Belmont City Council
October 24, 2023

Business License Fee Revenues
RSG has conservatively assumed only one business (the apartment project) would be charged a business license within the Annexation Area as shown in Table 8. RSG estimated the business license revenue based on a review of the City’s 2022-23 fee schedule.

Table 8: Business License Estimate
Franchise Fees
Finally, RSG estimated the amount of franchise fees from gas, electric, trash, and cable franchises within the City, using per capita estimates computed from the most recent City budget.

Table 9 shows these estimates for the Project in total.

Table 9: Franchise Fees
Category Current Rate Number License Fee
General tax $ 341 1 341
SB 1186 4 1 4
Per dwelling unit 37 103 3,811
Per full-time employee 35 3 105
Per part-time employee 11 3 33
Total - As Developed $ 4,294
Current Proposed
2022-23 Budget Estimates - Franchise Fees $ 1,493,186
2022 Population (DOF, 1/2022) 27,203
Franchise Fees/Capita $ 54.89
Projected Population - 160
Projected Franchise Fees $ - $ 8,782
127
Carlos de Melo, Community Development Director

CITY OF BELMONT
October 19, 2023

Overall, RSG anticipates net negative impact to the General Fund of approximately $39,700 from annexation of the project. Because annexation would make the City permanently responsible for maintenance and repairs of the intersection of Old County Road and Harbor Boulevard, the cost associated with these activities could ultimately lead the project to have a total negative General Fund impact even after taking in the positive fiscal impacts of the Project. There may be opportunities to engage with the Developer or federal agencies to help offset the cost of maintenance and repairs along Harbor Boulevard, but long-term solutions like the creation of a CFD would potentially lead to a more sustainable revenue source.

Sincerely,
RSG, INC.

Jim Simon, Principal
128
Figure 1: Annexation Area (608 Harbor Annexation, Belmont, March 2021) 129

APPLICATION FOR A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION, REORGANIZATION, OR OUTSIDE

SERVICE AGREEMENT

TO THE SAN MATEO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
A. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Briefly describe the nature of the proposed change of organization, reorganization, or outside service agreement.

APNs 046-032-030, 046-032-040, 046-032-080, 046-032-090 are currently in San Mateo County and are proposed to be annexed into the City of Belmont. The jurisdictional line between San Mateo County and City of Belmont on Old County Road between Harbor Blvd. and the north of the project site is proposed to shift from Old County Road to Elmer Street.

Detachment from the Harbor Industrial Sewer Maintenance District and the Belmont Highway Lighting District is also requested.

2. An application for a change of organization or reorganization may be submitted by individuals in the form of a petition or by an affected public agency in the form of a certified resolution. This application is submitted by (check one):
--"-X--"--------- Landowners or registered voters, by petition An affected public agency, by resolution
(If this application is submitted by petition of landowners or registered voters in the affected territory, complete the petition form.)

3. What are the reasons for the proposal?
These areas lie within City of Belmont Sphere of Influence and are designated Harbor Industrial Area 1 (HIA-1) in the City of Belmont General Plan and are also zoned Harbor Industrial Area 1 (HIA-1) in the City of Belmont Zoning Map. Annexation would allow for city services to be provided to the project. Specifically. the project proposes to connect to the City's sewer s s em and ve the Ci of Belmont rovide The ro · ect is under reliminar review b the Cit ofBelm �nd ro oses the construction of 103 multi-famil rental units in a 5-stor �· .
building.,i'he unfts would be studios, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units ranging from 404-1,813 square fillet in size. Open space, landscaping and amenity space is proposed for the use of the residents, as well as a public plaza to enhance the pedestrian environment. Street trees, wider sidewalk widths and street furniture are also proposed. The project will be connecting to the City of Belmont sewer system via a new 8"main in Elmer Road which will route flows from the project site northwest and connect to the existing City sewer manhole at the intersection of ONeill Ave and Elmer Road. These flows converge with the existing city sewer flows and are routed northeast in ONeill Ave, ultimately discharging to the Redwood Shores treatment facility. No other development projects are proposed to connect to this main. �.-...

4. Does this application have I 00% consent of landowners in the affected area? X Yes No
I
RECE:\\JED
JUN i'i,, 'lO'l
3 LAfCO 130

5. Estimated acreage: 2.09
B. SERVICES

1. List the name or names of all existing cities and special districts whose service area or service responsibility would be altered by the proposed change of organization or reorganization.

City of Belmont. Harbor Industrial Sewer Maintenance District and Belmont Highway Lighting District

2. List all changes to the pattern of delivery of local services to the affected area. For each service affected by the proposed change(s) of organization, list the present source of service (state "none" if service is not now provided), the proposed source of service and the source of funding for construction of necessary facilities (if any) and operation. Example is given on the first two lines of the space provided for your response.

PRESENT PROPOSED

SERVICE SOURCE SOURCE
Police Co. Sheriff City Police
Sewer Harbor Industrial City of Belmont
Sewer Maintenance
District
Water Mid-Peninsula
Water District
Mid-Peninsula
Water District
Storm Drain County of San Mateo City of Belmont
Gas/Electric PG&E PG&E
Telecom AT&T, Comcast AT&T, Comcast
Fire Belmont Fire Belmont Fire
Protection District Protection District
C. PROJECT PROPOSAL INFORMATION

FUNDING SOURCE

CONSTRUCTION OPERATING
NIA Taxes
Proponent Fees
Proponent Fees
Proponent Fees
Proponent Fees
Proponent Fees
NIA Taxes
I. Please describe the general location of the territory which is the subject of this proposal. Refer to major highways, roads and topographical features.

APNs 046-032-030, 046-03t:040. 046-032-080. 046-032-090 at the intersection of Old County Road and Harbor Blvd, extending to Elmer Street. The easterly portion of Old County Road north of Harbor Blvd. directly fronting the project site. The northerly portion of Harbor Blvd. from Old County Road directly fronting the project site.

2. Describe the present land use(s) in the subject territory.

APNs 046-032-030. 046-032-040. 046-032-080. 046-032-090 are currently used as commercial Ii ht industrial uses includin a as service station and car wash. A vacant lot is also included. Old County Road and Harbor Blvd. are both public streets. O ReCt:.: . 2 JU� t·1- 2023
LAfCO � 131

3. How are adjacent lands used?
North: light industrial - self storage facility
South: light industrial-auto related uses (car rental, car repair) East: light industrial/restaurant use-building supplies West: light industrial/recreational use-building supplies, children's gym

4. Will the proposed change of organization result in additional development? If so, how is the subject territory to be developed?
Yes. APNs 046-032-030, 046-032-040, 046-032-080, 046-032-090s will be redeveloped into a multi-family housing development. Old County Road and Harbor Blvd. will remain public streets with new public improvements such as new. wider sidewalks. The project will be connecting to the City of Belmont sewer system via a new 8" main in Elmer Road which will route flows from the project site northwest and connect to the existing City sewer manhole at the intersection of ONeill Ave and Elmer Road. These flows converge with the existing city sewer flows and are routed northeast in ONeill Ave. ultimately discharging to the Redwood Shores treatment facility. No other development projects are proposed to connect to this main.

5. What is the general plan designation of the subject territory? The General Plan Designation is Harbor Industrial Area 1 (HIA-1).

6. What is the existing zoning designation of the subject territory? The Zoning Designation is Harbor Industrial Area 1 (HIA-1).

7. What prezoning, environmental review or development approvals have already been obtained for development in the subject territory?
The site has been prezoned by the City of Belmont as part of the recently adopted General Plan and Zoning Code Amendments to implement the General Plan. A final EIR was adopted by the City to provide environmental review for the overall General Plan. (General Plan. Phase I Zoning and Climate Action Plan Final Environmental Impact Report SCH #201608207 5). The proposed development project includes the development of multi-family residential uses. 1:1'1-�,,;� ,r,11 , ,

8. '��·What additional approv�will be required to proceed? The project will reguire project specific approvals including a Multi-Family Design Review Permit and Tentative Parcel Map. The permits will rely on the recently adopted General Plan, Phase I Zoning and Climate Action Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2016082075). It is anticipated that an I Co s·s · ·
15168 15162 15163 and 15183 will be
impacts. D
3 JUN 2i 2023
LAFCO
<u,"\ 132

9. Does any portion of the subject territory contain any of the following --agricultural preserves, sewer or other service moratorium or wetlands subject to the State Lands Commission jurisdiction? The subject property does not contain agricultural preserves. sewer or other service moratoriums. nor wetlands subject to State Lands Commission jurisdiction.

10. If no specific development projects are associated with this proposal, will the proposal increase the potential for development of the property? If so, how?
A specific development project is associated with this proposal as noted above in #4. * * * * * * * * * * *
LAFCo will consider the person signing this application as the proponent of the proposed action(s).

Notice and other communications regarding this application (including fee payment) will be directed to the proponent at:

NAME: Jamie D'Alessandro, Windy Hill Property Ventures EMAIL:= [email protected] ADDRESS: 530 Emerson Street, Suite 150, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ATTN: Jamie D 'Alessandro
HONE: 650-847-1266
Richard eske, Chairman of Nella Invest, LLC
App Ii ca_ blk.doc
(10/6/2000)
4 RECEIVED
JUN ji 2023
LAFCO
133
Addendum to Application titled LAFCo File No. 20-10
Proposed Annexation of Lands of Nella-604 and 608 Harbor Blvd.

APN's 046-032-030, 046-032-040, 046-032-080, 046-032-090 to City of Belmont and Detachment
from the Harbor Industrial Sewer
Maintenance District and the_Belmont
Highway Lighting District
As part of above noted application submitted by petition, the Chief Applicants, Richard Teske - Nella Invest, LLC as Applicants and subject landowner(s), real parties in interest, agree to defend, indemnify, hold harmless, and release the San Mateo LAFCO, its agents, Commissioners, Executive Officer, attorneys, and employees from any claim, action, proceeding brought against any of them, the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this application or adoption of the environmental document which accompanies it. This indemnification obligation shall include, but not be limited to, damages, costs, and expenses, including attorney fees. The person signing this addendum to above noted application will be considered the proponent for the proposed action(s) and will receive all related notices and other communications. __ w Date
Richard Teske, Chairman
------------- Date ---------
-------------Date ---------

RECEIVED
JUN 21 2023
LAFCO
134

PETITION

FOR PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO

THE CORTESE-KNOX-HERTZBERG LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF2000
The undersigned hereby petition(s) the Local Agency Formation Commission of San Mateo County for approval of a proposed change of organization or reorganization, and stipulate(s) as follows:

1. This proposal is made pursuant to Part 3, Division 3, Title 5 of the California Government Code (commencing with Section 56000, Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000

2. The specific change(s) of organization proposed (i.e., annexation, detachment, reorganization, etc. is/are: Annexation of 608 Harbor Blvd to the City of Belmont and Detachment from the Harbor Industrial Sewer Maintenance District and the Belmont Highway Lighting District.

3. The boundaries of the territory(ies) included in the proposal are as described in Exhibit(s) attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.

4. The territory(ies) included in the proposal is/are:
inhabited (12 or more registered voters) X Uninhabited

5. This proposal is Xis not consistent with the sphere of influence of the affected city and/or district(s).

6. The reason(s) for the proposed annexation and detachment are:

These areas lie within City of Belmont Sphere of Influence and are designated Harbor Industrial Area 1 (HIA-1) in the City of Belmont General Plan and are also zoned Harbor Industrial Area 1 (HIA-1) in the City of Belmont Zoning Map. Annexation would allow for city services to be provided to the project. The project is under preliminary review by the City of Belmont and proposes the construction of 103 multi-family rental units in a 5-story building. The units would be studios, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units ranging from 404-1.357 sguare feet in size. Open space, landscaping and amenity space is proposed for the use of the residents. as well as a public plaza to enhance the pedestrian environment. Street trees. wider sidewalk widths and street furniture are also proposed. The project will be connecting to the City of Belmont sewer system via a new 8" main in Elmer Road which will route flows from the project site northwest and connect to the existing City sewer manhole at the intersection of ONeill Ave and Elmer Road.

These flows converge with the existing city sewer flows and are routed northeast in ONeill Ave. ultimately discharging to the Redwood Shores treatment facility. No other development projects are proposed to connect to this main.

7. The proposed Annexation and Detachment is requested to be made subject to the following

8. terms and cond1t10ns: None RECEIVED
The persons signing this petition have signed as: JUN i2 2023 registered voters or X Owners of land (check one) within the subject territory. 135
Petition

Wherefore, petitioner(s) request(s) that proceedings be taken in accordance with the provisions of Section 56000, et seq. Of the Government Code and herewith affix signatures as follows:

Chief Petitioners (not to exceed three):

Date: Printed Name: Sign a tu re/Residence
Address: 2349
June 14, 2023 Richard Teske Rickenbaker Way,
- , Auburn, CA 95602
2�7��
.,.
*Assessor's Parcel'Number of parcel(s) proposed for annexation.

RECFIVEO
AUG' l 4 2023
LAFCO
APN* 046-032-030,
046-032-040, 046-
032-080, 046-032-
090
136

VESTING

TENTATIVE
MAP
608 HARBOR
BLVO

BELMONT CA
SAN MATEO CoUNTY

PRELIMINARY
PARCEL
MAP

RECEIVED
JUN �-:2 2023
.. ·,,
LAFCO
137

City Services CFD GP Amendment - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: October 24, 2023
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Kathy Kleinbaum, Assistant City Manager, [email protected]; Grace Castaneda, Finance Director, [email protected]; Karen Clark, Management Analyst, [email protected]
Agenda Title: General Plan Amendment and City Services Community Facilities District Local Goals and Polices
Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
(1) Adopt a resolution amending the Land Use Element of the 2035 General Plan augmenting existing fiscal neutrality policy for new development and including a Community Facilities District (CFD) as an option for new development to achieve fiscal neutrality and finding the amendment consistent with the 2035 General Plan EIR and no further environmental documentation is requirement; and (2) Adopt a resolution adopting Local Goals and Policies for the purpose of forming a CFD and finding that activity is not a project subject to CEQA under CEQA Guideline Section 15378(b)(4).

Strategic Focus Area
Fiscal and Organizational Sustainability
Background
New development typically creates an incremental increase in the demand on city facilities and services needed to serve the development. However, not all new development generates enough new revenue and fees to offset the cost of the incremental increase in demand on facilities and services. The current Land Use Element of the 2035 Belmont General Plan recognizes that new development can have a negative fiscal impact on the City and includes the following Goals and Policies that help address the concern:
• Goal 2.9: Foster new development that contributes positively to Belmont’s built environment, provides benefits to the local community, and addresses potential impacts. o Policy 2.9-2: Require that new development “pays its way” so as to limit fiscal impacts on the City.
• Goal 2.17: Support a wide range of economic activity in Belmont that capitalizes on the City’s location, strengthens the City’s tax base, and ensures that Belmont has adequate fiscal resources to fund high quality public services for its residents and businesses. o Policy 2.17-2: Support efforts to increase the tax base in Belmont and maintain fiscal sustainability.
o Policy 2.17-4: Continue to monitor land use in the City to ensure a balanced inventory of sufficient land in strategic locations for all uses, especially those uses that are critical to the City’s fiscal position.
138

City Services CFD GP Amendment - Staff Report
The City of Belmont’s 2020 Strategic Plan carries these policies forward and includes objectives to “identify new revenue sources to maintain financial stability” and “secure ongoing funding for sewer, storm, streets, facilities, and parks to address deferred maintenance and future capital needs.” To this end, the City Council updated or adopted several development-related fees in 2020, including the park in-lieu fee, park impact fee, traffic impact fee, and public art in-lieu fee.

With several significant development projects on the horizon and the State’s impending takeaway of property tax in lieu of vehicle license fee (VLF), a key revenue source for the City’s General Fund, mitigating the fiscal impacts of new development is more important than ever.

As mentioned by City staff to the Council during the Fiscal Year 2023-24 budgeting process, ensuring the City’s long-term fiscal sustainability to prevent cuts to essential City services requires identifying new, locally-controlled revenue sources, such as those prioritized by community members during recent surveys: modernizing the business license tax structure, identifying new funding for storm drain infrastructure, and establishing a City Services Community Facilities District (CFD) as an option for new development to pay its fair share for impacted City services. Advancing efforts to establish a City Services CFD was also integrated into the City’s latest published Strategic Planning .

Establishing a City Services CFD to Mitigate Development Impacts A CFD, also referred to as a Mello-Roos CFD, is a type of special financing district under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Mello-Roos Act). Through the levy and collection of a special tax, CFDs can provide funding for authorized public improvements and services. A CFD’s rate and method of apportionment includes procedures for identifying and classifying property within the CFD, establishing the initial maximum special tax rates, and the formula for calculating the annual special tax and assigning it to taxable property within the CFD. Since the Mello-Roos Act authorizes the levy and collection of a special tax in CFDs as opposed to a special assessment, there is no requirement to make a finding of special benefit for the property subject to the special tax. However, there should be a reasonable basis for assigning the special tax, as determined by the legislative body.

At a September 2021 study session, the City Council discussed the potential formation of a City Services CFD and reviewed several pathways to its formation. Ultimately, they concurred with staff’s recommendation to establish a CFD with the cooperation of an initial property owner while creating a citywide “Future Annexation Area.” This approach offers a less expensive and more streamlined process for developers to satisfy their mitigation obligation to the City. Logistically, each development project sponsor would execute a document giving unanimous approval to opt into the CFD, which would allow the City to record a Notice of Special Tax Lien. The Council would then adopt a resolution confirming each annexation.

Following the September 2021 study session, staff engaged NBS to conduct a Fiscal Impact Analysis (Analysis) to examine the projected revenue and expenditures of future development in Belmont and propose annual maximum base special tax rates. At a February 2022 study session, the Council reviewed the Analysis, which is included as Attachment C to this report.

As shown in the excerpt table below, the analysis illustrated a net negative fiscal impact to the City’s 139

City Services CFD GP Amendment - Staff Report
General Fund, based on development projected through 2050. While commercial and industrial developers were projected to offset City operating expenditures, all types of housing were projected to have a negative fiscal impact. It should be noted that the Mello-Roos Act exempts certain affordable units from the special tax, specifically those receiving a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, regardless of the fiscal impact of the exemption on the City.

General Fund Fiscal Impact by Development Type (2022 Fiscal Impact Analysis) Development Type Revenue Expenditures Fiscal Impact
Single Family Residence
(SFR)
$594,320 ($646,932) ($52,612)
Townhome 836,595 (2,043,013) (1,206,418)
Multifamily Residence
(MFR)
1,649,703 (4,010,708) (2,361,006)
Affordable Housing 245,477 (2,594,452) (2,348,976)
Commercial 1,063,081 (320,641) 742,441
Industrial 1,551,211 (1,179,857) 371,354
Total $5,940,387 ($10,795,604) ($4,855,217)
To mitigate the net negative fiscal impact of development in Belmont, the Analysis proposed base special tax rates for General City Services. Rates were not proposed for fire services since development was projected to have a net positive fiscal impact on the Belmont Fire Protection District Fund. Staff plans to update the 2022 Fiscal Impact Analysis to ensure the proposed rates reflect current anticipated revenues and City expenses. The Analysis update will also analyze additional land uses not previously considered, including institutional uses such as the proposed Stanford campus at Notre Dame de Namur University.

The following Council actions are required to establish a City Services CFD. Step #1 may be done in preparation, with all subsequent steps triggered once a developer chooses to join the CFD to mitigate its impacts to City services.
• Step #1: Adoption of Local Goals & Policies. Under the Mello-Roos Act, the City must adopt local goals and policies before initiating proceedings to establish a CFD. The policies must include at least the following.
o A statement of the priority that various kinds of public facilities and services will have for financing using this chapter, including public facilities to be owned and operated by other public agencies, including school districts, and services to be provided by other public agencies.
o A statement concerning the credit quality to be required of bond issues, including criteria to be used in evaluating the credit quality.
o A statement concerning steps to be taken to ensure that prospective property purchasers are fully informed about their taxpaying obligations imposed under this chapter. o A statement concerning criteria for evaluating the equity of tax allocation formulas and desirable and maximum amounts of special tax to be levied against any parcel pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act.
o A statement of definitions, standards, and assumptions to be used in appraisals required by 140

City Services CFD GP Amendment - Staff Report
the Mello-Roos Act.
• Step #2: Adoption of Resolution of Intention. The City Council must adopt a resolution declaring its intention to establish the CFD and the “Future Annexation Area.” The resolution must include the following.
o A description of the public services to be financed by the CFD, which should be broadly defined to ensure mitigation of the full range of potential development impacts. o The method for defining the special taxes to be paid by property owners annexing into the CFD, which should be calculated based on the costs of providing the CFD-funded services to the annexing property.
o A boundary map showing the property to be included in the CFD initially as well as the Future Annexation Area.
o A call for a public hearing, to be held 30-60 days after the adoption of the Resolution of Intention.
• Step #3: Public Hearing. The Mello-Roos Act requires that a public hearing be held at which interested persons may provide comments about (a) the establishment of the CFD and Future Annexation Area, (b) the boundaries of the CFD and the Future Annexation Area, or (c) the furnishing of specified types of public services. The City would not expect protests from the property owner who is voluntarily participating in the CFD formation process; therefore, the landowner would be the only party whose protest could halt the CFD formation proceedings. The Future Annexation Area formation process would be halted if more than 50% of the registered voters or the owners of more than 50% of the land in the City protested. Ahead of the hearing, staff would prepare a report containing a brief description of the public services by type which would be "required to adequately meet the needs of the district" and the estimated cost, including estimated administrative costs, of providing those services. The report would only address the initial property included in the CFD, not the property in the Future Annexation Area. • Step #4: Adopting Resolutions & Election. After the public hearing, the City Council would consider the following resolutions.
o Resolution of Formation, establishing the CFD and approving the special taxes to be levied on the initial property owner, subject to the landowner election. o Resolution Calling Election, calling a mail ballot election of the original landowner in the CFD. Immediately upon calling the election, the City Clerk would open the landowner ballot(s), because the Mello-Roos Act allows landowners to approve an accelerated election. Assuming the original landowner submits a favorable ballot, the City Council would then consider the following actions:
 Resolution Declaring Election Results, in which the City Council would declare the results of the election and order recordation of a Notice of Special Tax Lien in the San Mateo County real property records.
 Introduction of Special Tax Ordinance; the Mello-Roos Act requires special taxes to be levied by ordinance, and the Ordinance would levy taxes in the original boundaries of the CFD and any properties that annex into the CFD in the future. 141

City Services CFD GP Amendment - Staff Report
• Step #5: Adoption of the Special Tax Ordinance.

