Measure Q: how the same facts are presented differently
The City of Marina explains Measure Q from the perspective of the government proposing and administering it. NoMarinaUUT.com is an opposition advocacy website urging voters to reject it. Neither presentation replaces the actual public record.
City of Marina
Official government communication. Useful for the law, ballot language, City estimates, facilities rationale and administrative details. It also reflects the City's explanation of its own proposal.
NoMarinaUUT.com
Opposition advocacy. Useful for identifying objections and source leads. Its stated purpose is to persuade voters to vote no, so factual conclusions are checked against original records.
1. What exactly is Measure Q?
City of Marina presentation
A 7% Utility Users Tax estimated to generate about $3.83 million annually for local services, including public safety, emergency response, facilities and other City programs. The City states that all money raised remains local.
NoMarinaUUT / opposition presentation
A 7% general tax on utility bills, described as the highest UUT rate on the Monterey Peninsula and not legally dedicated to 911, police or fire.
What the records show
Both descriptions capture important parts of the measure. Measure Q is a 7% general UUT. The City's current estimate is about $3.83 million per year. Money raised goes to the General Fund and can support the listed services and other general City services. Keeping money raised local does not make it restricted by law to the facilities.
2. Is Measure Q a public-safety and facilities tax?
City of Marina presentation
The City links Measure Q to public safety, emergency response and a estimated facilities funding gap for Police, Fire and City Hall/Council Chambers.
NoMarinaUUT / opposition presentation
It stresses that “911” appears in the title but no dollar is legally required to go to police, fire or emergency services.
What the records show
The opposition is correct about legal earmarking. The City is also correct that the facilities need is documented and has been a major policy rationale. The ballot does not convert that stated purpose into an exclusive legal spending restriction.
3. Is it a “blank check”?
City of Marina presentation
Measure Q includes annual reporting, independent audits and community oversight. The City has identified specific facilities, estimated their costs and described a funding gap.
NoMarinaUUT / opposition presentation
The site characterizes the general-tax structure as effectively unrestricted because Council can legally spend General Fund money raised beyond the three facilities.
What the records show
“Blank check” is campaign language, not a legal category. Measure Q does provide spending discretion. It does not provide a blank factual record: the facilities, costs, CFCAC process, estimated gap, reporting and audits are documented. Those controls do not legally earmark the money.
4. Is Measure Q a “forever tax”?
City of Marina presentation
The tax continues until ended by voters. The City also states that Council may reduce or suspend the tax.
NoMarinaUUT / opposition presentation
The site emphasizes that Measure Q contains no sunset date and repeatedly describes it as permanent or a “forever tax.”
What the records show
Measure Q has no automatic sunset. “Forever” is political shorthand. The tax continues unless action is taken. Voters can end it, and Council has authority to reduce or suspend it. None of those mechanisms is an automatic expiration date.
5. Why 7% rather than 3%, 4%, 5% or 6%?
City of Marina presentation
The City cites CFCAC's 7% recommendation, polling, estimated money raised and funding capacity. Current City material estimates approximately $3.83 million annually at 7%.
NoMarinaUUT / opposition presentation
The site argues Council could have proposed a lower rate and says 7% places Marina above neighboring Peninsula UUT rates.
What the records show
The record shows that 7% was analyzed and recommended, so describing it as wholly arbitrary is too strong. The public record reviewed for this site has not shown the same clear dynamic comparison of 3%, 4%, 5%, 6% and 7% against changing utility costs, account growth and payoff time.
6. What will a household actually pay?
City of Marina presentation
The City's current Measure Q page states an average household cost of about $28.70 per month, or $344.40 per year. Earlier City/CFCAC materials used lower examples, including about $250 per year.
NoMarinaUUT / opposition presentation
The opposition emphasizes the 7% rate and rising utility costs, arguing that the tax grows in dollar terms as taxable utility bills rise.
What the records show
A 7% tax is applied to taxable utility charges, so no single City or opposition average determines a particular household's cost. The opposition is correct that the dollar amount rises if taxable charges rise. The reduced 3.5% rate materially changes the result for eligible households.
7. What does the City's $3.83 million estimate mean?
City of Marina presentation
Measure Q is estimated to generate approximately $3.83 million annually for the General Fund.
