BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: May 5, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Dale Leda, Interim City Engineer
TITLE: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE
__________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the report and provide any additional direction to staff on modifications and prioritization of the Capital Improvement Program.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed FY 2026-27 Capital Improvement Program is being presented as part of the City’s overall budget preparation process. The proposed CIP includes a rolling three-year project list; however, for context, the City’s broader multi-year capital needs remain substantial and are generally consistent with prior years, with total identified capital needs of approximately $90 million, including a significant amount of currently unfunded project costs.
For FY 2026-27, the CIP includes a General Fund capital request of $620,000, including:
• $100,000 for the Main Street Bridge Accessibility Project • $400,000 for the Wavecrest Water Main Project
• $50,000 for the CAP Neighborhood Implementation Plan (new project) • $70,000 for the Downtown Streetscape Implementation Project (expanded existing project, to potentially include Main Street Banner Program and Parking Study with currently scoped wayfinding elements)
The proposed CIP also includes several significant requests from other City capital funds consisting of the following CIP project and fund categories. $280,000 from the Public Facilities Fund, including:
• $80,000 for the HMB Library Door Replacement Project (new project) • $200,000 for the Corporation Yard Improvements – Phase II project (new project) $130,000 from the Parks Development Fund, including:
• $30,000 to support the Frenchmans Creek Park project
• $100,000 to additionally support the Wavecrest Water Main Project to Smith Field 382
$100,000 from the Storm Drain Improvements Fund, including:
• $50,000 to support Roosevelt / Pullman Watershed
• $50,000 to support the Kehoe Watershed Enhancement project $330,000 from the Measure A Fund, including:
• $70,000 to serve as portion of the SMCTCA grant match for the Hwy 1 (North) Safety and Operations project
• $260,000 to serve as the total Congressional Earmark grant match for the Eastside Parallel Trail Segment 2 project.
The final Capital Budget will be considered by the City Council as part of the FY 2026-27 budget adoption process. Staff will continue to refine project budgets, funding sources, and timing based on available resources, project readiness, and City Council direction.
STRATEGIC ELEMENT:
This action supports the Infrastructure and Environment, Healthy Communities and Public Safety, and Fiscal Sustainability Elements of the Strategic Plan.
OVERVIEW:
The Capital Improvement Program is the City’s primary planning and budgeting tool for major capital projects, including infrastructure improvements, facility repairs, parks, transportation, environmental planning, and other projects that require significant staff coordination, funding, design, permitting, or construction.
For FY 2026-27, staff is proposing a revised CIP format intended to make the document clearer, easier to interpret, and more useful as a near-term implementation tool. Rather than presenting separate one-year and five-year project lists, the proposed CIP would use a single rolling three-year project list.
This change is intended to better reflect the City’s current financial position, limited staff capacity, changing priorities, and broader uncertainty affecting capital project delivery. The proposed format is also intended to make it easier for the City Council, staff, and the public to understand which projects are actively being advanced, how they are funded, and where they stand in the project development process.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s CIP has historically included both a one-year Capital Budget and a five-year Capital Improvement Program. While this structure provided a longer-range view of anticipated capital needs, it also made the document more complex and, in some cases, less useful as a realistic implementation tool.
383
Capital projects often require multiple years to complete and may involve planning, design, environmental review, permitting, consultant procurement, grant administration, public engagement, interagency coordination, construction, and closeout. Project schedules and costs can change significantly based on funding availability, regulatory requirements, consultant capacity, and construction market conditions.
As the City’s asset base continues to grow, there is also increasing need to focus limited capital resources on maintenance, repair, replacement, and preservation of existing infrastructure and facilities. This makes it especially important that the CIP clearly identify near-term priorities and distinguish between projects that are ready to advance and projects that remain conceptual or dependent on future funding.
DISCUSSION:
For FY 2026-27, staff is proposing three primary updates to the Capital Improvement Program:
a revised CIP format, a clearer prioritization framework, and an updated project list.
CIP Format Change
Staff is proposing to transition from separate one-year and five-year CIP project lists to a single rolling three-year project list. The purpose of this change is to simplify the CIP and create a more practical planning horizon.
A three-year CIP is more achievable and easier to manage given the City’s current financial constraints, limited staff capacity, and changing local and national conditions. While the City will continue to track longer-term capital needs, the three-year format provides a more realistic framework for project delivery and annual budget decisions.
The proposed format is also intended to improve transparency by consolidating the City’s active and near-term capital priorities into one project list that can be reviewed and updated annually.
Project Prioritization Framework
Given limited staffing and financial resources, Public Works has been applying a more structured prioritization framework to guide which projects should move forward. This framework is not intended to be a rigid scoring system, but rather a practical decision-making tool to help evaluate project effort based on need, funding, and readiness.
Public Works evaluates projects using three primary prioritization categories: project type, funding status, and project readiness.
For project type, projects are generally prioritized as follows:
1. Public health and safety
2. Facilities maintenance and preservation
3. Environmental protection and sustainability
4. Economic vitality and community enhancement
For funding status, projects are generally prioritized as follows:
1. Fully funded projects
384
2. Projects that are majority grant-funded with established delivery deadlines
3. Projects requiring local investment to create future grant funding opportunities
4. Projects that are entirely locally funded and independent of outside funding sources For project readiness, projects are generally prioritized as follows:
1. Projects that are permitted and ready for construction
2. Projects that are entitled or have completed major discretionary approvals
3. Projects that critical path for other planned or required projects
4. Projects that are still at the concept or early planning stage Together, these categories help staff focus limited resources on projects that address the most important City needs, are positioned for funding, and have a realistic path to implementation.
Proposed Project List
The proposed FY 2026-27 Capital Improvement Program includes 33 total projects. Of these, 26 are returning projects from the prior year’s CIP, reflecting the multi-year nature of capital project delivery and the City’s continued focus on advancing previously identified priorities.
Four projects from the prior CIP have either been completed or are scheduled to be completed by the end of FY 2025-26:
• Carter Park Improvements – Completed amphitheater, restroom facility, and passive park improvements at Carter Park.
• Climate Adaptation Plan – Completed a major planning effort to evaluate climaterelated vulnerabilities and identify adaptation strategies to improve long-term community resilience.
• City Facility HVAC and Roof Repairs – Advanced critical maintenance and repair work for City-owned building systems and roofs and installation of PV solar canopies at City Hall and the Sheriff’s Substation sites.
• FY 2025-26 Pavement Management Project – Completed annual pavement resurfacing from the City’s priority street list. The 25/26 project focused on eight streets in Arleta Park neighborhood.
The proposed CIP also includes seven new projects proposed by Public Works for consideration:
• CAP Neighborhood Implementation Plan – Advances neighborhood-level implementation planning for strategies identified through the City’s Climate Adaptation Plan. Working with each neighborhood and their respective CERT teams, the City would develop a specific list of priority CAP projects in each part of the City based on their hyperlocal needs and develop specific scopes of work and project budgets. • Corporation Yard Improvements – Phase II – Allocation of initial funds to support future implementation of Phase II of the Corp Yard development plan, including construction of material/equipment storage and solid waste handling improvements, with goal of improving the efficiency of Public Works operations.
• HMB Library Door Replacement – The existing library front and patio access doors have experienced ongoing maintenance issues since original installation in 2018. This project 385
proposes to replace these doors with similar doors to the Ted Adcock Community Center, which have been proven to be much more reliable. • FY 2026-27 Pavement Management Project – Continues the City’s annual pavement maintenance program to preserve and extend the useful life of local streets. The 26/27 project will focus on dig-out and slurry seal improvements across the City. • Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update – Updates the City’s Master Plan to include new access goals since the 2019 plan adoption, include e-bike infrastructure considerations, and more developed concept planning for priority projects. • Cunha Safety Connectivity Project – Advances safety and connectivity improvements near Cunha Intermediate School, with an emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle access.
This SMCTA grant funded project includes new bulb-outs at two intersections with crosswalk and sidewalk improvements.
• SMCO Landfill Clean Closure – County led, grant funded project to develop better assessment of the existing landfill, develop conceptual design for clean closure options, community engagement, and assessment of potential long-term funding strategies and grant opportunities. The project is funded by a $1M grant from State Coastal Conservancy, for which the City has pledged staff time to support the project.
Staff is also proposing modification to two existing CIP projects, including the following:
• Coastal Trail Overlay Project - Rename to Coastal Trail Safety and Rehabilitation Project. The prior project scope focused on the Coastal Trail segment between Poplar Street and Central Avenue. The revised scope would expand the project limits to the segment between Seymour Bridge and Mirada Road and would be advanced in partnership with California State Parks. This change more accurately reflects the broader safety, access, maintenance, and rehabilitation objectives for this heavily used segment of the California Coastal Trail.
• Downtown Streetscape Master Plan Implementation – project originally included considerations for a wayfinding and/or a gateway archway on Main Street or Highway
92. The gateway component was discontinued in mid-2025, and remaining funds (approximately $50,000) remain for potential vehicle wayfinding efforts such as signage along Highway 92 or Highway 1, and pedestrian wayfinding such as a downtown business kiosk on Main Street. Additional potential scopes to incorporate or formalize as separate projects include:
o Main Street Banner Program – Development and implementation of mainstay banners along Main Street including potential for special events or use by nonprofits groups. o Downtown Parking Study – Assessment of baseline and future anticipated parking demand, identification of potential opportunity site for expansion of parking facilities such as a surface lot or garage structure and the estimated costs for development.
386
CONCLUSION:
The proposed FY 2026-27 CIP reflects a more streamlined and implementation-focused approach to capital planning. The transition to a single rolling three-year CIP is intended to improve readability, reduce confusion, and better align the City’s capital program with available funding, staffing capacity, and project readiness.
Staff seeks City Council input on the proposed CIP format, prioritization framework, and project list. Council feedback will help inform the final CIP and ensure that the City’s capital investments remain feasible, impactful, and aligned with community needs.
