Measure Q: what it says and what each side says
Official name: Measure Q: Marina 911 Emergency, Public Safety, and Community Services Measure. It would establish a 7% Utility Users Tax, with a reduced 3.5% rate for eligible low-income households and qualified seniors. The City estimates approximately $3.83 million in annual General Fund money raised.
Start with what Measure Q actually says
The ballot question says Measure Q may fund firefighters, EMTs, police, emergency operations, police/fire/City buildings, water-supply protection, streets and potholes, and general City services. Because it is a general tax, the money is not restricted by law to the three new facilities. The measure requires spending disclosures and audits, all money raised must remain local, and the tax continues until ended by voters. The City Council may also reduce or suspend the tax.
Official Measure Q page and ballot language ↗ · City public-review page for ballot arguments ↗
Official arguments for and against Measure Q
Argument in favor
The YES argument emphasizes aging facilities, seismic concerns, emergency response, accessibility, CFCAC's 7% recommendation, the reduced rate and audits.
Read the complete filed YES argument and signatures ↗
Filer/contact shown on the filing: Mayor Bruce Delgado, bdelgado62@gmail.com.
Argument against
The NO argument emphasizes household cost, the City's $29.8M money not assigned to a specific use, the general-tax structure, lack of a sunset and concern that facility spending is not legally guaranteed.
Read the complete filed NO argument and signatures ↗
The filer is Paula Pelot. Her contact information is printed on the signature page of the City's filed PDF; use the original filing above to avoid mistranscribing the handwritten address.
Check the argument in favor
| Claim or framing | Assessment | What a voter should know / where to check |
|---|---|---|
| Almost every nearby community uses a UUT. | Substantially supported. | The City states Marina is currently the only city in Monterey County without a UUT. Rate and taxable-service definitions still vary by jurisdiction, so this is not by itself a cost comparison. See Rate & household impact. |
| The buildings are “accidents waiting to happen.” | Advocacy language. | The actual documented issues are aging facilities, seismic/essential-service standards, space, generator, evidence-storage and accessibility problems. The phrase itself is not an engineering finding. See History. |
| The Public Safety Building fails modern California earthquake-safety standards. | Needs precision. | City materials say the building does not meet the elevated seismic standards applicable to modern essential-service facilities. That is more precise than implying the building has been declared generally unsafe or illegal to occupy. |
| Several neighborhoods average nearly 10-minute 911 response, almost double a five-minute national standard. | Needs precision. | The City's June material reports nearly 10-minute Fire Department response times to certain areas and compares them with a five-minute benchmark. This should not be read as a documented citywide average for all police/fire “911 response.” The City's current webpage elsewhere refers to a four-minute benchmark, which is another reason to identify the exact response metric before comparing numbers. |
| City Hall/Council Chambers are old temporary structures with accessibility problems. | Core claim supported; wording is rhetorical. | The City documents aging temporary structures and accessibility limitations. “Deplorable,” “rotting,” and “deny equal access” are advocacy characterizations rather than the neutral wording of the facilities record. |
| The 7% UUT was recommended by a citizens citizens committee. | True but incomplete without context. | CFCAC formally recommended 7%. The same report asked for clearer consumer-cost/tax-base modeling and an approximately $3M starting-money raised target. The committee materials showed lower rates, but the final report did not formally recommend 3%-4%. See the complete CFCAC analysis. |
| Every dollar is subject to disclosures/audits and all funds stay in Marina. | Supported. | The measure requires annual independent auditing/public disclosure and local use. But those safeguards do not legally restrict the money raised to the three facilities because Measure Q is a general tax. |
| Voters retain the power to end the UUT. | Supported, with added context. | The measure continues until ended by voters. The City also states the Council may reduce or suspend the tax. |
Check the argument against
| Claim or framing | Assessment | What a voter should know / where to check |
|---|---|---|
| 7% would be the largest UUT among coastal Monterey County cities. | Plausible nominal-rate comparison, but incomplete. | A percentage alone does not establish the largest household burden because jurisdictions tax different utility categories and use different exemptions. Compare the actual taxable base, not just the headline percentage. See Rate. |
