Hercules City Council
May 10, 2022

Tuesday, May 10, 2022
7:00 PM
City of Hercules
111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
City Council
Mayor Dion Bailey
Vice Mayor Alexander Walker-Griffin
Council Member Dan Romero
Council Member Chris Kelley
Council Member Tiffany Grimsley
Dante Hall, City Manager
Patrick Tang, City Attorney
Lauren Berges, City Clerk
Meeting Agenda
Zoom ID: 822 4828 1346
Zoom Passcode: 247702
Zoom Phone Number: 1-669-900-6833
1 May 10, 2022City Council Meeting Agenda
See last pages of agenda for information regarding meeting procedures To view webcast of meetings, live or on demand, go to the City's website at www.ci.hercules.ca.us I. SPECIAL MEETING - CLOSED SESSION – 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
III. CONVENE INTO CLOSED SESSION
The Hercules City Council will meet in Closed Session regarding the following:

IV. REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL V. REPORT ON ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
VI. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
VII. MOMENT OF SILENCE
VIII. INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS/COMMISSION REPORTS

1. 22-163
Proclamation Recognizing May 2022 as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month
AAPI Heritage Month ProclamationAttachments:

2. 22-160 National Library Week 2022 Presentation
NLW 2022 PresentationAttachments:

IX. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
X. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
In accordance with Executive Order N-25-20 and guidance from the California Department of Public Health on gatherings, remote public participation is allowed as follows:

The public may log into the Zoom meeting (refer to agenda cover for Zoom login information) and provide their public comment (3 minute time limit). If attending in-person, please fill out a speaker card and provide to the City Clerk.

When the public comment period is open for the item you wish to speak on, use the "raise hand" feature in Zoom (or press *9 if connecting via phone audio only) at the time the Mayor calls for public comment. Please wait your turn and once you are brought into the meeting, state your name and city of residence for the record.

For additional alternatives to providing public comments please refer to the Notice of Important Instructions on how to Participate and Watch the Hercules City Council Meeting on the last pages of the agenda.

All public comments are allowed up to 3 minutes to relay their message or concern. A limit of 30 minutes will be devoted to taking public comment at this point in the agenda. If any speakers remain at the conclusion of the initial 30 minute period, time will be reserved at the conclusion of the meeting to take the remaining comments.

2 May 10, 2022City Council Meeting Agenda
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. 22-156 Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use Policy Recommendation: Introduction of an ordinance adopting Hercules Police Department Policy No. 709: Military Equipment, Acquisition, Funding, and Use.

Staff Report - Draft Ordinance wi-jpt-220510
Attach 1 - Ordinance - AB 481 - WI- JPT-220510
Attach 2 - Military Equipment Funding Policy
Attach 3 - Equipment Description list
Attachments:

2. 22-154 AB 1276 Single-Use Plastics Reduction Enforcement Requirements Recommendation: Waive the First Reading and Approve for Introduction an Ordinance Implementing AB 1276 Single-use Plastics Reduction Enforcement.

Staff Report - single use plastic ordinance AB1276 - 220510 Ordinance restricting single use foodware accessories 220510 Att. 2 - SR - AB1276 - 220426
Attach 3 - AB1276
Attachments:

3. 22-155 Public Hearing Regarding Possible Charter City Measure for the November 8, 2022 General Election
Recommendation: Receive and discuss staff report, open the public hearing, take public comment, and provide staff with further direction regarding a potential November 8, 2022 ballot measure to become a charter city.

Draft agenda report for charter city hearing on May 10 2022 Attachment 1 - CITY OF EMERYVILLE CHARTER Example
Att. 2 - Staff Report - Follow up Regarding Potential Tax Measures and Process for Becoming a Charter City 2A - Attach 1 - February 8 2022 Staff Report - Polling Results Related to Extending the Existing Utility Users Tax and the Viability of Becoming a Charter City 2B - Att. 2-Summary Report of January 2022 Community Survey Results 2C - Att. 3 -Changes in Full-Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function Last Ten Years 2D - Att. 4-February 25 2020 Staff Report - Process for Becoming a Charter City 2E - Att. 5 - January 25 2022 Staff Report to the City Council - Long-Term Financial Projection 2F - Attach 6 - FY 21-22 General Fund Five-Year Financial Forecast 2G - Attach 7 - Estimated Cost to Restore City Services to Pre-Recession Levels 2H - Attach 8 - March 23 2H - 2021 Staff Report - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis 2I - Attach 9 - March 23 2021 City Council Presentation - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis 2J - Attach 10 - March 23 2J - 2021 Final Report - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis 2K - Attach 11 - SUMMARY OF BUILT AND APPROVED RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS OF FEBRUARY 28 2022 (1) Attachments:

3 May 10, 2022City Council Meeting Agenda
XII. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. 22-162 Minutes
Recommendation: Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of April 26, 2022.

Minutes April 26, 2022Attachments:

2. 22-157 Automated Closed Captioning and Language Translation for Public Meetings
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the proposed quote from Link Electronics for automated closed captioning and translation equipment for an amount not to exceed $49,617.09 and to appropriate the necessary funding.

Staff Report - Auto Closed Captioning and Translation
Attach 1 - Resolution
Attach 2 - Proposal and description
Attachments:

XIII. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ITEMS

1. 22-161 Introduction of the proposed FY 22-23 General Fund and Other Restricted funds budget
Recommendation: Receive an introduction on the proposed FY 22-23 General Fund and Other Restricted funds budget

Budget Intro - GF and Other Governmental Funds SR 05102022 Attach 1 - FY 22-23 Proposed General Fund Budget
Attach 2 - FY 22-23 Proposed Special Revenue Funds Budget - Fund Summaries Attach 3 - FY 22-23 Proposed Debt Service Funds Budget - Fund Summaries Attach 4 - FY 22-23 Proposed ARPA Programs and Projects Attach 5 - ARPA Fund Expenditure Summary and Remaining Balance FY 22-23 Budget Introduction - General Fund and Other Restricted Funds PPT Attachments:

4 May 10, 2022City Council Meeting Agenda

2. 22-159 Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts - Approval of Preliminary Engineer’s Reports and Declaring the City Council’s Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022/23 Recommendation: Adopt the following resolutions:
a. A
resolution for the preliminary approval of the Engineer’s Report and declaring the City Council’s intention to levy and collect assessments for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 within the City of Hercules for Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 83-2, which is comprised of Benefit Zone Nos. 1, 2, 3&4, 5A, 5B, 5C, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, and setting a public hearing for June 28, 2022;
b. A resolution for the preliminary approval of the Preliminary Engineer’s Report and declaring the City Council’s intention to levy and collect assessments for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 within the City of Hercules Victoria by the Bay Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2002-1 and setting a public hearing for June 28, 2022; c. A resolution for the preliminary approval of the Preliminary Engineer’s Report and declaring the City Council’s intention to levy and collect assessments for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 within the City of Hercules for Hercules Village Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2002-2 and setting a public hearing for June 28, 2022; d. A resolution for the preliminary approval of the Preliminary Engineer’s Report and declaring the City Council’s intention to levy and collect assessments for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 within the City of Hercules for Baywood Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2004-1 and setting a public hearing for June 28, 2022; and e. A resolution for the preliminary approval of the Preliminary Engineer’s Report and declaring the City Council’s intention to levy and collect assessments for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 within the City of Hercules for Bayside Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2005 -1 and setting a public hearing for June 28, 2022.

5 May 10, 2022City Council Meeting Agenda
FY 2022-23 LLAD ROI May 10th Staff Report_rev1
_FY22-23_HV L&L Atch 1
FY22-23_Bayside L&L Atch 1
FY22-23_Baywd LL Atch 1
FY22-23_Citywd LL Atch 1
FY22-23_VBB L&L Atch 1
L041_2223 PER
L051_2223 PER
L832_2223_PER
L2002-1-2223 PER
L2002-2_2223 PER
Attachments:

3. 22-158 Discussion Regarding Juneteenth Commemoration and Administrative Requirements for Display of a Ceremonial Pan-African or Juneteenth Flag
Recommendation: Receive report, discuss, and provide direction to staff.

Pan African Flag SR 220510
AP 16 Flag Policy
Attachments:

XIV. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This time is reserved for members of the public who were unavailable to attend the Public Communications period during Section X of the meeting, or were unable to speak due to lack of time. The public speaker requirements specified in Section X of this Agenda apply to this Section.

XV. CITY COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY ANNOUNCEMENTS,

COMMITTEE, SUB-COMMITTEE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE REPORTS

AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
This is the time for brief announcements on issues of interest to the community. In accordance with the provisions of the Brown Act, matters which do not appear on this agenda but require City Council discussion may be either (a) referred to staff or other resources for factual information or (b) placed on a future meeting agenda.

XVI. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 7:00p.m. in the Council Chambers.

Agendas are posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.

Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the City website at www.ci.hercules.ca.us and can receive e-mail notification of agenda and staff report postings by signing up to receive an enotice from the City’s homepage. Agendas and staff reports may also be obtained by contacting the Administrative Services Department at (510) 799-8215 (Posted: May 5, 2022)

6 May 10, 2022City Council Meeting Agenda

INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE AND WATCH THE HERCULES CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING

COMMISSION HYBRID MEETINGS
Attend in Person: Hercules City Council Chambers – 111 Civic Drive, Hercules, CA 94547 Attend via Zoom Teleconference: Details provided below and zoom webinar login, passcode and phone numbers provided on the agenda cover.

Please note: Updated COVID-19 safety protocols will be posted outside the City Council Chambers. Please review this information before entering the Council Chambers.

How to Submit Public Comments
In Person: Attend meeting at the Hercules City Council Chambers, fill out a public speaker card located on the side table and submit it to the City Clerk.

Via Zoom: Members of the public may submit a live remote public comment via Zoom video conferencing.

Download the Zoom mobile app from the Apple Appstore or Google Play. If you are using a desktop computer, you can test your connection to Zoom by clicking here or go to: https://www.zoom.us/join. Zoom also allows you to join by phone at +1-669-900-6833 or +1-929-205-6099 or +1-253-215-8782. • Speakers will be asked to provide their name and city of residence, although providing this information is not required for participation.
• Each speaker will be allowed up to 3 minutes to speak and provide comment. A limit of 30 minutes will be devoted to taking public comment during the first public comment period on the agenda. If any speaker comments have not been accommodated prior to the initial 30 minute period, time will be reserved at the conclusion of the meeting for the remaining public comments. • Speakers will be muted until their opportunity to provide public comment.

When the Mayor opens the comment period for the item you wish to speak on, please use the “raise hand” feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone) which will alert staff that you have a comment to provide and press *6 to unmute.

Written Comments Submitted Electronically: All comments received before 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting will be provided to the City Council prior to the meeting and posted to the City’s agenda website and located by clicking on the “meeting details” tab. Written comments received after 3:00 p.m. will be provided to City Council and posted to the agenda website the following day. Written comments will not be read aloud during the meeting. Email comments to [email protected]. Please indicate which item on the agenda you are commenting on in the subject line of your email.

Written comments submitted in person or via mail: Additional ways to provide your public comment is to either drop off your comment in person to the front desk receptionist located in the City Hall lobby or to mail your comment to City of Hercules, ATTN: City Clerk – Public Comment (Meeting Date), 111 Civic Drive, Hercules, CA 94547 in time to reach the City Clerk no later than 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting or you can submit your comment by telephone by calling (510) 799-8215 no later than 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date.

If you need assistance with public comment, please contact: Lauren Berges, City Clerk at [email protected] or by calling (510) 799-8215.

All public comments will become part of the official meeting record. The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the website will not be uninterrupted. To ensure that the City Council receives your written comments, you are strongly encouraged to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting by 3:00 p.m. on the day of the Council or Commission meeting.

7 May 10, 2022City Council Meeting Agenda

OTHER WAYS TO WATCH THE MEETING
Live on Channel 28: City Council meetings will replay the following Thursday at 7:00 p.m. and Saturday at 1:00 p.m.

Planning Commission meetings will replay the following Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. and Saturday at 9:00 a.m.

Video Streamed Live on the City’s Website:

To view City Council and Planning Commission meeting videos online go to: Hercules Meeting Videos.

Instructions to view Live or On-Demand Videos from the City’s website:

1. Go to: Hercules Meeting Videos or https://hercules.legistar.com/calendar.aspx.

2. Locate the desired meeting and date.

3. Click the associated “Video” link (Video status is as follows):

Video = Video is available for on demand viewing.

In Progress = Video is available for viewing during live recording.

Not Available = Video is either unavailable or has not been recorded.

8 May 10, 2022City Council Meeting Agenda

THE HERCULES CITY COUNCIL ADHERES TO THE FOLLOWING POLICIES,

PROCEDURES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS

1. SPECIAL ACCOMODATIONS: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you require special accommodations to participate at a City Council meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 510-799-8215 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.

2. AGENDA ITEMS: Persons wishing to add an item to an agenda must submit the final written documentation 12 calendar days prior to the meeting. The City retains the discretion whether to add items to the agenda. Persons wishing to address the City Council otherwise may make comments during the Public Communication period of the meeting.

3. AGENDA POSTING: Agendas of regular City Council meetings are posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting at City Hall, the Hercules Swim Center, Ohlone Child Care Center, Hercules Post Office, and on the City’s website (www.ci.hercules.ca.us),

4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: Persons who wish to address the City Council should complete the speaker form prior to the Council's consideration of the item on the agenda.

Anyone who wishes to address the Council on a topic that is not on the agenda and is relevant to the Council should complete the speaker form prior to the start of the meeting. Speakers will be called upon during the Public Communication portion of the meeting. In accordance with the Brown Act, the City Council may not take action on items not listed on the agenda. The Council may refer to staff any matters brought before them at this time and those matters may be placed on a future agenda.

In the interests of conducting an orderly and efficient meeting, speakers will be limited to three (3) minutes.

Anyone may also submit written comments at any time before or during the meeting.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Council or a member of the public prior to the time the City Council votes on the motion to adopt.

6. LEGAL CHALLENGES: If you challenge a decision of the City Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the meeting or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the meeting. Actions challenging City Council decisions shall be subject to the time limitations contained in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.

9 Proclamation
Recognizing May 2022 as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month
WHEREAS, Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month is observed in May to celebrate and pay tribute to the contributions of Asian and Pacific American history, culture, and achievements; and
WHEREAS, by recognizing the contributions and accomplishments of Asian American and Pacific Islander men and women, we celebrate the importance of inclusion in building a brighter future; and
WHEREAS, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders enrich our history, society, and culture as leaders across many industries; and
WHEREAS, we acknowledge the additional determination, hard work, and perseverance Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders must put forth to be heard and seen; these additional efforts are a result of inequitable institutional and systemic injustices; and WHEREAS, since the COVID-19 pandemic, many Asian Americans have faced heightened fear of increasing rates of anti-Asian harassment and violence; and WHEREAS, the City of Hercules encourages all residents to learn more about Asian American and Pacific Islander heritage and work to combat racism and xenophobia through cultural events and education activities; and
WHEREAS, the Hercules community has benefitted through the cultural richness, diversity, and generosity of its local Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED that I, Dion Bailey, Mayor of the City of Hercules, on behalf of the entire City Council, do hereby recognize May 2022 to be Asian and Pacific Islander Heritage Month in the City of Hercules.

In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and cause the seal of the City of Hercules to be affixed this 10 th day of May, 2022.
________________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor

10 11
12 13

NEW DIGITAL RESOURCES
14 15
16 Hercules Library – By the Books
Most popular, most checked out, titles of the past year! Deadly Cross
By James Patterson
Th1rteen R3asons Why
By Jay Asher
Diary of a Wimpy Kid:

The Meltdown
by Jeff Kinney
17 What’s New at Hercules Library
African American Collection Refresh
18 Hercules Library
Children’s Room Starry Cone Sky Garden Doves of Peace
19 Hercules Library
20 QUESTIONS?
21 STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

DATE: Regular Meeting of May 10, 2022

TO: Members of the City Council

VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager

SUBMITTED BY: William Imboden; Chief of Police

SUBJECT: Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council waive first reading and approve for introduction the attached Ordinance adopting Hercules Police Department Policy No. 709: Military Equipment; Acquisition, Funding, and Use.

FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION:

If approved there will be minimal administrative and staff costs associated with the Military Equipment report compliance requirements, which require that a report be prepared and submitted to the governing authority annually.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

At the regular meeting of the City Council on April 26, 2022, the City Council approved a resolution (2022-028) directing Staff to commence the governing body approval process in accordance with Assembly Bill 481 requirements and directed Staff to return to Council within the time provided to present for Council consideration at a noticed public hearing, an ordinance complying with all AB 481 mandates regarding Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use as defined by the Legislature.

BACKGROUND:

On September 30, 2021, the Governor signed California Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481) into law. AB 481 adds new Sections 7070 et seq. to the Government Code requiring law enforcement agencies to obtain the approval of their governin g bodies, through the adoption by ordinance of a Military Equipment Use Policy, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. The new provisions require the Council to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it determines that the military equipment meets specified standards.

22 AB 481 further requires the Council to review the ordinance on an annual basis and to either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for a type of military equipment or amend the military equipment use policy if it determines, based on an Annual Military Equipment Report prepared by the Police Department, that the military equipment does not comply with established standar ds for approval.

New California Government Code Section 7070 provides a list the of types of equipment that are to be considered “Military Equipment” for purposes of compliance with AB 481. The Hercules Police Department had seven (7) items that qualified as “Military Equipment” . Additionally, Hercules Officers while assigned to the County -Wide Mobile Field Task Force train with and use one additional item which qualifies as “Military Equipment”. The Department does not currently possess any other equipmen t that meets the definition of Military Equipment in Section 7070, nor has it obtained or does it utilize any equipment procured from the United States Department of Defense through the Law Enforcement Support Program known as the 1028 or 1033 program.

DISCUSSION:

As noted above, AB 481 requires law enforcement agencies to obtain the approval by ordinance of their governing bodies, of a Military Equipment Use Policy, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.

Aside from the aforementioned “qualifying items”, the Hercules Police Department receives mutual aid from and collaborates with the Contra Costa County Sheriff Office and other agencies within the mutual aid Operational Area. Military equipment used by these Departments in providing mutual aid to the City shall comply with their respective military equipment use policies.

Like many other police departments in the State of California and throughout the United States, the Hercules Police Department utilizes the services of Lexipol LLC for the preparation of its policy manuals, training bulletins and consulting services. Such services are provided on a subscription basis. Lexipol has provided its member entities with a “Policy - Military Equipment, Acquisition, Funding and Use” that is in compliance with the provisions of AB 481 (the “Policy.”) The Hercules Police Department has reviewed the Policy and believes it should be accepted and approved. Staff is now recommending that the City Council review and adopt an ordinance approving the Policy. Use of an ordinance for policy adoption, as opposed to a resolution, is mandated by AB 481 as a means of creating a better public forum to discuss the acquisition and use of military equipment.

A. General AB 481 Requirements

At a minimum AB 481 requires the Policy to include the following:

1. Each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions;

2. The purpose and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency proposes to use each type of military equipment;

3. The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including initial acquisition and 23 maintenance costs;

4. The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use;

5. The training that must be completed before each type of military equipment can be used in order to ensure the full protection of the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties;

6. The means to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy; and

7. The procedures by which members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of specific types of military equipment, and how such complaints and questions will be responded to and/or answered.

B. Policy Approval

California Government Code Section 7071(d) stipulates that the City Council shall only approve the Policy if it determines all of the following:

1. The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

2. The proposed Military Equipment Use Policy will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.

3. If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

4. Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.

Once the Policy has been adopted, California Government Code Section 7070(e) states that the Hercules Police Department is responsible for delivering to the City Council an Annual Military Equipment Report, which the City Council can use to confirm compliance with the Military Equipment Use Policy.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends waiving the first reading and introducing the ordinance attached hereto, adopting Hercules Police Department Policy 709: Military Equipment Acquisition, Funding, and Use.

Second reading and formal adoption of the ordinance will be scheduled for a regular meeting of the City Council in accordance with the City’s Ordinance Adoption Policy.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Ordinance
24 2. Policy Section 709; Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use

3. Military Equipment Description, Purpose, Use, Cost policy insert 25 Ordinance No. ___

ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES ADOPTING HERCULES POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY 709; MILITARY EQU IPMENT

FUNDING, ACQUISITION, AND USE

WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, the Governor signed into law Assembly B ill 48 1 (“AB 481”; Government Code sections 7070 et seq.) relating to the use of military equipment by law enforcement agencies; and

WHEREAS, AB 481 requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the governing body, by way of an ordinance adopting a mi litary equipment use policy, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of “military equipment” as defined in Government Code section 7070; and

WHEREAS, AB 481 further requires that such a policy i nclude certain component s, including but not limited to those listed in Government Code section 7070(d); and

WHEREAS, the Hercules Police Department has reviewed Lexipol LLC’s Policy 70 9: Military Equipment (the “Policy”) and has found it to be in compliance with the requirements of AB 481; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Policy complies with the requirements of AB 481 and that with respect to the Policy: (1) the identified e quipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve t he same objective of officer and civilian safety; (2) the Policy will serve to safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties; (3) in future insta nces in which equipment is to be purchased, the equipment will be reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; and (4) any required corrective action has been taken to remedy use of military equipment inconsistent with the Policy and future compliance is ensured; and

WHEREAS, approval of the Policy authorizes funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment only as allowed by the Policy and requires annual reporting and approval in accordance with the Policy; and,

WHEREAS, adoption of this Ordinance i s not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it is an organizational or admi nistrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15378(b)(5).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

26 Ordinance No. ___

SECTION 1. RECITALS. The City Council here by incorporates the above recitals into this Ordinance by this reference.

SECTION 2. AMENDMENT. Hercules Police Dep artment Policy 709; Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use Approved.

The City Council hereby approves City of Hercules Police Department Policy 709:

Military Equipment, a copy of which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.

A copy of approved Policy 709 has been added to the City’s website for continuous access by the Council, staff and the public.

SECTION 3. CEQA DETERMINATION
The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15378(b)(5).

SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be inv alid, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopt ed the Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be deleted.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall publish or post the Ordinance as required by law. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days from date of final adoption.

SECTION 6. NO CODIFICATION
This ordinance shall not be codified in the Hercules Municipal Code

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was first read at a regular meeting of the Hercules City Council on the _____ day of _______, 2022, and was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Hercules City Council on the _____ day of _____________, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Dion Bailey, Mayor

__________________________________________
27 Ordinance No. ___

Lauren Berges, City Clerk
28 Hercules Police Department
Hercules Police Department Policy Manual
****Draft**** Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use Policy pg. 1

709 Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and
Use Policy

PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of military equipment (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072).

DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):

Governing body - The elected or appointed body that oversees the Police Department

Military equipment - Includes but is not limited to the following:

• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five- ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units.

Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind.

Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms.

Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles.

Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools.

Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs).
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.

Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversite.
29 Hercules Police Department
Hercules Police Department Policy Manual
****Draft**** Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use Policy pg. 2

709.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Hercules Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to military equipment.

709.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police should designate a member of this Department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
(b) Identifying Department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department , or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Hercules Police Department (Government Code § 7071). (e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:

1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.

2. Preparing for public questions regarding the Department's funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the Department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner.

709.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
The following constitutes a list of qualifying equipment for the Hercules Police Department as of May 1, 2022:
• Special Respons e Team Transport Vehicle
• Patr ol R if les
• Noise flas h diversionary devices
• Tear Gas explosive canist ers when assign ed to Mutu al Aid Mobile Fie ld Force (M AMFF), powdered OC ferr et rounds
• Kin etic energy weapons
• Unmanned, remotely pilote d powered aerial devic es 30 Hercules Police Department
Hercules Police Department Policy Manual
****Draft**** Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use Policy pg. 3

• 37mm launchers

709.5 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy . As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the Department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
(a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above.

709.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment used by any member of this jurisdiction shall be approved for use and in accordance with this Department policy. Military equipment used by other jurisdictions that are providing mutual aid to this jurisdiction shall comply with their respective military equipment use policies in rendering mutual aid.

709.7 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the Department w e b s i t e for as long as the military equipment is 31 Hercules Police Department
Hercules Police Department Policy Manual
****Draft**** Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use Policy pg. 4

available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory .

709.8 COMMUNITY EN G A G EM EN T
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting , at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.

MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY pd
32 Hercules Police Department
Hercules Police Department Policy Manual
****Draft**** Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use Policy pg. 5

33 Hercules Police Department
Updated February 22, 2022
1 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY

1. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:

The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) is a battery powered remote operated device with a flight time of approximately 30 – 45 minutes per battery, depending on weather and flight conditions. The UAV has been proven to be useful to public safety agencies in firefighting, search and rescue, pre-operational surveillance, and other tactical situations where aerial views enhance the safety and efficiency of law enforcement and fire personnel.

Mavic 2 Enterprise Advanced UAV, cost $6,499, quantity: 2

b. Purpose:

To be deployed when its view would assist officers or incident commanders with the following situations, which include but are not limited to:

i. Major collisions investigation
ii. Search for missing persons
iii. Natural disaster management
iv. Crime scene photography
v. Critical incident, tactical or other public safety life preservation missions vi. In response to specific requests from fire authorities for fire response

c. Authorized use
Only assigned operators who have completed the required training, certification, and licensing shall be permitted to use Hercules Police Department’s UAVs during approved missions.

d. Expected lifespan
The expected lifespan of the Mavic 2 UAV is five years

e. Fiscal impact
Annual maintenance costs of approximately $0 - $500

2. Command and Control vehicles

a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:
2008 Ford Econoline 350 transport van, Cost $0 (inner-city transfer from Parks and Recreation), quantity: 1
34 Hercules Police Department
Updated February 22, 2022

This is a full-size van modified to transport Special Response Team (SRT) members and equipment to critical incidents and high-risk entry operations. The van is equipped with emergency lights and siren and is painted white with Hercules Police Department (PD) logos on it.
b. Purpose
To be used in response to critical incidents and pre-planned operations to transport personnel and equipment.

c. Authorized use
The use of the van is limited to trained Hercules Police Department SRT members.

d. Expected Lifespan
10 years

e. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance cost of approximately $1,000.

3. Specialized firearms and ammunition

a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost Shoulder fired rifle bored firearms capable of firing 5.56mm ammunition from high capacity magazines; shoulder fired smooth bored firearms capable of firing beanbag rounds, smoke canisters and Corson & Stoughton (CS) gas canisters also known as tear gas.

i. Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle for patrol use, cost: $920.00, quantity: 28 ii. Smith and Wesson Model 226 37mm canister launcher for deployment of projectile smoke or CS gas, cost $600.00, quantity: 1
iii. Remington 870 kinetic energy shotgun for patrol use, cost: $900.00, quantity: 5 iv. Defense Technologies 12 gauge powder barricade penetrator Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) rounds for barricaded subject critical incidents, cost $5.94, quantity: 10
v. Defense technology 37mm CS gas rounds used for riot control and disbursement, cost $39.50, quantity: 0
vi. Winchester Ranger 5.56mm 77 grain ammunition for patrol rifles, cost $878.00/1000 rounds, quantity: 7000
Winchester 5.56mm 55 grain ammunition for patrol rifles, Cost $359/1000 rounds, quantity: 12,000
vii. Defense Technology drag stabilized kinetic energy rounds for patrol, cost $5.35, quantity: 50

b. Purpose
To be used as precision weapons to address known threats from greater distance and behind cover, providing safer response to critical incidents involving heavily armed and protected suspect(s), to defuse vola2tile incidents with less than lethal force, to bring 35 Hercules Police Department
Updated February 22, 2022
3 critical incidents to a close with the least amount of danger to the public, the involved subject(s) and the responding personnel.

c. Authorized use
Only personnel who have attended and passed training and certification courses approved by the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission are authorized to possess or deploy patrol rifles, kinetic energy shotguns, or 37mm launcher.

d. Expected Lifespan

i. Colt AR-15 Rifle: 15 years
ii. S&W Mod 226 37mm launcher: 15 years
iii. Remington 870 kinetic energy shotgun: 15 years
iv. Defense technology OC rounds: no expiration date
v. Winchester 5.56mm rounds: no expiration date
vi. Kinetic energy rounds: no expiration date

e. Fiscal impact
Annual maintenance is approximately $50 for each rifle. Ammunition costs vary by availability. Approximately $2,500 annually.

4. Noise flash diversionary devices

a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost A Noise Flash Diversionary Device (NFDD) is a device that creates a bright flash and a loud explosive sound to divert the attention of subjects in the area and temporarily disorient them to additional sounds and movement. NFDD are used to temporarily incapacitate dangerous subjects by overwhelming their senses of vision and hearing.

The momentary distraction allows off icers to seize the opportunity to take control of high-risk situations.

i. Defense Technologies 12-gram low roll non-reloadable, cost $52.00, quantity: 24

b. Purpose
To produce atmospheric overpressure and brilliant white light and as a result can cause short-term (6-8 seconds) physiological/psychological sensory deprivation to give officers a tactical advantage.
36 Hercules Police Department
Updated February 22, 2022
4 c. Authorized use
Diversionary devices shall only be used:

i. By SRT members who have been trained in their proper handling and use ii. In hostage or barricaded subject situations
iii. In high-risk warrant services where there may be extreme hazards to officers iv. During other high risk situations where their use would enhance officer safety v. During training exercises.

d. Expected lifespan
5 years

e. Fiscal impact
There are no maintenance costs associated with the storage of this device.

5. Munitions containing tear gas or OC

a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost Chemical agent munitions, which are commonly referred to as "tear gas," are used by the Hercules Police Department as a non-lethal tool to disperse rioting suspects and/or barricaded suspects. CS (2- Chlorobenzylidenemalonoi trile) and OC (Oleoresin Capsicum) are commonly used by law enforcement agencies across the United States.

CS is an irritating agent and lachrymator (irritates the eyes and causes tears to flow). CS has been medically tested in the UK and US, specifically by the U.S. Army. There are no known allergic reactions to CS. OC was de-regulated in California in 1996, is endorsed by the FBI, and is available to civilians to legally possess (2.5oz or less). OC is an inflammatory agent which causes involuntary closure of eyes (open 2-5 minutes) and respiratory inflammation (subsides in approximately 2 minutes).

i. Defense Technologies 12 gauge powder barricade penetrator OC for barricaded subject critical incidents, cost $5.94, quantity: 10 ii. Officers assigned to the County-Wide Mutual Aid Mobile Field Force (MAMFF) are issued Defense Technology CS gas by the Contra Costa Office of the Sheriff as part of their tactical duty gear when deployed by the MAMFF. They do not carry the CS gas as a part of their regular Patrol equipment in Hercules, however they do possess it in the event they need to respond to emergency deployment(s) elsewhere in the County. Cost $0, quantity: 2 each.

b. Purpose
To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable. Situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to:
37 Hercules Police Department
Updated February 22, 2022
5 i. Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals. ii. Riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents.
iii. Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained. iv. Potentially vicious animals.
v. Training exercises or approved demonstrations.

c. Authorized use
Only Officers who have received POST certification in the use of chemical agents are authorized to use chemical agents.

d. Expected Lifespan
Defense Technology OC rounds: No expiration date

e. Fiscal Impact
There are no maintenance costs associated with the storage of these devices 38 STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

DATE: Regular Meeting of May 10, 2022

TO: Mayor Bailey and Members of the City Council

VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager

SUBMITTED BY: Patrick Tang, City Attorney
Michael Roberts, Public Works Director/City Engineer

SUBJECT: AB 1276 – Single-Use Plastics Reduction Enforcement Requirements

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council waive first reading and approve for introduction the attached Ordinance implementing AB 1276 single -use plastics reduction enforcement requirements.

FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION:

Enforcement of the single-use plastic reduction enforcement requirements would require an as yet undetermined amount of code enforcement and administrative staff time.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

AB 1276 prohibits dispensing of single -use plastics and condiment items by food service establishments unless those items are requested by the customer, and further mandates that cities adopt an enforcement mechanism by June 1, 2022. Staff presented a report regarding this new state law requirement at the regular council meeting of April 26, 2022. After discussion, and upon hearing public comment regarding this matter, the Council directed that staff return with an AB 1276 compliant ordinance similar to the example provided at the April 26, 2022 meeting (the Goleta model). By doing so, Council has adopted a two-step approach, seeking to put in place by the state deadline of June 1, 2022 an ordinance that meets the enforcement obligations under AB 1276, with additional requirements that may include further local restrictions on single use plastics to be discussed at a future date.

BACKGROUND:

Every year in the United States, an estimated 561 billion disposable plastic items are used, resulting in 4.9 million tons of waste.1 Much of this plastic ends up in the ocean, approximately 2.4 million tons of plastic waste each year from the United States alone. California communities are estimated to spend more than $428 million annually to clean up and control plastic pollution.2

1 E. Moss, R. Grousset, The Dirty Truth about Disposable Foodware, The Overbrook Foundation – February 2020. 2 Ocean Protection Council.
39 DISCUSSION:

On October 5, 2021, AB 1276 was signed into law by Governor Newsom. AB 1276 amends existing law to support the goal of reducing the use of, and waste generated by, all single-use food service products. Specifically, this bill prohibits a food facility from providing any single -use foodware accessory or standard condiment, as defined, unless requested by the consumer. It further prohibits these items from being bundled or packaged in a way that prohibits the consumer from taking only the item desired. Additionally, AB 1276 requires that on or before June 1, 2022, local jurisdictions shall authorize an enforcement agency to enforce the regulations. Penalties under AB 1276 include a notice of violation for the first two violations, with any subsequent infraction punishable by a fine of $25 for each day in violation, but not to exceed $300 annually.

Active enforcement of single-use plastic food service ware regulations may not be possible given current code enforcement staffing levels; it is likely that violations would be investigated on a complaint-only basis. Issuing, administering, and collecting administrative penalties is a staff intensive effort and fines received typically do not cover the City’s cost in administering the penalty program.

CONCLUSION:

In response to Council direction obtained at the May 26, 2022 regular city council meeting, staff is presenting for introduction an ordinance that meets the local enforcement obligations imposed by AB 1276.

Attachments:

1) Ordinance providing for the enforcement of AB 1276 single-use foodware accessories and condiment regulations
2) Staff report and related attachments from Council meeting of May 26, 2022 40 Attachment 1 to
May 10, 2022 Report
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES ADDING TITLE 5, CHAPTER 12, SECTIONS 5-12.01 TO 5 -12.06 TO THE HERCULES MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING SINGLE-USE

FOODWARE ACCESSORIES AND STANDARD CONDIMENTS

WHEREAS, the California State Legislature has recognized that littered plastic products have caused and continue to cause significant environmental harm and have burdened local governments with significant env ironmental cleanup costs (California Public Resources Code Section 42355); and

WHEREAS, in October 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law California State Assembly Bill (AB) 1276 which expands on existing law prohibiting restaurants from providing single -use plastic straws unless requested by the consumer, by prohibiting food facilities from providing any single- use foodware accessory or standard condiment, as defined, to a consumer unless requested by the consumer; and

WHEREAS, single -use foodware access ories, including napkins, straws, condiments, forks, spoons, sporks, knives, and other disposable flatware create waste and environmental hazards, and therefore should only be made available upon request in compliance with AB 1276; and

WHEREAS, over one hundred municipalities in California have adopted ordinances prohibiting or restricting single -use foodware accessories, which have reduced the volume of single -use foodware accessories in waste streams and throughout the natural environment; and

WHEREAS, AB 1276 as amended requires the City to authorize an enforcement agency to enforce its requirements; and

WHEREAS, the City of Hercules seeks to implement AB 1276 as amended by authorizing an enforcement agency to enforce its requirements prohibiting distribution of single-use foodware accessories and standard condiments unless requested by the consumer on or before June 1, 2022.
41 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Code Amendment. Title 5, Chapter 12, Regulation of Single-Use Foodware Accessories and Standard Condiments, Sections 5-12.01 to 5-12.06 are hereby added to Title 5, Chapter 8.10 (“Sanitation and Health”) of the Hercules Municipal Code and shall read as follows:

Chapter 12. Single-Use Foodware Accessory and Standard Condiment Reduction Ordinance

5-12.01 Title
5-12.02 Purpose and Applicability
5-12.03 Definitions
5-12.04 Requirements
5-12.05 Exemptions
5-12.06 Enforcement and Penalties

5-12.01 Title
This Chapter shall be known as “Single-Use Foodware Accessory and Standard Condiment Reduction Ordinance” and may be so cited.
5-12.02 Purpose and Applicability
The City Council finds and declares that the purpose of this Chapter is to comply with AB 1276 and mandate that all single-use foodware accessories and standard condiments be made available upon request only.
5-12.03 Definitions
(a) “AB 1276” means the California State Assembly Bill regulating the distribution of single-use foodware accessories by food vendors to be made available only upon request 42 of the consumer. The new law applies to plastic and non-plastic single-use foodware items and standard condiments. This law requires the City of Hercules to authorize an enforcement agency on or before June 1, 2022.

(b) “Single-use Foodware Accessories” means disposable products intended for single or limited number of uses, used in the restaurant and food service industry for serving or transporting prepared, ready -to-consume food or beverages. Single -use foodware includes, but is not limited to, plates, cups, bowls, trays, hinged or lidded containers, straws, stirrers, lid plugs, lids and utensils. This does not include disposable packaging for unprepared foods.

(c) “Standard Condiment” means relishes, spices, sauces, confections, or seasonings that require no additional preparation and that are usually used on a food item after preparation, including ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, soy sauce, hot sauce, salsa, salt, pepper, sugar, and sugar substitutes.

(d) “Food Service Vendor” means any business, organization, entity, group, or individual providing prepared food or beverages for public consumption on or off its premises within the City of Hercules.

(e) “Digital Ordering Platform” means the digital technology provided by an internet website or mobile application used by customers to order food and/or schedule food delivery.

(f) “Refillable Self-service Dispenser” means a container or equipment that is used to hold disposable foodware accessories for customers to obtain at their discretion.

5-12.04 Requirements for Food Service Vendors
A. Food Service Vendors shall only distribute single -use foodware accessories and standard condiments upon the request of the customer, unless a local, county or Stat e emergency order is in effect requiring distribution of such single -use foodware accessories and standard condiments. However, employees are not prohibited from asking customers if they would like any single -use foodware accessories or standard condiments and providing the amount requested by the customer. 43 B. Food Service vendors shall place signs on the premises to inform customers and employees that single -use foodware accessories and standard condiments are offered only upon request.

C. Food Service vendors shall include in their Digital Ordering Platforms for ordering food a statement that communicates that single -use foodware accessories are offered only upon request and shall include the ability for customers to select which foodware accessories or standard condiments they want. The food service vendor shall customize its menu with a list of available single-use foodware accessories and standard condiments, and only those single -use foodware accessories or standard condiments selected by the consumer shall be provided by the food facility. If a consumer does not select any single- use foodware accessories or standard condiments, no single -use foodware accessory or standard condiment shall be provided by the food facility for delivery of ready -to-eat food.

D. Food Service Vendors shall instruct employees to inform customers that single -use foodware accessories and standard condiments are offered only upon request.

E. Food Service Vendors shall not package Single-use Foodware Accessories and Standard Condiments in a manner that prohibits a customer from taking only the type of Single-use Foodware Accessory or Standard Condiment desired without also having to take a different type of Single-use Foodware Accessory or Standard Condiment.

F. Food Service Vendors may ask a drive-through customer if the consumer wants a Single- use Foodware Accessory if the Single -use Foodware Accessory is necessary for the consumer to consume ready-to-eat food, or to prevent spills of or safely transport ready- to-eat food, or to prevent spills of or safely transport ready-to-eat food. 5-12.05 Exemptions
A. This Chapter shall not apply to Refillable Self-Service Dispensers. Food Service Vendors may therefore make Standard Condiments and Single-use Foodware Accessories available for customers to obtain as needed. Food Service Vendors are encouraged to use bulk dispensers for the condiments rather than condiments packaged for single-use.

B. This Chapter shall not apply to the following institutions or facilities:
a. Correctional institutions, which has the same meaning as in Section 7502 of the Penal Code.
b. Health care facilities licensed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 1250) of Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code or facilities that are owned or operated by a health care service plan licensed pursuant to Chapter 2.2 (commencing with Section 1240) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code. 44 c. Residential care facilities licensed pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 1200) of the Health and Safety Code.
d. Public and private school cafeterias, as referenced in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 113789 of the Health and Safety Code.
5-12.06 Enforcement and Penalties
A. The first and second violations of this Chapter shall result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each day in violation, but not to exceed an amount of three hundred dollars ($300) annually.

B. Unless otherwise provided for in this Chapter, the City’s procedures on imposition of administrative fines, Title 1, Chapter 4, Sections 1 -4.01-1-4.03, are hereby incorporated in their entirety, as modified from time to time, and shall govern the imposition, enforcement, collection, and review of administrative citations issued to enforce this Chapter and any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to this Chapter. This Chapter shall only apply to those entities subject to the City’s regulatory jurisdiction.

C. The City Manager, or his/her designee, shall have primary responsibility for enforcement of this Chapter and shall have authority to issue citations for violation of any provision of this Chapter. The City Manager, or his/her designee, may establish regulations or administrative procedures and take any actions reasonable and necessary to further the purposes of this Chapter or to obtain compliance with this Chapter, including, without limitation, performing an inspection of a retail establishment’s premises to verify compliance with this Chapter.

D. Any violation of any of the requirements of this Chapter shall constitute an infraction.

Each and every day that a violation occurs shall constitute a separate violation.

E. The remedies and penalties provided in this Chapter are cumulative and not exclusive, and nothing in this Chapter shall preclude the City from pursuing any other remedies. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or any other relief to enforce the provisions of this Chapter and any regulation or administrative procedure developed pursuant hereto.

SECTION 3. No Conflict with Federal or State Law. Nothing in this Chapter is intended to create any requirement, power, or duty that is in conflict with any federal or state law.

SECTION 4: CEQA. The City of Hercules has determined that the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.), pursuant to State CEQA Regulation §15061(b)(3) (14 Cal. 45 Code Regs.§ 15061(b){3)) covering activities with no possibility of having a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 6. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and, within 15 days after its adoption, shall cause it to be published in accord with California Law.

SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect on the 31st day following final adoption by the City Council.

INTRODUCED ON the 10th day of May, 2022.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ________day of ______ 2022

_________________________

DION BAILEY
MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________

LAUREN BERGES

CITY CLERK

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:
46 1

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

DATE: Regular Meeting of April 26, 2022

TO: Mayor Bailey and Members of the City Council

VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager

SUBMITTED BY: Patrick Tang, City Attorney
Michael Roberts, Public Works Director/City Engineer

SUBJECT: AB 1276 – Single-Use Plastics Reduction Enforcement Requirements

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Accept staff report, and provide direction to staff regarding the scope of a proposed ordinance implementing AB 1276 enforcement requirements.

FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION:

Enforcement of the single-use plastic reduction requirements would require an as yet undetermined amount of code enforcement and administrative staff time.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The purpose of this item is to provide an update on recent state law affecting the regulation of single- use plastic items, provide information on components of ordinances addressing single -use plastic reduction including approaches utilized by other jurisdictions, and seek feedback from the Council on next steps regarding development of similar regulations for the City.

BACKGROUND:

Plastic pollution is a massive problem. Every year in the United States, an estimated 561 billion disposable items are used, resulting in 4.9 million tons of waste.1 Much of this plastic ends up in the ocean, with approximately 2.4 million tons of plastic waste each year from the United States alone.

Because plastic degrades and breaks down into pieces only very slowly, it poses a huge threat to wildlife and ecosystems and makes clean-up efforts more challenging. California communities are estimated to spend more than $428 million annually to clean up and control plastic pollution.2

In light of Governor Newsom’s signing of Assembly Bill 1276 (AB 1276), which amended existing law regulating single -use plastic straws, staff seeks input regarding the City’s approach to

1 E. Moss, R. Grousset, The Dirty Truth about Disposable Foodware, The Overbrook Foundation – February 2020. 2 Ocean Protection Council.
47 2

development of regulations intended to satisfy State requirements for compliance with AB 1276, and the potential for expanding upon existing law, if directed by Council.

DISCUSSION:

On October 5, 2021, AB 1276 was signed into law by Governor Newsom. AB 1276 amends existing law to support the goal of reducing the use of, and waste generated by, all single-use food service products. Specifically, this bill prohibits a food facility from providing any single -use foodware accessory or standard condiment, as defined, unless requested by the consumer. It further prohibits these items from being bundled or packaged in a way that prohibits the consumer from taking only the item desired. Additionally, AB 1276 requires that on or before June 1, 2022, local jurisdictions shall authorize an enforcement agency to enforce the regulations. Penalties include a notice of violation for the first two violations, with any subsequent infraction punishable by a fine of $25 for each day in violation, but not to exceed $300 annually.

While AB 1276 does not ban single-use plastic foodware - it makes it only available upon request - the law specifically states that nothing in it prevents a local jurisdiction from adopting and implementing an ordinance or rule that would further restrict a fo od facility or a third -party food delivery platform from providing single -use foodware accessories or standard condiments to a consumer. Therefore, the City may choose to expand upon the existing law.

Many cities in California have expanded upon state law and have banned some single-use plastics completely. For example, Daly City, Santa Monica, and Malibu have banned plastic utensils and stirrers in favor of marine-degradable and/or compostable disposable food service ware. The penalties for failure to comply with these bans vary in severity. Many jurisdictions issue notices of violation, and others issue fines that exceed the amounts s pecified in AB 1276. In Laguna Beach, fines are cumulative and go up to $500 for the third and each subsequent day of viola tion after an initial warning.

The summaries below highlight the range of actions taken by a few cities as examples:

• Berkeley – Disposable accessory items (straws, stirrers, utensils, condiment packets, etc.) to be provided only on customer request, and all disposable accessory items must be certified compostable.

• Palo Alto – Final passage of an ordinance adopting the minimum AB 1276 requirements is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on April 18, 2022.

• Daly City - On September 13, 2021, the Daly City Council adopted a Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance eliminating the unnecessary distribution and use of single -use plastics. The City’s new regulation will require Daly City food facilities to transition t o non- plastic alternatives. Straws, stirrers, bundled utensils, and cocktail/toothpicks (and the packaging that these individual items are wrapped in if any) must be non-plastic and compostable materials , or reusable wherever practicable. Acceptable materials include natural fiber-based products such as paper, sugarcane, wheat stalk/stem, bamboo, wood, etc. Traditional plastics (petroleum -based) and compostable plastics (aka bioplastics or polylactic acid [PLA]) shall not be allowed.
48 3

Plates, bowls, cups, food trays, clamshells, boxes, deli containers, and other containers must be non -plastic and compostable, or reusable wherever practicable.

Additionally, these items shall be certified by the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) or an approved third party.
• Santa Barbara - The City of Santa Barbara has regulations in place that prohibit plastic straws and stirrers, and which makes plastic cutlery available upon request. These restrictions are compliant with AB 1276. Santa Barbara has adopt ed a separate ordinance that bans Polystyrene food containers.

• Carpinteria - The City of Carpinteria in 2019 banned single-use plastic foodware all together, and made non-plastic foodware only available upon request. Carpinteria is in compliance with AB 1276 and goes a step further by placing restrictions on all single-use food accessories.

• Goleta – To meet the state deadline of June 1, 2022 , for compliance with AB 1276 requirements, the City of Goleta is taking a two-step approach to proposed plastic reduction regulations. The first step is the proposed ordinance to bring the City into compliance with the state legislation (The first reading of the Ordinance is scheduled for April 19, 2022). The second step includes developing a second ordinance that would expand upon state law by prohibiting additional types of single-use plastics.

• West Hollywood - The City of West Hollywood is currently in the process of banning plastic products in food service. On October 4th, 2021, the City of West Hollywood City Council directed staff to draft an amendment to the City’s municipal code to prohibit food and beverage providers from distributing single -use non -marine-degradable disposable food service ware. This includes single-use plastic straws, utensils, containers, lids, lid plugs, cups, bowls, etc.

• Manhattan Beach - Manhattan Beach banned single use plastic foodware in 2018, and in 2019 banned meat trays, egg cartons, and has restrictions on balloons to reduce plastic pollution.

CONCLUSION:

As mentioned previously, AB 1276 requires that the City authorize an enforcement agency to enforce the new regulations by June 1, 2022. Staff will proceed with developing a draft ordinance to comply with AB 1276 requirements , based on Council direction reg arding the scope of the proposed ordinance. There are two decision points: 1) Should the City ordinance address the provision of single- use foodware accessories only on request, consistent with AB 1276, or should it be expanded to limit or entirely prohibit single-use plastic food service ware, as a number of cities have done? 2) Should the City ordinance retain the AB 1276 fine of $25 for each day in violation but not to exceed $300 annually, or set a higher violation rate such as the $100/$200/$500 admini strative citation rate provided in the existing Hercules Municipal Code?

By banning single-use plastics and/or setting a higher penalty rate, the City of Hercules would go beyond the requirements of AB 1276. If the decision is made to further restrict or ban single-use plastics, this may impose a hardship on local restaurant owners who may then have to incur the cost to re-stock with marine-degradable and/or compostable disposable food service ware. Some cities, 49 4

such as Daly City, conducted extensive outreach to local food businesses to obtain feedback and address concerns prior to adopting a ban on single-use plastics. Goleta is considering a future ban on single-use plastics to be considered for adoption after outreach to and feedback from the community, but in the short term will consider the passage of an ordinance that meets the minimum threshold requirements under AB 1276. If a ban on single-use plastics is to be considered, an effective date sometime in the future could be included, to allow restaurants time to acquire alternative food service ware.

Active enforcement of single-use plastic food service ware regulations may not be possible given current code enforcement staffing levels ; it is likely that violations would be investigated on a complaint-only basis. Issuing, administering, and collecting administrative penalties is a staff intensive effort and fines received typically do not cover the City’s cost in administering the penalty program.

Regardless of which approach is taken, an effort will need to be made to inform both residents and food businesses of their obligations under the newly adopted provisions. By implementing regulations resulting in source reductions for single-use plastic items, the City would be supporting one aspect of a more comprehensive approach to reducing plastic pollution.

Attachments:

1) Sample AB 1276 ordinance from City of Goleta (does not expand AB 1276 enforcement requirements)
2) AB 1276 Full Text

50 51
52 53
54 1

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DAT
E: Regular Meeting of May 10, 2022
T
O: Mayor Bailey and Members of the City Council
VI
A: Dante Hall, City Manager
S
UBMITTED BY: Patrick Tang, City Attorney
Ben Fay, Special Counsel
S
UBJECT: Public Hearing Regarding a Possible Charter City Measure Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council hold the first of two required public hearings regarding a proposed charter for the City of Hercules, which if authorized by the Council, would be placed on the ballot for the November 8, 2022, general election.

Background
The City Council has engaged in a series of discussions at regularly agendized council meetings regarding two potential tax measures. The first would be a renewal of the existing Utility Users Tax (UUT), which if not renewed by an affirmative vote of a majority of voters, will expire January 1, 2025. The second would be an increase in the Real Proper ty Transfer Tax (RPTT). Hercules is a general law city, and only charter cities can increase the RPTT beyond the statutorily mandated amount for general law cities. In order for the City to increase the RPTT, a ballot measure to become a charter city must be approved by the voters at a general election. Prior reports discussing the charter city/RPTT option are provided as attachments to this report.

T
he Council has directed that staff continue to explore both the UUT and Charter City/RPTT options for placement on the November 8, 2022 ballot. In order to place a charter city measure on the ballot, among other requirements two public hearings must be convened. This is the first of the required two public hearings.

Discussion
Cities in California are organized as either general law cities or charter cities. The City of Hercules is a general law city. Cities are general law cities by default but may go through a process to become charter cities. A general law city has the authority to exercise its police powers to act locally, but its acts must be consistent with all general laws adopted by the State Legislature. In 55 2
contrast, a charter city may use its “home rule” authority to adopt local laws regarding “municipal affairs” that vary from, and even conflict with, general state laws. “M
unicipal affairs,” over which charter cities have independent authority and do not have to follow the general laws, include the structure of a city’s government, aspects of contracting, and municipal revenues. One charter city power in particular is the ability, with voter approval, to impose a higher Real Property Transfer Tax (“RPTT”) than that mandated by state law. An RPTT (also called a Documentary Transfer Tax) is a tax imposed on the transfer of real property in the City. The tax is collected by the county when a change of ownership is recorded, and the county remits the tax to the City. The tax is imposed as a percentage of the value of the real property being transferred.