ATTACHMENT:
1. FY 2026-27 Capital Project List
2. Example CIP Project Page
387
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY
FY 2026-29 CAPITAL BUDGET
CURRENT UNKNOWN
TITLE CIP NO. PREVIOUS FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FUTURE TOTAL FUNDING FUNDING Stormwater
Pilarcitos Creek Restoration & Remediation 9022 56,000 457,000 - - - 513,000 513,000 - Rooselvelt / Pullman Watershed Improvements 1006 59,000 60,000 509,000 - - 628,000 628,000 - Stomwater Master Plan Update 1011 140,000 160,000 152,000 - - 452,000 452,000 - Kehoe Watershed Enhancement 1017 - 150,000 550,000 3,750,000 3,750,000 8,200,000 150,000 8,050,000 Pilarcitos Outfall Repair at Kehoe Watercourse 1005 188,000 50,000 50,000 257,000 - 545,000 545,000 - Economic Development
CAP Neighborhood Implementation - - 50,000 - - - 50,000 50,000 - Downtown Streetscape Implementation 1024 49,000 51,000 70,000 - - 170,000 170,000 - Parks
Frenchmans Creek Park - Phase 2 1013 56,000 324,000 - - - 380,000 380,000 - Wavecrest Water Main Project 9004 50,000 1,800,000 - - - 1,850,000 1,850,000 - Smith Field Park - Phase 1 1008 431,000 - 2,150,000 2,000,000 - 4,581,000 537,000 4,044,000 Magnolia Park 1007 19,000 - - 2,261,000 2,120,000 4,400,000 280,000 4,120,000 Facilities
Library Door Replacement - - 80,000 - - - 80,000 80,000 - Corporation Yard Improvement Project - Phase 2 - - - - - - - 200,000 - Sanitary Sewer
Sewer Main Repair Project (Heskin Avenue) 1030 - 50,000 225,000 - - 275,000 275,000 - Streets
Highway 1 North Safety and Operations 0538 1,806,000 11,225,000 12,467,000 - - 25,498,000 25,498,000 - Main Street Bridge Rehabilitation 1036 189,000 111,000 - - - 300,000 300,000 - Highway 1 South Corridor Study 1034 200,000 550,000 - - - 750,000 750,000 - Small Bike/Ped Improvement Project 1037 - 220,000 - - - 220,000 220,000 - 2026 Pavement Management Project - - 1,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 - Safe Streets for All Safety Action Plan 1033 - 150,000 - - - 150,000 150,000 - Cunha Safety Connectivity Project 1040 6,000 494,000 - - - 500,000 500,000 - Bicycle Pedestriam Master Plan Update - - 20,000 200,000 - - 220,000 - 220,000 Poplar Street Traffic Calming & Safety - Phase 2 - - - 200,000 2,200,000 2,000,000 4,400,000 - 4,400,000 Highway 1 / Kelly Avenue Intersection 0571 - - - 500,000 6,500,000 7,000,000 - 7,000,000 Kelly Avenue Complete Streets 0593 - - 300,000 3,700,000 3,500,000 7,500,000 - 7,500,000 Trails
Eastside Parallel Trail - Segment 4 0619 624,000 1,330,000 - - - 1,954,000 1,954,000 - Ped/Bike Connection to Hatch Elementary 9010 9,000 771,000 - - - 780,000 780,000 - Eastside Parallel Trail - Segment 2 0595 - 860,000 2,200,000 1,540,000 - 4,600,000 2,260,000 2,340,000 Coastal Trail Safety & Rehabilitaiton 1014 80,000 520,000 500,000 - - 1,100,000 326,000 774,000 Eastside Parallel Trail - South - - - 500,000 500,000 7,500,000 8,500,000 1,000,000 7,500,000 Secondary Poplar Beach Access 1031 - - - 750,000 - 750,000 45,000 705,000 Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection to Train Depot - - - - - 700,000 700,000 - 700,000 3,962,000 20,483,000 20,073,000 17,458,000 26,070,000 88,046,000 40,893,000 47,353,000
PLANNED EXPENDITURES
Updated:4/30/2026 388
Table of Contents 9.4 CIP Five Year Plan
City of Half Moon Bay Budget - FY 2025-26 | Half Moon Bay Page 275
LAST YEARS
5 YEAR CIP FOR
REFERENCE
389
Main Street Bridge Rehabilitation
CIP Category: Streets
Location: Historic Main Street
Project Number: 1036
Current Work Phase: Construction
Est. Completion Date: FY26-27
Initial CIP Inclusion: FY24-25
Initial Funding: FY24-25
Strategic Plan Goals:
Infrastructure, Healthy
Community/Public Safety,
Fiscal Sustainability, Inclusive
Governance
Description: Improvements are divided into two
categories of work. The first phase includes repair and re-surfacing the stucco finish the existing concrete
barriers. The second phase includes removal and
replacement of the wood pedestrian decking and
guardrails, and new paint. Additional ground level
lighting is also being considered.
Justification: Repair of the existing stucco provides
long-term benefit to the conditioning and preservation
of the historic concrete barriers and underlying spandrel walls. The pedestrian wood decking and guardrail
replacements will remove accessibility barriers
previously identified in a 2015 Main Street Bridge
Accessibility Assessment.
Expenditures
Previous FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 Future Total
Professional Services 17,000 - - - - 17,000
Construction 133,000 100,000 - - - 233,000
Fees & Equipment 39,000 11,000 - - - 50,000
Project Management - - - - - 0
189,000 111,000 0 0 0 300,000
Funding Sources
Category Previous FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 Future Total General Fund 200,000 100,000 - - - 300,000
- - - - - 0
- - - - - 0
200,000 100,000 0 0 0 300,000
City of Half Moon Bay Capital Improvement Budget - FY 2026-27 | Half Moon Bay Main Street Bridge Rehabilitation
390
BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: May 5, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Dale Leda, Interim City Engineer
TITLE: SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE REVISED FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (GENERAL) BUDGET
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution approving the Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside General (Operations and Maintenance) Budget for FY 2026-27.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed SAM General Budget for FY 2026-27 is $11,555,125, including $7,305,125 for operations and maintenance and $4,250,000 for infrastructure projects. This represents an increase of $1,482,859, or approximately 15%, from the FY 2025-26 adopted budget.
The total member agency assessment for FY 2026-27 is $11,423,588. Half Moon Bay’s share is $6,988,951, an increase of $999,751, or approximately 17%, from the FY 2025-26 adopted assessment of $5,989,200. The City’s assessment is based on its 61.18% flow allocation, using Calendar Year 2025 wastewater flows.
The City’s share will be paid through sewer user fee revenues from the Sewer Operating Fund and authorized transfers from the Sewer Capital Fund, as appropriate. Sufficient funds are available for the proposed FY 2026-27 assessment; however, the infrastructure budget includes estimated costs for the Montara Force Main rehabilitation project that may change once SAM receives the contractor’s Guaranteed Maximum Price, currently anticipated in June. If the final project cost exceeds the amount included in the adopted SAM budget, SAM may need to return to the member agencies with a budget adjustment, which could increase the City’s costs.
The City is contracting with a consultant to prepare an updated sewer rate study. The study will evaluate the adequacy of current sewer rates to support ongoing operations, capital needs, and regional wastewater obligations, including any updated costs related to the Montara Force Main rehabilitation project.
391
STRATEGIC ELEMENT:
This action supports the Infrastructure and Environment, Healthy Communities and Public Safety, and Fiscal Sustainability elements of the Strategic Plan.
BACKGROUND:
The Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside (SAM) is a Joint Powers Authority composed of three member agencies: the City of Half Moon Bay, Granada Community Services District, and Montara Water and Sanitary District. SAM manages regional wastewater treatment and related infrastructure on behalf of the member agencies.
Each year, SAM prepares a General Budget for operations, maintenance, and infrastructure projects. The budget is organized into four divisions: Administrative Services, Treatment, Environmental Compliance, and Infrastructure. Under the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, operation and maintenance expenses are shared by the member agencies based on their respective wastewater flows into the consolidated treatment plant.
For FY 2026-27, the flow-based allocation percentages are:
• Half Moon Bay: 61.18%
• Granada Community Services District: 18.21%
• Montara Water and Sanitary District: 20.61%
These percentages are based on Calendar Year 2025 wastewater flows and are updated annually. Half Moon Bay’s allocation increased from 60.24% in FY 2025-26 to 61.18% in FY 2026-27.
DISCUSSION:
SAM’s FY 2026-27 General Budget continues funding for wastewater treatment, environmental compliance, system operations, and capital improvements that support the regional wastewater system. The budget is organized into operating divisions — Administrative Services, Treatment, and Environmental Compliance — and a separate Infrastructure division for capital projects.
Because infrastructure costs can fluctuate significantly depending on capital project timing and scope, it is useful to distinguish between the operating and infrastructure components of the budget. The operating budget increase is driven primarily by personnel, equipment, utilities, chemicals, insurance, and professional services. Personnel costs reflect cost-of-living and merit increases, benefit costs, and retirement-related costs. Equipment costs reflect non-project capital improvements and equipment repair/replacement needs that support ongoing plant operations.
The infrastructure budget includes projects identified in SAM’s capital improvement program.
Major projects include rehabilitation of the SAM Force Main situated in Montara, replacement of Effluent Pumps 1, 2, and 3, replacement of Pump 1 at the Montara Pump Station, and 392
replacement of Pump 1 at the Portola Pump Station. These costs are included in SAM’s overall infrastructure program and allocated among the member agencies in the same manner as the rest of the General Budget.
The Montara Force Main rehabilitation project is the largest infrastructure component in the FY 2026-27 budget. The current amount is based on available project estimates, but SAM expects to receive the contractor’s Guaranteed Maximum Price in June. The GMP may refine the total project cost and could result in a higher infrastructure funding need than currently budgeted. If additional funding is required, SAM may return to the member agencies with a budget adjustment, and Half Moon Bay’s share would be determined under the applicable allocation methodology.
The City is also proceeding with an updated sewer rate study to evaluate whether current sewer rates are sufficient to support ongoing operations, capital needs, and regional wastewater obligations, including any updated costs associated with the Montara Force Main rehabilitation project.
Approval of the FY 2026-27 SAM General Budget will allow SAM to continue providing wastewater treatment, environmental compliance, system operations, and infrastructure improvements for the member agencies and their ratepayers. Staff recommends approval to support continued operation of these essential regional wastewater services.
