects.

You can see the before and after photos, and there's literally hundreds of examples of this throughout the city of Monterey.

When you look at ADA improvements, we have a legal obligation to make improvements per the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act ADA, and we've made 16.6 million dollars of improvements, these curb cuts, uh, more accessibility for sidewalks based on federal standards, 375 ADA ramps completed, six ADA signalized intersections upgraded, and uh we have more to go.

Uh we have uh over 23 million dollars uh remaining in upgrades needed.

And without measure PS, it would we would have to rely on general fund.

And as we all know, we already have a 11.7 million dollar general fund deficit, and we would then have to even have an increased deficit further on the general fund side to pay for some of these improvements if it's not renewed.

Sidewalk project, 7.8 million dollars of expenditure since its inception, seven city wide citywide sidewalk phases completed, and over 70, I'm sorry, 7, uh 700 uplifts repaired.

On the storm drain project side, 6.6 million dollars of storm drain investments.

One example is the Iris Canyon Sediment Removal Project, uh, the marina lot, which uh supported the storm drain projects as well and increased the uh uh drainage in uh in that lot and in that vicinity.

And uh and of course, every year we have an annual report, and we have a great uh very active uh measure P and S oversight Committee that has uh continued to review the projects uh and uh ensure that uh Measure P as well as Measure S has uh met uh met the needs of uh what it was intended for, and thanks thanks Rick for being here and others as well uh and continuing to support uh the committee.

Again, you know, as I mentioned before, without Measure S renewal, we have to ask ourselves how we would fund roads, sidewalks, and other critical repairs with the 11.6 million dollar uh general fund deficit.

If we were to continue to fund the road, sidewalks, and critical repairs the way we do, our deficit would increase by uh next year it would go to 24.2 million uh or we would have to figure out how to fund current services, which which we are struggling with, uh let alone infrastructure that we need.

So uh let's hear about the the poll and uh ask Lucia Delpupo from FM3.

She's been working with us, and we were going back to uh the early days of Measure P and S, and actually your name was was on there because you uh you worked on that uh back in uh 2018 and and before then.

So uh we'll take it away.

Yeah.

Thank you so much.

It's a pleasure to be here this evening or afternoon.

Um walking through.

Can you hear me well?

Yeah, I apologize.

Could we um maybe do some questions for your portion before we transition to the polling?

Um I'll open it up to the council to see if there's any questions from the council first before I go through mine.

Did anybody have any questions for Nat?

Um I I had a few.

Um could you describe why the revenue from property taxes so low in the city of Monterey?

Yeah, I think one of the reasons why we have such low property tax in Monterey are uh a few things we uh compared to a lot of other communities, we don't we're not expanding.

So if you look at Marina as an example, they're uh they're growing, uh, they have uh new redevelopment, and that's increased property tax.

We don't have a lot of turnover in housing or on the commercial side.

A lot of our downtown businesses are folks who've owned the their property for a long time, and so because of Prop 13, those are very low uh property tax spaces.

Um in addition, we have a high number of nonprofits that uh that operate, and they're nonprofits as many of us know are exempt from property tax.

So Montage Health, Monterey Bay Aquarium, all the churches, uh, the uh Army military, which we provide fire service to at the Navy uh at no cost, those are examples of uh services that we provide at at zero uh cost, and there's no cost recovery there.

And in some cases there's no sales tax either.

Awesome.

And then for measure P, measure S.

I'm assuming the council's gonna support putting that on the ballot in November.

Um if the if the voters support that and we're successful in having that pass.

What does the prior what are the priorities look like?

Do they shift at all?

And I don't know if that's a question for you or Andrea, I'm not sure.

Inter can highlight uh those priorities.

So we have a number of projects in the queue.

Our priorities probably wouldn't shift much with our payment management program.

Uh we're looking at trying to spend around five to six million dollars per year to maintain our PCI at its current score, which is a 79.

Uh we're kind of targeting 75 or above to keep our payment in that fair condition so it doesn't fall off that clip where it's gonna cost more.

Uh for our stormwater and drainage.

Uh, one of our biggest priorities right now is Pump Station 11.

That was in uh our last infrastructure presentation to you.

That's on its uh end of life, and if that fails, Del Mani could flood.

So those are some of the big priorities in the queue.

Um, but our our ADA improvements, we have the ADA transition plan, and so that's we have some uh I guess priorities in there uh that were uh identified in there, and and we're also looking at trying to be strategic about those investments where we where we have planned roadway maintenance, we'll do the curb cuts ahead of the roadway maintenance, we're not cutting into a freshly paved street.

So that's kind of our roadmap, how we prioritize our maintenance projects.

Uh, but outside of that, our priorities wouldn't change much.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you.

Sure.

And kind of maybe more of a of a comment, just as it relates to uh in the presentation you had alluded to the fact that if we don't pass the extension to measure P Measure S, that we would look be looking at something more like a 24 million dollar um structural deficit.

And and I I guess I would offer an alternative is that we also just reduce um the infrastructure work that we're we're doing.

Um so just throwing that out there is not it's not an end all be all, but um either way doesn't look good if that doesn't happen.

Okay, thank you.

All right, I'm gonna go ahead and jump into the findings of the most recent survey.

So as Nat mentioned, we explored um the measure P and S renewal, we explored the parking tax, and then we also touched on the vacancy tax per the last um meeting where we discussed the survey approach.

So these are the findings of the survey that we just completed.

Uh we were in the field from June 6th to June 16th, so we started right after the primary election, and it's very recent data.

Um our approach was similar to prior surveys in that we took a random sample of 400 likely voters, but here we were looking at a likely November 2026 electorate.

The margin of error on the data is 4.9%.

Um I'll flag in different parts where the margin of error becomes into play because we did test some different versions of measures.

Um and so in some clay, in some cases where we have a half-sample or a split sample, we're looking at a 6.9% margin of error.

Otherwise, the approach was very similar to our prior surveys in the city, uh, a dual mode survey, so available online and via phone.

The phone surveys were done on landlines and cell phones, and the online outreach was done via email and text message.

So with that, I'm gonna jump into some of the more interesting parts, the findings.

So we asked the question about the overall quality of life in the city of Monterey, and we asked folks if they felt like it was excellent, good, uh, only fair report.

Looks like slides got a little distorted, so but the orange bars are only fair, and then the dark orange is poor.

And what you can see here is that it's been remarkably stable.

Uh voters in Monterey have a very positive view on life in the city.