NoMarinaUUT / opposition presentation
The site describes $3.83 million as money taken from Marina households and businesses every year.
What the records show
The $3.83 million is the City's modeled annual estimate across the taxable base. Actual collections can vary with utility charges, account counts, exemptions and consumption. It is not a guaranteed fixed annual receipt or a residential-only number.
8. How much do the three facilities cost, and how much money already exists?
City of Marina presentation
The City identifies about $69.3 million for the three priority facilities, about $19.3 million from grants, impact fees and other sources, about a $50 million current gap, and approximately $58 million estimated to be needed when construction begins because of escalation.
NoMarinaUUT / opposition presentation
The opposition questions whether the City has fully used other resources and emphasizes that final sites, designs and construction have not all been completed.
What the records show
The City's current facilities figures are documented. The $19.3 million should not be described simply as unrestricted cash saved over two years because it includes multiple funding sources. The opposition is justified in asking about siting, design, schedule and final cost because construction is still several years away.
9. What did CFCAC actually recommend?
City of Marina presentation
The City states that CFCAC recommended a 7% UUT, an advisory vote and prioritization of Police, Fire and City Hall/Council Chambers.
NoMarinaUUT / opposition presentation
Later criticism from some committee participants questions whether options were constrained or whether the City's later interpretation reflected what members believed they were recommending.
What the records show
The formal written record supports the City's statement that CFCAC recommended 7%. Later public comments from multiple former members, including a detailed August 24 account from Jason Smith, add evidence that some members questioned utility assumptions, rate analysis and other parts of the process before the final report was approved. Smith also acknowledges that members signed off on the final consultant work product. The later comments add important process context, but they do not erase or retroactively qualify the formal 7% recommendation.
10. Did voters already reject the facilities proposal in 2024?
City of Marina presentation
The City notes that Measure U failed but received about 60% support, below the two-thirds threshold required for that bond.
NoMarinaUUT / opposition presentation
The failed 2024 measure is used as evidence that voters previously rejected the City's building funding approach.
What the records show
Measure U legally failed. A majority of participating voters also supported it. Saying only that voters rejected it can imply majority opposition if the approximately 60% yes vote is omitted. Measure Q uses a different tax structure and approval threshold.
11. Do developer incentives prove Marina already has enough money?
City of Marina presentation
Development agreements and incentives are generally presented as economic-development tools intended to produce housing, infrastructure, sales tax, transient occupancy tax and other long-term benefits.
NoMarinaUUT / opposition presentation
NoMarinaUUT places large headline values for The Dunes, a proposed hotel arrangement and the Mercedes-Benz agreement next to the proposed UUT and argues that City Hall has given away money while asking residents for more.
What the records show
Each development agreement should be evaluated for public cost and return. Redevelopment assistance, affordable-housing obligations, infrastructure reimbursements, future TOT sharing and sales-tax sharing are not automatically equivalent to unrestricted cash presently available for the facilities. Adding headline values from different agreements and decades does not by itself establish that the facilities gap could already be paid.
12. What happens if Measure Q eventually raises more than the building funding requires?
City of Marina presentation
Because Measure Q is a general tax, money raised can support public safety, facilities, streets and other general City services. Council may reduce or suspend the tax.
NoMarinaUUT / opposition presentation
The lack of a sunset is presented as evidence that collections can continue after the facilities need has been financed.
What the records show
If taxable utility costs or the account base increase, collections can exceed today's estimate. Because the tax is general, surplus money raised is not automatically required to prepay facility debt. Council could use lawful General Fund purposes, reduce or suspend the tax, or potentially apply additional money raised to funding subject to debt terms and budget decisions.
How to check campaign and social media claims
A graphic can use accurate numbers and still create a misleading conclusion by leaving out the legal category, time period, funding restriction or comparison basis. Before sharing a claim, ask: What is the original source? Is the number current? Can the money legally be used the way the graphic implies? Does the conclusion actually follow from the number?
This applies equally to City graphics, opposition graphics and AI-generated social-media images. The source record matters more than how persuasive the graphic looks.
Read both presentations, then check the record
City of Marina Measure Q information ↗