Analysis
To create the preliminary groundwork necessary to form a Community Facilities District (CFD) to help fund essential City services for new development projects, City staff recommends that the City Council (1) amend the 2035 General Plan to include a CFD as an option for new developments to achieve fiscal neutrality and (2) adopt Local Goals and Policies. Both actions would advance Step #1 from above, with the remaining steps triggered once a developer chooses to join the CFD to mitigate its impacts to City services.

General Plan Amendment
The General Plan Amendment process is regulated by Belmont Zoning Code, Section 16 and Government Code Section 65350. The process is initiated by a Planning Commission public hearing, which was held October 3, 2023, and is followed by a City Council public hearing.

While the General Plan’s current Goals and Polices address the need for new development to pay for its impacts on City infrastructure and services, they provide limited direction as to how that is accomplished.

To provide better direction, the proposed modifications to the Land Use Element of the 2035 Belmont General Plan augment the current language, adding implementing actions that provide a guide as to how to accomplish the existing “pay your way” policy. These actions call for an evaluation of the cost impacts and establishing options for projects to mitigate their impacts, including opting into a CFD.

Additionally, the existing Goal 2.9 and associated policy language is renumbered under the heading of “Community Character and Design.” While headings are mere catchlines indicating content and are not substantive nor do they add to or limit the content under the heading, staff believes this heading more aptly indicates the content of Goal 2.9 and its associated Policies.

The full text of the proposed General Plan Amendment is included in the resolution in Attachment A to this report.

Adoption of Local Goals and Policies
Under the Mello-Roos Act, the City Council must also adopt Local Goals and Policies before initiating proceedings to establish a CFD. This document, included in Attachment B to this report, lays out a broad list of public services and facilities eligible to be funded by CFD revenues, discusses bond financing procedures, and requires disclosures to subsequent property owners. In addition, it covers guidelines for establishing the special tax allocation formula and the process for a property owner to petition in to join the CFD for a new development. The Local Goals and Policies document is derived from a template and is generally intended to provide flexibility into the future.

Planning Commission Review and Comments
The Planning Commission’s public hearing on the proposed General Plan amendment was held on October 3, 2023. At the hearing, three of the five seated Planning Commissioners were present. The 142

City Services CFD GP Amendment - Staff Report
Planning Commission discussion centered around whether the CFD would impose a higher cost burden on new developments since existing developments would not pay into it. However, without offering a CFD as an option for new developments to achieve fiscal neutrality and barring other means for them paying for the additional City services required to serve them, the existing levels of City services would be diluted. The proposed amendment to the General Plan to include a CFD as an option to achieve fiscal neutrality streamlines the existing “pay your way” policy without altering the policy’s intent. Ultimately, the Commission voted two in favor and one abstained on the resolution recommending the General Plan amendment to the Council.

Next Steps
Should the Council adopt the proposed General Plan amendment and Local Goals and Policies, staff will work with planning applicants to identify an initial property owner opting to form the CFD. Once formed, opting into the CFD will be an option for future development projects to achieve the fiscal neutrality required under the General Plan. In addition, staff plans to update the Fiscal Impact Analysis to reflect current conditions and to include an analysis of institutional land uses.

Alternatives

1. Take no action; staff will reconsider proceeding with CFD formation.

2. Provide alternative direction for funding of City services.

Attachments
A. General Plan Amendment Resolution
B. Local Goals and Policies Adoption Resolution
C. 2022 Fiscal Impact Analysis
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

A Mello-Roos CFD is a tool that can help generate locallycontrolled revenue to support the provision of essential City services for new developments. The structure of this type of CFD would ensure that new development pays their fair share of the cost of City services. This revenue source would complement other impact fee revenues already in place that fund
infrastructure such as parks and street improvements.

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Council Vision/Priority Posting of Agenda

143

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 2035 GENERAL PLAN TO

AUGMENT THE EXISTING FISCAL NEUTRALITY POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT

AND INCLUDE A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CFD) AS AN OPTION FOR

NEW DEVELOPMENT TO ACHIEVE FISCAL NEUTRALITY
WHEREAS, Goal 2.9 of the Land Use Element of the 2035 Belmont General Plan calls for “Foster[ing] new development that contributes positively to Belmont’s built environment, provides benefits to the local community, and addresses potential impacts,” with Policy 2.9-2 “requir[ing] that new development ‘pays its way’ so as to limit fiscal impacts on the City”; and, WHEREAS, existing General Plan Goals and Polices address the need for new development to pay for its impacts on City infrastructure and services, but provide limited direction as to how that is accomplished; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan amendment, attached as Exhibit A, augments the current language, adding actions to provide a better guide to accomplishing the existing “pay your way” policy, including a City Services Community Facilities District (CFD) as an option for new developments to achieve fiscal neutrality; and, WHEREAS, the City Council certified a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on November 14, 2017 for the Belmont 2035 General Plan, Phase 1 Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan & Zoning, and Climate Action Plan project under Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the proposed amendment will not have effects that were not examined in the EIR, no circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(1)-(3) have occurred since the City Council certified the EIR, and no further environmental document is required for this activity; and,
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2023, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65351, 65352.4, and 65353 and Belmont Zoning Ordinance Section 16.2.2, the Planning Commission held a public hearing where the proposed amendment was reviewed; and, WHEREAS, on October 3, 2023, the Planning Commission, with three members present, adopted a resolution by a vote of two in favor and one abstaining finding the proposed amendment to be in the public interest and not a substantial amendment within the meaning of Government Code Section 65350.5.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. The recitals above are true and correct.

SECTION 2. After reviewing all relevant evidence before the City Council, including the information provided in the staff reports and enclosures to the Planning Commission and City Council and the public hearings and testimony received, the Council incorporates herein by reference the staff report to the Council dated October 24, 2023, and adopts the analysis and 144

findings therein as its own findings relating to the amendment of the General Plan.

SECTION 3. The Council finds that the proposed General Plan amendment shown on Exhibit A is in the public interest, augments existing General Plan policy, is not a substantial amendment within the meaning of Government Code Section 65350.5, and that under CEQA Guideline Section 15168 no further environmental review is required.

SECTION 4. The Council amends the Land Use Element of the 2035 General Plan as shown in Exhibit A.
* * *
ADOPTED October 24, 2023 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
145

EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2023 –

AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
2035 BELMONT GENERAL PLAN
Text amendments are as follows (changes are indicated in red).

1. Move/renumber Goal 2.9 to new Goal 2.13.2, showing Goal 2.9 as “reserved” as follows:

GOAL 2.9: Reserved (former Goal 2.9 renumber 2.13.2)

2. Renumber Goal 2.13 and its associated policies and actions to 2.13.1 as follows:

GOAL 2.13.1: Enhance Belmont’s character and image as a desirable community with distinct visual qualities, small-town character, and connections to nature and open space.

Policy 2.13.1-1: Ensure that new development is balanced with preservation of open space and natural features.

Action 2.13.1-1a: Establish development standards that will preserve natural features and characteristics, such as through clustering of development to preserve natural terrain and maximize open space areas around developments. Include development standards that balance protection of prominent vistas and ridgelines while allowing multi-family and single-family residential development projects, additions, and improvements to be completed, especially in the hillsides. These may also be addressed in updates to the San Juan Hills and Western Hills area plans. See Policy

2.14-1.

3. Insert former Goal 2.9 and its associated policy renumbered as 2.13.2 with amendments as follows:

Goal 2.92.13.2: Foster new development that contributes positively to Belmont’s built environment, provides benefits to the local community, and addresses potential impacts.

Policy 2.9-2.2.13.2-1: Require that new development “pays its way” so as to limit fiscal impacts on the City and limit dilution of public services and overburdening of public facilities, including funding public facilities and infrastructure that is deemed necessary to mitigate the impact of that new development and offsetting any increase in costs for City operations. While the defraying of such costs by new development would normally be expected, some projects may contribute to the community in ways that compensate for a negative fiscal impact.

Action 2.13.2-1a: Evaluate the ability of new development to pay for its infrastructure, its share of public and community facilities, and the incremental operating costs it imposes.
146

Action 2.13.2-1b: Establish options for new development to mitigate negative fiscal impacts, including a Community Facilities District (CFD) which may be formed to levy a special tax to fund the cost of certain additional services required by the new development but not funded by revenue generated from the development.
147
RESOLUTION NO. 2023 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT ADOPTING

LOCAL GOALS AND POLICIES FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND MELLO-ROOS

COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FINANCING
WHEREAS, Section 53312.7(a) of the California Government Code requires that the City of Belmont consider and adopt local goals and policies concerning the use of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the “Act”) prior to the initiation of proceedings on or after January 1, 1994 to establish a new community facilities district (“CFD”) under the Act; and, WHEREAS, these Local Goals and Policies (the “Policies”) provide guidance and conditions for the conduct by the City of proceedings for, and the issuance of bonds secured by special taxes levied in, a CFD established under the Act; and, WHEREAS, the Policies are intended to be general in nature with specific details depending on the nature of each particular financing; and, WHEREAS, the Policies are applicable to financings under the Act and are intended to comply with Section 53312.7 (a) of the Government Code and will not apply to any assessment financing or any certificate of participation or similar financings involving leases of or security in public property; and,
WHEREAS, the Policies are subject to amendment by the City Council at any time; and, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. The Local Goals and Policies for Community Facilities Districts attached as Exhibit A meet the requirements of the Act and are adopted by the Council for purposes of compliance with the Act, subject to further amendment by the Council as may be required from time to time.

SECTION 2. This resolution and the Local Goals and Policies for Community Facilities Districts is effective from and after the date of the adoption of this resolution.

SECTION 3. The Policies adopted by this resolution are preparatory to the creation of a government funding mechanism and do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical change in the environment and are therefore not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guideline Section 15378(b)(4).
* * *
148
2 ADOPTED October 24, 2023 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
149
3 EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2023 –

CITY OF BELMONT

LOCAL GOALS AND POLICIES FOR

COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS
I. GENERAL.

Section 53312.7(a) of the California Government Code requires that the City of Belmont (the “City”) consider and adopt local goals and policies concerning the use of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the "Act") prior to the initiation of proceedings on or after January 1, 1994 to establish a new community facilities district ("CFD") under the Act.

These Local Goals and Policies for Community Facilities Districts (the “Policies”) provide guidance and conditions for the conduct by the City of proceedings for, and the issuance of bonds secured by special taxes levied in, a community facilities district ("CFD") established under the Act. The Policies are intended to be general in nature; specific details will depend on the nature of each particular financing. The Policies are applicable to financings under the Act and are intended to comply with Section 53312.7 (a) of the Government Code. These Policies shall not apply to any assessment financing or any certificate of participation or similar financings involving leases of or security in public property. The Policies are subject to amendment by the City Council at any time.

II. FINANCING PRIORITIES.

Eligible Facilities. The improvements eligible to be financed by a CFD must be owned by a public agency or public utility and must have a useful life of at least five years, except that up to five percent of the proceeds of an issue may be used for facilities owned and operated by a privately-owned public utility. The development proposed within a CFD must be consistent with the City's general plan and must have received any required legislative approvals such as zoning or specific plan approvals. A CFD shall not vest any rights to future land use on any properties, including those which are responsible for paying special taxes. 150
4 The list of eligible public facilities include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Streets
• Street lighting
• Traffic signals and safety lighting
• Landscaping on public property or in
public easements
• Sanitary sewer facilities
• Storm drain facilities
• Flood control facilities
• Potable and reclaimed water facilities
• Utility relocations
• Elementary and secondary school sites
and facilities
• Libraries
• Parks and recreational facilities
• Public utilities
• Cultural facilities
• Police and fire protection facilities
• Governmental facilities
151

It is acknowledged that the Act permits the financing of fee obligations imposed by governmental agencies the proceeds of which fees are to be used to fund public capital improvements of the nature listed above. The City will consider an application to finance fee obligations on a case-by-case basis. The City will prioritize financing fees to be paid to the City because of the administrative burden associated with financing fees payable to other local agencies.

The funding of public facilities to be owned and operated by public agencies other than the City shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. If the proposed financing is consistent with a public facilities financing plan approved by the City, or the proposed facilities are otherwise consistent with approved land use plans for the property, the City shall consider entering into a joint financing agreement or joint powers authority in order to finance these facilities. A joint agreement with the public agency that will own and operate any such facility must be entered into at the time specified in the Act.

A CFD may also be formed for the purpose of refinancing any fixed special assessment or other governmental lien on property, to the extent permitted under the Act, as applicable.

Priority Facilities. Priority for CFD financing of public facilities shall be given to public facilities which: (a) are necessary for development to proceed in an orderly fashion, or (b) are otherwise coordinated to correspond to the phasing of the related private development project.

If appropriate, the City shall prepare a public facilities financing plan as a part of the specific plan or other land use document that identifies the public facilities required to serve a project, and the type of financing to be utilized for each facility. The City will attempt to schedule construction of CFD-financed facilities in a manner such that private development will not occur ahead of the installation of public infrastructure necessary to support that development.

Eligible Services; Priority Services. The services eligible to be financed by a CFD (the “Services”) are those identified in the Act. Subject to the conditions set forth in the Act, priority for public services to be financed by a CFD shall be given to services which are (a) necessary for the public health, safety and welfare and (b) would otherwise be paid from the City’s general fund. The City may finance services to be provided by another local agency if it determines the public convenience and necessity require it to do so, although the City prioritizes financing services to be provided by the City. If appropriate, the City shall prepare a public services financing plan as a part of the specific plan or other land use document that identifies the public services required to serve a project and the source of funding for each such service.

Eligible Private Facilities. Financed improvements may be privately-owned in the specific circumstances, and subject to the conditions, set forth in the Act.

III. BOND FINANCINGS; CREDIT QUALITY.

Value-to-Public Lien Ratio. All CFD bond issues should have at least a three to one property value to public lien ratio after calculating the value of the financed public improvements to be 152

installed, unless otherwise specifically approved by the City Council as provided in Section 53345.8(b) or (c) of the Act. Property value may be based on either an appraisal (as described in VI below) or on assessed values as indicated on the county assessor's tax roll. The public lien amount shall include the bond issue currently being sold plus any public indebtedness secured by a lien on the properties to be taxed.

Entitlement Status. The City generally will require all major land use approvals and governmental permits necessary for development of land in the CFD to be substantially in place before bonds may be issued.

Reserve Fund. In most cases, a reserve fund equal to the lesser of (i) ten percent of the original proceeds of the bond issue, (ii) the maximum annual debt service on the bonds, or (iii) one hundred twenty-five percent of the average annual debt service on the bonds will be required for all bond issues where less than fifty percent of the buildable acreage has been developed. A smaller reserve fund may be required by the City in appropriate circumstances.

Failure to Meet Credit Criteria. Less than a three to one property value to public lien ratio, excessive tax delinquencies, or projects of uncertain economic viability may cause the City to disallow the sale of bonds or require credit enhancement prior to bond sale. The City may consider exceptions to the above policies for bond issues that do not represent an unusual credit risk, either due to credit enhancement or other reasons specified by the City, and/or which otherwise provide extraordinary public benefits, to the extent permitted by and subject to any applicable requirements of the Act.

If the City requires letters of credit or other security, the credit enhancement shall be issued by an institution, in a form and upon terms and conditions satisfactory to the City. Any security required to be provided by the applicant may be discharged by the City upon satisfaction of the applicable credit criteria specified by the City.

As an alternative to providing other security, and subject to federal tax law, the applicant may request that a portion of the bond proceeds be placed in escrow with a trustee or fiscal agent in an amount sufficient to assure the financing will meet the applicable credit criteria, including, but not limited to, meeting a value-to-lien ratio of at least three to one on the outstanding proceeds. The escrowed proceeds shall be released at such times and in such amounts as may be necessary to assure the applicable credit criteria has been met.

The City will require that bond financings be structured so that bonds are purchased and owned by suitable investors. For example, the City may require placement of bonds with a limited number of sophisticated investors, large bond denominations and/or transfer restrictions in situations where there is an insufficient value-to-lien ratio, where a substantial amount of the property within a CFD is undeveloped, where tax delinquencies are present in parcels within the CFD, and in any other situation identified by the City. 153

IV. DISCLOSURES
Purchasers of Property. As a minimum, any disclosures mandated by applicable state law to inform prospective purchasers of their obligations under the CFD shall apply to each CFD. In addition, there may be additional requirements mandated by the City for particular kinds of financings on a case-by-case basis. The City may prescribe specific forms to be used to disclose the existence and extent of obligations imposed by CFD.

Disclosure Requirements for the Resale of Lots. The City shall provide a notice of special taxes to sellers of property (other than developers) which will enable them to comply with their notice requirements under Section 1102.6 of the Civil Act. This notice shall be provided by the City within five working days of receiving a written request for the notice. A reasonable fee may be charged for providing the notice, not to exceed any maximum fee specified in the Act.

Continuing Bond Disclosure. In those circumstances identified by a bond underwriter, landowners in the CFD will need to agree to provide: (i) initial disclosure at the time of issuance of any bonds; and (ii) annual disclosure as required under Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities Exchange Commission until the special tax obligation of the property owned by such owner drops below the ownership threshold identified by the bond underwriter.

V. EQUITY OF SPECIAL TAX FORMULAS AND MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAXES Minimum Special Tax Levels. Special tax formulas shall provide for minimum special tax levels which satisfy the following payment obligations of a CFD: (a) 110 percent gross debt service coverage for all CFD bonded indebtedness, (b) the administrative expenses of the CFD, and (c) amounts equal to the differences between expected earnings on any escrow fund and the interest payments due on related bonds of the CFD.

In addition, the special tax formula may provide for the following to be included in the special tax levels: (a) any amounts required to establish or replenish any reserve fund established in association with the indebtedness of the CFD, (b) the accumulation of funds reasonably required for future debt service, (c) amounts equal to projected delinquencies of special tax payments, (d) the costs of remarketing, credit enhancement and liquidity facility fees, (e) the cost of acquisition, construction, furnishing or equipping of authorized Facilities, (f) lease payments for existing or future facilities, (g) costs associated with the release of funds from an escrow account, (h) the costs of Services, and (i) any other costs or payments permitted by law.

Equity of Special Tax Allocation Formula. The special tax formula shall be reasonable in allocating the CFD’s payment obligations to parcels within the CFD. Exemptions from the special tax may be given to parcels which are publicly owned, are held by a property owners' association, are used for a public purpose such as open space or wetlands, are affected by public utility easements making impractical their utilization for other than the purposes set forth in the easements, or have insufficient value to support bonded indebtedness. 154

Aggregate Tax Burden. The total projected non-residential property tax levels for any CFD (including ad valorem taxes, any maintenance, landscaping or other impositions on the land in the CFD and other similar annual government charges levied on parcels in the CFD, but excluding property owners’ association annual levies and as to any special tax levies, based on the expected special tax rates and not any "back-up" special taxes) must be reasonable, and will be considered by the City Council on a case-by-case basis.

The total projected residential property tax levels (including ad valorem taxes, any maintenance, landscaping or other impositions on the land in the CFD and other similar annual government charges levied on parcels in the CFD, but excluding homeowners' association annual levies and as to any special tax levies, based on the expected special tax rates and not any "back-up" special taxes) for any CFD (or, if a CFD has multiple improvement areas, for each improvement area and not the entire CFD) shall not exceed the lesser of (i) 2.0% of the estimated sales prices of the respective homes to be constructed in the CFD (with such prices to be determined by reference to an absorption study or appraisal prepared for the CFD or such other information as the City shall determine), or (ii) any maximum specified in the Act. The annual increase, if any, in the maximum special tax for any parcel shall not exceed any maximum specified in the Act. The increase in the special tax levied on any residential parcel as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other parcel shall not exceed any maximum specified in the Act.

Levy on Entire Parcels. Special taxes will only be levied on an entire county assessor's parcel, and any allocation of special tax liability of a county assessor’s parcel to leasehold or possessory interest in the fee ownership of such county assessor’s parcel shall be the responsibility of the fee owner of such parcel and the City shall have no responsibility therefore and has no interest therein. Failure of the owner of any county assessor’s parcel to pay or cause to be paid any special taxes in full when due, shall subject the entire parcel to foreclosure in accordance with the Act.

Feasibility Analysis. The City may retain a special tax consultant to prepare a report which: (a) recommends a special tax for the proposed CFD, and (b) evaluates the special tax proposed to determine its ability to adequately fund identified public facilities, City administrative costs, services (if applicable) and other related expenditures. Such analysis shall also address the resulting aggregate tax burden of all proposed special taxes plus existing special taxes, ad valorem taxes and assessments on the properties within the CFD.

VI. APPRAISALS
The definitions, standards and assumptions to be used for appraisals shall be determined by City staff on a case-by-case basis, with input from City consultants and CFD applicants, and by reference to relevant materials and information promulgated by the State of California (including, but not limited to, the California Debt Investment and Advisory Commission). The appraiser shall be selected by or otherwise acceptable to the City, and the appraisal shall be coordinated by and under the direction of, or otherwise as acceptable to, the City. 155

The appraisal must be dated within three months of the date the bonds are priced, unless the City Council determines a longer time is appropriate.

All costs associated with the preparation of the appraisal report shall be paid by the entity requesting the establishment of the CFD, if applicable, through the advance deposit mechanism described below.