88% say it's excellent or good, um, only about one in 10 say it's only fair or poor.

Um we the excellent had kind of dipped early in the year, but we kind of see that it's sort of returned to where it was more recently.

So I think that overall we're kind of in that over one-third saying it's excellent.

So really high positive ratings, I would say.

In terms of views of city government and the city council, um, a majority say they view the city government favorably with 59%, and the city council is viewed favorably by 50%.

This is pretty comparable and stable as well to where it's been actually relative since 2019.

It's been around this range.

We asked folks if they felt like there was a need for additional funding for city services in general.

And uh what we saw is that this also has remained stable um since our prior surveys.

We have about three and five saying there's a great need or some need, um, and 15% saying great need.

So even though there's a majority sense that there's some need for funding, that intensity hasn't really um uh really increased at all.

We also asked a similar question about um infrastructure and roads, and we did see that a similar number overall or similar proportion of the electorate is saying that there's at least some need with 62 percent.

The great need here is a little bit more intense.

Uh, we do see 26% saying there's a great need for funding for infrastructure.

So looking at the measures, um, looking first at the measure PS renewal, so the sales tax tested, um, this is a language we tested in the survey.

Uh, it's very, very similar to prior iterations of that have appeared on the ballot with some slight language tweaks, but overall it's it's very consistent.

What we did here is we split sampled the duration.

We looked at both an eight-year sunset and an ongoing until ended by voters version of the measure.

What we saw is that in both instances, support was above the two-thirds threshold needed uh for success at the ballot.

So looking at the whole sample, regardless of sunset, if we combine the two is at 73%.

Um, and that's where you have a five-point margin of error.

Um, separately, the two uh versions, while they're within the margin of error of one another, the eight-year sunset is slightly more supported at 75% to 71% if there is no sunset included.

And looking at the parking tax, this one is much closer to that 50% threshold.

While it has a lower, being a general purpose measure, has a lower threshold for passage, it is uh the support was much closer to that threshold.

So we saw 52% support in aggregate.

This one we tested both as a private and public parking measure and versus as a private parking only, and this was at an 8% rate.

Um and what we saw was that in both instances it's within the margin of error of that 50% level needed for success at the ballot.

We also asked voters after, you know, we and we did randomize the order of the two measures, but what we asked them after they had heard both measures was okay, taking a step back.

If both of these were to appear on the ballot, would you say um yes on only one, yes on both?

Um, and if they said yes on only one, we asked which one.

Um, and again, I apologize, the slides are a little distorted here, but what we saw was that in in some two-thirds said they would vote yes on the sales tax if both appeared on the ballot, and 46% said they would vote yes on the parking tax.

So there was a little bit of an erosion here.

Um, and so overall, too.

I think um we can talk a little bit more when we get into the messaging sections, but I think sometimes this happens because we we make voters focus a little bit more on the the measures, but I think it what this does suggest is that they're not necessarily helping each other either, and especially if there was messaging against one of them, it could leach over and impact success of the other one.

The next couple slides cover some of the top spending priorities and elements of the measure.

This we kind of pulled the top priorities for this presentation, but we asked folks to rank these in terms of importance, whether they are extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important.

And there's our mix of both general purpose goals as well as special purpose related to measure PS given the two measures that were tested in this survey, as well as some accountability mechanisms.

And we saw that nearly nine and 10 felt like public disclosure funds was extremely or very important, with 70% saying that's extremely important.

We also see emergency response coming towards the top with 87% saying maintaining fire services and 9-1-1 emergency response times was very important.

We also saw a very high degree of importance assigned to requiring that fun funds be spent locally, with 85% saying that's very important.

Nearly four in five voters also said protecting coastal areas and local beaches, upgrading outdated and unsafe public safety infrastructure, maintaining emergency preparedness, and maintaining clean and safe parks were high priorities.

And as we go further down the slide line here, we see a lot of the um infrastructure items popping as well, with just under three-quarters telling us repairing storand dreams, uh, fixing street hole street potholes and sidewalks were very important, keeping trash off beaches.

Uh, we saw seven in 10 tell us it was very important to maintain police services, maintain local beaches, parks, uh, and trails, maintaining repairing, um, I believe that's public safety infrastructure or fire stations, actually.

Um, and then fixing potholes and roads and preventing the further deterioration of infrastructure, all of those were roughly two-thirds very important.

So um, yeah.

What is the carat represent?

The carrot is the things that were not part of the slip sample.

So some of these we had to split because it's quite a long list, and so to avoid fatigue for respondents, we uh yeah, but some of them were not in the split sample, particularly if they were newer items that we were testing.

So thank you for that.

Yeah.

Um, so overall, I think just that.

I think counselor Smith has a question.

Oh, yes, of course.

Yeah, Michelle, thank you, Mayor.

Um, and I didn't quite hear what which one was uh fire safety.

You had said something real quickly.

One of these questions had to do with fire.

Um, it was at the beginning at the top, one of the top priorities is maintaining fire services for voters.

Okay, so you were referring to this slide, okay.

Yeah, um, I oh I apologize, council member.

Um, I believe, and it's a little chopped off, so I will we can correct this if I'm wrong, but on the 70% one, I think it's maintaining and repairing public uh safety and fire stations.

Yeah.

Okay, yeah.

I just can't see what what the what it says maintaining police services, and then there was something else there.

So you just completed it.

Thank you.

Yeah, no problem.

Um, and I think you know, taking a step back of what this tells us, right, is that uh these accountability and transparency is highly important to this community.

Um, you know, public safety, but there are these infrastructure uh items, particularly as they relate to keeping it a beautiful community, keeping those public beaches and parks clean.

Those were all kind of priorities that really um jumped for people.

We also asked about the vacant homes proposal.

This was something that we had asked about previously, and we added it kind of towards the end of the survey as a conceptual ask as was discussed.

And what we did see is that a majority of voters indicated support for a vacancy tax.

Uh, when we had asked about it in kind of ballot language format, it was in the 61 to 62 percent range.

Um, earlier this year, that was um also there were two different proposals.

One was, I believe, housing oriented, and one was more public safety oriented.

Um, and prior to this, we had asked it conceptually, and it was 67%.

So it's slightly lower than where it's tested in the past, but it's more or less in that kind of majority, but not quite two-thirds level of of support for that.

So getting into how folks um kind of move and how their opinions change as they learn more about these issues.

Um, so looking at the two-thirds renewal for the measure PS, and this is the whole sample.

I'll show you them split up momentarily.