CONCLUSION:
SAM provides critical wastewater treatment, environmental compliance, and regional infrastructure services for the City of Half Moon Bay and the other member agencies. The FY 2026-27 General Budget supports continued operation of these services and funds necessary infrastructure improvements through SAM’s capital improvement program. The City’s updated sewer rate study will further evaluate long-term sewer revenue needs, including any changes in regional infrastructure obligations. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the FY 2026-27 SAM General Operations and Maintenance Budget.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Resolution approving the Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside Revised General (Operations and Maintenance) Budget for FY 2026-27
2. SAM O&M FY 2026-27 Staff Report
393
Resolution No. C-2026-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY APPROVING THE
SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE GENERAL (OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE) BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
WHEREAS, City of Half Moon Bay representatives have reviewed and provided input on the proposed General Budget of the Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside (SAM) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026- 27; and
WHEREAS, SAM provides regional wastewater treatment, environmental compliance, operations, maintenance, and infrastructure services for the benefit of the member agencies and their ratepayers; and
WHEREAS, the proposed SAM General Operations and Maintenance Budget for FY 2026-27 totals $11,555,125, including operations and maintenance expenses, infrastructure project costs, and total member agency assessments of $11,423,588; and WHEREAS, the City of Half Moon Bay’s share of the FY 2026-27 member agency assessment is $6,988,951, based on its flow allocation of 61.18%; and WHEREAS, the FY 2026-27 SAM General Operations and Maintenance Budget includes $4,250,000 for infrastructure projects identified in SAM’s capital improvement program; and WHEREAS, the infrastructure portion of the budget includes continued funding for the Montara Force Main rehabilitation project, and SAM may return to the member agencies with a budget adjustment if updated project costs require additional funding; and WHEREAS, the costs of SAM operations and infrastructure for FY 2026-27 will be funded from City Sewer Enterprise Funds, including the Sewer Operating Fund and authorized transfers from the Sewer Capital Fund, as appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay approves the General (Operations and Maintenance) Budget of SAM for FY 2026-27 attached as Exhibit A to this resolution.
***************************************************************** 394
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 5th day of May 2026, by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________________ ______________________________ Maggie Rodriguez, Interim City Clerk Debbie Ruddock, Mayor 395
General Budget
Fiscal Year 2026/27
396
OPERATIONS BUDGET
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (Agreement) that created SAM and governs its day-to-day operations specifies that “The total expenses of operation and maintenance shall be shared in a manner based on flows into the single consolidated plant.” The General Budget is divided into Administrative Services, Treatment, Environmental Compliance, and Infrastructure.
The General Budget includes obligations for wages and benefits defined in employment and bargaining contracts, increases in retirement contributions, and other non-discretionary expenses.
JPA Income & Expenses – General Budget
Operating Income
Assessments - City of Half Moon Bay 6,988,951
Assessments - Granada Community Services District 2,080,235 Assessments - Montara Water & Sanitary District
Interest Income
2,354,401
78,500
NDWSCP Fees 53,037
Total Operating Income $11,555,125
Operating Expenses
Wages 2,078,100
Benefits 1,167,050
Legal Services 200,000
Engineering Services 160,800
Professional & Technical Services 965,625
Professional Memberships 76,200
Insurance Premiums 265,000
Miscellaneous Expenses 120,800
Utilities 839,300
Travel & Training 64,400
Equipment Rental/Lease 29,300
Building & Maintenance Services 176,000
Chemicals 470,000
Permits & Licenses 62,100
Supplies 128,450
Equipment 417,000 397
Infrastructure Projects 4,250,000
Claims & Penalties 85,000
Total Expenses $11,555,125
Total Operating Expenses (less Infrastructure) $7,305,125 Contribution to Reserve Funds
(Revenues less Expenses)
$0
The overall increase from the adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2025/26 to the adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2026/27 is $1,482,859 (15%). This is primarily due to an increase in budget related to equipment and infrastructure.
Of the total General Budget, $3.2 million (28%) is for Wages and Benefits. The cost of Infrastructure Improvements is $4.25 million (37%). Legal, Engineering and Professional Services is $1.3 million (11%) and accounts for a significant percentage of the budget due to SAM’s dependency on contractors and consultants for technical and specialized services. Other expenses (including Utilities, Insurance, Equipment Rental, Maintenance Services, Chemicals, Permits, Supplies, Equipment, and Claims) represent 24% of the budget.
*All Other Expenses include: Utilities, Insurance, Equipment Rental, Maintenance Services, Chemicals, Permits, Supplies, Equipment, and Claims.
Wages and
Benefits
$3,245,150
28%
Legal and Professional
Services
$1,326,425
11%
Infrastructure
$4,250,000
37%
All Other
Expenses*
$2,733,550
24%
Expenses by Category
Total $11.55 million
398
Division Budgets by Fiscal Year
FY 2023/24
Actual
FY 2024/25
Actual
FY 2025/26
Adopted
FY 2026/27
Proposed
$
Change
%
Change
Administration $2,046,988 $2,148,035 $1,793,907 $1,846,725 $52,818 3% Treatment $4,176,443 $4,170,680 $4,421,346 $5,222,650 $801,305 18% Environmental
Compliance $196,956 $192,050 $212,013 $235,750 $23,737 11% Total
Operating
Budget
$6,420,387 $6,510,765 $6,427,266 $7,305,125 $877,859 14% Infrastructure $3,258,684 $3,388,625 $3,645,000 $4,250,000 $605,000 17% Total General
Budget $9,679,071 $9,899,390 $10,072,266 $11,555,125 $1,482,859 15% The Administrative Services division increased $52,818 (3%). Mainly due to the projected increase of Professional Services related to web hosting & IT support. In addition, Professional Memberships & Fees is expected to increase due to SAM’s continued participation in the First Flush program.
The Treatment division increased $801,305 or 18%, which is due to the known COLA & Merit increase of 4%.
In addition, we are expecting and 11% increase in the cost of Health Benefits as well as payments of Retirement Contributions to CalPERS. We have budgeted an additional $400K in the equipment line item to account for Non-Project Capital related expenses incurred by SAM on an annual basis.
The Environmental Compliance division budget increased by $23,737 or 11% primarily due to the projected Payroll and Benefits increases.
The Infrastructure division increased $605,000 to address various projects in the Authority Capital Improvement Plan.
BUDGET ALLOCATION AND ASSESSMENTS
The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) stipulates that the total expenses of operation and maintenance of all the components of the Present Project (intertie pipeline and attendant pump facilities, ocean outfall, treatment plant) shall be shared in a manner based on flows.
Flow Results for Budget Allocations*
HMB GCSD MWSD
FY 2026/27 61.18% 18.21% 20.61% (Based on Calendar Year 2025) FY 2025/26 60.24% 18.84% 20.92% (Based on Calendar Year 2024) Variance 0.94% -0.63% -0.31%
* The member agency assessments are allocated based on flow percentages from the previous calendar year. This allocation varies each year. 399
Total Assessments for Each Member Agency*
FY 2023/24
Actual
FY 2024/25
Actual
FY 2025/26
Adopted
FY 2026/27
Proposed
$
Change
%
Change
Half Moon Bay $5,331,608 $5,642,255 $5,989,200 $6,988,951 $999,751 17% Granada CSD $1,651,497 $1,766,336 $1,873,116 $2,080,235 $207,119 11% Montara WSD $1,686,174 $1,868,382 $2,079,915 $2,354,401 $274,486 13% Total $8,669,279 $9,273,973 $9,942,231 $11,423,588 $1,481,357 15% * The assessments to the Member Agencies are rounded to nearest dollar.
HMB
$6,988,951
61.18%
GCSD
$2,080,235
18.21%
MWSD
$2,354,401
20.61%
Assessments for FY 2026‐27
Based on Calendar Year 2025 Flow
400
Assessments History by Agency (in 1,000’s)
401
OVERALL OPERATIONS BUDGET SUMMARY
(Includes: Administrative Services, Treatment, Environmental Compliance, and Infrastructure) Key Changes
Personnel costs: Increase due COLA and Merit increases and labor negotiations Legal Services: Decrease expected due to conclusion of labor negotiations $ 263,338
$ (35,000)
Professional Services: Increase due to estimates based on Year-to-Date Actuals $ 56,025 Utilities: Increase due to estimates based on Year-to-Date Actuals Equipment: Increase due to inclusion of Non-Project plant repairs $ 33,003
$ 404,259
Chemicals: Based on Year-to-Date Actuals $ 24,137
Insurance Premiums: Increase due to estimates based on Year-to-Date Actuals $ 15,018 All other Operating Expenses: Increase due to CPI and adjustments to other operating expenses $ 117,079 TOTAL GENERAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES BUDGET INCREASE $ 877,859 Infrastructure: Increase result of CIP (includes engineering costs, reclassified) $ 605,000 TOTAL GENERAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES BUDGET INCREASE $ 1,482,859
402
Key Changes
Assessments reflect Increased funding for Infrastructure Projects, Maintenance, Staff $ 1,481,357 TOTAL GENERAL OPERATING REVENUE BUDGET INCREASE $ 1,481,357
403
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The following is a list of key budget lines for FY2025/26 and 2026/27 budgets with brief explanations of the changes from year to year. This is a “budget to budget” comparison and does not necessarily represent current expenditures. Underlined items indicate a budget change in excess of $10,000 year to year.
Budget Line # FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27
1. Wages $1,786,300 $1,906,100
Increase is a result of PY COLA & Merit increase being
estimated higher than necessary.
2. Premium Pay $144,100 $172,000
Overtime paid for staff to perform tasks outside of
normal work times.
3. Health Benefits $354,596 $400,750
The cost of medical, dental, and vision benefits
provided to employees based on the MOU and
Unrepresented Employees.
4. Retirement Contributions $541,000 $591,400
SAM pays the employer contribution to CalPERS for
retirement benefits as well as the unfunded liability.
5. Retiree Medical/OPEB $44,960 $62,850
Includes contributions to a Health Retirement Account
for future retirees as well as current retiree medical
premiums.
6. Misc. Benefits $110,856 $112,050
Includes Medicare, long-term and short-term disability, workers compensation, and matching funds to a 457
plan.
7. Personnel Subtotal
Subtotal of all wage and benefit costs.
$2,981,812 $3,245,150
8. Legal Services $235,000 $200,000
Includes general counsel and employment
legal fees
9. Engineering Services
Increased to provide design and project
$150,243 $160,800
management related to treatment division.
404
Budget Line # FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27
10. Professional Services $909,600 $965,625
Includes ongoing services that are specialized and
need to be performed by consultants rather than staff.
11. Professional Memberships $60,001 $76,200
Includes memberships in professional organizations for
SAM and employees that keeps them current in
industry practices and improves how SAM serves the
community.
12. Insurance Premiums $249,982 $265,000
Property, liability, and pollution premiums based on
utilization rates.