VII. CITY PROCEEDINGS.

Petition. For new development projects, a petition meeting the requirements of the applicable authorizing law will be required. The applicant is urged to obtain unanimous waivers of the election waiting period. In applying to the City for formation of a CFD, the applicant must specify any reasonably expected impediments to obtaining petitions, including from co-owners and/or lenders of record (where required). Waiver of the petition shall be made only upon showing of extraordinary hardship. For existing development, petitions are preferred, but may be waived, depending on the nature of the project and degree of public importance.

Deposits and Reimbursements. All City staff and consultant costs incurred in the evaluation of CFD applications and the establishment of the CFD will be paid by the entity, if any, requesting the establishment of the CFD by advance deposit increments. The City shall not incur any expenses for processing and administering a CFD that are not paid by the applicant or from CFD bond proceeds. In general, expenses not chargeable to the CFD shall be directly borne by the proponents of the CFD.

Any petition for formation of a CFD shall be accompanied by an initial deposit in the amount determined by the City to fund initial staff and consultant costs associated with CFD review and implementation. If additional funds are needed to off-set costs and expenses incurred by the City, the City shall make written demand upon the applicant for such funds. If the applicant fails to make any deposit of additional funds for the proceedings, the City may suspend all proceedings until receipt of such additional deposit.

The City shall not accrue or pay any interest on any portion of the deposit refunded to any applicant or the costs and expenses reimbursed to an applicant. Neither the City nor the CFD shall be required to reimburse any applicant or property owner from any funds other than the proceeds of bonds issued by the CFD or special taxes levied in the CFD.

Representatives. The City and the applicant shall each designate a representative for each financing district proceeding. The representatives shall be responsible for coordinating the activities of their respective interests and shall be the spokespersons for each such interest.

The purpose of this requirement is to avoid duplication of effort and misunderstandings from failure to communicate effectively. In the case of the City, it allows the City’s consultants to report to a single official who will, in turn, communicate with other staff members.

Time Schedule. The final schedule of events for any proceeding shall be determined by the City, in consultation with its financing team and the applicant. Any changes will require 156

approval by the appropriate City official. Time schedules will (unless specific exceptions are allowed) observe established City Council meeting schedules and agenda deadlines. To the extent possible, financings will be scheduled to allow debt service to be placed on the tax rolls with a minimum of capitalized interest.

VIII. FINANCING TERMS
All terms and conditions of any CFD bonds shall be established by the City. The City will control, manage and invest all CFD issued bond proceeds. Each bond issue shall be structured to adequately protect bond owners and to not negatively impact the bonding capacity or credit rating of the City through the special taxes, credit enhancements, foreclosure covenant, and reserve funds.

All statements and material related to the sale of bonds shall emphasize and state that neither the faith, credit nor the taxing power of the City is pledged to security or repayment of the Bonds. The sole source of pledged revenues to repay CFD bonds are special taxes, bond proceeds and reserve funds held under the bond document, and the proceeds of foreclosure proceedings and additional security instruments provided at the time of bond issuance.

The City shall select all consultants necessary for the formation of the CFD and the issuance of bonds, including the underwriter(s), bond counsel, disclosure counsel, financial advisors, appraiser, market absorption/pricing consultant and the special tax consultant. Prior consent of the applicant shall not be required in the determination by the City of the consulting and financing team.

IX. EXCEPTIONS TO THESE POLICIES
The City may find in limited and exceptional instances that a waiver to any of the above stated policies is reasonable given identified special benefits to be derived from such waiver. Such waivers only will be granted by action of the City Council. 157
nbsgov.com
Prepared by:

Corporate Headquarters
32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
Toll free: 800.676.7516
Report For:

Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development
January 2022
158
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 | INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................4 Section 2 | BACKGROUND......................................................................................................5 Analysis Methodology..............................................................................................................5 Current City Persons Served ....................................................................................................6 Future City Persons Served ......................................................................................................7 Section 3 | REVENUE ESTIMATE ........................................................................................... 12 Property Tax Revenue............................................................................................................12 Property Tax in Lieu of Vehicle License Fee (“VLF”) Revenue ...............................................19 Documentary Transfer Tax.....................................................................................................19 Sales Tax Revenue..................................................................................................................20 Other City Revenue ................................................................................................................23 Revenue Summary .................................................................................................................25 Section 4 | EXPENDITURES ESTIMATE .................................................................................. 26 Current Expenditures.............................................................................................................26 Current City Expenditures Allocation.....................................................................................27 Current Expenditures per Person Served...............................................................................28 Optimal Service Level Expenditures – Police .........................................................................29 Optimal Service Level Expenditures – General Government.................................................30 Optimal Service Level Capital Expenditures...........................................................................31 Total Expenditures Summary.................................................................................................32 Section 5 | FISCAL IMPACT................................................................................................... 33 Section 6 | FISCAL IMPACT FUNDING OPTIONS .................................................................... 35 Community Facilities Districts................................................................................................35 CFD Special Tax Recommendation.........................................................................................36 159
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 2

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Current Persons Served .................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2. Planned Developments..................................................................................................................... 8 Table 3. Planned Development Detail............................................................................................................ 8 Table 4. Planned Development Residents & Employees ............................................................................... 9 Table 5. Future Household Growth................................................................................................................ 9 Table 6. Future Residential Population ........................................................................................................ 10 Table 7. Future Employee Population.......................................................................................................... 11 Table 8. Future Persons Served.................................................................................................................... 11 Table 9. Change in Persons Served............................................................................................................... 11 Table 10. Total Assessed Value of Residential Development......................................................................... 13 Table 11. Residential Housing Density ........................................................................................................... 14 Table 12. Undeveloped Residential Acreage and Assessed Value ................................................................. 14 Table 13. Current Assessed Value of Future Residential Development......................................................... 15 Table 14. Incremental Assessed Value of Future Residential Development.................................................. 15 Table 15. Property Tax Revenue Generated by Future Residential Development ........................................ 16 Table 16. Future Development Employee Population ................................................................................... 16 Table 17. Estimated Commercial and Industrial Building Square Feet.......................................................... 17 Table 18. Current Assessed Value of Future Commercial and Industrial Development................................ 17 Table 19. Commercial and Industrial Price per Building Square Foot............................................................ 18 Table 20. Incremental Assessed Value of Future Commercial and Industrial Development......................... 18 Table 21. Property Tax Revenue Generated by Future Commercial and Industrial Development................ 18 Table 22. Property Tax in Lieu of VLF Ratio.................................................................................................... 19 Table 23. Property Tax in Lieu of VLF Revenue .............................................................................................. 19 Table 24. Documentary Transfer Tax Generated by Future Development.................................................... 20 Table 25. Residential Household Incomes ..................................................................................................... 21 Table 26. Sales Tax Revenue Generated by Increase in Residential Population............................................ 22 Table 27. Sales Tax Revenue Generated by Increase in Employee Population.............................................. 22 Table 28. Sales Tax Revenue Generated by Future Commercial Development............................................. 23 Table 29. Other City Revenue......................................................................................................................... 24 Table 30. Other City Revenue per Person Served/Employee......................................................................... 24 Table 31. Other City Revenue Generated by Future Development............................................................... 25 Table 32. Revenue Summary.......................................................................................................................... 25 Table 33. Revenue Summary By Future Development Type.......................................................................... 25 Table 34. Current Expenditures...................................................................................................................... 27 Table 35. Current Expenditures Allocation to Persons Served, Residents Served, or Employees Served ..... 28 Table 36. Current Expenditures per Person Served/Resident ....................................................................... 28 Table 37. Current Expenditures Generated by Future Development............................................................ 29 Table 38. Current Expenditures Summary ..................................................................................................... 29 160
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 3
Table 39. Additional Police Personnel Required ............................................................................................ 30 Table 40. Additional City Personnel Required................................................................................................ 30 Table 41. Optimal Service Level Personnel Expenditures Summary.............................................................. 31 Table 42. Capital Expenditures....................................................................................................................... 31 Table 43. Optimal Service Level Capital Expenditures Summary................................................................... 31 Table 44. Expenditures Summary................................................................................................................... 32 Table 45. Expenditures Summary by Future Development Type................................................................... 32 Table 46. Annual Fiscal Impact....................................................................................................................... 33 Table 47. General Fund Fiscal Impact by Development Type ........................................................................ 33 Table 48. FPD Fund Fiscal Impact by Development Type............................................................................... 33 Table 49. CFD Special Tax Rates – General City Services ............................................................................... 37 161
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 4
SECTION 1 | INTRODUCTION
The City of Belmont (“City”) is undertaking a comprehensive review of the net fiscal impact to its General Fund (“General Fund”) and Fire Protection District Fund (“FPD Fund”) in anticipation of projected future development within the City. A review of the revenues expected to be generated by projected development, as compared with expenditures the City will incur to provide certain public services, reveals that projected Single-Family Residential (“SFR”), Townhome (“Townhome”), Multi-Family Residential (“MFR”), and Affordable Housing (“Affordable Housing”) development within the City will have a negative fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund, whereas Commercial (“Commercial”) and Industrial (“Industrial”) development is expected to have a positive fiscal impact. Projected Affordable Housing development will have a negative fiscal impact on the City’s FPD Fund, whereas SFR, Townhome, MFR, Commercial, and Industrial development is expected to have a positive fiscal impact. To offset negative fiscal impacts created by projected development, the City should consider establishing a funding source through a special financing district.

This fiscal impact analysis will provide background information, applicable financial information and analyses, and recommended actions for the City’s consideration. To accomplish these objectives, this report includes the following information:
• Background Information. The introductory portion of the report focuses on the City and public services/operations under review. Existing development information is also addressed in this section.
• Revenues. The revenue section of the report identifies the various revenue sources and the potential recurring revenues, given certain reasonable assumptions. • Expenditures. The expenditure section of the report identifies the estimated recurring cost burden placed upon the City’s operations.
• Fiscal Impact. Using projected development’s identified revenues and expenditures, this section of the report identifies the overall fiscal impact on the City’s operations. Fiscal impacts are addressed on a land use category basis using either a per dwelling unit, building square foot, lot square foot, or acre factor.
• Recommendations. The report concludes with a summary of fiscal analysis findings and recommendations for the City’s consideration.
162
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 5
SECTION 2 | BACKGROUND
As part of the overall decision-making process to move forward with proposed development, it is important to evaluate the contributions and demands that future development will place upon a public agency’s operating funds. This analysis seeks to determine the fiscal impact of future development throughout the City and the accompanying impact placed upon the City’s General Fund and FPD Fund.

The General Fund is used to account for all revenues and expenditures necessary to carry out basic governmental activities of the City that are not accounted for through other funds. The General Fund includes, but is not limited to, such activities as police protection, parks operations and maintenance, and legal and administrative services.

The Belmont Fire Protection District (“FPD”) was formed as an independent district in 1928, providing fire service to the City. As of the date of this report, the FPD provides fire protection services to the City and the unincorporated Harbor Industrial Area as a member agency of the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department Joint Powers Authority ("SMC" or “JPA”), along with the cities of San Mateo and Foster City. As a subsidiary district, the City Council (“City Council”) assumes governance as the FPD Board of Directors.

The FPD receives a segregated share of the 1% property tax revenue within its boundaries and is not subsidized by City’s General Fund revenues. The purpose of the FPD Fund is to account for the FPD’s activities. Of note, the City’s financial contribution to the SMC’s operation is approximately 20% of the JPA’s total operating expenses.

To determine the anticipated fiscal impacts placed upon the City, this fiscal impact analysis is designed to quantify the approximate cost of providing services to its projected future population.

Analysis Methodology
The revenue portion of the fiscal impact analysis focuses on various taxes, fees, and other City revenues collected to fund ongoing operational costs. The expenditure portion of the fiscal impact analysis focuses on recurring expenditures incurred by the City to provide ongoing services to its population.

This analysis utilizes data from various sources including, but not limited, to the California Department of Finance, the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the General Plan and financials of the City. Data sources are detailed where applicable in this report. Currentday dollar values are used in this analysis due to the inability to project with accuracy revenues and expenditures at the time of buildout. The rounding of decimals may cause marginal variances between calculated and listed figures that appear in this report.

There are several industry-accepted methods for allocating a public agency’s recurring revenues and expenditures to future development. This fiscal analysis largely focuses on two industry-standard approaches: the case study approach and the multiplier approach. Both approaches are described below.

CASE STUDY APPROACH
When data used in a fiscal impact analysis is specific to the analysis itself and is not dependent upon industry-accepted generalized multipliers such as the number of residents, employees, etc., the case study approach is utilized. The case study approach relies on development-specific data to estimate the fiscal 163
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 6
impacts created from projected future development. Data used in the case study approach may include anything applicable to the future projections, including assessed valuations, property turnover rates, residential and employee populations, household incomes, estimated sales, and taxable expenditures.

MULTIPLIER APPROACH
The multiplier approach is used in a fiscal impact analysis when relationships between projected future development and revenues or expenditures generated from projected future development are difficult to quantify. This approach anticipates that certain revenues and expenditures are indicators of future anticipated revenues and expenditures, which can be quantified based on changes in, for example, the number of persons served by a public agency. To apply the multiplier approach, the fiscal analysis determines an average revenue or expenditure amount based upon a per person served basis. Depending on the type of revenue or expenditure, persons served can include residents, employees, or a combination of both.

Current City Persons Served
To best apply the multiplier approach in this fiscal impact analysis, and to allocate applicable revenues and expenditures, population information is utilized.

RESIDENTIAL POPULATION
Current residential population data was obtained from the California Department of Finance (“CA DOF”).

Per the California Department of Finance, as of 2021 the residential population of the City is 26,470.

EMPLOYEE POPULATION
Current employee population data was obtained from the Plan Bay Area Projections Report (“PBA Report”) authored by the Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”). The Plan provides public agencies a policy-based roadmap for accommodating projected household and employment growth in San Mateo County (“County”) and eight other counties within California’s Bay Area. Employment and household growth projections were modeled using data collected by the ABAG, MTC, CA DOF, and reference the General Plan and development policies of the City.

Projected growth figures provided in the PBA Report are specific to the City or Central San Mateo County, which is comprised of the City, and the cities of Half Moon Bay, Hillsborough, San Mateo, Foster City, and a portion of Burlingame.

Per data collected by ABAG and MTC, in 2020 the employee population of the City was 9,240. The PBA Report projects that within Central San Mateo County the City’s employee population (i.e., number of jobs within the City) will grow annually by approximately 0.30% between the years 2020 and 2050. Using the 2020 employee population and projected annual growth rate, this analysis estimates that as of 2021 the employee population of the City is 9,268.

PERSONS SERVED
Using residential and employee population estimates, the total number of persons served within the City can be determined. When establishing the total number of persons served within the City, this analysis recognizes that an employee population does not have the same impact on demand for public services as a 164
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 7
residential population. This is especially true for the portion of the employee population which works within the City but resides outside of its boundaries. While the exact service-demand relationship between an employee and a resident is difficult to quantify with accuracy, an industry-standard correlation of onehalf employee to one resident is commonly used. This 50% adjustment suggests that a resident will have twice the impact on a public agency’s revenues and demand for services than that of an employee within the City. The 50% adjustment also seeks to account for employees included within the identified employee population count that are also residents of the City. Applying the 50% adjustment to the City’s existing employee population base, the total number of persons served within the City is shown in the following table.

TABLE 1. CURRENT PERSONS SERVED
Description Total
Current Residential Population (1) 26,470
Current Employee Population (2) 9,268
Adjusted Employee Population (3) 4,634
Persons Served (4) 31,104
(1) Per CA DOF.
(2) 2020 Employee Population per PBA Report adjusted to 2021. (3) Current Employee Population adjusted by 50%.
(4) Equal to (Current Residential Population) + (Adjusted Employee Population).

Future City Persons Served

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY
There are various residential, nonresidential, and mixed-use developments in the progress or set to begin within the next few years. The name and location of these developments, as provided by the City, are detailed in the following table.
165
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 8
TABLE 2. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
Description (1)
1300 El Camino Real - Mixed Use (Firehouse Square)
1325 Old County Road - Mixed Use (Artisan Crossing A.k.a. Windy Hill) 2 Davis Drive - Office/Research & Fire Station
580 Masonic Way - Apartment Units
608 Harbor Boulevard - Apartment Units
800 Laurel Avenue - Townhomes
800-803 Belmont Avenue - Apartment Units
815 Old County Road - Apartment Units
900 Camino Real - Affordable Housing (Hill St. @ ECR)
601-625 Harbor/1421 Old County Road
1301 Shoreway Drive
300-400 Island Parkway & 800 Concourse Drive
The following table details the anticipated amount of Single-Family Residential (“SFR”), Townhomes (“Townhome”), Multi-Family Residential (“MFR”), Affordable housing (“Affordable Housing”), Commercial (“Commercial”), and Industrial (“Industrial”) development that will result from the developments detailed in Table 2.

TABLE 3. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DETAIL
Development
Type
Unit
Count Unit
SFR 0 Units
Townhome 31 Units
MFR 567 Units
Affordable Housing 329 Units
Commercial 9,750 Building Sq. Ft.

Industrial 1,546,000 Building Sq. Ft.

To determine the increase in the residential and employee population that will result from planned development within the City, this analysis considers average persons per household and average employees per building square feet. Per the PBA Report, on average there are 2.46 persons per household in the City. This figure is assigned to SFR and Townhome development, reduced by 20%, and assigned as the average household size of MFR and Affordable Housing development. The reduction seeks to account for MFR and Affordable Housing generally having smaller footprints than Townhome and SFR developments, and thus less capacity to house the same number of persons. Per a Non-residential Analysis prepared by ABAG (“ABAG Non-residential Analysis”), on average Commercial property employs one 166
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 9
person for every 571 building square feet and Industrial property employs one person for 821 building square feet. Given these densities, the increase in residents and employees that will result from planned development once fully built out is calculated in the following table.

TABLE 4. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTS & EMPLOYEES
Development
Type
Unit
Count Unit Density
Resident/
Employee Count (1)
SFR 0 Units 2.46 Residents
per Unit (2) 0
Townhome 31 Units 2.46 Residents
per Unit (2) 76
MFR 567 Units 1.97 Residents
per Unit (2) 1,117
Affordable Housing 329 Units 1.97 Residents
per Unit (2) 648
Residential Total 927 1,841
Commercial 9,750 Building
Sq. Ft.
571 Building Sq. Ft.
per Employee (3) 17
Industrial 1,546,000 Building
Sq. Ft.
821 Building Sq. Ft.
per Employee (3) 1,883
Non-Residential Total 1,555,750 1,900
(1) For Townhome, MFR, and Affordable Housing development, equal to (Unit Count) x (Density). For Commercial and Industrial development, equal to (Unit Count) / (Density). (2) Per PBA Report. MFR and Affordable Housing density equal to 80% of SFR Density. (3) Per ABAG Non-residential Analysis.

FUTURE RESIDENTIAL POPULATION
Per the CA DOF, as of January 1, 2021, there were 11,140 households in the City. The PBA Report projects that between 2020 and 2050, the number of households in the City will grow annually by approximately

0.90%. This equates to a total growth in households of 3,305 units, as shown in the following table. Of note, this analysis assumes that the increase in residential units resulting from currently planned development is included in the total projected increase in households.

TABLE 5. FUTURE HOUSEHOLD GROWTH
Description Total
2021 Number of Households (1) 11,140
Annual Growth Rate (2) 0.90%
2050 Number of Households 14,445
Increase in Households (3) 3,305
(1) Per CA DOF.
(2) Per PBA Report, average annual growth rate
between 2020 and 2050.
(3) Includes households identified in Table 4.
167
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 10
To allocate the increase in households not attributable to currently planned development to the residential categories considered in this report, the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Housing Needs Allocation for 2023-2031 (“RHNA”) authored by ABAG. The RHNA details how housing constructed between 2023 and 2031 must be allocated to above moderate-income, moderate-income, low-income, and very low-income households within each Bay Area city. For purposes of this analysis, the allocation of future housing within the City to each income category is assumed to apply to housing construction through 2050, and is allocated to projected SFR, Townhome, MFR, or Affordable Housing residential development. Given allocations provided by the RHNA and previously identified residential densities, the future number of residents within the City is calculated in the following table.

TABLE 6. FUTURE RESIDENTIAL POPULATION
Development
Type
Planned
Development
Unit Count (1)
Remaining
Development
Unit Count (2)
Total
Residential
Unit Count
Increase in
Residents (3)
SFR 0 195 195 481
Townhome 31 586 617 1,519
MFR 567 947 1,514 2,982
Affordable Housing 329 650 979 1,929
Totals 927 2,378 3,305 6,911
2021 Residential Population (4) 26,470
2050 Residential Population (5) 33,381
(1) Identified in Table 4.
(2) Of projected increase in households not attributable to planned development, 27% dedicated to Affordable Housing, 40% to MFR, 25% to Townhome, and 8% to SFR development. Percentages are estimated based on information provided in the RHNA.
(3) Equal to (Total Unit Count) x (Densities identified in Table 4). (4) Identified in Table 1.
(5) Equal to (Total Increase in Residents) + (2021 Residential Population).

FUTURE EMPLOYEE POPULATION
The PBA Report projects that between 2020 and 2050, the City’s employee population will grow annually by approximately 0.30%, which equates to an increase of approximately 900 employees. However, based solely on currently planned development detailed in Tables 3 and 4, the Commercial employee population is projected to grow by 17 and the Industrial employee population is projected to grow by 1,883, which totals to an increase of 1,900 employees. This analysis recognizes that through the year 2050, the Commercial employee population will grow beyond what will result from currently planned development.

To estimate this growth, the increase in employee population projected by the PBA Report is considered along with the percentage of vacant land zoned for non-residential use that will be dedicated to Commercial development. Per County Secured Roll data dated January 2021, of the vacant land zoned for non-residential use, approximately 55% will be dedicated to Commercial development and 44% to Industrial development. Thus, this analysis assumes that of the projected growth in the employee population identified in the PBA Report, 55% will result from Commercial development beyond that which 168
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 11
is currently planned. It is assumed that the Industrial employee population will grow only marginally beyond what will result from currently planned development.