What we saw was that initially we were at 73%.

After providing positive educational information, we move up to 77% in support.

And after critical statements, we're back down to kind of the baseline of 73%.

What we do see is that definite yes is really strong.

And it kind of we actually retain that definite yes as voters learn more about the issue.

And I think one thing that is encouraging as we look at this data is that the definite yes is more than twice the definite no.

And so those who feel like they're going to you know feel supportive feel intensely so.

If we disaggregate the eight-year sunset versus the no sunset version, while they're within the margin of error of one another, the eight-year sunset after criticisms does end up in kind of a stronger place and outside the margin of error or just outside the margin of error of that two-thirds level.

So it is it is a little bit stronger positioned than the no sunset version.

And again, when we look at the parking tax, here we have them separated out because they were a little bit different in their nature.

The top set is the private and public parking, and the bottom set is the private parking only.

And what we see is that while a majority support it, again, this is at the 8% level, in both instances, we end up within that margin of error of that 50% level at the end.

So it really is hovering around that 50%.

It's definitely, I think when we had tested the 10% and 15%, we never got to 50% level, we were below 50%.

So it there is some rate sensitivity, but it's still hovering near that 50% level.

And then quickly looking at some of the messaging and some of the things that really resonated with voters.

So this is we kind of tested them separately, the measure PS messages and the parking messages for the educational statements.

And these are the ones focused for measure PS.

And what you'll see is that there's a lot of intensity for the no tax increase argument.

41% of voters told us this was very convincing, and it's much more intense than some of the other messages.

Well, all of them were seen as at least somewhat convincing by the electorate, and you know, particularly broad sense of convincingness around, you know, preventing wastewater issues and protecting public health and disaster preparedness and the cost of future repairs and the need to repair roads.

So all of those have broad resonance, but that no tax increase is really quite intense at 41%.

And I think it's worth noting that I think one of the challenges would be if the council did place both measures on the ballot, that if we do have a tax increase on the ballot, it sort of dilutes the no tax increase message that we would associate with our argument and and fact that comes with measure PS.

In terms of parking tax, um, being a general purpose measure, um, here we tested an argument both about local control and uh local locally source funding and controlling the funding locally, and that did rarely resonate within the context of the parking tax.

We also tested messages about that have tested really um kind of been resonant in the community in the past around tourists paying their fair share, as well as key services like fire and public safety response times and preventing cuts to the city budget, and all of those while a majority found them convincing overall, the local control was most intense on the parking tax argues side of things.

So just to wrap things up, I think you know there's a lot of first.

I want to take a step back and just say there's a lot of really good stuff in here in terms of just the community feeling consistently feeling like things are good and life is good in Monterey.

And we saw when we did the polling last fall, there's a lot of concern about cost of living and cost of housing, and that's those are problems that we're seeing communities throughout the state.

Um, but I think seeing a community consistently say that quality of life is so good, I think to me is striking, and a really positive finding.

Um, and we do see a majority also having a positive view of city government overall.

I think as we look towards the November 2026 election, the measure P as sales tax is well positioned.

I think it is really important to connect with voters on the importance of it, on the need, on the reassurance that it's not increasing taxes given the high cost of living environment we're in.

And that I think ultimately, while the um parking tax is close to that 50% level and even ends up above 50%, something that we hadn't seen in previous iterations, it does create a strain on both uh the argument that we're not increasing taxes, and just overall um could kind of create a more negative environment for measure PS.

That does seem um could could present a challenge if both were on the ballot.

So I'll stop there and I'm happy to.

Okay, yeah.

So, just a couple more slides.

Um, we'll just skip over here and uh just again reminder in terms of what our recommendation is from the staff side, and then of course you'll have a chance to ask questions at Lucia.

Uh Measure PNS is what we're recommending for November.

Uh again, it's a 1% special sales tax renewal.

Uh we would be renewing it for the third time.

And uh the revenue range is between 13 million from for FY2728 to 17.1 in 3435.

It does require two-thirds, a supermajority required for approval, which is why uh one of the reasons why uh we think uh we need to focus on uh this renewal.

And our recommendation is no changes to the language and keep the eight-year sunset based on uh the data uh that we collected.

I know there's some questions from council last meeting, and this is the opportunity to provide you with an update on the parking tax because uh back in January, council directed staff to prepare material so that we could place a parking tax on the ballot in June.

And there were concerns in March, and uh council directed staff to hold off on the tax and return with more information.

So we did polling on it.

There's some more information that we're we'd like to share with you as well.

There were concerns about uh inequities structurally, the tax on private lots but not public lots, and how reliable is the revenue projections and what's the burden on student parking.

So, uh what we're proposing in the future, not in November, but if council uh chooses to pursue the parking tax, is uh to exempt where the parking fee is already included as part of hotel room charges.

So our uh TOT ordinance requires that if someone is staying in a hotel room and they're let's say parking at the Monterey Marriott, they're they're charged TOT on top of not only their stay in the room but also on their parking, and and they're doing that now.

So we wouldn't be double double taxing folks.

Uh so that would be one exception.

Um another exemption would be the uh any occupancy in parking facility for a permit that's at least 28 calendar days.

There was a concern about monthly permits, quarterly permits, uh annual permits for residents, but also employees, student who students who park in lots, you know, a lot of uh folks who live in the affordable housing uh apartments on Canary Row or downtown, they end up paying for quarterly or monthly permits in our parking garages, those would be exempt uh from uh from the tax.

But they would apply to institutions of higher education like MPC or the fairgrounds if the parking uh fee is for less than 28 days.

So if if that's something that we're interested in pursuing, this is something that we would uh recommend in the future as part of exemptions.

The revenue projections, we did sit down and meet with the Canary Row company, uh talked about uh the revenue from private lots and garages.

We reduced our estimates based on our review of uh of the further review of the data.

Uh 255,000 dollars is estimated from the private lots.

That's a very conservative number.

We we do think it could be higher.

And then on the public parking lots and garages would bring in roughly $863,000 based on actual data for for today.

So just over 1.1 million in revenues from an 8% parking tax.

If council is interested in pursuing this in the future.

Um, there was some uh discussion too.

I know some questions from the community.

Should we pursue measure D again?

We owe it only failed by 162 votes, unfortunately, earlier this month.

51% voted no, 48.95% uh voted yes.

It would have generated four and a half million dollars in new revenue.

Uh, and uh, but there's a lot of uh no increased taxes sediment uh currently in the in the environment.