13. Misc. Expenses $86,566 $120,800
Includes incidental expenses (uniforms laundry
services, radio and alarm systems, offsite storage,
postage, claims, copier, phone system support, etc.)
not reflected in other categories.
14. Utilities $806,297 $839,300
Electricity, water, telephone, solid waste, etc.
15. Travel & Training $57,011 $64,400
Training and travel related costs for attendance at
industry conferences and seminars, and other related
events to allow staff to keep current on technical skills and industry best practices.
16. Equipment Rental/Lease $27,875 $29,300
Short-term rental or lease of equipment (generators,
storage tanks, etc.).
17. Building & Maintenance Services $148,100 $176,000
Includes janitorial, landscaping, and other regular
building maintenance services.
18. Chemicals
Includes chemicals used in the treatment of wastewater
$445,863 $470,000
to meet regulatory standards.
405
Budget Line # FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27
19. Permits & Licenses
Annual costs for permits with local, regional and state agencies.
$55,997 $62,100
20. Supplies
Office, computer, breakroom, and safety supplies.
$120,178 $128,450
21. Equipment Purchase
Purchase of equipment use at SAM facilities not
included in infrastructure projects.
$12,741 $417,000
22. Infrastructure Projects
Includes costs of projects included in 5-Year CIP.
Includes engineering costs associated.
$3,645,000 $4,250,000
23. Claims/Penalties
Reflects claims expenses not covered by insurance.
$80,000 $85,000
25. Non-Personnel Subtotal
Subtotal of all costs not associated with wages and
benefits.
$7,090,454 $8,309,975
26. Total
Total of all costs (sum of Personnel and Non-Personnel
subtotals).
$10,072,266 $11,555,125
406
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
By Category
407
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
By Category
Key Changes
Personnel Costs: Expected reduction of hours for admin division employee $ (3,385) Legal Services: Decrease expected due to conclusion of labor negotiations Professional Services
$ (35,000)
$ 25,861
Insurance Premiums: Increased based on expected increase in premiums $ 15,018 Claims/Penalties $ 0
All other Operating Expenses: Increase due to CPI and adjustments to other operating expenses 50,324 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION EXPENDITURES BUDGET INCREASE $ 52,818 Key Changes
Key Changes
Assessments reflect increases in Professional Services and Insurance Premiums $ 44,318 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION REVENUE BUDGET INCREASE $ 44,318
408
TREATMENT
By Category
Key Changes
Personnel Costs: Increase due COLA and merit increases as well as the cost of Benefits $ 254,274 Utilities
Professional Services
$ 44,953
$ 22,473
Equipment $ 400,896
Chemicals $ 22,637
All other operating expenses: Increase due to CPI and adjustments to other Operating Expenses $ 56,072
TOTAL TREATMENT EXPENDITURES BUDGET INCREASE
$ 801,305
409
TREATMENT
By Category
Assessments reflect net increased funding for Personnel, Utilities, Chemicals & Equipment $ 808,302 TOTAL TREATMENT REVENUE BUDGET INCREASE $ 808,302
Key Changes
410
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
By Category
Key Changes
Personnel Costs: Increase due to Merit and COLA increases $ 12,449 Professional Services: based on current trends $ 7,691
Net increase in Wages, Utilities, Services, and Supplies $ 3,597 TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE EXPENDITURES BUDGET INCREASE $ 23,737 411
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
By Category
Assessments reflect Increased funding for Wages, Benefits, and Other Expenses $ 23,737 TOTAL ENVIRONMENT COMPLIANCE REVENUE BUDGET INCREASE $ 23,737 Key Changes
412
INFRASTRUCTURE
By Category
Key Changes
Increased to address the projects identified in the FY2026-27 Capital Improvement Plan Budget TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE EXPENDITURES BUDGET INCREASE $ 605,000
413
INFRASTRUCTURE
By Category
Key Changes
Increased to address the projects identified in the FY2026-27 Capital Improvement Plan Budget TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE REVENUE BUDGET INCREASE $ 605,000
414
HIGHLIGHTS
Infrastructure Projects addressed in FY 2025/26
SAM Force Main Refurbishment Montara Segment – Progressive Design Build in Progress
Completed installation of Boiler #1. Awaiting Boiler #2. Electrical Building Relocation- Design in Progress.
Completed Installation of Primary Sludge Pumps
Completed Installation of Grit Pumps
Completed installation of #3 Water Pumps
415
Project: Rehabilitation of SAM Force Main situated in Montara Priority: Rehabilitation/Replacement/Safety
The SAM Force Main situated in Montara Rehabilitation (MFM) Project addresses aging, at‐risk pipeline within the Intertie Pipeline System. The MFM conveys wastewater from the Montara and Moss Beach communities to SAM’s Wastewater Treatment Plant in Half Moon Bay. The MFM is approximately 16,750 feet in length, ranging from 12 to 14‐inches in diameter and was constructed of ductile iron pipe (DIP) in the early 1980s.
A 2017 project replaced the first 2,500 feet of MFM from Montara Pump Station to the end of Vallemar Street with high‐density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe and replaced the associated air/vacuum relief valves.
A 12‐inch‐diameter DIP portion of the MFM experienced failure during the atmospheric river storm that started on December 31, 2022, which was declared as a disaster at both the State and Federal levels.
SAM’s emergency response included replacement of an 850‐ft portion of the impacted force main with HDPE. It is proposed to replace the remaining 13,400 feet of the MFM project before June 30, 2026.
CIP Total Cost: $10,000,000
Project Funding: This project will be funded by SAM’s Infrastructure Program Basis of Priority: This priority project continues the best practice of rehabilitating aging force main to mitigate sanitary sewer overflows, human health risks, environmental damages, and other regulatory violations.
Annual Cost Distribution and Schedule
CIP Total FY2024/25 FY2025/26 FY2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29
10.160M 3.0M 3.510M 3.65M ‐ ‐
416
SEWER AUTHORITY MID‐COASTSIDE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY2026 ‐ FY2027
Project: Replace Effluent Pumps 1, 2, and 3
This project involvesreplacing effluent pumps/motors 1, 2, and 3. These pumps are old and exceeded their useful lives. These pumps are no longer manufactured and replacement parts must be custom fabricated when necessary. Equipment have been purchased and require installation.
Effluent pumps 1, 2, and 3
CIP Total Cost: $450,000
Project Funding: This project will be funded by SAM’s Infrastructure Program Reason: This project is a priority because these pumps are responsible for conveying all flow out of the WWTP during storm events and high tide when ocean outfall can no longer flow by gravity. Since the WWTP could potentially flood in an eventsuch asthis, the pumps must be maintained in peak reliable condition at all times.
Annual Cost Distribution and Schedule
CIP Total FY2026
450,000 450,000
417
SEWER AUTHORITY MID‐COASTSIDE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY2026 ‐ FY2027
Project: Montara Pump Station ‐ Replace Pump 1
Priority: Rehabilitation/Replacement
This project involves replacing pumps No. 1 at the Montara Pump Station with submersible grinder style pump similar to pump No. 3. This pump has been purchased and needs to be installed.
CIP Total Cost: $100,000
Project Funding: This project will be funded by SAM’s Infrastructure Program Basis of Priority: This is a discretionary project that will benefit the performance and reliability of the Montara Pump Station by replacing pump No. 1 with a higher efficiency grinder style pump.
Annual Cost Distribution and Schedule
CIP Total FY2026
100,000 100,000
418
SEWER AUTHORITY MID‐COASTSIDE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY2026 ‐ FY2027
Project: Portola Pump Station ‐ Replace Pump 1
Priority: Rehabilitation/Replacement
This project replaces pump 1. Pump 1 is the most frequently used pump at the station and sees the most run time. The pump is old and comprised of multiple different parts of varying age and presumed reliability. The pump has been purchased and needs to be installed.
Pumps 1, 2, 3, and 4 (from left to right)
CIP Total Cost: $50,000
Project Funding: This project will be funded by SAM’s Infrastructure Program Basis of Priority: This project is a priority since the components of pump are old and require replacement.
Annual Cost Distribution and Schedule
CIP Total FY2026
50,000 50,000
419
Position Control List
Classifications Authorized
Positions
Administrative Services:
General Manager 1.0
Finance Officer
Accounting Technician
1.0 1.0
Administrative Assistant 1.0
4.0 Operations & Maintenance:
Engineering & Construction Contracts Manager (Defunded) Supervisor of Treatment / Field Operations
0.0 0.75
Maintenance Mechanic I/II/III 2.0
Operator I/II/III 2.0
Lead Operator 4.0
Utility Worker (Defunded) 0.0
8.75 Environmental Compliance:
Supervisor of Treatment / Field Operations .25
Total Authorized – General Budget 13.0
Collection Services:
Collection Maintenance Worker I/II/III 3.0
Maintenance Mechanic I/II/III 1.0
Total Authorized – Collections Services 4.0
Grand Total Authorized Authority 17.0
420
March 9, 2026
Agenda Item No: 4B
BOARD MEMBERS: N. Marsh B. Dye S. Boyd
P. Nagengast D. Ruddock K. Slater-Carter
ALTERNATE MEMBERS: W. Bowles B. Softky J. Randle
M. Allen
SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Board of Directors
FROM: Kishen Prathivadi, General Manager
SUBJECT: Discuss Proposed General Budget for FY 2026/27 and Authorize the General Manager to Submit it to Member Agencies for Approval.
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to discuss the proposed General Budget for FY 2026/27 and authorize the General Manager to submit it to Member Agencies for approval.
Fiscal Impact
The Operation and Maintenance expenditure budget for FY 2026/27 is $11.5 million, including infrastructure project expenses. This is an overall increase of $1,482,859 from the FY 2025/26 adopted budget. The impact to the member agency assessments is:
Assessments for Each Member Agency
421
March 9, 2026
Agenda Item No: 4B
BOARD MEMBERS: N. Marsh B. Dye S. Boyd
P. Nagengast D. Ruddock K. Slater-Carter
ALTERNATE MEMBERS: W. Bowles B. Softky J. Randle
M. Allen
Strategic Plan Compliance
The recommendations in the proposed budget comply with SAM Strategic Plan Goal 3: “Consider longterm costs and ensure that finances are stable and understandable by the board, member agencies, and the public.”
Background and Discussion/Report
The General Budget includes all Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs for SAM and are allocated to four divisions: Administrative Services, Treatment, Environmental Compliance, and Infrastructure. The proposed budget includes obligations for wages and benefits defined in employment and bargaining contracts, increases in retirement contributions, and other non-discretionary expenses.