Under the Revenue and Taxation Code, the maximum rate at which a general law city can impose an RPTT is 0.055%; charter cities, however, are not so restricted , and many charter cities have adopted higher RPTTs under their charter authority. T hese include Alameda (1.2%), Albany (1.5%), Berkeley (1.5% to 2.5% depending on the value of the property), El Cerrito (1.2%), Emeryville (1.2%), Oakland ($1.5% to 2.5% depending on the value of the property), Piedmont (1.3%), Richmond (0.7%), and San Leandro (1.1%).

I
n 2014, the City of Emeryville adopted a charter , partly in order to increase its RPTT. In fact, it limited its charter authority to municipal revenues, specifically taxation and assessments, and the increase of the RPTT in particular. The City of Emeryville charter is being presented by staff as an example of a Bay Area city that has received voter approval to become a charter city.

I
f the decision is made to place a proposed charter on the ballot for the November 8, 2022 election, a separate measure would also be placed on the ballot that if approved by the voters would increase the RPTT by the amount specified by the City Council. The City could also consider combining the proposed charter and proposed increase in the RPTT into a single ballot measure.

Charter City Timeline
A
city can only adopt a charter with the approval of a majority of the electorate. In order to put a proposed charter on the ballot, the City Council must first hold two public hearings on the proposed charter. There must be at least 30 days between the two public hearings, and at least one of the hearings must be held outside regular business hours. The Council cannot vote on whether to submit the charter to the voters until at least 21 days after the second hearing, and the decision to put the charter on the ballot must be made at least 88 days before the election.

Conclusion
Should the Council direct that staff continue to explore the charter city option, the second required public hearing would take place at the June 14
th, 2022 Council meeting.

A
ttachment 1: City of Emeryville Charter Example
Attachment 2: Staff Report from March 8, 2022 Council meeting, with attachments 56 Attachment 1

CITY OF EMERYVILLE CHARTER

ARTICLE I

NAME AND BOUNDARIES
100. Name and Boundaries
The municipal corporation now existing and known as the City of Emeryville, hereafter referred to as “the City,” shall remain and continue to be a municipal body corporate and politic, as at present, in name, in fact, and in law.

ARTICLE II

POWERS OF CITY
200. Exercise of Constitutional Power of Taxation
The City of Emeryville adopts this Charter to exercise all constitutional powers conferred on cities under Article XI sections 7 and 5 of the California Constitution solely with respect to the powers over municipal affairs in relation to municipal revenues including taxation and assessment, and a system for the imposition, levy and collection of a tax on the conveyance of re al property based on the value of the real property in addition to the amount authorized by California Revenue and Taxation Code section 11911. 201. Subject to General Laws
Except as provided in this Charter with respect to the power of the City over municipal affairs in relation to municipal revenues including taxation and assessment, the powers of the City shall otherwise be constrained by, subject to, and governed by the general laws of the State as now and hereafter existing relating to cities organized under said general laws.
202. Severability
If any provision of this Charter is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remaining provisions of the Charter shall remain in full force and effect.

ARTICLE III

SUCCESSION
300. Rights and Liabilities
The City shall remain vested with and continue to have, hold, and enjoy all property, rights of property, and rights of action of every nature and description now pertaining to this municipality, and is hereby declared to be the successor of sa me. It shall be subject to all the obligations, contracts, liabilities, debts, and duties that now exist against or with the City.
301. Ordinances, Codes, and Other Regulations
All ordinances, codes, resolutions, regulations, rules, and portions thereof, i n force at the time this Charter takes effect, and not in conflict or inconsistent herewith, shall continue in force until repealed, amended, changed, or superseded in the manner provided by this Charter and any other applicable laws.

57 302. Pending Actions And Proceedings
No action or proceeding, civil or criminal, pending at the time this Charter takes effect, brought by or against the City or any officer, office, or department thereof, shall be affected or abated by the adoption of this Charter, or by anything herein contained.

ARTICLE IV

FORM OF GOVERNMENT
400. Form of Government
The form of government shall be that commonly known as the Council -Manager form of government. The City Council, consisting of five councilmembers elected at large for four year staggered terms, in the manner in effect when this Charter was adopted, shall establish the policy of the City and the City Manager shall carry out that policy.[]

58 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

DATE: Regular Meeting of March 8, 2022

TO: Mayor Bailey and Members of the City Council

SUBMITTED BY: J. Patrick Tang, City Attorney
Dante Hall, City Manager

SUBJECT: Follow up from February 22 Council meeting – Discussion of Potential Tax Measures: 1) Renewal of the City’s Existing Voter Approved Utility Users Tax (UUT), and 2) Process for Becoming a Charter City for the Limited Purpose of Increasing the Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT), which is Only Paid by Buyers or Sellers of Real Property

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive report, discuss, provide direction to staff regarding: 1) Extending the City’s existing, voter-approved Utility Users Tax (UUT) beyond January 1, 2025 and, 2) placing a potential charter city measure on the ballot, for the limited purpose of increasing the Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT).

FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION:

If the Council moves forward with one or more of the proposed ballot measures, costs will be incurred for staff time, consulting, and ballot related expenses.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Two potential tax measures are discussed in this report. The first is a renewal of the existing Utility Users Tax (UUT), which if not renewed by an affirmative vote of a majority of voters, will expire January 1, 2025. The second is an increase in the Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT). Hercules is a general law city, and only charter cities can increase the RPTT beyond the statutorily mandated amount for general law cities. In order to increase the RPTT, the Council must place a ballot measure before the voters at a general election to become a 59 charter city for that limited pu rpose. The Council has directed that both options be considered for placement on the November 8, 2022 ballot.

BACKGROUND:

At the February 8, 2022 Council meeting, the City’s consultants, the Lew Edwards Group and FM3 Research (“Consultants”) , provided polling results related to extending the existing Utility Users Tax (UUT) currently set to expire in January 2025, and the viability of becoming a Charter City for the limited purpose of increasing the Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) (Attachments 1 and 2). After receiving the presentation and after a discussion of options, the Council declined to move forward with a ballot measure in June 2022 for renewing the UUT (this would have required the adoption of a fiscal emergency declaration by a unanimous vote of the Council), and instead directed that staff work with Consultants to determine the viability of placing on the November 2022 ballot:

1) A measure to renew the existing, voter -approved UUT, which if not continued would expire in January 2025; and

2) A measure to become a Charter City for the limited purpose of increasing the RPTT; and

3) In conjunction with 2 above, approval of an ordinance increasing the RPTT to an as yet unspecified amount above the current statutory amount of $0.55 per $1,000 of property value.

The direction from Council to explore the placement of all of the above measures on the November ballot necessitates retention of one or more consultants for additional polling and survey work. At the February 22, 2022 Council meeting, staff presented Council with a contract extension for Lew Edwards and FM3 Research to undertake the work required to determine the viability of placing both the UUT and City Charter/RPTT measures on the November ballot. The Council had a number of questions regarding both of the proposed measures, and agreed to defer action on approval of additional funding for Consultants until the Council could first have additional discussion at tonight’s meeting regarding both the UUT and City Charter/RPTT matters.

DISCUSSION:

What is the UUT? The Utility Users Tax (UUT), pursuant to Title 8, Chapter 8 of the Hercules Municipal Code, is a tax approved in two different elections by Hercules voters and collected by the service provider on the use of various utilities by Hercules residents, covering telecommunications, electricity, natural gas, water, and video service usage. The 60 UUT is currently assessed at 8%, and the UUT will exp ire on January 1, 2025. The City receives approximately $3.5 million a year from the UUT.

The City is a lean organization and has not fully recovered from the staff and budgetary cuts necessitated by the Great Recession. With the dissolution of the redevelopment agency in 2012 by Sacramento, the City has lost a significant funding source for funding capital improvements. In FY 2011, the City reduced its workforce by 30% and made significant service cuts to bring expenditures in line with its revenues. The attached chart identifies the changes in the number of full-time employees from FY 2011 through FY 2020 (Attachment 3). While these changes saved the City from near bankruptcy, it did not cure the long-term structural deficit, nor contemplate a plan for financial sustainability.

The City relies on UUT proceeds to fund a wide range of services including maintenance of public properties, staffing, and providing for public safety. If the UUT is allowed to expire in January 2025 without being continued, the loss of approximately $3.5 million a year in revenue would drastically impair the City’s ability to provide even a minimal level of service. If we are required to make budget cuts that may include police and neighborhood patrols, street maintenance, parks, senior services, youth programs, and economic development, we risk a decline in our quality of life.

What is the RPTT? The Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT), pursuant to Title 8, Chapter 3 of the Hercules Municipal Code, is a n existing tax collected by the County Clerk -Recorder which is only paid by buyers or sellers of real property . It is imposed on each deed, instrument or writing by which any land or other realty sold within the City of Hercules is granted, assigned, transferred or otherwise conveyed to any other person or persons, at the rate established by state law for general law cities of $1.10 for each $1,000 of property value.

The tax proceeds received are split, with $.055 per $1,000 going to the County, and the $.055 per $1,000 going to the City. The amount of RPTT the City received in 2021 for all properties sold during that year was a total of $120,000.00.

To increase the RPTT, a general law city must become a charter city. To become a charter city, a general law city must receive voter approval via a ballot measure. Becoming a charter city requires approval by a simple majority of voters at a general elect ion. Other East Bay/Bay Area cities such as Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Emeryville, and Hayward have taken this step to expand their authority to collect a larger percentage of these transactions. If the City increases its share of RPTT in this manner, the County would continue to receive $0.55 per $1,000 of property value, but the City would retain the rest of the amount authorized by the tax measure.

At the February 22 meeting, the questions and comments by Council included:
61  Can the UUT be renewed at a higher rate than the current 8%? How about 9% or 10%?

Answer: Yes. The UUT can be set higher than the current 8% rate; however, the polling to date by Consultants did not contemplate an increase to the current UUT rate of 8% and an increase might poll significantly differently from a renewal with no rate increase. Every increase of 1% of UUT would result in additional revenue of approximately $437,500 based on current UUT revenue of approximately $3.5 million a year.

 Should Consultants be provided a specific amount or a range of potential RPTT amounts prior to undertaking additional polling of voters?

Answer: Yes. To fully understand public sentiment of a potential RPTT increase, Council direction on a tax rate range (a low and high dollar amount) would be important to establish prior to polling, so consultants can test that range. Depending on feedback from the polling results, the Council would be able to select a viable RPTT t ax measure amount for placement on the November 2022 ballot.

 How have other cities determined the amount of RPTT increase to be sought?

Answer: Most of the cities surveyed have established an increased RPTT rate based in large part on a projection of future need. For example in the case of Emeryville in 2014, which is 95% inside a redevelopment area, the amount of RPTT to be collected, $12 per $1,000 of property value, was calculated based on how much funding for budget and capital impr ovements was lost as a result of redevelopment dissolution, and how much funding would be needed for additional critical capital improvements.

As a point of reference, the chart below identifies the base RPTT rates applied in nearby charter cities. The median tax rate selected by these cities is $12 per $1,000 of property value. The RPTT rate for all charter cities in California has been previously reported and is included in the agenda materials from past Council reports, attached to this report (Attachment 4).

62 CITY CITY TAX (PER

THOUSAND DOLLARS)
Alameda $12.00
Albany $15.00
Berkeley $15.00
El Cerrito $12.00
Emeryville $12.00
Oakland $15.00
Piedmont $13.00
Richmond $7.00
San Leandro $11.00
Median $12.00

For Hercules, General Fund expenditures are projected to increase at the estimated rate of 3% a year . Expenditure projections for a 5 -year forecast period through 2027 range from $16.8 to $18.6 million assuming the current service levels are preserved. A structural deficit of approximately $2 million will begin in FY 24-25 without additional revenue streams and if the UUT is not renewed beyond its January 2025 expiration date (Attachments 5 and 6).

This forecast does not include the future expectations of the Council and citizens regarding the potential for expanded service levels and public infrastructure needs and improvements.

As mentioned above, in 2011 the City made significant service cuts in the attempt to bring expenditures in line with its revenues. Even if an extension of the UUT at its current rate of 8% were approved by the voters, an additional $3 million annually would still be needed to restore City services to pre - recession levels (or FY 2011) (Attachment 7) .

Should Hercules become a charter city and increase its RPTT, the revenue comparison chart below shows the annual revenue that would be received using the average annual RPTT amounts received for Fiscal Years 2014-2019:

Tax Rate $0.55/1,000 $4/1,000 $8/1,000 $12/1,000 $16/1000 Estimated
Annual Revenue $115K $838K $1.6M $2.5M $3.3M

Therefore, curing the structural deficit projected to begin in FY 24 -25 and restoring prior service levels to meet community de mand would require a 63 renewal of the UUT at its current 8% rate, and an additional $3 million annually. Given the staff shortag es in the Public Works Department (Attachments 8, 9 and 10), the current lack of a dedicated code enforcement unit, understaffing in the Planning Department, and the perceived need to increase public safety expenditures to meet future needs resulting from a projected increase in 1,509 residentials units (Attachment 11), staff recommends that Consultants be directed to poll voters regarding the Charter City/RPTT proposal based on a range from $8 to $16 per $1,000 to achieve the revenue amounts illustrated in the above table.

 What is the timeline for each of the proposed measures?

UUT: A proposed measure to continue the UUT must be submitted at least eighty-eight (88) days before the November 8, 2022 election. The City Council would need to vote on submission of the ballot measure no later than the August 9, 2022 council meeting.

Charter City/RPTT:

Prior to approving submission of the charter to the voters, the City Council must hold at least two public hearings on the proposal of the charter and the content of the charter, and notice of those hearings must be published at least twenty one (21) calendar days before the date of each hearing. The second public hearing must be held at least thirty (30) days after the first hearing, and at least one of the hearings must be held outside of normal business hours.

The City Council may not vote on submission of the charter to the voters until twenty one (21) days after the second public hearing. A charter proposal can only be voted on at a regular general election, absent a declaration of a fiscal emergency. In order for the City Council to place a charter measure on the ballot for November 2022, the City would need to adhere to the following timeline:

The City Council must vote to submit the proposed charter to the voters at least eighty-eight (88) days before the election, and hold at least two public hearings.

City Council holds first public hearing on proposed charter May 10, 2022
Notice of the hearing must be given 21 days in advance

City Council holds second public hearing on proposed charter 64 June 14, 2022
Must occur at least 30 days after first public hearing

City Council votes on submission of the proposed charter to the voters no later than August 9, 2022.

Election Date: November 8, 2022

CONCLUSION:

Staff seeks further direction from Council regarding the proposed tax measures discussed in this report.

Attachments:

1. February 8, 2022, Staff Report - Polling Results Related to Extending the Existing Utility Users Tax and the Viability of Becoming a Charter City

2. February 4, 2022, Summary Report of January 2022 Community Survey Results

3. Changes in Full-Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function Last Ten Years

4. February 25, 2020, Staff Report - Process for Becoming a Charter City

5. January 25, 2022, Staff Report - Long-Term Financial Projection

6. FY 21-22 General Fund Five-Year Financial Forecast

7. Estimated Cost to Restore City Staffing Levels to Pre-recession Levels

8. March 23, 2021, Staff Report - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis

9. March 23, 2021, City Council Presentation - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis

10. March 23, 2021, Final Report - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis

11. Summary of Built and Approved Residential Units as of February 28, 2022

65 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

DATE: Regular Meeting of February 8, 2022
TO: Mayor Kelley and Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Dante Hall, City Manager
SUBJECT: Report on Polling Results Related to Extending the E xisting Utility Users Tax and the Viability of Becoming a Charter City for the Limited Purpose of Increasing the Real Estate Property Transfer Tax RECOMMENDATION ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive the report from the Lew Edwards Group and direct staff to proceed with planning for the placement of the Utility Users Tax measure on the City’s regularly scheduled Municipal Election in November of 2022, or

2. Provide alternate direction

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to receiving this report. Based on the Council’s direction, staff will return to the Council to request additional funds.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In October of 2021, the City awarded a contract to the Lew Edwards Group, and FM3 Research to determine the public opinion of registered voters regarding 1) the feasibility of going to the voters in November 2022 or November 2024 to extend the existing Utility Users Tax (UUT) prior to its expiration on January 1, 2025, and 2) the viability of becoming a charter city for the limited purpose of increasing the Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT).

66 Lew Edwards and FM3 Research have completed the public opinion survey and will be making a presentation about their findings and recommendations related to the UUT and RTTP initiatives (ATTACHMENT 1).

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

At its May 25 th, 2021 meeting, the Council engaged in a discussion regarding the feasibility of becoming a charter city for the limited purpose of increasing the real Property Transfer Tax, the Council requested that the Charter City/RPTT item come back for additional discussion and further directed that a companion report be prepared regarding the need to extend the UUT which will otherwise expire on January 1, 2025.

The City of Hercules relies on the UUT to provide sufficient ongoing revenues to sustain current levels of service. The UUT sunsets January 1, 2025 and is estimated to generate a projected $ 3.5 million in revenue in the fiscal year which ends June 30, 202 2. Without these revenues, the city would not be in the position to continue to provide the services important to our community even at the current reduced level. While there has been some improvement in revenues overall, Hercules still receives a low share of the property taxes compared to other cities in Contra Costa County, and its retail tax base while largely weathering the effects of Covid -19 is not significant enough to support current service levels without the UUT.

Attachments:

1. Summary Report of January 2022 Community Survey Result

2. January 2022 Community Opinion Survey Questions

3. November 9, 2021 Staff Report – Lew Edwards Group award of contract

4. Resolution

5. Election Opinion Poll Services
67 To: Hercules City Manager Dante Hall

From: Lew Edwards Group and FM3 Research

Date: February 4, 2022

Re: Summary Report of January 2022 Community Survey Results

INTRODUCTION

Together with City Executive Staff, Lew Edwards Group (LEG) and FM3 Research (FM3) designed an updated 2022 City of Hercules Community Survey to evaluate customer satisfaction, resident priorities for services, and community interest in potential local funding measures.

Survey interviews were conducted by FM3 January 3 -17th. LEG/FM3 is pleased to report 324 completed interviews, which is more tha n the 245 respondents willing to respond in the last survey conducted in the City in 2015 . The Margin of Error on the full sample is +/ - 5.4% at the 95% confidence level.

VIEWS OF THE CITY

Having serv ed the City ’s sustainability needs over the course of the past decade, LEG /FM3 have a unique view on how resident perspectives have evolved over time.

2022 survey respondents clearly view life in Hercules through a more positive lens. Today, those who say things are off on the wrong track are at a record low, and 56% of respondents feel the City is headed in the “right direction” -- a 25 point increase from when we started our collaboration with the City in 2012.

A majority of respondents feel the City is doing an “excellent” or “good” job providing services, and a plurality believe the City is doing a good job managing its budget and finances . At the same time, perceptions of city inefficiency and corruption have continued to steadily decline since 2012 , with perceptions of c orruption, cronyism, waste, or inefficiency dropping from a high of 63% in 2012 to 24% today.

While confidence has softened since our 2015 collaboration, it is still stronger than many other cities are currently experiencing and is likely due to the uncertain COVID times . This is a testament to City leadership’s hard work during these trying times.
68 MEASURE VIABILITIES

There were three measures evaluated in the 2022 study.

Renewal of Existing Voter-Approved UUT, with No Increase in Tax Rate

The City is in a strong position to renew its existing, voter-approved utility users tax (UUT) measure in November 2022 . The following ballot question (reviewed and approved by the City Attorney) was tested three times in the study:

CITY OF HERCULES NO TAX INCREASE/FINANCIAL STABILITY MEASURE: Shall an ordinance to maintain Hercules’ long -term financial stability and essential city services, such as neighborhood police patrols; crime prevention; street and pothole repair; and youth an d senior programs, by renewing an existing, voter -approved 8% utility users’ tax, generating approximately $3,600,000 annually until ended by voters, with no tax increase, low -income exemptions, independent citizens’ oversight, annual audits, and funding that cannot be taken by Sacramento, be adopted?

This simple majority requirement measure be gins with a 67% viability threshold on the first ballot test, stays consistent at 69% on the second test, and remains at 66% on the final, third ballot test. As there is no statistical difference in these perce ntages, this measure is strongly supported by respondents and remains remarkably consistent through the entire progression of the survey.

Based on this evaluation, LEG/FM3 recommend the City proceed with planning for placement of this measure on the City’s regularly scheduled Municipal Election.

City Charter Measure

Each of the two following measures were tested once in the study:

CITY OF HERCULES CITY CHARTER/LOCAL CONTROL MEASURE. To enhance local control over funding essential city services, shall the City of Hercules Charter be adopted to establish Hercules as a Charter City with the ability to adopt a local real property transfer tax, subject to voter approval? The City Council’s powers otherwise remain unchanged and are limited by State general law, and any other powers as a charter city would have to be approved by voters. Do yo u think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure?

This simple majority-requirement Charter measure receives 39% support. While this percentage is not unusual for other LEG cities who have enacted similar measures, it bea rs noting that in Hercules's case, the percentage opposition to this measure is also 39%, whic h is far higher than in our other successful cities. The percentage of undecideds are therefore much lower in Hercules (around 20%) than in other successful jurisdictions.

69 Based on t he community ’s current reaction to this measure LEG/FM3 advise a longer runway of preparation for the 2024 election cycle to provide time for the City to educate the community about this measure concept if desired.

Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) Measure

The following companion rev enue measure to the Charter Measure was also tested once in the survey:

CITY OF HERCULES ESSENTIAL SERVICES PROTECTION MEASURE. Shall an ordinance to expand locally controlled funding for essential city services such as improving 911 r esponse times, disaster preparedness/ safe routes to school; retaining/ attracting businesses; keeping public areas/ parks safe/ clean; by enacting a real property transfer tax (paid only by buyers and sellers of property at the time of sale), until ended by voters and requiring annual audits, no funds for Sacramento, be adopted?

The test of t his simple majority-requirement companion RPTT measure is at 53% which is within the MOE for the survey. As this type of funding mechanism is reliant on the companion Charter Measure being adopted, as noted above, deferring consideration of this measure package until 2024 is strongly advised due to the relatively low scoring reactions to both at this time.

TOP SCORING COMMUNITY PRIORITIES

An extensive battery of City services /objectives was evaluated in the study . The following seven services/objectives scored the most intensively and highly:

▪ Maintaining long-term financial stability - 88%
▪ Preventing funds being taken by Sacramento - 87%
▪ Meeting water quality health standards - 86%
▪ Maintaining fiscal accountability - 86%
▪ Maintaining 911 response times - 85%
▪ Keeping public areas and parks safe and clean - 84%
▪ Keeping funds local - 81%

INFORMATIONAL STATEMENTS

The following paraphrased informational facts resonated most strongly and effectively with survey respondents.

Budget Implications: Without this funding, the City will lose $3.6 million every year, which is over 20% of the City's budget. T he City may have no choice but to slash basic city services just to balance its budget, including police and neighborhood patrols, street maintenance, parks, senior services, youth programs, economic development, and others.

70 Maintaining Local Public Safety Services : Measure C has maintained police services. I f it is not renewed, the City will be forced to seriously consider major cuts to our police department, which could impact crime prevention and 911 response times.

Quality of Life: Hercules is a place where people desire to live and raise families. If the City is forced to continue cutting basic city services, the character of our community and its quality of life will decline. Renewing local funding helps protect and maintain esse ntial City services that make our community a safe, well-maintained place to live.

Finally, it b ears noting that the study found that virtually half of Hercules respondents were concerned about the am ount they were paying in utilities -- viewing it as an “extremely” or “very” serious problem. In these uncertain COVID times LEG/FM3 would caution the City about over - reaching to consider any increase or changes to the actual UUT rate . These results show your constituents clearly value maintaining existing voter-approved funding for the City’s long-term fiscal stability with no tax rate increase, but do not speak to the viability of a potential increase in the rate.

RECOMMENDATIONS/ NEXT STEPS

Educating and engaging your residents around the City’s budget, service needs and local priorities is vital to maintaining measure viability. LEG/FM3 re commend the City educate and engage the community during the upcoming budget process to collect more input and keep the public updated on your challenges.

As in past collaborations with the City, LEG’s recommended Public Information toolkit will include the following:

▪ Informational Speakers’ Bureau : City staff should visit those organizations in -person or through their scheduled online meetings to solicit feedback and provide information , which was highly effective and well-received by the community in past collaborations.

▪ Opinion Leader Communications and Outreach : Communicating the results of this survey provides the City with an opportunity to engage opinion leaders and expand the conversation with high-level leaders.

▪ Website/Newsletters/Social Media: Facts and information about the City’s financial condition should be placed on the City’s website, Facebook Page and Twitter feed. LEG will be recommending an E -Update & Social Media Plan to engage the public, get more feedback, and provide information.

▪ Media Response & Earned Media: Any opportunity to respond to the media should be treated with high importance and an opportunity to share information with the community.

▪ City Newsletter: Producing and mailing printed City Newsletters are recommended to engage and inform the Community about City service needs and priorities. While the Speakers’ 71 Bureau and Opinion Leader letters are extremely effective forms of communication, direct mail remains one essential component of a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary communications plan especially for seniors.

▪ Citizens Advisory Committee engagement: In LEG /FM3’s past collaborations with the City, the Her cules Citizens Advisory Committee has always been involved a s a highly credible community messenger, and we look forward to collaborating with the Committee again.

THUMBNAIL TIMELINE IF PREPARING FOR A NOVEMBER 2022 PLACEMENT

LEG/FM3 are looking forward to finalizing a graph presentation of Community Survey highlights for presentation to the City Council on February 8th. The following is a thumbnail outline of the timetable and key activities if planning for a November 2022 measure:

February – May: Update City Council, authorize continued project planning Engage Influentials and Community at Large
Solicit additional community feedback, report back to public Utilize budget consideration/adoption engagement and
messaging opportunities

June – July: Prepare ballot measure documents
Place measure on Municipal Election ballot

August – November: Submit ballot measure documents to County ROV Develop Municipal Election Communications Toolkit
Provide Municipal Election/Measure Information to public Thank the community for participating

November – December: Evaluate 2022 activities
If desired, commence assessment, planning and engagement for charter/RPTT activities

72 City of Hercules
Full-Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function Last Ten Fiscal Years
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, Compared to
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 FY 2011 % Function
General Government 12.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 11.00 (1.00) -8% Public Safety 29.00 26.00 23.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 26.00 26.00 28.00 (1.00) -3% Public Works
(a) 14.00 18.00 14.00 13.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 (3.00) -21% Community Development 5.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 (3.00) -60% Parks and Recreation 9.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 (5.00) -56%

69.00 62.00 53.00 53.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 53.00 53.00 56.00 (13.00) -19% Housing Authority (b) 3.00 3.00
Total 72.00 65.00 53.00 53.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 53.00 53.00 56.00 (13.00) NOTE:
(a) Public Works includes Wastewater and Solid Waste
(b) The Housing Authority became a separate legal entity during Fiscal Year 2011-12 Source: City of Hercules Operating Budget
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 FTE's
General Government Public Safety Public Works (a)
Community Development Parks and Recreation Housing Authority (b) 73 1

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

DATE: Regular Meeting of February 25, 2020
TO: Mayor Esquivias and Members of the City Council

SUBMITTED BY: J. Patrick Tang, City Attorney
David Biggs, City Manager

SUBJECT: Process for Becoming a Charter City for the Purpose of Increasing the Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT)

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive report, discuss, and provide direction, if any.

COMMISSION/SUBCOMMITTEE ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION:

There was no commission or subcommittee review of this item.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct cost associated with the preparation of this report. Future steps of considering a ballot measure, including possible polling, preparing a proposed charter , undertaking the process to place the measure on the ballot, and conducting an election, would all incur costs. The exact amount of the impact would depend on what type of community engagement the Council would want.

Any process would involve staff and city attorney time. If a ballot measure were approved by the voters, Hercules would see an increase in RPTT revenue. The amount of increase would depend upon the RPTT rate set by the City; various estimates are provided in the Revenue Rate Comparison Table, see page 4.

However, it is uncertain whether voters would approve an increased RPTT.

BACKGROUND: At its January 14, 2020 regular meeting, the City Council directed the city attorney and staff to prepare a report for Council information regarding the process for becoming a charter city, for the limited purpose of setting real property transfer tax (RPTT) rates beyond the rate set by state law for general law cities.

DISCUSSION: Cities in California are organized as either general law cities or charter cities. The City of Hercules is a general law city. Cities are general law cities by default, but may go through a process to 74 2

become charter cities. A general law city has the authority to exercise its police powers to act locally, but its acts must be consistent with all general laws adopted by the State Legislature. This is why general law cities are “locked in” to receiving a real property transfer tax (RPTT) rate of $0.55 per $1,000 as set by the state. In contrast, a charter city may use its “home rule” authority to adopt local laws regarding “municipal affairs” that vary from state laws, so that a charter city has more control over local affairs than a general law city. A significant authority possessed by charter cities is the authority, with voter approval, to impose a higher RPTT rate. Charter law cities are not subject to state law regarding RPTT because the setting of RPTT rates is deemed a municipal affair. As a result, charter cities may impose RPTT at a rate higher than the maximum statutory rate otherwise received by general law cities. A list of al l California general law and charter cities, along with their respective RPTT rates, is provided as Attachment 1.

There are other reasons why a general law city may seek to become a charter city other than to set RPTT rates, including but not limited to changing the number of elected officials, establishing district elections, and providing for a strong mayor form of government (see Attachment 2), but given Council’s direction to limit the discussion to becoming a charter city for the sole purpose of adjusting RPTT rates, other reasons for becoming a charter city are not discussed in this report. An example of the type of limiting language that can be included in a charter to restrict the scope of local authority to setting the RPTT rate is provided below:

“The City may exercise the powers of a charter city to generate revenue by imposing a tax on the conveyance of real property, based upon the price paid for the real property ("real property transfer tax"). Any real property transfer tax imposed by the City shall be in addition to any similar tax authorized by the general laws of the State of California. Except as provided in this Charter, the powers of the City shall otherwise be constrained by, subject to, and governed by the general laws of the State as now and hereafter existing relating to cities organized under such general laws.“

It should be noted that , while other governance changes may not be in consideration as part of the approval of an initial charter, charter city status does expand the po ssible universe of both council and voter-initiated changes to governance and other matters via the electoral process that may otherwise not be possible as a General Law City. However, once a charter is adopted by the voters, it can only be changed by an affirmative vote of a majority of the electorate. And, once a RPTT rate has been approved by the voters, as a general tax it cannot be changed without receiving the affirmative vote of a majority of the electorate. In other words, the C ouncil could not change the charter without voter approval , nor could the Council change the RPTT rate without voter approval.

What is RPTT? The real property transfer tax (RPTT) applies to transactions involving the sale and purchase of all improved property with homes or commercial structures , and all unimproved land with no structures. The tax is paid when ownership transfers from the seller of the property to the purchas er of the property. Generally, the tax can be paid by either the seller or the purchaser, or the tax can be shared between the seller and the purchaser. It is a one-time expense related to the transfer of ownership, and is unrelated to the annual payment of property taxes. Currently under the California Revenue and Taxation Code, property in general law ci ties when it is sold is assessed a county transfer tax of $1.10 for every $1,000 of the real estate’s sales price. Counties then split that tax with the cities, so that the city where 75 3

the sale took place receives $0.55 for every $1,000 of sale price. Hercules thus currently receives an RPTT of the maximum allowed for general law cities of $0.55 per $1,000 of value.

Recently a number of general law cities have utilized the legal process to become charter cities for t he limited purpose of setting RPTT rates beyond the baseline rate of $0.55 per $1,000 established for general law cities.1 Under State law and the California Constitution, cities cannot impose, increase or extend any tax unless the tax is approved by the voters. Accordingly, a measure to become a charter city, and an increase to the RPTT, would require voter approval by a simple majority of the electorate.

How much does the property buyer pay? Property owners/sellers in general law cities in California pay a RPTT of $1.10 p er thousand dollars of sales price or $275 on a $250,000 property sale; by way of example, that means $550 on a $500,000 property sale; $825 on a $750,000 property sale, and; $1,100 on a $1,000,000 property sale. The RPTT amounts above are split between the county and the city, so that the city receives half. Should the City become a Charter City and enact a higher RPTT, the full $1.10 per thousand provided for under State law would go to the County, and the City rate authorized under the Charter would be i n addition to the base $1.10 per thousand that the C ounty would receive. The local increase to the RPTT is essentially a local tax measure; u nlike the property tax where the City gets back less than 4 cents per dollar, all of the additional RPTT amount would flow to the City, with none of it going to the State and the County receiving only the statutory allocation of $1.10 per $1,000.

The table below shows the RPTT paid under the General Law city provisions now in effect , and four additional illustrations on what a possible Charter City rate would impose. As you can see, under the charter city examples, the amount that goes to the County remains the same, regardless of the RPTT rate set by the City:

TAX RATE COMPARISON TABLE

Gen. Law RPTT
$1.10/1,000

Charter RPTT
$4/1,000
Charter RPTT
$8/1,000
Charter RPTT
$12/1,000
Charter RPTT
$16/1,000
Property Sale
Price
City/County City/County City/County City/County City/County $250,000 137.50/137.50 1,000/275 2,000/275 3,000/275 4,000/275 $500,000 275/275 2,000/550 4,000/550 6,000/550 8,000/550 $750,000 412.50/412.50 3,000/825 6,000/825 9,000/825 12,000/825 $1,000,000 550/550 4,000/1,100 8,000/1,100 12,000/1,100 16,000/1,100

1 Six cities attempted to increase their RPTT rates at the 2018 general election. Voters in five of the six cities approved the RPTT increases. Two of the cities, El Cerrito and Union City, were general law cities that sought to become charter cities for that limited purpose; El Cerrito voters approved becoming a charter city and increasing their RPTT to $12.00 per thousand, while Union City voters did not approve a similar measure . Emeryville became a charter city to increase RPTT rates in 2014.
76 4

By way of comparison, a Hercules resident who buys a $25,000 automobile in Contra Costa County pays $2,187.50 in sales tax, based on the current 8.75% tax rate, of which the City receives $375.00. How much additional revenue would the city receive if the city adopted an increase to the RPTT? The amount of additional revenue would depend on what RPTT rate was selected. Below is a chart showing the annual revenue that would be received using the average annual RPTT amounts received by Hercules for Fiscal Years 2014-2019 ($115,248), and based on a range of RPTT rates:

REVENUE RATE COMPARISON TABLE

$0.55/1,000 $4/1,000 $8/1,000 $12/1,000 $16/1000
City County City County City County City County City County $115K $115K $838K $230K $1.6M $230K $2.5M $230K $3.3M $230K

What is the process for becoming a charter city?
Becoming a charter city requires approval by a simple majority of voters. Prior to approving submission of the charter to the voters, the City Council must hold at least two public hearings on the proposal of the charter and the content of the charter, and notice of those hearings must be published at least twenty one (21) calendar days before the date of each hearing. The second public hearing must be held at least thirty (30) days after the first hearing, and at l east one of the hearings must be held outside of normal business hours. The City Council may not vote on submission of the charter to the voters until twenty one (21) days after the second public hearing. A charter proposal can only be voted on at a regula r general election, absent a declaration of a fiscal emergency. In order for the City Council to place a charter measure on the ballot for November 3, 2020, the City would need to hold the first formal public hearing on a proposed charter at the first meeting in May 2020.

An increased RP TT is not itself established by the charter. Rather, the RP TT would be established by a separate ordinance submitted simultaneously to the voters. The ordinance would include the RP TT rate along with other administrative rules. Since the draft charter would prohibit the City from exercising any of the powers of a charter city except for the enactment of an increased RPTT, becoming a charter city and the transfer tax are inextricably linked.

It is common for cities looking to adopt a charter to launch a community engagement process to inform the public about what becoming a charter city would entail and receive feedback prior to placing a charter measure on the ballot. Because becoming a charter city is a complicated issue that can easily cause confusion, it is strongly recommended that if the Council decided to try and become a charter city that communications professionals be retained to help explain to the public what becoming a charter city entails.

If the Council wished to explore this further, it would want to make some preliminary decisions about the RPTT, such as the proposed rate, before beginning the community engagement process. In addition, the need to renew the expiring existing Utility Users base rate and ove rride by no later than 2024 or 2025, should be considered. These and other factors could also be assessed by undertaking polling to determine 77 5

the voter’s reactions to a number of possible options. This would normally be one of the first steps before deciding to place a matter on the ballot. The City last undertook polling in 2015 prior to opting to place a measure on the ballot to renew the sales tax override, and the measure was crafted based on the information garnered from professional polling.

Ultimately, the Council would have the ability to make changes and adjustments prior to submitting the measure to the voters , based on feedback received during the engagement process and upon further review.

Possible options for community engagement could include all or some of the following:

• Conduct polling to gauge community interest before placing the measure on the ballot. This could include both scientific and unscientific polling; or • Appoint a community committee to make recommendations regar ding the draft charter and RPTT;
• Conduct official town hall meetings to provide information about the charter and RPTT to the community, as well as allow an opportunity for the public to ask questions and the Council to receive feedback;
• Mail information including FAQs to residents about becoming a charter city.

The above list of community engagement options is non-exhaustive and is intended only as an example of possible types of outreach. The more extensive the outreach, the more community feedback can be expected, but there would be a greater increase in staff time and costs to implement.

SUMMARY CONCLUSION: Becoming a charter city is an option that a number of general law cities have pursued, for varying reasons. Most recently, cities that have plac ed charter city measures on the ballot have done so primarily to allow local control over the setting of RPTT rates, and have opted to expressly exclude additional powers that are otherwise available to charter cities.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. RPTT Rates Statewide

2. League of California Cities Summary

78 California City Documentary and Property Transfer Tax Rates Governance: Per $1000 Rev&T ax Code Per $1000
General Law PropertyValue Sec 11911-11929 PropertyValue or Chartered Cit y Rate Count y Rate T otal
ALAMEDA COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
ALAMEDA Chartered $ 12.00 $ 1.10 $ 13.10
ALBANY Chartered $ 11.50 $ 1.10 $ 12.60
BERKELEY Chartered

1.5% for up to
$1.5M value $ 1.10 $ 16.10

2.5% properties
over $2.5M $ 1.10 $ 26.10
DUBLIN General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
EMERYVILLE Chartered $ 12.00 $ 1.10 $ 13.10
FREMONT General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HAYWARD Chartered $ 8.50 $ 1.10 $ 9.60
LIVERMORE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
NEWARK General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
OAKLAND Chartered 1% up to $300k $ 1.10 $ 11.10

1.5% $300k -$2M $ 1.10 $ 16.10

1.75% $2M–$5M $ 1.10 $ 18.60

2.5% over $5M $ 1.10 $ 26.10
PIEDMONT Chartered $ 13.00 $ 1.10 $ 14.10
PL EASANTON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN LEANDRO Chartered $ 6.00 $ 1.10 $ 7.10
UNION CITY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ALPINE COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
AMADOR COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
AMADOR General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
IONE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
JACKSON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PLYMOUTH General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SUTTER CREEK General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BUTTE COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
BIGGS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CHICO Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
GRIDLEY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
OROVILLE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PARADISE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CALAVERAS COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
ANGELS CAMP General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
COLUSA COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
COLUSA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WILLIAMS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
ANTIOCH General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BRENTWOOD General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CLAYTON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CONCORD General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
DANVILLE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
mjgc rev15Sept2019 CaliforniaCityFinance.com page 1 of 16 79 California City Documentary and Property Transfer Tax Rates Governance: Per $1000 Rev&T ax Code Per $1000
General Law PropertyValue Sec 11911-11929 PropertyValue or Chartered Cit y Rate Count y Rate T otal
EL CERRITO Chartered $ 12.00 $ 1.10 $ 13.10
HERCULES General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LAFAYETTE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MARTINEZ General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MORAGA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
OAKLEY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ORINDA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PINOLE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PITTSBURG General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PL EASANT HILL General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
RICHMOND Chartered 0.7% under $1M $ 1.10 $ 8.10

1.25% $1M-$3M $ 1.10 $ 13.60

2.5% $3M-$10M $ 1.10 $ 26.10
3% over $10m $ 1.10 $ 31.10
SAN PABLO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN RAMON Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WALNUT CREEK General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
DEL NORTE COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
CRESCENT CITY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
EL DORADO COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
PLACERVILLE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SOUTH L AKE TAHOE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
FRESNO COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
CLOVIS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
COALINGA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
FIREBAUGH General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
FOWLER General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
FRESNO Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HURON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
KERMAN General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
KINGSBURG Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MENDOTA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ORANGE COVE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PARLIER General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
REEDLEY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SANGER General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN JOAQUIN General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SELMA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
GLENN COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
ORLAND General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WILLOWS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HUMBOLDT COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
ARCATA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BLUE LAKE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
EUREKA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
mjgc rev15Sept2019 CaliforniaCityFinance.com page 2 of 16 80 California City Documentary and Property Transfer Tax Rates Governance: Per $1000 Rev&T ax Code Per $1000
General Law PropertyValue Sec 11911-11929 PropertyValue or Chartered Cit y Rate Count y Rate T otal
FERNDALE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
FORTUNA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
RIO DELL General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TRINIDAD General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
IMPERIAL COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
BRAWLEY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CALEXICO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CALIPATRIA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
EL CENTRO Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HOLTVILLE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
IMPERIAL General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WESTMORLAND General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
INYO COUNT Y $ 1.10 $ 1.10
BISHOP General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
KERN COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
ARVIN General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BAKERSFIELD Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CALIFORNIA CITY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
DELANO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MARICOPA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MCFARLAND General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
RIDGECREST General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SHAFTER Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TAFT General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TEHACHAPI General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WASCO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
KINGS COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
AVENAL General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CORCORAN General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HANFORD General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LEMOORE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LAKE COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
CLEARLAKE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LAKEPORT General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LASSEN COUNT Y $ 1.10 $ 1.10
SUSANVILLE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LOS ANGELES COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
AGOURA HILLS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ALHAMBRA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ARCADIA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ARTESIA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
AVALON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
AZUSA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BALDWIN PARK General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BELL Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
mjgc rev15Sept2019 CaliforniaCityFinance.com page 3 of 16 81 California City Documentary and Property Transfer Tax Rates Governance: Per $1000 Rev&T ax Code Per $1000
General Law PropertyValue Sec 11911-11929 PropertyValue or Chartered Cit y Rate Count y Rate T otal
BELLFLOWER General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BELL GARDENS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BEVERLY HILLS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BRADBURY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BURBANK Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CALABASAS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CARSON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CERRITOS Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CLAREMONT General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
COMMERCE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
COMPTON Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
COVINA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CUDAHY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CULVER CITY Chartered $ 4.50 $ 1.10 $ 5.60
DIAMOND BAR General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
DOWNEY Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
DUARTE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
EL MONTE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
EL SEGUNDO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
GARDENA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
GLENDALE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
GLENDORA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HAWAIIAN GARDENS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HAWTHORNE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HERMOSA BEACH General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HIDDEN HILLS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HUNTINGTON PARK General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
INDUSTRY Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
INGLEWOOD Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
IRWINDALE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LA HABRA HEIGHTS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LAKEWOOD General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LA MIRADA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LANCASTER Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LA PUENTE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LA VERNE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LAWNDALE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LOMITA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LONG BEACH Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LOS ANGELES Chartered $ 4.50 $ 1.10 $ 5.60
LYNWOOD General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MALIBU General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MANHATTAN BEACH General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MAYWOOD General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
mjgc rev15Sept2019 CaliforniaCityFinance.com page 4 of 16 82 California City Documentary and Property Transfer Tax Rates Governance: Per $1000 Rev&T ax Code Per $1000
General Law PropertyValue Sec 11911-11929 PropertyValue or Chartered Cit y Rate Count y Rate T otal
MONROVIA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MONT EBELLO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MONTEREY PARK General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
NORWALK General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PALMDALE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PALOS VERDES ESTATES General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PARAMOUNT General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PASADENA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PICO RIVERA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
POMONA Chartered $ 2.20 $ 1.10 $ 3.30
RANCHO PALOS VERDES General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
REDONDO BEACH Chartered $ 2.20 $ 1.10 $ 3.30
ROLLING HILLS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ROSEMEAD General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN DIMAS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN FERNANDO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN GABRIEL General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN MARINO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SANTA CLARITA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SANTA FE SPRINGS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SANTA MONICA Chartered $ 3.00 $ 1.10 $ 4.10
SIERRA MADRE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SIGNAL HILL Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SOUTH EL MONTE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SOUTH GATE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SOUTH PASADENA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TEMPLE CITY Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TORRANCE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
VERNON Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WALNUT General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WEST COVINA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WEST HOLLYWOOD General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WESTL AKE VILLAGE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WHITTIER Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MADERA COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
CHOWCHILLA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MADERA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MARIN COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
BELVEDERE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CORTE MADERA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
FAIRFAX General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LARKSPUR General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MILL VALLEY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
NOVATO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
mjgc rev15Sept2019 CaliforniaCityFinance.com page 5 of 16 83 California City Documentary and Property Transfer Tax Rates Governance: Per $1000 Rev&T ax Code Per $1000
General Law PropertyValue Sec 11911-11929 PropertyValue or Chartered Cit y Rate Count y Rate T otal
ROSS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN ANSELMO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN RAFAEL Chartered $ 2.00 $ 1.10 $ 3.10
SAUSALITO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TIBURON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MARIPOSA COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
MENDOCINO COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
FORT BRAGG General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
POINT ARENA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
UKIAH General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WILLITS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MERCED COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
ATWATER General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
DOS PALOS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
GUSTINE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LIVINGSTON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LOS BANOS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MERCED Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MODOC COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
ALTURAS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MONO COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
MAMMOTH L AKES General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
mjgc rev15Sept2019 CaliforniaCityFinance.com page 6 of 16 84 California City Documentary and Property Transfer Tax Rates Governance: Per $1000 Rev&T ax Code Per $1000
General Law PropertyValue Sec 11911-11929 PropertyValue or Chartered Cit y Rate Count y Rate T otal
MONTEREY COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
DEL REY OAKS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
GONZALES General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
GREENFIELD General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
KING CITY Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MARINA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MONTEREY Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PACIFIC GROVE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SALINAS Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAND CITY Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SEASIDE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SOLEDAD General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
NAPA COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
AMERICAN CANYON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CALISTOGA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
NAPA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAINT HELENA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
YOUNTVILLE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
NEVADA COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
GRASS VALLEY Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
NEVADA CITY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TRUCKEE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ORANGE COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
ALISO VIEJO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ANAHEIM Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BREA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BUENA PARK Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
COSTA MESA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CYPRESS Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
DANA POINT General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
FOUNTAIN VALLEY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
FULLERTON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
GARDEN GROVE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HUNTINGTON BEACH Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
IRVINE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LAGUNA BEACH General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LAGUNA HILLS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LAGUNA NIGUEL General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LA HABRA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LAKE FOREST General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LA PALMA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LOS ALAMITOS Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MISSION VIEJO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
NEWPORT BEACH Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
mjgc rev15Sept2019 CaliforniaCityFinance.com page 7 of 16 85 California City Documentary and Property Transfer Tax Rates Governance: Per $1000 Rev&T ax Code Per $1000
General Law PropertyValue Sec 11911-11929 PropertyValue or Chartered Cit y Rate Count y Rate T otal
ORANGE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PLACENTIA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10 SAN CLEMENTE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SANTA ANA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SEAL BEACH Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
STANTON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TUSTIN General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
VILLA PARK General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WESTMINSTER General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
YORBA LINDA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PLACER COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
AUBURN General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
COLFAX General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LINCOLN General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LOOMIS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ROCKLIN General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ROSEVILLE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PLUMAS COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
PORTOLA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
BANNING General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BEAUMONT General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BLYTHE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CALIMESA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CANYON LAKE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CATHEDRAL CITY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
COACHELLA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CORONA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
DESERT HOT SPRINGS Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
EASTVALE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HEMET General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
INDIAN WELLS Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
INDIO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
JURUPA VALLEY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LAKE ELSINORE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LA QUINTA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MENIFEE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MORENO VALLEY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MURRIETA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
NORCO Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PALM DESERT Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PALM SPRINGS Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PERRIS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
mjgc rev15Sept2019 CaliforniaCityFinance.com page 8 of 16 86 California City Documentary and Property Transfer Tax Rates Governance: Per $1000 Rev&T ax Code Per $1000
General Law PropertyValue Sec 11911-11929 PropertyValue or Chartered Cit y Rate Count y Rate T otal
RANCHO MIRAGE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
RIVERSIDE Chartered $ 1.10 $ 1.10 $ 2.20
SAN JACINTO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TEMECULA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WILDOMAR General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SACRAMENTO COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
CITRUS HEIGHTS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ELK GROVE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
FOLSOM Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
GALT General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ISLETON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
RANCHO CORDOVA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SACRAMENTO Chartered $ 2.75 $ 1.10 $ 3.85
SAN BENITO COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
HOLLISTER General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN JUAN BAUTISTA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
ADELANTO Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
APPLE VALLEY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BARSTOW General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BIG BEAR LAKE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CHINO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CHINO HILLS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
COLTON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
FONTANA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
GRAND TERRACE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HESPERIA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HIGHLAND General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LOMA LINDA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MONTCLAIR General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
NEEDLES Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ONTARIO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
RANCHO CUCAMONGA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
REDLANDS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
RIALTO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN BERNARDINO Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TWENTYNINE PALMS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LAGUNA WOODS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
UPLAND General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
VICTORVILLE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
YUCAIPA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
YUCCA VALLEY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN DIEGO COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
CARLSBAD Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CHULA VISTA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
mjgc rev15Sept2019 CaliforniaCityFinance.com page 9 of 16 87 California City Documentary and Property Transfer Tax Rates Governance: Per $1000 Rev&T ax Code Per $1000
General Law PropertyValue Sec 11911-11929 PropertyValue or Chartered Cit y Rate Count y Rate T otal
CORONADO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
DEL MAR Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
EL CAJON Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ENCINITAS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ESCONDIDO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
IMPERIAL BEACH General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LA MESA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LEMON GROVE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
NATIONAL CITY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
OCEANSIDE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
POWAY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN DIEGO Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN MARCOS Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SANTEE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SOLANA BEACH General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
VISTA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
mjgc rev15Sept2019 CaliforniaCityFinance.com page 10 of 16 88 California City Documentary and Property Transfer Tax Rates Governance: Per $1000 Rev&T ax Code Per $1000
General Law PropertyValue Sec 11911-11929 PropertyValue or Chartered Cit y Rate Count y Rate T otal

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
SAN FRANCISCO Chartered
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
ESCALON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LATHROP General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LODI General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MANTECA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
RIPON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
STOCKTON Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TRACY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
ARROYO GRANDE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ATASCADERO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
EL PASO DE ROBLES General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
GROVER BEACH General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MORRO BAY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PISMO BEACH General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN LUIS OBISPO Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN MATEO COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
ATHERTON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BELMONT General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BRISBANE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
BURLINGAME General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
COLMA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
DALY CITY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
EAST PALO ALTO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
FOSTER CITY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HALF MOON BAY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HILLSBOROUGH General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MENLO PARK General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MILLBRAE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PACIFICA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PORTOLA VALLEY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
REDWOOD CITY Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN BRUNO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN CARLOS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN MATEO Chartered 0.5% of value $ 1.10 $ 6.10
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WOODSIDE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
BUELLTON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CARPINTERIA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
GOLETA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
GUADALUPE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
Over $100,000 AV => 0.5%, Over $250,000 AV => 0.68%
Ov er $1 million AV => 0.75%, Over $5 million AV => 2.25% Ov er $10 million AV => 2.75%, ov er $25 million => 3.00% Discounts for certain solar & seismic improvments.
mjgc rev15Sept2019 CaliforniaCityFinance.com page 11 of 16 89 California City Documentary and Property Transfer Tax Rates Governance: Per $1000 Rev&T ax Code Per $1000
General Law PropertyValue Sec 11911-11929 PropertyValue or Chartered Cit y Rate Count y Rate T otal
LOMPOC General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SANTA BARBARA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SANTA MARIA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SOLVANG Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
mjgc rev15Sept2019 CaliforniaCityFinance.com page 12 of 16 90 California City Documentary and Property Transfer Tax Rates Governance: Per $1000 Rev&T ax Code Per $1000
General Law PropertyValue Sec 11911-11929 PropertyValue or Chartered Cit y Rate Count y Rate T otal
SANTA CLARA COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
CAM PBELL General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
CUPERTINO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
GILROY Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LOS ALTOS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LOS ALTOS HILLS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LOS GATOS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MILPITAS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MONTE SERENO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MORGAN HILL General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MOUNTAIN VIEW Chartered $ 3.30 $ 1.10 $ 4.40
PALO ALTO Chartered $ 3.30 $ 1.10 $ 4.40
SAN JOSE Chartered $ 3.30 $ 1.10 $ 4.40
SANTA CLARA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SARATOGA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SUNNYVALE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
CAPITOLA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SANTA CRUZ Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SCOTTS VALLEY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WATSONVILLE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SHASTA COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
ANDERSON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
REDDING General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SHASTA LAKE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SIERRA COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
LOYALTON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SISKIYOU COUNT Y $ 1.10 $ 1.10
DORRIS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
DUNSMUIR General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
ETNA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
FORT JONES General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MONTAGUE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MOUNT SHASTA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TULELAKE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WEED General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
YREKA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SOLANO COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
BENICIA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
DIXON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
FAIRFIELD General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
RIO VISTA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SUISUN CITY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
VACAVILLE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
VALLEJO Chartered $ 3.30 $ 1.10 $ 4.40
mjgc rev15Sept2019 CaliforniaCityFinance.com page 13 of 16 91 California City Documentary and Property Transfer Tax Rates Governance: Per $1000 Rev&T ax Code Per $1000
General Law PropertyValue Sec 11911-11929 PropertyValue or Chartered Cit y Rate Count y Rate T otal
SONOMA COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
CLOVERDALE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
COTATI General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HEALDSBURG General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PETALUMA Chartered $ 2.00 $ 1.10 $ 3.10
ROHNERT PARK General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SANTA ROSA Chartered $ 2.00 $ 1.10 $ 3.10
SEBASTOPOL General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SONOMA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WINDSOR General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
STANISLAUS COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
CERES General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
HUGHSON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MODESTO Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
NEWMAN General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
OAKDALE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PATTERSON General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
RIVERBANK General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TURLOCK General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WATERFORD General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SUTTER COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
LIVE OAK General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
YUBA CITY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TEHAMA COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
CORNING General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
RED BLUFF General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TEHAMA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TRINITY COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
TULARE COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
DINUBA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
EXETER Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
FARMERSVILLE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
LINDSAY Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
PORTERVILLE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TULARE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
VISALIA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WOODLAKE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
TUOLUMNE COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
SONORA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
VENTURA COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
CAMARILLO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
FILLMORE General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
MOORPARK General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
OJAI General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
OXNARD General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
mjgc rev15Sept2019 CaliforniaCityFinance.com page 14 of 16 92 California City Documentary and Property Transfer Tax Rates Governance: Per $1000 Rev&T ax Code Per $1000
General Law PropertyValue Sec 11911-11929 PropertyValue or Chartered Cit y Rate Count y Rate T otal
PORT HUENEME Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SAN BUENAVENTURA Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SANTA PAULA General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
SIMI VALLEY General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
THOUSAND OAKS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
mjgc rev15Sept2019 CaliforniaCityFinance.com page 15 of 16 93 California City Documentary and Property Transfer Tax Rates Governance: Per $1000 Rev&T ax Code Per $1000
General Law PropertyValue Sec 11911-11929 PropertyValue or Chartered Cit y Rate Count y Rate T otal
YOLO COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
DAVIS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WEST SACRAMENTO General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WINTERS General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WOODLAND General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
YUBA COUNTY $ 1.10 $ 1.10
MAR YSVILLE Chartered $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
WHEATLAND General Law $ 0.55 $ 0.55 $ 1.10
Source
: CaliforniaCityFinance.com
mjgc rev15Sept2019 CaliforniaCityFinance.com page 16 of 16 94 General Law City v. Charter City

Characteristic General Law City Charter City

Ability to Govern
Municipal Affairs

Bound by the state’s general law, regardless
of whether the subject concerns a municipal
affair.