So uh we're not staff isn't recommending that at this time.

Um one factor to consider though is if another agency pursues a sales tax increase this November, they'll take the they'll take us to the cap and uh we may not be able to pursue it without legislative approval for increased taxes beyond uh the amount uh allowed by state law.

Um just another two more slides.

General fund expenditures by department.

Uh this is pulled straight from Rafela's budget presentation uh earlier this month, and uh you can see public works based on general fund expenditures is only 7.7 percent of expenditures, and that's because we have measure uh measure uh measure s uh renewed.

Uh so uh with measure s most of the funding for public works comes out of the special funds.

Without that, uh we would not only need to cover the roads and sidewalks, but also a lot of the staffing costs that support those projects out of uh out of uh measure measure s.

So the timeline, just so you all uh know if uh you're interested in moving forward with pursuing the measure s renewal or anything else on the ballot.

Uh there is a uh deadline of July 21, is our target for ballot measure adoption by the city council.

Last day to file the local measure with the elections department is August 7th.

And then uh that's also when the local county elections official will designate letters for the local measures, and then uh ballots are mailed to voters October 5th through the 27th, and then election day or the final day to vote is will be uh November 3rd.

And uh that will require investment and time on the city side to uh be very proactive with information and uh and and then of course for those who support the measure to focus on advocacy work.

And of course, this all ties into uh the roadmap to resilience, which uh Dante uh talked about at our last council meeting with all the various navigation points to get us to strengthen our financial future for the city of Monterey.

Uh again, staff recommendation highlighted here, and uh focused again, of course, on uh measure s renewal and then of course the educational materials to inform residents on uh what it's all about and why it's important.

Any questions for and then of course questions for council to consider we put in the packet, but you know, should the council prioritize the renewal of measure S and not add any other tax measures?

And if there is a consideration for another tax measure, how could that potential revenue be weighed against the possibility that doing so could affect support for us, which is what we've we've heard from uh our experts, FM3 as well, based on their history with other cities and other municipalities.

That's the presentation.

Uh, we're both here to answer questions as well as other staff members too.

Awesome.

Thank you both for the presentation and open up to the council for questions.

Please, Dr.

Bowden.

Uh thank you for the presentation.

I had a question for FM3.

Uh what was your response rate uh for the survey?

Um the total number of responses was just over 400 uh likely voters.

Out of how many?

Oh, there's um I believe a 12,000 registered voters in uh Monterey, but we yeah, 400 was the the target we were aiming for, and it's a representative of by demographics and geography of the city.

How did that compare to phase one?

Phase one was also a 400 sample, um, but it's a different electorate.

Um the likely June electorate I believe was roughly um we had it modeled at roughly 8,000.

I think the actual turnout turned out to be 7700.

So thank you.

Yeah.

Nat, are we still working with 62 percent of the sales tax that's coming from out of town?

We're still working off of that estimate.

Uh we've we've sat down and talked with our uh sales tax consultant HDL.

Uh they believe that number is most likely consistent across the board, even since uh last time we pursued measure uh P renewal.

Uh they offered uh to do uh updated number, but the cost of that study would have been in excess of over $20,000 dollars.

So we made the decision to continue with that number, which they believe is still accurate.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Councilor Smith, did you have any questions?

Yeah, it's not from uh Michelle, but actually maybe Nat can answer this question on the last page uh actually yes, last page of the agenda, it's the revenue source and it's talking about the parking.

Um not on the slides, but on the agenda package.

Yes.

Uh let's see here.

Last page.

Last page.

My laptop is at the podium.

Let me grab it.

Okay.

Yeah, it's just a simple question.

It's on the uh consideration of the parking measure revenue source fund, actual revenue.

Is it in the agenda report or the uh attachment?

Agenda report, uh, well, I'm sorry, it's the attachment.

No, the attachment, okay.

The attachment.

Sorry.

Yeah, and a quick acknowledgement to uh Mark Ackerman in the audience who helped us along with uh Kyle uh Olson on uh some of the parking tax uh revenue estimates.

But go ahead, council member Smith.

Yeah, yeah.

So that chart, uh, if you go down to the bottom and it's got uh grand total up to, and it shows um actual revenue up to um, seven hundred eighty-nine thousand and fifty-four cents over to the right of that, it has uh under the column general fund tax revenue eight percent based on previous years revenue.

That's a projection.

It's got a I think they call it a tilt fee, or is that intended to be a negative, or is that just a mistake?

Uh it's intended to be the totally is uh an estimate.

So we're we're saying roughly 1.18 uh million dollars, uh not uh negative.

I guess it's kind of repetitive to have a tilde uh estimate when the header also says estimate, so uh it I can see how that's just through, so when you start pardon, try again, Ed.

I think you uh you froze for a minute.

Okay, so just I think you clarified it.

And it's a tilde, it's not a negative.

Yes, sir.

It's a marked next to the figure.

Thank you.

Um, okay, and then the only question I had was um previously it was communicated to us that the if we didn't change anything to the measure that it would it would require a simple majority, but now we're being told it requires a supermajority.

What what was the confusion around that?

Why are we now back to a space of saying it's a supermajority?

I don't I will maybe wasn't here when it was said before.

It's a special tax, so when it has a special purpose, special taxes always require a two-thirds approval.

Okay.

Maybe we could check with Chrissy.

It'd be helpful to just understand what the confusion was because before it was communicated opposite.

So I just want to make sure because it sounds like we're switching, and I don't know if okay.

I think initially there was some conversation about is this something that could just achieve the uh majority vote, and we didn't uh we were hoping that it would be uh just majority, but uh we learned uh earlier in the year uh that uh we received final clarification that it does require six to the two-thirds majority, unfortunately.

Interesting because I remember at the last council meeting that we discussed this, it was shared that it was a simple majority because I remember the conversation was um I was bringing up the point around including a provision in it that focused on a dig once, and the and I part of the reason why the council wanted to not include it was because it required the lower voter threshold because it was a change.

Um our lovely finance director uh reminded me that Chrissy did send out an email clarifying after that meeting that it is the 66% threshold.

So I'll go back and take a look.

Apologize if there was any confusion.

No, no worries, no worries.

Thank you for that.

Thank you.

Um, all right.

With that, we're gonna go ahead and open it up for public comment.

So for folks on Zoom, you can use the raise hand function.

Folks in the chamber, feel free to stand up to the left of the podium, or you can identify yourself by raising your hand.

Just as a reminder, what we do is we identify public speakers at the beginning of the public comment period.

