What are the alternatives?
Could Marina address its facilities needs without Measure Q? There are other financial tools, and several are already being used. No single documented alternative reviewed for this site currently replaces the City's estimated $3.83 million in annual Measure Q revenue. The useful comparison is how much each option could produce, when it would arrive, whether it is legally restricted, and what tradeoffs come with it.
Options Marina can consider
| Approach | What the record shows | Question that still matters |
|---|---|---|
| Development impact fees | Restricted to qualifying improvements related to development impacts. They cannot fund routine maintenance or salaries. | How much additional eligible facility cost can legally be assigned to future development? |
| Grants and outside funding | The City says grants and other sources are already part of the approximately $19.3 million identified and it continues pursuing grants. | Which programs are realistic, what match is required, and when could money arrive? |
| Phase or reduce project scope | The three facilities are separate capital needs even though planned as a program. | What happens to cost, operations and timing if a project is delayed, reduced or redesigned? |
| General Fund contributions | General Fund money is flexible but also supports ongoing services and reserves. | How much recurring money could be committed without reducing other services or reserves? |
| Hotel, sales and property-tax growth | Development can increase recurring revenue, but amounts and timing depend on projects actually operating. | How much would be genuinely new, unrestricted revenue available for facilities? |
| Airport leases and economic development | Marina continues airport and employment development. Some airport-related revenues can have use restrictions. | Which future revenues could support the General Fund? |
| Regional partnerships | Partnerships can sometimes share services or capital costs. No reviewed City plan currently replaces the full program this way. | Is there a partner and legally workable cost-sharing project? |
| Borrow against demonstrated revenue | Borrowing moves construction forward but still requires dependable repayment revenue. | How much recurring revenue can safely be pledged? |
| Return to voters later | Measure U in 2024 and Measure Q in 2026 are different financing approaches considered after the need was identified. | Would the City revise projects, wait, or propose another financing approach? |
Why economic growth does not automatically replace Measure Q
Economic development can produce sales tax, hotel tax, property tax, lease revenue and other income. Those revenues do not all arrive at the same time, and some are restricted. Measure Q is different because the City estimates it would provide about $3.83 million each year to the General Fund.
The comparison is not simply “development or Measure Q.” The measurable questions are how much unrestricted revenue each alternative could produce, how quickly it could be available, and how much of the facilities need it could support.
Try an alternative-revenue borrowing estimate
Illustration only, not a City financing plan.
Actual borrowing depends on credit quality, legal structure, coverage requirements, issuance costs and market conditions.
What if Measure Q does not pass?
A “no” vote would not make the documented facilities need disappear. It also would not automatically select a replacement plan. Available tools could include accumulating eligible funds, grants, changing scope, phasing construction, eligible future impact fees, future unrestricted revenues, delaying projects, other borrowing structures, or another voter proposal.
Which combination the City would choose is not established by the current Measure Q record.