TABLE 7. FUTURE EMPLOYEE POPULATION
Description Total
2050 Employee Population (1) 11,663
(1) Equal to (Growth in Commercial Employee Population identified in Table 4) + (Projected Growth in Employee Population identified in PBA Report x 55%).

FUTURE PERSONS SERVED
Using projected future residential and employee population estimates, the total number of future persons served within the City can be determined. Applying the 50% adjustment (described earlier in this report) to the City’s projected future employee population, the total number of future persons served within the City is provided in the following table.

TABLE 8. FUTURE PERSONS SERVED
Description Total
Future Residential Population (1) 33,381
Future Employee Population 11,663
Adjusted Future Employee Population (2) 5,832
Future Persons Served (3) 39,213
(1) Identified in Table 6.
(2) Adjusted to reflect 50% of the Future Employee Population. (3) Equal to (Future Residential Population) + (Adjusted Future Employee Population).

CHANGE IN PERSONS SERVED
A summary of the change in persons served as a result of projected future development within the City is presented in the following table.

TABLE 9. CHANGE IN PERSONS SERVED
Description Total
Change in Residential Population 6,911
Change in Employee Population (1) 2,395
Change in Persons Served 8,109
(1) Reflects change in employee population prior to application of 50% adjustment. 169
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 12
SECTION 3 | REVENUE ESTIMATE
The City relies on revenue received from several sources. Much of the City’s operating revenue is derived from property taxes, sales taxes, property taxes in lieu of vehicle license fees, property transfer taxes (i.e., documentary transfer taxes), and various other taxes and fees. The case study approach is used to determine the estimated property tax revenue generated from projected future development within the City, and the multiplier approach is used to allocate certain types of other revenue the City receives.

Property Tax Revenue
Under California law, non-exempt property pays an ad valorem property tax equal to 1% of the assessed value of the property. Any additional voter-approved taxes or assessments will result in a total property tax rate burden that can exceed 1% of the property’s assessed value. The property tax revenue received from the 1% ad valorem property tax rate is then allocated to various overlapping public agencies based upon their authorized allocation for each Tax Rate Area (“TRA”). Across the City’s various TRAs, of the 1% ad valorem property tax collected from property within its boundaries, the City receives approximately 7.32% for its general operations (accounted for in the General Fund) and approximately 16.06% for its FPD operations (accounted for in the FPD Fund).

Currently, some parcels are within the City’s Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) but outside of the City’s jurisdiction (“SOI Parcels”). These SOI Parcels generate property tax revenue for the City’s FPD but not for the City’s general operations. This analysis assumes that future development that takes place within SOI Parcels will occur after said parcels are annexed into the City. In 2019, the City annexed SOI Parcels that will contain the 1325 Old Country Road development identified previously in Table 4 (“Artisan Crossing”). Artisan Crossing is projected to develop into a mixed-use development composed of 212 MFR units, 38 Affordable Housing units, and 3,000 building square feet of commercial property. A resolution passed by the County Board of Supervisors in 2019 set the property tax increment factor to the City (i.e., the allocation of the 1% ad valorem) to approximately 9.66%. This analysis considers the tax increment factor of Artisan Crossing where applicable.

The City has indicated that any future annexations will have a tax sharing agreement with the County different from that negotiated through the annexation of the Artisan Crossing parcels. As such, this analysis makes no assumptions as to the details of future tax sharing agreements between the City and the County and assumes any development outside of the Artisan Crossing parcels will occur within the City boundary where the City receives approximately 7.32% of the 1% ad valorem property tax. The City has also indicated that it received approval to defease outstanding Redevelopment Agency (“RDA”) debt obligations and will be dissolving its existing Successor Agency before June of 2022. As such, this analysis excludes the effect of existing RDA debt obligations on the City’s allocation of the 1% ad valorem property tax.

The total assessed value of the City’s projected future development, the projected future development’s incremental assessed value, and the amount of property tax revenue expected to be generated for the City by projected future development is calculated in the following pages. 170
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 13

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Property is subject to the 1% ad valorem tax rate unless it can qualify for an exemption under existing California laws. Certain types of property that are granted this property tax exemption, also known as the Welfare Exemption, include hospitals, universities, churches, affordable housing, and other non-profits. If the Welfare Exemption is granted, the property will not be subject to the 1% ad valorem property tax.

However, the property may still be subject to other assessments, taxes, and charges levied by local governments. Future SFR, Townhome, and MFR development will be subject to the 1% ad valorem property tax rate, whereas future Affordable Housing development will likely qualify for the Welfare Exemption and not be subject to the 1% ad valorem property tax.

To calculate the amount of property tax revenue projected to be generated for the City by future SFR, Townhome and MFR development, the median sales price of each property type as of October 2021 is considered. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all residential units will apply and qualify for a Homeowner Exemption which reduces the assessed value of each unit by $7,000.

TABLE 10. TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Description SFR Townhome MFR
MFR –
Art Crossing
Median Price per Unit (1) $2,204,000 $899,000 $687,331 $687,331 Homeowner Exemption 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000
Assessable Value
per Unit (2) 2,197,000 892,000 680,331 680,331
Unit Count (3) 195 617 1,302 212
Total Assessed Value (4) $429,079,392 $550,281,246 $885,566,777 $144,230,172 (1) SFR sales price data drawn from Zillow.com Home Value Index for the City. Townhome sales price data drawn from Movoto.com Market Trends and Statistics. MFR price estimated using listing price data drawn from the online real estate marketplace LoopNet.com. Listing price data of MFR property for sale within the City and the cities of Burlingame, San Carlos, San Mateo, and Redwood City was used in this analysis. Figures reflect market conditions as of October 2021 and are subject to fluctuation. (2) Equal to (Median Price per Unit) – (Homeowner Exemption). (3) Calculated in Table 6. Unit Count of MFR – Artisan Crossing parcels drawn from the Artisan Crossing Development Plan authored by BDE Architecture.
(4) Equal to (Assessable Value per Unit) x (Unit Count).

Undeveloped land zoned for residential use currently generates a level of property tax revenue for the City.

For purposes of assigning current assessed value to property that will contain projected future SFR, Townhome, and MFR development, County Secured Roll data dated January 1, 2021, was analyzed to determine the estimated number of acres per unit of SFR development and MFR development within the City. This analysis assumes that Townhome units will have a density equal to 70% of an average SFR unit and that Affordable Housing units will have the same density as MFR Units. 171
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 14
TABLE 11. RESIDENTIAL HOUSING DENSITY
Description (1) Value
Acres per SFR Unit 0.1510
Acres per Townhome (2) 0.1057
Acres per MFR Unit 0.0250
Acres per Affordable Housing Unit (3) 0.0250
(1) Acres per SFR and MFR unit per County Secured Roll data dated January 2021. (2) Equal to (Acres per SFR Unit) x (70%). Estimated, subject to change. (3) Equal to Acres per MFR Unit.

The total acreage and assessed value of undeveloped property projected to develop into projected future residential property in the City is detailed in the following table.

TABLE 12. UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE AND ASSESSED VALUE Description Value
Undeveloped Residential Acreage (1) 130.48
Undeveloped Residential Acreage Assessed Value (1) $43,250,085 Artisan Crossing Parcels Acreage – MFR Portion (2) 1.69 Artisan Crossing Parcels Assessed Value – MFR Portion (2) $15,334,307 (1) Per County Secured Roll data dated January 2021. Reflects undeveloped parcels with residential use codes and 65% of parcels with no assigned use code.
(2) Estimated based on the portion of the development projected to house 212 MFR units and the total assessed value of Artisan Crossing parcels.

The estimated residential densities calculated in Table 11 are used to estimate the amount of undeveloped acreage, and accompanying assessed value, zoned for residential use that will develop and contain projected future residential development, as shown in the following table. 172
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 15
TABLE 13. CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE OF FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Description SFR Townhome MFR
MFR –
Artisan Crossing (1)
Unit Count (2) 195 617 1,302 212
Acres per Unit (3) 0.1510 0.1057 0.0250 N/A
Acreage Projected to
Develop (4) 29.49 65.21 32.54 1.69
% of Total Undeveloped
Acreage Projected to
Develop (5)

22.60% 49.98% 24.94% N/A
Current Assessed Value (6) $9,774,519 $21,616,392 $10,786,571 $15,334,307 (1) Information for MFR – Artisan Crossing units specific to Artisan Crossing development. (2) Identified in Table 10.
(3) Identified in Table 11.
(4) Equal to (Unit Count) x (Acres per Unit).
(5) Equal to (Acreage Projected to Develop) / [(Undeveloped Residential Acreage) or (Artisan Crossing Parcels Acreage – MFR Portion), identified in Table 12].
(6) Equal to (% of Total Undeveloped Acreage Projected to Develop) x [(Undeveloped Residential Acreage Assessed Value) or (Artisan Crossing Parcels Assessed Value – MFR Portion), identified in Table 12].

The incremental assessed value of projected future residential development within the City is calculated in the following table.

TABLE 14. INCREMENTAL ASSESSED VALUE OF FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Description SFR Townhome MFR
MFR –
Artisan Crossing
Total Future Development
Assessed Value (1) $429,079,392 $550,281,246 $885,566,777 $144,230,172 Current Assessed Value (2) 9,774,519 21,616,392 10,786,571 15,334,307 Incremental Assessed
Value (3) $419,304,873 $528,664,854 $874,780,206 $128,895,865 (1) Calculated in Table 10.
(2) Calculated in Table 13.
(3) Equal to (Total Future Development Assessed Value) - (Current Assessed Value).

The amount of property tax revenue expected to be generated by projected residential development is presented in the following table.
173
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 16
TABLE 15. PROPERTY TAX REVENUE GENERATED BY FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Description SFR Townhome MFR
MFR –
Artisan Crossing
Incremental Assessed
Value $419,304,873 $528,664,854 $874,780,206 $128,895,865 1% Ad Valorem (1) 4,193,049 5,286,649 8,747,802 1,288,959 Allocation of 1% Ad
Valorem to City 7.32% 7.32% 7.32% 9.66%
Allocation of 1% Ad
Valorem to FPD 16.06% 16.06% 16.06% 16.06%
Projected Property Tax
Revenue to City (2) $306,931 $386,983 $640,339 $124,513 Projected Property Tax
Revenue to FPD (3) $673,404 $849,036 $1,404,897 $207,007 (1) Equal to (Incremental Assessed Value) x (1.00%).
(2) Equal to (1% Ad Valorem) x (Allocation of 1% Ad Valorem to City). (3) Equal to (1% Ad Valorem) x (Allocation of 1% Ad Valorem to FPD).

NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
To calculate the amount of property tax revenue projected to be generated for the City by future Commercial and Industrial development, estimated current employee densities and the projected increase in the employee population are considered. The projected change in Commercial and Industrial employee populations is presented in the following table.

TABLE 16. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYEE POPULATION
Description Value
Projected Change in Commercial Employee Population (1) 512 Projected Change in Industrial Employee Population (2) 1,883 Projected Change in Employee Population (3) 2,395
(1) Equal to (Growth in Commercial Employee Population Identified in Table 4) + (Growth in Employee Population identified in PBA Report x 55%).
(2) Equal to growth in Industrial Employee Population Identified in Table 4. (3) Identified in Table 9.

As noted in the ABAG Non-residential Analysis, Commercial property employs approximately one person for every 571 building square feet and Industrial property employs one person for every 821 building square feet. The employee density figures are multiplied by the projected change in the Commercial and Industrial employee population to arrive at the amount of building square feet projected to develop to accommodate future non-residential development.
174
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 17
TABLE 17. ESTIMATED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDING SQUARE FEET Description Value
Commercial Bldg. Sq. Ft. per Employee (1) 571
Industrial Bldg. Sq. Ft. per Employee (1) 821
Commercial Bldg. Sq. Ft. Projected to Develop (2) 292,352 Industrial Bldg. Sq. Ft. Projected to Develop (2) 1,545,943 (1) Per ABAG Non-residential Analysis.
(2) Equal to (Projected Change in corresponding Employee Population identified in Table 16) x (Corresponding Bldg.

Sq. Ft. per Employee).

Undeveloped land zoned for non-residential use currently generates a level of property tax revenue for the City. For purposes of assigning current assessed value to property that will contain projected future Commercial and Industrial development, Floor Area Ratios (“FAR”) are considered. The FAR of various nonresidential uses detailed in the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan were examined. The FAR of non-residential uses that can contain Commercial development ranges from 1.5 to 2.0. The FAR of nonresidential uses that can contain Industrial development ranges from 1.5 to 5.0. This analysis assumes that on average, Commercial development will have a FAR of 1.76 and Industrial development will have a FAR of 2.67. The current assessed value of property projected to develop to accommodate future nonresidential development is calculated in the following table using the FARs, amount of building square feet projected to develop, and County Secured Roll data.

TABLE 18. CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE OF FUTURE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Description Commercial
Commercial –
Artisan Crossing (1) Industrial
Building Square Feet
Projected to Develop (2) 289,352 3,000 1,545,943
FAR (3) 1.76 N/A 2.67
Acreage Projected to Develop (4) 3.77 0.07 13.29
% of Total
Undeveloped Acreage (5) 5.14% N/A 18.11%
Current Assessed Value (6) $2,627,128 $624,486 $9,256,282 (1) Information listed specific to the Artisan Crossing Development. (2) Identified in Table 17.
(3) Estimated based on information found within the Land Use Element of the City General Plan. (4) Equal to (Building Square Feet Projected to Develop)/(FAR) and converted to acres. (5) Equal to (Acreage Projected to Develop) / (Acreage of undeveloped parcels with non-residential use codes and 35% of parcels with no assigned use code). Data drawn from County Secured Roll data dated January 2021. (6) Equal to (% of Total Undeveloped Acreage) x (Assessed Value of undeveloped parcels with non-residential use codes and half of parcels with no assigned use code).

To calculate the total assessed value of projected future Commercial and Industrial development, the average sales price per building square foot of each property type was calculated. An average price per building square foot was calculated for each property type using listing price data of property within the City and neighboring cities listed for sale as of the date of this report. 175
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 18
TABLE 19. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PRICE PER BUILDING SQUARE FOOT Description Commercial (1) Industrial (1)
Average Price per Bldg. Sq. Ft. $896.55 $626.69
(1) Average price per the online real estate marketplace LoopNet.com. Calculated using sales price data of Commercial and Industrial property for sale within the City as of the date of this report for the City and the cities of Burlingame, Foster City, San Carlos, San Mateo, and Redwood City. Figures reflect market conditions as of the date of this report and are subject to fluctuation.

The total assessed value and the incremental assessed value of projected Commercial and Industrial development are calculated in the following table.

TABLE 20. INCREMENTAL ASSESSED VALUE OF FUTURE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT
Description Commercial
Commercial –
Artisan Crossing Industrial
Total Assessed Value (1) $259,418,536 $2,689,650 $968,827,019 Current Assessed Value (2) 2,627,128 624,486 9,256,282
Incremental Assessed Value (3) $256,791,407 $2,065,164 $959,570,737 (1) Equal to (Building Square Footage Projected to Develop identified in Table 18) x (Average Price per Bldg. Sq. Ft. identified in Table 19).
(2) Identified in Table 18.
(3) Equal to (Total Assessed Value) – (Current Assessed Value).

The amount of property tax revenue expected to be generated by projected non-residential development is presented in the following table.

TABLE 21. PROPERTY TAX REVENUE GENERATED BY FUTURE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT
Description Commercial
Commercial –
Artisan Crossing Industrial
Incremental Assessed Value $256,791,407 $2,065,164 $959,570,737 1% Ad Valorem (1) 2,567,914 20,652 9,595,707
Allocation of 1% Ad Valorem
to City 7.32% 7.32% 9.66%
Allocation of 1% Ad Valorem
to FPD 16.06% 16.06% 16.06%
Projected Property Tax
Revenue to City (2) $187,971 $1,512 $926,945
Projected Property Tax
Revenue to FPD (3) $412,407 $3,317 $1,541,071
(1) Equal to (Incremental Assessed Value) x (1.00%).
(2) Equal to (1% Ad Valorem) x (Allocation of 1% Ad Valorem to City). (3) Equal to (1% Ad Valorem) x (Allocation of 1% Ad Valorem to FPD). 176
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 19
Property Tax in Lieu of Vehicle License Fee (“VLF”) Revenue Property tax in lieu of VLF is revenue the City receives in addition to the City’s share of ad valorem property tax revenues. In 2004, the California Legislature permanently reduced the VLF rate from 2.00% to 0.65% and compensated cities and counties for their revenue loss with a like amount of property taxes, dollar for dollar. A public agency’s property tax in lieu of VLF revenue allocation changes in proportion to the growth or decline in gross assessed valuation.

Per assessed value data provided by the California Board of Equalization (“CA BOE”), and the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Property Tax in Lieu of VLF revenue shown in the City’s Fiscal Year 2021 Budget (“FY 2021 Budget”), the ratio of property tax in lieu of VLF received by the City to the City’s assessed value is calculated, as shown in the following table.

TABLE 22. PROPERTY TAX IN LIEU OF VLF RATIO
Description
Fiscal Year
2020/21 Value
City Total Assessed Value (1) $8,067,454,000
VLF Revenue (2) 2,544,256
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF Ratio (3) 0.0315%
(1) Per the CA BOE.
(2) Drawn from the FY 2021 Budget.
(3) Equal to (VLF Revenue) / (City Total Assessed Value).

The property tax in lieu of VLF ratio is applied to the incremental assessed value of projected future development within the City to estimate the amount of property tax in lieu of VLF to be generated by said development.

TABLE 23. PROPERTY TAX IN LIEU OF VLF REVENUE
Description
Incremental Assessed
Value (1)
Property Tax in Lieu of
VLF Ratio
Property Tax in Lieu of
VLF Revenue (2)
SFR $419,304,873 0.0315% $132,081
Townhome 528,664,854 0.0315% 166,529
MFR 1,003,676,071 0.0315% 316,158
Affordable Housing (3) 0 0.0315% 0
Commercial 258,856,571 0.0315% 81,540
Industrial 959,570,737 0.0315% 302,265
Total $3,170,073,107 $998,573
(1) Identified in Tables 14 and 20.
(2) Equal to (Incremental Assessed Value) x (Property Tax in Lieu of VLF Ratio). (3) Affordable Housing is expected to qualify for the Welfare Exemption and thus not expected to generate property tax in lieu of VLF revenue.

Documentary Transfer Tax
When property is sold, a documentary transfer tax is charged and distributed to the City and County. The documentary transfer tax is charged at a rate of $0.55 per $500 of assessed value, or $1.10 per $1,000 of 177
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 20
assessed value. To determine the annual documentary transfer tax, the estimated property turnover rate is considered. This analysis assumes that SFR, Townhome, and MFR units will turnover approximately every 13 years, which results in an annual turnover rate of about 8%. Commercial and Industrial land uses typically have minimal ownership turnover. However, to consider the potential for land use turnover, a conservative estimate of once every 20 years, or an annual turnover rate of 5%, is applied in this analysis to the projected non-residential development. Utilizing the estimated incremental assessed value of projected future development and the estimated annual turnover rates, the City’s share of the documentary transfer tax is calculated in the following table.

TABLE 24. DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX GENERATED BY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Description SFR Townhome MFR Commercial Industrial
Incremental
Assessed Value $419,304,873 $528,664,854 $1,003,676,071 $258,856,571 $959,570,737 Estimated
Annual
Turnover
Rate (1)
8% 8% 8% 5% 5%
Annual Turnover
Assessed
Value (2)
33,544,390 42,293,188 80,294,086 12,942,829 47,978,537
Annual Turnover
Assessed Value /
$1,000
33,544 42,293 80,294 12,943 47,979
Documentary
Transfer Tax Rate
per $1,000 (3)

0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
Documentary
Transfer Tax
Revenue
$18,449 $23,261 $44,162 $7,119 $26,388
(1) Source for residential rates: “Latest Calculations Show Average Buyer Expected to Stay in Home 13 Years,” Economic and Housing Policy, National Association of Homebuilders. (2) Equal to (Incremental Assessed Value) x (Estimated Annual Turnover Rate). (3) $1.10 tax rate is split $0.55 to the County and $0.55 to the City.

Sales Tax Revenue
A sales tax is a tax levied on the sale, transfer, or exchange of a taxable item or service. The base sales tax rate in California is 7.25%. Revenue generated from the sales tax is allocated to certain state and local jurisdictions, with the City receiving 1.00% of the base sales tax rate.

In addition to the base sales tax, the County levies and collects an additional 2.125% sales tax. In November 2016, the City’s electorate approved Measure I to institute a 0.50% general sales tax aimed at providing funding for street and road repair, storm drain repair, and other essential City services. The Measure I sales tax is set to expire in the year 2046. As a result of all voter-approved measures, the total sales tax rate levied in the City is 9.875%. This analysis seeks to focus solely on revenue streams that will be consistently available to the City, therefore voter-approved taxes subject to expiration such as the Measure I sales tax 178
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 21
are excluded from consideration in this report. The City sales tax rate used to project sales tax revenue is

1.00%.

FUTURE RESIDENTS
To determine the amount of sales tax revenue expected to be generated by the residential population that will result from projected residential development, the median income per household within the City, the median home price to median household income ratio, and the percentage of income spent on taxable retail sales per household are considered.

In 2021, the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University authored the State of the Nation’s Housing report (“Harvard Study”). Per the Harvard Study, in 2020 the national median home price to median income ratio was 4.37, whereas in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward metropolitan area the ratio was 9.39. To attempt to arrive at a median home price to median income ratio that can be applied to the City, the national ratio of 4.37 is averaged with the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward ratio of 9.39 to arrive at an estimated City median home price to median income ratio of 6.88. Together with the projected median sales price of projected SFR development, the ratio is used to estimate the income of households within future SFR development. This analysis assumes that, on average, households within projected Townhome developments will have median household incomes equal to 120% of the City’s median household income, as provided in the FY 2021 Budget. It is assumed that households within projected MFR development will have median household incomes equal to the City’s median household income. The median income of households that will reside within projected Affordable Housing development is considered separately due to income eligibility limits placed on residents of this type of housing. This analysis assumes that, on average, households within projected Affordable Housing development will have incomes equal to 60% of the City’s median household income. The projected income of households within projected residential development are detailed in the following table.