Once those folks are identified, we close it off, and then only those folks get be are able to speak.

So if you raise your hand after the close off, you won't be able to speak, but everybody has an opportunity.

I see one taker in the chamber.

I see two in the chamber.

Anybody else?

We'll go ahead and cut it off to the two.

I'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

We have three on Zoom.

We'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

Good afternoon, mayor, council, staff.

Uh I just identify myself as a resident of Monterey, and I also happen to be the chair of the Measure PNS oversight committee.

Uh so just a little bit of additional information.

Um our PCI right now is is 79, which is good, it's in the green, uh, started at 54.

Uh, but this is an average, and so uh there are still many streets that are are in need of of serious uh rehabilitation work.

So uh that's just to emphasize that that the renewal of this measure I think is necessary.

Uh Nat described the higher rehabilitation costs if maintenance is neglected, we go off this cliff.

And and um I think many of us will remember that in 2015 that's kind of where we started uh that uh streets were in poor condition uh uh citywide, and so we had to spend a lot of money to catch up.

The original uh P measure was four years, and and this was really in in my mind at least, this was a test for the city uh to say, you know, if the voters supported this, would the city hold up their end of the deal and and dedicate this money for the purpose of the outlined in the measure.

And when we learned that that's what happened, everyone was happy with that.

Uh it was determined then that another eight-year uh extension of that should complete the project.

And so uh I I think that um that's something that that I remember uh saying this is an opportunity to dig ourselves out of this hole and get the streets back where they need to be, and give the city time to figure out how they are going to uh manage the budget going forward then after the sunset, um, so that uh uh that the streets were maintained at that level without the measure, and so I think that's something that we really need to keep in mind.

Ultimately, I think still needs to be the deal.

Um I guess that that's really what I wanted to say.

We need the measure, we should renew it.

It should have a sunset for sure.

And uh again, the the goal moving forward uh in another eight years uh for a total of 20 years of of this measure.

Uh we should strive to be in a position where we don't need that measure anymore, that the streets are in excellent shape, and this the city uh uh has managed the budget to the point where that infrastructure maintenance is included in the budget.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon, Tom Raleigh, vice president of the Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association.

The last renewal of over 80 percent, there was nobody opposing the tax increase.

Uh you can't guarantee that's not gonna happen this fall because there definitely is an anti-tax mood because of the economy, high cost of living, and what's going on.

So there's no guarantees.

So one of the suggestions that I saw in a correspondence recently is concern about all local property owners getting nailed for uh sidewalk repairs.

And a lot of these sidewalks were put in at half funding with NIP money back in the 80s and the 90s to accelerate sidewalks in neighborhoods that didn't have them.

And there were a lot of neighborhoods that did not have sidewalks, and like we put sidewalks to Foothill School, because the school, the kids walked to school in those days, but we still have those sidewalks, and most of them are in good repair, but other neighborhoods are suffering, and these are really costing homeowners that are potential negatives against this vital, vital repair for our streets.

So one of the things I suggest is you take a look at some kind of a fund to help property owners that are having a tough time paying for these sidewalk repairs.

You need to start considering it.

So anyway, I think you've got Rick Hoyer's letter from the Taxpayers Association.

I certainly hope you've read it.

And um we supported it the last time and hopefully we'll be able to support it again.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

With that, we'll go to our callers on Zoom.

Okay.

First uh caller, Lori, go ahead.

Go ahead and ask to unmute yourself, please.

Sorry about that.

Um, good evening, Mayor Council.

Uh, thank you, Tom Rowley.

You're sort of uh started off where I'm going in in the direction of the sidewalk.

So hopefully all of you have had time to read through the letter I sent all of you, and also it's in the public comments folder, and I review the images.

If you did, you'll know that my beef is uh with the city sidewalk policy shifting midstream of this uh Measure S when we voted it in to push these excruciating administrative and cost burdens onto homeowners.

Um so as you're reviewing all this polling data and discuss these ballot measures, just focus on the question that no survey is gonna fully answer, and that is why has voter confidence declined.

Um for me it's really simple.

I voted for measure S in 2018.

We need it, it's obvious.

Um, but I did so because voters were told that the tax would be used to repair streets, sidewalks, and storm trains and other infrastructure.

At that time, the city repaired the sidewalks, it identified as hazard.

It did so up to 2022.

Then in 2023, our neighborhood got nailed, and it has every year since then.

And today many homeowners are required to obtain these permits, hire contractors, coordinate inspections, pay thousands of dollars to repair sidewalks in front of their homes.

A lot of people in my neighborhood wouldn't have got sidewalks back in the day had they known that it was going to go this route, and some of them didn't, and they're grateful they didn't.

Um, so whether the city has a legal authority to do it isn't really the point.

The point is that many residents like myself were just feeling that the reality today is different from what we believed we were voting for in 2018.

What concerns me most is that this policy shift occurred after it was approved.

So homeowners are expected to assume increasing responsibility for these repairs that should have been part of public discussion.

Here goes the transparency piece before voters approved the tax, not years later.

And this was really sprung on us.

It and it was announced months after the fact, after we all went through the initial pains of it all, then it was announced in the city newsletter in the Herald.

Um, so we we got the initial blow, and we're still feeling it.

So now with the new schedule of fees, residents face the permit fees, and I called the public works to check it out, make sure I was right.

Uh, the fee is going to exceed $1,400 before construction costs are even added.

And in response to, you know, now as homeowners of my neighborhood are grinding, patching, and modifying sidewalks themselves to avoid the expense and the hassle.

And the result is a really an ugly patchwork of inconsistent repairs now throughout our neighborhood and future neighborhoods that end up with this.

So at the same time, we see the sidewalks in worse condition.

They were they looked better before.

So if the city wants voters to support another decade of infrastructure funding, first restore the confidence and the promises made with these measures so that they're honored years later.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next speaker, go ahead, Esther.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Um, I have a little bit of a different um thing to put out there for consideration.

Um, if we know that measure D passed almost passed, and we know that it's more palatable for residents to be in favor of a tax that is presented to them as something that visitors will pay.

Has it been considered to possibly do the parking tax and the sales tax this coming election and postpone measure S till 2028?

I realize that measure S is going to probably generate more funds, but there are funds that are limited to where you can spend them.

And we've got a problem with our whole budget.

So if, and again, I'm not sure that this is the case, but if with Measure D and the parking tax, we could generate um money that could be spent in the general fund as opposed to a specific thing like the roads.

Maybe that's something worth considering.