Staff made the following assumptions in determining changes from the FY 2025/26 adopted budget. • The position of Engineering & Construction Contracts Manager continues to be defunded. • All applicable merit step increases will be earned per the MOU with Local No. 39. • All authorized positions are funded. Salaries for filled positions are estimated at one step up.
Salaries for currently vacant positions are estimated at mid-step. There are a total of 17 positions:
• 7 employees are scheduled for a step increase.
• One is the General Manager who is on a contract.
HMB
$6,988,951
61.18%
GCSD
$2,080,235
18.21%
MWSD
$ 2,354,401
20.61%
Assessments for FY 2026/27
Based on Calendar Year 2025 Flow
422
March 9, 2026
Agenda Item No: 4B
BOARD MEMBERS: N. Marsh B. Dye S. Boyd
P. Nagengast D. Ruddock K. Slater-Carter
ALTERNATE MEMBERS: W. Bowles B. Softky J. Randle
M. Allen
• All services, supplies, and utilities will be increased by a 5% CPI unless specific adjustment was deemed necessary based on actual experience or known factors.
Budget Overview
The General Budget, including the proposed infrastructure projects, has been discussed by the Member Agency Managers and by the Finance Committee. The presentation today is for the Board to review and follow-up with agency staff and respective Council/Boards for comment. Final approval of the proposed budget will take place later in the process.
The overall increase from the adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2025/26 to the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2026/27 is $1,482,859 or 15%. This is primarily due to an increase in the estimated cost of infrastructure improvements as well as expected non-project capital improvements.
Of the total General Budget, $3.24 million (28%) is for Wages and Benefits. The cost of Infrastructure improvements is $4.25 million (37%). Legal, Engineering and Professional Services is $1.33 million (11%) and accounts for a significant percentage of the budget due to SAM’s dependency on contractors and consultants for technical and specialized services.
All other expenses (including Utilities, Insurance, Equipment Rental, Maintenance Services, Chemicals, Permits, Supplies, Equipment, and Claims) represent the remaining $2.73 million (23%) of the budget. 423
March 9, 2026
Agenda Item No: 4B
BOARD MEMBERS: N. Marsh B. Dye S. Boyd
P. Nagengast D. Ruddock K. Slater-Carter
ALTERNATE MEMBERS: W. Bowles B. Softky J. Randle
M. Allen
*
All Other Expenses include: Utilities, Insurance, Equipment Rental, Maintenance Services, Chemicals, Permits, Supplies, Equipment, and Claims.
Significant Budget Changes
The Administrative Services division increased $52,818 or (3%). The net increase is mainly a result of expected increases in the areas of Professional Services (11%) [increase in cost of IT support & web hosting services], Professional Memberships (33%) [First flush program increase], Insurance Premiums (6%) and Miscellaneous Expenses (44%) [sharp increase in the cost of document storage services].
The Treatment division increased $801,305 or 18%, which is due to the known COLA & Merit increase of 4% and 3% respectively as well as the expected increase of the cost of Healthcare and Retirement Benefits for Treatment division employees. In addition, management has budgeted an additional $400,000 of Non-Project Capital Improvements which was not done in the earlier years.
The Environmental Compliance division budget increased $23,737 or (11%) primarily due to the increase in personnel costs as well as the increase in Professional Services (off-site testing costs).
Wages and
Benefits
$3,245,150
28%
Legal and Professional
Services
$1,326,425
11%
Infrastructure
$4,250,000
37%
All Other
Expenses*
$2,733,550
24%
Expenses by Category
Total $11.55 million
424
March 9, 2026
Agenda Item No: 4B
BOARD MEMBERS: N. Marsh B. Dye S. Boyd
P. Nagengast D. Ruddock K. Slater-Carter
ALTERNATE MEMBERS: W. Bowles B. Softky J. Randle
M. Allen
The Infrastructure division increased $605,000 to address various projects in the Authority Capital Improvement Plan.
Detail Changes in Expenses
The significant overall changes in the expense categories are as follows. The numbers are correlated to the line items on the budget spreadsheets.
1. Wages: Increase of $119,800 due to known increases in merit and COLA.
2. Premium Pay: Increase of $27,900 due to standby pay, certification pay, and overtime pay.
3. Health Benefits: Increase of $46,154 due to labor negotiation approval of 100% coverage of SAM staff as well as increased health insurance costs, budgeted for 11% based on history.
4. Retirement Contributions: Increase of $50,400 primarily due to the estimation of retirement costs related to the unfunded liability portion in the prior year’s budget. (Every year this amount is estimated but the actual amount is not in our control and is not known until we are officially notified by CalPERS after the fiscal year is over).
5. Retirement Medical: Increase of $17,890 for contributions as negotiated inthe MOU and the Unrepresented Employees as well as a contribution of $18,000 to SAM’s section 115 OPEB trust administered by PARS.
6. Misc. Benefits: Increase of $1,194 for benefits as negotiated in the MOU and the Unrepresented Employees.
7. Personnel Subtotal: Increase of $263,338 in personnel costs primarily due to the annual funding of SAM’s CalPERS Unfunded Liability.
8. Legal Services: Decrease of $35,000 due to the completion of labor negotiations with Local No. 39 and expected reduced involvement of General Counsel/Special Counsel.
9. Engineering Services: Increase of $10,557 due to continued involvement with Authority Engineering team.
10. Professional Services: Increase of $56,025.
The major contracting firms and the status of their contracts, if applicable, are as follows:
• Calcon Systems, electrical services: Existing contract in next fiscal year not to exceed $400,000.
425
March 9, 2026
Agenda Item No: 4B
BOARD MEMBERS: N. Marsh B. Dye S. Boyd
P. Nagengast D. Ruddock K. Slater-Carter
ALTERNATE MEMBERS: W. Bowles B. Softky J. Randle
M. Allen
• RVE Accounting, financial & accounting services: As Needed. • Alpha Analytical Laboratories, essential lab services: As Needed. • Peninsula Pump, handles pump repair, generally an emergency repair: As Needed. • Precision IT, computer equipment maintenance: IT support as and when needed.
11. Professional Memberships: Increase of 27% expected due to the continued participation in the First Flush program.
12. Insurance Premiums: Increase of $15,018 due to increased cost of coverage.
13. Misc. Expenses: Increase of $34,234 anticipated based on detailed review of current year expenditures, increase due mainly to the cost of document storage services.
14. Utilities: Increase of $33,003 for electricity, gas, solid waste disposal, and water consistent with current costs.
15. Travel & Training: Increase of $7,389 based on expectation that conference attendance will continue to increase.
16. Equipment Rental: Increase of $1,425 due to the completion of specific maintenance projects.
17. Building & Maintenance Services: Decrease of $27,900 mainly due to recurring roof work at the SAM office.
18. Chemicals: Increase of $24,137 based on anticipated expenses consistent with recent experience and expected industry increases.
19. Permits & Licenses: Increase of $6,103, cost of permit was over budget for current fiscal year.
20. Supplies: Increase of $8,272 based on current year expenditures.
21. Equipment: Increase of $404,259, non-project capital improvements.
22. Infrastructure: Increase of $605,000 to address the projects identified in the adopted 5-year CIP (adopted November 25, 2024) and additional projects as indicated in Infrastructure details of the General Budget.
23. Claims/Penalties: Increase $5,000.
24. Non-Personnel Subtotal: Total Increase of $1,219,521 or 17%. 426
March 9, 2026
Agenda Item No: 4B
BOARD MEMBERS: N. Marsh B. Dye S. Boyd
P. Nagengast D. Ruddock K. Slater-Carter
ALTERNATE MEMBERS: W. Bowles B. Softky J. Randle
M. Allen
Revenue Allocation
Of the total O&M revenue, the majority (98.86%) is from assessments paid by the JPA member agencies. The allocation between the agencies is based on the flow from the preceding calendar year.
The flow allocations fluctuate from year to year.
The remaining revenue comes from Waste Processing Services that are currently classified in the NonDomestic Waste Source Control Program Fees category of our AR System (0.4%), and interest earnings (0.6%).
427
March 9, 2026
Agenda Item No: 4B
BOARD MEMBERS: N. Marsh B. Dye S. Boyd
P. Nagengast D. Ruddock K. Slater-Carter
ALTERNATE MEMBERS: W. Bowles B. Softky J. Randle
M. Allen
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors review the budget with their respective staff and contemporaries and return comments to the SAM General Manager on or before April 30, 2026, for evaluation and approve a final budget before May 31, 2026.
Supporting Documents
Attachment A: SAM General Budget for FY 2026/27
Assessments
$11,423,588
98.86%
NDWSCP Fees
(Waste Processing Services)
$53,037
0.40%
Interest Earnings
$78,500
0.60%
428
BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: May 5, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Dale Leda, Interim City Engineer
TITLE: HALF MOON BAY SEWER COLLECTION SERVICES BUDGET AND SYSTEM
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution:
1. Approving the FY 2026-27 Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside Contract Collection Services Budget of $912,935 and the total participating agency revenue requirement of $960,622 included as Exhibit A to this resolution, of which the City’s share is $331,415.
2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 9 to the sewer collection system maintenance professional services agreement with SAM, establishing the FY 2026-27 annual cost for the City’s share at $331,415 and extending the Agreement for one additional year, through June 30, 2027.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The FY 2026-27 cost for SAM collection system maintenance services is $331,415, which represents an increase of $97,750, or approximately 42%, from the FY 2025-26 adopted amount of $233,665. The cost has been included in the proposed FY 2026-27 Sewer Operating Budget. Collection system maintenance services are funded by sewer user fees and were anticipated as part of the City’s sewer rate structure.
SAM’s total FY 2026-27 proposed Contract Collection Services Budget is $912,935, with total required agency revenue of $960,622 after accounting for a $47,687 adjustment related to the difference between collections assessment revenue and collections expenses identified in SAM’s Fiscal Year End June 30, 2025, audited financial statements. Half Moon Bay’s share of the FY 2026-27 agency assessment is $331,415, or approximately 34.5% of the total, with the remaining shares allocated to Granada Community Services District and Montara Water and Sanitary District.
429
STRATEGIC ELEMENT:
This action supports the Infrastructure and Environment, Healthy Community/Public Safety, and Fiscal Sustainability elements of the Strategic Plan.