Has supreme authority over “municipal
affairs.” Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).

Form of Government

State law describes the city’s form of
government For example, Government
Code section 36501 authorizes general law
cities be governed by a city council of five
members, a city clerk, a city treasurer, a
police chief, a fire chief and any subordinate
officers or employees as required by law.

City electors may adopt ordinance which
provides for a different number of council
members. Cal. Gov’t section 34871. The
Government Code also authorizes the “city
manager” form of government. Cal. Gov’t
Code § 34851.

Charter can provide for any form of
government including the “strong mayor,”
and “city manager” forms. See Cal. Const.
art. XI, § 5(b); Cal. Gov’t Code § 34450 et
seq.

Elections Generally

Municipal elections conducted in accordance
with the California Elections Code. Cal. Elec.

Code §§ 10101 et seq..

Not bound by the California Elections Code.

May establish own election dates, rules, and
procedures. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b);
Cal. Elec. Code §§ 10101 et seq..

Methods of Elections

Generally holds at-large elections whereby
voters vote for any candidate on the ballot.

Cities may also choose to elect the city
council “by” or “from” districts, so long as the
election system has been established by
ordinance and approved by the voters. Cal.

Gov’t Code § 34871. Mayor may be elected
by the city council or by vote of the people.

Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 34902.

May establish procedures for selecting
officers. May hold at-large or district
elections. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).

City Council Member
Qualifications

Minimum qualifications are:

1. United States citizen

2. At least 18 years old

3. Registered voter

4. Resident of the city at least 15 days
prior to the election and throughout
his or her term

5. If elected by or from a district, be a
resident of the geographical area
comprising the district from which he
or she is elected.

Cal. Elec. Code § 321; Cal. Gov’t Code §§
34882, 36502; 87 Cal. Op. Att’y Gen. 30
(2004).

Can establish own criteria for city office
provided it does not violate the U.S.

Constitution. Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b), 82
Cal. Op. Att’y Gen. 6, 8 (1999).
95 Characteristic General Law City Charter City

Public Funds for Candidate
in Municipal Elections

No public officer shall expend and no
candidate shall accept public money for the
purpose of seeking elected office. Cal. Gov’t
Code § 85300.

Public financing of election campaigns is
lawful. Johnson v. Bradley, 4 Cal. 4th 389
(1992).

Term Limits

May provide for term limits. Cal. Gov’t Code
§ 36502(b).

May provide for term limits. Cal. Const. art.

XI, § 5(b); Cal Gov’t Code Section 36502 (b).

Vacancies and Termination
of Office

An office becomes vacant in several
instances including death, resignation,
removal for failure to perform official duties,
electorate irregularities, absence from
meetings without permission, and upon non-
residency. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 1770, 36502,
36513.

May establish criteria for vacating and
terminating city offices so long as it does not
violate the state and federal constitutions.

Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).

Council Member
Compensation and
Expense Reimbursement

Salary-ceiling is set by city population and
salary increases set by state law except for
compensation established by city electors.

See Cal. Gov’t Code § 36516. If a city
provides any type of compensation or
payment of expenses to council members,
then all council members are required to
have two hours of ethics training. See Cal.

Gov’t Code §§ 53234 - 53235.

May establish council members’ salaries.

See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b). If a city
provides any type of compensation or
payment of expenses to council members,
then all council members are required to
have two hours of ethics training. See Cal.

Gov’t Code §§ 53234 - 53235.

Legislative Authority

Ordinances may not be passed within five
days of introduction unless they are urgency
ordinances. Cal. Gov’t Code § 36934.

Ordinances may only be passed at a regular
meeting, and must be read in full at time of
introduction and passage except when, after
reading the title, further reading is waived.

Cal. Gov't Code § 36934.

May establish procedures for enacting local
ordinances. Brougher v. Bd. of Public Works,
205 Cal. 426 (1928).

Resolutions

May establish rules regarding the
procedures for adopting, amending or
repealing resolutions.

May establish procedures for adopting,
amending or repealing resolutions. Brougher
v. Bd. of Public Works, 205 Cal. 426 (1928).

Quorum and Voting
Requirements

A majority of the city council constitutes a
quorum for transaction of business. Cal.

Gov’t Code § 36810.

All ordinances, resolutions, and orders for
the payment of money require a recorded
majority vote of the total membership of the
city council. Cal. Gov't Code § 36936.

Specific legislation requires supermajority
votes for certain actions.

May establish own procedures and quorum
requirements. However, certain legislation
requiring supermajority votes is applicable to
charter cities. For example, see California
Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.240
requiring a vote of two-thirds of all the
members of the governing body unless a
greater vote is required by charter.
96 Characteristic General Law City Charter City

Rules Governing
Procedure and Decorum

Ralph Brown Act is applicable. Cal. Gov’t
Code §§ 54951, 54953(a).

Conflict of interest laws are applicable. See
Cal. Gov’t Code § 87300 et seq..

Ralph Brown Act is applicable. Cal. Gov’t
Code §§ 54951, 54953(a).

Conflict of interest laws are applicable. See
Cal. Gov’t Code § 87300 et seq..

May provide provisions related to ethics,
conflicts, campaign financing and
incompatibility of office.

Personnel Matters

May establish standards, requirements and
procedures for hiring personnel consistent
with Government Code requirements.

May have “civil service” system, which
includes comprehensive procedures for
recruitment, hiring, testing and promotion.

See Cal. Gov't Code § 45000 et seq.

Meyers-Milias-Brown Act applies. Cal. Gov't
Code § 3500.

Cannot require employees be residents of
the city, but can require them to reside within
a reasonable and specific distance of their
place of employment. Cal. Const. art. XI, §
10(b).

May establish standards, requirements, and
procedures, including compensation, terms
and conditions of employment for personnel.

See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).

Procedures set forth in Meyers-Milias-Brown
Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 3500) apply, but note,
“[T]here is a clear distinction between the
substance of a public employee labor issue
and the procedure by which it is resolved.

Thus there is no question that 'salaries of
local employees of a charter city constitute
municipal affairs and are not subject to
general laws.'” Voters for Responsible
Retirement v. Board of Supervisors, 8
Cal.4th 765, 781 (1994).

Cannot require employees be residents of
the city, but can require them to reside within
a reasonable and specific distance of their
place of employment. Cal. Const. art. XI,
section 10(b).

Contracting Services

Authority to enter into contracts to carry out
necessary functions, including those
expressly granted and those implied by
necessity. See Cal. Gov't Code § 37103;
Carruth v. City of Madera, 233 Cal. App. 2d
688 (1965).

Full authority to contract consistent with
charter.

May transfer some of its functions to the
county including tax collection, assessment
collection and sale of property for non-
payment of taxes and assessments. Cal.

Gov't Code §§ 51330, 51334, 51335.

97 Characteristic General Law City Charter City

Public Contracts

Competitive bidding required for public works
contracts over $5,000. Cal. Pub. Cont. Code
§ 20162. Such contracts must be awarded to
the lowest responsible bidder. Pub. Cont.

Code § 20162. If city elects subject itself to
uniform construction accounting procedures,
less formal procedures may be available for
contracts less than $100,000. See Cal. Pub.

Cont. Code §§ 22000, 22032.

Contracts for professional services such as
private architectural, landscape architectural,
engineering, environmental, land surveying,
or construction management firms need not
be competitively bid, but must be awarded
on basis of demonstrated competence and
professional qualifications necessary for the
satisfactory performance of services. Cal.

Gov't Code § 4526.

Not required to comply with bidding statutes
provided the city charter or a city ordinance
exempts the city from such statutes, and the
subject matter of the bid constitutes a
municipal affair. Pub. Cont. Code § 1100.7;
see R & A Vending Services, Inc. v. City of
Los Angeles, 172 Cal. App. 3d 1188 (1985);
Howard Contracting, Inc. v. G.A. MacDonald
Constr. Co., 71 Cal. App. 4th 38 (1998).

Payment of Prevailing
Wages

In general, prevailing wages must be paid on
public works projects over $1,000. Cal. Lab.

Code § 1771. Higher thresholds apply
($15,000 or $25,000) if the public entity has
adopted a special labor compliance program.

See Cal. Labor Code § 1771.5(a)-(c).

Historically, charter cities have not been
bound by state law prevailing-wage
requirements so long as the project is a
municipal affair, and not one funded by state
or federal grants. Vial v. City of San Diego,
122 Cal. App. 3d 346, 348 (1981). However,
there is a growing trend on the part of the
courts and the Legislature to expand the
applicability of prevailing wages to charter
cities under an analysis that argues that the
payment of prevailing wages is a matter of
statewide concern. The California Supreme
Court currently has before them a case that
will provide the opportunity to decide
whether prevailing wage is a municipal affair
or whether it has become a matter of
statewide concern.

98 Characteristic General Law City Charter City

Finance and Taxing Power

May impose the same kinds of taxes and
assessment as charter cities. See Cal. Gov't
Code § 37100.5.

Imposition of taxes and assessments subject
to Proposition 218. Cal. Const. art.XIIIC.

Examples of common forms used in
assessment district financing include:

• Improvement Act of 1911. Cal. Sts.
& High. Code § 22500 et seq..

• Municipal Improvement Act of 1913.

See Cal. Sts. & High. Code §§
10000 et seq..

• Improvement Bond Act of 1915. Cal.

Sts. & High. Code §§ 8500 et seq..

• Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972. Cal. Sts. & High. Code §§
22500 et seq..

• Benefit Assessment Act of 1982.

Cal. Gov't Code §§ 54703 et seq..

May impose business license taxes for
regulatory purposes, revenue purposes, or
both. See Cal. Gov't Code § 37101.

May not impose real property transfer tax.

See Cal. Const. art. XIIIA, § 4; Cal. Gov't
Code § 53725; but see authority to impose
documentary transfer taxes under certain
circumstances. Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code §
11911(a), (c).

Have the power to tax.

Have broader assessment powers than a
general law city, as well as taxation power as
determined on a case-by case basis.

Imposition of taxes and assessments subject
to Proposition 218, Cal. Const. art. XIIIC, §
2, and own charter limitations

May proceed under a general assessment
law, or enact local assessment laws and
then elect to proceed under the local law.

See J.W. Jones Companies v. City of San
Diego, 157 Cal. App. 3d 745 (1984).

May impose business license taxes for any
purpose unless limited by state or federal
constitutions, or city charter. See Cal. Const.
art. XI, § 5.

May impose real property transfer tax; does
not violate either Cal. Const art. XIIIA or
California Government Code section 53725.

See Cohn v. City of Oakland, 223 Cal. App.
3d 261 (1990); Fielder v. City of Los
Angeles, 14 Cal. App. 4th 137 (1993).

Streets & Sidewalks

State has preempted entire field of traffic
control. Cal. Veh. Code § 21.

State has preempted entire field of traffic
control. Cal. Veh. Code § 21.

Penalties & Cost Recovery

May impose fines, penalties and forfeitures,
with a fine not exceeding $1,000. Cal. Gov’t
Code § 36901.

May enact ordinances providing for various
penalties so long as such penalties do not
exceed any maximum limits set by the
charter. County of Los Angeles v. City of Los
Angeles, 219 Cal. App. 2d 838, 844 (1963).

99 Characteristic General Law City Charter City

Public Utilities/Franchises

May establish, purchase, and operate public
works to furnish its inhabitants with electric
power. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 9(a); Cal.

Gov't Code § 39732; Cal. Pub. Util. Code §
10002.

May grant franchises to persons or
corporations seeking to furnish light, water,
power, heat, transportation or
communication services in the city to allow
use of city streets for such purposes. The
grant of franchises can be done through a
bidding process, under the Broughton Act,
Cal. Pub. Util. Code §§ 6001-6092, or
without a bidding process under the
Franchise Act of 1937, Cal. Pub. Util. Code
§§ 6201-6302.

May establish, purchase, and operate public
works to furnish its inhabitants with electric
power. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 9(a); Cal.

Apartment Ass’n v. City of Stockton, 80 Cal.

App. 4th 699 (2000).

May establish conditions and regulations on
the granting of franchises to use city streets
to persons or corporations seeking to furnish
light, water, power, heat, transportation or
communication services in the city.

Franchise Act of 1937 is not applicable if
charter provides. Cal. Pub. Util. Code §
6205.

Zoning

Zoning ordinances must be consistent with
general plan. Cal. Gov't Code § 65860.

Zoning ordinances are not required to be
consistent with general plan unless the city
has adopted a consistency requirement by
charter or ordinance. Cal. Gov’t. Code §
65803.

100
101
102

.

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

DATE: Regular Meeting of January 25, 2022

TO: Members of the City Council

VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager

SUBMITTED BY: Edwin Gato, Finance Director

SUBJECT: Long-Term Financial Projection for the General Fund and Approval of a Resolution to unanimously declare a fiscal emergency in the City of Hercules

RECOMMENDATION: Review and discuss the long -term financial projection for the General Fund, and approval of a resolution to unanimously declare a fiscal emergency in the City of Hercules related to the expiration of the City’s Utility Users Tax on January 1, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION
There is no direct impact from the preparation and review of an updated long-term forecast. It is a planning tool that can be used to guide future fiscal decisions.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The City’s finances are managed through four major efforts each year. The development and adoption of a budget for each fiscal year which starts July 1st is generally considered the first point in the annual cycle. This is generally followed by the completion and the acceptance of the audit for the prior fiscal year, with the goal of having that completed by December 31st or earlier.

The completion of the annual audit typically sets the stage for the mid-year budget review in February or March and can include some adjustments or additional appropriations or designations of reserves.

The preparation of an update to the long-term forecast would typically be received by the Council in March/April timeframe to set the stage for the development of the budget for the next fiscal year.

However, this year due to the Utility Users Tax, which will sunset in January 2025, staff prepared the long-term financial projections early to show the fiscal impact of the discontinuance of the UUT to the City’s bottom line and to start the voter approval process to continue its UUT.

With the audit being received by the City Council tonight, it is time to review an updated Long-Term Financial Projection. The forecast has been updated to reflect the FY 20-21 audit results with the FY 21-22 Adopted Budget and the preliminary look of the FY 22-23 projections. A long-term forecast was prepared for the General Fund for the time period from FY 23-24 through FY 27-28. 103

The five-year forecast is an essential tool that reflects the City’s commitment to fiscal health and sustainability. This model is used to evaluate the immediate impact of budgetary decisions and the costs of decisions over multiple years. The tool is updated based on current revenue and expenditure information. Though individual variables and assumptions may change over time, the fiv e-year forecast provides a consistent model to realistically forecast the City’s fiscal performance. The five- year forecast includes all aspects of the General Fund. It models and forecasts all General Fund revenues (property tax, sales tax, utility users tax, etc.) and expenditures in detail. The City updates the five-year forecast as part of the regular budget update to the Council. These updates are part of developing the budget for the upcoming fiscal year, as explained above.

The five-year forecast (FY 22-23 through 26-27) marks the first look at the FY 22-23 annual budget.

It includes projected General Fund financials over the next five years based on current service levels and information on revenues.

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM PRIOR YEAR

The COVID-19 Pandemic began to directly impact City operations in mid -March 2020 when the initial County Health Order resulted in a stay-home order for all but essential services workers.

Now, nearly two years later, we continue to operate under a County Health Order, which has been updated and revised. Over time, we have also had to comply with the Governor's Executive Orders as they have evolved. Also, the City Manager declared a local emergency in response to the COVID- 19 Pandemic initially on March 15, 2020. That local emergency declaration was ratified by the City Council and extended by the City Council's action every 60 days after that.

Also, we would like to acknowledge that the City of Hercules is the only City Hall in the county that did not close during the COVID event. As essential services workers, City employees continued to work unless they had COVID-related health or childcare issues. We were fortunate that our physical facilities and level of staffing lent themselves to operate on-site in a safe manner with all reasonable and required precautions taken to protect our employees and customers. Of course, we could not continue in-person City Council and other public meetings and transitioned to the Zoom platform.

We continue to utilize this platform in compliance with the Governor’s Executive Order.

REVENUE PROJECTION AND ASSUMPTIONS USED: The General Fund major revenue categories are summarized on Attachment 2. The City derives a significant portion of its General Fund revenues from economically sensitive sources such as property taxes, sales taxes (1% Bradley-Burns and Measure B), and utility users’ taxes. When one or more of these key revenue sources deviates from projections, funding for future programs and services may be affected.

As shown in the following graph, General Fund revenues are projected to increase at the rate of 2% a year and include estimated revenues from new development . Revenue projections for a 5 -year forecast period through 2027 range from $17.5 to $16.7 million. The following explains the major revenue assumptions used to estimate General Fund revenues.

104

 Utility Users Tax (UUT) are revenues collected from the consumption of utility services, including (but not limited to) electric, gas, water, sewer, telephone (including cell phone and long-distance), sanitation, and cable television. The City determines the rate of the tax and the use of its revenues. Based on the trend and its consumption rate, the City continues to see erosion in Wireless Telecom’s UUT revenues due to the update in allocations of the bundled packages from the respective providers. These updated allocations shifted a more significant percentage towards data, which is not taxable.

On June 4, 2013, the voters approved Ordinance #475, increasing the tax rate from 6% to 8%. The Utility Users Tax will automatically sunset, and its provisions shall become ineffective on January 1, 2025. The five-year forecast assumes that the tax will sunset in mid FY 24-25. To avoid catastrophic impacts to City services due to a severe and sudden loss of revenue, Staff recommends going back to the voters to extend the tax imposed on utilities.

 Total Sales Tax revenue is highly concentrated with two producers generating over 50% of the City's sales tax. Based on the report received from MuniServices, Hercules’s sales tax revenue is substantially generated from business and industry sources. However, the City continues to benefit from the ongoing implementation of the Wayfair decision regarding online sales and the more significant amount of purchases being made online due to the Pandemic, with these trends being found as part of the City's share in the County pool. It should also be noted that the Wayfair decision's full effect is anticipated to have occurred by the end of the FY 20/21 fiscal year. After that, any increases from the County pool will be driven primarily by the underlying economic trends.

 The City is realizing a stable property tax-related revenue growth and assumed the following: The California Consumer Price Index (CCPI) for FY 2021-22 that has been approved by the State is 1.036%. In year two of the forecast, the CIP growth is estimated -
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
FY 22-23
Forecast
FY 23-24
Forecast
FY 24-25
Forecast
FY 25-26
Forecast
FY 26-27
Forecast
General Fund
5-Year Forecast - Operating Revenues
Taxes
Taxes on New Development
Intergovernmental
Program Revenues
Use of Money & Property/Other
Admin Cost Allocation
Transfers In
105

at 1.5% and in years 3 -5 of the forecast, the CCPI has been forecast at the maximum allowable rate of 2%.

This year the Assessors applied the CCPI factor of 1.036%. It is important to note that all properties that have been granted Proposition 8 reductions between 2008 and 2012, and in some counties in 2020 due to lower sale price trends in 2019, are required to be reviewed each year outside of the CCPI adjustment and any positive adjustment to those properties will likely exceed the 1.036% if properties are granted value restorations.

 The new general tax revenues that will be generated from new developments, such as Muir Pointe, Bayfront, Sycamore Crossing, Willow Auto Site, and Hilltown are estimated based on residential unit impact, assuming an average of 2.5 people per unit using FY 19- 20 projected tax revenues as a base.

 The effect of COVID-19 mandatory closures to the Parks & Recreation program resulted in a reduction of $1.1 million of program revenues in FY 20-21 as adjusted at Midyear.

Childcare programs, contract classes, sports programs, and facility rentals were all suspended since March 2020, with very limited offerings underway now. The five-year projections assumed that all programs would be restored starting FY 21-22.

EXPENDITURE PROJECTION AND ASSUMPTIONS USED: As shown in the following graph, General Fund expenditures are projected to increase at the estimated rate of 3% a year.

Expenditure projections for a 5-year forecast period through 2027 range from $16.8 to $18.6 million assuming the same service level. The following chart shows the growth in General Fund expenditures.

1. The most significant cost in the General Fund is driven by its labor. Labor accounts for almost 60% of total expenditures. Below are significant assumptions used to estimate the cost of salaries and benefits:
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
FY 22-23
Forecast
FY 23-24
Forecast
FY 24-25
Forecast
FY 25-26
Forecast
FY 26-27
Forecast
General Fund
5-Year Forecast - Operating Expenditures
Non-Department/Transfers
Workers Comp/General Liability
Administration
Parks and Recreation
Community Development
Public Works
Police
106

a. Regular Salaries – Cost of living (COLA) increase by 3% per year.

b. PERS Miscellaneous and Public Safety Normal Cost rate applied are projected as follows based on CalPERS actuarial assumptions:

c. PERS Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) contribution amounts are projected as follows based on CalPERS actuarial assumptions.

2. Parks & Recreation programs have been suspended since March 2020. The five -year forecast assumed that programs would be restored starting FY 21-22.

3. The City of Hercules has been navigating a series of financial difficulties dating back to the Great Recession in FY 2007-08, the elimination of redevelopment in 2011, in addition to financial mismanagement which occurred under a former City Manager who resigned in 2011. While much progress has been made and the City has been able to build up its reserves by making financially prudent decisions and adopting balanced budgets which also use one -time monies for strategic purposes, ensuring the ongoing financial sustainability of the City, and lingering issues associated with the State dissolution of redevelopment in 2011 have not been fully resolved.

On April 8, 2020, the City entered into a settlement agreement implementing an installment payment plan for the Other Funds Due Diligence Review payment. The outstanding $3.6 million payment will be made by the City and Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller according to the following schedule, which the initial payment was made on May 1, 2020:

FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27
Police Classic 23.70% 23.70% 23.70% 23.70% 23.70%
Police 2nd-Tier 21.80% 21.80% 21.80% 21.80% 21.80%
Police PEPRA 13.10% 13.10% 13.10% 13.10% 13.10%
Miscellaneous Classic 10.30% 10.30% 10.30% 10.30% 10.30% Miscellaneous PEPRA 7.60% 7.60% 7.60% 7.60% 7.60%
FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27
Police Classic 747,000 $ 797,000 $ 847,000 $ 873,000 $ 896,000 $ Police 2nd-Tier 2,000 2,100 2,200 400 400 Police PEPRA 6,200 4,900 5,800 6,000 6,200 Miscellaneous Classic 614,000 651,000 691,000 711,000 730,000 Miscellaneous PEPRA 3,400 4,200 4,800 5,000 5,100 1,372,600 $ 1,459,200 $ 1,550,800 $ 1,595,400 $ 1,637,700 $ 107

This $3.6 million are funds advanced by the City in 2011 to the Redevelopment Agency to make a bond payment in order to avoid a default on the Redevelopment Agency’s bonds due to the dramatic decline in property values as a result of the Great Recession. The City advanced these funds in April 2011, and the Redevelopment Dissolution Act approved by the State Legislature and signed by then Governor Brown, made this type of transfer illegal after the fact later in 2011. The DDR completed in 2015 identified that this amount needed to be returned to the former Redevelopment Agency by the City.

The City is working with Senator Skinner regarding a bill which, if passed by the State Legislature and signed by the Governor, would make the City eligible for a Finding of Completion which would allow for the repayment of City loans made by the former Redeployment Agency. While more than $50 million in City loans are reflected as being outstanding, it is anticipated that the State Department of Finance will not find the supporting documentation acceptable for loans beyond an estimated $ 3 to $4 million.

Once that determination is made, any remaining accounts receivable related to loans from the City to the former Redevelopment Agency will have to be reduced by the loans disallowed, and that will be done once a final determination is made.

4. In August 2020, the City refinanced the proceeds of the Library Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2003B. The City structured the refinancing to achieve all of the cash flow savings in the first three years which is reflected in the forecast.

5. On October 18, 2013, the City agreed with CalHFA to extend the term of the loan on Housing Enabled by Local Partnership (HELP) and Residential Development Loan Program (RDLP) through April 11, 2027, and August 15, 2026, respectively. At that time, payments of the remaining loan balance s are due in full. Prior to the end of the loan term, the City will work with CalHFA to negotiate a further extension to repay the remaining loan balance.

NET ANNUAL RESULTS
Based on the current information known, the General Fund will end the fiscal years with a positive net revenue until year three. On January 1, 2025, the Utility Users Tax (UUT) will sunset. Also, per our agreement with the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), the remaining loan balances are due no later than April 11, 2027, and August 15, 2026, for HELP and RDLP loans, respectively.

Therefore, a structural deficit will start in FY 24-25 assuming the same service level, the UUT is not renewed, and the accelerated payments on CalHFA loans are not renegotiated. The FY 2 2-23 projections will be further updated and refined during the adoption of the budget in June 2022.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends going back to the voters (a separate agenda item in the future ) to extend the UUT, a tax imposed on utilities. In order to be submitted on the ballot for a state primary election, the City must first adopt a declaration of a fiscal emergency by unanimous vote of the Council. 108

The California Constitution requires the election for a general tax measure such as this to be held on a regularly scheduled general municipal election, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the City Council . Declaring a fiscal emergency allows flexibility on when to place the renewal on the ballot. Placing the UUT tax renewal on a n upcoming ballot before the tax expires will allow for an uninterrupted collection of the UUT and a seamless funding of critical city services.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. General Fund Long-Term Financial Forecast
109
General Fund
Five-Year Financial Forecast
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 Audited
Actuals
Audited
Actuals Adopted Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Beginning Available Balance $ 2,412,068 $ 1,847,112 2,138,983$ 1,071,458 1,317,948 2,636,463 2,698,978$ -$ Revenues
Taxes
Utility User Tax 3,483,843 3,590,649 3,509,000 3,618,000 3,644,000 1,833,000 Sales Tax 4,212,285 4,775,496 4,654,675 4,962,649 5,059,649 5,158,649 5,258,649 5,360,649 Property Taxes 1,415,995 1,451,716 1,520,000 1,433,000 1,462,000 1,492,000 1,522,000 1,553,000 Franchise Fees 948,503 862,104 896,000 897,000 915,000 933,000 951,000 969,000 Business Licenses 251,418 268,697 198,000 279,000 284,000 290,000 296,000 302,000 Transfer Tax 142,850 126,488 132,000 130,000 133,000 136,000 139,000 142,000 Transient Occupancy Tax 6,179 7,635 5,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 Intergovernmental 2,151,433 2,285,392 2,418,000 2,394,866 2,471,866 2,555,866 2,642,866 2,695,000 Fines & Forefeitures 62,582 36,586 37,000 38,000 39,000 40,000 41,000 42,000 Revenues from New Developments 302,000 924,000 1,428,000 1,662,000 1,851,000 Program Revenues
Community Development 675,556 824,891 242,000 540,000 552,000 564,000 576,000 588,000 Parks and Recreation 1,020,758 396,290 1,753,000 1,789,000 1,826,000 1,863,000 1,900,000 1,938,000 Police 483,110 48,958 219,000 123,000 125,000 127,000 129,000 131,000 Public Works 28,588 46,908 68,000 48,000 49,000 50,000 51,000 52,000 Other 6,770 10,571 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 Use of Money & Property 600,707 511,191 244,000 249,000 254,000 260,000 266,000 272,000 Cost allocated to other funds 534,992 619,634 719,325 616,000 629,000 642,000 655,000 669,000 Transfers In 227,335 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 16,252,904 16,013,206 16,776,000 17,588,515 18,536,515 17,541,515 16,258,515 16,733,649 Expenditures
Police 7,564,927 7,549,028 7,545,685 8,019,000 8,284,000 8,558,000 8,810,000 9,068,000 Public Works 305,464 292,525 374,592 310,000 317,000 325,000 333,000 342,000 Community Development 611,297 792,456 725,810 820,000 845,000 870,000 895,000 922,000 Parks and Recreation 2,165,547 1,434,988 2,787,803 2,761,000 2,843,000 2,925,000 3,005,000 3,085,000 City Council 376,082 407,588 331,114 420,000 430,000 441,000 452,000 463,000 City Manager 385,675 360,115 409,908 368,000 378,000 389,000 400,000 411,000 Legal 284,709 154,562 265,000 164,000 169,000 174,000 179,000 184,000 Administrative Services 700,608 679,926 718,643 659,000 678,000 698,000 717,000 736,000 Finance 1,044,931 1,106,024 1,155,608 1,178,000 1,215,000 1,253,000 1,290,000 1,327,000 Workers Comp/General Liability 1,084,650 1,080,572 1,235,837 1,138,000 1,172,000 1,207,000 1,241,000 1,276,000 Non-Department 766,112 375,912 260,000 712,000 765,000 763,000 561,000 563,000 Transfers Out 205,099 214,819 423,000 330,000 236,000 236,000 245,000 256,000 15,495,101 14,448,515 16,233,000 16,879,000 17,332,000 17,839,000 18,128,000 18,633,000 Net Annual Activity
Baseline Operations 757,803$ 1,564,691$ 543,000 709,515 1,204,515 (297,485) (1,869,485) (1,899,351) One-Time Revenues 1,723,486 600,747 1,056,000 141,000 114,000 360,000 416,000 438,000 One-Time Expenditures (1,234,170) (2,062,500)
DOF Settlement (1,812,075) (604,025) (604,025) (604,025) CalHFA Loan Repayments (3,900,000) (1,300,000)
Draw/(Return) from Reserve (1,269,542) 2,654,507 1,380,010 Ending Available Balance 1,847,112$ 2,138,983$ 1,071,458$ 1,317,948 2,636,463 2,698,978 - (1,381,341)$ Operating Reserve:

Beginning Balance 3,797,650$ 2,764,975$ 4,034,517$ 4,034,517 4,034,517 4,034,517 4,034,517$ 1,380,010$ Current Year Contribution 236,867
Return/(Draw) - reserve (1,269,542) 1,269,542 (2,654,507) (1,380,010) Ending Balance 2,764,975$ 4,034,517$ 4,034,517$ 4,034,517 4,034,517 4,034,517 1,380,010$ -$ % of Projected Operating
Expenditures 18% 28% 25% 24% 23% 23% 8% 0%
* Assumed discontinuation of Utility User Tax starting January 1, 2025 per ordinance. 110
Position Title Function FTE Cut Revised
Accounting Technician General Government 3 (1) 2 Admin Srvc Director/City Clerk General Government 1 1
City Manager General Government 1 1
Finance Director General Government 1 1
Human Resources Administrator General Government 1 1
Information Systems Administrator General Government 1 1 Office Assistant General Government 1 (1) 0
Personnel Technician General Government 1 (1) 0 Senior Accountant General Government 1 1
Senior Clerk General Government 1 1
Information Systems Specialist General Government 1 1 Management Analyst General Government 1 1
Police Assistant Public Safety 1 1
Police Commander Public Safety 1 1
Police Officer Public Safety 19 (1) 18
Police Sergeant Public Safety 6 6
Administrative Specialist Public Safety 2 2
Assistant Engineer Public Works 1 1
Maintenance Aide Public Works 1 (1) 0
Maintenance Worker Public Works 8 1 9
Real Property Manager Public Works 1 (1) 0
Public Works Superintendent Public Works 1 1
Public Works Technician Public Works 1 (1) 0 Office Assistant Public Works 1 (1) 0
Assistant/Senior Planner Community Development 1 (1) 0 Chief Building Official Community Development 1 (1) 0 Development Services Technician Community Development 1 1 Permit Technician Community Development 1 (1) 0 Community Development Director Community Development 1 1 Parks and Recreation Director Parks and Recreation 1 1 Estimate Approx.

Recreation Coordinator Parks and Recreation 7 (4) 3 FY 21-22 in Restoring Cost Recreation Program Manager Parks and Recreation 1 (1) 0 Budget FY 2011 FTE Increase 69 -13 56 -19% $15,278,000 $18,333,600 $3,055,600
111

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

DATE: Regular Meeting of March 23, 2021

TO: Members of the City Council

SUBMITTED BY: David Biggs, City Manager
Mike Roberts, Public Works Director/City Engineer

SUBJECT: Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive a presentation on the Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis, discuss, provide direction, if any.

FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION: There is no financial impact associated with receiving this report. Any cost associated with the recommendations will be evaluated in the future, at the time a specific recommendation is being considered for implementation.

At the last Council meeting of March 9, Decision Package #22-7 was introduced which would create a new Public Works Specialist/Inspector Classification utilizing an existing vacant FTE .

Implementing this recommendation, which is the highest priority identified in the study, would be cost neutral to the General Fund. Additional information will be provided at the time the FY 21-22 budget is being considered for adoption.

DISCUSSION: The Public Works Department provides broad range of services including oversight of the City’s transportation network, sewer collection system, stormwater system, landscaping and lighting, facilities maintenance, capital improvements, and engineering revie w for private development projects. These services have been delivered with an organizational structure, staffing level, and staffing configuration that have remained constant since 2014, following staffing reductions that occurred due to the City’s financial hardship.

Given the time that has passed as well as the changes the City has undergone since 2014, MRG was retained to evaluate the Public Works Department and provide recommendations to ensure services are as efficient and effective as possible and the department remains responsive to the public.

In addition to drawing upon their in- house expertise, MRG’s organizational assessment process included reviewing the City’s financial documents and interviewing staff and Council. They also completed a departmental comparison with four other similar cities in Contra Costa County. This included a comparison by related functions as summarized in the table below.

112

T
able 1 – Comparative Municipalities Public Works Related Functions

Agency Population1
Public
Roads
(maintained
miles)2
Collection
System
(miles)
Engineering
Staff
O&M
Staff
Total
Public
Works
Employees
Total PW
Employees/
10,000
Population
Pinole 19,500 53 49 3 10 13 6.7
El
Cerrito 25,000 72 NA 5 14 19 7.6
Orinda 19,000 92 NA 7 53 12 6.3
Moraga 16,900 63 NA 5 6 11 6.5
Comp
City
Avg
20,100 70 49 5 9 14 6.8
Hercules 25,500 55 63 2.54 8.54 11 4.3
1California Department of Finance Population Estimates - May 2020 2Caltrans California Public Road Data - December 2020
3O&M staffing reduced to 5 from 7 in FY 2020-2021 to address COVID financial impact 4The Public Works Superintendent position was estimated to split time equally between Engineering and Maintenance

MRG’s recommendations cover three functional areas: staffing, organizational modifications, and technical & equipment enhancements. They are summarized below and covered in detail in the report.

I. Staffing
• Reclassify a vacant Maintenance Worker I/II position and create a new Public Works Specialist (Inspector) classification.
• Consider creating a new Public Works Supervisor classification. • Consider shifting janitorial duties for all City buildings and potentially park restrooms from full-time staff to contract services.
• Consider creating a Maintenance Aide classification and shifting the weekend parks and facilities duties from two full- time Maintenance Workers to one full -time Maintenance Worker supported by part-time staff.
• Consider using the Maintenance Worker I/II as a flexibly staffed classification and/or better differentiate between the two levels.
• Consider creating a Senior Civil Engineer classification.

II. Organizational Modifications
• Ensure that Engineering staff coordinates and reviews outside reviewer comments for development projects prior to forwarding to developers/applicants. • Provide enhanced oversight of the City-wide landscape contract. • Relocate the Public Works Superintendent to the Maintenance Yard. • Establish performance or workload measures for the Department. • Establish clear timelines for response to the most common requests for service. • Clarify expectations, standards, and frequency of inspection for the Maintenance & Operations Division’s monthly public right-of-way inspection program. 113
• C
onsider establishing a standby procedure and rotation that incorporates all qualified maintenance staff.
• Ensure performance evaluations are completed consistently and in a timely manner. • Establish consistent and well -defined expectations and lines of authority in t he Superintendent’s absence and clarify when “Additional Duties” pay will be applied. • Better define the “lead worker” language in the Local 315 MOU.

III. Technical and Equipment Enhancements
• Implement a basic work order and tracking system to begin tracking work output and scheduling recurring preventative maintenance activities. • Start mapping and inventorying maintained assets during the monthly inspection program. • Develop an agreement with Pinole or another neighboring agency to gain access to pavement patching equipment to improve road maintenance.

These recommendations cover a broad range of functional areas and could be phased in over time as resource levels allow. Staff looks forward to using the Organizational Review and Analysis as a guide to ensure the Public Works Department is optimally configured to best serve the public and the City’s needs into the foreseeable future.

MRG will be in attendance tonight to present their Public Works Organizational Review and Analysis as well as answer any questions.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Presentation on Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis

2. Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis

Financial Impact
Description:

Funding Source:

Budget Recap:

Total Estimated cost: $ New Revenue: $
Amount Budgeted: $ Lost Revenue: $
New funding required: $ New Personnel: $
Council Policy Change: Yes No

114
City Council Meeting – March 23,2021
City of Hercules
Public Works Department
Organizational Review
and Analysis
1 115

PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
The MRG project team conducted a high-level staffing,
service delivery and organizational structure analysis of the Public Works Department to achieve the following
objectives:
•Im
prove service delivery and outcomes
•In crease efficiencies and effectiveness
•Clarif y employee roles and responsibilities
•Streamline management oversight
2 116

PROJECT METHODOLOGY
The project methodology included the following:
•Review of the City’s budget documents, staff cost
allo
cations, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports,
Lighting and Landscape District Engineer Reports,
organizational chart, and job descriptions
•Interviews with City staff and each Council Member
•Desk review of the organizational structure of four
c
omparative municipalities in Contra Costa County:
•El Cerrito
•Pinole
•Moraga
•Orinda
3 117

KEY FINDINGS
•Extensive use of outside consultants and contractors
•Significant staff reductions between 2012 to 2014 from high of 1 8 to current 11
•Management staff spend virtually all their time performing staff le
vel work or managing everyday work functions
•Insufficient capacity to perform strategic planning, implement w
ork productivity systems and oversee staff
•No formal work order or work productivity systems in place •Limited inspection of encroachment permit work and
d
evelopment projects
•Limited review and coordination of outside engineering firms •Desire for enhanced oversight of the landscape contractor 4 118

COMPARATIVE
AGENCY

ANALYSIS
5 Table 1 – Comparative Municipalities Public Works Related Functions

Agency Population1
Public
Roads
(maintained
miles)2
Collection
System
(miles)
Engineering
Staff
O&M
Staff
Total
Public
Works
Employees
Total PW
Employees/
10,000
Population
Pinole 19,500 53 49 3 10 13 6.7
El Cerrito 25,000 72 NA 5 14 19 7.6
Orinda 19,000 92 NA 7 53 12 6.3
Moraga 16,900 63 NA 5 6 11 6.5
Comp
City Avg 20,100 70 49 5 9 14 6.8
Hercules 25,500 55 63 2.54 8.54 11 4.3
1California Department of Finance Population Estimates - May 2020 2Caltrans California Public Road Data - December 2020
3O&M staffing reduced to 5 from 7 in FY 2020-2021 to address COVID financial impact 4The Public Works Superintendent position was estimated to split time equally between Engineering and Maintenance 119

RECOMMENDATIONS
Create a new Public Works Specialist (Inspector) classification •Fund by reclassifying vacant Maintenance Worker I/II position •Addresses many of the Department’s most pressing issues:
• Frees the Superintendent to oversee maintenance staff and implement w
ork order and other management tools
• Provides needed oversight of development projects and encroachment p
ermit-related work in the City’s right-of-way
• Provides additional time for the Associate Engineer to review and c
oordinate the work of outside consultants by reassigning work to the new position
• Satisfies the City Council’s and other stakeholders’ goal for enhanced o
versight of the landscape contractor by assigning oversight to this new position, trained and experienced in inspecting contract work and enforcing contract provisions
6 120

RECOMMENDATIONS
•Create a new Public Works Supervisor classification
•Fill as funds become available or by upgrading a Maintenance W
orker I/II position
•Assist in the oversight of outside contractors and vendors •Clear line of authority in the absence of the Superintendent •Path of succession and promotion within the Division
•Assist in the development and implementation of needed s
ystem improvements
•Consider shifting janitorial duties for all City buildings an
d potentially park restrooms to contract services
and/or part-time staff
•Implement a variety of work productivity and
p
erformance measurement systems to improve
effectiveness 7
121

PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL

STRUCTURE
•Reallocates Department staff to areas of greatest need – publ
ic works inspection, outside engineering consultant
oversight, and landscape contract oversight through the creation of a Public Works Specialist position
•Creates a Public Works Supervisor classification that
pr
ovides for both staff development opportunities and
succession planning
•Reallocates staff resources and responsibilities to provide a
dequate management and supervisory-level staff to
develop and implement necessary procedures and
systems for performance and workload management
8 122

PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL

STRUCTURE
9 123

Post Office Box 561 Wilton, California 95693 916-261-7547 [email protected]

CITY OF HERCULES

Public Works Department
Organizational Review and Analysis

Prepared by:

Mike Bakaldin
Charlene Harris
Mike Oliver

Municipal Resource Group, LLC
March 2021
124

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page i Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ .....1 BACKGROUND ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 1 ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY ................................ .....2 A. Document Review ................................ ................................ ................................ 2 B. Staff and Customer Interviews ................................ ................................ .............2 C. Comparative Municipality Review ................................ ................................ ........3 KEY OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................. 3 A. Public Works Department ................................ ................................ .................... 3 B. Engineering Division ................................ ................................ ............................. 4 C. Maintenance & Operations Division ................................ ................................ .....5 COMPARATIVE AGENCIES ................................ ................................ ................................ 9 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....10 A. Staffing ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 10 B. Organizational Modifications ................................ ................................ .............13 C. Technical and Equipment Enhancements ................................ ........................... 16 PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ................................ ................................ ....17 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 17

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A List of Interviewees
Attachment B List of Interview Questions
Attachment C-1 City of Pinole Organizational Chart
Attachment C-2 City of Orinda Organizational Chart
Attachment C-3 Town of Moraga Organizational Chart
Attachment C-4 City of El Cerrito Organizational Chart
Attachment D Hercules Public Works Department Proposed Organizational Structure

125

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 1 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Hercules (“City”) engaged Municipal Resource Group, LLC (“MRG”) to assist the City’s Public Works Department (“Department”) in determining an organizational structure and staffing configuration that would improve service delivery and outcomes , increase efficiencies and effectiveness, clarify employee roles and responsibilities, and streamline management oversight.

The process included a review of provided documentation and data ; individual interviews of identified Department staff, the City Manager, and each member of the City Council; and a review of data from comparative municipalities. The data and subsequent analysis were incorporated into a series of findings and recommendations.

MRG’s most critical recommendation is to reclassify a currently vacant Maintenance Worker I/II position to a new Public Works Specialist (Inspector) classification . This one recommendation addresses many of the Department’s most pressing issues, in that it would:
• Free the Public Works Superintendent to provide the necessary oversight and direction to maintenance staff and the time to implement a work order system, performance or workload measures and other management tools;
• Provide needed oversight of development projects and encroachment of permit-related work in the City’s right-of-way;
• Provide additional time for the Associate Engineer to review and coordinate the work of outside consultants by reassigning work to the new position; and • Satisfy the City Council ’s and other stakeholders ’ goal for enhanced oversight of the landscape contractor by assigning oversight to this new position, who would be trained and experienced in inspecting contract work and enforcing contract provisions.

Other key recommendations include:
• Consider creating a new Public Works Supervisor classification; • Shifting janitorial duties for all City buildings and potentially park restrooms from full-time staff to contract services and/or part-time staff; and
• Implementing a v ariety of work productivity, performance measurement and accountability systems to improve effectiveness.

BACKGROUND
The Department is tasked with overseeing the construction, rehabilitation , and maintenance of the City’s infrastructure. The Department ope rates with a limited number of staff supported by outside consultants and contractors for a wide variety of designated services. While the City has continued to develop and grow (9% population growth since 2011), and infrastructure and infrastructure maint enance requirements have increased along with service delivery expectations, t he number of Department staff has remained constant since 201 4, following staffing reductions to address fiscal impacts brought on by the Great Recession. The Department 126

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 2 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
operated with an average staffing of 14.75 FTEs between the years 2011 through 2014. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2015, the staffing level was reduced and has remained at 11.0 FTEs.

The MRG project team conducted a high -level staffing, service delivery and organizational structure analysis of the Public Works Department to achieve the following objectives:
• Evaluate service delivery methods and outcomes, utilizing City Council, City Manager, and Public Works staff input, and provide reco mmendations to improve service delivery and outcomes;
• Evaluate staffing levels, positions, and contracted services in relation to the workload to provide recommendations as to appropriate staffing levels; and • Evaluate the Public Works Department’s organiz ational structure and provide recommendations for improved efficiency and service delivery.

The report that follows represents the results of that review and analysis, which included interviews with Department staff, the City Manager, and each member of t he City Council. The results were based upon these interviews as well as a review of best practices and organizational design, other municipal models, and an assessment of the current departmental environment.

ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
The organizational assessment consisted of the following three steps:

A. Document Review
MRG reviewed the City’s budget documents, staff cost allocations, Lighting and Landscape District Engineer Reports, and Department job descriptions to develop an und erstanding of the City’s and Department’s financial position and organizational structure.

B. Staff and Customer Interviews
On January 14, 2021, the project was officially kicked off with a n online meeting that included City Manager David Biggs, Public Works Director/City Engineer Michael Roberts, and MRG Consultants Mike Oliver, Mike Bakaldin and Charlene Harris. Mr. Biggs and Mr. Roberts provided a background overview of the Department as well as critical input and perspective on the history, culture and effectiveness of the City and the Department. The team also discussed and finalized the project scope of services and timeline.

On January 27, 2021 , MRG held on-site interviews with the City Manager, the Public Works Director, and selected Department staff. The interviews focused on the individuals’ roles and responsibilities, their Division’s performance, service delivery, measurements of effectiveness, resource allocation and potential opportunities for improvement. MRG held follow -up phone interviews with the Public Works Director and Superintendent to clarify details and ensure the accuracy of the report findings.
127

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 3 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
In late January and early February of 2021, MRG interviewed each member of the City Council .

The interviews generally focused on service delivery and potential opportunities for improvement.

The complete list of interviewees is found in Attachment A. The interview questions are provided as Attachment B. These served as a guidepost for the interviews, and subse quent questions were asked as issues were further identified or additional clarification was needed.

C. Comparative Municipality Review
The Consultants conducted a desk review of the organizational structures and assigned functions of four comparative municipalities in Contra Costa County . These municipalities included El Cerrito, Pinole, Moraga, and Orinda.

KEY OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
The review and analysis process led to the following key observations and findings. They identify opportunities for improv ement in the Department ’s organizational structure and serve as a roadmap to improve service delivery, operations, efficiencies, and management oversight. The recommendations in the next section are derived from the key observations and findings.

A. Public Works Department
The Public Works D epartment consists of two Divisions: Engineering and Maintenance & Operations.

The Public Works Director/City Engineer manages both Divisions, but is primarily focused on the Engineering Division in his capacity a s the City Engineer . The Public Works Superintendent manages the Maintenance & Operations Division, while dedicating a significant portion of his time to support the Engineering Division. Key findings and observations regarding the Department include:
• The Public Works Department utilizes outside consultants and contractors to provide a significant portion of the Department’s services. Department staff is tasked with managing the contracts and overseeing the work product. The contract model appears to work well for the Department and allows for greater flexibility in managing the resources necessary to deliver services. However, there are challenges in managing the number of contracts and adequately overseeing the work product.
• The Department experienced sig nificant personnel reductions between 2011 and 2014 , dropping from a high of 18 full-time positions to the current 11 full-time positions. • Due to the currently “lean” organizational structure, both the Department’s management personnel (Public Works Director/City Engineer and Public Works Superintendent) spend virtually all of their time performing staff -level work or managing everyday work functions. Currently, neither position has sufficient capacity to perform strategic planning 128

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 4 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
or d evelop and implement new procedures and systems to i mprove infrastructure reliability and work productivity.
• The Department does not perform regular personnel performance evaluations, except for probationary employees and employees eligible for step increa ses, and lacks performance standards and workload measures for most of the key functions .

Consequently, the Department is hindered by a lack of clear expectations within an agreed framework of planned goals, standards, and competence requirements. • The Department does not utilize a work order or computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) . Work assignments are typically distributed verbally and currently there is no formal or informal follow -up process. City -wide, there has been a recent effort by the City Manager’s office to track citizen complaints and service requests via a spreadsheet with an expectation that each complain t/request will be tracked up to final resolution. The City is also exploring implementation of an off-the-shelf work order system that could potentially be used by all departments to issue and track complaints, service requests and internally generated work.
• The Department lacks a succession plan , and the organizational structure does not provide a clear line o f succession for the two leadership positions, Public Works Director/City Engineer and Public Works Superintendent.