Um the city did not do any marketing to promote measure D this time like it did in the past.

And while I understand the the climate is very different now to be anti-tax than as it was before when it passed with like 80 percent, um, that margin that it didn't pass by this time was small enough that if some actual um outreach is done by the city, and the same level of contact and explanation to residents would be made that this is some these are taxes that would be paid mostly by by visitors, not residents.

It might be more palatable.

Um, yes, our roads need repair.

They will always need repair, so whatever sunset you put on any one of these, regardless of when you do it, it will always be something that we need to fix.

And at that point, it'll hopefully have an infrastructure budget that it'll come out of.

But given the current situation, I just want to put this out to be considered because I'm not quite sure that people are gonna want to worry more about roads than other services that the city is going to have to cut if we don't get any anything passed.

And a parking tax, I don't think is going to be any more palatable than the sales tax increase, frankly.

Um, the people who opposed the sales tax will probably oppose the parking tax, but if those two are sold together as something that residents don't pay for as much as visitors do, they might have a better chance of passing than measure S.

Thank you.

And next speaker, go ahead.

Uh Tom, unmute yourself.

Uh good afternoon.

Uh, you already have my written comments, uh, which basically uh go right along with uh Laurie Mazooka's comments.

Um, on the subject of parking tax, if uh you should go ahead with that.

I've always thought that the metered spaces should also be included, and it would be interesting to see how that uh affects the projected revenue.

Um I think the metered spaces are included.

It could generate a significantly higher amount of uh revenue.

And my sense is that most of the metered spaces are going to be occupied by visitors.

Um transitioning to uh measure S.

Whenever I hear the the term a sunset and a tax, I kind of ask myself the question is this is this really realistic, or is this marketing?

And by that I mean at the end of eight years or whatever the period of measure S ends up being, will the need really be met, or will it just be remarketed and packaged as measure Q or Measure R or some other measure with a continuation?

So, maybe one way to sell this to the public would be to say that here's our projected uh amount of expenses we have, and here's what we will achieve in that period of time, so that the voters have some assurance that measure S will actually have a defined end to it.

Um and then one other thing to keep in mind is that right now we still have the voters out there considering the stormwater fee.

Many of the people I spoke to in their doorways as I've been canvassing district one asked me about the stormwater fee.

What do I what do I think about it?

Am I voting for it, etc.

etc.

So I know it's on people's minds, so you you need to realize it wasn't just it wasn't just the past measure that wasn't uh or that wasn't uh it wasn't passed rather, it was uh defeated.

Um it's also the stormwater fee that they're facing right now.

Uh thank you very much.

All right, I think that closes us out for public comments.

So with that, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the council for discussion.

Who'd like to start us off?

Please.

Councilmember Ash.

Sure.

Um, thank you, staff, and uh, thank you to the public for the great public comments.

Um I support staff's recommendation.

I think it should just be one um replacement proposal for measure s for with the sunset, and have that be the only one.

I um agree with a lot of the um public that um it was unfortunate that in um Del Monte the the sidewalks got oranged marked, and um the public was forced to get upset about the repair with the new permits and with the cost to them, and um I don't think we should revise our codes that the public is um responsible for their tangential touching of the public roads and that joined liability.

I I think there's good reasons for it.

But I think that we should have some.

I was so grateful uh Mr.

Hall that you stopped the the marking of the orange on the on the uplifted sidewalks, and that we should not pursue that.

Um the timing was bad, and I I really think perhaps we should have some kind of a goodwill tour where our staff is marking those and immediately fixing them on our dime.

We can cover sidewalks, it's it's part of it's part of the measure Ps and S and absorb that just that piece where there's uplift.

We could call it the um what I write down the sidewalk uplift goodwill tour where we get those taken care of so we don't have the liability, but we aren't putting it on to the public, and we're just absorbing that um and as as a as so that we can present to the community a form of a gift, you know, say the timing was wrong, we're gonna take on some of this with uplifted um street uh sidewalks, and we thank you for hanging in there with us, and we really hope you'll support measure S, which is why we can go and chip away at the sidewalks.

Um, I think there has been an erosion of trust, um, and we deserved it.

And on top of the um financial problems that everybody's having, we we really need to make sure that S passes, and I don't think it's a given, and I think we need to work hard, and I think we do need to reach out to the community and um uh and absorb some of the cost of uplifted sidewalks.

That's it.

Thank you, Councilmember Rash.

We'd like to go next.

Oh, yeah.

Council R Smith.

Yeah, thank you very much.

Uh, I think uh councilmember Rash summarized my thinking exactly.

Um, I am in favor of a renewal, and I hope that someday that we we're not gonna have to refer to it always as a P and an S and a and a J at some point it'll stand by this next cycle, it can stand by itself with its own letter.

But um, I think that the voters have answered the polling and gives us a very clear um confirmation that they're they're ready to support this.

We're still gonna have to get out and communicate uh individually, all of the council members need to be able to educate our our districts and talk about why we want to have it renewed.

So I concur that it should be by itself, a renewal of measure S and P for eight years.

Um and then I would just ask that maybe there's some internal conversations we could go back to to address what council um councilmember rash was talking about is you know let's let's figure out if we're doing it right by attacking different neighborhoods with uh an over amount of orange.

But let's see if we can't um take that on by itself.

The other thing is the fee parts for an encroachment and to rebuild a sidewalk, um, maybe that's something we can bring back in a future date to see if we can align a more reasonable fee when someone does need to rebuild their crosswalk or their their uh sidewalk in front of their home.

And I think that's part of what the dilemma is with the public is that they saw the rates are going completely up, and then they see the shock of all of the orange, and then the sediment that's out there of no taxes.

But I think this one I support as a sunset eight years by itself for the uh renewal of measure S.

And uh ready to work to get that passed.

Dr.

Robert.

Uh I concur with my um colleagues about the uh Sangle measure for Measure S to be renewed.

Uh, considering that this started back in 2015, and what we're doing is continuing it on because of where we were able to get the um the sidewalk the pavement from um what was it 50 something to up to 79 now, but basically it was below uh par before and now to get it up to up to par to be able to be consistent with that I think would be great.

Uh also because it's going to be able to address the ADA improvements as well as the sidewalk um projects.

I do believe that it's a good idea um to be able to see what we can do future-wise, not with this, but future wise and looking at some sort of funding for taxpayers who are having problems getting the repairs for the sidewalk.