BACKGROUND:
The City owns and operates approximately 35 miles of sewer main lines, including three pump stations and three force mains, collectively known as the sewer collection system. These facilities require routine cleaning, inspection, maintenance, emergency response, and regulatory support to ensure proper operation and compliance with applicable wastewater collection system requirements.
Since 2018, the City has used a hybrid model for sewer collection system maintenance. Under this model, SAM provides contracted field maintenance and response services, while City staff performs fats, oils, and grease inspections and closed-circuit television inspections. SAM’s services include routine sewer main cleaning, designated hot spot cleaning, lift station services, sanitary sewer overflow response, 24/7 emergency response, and related planning, management, and reporting. SAM has provided collection system maintenance services to its member agencies since 1988, and the scope of services has evolved over time to meet changing regulatory requirements and the operational needs of the member agencies.
Last year, the City Council approved the FY 2025-26 SAM Collections Budget and Amendment No. 8, establishing the annual cost at $233,665 and extending the agreement through June 30, 2026. For FY 2026-27, Staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 9 to continue these services for one additional year.
DISCUSSION:
As a Joint Powers Authority, SAM is authorized to provide contract services to its member agencies. Each year, SAM prepares a Contract Collection Services Budget in coordination with member agency staff and presents the budget to the SAM Board of Directors before submitting it to the participating agencies for approval.
For FY 2026-27, SAM has proposed a total Contract Collection Services Budget of $912,935. The budget is allocated among the three participating agencies based on the percentage of work required for each agency. Half Moon Bay’s proposed share is $331,415, Granada Community Services District’s share is $273,777, and Montara Water and Sanitary District’s share is $355,430. Half Moon Bay’s share represents approximately 34.5% of the total agency allocation. The distribution of collection costs are outlined in the 1988 Collections Agreement and are based on several values, including the linear feet of pipeline requiring cleaning each year, the number of hotspots requiring supplemental cleaning, and the number of lift stations and manholes requiring basic inspection and cleaning services.
The scope of services remains generally consistent with the existing agreement. SAM will continue to provide sewer main cleaning, hot spot cleaning, lift station maintenance, emergency response, and related collection system support services. These services are 430
essential to maintaining the reliability of the City’s sewer collection system and reducing the risk of sanitary sewer overflows.
The FY 2026-27 increase is primarily driven by personnel costs, which represent the majority of the proposed budget. SAM’s staff report notes that collection system maintenance is a staffintensive activity, with wages and benefits accounting for approximately 91% of the total budget. Other significant costs include insurance premiums and supplies, estimated at $38,500 and $31,500, respectively. SAM identified the significant budget change as an increase in personnel expenses related to an approved 4% cost-of-living adjustment and applicable 3% step increases.
SAM’s FY 2026-27 budget also includes a $47,687 adjustment to account for the difference between collections assessments received from member agencies and collections expenditures identified in SAM’s FYE June 30, 2025 audited financial statements. This adjustment is incorporated into the total revenue required from the member agencies for FY 2026-27.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 9 to update the City’s annual contract amount to $331,415 and extend the agreement for one additional year, through June 30, 2027.
Continuing the agreement will allow SAM to provide uninterrupted collection system maintenance and emergency response services for the City.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Resolution
2. SAM FY 2026-27 Collections Staff Report
431
1 of 2
Resolution No. C-2026-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE (SAM) COLLECTIONS BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO THE PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE FOR SEWER
COLLECTION SYSTEM CLEANING, MAINTENANCE AND RELATED SERVICES WHEREAS, City of Half Moon Bay representatives have reviewed and provided input on the proposed Collections (Contract Services) Budget of the Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside (SAM) for Fiscal Year 2026-27; and
WHEREAS, the proposed SAM Collections Budget totals $912,935 for FY 2026-27, an increase from the FY 2025-26 adopted budget of $763,556; and WHEREAS, the total FY 2026-27 revenue requirement for the participating Member Agencies is $960,622, which includes a $47,687 adjustment related to the difference between collections assessments received from Member Agencies and collections expenditures identified in SAM’s FYE June 30, 2025 audited financial statements; and WHEREAS, the City’s share of the FY 2026-27 SAM Collections Budget totals $331,415, representing approximately 34.5 percent of the total; and WHEREAS, the City entered into a professional services agreement with the Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside on July 23, 2018, with annual amendments; and WHEREAS, the City has worked with SAM and the Member Agencies to develop a costsharing arrangement for FY 2026-27; and WHEREAS, the cost-sharing agreement calls for continuance of the same level of cleaning, no less than 50 percent of all lines plus “Hot Spots”; and WHEREAS, the agreement continues to allow the City to manage its Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Half Moon Bay hereby:
1. Approves the Collections Budget of SAM for FY 2026-27 of $912,935 and the total participating agency revenue requirement of $960,622 attached as Exhibit A to this resolution, of which the City’s share is $331,415; and
2. Authorizes the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 9 to the Professional Services Agreement with the Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside, extending the expiration date to June 30, 2027.
432
2 of 2
***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 5th day of May 2026, by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________ Maggie Rodriguez, Interim City Clerk Debbie Ruddock, Mayor 433
CONTRACT COLLECTION SERVICES BUDGET
Consolidated (Half Moon Bay, GCSD, MWSD)
FY 2024/25
ACTUAL
FY 2025/26
ADOPTED
FY 2025/26
PROJECTED
FY 26/27
PROPOSED
EXPENDITURES
Personnel
1 Wages 428,087 411,473 465,000 491,000 79,527 19% 2 Premium Pay 56,738 62,809 56,631 62,800 (9) (0%) 3 Health Benefits 131,782 147,525 145,948 172,900 25,375 17% 4 Retirement Cont. 33,869 35,250 46,674 49,550 14,300 41% 5 Retiree Med/OPEB 658 7,300 7,650 9,000 1,700 23%
6 Misc. Benefits 26,968 30,921 31,889 38,900 7,979 26% 7 Subtotal 678,102 695,278 753,790 824,150 128,872 19% Non‐Personnel
8 Legal Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
9 Engineering Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
10 Professional Services 41 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
11 Prof. Memberships ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
12 Insurance Premiums 33,403 26,038 36,217 38,500 12,462 48% 13 Misc. Expenses 4,615 5,926 5,416 6,915 989 17%
14 Utilities 5,804 7,151 6,950 7,620 469 7%
15 Travel & Training 2,324 2,815 2,625 4,250 1,435 51%
16 Equipment Rental ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
17 Bldg & Maint Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
18 Chemicals ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
19 Permits & Licenses ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
20 Supplies 16,856 26,348 29,154 31,500 5,152 20% 21 Equipment ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
22 Infrastructure ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
23 Claims/Penalties ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
24 Repairs & Maintenance ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
25 Subtotal 63,042 68,278 80,362 88,785 20,507 30% 26 TOTAL 741,144 763,556 834,152 912,935 149,379 20% FY 2024/25
ACTUAL
FY 2025/26
ADOPTED
FY 2025/26
PROJECTED
FY 26/27
PROPOSED
REVENUE
By Type:
27 JPA Assessments 624,145 763,556 687,251 912,935 149,379 20% 28 NDWSCP Fees ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
31 Interest Earnings ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
32 Misc. Revenue ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
33 (From)/To Reserves (*) ‐ (76,305) ‐ 47,687 34 REVENUE TOTAL 624,145 687,251 687,251 960,622 149,379 22% By Agency:
35 Half Moon Bay 212,209 233,665 233,665 331,415 97,750 42% 36 Granada CSD 174,761 192,431 192,431 273,777 81,346 42% 37 Montara WSD 237,175 261,155 261,155 355,430 94,275 36% 38 TOTAL 624,145 687,251 687,251 960,622 273,371 40% PASS THROUGH
17A Pass Through Expenses 297,736
29 Pass Through Revenue 297,736
Balance ‐
(*) Figure represents difference between collections assessments received from Member Agencies & Collections expenditures as noted in the FY 24‐25 audited financial statements and added to the budgeted expense.
VARIANCE
FY26/27 versus FY25/26
VARIANCE
FY26/27 versus FY25/26
Under/(Over)
DRAFT
3/3/2026
434
March 9, 2026
Agenda Item No: 4A
BOARD MEMBERS: N. Marsh B. Dye S. Boyd
P. Nagengast D. Ruddock K. Slater-Carter
ALTERNATE MEMBERS: B. Softky J. Randle W. Bowles
M. Allen
SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Board of Directors
FROM: Kishen Prathivadi, General Manager
SUBJECT: Discuss Proposed Contract Collection Services Budget for FY 2026/27 and Authorize the General Manager to Submit it to the Member Agencies for Approval
Executive Summary
The purpose of the report is to discuss the Contract Collection Services Budget for FY 2026/27 and authorize the General Manager to submit it to the Member Agencies for approval.
Fiscal Impact
This contract is separate from the SAM Operating Budget, since it is a contract for SAM to provide maintenance services for the three Member Agencies’ wastewater systems.
The total cost to provide the Member Agency requested services for Fiscal Year 2026/27 is $912,935. This amount is payable to SAM as contract service fees from the served Member Agencies, allocated by the percentage of work required for each agency. This is an overall increase in fees of $149,379 from FY 2025/2026. The following table shows the history of fees for each agency for the past two years, the current year, and the upcoming year.
Please note, FY 2026/2027 budgeted member agency Collections Assessment has been increased by $47,687. This amount represents the difference between Collections assessment revenue and Collections expenses as noted in SAM’s FYE June 30, 2025 audited financial statements.
435
March 9, 2026
Agenda Item No: 4A
BOARD MEMBERS: N. Marsh B. Dye S. Boyd
P. Nagengast D. Ruddock K. Slater-Carter
ALTERNATE MEMBERS: B. Softky J. Randle W. Bowles
M. Allen
Contract Fees for Each Contracting Agency
The pie-chart below details the allocation of the proposed budget for each Member Agency Strategic Plan Compliance
The recommendations in the proposed budget comply with SAM Strategic Plan Goal
5.6: “SAM is committed to providing quality collection system maintenance service for the Coastside. It will seek to offer the type of agile and responsive service and cost that wins that business. However, SAM resources should not be used to backstop collection service without appropriate compensation and pre-planning so it does not impact SAM operations and maintenance.”
Background and Discussion/Report
The Proposed Contract Collections Services Budget has been discussed by the member agency managers and by the Finance Committee. The presentation today is HMB
$331,415
34.5%
GCSD
$273,777
28.5%
MWSD
$355,430
37.0%
436
March 9, 2026
Agenda Item No: 4A
BOARD MEMBERS: N. Marsh B. Dye S. Boyd
P. Nagengast D. Ruddock K. Slater-Carter
ALTERNATE MEMBERS: B. Softky J. Randle W. Bowles
M. Allen
for the Board to review and follow-up with agency staff and respective Council/Board for comment. Approval of the proposed budget will take place later.