B. Engineering Division
The Engineering Division administers the City’s Capital Improvement Program ; reviews and inspects grading and public i mprovements on private development projects ; reviews traffic engineering; issues encroachment and grading permits ; and administers the City’s clean water and sewer lateral certification program s. Engineering staff primarily provide s counter service, address public inquiries, and manage outside consultants and contractors who perform the bulk of the development plan reviews, capital project design, and capital project construction management.

The Division is staffed by a Public Works Director/City Engineer and an Associate Engineer, and is supported by the Public Works Superintendent, who performs public works inspections on encroachment permits and private development projects and assists with capital projects. Key findings and observations for the Engineering Division include:
• Prior to his appointment in 2014 as the Public Works Superintendent, the incumbent served as the City’s Public Works Inspector for over 20 years. Because t he Inspector position has not been filled, the Superinte ndent continues to serve as the primary inspector for development projects, encroachment permits and sewer lateral repairs and replacements. These dual roles result in the Superintendent spending less than the required time managing the maintenance activities. The Associate Engineer serves as his backup. The Superintendent estimates that, on average, inspection and Engineering Division-related responsibilities account for 30 to 40% of his time. • Engineering staff reports that they do not have the capacity to inspect a significant portion of the encroachment permit work, especially the work performed by public utilities. Staff 129

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 5 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
also has limited capacity to actively inspect development projects and ensure compliance with conditions of approval.
• The Engineering Division relies heavily on outside consultants to review plans and specifications for new developments. Staff members report that they no longer have the capacity to review the outside consultant’s development plan review comments . As a result, plan review comments are typically transmitted directly from the consultant to the developer without review by City staff. Further, City staff has limited time to coordinate and manage the outside staff. The lack of City staff review , and coordination of development plan reviews can lead to uneven conformance with City specifications and conditions of approval.
• Virtually, all capital project design, construction management, and project inspection activities are performed by outside consultants. On occasion , Engineering staff will manage a small capital project and perform the construction inspection in-house.

C. Maintenance & Operations Division
The Maintenance & Operations Division is responsible for the following:
• Maintaining the City’s public parks, landscape medians, streets, sidewalks, and facilities; • Ensuring clean stormwater and compliant wastewater discharge into San Pablo Bay through the City’s creek and storm drain maintenance, street sweeping and sewer collection programs;
• Graffiti abatement;
• Addressing illegal dumping; and
• Oversight of the City-wide Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District contracts.

Maintenance & Operations staff’s primary duties include:
• Providing janitorial service to City facilities except for City Hall; • Performing light building maintenance;
• Cleaning and light maintenance of City parks;
• Replacing and repairing streetlights and street signs; • Inspecting sewer lift stations;
• Removing graffiti and illegally dumped materials;
• Temporarily patching potholes;
• Responding to sewer overflows; and
• Performing limited pavement and curb marking maintenance. 130

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 6 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
The Division is also responsible for overseeing outside contractors who:
• Maintain t he Ci ty’s park and median landscaping, traffic signals, vehicles, sidewalks, roadways, and building and sewer system mechanical and electrical systems; • Provide street cleaning, weed abatement, and pest control services; and • Clean and repair the sewer collection system.

The Maintenance & Operations Division is staff ed by a Public Works Superintendent , four Maintenance Worker I I positions and four Maintenance Worker I positions, with one of the Maintenance Worker I/II positions currently vacant. Key findings and observations include:
• The Public Works Superintendent has insufficient time to organize, direct, and supervise the work of the Maintenance & Operations Division. In addition to his inspection duties, the incumbent supports the Engineering Division as needed, which on average, takes up to 40% of his time. Over the past year, the Superintendent estimated that he spent up to 50% of his time overseeing the City’s energy efficiency and conservation project (Engie).

In effect, the Superintendent has had approximately 10% of available time in the last year to oversee the Maintenance & Operations Division. The Superintendent’s primary office is located at City Hall, with a secondary office at the maintenance yard. • As a result of the Superintendent’s mu ltiple responsibilities, Maintenance & Operations Division s taff is primarily self -directed. Each Maintenance Worker is assigned several parks and buildings to maintain during their workweek. The first half of the typical weekday is spent performing janito rial work in the City’s buildings and park restrooms, inspecting sewer lift stations, and opening and inspecting parks and buildings. The second half of the day is spent resolving issues discovered during the morning, responding to public complaints and se rvice requests, working on minor projects assigned by the Superintendent, inspecting contract maintenance work, or inspecting an assigned zone for issues.
• The Division does not have clearly established standards or expectations for the various routine daily tasks that the staff perform. For example, once a maintenance worker cleans and opens a building and restroom, there is no accepted or set standard as to the minimum number of times the maintenance worker should return to each facility during the day to ensure cleanliness and safety. Further, there is little to no day-to-day supervision of maintenance staff by the Superintendent. Consequently, staff performance and facility conditions are inconsistent due to a lack of clear expectations, accountability, and oversight.
• The Division does not have clearly established response time expectations for the most common requests for service, including pothole repair, street light repair or graffiti removal. Staff members stated that graffiti and illegal dumping requests for service are typically handled within 48 hours, and that street light outages can take up to a week. • The Division does not have the equipment or materials for asphalt work beyond the temporary repair of potholes with cold patch . More permanent asphalt repairs are prioritized and either performed under the annual asphalt maintenance contract or 131

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 7 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
incorporated into the City’s asphalt management program and performed in later years.

It is the City’s practice to defer permanent patching and repairs to either the annual contracted repair project or the CIP program, which can take years to implement. • Maintenance is primarily conducted in a reactive mode, although there has been an effort to be more proactive. Recently, staff divided the City into eight zones to match the number of budgeted maintenance workers. Each worker is expected to drive through the assigned zone at leas t once during the calendar month to identify potholes, faded pavement markings and street signs, graffiti, and any other potential issues. The zones are rotated each month so that there is a fresh set of eyes looking for items in need of repair or replacement.
• The Division does not formally track completed or outstanding work, resulting in the lack of a potential work backlog. However, Division staff members were consistent in the belief that there were no outstanding items or projects in need of immediate attention.

That belief is partially supported by the following:
▪ In the last two years, the Division had the entire sewer collection system cleaned and video inspected by contract. Per the Public Works Superintendent, the City only experiences, on average, one sanitary sewer overflow per year; ▪ In the last two years, all street name signs were replaced by staff; ▪ The vast majority of the City’s streetlights are newer LED fixtures, which have an anticipated service life of at least 15 years, thereby minimizing the number of bulb replacements needed as compared to the older high-pressure sodium streetlights that require replacement every three to five years; and
▪ None of the interviewed staff or Council members highlighted serious issues with the City’s facilities or infrastructure , except for concerns with the condition of the City’s roadways and a perceived long lag time to perform necessary repairs. • Maintenance s taff’s perception that there is no work backlog suggests that the Maintenance & Operations Division is adequately staffed for the amount of work that it performs in relation to the amount of work that is cont racted out. A widely accepted standard is that properly functioning maintenance organizations should have a work order backlog of approximately four weeks.

The backlog allows for proper planning and procurement of necessary contractors, equipment, or supplies prior to the start of work. Longer backlogs lead to poor employee morale due to overwork, loss of confidence that work will be done , and the slow degradation of infrastructure. Shorter backlogs lead to difficulty in keeping maintenance staff focused on priority work, increase unplanned work, and result in falling productivity.

However, the lack of a work order system and historic work and performance data does not allow for quantitative verification that the Division is properly resourced. • Under the City’s Memorandum of Understanding with Local 315, “two Public Works Maintenance Workers will be designated as "Lead Workers" and will receive 5% additional duties pay.” The MOU does not define the expected duties and responsibilities 132

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 8 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
of th e “ Lead Worker.” The Department practice has been to give lead pay to one Maintenance Worker II to assist the Public Works Superintendent in overseeing the landscape contract and for another Maintenance Worker II to assist the Public Works Superintendent in overseeing the street lighting system and sewer lift stations. The actual authorities and expectations of the two maintenance workers designated as “Lead Workers,” both in terms of contract oversight and providing direction or technical and functional supervision to other maintenance workers, is not clearly defined or understood by staff. Typically, a Lead Worker, consistent with position classification standards, is defined as an employee who has one or more employees assigned to their area of expertise and who directs, plans, schedules, assigns, and reviews the work of assigned employee(s). Lead Workers do not have supervisory authority. • In the absence of the Public Works Superintendent (vacations, etc.) , it has been the practice to assign one of the two “Lead Workers” to assume some of the duties of the Public Works Sup erintendent. The acting assignments do not typically come with additional pay unless the absence is for two weeks or more. Additionally, there appears to be inconsistent communication to maintenance staff when an acting assignment is made. This results in a lack of clarity about assigned duties and reporting expectations during the acting assignment.
• The Division has not instituted an employee standby procedure for after -hours emergencies. The c urrent practice is for Police Dispatch to first contact the Superintendent for after-hours emergencies . The Superintendent is expected to be available for requests for service or assistance. When the Superintendent is not available, Police Dispatch works down the list of maintenance workers, and if no staff are contacted, the issue goes unaddressed. One exception are sewer overflow calls, where Dispatch has the option to call the City of Pinole collection staff for assistance. • The Division provides weekend coverage fo r parks and facilities with full -time staff by assigning two Maintenance Workers a Wednesday through Saturday shift and two Maintenance Workers a Sunday through Wednesday shift. All other maintenance staff work Monday through Thursday , except for the Supe rintendent, who works Tuesday through Friday to ensure adequate staffing and oversight on Friday. • All maintenance staff have credit cards and procure necessary parts by driving to hardware stores and other suppliers. The maintenance yard does not have a central storeroom, nor does there appear to be a system to minimize the number of visits to retail outlets or to procure and store commonly used parts and supplies at the maintenance yard.
• The Division has not mapped or inventoried many of the asset s that it operates and maintains, such as pavement markings, street signs, and trees. The City, as a whole, does not have a Geographical Information System (GIS).
• There currently are staff that have been in the entry-level Maintenance Worker I classification for over 10 years, even though they may have the requisite experience and qualifications to function as a Maintenance Worker II. Operationally, there is no clear distinction between the duties and responsibilities performed by the Maintenance 133

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 9 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
Worker I or II. While the Maintenance Worker I/II classification could function as a flexible staff classification, the Department is not managing the classification in that way.

COMPARATIVE MUNICIPALITIES
MRG conducted a desk review of the organizational struc ture and functions of public works- related functions in four selected compara ble California municipalities. The four selected municipalities are all small cities or towns in Contra Costa County that rely heavily on contract support to deliver services. All four deliver a range of services similar to the services provided by Hercules, with one exception. Pinole is the only other municipality that operates and maintains a sewer collection system. Pinole is additionally unique in that it is the only selected municipality that operates a wastewater treatment plant, which coincidentally also serves Hercules. Copies of the organizational charts for the four comparative municipalities are provided in Attachments C- 1 through C-4.

All the comparable municipalities are structured differently, with some assigning park maintenance, facility maintenance, janitorial, and median maintenance to their parks and recreation departments. MRG accounted for all positions performing services matching those of Hercules’ Public Works Department, regardless of department. Positions performing functions not found in Hercules, such as wastewater treatment plant staff in Pinole, or recycling center staff in El Cerrito, were excluded from employee counts. The key data are referenced in Table 1, below:

Table 1 – Comparative Municipalities Public Works-Related Functions Agency Population1
Public Roads
(maintained
miles)2
Collection
System
(miles)
Engineering
Staff
O&M
Staff
Total
Public
Works
Employees
Total PW
Employees
/10,000
Population
Pinole 19,500 53 49 3 10 13 6.7
El Cerrito 25,000 72 NA 5 14 19 7.6
Orinda 19,000 92 NA 7 53 12 6.3
Moraga 16,900 63 NA 5 6 11 6.5
Comp
City Avg 20,100 70 49 5 9 14 6.8
Hercules 25,500 55 63 2.54 8.54 11 4.3
1 California Department of Finance Population Estimates - May 2020. 2 Caltrans California Public Road Data - December 2020. 3 O&M staffing reduced to 5 from 7 in FY 2020-2021 to address COVID financial impact. 4 The Public Works Superintendent position was estimated to split time equally between Engineering and Maintenance & Operations.

A review of the organizational charts of the comparable municipalities indicates that each of the four organizations have more management and supervisory positions allocated to oversee public works-related functions relative to Hercules. The higher level of management and supervisory positions allow for increased levels of staff supervision and contract oversight, additional capacity for strategic planning and implementation of workload and performance measurement systems, and improved succession planning.
134

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 10 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
As shown in Table 1, above, the data suggests that the Department, as a whole, is understaffed in comparison to the other municipalities, especially after normalizing the number of employees per 10,000 population . When combined with the key findings and observations, MRG believes that the Engineering Division, more specifically, requires additional resources. The primary areas of need are public works inspection and oversight and coordination of outside consultants.

The municipality comparison suggests that the Operations & Maintenance Division is also understaffed. However, t he key findings and observations indicate that the Division could be adequately staf fed and that the existing Maintenance Worker vacancy could be partially reallocated to areas of greater need and priority. A more meaningful assessment of the resource needs of the Department would require at least a year’s worth of workload and performanc e measurement data performed at the desired level of service . The Department could then more accurately ascertain the work that can and needs to be done as opposed to the work that is being done with existing staff and contract support levels.

RECOMMENDATIONS
While it is tempting to assume that increases in staff would solve most operational issues, the reality is that there are limits on the City’s ability to fund increases in permanent staff. For that reason, it is incumbent upon management to implement operational best practices and systems that create efficiencies and enhance the utilization of current resources ; adopt standardized expectations for quality service delivery ; and establish processes that ensure current personnel are as knowledgeable and widely trained as is practicable. With these considerations in mind, the recommendations in this report are focused on enhancing the operations and effectiveness of the Public Works Department.

Our recommendations are organized into three categories to facilitate review and analysis. The recommendations are focused on developing practical and implementable suggestions that will improve the Department’s organizational effectiveness and sustainability. These recommendations are not intended to be i mplemented all at the same time. Some of the personnel recommendations can be considered immediately due to the current vacanc y in the Department, while others can be scheduled for implementation over a longer period of time.

A. Staffing
Staffing recommendations are designed to provide options for addressing the findings. They are not described in absolute terms, but may be modified and implemented in combination with operational modifications. They include responses to address long-term organizational needs and seek to improve employee efficiency.
• Reclassify a vacant Maintenance Worker I/II position an d create a new Public Works Specialist (Inspector) classification.

The creation of a dedicated Public Works Specialist (Inspector) position addresses several of the Department’s most pressing issues:
135

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 11 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
▪ By removing the inspection duties from the Superintendent, it frees the Superintendent to provide the necessary oversight and direction to maintenance staff and the time to implement a work order system, performance or workload measures and other management tools.
▪ A common theme during the interviews was that there was inadequate oversight of development projects and encroach ment permit-related work in the City’s right -of- way. A full-time dedicated inspector would ensure a more regular and consistent set of eyes in the field.
▪ The new position could assume some of the duties currently performed by the Associate Engineer, such a s overseeing the sewer later al inspection program and viewing the sewer lateral CCTV footage, freeing the Associate Engineer to review and coordinate the work of outside consultants.
▪ The Specialist could be assigned oversight of the City-wide landscaping c ontract, which would partially offset the loss of the Maintenance Worker position by freeing up the Superintendent and Maintenance Worker II currently tasked with overseeing the contractor.
▪ The City Council and other stakeholders have expressed a desire f or enhanced oversight of the landscape contractor. Assigning the new position to an individual who is trained and experienced in inspecting contract work and enforcing contract provisions, would satisfy that goal.
▪ By titling the new position as a “Specialist” rather than an “Inspector,” the City can add administrative and project management duties to the job specification to make the position more versatile and supportive of other Engineering Division functions .

The City of Pinole uses the Public Works Specialist title for its Inspector role. • Consider creating a new Public Works Supervisor classification.

The creation of a working s upervisor position addresses several of the Maintenance & Operations Division’s most pressing issues:
▪ An appropriately classified position to assist in the oversight and management of the City’s numerous outside contractors and vendors.
▪ A clear line of authority in the absence of the Superintendent. ▪ A path of succession and promotion within the Division. ▪ A position to assist in the development and implementation of needed system improvements discussed in the recommendations below.

The City could consider filling this position as additional funding becomes available.

Alternatively, this position could be eval uated in anticipation of a vacancy in the Maintenance & Operations Division.
136

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 12 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
• Consider shifting janitorial duties for all City buildings and potentially park restrooms from full-time staff to contract services.

Currently, full -time maintenance workers prov ide janitorial services to City facilities except for City Hall, which has a janitorial contract. Several maintenance workers spend the first hours of each daily shift cleaning all City facilities, including park restrooms.

Interviewed staff believed that janitorial service could be provided more efficiently and cost-effectively by a janitorial contractor , with building cleaning occurring after hours in the evenings. The City could consider this transition as additional funding becomes available. Alternatively, this transition could be evaluated in anticipation of a vacancy in the Maintenance & Operations Division. In the absence of a work order system, the Department would first need to track staff hours spent on janitorial services to verify the staffing c urrently committed to janitorial services, obtain an estimate of the square footage of all City buildings, determine a potential range of costs for contract janitorial services, and determine if there are cost savings and service benefits to replacing staf f with contract services.
• Consider creating a Maintenance Aide classification and shifting the weekend parks and facilities duties from two full-time Maintenance Workers to one full-time Maintenance Worker supported by part-time staff.

Two full -time mainte nance workers provide janitorial and porter services during the weekends to City parks and other open facilities. The two full -time employee configuration is not varied by season or usage , resulting in potential overstaffing during bad weather or off -season and potential understaffing on holiday or peak usage weekends. Using part-time staff to perform the mostly menial weekend duties would be more cost-efficient and allow greater flexibility in staffing. Greater numbers of staff could be brought in for busy weekends and lower numbers for off-season, low-usage weekends.

The City could consider this transition as additional funding becomes available.

Alternatively, this recommendation could be evaluated as part of the recommendation to consider expanding the contract janitorial service s in anticipation of a vacancy in the Maintenance & Operations Division.
• Consider using the Maintenance Worker I/II as a flexibly staffed classification and/or better differentiate between the two levels.

Using the Maintenance Worker I/II as a flexibly staffed classification allows qualified staff to progress from Maintenance Worker I to Maintenance Worker II once the employee’s performance, experience, skills, and knowledge clearly demonstrate a promotion is warranted. Flexible staffing is a commonly used administrative tool that recognizes positions where the organizational need for assigning work spans more than one class level. In a flexibly staffed p osition, an employee may be initially appointed to one class level (e.g., the entry level), and then be promoted to the next level (e.g., the journey level) without a competitive process. The most common flexible staffing involves entry - and journey-level classifications. Certain positions may be permanently allocated at the lower 137

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 13 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
level because the duties do not warrant an upgrade to the higher level no matter how well an incumbent performs the duties. However, this does not appear to be the situation in the Department, since no clear distinction is made between the work performed by the Maintenance Worker I and II classifications. A decision to use the Maintenance Worker I/II classification as a flexibl y staffed classification would allow maintenance wor ker incumbents to promote from the entry -level to the journey-level classification once the employee’s performance clearly demonstrates a promotion is warranted. • Consider creating a Senior Civil Engineer classification.

Adding a Senior Civil Engineer classification gives the Department the flexibility to promote qualified staff from Assistant to Associate to Senior once the employee’s performance, experience, skills, and licensing clearly demonstrate a promotion is warranted. Adding the classification would potentially increase retention, which is critical for the Department, since there is only one Engineer position. Additionally, if the Department hires or promotes to the senior level classification, it provides a more likely potential candidate for Public Works Director/City Engineer for purposes of succession planning and organizational continuity.

B. Organizational Modifications
These recommendations focus on improving the D epartment’s effectiveness. The recommendations also include enhancem ent of support services and realignment of internal assignments.
• Ensure that Engineering staff coordinates and reviews outside reviewer comments for development projects prior to forwarding to developers/applicants.

Currently, Engineering staff does not have the capacity to review and coordinate the work of its consultants tasked with reviewing development project plans. If the City creates and fills the recommended Public Works Specialist position and reassigns some of the Associate Engineer’s current duties to the Specialist, such as overseeing the sewer lateral inspection program and viewing the sewer lateral CCTV footage, the Associate Engineer will have additional capacity to review and coordinate the work of outside consultants. • Provide enhanced oversight of the City-wide landscape contract.

As previously mentioned, the proposed Public Works Specialist /Inspector would be a fitting position to oversee the City-wide landscape contractor. The new position would primarily be field oriented and expected to drive throughout the City inspecting work in the City’s right -of-way. Monitoring the landscape work is a sensible add-on to the position’s field duties , and provides the City with a higher level of oversight , since the Specialist will be trained and experienced in inspecting contract work and enforcing contract provisions.
138

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 14 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
Alternatively, the proposed Public Works Supervisor position could oversee the City-wide landscape contractor , and the Public Works Specialist /Inspector could be assigned additional duties in the Engineering Division to allow the Associate Engineer to focus more time on outside consultant oversight.
• Relocate the Public Works Superintendent to the Maintenance Yard.

The Public Works Superintendent should be permanently housed at the Maintenance Yard to provide appropriate oversight, coordinate work, and generally be more visible to Maintenance & Operations staff.
• Establish performance or workload measures for the Department.

It is important to establish performance measures and goals to ensure that staff is delivering projects and services within established standards and expectations.

Performance and workload measures also provide a meaningful way to justify additional resources, if necessary.

The best measures are derived from the perspective or expectations of the customer. For permits and approvals, that would include residents, contractors, or developers, while for capital projects and mainte nance services , that would include either residents, other departments, or a combination of both. Performance measures should cover timeliness, quality of services, customer satisfaction and/or cost. A typical outcome -based service objective may be to process an encroachment permit within a specified time period. The objective would be confirmed by the public as a desirable level of service. The actual performance measure would be the percent of permits over a given period of time processed within the desired timeline.

The absence of performance measurement does not necessarily mean that the staff does not focus on its customers or is not effective. However, a properly implemented performance measurement system ensures that staff understand s its customers’ needs and can focus on meeting and/or exceeding those expectations. • Establish clear timelines for response to the most common requests for service.

Develop a response matrix for the most common service requests that includes a timeline for resp onse. In setting the timelines, staff should be realistic with its ability to consistently meet the timeline. Customers typically are understanding in non-emergency situations if they are informed of the expected response time and observe that the issue was addressed in the stated time. Both staff and customers will generally be more satisfied with a 99% response rate for a two workday graffiti abatement timeline rather than a 50% response rate with a one workday graffiti abatement timeline. As a possible enhancement to c learly communicat ing the response commitment to internal staff, citizens, and the City Council at the time of the request, the response matrix could be posted to the City’s website. If properly tracked and managed, the response matrix could be used as a performance measure.
139

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 15 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
• Clarify expectations, standards, and frequency of inspection for the Maintenance & Operations Division’s monthly public right-of-way inspection program.

Develop a checklist that clarifies expectations for the Maintenance Workers assigned to perform the monthly inspections of the City’s infrastructure. This would be a good task to track via the work order system.
• Consider establishing a standby procedure and rotation that incorpora tes all qualified maintenance staff.

The current practice of solely relying on the Superintendent for after -hours emergency calls is not sustainable. The maintenance staff could be cross trained in the practices and procedures of the most common after hour emergency situations and be given the opportunity to be placed on a standby list. The City has an existing standby provision in the MOU with Local 315, which may need to be modified to ensure it meets the City’s needs and budget limitations. As it stands now, the City is obligated to pay a cash amount on top of an hourly rate for standby, which is a fairly generous provision. With the proliferation of cell phones, standby is no longer the burden it was in the past, where a standby employee could not leave his/her house while on call or had to find a phone after being paged . Today, a standby employee is free to leave their home , with only the limitation of staying within one hour’s driving distance of the City. Another potential cost saving measure would be to assign weekend standby to employees normally assigned to work weekends. A final consideration is to incentivize staff to resolve emergency situations by phone, where appropriate, without having to respond in person. A typical provision would be to pay a half-hour minimum for any call resolved by phone. • Ensure performance evaluations are completed consistently and in a timely manner.

The City does not have a formal performance management program. Rather, department heads are expected to complete annual e mployee performance evaluations for each respective performance evaluation period. While the Public Works Department has done a good job of completing performance evaluations for probationary staff on a timely basis, performance evaluations have not been completed in a consistent or timely manner for Department staff who have successfully completed their probationary periods. Performance evaluations will be especially important once the Department implements performance and workload measures. Late performance evaluations send a message that employees are not important enough to set aside sufficient time to conduct evaluations in a timely manner, which can negatively impact morale and productivity. The Public Works Director should ensure that evaluations for all Department employees are conducted in a timely manner.
140

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 16 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
• Establish consistent and well -defined expectations and lines of authority in the Superintendent’s absence and clarify when “Additional Duties” pay will be applied.

Currently, there is a lack of clarity regarding who is in charge when the Superintendent is absent. One of the issues appears to be inconsistent communicati on about which “Lead Worker” is in charge, especially during absences of a week or less. Another issue appears to be that the “ Lead Workers” don’t understand or accept the expected responsibilities during brief absences, since it appears they are not given “Additional Duties” pay. These issues of “ Additional Duties” pay and “ Lead Worker” assignment s would be resolved should the Department adopt the recommendation to establish a Public Wo rks Supervisor classification. Typically, the assignment of duties to cover during an absence is assigned to a lower -level classification within the organizati on’s classification hierarchy.

With the addition of the Public Works Supervisor, any work necessitated by the absence of the Public Works Superintendent would be assign ed to the Public Works Supervisor.

Nevertheless, the City should develop a policy or procedure that clarifies when either the “Additional Duties” or “work in a higher-class” MOU provisions apply when an employee is requested to assume some or all of the duties of his/her supervisor. • Better define the “lead worker” language in the Local 315 MOU.

The City should clarify the expectations and responsibilities of those maintenance workers receiving the “Lead Worker” pay . Better definition will help clarify lines of authority, especially in the absence of the Superintendent.

C. Technical and Equipment Enhancements
These recommendations focus on enhancing operational effectiveness, providing essential systems management and equipment to improve productivity, and providing data to avoid costly repairs or service interruptions.
• Implement a basic work order and tracking system to begin tracking work output and scheduling recurring preventative maintenance activities.

There are numerous off -the-shelf work order systems or computerized maintenance management systems (CMMS) that the Department could implement fairly quickly and inexpensively. Such a system would allow the Department to start scheduling and tracking work to ensure items are not missed. The system, if properly installed and managed, will assist in establishing appropriate accountability measures , allow perform ance measurement of responses to service requests, and reporting work output and performance measures to the City Manager, City Council and the public. A work order system will also allow the Maintenance & Operations Division to schedule recurring maintenance items, such as storm and roof drain and gutter cleaning , and ensure they are completed on schedule and documented. Implementation of the system will require a significant up -front effort on the part of the Superintendent or the proposed Public Works Supervisor position.
141

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 17 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
• Start mapping and inventorying maintained assets during the monthly inspection program.

As part of their monthly inspections, assign maintenance staff to begin mapping and inventorying the inspected assets within their inspection zones. The initial mapping and inventorying could be done on paper. Once mapped and inventoried, an employee should be designated as the keeper of the master inventory list and map to ensure all additions, deletions, or corrections are funneled through one person. Ultimately, the data could be added to a City-wide Geographic Information System.
• Develop an agreement with the City of Pinole or another neighboring agency to gain access to pavement patching equipment to improve road maintenance.

Gaining access to an asphalt patch truck on a scheduled basis will allow the Maintenance & Operations Division to make more permanent repairs in -house. This would resolve concerns about the length of time involved in making the repairs via the annual pavement contracts.

PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
A recommended Department organizational design model is provided in Attachment D. The recommended model is based on an objective analysis of interview input, available data, MRG knowledge of organizational design practices, and where appropriate, reference to the comparative municipal analysis. The rationale for the recommended structural changes is specified throughout the report. The recommended organizational structure provides the following benefits:
• Reallocates Department staff to areas of greatest need – public works inspection, outside engineering consultant oversight, and landscape contract oversight through the creation of a Public Works Specialist position.
• Creates a Public Works Supervisor classification that provides for both staff development opportunities and succession planning.
• Reallocates staff resources and responsibilities to provide adequate management and supervisory-level staff to develop and implement necessary procedures and systems for performance and workload management.

CONCLUSION
The Public Works Department provides important services to the community. Our proposed recommendations are intended to provide the Department an unbiased and objective view of the organization’s current status and potential o pportunities to address the identified areas of improvement. The process to implement the proposed recommendations will take time and perseverance, considering current staffing and resource limitations. A measured and incremental approach, combined with strong leadership in the Department, and a partnership with the City 142

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis Page 18 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
Council in making budget decisions and setting priorities, can be successful in implementing the proposed recommendations and in ensuring a more efficient and effective Public Works Department. The outcome will be enhanced quality services to the community. We thank the City Councilmembers, City Manager, and participating Department staff for the opportunity to assist in this process.

143

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis ATTACHMENT A Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report

ATTACHMENT A

LIST OF INTERVIEWEES

City Council Members

Chris Kelley, Mayor

Dion Bailey, Vice Mayor

Alexander Walker-Griffin, Councilmember

Dan Romero, Councilmember

Tiffany Grimsley, Councilmember

City Staff

David Biggs, City Manager

Michael Roberts, Public Works Director

Jeff Brown, Public Works Superintendent

Jose Pacheco, Associate Engineer

Eric Wright, Maintenance Worker II

Vergel Botin, Maintenance Worker I

144

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis ATTACHMENT B Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report

ATTACHMENT B

LIST OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

City Council Interview Questions

1. Which Public Works Department services – development services, capital projects, and maintenance - are you most familiar with as a Council Member? as a customer?

2. For each of the three broad Public Works areas of responsibility - development services, capital projects, and maintenance – what is your overall experience or impression?

3. What do you believe is working well in the Public Works Department?

4. What do you believe needs improvement in the Public Works Department?

5. Given funding and staffing constraints, which services or responsibilities do you believe deserve the highest priority?

6. Do you have any specific recommendations for service enhancement, efficiency gains, or additional sources of revenue to fund improvements?

7. Is there anything you would like to add that we have not covered today?

City Staff Interview Questions

1. How long have you worked for the City in your current position? overall?

2. What are your key duties and what percentage of your time is spent on each key duty?

3. Are your duties, performance expectations, and work unit goals clearly defined and understood by you?

4. In your absence, who performs your duties?

5. Do you or anyone in your unit manage any outside staff or contracts? a. What is the annual value of each contract and how much time is spent managing each contract?
b. Do you believe that contracting is the best way to service those functions? c. Are there any other functions that you believe could be better performed or supported by contract, another department or outside agency?

6. Do you have the appropriate resources and authority to achieve the objectives of your work unit? If not, what do you believe you need?

7. What are the most critical issues facing your work unit right now? Over the next 3 years?

8. What are your unit’s strengths? Its weaknesses?

9. What do you believe your work unit should be doing that it is not? Projects? Tasks?

10. Do you believe your work unit is staffed properly? What changes would you recommend?

11. Do you have any suggestions related to your unit’s or Department’s current organizational structure/assignment of tasks to make it more effective and efficient?

12. What do you feel is working well with the Public Works Department overall?

13. What needs to improve with the Public Works Department overall?

14. Is there anything you would like to add that we have not covered today? 145

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis ATTACHMENT C-1 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
ATTACHMENT C-1

CITY OF PINOLE
Organizational Chart

Development Services
Director/City Engineer
Public Works Manager
Public Works
Supervisor
Maintenance Worker
(5)
Treatment Plant
Manager
(not counted)
Public Works
Supervisor
(Collections)
Maintenance Worker
(2)
Senior Project
Manager
Public Works Specialist
146

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis ATTACHMENT C-2 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
ATTACHMENT C-2

CITY OF ORINDA
Organizational Chart

Assistant City
Manager/Public
Works Director
City Engineer
Senior Civil
Engineer (2)
Public Works
Inspector
Assistant
Engineer
Public Works
Maintenance
Supervisor
Maintenace
Worker III
Maintenance
Worker II
Sr. Admin
Assistant
Director of Parks
& Recreation
(not counted)
Facilities & Parks
Supervisor
Facility
Maintenance
Worker II
147

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis ATTACHMENT C-3 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
ATTACHMENT C-3

TOWN OF MORAGA
Organizational Chart

Public Works
Director/Town
Engineer
Senior Civil
Engineer
Associate Civil
Engineer
Engineering
Technician
Manager Public
Works/Parks
Maintenance
Senior
Maitenance
Worker
Lead
Maintenance
Worker
Maintenance
Worker (3)
Administrative
Assistant
148

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis ATTACHMENT C-4 Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report
ATTACHMENT C-4

CITY OF EL CERRITO
Organizational Chart

Public Works
Director/City Engineer
Senior Engineer
Associate Engineer
Engineering Technician
Operations &
Environmental
Services Manager (0.5)
Maintenance
Superintendent
Maintenance
Leadworker (2)
Maintenance Worker
(4)
Management Assistant
Management Assistant
Recreation Director
(not counted)
Aquatics & Facilities
Supervisor (0.5)
Custodial Maintenance
Lead Worker
Custodians (4)
149

City of Hercules - Public Works Department Organizational Review and Analysis ATTACHMENT D Municipal Resource Group, LLC Report

ATTACHMENT D

HERCULES PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Proposed Organizational Structure

Public Works
Director/City
Engineer
Public Works
Superintendent
Public Works
Supervisor
(New)
Maintenance
Worker I/II (6 or 7)
Associate Engineer
Public Works
Specialist/Inspector
(New)
150

SUMMARY OF BUILT AND APPROVED RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 2022

Since January 1, 2020, the following residential projects have been completed and received certificates of occupancy:

• Bayfront Block N (“The Exchange”): 172 multi-family units (162 apartments, plus 10 townhouses) • Bayfront Blocks Q & R (“The Grand”): 232 apartments

Other projects which have approved entitlements but which have not yet applied for building permits include:
• Bayfront Blocks M & P (“The Mint”): 267 apartments
• Bayfront Block O (“The Harbor House”): 120 apartments • Sycamore Crossing: 120 townhouses
• Hill Town: 598 multi-family units

151
111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547City of Hercules
Meeting Minutes
City Council
Mayor Dion Bailey
Vice Mayor Alexander Walker-Griffin
Council Member Dan Romero
Council Member Chris Kelley
Council Member Tiffany Grimsley
Dante Hall, City Manager
Patrick Tang, City Attorney
Lauren Berges, City Clerk
7:00 PMTuesday, April 26, 2022
Zoom ID: 889 9756 4520
Zoom Passcode: 301630
Zoom Phone Number: 1-669-900-6833
To view webcast of meetings, live or on demand, go to the City's website at www.ci.hercules.ca.us I. REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Vice Mayor A.

Walker-Griffin, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley

Present: 5 -
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Mayor Walker-Griffin.

III. MOMENT OF SILENCE
IV. INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS/COMMISSION REPORTS
None.

V. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS
City Manager Hall has no further additions or deletions.

VI. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Public Speakers: Marna Paintsil Anning; Lynda Deschambault; Tanya Little; Susan Keefe; Shane Reinhart; Sarah Creeley
Written public comments were received by: Marna Paintsil Anning; Barbara Beno

152
April 26, 2022City Council Meeting Minutes
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
Item 3 was pulled from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Romero to discuss the replacement trees and get clarification on neighborhood outreach. After discussion, Item 3 was placed back onto Consent Calendar.

Item 2 was pulled from the Consent Calendar by City Manager Dante Hall regarding the clarification of hybrid meeting accommodations. After discussion, Item 2 was placed back onto the Consent Calendar.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Kelley, seconded by Council Member Grimsley, to adopt the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Vice Mayor A.

Walker-Griffin, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley 5 -

1. 22-152
Minutes
Recommendation: Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of April 12, 2022.

Approved.

2. 22-141 Emergency Declaration Extension
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution extending the Declaration of Local Emergency by 30 days to June 1, 2022.

Approved.

3. 22-149 Award of Construction Contract for the Baywood Tree Replacement Project
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Desert Parks Landscaping for the Baywood Tree Replacement Project in the amount of $140,000 and up to a 5% contingency of $7,000 for a not to exceed total contract amount of $147,000 to replace 34 nuisance trees; and, waiving an inconsequential irregularity in Desert Parks Landscaping’s bid.

Approved.

VIII. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ITEMS

1. 22-147
Introduction of the proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), FY 22-23 Sewer Enterprise and Internal Service funds budget
Recommendation: Receive an introduction on the proposed Five-Year CIP, FY 22-23 Sewer Enterprise and Internal Service funds budget.

Presentation by Director of Finance Edwin Gato and Director of Public

153
April 26, 2022City Council Meeting Minutes
Works/City Engineer Mike Roberts. Councilmembers provided comment.

No public comment. Report received only, no action taken.

2. 22-140 Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition and Use Policy Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution commencing the California Assembly Bill 481 process to authorize Hercules Police Department policy section 709; Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use (attached).

Presentation by Chief William Imboden. Councilmembers provided comment. No public comment.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Kelley, seconded by Council Member Grimsley, to adopt this Resolution 2022-028. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Vice Mayor A.

Walker-Griffin, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley 5 -

3. 22-148
FY 2022/23 Landscaping and Lighting Engineer's Reports
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution directing the filing of the Annual Engineer's Reports for the City of Hercules Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 83-2, Victoria by the Bay Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2002-1, Hercules Village Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2002-2, Baywood Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2004-1, and Bayside Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2005-1 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

Presentation by Public Works Director/City Engineer Mike Roberts and Ed Espinoza of Francisco and Associates. Councilmembers provided comment. No public comment.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Kelley, seconded by Council Member Romero, to adopt Resolution 2022-029. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Vice Mayor A.

Walker-Griffin, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley 5 -

4. 22-151
Regulation of Single-Use Foodware Accessories and Standard Condiments in compliance with AB 1276
Recommendation: Discuss adoption of an ordinance to regulate single use foodware accessories and condiments, and provide direction to staff regarding the scope of the proposed ordinance.

Presentation by City Attorney Patrick Tang. Councilmembers provided comment and directed Staff to pursue a two-step approach: The first step is to bring an ordinance back to the Council that meets the minimum threshold requirements under AB 1276; and the second step will be to develop a second ordinance to expand upon state law by prohibiting additional types of single-use plastics.

154
April 26, 2022City Council Meeting Minutes
Public speakers: Tanya Little

5. 22-143 Adoption of a resolution approving a First Amendment to an Agreement with Hinderliter de Llamas (HdL) in the amount of $115,000 to provide overall administrative oversight of Hercules' American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) program and to provide
Economic Development staffing services for a total, not to exceed amount of $164,500
Recommendation: (1) Adopt a resolution approving a first amendment to an agreement with HdL in the amount of $115,000 to provide overall administrative oversight of Hercules' ARPA programs and to provide Economic Development staffing services for a total, not to exceed amount of $164,500; and (2) Adopt a resolution approving a budget amendment to increase the budget by $115,000 for this contract funded by ARPA fund loss of revenue component.

Presentation by Director of Finance Edwin Gato. Councilmembers provided comment. No public comment.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Grimsley, seconded by Council Member Kelley, to adopt Resolution 2022-030.

Motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Vice Mayor A.

Walker-Griffin, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley 5 -
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Romero, seconded by Council Member Grimsley, to adopt Resolution 2022-031
Motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Vice Mayor A.

Walker-Griffin, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley 5 -

6. 22-142
Authorization To Execute a Contract With Yiftee for a Shop Local/Gift program for an amount not to exceed $65,000 funded by American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Yiftee for a Shop Local/Gift Card program for an amount not to exceed $65,000 funded by American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).

Presentation by Director of Finance Edwin Gato and Barry Foster of HdL.

Councilmembers provided comment. No public comment.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Romero, seconded by Vice Mayor Walker-Griffin, to adopt Resolution 2022-032. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: Council Member T. Grimsley, Council Member D. Romero, Vice Mayor A.

Walker-Griffin, Mayor D. Bailey, and Council Member C. Kelley 5 -

155
April 26, 2022City Council Meeting Minutes
IX. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
No public comment.

X. CITY COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY ANNOUNCEMENTS, COMMITTEE,

SUB-COMMITTEE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND FUTURE

AGENDA ITEMS
City Staff and Councilmembers reported on local and regional meetings and events.

Councilmember Grimsley requests a future agenda item to discuss the raising of the Pan-African flag in recognition of Juneteenth.

Vice Mayor Walker-Griffin requests a future agenda item to have the Rodeo-Hercules Interim Fire Chief provide a presentation on fire season safety.

XI. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Bailey adjourned the meeting at 9:29 p.m.
_________________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
Lauren Berges, CMC
City Clerk

156

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

DATE: Regular Meeting of May 10, 2022

TO: Members of the City Council

VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager

SUBMITTED BY: Lauren Berges, City Clerk

SUBJECT: Auto Captioning and Language Translation for Public Meetings

RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Hercules approve by resolution a proposal from Link Electronics for automated closed captioning and translation equipment in an amount not to exceed $49,617.09 and to appropriate the necessary funding.

FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION:

Link Electronics has provided a proposed quote for the ACE 2000 Automated Closed Captioning system. The total one-time cost is $49,617.09. The funds are to be provided using the Public, Education, and Governmental (PEG) fees the City receives annually. As of June 30, 2021, the General Fund reserved the remaining available PEG fee of $70,000. Under federal law, PEG Fees may only be used for capital costs associated with PEG access facilities and equipment. Closed captioning system upgrades would be included under this requirement.

With the ACE Series from Link Electronics, there are no required subscription service charges and no emergency or after-hours fees. However, if 24/7 support and language updates are needed after the initial year, an annual fee would apply. If deemed necessary, future annual fees would apply and be included within future budgets.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City of Hercules continues to improve council chamber web-based meeting integration and video/audio upgrades. Currently, public meetings are being held in-person while simultaneously broadcasting through several different mediums (Zoom, Granicus web streaming, and local public access television) to promote civic engagement and accommodate the use of virtual meetings due to COVID-19.

The City has been considering the implementation of a closed captioning system as a next step for growing our public meeting engagement. Although the city currently adds subtitles to videos through Zoom, we need to sufficiently reach our web streaming and local public access channel 157

with the same access to captioning. There are two options, one is live closed captioning which would consist of hiring a person or vendor to transcribe the live audio; or two, purchase equipment that performs fully automated, broadcast compliant, live closed captioning.

Either option requires system hardware.

DISCUSSION:

The City has considered different products and/or software systems to integrate closed captioning programming. We currently use Legistar (A Granicus owned software) to host our legislative management and run our web streaming during public meetings.

Legistar doesn’t have the full ability to take on a new platform integration for closed captioning.

Their solution is for us to utilize VITAC Live Captioning, a third party vendor. Live closed captioning in this sense is having a person transcribe the audio manually. The hourly rate for such services is approximately $132 per hour based on a projection of 150 hours of needed services. At this rate, the annual fees could reach approximately $20,000 or more depending on how many hours each of our Council, Commission, and Committee meetings actually require for live transcription.

Alternatively, the ACE 2000 series is a live captioning solution in the form of a server and can perform fully automated, broadcast compliant, closed captioning for live broadcasts and streaming content with a documented 95% accuracy. The ACE series uses a highly advanced linguistics algorithm that converts speech into text and can be overlayed in all feeds simultaneously.

For the one-time cost this system includes:
 Web-based user interface
 Live Broadcasting captioning (can broadcast in up to two languages only)  Translation from English/Spanish – Spanish/English  Timestamped transcript
 Ability for speaker identification

The system does not need to be “taught” and is updated regularly. Words can be manually entered into the system's dictionary to increase the ACE’s accuracy. The ACE can identify individual speakers to provide a speaker ID with the automatic closed captions.

The ACE 2000 system is consistent with the City of Hercules commitment to open and transparent government and the inclusion of any members of the public who wish to observe and/or participate however they choose.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Ace 2000 Proposal with description

158

1 HERCULES CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 22-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERCULES

APPROVING A PROPOSAL FROM LINK ELECTRONICS FOR AUTOMATED

CLOSED CAPTIONING AND TRANSLATION EQUIPMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $49,617.09 AND TO APPROPRIATE THE NECESSARY FUNDING

WHEREAS, through fiscal year 2021/22, the City has continued to upgrade the council chamber web-based meeting integration and video/audio equipment to improve meeting access and capabilities; and

WHEREAS, the City has been considering the implementation of a live closed captioning system as a next step for growing our public meeting engagement and has evaluated different products and/or software systems to integrate closed captioning programing; and

WHEREAS, staff are recommending the proposal as provided by Link Electronics which includes the ACE 2000 Automated Closed Captioning system for a balance not to exceed $49,617.09; and

WHEREAS, an amendment to the budget is needed to appropriate the funds in the amount of $49,617.09 from the Public, Education, and Governmental (PEG) fees; and

WHEREAS, the expenditure falls under the federal requirements of PEG with sufficient revenues collected from the fee to absorb the cost.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hercules approves the amendment to the annual financial budget in the amount not to exceed $49,617.09 from the PEG fees.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 10th day of May, 2022 by the following vote of the Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

____________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor
ATTEST:

Lauren Berges, City Clerk
159
2709 State Hwy 248
Branson, MO 65616
Tel: 417-320-3438
www.linkelectronics.com
City of Hercules
!WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm -
.www.P65Warnings.ca.gov
Order Placement: Please send formal purchase order to our sales team. FAX: (573) 204-4554 or EMAIL: [email protected] Please reference the Link quotation number located at the top right of this form on your purchase order. Credit card payments over $5000.00 will incur a 3% processing fee. Thank you!
Prices are in USD
First year of service and warranty is included. Additional Years of Warranty are optional and can be purchased in advance or at time of renewal.

$49,617.09Grand Total
$117.09Shipping
$49,500.00Subtotal
Freight is additional- Please ask for a quote.  Freight quoted will be via UPS Ground unless otherwise specified
UPS GroundShipping Via
Net 15Payment Terms
111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
USA
Ship To
City of HerculesShip To NameCity of HerculesBill To Name [email protected] Email
Darryl CruzContact Name
[email protected]
(417) 320-3438Phone
Tricia McraePrepared By
00000041Quote Number
6/26/2022Quote Expiration
Date
4/27/2022Created Date
Product Product Description Quantity List Price Total Price ACE-2000/102 Automated Captioning Engine - 1 Channel - SDI only - Real-Time Captioning - 1st Year Warranty Included 1.00 $49,500.00 $49,500.00

ACE SERIES WARRANTY INFORMATION
Warranty Information
Product Line Item Warranty Price/Year/Unit
ACE-2000/102 1 Year Full Service $5,000.00
160
Features• RS 232 Captioning
• IP Captioning
• Remote GUI
• Event Scheduler
• SDI, HDMI, Analog, AES,
Streaming Audio Inputs
• Selectable Caption Location
and customization
• Multi-language Captioning
• Speaker Identification
• Integrates with ENPS/MOS, iN-
ews, and Dalet
• Real Time Translation
• Integration with AWS and
Google Cloud
• Supports Streaming with
YouTube, Facebook and other
platforms
• Exports Video and CC for
VOD platforms
[email protected]
2709 State Hwy 248 Branson, MO 65616
linkelectronics.com
Phone: (800) 776-4411
Fax: (417) 222-3493
The ACE-2000 is a server based automatic speech recognition system that uses a cutting-edge computational linguistics program to process speech into text and caption data from audio content. For live captioning purposes, the ACE-2000 is the perfect solution for captioning content with high accuracy, low latency, and multiple output options.

Server Based Solution
The ACE-2000, like all ACE series products, is an on-premise solution that does not require an internet connection to function. Although an internet connection is not required, connecting to a network provides streamlined workflows and remote GUI access. The ACE-2000 can receive audio input from several sources. It can de-embed the first two channels of audio from an SDI or HDMI input. Balanced AES, balanced analog audio, and audio from a streaming source are other ways that the system can receive audio. Multiple customizations can be programmed into the units inserters including, speaker identification, number of characters per line, number of lines visible and more. Once a captioning task has been completed, a file is generated with selected transcript fiels. Some of the file types include text files, caption files, subtitle files, or time coded text files.

Intuitive GUI with Extensive Customization
The ACE-2000 system has a user-friendly web Graphical User interface (GUI) where you can perform all relevant caption processing and administrative functions. Caption processing includes, 24 hour scheduling, event creating, task creation, creation of speaker identification, and more. Speaker identification processes voice prints of speakers to create identification tags used to denote individual speakers within the captions. As an administrator, users can be created and set up with unique parameters, tailoring the use of the ACE-2000 to any environment, such as broadcast stations, university departments, school districts, and shared usage throughout a municipality.

The ACE series US English dictionary is made up of over 400,000 words with daily language model updates to the unit when connected to the internet. The language models are continuously updated by scanning websites and internal processing of audio during system set up. Users can also load unique vocabulary such as, names, cities and geographical locations. Beyond the US English dictionary, the ACE series supports the following languages: English (US, UK, Ireland, Canada, Carribean, Asia, India), Spanish (Spain, US-East, US-West, Puerto Rico, Latin America, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Chile, Colombia), Catalan, French (France, Canada, Belgium, Switzerland), German, Italian (Italy, Switzerland), Swiss, Portuguese (European, African, Brazilian), Basque, and Dutch (Netherlands).

Exceptional Technical Support
The ACE-2000 includes a 1-year warranty with 24/7 free customer support from Link Electronics’ engineering team.

Support for the ACE Series includes assistance with system set-up, training, customization, software updates and hardware coverage. The ACE-2000 is available in two convenient bundles; the ACE-2000/492 which includes Link Electronics SCE-492 caption encoder, and the ACE-2000/494 which includes Link Electronics AIP-494 caption over IP encoder. The ACE series products meet the innovative, high performance, flexibility, and reliability requirements seen in all products manufactured and supported by Link Electronics.

ACE-2000
Live Automatic Captioning Engine
161
Audio Inputs (one at a time):

AES: ............................................................................................................................. One Balanced XLR Female Analog: ....................................................................................... Two Balance XLRs Female (Left and Right) SDI Embedded: ............................................................................................................................... One 75 Ω BNC HDMI Embedded: ........................................................................................................ One Type A Receptacle Caption Data Outputs:

RS 232: ............................................................................................................................................ DE-9 (DB9) Male Ethernet: ............................................................................................................................................................ TCP/IP Internal:

CPU: ................................................................................................................................... Intel I7 10th Generation RAM: ...................................................................................................................................................................... DDR4 Drive: ............................................................................................................... SATA 3 (6 Gb/s) Solid State Drive Operating System: ................................ Windows 10 IoT Enterprise L TSC (Windows 10 Embedded) Power: ......................................................... ATX 600W Switching Power Supply (Redundant Optional) Rear Panel:

USB 3.2 Gen 2: ...................................................................................................................................... Two Type A USB 3.2 Gen 1: ...................................................................................................................................... Two Type A USB 2.0: ................................................................................................................................................... Two Type A Ethernet: .......................................................................................................................... RJ-45, Intel Gigabit LAN Monitor (not included): ........................................................................................................ HDMI, Display Port Keyboard & Mouse (not included): ...................................................................................... One PS/2 or USB Rack Mount Monitor, Keyboard, and Mouse: .................................................................................. Optional Rack Mount Sliding Rails: ........................................................................................................................ Optional Front Panel:

USB 2.0: ................................................................................................................................................... Two Type A Power Switch: ................................................................................................................................................. Rocker Reset: ....................................................................................................................................................... Push Button Power indication: ...................................................................................................................................... Blue LED Drive Activity: ............................................................................................................................................... Red LED Lock: ............................................................................................................. Limit Access to Swit ches and USB
Environment:

Ambient: .............................................................................................................................................. 0o C to 60o C Relative Humidity: .......................................................................................................... <95% non-condensing Mechanical:

Height: ........................................................................................................................................... 3.5 Inches (2 RU) Width: ........................................................................................................................................................... 19 Inches Depth: ....................................................................................................................................................... 20.8 Inches Weight: ........................................................................................................................................................... 26.5 Lbs 2709 State Hwy 248 Branson, MO 65616
linkelectronics.com
Phone: (800) 776-4411
Fax: (417) 222-3493
The manufacture reserves the right to change specifications without notice ACE-2000
Live Automated Captioning Engine
162

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

DATE: Regular Meeting of May 10, 2022

TO: Members of the City Council

SUBMITTED BY: Dante Hall, City Manager
Edwin Gato, Director of Finance

SUBJECT: Introduction of FY 22-23 City of Hercules General Fund and Other Restricted Funds Proposed Budget

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive an Introduction of FY 22-23 City of Hercules General Fund and Other Special Revenue Funds Proposed Budget. No action is required at this time. It is recommended that the City Council discuss and provide direction to staff regarding the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 22-23 budget and policies. The first public hearing for the budget has been set for June 14, 2022. City Council will consider adopting the proposed FY 22-23 Budget after the second public hearing scheduled for June 28, 2022.