I think that's a good idea to kind of look at that the public comment um came forth uh and talked about uh because that that does become an issue for some people um as far as some taxpayers, but I do believe that uh this being put on by itself, it does show that even after a pro and a con messaging that it was still um positive at 75.3 percent.

So I would be um definitely a proponent for the getting this through.

I agree with my colleagues, and uh I would also support the renewal of measure as.

What I would add here is that um I think it's it's um important that we also pay attention to um streets that um uh were billed using concrete.

Um, and I point that out because I've had uh quite a few conversations um specifically on the uh segments uh along North Fremont.

And um and also um the segment where North Fremont or rather Fremont turns into Munros, that whole section also um has some some concrete and I think there's an argument there of the in terms of the quality of the street that that is there because concrete does tend to have a longer lifespan, but I think there's a disconnect also there with the uh actual user experience where it doesn't feel like that those segments uh have have received the attention necessary.

So if uh and when this uh measure passes, I I would like to um start having those conversations about really what or how these uh segments can be prioritized for repair.

Thank you.

Okay, I uh agree with my colleagues about the continuation of Measure S.

Um, I will share that um, at least currently, given all the conversations we're having around our budget.

I'm finding it hard to envision a situation even within the next eight years where we somehow find I think what did it go up to 17 million in the last year of the proposed where we're gonna find 17 million dollars in our current budget to not renew after eight years, it just I'm um anybody in the public that wants to have a conversation with me about that to help enlighten me and inform me about a way that we can make that work.

I'm eager to have that conversation.

Really, really eager because we're having these really tough conversations.

We're gonna continue having these tough conversations around our budget, and I I think we're actually doing more of a disservice by thinking more short-sightedly and thinking how do we get maybe an extra point or two?

And I I understand the need.

I think we're a little bit shaky from the failure of measure D.

Um, but I it I think it's important for us to think about the long-term sustainability and not continue to kick the can down the road.

Um, and I can almost guarantee that this city is going to be back in the same position in eight years, assuming it passes, um, to extend it again.

And maybe it's a small amount, but we're investing every time we're investing in the tax measure every time we put it on the ballot.

So why don't we just secure it the long term for future generations?

And that way we know that that funding is always going to be available to fix our storms, um, storm drains, roads, sidewalks, um, ADA compliance.

These are always going to be ongoing things, these things never go away.

So um just putting it out there.

Um regarding the conversation around the sidewalks, could staff just speak to that a little bit in regards to what led to us going from a position of utilizing city funds to um repair private property sidewalks.

Why was it I know this, but I'm asking it in form of a question so that maybe staff can explain it to the public.

Why does the city now have this position where they can um leave that responsibility to the private property owner?

Um, yeah, just a little bit of history I think would be helpful.

Thank you, Mayor.

And we're ready to uh answer those questions.

I'll have our city engineer um Andrew uh come up and respond.

Um, and also uh Andrew, if you can uh kind of talk, I think there are a couple of mis um conceptions about um perceptions about the actual fee.

Uh what was requoted was the 1400 fee, but I believe that that's much lower.

That's 389 dollars essentially.

But um, we talked about this a little bit today, and so Andrew, could you give us a summary?

Sure.

So these are good questions, and and we've been hearing from the public as well.

Uh so there hasn't been a substantial change in the sidewalk program.

Uh we've had historically the streets and highway code 5610 and monitoring uh city uh code section 32 that has always placed the property owner or the adjacent property owner responsible for sidewalk maintenance and repairs.

We have measure PS can be used for sidewalks, and we have had several sidewalks projects.

We really prioritize high traffic areas and and slicing around city trees.

So we have used those funds for sidewalk maintenance, but it hasn't changed uh the code requirements, uh the streets and highway code and the monterey city code that puts the sidewalk maintenance responsibility in the property owner.

So that program hasn't changed substantially.

We had we did modify it slightly.

Our city council passed an ordinance uh last year or the year before, where we allowed property owners a little bit more time.

Uh it had historically been 14 weeks to commence repairs.

Or sorry, 14 days to commence repairs.

Uh and it's been stretched out to 90 days now.

So there has been a slight change, but there we haven't substantially changed the policies in the program.

Um, and then the city funds, even though we can we can require the private property owner to be responsible for the replacement of the sidewalk or the repair of the sidewalk, the city can use tax dollars to do that if we chose to.

Is that an option?

So yes, that is an option.

Yeah, it's still a city sidewalk.

As long as it was a city-installed sidewalk, you know, we do have um, it's not a gift of public funds or something like that.

But the city code is very clear that adjacent property owners have responsibility for maintenance of the sidewalk, and that has been in place since 2009.

Okay, and then could you just describe the history piece a little bit?

And my understanding, just to kind of be clear, was that there was a state law that took effect that said that municipalities could not require property owner uh could not require private property owners to maintain that responsibility that it had to that the city had to take that on, but because we had that policy in place, we were grandfathered in.

I'm not aware of that law.

I know there was a court case out of San Jose that said the city, even if a city has an ordinance um placing responsibility, that the city still has joint and several liability with the adjacent property owner.

It's a little different though.

Um yeah, but we're definitely still um completely valid in having this ordinance and continuing to enforce it.

Okay.

Um and then similar to Dr.

Barber's comments about um, and it was similar, I can't remember who made the public comment um regarding the idea of like assisting some um residents.

Um, when that comment came up, what it made me think of was the Mr.

Fix It program.

We kind of already have a program.

I know that those tend to be things that are for maybe more uh the structure of the of the property, but I don't know if that could be something that we could expand to also cover um the sidewalk for those qualifying residents.

I'm sure that's something we could look at.

I don't know exactly how that would work right now, but that's something staff could explore and come back to you.

Yeah, I was gonna say, if you give us an opportunity to go back and kind of explore um the the issue, the bottom line is obviously there's not enough money to do all sidewalks and the money we get from um measure s, we focus in on highly trafficked areas um where we have the most um risk, uh essentially.

Um, but if that's the council's desire for us to take a look at that, we can definitely uh um go and noodle and come back with some some suggestions.

Okay.

Um yeah, I don't want to go too deep too much more deep in the sidewalk conversation, but I do think it might this might be a conversation that's ripe for a its own study session just to have a deeper conversation and maybe we could do a little bit more research in regards to some of the history, how we got here, and it might be even helpful to like pull not poll, but like have a deeper conversation with some of these residents.

I know as an example, Lori um in her public comment alluded to issues within um uh the Del Monte neighborhood.