TABLE 25. RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLD INCOMES
Description
Median
Price per Unit (1)
Median Home Price to
Median Income Ratio (2)
Household
Income (3)
SFR $2,204,000 6.88 $320,349
Townhome 899,000 N/A 162,410
MFR 687,331 N/A 135,342
Affordable Housing N/A N/A 81,205
(1) Identified in Table 10.
(2) For SFR, equal to the average of the national and San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward median home price to median income ratio. MFR and Affordable Housing incomes considered separately. (3) SFR household income equal to (Median Price per Unit) / (Median Home Price to Median Income Ratio).

Townhome household income equal to 120% of City’s median household income, as stated in the FY 2021 Budget. MFR household income equal to City’s median household income. Affordable Housing household income equals 60% of City median household income.

Per the CA BOE, approximately 29.5% of a household’s spending is spent on taxable retail goods. This percentage is discounted by 40% to attempt to account for purchases made outside of City boundaries and shifts in taxable sales from one point of sale to another within the City. The estimated sales tax revenue generated by projected future households is calculated in the following table. 179
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 22
TABLE 26. SALES TAX REVENUE GENERATED BY INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL POPULATION Description SFR Townhome MFR
Affordable
Housing
Median Household
Income (1) $320,349 $162,410 $135,342 $81,205
Percentage of Income Spent on
Taxable Retail Sales per
Household (2)

17.70% 17.70% 17.70% 17.70%
Income Spent on Taxable Retail
Sales Within City per Household (3) 56,702 28,747 23,956 14,373 Number of Households 195 617 1,514 979
Sales Tax Revenue – Residential
Population $110,740 $177,340 $362,608 $140,732
(1) Identified in Table 25.
(2) 29.5%, per BOE.gov household spending for California taxable retail goods, discounted by 40% to account for shifts in taxable sales and purchases made outside of the City boundaries. Estimate; subject to change. (3) Equal to (Median Household Income) x (Percentage of Income Spent on Taxable Retail Sales per Household).

FUTURE EMPLOYEES
In addition to the increased residential population, the increase in employees resulting from projected nonresidential development will generate a certain amount of sales tax revenue for the City. The International Council of Shopping Centers conducted a survey that determined the approximate dollar amount an average employee spends per year on taxable goods and services. After adjusting this amount to the year 2021 using the change in Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) of the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward region, it’s estimated that an average employee within the City will spend approximately $6,401 per year on taxable goods and services. While personal spending is unique to everyone, this analysis assumes that approximately 60% of the employee’s annual spending will be on taxable purchases that will occur near their place of employment within the City’s boundaries. Using this information, the estimated sales tax revenue generated from future employees is calculated in the following table.

TABLE 27. SALES TAX REVENUE GENERATED BY INCREASE IN EMPLOYEE POPULATION Description Commercial Industrial
Average Annual Taxable Spending per Employee (1) $6,401 $6,401 Additional Employee Count (2) 512 1,883
Estimated % of Taxable Sales within City (3) 60% 60%
Employee Taxable Sales within City 1,966,387 7,231,850
Sales Tax Revenue – Employee Population (4) $19,664 $72,318 (1) Drawn from a survey conducted by The International Council of Shopping Centers, adjusted to the year 2021 using the change in CPI of the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward region. (2) Identified in Table 16.
(3) Seeks to account for taxable sales made outside of the City boundary. (4) Equal to (Average Annual Spending per Employee) x (Additional Employee Count) x (Estimated % of Taxable Sales within City) x (1.00%).
180
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 23

NON-RESIDENTIAL SALES TAX REVENUE
Sales tax revenue will be generated from taxable sales that occur within future non-residential development. Economic activity within future Industrial development may generate sales tax revenue; though due to an inability to accurately determine the type of businesses that will reside within future Industrial development, this analysis takes a conservative approach and does not attempt to estimate the amount of sales tax revenue that may be generated by Industrial property.

To best estimate the increase in sales tax revenue that will be generated by future Commercial property, this analysis considers the estimated taxable sales per square foot for commercial property calculated within a retail benchmarking report authored by PwC in 2013.1 After adjusting the PwC estimate to the year 2021 using the change in CPI for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward region, it’s estimated that future commercial property will generate approximately $482 per building square foot.

This analysis recognizes that some taxable sales generated from future Commercial development will not be new taxable sales for the City. A portion of these taxable sales will come from shifts from one existing place of business within the City to a place of business located within the projected Commercial development area. Furthermore, a portion of the sales tax revenue generated by projected Commercial development will derive from purchases made by the projected increase in the residential and employee population, purchases which are quantified separately in this analysis. Therefore, to account for shifts in taxable sales from one point of sale to another point of sale within the City and separately calculated sales tax revenue from the increased residential and employee population, an estimated 50% reduction has been applied.

Applying the estimated taxable sales per square foot and the sales tax revenue reduction percentage, the estimated sales tax revenue from projected commercial development can be determined.

TABLE 28. SALES TAX REVENUE GENERATED BY FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Description Amount
Estimated Taxable Sales per Bldg. Sq. Ft. (1) $482
Commercial Bldg. Sq. Ft. Projected to Develop (2) 292,352 Taxable Sales (3) $140,913,664
Sales Tax Revenue – Commercial Development (4) $704,568 (1) Figure drawn from the Measuring Up Retail Benchmarking Survey prepared by PwC, adjusted to the year 2021 using the change in CPI for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward. Figure from PwC report is derived from the median sales per square foot estimates for various retail categories. (2) Identified in Table 17.
(3) Equal to (Estimated Taxable Sales per Bldg. Sq. Ft.) x (Commercial Bldg. Sq. Ft. Projected to Develop). (4) Equal to (Taxable Sales) x (City sales tax rate of 1.00%) x (50% reduction factor). Reduction factor seeks to account for shifts in taxable sales from one point of sale to another point of sale within the City, and separately calculated sales tax revenue generated by the increased residential and employee population.

Other City Revenue
The City receives revenue from various other sources including fees, fines, penalties, charges for services, and other revenues (“Other City Revenues”). For purposes of this analysis, revenues that are not considered 1 Measuring Up Retail Benchmarking Survey, PwC Consulting, 2013. 181
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 24
include one-time building and planning permits, certain charges for services, interest from City investments, use of money and property, special project funds, and grants. The following table presents the adopted Fiscal Year 2021/22 Other City Revenues derived from the FY 2021 Budget which apply to the development categories considered in this analysis (i.e., categories of revenue generated by projected residential and non-residential development). Of note, these revenues correspond solely to the City’s General Fund.

TABLE 29. OTHER CITY REVENUE
Description
Fiscal Year
2021/22 Value (1)
Franchise Taxes (2) $1,073,682
Licenses & Permits (3) 847,241
Charges for Services (4) 55,500
Fines & Forfeitures (5) 165,000
Miscellaneous Revenue 395,125
Other City Revenue $2,536,548
(1) Per FY 2021 Budget.
(2) Consists of Utility and Garbage Franchise taxes.
(3) Consists of Business Licenses.
(4) Consists of Fingerprinting, Police Report, Alarm, and Impound Vehicle Release fees. (5) Consists of Parking, Code Enforcement, and Vehicle Code fines.

To estimate the overall impact that future development will have on the listed Other City Revenue sources, it is assumed that current per capita revenue amounts will serve as the best indicator of future per capita revenue amounts. Therefore, to best allocate Other City Revenues to projected future development, the multiplier approach is utilized. It was previously identified that the total number of persons served within the City is 31,104 and the employee population is 9,268. Using the current City persons served and employee population, the Other City Revenue per person served or employee served can be determined, as shown in the following table.

TABLE 30. OTHER CITY REVENUE PER PERSON SERVED/EMPLOYEE Description
Fiscal Year
2021/22 Value
Current City Persons Served
or Employee Count (1)
Amount per Person
Served/Employee (2)
Franchise Taxes $1,073,682 31,104 $34.52
Licenses & Permits (3) 847,241 9,268 91.42
Charges for Services 55,500 31,104 1.78
Fines & Forfeitures 165,000 31,104 5.30
Miscellaneous Revenue 395,125 31,104 12.70
(1) Persons Served identified in Table 1, Employee count identified in Table 1. (2) Equal to (Fiscal Year 2021/22 Value) / (Current City Persons Served or Employee Count). (3) Revenue calculated on a per employee basis due to deriving from Business Licenses.

To determine the amount of other City revenue allocated to projected residential and non-residential development, the amount per person served/employee calculated in Table 30 is multiplied by the increase in persons served or employees that will result from future development. 182
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 25
TABLE 31. OTHER CITY REVENUE GENERATED BY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Description
Increase in Persons
Served/Employees
(1)
Amount per Person
Served/Employee (2) Other City Revenue
Franchise Taxes 8,109 $34.52 $279,923
Licenses & Permits 2,395 91.42 218,951
Charges for Services 8,109 1.78 14,434
Fines & Forfeitures 8,109 5.30 42,978
Miscellaneous Revenue 8,109 12.70 102,984
Total $659,270
(1) Identified in Table 9.
(2) Calculated in Table 30.

Revenue Summary
Projected residential and non-residential development will generate various forms of general revenues for the City. A portion of the anticipated revenue was calculated utilizing the case study approach and the remaining City revenue was allocated to projected future development using the multiplier approach. A summary of the revenues projected to be generated by future development is presented in the following tables.

TABLE 32. REVENUE SUMMARY
Revenue
Description
General Fund
Revenue
FPD Fund
Revenue Total
Property Tax $2,575,195 $5,091,137 $7,666,332
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF 998,573 0 998,573
Documentary Transfer 119,379 0 119,379
Sales Tax 1,587,971 0 1,587,971
Other 659,270 0 659,270
Total $5,940,387 $5,091,137 $11,031,524
TABLE 33. REVENUE SUMMARY BY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TYPE
Development Type Total
SFR $1,267,723
Townhome 1,685,631
MFR 3,261,606
Affordable Housing 245,477
Commercial 1,478,805
Industrial 3,092,282
Total $11,031,524
183
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 26
SECTION 4 | EXPENDITURES ESTIMATE
The revenues identified in Section 3 of this report are intended to pay for recurring expenditures related to general services provided by the City and services provided by the City’s FPD. City General Fund expenditures not considered in this analysis include costs associated with infrastructure improvements, special fund expenditures, governmental transfers, and expenses supported by one-time development fees. For purposes of determining the overall fiscal impact of projected residential and non-residential development, City expenditures are allocated based upon amounts presented in the FY 2021 Budget.

Current Expenditures
Future development will add residents and employees to the City’s existing population base. This residential and employee population increase will place additional demands on existing services provided by the City and FPD. To account for increased costs associated with additional demand, City expenditures are allocated to projected development using the multiplier approach. However, development-induced increases in demand for services provided by the City and FPD will not necessarily result in a direct 1:1 relationship increase in expenditures (i.e., there are some “step” functions). A portion of the City’s expenditures are fixed or will increase marginally as a result of population increases. For example, a 20% increase in the City’s residential population will likely not cause a 20% increase in City Clerk or City Council expenditures. Therefore, to account for relationships between expenditures and population changes that are less than 1:1, City and FPD expenditures have been adjusted to conservatively estimate the impact of projected development on City expenditures. Of note, City expenditure adjustments are estimates based on the individual characteristics of projected development and industry-standard assumptions. The original budgeted expenditure amounts, the demand adjustment percentage, and the adjusted expenditure amounts are presented in the following table.
184
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 27
TABLE 34. CURRENT EXPENDITURES
Description (1)
Adopted Fiscal Year
2021/22 Expenditures
Demand Adjustment
Percentage (2)
Adjusted Fiscal Year
2021/22
Expenditures (3)
City Council $711,875 50% $355,938
Contingency 250,000 100% 250,000
Executive Management 1,107,472 50% 553,736
City Clerk 426,984 25% 106,746
City Attorney 849,211 50% 424,606
Human Resources 1,140,604 50% 570,302
Financial Operations
(4) 2,831,283 50% 1,415,642
Public Safety – Police (5) 14,566,685 95% 13,838,351
Parks & Open Space 2,576,414 95% 2,447,593
Public Safety – FPD (6) 10,257,320 95% 9,744,454
Total $34,717,848 $29,707,367
(1) City Clerk Elections ($54,000) excluded from consideration in this analysis. (2) Estimated; subject to change.
(3) Figures applied in Table 38 to calculate the adjusted City expenditures per person currently served. (4) Consists of Financial Operations, Financial Planning and Reporting, and Risk Management expenditures. (5) Consists of Law Enforcement Administration, Crime Control, Traffic and Community Safety, and Support Service expenditures.
(6) Consists of Fire Services, BSCFD Legacy Costs, and BFD Legacy Costs expenditures.

After adjusting the Adopted Fiscal Year 2021/22 Expenditures to account for relationships that are less than a 1:1 relationship, the total expenditure amount to be considered is approximately $29.7 million. This figure is used to determine the current expenditures per person currently served in the City, which in turn is used to calculate what additional current City expenditures will result from projected development.

Current City Expenditures Allocation
Each City expenditure line item was categorized as being tied to serving the residential and employee population, solely the residential population, or solely the employee population. As previously noted, the total number of persons served in the City is 31,104, the number of residents served in the City is 26,470, and the number of employees served is 9,268. The following table provides the persons served category for each of the recurring current expenditure categories. 185
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 28
TABLE 35. CURRENT EXPENDITURES ALLOCATION TO PERSONS SERVED, RESIDENTS SERVED, OR

EMPLOYEES SERVED
Description Persons Served
City Council Persons Served
Contingency Persons Served
Executive Management Persons Served
City Clerk Persons Served
City Attorney Persons Served
Human Resources Persons Served
Financial Operations Persons Served
Public Safety – Police Persons Served
Parks & Open Space Residents Served
Public Safety – FPD Persons Served
Current Expenditures per Person Served
Using the multiplier approach, the number of persons served within each current expenditure category is applied to the corresponding adjusted expenditure line item to determine the allocable expenditure per person. The table below provides the expenditure per person for each of the listed expenditure categories.

TABLE 36. CURRENT EXPENDITURES PER PERSON SERVED/RESIDENT Description
Adjusted Fiscal Year
2021/22 Expenditures (1)
Current City Persons
Served or Resident
Count (2)
Amount per Person
Served/Resident (3)
City Council $355,938 31,104 $11.44
Contingency 250,000 31,104 8.04
Executive Management 553,736 31,104 17.80
City Clerk 106,746 31,104 3.43
City Attorney 424,606 31,104 13.65
Human Resources 570,302 31,104 18.34
Financial Operations 1,415,642 31,104 45.51
Public Safety – Police 13,838,351 31,104 444.91
Parks & Open Space 2,447,593 26,470 92.47
Public Safety – FPD 9,744,454 31,104 313.29
(1) Identified in Table 34.
(2) Identified in Table 1.
(3) Equal to (Adjusted Fiscal Year 2021/22 Expenditures) / (Current City Persons Served or Resident Count). 186
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 29
To determine the amount of other current City expenditures allocated to projected residential and nonresidential development, the amount per person served/resident calculated in Table 36 is multiplied by the increase in persons served or residents that will result from future development.

TABLE 37. CURRENT EXPENDITURES GENERATED BY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Description
Increase in Persons
Served/Residents (1)
Amount per Person
Served/Resident (2)
Current
Expenditures (3)
City Council 8,109 11.44 $92,767
Contingency 8,109 8.04 65,196
Executive Management 8,109 17.80 144,340
City Clerk 8,109 3.43 27,814
City Attorney 8,109 13.65 110,688
Human Resources 8,109 18.34 148,719
Financial Operations 8,109 45.51 369,041
Public Safety – Police 8,109 444.91 3,607,775
Parks & Open Space 6,911 92.47 639,060
Public Safety – FPD 8,109 313.29 2,540,469
Total Current Expenditures $7,745,869
(1) Identified in Table 9.
(2) Identified in Table 36.
(3) Equal to (Increase in Persons Served/Residents) x (Amount per Person Served/Residents).

A summary of current expenditures the City is expected to incur as a result of projected residential and nonresidential development is provided in the following table.

TABLE 38. CURRENT EXPENDITURES SUMMARY
Description
General Fund
Expenditures (1)
FPD Fund
Expenditures (2) Total
Current Expenditures $5,205,400 $2,540,469 $7,745,869
(1) Equal to (Total Current Expenditures) – (Public Safety – FPD) identified in Table 37. (2) Reflects Public Safety – FPD Current Expenditures identified in Table 37.

Optimal Service Level Expenditures – Police
The City seeks to provide an optimal level of Police Services to its population by maintaining a minimum ratio of 1.5 sworn officers per 1,000 residents (“Target Sworn Police Ratio”). Currently, the City’s ratio of sworn officers per 1,000 residents is 1.17. The cost of providing this below-target service level to the City’s projected total future population is captured in the calculation of current expenditures in Table 37, specifically in the amount for Public Safety - Police. The City has indicated that to provide an optimal level of Police Services to future persons served, additional personnel is required. The following table details the positions, sworn or non-sworn status, and annual costs of the additional personnel needed to provide an optimal level of Police Services.
187
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 30
TABLE 39. ADDITIONAL POLICE PERSONNEL REQUIRED
Position Title
Sworn
Status
Number of
Positions
Annual Cost per
Position
Total
Annual Cost
Police Officer Sworn 9 $186,688 $1,680,192
Police Records Non-sworn 2 117,608 235,216
Police Dispatcher Non-sworn 2 178,603 357,206
Total 13 $2,272,614
Combining the total annual cost of the positions detailed in Table 39 and the Public Safety – Police Current Expenditures calculated in Table 37, this analysis arrives at the estimated cost of providing Police Services at an optimal service level. The sum of these expenses captures the approximate cost of additional police personnel that will be needed to ensure that the City’s Target Sworn Police Ratio is met as its population continues to grow.

Optimal Service Level Expenditures – General Government The City has indicated that to provide an optimal level of service to future persons served, additional City personnel are required. The following table details the positions and annual costs of the additional personnel needed by the City to provide an optimal level of general government services.

TABLE 40. ADDITIONAL CITY PERSONNEL REQUIRED
Position Title
Number of
Positions
Annual Cost per
Position
Total
Annual Cost
Administrative Assistant (1) 1 $125,434 $125,434
Assistant City Attorney 1 310,000 310,000
Building Inspector 1 142,044 142,044
Management Analyst (2) 3 186,140 558,420
Management Analyst (3) 0.5 N/A 92,922
Maintenance Worker 1 144,713 144,713
Office Assistant 1 106,176 106,176
Parks Maintenance Worker 3 144,713 434,139
Principal Engineer 1 333,438 333,438
Recreation Supervisor (3) 0.20 N/A 37,228
Senior Planner 1 254,832 254,832
Technology Specialist 1 257,173 257,173
Total 14.70 $2,796,519
(1) Per City, position is contingent on the building of a community center. (2) Consists of positions needed within the City Community Development, Human Resources, and Finance departments.
(3) Represents FTE increases in currently budgeted positions. 188
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 31
A summary of the personnel related expenditures the City is expected to incur to provide its current and future population an optimal level of police and fire public services is provided in the following table.

TABLE 41. OPTIMAL SERVICE LEVEL PERSONNEL EXPENDITURES SUMMARY Description
General Fund
Expenditures (1)
Optimal Service Level Personnel Expenditures $5,379,133 (1) Equal to (Total Annual Cost identified in Table 39) + (Total Annual Cost identified in Table 40).

Optimal Service Level Capital Expenditures
The City capital expenditures data for equipment needed to provide optimal service levels to its populace.

Provided capital expenditures and equivalent annual costs are detailed in the following table.

TABLE 42. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Description Count
Acquisition
Cost
Annual
Maintenance
Cost
Useful
Life (1)
Annual
Replacement
Cost (2)
Total
Annual
Cost (3)
Police Vehicle 4 $65,000 $500 5 $13,000 $20,000
Police Investigation
Vehicle 1 55,000 300 7 7,857 12,086
Police Capital Expenditures $32,086
Parks Maintenance Truck 2 80,000 300 7 11,429 17,443
Facility Maintenance Van 1 80,000 300 7 11,429 17,443
Track Chipper 1 138,000 300 7 19,714 29,871
Off-road Vehicle 1 20,000 200 7 2,857 4,486
Street Sweeper 2 340,000 2,000 7 48,571 74,857
Maintenance Truck 1 80,000 300 7 11,429 17,443
Vehicle 1 80,000 300 7 11,429 17,443
Other City Capital Expenditures $178,986
(1) In years.
(2) Equal to (Acquisition Cost) / (Useful Life).
(3) Equal to (Annual Maintenance Cost) x (Replacement Cost) x (1.5).

A summary of the capital expenditures the City is expected to incur to provide its current and future population an optimal level of police and fire public services is provided in the following table.

TABLE 43. OPTIMAL SERVICE LEVEL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES SUMMARY Description Total (1)
Optimal Service Level Capital Expenditures $211,071
(1) Equal to (Police) + (Other City) Capital Expenditures identified in Table 42. 189
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 32
Total Expenditures Summary
Projected residential and non-residential development will cause the City to incur various forms of expenditures to provide an optimal level of public services to its future population. A summary of the expenditures projected to be generated by future development is presented in the following tables.

TABLE 44. EXPENDITURES SUMMARY
Expenditure
Description
General Fund
Expenditures
FPD Fund
Expenditures Total
Current Expenditures $5,205,400 $2,540,469 $7,745,869
Optimal Service Level
Personnel Expenditures 5,379,133 0 5,379,133
Optimal Service Level
Capital Expenditures 211,071 0 211,071
Total $10,795,604 $2,540,469 $13,336,073
TABLE 45. EXPENDITURES SUMMARY BY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TYPE Development Type Total
SFR $797,624
Townhome 2,518,901
MFR 4,944,939
Affordable Housing 3,198,789
Commercial 400,843
Industrial 1,474,977
Total $13,336,073
190
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 33
SECTION 5 | FISCAL IMPACT
Based on the estimated total revenue calculated in Section 3 and the estimated total expenditures calculated in Section 4, there is a net negative fiscal impact as a result of projected future development within the City. The table below sets forth the total anticipated negative fiscal impact.