COMMISSION/SUBCOMMITTEE ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION:

The Finance Commission will receive a presentation on the proposed FY 22-23 Budget at their next regular meeting on May 18, 2022. Their comments, if any, will be incorporated into the first public hearing on June 14, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION:

There is no impact from the introduction of the proposed FY 22-23 General Fund and Other Restricted Funds Budget.

BACKGROUND:

This is the second phase of the budget introduction. The proposed FY 22-23 General Fund budget provides a thoughtful balance between one-time and ongoing investments which would best meet the community’s needs within the city’s financial resources, and long-term financial stability strategies. Going forward, staff is recommending a process where the budget reflects the community’s long-term vision, strategic plans, and established priorities.

Not only will this adjustment to the budget process allow our City to make better short-term resource allocation decisions (based on the relative priority of the programs and services), it also provides a new way to link budget decisions to the strategic results and outcomes that the City wishes to achieve for the long-term.

163
Budget Process
The proposed budget is introduced in May when the City Manager’s recommended annual budget is presented to the Council and made available to the public. Budget deliberations begin shortly thereafter with a City Council Budget Public Hearing, and adoption of the recommended annual budget in June.

DISCUSSION:

This year, the City’s goal is to responsibly set the course to fiscal stability. Due to the impacts of COVID, the City reduced services, specifically to Parks & Recreation. Fortunately, the economy is beginning to rebound from the financial impacts of the pandemic, and the receipt of one-time American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, in the amount of $6.2 million will help back-fill some pandemic-related revenue losses, thereby avoiding reductions in service.

However, one-time funding does not support long -term planning for adequate levels of ongoing services. A portion of ARPA Funding was allocated mid -year to address some community needs related to COVID impacts. A list of ARPA expenditures previously approved can be found on Attachment 2.

While the FY 21 -22 budget was a relatively flat budget due to the economic uncertainty facing effects of the COVID -19 pan demic, the proposed FY 22 -23 budget reflects the cautious projections for recovery of the local economy, and incorporates the opportunities presented by ARPA.

The City Manager’s proposed operating budget remains consistent with the Council’s commitment to long-term solvency. The revenue estimates and expenditure appropriation in the budget are for the General Fund and other restricted funds. They include general operations, debt, capital and internal transfers (for all programs and support functions of the City), fund summaries and financial schedules (showing prior year actual results), and the FY 22-23 proposed budget compared to last year’s adopted budget.

A fund is grouping of related accounts, which are used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The discussion section of this report provides information for the following sections:
:

I. General Fund Revenue Estimates
II. General Fund Expenditures Projections
III. General Fund Projected Net Annual Results
IV. ARPA Fund
V. Non-General Fund Programs
VI. Proposed Additions to the Financial Principles and Policy

General Fund
The General Fund is the chief operating fund of the City. This fund is used to record all resource inflows and outflows that are not associated with special -purpose funds. The activities being paid for through the general fund constitute the core administrative and operational tasks of the City.

I. General Fund Revenue Estimates
164

As shown in the graph and as detailed in attachment 1, General Fund revenues in FY 22-23 are projected to increase by approximately 8% compared to FY 20 -21 actual receipts. The revenue increase is substantially driven by proceeds from sales tax and the program fees from the re-opening of the Parks & Recreation programs.

The bulk of General Fund revenues come from taxes (Utility User’s Tax (UUT), Sales Tax, Property Tax, Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT), Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and other taxes).

 Sales Tax
The largest revenue source for the City’s General Fund is remitted to the City from the State monthly. Sales Tax revenues are conservatively estimated to increase by 5% compared to FY 20-21 actual receipts based on the quarter three analysis generated from the Board of Equalization (BOE) data. Total sales tax revenues are highly concentrated within a few major operators. Hercules sales tax revenue is substantially generated from business-to-business sources. Its top 3 producers generate over 50% of the City’s sales tax. However, the City continues to benefit from the ongoing implementation of the Wayfair decision regarding online sales and the more significant number of purchases made online due to the Pandemic. These trends are part of the City’s share of the County pool.

The following chart depicts the source of the City’s sales tax revenues by industry group.

165
Annual Per Capital Sales Tax
(Based on Actual Receipts)

 Utility User’s Tax
Utility User’s Tax (UUT) are revenues collected from the consumption of utility services, including (but not limited to) electric, gas, water, sewer, telephone (including cell phone and long-distance), sanitation, and cable television. The City determines the tax rate and the use of its revenues. UUT revenues are estimated to stay relatively flat compared to FY 20-21 actual receipts. Based on the trend and its consumption rate, the City continues to see erosion in Wireless Telecom’s UUT revenues due to the update in allocations of the bundled packages from the respective providers. These updated allocations shifted a more significant percentage towards data, which is not taxable.

Annual Per Capita UUT
(Based on Actual Receipts)

On June 4, 2013, the voters approved Ordinance #475, increasing the 6% to 8%.

The Utility User’s Tax will automatically sunset, and its provisions shall become ineffective on January 1, 2025, unless extended by a vote of the electorate. The City’s UUT revenue makes up $3.6 Million or approximately 20% of the general fund budget. If the UUT we’re not renewed, this would cause a significant 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
30 33 42 36 42
12 13
17 25
26 15 15
16 18
19 12 12
12 11
20 9 10
10 7
8 4
4 4 4
4 General Retail
Transportation
Food Products
Construction
County Pool
Business to Business
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
16 14 15 15 20
47 48 46 48 48
37 34 28 23 20
18 22 24 27 29
19 22 21 21 20 Cable
Water
Telephone
Electricity
Gas
166
decrease in general fund revenue needed to continue to provide vital services to the community.

 Property Tax
The City of Hercules has been classified as a low-to-no property tax jurisdiction.

The City's share of the base 1% property tax rate is lower than most other jurisdictions at just a little over 5% of Hercules's total base property taxes. This year the Assessor's office applied a CPI factor of 2% to non-Prop 8 parcels. It is estimated that the City share of 1% assessed property value tax is calculated to be $1.5 million for FY 22-23.

 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) – For the privilege of occupancy, each transient is subject to a 10% of the rent charged by operator. The TOT is a general tax which is deposited into the City’s General Fund. TOT revenue is expected to increase by approximately $100,000 in FY 22-23 due to new development.

 Parks & Recreation Program Revenues
During the COVID-19 pandemic and mandatory closure, the Parks & Recreation program was heavily impacted. The revenues from this program were significantly reduced in the prior year due to the suspension of programs and offerings and facility rentals. The FY 22 -23 revenue estimates reflect the re - opening of suspended programs, and revenues are projected conservatively equal to approximately 75% of total pre-pandemic actual receipts ($1.1 million).

 Fees for Service - The City charges fees to the community based on the costs of services provided. These fees are documented in the City’s Master Fees & Charges Schedule. The Master Fees & Charges schedule is approved periodically by the City Council, and individual fees may be amended from time to time during a fiscal year. However, there must be a nexus to the costs of the provision of those services. The following is the summary of fees projected to be collected by the General Fund:
o Parks & Recreation: $1.1 million
o Building Permits: $145,000
o Police Fees: $139,000
o Encroachment, Grading and Subdivision Fees: $38,000

 Cell Tower Leases – The revenue collected from the leases on cell towers is projected to increase by 4%.

167
II. General Fund Expenditure Projections

The graph and as detailed in attachment 1 shows that General Fund expenditures are projected to increase by 7% compared to the prior year's budget. The following categories explain the assumption used to arrive at the estimated cost:

A. Salaries and Benefits
The most significant cost in the General Fund is driven by its labor. Labor accounts for almost 60% of total expenditures. Below are significant assumptions used to estimate the cost of salaries and benefits:

1. Regular Salaries – Unless directed otherwise, for the preliminary budget, personnel services costs will include a 3% wage increase placeholder pending the results of labor negotiations of the City's employee groups.

2. PERS Miscellaneous and Public Safety Normal Cost and Unfunded Actuarial Liability (UAL) rates applied are projected as follows and is based on CalPERS actuarial assumptions:

3. Health care costs, including medical, dental and vision, are projected to increase by 3% from the FY 21-22 Kaiser rate.

4. 1% of employee salaries will be contributed towards IRS Section 115 Pension Trust per policy direction established by the City Council.
-
2,000,000.00
4,000,000.00
6,000,000.00
8,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
12,000,000.00
14,000,000.00
16,000,000.00
18,000,000.00
FY 17-18
Actual
FY 18-19
Actual
FY 19-20
Actual
FY 20-21
Actual
FY 21-22
Budget
FY 22-23
Projection
Debt Obligations/Other
Insurance
Administration
City Council
Parks and Recreation
Community Development
Public Works
Police
Normal Unfunded
Cost Liability
Police Classic 23.75% $774,069
Police 2nd-Tier 21.84% $2,333
Police PEPRA 12.78% $6,834
Misc Classic 10.32% $636,385
Misc PEPRA 7.47% $3,898
168
B. Overall expenditures were estimated to increase by 5% within the Bay Area Consumer Price Index CPI from February to February of 5.2%.

C. One-time expenditures include the Department of Finance (DOF) settlement, and other capital projects.

III. General Fund Projected Net Annual Results
The General Fund is projected to end the year with approximately $750K, of which $600K is ongoing and about $167K is one-time, and $4.3 million in operating reserve.

The reserve balance is equivalent to 25% of the General Fund budget. This balance is $1.5 million above the Council’s reserve target goal of 16%. Staff will propose fiscal policies for Council to re view and approve on the level of unrestricted fund balance maintained in the general fund for GAAP and budgetary purposes and allocation of net General Fund revenues.

IV. American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
To further assist government entities with the pandemic response and recovery, on March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) was signed into law, making funding available through the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) to assist states, tribal governments, and local governments. On May 10, 2021, the United States Department of Treasury released regulations and updated the local government allocation. As part of the 1.9 trillion relief package, the City of Hercules became eligible for $6,285,778 to be paid in two installments. The City received the first payment equal to one -half of the City of Hercules’ allocation for $3,142,889 in mid-July 2021. The second half will be distributed in July 2022. The following is the summary for the use of Fiscal Recovery Funds:

1. General Fund Revenue Loss Incurred by the City - ARPA recipients may use payments from the Fiscal Recovery Funds for the provision of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue experienced due to the COVID‐19 public health emergency. Section 603(c)(1)(C) of the ARPA allows recipients facing budget shortfalls to use payments from the Fiscal Recovery Funds to avoid cuts to government services. This is envisioned to enable local governments to continue to provide valuable services and ensure that budget deficits, tax increases, and reductions in public expenditures do not continue to delay a city’s broader economic recovery. Based on the Department of the Treasury’s revenue loss formula which includes all sources of revenue, the City of Hercules experienced a $2,918,338 shortfall in general revenues for the period ending December 31, 2020, due to the COVID–19 public health emergency. This total amount, or any portion thereof, is an eligible expense under ARPA funding rules.

2. The American Rescue Plan Act provides that Fiscal Recovery Funds may also be used for the following:

a. To respond to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts, including assistance to households, small businesses, and 169
nonprofits, or aid to impacted industries such as tourism, travel, and hospitality;
b. To respond to workers performing essential work during the COVID‐ 19 public health emergency by providing premium pay to eligible workers;
c. To make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure.

On October 20, 2020, the City distributed the Business and Community needs survey to better understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Hercules’ businesses.

On January 11, 2022, the City Council approved the set of principles to assist staff in developing the plan for the use of the ARPA funds. On February 22, 2022, the City Council approved, as part of the FY 21-22 Midyear Update, several priority projects as summarized in attachment 2 (ARPA – Eligible Expense List) , including the assistance from HdL for the administration of the ARPA programs that aligned with the adopted set of guiding principles.

FY 22 -23 proposed the following projects and programs are summarized in attachment 3 (the detailed list of ARPA proposed projects and programs). Should the City council wish to amend this list of projects and programs, staff requests additional direction. Staff will return to the City Council with a complete list of proposals at the full introduction of the budget on May 24, 2022. This gives the City Council ample time to review the proposals for approval and adoption of the budget in June. Does the City Council desire to set aside ARPA funding for one -time non-profit grants? If so, how much funding should be set aside for the one -time grant program?

V. Non-General Fund Programs

Special Revenue funds
The Special Revenue Funds are driven by grants or other specific funding sources used for particular purposes, such as transportation, building permit counter activity, other restricted programs, etc. Such funding sources are restricted, requiring revenues and expenditures to be tracked differently from the City’s primary operating fund, the General Fund. There is sufficient funding for the completion of current projects or programs, but the addition of any new programs or projects is dependent on the availability of future funding sources. The following are funds under Special Revenue:

A. Asset Seizure (Fund #101) – The City maintains a forfeited assets fund to account for monies received from Police confiscated drug money a nd property. Funds are held until the final court disposition is received. The funds are restricted to police-related activities only. FY 22-23 projected ending available balance is $42K.

B. AB 3229 COPS Program (Fund #201) – California State Legislature created the Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) program. The funds are restricted to front -line law enforcement services. The City receives 170
approximately $150K a year transferred to Ge neral Fund to offset police services.

C. Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts (LLADs) – This Funding is restricted to landscaping and lighting maintenance and capital improvements in City parks, major roads, and each of the 5 LLADs. The 5 LLADs include approximately 8,500 parcels that are projected to generate $3.07M in assessments in FY 22-23. The following are the projected FY 22-23 ending available fund balances:

1. LLAD 83-2 (Zones 1-10): $633,959

2. LLAD 2002-1, Victoria by the Bay: Negative Balance of $244,709

3. LLAD 2002-2, Hercules Village: $115,028

4. LLAD 2004-1, Baywood: $93,093

5. LLAD 2005-1, Bayside: $181,071

D. Stormwater (Fund #231) – This fund accounts for the activities associated with the acquisition, construction, maintenance, and operation of stormwater facilities to comply with the State stormwater permit requirements. FY 22-23 projected ending available balance is negative $177,445

E. Development Impact Fees (DIF) – Under California Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) cities and counties have the authority to implement DIFs. This allows cities and counties to collect funds from new development projects to cover public infrastructure, facilities, improvements, service, and community amenity costs related to the new development’s proportionate share of impact on those facilities. DIFs are prohibited from funding operation and maintenance and cannot be collected or used to cover existing capital or infrastructure deficiencies. The City DIF funds are categorized as follows and their respective available fund balance projected in FY 22-23:

1. Public Facilities: $335,776

2. Police Facilities: $107,047

3. Fire Facilities: $0 (Revenues remitted to the Fire District)

4. Parks & Recreation: $136,960

5. Public Benefit Fee: $496,323

6. Transportation Facilities: $67,474

7. Sub-regional Transportation Mitigation Program (S TMP): $0 (Revenues collected are remitted to West Contra Costa
Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) in accordance with the Master Cooperative Agreement)

F. State Gas Tax (Fund #262) - The Gas Tax is a special revenue fund used to account for the revenue received from the State of California derived from gasoline taxes. These funds may only be used for street purposes as specified in the State Streets and Highways Code, so they have always been an important revenue source for the City’s Streets Capital Improvement Program. The revenue estimate for FY 22-23 is a little under $760K and the 171
proposed budget is approximately $700K. The projected FY 22-23 ending available balance is $169,589.

G. Measure J Street Fund (Fund #263) – The Measure J Fund is a special revenue fund used to account for the revenue received from the County’s ½ cent sales tax measure and can only be used for street purposes per F. above, similar to the Gas Tax. The revenue estimate for FY 22-23 is $450K and the estimated ending available balance is $368,039.

H. Solid Waste and Recycling (Fund #291) – This special revenue fund is used to comply with recycling and diversion programs required by State legislation (AB 939). Qualifying expenditures include street repair to mitigate damage from garbage trucks , s treet sweeping, trash removal from the stormwater system, and enforcing the plastic bag ban. FY 22 -23 estimated ending available balance is $750,734.

I. Regional Water Quality (Fund #521) - This fund accounts for the Regional Water Quality. Created by the State Legislature in 1967, the Board protects water quality by setting statewide policy, coordinating, and supporting the Regional Water Board efforts, and reviewing petitions that contest Regional Board actions. There are nine regional water quality control boards that exercise rulemaking and regulatory activities by basins. FY 22-23 ending available balance is $51,569.

J. BART Park & Ride (Fund #266) – This fund is to account for BART Park & Ride fees. The revenue is restricted to the maintenance of the parking lot.

The ending available balance projected in FY 22-23 is $280,737.

Debt Service Funds
The Debt Service Fund is used to account for the accumulation of financial resources for the payment of principal, interest, and related costs for general long-term debt paid primarily from taxes levied by the City. Debt is issued as needed to provide for infrastructure improvements. The following is the summary of the City’s long-term debt and FY 22-23 debt service payment obligations:

VI. Proposed Policies
Hercules recently obtained a strong rating from credit agencies that track the City’s credit. These high ratings reflect a variety of factors, including the strength and diversity of the regional economy, moderate City debt levels, and current strong fiscal management, including the provision of adequate reserves. The City is committed to implementing and maintaining strong financial policies and fiscal stewardship. The City last prepared an update of its financial policies in December 2015. Since 2015, Principal Interest Total
2020 PFA Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds Fund #672 $386,663 $125,606 $512,269 2009 PFA Taxable Lease Revenue Bonds Fund #673 $235,000 $672,371 $907,371 SunTrust Lease Fund #383 $100,180 $2,369 $102,549
Equipment Lease Purcchase Agreement (Engie) Fund #388 $114,900 $111,531 $226,431 172
the City has established a Fiscal Neutrality Fund (or Operating Reserve), financial principles, and policies.

Although the City’s finances are stable today, expenses continue to grow, and future challenges associated with pension costs, workforce retention and attraction, and aging infrastructure also loom. The Fund Balance Reserve Policy specifies annual reserve levels that provide the City with the flexibility to adapt to local, regional, and state-wide economic changes and to stabilize the delivery of City services during periods of economic recession or disaster response. Staff is recommending adding the following to the Statement of Financial Principles and Policies adopted on December 16, 2015.

The following are staff’s recommended additions:

a. Service Level Expectations - Defining the types and levels of services expected in a given year includes a process of public engagement, understanding current services, identifying the City’s mission, long-term vision, and goals of the community. Based on the goals established by the City Council, the City Manager identifies the resources required to deliver services, how best to organize those resources to achieve the City Council’s vision for the community , and presents those recommendations in the proposed Budget for the City Council review, consideration, and direction. In a service-oriented organization such as a city, it takes a combination of staff and consultants to provide services. As important as it is for a city to invest in its physical capital, it is just as important for a city to ens ure it is investing appropriately in its human capital and to determine what is the proper level of staffing and the necessary skill sets required to deliver on the city’s mission.

City staff is currently evaluating potential needs for additional personnel and resources necessary to accomplish tasks related to the established priorities.

In FY 202 1-2022, services are being provided by 58 FTE (Full -Time Equivalent) City employees and equivalent to 28 part-time/seasonal staff. For the FY 2022-2023 Budget, the City Manager is proposing upgrading one part- time position to a full-time Senior Clerk I position for general administration support managed by the City Clerk’s Office. The proposed change is cost neutral and comparable to the salary of the part-time position paid at a higher class pay. Furthermore, the City will evaluate the current level of staffing to meet City Council’s strategic directives identified during its strategic planning workshop held on April 30, 2022.

b. Reserve Policy - The current general fund reserve policy calls for a 16% limit (equal to two months of the general fund operating budget) to be available in a fiscal emergency. Staff is recommending increasing the general fund reserve policy limit from 16% to 25% (equal to three months of the General Fund Operating Budget) to protect the City from fluctuations in the economy or other significant unplanned needs. Once a 25% funding level is reached, available surplus funds would be directed to other Council priorities. Does the 173
City Council agree that the reserve policy should be increased from 16% to 25%?

c. Long-Term Capital Improvement Project Funding – As staff mentioned during the April 26, 2022, Budget Workshop, the current funding strategy for capital projects entails a detail ed analysis of the long -term capital improvement project funding needs based on a 5-year forecast. This strategy assumes a “pay as you go” philosophy that does not anticipate the use of debt financing.

Does the City Council agree that a funding model be em ployed that proactively funds long-term capital improvement projects from existing resources and operating transfers into capital improvement reserves?

d. General Fund Surplus Allocation – A surplus occurs when income exceeds expenditures. The term is often referred to in government as savings. A surplus is an indication that the City's finances are being effectively managed.

Staff recommends that Available resources as determined annually through the closing of the financial records will be used as a basi s for the following allocation:

1. 25% to Contribution to Pension/OPEB - The City has established an Internal Revenue Service Code Section 115 irrevocable trust which achieves a higher rate of return on investments than that earned on the pooled investment portfolio, LAIF. Staff recommends that 25% of the available fund balance shall be put into a Trust Fund or directly into paying off the CalPERS unfunded liability for either pensions or post-employment benefits. Does the City Council agree that 25% of any available general fund surplus should be put into a Trust Fund or directly into paying off the CalPERS unfunded liability?

2. 25% to Operating Reserve – As mentioned above, staff recommends increasing the general fund reserve policy limit to 25%. As a means to maintain this limit, staff recommends that 25% of the available fund balance be put into operating reserves up to the 25% policy limit.

Does the City Council agree that 25% of the available general fund surplus should be put into Operating Reserves up to 25% of the General Fund?

3. 50% to Contribution to unmet/deferred infrastructure and maintenance needs – A funding mechanism to fund projects included in the Long -Term Capital Improvement Project Funding , as described in section c above . Does the City Council agree that 50% of the available general fund surplus should be put into Long-Term Capital Improvement Project Funding?

These available resources or available fund balances are generally one -time in nature as derived from one -time revenues or one-time expenditure savings. The actual amounts to be allocated will be based upon the prior year’s financial statements from the most recent audit.
174

ATTACHMENTS:

1. FY 22-23 Proposed General Fund Budget and Balancing Spreadsheet

2. FY 22-23 Proposed Special Revenue Budget - Fund Summaries

3. FY 22-23 Proposed Debt Service Budget - Fund Summaries

4. FY 22-23 Proposed ARPA Programs and Projects

5. ARPA Funds Expenditure Summary and Remaining Balance

175

GENERAL FUND
176
FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget
General Fund - Budget Balancing Spreadsheet

TOTAL ON-GOING ONE-TIME ARPA
Estimated Beginning Working Cash July 1, 2021 General Fund and Fiscal Neutrality 8,228,685 Reserve for Earthquake Insurance Deductible (500,000)
Reserve for Capital Projects (450,000)
Reserve for Planning (825,000)
Reserve for Building (21,800)
Reserve for Reusable Bags (remaining) (13,930)
Reserve for PEG Fees (70,000)
Subtotal, Reserves (1,880,730)
Estimated Beginning Available Working Cash July 1, 2021, Before Fiscal Nueutrality Fund 6,347,955 Reserve for Fiscal Neutrality (4,209,129)
Estimated Beginning Available Working Cash July 1, 2021, After Fiscal Nueutrality Fund 2,138,826 2,138,826 FY 21-22 Projected Surplus from baseline operations 524,700 524,700 FY 21-22 Net of One-time Revenues and Expenditures (1,710,500) (1,710,500) American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Loss of Revenue Component 2,918,338 2,918,338 FY 21-22 Priority ARPA Projects (1,020,500) (1,020,500) 2,850,864 - 953,026 1,897,838 Add: Revenues 16,916,000 16,916,000
One-Time Revenues:

Total Revenues 16,916,000 16,916,000 - - Subtract: Expenses (16,139,422) (16,139,422)
One-Time Expenses:
(1) Employee Labor Agreements (3% COLA and 3% Retention Bonus) (350,000) (190,000) (160,000) (2) Village Parkway Traffic Calming (CIP) (626,025) (626,025) (3) Building Facilities Plan (75,000) (75,000)
(4) Parks Master Plan (150,000) (150,000)
Total Expenses (17,340,447) (16,329, 422) (786,025) (225,000) Surplus/(Deficit) (424,447) 586,578 (786,025) (225,000) 2,426,417 586,578 167,001 1,672,838 Estimated Beginning Available Working Cash July 1, 2022 Estimated Available Working Cash, June 30, 2023
177
FY 22-23 Proposed Budget
General Fund - Budget Summary
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Balance 2,412,068 $ 1,847,112 $ 2,138,826 2,850,864$ Revenues
Taxes
Utility User Tax 3,483,843 3,590,649 3,509,000 3,589,000 Sales Tax 4,212,285 4,775,496 4,654,675 4,998,000 Property Taxes 1,415,995 1,451,716 1,520,000 1,571,000 Franchise Fees 948,503 862,104 896,000 905,000 Business Licenses 251,418 268,697 198,000 274,000 Transfer Tax 142,850 126,488 132,000 146,000 Transient Occupancy Tax 6,179 7,635 5,000 114,000 Intergovernmental 2,151,433 2,285,392 2,418,000 2,511,000 Fines & Forefeitures 62,582 36,586 37,000 38,000 Program Revenues
Community Development 675,556 824,891 242,000 306,000 Parks and Recreation 1,020,758 396,290 753,000 1,156,000 Police 483,110 48,958 219,000 139,000 Public Works 28,588 46,908 48,000 38,000 Other 6,770 10,571 11,000 11,000 Use of Money & Property 600,707 511,188 313,000 286,000 Cost allocated to other funds 534,992 619,634 739,325 684,000 Transfers In 227,335 150,000 150,000 150,000 16,252,904 16,013,203 15,845,000 16,916,000 Expenditures
Police
7,564,927 7,549,028 7,545,685 7,821,727 Public Works 305,464 292,525 374,592 382,857 Community Development 611,297 792,456 725,810 790,561 Parks and Recreation 2,165,547 1,434,988 1,787,803 2,017,537 City Council 376,082 407,588 331,114 358,645 City Manager 385,675 360,115 454,908 472,186 Workers Comp/General Liability 1,084,650 1,080,572 1,235,837 1,265,285 Human Resources 219,514 241,725 324,088 322,086 Legal 284,709 154,562 265,000 273,000 City Clerk/PIO 481,094 438,201 436,855 444,482 Finance 1,044,931 1,106,024 1,155,608 1,235,122 Non-Department 766,112 375,912 260,000 615,934 Transfers Out 205,099 214,976 423,000 330,000 15,495,101 14,448,672 15,320,300 16,329,422 Net Annual Activity
Baseline Operations 757,803 1,564,531$ 524,700$ 586,578$ One-Time Revenues 1,723,486 600,750 1,056,000 - One-Time Expenditures (3,046,245) (1,873,567) (2,766,500) (786,025) Ending Available Balance (Before ARPA) 1,847,112 2,138,826 953,026 2,651,417 One-Time ARPA (Loss of Revenue) 2,918,338 -
One-Time ARPA Expenditures (1,020,500) (225,000) Ending Available Balance (Including ARPA) 1,847,112$ 2,138,826$ 2,850,864$ 2,426,417$ Operating Reserve:

Beginning Balance 3,797,650 2,764,975 $ 4,209,129 $ 4,209,129 $ Current Year Contribution 236,867 -
Interest Earned 174,612 -
Return/(Draw) - reserve (1,269,542) 1,269,542 - Ending Balance 2,764,975 4,209,129 $ 4,209,129 $ 4,209,129 $ % of Projected Operating Expenditures 18% 29% 27% 26%
178
FY 22-23 Proposed Budget
FY 20-21 General Fund Available Balance Calculation
FY 20-21
Audited
Available Fund
Balance
Ending fund balance, as reported in Audited Financial Statements 45,958,422$ Non-spendable (Due from Private Purpose Trust Fund) (27,787,637) Pension Section Trust (2,237,248)
Prepaid items (10,112)
Exclude Current Year Assets other than cash (4,183,015) Negative Cash (3,600,000)
Reserve for Earthquake Insurance Deductible (500,000)
Reserve for Capital Projects (450,000)
Reserve for Planning (825,000)
Reserve for Building (21,800)
Reserve for Reusable Bags (remaining) (13,930)
Reserve for PEG Fees (70,000)
Reserve for Encumbrances/Project Carryover (86,337)
Beginning available cash balance 6,173,343 $
Reserve for Economic Uncertainty (25% target) (4,034,517) Beginning cash balance, FY 21-22 2,138,826 $
179
FY 22-23 Proposed Budget
General Fund - One-time
Revenues and Expenditures
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Coronavirus Relief Fund 351,747
RPTTF Pass Through 453,944 249,003 6,000 Projected Draw on Reserve 1,269,542
Planning: LEAP Grant 150,000
900,000
1,723,486 600,750 1,056,000 -
Increase in Planning Reserve 125,826
Increase in Fiscal Neutrality Reserve 236,867
Contribution to OPEB Trust 100,000
Contribution to Pension Trust 250,000
Encumbrances and Carryovers 521,477
Settlement Payment to DOF 1,812,075 604,025 604,000 604,025 Return of Unused Reserve 1,269,542
Planning: LEAP Grant 150,000
CAD/RMS System 198,000
Interfund Loan to LLAD 850,000
DP #22-1: Police Overhire 65,000
DP #22-2: One-time Retention Bonus 102,000
ADP #22-1: Sycamore Ave Mural Restoration 20,000
FBDP #22-1: Reserve for Restricted Planning Funds 107,000 FBDP #22-2: Contribution to IRS Section 115 Pension Trust 500,000 FBDP #22-4: Utility User Tax Renewal 40,000
BR #22-1: Special Event 175,000
BR #22-3: Repair the Community Pool Diving Board 12,000 BR #22-4: Corp Yard Landscaping 62,000
BR #22-5: Add Flock Cameras 2,500
BR #22-6: Add UUT Renewal 20,000
BR #22-7: Village Parkway Traffic Calming 100,000
BR #22-8: Elminate Contribution to Vehicle Replacement Fund (241,000) Employee Labor Agreements (3% Retention Bonus) 160,000
Village Parkway Traffic Calming (CIP) 22,000
3,046,245 1,873,567 2,766,500 786,025
Release Reserve for ROPS approval of RPTTF for
Emmerich and Montoya Lease
180

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
181
Asset Seizure
Fund Summary - Fund 101
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 99,459 $ 54,459 $ Revenues
Intergovernmental 17,615 $ 234,514 $ - 33,000 Interest Income 1,510 1,924 - - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 19,125 236,438 - 33,000
Transfers In 142,740 - - - 161,865 236,438 - 33,000
Expenditures
Salaries and Benefits - - - - Contractual Services - - - - Utilities - - - - Other Expenses 72,940 225,904 45,000 45,000 Cost Allocation - - - - Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service - - - - 72,940 225,904 45,000 45,000
Transfer Out - - - - 72,940 225,904 45,000 45,000
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity 88,925 10,534 (45,000) (12,000) Ending Available Fund Balance 99,459 $ 54,459 $ 42,459 $ The purpose of this fund is to account for monies received from Police confiscated drug money and property.

Funds are held until final court disposition is received. The funds are then restricted for police related activities only.
182
AB 3229 COPS Program
Fund Summary - Fund 201
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 6,727 $ 6,727 $ Revenues
Intergovernmental 155,948 $ 156,727 $ 150,000 150,000 Interest Income - - - - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 155,948 156,727 150,000 150,000
Transfers In - $ - - - 155,948 156,727 150,000 150,000
Expenditures
Salaries and Benefits - - - - Contractual Services - - - - Utilities - - - - Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation - - - - Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service - - - - - - - -
Transfer Out 155,948 150,000 150,000 150,000 155,948 150,000 150,000 150,000
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity - 6,727 - - Ending Available Fund Balance 6,727 $ 6,727 $ 6,727 $ California state legislation (AB 3229) created the Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) program. These funds are used for front line law enforcement services. 183
Lighting and Landscape District 83-2
Fund Summary - Fund 220
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 423,765 $ 562,710 $ Revenues
Assessment 1,800,832 $ 1,852,313 $ 1,993,935 1,915,597 Interest Income 24,327 10,054 - 204,550 Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 1,825,159 1,862,367 1,993,935 2,120,147
Transfers In - 93,707 29,046 84,554 1,825,159 1,956,074 2,022,981 2,204,701
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits 439,557 459,061 527,688 539,815 Contractual Services 319,915 44,278 338,746 415,620 Utilities 335,833 330,333 263,800 242,100 Maintenance & Repairs 74,040 478,208 135,500 108,222 Other Expenses 12,893 2,801 18,816 22,517 Cost Allocation 188,867 187,851 217,734 213,123 Capital Outlay 834,937 111,362 50,000 220,000 Loan Repayment (10 years) - 20,259 90,752 80,088 2,206,042 1,634,153 1,643,036 1,841,485
Transfer Out 238,714 255,079 241,000 291,967 2,444,756 1,889,232 1,884,036 2,133,452
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity (619,597)$ 66,842 138,945 71,249 Ending Available Fund Balance 423,765 562,710$ 633,959 $ The purpose of this fund is to account for Zone #1 to 10 Lighting and Lanscaping District No. 83-2 to finance the costs of landscaping and lighting public areas. The 1972 Act provides that the total cost of installation, construction, operations, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, street lighting and park and recreational facilities can be recovered by the District. Refer to the Engineer's Report. 184
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 83-2
Summary by Zone
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 & 4 Zone 5A Zone 5B Zone 5C Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10 Hercules by
the Bay Foxboro
The
Gems/Birds
Business
Park Commercial
Developmen
t Parcels
Village
Parkway Heights
Trees and
Flowers
Birds and
Country
Run City-Wide Total
Revenues
Assessments 92,014 84,736 113,943 90,607 50,879 31,840 94,607 113,424 194,835 89,275 1,163,987 2,120,147 General Benefit Contribution 871 617 891 1,236 277 261 631 649 1,966 1,077 21,952 30,428 92,885 85,353 114,834 91,843 51,156 32,101 95,238 114,073 196,801 90,352 1,185,939 2,150,575 Expenditures By Type
Salaries & Benefits 21,375 21,375 21,781 9,824 10,566 9,824 20,037 20,309 20,340 21,201 363,183 539,815 Contractual Services 21,242 8,742 21,864 46,642 1,000 942 20,542 11,042 76,642 31,742 525,542 765,942 Other Operating Costs 946 750 883 310 267 290 982 1,102 1,299 925 14,763 22,517 Cost Allocation - - - 5,000 2,000 2,000 - - - - 204,123 213,123 Capital Outlay - - - - - - - - - - 220,000 220,000 Loan Repayment 20,259 - 42,192 - - - 17,637 33,867 - - (54,126) 59,829 Transfers Out 26,100 20,600 28,000 20,600 11,500 16,100 24,500 31,700 51,600 27,400 - 258,100 89,922 51,467 114,720 82,376 25,333 29,156 83,698 98,020 149,881 81,268 1,273,485 2,079,326 Net Annual Results 2,963 33,886 114 9,467 25,823 2,945 11,540 16,053 46,920 9,084 (87,546) 71,249 Beginning Balance (23,341) 28,352 58,658 92,705 170,285 (17,526) (167,302) 113,820 242,070 (28,374) 93,363 562,710 Ending Balance (20,378) 62,238 58,772 102,172 196,108 (14,581) (155,762) 129,873 288,990 (19,290) 5,817 633,959 185
Victoria by the bay Lighting and Landscape District
Fund Summary - Fund 221
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance (85,114) $ (153,138) $ Revenues
Assessment 439,238 $ 452,011 $ 461,039 482,924 Interest Income 1,829 (206) - - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 441,067 451,805 461,039 482,924
Transfers In - $ 7,991 9,230 10,047 441,067 459,796 470,269 492,971
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits 94,395 84,408 82,652 92,214 Contractual Services 135,743 12,611 4,795 168,074 Utilities 223,939 280,692 158,500 175,000 Maintenance & Repairs 18,775 162,146 185,000 25,000 Other Expenses 509 3,114 2,854 14,054 Cost Allocation 25,487 26,455 27,692 28,000 Capital Outlay 51,127 - 50,000 55,000 Debt Service - - - - 549,975 569,426 511,493 557,342
Transfer Out 24,960 23,792 26,800 27,200 574,935 593,218 538,293 584,542
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity (133,868)$ (133,422) (68,024) (91,571) Fund Balance
Ending Available Fund Balance (85,114)$ (153,138)$ (244,709)$ Rounded (000)
The purpose of this fund is to account for Victoria by the bay Lighting and Lanscaping District No. 2002-1 to finance the costs of landscaping and lighting public areas. The 1972 Act provides that the total cost of installation, construction, operations, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, street lighting and park and recreational facilities can be recovered by the District. 186
Hercules Village Lighting and Landscape District
Fund Summary - Fund 222
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Projection Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 190,541 $ 151,886 $ Revenues
Assessment 150,780 $ 155,164 $ 158,265 165,779 Interest Income 4,954 (138) - - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 155,734 155,026 158,265 165,779
Transfers In - $ 3,224 3,874 3,982 155,734 158,250 162,139 169,761
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits 29,608 30,249 39,764 40,624 Contractual Services 52,475 4,296 4,795 56,574 Utilities 54,805 60,278 56,800 60,000 Maintenance & Repairs 49,261 64,160 78,500 20,000 Other Expenses 242 - 1,921 9,921 Cost Allocation 10,966 11,382 11,914 12,000 Capital Outlay - 5,840 - - Debt Service - - - - 197,357 176,205 193,694 199,119
Transfer Out 3,524 6,487 7,100 7,500 200,881 182,692 200,794 206,619
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity (45,147)$ (24,442) (38,655) (36,858) Ending Available Fund Balance 190,541 $ 151,886$ 115,028 $ The purpose of this fund is to account for Hercules Village Lighting and Lanscaping District No. 2002-2 to finance the costs of landscaping and lighting public areas. The 1972 Act provides that the total cost of installation, construction, operations, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, street lighting and park and recreational facilities can be recovered by the District. 187
Baywood Lighting and Landscape District
Fund Summary - Fund 223
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 225,839 $ 88,369 $ Revenues
Assessment 137,970 $ 137,970 $ 150,144 150,144 Interest Income 1,396 50 - - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 139,366 138,020 150,144 150,144
Transfers In - 2,750 2,515 2,613 139,366 140,770 152,659 152,757
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits 61,544 40,579 38,763 40,448 Contractual Services 42,623 2,971 4,795 44,074 Utilities 33,330 22,162 27,400 30,000 Maintenance & Repairs 7,486 40,242 40,000 1,500 Other Expenses 175 - 1,810 3,611 Cost Allocation 10,549 10,949 11,461 11,000 Capital Outlay 22,305 850 163,500 - Debt Service - - - 14,700 178,012 117,753 287,729 145,333
Transfer Out 2,835 2,289 2,400 2,700 180,847 120,042 290,129 148,033
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity (41,481)$ 20,728 (137,470) 4,724 Ending Available Fund Balance 225,839 $ 88,369$ 93,093 $ The purpose of this fund is to account for Baywood Lighting and Lanscaping District No. 2004-1 to finance the costs of landscaping and lighting public areas. The 1972 Act provides that the total cost of installation, construction, operations, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, street lighting and park and recreational facilities can be recovered by the District.
188
Bayside Lighting and Landscape District
Fund Summary - Fund 224
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 115,787 $ 161,395 $ Revenues
Assessment 132,022 $ 140,467 $ 143,268 150,078 Interest Income 3,375 (476) - - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 135,397 139,991 143,268 150,078
Transfers In - 1,442 1,634 2,284 135,397 141,433 144,902 152,362
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits 23,047 28,923 21,909 24,396 Contractual Services 7,173 2,971 4,795 4,074 Utilities 11,703 58,213 22,300 20,000 Maintenance & Repairs 19,092 40,805 22,400 47,500 Other Expenses 362 - 2,116 10,216 Cost Allocation 7,523 7,809 8,174 8,000 Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service - - - - 68,900 138,721 81,694 114,186
Transfer Out 13,145 15,587 17,600 18,500 82,045 154,308 99,294 132,686
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity 53,352 $ (12,875) 45,608 19,676 Ending Available Fund Balance 115,787 $ 161,395$ 181,071 $ The purpose of this fund is to account for Bayside Lighting and Lanscaping District No. 2005-1 to finance the costs of landscaping and lighting public areas. The 1972 Act provides that the total cost of installation, construction, operations, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, street lighting and park and recreational facilities can be recovered by the District.
189
Arterial Roadways
Fund Summary - Fund 225
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 131,023 $ 144,779 $ Revenues
Assessment - $ - $ - - Interest Income 4,249 2,520 - - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 4,249 2,520 - -
Transfers In 301,254 269,367 319,600 314,000 305,503 271,887 319,600 314,000
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - 22,238 39,764 40,623 Contractual Services - - - - Utilities 182,262 225,058 161,600 231,300 Maintenance & Repairs 49,467 33,292 98,500 55,200 Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation 5,504 5,713 5,980 6,000 Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service - - - - 237,233 286,301 305,844 333,123
Transfer Out - - - - 237,233 286,301 305,844 333,123
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity 68,270 $ (14,414) 13,756 (19,123) Ending Available Fund Balance 131,023 $ 144,779$ 125,656 $ The purpose of this fund is to account for Arterial Roadways Lighting and Lanscaping District to finance the costs of landscaping and lighting public areas.
190
Stormwater Assessment
Fund Summary - Fund 231
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance (131,868) $ (178,868) $ Revenues
Assessment 242,532 $ 245,628 $ 249,000 251,000 Interest Income 996 (201) - - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 243,528 245,427 249,000 251,000
Transfers In/Solid Waste 214,000 124,237 125,000 125,000 457,528 369,664 374,000 376,000
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits 184,210 178,262 189,767 158,472 Contractual Services 117,460 110,863 131,645 126,000 Utilities 1,622 1,915 1,724 2,000 Maintenance & Repairs 15,621 27,294 28,855 25,000 Other Expenses 2,385 2,172 2,652 3,000 Cost Allocation 51,616 53,131 66,357 60,105 Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service - - - - 372,914 373,637 421,000 374,577
Transfer Out/General Fund 71,387 - - - 444,301 373,637 421,000 374,577
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity 13,227 $ (3,973) (47,000) 1,423 Ending Available Fund Balance (131,868)$ (178,868)$ (177,445)$ To account for activities associated with the acquisition or construction, and operation and maintenance of stormwater facilities for drainage and disposal of stormwater, and operations related to the provision of services. 191
Development Impact Fee - Public Facilities
Fund Summary - Fund 241
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 334,776 $ 335,776 $ Revenues
Fees - $ 766 $ - - Interest Income 2,796 (10) 2,000 - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 2,796 756 2,000 -
Transfers In - - - - 2,796 756 2,000 -
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits 31,684 (1,285) 303 - Contractual Services - - - - Utilities - - - - Maintenance & Repairs - - - - Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation 3,458 - 697 - Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service - - - - 35,142 (1,285) 1,000 -
Transfer Out - - - - 35,142 (1,285) 1,000 -
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity (32,346)$ 2,041 1,000 - Ending Available Fund Balance 334,776 $ 335,776$ 335,776 $ To account for the collection of and expenditure of fees imposed as a condition of new development within the City, in compliance with California Government Code Section 66006 (AB 1600) 192
Community Development Tax
Fund Summary - Fund 242
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 168,094 $ 169,094
Revenues
Fees - $ 1,500 $ - - Interest Income 3,304 (9) 1,000 - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 3,304 1,491 1,000 -
Transfers In - - - - 3,304 1,491 1,000 -
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - - Contractual Services - - - - Utilities - - - - Maintenance & Repairs - - - - Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation - - - - Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service - - - - - - - -
Transfer Out - - - - - - - -
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity 3,304 $ 1,491 1,000 - Ending Available Fund Balance 168,094 $ 169,094$ 169,094 $ Accounts for the activities and services of the Community Development Department. Revenues are derived from fees, licenses, and fines collected in conjunction with the planning, permitting and enforcement activities of the department in accordance with state law, requiring fees not to exceed the cost of providing services. 193
Development Fee Fund
Fund Summary - Fund 243
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 71,714 $ 70,714 $ Revenues
Fees - $ - $ - - Interest Income 1,373 (7) - - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 1,373 (7) - - Transfers In - - - - 1,373 (7) - - Expenditures
Salary and Benefits 31,684 (1,285) 303 - Contractual Services - - - - Utilities - - - - Maintenance & Repairs - - - - Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation 2,968 - 697 - Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service - - - - 34,652 (1,285) 1,000 -
Transfer Out - - - - 34,652 (1,285) 1,000 -
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity (33,279)$ 1,278 (1,000) - Ending Available Fund Balance 71,714$ 70,714 $ 70,714 $ This fund accounts for revenues from citywide development impact fees required from certain new developments. Funds are used to mitigate the impacts on availabilty and condition of public facilities caused by these developments.
194
Development Impact Fee - Police Facilities
Fund Summary - Fund 244
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 265,047 $ 167,047 $ Revenues
Fees - $ 1,357 $ - - Interest Income 5,224 (29) 2,000 - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 5,224 1,328 2,000 -
Transfers In - - - - 5,224 1,328 2,000 -
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - - Contractual Services - - - - Utilities - - - - Maintenance & Repairs - - - - Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation - - - - Capital Outlay 39,050 2,444 100,000 60,000 Debt Service - - - - 39,050 2,444 100,000 60,000
Transfer Out - - - - 39,050 2,444 100,000 60,000
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity (33,826)$ (1,116) (98,000) (60,000) Ending Available Fund Balance 265,047 $ 167,047$ 107,047 $ To account for the collection of and expenditure of fees imposed as a condition of new development within the City, in compliance with California Government Code Section 66006 (AB 1600). Police Facilities needs through 2035 to be funded by this fee include: a waterfront police substation; an expansion of the existing station; an auditorium/emergency operations center; equipment and additional patrol vehicles for ten new police officers; needed to serve new development.
195
Development Impact Fee - Fire Facilities
Fund Summary - Fund 246
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Projection Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance - $ - $
Revenues
Fees - $ 1,716 $ 522,000 -
Interest Income (156) - - - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - (156) 1,716 522,000 -
Transfers In - - - - (156) 1,716 522,000 -
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - - Contractual Services - 829 522,000 - Utilities - - - - Maintenance & Repairs - - - - Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation - - - - Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service - - - - - 829 522,000 -
Transfer Out - - - - - 829 522,000 -
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity (156)$ 887 - - Ending Available Fund Balance - $ -$ - $ To account for the collection of and expenditure of fees imposed as a condition of new development within the City, in compliance with California Government Code Section 66006 (AB 1600) - Fire Facilities. The City collects these fees and remits to various governmental entities, organizations or trusts. 196
Development Impact Fee - Parks & Recreation
Fund Summary - Fund 247
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 185,960 $ 136,960 $ Revenues
Fees - $ 1,577 $ - - Interest Income 3,656 (10) 1,000 - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 3,656 1,567 1,000 -
Transfers In - - - - 3,656 1,567 1,000 -
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - - Contractual Services - - - - Utilities - - - - Maintenance & Repairs - - - - Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation - - - - Capital Outlay - - 50,000 - Debt Service - - - - - - 50,000 -
Transfer Out - - - - - - 50,000 -
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity 3,656 $ 1,567 (49,000) - Ending Available Fund Balance 185,960 $ 136,960$ 136,960 $ To account for the collection of and expenditure of fees imposed as a condition of new development within the City, in compliance with California Government Code Section 66006 (AB 1600). Assessed only on new residential development, the Parks & Recreation impacts fees are based on the costs to the City of providing new facilities defined in the 2001 Nexus study, including a 4,000-sq.-ft. teen center, a 4,240-sq.-ft. child care center, and a 10,000-sq.-ft. community cultural arts center, as well as acquiring 46.72 acres of land and improving 59.52 acres for neighborhood and community parks.
197
Public Benefit Fee
Fund Summary - Fund 249
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 993,323 $ 996,323 $ Revenues
Fees - $ - $ - - Interest Income 20,654 20,474 3,000 - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 20,654 20,474 3,000 -
Transfers In - - - - 20,654 20,474 3,000 -
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - - Contractual Services - - - - Utilities - - - - Maintenance & Repairs - - - - Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation - - - - Capital Outlay - - - 500,000 Debt Service - - - - - - - 500,000 Transfer Out - - - - - - - 500,000 Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity 20,654 $ 20,474 3,000 (500,000) Ending Available Fund Balance 993,323 $ 996,323$ 496,323 $ The purpose of this fund is to account for fees charged by City to Owner in the amount specified under the line item, "New Public Benefit Fee" on the Schedule of Exactions. 198
Development Impact Fee - Transporation Facilities
Fund Summary - Fund 261
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 246,474 $ 67,474 $ Revenues
Fees - $ (158,450)$ - -
Interest Income 8,043 (710) 1,000 - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 8,043 (159,160) 1,000 -
Transfers In - - - - 8,043 (159,160) 1,000 -
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - - Contractual Services - - 150,000 - Utilities - - - - Maintenance & Repairs - - - - Other Expenses - - 30,000 - Cost Allocation - - - - Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service - - - - - - 180,000 -
Transfer Out - - - - - - 180,000 -
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity 8,043 $ (159,160) (179,000) - Ending Available Fund Balance 246,474 $ 67,474$ 67,474 $ To account for the collection of and expenditure of fees imposed as a condition of new development within the City, in compliance with California Government Code Section 66006 (AB 1600). The purpose of the transportation impact fee program is to fund improvements to the City’s major roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities needed to accommodate travel demand generated by new land development within the City over the next 22 years (through 2040).
199
State Gas Tax
Fund Summary - Fund 262
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 623,986 $ 127,986 $ Revenues
Gas Tax 1,078,252 $ 1,023,113 $ 1,113,948 759,593 Interest Income 9,825 1,661 1,052 1,000 Miscellaneous Revenues - 43,566 - - 1,088,077 1,068,340 1,115,000 760,593
Transfers In - - - - 1,088,077 1,068,340 1,115,000 760,593
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits 211,621 170,017 236,444 237,650 Contractual Services 140,089 242,915 75,000 100,000 Utilities 10,938 10,884 12,200 12,000 Maintenance & Repairs 49,162 67,762 58,072 66,000 Other Expenses 21,768 3,155 18,566 19,000 Cost Allocation 92,098 96,140 116,624 109,986 Capital Outlay 697,558 78,034 1,047,795 125,000 Debt Service - - - - 1,223,234 668,907 1,564,701 669,636
Transfer Out 9,038 54,988 46,299 49,354 1,232,272 723,895 1,611,000 718,990
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity (144,195)$ 344,445 (496,000) 41,603 Ending Available Fund Balance 623,986 $ 127,986$ 169,589 $ This fund accounts for revenues received from the State of California under Street and Highways Code Sections 2015, 2106, 2107, and 2107.5 and 7360. Expenditures support the street maintenance and construction projects in comformance with the Streets and Highways Code requirements. 200
Measure "C" Street Fund
Fund Summary - Fund 263
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 4,905 $ 342,039 $ Revenues
Gas Tax 468,246 $ - $ 405,000 450,000 Interest Income 9,986 (2,128) 1,000 - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 478,232 (2,128) 406,000 450,000
Transfers In - - - - 478,232 (2,128) 406,000 450,000
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits 228,304 282,260 235,681 239,000 Contractual Services 136,218 25,146 25,000 55,000 Utilities 6,102 - - - Maintenance & Repairs - - - - Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation 39,755 39,363 64,319 65,000 Capital Outlay 209,904 131,576 194,000 65,000 Debt Service - - - - 620,283 478,345 519,000 424,000
Transfer Out 9,038 - - - 629,321 478,345 519,000 424,000
Changes in restricted reserves 450,134
Net Annual Activity (151,089)$ (480,473) 337,134 26,000 Ending Available Fund Balance 4,905$ 342,039 $ 368,039 $ This fund accounts for revenue allocated by the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority to the City from the State collected sales tax to be expended for growth management planning and local street maintenance and improvement.
201
STMP Traffic Impact Fee
Fund Summary - Fund 264
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance - $ - $
Revenues
Fees - $ 5,744 $ 1,347,000 -
Interest Income (1,124) 24 - - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - (1,124) 5,768 1,347,000 -
Transfers In - - - - (1,124) 5,768 1,347,000 -
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - - Pass through to other agency - 5,744 1,347,000 - Utilities - - - - Maintenance & Repairs - - - - Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation - - - - Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service - - - - - 5,744 1,347,000 -
Transfer Out - (156) - - - 5,588 1,347,000 -
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity (1,124)$ 180 - - Ending Available Fund Balance - $ -$ - $ The West Contra Costa Sub-regional Transportation Mitigation Program (STMP) is a regional development impact fee program covering the West Contra Costa transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) planning area. The City collects the STMP fees and remits them to WCCTAC in accordance with a Master Cooperative Agreement. This Nexus fee study and regional project list was updated in 2019 with the new fees put in place effective July 1, 2019.
202
Solid Waste and Recycling
Fund Summary - Fund 291
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 867,734 $ 809,734 $ Revenues
Fees - $ - $ - - Interest Income 16,777 623 3,000 3,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 210,325 175,722 175,000 175,000 227,102 176,345 178,000 178,000
Transfers In - - - - 227,102 176,345 178,000 178,000
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits 8,316 10,179 11,000 12,000 Contractual Services - - - - Utilities - - - - Maintenance & Repairs - - - - Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation 34 - - - Capital Outlay 100,000 - 100,000 100,000 Debt Service - - - - 108,350 10,179 111,000 112,000
Transfer Out 214,000 124,237 125,000 125,000 322,350 134,416 236,000 237,000
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity (95,248)$ 41,929 (58,000) (59,000) Ending Available Fund Balance 867,734 $ 809,734$ 750,734 $ This fund is supplied by percentage of the waste haulers gross rate revenues and is called the AB 939 fee because it was created to fund compliance with the recycling and diversion programs required by State legislation (AB 939). The City uses this fund for various recycling and compliance initiatives. 203
Regional Water Quality
Fund Summary - Fund 521
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 51,569 $ 51,569 $ Revenues
Fees - - - - Interest Income 1,023 (5) - - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 1,023 (5) - - Transfers In - - - - 1,023 (5) - - Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - - Contractual Services - - - - Utilities - - - - Maintenance & Repairs - - - - Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation - - - - Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service - - - - - - - -
Transfer Out - - - - - - - -
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity 1,023 $ (5) - - Fund Balance
Ending Available Fund Balance 51,569 $ 51,569 $ 51,569 $ This fund accounts for the Regional Water Quality. Created by the State Legislature in 1967, the Board protects water quality by setting statewide policy, coordinating and supporting the Regional Water Board efforts, and reviewing petitions that contest Regional Board actions. There are nine regional water quality control boards tha t
exercise rulemaking and regulatory activities by basins. 204
BART Park & Ride
Fund Summary - Fund 266
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 240,737 $ 252,737 $ Revenues
Fees - $ - $ - - Interest Income - - - - Miscellaneous Revenues - 27,943 28,000 45,000 - 27,943 28,000 45,000 Transfers In - 440,643 - - - 468,586 28,000 45,000
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - - Contractual Services - 219,724 - 1,000 Utilities - 8,125 6,000 3,000 Maintenance & Repairs - - 10,000 13,000 Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation - - - - Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service - - - - - 227,849 16,000 17,000
Transfer Out - - - - - 227,849 16,000 17,000
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity - $ 240,737 12,000 28,000 Fund Balance
Ending Available Fund Balance 240,737 $ 252,737 $ 280,737 $ To account for BART Park & Ride fees and maintenance of the parking lot. 205
American Recovery Plan Act ("ARPA")
Fund Summary - Fund 353
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance - $ 159,551 $ Revenues
ARPA (Non-Entitlement) - $ - $ 3,142,889 3,142,889 Interest Income - - - - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - - - 3,142,889 3,142,889 Transfers In - - - - - - 3,142,889 3,142,889 Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - - Contractual Services - - 65,000 200,000 Utilities - - - - Maintenance & Repairs - - - - Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation - - - - Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service - - - - - - 65,000 200,000 Transfer Out - General Fund (Loss of Revenue) - - 2,918,338 - - - 2,983,338 200,000 Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity - $ - $ 159,551 2,942,889 Ending Available Fund Balance - $ 159,551$ 3,102,440 $ This fund accounts for revenues from the American Recovery Plan Act ("ARPA"). On March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was signed into law by the President. Fiscal Recovery Funds are intended to provide support to state, local, and tribal governments in responding to the impact of COVID-19 and in their efforts to contain the negative impacts of COVID-19 on their communities, residents, and businesses. The Fiscal Recovery Funds build on and expand the support provided to governments over the last year, including through the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF).
206
FY 22-23 Proposed Budget
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
Eligible Expense List
General Fund ARPA General Fund ARPA General Fund ARPA
Revenue Eligible Revenue Eligible Revenue Eligible
Loss Projects Total Loss Projects Total Loss Projects Total Fund #100 Fund #353 Fund #100 Fund #353 Fund #100 Fund #353 $2,918,338 $224,551 $3,142,889 $3,142,889 $3,142,889 $2,918,338 $3,367,440 $6,285,778 Proposed Uses of Fund (FY 21-22):