SAM has provided collection system maintenance services to its member agencies since 1988. The scope of services has changed over the years to meet regulatory requirements and individual needs of the Member Agencies. The cost allocation methodology has evolved over the years as well. Couple of years back, the Member Agency Managers, the SAM Manager, and consultants worked in concert to develop a method of allocation based on the needed services of each agency. We are confident that the cost allocation presented reflects more accurately that method and those needs.
Beginning July 1, 2020 the minimum service level provided by SAM entailed cleaning at least fifty percent (50%) of the collection system’s pipelines, cleaning of designated Hot Spots per an agreed upon schedule, providing lift station services as defined, providing emergency response throughout the year, and planning, managing and reporting as needed to ensure all needs of each Member Agency’s service area collection system are met.
The proposed budget includes obligations for wages and benefits as stipulated in employment and bargaining contracts. It also includes utilities, fuel, and other expenses needed to perform all the contracted services.
The pie chart on the next page details budget expenditures. 437
March 9, 2026
Agenda Item No: 4A
BOARD MEMBERS: N. Marsh B. Dye S. Boyd
P. Nagengast D. Ruddock K. Slater-Carter
ALTERNATE MEMBERS: B. Softky J. Randle W. Bowles
M. Allen
The performance of collection system maintenance is a very staff-intensive activity and as a result most costs (91%) as shown above are Wages and Benefits for personnel to perform the work. Other significant costs are Insurance Premiums & the cost of supplies estimated to be $38,500 and $31,500 respectively. All other costs combined are around 2% of the total overall budget.
Significant Changes to the Budget:
1. Increase of Personnel expenses by $79,527 based on the approved MOU increase of 4% COLA and applicable step increase which is 3%.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors authorize the General Manager to submit the Contract Collection Services Budget for Fiscal Year 2026/27 to the participating agencies for approval.
Supporting Documents
Attachment A: Contract Collection Services Budget for FY 2026/27 Wages
$553,800
Benefits 61%
$270,350
30%
Utilities/Misc Expense
$18,785
2%
Supplies
$31,500
3%
Insurance Premiums
$38,500
4%
438
BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: May 5, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Karen Decker, Interim Deputy City Manager
TITLE: CARTER PARK FEE SCHEDULE
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution approving a tiered fee schedule for Carter Park and direct staff to monitor utilization and return with adjustments as needed.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No cost is associated with this item. Revenue generated through facility rentals will offset direct costs including staff time for event coordination and oversight, routine maintenance, utilities, and long-term asset upkeep.
STRATEGIC ELEMENT:
This update supports the Fiscal Sustainability, Inclusive Governance, and Infrastructure and Environment Elements of the Strategic Plan.
BACKGROUND:
Carter Park was identified in the Parks Master Plan adopted in 2018 as an underutilized community space and was recently renovated and designed to accommodate community gatherings, performances, and small-to-medium-sized events. As a newly enhanced park, establishing a clear and equitable fee structure is necessary to guide its use, ensure fair access, and support ongoing maintenance and operations.
To inform the proposed fee schedule, staff conducted a comparative analysis of similar publicly operated outdoor venues throughout the Bay Area, along with a review of private event and ceremony pricing within Half Moon Bay. This dual analysis provides both a public-sector benchmark and a market-based context for pricing.
DISCUSSION:
Local Market Context (Half Moon Bay)
Private event and ceremony venues in Half Moon Bay demonstrate strong pricing demand, particularly for coastal locations:
439
• Luxury venues, such as The Ritz-Carlton, typically charge ceremony site fees of approximately $1,500 to $3,000 or more, often tied to larger food and beverage minimums.
• Mid-range venues, including Oceano Hotel & Spa, offer bundled wedding packages ranging from approximately $15,000 to $28,000 or more.
• Smaller venues and restaurant buyouts generally range from approximately $2,300 to $8,000 for modest-sized events.
Even simplified ceremony-only events frequently cost several thousand dollars, reflecting the premium associated with coastal destinations. This context supports the value of a publicly accessible venue that offers a more affordable alternative while still capturing appropriate market value.
Public-Sector Benchmarking
Staff evaluated comparable municipally operated outdoor venues to establish an appropriate pricing range:
• The Leo J. Ryan Park Amphitheater in Foster City charges approximately $164 to $342 per hour, translating to roughly $1,300 to $2,700 for a full-day use. This facility represents the closest comparable in scale and function. • The Jerry Garcia Amphitheater in San Francisco charges approximately $2,892 per day for nonprofit users and $5,785 for commercial events, reflecting a larger, high-demand regional venue.
• Smaller neighborhood parks, such as Memorial Park in Cupertino, offer highly subsidized rates as low as $55 to $75 for short-duration use.
This analysis indicates that Carter Park falls between a neighborhood park and a regional destination venue.
Pricing Positioning
Based on the analysis, Staff recommends that Carter Park is best positioned as a mid-tier civic amphitheater, with pricing that:
• Preserves access for local community organizations
• Reflects the value of a coastal event space
• Aligns with regional public-sector benchmarks
• Avoids underpricing a high-demand public asset
A target daily rate range of approximately $1,000 to $2,500 for typical use is consistent with comparable facilities, with higher rates for commercial or high-impact events.
The proposed fee schedule is designed to achieve partial cost recovery for the operation, maintenance, and administration of the Carter Park Amphitheater while maintaining affordable access for community-based organizations.
440
Proposed Fee Structure
Tiered User Categories
The proposed model aligns with industry best practices by differentiating fees based on user type:
• Local Nonprofit / Community Organizations: Subsidized rates to support community programming
• Residents / Private Events: Moderate cost recovery
• Non-Resident / Regional Users: Higher cost recovery
• Commercial Events: Market-rate pricing for revenue-generating activities Certain events may be more appropriately managed under a special event or negotiated license agreement. This determination will be made at staff discretion based on their size, impact, and nature.
Proposed Rates
User Category Hourly Half-Day (Up to 5 Hours) Full Day (Up to 10 Hours) Local Nonprofit / Community $100 $450 $800
Resident / Private Event $200 $900 $1,600
Non-Resident / Regional $250 $1,125 $2,000
Commercial / Ticketed Event $350 $1,650 $3,150
This structure provides predictable pricing while incentivizing longer bookings through discounted half-day and full-day rates.
Cost Recovery and Additional Fees
To ensure the City does not subsidize high-impact or resource-intensive events, additional cost recovery measures are recommended:
• Application fee: $150 (non-refundable)
• Security deposit: $300–$500
• Staffing (required): approximately $50 per hour
• Overtime: 1.5 times hourly rate
• Setup/teardown (additional day): 50% of daily rate
• Cleaning: actual cost, with a minimum of $150
• Insurance requirement: $1 million to $2 million coverage These fees are consistent with standard practices across comparable agencies and ensure that operational costs are appropriately recovered.
Optional Pricing Enhancements
To ensure cost recovery and address the increased operational impacts associated with higher attendance levels, the following tiered fee adjustments may be applied:
441
Capacity-Based Adjustments
To reflect increased operational impacts:
• 1–50 attendees: base rate
• 51–150 attendees: +25%
• 151–300 attendees: +50%
• 300+ attendees: subject to special event permit and custom pricing Implementation of these adjustments may be phased in the future, following an initial evaluation period to assess usage patterns, operational demands, and cost recovery outcomes.
Commercial Event Pricing
For ticketed or revenue-generating events, the City may consider:
• A base rental fee plus 10–15% of gross revenue, or
• A higher flat fee for ease of administration
Other Key Considerations
In developing the fee structure, staff identified several best practices:
• Ensure staff time and operational costs are fully accounted for • Maintain clear differentiation between user types to promote equity • Provide flexible pricing options (hourly, half-day, full-day) • Capture appropriate value for commercial uses without limiting community access The Parks and Recreation Commission received a presentation on April 22, 2026 and recommends adoption of the proposed tiered fee structure for Carter Park.
CONCLUSION:
Following implementation, staff will:
• Monitor utilization and demand over a 12–18 month period • Evaluate cost recovery performance
• Recommend adjustments to rates as needed based on market conditions and usage patterns
• Explore long-term agreements or permits for recurring events where appropriate The proposed fee schedule positions Carter Park as a mid-tier civic amphitheater with community-first pricing and scalable rates for private and commercial use. This approach balances equitable access, fiscal responsibility, and alignment with regional market conditions, ensuring the long-term sustainability of the facility while supporting community activation.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Proposed Fee Schedule
442
RESOLUTION NO. C‐2026-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY ADOPTING A
TIERED FEE SCHEDULE FOR CARTER PARK
WHEREAS, Carter Park was identified in the City’s adopted Parks Master Plan as an underutilized community space and has since been renovated to accommodate community gatherings, performances, and small- to medium-sized events; and WHEREAS, establishing a clear and equitable fee structure is necessary to guide use of the facility, provide transparent expectations for users, and support ongoing maintenance and operations; and
WHEREAS, a comparative analysis of similar publicly operated outdoor venues throughout the Bay Area, as well as a review of private event pricing within Half Moon Bay, helped inform the recommended fee structure; and
WHEREAS, the proposed tiered fee schedule differentiates user categories to promote equitable access, including local nonprofit organizations, residents, non-residents, and commercial users; and
WHEREAS, additional cost recovery measures, including application fees, security deposits, staffing costs, and insurance requirements, are consistent with industry standards and ensure that high-impact events do not impose undue costs on the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of Half Moon Bay adopts the proposed tiered fee schedule for Carter Park:
***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 5th day of May 2026, by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:
AYES, Councilmembers:
NOES, Councilmembers:
ABSENT, Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Maggie Rodriguez, Interim City Clerk Debbie Ruddock, Mayor 443
Attachment 2
Proposed Fee Schedule
John L. Carter Park
Amphitheater
Auditorium: 661
User Category Hourly Half Day (up to 5 hours) /
Full Day (up to 10 hours)
Deposit
Local Nonprofit/ Community $100 $450 / $800 $300
Private Event $200 $900 / $1600 $500
Non-resident/ Regional User $250 $1125 / $2000 $500
Commercial / Ticketed event $350 $ 1650 / $ 3150 $500
Proposed Additional Fees
• Application fee: $150 (non-refundable)
• Staffing (required): approximately $50 per hour
• Overtime: 1.5 times hourly rate
• Setup/teardown (additional day): 50% of daily rate
• Cleaning: actual cost, with a minimum of $150
• Insurance requirement: $1 million to $2 million coverage 444
445
446
From:
Maggie Rodriguez
Subject: Comments to 11.A ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE FOR THE 555 KELLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT, May 5 2026
Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 9:25:00 PM
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Forgot to add you…
From: >
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 9:22 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Debbie Ruddock' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Comments to 11.A ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE FOR THE 555 KELLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT, May 5 2026
Mayor & Council Members
I write regarding your pending approval of the agreements for the 555 Kelly project. Although this action is being characterized as procedural, the record makes clear that it is not. The decision before you is discretionary, legally consequential, and subject to scrutiny under established standards of review.
