Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Storm Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monterey council initiates Prop 218 process for full storm‑water fee after contested debate
Summary
After an extended debate over costs, fairness and polling, the council voted 3‑2 to initiate Prop 218 proceedings for the storm‑water utility at the full cost‑recovery level (previously proposed $7.72/month for a medium single‑family equivalent) and to adopt protest and ballot procedures.
Monterey — The City Council voted March 3 to begin Prop 218 proceedings that would ask property owners whether to adopt a city storm‑water utility fee intended to fund operations and maintenance of the municipal storm‑water program. Staff presented both a revised, lower‑cost option ($4.81 per month for a medium single‑family equivalency) and the original full‑cost figure ($7.72/month) after a consultant’s mailed survey showed 42.9% support for the higher charge.
Rebecca Bagot, environmental regulations analyst, explained the revised rate covers roughly two‑thirds of operations and maintenance, with the remainder coming from the general fund; the original full‑cost proposal would cover a higher share of the program’s roughly $1.34 million O&M need. Consultant Chris Coulter described the mailed survey method (4,100 surveys mailed, about a 23% response rate) and said a lower asking amount typically increases ballot support but does not guarantee majority approval.
Council members argued over strategy: some argued the reduced‑fee approach would produce a more certain voter outcome and immediate partial relief for the general fund; others said the city should try for full cost recovery now because the program currently receives no dedicated revenue. After extended deliberation the council approved initiating the Prop 218 process at the full cost‑recovery rate and adopted the required protest and balloting procedures. Under the Prop 218 sequence staff will mail formal notices to affected property owners, hold a public protest hearing and, if a majority protest is not received, proceed with mailed ballots; the ballot result requires a simple majority (more than 50% of returned ballots) to adopt the fee.
If approved by property‑owner ballots, the fee would be billed via the county property tax roll and begin collection according to the usual timelines tied to the tax roll cycles. Council members asked staff to include clear resident information and to return with procedural detail and oversight steps during the public‑information phase.