| The average household would pay $336/year. | Different assumption from the City's official estimate. | The final City estimate is about $250/year. $336 corresponds to 7% of a $400/month taxable utility base. The website's debt/rate pages deliberately show why the assumed taxable bill changes the result. See the $300/$496/actual-bill explanation and Debt. |
| Measure Q would collect $3.83M every year. | $3.83M is an estimate, not a guaranteed fixed collection. | $3.83M is the City's current annual money raised estimate. Actual collections will move with taxable bills, customer counts, exemptions and economic activity. |
| There is no funding plan, project plan or evaluation of cheaper alternatives. | Overstated. | The City has facility cost estimates, CFCAC site work, identified funding, a roughly $50M money raised-bond concept, escalation analysis and discussion of phased/alternative funding. What does not yet exist is a final issued bond, final facility design/bid package or guaranteed final project cost. See Funds, Escalation and Debt. |
| The City had $29.8M of money not assigned to a specific use in 2025. | Supported by the audited ACFR. | This is an important correction. The FY2024-25 ACFR reports a $52.4M General Fund balance, of which $29.8M was unassigned and available for spending at the government's discretion. “Unassigned” does not mean there are no reserve, cash-flow, day-to-day or policy consequences to spending it. See Funds. |
| There is no legal requirement to spend Measure Q money raised on the named emergency facilities. | Correct. | Measure Q is intentionally structured as a general tax. Money raised may legally support the listed services and other general municipal purposes. The facilities are the stated funding rationale, not a legally exclusive use. |
| It is a “blank check” with “no accountability.” | Rhetorical and materially overbroad. | The first half captures the absence of a facility-only legal restriction. “No accountability” is inaccurate because the measure requires spending disclosures and annual independent audits. The better question is whether those controls are sufficient for a voter who wants restricted by law facility spending. |
| The tax is permanent and unchecked. | “Until ended” is accurate; “unchecked” is not. | There is no automatic sunset. Voters may end the tax, and the Council may reduce or suspend it. Audits and public spending reports also apply. See Rate. |
Who signed the arguments?
Titles below distinguish between current public office, former public service, and community/professional background. A signer's biography does not prove or disprove the argument; it helps a voter understand the perspective behind it.
| Signer | Filed side | Documented background relevant to Marina |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Carlos Delgado | YES | Current Mayor of Marina; long-running Marina elected official. Public records show service on the Council before becoming mayor and repeated mayoral elections. He has also represented Marina in regional bodies and has a long history with local sustainability/Fort Ord issues. |
| Kathy Y. Biala | YES | Current District 2 City Council member. Elected in 2020 and serving a 2024-28 term; retired nurse/healthcare administrator and a founder of Asian Communities of Marina, with prior environmental/water advocacy. |
| May Holland Dungo | YES | The filing identifies her as Treasurer of Asian Communities of Marina (ACOM). Public regional records also identify her as a Marina resident, ACOM board/member participant and Filipino-American community volunteer. She submitted comments during the CFCAC process. |
| Steve Lee | YES | The filing identifies him as Treasurer, Sustainable Marina. Communities for Sustainable Monterey County identifies Steve Lee as its Treasurer and as a Citizens for Sustainable Marina steering-committee volunteer with a professional IT background. |
| Shyam Kamath | YES | Founding Dean Emeritus and professor associated with CSUMB's College of Business; economist/business scholar with extensive work in economic development, responsible business and regional organizations. |
| Paula Pelot | NO | Retired Santa Cruz County Treasurer-Tax Collector/Auditor-Controller professional. County records document work as Assistant Treasurer-Tax Collector and in treasury oversight. Marina records show years of public-comment participation; she is also identified publicly with the Preston/Abrams tenants association and is currently listed as Treasurer of the Marina Democratic Club. |
| Hans Ongchua | NO | Retired; the filed signature statement identifies him as a former Xerox finance manager. He is also a frequent participant/poster in public discussions of Marina civic matters. No elected or appointed City governmental office was located in the records reviewed, so the site distinguishes community commentary from formal City service. |
