Thoughts on other revenue sources
By Donna Frye
The City of San Diego has a problem with its budget and is looking for ways to find money to balance it. On Tuesday, November 18 at 2 pm, the city council will be voting on their budget priorities and also considering revenue options.
It is Item-331 on the agenda.
Council President La Cava and Councilmember Elo-Rivera, have proposed charging non-resident entry fees to park at our beaches and bays, such as Mission Bay Park, to help balance the budget.
This is a really bad idea for lots of reasons including:
- The public doesn’t support paid parking because it limits access to our beaches and bays.
- According to the City Auditor regarding Mission Bay Park revenues, “The Office of the City Treasurer could not formally issue potential audit findings from the required percentage lease revenue audits for FY2024 due to a City Management-directed moratorium on revenue audits, which increases the risk of loss of revenue and reduces transparency and oversight for the City.”
- It is unlikely that the money generated from charging for parking at Mission Bay Park could be used for general fund purposes.
- There are legal issues that arise with charging non-residents differently than residents to use Mission Bay Park and our other beaches.
- The City of San Diego Parking Demand Management Study concluded that parking demand is not consistently high enough to require charging parking fees in Mission Bay Park.
The paid parking proposal is a bad idea, but just saying “no” to something is not going to help solve the city’s budget deficit. As much as I oppose paid parking at our beaches and bays, I do understand La Cava’s and Elo-Rivera’s attempt to come up with some solution, albeit a really awful one.
Before looking for new revenue from the public, however, the city council needs to ensure that the mayor and his staff are properly managing the city’s current funds. As my parents used to tell me, “You have to take care of the stuff you have before you get new stuff.”
I was reminded of that more than once as I read through the City Auditor’s report about Mission Bay Park revenues and city management’s failure to allow a full and legally required accounting because they imposed a moratorium on revenue audits. I don’t know if this impacted more than the Mission Bay Park revenue audit, but it sure would be helpful to know. Link to Auditor Report.
I also read the city council’s budget priority memos. Councilmember Moreno’s budget memo included some proposed revenue options, one of which was to stop under charging the franchise trash haulers.
“On May 2, 2025, the City Auditor released a Performance Audit of the City’s Trash, Recycling, and Organics Collection and Handling. The Audit states that the city has been under charging franchise haulers for many years- losing out on $25 million dollars since 2010.” Link to Audit
Another one of her proposals was to reduce the amount spent on outside contracts. That is a reasonable request especially considering some of the findings from the City Auditor’s July 2024 Performance Audit of the City’s Contract Management Processes from FY2017 through FY2023.
I read part of it and saw that among the many findings, “The City altered contract spending limits by at least $15 million without required Council approval, diminishing transparency and governance.” It also stated that “42% of Contract Alterations Totaling Approximately $155M in Spending Were Presented to Council in an Untimely Manner, Retroactively, or Not at All.” Link to Audit
And there is evidence that the City Auditor’s performance audits are helpful in finding revenue if the recommendations are followed.
According to a February 2025 audit of the City’s Grants program, since the last audit in FY2018, “enhancements to the Grants Program have aided the City in becoming more successful in securing grant funding. Specifically, from FY2019 through FY2023, the City increased the amount of funding received in grants and aid by 81 percent, from $271 million in FY2019 to $491 million in FY2023.” Link to Audit
The point is that audits can identify problems and recommend ways to fix them, which results in more revenue for the city. It is one way to help fix the city’s budget issues.
As the city council looks to identify new sources of revenue to fund their budget priorities on November 18, please contact them and let them know:
- You oppose paid parking at our beaches and bays, such as Mission Bay Park and do not want to see it considered as a revenue option.
- You support ensuring that the City Auditor’s recommendations are being followed by city management and that the City Treasurer has the necessary resources to perform all legally required audits.
Here is a link to the webform to provide your comments on Item-331 at the November 18 meeting.
Additionally, here are other ways to contact the city council, call or email the councilmembers directly.
CD1 619-236-6611 joelacava@sandiego.gov
CD2 619-236-6622 jennifercampbell@sandiego.gov
CD3 619-236-6633 stephenwhitburn@sandiego.gov
CD4 619-236-6644 henryfoster@sandiego.gov
CD5 619-236-6655 marnivonwilpert@sandiego.gov
CD6 619-236-6616 kentlee@sandiego.gov
CD7 619-236-6677 raulcampillo@sandiego.gov
CD8 619-236-6688 vivianmoreno@sandiego.gov
CD9 619-236-6699 seanelorivera@sandiego.gov
How about ticketing Air B&Bs and guest who shot off fireworks from Air B&Bs? I lost a scared cat who ran into the street and got run over by a car in the night on the 4th of July. The explosions were so loud that my neighbors dog hid under her couch and her cat didn’t leave the house for 3 days.
The city could have made a bundle on illegal fire crackers!
Thank you Donna Frye for being the voice of reason in our beautiful coastal community. The basic sad fact is that our city will spend hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to purchase, install and monitor parking meters or gates, and then the California Coastal Commission will shut them down for impeding access to our beaches and bays. Does our city council not posses an ounce of common sense?