Strategic Communication Plan 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 - 50,000 Willow/Palm Sidewalk Installation (Transit Center) 250,000 250,000 - 250,000 - 250,000 Refugio Tennis Court Tree Maintenance 6,000 6,000 - 6,000 - 6,000 Sidewalk and Safe Walkways 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 Community Swim Center Safety Fence Replacement 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 Community Swim Center Gym Floor Replacement &
Other Building and Deferred Maintenance
250,000 250,000 - 250,000 - 250,000 Increase appropriation on All Abilities Swing Set 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 Reserve for COVID related expenses 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 E-Gift Card Program 65,000 65,000 - - 65,000 65,000 HdL Contract - ARPA Administration 164,500 164,500 164,500 - 164,500 - - - - Total, Use of Fund 1,020,500 65,000 1,085,500 - - - 1,020,500 65,000 1,085,500 $1,897,838 $159,551 $2,057,389 $0 $3,142,889 $3,142,889 $1,897,838 $3,302,440 $5,200,278 Proposed Uses of Fund (FY 22-23):

Building Facilities Plan 75,000 75,000 - 75,000 - 75,000 Parks Master Plan 150,000 150,000 - 150,000 - 150,000 Business Assistance Program 50,000 50,000 - - 50,000 50,000 Business Rental Assistance Grants 109,551 109,551 40,449 40,449 - 150,000 150,000 - - - - Total, Use of Fund 225,000 159,551 384,551 - 40,449 40,449 225,000 200,000 425,000 $1,672,838 $0 $1,672,838 $0 $3,102,440 $3,102,440 $1,672,838 $3,102,440 $4,775,278 Total
FY 22-23 Ending Balance
First Tranche
ARPA funding received
Remaining Balance Available for Appropriation in FY
22-23 Budget
Second Tranche
207

DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
208
2020 DEBT SERVICE PFA
Fund Summary - Fund 672
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance 290,066 $ 157,066 $ Revenues
Property Lease Revenue - - - - Interest Income 2,735 103,455 - - Miscellaneous Revenues - - - - 2,735 103,455 - -
Transfers In/General Fund 566,110 106,938 - 355,934 568,845 210,393 - 355,934
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - - Contractual Services - - - - Utilities - - - - Maintenance & Repairs - - - - Other Expenses 2,420 - 3,000 - Cost Allocation - - - - Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service 563,590 205,522 130,000 513,000 566,010 205,522 133,000 513,000
Transfer Out - - - - 566,010 205,522 133,000 513,000
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity 2,835 $ 4,871 (133,000) (157,066) Fund Balance
Ending Available Fund Balance 290,066 $ 157,066 $ - $ (Restricted for Debt Service)
This fund accounts for the 2020 Public Financing Authority (PFA) Lease Revenue Refunding Bond. The City and the Authority refinance a portion of the costs of the acquisition, contruction and installation of various public improvements of the City, including the City Library, that were originally financed and refinanced from the proceeds of the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2003B.
209
2009 DEBT SERVICE PFA
Fund Summary - Fund 673
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance (2,550) $ 18,450 $ Revenues
Property Lease Revenue 970,721 837,889 908,000 908,000 Interest Income 23,660 897 24,000 - 994,381 838,786 932,000 908,000
Transfers In - - - - 994,381 838,786 932,000 908,000
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - - Contractual Services - - - - Utilities - - - - Maintenance & Repairs - - - - Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation - - - - Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service 914,665 909,715 911,000 908,000 914,665 909,715 911,000 908,000
Transfer Out - - - - 914,665 909,715 911,000 908,000
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity 79,716 $ (70,929) 21,000 - Ending Available Fund Balance (2,550) 18,450 $ 18,450 $ (Restricted for Debt Service)
This fund accounts for the 2009 Public Financing Authority (PFA) Taxable Lease Revenue Bonds (Bio-Rad Project). The purpose of the bonds was to finance the acquisition of certain commercial condominium properties, consisting of approximately 96,847 square feet located at 203-295 Linus Pauling Drive. The bonds is secured by revenues consisting primarily of the base rental payments of the property lease, Principal is due annually and will mature on July 1, 2038.
210
SunTrust Lease
Fund Summary - Fund 383
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance - $ - $
Revenues
Charges for Services - $ - $ - - Interest Income - - - - Property Lease Revenue - - - - - - - -
Transfers In 205,099 205,099 205,000 103,000 205,099 205,099 205,000 103,000
Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - - Contractual Services - - - - Utilities - - - - Maintenance & Repairs - - - - Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation - - - - Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service 205,099 205,099 205,000 103,000 205,099 205,099 205,000 103,000
Transfer Out - - - - 205,099 205,099 205,000 103,000
Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity - $ - - - Ending Available Fund Balance - $ - $ - $ This fund accounts for SunTrust Lease. On September 27, 2007, the City entered into master lease agreements with Sun Trust Leasing Corporation in order to provide funds for the financing of the EMS Project performed by Siemens Building Technologies. Payments are due semiannually. The Master Lease Agreement matures on September 27, 2022.
211
Equipment Lease
Fund Summary - Fund 388
Fund Description / Budget Highlights
Fund Activity
FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Beginning Available Fund Balance - $ - $
Revenues
Charges for Services - $ - $ - - Interest Income - - - - Property Lease Revenue - - - - - - - -
Transfers In - - 218,000 227,000 - - 218,000 227,000 Expenditures
Salary and Benefits - - - - Contractual Services - - - - Utilities - - - - Maintenance & Repairs - - - - Other Expenses - - - - Cost Allocation - - - - Capital Outlay - - - - Debt Service - - 218,000 227,000 - - 218,000 227,000 Transfer Out - - - - - - 218,000 227,000 Changes in restricted reserves
Net Annual Activity - $ - - - Ending Available Fund Balance - $ - $ - $ This fund accounts for Engie Solar Project Lease. On August 14, 2020, the City entered into master lease agreements with Sterling National Bank in order to provide funds for the financing of the Solar Energy Project by ENGIE Services U.S. Inc. Payments are due annually. The Master Lease Agreement matures on September 14, 2040.
212
ARPA PROJECT LIST CITY OF HERCULES FY 22-23 PROPOSEDBUDGET

FY 22-23 PROPOSED BUDGET

AMERICAN RECOVERY PLAN ACT (ARPA)

General Fund Loss of Revenues Component:

ARP #22-1: Building Facilities Plan
The Building Facilities Plan will assess the condition of all city-owned facilities and developed a prioritized schedule of needed maintenance and repairs. The average age of City facilities is approximately30 years old. A proactive approach versus pays as you go is needed to ensure they are properly maintained.

Expense Increase: $75,000

ARP #22-2: Parks Master Plan
The City's parks have been maintained on a pay as you go basis for the pas t decade.

Additionally, requests to repair facilities or construct new facilities are received every year. Long-term planning and budgeting are needed to proactively maintain the City's parks. Additionally, ARPA funding could be used for new facilities as well, which would benefit from public outreach to better understand the community's priorities.

Expense Increase: $150,000

213
ARPA PROJECT LIST CITY OF HERCULES FY 22-23 PROPOSEDBUDGET

Other ARPA Eligible Projects:

ARP #22-3: Business Assistance Grants [One-Time]
Grants of up to $5,000 to provide individualized assistance to businesses in a variety of areas including employee training, rehiring, COVID-19 grant and loan application processing and financial training. A third-party partner will provide services. Potential partners can include non- profit organization in Hercules. Criteria includes:
 Eligible businesses must be located within Hercules.
 The business must demonstrate a reduction in workforce and/or loss of business revenue from March 16, 2020, to December 31, 2021, and that they received little to no financial assistance in response to the pandemic.
 Some business types, including corporate-owned chains or franchises are not eligible for the program.
 Funding availability is limited, and award of funds is contingent on available of funds.

Expense Increase: $50,000.

ARP #22-4: Business Rental Assistance Grants [One-Time] Grants of up to $15,000 can be made available to qualified small businesses to be paid directly to their landlords to cover rent that the business owes. As an example, criteria can include the following:
 Eligible businesses must be located within Hercules.
 The program is aimed at brick-and-mortar, for-profit businesses in operation prior to March 16, 2020, with fewer than 25 employees.
 The business must lease/rent their commercial property directly from a landlord.  The business must demonstrate a delinquency in rent payments at any time from March 16, 2020, to December 31, 2021.
 The business must demonstrate a reduction in workforce and/or revenue loss from March 16, 2020, to December 31, 2021, and that they received little to no financial assistance in response to the pandemic.
 Some business types, including corporate-owned chains or franchises, investment and insurance companies, and commercial and residential landlords, are not eligible for the grant program.
 Funding availability is limited, and award of funds is contingent on available funds.

Expense Increase: $150,000.

214
FY 22-23 Proposed Budget
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
Eligible Expense List
General Fund ARPA General Fund ARPA General Fund ARPA
Revenue Eligible Revenue Eligible Revenue Eligible
Loss Projects Total Loss Projects Total Loss Projects Total Fund #100 Fund #353 Fund #100 Fund #353 Fund #100 Fund #353 $2,918,338 $224,551 $3,142,889 $3,142,889 $3,142,889 $2,918,338 $3,367,440 $6,285,778 Proposed Uses of Fund (FY 21-22):

Strategic Communication Plan 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 - 50,000 Willow/Palm Sidewalk Installation (Transit Center) 250,000 250,000 - 250,000 - 250,000 Refugio Tennis Court Tree Maintenance 6,000 6,000 - 6,000 - 6,000 Sidewalk and Safe Walkways 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 Community Swim Center Safety Fence Replacement 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 Community Swim Center Gym Floor Replacement &
Other Building and Deferred Maintenance
250,000 250,000 - 250,000 - 250,000 Increase appropriation on All Abilities Swing Set 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 Reserve for COVID related expenses 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 E-Gift Card Program 65,000 65,000 - - 65,000 65,000 HdL Contract - ARPA Administration 164,500 164,500 164,500 - 164,500 - - - - Total, Use of Fund 1,020,500 65,000 1,085,500 - - - 1,020,500 65,000 1,085,500 $1,897,838 $159,551 $2,057,389 $0 $3,142,889 $3,142,889 $1,897,838 $3,302,440 $5,200,278 Proposed Uses of Fund (FY 22-23):

Building Facilities Plan 75,000 75,000 - 75,000 - 75,000 Parks Master Plan 150,000 150,000 - 150,000 - 150,000 Business Assistance Program 50,000 50,000 - - 50,000 50,000 Business Rental Assistance Grants 109,551 109,551 40,449 40,449 - 150,000 150,000 - - - - Total, Use of Fund 225,000 159,551 384,551 - 40,449 40,449 225,000 200,000 425,000 $1,672,838 $0 $1,672,838 $0 $3,102,440 $3,102,440 $1,672,838 $3,102,440 $4,775,278 Total
FY 22-23 Ending Balance
First Tranche
ARPA funding received
Remaining Balance Available for Appropriation in FY
22-23 Budget
Second Tranche
215
Proposed Budget
Introduction of General Fund and
Other Restricted Funds
FY 22-23
MAY 10, 2022
1 216
Budget Discussion
 Proposed General Fund Base Budget
 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
 Non-General Fund Programs
 Proposed Additions to the Financial Principles and
Policy
2 217
3 (Loss
Revenue
Component)
Operating One-time ARPA Total
Beginning Balance $953,026 $1,897,838 $2,850,864
Revenues $16,916,000 $16,916,000
Expenditures $16,329,422 $786,025 $225,000 $17,340,447
Net Results $586,578 ($786,025) ($225,000) ($424,447)
Ending Balance $586,578 $167,001 $1,672,838 $2,426,417
218
General Fund
Revenue Assumptions
 Sales Tax – 5% Increase compared to FY 20-21 Actual Receipts  Utility User’s Tax (UUT) – Estimated to stay flat compared to FY 20-21 Actual Receipts and will sunset on January 1, 2025
 Property Tax – applied CPI factor of 2%
 Transient Occupancy Tax – Expected to increase by $100,000 due to new development
 Parks & Recreation Programs – Projected equal to 75% pre-pandemic  Fees for Services – Based on the fees adopted in the Master Fee Schedule
 Cell Tower Leases – Projected to increase by 4%
4 219
General Fund
Expenditure Projections
 Salaries and Benefits
 Include a 3% wage increase as placeholder pending results of the labor negotiations
 CalPERS Actuarial Rates applied
 Medical, Dental and Vision assumed a 3% increase
 Overall expenditures were estimated to increase by 5%  One-Time Expenditures include payment to DOF and other capital projects
5 220
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) 6
General Fund
(Loss Revenue
Component)
Other Eligible
Projects Total
Beginning Balance $1,897,838 $3,302,440 $5,200,278
Proposed Uses of Fund
Building Facilities Plan $75,000 $75,000
Parks Master Plan $150,000 $150,000
Business Assistance Program $50,000 $50,000
Business Rental Assistance Grants $150,000 $150,000
Total, Use of Funds $225,000 $200,000 $425,000
Ending Balance $1,672,838 $3,102,440 $4,775,278
221
Special Revenue Funds
Budget Highlights

1. Landscape & Lighting Districts
The Engineer’s report outlines the district budget and shows the amount of the assessment for each district. Additional analysis will be performed for Victoria by the Bay due to the fund deficit.

2. Storm Water Fund
Continues to see increased costs due to State mandates.

Recycling related revenue is being used to offset a portion of its operating deficit.
7 222
Debt Service Obligations
Governmental Fund
8 Principal Interest Total
2020 PFA Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds $386,663 $ 125,606 $512,269 2009 PFA Taxable Lease Revenue Bonds $235,000 $672,371 $907,371 SunTrust Lease $100,180 $2,369 $102,549
Equipment Lease Purcchase Agreement (Engie) $114,900 $111,531 $226,431 Total, Debt Obligations $836,743 $911,877 $1,748,620
223
Proposed Policies

1. Service Level Expectations

2. Reserve Policy

3. Long-Term Capital Improvement
Project Funding

4. General Fund Surplus Allocation
9 224
Policy Questions

1. ARPA
 Does the City Council desire to set aside ARPA funding for one-time non-profit grants? If so, how much funding should be set aside for the one-time grant program?

2. Reserve Policy
 Does the City Council agree that the reserve policy should be increased from 16% to 25%?

3. Long-Term Capital Improvement Project Funding
 Does the City Council agree that a funding model be employed that proactively funds long-term capital improvement projects from existing resources and operating transfers into capital improvement reserves?
10 225
Policy Questions (Cont’d)

4. General Fund Surplus Allocation – 25% to
Pension/OPEB
 Does the City Council agree that 25% of any available general fund surplus should be put into a Trust Fund or directly into paying off the CalPERS unfunded liability?

5. General Fund Surplus Allocation – 25% to Operating
Reserve
 Does the City Council agree that 25% of the available general fund surplus should be put into Operating Reserves up to 25% of the General Fund?
11 226
Policy Questions (Cont’d)

6. General Fund Surplus Allocation – 50% to
Unmet/Deferred Maintenance Needs
 Does the City Council agree that 50% of the available general fund surplus should be put into Long-Term Capital Improvement Project Funding?
12 227
Budget Process and Schedule
 Budget Introduction: Five-Year CIP, FY 22-23 Proposed Budget for Sewer Enterprise and Internal Service Funds – April 26, 2022  Budget Introduction: FY 22-23 Proposed Budget for General Fund and Other Restricted Funds – May 10, 2022
 Finance Commission Review – May 18, 2022
 City Council Budget Public Hearing – June 14, 2022
 Council Continued Public Hearing & Budget Adoption – June 28, 2022 13 228
Questions &
Comments
14 229

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

DATE: Regular Meeting of May 10, 2022

TO: Members of the City Council

VIA: Dante Hall, City Manager

SUBMITTED BY: Mike Roberts, Public Works Director/City Engineer Edwin Gato, Finance Director

SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts - Approval of Preliminary Engineer’s Reports and Declaring the City Council’s Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022/23

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

Adopt the following resolutions:

a. A resolution for the preliminary approval of the Engineer’s Report and declaring the City Council’s intention to levy and collect assessments for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 within the City of Hercules for Citywide Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 83-2, which is comprised of Benefit Zone Nos. 1, 2, 3&4, 5A, 5B, 5C, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, and setting a public hearing for June 28, 2022;

b. A resolution for the preliminary approval of the Preliminary Engineer’s Report and declaring the City Council’s intention to levy and collect assessments for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 within the City o f Hercules Victoria by the Bay Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2002-1 and setting a public hearing for June 28, 2022;

c. A resolution for the preliminary approval of the Preliminary Engineer’s Report and declaring the City Council’s intention to levy and collect assessments for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 within the City o f Hercules for Hercul es Village Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2002-2 and setting a public hearing for June 28, 2022;

d. A resolution for the preliminary approval of the Preliminary Engineer’s Report and declaring the City Council’s intention to levy and collec t assessments for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 within the City of Hercules for Baywood Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2004-1 and setting a public hearing for June 28, 2022; and

230
e. A resolution for the preliminary approval of the Preliminary Engineer’s Report and declaring the City Council’s intention to levy and collect assessments for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 within the City of Hercules for Bayside Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2005-1 and setting a public hearing for June 28, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATION:

If assessments are not levied as proposed, a deficit balance could result and there would be a loss of revenue of approximately $3.07 million for FY 2022/23. Recent drought years, which have necessitated increased irrigation, coupled with water rate increases have significantly raised water costs. Additionally, trees in the newer developments north of I-80 have matured and are now requiring pruning by a tree trimming company, which is new work outside the scope of the landscaping contract. Staff is therefore recommending assessments in all Districts be increased by the full CPI amount of 5.19% and additional analysis be performed for Victoria by the Bay Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2002-1, which has been pushed into a deficit, and the findings be brought back to Council for discussion in the future.

DISCUSSION:

Hercules Lighting and Landscaping Assessment Districts Overview and Annual Levying Process The City of Herc ules annually levies and collects special assessments to maintain certain improvements within the City’s five established Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts (LLADs). Each LLAD provides and ensures continued maintenance, servicing, administration and operations of various landscape and lighting improvements and other facilities benefitting parcels within each LLAD. Each property is assessed only for the cost of the improvements from which benefit is received.

The five established Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts in Hercules provide for well- maintained, attractive landscaping and serviceable streetlighting along public streets as well as fire breaks adjacent to open space. They also provide for the upkeep of playgrounds, fields, park furniture, tennis courts, graffiti abatement, lighting, landscaping, water features, and trails in City parks. The expenses associated with the maintenance of these LLADs includes labor, material, equipment, utilities, repairs and administration. In accordance with the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972, the City Council has followed a multi-step Council meeting process each year to levy the parcel assessments that fund this maintenance.

The Council completed the first step on April 26, 2022 by adopting a resolution ordering the LLAD Engineer to prepare the Preliminary Engineer’s Report for each LLAD. The second step in levying the annual parcel assessments for each LLAD, which consists of approving the Preliminary Engineer’s Reports and scheduling a public hearing, is the subject of this Council Agenda item.

The remaining schedule to levy the LLAD assessments for FY 2022/23 includes the following:

a) Adopt Resolution of Intention/Approval of Preliminary Engineer’s Report – May 10, 2022 b) Conduct Public Hearing/Approval of Final Engineer’s Report – June 28, 2022 c) FY 2022/23 LLAD assessments are submitted to the County – August 10, 2022 231

For FY 2022/23, Baywood LLAD No. 2004-1 will make an installment payment to repay a 10-year loan borrowed for a tree replacement project. Also, Benefit Zone Nos. 1 (Hercules by the Bay), 3 & 4 (Gems/Birds), 6 (Village Parkway) and 7 (Heights) associated with LLAD No. 83-2 will continue to repay their respective 10-year loans borrowed to replace failing wooden streetlight poles with new energy-efficient LED streetlights on metal poles.

Extreme drought conditions over the last several years have required a significant increase in irrigation watering to keep the landscaping alive and healthy. Additionally, there have been large increases in East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) water rates. From FY 2017/18 to date, EBMUD’s water rates increased 40% as compared to an allowable LLAD assessment rate increase of 16%. As a consequence, water costs have increased dramatically in the LLADs, especially for Benefit Zones and Districts that have large amounts of turf, which has a very high water demand.

Additionally, trees in the new urbanist developments north of I-80 have matured, both in height and width, such that they now need to be pruned regularly by a contract tree trimming company. This is new, additional work beyond the scope of the current landscaping contract and is an additional LLAD cost.

Victoria By The Bay LLAD No. 2002-1 has been most impacted by these increases in cost and is now in a deficit. Staff will be further evaluating how these emerging costs are impacting all of the Zones and Districts and intend to bring this item back to Council for an in -depth discussion, including recommendations for FY 2023/24, early next fiscal year. At that time the year-end costs for FY 2021/22 will be known and evaluated.

Property Owner Benefits & Services
The five Lighting and Landscaping Assessment Districts covering the entire City are of special benefit to the various parcels of land within the LLAD and essential to help maintain property values.

The benefits can be categorized broadly into two types, lighting and landscaping. Adequately lit streets maintain safe neighborhoods and improves the appearance of property frontage at night.

Streetlighting keeps our streets safe for drivers and pedestrians alike, benefitting those using or occupying the neighboring parcels. At night or in bad weather, drivers and pedestrians can better see one another, traffic signs, and bicyclists. Properly functioning streetlighting allows our first responders to more easily locate a Hercules resident’s home in an emergency. Adequate lighting also allows for safe access to one’s home and property.

The landscaping benefits provide for healthy and well -maintained neighborhood and City parks, recreation facilities, open space and landscaping improvements. Routine landscape maintenance to City medians, parks, and open spaces such as mowing, weed abatement, trash and debris pick-up keep our neighborhoods properly maintained while increasing safety and plant health during years of drought. Landscaping is routinely pruned at medians and other areas, so drivers have good sight vision at City intersections. These efforts also provide for litter and graffiti removal.

Preliminary Engineers’ Reports Summary
232
The Preliminary Engineer’s Reports (Attachment 6) provide that the maximum annual assessment per parcel may be increased each fiscal year by the prior year’s increase in the Consumer Price Index for San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area - All Urban Consumers (CPI). The prior year’s increase in the CPI was 5.19%. All LLADs/Zones are proposed to be assessed at the ir current maximum assessment rates in FY 2022/23, except for the Baywood District (LLAD No. 2004-1), where the neighborhood assessment rate proposed to cover expenses and continue to build capital reserves is $1,946/parcel. The current and proposed rates per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) for each LLAD and Zone are set forth in the table below:

*The rates shown above are for single-family homes which equal one Equivalent Residential Unit.

Condominiums and Apartment Units are assessed at 75% and 64% the amount of a single-family home respectively.

Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District No. 83-2
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 83-2 (hereinafter “LLAD 83-2”) is the largest and oldest LLAD in the City and currently consists of 11 Zones. The LLAD was originally formed in 1984 and consisted of four residential areas or Zones: Zone 1 (Hercules by the Bay), Zone 2 (Foxboro and Willow Glen Apartments), Zone 3 (Valley Oaks and Tiffany Ridge) and Zone 4 (Falcon Heights).

Later in 1984 Zones 3 and 4 were combined when connected by the Marsten Ranch development LLAD

NE IGHBORHOOD

COMPONE NT

NE IGHBORHOOD

COMPONE NT

NE IGHBORHOOD

COMPONE NT

ZONE S/DISTRICTS ASSE SSME NT ASSE SSME NT ASSE SSME NT 1 (Cottage Ln, Coventry,
and Olympian Hills)
$76.92 $134.97 $80.92 $141.98 $4.00 $7.01
1 (Other Parcels) $128.66 $134.97 $135.34 $141.98 $6.68 $7.01 2 $126.05 $134.97 $132.60 $141.98 $6.55 $7.01
3&4
(Non-Residential Parcels) $83.96 $134.97 $88.32 $141.98 $4.36 $7.01 3&4
(Residential Parcels) $130.00 $134.97 $134.36 $141.98 $4.36 $7.01 5A $135.09 $134.97 $142.11 $141.98 $7.02 $7.01
5B $135.99 $134.97 $143.05 $141.98 $7.06 $7.01
5C $60.65 $134.97 $63.80 $141.98 $3.15 $7.01
6 (Arbors Senior
Housing Center)
$31.75 $134.97 $33.40 $141.98 $1.65 $7.01
6 (Westwood Duets) $185.33 $134.97 $190.32 $141.98 $4.99 $7.01 6 (Other Condominums) $110.67 $134.97 $114.31 $141.98 $3.64 $7.01 7 (Bay Pointe, Bravo, Caprice) $77.70 $134.97 $81.73 $141.98 $4.03 $7.01 7 (Other Parcels) $133.78 $134.97 $140.73 $141.98 $6.95 $7.01 8 $115.65 $134.97 $121.66 $141.98 $6.01 $7.01
9 $100.09 $134.97 $105.29 $141.98 $5.20 $7.01
Victoria by the Bay
LLAD No. 2002-1 $544.15 $134.97 $572.41 $141.98 $28.26 $7.01 Promenade
LLAD No. 2002-2 $685.11 $134.97 $720.69 $141.98 $35.58 $7.01 Baywood
LLAD No. 2004-1 $1,850.00 $134.97 $1,946.00 $141.98 $96.00 $7.01 Bayside
LLAD No. 2005-1 $249.65 $134.97 $262.62 $141.98 $12.97 $7.01

CITYWIDE

ASSE SSME NT
(ZONE 10)

CITYWIDE

ASSE SSME NT
(ZONE 10)

CITYWIDE

ASSE SSME NT
(ZONE 10)
CURRE NT ASSE SSME NT*
FY 2021/22
PROPOSE D ASSE SSME NT*
FY 2022/23 DIFFE RE NCE
233
annexation, Zone 5 (commercial and undeveloped properties) was annexed to LLAD 83-2, Zone 6 (Village Parkway), a residential area, was separated from Zone 5 upon development, and Zone 7 (Heights) was annexed to LLAD 83-2. In 1991, the existing neighborhoods known as Zone 8 (Trees and Flowers), Zone 9 (Birds and Country Run), and Zone 10 (Citywide park and recreation facilities) were annexed to LLAD 83-2 following a mailed assessment ballot proceeding.

Baywood Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2004-1 Baywood consists of 64 single family re sidential parcels, 14 townhomes, and a City-owned open space parcel. The Baywood neighborhood assessments are proposed to be levied at $1,850.00 per single family parcel . Baywood’s assessments remain higher than other LLADs because the landscaping maintenance for Baywood includes the front and back yards of homes outside the fence- line areas, which are maintained by property owners or homeowner associations in other LLADs. For FY 2022/23 there is additional funding included for tree trimming and replacement.

Victoria By the Bay Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District No. 2002-1 Victoria by the Bay consists of 791 single-family detached parcels, 132 multi-family units, a City open space parcel, and 2 neighborhood parks (Victoria Park and Arbor Park).

Hercules Village Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District No. 2002-2 Hercules Village consists of 218 single family residential units, 3 privately owned parcels which can be developed into multi-family units and/or residential/commercial flex sites and 3 City open space parcels.

Bayside Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District No. 2005-1 Bayside currently consists of 479 single-family residential units, including the recently constructed Muir Pointe development, three neighborhood parks (Bayside Park, Shasta Park, and Sierra Park), and one mixed-use parcel consisting of 147 multi-family units and 12,777 sq. ft. of commercial space.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Citywide Resolution

2. Victoria by the Bay Resolution

3. Hercules Village Resolution

4. Baywood Resolution

5. Bayside Resolution

6. Preliminary Engineer’s Reports

234

RESOLUTION NO. 22-___

RESOLUTION OF THE CI TY COUNCIL OF THE CI TY OF HERCULES FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER’S REPOR T AND DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL’S INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2022-23 FOR THE HERCULES VILLAGE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 200 2-2 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City Council’s direction, the Engineer of Work for the Hercules Village Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Distri ct No. 2002-2 (“Assessment District No. 2002-2”) has filed with the City Clerk the Engineer’s Report required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the Hercules Village Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2002-2 was formed on May 14, 2002 by Resolution No. 02 -049 of the City Council pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et. Seq. and State Law); and
WHEREAS, said Resolution No. 02 -049 established a maximum amount of ind ividual maintenance assessments which may be levied in future fiscal years and the proposed index by which the stated maximum assessments may be increased by the City Council in future fiscal years, without the need for an assessment ballot procedure other wise required by Section 4 of Article XIID of the State Constitution for an “increased” assessment; and WHEREAS, Assessment District No. 2002-2 provides for the maintenance and servicing of landscaping, lighting, open s pace areas, park and recreation faci lities that benefit property within Assessment District No. 2002-2; and
WHEREAS, the law requires that the City Council afford the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed assessments at a public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hercules as follows:

1. That the abov e recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Resolution;

2. That the City Council hereby declares that it intends to l evy and collect assessments within Assessment District N o. 2002-2 for FY 2022-23 in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The proposed assessments and rates are outlined in the Engineer’s Report, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference; and

3. That the City Council has rev iewed the Engineer’s Report and is preliminarily satisfied that the assessments have been spread in compliance with the provisions of Claifornia Constitution Article XIIID. The Engineer’s Report is hereby accepted and preliminarily approved; and

235

4. That all interested persons are referred to the Engineer’s Report on file with the City Clerk for a full and detailed description of the improvements, boundaries and proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within Assessment District No. 2002-2; and

5. That on Tuesday, the 28th day of June, 2022 at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as may be heard, the City Council will conduct a public hearing held at the meeting place of the City Council located in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 111 Civic Drive, Hercules, California; and

6. That the City Clerk is dir ected to give notice of the public hearing by publishing this Resolution once at least ten ( 10) days prior to the date set for the public he aring in a newspaper of general circulation.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 10th day of May 2022, by the following vote of the Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

_______________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor

ATTEST:

Lauren Berges
Administrative Services Director/City Clerk
236

RESOLUTION NO. 22-___

RESOLUTION OF THE CI TY COUNCIL OF THE CI TY OF HERCULES FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER’S REPOR T AND DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL’S INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2022-23 FOR THE BAY SIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 200 5-1 PURSUANT TO THE L ANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City Council’s direction, the Engineer of Work for the Bay side Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 200 5-1 (“As sessment District No. 2005-1”) has filed with the City Clerk the Engineer’s Report required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the Bayside Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2005-1 was formed on May 10, 2005 by Resoluti on No. 05 -060 of the City Council pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et. Seq. and State Law); and
WHEREAS, said Resolution No. 05 -060 established a maximum amount of individual maintenance assessments which may be levied in future fiscal years and the proposed index by which the stated maximum assessments may be increased by the City Council in future fiscal years, without the need for an assessment ballot procedure otherwise required by Section 4 of Article XIID of the State Constitution for an “increased” assessment; and WHEREAS, Assessment District No. 2005-1 provides for the maintenance and servicing of landscaping, lighting, open space areas, park and recreation facilities that benefit propert y within Assessment District No. 2005-1; and
WHEREAS, the law requires that the City Council afford the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed assessments at a public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of H ercules as follows:

1. That the above recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Resolution;

2. That the City Council hereby declares that it intends to levy and collect assessments within Assessment District No. 200 5-1 for FY 2022-23 in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 . The proposed assessments and rates are outlined in the Engineer’s Report, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference; and

3. That the City Council has reviewed the Engineer’s Report and is preliminarily satisfied that the assessments have been spread in compliance with the provisions of Claifornia Constitution Article XIIID. The Engineer’s Report is hereby accepted and prelimin arily approved; and

237

4. That all interested persons are ref erred to the Engineer’s Report on file with the City Clerk for a full and detailed description of the improvements, boundaries and proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within Assessment District No. 2005-1; and

5. That on Tuesday, the 28th day of June, 2022 at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as may be heard, the City Council will conduct a public hearing held at the meeting place of the City Council located in the Council Chambe rs of City Hall at 111 Civic Drive, Hercules, California; and

6. That the City Clerk is directed to give notice of the public hearing by publishing this Resolution once at least ten ( 10) days prior to the date set for the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 10th day of May 2022, by the following vote of the Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

____________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor

ATTEST:

Lauren Berges
Administrative Services Director/City Clerk
238

RESOLUTION NO. 22-___

RESOLUTION OF THE CI TY COUNCIL OF THE CI TY OF HERCULES FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER’S REPORT AND DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL’S INTEN TION TO LEVY AND COL LECT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2022-23 FOR THE BAYWOOD LAN DSCAPING AND LIGHTIN G ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2004 -1 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING A ND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City Council’s direction, the Engineer of Work for the Baywood Landscaping and Lighting Assessmen t District No. 2004 -1 (“Assessment District No. 2004-1”) has filed with the City Clerk the Engineer’s Report required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, Assessment District No. 2004-1 was formed on April 13, 2004 by Resolution No. 04-034 of the City Council pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et. Seq. and State Law); and WHEREAS, said Resolution No. 04 -034 established a maximum amount of individual maintenance assessments whic h may be levied in future fiscal years and the proposed index by which the stated maximum assessments may be increased by the City Council in future fiscal years, without the need for an assessment ballot procedure otherwise required by Section 4 of Articl e XIID of the State Constitution for an “increased” assessment; and WHEREAS, Assessment District No. 2004-1 provides for the maintenance and servicing of landscaping, lighting, open space areas, park and recreation facilities that benefit property within Assessment District No. 2004-1; and
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2021, the City Council approved the use of a Promissory Note which authorizes an inter-fund loan from the City’s General Fund Reserves to Assessment District No. 2004-1. The inter-fund loan provides up-front funding for the cost to remove and replace trees benefitting the properties within Assessment District No. 2004-1. The loan has a zero-interest rate with no pre -payment penalty and will be repaid in a maximum of ten annual installments from Assessment District No. 2004-1 assessment revenue; and
WHEREAS, the law requires that the City Council afford the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed assessments at a public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hercules as follows:

1. That the above recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Resolution;

2. That the City Council hereby declares that it intends to levy and collect assessments within Assessment District No. 2004-1 for FY 2022-23 in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The proposed assessments and rates are outlined in the Engineer’s Report, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference; and

239

3. That the City Council h as reviewed the Engineer’s Report and is preliminarily satisfied that the assessments have been spread in compliance with the provisions of Claifornia Constitution Article XIIID. The Engineer’s Report is hereby accepted and preliminarily approved; and

4. That all interested persons are referred to the Engineer’s Report on file with the City Clerk for a full and detailed description of the improvements, boundaries and proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within Assessment District No. 2004- 1; and

5. That on Tuesday, the 28th day of June, 2022 at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as may be heard, the City Council will conduct a public hearing held at the meeting place of the City Council located in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 111 Civic Drive, Hercules, California; and

6. That the City Clerk is directed to give notice of the public hearing by publishing this Resolution once at least ten ( 10) days prior to the date set for the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 10th day of May 2022, by the following vote of the Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor

ATTEST:

Lauren Berges
Administrative Services Director/City Clerk
240

RESOLUTION NO. 22-___

RESOLUTION OF THE CI TY COUNCIL OF THE CI TY OF HERCULES FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER’S REPORT AND DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL’S INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 20 22-23 FOR THE CITY OF HERCULES LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 83 -2 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972

WHEREAS, in accordance with the City Council’s direction, the Engineer of Work for the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 83 -2 (“Ass essment District No. 83 -2”) has filed with the City Clerk the Engineer’s Report required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, Assessment District No. 83-2 was formed on January 5, 1984 by Resolution No. 84-7 of the City Council pursua nt to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et. Seq. and State Law); and WHEREAS, in 1997 a special assessment ballot proceeding was conducted pursua nt to the requirements of Article XIIID (enacted by Propositio n 218) of the State Constitution which reconfirmed Assessment District No. 83 -2, authorized revisions to the assessment methodology, and extended the use of an annual inflation factor based on t he annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the collection of the assessments through FY 2002-03; and WHEREAS, in 2003 a special assessment ballot proceeding was conducted pursuant to the requirements of Article XIIID (enacted by Proposition 218 ) of the State Constitution which authorized the City Council to extend the levy and collect assessments within Assessment District No. 83-2 through FY 2012-13; and
WHEREAS, in 2010 a special assessment ballot proceeding was conducted pursuant to the requirements of Article XIIID (enacted by Proposition 218) of the State Constitution which authorized revisions to the assessment methodology, extended the use of an annual inflation factor based on the annual change in the CPI and the collection of the assessments in perpetuity; and
WHEREAS, in 2017 a special assessment ballot proceeding was conducted in Zones 1, 3&4, 5C, 6, and 7 (excluding Bay Pointe, B ravo, and Caprice parcels) pursuant to the requirements of Article XIIID (enacted by Proposition 218) of the State Constitution to increase assessments above the authori zed CPI . The assessmen t increase was approved by property owners in Zone 5C commencing with FY 2017-18; and
WHEREAS, in 2018 a special assessment ballot proceeding was conducted in Zones 1, 3&4, 6, 7 (excluding Bay Pointe, Bravo, and Caprice parcels), and 9 pursuant to the requirements of Article XIIID (enacted by Proposition 218) of the State Constitution to increase assessments above the authorized CPI. The assessment increase was approved by property owners in Zone 9 commencing with FY 2018-19; and
241

WHEREAS, in 2019 a special assessment ballot proceeding was co nducted in Zones 1 and 7 (excluding Bay Pointe, Bravo, and Caprice parcels) pursuant to the requirements of Article XIIID (enacted by Proposition 218) of the State Constitution to increase assessments above the authorized CPI. The assessment increase was approved by property owners in Zones 1 and 7 for a 10-year period commencing with FY 2019-20; and
WHEREAS, in 2021 a special assessment ballot proceeding was conducted in Zone 3&4 pursuant to the re quirements of Article XIIID (enacted by Proposition 218) of the State Constitution to in crease assessments above the authorized CPI. The assess ment increase was approved by property owners in Zone 3&4 for a 10 -year period commencing with FY 2021-22; and
WHEREAS, in 2021 a special assessment ballot proceedings was conducted in Zone 6 pursuant to the requirements of Article XIIID (enacted by Proposition 218) of the State Constitution to approve two assessment increases above the authorized CPI. One increase was to the maximum assessment to fund Operating & Maintenance Expenses, which will b e adjusted each subsequent fiscal year by the prior years change in the annual Consumer Price Index to keep up with inflationary increases fo r goods a nd services . The second increase was to fund the replacement of failin g wooden streetlight poles with new energy-effcient LED lights on metal poles and eliminate the Zone 6 fund deficit that ha s accumulated over the years due to insuffucent assessment revenues. The second assessment increase is a 10-year assessment that is fixed with no inflationary increases . Both assessment incre ases were approved by property owners in Zone 6 commencing with FY 2021-22; and
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2021, the City Council approved the use of a Pro missory Note which authorizes inter-fund loans from the City’s General Fund Reserves to As sessment District No. 83 -2. The inter -fund loan s provides up-front funding for the cost to re place the failing wooden streetlight poles benefitting property within Zones 3&4 and 6 with new energy-efficient LED lights on metal poles. The loan has a zero-interest rate with no pre-payment penalty and will be repaid in a maxim um of ten annual installments from Zones 3&4 and 6 assessment revenue generated in FY 2021-22 through FY 2030-31; and

WHEREAS, Assessment District No. 83-2 provides for the maintenance and servicing of landscaping, lighting, open space areas, park and recreation facilities that benefit property within Assessment District No. 83-2; and
WHEREAS, the law requires that the City Council afford the public an opportu nity to comment on the proposed assessments at a public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hercules as follows:

1. That the above recitals are true and c orrect and ma terial to the adoption of this Resolution.

2. That th e City Council hereby declares that it intends to levy and collect assessments within Assessment District No. 83-2 for FY 2022-23 in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The proposed assessments and rates for all Zones are outlined 242

in the Engineer’s Report , which is attached hereto a nd in corporated by this reference ; and

3. That the City Coun cil has reviewed the Engineer’s Repo rt and is preliminarily satisfied that the assess ments have be en spread in compliance with the provisions of Cali fornia Constitution Article XIIID. The Engineer’s Report is hereby accepted and preli minarily approved; and

4. That all interested persons are re ferred to the Engineer’s Report on file with the City Clerk for a full and detailed description of the improvemen ts, boundaries and proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land withi n Assessment District No. 83- 2; and

5. That on Tuesday, the 28th day of Ju ne 2022 at 7:00 P.M., or as soon th ereafter as may be heard, the City Council will conduct a public hearing held at the meeting place of the City Council located in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 111 Civic Drive, Hercules, California; and

6. That the City Clerk is directed to give notice of the publi c hearing by publishing this Resolution once at lea st ten (10) days prior to the date set for the pub lic h earing in a newspaper of general circulation.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Coun cil of the City of Hercules held on the 10th day of May 2022, by the following vote of the Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Dion Bailey, Mayor
ATTEST:

Lauren Berges
Administrative Services Director/City Clerk
243

RESOLUTION NO. 22-___

RESOLUTION OF THE CI TY COUNCIL OF THE CI TY OF HERCULES FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER’S REPOR T AND DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL’S INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2022-23 FOR THE VICTORIA BY THE B AY LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSM ENT DISTRICT NO. 2002-1 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City Council’s direction, the Engineer of Work for the Victoria by the Bay Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2002-1 (“Assessment District No. 2002-1”) has filed with the City Clerk the Engineer’s Report required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the Victoria by the Bay Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2002-1 was formed on May 14, 2002 by Resolution No. 02 -050 of the City Council pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et. Seq. and State Law); and
WHEREAS, said Resolution No. 02 -050 established a maximum amou nt of individual maintenance assessments which may be levied in future fiscal years and the proposed index by which the stated maximum assessments may be increased by the City Council in future fiscal years, without the need for an assessment ballot proced ure otherwise required by Section 4 of Article XIID of the State Constitution for an “increased” assessment; and WHEREAS, Assessment District No. 2002-1 provides for the maintenance and servicing of landscaping, lighting, open space areas, park and recrea tion facilities that benefit property within Assessment District No. 2002-1; and
WHEREAS, the law requires that the City Council afford the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed assessments at a public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hercules as follows:

1. That the above recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Resolution;

2. That the City Council hereby declares that it intends to levy and collect assessments within Assessment Di strict No. 2002-1 for FY 2022-23 in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 . The proposed assessments and rates are outlined in the Engineer’s Report, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference; and

3. That the City Council has reviewed the Engineer’s Report and is preliminarily satisfied that the assessments have been spread in compliance with the provisions of Claifornia Constitution Article XIIID. The Engineer’s Re port is hereby accepted and preliminarily approved; and

244

4. That all interested persons are referred to the Engineer’s Report on file with the City Clerk for a full and detailed description of the improvements, boundaries and proposed assessments upon assessa ble lots and parcels of land within Assessment District N o. 2002-1; and

5. That on Tuesday, the 28th day of June, 2022 at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as may be heard, the City Council will conduct a public hearing held at the meeting place of the City Council located in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 11 1 Civic Drive, Hercules, California; and

6. That the City Clerk is directed to give notice of the public hearing by publishing this Resolution once at least ten ( 10) days prior to the date set for the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hercules held on the 10th day of May 2022, by the following vote of the Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

_____________________

Dion Bailey, Mayor

ATTEST:

Lauren Berges
Administrative Services Director/City Clerk
245

City of Hercules
Baywood Landscaping and Lighting
Assessment District No. 2004-1
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Preliminary Engineer’s Report

May 10, 2022
246

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

Directory ................................................................................................................ i

Signatures ............................................................................................................. ii

Section I – Introduction ......................................................................................... 1

Section II – Engineer’s Report .............................................................................. 2

Part A – Plans and Specifications ................................................................... 5

Part B – Estimate of Cost ................................................................................ 7 Table 1: Budget............................................................................... 8

Part C – Assessment District Diagram ............................................................ 9

Part D – Method of Apportionment of Assessments ...................................... 11

Part E – Property Owner List & Assessment Roll .......................................... 16

Appendix A – Improvements Diagram ............................................................... A-1

Appendix B – Public Property Assessments ...................................................... B-1

Appendix C – Assessment Roll ........................................................................ C-1

247
BAYWOOD LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING FY 2022-23
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 2004-1 DIRECTORY

i

CITY OF HERCULES

BAYWOOD

LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 2004-1

FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF

Dion Bailey
Mayor

Alexander Walker-Griffin
Vice Mayor

Dan Romero
Council Member
Chris Kelley
Council Member

Tiffany Grimsley
Council Member

Dante Hall
City Manager

Patrick Tang
City Attorney

Edwin Gato
Finance Director

Lauren Berges
Administrative Services Director/City
Clerk

Mike Roberts
Public Works Director

Francisco & Associates
Assessment Engineer
248

ENGINEER’S REPORT

CITY OF HERCULES

BAYWOOD

LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 2004-1

FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer’s Report as directed by the City Council.

Dated: A pril 28, 2022 By___________________________________ Eduardo R. Espinoza, P.E.

RCE No. 83709

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer’s Report, together with the Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram thereto attached was filed with me on the ________ day of ________, 2022.

L auren Berges, City Clerk
City of Hercules
Contra Costa County, California

By___________________________________

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer’s Report, together with the Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram , thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Her cules, Contra Costa County, California, on the _________ day of _______, 2022.

L auren Berges, City Clerk
City of Hercules
Contra Costa County, California

By___________________________________

249
SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

Background Information
The land which lies within the boundaries of the Vesting Tentative Map for Subdivision 8599, (known hereafter as “ Baywood”) was formerly assessed as vacant commercial land, designated as Zone 5C within City of Hercules Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 83 -2 (LLAD 83- 2). Baywood was required to install landscaping, streetlight ing, park and recreational improvements as a condition of approval of the development. The Baywood improvements are distinct from other improvements within the existing LLAD 83- 2 and require a higher level of maintenance.

In April of 2004 an assessment ballot was mailed to the property owners within the boundaries of Baywood on the matter of detaching the subject property from the existing LLAD 83- 2, forming the Baywood Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 2004-1 (the “District”), approving a maximum amount of individual maintenance assessments for future years and authorizing an index by which the stated maximum amount of individual maintenance assessments could be increased in future years without the need for an assessment ballot procedure otherwise required by Section 4 of Article XIIID for an “increased assessment.”

The City Council adopted Resolution 04-035 on April 13, 2004. This resolution detached Baywood from LLAD 83- 2, formed the District, levied the first annual assessment and authorized the City Council to annually adjust assessment rates according to the index as set forth in the Engineer’s Report. The index defined in the Engineer’s Report is the change in the Bay Area’s Annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the previous calendar year.

At the April 27, 2021 Council Meeting, the City Council approved the use of a Promissory Note wh ich authorized an inter -fund loan from the City’s General Fund Reserves to the District. The inter -fund loan provided up-front funding for the costs associated with the removal and replacement of trees benefitting the properties within the District. The loan has a zero-interest rate with no pre- payment penalty and will be repaid in a maximum of ten annual installments with assessment revenue generated through the District from FY 2021- 22 through FY 2030- 31. The term of the loan commenced on July 1, 2021 and will expire July 1, 2031.

Current Annual Administration
As required by 1972 Act, this Report describes the improvements to be constructed, operated, maintained and serviced by the District for FY 2022-23, provides an estimated budget for the District and lists the proposed assessments to be levied upon each assessable lot or parcel within the District.