TABLE 46. ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACT
Description Value
Total City Revenue $11,031,524
Total City Expenditures (13,336,073)
City Positive / (Negative) Fiscal Impact ($2,304,548)
Revenues and expenditures expected to be generated by projected future development were categorized as corresponding to the City’s General Fund or FPD Fund. The fiscal impact projected future development is expected to have on the City’s General Fund and FPD fund are presented in the following tables.

TABLE 47. GENERAL FUND FISCAL IMPACT BY DEVELOPMENT TYPE Development Type Revenue Expenditures Fiscal Impact
SFR $594,320 ($646,932) ($52,612)
Townhome 836,595 (2,043,013) (1,206,418)
MFR 1,649,703 (4,010,708) (2,361,006)
Affordable Housing 245,477 (2,594,452) (2,348,976)
Commercial 1,063,081 (320,641) 742,441
Industrial 1,551,211 (1,179,857) 371,354
Total $5,940,387 ($10,795,604) ($4,855,217)
TABLE 48. FPD FUND FISCAL IMPACT BY DEVELOPMENT TYPE
Development Type Revenue Expenditures Fiscal Impact
SFR $673,404 ($150,692) $522,711
Townhome 849,036 (475,888) 373,148
MFR 1,611,904 (934,231) 677,673
Affordable Housing 0 (604,336) (604,336)
Commercial 415,724 (80,202) 335,521
Industrial 1,541,071 (295,119) 1,245,951
Total $5,091,137 ($2,540,469) $2,550,669
191
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 34
The net fiscal impacts identified in this section are based on revenues and expenditures projected to be generated by future development. A portion of the expenditures considered when calculating the net fiscal impact are not eligible to be recovered through Community Facilities District special tax revenues. Thus, any revenues generated through Community Facilities District special tax rates proposed through this report must and can only be used to finance eligible services, as detailed in Section 6 of this report. 192
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 35
SECTION 6 | FISCAL IMPACT FUNDING OPTIONS
To mitigate the negative fiscal impacts identified in Section 5 of this report, the City should consider the establishment of a special financing district (“SFD”), which could include a special tax or a special assessment. Since the City’s negative fiscal impacts are attributable to the provision of general services, a special assessment may not be the most appropriate funding option for the City to mitigate those impacts.

Special assessments require the identification and separation of general and special benefits. Special benefits can be assessed to property, but all general benefits must be funded by sources other than the special assessments. Therefore, a special assessment would not entirely alleviate the identified negative fiscal impacts. Alternatively, the City could implement a special tax, specifically a Community Facilities District.

Community Facilities Districts
A Community Facilities District (“CFD”), also referred to as a Mello-Roos District, is a type of SFD that is established via the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982 (“1982 Act”). Through the levy and collection of a special tax, CFDs provide funding for authorized public improvements and/or public services.

The CFD’s Rate and Method of Apportionment includes procedures for identifying and classifying property within the CFD, establishing the initial maximum special tax rates, and the formula for calculating the annual special tax and assigning the special tax to taxable property within the CFD. Since a CFD authorizes the levy and collection of a special tax as opposed to a special assessment, there is no requirement to make a finding of special benefit for the property subject to the special tax. However, the special tax should be based on a reasonable metric for assigning the special tax, as determined by the relevant legislative body.

To establish a CFD, the 1982 Act requires two-thirds approval of the registered voters, residing within the proposed CFD boundary, voting in the special tax election, or, if there are fewer than 12 registered voters within the proposed CFD boundaries, then a landowner special tax election can take place. In the case of a landowner special tax election, a two-thirds approval is still required, and each landowner receives one vote per acre or portion of an acre of land owned. It should be noted that if a CFD is approved via a landowner special tax election, the CFD is only authorized to fund additional services. In Building Industry Association of the Bay Area v. City of San Ramon, the California Appellate Court held that a landownerapproved CFD can only fund the increase in demand for pre-existing services, so long as the special tax revenue is not available for general government purposes. The additional services funded by the CFD shall not replace services already available and provided within the boundaries of the CFD. Furthermore, special tax revenue generated from the CFD can only be used to fund the authorized public services outlined in the 1982 Act. CFD authorized public services include fire protection and park maintenance/lighting services. It should be noted that any CFD formed by the City, as well as any potential annexations to that CFD, would be approved by a landowner special tax election, as new development projects would be required to participate in the CFD as a condition of approval.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC COSTS
In addition to using a CFD to mitigate the negative fiscal impacts of future development, the CFD can also fund authorized CFD services that are intended to provide an enhanced level of service or services that are 193
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 36
unique to future development. These services would be in addition to any identified negative fiscal impacts placed upon the City in providing existing levels of public services. Funding for any enhanced and/or additional recurring public service costs, including repairs and replacements, reserves and administration can be accomplished through a CFD.

BENEFITS TO THE CITY
Through the formation of a CFD, the City can establish an ongoing funding source that mitigates negative fiscal impacts created by future residential and non-residential development, as well as provide funding for new or enhanced services within the City. To keep pace with changing costs, the CFD’s maximum special tax rate can include an annual escalation factor based on an annual fixed amount or tied to a specific inflation index. Furthermore, the CFD special tax can be established without a sunset date so that the CFD special tax can be levied in perpetuity or until voters choose to end it.

CFD Special Tax Recommendation
For the City to continue to provide vital public services its population base, the City needs to ensure that developing property pays their fair share of any additional financial burdens placed upon the City’s operational budget, including the cost of additional services required because of such development. To mitigate the negative fiscal impacts identified in Section 5 of this report, the City should consider establishing a CFD. The levy and collection of the special tax could generate sufficient revenue to offset the negative fiscal impacts to the City. Furthermore, a CFD provides the flexibility to generate additional revenue to fund any enhanced or new project specific costs desired by future development. The CFD’s Rate and Method of Apportionment establishes the special tax formula and sets the initial maximum special tax rates. A benefit of a CFD is that it allows for a great deal of flexibility in structuring the special tax formula so that the formula and maximum special tax rates best fit and accomplish specific needs. In this case, the CFD special tax rates could be sized to recover the annual negative fiscal impact on development, recover ongoing administrative costs related to the CFD, and could be structured to create both residential special tax rates and non-residential special tax rates.

CFD SPECIAL TAX RATES
Based on the overall fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund resulting from projected future SFR, Townhome, and MFR development, the proposed annual base CFD special tax rates for general City services (“General City Services”) are provided in the following table for consideration by the City. 194
City of Belmont
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Development 37
TABLE 49. CFD SPECIAL TAX RATES – GENERAL CITY SERVICES Development
Type
CFD
Special Tax
Rates (1) Per
Rate as % of
Projected
Value per Unit (2)
Average Current
Effective Tax
Rate (3)
Combined
Tax Rate (4)
SFR $2,475 Dwelling Unit 0.11% 1.19% 1.30%
Townhome 2,228 Dwelling Unit 0.25% 1.27% 1.52%
MFR 1,980 Dwelling Unit 0.29% 1.29% 1.57%
(1) Rates for services portion; does not include potential CFD administration or reserve/contingency costs. (2) Value per SFR unit projected to be $2,204,000. Value per Townhome unit projected to be $899,000. Value per MFR unit projected to be $687,331.
(3) Calculated using the Fiscal Year 2021/22 tax bills of existing residential development. Includes both ad valorem taxes and fixed charges.
(4) Equal to the sum of the Rate as % of Projected Value per Unit, Average Current Effective Tax Rate and estimated fixed charges.

Projected future development is projected to have an overall positive fiscal impact to the City’s FPD Fund.

As such, no CFD special tax rates are proposed for fire services provided through the City’s FPD.

The CFD special tax rates presented in Tables 49 would represent initial CFD maximum special tax rates to mitigate the identified negative fiscal impacts. The City could also increase the initial CFD maximum special tax rates to cover the added costs for administering the CFD, as well as establish any reserves or contingency funds. Furthermore, the CFD would be structured to include a special tax escalation factor, which would allow for an annual increase to the initial CFD maximum special tax rates. While the CFD maximum special tax rates would increase on an annual basis, the City is not required to levy the special tax at the CFD maximum special tax rates each year. To meet the CFD annual special tax requirement and fund authorized services and administrative costs, the City has the flexibility to levy a CFD special tax amount that is less than or equal to the CFD maximum special tax.
195

SR: Emergency Restoration Company Contract Amendment

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: October 24, 2023
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Brigitte Shearer, Parks and Recreation Director, [email protected] Agenda Title: Emergency Contract Authorization for Repairs at 550 Island Parkway Agenda Action: Resolution
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution by at least a four-fifths vote finding an emergency under Public Contract Code section 22050, authorizing procurement of necessary equipment, supplies and services without giving notice for bids, authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with Emergency Restoration Company, Inc. for restoration services at 550 Island Parkway for an additional $122,461.48 plus a 10% contingency, for a total amount of $134,707.63, bringing the total contract agreement not-to-exceed to $172,084.96, and authorizing $134,707.63 budget appropriation from the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund for this project.

Strategic Focus Area
Infrastructure and Mobility
Background
In May 2023, staff identified deterioration of the interior walls and flooring on the ground floor at the Belmont Sports Complex Conference Center, requiring timely remediation to protect the health and safety of park maintenance staff, who utilize the space for meetings, showers, and restrooms. Emergency Restoration Company, Inc. was engaged to evaluate the damage, and uncovered extensive, previously undetected moisture intrusion in multiple locations. Access to the affected area was promptly restricted and remediation work began, including air and material sampling and the removal of interior wallboard, flooring, fixtures, and cabinetry for a combined 563 sf of flooring and 1,141 sf of wall area. Remediation work concluded in July 2023.

Analysis
Since July 2023, City Parks and Recreation staff, City Building staff, and a geotechnical engineer have worked together to identify the root cause of the moisture intrusion and generate a list of repairs necessary to avoid future damages. These repairs include installing additional moisture barriers between the building’s foundation and cinder block walls, downspout and drain re-routing, grading, and exterior building repairs in multiple locations. All exterior repairs will be completed by City staff.

In addition, while the urgent interior remediation work has been completed, interior spaces now require restoration to return the spaces to their intended use as staff breakroom, workspace and shower/restroom facilities. Under normal circumstances, the next step for this project would include soliciting multiple 196

SR: Emergency Restoration Company Contract Amendment
bids, award of the contract to the low responsive and responsible bidder, review, and approval of submittals. This process typically takes several months. Although staff has been functioning without access to these dedicated spaces since May, given the impending winter weather, immediate restoration is essential to protect the health and safety of City staff, safeguard City property, and ultimately prevent any interruption to or even the cessation of corresponding City services.

The attached proposal from Emergency Restoration Company, Inc. outlines the desired scope of restoration work, including flooring, wall board, tile, and cabinetry replacement. This work is anticipated to take four weeks, and upon its completion, the emergency condition will be terminated. Staff believes the amount quoted in this proposal to be reasonable.

Both state law and the city’s procurement regulations require the city to follow the competitive bid process unless an emergency exists. In the case of an emergency, Belmont City Code Section 2-150 and Public Contract Code Section 22035 allow the City to proceed at once to repair or replace any public facility without adopting plans, specifications, or giving notice for bids to let contracts if the Council finds by a four-fifths vote, based on substantial evidence set forth in the minutes of its meeting, that the emergency will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, and that the action is necessary to respond to the emergency. Public Contract Code Section 1102 and Belmont City Code Section 2-102 define an emergency as “a sudden, unexpected occurrence that poses a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services.”
Staff believe that the circumstances described above justify finding an emergency exists that will not permit the delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, and that the action is necessary to respond to the emergency. Staff therefore recommends that the council finding an emergency exists in accordance with the Public Contract Code Section 22050 (a)(2) and authorize the city manager to execute a contract with Emergency Restoration Company, Inc. for restoration services at 550 Island Parkway an emergency basis for the health and safety of staff and to maintain operational efficiency, particularly prior to winter weather impacts.

Alternatives

1. Take no action

2. Refer to staff for further information
Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Proposal
197

SR: Emergency Restoration Company Contract Amendment
Fiscal Impact
☐ No Fiscal Impact
☒ Funding Source Confirmed:

This project requires a budget transfer from the General Fund to the Belmont Sports Complex Conference Center Emergency
Restoration Project No. 8117 in the CIP Fund (Account 399-4- 802-8117-9030) in the amount of $122,461.48 plus a 10%
contingency, for a total amount of $134,707.63
Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:

Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda

198

RESOLUTION NO. 2023 –

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELMONT AUTHORIZING EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION AT 550 ISLAND PARKWAY AND

THE NECESSARY BUDGET APPROPRIATION FROM THE GENERAL FUND FOR PROJECT CCN 2023-627
WHEREAS, in May 2023, staff identified deterioration of the interior walls and flooring on the ground floor at the Belmont Sports Complex Conference Center (the “facility”), located at 550 Island Parkway, which houses the field office and workspaces for park maintenance staff, requiring prompt remediation to protect the health and safety of the park maintenance staff who utilize the space for meetings, showers, and restrooms; and, WHEREAS, Emergency Restoration Company, Inc., previously entered into a contract with the City for remediation work, including air and material sampling and the removal of interior wallboard, flooring, fixtures, and cabinetry; and, WHEREAS, the affected area now requires replacement of materials previously removed to restore the facility to protect the health and safety of City staff, safeguard City property, and prevent any interruption to City services; and,
WHEREAS, complying with the statutory bid requirements would delay the restoration of the interior spaces, which would negatively impact staff given the approaching cold and wet winter season; and,
WHEREAS, staff obtained a proposal from Emergency Restoration Company, Inc. for this restoration work, for which the company has the capacity and capability to complete immediately; and,
WHEREAS, the staff report of October 24, 2023, which is incorporated herein by reference, details the circumstances giving rise to an emergency requiring the action herein to respond to the emergency.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Belmont resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council finds:
(a) There is high likelihood of impact to staff’s health and safety and to the continued delivery of essential public services by the parks maintenance personnel if the conditions allowing water intrusion are not arrested and the facility’s interior staff spaces are not restored before the commencement of the wet winter season; (b) An emergency exists as defined by the Public Contract Code and the City Code; (c) The emergency will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids in that immediate restoration is necessary for continuity of City operations and to prevent further damage from water intrusion from the impending rain season; 199

(d) Awarding a contract for the work to the restoration contractor without following the competitive bid process will allow the project to be completed before the rainy season, and is therefore necessary to respond to the emergency.

SECTION 2. The City Manager is authorized to procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for restoration of the facility without giving notice for bids to let contracts as provided in Public Contract Code section 22050(a)(1), and is authorized to execute a contract for the work.

SECTION 3. The City Council authorizes a budget transfer of $122,461.48 plus a 10% contingency, for a total amount of $134,707.63, from the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund and appropriate $134,707.63 to the Belmont Sports Complex Conference Center Emergency Restoration Project No. 8117 in the CIP Fund (Account No. 399- 4-802-9030).

SECTION 4. The City Manager is authorized to negotiate and execute an amendment to the Moisture Mitigation and Restoration contract with Emergency Restoration Company, Inc., CCN 2023-627, increasing the total contract agreement to a not-to-exceed amount of $172,084.96.

SECTION 5. The minutes of the City Council’s regular meeting held October 24, 2023 shall incorporate by reference the staff report for this item and summarize the staff presentation. * * *
ADOPTED October 24, 2023 by the City of Belmont City Council by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
200
Emergency Restoration Company, Inc.
197 Mayhew Wy.

Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tax ID# 84-3385583
CSLB# 1078882
Insured: Matt Ward E-mail: [email protected]
Property: 550 Island Pkwy
Belmont, CA 94002
Contractor:

Company: Emergency Restoration Co
Claim Number: Policy Number: Type of Loss: Cat 3
Coverage Deductible Policy Limit
Dwelling $0.00 $0.00
Other Structures $0.00 $0.00
Contents $0.00 $0.00
Date of Loss: Date Received:

Date Inspected: Date Entered: 7/25/2023 1:58 AM
Price List: CAPE8X_JUL23 Depreciate Material: Yes Depreciate O&P: No Depreciate Non-material: Yes Depreciate Taxes: Yes
Depreciate Removal: No
Restoration/Service/Remodel
Estimate: 0MP_550_ISLAND_REP
201
Emergency Restoration Company, Inc.
197 Mayhew Wy.

Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tax ID# 84-3385583
CSLB# 1078882
0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 10/13/2023 Page: 2
0MP_550_ISLAND_REP
Main Level
Main Level

CAT SEL ACT DESCRIPTION

CALC QTY RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL
>HAULING ACTIVITIES

1. DMO PU - Haul debris - per pickup truck load - including dump fees 1 1.00 EA 264.42+ 0.00 = 0.00 52.88 317.30
Contemplates cost to responsibly recycle non-salvageable and waste building materials. >SITE SUPERVISOR HOURS

2. LAB SUPERC + Commercial Supervision / Project Management - per hour (1*5)*26 130.00 HR 0.00+ 106.98 = 0.00 2,781.48 16,688.88 Due to the size, complexity and the number of trades involved, a superintendent/project manager is required to ensure that the trades are being executed in accord with a workmanship manner and in the optimal order.

The law requires that a contractor (or subcontractor) provide adequate supervision for their construction project. Construction contracts generally imply a duty to provide sufficient supervisory personnel on the project. In Hill v. Polar Pantries, 219 S.C. 261, 271–72 (1951), the court stated: “It is true that there is no express stipulation to this effect but we think this obligation may be fairly implied. This was the interpretation which the parties themselves placed upon the contract.” For additional support see, United States ex rel. Heller Electric Co. v. William Klingensmith Inc., 670 F.2d 1227 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Moreover, Contractors have a duty to perform work in a good and workmanlike manner, in our jurisdiction, the contractor has an implied covenant that the work performed will be fit and proper for its intended use. The implied covenant encompasses the quality of both the work and materials. See Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co., 360 P.2d 897 (Cal. 1961); Alco Std. Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec.

Corp., 426 S.E.2d 648 (Ga. 1992).

In direct result of the obligation to both manage the project and ensure the work is conducted in a good and workmanlike manner, a dedicated superintendent will perform on-site and off-site supervisory activities for ~1 hours/day for 5 days/week for 26 weeks.

Calc: 1 Hour(s) x 5 Day(s) x 26 Week(s)
>DIGITAL ASSETS

3. FEE SCAN3D + 3D geospatial scan (Bid Item)
1 1.00 EA REGIONAL
3D rendering of 550 Island Pkwy in Belmont, CA allows all materially interested parties to take a virtual tour of the property loss in an effort to help swiftly establish scope, reduce cycle times, and manage fraud, waste and abuse. Please visit the links below to access this 360 degree digital walkthrough for claims settlement and underwriting purposes.

Pre-mitigation Scan (Executed after the loss but before any work has been executed): https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=732JwntBNMm Post-mitigation Scan (Executed after the mitigation work has been executed): https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=g9fYDV5H5j5

4. FEE SKTCH + Digitally derived third-party sketch (Bid Item) 1 1.00 EA PERSONAL
Digitally rendered as built sketch.

Includes: Stairs, windows, doors, missing walls, ceilings and multiple levels (as applicable).

Excludes: Roof Elevation.

TruePlan Support Page: https://support.matterport.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001452428-Matterport-TruePlan-for-Xactimate- >EQUIPMENT

5. FEE DEL + Pick up and delivery of building material
1 1.00 EA [*] 0.00+ 124.44 = 0.00 24.88 149.32
Delivery and pick up necessary repair equipment and building materials to the job site. 202
3 Emergency Restoration Company, Inc.
197 Mayhew Wy.

Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tax ID# 84-3385583
CSLB# 1078882
0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 10/13/2023 Page: 3
CONTINUED - Main Level

CAT SEL ACT DESCRIPTION

CALC QTY RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL
>COVID-19 PPEs

6. WTR PPEM + Personal protective mask (N-95)
((2*2)*5)*4 80.00 EA 0.00+ 1.65 = 13.04 29.00 174.04
Covid-19 Protection.

Calc: 2 Tech(s) x 2 Masks per Day x 5 Day(s) x 4 Week(s) Project duration is projected to be 26 weeks, however the cost of N-95 masks was capped at 4 weeks at this will provide adequate reimbursement relative to materials required to perform this activity. >GENERAL CLEANING

7. CLN GN + General clean - up
((1*0.5)*5)*26 65.00 HR 0.00+ 78.12 = 0.06 1,015.58 6,093.44 The supporting events that provide a few minutes of clean-up each shift do not exist to provide relief for the construction traffic areas and the adjacent common areas.

Represents the cost to clean the various construction traffic areas, sweep driveway and halls for misc debris. 0.5 Hour per day. 1 Tech(s) x 0.5 Hour(s) x 5 Day(s) x 26 Week(s)

8. CLN FINALC + Final cleaning - construction - Commercial F 574.60 SF 0.00+ 0.39 = 0.00 44.82 268.91
The property required cleaning prior to final delivery.

Includes: Affected horizontal and vertical surfaces.

Excludes: Specialized floor and window cleaning concessions. >FUEL SURCHARGE

9. FEE FLSRCHG + Fuel surcharge

0.02 0.02 EA [*EN] 0.00+ 113,912.78 = 0.00 0.00 2,278.26 Due to the recent and significant increase in fuel prices, a warranted surcharge has been applied to capture the surging construction costs.

In many cases when gas prices suddenly increase, the impact to construction costs is captured as an additional fee charge. For example, a supplier of material or a contractor may add a fuel surcharge to their bill to the customer (rather than immediately raising the cost of the product they are supplying if they feel it is a temporary situation). For these types of situations, the Xactimate Pricing Department recommends using line item FEE FLSRCHRG Fuel surcharge to account for the "temporary fluctuating fuel costs (i.e. for additional temporary material delivery fuel surcharge, mobilization, etc.)".