So I think having some conversations, trying to better understand what the perceptions were and maybe where the confusion is because if the program hasn't changed, then where where's that disconnect?

And I think having a deeper conversation is gonna be helpful so that we're not we're not putting out messaging that we're undermining um voter competent uh uh uh residents' competence.

If that's not true, like if we haven't done anything to do that, then I think we have to be careful about how we're communicating that to the public.

So I think this is ripe for some follow-up conversation.

Last comment.

I'm good.

Thank you so much.

Um, thanks, Henry.

Last comment is that I would um ask the council to consider, and I know it's not part of staff's recommendation.

Um, I'm not saying this to say that I think we should 100% put it on the ballot, but I think it's worth exploring and having the conversation around um the term is leaving my mind right now, the vacancy tax.

Um, it seemed to pull well previously, it seems to pull favorably um still this time.

Um, and I know that there is a solid group of residents in the city of Monterey that are willing to put a lot of um elbow grease, blood, sweat, and tears into that initiative, um, particularly if that allows us to um bring some level of secure focus towards housing initiatives in the city of Monterey.

I think this is particularly important as we're having these really difficult conversations around cuts.

And so um, so anyways, I just I just put that out there.

I know that there's some concern um around what that does to another measure being on the ballot, but what I'm asking for the council to consider at this time is not making the decision today about whether it's going to go on the ballot, but just the exploration of the conversation.

Um, and maybe we decide to do it, maybe residents in the community decide to do it, but I think it's worthy of having a deeper conversation there.

So I just kind of put that out to the council for consideration as well.

And council member Smith, I see your hand up.

Yeah, thank you.

I was just ready to make a motion to uh move this along, but I do want to come back after we get a second with a comment.

So I'll make the motion um that we accept staff's recommendation uh for renewal of uh sunset, uh adding a sunset to eight years for the renewal of measure S.

I second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any other discussion on the motion?

Oh, I'm sorry, Ed, you said you had more comments there.

Please.

Yeah, today I attended uh a transfer uh Tamsi, uh very long meeting, and there was uh quite a bit of discussion on several of the agenda items, and what was revealed with the members there, I don't think any other city in the county has a tax measure that is dedicated like Measure S that provides a designated account for cities or even the county to uh actually increase their capacity, fix their roads, signal lights, sidewalks, uh, ADA, corners.

So I was shocked to learn that almost every city expressed a desperate need from some bonding or tax measures.

Um, and I was hearing figures today from some of the cities in Monterey County with a pavement pavement index, uh payment condition index in the low 50, and that the average all roads in the county was hovering around 62, and that includes all the cities in the county.

So the fact that we've been able to over the course of measure P and Measure S be able to bring us from the low 50s to 79, is a significant effort in governance in Monterey.

So I just wanted to contrast that a lot of the other cities are nowhere near what we're able to do with maintaining our roads and our crosswalks and our sidewalks because we have a designated fund.

So I just wanted to highlight that this is a significant representation for our voters, and I think that they trust that we'll do it right, and I think they'll support this when it's on the ballot in November.

I'll just echo your your points there, Councilmember Smith.

And thank you for sharing us your perspective as it relates to your representation of the city um with Tamsi.

Um I think furthering your point, like we've proven it through the last 10 years of um measure p measure s being implemented in the city.

Um 12 years if we go back to the beginning.

Okay, thank you.

It made eight plus four.

Yeah, um, 12 years.

I don't math.

So thank you for that.

Thank you for your help there.

Um, and I think the other well the reason I know is because it was part of the ballot, and it was part of the campaign in 2014.

Um, and I think the other point about measure P measure S is this is something that directly benefits residents, like we walk on our sidewalks, we drive on our streets.

And if you're not driving, then maybe you're taking a bus, but you're we're we're utilizing these resources.

It's it's a very clear specific investment.

It's a special tax.

Um so um I and I think it shows in the in the polling figures and and the results from the previous two measures.

Um I I guess I would just kind of open up the space for discussion around how council might feel around consideration of um exploring a potential um vacancy tax initiative.

Please.

So um I I mean I'm always interested in exploring, so I would support it.

I'm just curious about the timing, um, and maybe a question to staff seeing the uh timelines that are on the presentation.

How would you feel about that?

Um so um it would definitely take some time to kind of educate people on it.

Um, you know, we we have that same task with with measure S.

Um, it would be tight.

Um, and I I guess um our other kind of philosophical question is um what they compete with each other.

Um the data says that there is support for both.

Um, but with the sentiment out there um is why we made the recommendation that we did.

Um but if the council made a decision to include this, it would be a push.

Um, but we would do our best.

If I could add also that um I think when when we went through this process of uh polling, we didn't actually test uh language, vacancy tax language.

So it's it was uh more of a check-in, let's get your initial feedback.

Uh it's uh ideally through this process we would have uh gone through and had specific ballot language tested.

Um I know our city attorney isn't here, but you know, Karen could could chime in on her behalf.

Uh we've already worked in preparation for drafting the special uh tax language for the measure S renewal and have sent an email to uh the uh California uh Department of uh Tax and Fee Administration, CDTFA to ensure that they're comfortable with the sales tax extension ordinance.

Uh being able to do that in uh the less than a month, uh it could could be probably challenging, but I'm not I'm not sure Karen might be able to chime in uh because they have a timeline too on the CDTFA review process.

Yes, I mean it would be a tight timeline.

I think we're all in agreement on that.

I don't think it's impossible, but it would be tight.

Thank you.

Uh and I think if measure D would have passed, I think we'd we'd be having a different conversation.

So circumstances are different.

So I would support it.

Uh so I'm always interested in looking to see what vacancy tax um looks like.

Uh I've talked about that before.

Um, but I I don't think that it needs to go on with this ballot uh because of the supermajority that needs to happen.

I think uh a lot of our efforts need to go toward that particular um uh renewing of measure S.

Um, but would love to have future conversations about the vacancy tax.

Okay, okay.

Any other discussion?

All righty.

All right, we have a motion on the table to support um extending measure p measure s for eight years.

Um, and with that I'll call the question.

All those in favor, aye, any opposed?

Motion passes unanimous.

Oh, I'm sorry, we roll call.

Roll call.

I apologize.

Councilmember Raj?

Yes.

Councilmember Barber?

Yes, Councilmember Garcia?

Yes.

Councilmember Smith?

Yes.

And Mayor Tyler Williamson.

Yes.

All righty.

And with that, we are adjourned.

Thank you, everybody.

Have a good day.

Good night all.