Communications involving the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reflect that the project sponsor has already sought guidance on how to proceed in the event the Council declines to approve these agreements, including the potential for escalation, legal remedies, or removal of the decision from this body’s control. That context is critical. It indicates that this vote is not occurring in a neutral environment—it is occurring under the shadow of anticipated challenge.
That raises a threshold issue:
Are you exercising independent judgment based on a legally sufficient record, or are you being influenced—implicitly or explicitly—by the perceived consequences of a “no” vote? If the latter is a factor, it directly implicates your obligations as decision-makers.
As elected officials, you are required to base discretionary land use decisions on substantial evidence, consistent application of governing law, and a rational, defensible record. A decision made primarily to avoid litigation, state intervention, or political escalation is vulnerable under multiple standards of review, including arbitrariness, failure to exercise independent judgment, and inconsistency with statutory requirements.
Equally important, reliance on prior approvals does not insulate this action. Where underlying assumptions have shifted, or where there is reason to question the continuing validity of those approvals, the Council has an affirmative duty to reassess. Proceeding without that 447
reassessment risks creating a record that is internally inconsistent or legally deficient.
In practical terms, a “yes” vote under these conditions carries identifiable exposure:
It may be challenged as an abuse of discretion if not supported by substantial evidence in the current record;
It may be subject to claims that the Council failed to exercise independent judgment if external pressures influenced the outcome;
It may create liability for the City if approvals are later found to rest on an unsupported or outdated legal premise; and
It may expose the decision to heightened judicial scrutiny where the record reflects awareness of unresolved legal concerns at the time of approval.
To be direct: approving an action while acknowledging unresolved legal questions does not mitigate risk—it amplifies it. It establishes a record that the Council was aware of potential deficiencies and proceeded regardless.
Each member of this Council should be able to state, prior to voting:
That the legal basis for the project has been independently validated under current standards;
That the evidentiary record supporting this action is complete and internally consistent; and
That the decision is being made free of undue influence arising from anticipated litigation or external pressure.
If those statements cannot be made with confidence, then proceeding exposes the City to avoidable legal challenge and calls into question whether the Council has fulfilled its duty of care and its obligation to exercise reasoned, independent judgment.
This is a real decision with real consequences. If you move forward without being sure the legal foundation is solid, you are taking on risk for the City. If you are confident, you should be able to explain clearly why.
Hazel Joanes
448
From: Matthew Chidester
To: Maggie Rodriguez; Bazzano, Denise S.
Cc: Leslie Lacko
Subject: Fw: 555 Kelly public comment
Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:24:44 PM
FYI
From:
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:21 PM
To: Debbie Ruddock <[email protected]>; Deborah Penrose <[email protected]>; Robert Brownstone <[email protected]>; Patric Jonsson <[email protected]>; Paul Nagengast <[email protected]> Cc: Matthew Chidester <[email protected]>; 'Ashton Hacke' <[email protected]>
Subject: 555 Kelly public comment
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am writing as an opponent of the 555 Kelly project, but not an opponent of truly affordable housing. The problem here is this is another case of business as usual, with the premise that there is a terrible problem of affordability (and there is), and the sentiment that “we have to do something”, even at any cost. Mercy and its pet contractors feed at the trough of public funding, and the cycle continues. In fact, in my opinion we have a moral obligation to house as many people as possible with available funds. This project fails that test miserably, at well over $1mm per apartment, and perpetual rental subsidy of $17,000 per apartment per year now, increasing to over $27,000 per year at the 15 year mark, and more past that. Sure, that’s County money for the subsidy (if it even/ever happens), but that’s our tax dollars as well.
But, there is a significant problem with the way Mercy is trying to qualify this project for the density bonus credit. The credit REQUIRES project location being in proximity to a “major transit stop”. This furthers the goals of providing transit options for residents, decreased VMT, decreased vehicular congestion, decreased greenhouse gas production. As an email from the Mercy consultant shows, they are getting “creative” in making novel and unsupported claims of proximity to transit.
Call it a Mobility Hub or whatever you will, it
does not change the fact that there are only a couple of buses per day along SR-1, in and out of HMB. This is a far cry from the required 15 minute service interval. Moreover, despite the “creative” interpretation from Mercy, the existing level of transit service does not serve the intent of the transit oriented development priorities.
Without transit proximity, the project does not qualify for the density bonus, and cannot be 449
built at the size proposed. The fact that the City is willingly and knowingly going along with this fiction is dishonest, and unbecoming of Council members and staff. The creative approach endorsed by Mercy is likely legally challengeable.
Following is an email from the Mercy consultant to MTC. It is pretty damning, showing the lengths to which Mercy will go to try to shoehorn this project into a box. There is in fact, no equivalency between a “major transit stop”, and the claimed capabilities of a “Mobility Hub” in HMB. The reality does not comport with the fiction proposed.
I am under no illusions as to the intent of the City to shove this project through, nor am I under any illusions as to the possibility of this email changing any votes – there is momentum, groupthink, and denial of reality well entrenched in the thinking of Council and staff. But I need to get this concern on record, to emphasize the dishonesty being employed here. Please do the right thing, even at this late date.
EMAIL TEXT FOLLOWS:
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 1:21 PM
To: Evans, Jessica@HCD <[email protected]>
Cc: Kelly Hollywood <[email protected]>; Higley, CJ x4942 <[email protected]>; Ramie Dare <[email protected]> Subject: 555 Kelly - Major Transit Stop in Regional Transportation Plan per PRC 21155 Hi Jessica,
I was working on creative interpretations to get us to the major transit stop and I may have found one. 555 Kelly may be located within one-half mile of major transit stop identified by the regional transportation plan. Plan Bay Area 2050, the Bay Area’s regional transportation plan (RTP), doesn’t identify major transit stops, but another MTC/ABAG program called Mobility Hubs, does identify transportation hubs. See the attached analysis.
We are working with MTC to better understand how these Mobility Hubs were identified and whether they might serve the purpose of major transit stops under the RTP. The mobility hub program is implementing strategies of the RTP, per its intro statement:
“The mobility hub program is a Climate Initiative Strategy from Plan Bay Area 2040.
The primary goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled. The program supports other regional and Plan Bay Area goals of increasing transit access and connectivity, focusing growth, increasing transit-oriented development, and providing viable travel options to all Bay Area communities.” Alyssa Netto
Associate
(she/her/hers)
450
Attached analysis from Netto re Mobility Hub/major transit stop The DBL provides that 100% affordable housing projects that are located within one-half mile of a major transit stop are not subject to any maximum controls on density.[1] Per the DBL “located within one-half mile of a major transit stop” means “that any point on a proposed development, for which an applicant seeks a density bonus . . . is within one-half mile of any point on the property on which a major transit stop is located. . . .”[2] Major transit stop has the same meaning as in Public Resources Code section 21155(b)[3] which states that “a major transit stop is as defined in Section 21064.3, except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan.”[4] Section 21064.3 defines major transit stop to include “the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” Reading Section 21155(b) together with Section 21064.3, the DBL defines a major transit stop to include both (i) the intersection of two or more bus routes with headways of 15 minutes or less or (ii) a major transit stop that is included in a regional transportation plan.
The property is within one-half mile of a Mobility Hub as defined by the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC). While the MTC and Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) Plan Bay Area 2050 serves as the Bay Area’s regional transportation plan, it does not list or identify any major transit stops. To help meet the goals of the regional transportation plan[5], MTC implemented the Mobility Hub program which identify Mobility Hubs throughout the Bay Area which “are community anchors that enable travelers of all backgrounds and abilities to access multiple travel options — including shared scooters, bicycles and cars, and transit — as well as supportive amenities in a cohesive space”.[6] MTC has provided an interactive map of the Mobility Hubs.[7] Mobility Hub ID 10471 is located within Half Moon Bay. While the pinned location of Mobility Hub 10471 appears to be in the middle of a residential neighborhood, its transit type is identified as “Bus” which indicates that the Mobility Hub is intended to be a bus stop, the nearest of which is located at the intersection of Highway 1 and Belleville Boulevard. This bus stop intersection is located 0.5 miles from the 555 Kelly/Ted Adcock Community Center site. As 555 Kelly is within one-half mile of a Mobility Hub as 451
determined by MTC, the equivalent of a major transit stop under the regional transportation plan.
[1] Cal. Gov. Code § 65915(f)(3(D)(ii).
[2] Cal. Gov. Code § 65915(O)(3).
[3] Cal. Gov. Code § 65915(O)(5).
[4] Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21155(b).
[5] MTC, Mobility Hub Advisory Services: Siting Criteria, Screening Methodology, and Prioritization, 3,
https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Web MTC%20Mobility%20Hubs Siting%20Analysis%20M ethodology%20FINAL.pdf
[6] Mobility Hubs Program Overview, ABAG. https://abag.ca.gov/technical-assistance/mobilityhubs-program-overview [7] San Francisco Bay Region Mobility Hubs.
https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html? id=2885234dd1b447a6907aba83b343a0de
452
453
From:
To: Maggie Rodriguez
Cc: Debbie Ruddock; Deborah Penrose
Subject: Public Comment - May 5, 2026
Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 1:48:23 PM
[You don't often get email . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Half Moon Bay City Council ,
I am writing to urge you to approve the proposal to build 40 housing units for Senior Farmworkers at 555 Kelly Avenue Half Moon Bay .
The very people who provide our food and have contributed to the local economy deserve this now .
This should not be delayed not just because they are Seniors but fundamentally it is the right thing to do.
Everyday when I go to the supermarket I am thankful for their labor .
Respectfully
Sandra Lang
Sent from my iPhone
454