As such, a 2% surcharge against the Grand Total of this claim has been added to the scope to accommodate the fuel spike as explained above. >FRAMING ACTIVITIES

10. FRM 2X4X8 + 2" x 4" x 8' #2 & better Fir / Larch (material only) 42 42.00 EA 0.00+ 5.08 = 21.07 46.90 281.33

11. FRM 2X4X9P + 2" x 4" x 104 5/8" pre-cut stud (for 9' wall, mat only) 51 51.00 EA 0.00+ 5.52 = 27.80 61.86 371.18

12. FRM SHW1/2 & R&R Sheathing - OSB - 1/2"
355.78 355.78 SF 0.93+ 2.29 = 24.24 233.96 1,403.82
203
Emergency Restoration Company, Inc.
197 Mayhew Wy.

Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tax ID# 84-3385583
CSLB# 1078882
0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 10/13/2023 Page: 4
CONTINUED - Main Level

CAT SEL ACT DESCRIPTION

CALC QTY RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL

13. FRM 4SFL & R&R Labor to frame 2" x 4" non-bearing wall - 16" oc 747.47 747.47 SF 0.36+ 2.72 = 1.48 460.74 2,764.43

14. FRM 2X4X16 + 2" x 4" x 16' #2 & better Fir / Larch (material only) 3 3.00 EA 0.00+ 10.08 = 2.99 6.64 39.87

15. FRM 2X4X10 + 2" x 4" x 10' #2 & better Fir / Larch (material only) 3 3.00 EA 0.00+ 6.35 = 1.88 4.20 25.13

16. FRM 2X4X8P + 2" x 4" x 92 5/8" pre-cut stud (for 8' wall, mat only) 51 51.00 EA 0.00+ 4.92 = 24.78 55.14 330.84
Total: Main Level 117.34 4,818.08 31,186.75
Breakroom
Restroom
Restroom (2)
Shower (1)
W.C. (4)
W.C. (3)
Breakroom
Restroom
Restroom (2)
Shower (1)
W.C. (4)
W.C. (3)
3'
12' 3"
12' 5"
8" 3' 11"
10' 6"
7"
6' 8"
6' 11"
6"
6' 8"
12' 2"
12' 7"
7" 3'
1'
15' 1"
15' 6"
3' 4"
5'
5' 5"
10' 9"
11' 2"
6"
9' 5" 3'
5'
5' 5" Breakroom Height: 8' 10"
668.39 SF Walls
1024.56 SF Walls & Ceiling

39.57 SY Flooring

75.67 LF Ceil. Perimeter
356.17 SF Ceiling
356.17 SF Floor

75.67 LF Floor Perimeter

CAT SEL ACT DESCRIPTION

CALC QTY RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL
>>> LINK TO VIEW ROOM
Matterport Deep Link to Breakroom (Pre): https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=732JwntBNMm&sr=-.26,.63&ss=1 Matterport Deep Link to Breakroom (Post): https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=g9fYDV5H5j5&sr=-.2,.59&ss=1 >INSULATION ACTIVITIES

17. INS BTF4+ + Batt insulation - 4" - R13 - paper / foil faced (((14,9+15,2+0,8)*3) 123.72 SF 0.00+ 1.27 = 9.41 33.30 199.83 +(2,2*3,4))*1.25
The insulation was pulled out of the walls/ceiling beyond the SF associated with drywall that was abated. Multiplied Calc. by 1.25 to reflect the required amount to restore property to pre-loss condition. >DRYWALL ACTIVITIES

18. DRY MASKLF + Mask wall - plastic, paper, tape (per LF) PF 75.67 LF 0.00+ 2.18 = 2.02 33.40 200.38
Accommodate the texture activities only, remove once drywall phase is complete.

19. ELE OSRS + Outlet or switch - Detach & reset
2 2.00 EA 0.00+ 36.78 = 0.00 14.72 88.28
204
5 Emergency Restoration Company, Inc.
197 Mayhew Wy.

Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tax ID# 84-3385583
CSLB# 1078882
0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 10/13/2023 Page: 5
CONTINUED - Breakroom

CAT SEL ACT DESCRIPTION

CALC QTY RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL

20. DRY 1/2- + 1/2" drywall - hung, taped, ready for texture ((PF*0.70)*3)+(PF*0. 234.57 SF 0.00+ 3.41 = 16.45 163.28 979.61 30)*3,4
Matterport Deep Link: https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=g9fYDV5H5j5&sr=-2.92,-.67&ss=17

21. DRY PATCHJ + Tape joint for new to existing drywall - per LF PF+0,4 76.00 LF 0.00+ 14.69 = 2.93 223.86 1,343.23
The drywall SF being replaced requires DRY PATCHJ in order to accommodate the activity of tieing this drywall in with the existing drywall.

22. DRY TEX + Texture drywall - light hand texture
(((PF*0.70)*3)+(PF*0. 293.21 SF 0.00+ 1.45 = 2.61 85.56 513.32 30)*3,4)*1.25
The SQFT of drywall being replaced x 1.25 in effort to accommodate the feathering required to tie in with the existing texture. >FLOORING ACTIVITIES

23. FCV PREPE + Embossing leveler for vinyl flooring
F 356.17 SF 0.00+ 1.62 = 11.61 117.72 706.33

24. FCV PLK + Vinyl plank flooring
F 356.17 SF 0.00+ 8.57 = 118.88 634.26 3,805.52
>TRIM ACTIVITIES

25. DOR AV + Interior door unit
1 1.00 EA 0.00+ 363.21 = 25.71 77.78 466.70
Matterport Deep Link: https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=g9fYDV5H5j5&sr=-.75,1.35&ss=4

26. FNH DORH + Door knob - interior
1 1.00 EA 0.00+ 52.38 = 2.11 10.90 65.39

27. FCV COVE + Vinyl cove - 4" wrap
PF 75.67 LF 0.00+ 14.48 = 14.05 221.96 1,331.71
>CABINETRY ACTIVITIES

28. CAB LOW + Cabinetry - lower (base) units
14 14.00 LF 0.00+ 348.03 = 385.15 1,051.52 6,309.09
Matterport Deep Link: https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=732JwntBNMm&sr=-2.73,1.4&ss=2

29. CAB UP + Cabinetry - upper (wall) units
14 14.00 LF 0.00+ 188.23 = 164.23 559.88 3,359.33

30. CAB CTPF + Countertop - post formed plastic laminate 14 14.00 LF 0.00+ 67.19 = 56.27 199.40 1,196.33

31. CAB BS + Backsplash - plastic laminate
2+14 16.00 SF 0.00+ 10.35 = 4.90 34.10 204.60
>PLUMBING ACTIVITIES

32. PLM SNKR + Sink - single - Reset
1 1.00 EA 0.00+ 150.22 = 0.07 30.06 180.35
205
6 Emergency Restoration Company, Inc.
197 Mayhew Wy.

Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tax ID# 84-3385583
CSLB# 1078882
0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 10/13/2023 Page: 6
CONTINUED - Breakroom

CAT SEL ACT DESCRIPTION

CALC QTY RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL

33. PLM SUP I Install Plumbing fixture supply line
2 2.00 EA 0.00+ 22.66 = 0.00 9.06 54.38
Reconnect supply lines.
>PAINTING ACTIVITIES

34. ELE OSCOV & R&R Outlet or switch cover
6 6.00 EA 1.04+ 5.30 = 0.51 7.70 46.25
Accommodate painting activities. Existing covers will not stand up to reset due to the passage of time.

35. ELE OSCOVD & R&R Outlet or switch cover - Double
1 1.00 EA 1.04+ 8.07 = 0.14 1.84 11.09
Accommodate painting activities. Existing covers will not stand up to reset due to the passage of time.

36. ELE ICRS + Intercom station - Detach & reset
1 1.00 EA 0.00+ 214.47 = 0.00 42.90 257.37
Accommodate painting activities.

37. HVC TSRS + Thermostat - Detach & reset
1 1.00 EA 0.00+ 83.76 = 0.00 16.76 100.52
Accommodate painting activities.

38. ELE SECK R Detach & Reset Security system - key pad 1 1.00 EA 96.14 0.00+ 0.00 = 0.00 19.22 115.36
Accommodate painting activities.

39. TBA SPD R Detach & Reset Soap dispenser - surface mounted 1 1.00 EA 47.09 0.00+ 0.00 = 0.00 9.42 56.51
Accommodate painting activities.

40. ELE SMOKERS + Smoke detector - Detach & reset
1 1.00 EA 0.00+ 99.32 = 0.00 19.86 119.18
Accommodate painting activities.

41. ELE CORS + Carbon monoxide detector - Detach & reset 1 1.00 EA 0.00+ 99.32 = 0.00 19.86 119.18
Accommodate painting activities.

42. HVC REGRS + Heat/AC register - Mechanically attached - Detach & reset 2 2.00 EA 0.00+ 25.05 = 0.00 10.02 60.12
Accommodate painting activities.

43. LIT FL R Detach & Reset Fluorescent light fixture
6 6.00 EA 148.90 0.00+ 0.00 = 0.00 178.68 1,072.08

44. PNT MASKLF + Mask and prep for paint - plastic, paper, tape (per LF) PF+WOP 201.33 LF 0.00+ 2.34 = 5.37 95.30 571.78

45. PNT MASKTD + Labor to tape drop cloths
F 356.17 SF 0.00+ 0.29 = 0.35 20.74 124.38
Spill protection, slab/underlayment preservation and to help mitigate slip risk should a spill occur. 206
Emergency Restoration Company, Inc.
197 Mayhew Wy.

Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tax ID# 84-3385583
CSLB# 1078882
0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 10/13/2023 Page: 7
CONTINUED - Breakroom

CAT SEL ACT DESCRIPTION

CALC QTY RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL

46. PNT S- + Seal more than the floor perimeter w/PVA primer - one coat (((PF*0.70)*3)+(PF*0. 293.21 SF 0.00+ 1.03 = 1.74 60.74 364.49 30)*3,4)*1.25
Seal new texture SQFT to ensure adequate adhesion and mitigate flashing.

47. PNT P2 + Paint the walls and ceiling - two coats
WC 1024.56 SF 0.00+ 1.71 = 37.44 357.88 2,147.32

48. PNT DORSP + Seal & paint door slab only (per side)
1*2 2.00 EA 0.00+ 67.10 = 2.24 27.28 163.72
1 Unit(s) x 2 Side(s)

49. PNT DORTSP + Seal & paint door/window trim & jamb - (per side) 1*2 2.00 EA 0.00+ 55.65 = 1.29 22.52 135.11
1 Unit(s) x 2 Side(s)
Totals: Breakroom 865.48 4,411.48 26,468.84
Breakroom
Restroom
Restroom (2)
Shower (1)
W.C. (4)
W.C. (3)
Breakroom
Restroom
Restroom (2)
Shower (1)
W.C. (4)
W.C. (3)
6'
6' 5"
5' 5"
4' 9"
2' 10" 8' 3"
3'
12' 3"
12' 5"
8"
6"
3' 6"
3'
6"
8" 1' 10" 3'
6"
11"
Restroom Height: 8' 10"
413.92 SF Walls
519.23 SF Walls & Ceiling

11.70 SY Flooring

53.71 LF Ceil. Perimeter
105.31 SF Ceiling
105.31 SF Floor

45.46 LF Floor Perimeter
Breakroom
Restroom
Restroom (2)
Shower (1)
W.C. (4)
W.C. (3)
Breakroom
Restroom
Restroom (2)
Shower (1)
W.C. (4)
W.C. (3)
8' 3"
1' 7"
1' 5"
9' 1"
1' 7"
Subroom: Restroom (2) Height: 7' 4"
142.69 SF Walls
154.04 SF Walls & Ceiling

1.26 SY Flooring

19.46 LF Ceil. Perimeter

11.34 SF Ceiling

11.34 SF Floor

19.46 LF Floor Perimeter
Missing Wall - Goes to Floor 8' 3" X 7' 4" Opens into RESTROOM1 207
8 Emergency Restoration Company, Inc.
197 Mayhew Wy.

Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tax ID# 84-3385583
CSLB# 1078882
0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 10/13/2023 Page: 8
Breakroom
Restroom
Restroom (2)
Shower (1)
W.C. (4)
W.C. (3)
Breakroom
Restroom
Restroom (2)
Shower (1)
W.C. (4)
W.C. (3)
3'
1' 5"
1' 3" 6"
6' 3"
6'
3' 5" 4' 3"
4' 3"
6"
6"
7' 6"
6' 10"
4' 2"
3' 11"
Subroom: Shower (1) Height: 7' 6"
225.00 SF Walls
266.28 SF Walls & Ceiling

4.59 SY Flooring

30.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter

41.28 SF Ceiling

41.28 SF Floor

30.00 LF Floor Perimeter
Breakroom
Restroom
Restroom (2)
Shower (1)
W.C. (4)
W.C. (3)
Breakroom
Restroom
Restroom (2)
Shower (1)
W.C. (4)
W.C. (3)
6'
5' 8"5' 3"
6' 3"
3'
6"
8" 1' 10"
Subroom: W.C. (4) Height: 8'
180.00 SF Walls
211.50 SF Walls & Ceiling

3.50 SY Flooring

22.50 LF Ceil. Perimeter

31.50 SF Ceiling

31.50 SF Floor

22.50 LF Floor Perimeter
Breakroom
Restroom
Restroom (2)
Shower (1)
W.C. (4)
W.C. (3)
Breakroom
Restroom
Restroom (2)
Shower (1)
W.C. (4)
W.C. (3)
6'
6' 5"
5' 3"
4' 10"
3'
6"
11"
1' 5"
1' 7"
Subroom: W.C. (3) Height: 8'
173.33 SF Walls
202.33 SF Walls & Ceiling

3.22 SY Flooring

21.67 LF Ceil. Perimeter

29.00 SF Ceiling

29.00 SF Floor

21.67 LF Floor Perimeter

CAT SEL ACT DESCRIPTION

CALC QTY RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL
>>> LINK TO VIEW ROOM
Matterport Deep Link to Restroom (Pre): https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=732JwntBNMm&sr=-3.05,.71&ss=4 Matterport Deep Link to Restroom (Post): https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=g9fYDV5H5j5&sr=3.08,1.15&ss=5 >INSULATION ACTIVITIES

50. INS BTF4+ - Remove Batt insulation - 4" - R13 - paper / foil faced (6,10+0,6+5,3+4,10+4, 155.86 SF 0.41+ 0.00 = 0.00 12.78 76.68 9)*4+(1,7+8,3)*6,10
Exterior walls.

51. INS BTF4+ + Batt insulation - 4" - R13 - paper / foil faced (6,10+0,6+4,3+3,5+5,3 354.51 SF 0.00+ 1.27 = 26.96 95.44 572.63 +4,10)
*8+(4,9+2,10+1,7+8,3)
*8,10
Exterior walls.
>DRYWALL ACTIVITIES

52. DRY 1/2- - Remove 1/2" drywall - hung, taped, ready for texture W*0.50+C 785.91 SF 0.70+ 0.00 = 0.00 110.02 660.16
208
9 Emergency Restoration Company, Inc.
197 Mayhew Wy.

Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tax ID# 84-3385583
CSLB# 1078882
0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 10/13/2023 Page: 9
CONTINUED - Restroom

CAT SEL ACT DESCRIPTION

CALC QTY RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL

53. DRY MASKLF + Mask wall - plastic, paper, tape (per LF) PF 139.08 LF 0.00+ 2.18 = 3.71 61.38 368.28
Accommodate the texture activities only, remove once drywall phase is complete.

54. ELE OSRS + Outlet or switch - Detach & reset
3 3.00 EA 0.00+ 36.78 = 0.00 22.06 132.40
Outlet detached in order to set the outlet on top of the drywall, in accord w/ pre-loss condition.

55. ELE OSCOV + Outlet or switch cover
3 3.00 EA 0.00+ 5.30 = 0.25 3.24 19.39

56. DRY 1/2- + 1/2" drywall - hung, taped, ready for texture WC 1353.39 SF 0.00+ 3.41 = 94.89 942.00 5,651.95

57. DRY TEX + Texture drywall - light hand texture
WC 1353.39 SF 0.00+ 1.45 = 12.03 394.88 2,369.33
>FLOORING ACTIVITIES

58. TIL SWRPM + Waterproof membrane - tile underlayment F 218.44 SF 0.00+ 12.68 = 55.01 564.96 3,389.79

59. FCT MAT + Tile mat - uncoupling membrane
F 218.44 SF 0.00+ 8.04 = 52.63 361.78 2,170.67

60. FCT MORTAR + Mortar bed for tile floors
F 218.44 SF 0.00+ 8.53 = 49.40 382.54 2,295.23

61. FCT AV + Tile floor covering
F 218.44 SF 0.00+ 20.71 = 108.50 926.48 5,558.87
Matterport Deep Link: https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=g9fYDV5H5j5&sr=-2.59,.88&ss=5

62. FCT SEALG + Grout sealer
F 218.44 SF 0.00+ 3.10 = 4.10 136.26 817.52

63. CLN FCT + Clean floor - tile
F 218.44 SF 0.00+ 1.11 = 1.29 48.76 292.52
Restore the flooring to pre-loss condition. Removes residue associated with packaging and installation. >TILE ACTIVITIES

64. TIL SWRPM + Waterproof membrane - tile underlayment (P3+PF4+(P1*0.60) 146.00 SF 0.00+ 12.68 = 36.76 377.62 2,265.66 +(6,5+4,9+2,10))*4 +
(P1*0.30)*8

65. TIL BMUD + Mortar bed for tile
(P3+PF4+(P1*0.60) 146.00 SF 0.00+ 17.50 = 24.37 515.88 3,095.25 +(6,5+4,9+2,10))*4 +
(P1*0.30)*8

66. TIL AV + Ceramic/porcelain tile
(P3+PF4+(P1*0.60) 146.00 SF 0.00+ 26.74 = 77.71 796.34 4,778.09 +(6,5+4,9+2,10))*4 +
(P1*0.30)*8
209
0 Emergency Restoration Company, Inc.
197 Mayhew Wy.

Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tax ID# 84-3385583
CSLB# 1078882
0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 10/13/2023 Page: 10
CONTINUED - Restroom

CAT SEL ACT DESCRIPTION

CALC QTY RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL
Matterport Deep Link: https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=732JwntBNMm&sr=-2.76,.8&ss=11

67. TIL B + Ceramic tile base
PF 139.08 LF 0.00+ 37.51 = 92.29 1,061.84 6,371.02
>TRIM ACTIVITIES

68. DOR AV + Interior door unit
3 3.00 EA 0.00+ 363.21 = 77.13 233.34 1,400.10

69. FNH DORHRS + Door knob/lockset - Detach & reset
3*0.5 1.50 EA 0.00+ 35.39 = 0.00 10.62 63.71
Reset only, thus Calc = 0.5.
>CABINETRY ACTIVITIES

70. CAB UP + Cabinetry - upper (wall) units
1,10 1.83 LF 0.00+ 188.23 = 21.47 73.20 439.13
Matterport Deep Link: https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=732JwntBNMm&sr=,.52&ss=11 >PLUMBING ACTIVITIES

71. PLM TLT + Toilet
2 2.00 EA 0.00+ 651.20 = 60.13 272.50 1,635.03
Matterport Deep Link: https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=g9fYDV5H5j5&sr=-2.09,.98&ss=9

72. PLM TLTS + Toilet seat
2 2.00 EA 0.00+ 71.49 = 6.22 29.84 179.04

73. PLM TLTFL + Toilet flange
2 2.00 EA 0.00+ 362.62 = 17.92 148.62 891.78

74. PLM SNKWM + Sink - wall mounted
1 1.00 EA 0.00+ 477.28 = 10.10 97.48 584.86
Matterport Deep Link: https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=g9fYDV5H5j5&sr=-2.09,1.2&ss=6

75. PLM FAUBA + Sink faucet - Bathroom
1 1.00 EA 0.00+ 272.33 = 14.05 57.28 343.66

76. PLM SWFAU + Shower faucet
1 1.00 EA 0.00+ 303.37 = 12.84 63.24 379.45

77. TBA SB + Shower bench
1 1.00 EA 0.00+ 527.66 = 35.06 112.56 675.28
>RESTROOM ITEMS ACTIVITIES

78. TBA GBAR< + Handicap grab bar - Stainless steel, 1 1/2" x 24" 1 1.00 EA 0.00+ 76.31 = 3.70 16.00 96.01

79. TBA GBAR> + Handicap grab bar - Stainless steel, 1 1/2" x 36" 3 3.00 EA 0.00+ 91.36 = 15.55 57.94 347.57

80. TBA GBAR>> + Handicap grab bar - Stainless steel, 1 1/2" x 48" 2 2.00 EA 0.00+ 102.86 = 12.64 43.66 262.02
210
Emergency Restoration Company, Inc.
197 Mayhew Wy.

Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tax ID# 84-3385583
CSLB# 1078882
0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 10/13/2023 Page: 11
CONTINUED - Restroom

CAT SEL ACT DESCRIPTION

CALC QTY RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL

81. FNH TP + Toilet paper holder
2 2.00 EA 0.00+ 33.02 = 2.44 13.68 82.16

82. TBA TSCD + Toilet seat cover dispenser
2 2.00 EA 0.00+ 79.64 = 6.94 33.24 199.46

83. FNH LKR + Locker - 12" wide x 60" high x 15" deep
6 6.00 EA 0.00+ 202.87 = 65.15 256.48 1,538.85
Matterport Deep Link: https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=732JwntBNMm&sr=-.06,.44&ss=6

84. ELS FABELL + Fire alarm - Horn/Bell
1 1.00 EA 0.00+ 300.35 = 3.32 60.74 364.41
Matterport Deep Link: https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=732JwntBNMm&sr=2.32,-1.03&ss=5

85. FNH ROBE + Robe hook
7 7.00 EA 0.00+ 21.28 = 6.15 31.04 186.15

86. TBA MIRRS + Bathroom mirror - Detach & reset
((4*3)+(2*4))*0.5 10.00 SF 0.00+ 14.39 = 0.00 28.78 172.68 Reset only, thus Calc = 0.5.
>ELECTRICAL & LIGHTING ACTIVITIES

87. LIT AV & R&R Light fixture
6 6.00 EA 13.89+ 105.89 = 19.55 147.64 885.87

88. ELE BFANV & R&R Bathroom ventilation fan
4 4.00 EA 29.35+ 145.15 = 23.30 144.26 865.56
>HVAC ACTIVITIES

89. HVC REG & R&R Heat/AC register - Mechanically attached 3 3.00 EA 4.18+ 31.36 = 2.67 21.86 131.15

90. FPS SHE & R&R Sprinkler head with escutcheon
5 5.00 EA 12.36+ 40.86 = 14.07 56.04 336.21
>PAINTING ACTIVITIES

91. PNT MASKLF + Mask and prep for paint - plastic, paper, tape (per LF) PF 139.08 LF 0.00+ 2.34 = 3.71 65.84 395.00

92. PNT MASKTD + Labor to tape drop cloths
F 218.44 SF 0.00+ 0.29 = 0.22 12.72 76.29
Spill protection, slab/underlayment preservation and to help mitigate slip risk should a spill occur.

93. PNT S- + Seal the walls and ceiling w/PVA primer - one coat WC 1353.39 SF 0.00+ 1.03 = 8.02 280.40 1,682.41
Seal new texture SQFT to ensure adequate adhesion and mitigate flashing.

94. PNT P2 + Paint more than the walls - two coats
W*0.87+C 1205.85 SF 0.00+ 1.71 = 44.06 421.22 2,527.28
211
Emergency Restoration Company, Inc.
197 Mayhew Wy.

Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tax ID# 84-3385583
CSLB# 1078882
0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 10/13/2023 Page: 12
CONTINUED - Restroom

CAT SEL ACT DESCRIPTION

CALC QTY RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL

95. PNT DORSP + Seal & paint door slab only (per side)
3*2 6.00 EA 0.00+ 67.10 = 6.72 81.86 491.18
3 Unit(s) x 2 Side(s)

96. PNT DORTSP + Seal & paint door/window trim & jamb - (per side) 3*2 6.00 EA 0.00+ 55.65 = 3.87 67.56 405.33
3 Unit(s) x 2 Side(s)
Totals: Restroom 1,136.90 9,753.90 58,523.07
Total: Main Level 2,119.72 18,983.46 116,178.66

UPSTAIRS

CAT SEL ACT DESCRIPTION

CALC QTY RESET REMOVE REPLACE TAX O&P TOTAL
113. CAB UP+ & R&R Cabinetry - upper (wall) units -
7 7.00 LF [*] 12.51+ 261.70 = 120.27 407.96 2,447.70
114. CAB LOW- & R&R Cabinetry - lower (base) units
7 7.00 LF [*] 12.51+ 278.89 = 126.46 433.26 2,599.52
115. PLM SNK & R&R Sink - single
1 1.00 EA [*] 31.25+ 348.01 = 16.19 79.10 474.55
116. PLM SUP & R&R Plumbing fixture supply line
2 2.00 EA [*] 8.33+ 29.89 = 1.35 15.58 93.37
117. PLM PTRAPRS + P-trap assembly - Detach & reset
1 1.00 EA [*] 0.00+ 100.98 = 0.00 20.20 121.18
118. CAB CTFL & R&R Countertop - flat laid plastic laminate 7 7.00 LF [*] 7.19+ 53.50 = 20.27 89.02 534.12
Totals: UPSTAIRS 284.54 1,045.12 6,270.44
Line Item Totals: 0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 2,404.26 20,028.58 122,449.10 Additional Charges Charge
California Lumber Assessment Fee 10.32
212
3 Emergency Restoration Company, Inc.
197 Mayhew Wy.

Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tax ID# 84-3385583
CSLB# 1078882
0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 10/13/2023 Page: 13
Additional Charges Charge
Additional Charges Total $10.32
Grand Total Areas:
1,803.34 SF Walls 574.60 SF Ceiling 2,377.94 SF Walls and Ceiling 574.60 SF Floor 63.84 SY Flooring 214.75 LF Floor Perimeter

0.00 SF Long Wall 0.00 SF Short Wall 223.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 574.60 Floor Area 640.23 Total Area 1,803.34 Interior Wall Area 985.00 Exterior Wall Area 105.17 Exterior Perimeter of
Walls

0.00 Surface Area 0.00 Number of Squares 0.00 Total Perimeter Length

0.00 Total Ridge Length 0.00 Total Hip Length
213
Emergency Restoration Company, Inc.
197 Mayhew Wy.

Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tax ID# 84-3385583
CSLB# 1078882
0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 10/13/2023 Page: 14
Summary for Dwelling
Line Item Total 100,016.26
California Lumber Assessment Fee 10.32
Material Sales Tax 2,404.26
Subtotal 102,430.84
Overhead 10,015.32
Profit 10,015.32
Replacement Cost Value $122,461.48
Net Claim $122,461.48
214
5 Emergency Restoration Company, Inc.
197 Mayhew Wy.

Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tax ID# 84-3385583
CSLB# 1078882
0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 10/13/2023 Page: 15
Recap of Taxes, Overhead and Profit
Overhead (10%) Profit (10%) Material Sales Tax Storage Rental Tax (9.875%) (9.875%)
Line Items 10,014.29 10,014.29 2,404.26 0.00
Additional Charges 1.03 1.03 0.00 0.00
Total 10,015.32 10,015.32 2,404.26 0.00
215
6 Emergency Restoration Company, Inc.
197 Mayhew Wy.

Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tax ID# 84-3385583
CSLB# 1078882
0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 10/13/2023 Page: 16
Recap by Room
Estimate: 0MP_550_ISLAND_REP
Area: Main Level 26,251.33 26.25%
Breakroom 21,191.88 21.19%
Restroom 47,632.27 47.62%
Area Subtotal: Main Level 95,075.48 95.06%
UPSTAIRS 4,940.78 4.94%
Subtotal of Areas 100,016.26 100.00%
Total 100,016.26 100.00%
216
Emergency Restoration Company, Inc.
197 Mayhew Wy.

Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Tax ID# 84-3385583
CSLB# 1078882
0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 10/13/2023 Page: 17
Recap by Category
O&P Items Total %
CABINETRY 13,116.99 10.71%
CLEANING 5,544.36 4.53%
GENERAL DEMOLITION 2,034.17 1.66%
DOORS 1,452.84 1.19%
DRYWALL 9,387.10 7.67%
ELECTRICAL 1,329.52 1.09%
ELECTRICAL - SPECIAL SYSTEMS 300.35 0.25%
FLOOR COVERING - CERAMIC TILE 8,820.60 7.20%
FLOOR COVERING - VINYL 4,725.08 3.86%
PERMITS AND FEES 124.44 0.10%
FINISH HARDWARE 1,537.69 1.26%
FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS 204.30 0.17%
FRAMING & ROUGH CARPENTRY 3,642.95 2.97%
HEAT, VENT & AIR CONDITIONING 227.94 0.19%
INSULATION 607.35 0.50%
LABOR ONLY 13,907.40 11.36%
LIGHT FIXTURES 1,528.74 1.25%
PLUMBING 3,927.91 3.21%
PAINTING 7,455.20 6.09%
TOILET & BATH ACCESSORIES 1,434.04 1.17%
TILE 16,297.03 13.31%
WATER EXTRACTION & REMEDIATION 132.00 0.11%
O&P Items Subtotal 97,738.00 79.81%
Non-O&P Items Total %
PERMITS AND FEES 2,278.26 1.86%
Non-O&P Items Subtotal 2,278.26 1.86%
O&P Items Subtotal 97,738.00 79.81%
Permits and Fees 10.32 0.01%
Material Sales Tax 2,404.26 1.96%
Overhead 10,015.32 8.18%
Profit 10,015.32 8.18%
Total 122,461.48 100.00%
217
8 0MP_550_ISLAND_REP 10/13/2023 Page: 18
Main Level
Breakroom
Restroom
Restroom (2)
Shower (1)
W.C. (4)W.C. (3)
Breakroom
Restroom
Restroom (2)
Shower (1)
W.C. (4)W.C. (3)
Main Level
20'
3' 11"
6"
6"
19'
19' 10"
6"
6"
6"
17' 4"
17' 9"
6'
6' 5"
4' 9"
2' 10"
2' 10"
4' 8"
5' 3" 4' 10"
10' 11"
1' 7"
17' 3"
9' 1"8' 3"
1' 7"
11' 1"
3' 5"
4' 3"
4' 3"
25' 5"
6' 10"
20' 4"
218

Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Status Update - Staff Report

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: October 24, 2023
Agency: City of Belmont
Staff Contact: Bozhena Palatnik, Public Works, (650) 595-7463, [email protected] Agenda Title: Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Status Update
Agenda Action: For Information Only
Recommendation
Receive an update on the status of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. This is an informational report, and no action is required.

Strategic Focus Area
Infrastructure and Mobility
Background
The City of Belmont sanitary sewer system has two components: collection and treatment. The collection system ranges in age from 40 to 100 years and consists of approximately 80 miles of gravity sanitary sewers pipes and force mains, 1,500 maintenance access points (MH) and 10 lift stations. The pipes range in size from 4 to 27 inches in diameter. The City’s collection area is approximately five square miles and serves a population of about 27,000 residents, in addition to businesses and visitors. The property owners are responsible for installation, maintenance and repair of the private sewer lateral(s) connecting the property to the City’s public mains. The City is a member of the Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW) responsible for the treatment and disposal of its member agency’s wastewater flows.

The City routinely conducts systematic assessment, repair, and upgrade of its sanitary sewer system including pump stations. The sewer system is divided into fifteen drainage basins and each year one or more basins have been selected for a two to four-year evaluation and rehabilitation process, consisting of inspection, design, repair or replacement construction. The sewer system is funded as an enterprise utility fund supported by the annual sewer service charges collected on property tax bills. Since 2000, approximately half of the system has been rehabilitated and or replaced.

The City’s entire system is routinely video inspected basin by basin. The current closed-circuit television (CCTV) frequency is approximately three years for the condition assessment of all pipes in the collection system. This extensive preventive maintenance program conducted by the City’s Public Works Operation team maintains the system in a good state of repair, enables timely assessment and repair of any defects, and minimizes any potential for sanitary sewer overflows (SSO). Belmont has one of the best track-records Countywide for low levels of both SSO’s and inflow and infiltration.

The City proactively cleans its entire gravity sanitary sewer system at least once every two to three years, and it preventively cleans sewers with a history of problems every three and six months. The line cleaning crew evaluates cleaning results and places line segments on these higher frequency schedules based upon 219

Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Status Update - Staff Report past cleaning results, history of SSO events, video inspections, and professional judgment. Cleaning crews operate hydrojetting cleaning units and less frequently, hand rodding, to accomplish cleaning of lines. The City has video-inspected the entire gravity sanitary sewer system. Major point repairs, sewer main line repairs and replacements have been scheduled based on the results of video work and all major defects have been corrected.

The wastewater collection system staff maintains a list of known structural deficiencies determined from the CCTV results conducted during pipeline assessments. This list is maintained in priority order by structural rating. The City currently uses Lucity Asset Management System to document sewer maintenance activities. Completed gravity sewer maintenance is recorded using work orders.

The City responds to customer complaints about sewer service. Complaints are generally related to sewer lateral stoppages, overflows, or odors. Response is performed by the collection system staff on a 24 hour, 7-days a week bases. Response includes assessing the complaint, ensuring the mainline is clear and resolving the problem in the private lateral. Often, if/when staff camera the lateral, root intrusions, offsets and failed pipes appear, which result in notice to repair letters to property owners. This approach ensures system integrity, further reduces I&I, and informs property owners of their responsibility to maintain their lateral in a good state of repair.

The City also conducts a routine root foaming program to remove roots in the gravity system to proactively manage the one of the main causes of sanitary sewer main blockages. In order to reduce and eliminate inflow and infiltration of stormwater and groundwater into the sanitary sewer, City routinely conducts a smoke testing program that identifies defects in the system, potential defects in the private laterals, and any illegal cross connections.

Through a coordinated effort by the operations and engineering staff the results of the field activities (smoke testing, root foaming, CCTV, cleaning and jetting) are routinely reviewed to identify any potential maintenance or capital replacement plan of the sewer system for repairs, replacement and rehabilitation needs. The engineering staff evaluates the conditions of the sewer lines based on the video inspection reports, historical maintenance records, and rehabilitation history to determine the priority and type of rehabilitation of the defects using a proactive approach.

Additionally, the City routinely updates its short- and long-term capital improvement projects (CIPs) through its masterplans. Up to date staff was implementing CIPs listed in the 2007 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Master Plan and 2010 Sewer System Capacity Analysis. The estimated cost of these CIPs per Master Plan documents was $45.9, however, the cost of CIPs implementation was far less. The vast majority of projects listed in these CIPs were completed. The major 4 remaining CIPs to be completed are Island Park Pump Station Upgrade, Citywide Force Main Replacement project, Notre Dame Avenue and San Juan Blvd capacity improvement projects.

The City’s Sewer Pump Station Master Plan and Force Main Master Plan have been updated in recent years. Currently, staff is working on the completion of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, evaluates the City’s sewer network for both capital and maintenance needs improving asset management processes using state of the art technologies for both in the City of Belmont, as well as the Harbor Industrial Area 220

Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Status Update - Staff Report that is targeted as a planned annexation area.

The funding for the sanitary sewer CIPs and Operation and Maintenance is provided by the following sources: Sewer Bond proceeds, sewer connection fees, developers’ fair share contributions, and sewer rates.

Analysis
The updating of the Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan (Plan) is a critical milestone in our community's infrastructure development. The comprehensive analysis and planning conducted in this Plan will provide valuable insights into our sanitary sewer system, identifying areas for improvement and ensuring the safety and well-being of our existing and future residents. This process has involved rigorous data collection in Belmont, as well as in the Harbor Industrial Area, analysis of the existing system and proposed growth, and stakeholder consultations. The plan focused heavily on the sanitary sewer capacity evaluation and condition assessment. Currently, the Plan is 80% complete. Staff will be presenting the final Plan early next year.

Capacity Evaluation
Capacity evaluation was performed using the calibrated model under existing (2023), near-term future (2028), and long-term future Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) conditions. Model results were checked against the established planning criteria. Most of the deficient pipelines identified under the 2043 PWWF condition are also deficient under 2023 PWWF condition. There are 16 capacity-related gravity main improvement projects identified based on the capacity evaluation results. San Juan Pump Station (PS) is also identified to be upsized to meet the recommended pump capacity criteria. Proposed projects in the 15-year CIP have been prioritized into short-term and long-term phases.

Condition Assessment
A desktop gravity main condition assessment was performed with the closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection data provided by the City using InfoAsset Planner. According to the inspection data, Vitrified clay pipes (VCP) were observed to have higher structural defect scores and rating indexes than polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes. Structural defect scores and rating indexes generally increase as pipes age. Rehabilitation actions were assigned to observed defects based on the type of defects.

In addition to evaluating the physical conditions of the pipes, a risk analysis was performed on the gravity mains based on Likelihood of Failure (LOF) criteria such as pipe structural condition, pipe age, pipe material, etc., and Consequence of Failure (COF) criteria such as pipe sizes, PWWF, proximity to water bodies, etc. A risk score was assigned to each pipe segment on a scale of 1 to 5.

The final rehabilitation method of a gravity main segment was determined based on a customized decision tree with additional conditions to be considered. For example, 6-inch pipelines are not good candidates for lining as it will reduce the inner diameter of the pipes and lead to maintenance issues. Thus, 6-inch pipelines which were determined to be lined based on defect types were recommended to be replaced instead. Proposed rehabilitation methods for the gravity mains include CCTV inspection, cleaning/heavy cleaning/ root removal, point repair, partial lining, full lining, point repair plus partial lining, and 221

Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Status Update - Staff Report replacement. The City can perform CCTV inspection, cleaning, heavy cleaning, and root removal inhouse, so pipelines proposed with these rehabilitation methods are not included in CIP cost estimations and are considered as part of the City’s annual maintenance activities. Condition-related improvement projects are grouped by rehabilitation methods. Pipelines with risk scores of 4 and above are included in Phase 2024-2028, and pipelines with risk scores of 3 are included in long-term capital improvement project group.

Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Based on the findings from the capacity evaluation and condition assessment, a recommended CIP is being developed for a short- and long-term planning horizon in 5-year increments. Each project has an associated cost of implementation. The cost estimations were based on unit costs developed from recent local bid results. The Sewer CIP is primarily funded by the Wastewater Enterprise Fund and Connections Fees for new development. Upon completion of the master plan there will be a proposed budget and schedule for the recommended CIP projects over the next 15 years. The most critical projects will be scheduled for earlier implementation. It is noted that the timing of projects can be adjusted based on operating conditions and available funding.

Conclusion
The City’s sewer master plan is a vital tool used by staff to understand and address the deficiencies in our sewer system and plan for the future. Since the adoption of the last Sewer Master Plans, growth and development projections within the City have been updated through several planning efforts, such as the General Plan Update, the Belmont Village Specific Plan, Harbor Industrial Area planned development visioning (currently in parallel process of being developed) and other various development activities. To evaluate the growth and its impact on our sewer system, the City’s comprehensive update of our Sewer Master Plan will lay the foundation for a safer and more resilient community. Through the use of computer modeling and field data, the master plan covers the entire wastewater collection system, provide comprehensive overview of the system functions, and include where improvements are needed based on assessments of the systems’ capacity and reliability. City staff will utilize these documents to determine where there are concerns with hydraulic performance and capacity and recommend a proactive and manageable utility capital improvement program for the next 15 years.

Alternatives

1. Take No Action.

2. Refer back to staff for additional information.

Attachments
A. None
Fiscal Impact
☒ No Fiscal Impact
☐ Funding Source Confirmed:

Source: Purpose: Public Outreach:
222

Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Status Update - Staff Report Staff Discretionary Action Posting of Agenda
223
2023 Sewer System Master Plan
Overview
224
 2023 Sewer Master Plan Comprehensive Update
– Updated Sanitary Sewer Design Guidelines and Standard Details– System Survey ‐ over 200 manholes and pipe inverts – Updated GIS layers– Updated growth and sewer load projections – Wet/Dry Flow Monitoring to assess system condition
– Hydraulic Modeling– Performed capacity analysis
– Conducted pipe condition assessment based on CCTV inspection – Developed Short‐ and Long‐Term Capital Improvement Program MASTER PLAN PROJECT OVERVIEW
225
GIS UPDATES
 Performed data review for
preliminary update of GIS
sewer network
– As‐Built reviews
– Spatial location of force mains,
gravity mains, and manholes
– Pipe and Manhole IDs corrected
– Diameters corrected
– Other attributes (e.g.,
maintenance data, install year, abandoned, material type)  Surveyed 200+ manholes to update inverts depths
226
EXISTING SYSTEM GIS
227
HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATE &

CALIBRATION
 Collaborated with SVCW
District staff
– Updated sewer pipe
network and invert data in
model
– Calibrated model against
2021‐2022 flow
monitoring data as well as
historical Belmont Pump
Station flows
– Use 2015‐2017 flow
monitoring data as
supplement data
228
FUTURE GROWTH AREAS
229
SEWER PROJECTIONS
230
 CIP Phased into 3‐ five‐year section over 15‐year
period (2024 – 2038)
 Capacity‐Related
– Upgrade San Juan Lift Station with 2 + 1 Pumps
– Upsize gravity main pipes*
 Condition‐Related
– Hiller, Island Park, Ralston Ranch Lift Stations
– San Juan, Hiller, Island Park Force Mains
– Rehabilitate gravity main pipes*
* includes associated manholes
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS OVERVIEW
231
 Planning Criteria
– Prepared Sewer Design Guidelines for new development
 Analyzed the system under Existing (2023), Near‐term
Future (2028), and Long‐term Future (2043) Peak Wet
Weather Flow (PWWF) Conditions
CAPACITY EVALUATION
232
EXISTING SYSTEM CAPACITY EVALUATION
 Capacity
Deficienciesunder Existing
PWWF
233
FUTURE SYSTEM CAPACITY EVALUATION
 Capacity
Deficienciesunder 2043PWWF
234
CAPACITY‐RELATED IMPROVEMENTS
235
PIPE CONDITION ASSESSMENT
 Used InfoAsset Planner to analyze
CCTV inspection data
 Performed Risk Analysis to prioritize
rehabilitation actions
 Refined Rehab Plan
with Staff Input
 Utilized decision tree to
finalize rehabilitation plan
236
LIFT STATION & FORCE MAIN CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Lift Station (LS) LS Condition Summary Force Main Condition Summary Island Park
Difficult Access, high I/I,
settling issue of control
panel; 5‐Year CIP
Needs to be replaced; To be
upgraded with Island Park LS; 5‐
Year CIP
Sports Complex Fair Condition; Low Risk May need to be upgraded with Island Park FM; 5‐Year CIP San Juan Poor Condition; Undersized; 5‐Year CIP Redundant force main; 5‐Year CIP Ralston Ranch Fair Condition; Access issues; 10‐Year CIP Low Risk Hiller Street Upgrades in 2024/2025 Upgrades in 2024/2025 El Camino Real Upgraded in 2021 Upgraded in 2021
North Road Upgraded in 2021 Redundant force main installed in 2021 Hastings Good Condition Low Risk
Haskins Good Condition Low Risk
Naughton Good Condition Low Risk
 Reviewed prior
assessments
 Prioritized based
on risk
237
DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY
 FY 2024‐2028
$ 14 Million (Capacity)$ 24 Million (Condition)
 FY 2029‐2033
$ 6 Million (Capacity)
$ 27 Million (Condition)
 FY 2034‐2038
$ 4 Million (Capacity)
$ 21 Million (Condition)
238
Thank you
www.Belmont.gov
239