| Nancy L. Amadeo | NO | Former Marina City Councilmember and former Planning Commissioner, with roughly 12 years of combined elected-Council and Planning Commission service, plus an earlier partial Council appointment. She was appointed to a Council vacancy in 2008, later elected to Council in 2010 and reelected in 2014, serving two full elected terms through 2018 (about 8 elected years). She was appointed to the Planning Commission in February 2020 and announced in December 2023 that she would step down after January 2024, giving her about 4 years on the Commission. She served as Planning Commission Chair. Her broader Marina public service also included the Design Review Board, Tree Committee and Public Works Commission. |
| Jim Perrine | NO | Former Mayor and Council member. Federal Fort Ord reuse testimony identifies him as Marina mayor and chair of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority, with involvement in the closure/reuse process dating to the 1991 closure announcement. |
| Bob Nolan | NO | Retired Marina Police Department commander. City annual reports document a Marina law-enforcement career beginning in 1989, promotion to lieutenant in 1996 and commander in 2012, with retirement in 2018. |
Nancy Amadeo service calculation: approximately 8 years of elected City Council service (2010–2018) plus approximately 4 years on the Planning Commission (Feb. 2020–Jan. 2024) = roughly 12 years in those two roles. This excludes her separate partial Council appointment in 2008 and service on other Marina boards/commissions. The December 14, 2023 Planning Commission minutes explicitly state that Chair Amadeo would step down after January 2024.
What both arguments leave out
The YES argument is strongest on the documented facility need and accountability provisions, but compresses the unresolved funding questions and CFCAC modeling history. The NO argument is strongest when it points out the unrestricted legal nature of the general tax and the real $29.8M money not assigned to a specific use, but overstates the absence of planning and understates the accountability mechanisms that actually are in the measure.
The unresolved decision is therefore more specific than “trust the City” versus “stop a tax.” A voter can reasonably ask: How much of the $29.8M unassigned balance should prudently be set aside to facilities? How much debt should be financed? What nominal UUT rate is justified when the taxable base can grow? Should excess Measure Q collections be used for early principal retirement, other General Fund priorities, or both? And is an indefinite general tax acceptable without a legally binding facility-only restriction?
Those questions link directly to Funds, CFCAC, Rate, Debt and Construction escalation.
A general tax still has rules
Measure Q is a general tax. The money raised is not restricted by law to the three facility projects and may be used for the public-safety, facility, street and other general City services identified in the measure. That flexibility is real.
Calling it an unchecked blank check leaves out controls in the measure. The City's published language requires the money to remain local, requires spending disclosures and independent audits, and states that the tax continues until ended by voters. The City also says the Council may reduce or suspend the tax.
Before connecting another City controversy to Measure Q
Marina has legitimate disputes about development agreements, parks, rentals, litigation, public records, old Council decisions and project delivery. A controversy does not automatically become a Measure Q funding fact.
| Test | Question to ask |
|---|---|
| Source | What primary record supports the claim, and what date or decision does it actually describe? |
| Context | Is a later outcome being compared with the facts, prices, contracts or law that existed when the decision was made? |
| Money | Is the amount unrestricted General Fund money that could actually be moved, or is it restricted, set aside, project-specific, future money raised or a negotiated obligation? |
| Magnitude | Even if the claim is correct, is the amount large enough to materially change the facilities funding problem? |
| Measure Q link | Does it change the tax, taxable base, facilities need, funding plan or available unrestricted resources? If not, keep it as a oversight issue rather than using it as a substitute for the Measure Q analysis. |
How do other City issues fit?
Parks, Preston Park, development incentives, litigation, recreation facilities and transportation projects can be legitimate questions without necessarily being the same financial question as Measure Q. Use the City Issues & Measure Q FAQ to see what is directly related, indirectly related, or financially separate.