Thank you Donna for your wonderful analysis.
A simple way for the City of San Diego a massive amount of new Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue is to put a ballot proposition for a new Ordinance to reclassify an Online Travel Companies or Online Travel Agencies (OTC/OTA) as Hotel Operators, into the Municipal Code. Which is not a Tax Increase to Tourists, only a TOT Tax Clarification to move profits from out of State/Country (OTC/OTA) to the City’s General Fund.
Please see my presentation at the 04/20/2022 City Council Rules Committee for my Measure 2, Pages 3-4 for Item 2F Reclassify Online Travel Companies/Agents (OTC/OTA) as Hotel Operators.
http://tinyurl.com/20220314a
Measure 2. Video 2 Hours 1 to 18 minutes.
https://sandiego.granicus.com/player/clip/8429
Since 2014, I have requested the City Council reclassify OTC/OTA onto the Ballot several times, but the City Council has refused.
A 2017 San Diego Reader article documented the easy solution for new TOT Tax Revenue the City is purposely letting slip through their hands by refusing to put forth a new Ordinance to reclassify OTC/OTA as Hotel Operators.
https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2017/mar/22/citylights-santee-fixed-it-why-cant-san-diego/
I meet with Council Member Raul Campillo and he was interested, but he never followed up with the San Diego County Lodging Association, the former San Diego Hotel Motel Association, who stated they were “ready and willing to work with the city on any future amendment or change to the municipal code to include online travel firms.” The IBA stated they would contact me, but never did.
Currently the Definition of a Hotel Operator in the Municipal Code Section §35.0102 states:
https://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter03/Ch03Art05Division01.pdf
“Operator” means the Person who is the proprietor of the Hotel, Recreational Vehicle Park, or Campground, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee, sublessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee, or any other capacity. “Operator” includes a managing agent, a resident manager, or a resident agent, of any type or character, other than an employee without management responsibility.”
The current Definition for Hotel Operators does not include Online Travel Companies/Agents (OTC/OTA) such as Expedia, Priceline, Booking, Travelocity, Costco, etc. Therefore, the City only receives TOT Revenue on the Wholesale Room Rate instead of the final Retail Room Rate that Tourists pay.
Currently the City of San Diego now collects information on the Wholesale Room Rates from each Online Travel Company (OTC) and minimum hotel room Rate Parity Agreements between Hotel Operators and OTCs from the Hotel Operators. But the City does not collect information from OTC/OTA for the final online hotel Retail Room Rates they charge Tourists.
https://www.sandiego.gov/treasurer/taxesfees/tot/rateparityfaq
According to HNR in CY-2024 the City of San Diego collected $307 million from Hotels
https://www.hotelnewsresource.com/article138714.html
According to the City’s FY-2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) the City collected a total of $417 million in TOT from Hotel and Short Term Vacation Rentals (STVR).
According to the San Diego County Lodging Association putting forth a public vote for a new TOT Ordinance to reclassify OTC/OTA as Hotel Operators in the Municipal Code the City should get at least a +20% increase or +$60 million in new TOT Revenue based on the Retail versus Wholesale Hotel Room Rates that is going to the OTC/OTA instead of the City’s General Fund, with no increase in price to Tourists.
https://lodgingsd.com/wp-content/uploads/1_SDCLA_TOT-Audit_Webinar.pdf
Another way to increase Revenue is my proposed Measure 1, Pages 1-2 for a +3.5% replacement TOT for the 2020 Measure C the Convention Center Expansion (up to 1%-3%).
http://tinyurl.com/20220314a
Measure 1. Video Time : 1 hour 53 minutes to 2 Hours 1 Minute.
https://sandiego.granicus.com/player/clip/8429
Proposed Measure 1 is +3.5% Increase in TOT to General Fund (50% voter approval) or Special Tax (67% voter approval) for Convention Center Repairs, Affordable Housing and Homeless, Infrastructure, or anything the City Council wants instead of an unneeded $1 Billion Convention Center Expansion.
https://voiceofsandiego.org/2025/10/09/san-diego-finally-secures-hundreds-of-millions-for-a-convention-center-expansion-but-it-isnt-expanding-the-convention-center/
As part of any ballot measure the City can also charge TOT for any other hotel fees, such as the currently untaxed Resort Fees or Cleaning Fees into the Municipal Code.
Thank you Donna for tireless and lifetime commitment to protecting our SD coast and our way of life.
I have zero respect for the rapacious city council persona who have sold out to developers and treat long time residents and home owners as inconvenient NIMBY obstructionists.
The “Charlie don’t surf” quote from Apocalypse Now movie applies to the City Council who waste money and are on a monetization and densification Jihad.
We all need to be reminded that the fiscally irresponible budget defecit came from lobbyist paid facilitated incompetence:
Density tax subsidies to Corporate Apartment developers,
Corrupted City officials deliberately failing to allocate any Develepor Impact Fees to the tune of a $1 Billion going back into the pockets of the San Diego Democratic Party Coroporate Apartment Oligarchs.