250
The Hercules City Council may amend the method of assessment from time to time in order to apportion the costs in relation to the special benefits being received. However, any increase in the assessments from the prior year, other than the annual increase from the CPI adjustment, will be subject to the applicable requirements of Proposition 218.

The Hercules City Council will hold a Public Hearing on Ju ne 28, 2022 to provide an opportunity for any interested person to be heard. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council may adopt a resolution confirming the levy of assessments as originally proposed. Following the adoption of this resolution, the Final Assessor’s Roll will be prepared and filed with the Contra Costa County Auditor’s Office, to be included on the FY 2022-23 tax roll.

Payment of the assessment for each parcel will be made in the same manner and at the same time as payments are made for property taxes. All funds collected through the assessment must be placed in a special fund and can only be used for the purposes stated within this Report.

251

SECTION II

ENGINEER’S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
SECTION 22500 THROUGH 22679

OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE

CITY OF HERCULES

BAYWOOD

LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 2004-1

FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 22500), and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention, being Resolution No. adopted by the City Council of the City of Hercules on May 10, 2022, I, Eduardo R. Espinoza, the duly appointed Engineer of Work, Assessment Engineer for the City of Hercules Baywood Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Distri ct No. 2004-1 ( the “District”) submit the following Report, consisting of Section I (Introduction), and this , Section II, which consists of five (5) parts as follows:

PART A: PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

This part describes the improvements maintained by the District. Plans and specifications for the improvements on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Hercules, and are incorporated herein by reference.

PART B: ESTIMATE OF COST

This part contains an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements to be maintained for FY 2022-23, including incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith. The estimate is attached hereto, and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Hercules.

252
PART C: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM

This part incorporates a Diagram of the District showing the exterior boundaries of the District, the boundaries of any zones within the District and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District. This Diagram has been prepared by the Engineer of Work and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Hercules.

The lines and dimension of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for the year when this Report was prepared. The Assessor’s maps and records are incorporated by reference herein and made a part of this Report.

PART D: METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS

This part describes the method of apportionment of assessments, based upon each parcel’s land use classification within the District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received.

PART E: PROPERTY OWNER LIST & ASSESSMENT ROLL

This part contains a list of the Contra Costa County Assessor’s Parcel numbers, and the amount to be assessed upon the benefited lands within the District. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Hercules and is incorporated in this Report. The list is keyed to the records of the Contra Costa County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.

253
PART A

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The facilities that have been constructed within the District boundaries, and those which may be subsequently constructed, will be operated, maintained and serviced as generally described below:

The park landscaping and streetlight ing improvements to be maintained by the District are shown on the preliminary Landscape Plans for Baywood prepared by Melvin Lee Associates, dated October 2003 , and the final landscape plans submitted, which plans are available for review in the O ffice of the Director of Public Works and are incorporated into this report by reference. Areas to be maintained are located within rights of way, which are dedicated to the public on the subdivision final maps. An “Improvements Diagram” is included in Appendix “A” of this report. This diagram shows the improvements and maintenance services to be funded by the District . The areas indicated on the improvements diagram to be maintained by the Homeowners Association or “HOA” have not been dedicated to the public and are not funded by District assessments.

The “Neighborhood” improvements to be maintained are defined as landscaping and lighting improvements along public streets and parkways and the medians within the development. Improvements to be maintained include trees, shrubs, vines, ground cover, turf, and streetlights. The services to be provided include but are not limited to litter and debris removal, graffiti abatement, irrigation system adjustment, maintenance and repairs; landscape structure repair s and painting; pruning, staking, fertilizing, plant replacement and restoration; weed control; erosion control; trimming of vegetation and removal of debris in the area.

The “City -wide” improvements to be maintained and paid for by Baywood property owners are generally defined as arterial/major roadway landscape and lighting maintenance. Improvements to be maintained include trees, shrubs, vines, ground cover, turf, and streetlights. The services to be provided include but are not limited to litter and debris removal, graffiti abatement, irrigation system adjustment, maintenance and repairs; landscape structure repairs and painting; pruning, staking, fertilizing, plant replacement and restoration; weed control; erosion control; trimming of vegetation and removal of debris in the area.

Improvements means one or any combination of the following: the installation or planting of landscaping, the installation or construction of statuary, fountains, and other ornamental structures and facilities; the installation or construction of public lig hting facilities; the installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing, removal of debris, the installation 254
or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities; the maintenance or servicing, or both, of any of the foregoing; the acquisition of any existing improvement otherwise authorized pursuant to this section.

Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual operations, maintenance and servicing of the landscaping, streetlight ing, public park and recreational facilities and appurtenant facilities, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping, streetlight ing, public park , sidewalks, and recreational facilities or appurtenant facilities; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; and the cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti.

Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of the landscaping and the maintenance of any streetlight ing facilities or appurtenant facilities and the furnishing of electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for the streetlight ing, public park and recreational facilities or appurtenant facilities.

Incidental expenses associated with the improvements including, but not limited to: the cost of preparation of the report, including plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and assessment; the costs of printing, advertising, and the publishing, posting and mailing of notices; compensation payable to the County for collection of assessments; compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services; any other expenses incidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance and servicing of the improvements; costs associated with any elections held for the approval of a new or increased assessment ; any expenses incidental to the issuance of bonds or notes pursuant to Section 22662.5 of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972.

255
PART B

ESTIMATE OF COST

The 1972 Act provides that the total cost of installation, construction, operation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, streetlight ing and park and recreational facilities can be recovered by the District. Maintenance can include the repair and replacement of existing facilities, including graffiti removal. Servicing can include electrical and associated costs from a public utility. Incidental expenses, including administration of the District, engineering fees, legal fees, printing, posting and mailing of notices and all other costs associated with the annual collection process can also be included.

The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be set up for the revenues and expenditures of the District. Funds raised by the assessments shall be used only for the purpose as stated herein.

The operation, maintenance and servicing costs for FY 2022-23 are summarized on the following page. These cost estimates were provided by the City of Hercules.

256
TABLE 1

*All parcels in the City pay their share of special benefit conferred to property on a per ERU basis for costs related to the City's Arterials/Major Roads landscaping and streetlight ing improvements. The FY 2022-23 estimated budget for the City's Arterial/ Major Roads landscaping and streetlight ing improvements is approximately $333,000. Therefore, the transfer amounts for Arterials /Major Roads landscaping and lighting are based on an allocation to each parcel of $32.21/ERU.

REVENUES
Assessments $151,788
Public Agency Assessments $6,147
General Benefit Contribution $2,813
TOTAL REVENUES: $160,748

ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
Personnel $40,448
Transfer for Arterials/Major Roads Landscape and
Lighting Maintenance* $2,700
Landscaping, Open Space, and Associated Repairs $40,000 Plant Replacements $1,500
Tree Trimming $10,000
Electricity and Streetlight Repairs $3,300
Landscape and Facilities Water $30,000
Supplies and Vehicle Repairs $0
Assessment Engineering Cost $4,074
Incidental / Direct Admin Cost $11,000
County Fees $311
TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES: $143,333

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP)
Tree Replacement (10-year loan repayment) $14,700
Other Capital Improvement Projects $0
TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES: $14,700

TOTAL EXPENDITURES
TOTAL ANNUAL AND CIP EXPENDITURES: $158,033

FUND BALANCE INFORMATION
Beginning Balance - Projected July 1, 2022 $88,369
FY 2022-23 Reserve Collection Increase/(Decrease) $2,715 Ending Balance - Projected June 30, 2023 $91,084
Recommended Operating Reserves $79,017
Available Operating Reserves $79,017
Available Capital Reserves $12,067

DISTRICT STATISTICS
Total Parcels 81
Total Parcels Levied 80
Total Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) 81.159
Maximum Levy per Benefit Unit $2,665.24
Applied Levy per Benefit Unit $1,946.00
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 2004-1
(BAYWOOD)

INCOME AND EXPENSE
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
257
PART C

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM

The boundaries of the District are contiguous with the boundaries of Subdivision 8599.

The lines and dimensions of each parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for the year in which this Report was prepared and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report.

A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram is shown on the following page. 258
/67/105/116/121/32/111/102/32/72/101/114/99/117/108/101/115 /67/73/84/89/32/79/70/32/72/69/82/67/85/76/69/83
/76/65/78/68/83/67/65/80/73/78/71/32/38/32/76/73/71/72/84/73/78/71/32/68/73/83/84/82/73/67/84 /65/83/83/69/83/83/77/69/78/84/32/68/73/65/71/82/65/77
/76/76/65/68/32/50/48/48/52/45/49
/78
/80/114/111/106/47/72/101/114/99/117/108/101/115/47/70/89/49/50/45/49/51/47/68/105/97/103/114/97/109/115/47/50/48/48/52/45/49/95/100/105/97/103/114/97/109/46/112/100/102/32/32/40/48/52/45/49/53/45/49/48/32/83/65/41 /80/97/114/99/101/108/115/32/108/111/99/97/116/101/100/32/119/105/116/104/105/110 /116/104/101/32/76/76/65/68/32/50/48/48/52/45/49
/67/105/116/121/32/76/105/109/105/116
/76/69/71/69/78/68
/66/97/115/101/109/97/112
/76/76/65/68/32/50/48/48/52/45/49/32/66/111/117/110/100/97/114/121 /65/68/69
/83/89/67
/65/77/79/82/69
/69/65/82/78/69/83/84
/80/82/79/77/69/78/65/68/69
/84/65/82/65/89/65
/87/73/76/76/69/84
/83/65/78/68/69/82/76/73/78/71
/65/86/79/67/69/84
/66/65/89/87/79/79/68
/76/76/65/68/32/50/48/48/52/45/49
/80/82/69/80/65/82/69/68/32/66/89/32/70/82/65/78/67/73/83/67/79/32/38/32/65/83/83/79/67/73/65/84/69/83/44/32/73/78/67 259
PART D

METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS

INTRODUCTION

Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, permits the establishment of assessment districts by Agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements, which include the operation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, streetlight ing and park and recreational facilities.

Section 22573 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires that maintenance assessments must be levied according to special benefit, rather than according to assessed value. This Section states:

“The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.

The determination of whether a lot or parcel will benefit from the improvements shall be made pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7 (commencing with Section 5000)) [of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California].”

Because assessments are levied on the basis of special benefit, they are not considered a tax, and therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution.

The Act permits the designation of zones of benefit within any individual assessment district if “by reason of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive different degrees of benefit from the improvements” (Sec. 22574).

Article XIIID provided that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the assessment. Exempted from the assessment would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements and rights -of-ways, public greenbelts and public parkways, and that portion of public property that is not developed and used for business purposes similar to private residential, commercial, industrial and institutional activities.

260

GENERAL BENEFIT

Under Article XIIID of the S tate Constitution (Proposition 218) general benefit is not assessable to the property owners within the assessment district. The different various types of general benefit associated with this district are described below:

Neighborhood Improvements: It is anticipated that there will be minimal flow through traffic within the in- tract neighborhood streets associated with LLAD No. 2004-1. However, there is a possibility for pedestrians and vehicles to access a destination outside of the development through the in- tract streets and therefore the in-tract streetlighting and landscape improvements provide a minimal general benefit to the public-at-large or to the parcels outside of LLAD 2004- 1. Based on the industry standard for comparable neighborhoods, 2% of the annual cost to operate and maintain the in- tract streetlighting and landscape improvements is considered to be a general benefit.

Arterial/Major Roads Landscape and Lighting Maintenance: The arterial/major roadways allow residents to easily access all areas of the City and provide a clear benefit to all properties in the City. Therefore, landscape and lighting maintenance costs associated with the arterial/major roads are spread proportionately to all parcels in the City. The roads that fall into this category are John Muir Parkway, San Pablo Avenue, Refugio Valley Road, Sycamore Avenue, and Willow Avenue. Although these roads are mostly utilized by people coming to and from Hercules, there is some general benefit that can be attributed to flow through traffic generated from properties outside of City limits. Based on an initial circulation analysis, it is estimated that an average of 6% of traffic on these roads can be attributed to flow through traffic. The City will conduct a study to better estimate the percentage of flow through traffic.

SPECIAL BENEFIT

Most of the improvements to be serviced and maintained by the assessment district have been constructed as a condition of approval of Baywood and are of special benefit to the various parcels of land within this development. These special benefits are summarized below.

Streetlighting: Streetlighting is critical for public safety. Well -maintained streetlighting provides security to the adjacent properties by deterring crime and allowing Hercules police the ability to identify and control suspicious and criminal activity. It allows for safe pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow and circulation by improving the ability of pedestrians and motorists to see and to enter and exit property, which helps reduce night time accidents resulting in lower police, fire and paramedic costs to the City and its residents. Streetlight ing also increases 261
the promotion of business during nighttime hours in the case of commercial property.

Landscaped Streetscapes and Roadway Medians: The District keeps the City’s landscaped streetscapes and roadway medians well-groomed and irrigated which enhances property values throughout the City. These services include, landscape maintenance, plant replacement, irrigation, tree pruning, and litter control. Some of the special benefits properties receive from well -maintained landscaping include:
• The aesthetic value of green space;
• Improved aesthetic appeal of nearby parcels;
• Enhanced adaptation of the urban environment within the natural environment;
• Improved erosion control;
• Improved dust and debris control;
• Reduced air pollution;
• Enhanced sense of pride within the development and community.

Open Space Cleanup and Graffiti Abatement
Miscellaneous improvements such as the removal of litter, debris, and graffiti are of special benefit to each property within the District.

The special benefit s received by these may best be evaluated in terms of the property devaluation that would occur if the District maintenance activities were suspended or terminated. The resultant reduction in the quality of life could be significant. In contrast to the current conditions, one could find streets without lights, parks parched from lack of water, hillsides littered with debris, unkempt community facilities with graffiti and traffic medians overtaken by weeds. The resulting loss to property in terms of the desirability of the City of Hercules as a place to live and work would be obvious. Clearly the continuation of the City’s maintenance effort is of special benefit to each property owner within the District.

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The total operation, maintenance and servicing costs for the landscaping, streetlight ing and public park and recreational facilities are apportioned in accordance with the methodology stated herein. The method for spreading the costs to each parcel is based on an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) factor.

1. Residential Property

Neighborhood Improvements. All of the parcels in the District are residential parcels. Although the individual parcel size, building square footage and population 262
for each parcel may vary from parcel to parcel the benefit received is approximately the same from the improvements. Even though a residential parcel may have more building square footage than another it does not necessarily mean that the larger home receives a greater benefit. Therefore one (1) residential parcel shall be equal to one (1) ERU.

2. Vacant (Unimproved) Land
This underlying benefit of parks and recreation facilities, public landscaping weed abatement and streetlight ing accrues to the land and relates to the permanent nature of certain improvements. The maintenance effort is of benefit to all land within the District. The minimum level of maintenance required to preserve street landscaping, lighting, park and recreation facilities in the District is estimated to be 25% of the required for build- out maintenance cost. Accordingly, the estimated benefit received by an unimproved parcel of land with in an approved development potential is 25% of that received by an improved parcel, equal in size. This assumes that unimproved land will have no use of the facilities.

Therefore, vacant (unimproved) land is assessed at 25% of the developed ERU rate for the property.

3. Public Properties
City parks benefit from the neighborhood services provided by the neighborhood in which they are located. The benefit received is closely related to the improved frontage and not the area of the lot or the building. If one assumes that the depth of a standard lot in the City is 100 feet, the number of ERU’s corresponding to this frontage benefit would be equal to the street frontage of the park or recreation facility times 100 feet divided by 8,485, the average size of a SFR in Hercules. This same frontage benefit analysis is used for other public properties in the City of Hercules.

Therefore, improved public properties are assigned ERUs using the following formula:

Lot Frontage x 100 / 8,485 = ERUs

Open space in residential neighborhoods may be seen to benefit from the safety provided to the land by streetlight ing but not from other user related services. The ERU for public open space are therefore estimated to be equal to the parcel frontage times 100 feet of lot depth times 25% divided by 8,485. Therefore, open space parcels are assigned ERUs using the following formula:

Lot Frontage x 100 / 8,485 x 25% = ERUs

However, Lot Frontage x 100 cannot exceed the actual area of the parcel.

263

4. Exempt Parcels
Certain properties do not benefit from landscaping, lighting, park and recreational improvements and have not been assessed. City parks, recreational facilities and open space do not benefit from the features, which are the subject of the assessment. These properties on the other hand may benefit from the neighborhood landscaping and lighting services provided in the neighborhoods in which they are located. Public streets and right of ways do not benefit from landscaping and lighting improvements or from park and recreation facilities. Railroad right of ways and pipeline easements or fee strips generally does not benefit. The assessments for the special benefits received by common areas are included in the assessment for the residential units with which they are associated. Common areas themselves are not assessed.

CALCULATION OF ASSESSMENTS

The costs shown in Table 1 Part B, Estimate of Cost, has been distributed among the various parcels of land within the assessment district in accordance with the rationale as described above. The annual assessment rate is calculated by dividing the total costs by the total number of ERU in the District to derive the assessment rate. The assessment rate is then multiplied by each parcel’s assigned ERUs to derive the annual assessment for that parcel.

Assessments for properties owned by public agencies are listed in Appendix “ B”.

Assessments for all parcels are listed in Appendix “ C”. The total ERUs and the applied assessment rates are shown in Table 1, Part B, Estimate of Cost. The following table shows the FY 2022-23 assessments for various land use classifications:

CPI INCREASE

The City can increase the assessment amount every year up to their maximum assessment levels indexed for inflation per the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), San Francisco Bay Region All Urban Consumers. The maximum assessment rates are being increased by the prior year’s increase in the CPI (5.2%).

$2,665.24 per lot $1,946.00 per lot
$666.31 per lot $486.50 per lot
$1,599.14 per unit $1,167.60 per unit
$799.57 per unit $583.80 per unit
Assessment
Single-Family Residence
Vacant Single-Family
Multi-Family Residential
Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing Unit
Classification
FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23
Maximum Applied
Assessment
264

MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT

In any fiscal given year, the amount of the assessment will not exceed the maximum amounts established in this Report, as adjusted by the CPI increase described above unless a special proceeding is conducted and affirmed according to law.

DURATION

Assessments will be levied in perpetuity unless otherwise determined by City Council.

265
PART E

PROPERTY OWNER LIST & ASSESSMENT ROLL

A list of names and addresses of the owners of all parcels, and the description of each parcel within the District is shown on the last equalized Secured Property Tax Roll of the Contra Costa County Assessor, which by reference is hereby made a part of this Report.

This list is keyed to the Assessor’s Parcel Numbers as shown on the Assessment Roll, which includes the proposed amount of assessments for FY 2022-23 apportioned to each lot or parcel. The Assessment Roll is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Hercules and is shown in this Report as Appendix “C”.

The total proposed assessment for FY 2022-23 is $157,935.40.

266

APPENDIX “A”

IMPROVEMENTS DIAGRAM

267
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
LLAD NO. 2004-1

MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENT DIAGRAM
0 100
Feet
±

PROMENADE STREET

WILLET ST

AVOCET DR
LEGEND
# STREET LIGHTS

WOOD FENCING

DISTRICT BOUNDARY

PARCELS

LANDSCAPING
PAVERS

OPEN SPACE

BAYWOOD LANE

SANDERLING DR
* Please note that the landscape maintenance for this District includes front yards and alley ways up to property owner fences, all parkway strips and paseos within the city's right-of-way, and open space/wetland areas.
268

APPENDIX “B”

PUBLIC PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS

269
APN LocationOwner/Use ERU Units Acres
Neighborhood
Amount

CITY OF HERCULES

BAYWOOD LANDSCAPING
AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 2004-1

PUBLIC PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS
FY 2022-23
404650079 SANDERLINGCity/Park 0 1.904 2.444 $4,756.02 404650080 AVOCETCity/Open Space 0 0.557 0.715 $1,391.38 Total: 0 2.461 3.159 $6,147.40
B- 2
270

APPENDIX “C”

ASSESSMENT ROLL

271

CITY OF HERCULES

BAYWOOD LANDSCAPE
AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 2004-1

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
Neighborhood
Amount
404650001 $1,946.00
404650002 $1,946.00
404650003 $1,946.00
404650004 $1,946.00
404650005 $1,946.00
404650006 $1,946.00
404650007 $1,946.00
404650008 $1,946.00
404650009 $1,946.00
404650010 $1,946.00
404650011 $1,946.00
404650012 $1,946.00
404650013 $1,946.00
404650014 $1,946.00
404650015 $1,946.00
404650016 $1,946.00
404650017 $1,946.00
404650018 $1,946.00
404650019 $1,946.00
404650020 $1,946.00
404650021 $1,946.00
404650022 $1,946.00
404650023 $1,946.00
404650024 $1,946.00
404650025 $1,946.00
404650026 $1,946.00
404650027 $1,946.00
404650028 $1,946.00
404650029 $1,946.00
404650030 $1,946.00
404650031 $1,946.00
404650032 $1,946.00
404650033 $1,946.00
404650034 $1,946.00
404650035 $1,946.00
404650036 $1,946.00
404650037 $1,946.00
404650038 $1,946.00
404650039 $1,946.00
404650040 $1,946.00
404650041 $1,946.00
404650042 $1,946.00
404650043 $1,946.00
404650044 $1,946.00
404650045 $1,946.00
404650046 $1,946.00
404650047 $1,946.00
404650048 $1,946.00
404650049 $1,946.00
404650050 $1,946.00
404650051 $1,946.00
404650052 $1,946.00
404650053 $1,946.00
404650054 $1,946.00
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
Neighborhood
Amount
404650055 $1,946.00
404650056 $1,946.00
404650057 $1,946.00
404650058 $1,946.00
404650059 $1,946.00
404650060 $1,946.00
404650061 $1,946.00
404650062 $1,946.00
404650063 $1,946.00
404650064 $1,946.00
404650065 $1,946.00
404650066 $1,946.00
404650067 $1,946.00
404650068 $1,946.00
404650069 $1,946.00
404650070 $1,946.00
404650071 $1,946.00
404650072 $1,946.00
404650073 $1,946.00
404650074 $1,946.00
404650075 $1,946.00
404650076 $1,946.00
404650077 $1,946.00
404650078 $1,946.00
404650079 $4,756.02
404650080 $1,391.38
$157,935.40
04/29/22
C-2
272

City of Hercules
Bayside Landscaping and Lighting
Assessment District No. 2005-1
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Preliminary Engineer’s Report

May 10, 2022
273

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

Directory ................................................................................................................ i

Signatures ............................................................................................................. ii

Section I – Introduction ......................................................................................... 1

Section II – Engineer’s Report .............................................................................. 2

Part A – Plans and Specifications ................................................................... 4

Part B – Estimate of Cost ................................................................................ 6 Table 1: Budget............................................................................... 7

Part C – Assessment District Diagram ............................................................ 8

Part D – Method of Apportionment of Assessments ...................................... 10

Part E – Property Owner List & Assessment Roll .......................................... 17

Appendix A – Improvements Diagram ............................................................... A-1

Appendix B – Public Property Assessments ...................................................... B-1

Appendix C – Assessment Roll ........................................................................ C-1

274
BAYSIDE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING FY 2022-23
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 2005-1 DIRECTORY

i

CITY OF HERCULES

BAYSIDE

LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 2005-1

FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF

Dion Bailey
Mayor

Alexander Walker-Griffin
Vice Mayor

Dan Romero
Council Member
Chris Kelley
Council Member

Tiffany Grimsley
Council Member

Dante Hall
City Manager

Patrick Tang
City Attorney

Edwin Gato
Finance Director

Lauren Berges
Administrative Services Director/City
Clerk

Mike Roberts
Public Works Director

Francisco & Associates
Assessment Engineer
275

ENGINEER’S REPORT

CITY OF HERCULES

BAYSIDE

LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 2005-1

FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer’s Report as directed by the City Council.

Dated: A pril 28, 2022 By___________________________________ Eduardo R. Espinoza, P.E.

RCE No. 83709

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer’s Report, together with the Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram thereto attached was filed with me on the ________ day of ________, 2022.

L auren Berges, City Clerk
City of Hercules
Contra Costa County, California

By___________________________________

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer’s Report, together with the Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram, thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Hercules, Contra Costa County, California, on the _________ day of _______, 2022.

L auren Berges, City Clerk
City of Hercules
Contra Costa County, California

By___________________________________
276

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

Background Information
The land which lies within the boundaries of the Vesting Tentative Map for Subdivision 8764, (known hereafter as “Bayside”) was formerly assessed as vacant commercial land, designated as Zone 5C within City of Hercules Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 83-2 (LLAD 83-2). Bayside was required to install landscaping, streetlighting, park and recreational improvements as a condition of approval of the development. The Bayside improvements are distinct from other improvements within the existing LLAD 83- 2 and require a higher level of maintenance.

The City Council adopted a Resolution in March, 2005, which detached Bayside from LLAD 83-2, formed the District, levied the first annual assessment and authorized the City Council to annually adjust assessment rates according to the index as set forth in the Engineer’s Report. The index defined in the Engineer’s Report is the change in the San Francisco Bay Area’s Annual Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers (CPI) for the previous calendar year.

Current Annual Administration
As required by 1972 Act, this Report describes the improvements to be constructed, operated, maintained and serviced by the District for FY 2022-23, provides an estimated budget for the District and lists the proposed assessments to be levied upon each assessable lot or parcel within the District.

The Hercules City Council may amend the method of assessment from time to time in order to apportion the costs in relation to the special benefits being received. However, any increase in the assessments from the prior year, other than the annual increase from the CPI adjustment, will be subject to the applicable requirements of Proposition 218.

The Hercules City Council will hold a Public Hearing on Ju ne 28, 2022 to provide an opportunity for any interested person to be heard. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council may adopt a resolution confirming the levy of assessments as originally proposed. Following the adoption of this resolution, the Final Assessor’s Roll will be prepared and filed with the Contra Costa County Auditor’s Office, to be included on the FY 2022-23 tax roll.

Payment of the assessment for each parcel will be made in the same manner and at the same time as payments are made for property taxes. All funds collected through the assessment must be placed in a special fund and can only be used for the purposes stated within this Report.

277

SECTION II

ENGINEER’S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
SECTION 22500 THROUGH 22679

OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE

CITY OF HERCULES

BAYSIDE

LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 2005-1

FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 22500), and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention, being Resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Hercules on May 10, 2022, I, Eduardo R. Espinoza, the duly appointed Engineer of Work, Assessment Engineer for the City of Hercules Bayside Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Distri ct No. 2005-1 ( the “District”) submit the following Report, consisting of Section I (Introduction), and this, Section II, which consists of five (5) parts as follows:

PART A: PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

This part describes the improvements maintained by the District. Plans and specifications for the improvements are on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Hercules, and are incorporated herein by reference.

PART B: ESTIMATE OF COST

This part contains an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements to be maintained for FY 2022-23, including incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith. The estimate is attached hereto, and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Hercules.

278
PART C: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM

This part incorporates a Diagram of the District showing the exterior boundaries of the District, the boundaries of any zones within the District and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District. This Diagram has been prepared by the Engineer of Work and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Hercules.

The lines and dimension of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for the year when this Report was prepared. The Assessor’s maps and records are incorporated by reference herein and made a part of this Report.

PART D: METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS

This part describes the method of apportionment of assessments, based upon each parcel’s land use classification within the District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received.

PART E: PROPERTY OWNER LIST & ASSESSMENT ROLL

This part contains a list of the Contra Costa County Assessor’s Parcel numbers, and the amount to be assessed upon the benefited lands within the District. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Hercules and is incorporated in this Report. The list is keyed to the records of the Contra Costa County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.

279

PART A

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The facilities that have been constructed within the District boundaries, and those which may be subsequently constructed, will be operated, maintained and serviced as generally described below:

The park landscaping and streetlight ing improvements to be maintained by the District are shown on the improvement plans for Bayside prepared the developer which plans are available for review in the Office of the Director of Public Works and are incorporated into this report by reference. Areas to be maintained are located within rights of way, which are dedicated to the public on the subdivision final maps. The areas that are to be maintained by the Homeowners Association or “HOA” have not been dedicated to the public and are not funded by District assessments.

The improvements are more specifically described as the 0.67- acre Bayside neighborhood park and the public streetlights within the boundaries of the District.

The “Neighborhood” improvements to be maintained are defined as the neighborhood park and lighting improvements within the development. Improvements to be maintained include trees, shrubs, vines, ground cover, turf, park improvements and streetlights. The services to be provided include but are not limited to litter and debris removal, graffiti abatement, irrigation system adjustment, maintenance and repairs; landscape structure repairs and painting; pruning, staking, fertilizing, plant replacement and restoration; weed control; erosion control; trimming of vegetation and removal of debris in the area.

The “City-wide” improvements to be maintained and paid for by Bayside property owners are generally defined as arterial/major roadway landscape and lighting maintenance.

Improvements to be maintained include trees, shrubs, vines, ground cover, turf, and streetlights. The services to be provided include but are not limited to litter and debris removal, graffiti abatement, irrigation system adjustment, maintenance and repairs; landscape structure repairs and painting; pruning, staking, fertilizing, plant replacement and restoration; weed control; erosion control; trimming of vegetation and removal of debris in the area.

Improvements means one or any combination of the following: the installation or planting of landscaping, the installation or construction of statuary, fountains, and other ornamental structures and facilities; the installation or construction of public light ing facilities; the installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing, removal of debris, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, 280
or electrical facilities; the maintenance or servicing, or both, of any of the foregoing; the acquisition of any existing improvement otherwise authorized pursuant to this section.

Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual operations, maintenance and servicing of the landscaping, streetlighting, public park and recreational facilities and appurtenant facilities, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping, streetlight ing, public park , sidewalks, and recreational facilities or appurtenant facilities; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; and the cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti.

Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of the landscaping and the maintenance of any streetlight ing facilities or appurtenant facilities and the furnishing of electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for the streetlighting, public park and recreational facilities or appurtenant facilities.

Incidental expenses associated with the improvements including, but not limited to: the cost of preparation of the report, including plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and assessment; the costs of printing, advertising, and the publishing, posting and mailing of notices; compensation payable to the County for collection of assessments; compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services; any other expenses incidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance and servicing of the improvements; any expenses incidental to the issuance of bonds or notes pursuant to Section 22662.5; costs associated with any elections held for the approval of a new or increased assessment.

281

PART B

ESTIMATE OF COST

The 1972 Act provides that the total cost of installation, construction, operation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, streetlight ing and park and recreational facilities can be recovered by the District. Maintenance can include the repair and replacement of existing facilities, including graffiti removal. Servicing can include electrical and associated costs from a public utility. Incidental expenses, including administration of the District, engineering fees, legal fees, printing, posting and mailing of notices and all other costs associated with the annual collection process can also be included.

The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be set up for the revenues and expenditures of the District. Funds raised by the assessments shall be used only for the purpose as stated herein. A contribution by the City of Hercules may be made to reduce assessments, as the City Council deems appropriate. Any balance remaining on July 1 must be carried over to the next fiscal year unless the funds are being accumulated for future capital improvements and operating reserves.

The operation, maintenance and servicing costs for FY 2022-23 are summarized on the following page. These cost estimates were provided by the City of Hercules.

282
TABLE 1

*All parcels in the City pay their share of special benefit conferred to property on a per ERU basis for costs related to the City's Arterials/Major Roads landscaping and streetlight ing improvements. The FY 2022-23 estimated budget for the City's Arterial/Major Roads landscaping and streetlighting improvements is approximately $333,000. Therefore, the transfer amounts for Arterials /Major Roads landscaping and lighting are based on an allocation to each parcel of $32.21/ERU.

REVENUES
Assessments $149,122
P
ublic Agency Assessments $957
General Benefit Contribution $2,284
TOTAL REVENUES: $152,363

ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
Personnel $24,396
Transfer for Arterials/Major Roads Landscape and
Lighting Maintenance* $18,500
Landscaping, Open Space, and Associated Repairs $47,500 Tree Trimming $0
El
ectricity and Streetlight Repairs $9,600
Landscape and Facilities Water $20,000
Supplies and Vehicle Repairs $0
Assessment Engineering Cost $4,074
Incidental / Direct Admin Cost $8,000
County Fees $616
TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES: $132,686

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP)
Tree Replacement $0
Other Capital Improvement Projects $0
TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES: $0

TOTAL EXPENDITURES
TOTAL ANNUAL AND CIP EXPENDITURES: $132,686

FUND BALANCE INFORMATION
Beginning Balance - Projected July 1, 2022 $161,395
FY 2022-23 Reserve Collection Increase/(Decrease) $19,677 Ending Balance - Projected June 30, 2023 $181,071
Recommended Operating Reserves $66,343
Available Operating Reserves $66,343
Available Capital Reserves $114,728

DISTRICT STATISTICS
Total Parcels 526
Total Parcels Levied 481
Total Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) 571.468
Maximum Levy per Benefit Unit $262.62
Applied Levy per Benefit Unit $262.62
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 2005-1
(BAYSIDE)

INCOME AND EXPENSE
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
283

PART C

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM

The boundaries of the District are contiguous with the boundaries of Subdivision 8764.

The lines and dimensions of each parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for the year in which this Report was prepared and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report.

A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram is shown on the following page.

284
/80/97/114/99/101/108/115/32/108/111/99/97/116/101/100/32/119/105/116/104/105/110 /116/104/101/32/76/76/65/68/32/50/48/48/53/45/49
/67/105/116/121/32/76/105/109/105/116
/76/69/71/69/78/68
/66/97/115/101/109/97/112
/76/76/65/68/32/50/48/48/53/45/49/32/66/111/117/110/100/97/114/121 /80/114/111/106/47/72/101/114/99/117/108/101/115/47/70/89/49/50/45/49/51/47/68/105/97/103/114/97/109/115/47/50/48/48/53/45/49/95/100/105/97/103/114/97/109/46/112/100/102/32/32/40/48/52/45/49/53/45/49/48/32/83/65/41 /78
/67/73/84/89/32/79/70/32/72/69/82/67/85/76/69/83
/76/65/78/68/83/67/65/80/73/78/71/32/38/32/76/73/71/72/84/73/78/71/32/68/73/83/84/82/73/67/84 /65/83/83/69/83/83/77/69/78/84/32/68/73/65/71/82/65/77
/76/76/65/68/32/50/48/48/53/45/49
/67/105/116/121/32/111/102/32/72/101/114/99/117/108/101/115 /82/73/68/71/69/86/69/73/87
/79/86/69/82/76/79/79/75
/79
/84/65/82/65/89/65
/87/73/76/76/69/84
/83/65/78/68/69/82/76/73/78/71
/65/86/79/67/69/84
/66/65/89/87/79/79/68
/67/82/69/69/75/83/73/68/69
/82/73/77/82/79/67/75
/83/72/73/80/87/65/84/67/72
/82/73/86/69/82/86/73/69/87
/67/82/69/83/84/82/73/68/71/69
/82/79/67/75/89/32/80/79/73/78/84/69
/69
/83/89/67/65/77/79/82/69
/83/89/67/65/77/79/82/69
/83/65/78/32/80/65/66/76/79
/83/89/67/65/77/79/82/69
/78/32/70/82/79/78/84
/83/32/70/82/79/78/84
/76/69/87/73/83
/76/69/87/73/83
/84/83/85/83/72/73/77/65
/67/65/66/82/73/76/76/79
/68/69/32/65/78/90/65
/83/32/70/82/79/78/84
/67/76/65/82/75
/67/69/78/84/82/65/76
/67/69/78/84/82/65/76
/84/83/85/83/72/73/77/65
/65/76/70/82/69/68/32/78/79/66/69/76
/65/76/70/82/69/68/32/78/79/66/69/76
/83/65/78/32/80/65/66/76/79
/68/82/65/75/69
/83/69/82/82/65
/76/76/65/68/32/50/48/48/53/45/49
/80/82/69/80/65/82/69/68/32/66/89/32/70/82/65/78/67/73/83/67/79/32/38/32/65/83/83/79/67/73/65/84/69/83/44/32/73/78/67 285

PART D

METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS

INTRODUCTION

Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, permits the establishment of assessment districts by Agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements, which include the operation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, streetlight ing and park and recreational facilities.

Section 22573 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires that maintenance assessments must be levied according to special benefit, rather than according to assessed value. This Section states:

“The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.

The determination of whether a lot or parcel will benefit from the improvements shall be made pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7 (commencing with Section 5000)) [of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California].”

Because assessments are levied on the basis of special benefit, they are not considered a tax, and therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution.

The Act permits the designation of zones of benefit within any individual assessment district if “by reason of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive different degrees of benefit from the improvement s” (Sec. 22574).

Article XIIID provided that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the assessment. Exempted from the assessment would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements and rights -of-ways, public greenbelts and public parkways, and that portion of public property that is not developed and used for business purposes similar to private residential, commercial, industrial and institutional activities.

286

GENERAL BENEFIT

Under Article XIIID of the State Constitution (Proposition 218) general benefit is not assessable to the property owners within the assessment district. The different various types of general benefit associated with this district are described below:

Neighborhood Improvements: It is anticipated that there will be minimal flow through traffic within the in -tract neighborhood streets associated with LLAD No. 2005-1. However, there is a possibility for pedestrians and vehicles to access a destination outside of the development through the in- tract streets and therefore the in-tract streetlighting and landscape improvements provide a minimal general benefit to the public-at-large or to the parcels outside of LLAD 2005- 1. Based on the industry standard for comparable neighborhoods, 2% of the annual cost to operate and maintain the in- tract streetlighting and landscape improvements is considered to be a general benefit.

Arterial/Major Roads Landscape and Lighting Maintenance: The arterial/major roadways allow residents to easily access all areas of the City and provide a clear benefit to all properties in the City. Therefore, landscape and lighting maintenance costs associated with the arterial/major roads are spread proportionately to all parcels in the City. The roads that fall into this category are John Muir Parkway, San Pablo Avenue, Refugio Valley Road, Sycamore Avenue, and Willow Avenue.

Although these roads are mostly utilized by people coming to and from Hercules, there is some general benefit that can be attributed to flow through traffic generated from properties outside of City limits. Based on an initial circulation analysis, it is estimated that an average of 6% of traffic on these roads can be attributed to flow through traffic. The City will conduct a study to better estimate the percentage of flow through traffic.

SPECIAL BENEFIT

Most of the improvements to be serviced and maintained by the assessment district have been constructed as a condition of approval of Bayside and are of special benefit to the various parcels of land within this development. These special benefit are summarized below.

Streetlighting: Streetlighting is critical for public safety. Well -maintained streetlighting provides security to the adjacent properties by deterring crime and allowing Hercules police the ability to identify and control suspicious and criminal activity. It allows for safe pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow and circulation by improving the ability of pedestrians and motorists to see and to enter and exit property, which helps reduce night time accidents resulting in lower police, fire and paramedic costs to the City and its residents. Streetlight ing also increases the promotion of business during nighttime hours in the case of commercial property. 287
Landscaped Streetscapes and Roadway Medians: The District keeps the City’s landscaped streetscapes and roadway medians well-groomed and irrigated which enhances property values throughout the City. These services include, landscape maintenance, plant replacement, irrigation, tree pruning, and litter control. Some of the special benefits properties receive from well -maintained landscaping include:
• The aesthetic value of green space;
• Improved aesthetic appeal of nearby parcels;
• Enhanced adaptation of the urban environment within the natural environment;
• Improved erosion control;
• Improved dust and debris control;
• Reduced air pollution;
• Enhanced sense of pride within the development and community.

Parks and Recreational Facilities: The District provides landscape and recreational facility maintenance at Bayside Park which enhances property values within the District. These services include, landscape maintenance, playground equipment cleaning and replacement, irrigation, tree pruning, plant replacement and litter control.

Open Space Cleanup and Graffiti Abatement
Miscellaneous improvements such as the removal of litter, debris, and graffiti are of special benefit to each property within the District.

The special benefit s received by these may best be evaluated in terms of the property devaluation that would occur if the District maintenance activities were suspended or terminated. The resultant reduction in the quality of life could be significant. In contrast to the current conditions, one could find streets without lights, parks parched from lack of water, hillsides littered with debris, unkempt community facilities with graffiti and traffic medians overtaken by weeds. The resulting loss to property in terms of the desirability of the City of Hercules as a place to live and work would be obvious. Clearly the continuation of the City’s maintenance effort is of special benefit to each property owner within the District.

The City’s maintenance effort , referred to as the “improvements” , is divided into two distinct categories, Neighborhood and Arterial/Major Roadway Improvements and City- wide Park Improvements. These categories of improvements are described as follows:

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The total operation, maintenance and servicing costs for the landscaping, streetlight ing and public park and recreational facilities are apportioned in accordance with the 288
methodology stated herein. The method for spreading the costs to each parcel is based on an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) factor.

1. Single-Family Residences

Neighborhood Improvements. Although the individual parcel size, building square footage and population for each parcel may vary from parcel to parcel the benefit received is approximately the same from the improvements. Even though a residential parcel may have more building square footage than another it does not necessarily mean that the larger home receives a greater benefit. Therefore one (1) residential parcel shall be equal to one (1) ERU.

2. Multi-Family Residential
The special benefit received by Multi -family Residential (MFR) units (including condominiums) may be determined by comparing them to SFRs. Benefits per dwelling unit are observed to be greater for SFR units than for MFR units. MFR units receive decreased benefits per dwelling unit from the improvements in terms of property benefit because the number of units supporting the fixed improvements is larger than for SFR detached units. On the other hand MFR units receive increased benefits from parks and recreation facilities. The Urban Land Institute has established a series of land use intensity ratings, which indicate the smaller units require more public open space and recreational areas per unit than do SFR parcels.

An average SFR lot in Victoria by the Bay has approximately 6,000 sq. ft. One can assume the average building area of a SFR unit will be 2,300 square feet and MFR unit to be 900 square feet. Based upon density studies for neighboring communities, it is reasonable to assume that SFR and MFR will have 3 and 2 persons per unit, respectively. It is reasonable to assume that a vacant lot will require 25% the maintenance effort for an improved (occupied) lot. The remaining 75% of the benefit may be said to be related to parcel use. Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) for MFR units are calculated as follows:

Relative Benefits = 0.25 (Lot Area / Person) + 0.75 (Bldg. Area / Person) (SFR Lot Area / Person) (SFR Bldg. Area / Person)
Assume MFR = 2,600 SFLot / Unit
900 SFBldg. / Unit

2.0 Persons per Unit
Assume SFR = 6,000 SFLot / Unit
2,300 SFBldg. / Unit

3.0 Persons per Unit
Benefit = 0.25 (2,600 / 2) + 0.75 (900 / 2)
(6,000 / 3) (2,300 / 3)
MFR Benefit = 0.16 + 0.44 = 0.60 ERU
289

3. Commercial Property
Use of a commercial property is measured in terms of whether or not a parcel has been improved (built upon) or not. If a structure exists then the parcel is perceived to benefit from user benefits afforded the parcel by landscaping and lighting improvements as well as the benefits to the underlying land. Therefore, improved commercial properties are assessed one (1) ERU per acre of land.

4. Vacant (Unimproved) Land
This underlying benefit of parks and recreation facilities, public landscaping weed abatement and streetlighting accrues to the land and relates to the permanent nature of certain improvements. The maintenance effort is of benefit to all land within the District. The minimum level of maintenance required to preserve street landscaping, lighting, park and recreation facilities in the District is estimated to be 25% of the required for build-out maintenance cost. Accordingly, the estimated benefit received by an unimproved parcel of land within an approved development potential is 25% of that received by an improved parcel, equal in size. This assumes that unimproved land will have no use of the facilities.

Therefore, vacant (unimproved) land is assessed at 25% of the developed ERU rate for the property.

5. Public Properties
City parks benefit from the neighborhood services provided by the neighborhood in which they are located. The benefit received is closely related to the improved frontage and not the area of the lot or the building. If one assumes that the depth of a standard lot in the City is 100 feet, the number of ERU’s corresponding to this frontage benefit would be equal to the street frontage of the park or recreation facility times 100 feet divided by 8,485, the average size of a SFR in Hercules. This same frontage benefit analysis is used for other public properties in the City of Hercules. Therefore, improved public properties are assigned ERUs using the following formula:

Lot Frontage x 100 / 8,485 = ERUs

Open space in residential neighborhoods may be seen to benefit from the safety provided to the land by streetlight ing but not from other user related services. The ERU for public open space are therefore estimated to be equal to the parcel frontage times 100 feet of lot depth times 25% divided by 8,485. Therefore, open space parcels are assigned ERUs using the following formula:

Lot Frontage x 100 / 8,485 x 25% = ERUs

However, Lot Frontage x 100 cannot exceed the actual area of the parcel.

6. Exempt Parcels
Certain properties do not benefit from landscaping, lighting, park and recreational improvements and have not been assessed. City parks, recreational facilities and 290
open space do not benefit from the features, which are the subject of the assessment.

These properties on the other hand may benefit from the neighborhood landscaping and lighting services provided in the neighborhoods in which they are located. Public streets and right of ways do not benefit from landscaping and lighting improvements or from park and recreation facilities. Railroad right of ways and pipeline easements or fee strips generally do not benefit. The assessments for the special benefits received by common areas are included in the assessment for the residential units with which they are associated. Common areas themselves are not assessed.

CALCULATION OF ASSESSMENTS

The costs shown in Table 1 Part B, Estimate of Cost, has been distributed among the various parcels of land within the assessment district in accordance with the rationale as described above. The annual assessment rate is calculated by dividing the total costs by the total number of ERUs in the District to derive the assessment rate. The assessment rate is then multiplied by each parcel’s assigned ERUs to derive the annual assessment for that parcel. Assessments for all parcels are listed in Appendix “ C”. The total ERUs and the applied assessment rates are shown in Table 1, Part B, Estimate of Cost. The following table shows the FY 2022-23 assessments for various land use classifications:

There is one mixed use residential/commercial parcel (APN 404- 020-096) within the District. This parcel has approximately 13 ,000 square feet of commercial building area and 147 Multi-Family housing units. Therefore, for purposes of deriving the assessment, one-third (1/3) of the parcel area has been attributed to the commercial enterprise. The residential portion of the assessment will be calculated using the number of units.

Commercial – 1.87 acres / 3 = 0.623 acres - Neighborhood 0.623 ERUs Multi-Family Units – 147 units x 0.60 per unit - Neighborhood 88.200 ERUs

Assessment = (88.823 ERUs) x $262.62 = $23,326.70

CPI INCREASE

The City proposes to increase the assessment amounts to their maximum assessment level, annually indexed for inflation according the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), San Francisco Bay Region All Urban Consumers. The maximum assessment rates are being increased by the prior year’s increase in the CPI (5.2%). $262.62 per lot $262.62 per lot
$65.66 per lot $65.66 per lot
$157.57 per unit $157.57 per unit
$78.79 per unit $78.79 per unit
FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23
Maximum Applied
Assessment Assessment
Single-Family Residence
Vacant Single-Family
Multi-Family Residential
Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing Unit
Classification
291

MAXIMUM ASSE SSMENT

In any given fiscal year, the amount of the assessment will not exceed the maximum amounts established in this Report, as adjusted by the CPI increase described above unless a special proceeding is conducted and affirmed according to law.

DURATION

Assessments will be levied in perpetuity unless otherwise determined by City Council.

292
PART E

PROPERTY OWNER LIST & ASSESSMENT ROLL

A list of names and addresses of the owners of all parcels, and the description of each lot or parcel within the District is shown on the last equalized Secured Property Tax Roll of the Contra Costa County Assessor, which by reference is hereby made a part of this Report.

This list is keyed to the Assessor’s Parcel Numbers as shown on the Assessment Roll, which includes the proposed amount of assessments for FY 2022-23 apportioned to each lot or parcel. The Assessment Roll is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Hercules and is shown in this Report as Appendix “C”.

The total proposed revenue from assessments for FY 2022-23 is $150,078.92.