Misallocating taxes paid by San Diegans to fund the City Attorney to represent corporate developers for greedy egregious and inhumane housing policies. (Malfeasance)
The City, the County and our State are chaotically out of control, and everyone knows it. The time is upon us for the people to take matters into our own hands.
Let alone Ash St. and other questionable deals. Plenty of places the city has wasted money especially with no room for error on this budget.
A part of me says I get charged parking at the zoo being similar to seaworld, or other venues that are alike, that are in the same vein. But once you open it up to all parks and recs? Nonsense. To charge my friend or a tourist who doesn’t live in the city to go enjoy Mission Bay? Absolutely felony stupid.
Thank you Donna Frye, for staying on top of these issues. There couldn’t be anything more regressive than paid parking at our parks and beaches. This also shows the value of the city auditor. Without an auditor there would be no oversight over the obvious corruption at city hall. So thanks again to Donna Frye, I have sent my comments to the council and hope many others do as well. I would rather be there to tell them in person but that can be an almost painful experience. After paying too much to park, you wait through all the rituals of city government, then several other items on the agenda, only to have them looking at their phones while you speak. Sending comments by email is so much easier. I don’t know how effective it is but I do know that when there are greater numbers of people, they are are more likely they are to pay attention.
Oh the poor city council… what will they do if they can’t meet their “budget”…?!?!
It works like this – let’s say your average family of six decides to “budget” $10,000 a week for food. Now I suppose six people could eat that much food if all they ate were Russian caviar, grass fed filet mignon, etc., and entertained the whole neighborhood regularly to boot.
But if they somehow couldn’t afford to meet this “budget”, they could always scream from the rooftops “We barely have enough money to eat!!!”
That’s how this rigged game works, my friends!
There is a requirement at the end of the City’s mail-in comment form about attachments
the prevented my comment from going through. I didn’t have any attachments, so I couldn’t complete the deal! Help!
The City Council needs to “claw back” all the developer fees that were waived over the past six years and apply that money to the longterm infrastructure shortfalls we are now suffering. There is no way to recover the $$$ millions this City Council squandered on housing homeless in hotels and motels and they need to confess to their sins in that regard.
Former Coronado Mayor Richard Bailey is gauging support to put forth a citizen ballot measure in 2026 to get rid of the Trash Fees and the new proposed parking fees for beaches and Mission Bay.
https://x.com/RichardPBailey_/status/1990086286812827996
https://repealthefees.com
And we learn today that the City’s real estate department was allowed to take a vacation from auditing Mission Bay leases to ensure that they are paying fair market rates for their leaseholds. What a great way to run the city.
There is a difference between the decision makers for paid parking on City property versus State Public Trust Tidelands such as Mission Bay.
The Belmont Park parking lot in light green is on formational soils and the decision maker is the City of San Diego.
Yellow reclaimed Public Trust Tidelands such as Mission Bay and South Mission Beach are owned by People of the State of California and the decision maker is the California Coastal Commission, not the City Council.
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/geo25.pdf
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/geo20.pdf
Item 331 FY-2027 City Council Priorities.
https://tinyurl.com/20251118a
See Page 20 for Joe LaCava’s request for paid beach and bay parking.
See Page 125 for Sean Elo Rivera’ Non-Resident Entry Fees.
Page 145 states 4 of 9 Council Member are requesting:
“Paid beach and bay parking for nonresidents (4)”
La Jolla wants to pull out of City of SD and incorporate as own city.
Gee, I wonder why.
Who else wants out? Or maybe join up with LJ?
11/19/2025 City of San Diego City Council approved paid parking in Balboa Park.
http://tinyurl.com/20251118b
Although not in the presentation or documentation Employees, Volunteers, and Leaseholders will get Free Parking Passes through Museums and Leaseholds in Level 2 and Level 3 Lots. See Page 8.
I think they stated that free passes will also be given to regular members of the Bridge club. And students that use Recreational facilities at Inspiration Point.
Due to the changes expected annual revenue from paid parking is $2.9 million to $4 million. A decrease of $9.6 million. Which is a more equatable drastic change.
In addition, it seems like the City will create a new Balboa Park Community Parking District (CPD). The Revenue collected can only be spent in the park. The City plans to spend the Paid Parking Revenue on Infrastructure, Capital Projects, maintenance, improvements, Streetlights, roofs, air conditioning, repairing bathrooms, landscaping. And anything in their backlog list in the Balboa Park Prioritization Framework.
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/bpcprioritazionframework2025.pdf
Video
https://sandiego.granicus.com/player/clip/9338
3 Hours 11-13 Minutes. Employees, Volunteers, Leaseholders will get free Parking passes.
3 Hours 14-18 Minutes. New Community Parking District (CPD) Revenue will spent within Balboa Park for Infrastructure and backlog list.
State law says that any proposed Community Parking District (CPD) expenditures has to be in the annual ordinance. Street and Highway Code (SDC) Section 31860 states:
“revenues derived.from parking meters shall be used for the purposes specified in the ordinance”
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&division=18.&title=&part=1.&chapter=10.&article=