293

APPENDIX “A”

IMPROVEMENTS DIAGRAM
294
##
#
#
#
#
#
# ## #
# #
#
#
#
### ## # ## ## #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
####
##
#
#
#
### #
# #
## #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
### #
#
#
#
#
# #
# #
#
#
##
##
##
#
#
##
#
##
#
#
#
##
#
# # #
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
# ####
##
#
#
##
#
#
###
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
# #
###
###
#
##
#
##
##
## ##
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
# # #
# #
# #
#
#
# #
LLAD NO. 2005-1 NEIGHBORHOOD MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENT DIAGRAM 0 200
Feet
± SYCAMORE AVE

TSUSHIMA ST

FRONT ST
LEGEND
# STREET LIGHTS

DISTRICT BOUNDARY
PARKS
2005-1 PARCELS

PARCELS

CENTRAL ST

FRONT ST

JOHN MUIR PKWY

CLARK ST

LEWIS ST

DRAKE LN

BAYSIDE PARK

SHASTA LN

TIOGALOOP

SHASTA PARK

SIERRA PARK
295

APPENDIX “B”

PUBLIC PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS

296
APN LocationOwner/Use ERUUnits Acres
Neighborhood
Amount

CITY OF HERCULES

BAYSIDE LANDSCAPING
AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 2005-1

PUBLIC PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS
FY 2022-23
404700173 TSUSHIMACity/Park 0 0.710 3.645 $957.24 Total: 0 0.710 3.645 $957.24
B- 2
297

APPENDIX “C”

ASSESSMENT ROLL

298

CITY OF HERCULES

BAYSIDE LANDSCAPE
AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 2005-1

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
Neighborhood
Amount
404020096 $23,326.70
404690001 $262.62
404690002 $262.62
404690003 $262.62
404690004 $262.62
404690005 $262.62
404690006 $262.62
404690007 $262.62
404690008 $262.62
404690009 $262.62
404690010 $262.62
404690011 $262.62
404690012 $262.62
404690013 $262.62
404690014 $262.62
404690015 $262.62
404690016 $262.62
404690017 $262.62
404690018 $262.62
404690019 $262.62
404690020 $262.62
404690021 $262.62
404690022 $262.62
404690023 $262.62
404690024 $262.62
404690025 $262.62
404690026 $262.62
404690027 $262.62
404690028 $262.62
404690029 $262.62
404690030 $262.62
404690031 $262.62
404690032 $262.62
404690033 $262.62
404690034 $262.62
404690035 $262.62
404690036 $262.62
404690037 $262.62
404690038 $262.62
404690039 $262.62
404690040 $262.62
404690041 $262.62
404690042 $262.62
404690043 $262.62
404690044 $262.62
404690045 $262.62
404690046 $262.62
404690047 $262.62
404690048 $262.62
404690049 $262.62
404690050 $262.62
404690051 $262.62
404690052 $262.62
404690053 $262.62
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
Neighborhood
Amount
404690054 $262.62
404690055 $262.62
404690056 $262.62
404690057 $262.62
404690058 $262.62
404690059 $262.62
404690060 $262.62
404690061 $262.62
404690062 $262.62
404690063 $262.62
404690064 $262.62
404690065 $262.62
404690066 $262.62
404690067 $262.62
404690068 $262.62
404690069 $262.62
404690070 $262.62
404690071 $262.62
404690072 $262.62
404690073 $262.62
404690074 $262.62
404690075 $262.62
404690076 $262.62
404690077 $262.62
404690078 $262.62
404690079 $262.62
404690080 $262.62
404690081 $262.62
404690082 $262.62
404690083 $262.62
404690084 $262.62
404690085 $262.62
404690086 $262.62
404690087 $262.62
404690088 $262.62
404690089 $262.62
404690090 $262.62
404690091 $262.62
404690092 $262.62
404690093 $262.62
404690094 $262.62
404690095 $262.62
404690096 $262.62
404690097 $262.62
404690098 $262.62
404690099 $262.62
404690100 $262.62
404690101 $262.62
404690102 $262.62
404690103 $262.62
404690104 $262.62
404690105 $262.62
404690106 $262.62
404690107 $262.62
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
Neighborhood
Amount
404690108 $262.62
404690109 $262.62
404690110 $262.62
404690111 $262.62
404690112 $262.62
404690113 $262.62
404690114 $262.62
404690115 $262.62
404690116 $262.62
404690117 $262.62
404690118 $262.62
404690119 $262.62
404690120 $262.62
404690121 $262.62
404690122 $262.62
404690123 $262.62
404690124 $262.62
404690125 $262.62
404690126 $262.62
404690127 $262.62
404690128 $262.62
404690129 $262.62
404690130 $262.62
404690131 $262.62
404690132 $262.62
404690133 $262.62
404690134 $262.62
404690135 $262.62
404690136 $262.62
404690137 $262.62
404690138 $262.62
404690139 $262.62
404690140 $262.62
404690141 $262.62
404690142 $262.62
404690143 $262.62
404690144 $262.62
404690145 $262.62
404690146 $262.62
404690147 $262.62
404690148 $262.62
404690149 $262.62
404690150 $262.62
404690151 $262.62
404690152 $262.62
404690153 $262.62
404690154 $262.62
404690155 $262.62
404690156 $262.62
404690157 $262.62
404690158 $262.62
404690159 $262.62
404690160 $262.62
404690161 $262.62
04/28/22D-2
299

CITY OF HERCULES

BAYSIDE LANDSCAPE
AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 2005-1

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
Neighborhood
Amount
404690162 $262.62
404690163 $262.62
404700001 $262.62
404700002 $262.62
404700003 $262.62
404700004 $262.62
404700005 $262.62
404700006 $262.62
404700007 $262.62
404700008 $262.62
404700009 $262.62
404700010 $262.62
404700011 $262.62
404700012 $262.62
404700013 $262.62
404700014 $262.62
404700015 $262.62
404700016 $262.62
404700017 $262.62
404700018 $262.62
404700019 $262.62
404700020 $262.62
404700021 $262.62
404700022 $262.62
404700023 $262.62
404700024 $262.62
404700025 $262.62
404700026 $262.62
404700027 $262.62
404700028 $262.62
404700029 $262.62
404700030 $262.62
404700031 $262.62
404700032 $262.62
404700033 $262.62
404700034 $262.62
404700035 $262.62
404700036 $262.62
404700037 $262.62
404700038 $262.62
404700039 $262.62
404700040 $262.62
404700041 $262.62
404700042 $262.62
404700043 $262.62
404700044 $262.62
404700045 $262.62
404700046 $262.62
404700047 $262.62
404700048 $262.62
404700049 $262.62
404700050 $262.62
404700051 $262.62
404700052 $262.62
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
Neighborhood
Amount
404700053 $262.62
404700054 $262.62
404700055 $262.62
404700056 $262.62
404700057 $262.62
404700058 $262.62
404700059 $262.62
404700060 $262.62
404700061 $262.62
404700062 $262.62
404700063 $262.62
404700064 $262.62
404700065 $262.62
404700066 $262.62
404700067 $262.62
404700068 $262.62
404700069 $262.62
404700070 $262.62
404700071 $262.62
404700072 $262.62
404700073 $262.62
404700074 $262.62
404700075 $262.62
404700076 $262.62
404700077 $262.62
404700078 $262.62
404700079 $262.62
404700080 $262.62
404700081 $262.62
404700082 $262.62
404700083 $262.62
404700084 $262.62
404700085 $262.62
404700086 $262.62
404700087 $262.62
404700088 $262.62
404700089 $262.62
404700090 $262.62
404700091 $262.62
404700092 $262.62
404700093 $262.62
404700094 $262.62
404700095 $262.62
404700096 $262.62
404700097 $262.62
404700098 $262.62
404700099 $262.62
404700100 $262.62
404700101 $262.62
404700102 $262.62
404700103 $262.62
404700104 $262.62
404700105 $262.62
404700106 $262.62
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
Neighborhood
Amount
404700107 $262.62
404700108 $262.62
404700109 $262.62
404700110 $262.62
404700111 $262.62
404700112 $262.62
404700113 $262.62
404700114 $262.62
404700115 $262.62
404700116 $262.62
404700117 $262.62
404700118 $262.62
404700119 $262.62
404700120 $262.62
404700121 $262.62
404700122 $262.62
404700123 $262.62
404700124 $262.62
404700125 $262.62
404700126 $262.62
404700127 $262.62
404700128 $262.62
404700129 $262.62
404700130 $262.62
404700131 $262.62
404700132 $262.62
404700133 $262.62
404700134 $262.62
404700135 $262.62
404700136 $262.62
404700137 $262.62
404700138 $262.62
404700139 $262.62
404700140 $262.62
404700141 $262.62
404700142 $262.62
404700143 $262.62
404700144 $262.62
404700145 $262.62
404700146 $262.62
404700147 $262.62
404700148 $262.62
404700149 $262.62
404700150 $262.62
404700151 $262.62
404700152 $262.62
404700153 $262.62
404700154 $262.62
404700155 $262.62
404700156 $262.62
404700157 $262.62
404700158 $262.62
404700159 $262.62
404700160 $262.62
04/28/22D-3
300

CITY OF HERCULES

BAYSIDE LANDSCAPE
AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 2005-1

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
Neighborhood
Amount
404700161 $262.62
404700162 $262.62
404700163 $262.62
404700164 $262.62
404700165 $262.62
404700166 $262.62
404700167 $262.62
404700168 $262.62
404700169 $262.62
404700170 $262.62
404700171 $262.62
404700172 $262.62
404700173 $957.24
404750001 $262.62
404750002 $262.62
404750003 $262.62
404750004 $262.62
404750005 $262.62
404750006 $262.62
404750007 $262.62
404750008 $262.62
404750009 $262.62
404750010 $262.62
404750011 $262.62
404750012 $262.62
404750013 $262.62
404750014 $262.62
404750015 $262.62
404750016 $262.62
404750017 $262.62
404750018 $262.62
404750019 $262.62
404750020 $262.62
404750021 $262.62
404750022 $262.62
404750023 $262.62
404750024 $262.62
404750025 $262.62
404750026 $262.62
404750027 $262.62
404750028 $262.62
404750029 $262.62
404750030 $262.62
404750031 $262.62
404750032 $262.62
404750033 $262.62
404750034 $262.62
404750035 $262.62
404750036 $262.62
404750037 $262.62
404750038 $262.62
404750039 $262.62
404750040 $262.62
404750041 $262.62
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
Neighborhood
Amount
404750042 $262.62
404750043 $262.62
404750044 $262.62
404750045 $262.62
404750046 $262.62
404750047 $262.62
404750048 $262.62
404750049 $262.62
404750050 $262.62
404750051 $262.62
404760001 $262.62
404760002 $262.62
404760003 $262.62
404760004 $262.62
404760005 $262.62
404760006 $262.62
404760007 $262.62
404760008 $262.62
404760009 $262.62
404760010 $262.62
404760011 $262.62
404760012 $262.62
404760013 $262.62
404760014 $262.62
404760015 $262.62
404760016 $262.62
404760017 $262.62
404760018 $262.62
404760019 $262.62
404760020 $262.62
404760021 $262.62
404760022 $262.62
404760023 $262.62
404760024 $262.62
404760025 $262.62
404760026 $262.62
404760027 $262.62
404760028 $262.62
404760029 $262.62
404760030 $262.62
404760031 $262.62
404760032 $262.62
404760033 $262.62
404760034 $262.62
404760035 $262.62
404760036 $262.62
404760037 $262.62
404760038 $262.62
404760039 $262.62
404760040 $262.62
404760041 $262.62
404760042 $262.62
404760043 $262.62
404760044 $262.62
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
Neighborhood
Amount
404760045 $262.62
404760046 $262.62
404760047 $262.62
404760048 $262.62
404760049 $262.62
404760050 $262.62
404760051 $262.62
404760052 $262.62
404760053 $262.62
404760054 $262.62
404760055 $262.62
404760056 $262.62
404760057 $262.62
404760058 $262.62
404760059 $262.62
404760060 $262.62
404760061 $262.62
404760062 $262.62
404760063 $262.62
404760064 $262.62
404760065 $262.62
404760066 $262.62
404760067 $262.62
404760068 $262.62
404760069 $262.62
404760070 $262.62
404760071 $262.62
404760072 $262.62
404760073 $262.62
404760074 $262.62
404760075 $262.62
404760076 $262.62
404760077 $262.62
404760078 $262.62
404760079 $262.62
404760080 $262.62
404760081 $262.62
404760082 $262.62
404760083 $262.62
404760084 $262.62
404760085 $262.62
404760086 $262.62
404760087 $262.62
404760088 $262.62
404760089 $262.62
404760090 $262.62
404760091 $262.62
404760092 $262.62
404760093 $262.62
$150,078.92
04/28/22D-4
301

City of Hercules
Landscaping and Lighting
Assessment District No. 83-2
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Preliminary Engineer’s Report

May 10, 2022
302

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

Directory ................................................................................................................ i

Signatures ............................................................................................................. ii

Section I – Introduction ......................................................................................... 1

Section II – Engineer’s Report .............................................................................. 4

Part A – Plans and Specifications ................................................................... 6

Part B – Estimate of Cost ................................................................................ 8 Table 1: Budget............................................................................... 9

Part C – Assessment District Diagram .......................................................... 10

Part D – Method of Apportionment of Assessments ...................................... 12 Table 2: Study of Residential Land Use ........................................ 17 Table 3: Summary of Maximum and Applied Assessments .......... 21

Part E – Property Owner List & Assessment Roll .......................................... 24

Appendix A – Public Property Assessments ...................................................... A-1

Appendix B – Assessment Roll .......................................................................... B-1

303

CITY OF HERCULES

LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 83-2

FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF

Dion Bailey
Mayor

Alexander Walker-Griffin
Vice Mayor

Dan Romero
Council Member
Chris Kelley
Council Member

Tiffany Grimsley
Council Member

Dante Hall
City Manager

Patrick Tang
City Attorney

Edwin Gato
Finance Director

Lauren Berges
Administrative Services Director/City
Clerk

Mike Roberts
Public Works Director

Francisco & Associates
Assessment Engineer
304

ENGINEER’S REPORT

CITY OF HERCULES

LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 83-2

FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer’s Report as directed by the City Council.

Dated: 4/ 28/2022 By_______________________________ Eduardo R. Espinoza, P.E.

RCE No. 83709

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed En gineer’s Rep ort, together with the Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram thereto attached was filed with me on the ________ day of ________, 2022.

Lauren Berges, City Clerk
C ity of Hercules
Contra Costa County, California

By________________________________________

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer’s Report, together with the Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram , thereto attached, was ap proved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Hercules, Contra C osta County, California, on the ________ day of ______, 2022.

Lauren Berges, City Clerk
City of Hercules
Contra Costa County, California

By________________________________________
305

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

Background Information
City of Hercules Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 83 -2 (the “District”) was initiated in 1983 and confirmed by the City Council on January 5, 1984, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the “1972 Act”).

On N ovember 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218, entitled “Right to Vote on Taxes Act”, which added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution.

The enacted Proposition established new procedural requirements for the formation and administration of assessment districts.

In 1997 the District methodology was revised to conform to the requirements of Article XIIID and the D istrict was then subsequent ly confirmed by a District -wide ballot proceeding in June o f 1997 whereupon a majority of ballots weighted in proportion to their financial obligation were cast in favor of modifying and continuing the assessment district. The June 1997 Ballot authorized th e City Council to levy and annually increase the assessments by an amount not to exceed the annual increase in the Consumers Price Index through the end of FY 2002-03.

In 2003 the district was confirmed by a District -wide ballot proceeding in July of 2003 whereupon a majority of ballots weighted in proportion to their financial obligation were cast in favor of continuing the assessment district. The July 2003 Ballot authorized the City Council to levy and to annually increase the assessments by an amount not to exceed the annual increase in the Consumers Price Index through the end of FY 2013-

14. The City subsequently created Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District s No. 2002-1 (Hercules Village), 2002- 2 (Victoria by the Bay), 2004- 1 (Baywood) and 2005- 1 (Bayside). The properties within these districts were removed from Assessment District No. 83-2, however they continue to be assessed their proportionate share of the Zone No. 10 citywide costs within those districts , which is discussed in Part D of t his Engineer’s Report (“Report”).

In 2010, the City held a Pro position 218 b alloting to remove the 10- year sunset, authorize the District to continue in perpetuity and authorize the use of the CPI to annually adjust the assessment rates. In addition, the re were adjustments made to the assessment methodology to address unanticipated changes in land use not considered under the prior methodology. In addition, a review of the benefits received by public properties was conducted and the methodology was revi sed to accurately reflect the 306
benefits received by those parcels . A major ity of ballots weighted in proportion to their financial obligation were cast in favor of making the changes to the assessment district.

In 2017, the City held a Proposition 218 balloting to increase assessments in Benefit Zone Nos. 1, 3& 4, 5C , 6, and 7 (e xcluding Bay Pointe, Bravo, and Caprice parcels) commencing with FY 2017-18 to eliminate annual operating and fund balance deficits and replace deteriorated existing wooden streetlight poles that had reached their useful life with cost -effective LED lighting on metal pol es. The asses sment increase was approved by property owners in Benefit Zone No. 5C only for FY 2017-18. In 2018, the City again held a Proposition 21 8 balloting to increase assessments in Benefit Zone Nos. 1, 3& 4, 6, 7 (e xcluding Bay Pointe, Bravo, and Capr ice parcels), and 9 commencing with FY 2018-19. The assessment increase was approved by property owners in Benefit Zone No. 9 only for FY 2018-19.

In 2019 the City held a Proposition 21 8 balloting to increas e assessments in Benefit Zone Nos. 1 and 7 (excluding Bay Pointe, Bravo, and Caprice parcels) for a period of 10 years commencing with FY 2019-20. In Benefit Zone No. 1, the purpose o f the increase was to replace the existing wooden streetlight poles that had exceeded their useful life and to alleviate a fund deficit due to insufficient revenues . In Benefit Zone No. 7, the purpose of the increase was to replace the existing wooden street light poles that had exceeded their useful life. The assessm ent increas es were approved by p roperty owners in both Benefit Zone Nos. 1 and 7 for FY 2019-20 and will cease after FY 2028-

29. In 2021 the City hel d a proposition 218 balloting to increase assessments in Benefit Zone No. 3&4 for a period of 10 ye ars commencing with FY 2021- 22. The purpose of the increase was to replace the failing wood po le streetlights that had exceeded their useful life with new streetlight poles that have low maintenance, long-last metal poles and energy-efficient LED lighting . The assessment increase was approved by p roperty owners in Ben efit Zone No. 3&4 for FY 2021-22, is fixed with no inflationary increase, and will cease after FY 2030-31.

A
lso in 2021, the City held an additional Proposition 218 ba lloting proceeding to approve two assessm ent increases in Benefit Zone No. 6. One increase was to the maximum assessment to fund Operating & Maintenance Expenses , which will b e adjusted each subsequent fiscal year by the prior years change in the annual Consumer Price Index to keep up with inflationary increases for goods an d services. T he second assessment increase is a 10- year fixed assessment to fund the replacement of failing wooden streetlight poles with new cost effective energy efficient LED lights on metal poles and eliminate the Benefit Zone 6 fund deficit that has accumulated over the years due to insufficient assessment revenues. The assessment increases were approved by property owners in Benefit Zone 6 for FY 2021-22.

At the April 27, 2021 City Co uncil meeting, City Council approved the use of a Promissory Note which authorizes inter -fund loans from the City’s General Fund 307
Reserves to Assessment District No. 83- 2. The inter -fund loans provides up-front funding for the cost to replace the failing wooden streetlight poles within Zones 3&4 and 6 with new energy-efficient LED lights on metal pol es. The loan has a zero-interest rate with no pre-payment penalty and will be repaid in a maximum of ten annual installments from Zones 3&4 and 6 assessment revenue generated in FY 2021-22 through FY 2030-

31. Current Annual Administration
As required by the 1972 Act, this Report describes the improvements to be constructed, operated, maintained, and serviced by the District for FY 2022-23, provides an estimated budget for the District, and lists the proposed assessments to be levied u pon each assessable lot or parcel within the District.

Payment of assessment s for each parcel within LL AD No. 83-2 will b e made in the same manner and at the same time as payments are made for ordinary ad-valorem property taxes. All funds collected through the assessment must be placed in a special fund and can only be used for the purposes stated within this Report. 308

SECTION II

ENGINEER’S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
SECTION 22500 THROUGH 22679

OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE

CITY OF HERCULES LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 83-2

FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 22500), and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention, being Resol ution No. adopted by the City Council of the City of Her cules on May 10, 2022, I, Eduardo R. E spinoza, the duly appo inted Engineer of Work, Asse ssment Engineer for t he City of Hercules Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Dist rict No. 83 -2 ( the “District”) submit the following Repor t, consisti ng of Section I (Introduction), and this, Section II, whi ch consists of five (5) parts as follows:

PART A: PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

This part describes the improvements maintained by the District. Plans and specifications for the improvements a re on file in the Office of the Director o f Public Works of the City of Hercules and are incorporated herein by reference.

PART B: ESTIMATE OF COST

This part contains an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements to be maintained for FY 2022-23, i ncluding incidental costs and expenses in co nnection therewith. The estimate is attached hereto and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Hercules.

PART C: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM

This part incorporates a Diagram of the District showing the exterior boundar ies of the District, the boundaries of any zones within the District and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District. This Diagram has been prepared by the Engineer of Work and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Hercules.
309
The l ines and dimension of each lot o r parcel wit hin the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Contra Costa County A ssessor for the year when this Report was prepared. The Assessor’s maps and r ecords are incorporated by reference herein and made a part of this Report.

PART D: METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS

This part describes the method of apportionment of a ssessments, based upon each parcel’s land us e classification within the Distr ict in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received.

PART E: PROPERTY OWNER LIST & ASSESSMENT ROLL

This part contains a list of the Contra Costa County Assessor’s Parcel numbers, and the amount to be assessed upon the benefited lands withi n the District. The Ass essment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk of th e City of Hercules and is incorporated in this Report. The list is keyed to the records of the C ontra Costa County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.

310

PART A

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

Improvement plans, which show the i mprovements to be maintained within each Zone, respectively are on file in the Office o f the Director of Publi c Wor ks and are i ncluded herein by reference.

Improvements means one or any combination of the following: t he i nstallation or planting of landscaping, the installation or construction of statuary, fountains, and other ornamental str uctures and f acilities; t he inst allation or construction of public lighting facilities; the installation or construction of any fac ilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or s ervicing thereof, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing, removal of debris, the installation or construction of curbs , gutters, wa lls, si dewalks, or paving, or water, i rrigation, drainage, or electrical facil ities; t he maintenance or servicing, or both, of any of the foregoing; the acquisition of any existing improvement otherwise authorized pursuant to Section 22525 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual operations, maintenance and ser vicing of the landscaping, street lighting, p ublic par k and recreational facil ities and appurten ant facilitie s, incl uding repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping, streetlighting, public park, sidewalk, and recreational facili ties or appurtenant f acilities; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cul tivation, irrigation, trimming, spra ying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, r ubbish, debris and other solid waste; and the c leaning, sandblasting, and painting of w alls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti.

Servicing means the furnishi ng of w ater for the irrigation of the landscaping and the maintenance of any street lighting facilities or appurtenant facilities and the furnishing of electric current o r energy, gas or other i lluminating agent for the s treetlighting, public park and recreational facilities or appurtenant facilities.

I
ncidental expenses associated with the improvements i ncluding, but not limit ed to: the cost of preparation of the report, including plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and assessment; the costs of printing, advertising, and the publishing, posting and mailing of notices; c ompensation payable to the County for collection of assessm ents; compensation of any engineer or attorney em ployed to rend er ser vices; a ny ot her expenses incidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance and servicing of the improvements; any expenses incident al to the issuance of bonds or notes pu rsuant to Section 22662.5 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; costs associated with any elections held for the approval of a new or increased assessment.

311
The facilities that have been constructed within the District boundaries, and those which may be subsequently const ructed, operated, maint ained, and serviced are generally described as follows:

Neighborhood Zones (1 through 9)
Landscaping, street lighting, open space areas, and neighborhood park and recreational facilities such as Beechnut Park and Railroad Park. Each neighborhood Zone also pays for its pro -rata share of Citywide Arteria l/Major Roadway landscape and street lighting maintenance.

District-Wide Parks (Zone No. 10)
Parks and Recreation facilities located throughout the City. The locations where District- wide services are currently provided include: Woodfield Park, O hlone P ark, Refugio Valley Park, Refugio Va lley Linear Park, Refugio Valley Tennis Courts, Hanna Ranch Park, Shorel ine Park, Oval Park, D uck Pond Park, Foxboro Park, Community S wim Center, Senior and Civic Centers, Historic Clubhouse, and wetland preservation areas.

312

PART B

ESTIMATE OF COST

The 1972 Act provides that the total cost of installation, construction, operation , maintenance, and servi cing of landscaping, str eetlighting, and park and recreat ional facilities can be recovered by t he District. Maintenance can include the repair and replacement of existing faci lities, includ ing graffiti removal. Servicing can include electrical and associ ated costs from a public u tility. Incident al expenses, i ncluding administration of the Distric t, engineering fees, legal fees, printing, posting and mailing of notices and all other costs associated with the annual collection process can als o be included.

The 1972 Act requires that a special fund b e set up for the revenues and expenditures of the District. Fu nds raised by the assessments shall be used only for the purpose as stated herein. The operation, maintenance and ser vicing costs for FY 2022-23 ar e summarized in Table 1 on the following pa ge. These cost estimates were provided by the City of Hercules.

313
TABLE 1
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZON E 3 & 4 ZONE 5A ZONE 5B ZONE 5C ZONE 6 ZONE 7 ZONE 8 ZONE 9 LLAD 83-2

HERCULES THE GEMS/ BUSINESS VILLAGE TREES AND BIRDS AND CITYWIDE TOTAL REVENUES BY THE BAY BIRDS PARK PARKWAY FLOWERS COUNTRY RUN ZONE 10 Assessments $91,782 $84,368 $108,831 $83,070 $44,351 $29,002 $94,607 $112,446 $170,331 $89,246 $1,163,949 $2,071,982 Public Agency Assessments $232 $367 $5,113 $7,538 $6,529 $2,838 $0 $978 $24,505 $29 $36 $48,165 Transfers from LLAD Zones 1 and 7 (Repayment for Street Lights) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $54,126 $54,126 City General Benefit Contribution $871 $617 $891 $1,236 $277 $261 $631 $649 $1,966 $1,077 $21,952 $30,428 TOTAL REVENUES: $92,885 $85,352 $114,835 $91,844 $51,157 $32,101 $95,239 $114,073 $196,801 $90,353 $1,240,062 $2,204,700

ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
Personnel $21,375 $21,375 $21,781 $9,824 $9,824 $9,824 $20,037 $20,309 $20,340 $21,201 $363,183 $539,073 Transfer for Arterials/Major Roads Landscape and Lighting** $26,100 $20,600 $28,000 $20,600 $11,500 $16,100 $24,500 $31,700 $51,600 $27,400 $0 $258,100 Landscaping, Open Space, and Associated Repairs $8,300 $2,400 $5,300 $10,900 $900 $0 $2,500 $1,000 $25,500 $3,600 $347,800 $408,200 Electricity and Streetlight Repairs $7,700 $3,600 $7,400 $5,000 $100 $200 $4,300 $9,300 $45,400 $25,400 $14,000 $122,400 Landscape and Facilities Water $4,500 $2,000 $8,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $5,000 $2,000 $153,000 $207,500 Tree Trimming $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $20,000 Assessment Engineering Cost $742 $742 $742 $742 $742 $742 $742 $742 $742 $742 $742 $8,162 Incidental/Supplies/Admin Cost* $0 $0 $422 $5,000 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $212,323 $221,745 County Collection Fees $946 $750 $883 $310 $267 $290 $982 $1,102 $1,299 $925 $6,563 $14,317 TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES: $69,663 $51,467 $72,528 $82,376 $25,333 $29,156 $66,061 $64,153 $149,881 $81,268 $1,107,611 $1,799,497

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP)
Parks Capital Improvement Projects $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $165,000 $165,000 Street Light Pole Replacement (10-year loan repayment) $20,259 $0 $42,192 $0 $0 $0 $17,637 $33,867 $0 $0 $0 $113,955 TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES: $20,259 $0 $42,192 $0 $0 $0 $17,637 $33,867 $0 $0 $165,000 $278,955

TOTAL EXPENDITURES
TOTAL ANNUAL AND CIP EXPENDITURES: $89,922 $51,467 $114,720 $82,376 $25,333 $29,156 $83,698 $98,020 $149,881 $81,268 $1,272,611 $2,078,452

FUND BALANCES AND RESERVES
Beginning Balance - July 1, 2022 ($23,341) $28,352 $58,658 $92,705 $170,285 ($17,526) ($167,302) $113,820 $242,070 ($28,374) $93,365 $562,710 FY 2022-23 Reserve Collection Increase/(Decrease) $2,963 $33, 885 $115 $9,468 $25,824 $2,945 $11,541 $16,053 $46,920 $9,085 ($32,549) $126,248 Ending Balance - Projected June 30, 2023 ($20,378) $62,238 $58, 772 $102,172 $196,108 ($14,581) ($155,762) $129,873 $288,990 ($19,290) $60,816 $688,959 Recommended Operating Reserves $34,832 $25,734 $36,264 $41,188 $12,667 $14,578 $33,031 $32,077 $74,941 $40,634 $553,806 $899,749 Available Operating Reserves ($20,378) $25,734 $36,264 $41,188 $12,667 ($14,581) ($155,762) $32,077 $74,941 ($19,290) $60,816 $73,674 Available Capital Reserves $0 $36,504 $22,508 $60,984 $183,442 $0 $0 $97,796 $214,050 $0 $0 $615,284 * The overhead cost allocation for Zones 1, 2, 3&4 (excluding the pro-rata share of cost for Hercules Middle/High School), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 20% of the LLAD No. 2002-1, LLAD No. 2002-2, LLAD No. 2004-1 and LLAD No. 2005-1 overhead costs have been allocated to Zone 10 for FY 2022-23. ** Parcels in Zones 1 through 9 of LLAD No. 83-2 and parcels in LLAD No. 2002-1, LLAD No. 2002-2, LLAD No. 2004-1, and LLAD No. 2005-1 all pay their share of special benefit conferred to pr
opery on a per ERU basis for costs related to the City's Arterials/Major Roads landscaping and street lighting improvements. The FY 2022-23 estimated budget for the City's Arterial /Major Roads landscaping and street lighting improvements is approximately $333,000. Therefore, the transfer amounts for Arterials /Major Roads landscaping and lighting is based on an allocation to each parcel of $32.21/ERU.

FOXBORO COMMERCIAL MISC.

PARCELS HEIGHTS
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 83-2
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

ESTIM ATED BUDGET
LLAD 83-2 BENEFIT ZONES
314

PART C

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM

The boundaries of the Landscaping and Li ghting Assessment District No . 83-2 are as shown on the foll owing page. The bound aries of Zone No. 10 also include the areas contained in City of Hercules Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District Nos. 2002- 1, 2002-2, 2004- 1 and 2005- 1. The lines and dimensions of each parc el with in the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for the yea r in whic h this Repor t was p repared and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report.

A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram is shown on the following page. 315
/90/79/78/69/32/49
/90/79/78/69/32/53/65 /90/79/78/69/32/53/66
/90/79/78/69
/53/67
/90/79/78/69/32/56
/90/79/78/69/32/50
/90/79/78/69/83/32/51/32/38/32/52
/90/79/78/69/83/32
/51/32/38/32/52
/90/79/78/69/32
/53/66
/90/79/78/69/32/53/67
/90/79/78/69/32/54
/90/79/78/69/32/57
/90/79/78/69/32/55
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46
/45/44
/56/48
/34/33/52
/54
/67/73/84/89/32/79/70/32/72/69/82/67/85/76/69/83
/76/65/78/68/83/67/65/80/73/78/71/32/38/32/76/73/71/72/84/73/78/71/32/68/73/83/84/82/73/67/84 /65/83/83/69/83/83/77/69/78/84/32/68/73/65/71/82/65/77
/76/76/65/68/32/56/51/45/50
/80/82/69/80/65/82/69/68/32/66/89/32/70/82/65/78/67/73/83/67/79/32/38/32/65/83/83/79/67/73/65/84/69/83/44/32/73/78/67 /80/114/111/106/47/72/101/114/99/117/108/101/115/47/70/89/49/50/45/49/51/47/68/105/97/103/114/97/109/115/47/56/51/45/50/95/100/105/97/103/114/97/109/46/112/100/102/32/32/40/48/51/45/48/51/45/49/48/32/83/65/41 /78
/51/48/48/48 /48 /51/48/48/48 /54/48/48/48 /70/101/101/116 /66/97/115/101/109/97/112
/90/111/110/101/32/66/111/117/110/100/97/114/121
/67/105/116/121/108/105/109/105/116
/76/69/71/69/78/68
/90/111/110/101/32/49/48
/66/111/117/110/100/97/114/121
/42
/42/90/111/110/101/32/49/48/32/105/115/32/97/32/100/105/115/116/114/105/99/116/119/105/100/101/32/66/101/110/101/102/105/116/32/90/111/110/101/32/97/110/100/105/110/99/108/117/100/101/115/32/97/108/108/32/80/97/114/99/101/108/115/32/108/111/99/97/116/101/100/32/119/105/116/104/105/110/32/116/104/101/32/76/76/65/68/32/56/51/45/50 316

PART D

METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION

Part 2 of Di vision 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, permits the establishment of assessme nt districts by Agencies for th e purpose of providin g certain public improvements, which include the operation, maintenance, and serv icing o f lands caping, st reetlighting and p ark a nd recr eational facilities.

Section 22573 of t he Landscaping and Lig hting Act of 1972 r equires that maintenance assessments m ust be levied accor ding to special benefit, rather than according to assessed value. This Section states:

“The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment distri ct may be apportioned by any fo rmula or m ethod which fairly distributes the net a mount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.

The determination of whether a lot or p arcel will benefit from the improvements shall b e made pursuant to th e Improvement Ac t of 1911 (Division 7 (commencing with Section 5000)) [of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California].”

Because assessments are levied on the basis of special benefit, they are not considered a tax, and therefore , are not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution.

The Act permits the designation of zones of benefit wit hin any individual assessm ent district if “by reason of variations in the nature, location, and ext ent of the improvements, the vari ous areas will re ceive different deg rees of benefit from the improvements” (Sec. 22574).

Article XIIID provided that publicly owned propert ies must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties rece ive no special benefit from the assessment. Exempted fr om the assessment would be the areas of public street s, public av enues, public lanes, public roads, public d rives, public courts, public alleys, public easements and right s-of-ways, public greenbelts and public parkways, and that portion of public property that is not developed and used for business purposes similar to private residential, commercial, industrial and institutional activities.

317

GENERAL BENEFIT

Under Article XIIID of the Stat e Constitution (Proposition 218) general benefit i s not assessable t o the property owners within the D istrict. T he different various types of general benefit associated with this district are described below:

Neighborhood Improvements (Zones 1 through 9) : It is anticipated that there will be minimal flow through traffic within the in-tract local streets associated with Zones 1 through 9. However, there is a possibility for pedestrians and vehicles to access a destination outside of the development t hrough t he local streets and therefore the local streetlighting and landscape improvements provide a minimal general benefit to the public -at-large or t o the parc els outside of each neighborhood Z one. Based on the industry standard for comparable neighborhoods, 2% of the annual cost to operate and maintain the local streetlighting and landscape improvements is considered to be general benefit.

Arterial/Major R oadway Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance: The arterial/major roadways allow residents to easily access all areas of the City and provide a clear benefit to all properties in the City. Therefore, landscaping and lighting maintenance costs associated with the City’s arterial/major roadways are spread proportionately to all parcel s in t he City. The roads tha t fall into this category are John Mu ir Parkway, San Pablo Avenue, R efugio Valley Road, Sycamore Avenue, and Wi llow Avenue. Although these roads are mostly utilized by people coming to and from Hercules, there is some general benefit that can be attributed to flow through t raffic generated from properties outside of City limits. Based on an initial circulation anal ysis, it is estimate d that an average of 6% of traffic on these roads can be attributed to flow through traffic. The City will conduct a study to better estimate the percentage of flow through traffic.

Dis
trict-Wide Parks (Zone No. 10): General benefit i ncludes t he use of park and recreation facilities by visitors located outside the City of Hercules. The term “visitors” as discussed in this paragr aph does not in clude persons vis iting or socializing with friends or relatives who live or own property in the City of Hercules. In this case, the benefit accrues to t he property owner or resident that is hosting the visitors and is therefore assessabl e. Detailed stati stics indicating the percentage of non- residents, who are not guests of City residents that frequent City park and r ecreational fa cilities do not exist. B ased on park information from events and r egistrations, the City estimates that the perce ntage of use of City facilities by non-residents is less than 5%. Therefore, utilizing 5% for general benefit is a conservative number. Therefore, 5% of the d irect costs shall be made from the General fund or other source, which would meet the spirit of P roposition 218. The Ci ty m ay undertake special studies in the futur e if necessary to better estimate the percentage of use of City parks by non- residents.

318

SPECIAL BENEFIT

Streetlighting, landscaping, and park and recreat ional facility mainte nance is a special and important benefit to the parcels within the District.

Streetlighting: Streetlighting is critical for publ ic safety. Well-maintained streetlighting provides security to the adjacent properties by deterring crime a nd allowing Hercules police the ability to identify and control suspicious and criminal activity. It allows for safe pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow and circulation by improving t he ability of pedestria ns and m otorists to see and to enter and exit property, which helps reduce nig ht-time accidents resu lting in low er police, fire and paramedic costs to the City and its residents. Streetlighting also increases the promotion of business during nighttime hours in the case of c ommercial property.

Landscaped Streetscapes an d Roadway M edians: T he District kee ps the City’s landscaped streetscapes and roadway medians well-groomed and irrigated which enhances property values throughout the C ity. These ser vices include, landscape maintenance, plant replacement, i rrigation, tree p runing, and lit ter control. Some of the special benefits properties receive from well-maintained landscaping include:
• The aesthetic value of green space;
• Improved aesthetic appeal of nearby parcels;
• Enhanced adaptation of the urban environment within the natural environment;
• Improved erosion control;
• Improved dust and debris control;
• Safety buffer between the parcels and the adjacent street; • Reduced air pollution; and
• Enhanced sense of pride within the development and community.

Parks and Recreational Facilities: The District provides landscape and recreational facility maintenance at 14 Hercules public parks throughout the Ci ty which enhances property v alues throughout the City. These service s include, landscape maintenance, playg round equ ipment cleani ng a nd replacem ent, irrigation, tree pruning, plant replacement and litter control.

Open S
pace Cleanup and Graffiti Abatement
Miscellaneous improvements such as the removal of litter, debris, and graffiti are of special benefit to each property within the District.

The spe cial benefits received may best be evaluated in terms of the prop erty devaluation that would occur if the District ma intenance activities were su spended or terminated. The resultant reduction in the quality of life could be significant. In contrast 319
to the current conditions, one could find streets without lights, parks parched from lack of water, hill sides litte red with debris, unkempt com munity facilities with graffiti and traffic medi ans overtaken by weeds. The resultin g loss to propert y in terms of the desirability of the City of Hercules as a place to live and work w ould be obvious. Clearly the continuation of the City’s mainte nance effort is of special benefit to each pr operty owner within the District.

The City ’s m aintenance effort , re ferred to a s th e “im provements”, is divided in to two distinct categories, Neigh borhood and Arterial/Major Roadway Improveme nts and District-wide Park (Zone No. 10) Improvements. These categories of improvements are described as follows:

1. Neighborhood and Arterial/Major Roadway Improvements (Zones 1 thru 9)

a. Streetlighting and Landscape Maintenance
Most of the s treetlights and nearly all the landscaping improvements along City streets t hat are maintained by District f unds were inst alled as a con dition of approval of the various developments that make up the neighborhood zones. The benefits received from these im provements are eas ily identified with the individual properties within t he respective zones. Zones of benefit have been established around certain geographic areas to defi ne the benefit received from the improvements. Fo r example, the highway marks the boundary of several zones within the City. The zone concept is a solid met hod of establishing special benefit and is suggested as an equi table means of di stribution in the t ext of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

Streetlighting increases security for homeowners and improves the appearance of pr operty frontage during t he ho urs of darkness . Street lighting also improves safety for motorists and saf ety for pedestrians. Security and appearance are property benefits. Tr affic and pedestrian safety are related to parcel use or occupancy. Increased levels of lighting are required for increased use.

Landscaping on public str eets improves the app earance of property.

Landscaping not maintained will perish and the cost of repl acement may be prohibitively expensive. Landscaping on public streets i s ther efore of benefit to property. Landscaping on public streets also improves the quality of life on a day- to-day basis. Increased us e generally requires increased levels of service.

Hence, as with street lighting b enefits, landscaping benefits are seen to be proportionate to parcel size and to parcel use.

b. Ne
ighborhood Park and Recreation Facility Maintenance
Neighborhood parks ar e of spe cial b enefit to the properties within each z one.

Neighborhood parks are designed to serve the immediate nei ghborhood parcels within the zone. The determination as to whether or not a park is of neighborhood or District-wide benefit (Zone No. 10) is based upon the activities at the park. If 320
structured City-wide events are conducted at a park, then it i s attributed to citywide benefits as opposed to the localized or neighborhood benefits.

c. Weed Abatement, Open Space Cleanup and Graffiti Abatement The benefit received by a parcel from weed abatement is essentially the same in spite of parcel size and location. Fires, once star ted, are known to “jump" across streets due to excessive weed growth and are of equal t hreat to all re sidences once ignited. N o special consideration therefore has been given to p arcels that back up to open space as opposed to those that do not. The benefi ts received from weed abatement are also r elated to the day -to-day use of the property in terms of t he safety provided to resi dents. E ven in the absence of damage to structures, green hills that are litter free and abundant with life are a s ignificant improvement over unkempt open space.

Miscellaneous improvements such as the removal of litter, debris, and graffiti are of special benefit to the property within each neighborhood and are assessable to the zones in which the service is provided.

2. District-Wide Park Improvements (Zone No. 10)
City parks, recreation facilities, open space, and lighting improvements associated with Zone No. 10 are of special benefit to residential properties within the District.

These District-wide improvements improve the quality of life in the City of Hercules on a day -to-day b asis. The fac ilities themselves represent major commun ity investments. If thes e facilities are not maintained, landscaping could perish, and recreational facilities could fall into disrepair. The cost to replace landscaping and recreational f acilities coul d be staggeri ng. The level of m aintenance how ever depends on the day -to-day use of the improvements. Increased levels of maintenance are necessary for increased use. It is im portant to note that property owner benefit is measured in terms of the opportunity which the park or recreational facility provides to the property owner and not in terms of the actual use.

ASSESSMENT M ETHODOLOGY

The total operation, maintenance and servicing costs for t he landscaping, streetlighting and public park and rec reational faci lities a re apportioned i n accordance with the methodology stated herein. The method for spreading the costs to each parcel is based on an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) factor.

1. Detached Single-Family Residences
Approximately 64% of the residential parcels in t he District ar e detached s ingle- family residential (SFR) parcels. Although the individual parcel size, building square footage and population for each SFR pa rcel may vary from parcel to parcel it is reasonable to assume that the benefit received is approximately the same from the improvements. Even though a SFR may have more building square footage than another it does not necessarily mean that the larger home receives a greater benefit. 321
Therefore one (1) SFR pa rcel shall be equal to one (1) E RU. Because the majority of parcels i n the City o f Hercules are SFR it is also reasonable to measure the relative benefits received by other residential land use in ter ms of that received by a detached SFR parcel.

2. Apartments and Condominiums
The special benefit received by Multi-family Residential (MFR) units, detached S FR units in Planned Unit Developments (PUD) and attached SFR units (condominiums) may be determined by comparing them to S FRs. Benefits per dwelling uni t ar e observed to be greater for SFR units than for MFR un its and condominiums. MFR units and condominiums receive decreased benefits per dwelling un it from the community park improvements in terms of property benefit because the number of units supporting the fixed improvements is larger than for SFR detached un its. On the other hand, MFR units and condominiums receive increased usage benefits from District-wide parks and recreation facilities. The Urban Land Institute has established a series of land use intensity ratings, which indicate the sm aller units requir e more public open space and recreational areas per unit than do SFR parcels.

In order to determine the net benefit received by a par cel we mu ltiply fact ors representing lot area and lot use, respe ctively. Table 2 l ists t he total number of parcels and total lot area for each type of residential land use. Based on these totals, the average lot a rea per parcel for each type of land use has been calculated. The average lot area per parcel for each type of use has been divided by the average lot area for SFR parcels and labeled as the “Lot Area Factor.”

Table 2 also lists the typical household siz e and average lot area per person for each type of residential land use. The population per unit is based up on the 2000 census for SFR units and statistical averages for apartments and condominiums. A “Lot Use Factor” has been calculated as the ratio of the average SFR lot area per person divided by the average lot area per person f or other residential use. A “ Net Factor” for each type of land use is calculated on Table 2 by multiplying the Lot Area Factor by the Lot Use Factor. The net factor approximates very closely the equivalent residential unit s (ERU) t hat have been assigned to the various types of land us e in the past and t he ERU for each type o f re sidential la nd use remains unchanged from prior reports.

322
Land Use SFR DETACHED SFR DETACHED APARTMENT ATTACHED PUD PUD CONDO's, etc.

County Use Code 11 19 28 29
No. of Parcels 3,526 730 4 2,164 No. of Units 3,526 730 292 2,164 Lot Area 29,917,364 5,738,458 539,403 6,808,270 Lot Area per Unit 8,485 7,861 1,847 3,146 Population per Unit 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.3 Lot Area per Person 2,828 2,620 924 1,368 Lot Area Factor 1.00 0.93 0.21 0.37 Lot Use Factor 1.00 1.08 3.06 2.07 Net Factor 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.77 ERU 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.75 Notes:

ERU Equivalent Residential Unit
SFR Single Family Residential
PUD Planned Unit Development
CONDO Condominium
Lot Area Factor = Lot Area per Unit / Lot Area per Unit for SFR Lot Use Factor = Lot Area per Person for SFR / Lot Area per Person Net Factor = Lot Area Factor x Lot Use Factor

STUDY OF RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
TABLE 2

The figures, which appear in Table 2, are a verages so there will be fluctuations in lot area and population for parcels within each category. This fluctuat ion is c onsidered to be of minimal consequence in determining the benefit. In the final analysis the foregoing computations validate the assumpt ions regarding the benefit received by resid ential units in Hercules, those being that a detached SFR benef its more than a condominium and a condominium benefits more than an apartment and that a reasonable estimate of the relative special benefits received b y these residential units is 1.00/0.75/0.64, respectively. T herefore, each PUD unit will be assigned on e (1.00) ERU, each condominium unit will be assigned 0.75 E RU, and eac h apartment complex will be assigned 0.64 ERU per apartment unit.

3. Commercial Property
The maintenance of street lighting and landscaping on commer cial s treets is of special benefit to the properties that access these streets. 323
In order to distribute the cost am ong the various parcels we look to the special benefits as they relat e to parcel size and parcel use. T here is a minimum level of service, which is n ecessary to sustain lands caping, and lig hting improvements so that they will not b e lost. On the other hand, increased levels of s ervices such as more frequent mowing, weed c ontrol, graffiti abatement and debris remova l are more closely related to the day-to-day use of the property. These increased services improve the quality and appearance of the commercial district on a day-to-day basis.

It is estimated that the increased service would not be necessary if the property were not improved.

Parcel area is a good measure of the speci al benefit which a parcel receives fro m the fixed impr ovements and the minimum levels of maintenance that are necessary to sustain them. Parcel area is an indicator of the development which may take place on that parcel and the number of employees and patrons who will benefit from improved lighting, attractive landscaping, and the absence of litter and graffiti.

Use of a commercial property is meas ured in terms of whether or not a parcel has been improved (built upon) or not. If a structure exists then the parcel is perceived to benefit from user benefits af forded the parcel by landscaping and lighting improvements as well as the benefits to the underlying land.

In order to relate commer cial property to other land uses, the acreag e of the commercial property is converted to equivalent residential units (ERUs). The ERU rate is calcu lated by dividing one (1) acre, or 43,560 square feet by the average single family residential lot size (8,485 square feet ). Therefore, the ERU r ate for commercial property is 5.134 ERUs per acre (43,560 / 8,485 = 5.134).

Commercial properties are not as sessed for the cost to provide D istrict-wide (Zone No. 10) services, as they are deemed not to benefit from these services.

4. Vacant (Unimproved) Land
This underlying benef it of parks and r ecreation facilities , p ublic landscaping w eed abatement and streetl ighting accrues to the land and relates to the permanent nature of certain improvements. The maintenance effort is of benefit to all land within the District. The minimum le vel o f maintenance required to pres erve s treet landscaping, lighting, park and recr eation facilities in t he District is estimated to be 25% of the required for build- out maintenance cost. Accor dingly, the estimated benefit received by an unimproved parcel of land within an approved development potential is 25% of that received by an improved parcel, equal in size. This assumes that unimproved land will have no use of the facilities.

The
refore, vacant (unimproved) land is assessed at 25% of the developed E RU rate for the property, or 0.25 ERU per SFR or PUD lo t and 0.25 ERU per acre fo r multi- family residential parcels. Vacant (unimproved) commercial land is assessed 1.283 ERUs per acre of land (5.134 ERUs per acre x 25% = 1.283 ERUs per acre). 324

5. Public Properties
Publicly h eld par cels o f land receive benefi t from some landscaping an d lighting improvements and not from others. For example, public land that is committed to public use and cannot pass freely in the market place w ill not benefit from the appreciation in pr operty value afforde d private property by enhanced landscaping and l ighting. Public property does benefit on the other hand from the b enefits afforded the user of the property from landscaping and the safety a nd s ecurity provided to a parcel by streetlighting.

Public proper ties function muc h the same as commercial properties in the community in that they provide a service. In so doing t hey employ people and attract patrons. In estimating the benefits received by a public parcel it makes sense to look at the benefits received by commercial parc els. Since public properties function as commercial properties, it is reasonable to assess t hem for a fair share of the cost to maintain the improvements in their respective neighborhood.

The special b enefit received by public proper ties can be determi ned by estimating the number of equivalent residential units (ERUs) that the property comprises. In the discussion above, residential land equivalency was measured in terms of parcel size and parcel use. Therefore, improved public properties are assessed at 5.134 ERUs per acre.

Vacant (unimproved) public properties that are not exempt from assessm ent are assessed 25% of the improved public property ERUs, 1.283 ERUs per acre.

Parks and active open space may be seen to benefit from the safety provided to the land by street lighting but not from other user rela ted services. In addition, active open spac e properties are similar to vacant (unimproved) parcel s. Streetlighting accounts for only 15% of the maint enance budget with the district. Therefore, parks are assessed at the improved public property ERU rate and then reduced to 15% for streetlighting o nly equaling 0.770 ERUs per acre (5.134 ERUs per acre x 15% =

0.770 ERUs per acre).

Active o pen space par cels are ass igned ERUS at the vacant (unimproved) public property ERU rate and then reduced to 15% for st reetlighting only equaling 0.193 ERUs per acre (1.283 ERUs per acre x 15% = 0.193 ERUs per acre).

A
ppendix A lists the public properties in Hercules, which receive special benefit from landscaping and ligh ting improvements, and whi ch have been assessed for these benefits. ERUs for all properties are indicated.

6. Churches and Non-Profit Properties
Churches and property o wned by not -for-profit organizat ions benef it from landscaping, lighting, park, and recreation facilities. These properties are assessed based on the use of the property, i.e. residential or non-residential (commercial) use. 325

7. Exempt Parcels
Certain pr operties do not benefit from lands caping, li ghting, park and re creational improvements a nd have not been assessed. City parks, recreational facilities and open space do not benefit from the Zone No. 10 features wh ich are the subject of the assessment. Thes e properties on the other hand may b enefit fr om the neighborhood landscaping and l ighting services provided in the neighborhoods in which they are located. Public streets and r ight of ways, passive open space, and sliver parcel s with no development potenti al do not benefit from landscaping a nd lighting improvements or from park and recr eation facilities. Railroad right of ways and pipeline easements or fee strips generally do not benefit. The assessments for the special benefits received by common areas in P UDs are included in the assessment for the residential units with which they ar e associated. Common areas themselves are not assessed.

CALCULATION OF ASSESSMENTS

The annual assessment rate for each Zone is calculated by dividing the total costs plus the reserve collection as shown in Table 1 of this report, by the total number of ERUs in each Zone to derive the assess ment rate for the Zone. The asse ssment rate is t hen multiplied by each parcel ’s assigned ERUs to derive the annual assessment fo r that parcel in that Zone.

The total ERUs per zone and the applied assessment rates for FY 2022-23 are shown in Table 3 of this Report and assessments for each parcel within the District are listed in Appendix B.

REASSIGNMENT OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

Subsequent to the r ecordation of new parcel map s or final s ubdivision maps, all newly subdivided and newly developed parcels shall be duly assigned to a land use category, and thereafter shall be assessed the appropriate assessment for that land use category.

ADJ USTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS

Any property owner who believes that the amount of their assessment is in e rror as a result of incorrect information being used to apply the foregoing method of spread, may file an appeal with the City Man ager. Any such appeal is l imited to c orrection of a n assessment during the then current or, if before July 1, the upcoming fiscal year. Upon the f iling of any such appeal, the City Manager shall promptly review t he information provided by the property owner and if i t is found that the assessmen t s hould b e modified, the City Manager shall have the authority to make the appropriate changes in the assessment roll. If any su ch changes are approved after the assessment roll has been filed with the County for col lection, the City Manager is authorized to refund to the property owner the amount of any approved reduction.

326

CPI INCREASE TO MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS

The City is authorized to increase the maximum assessment for all Zones of LLAD 83-2 by the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index ( CPI), San Franc isco Bay Region All Urban Consumers Index. The applicable CPI increase for FY 2022-23 is 5.19%. For any given fiscal year, the amount of the assessment will not e xceed t he previously established maximum assessment amount s, as adjusted by the CPI increase unless a special proceeding is conducted in accordance with Proposition 218.

MAXIMU M AND APPLIED ASSESSMENTS

Table 3 below summarizes the num ber of parc els to be levied , ERUs, maximum assessment rates per ERU, and the applied assessment rates per ERU for FY 2022-23.

All Zo nes of LLAD No . 83-2 will be assessed at the maximum assessment rat es per ERU for FY 2022-23.

TABLE 3

Summary of Maximum and Applied Assessments

LLAD No. 83-2
Zone Description
Total
Parcels
Levied
Equivalent
Residential
Units
FY 2022-23
Maximum
Assessment Rate
FY 2022-23
10-year*
Assessment
10-year Assessment
Sunset
Fiscal Year
FY 2022-23**
Total Maximum
Assessment Rate
FY 2022-23
Total Applied
Assessment Rate
1 (Cottage Ln, Coventry, and Olympian Hills) 395 317.25 $68.65 $12.27 2028-29 $80. 92 $80.92 1 (Other Assessable Parcels) 520 490.21 $68.65 $66.69 2028-29 $135. 34 $135.34 2 (Foxboro) 657 639.05 $132.60 N/A N/A $132. 60 $132.60 3&4 (Non-Residential Parcels) 3 57.89 $88.32 N/A N/A $88. 32 $88.32 3&4 (Residential Parcels) 829 810.00 $88.32 $46.04 2030-31 $134. 36 $134.36 5A (Business Park) 78 637.59 $142.11 N/A N/A $142. 11 $142.11 5B (Commercial) 22 355.68 $143.05 N/A N/A $143. 05 $143.05 5C (Miscellaneous Parcels) 52 499.06 $63.80 N/A N/A $63. 80 $63.80 6 (Arbors Senior Housing Center) 1 38.40 $33.40 N/A N/A $33. 40 $33.40 6 (Westwood Duets) 192 144.00 $96.00 $89.33 2030-31 $185. 33 $185.33 6 (Other Assessable Parcels) 769 576.75 $70.00 $40.67 2030-31 $110. 67 $110.67 7 (Bay Pointe, Bravo, Caprice) 558 418.50 $81.73 N/A N/A $81. 73 $81.73 7 (Other Assessable Parcels) 563 562.95 $81.73 $59.00 2028-29 $140. 73 $140.73 8 (Trees and Flowers) 1,379 1,601.48 $121.66 N/A N/A $121. 66 $121.66 9 (Birds and Country Run) 887 847.98 $105.29 N/A N/A $105. 29 $105.29 10 (Citywide) 8,306 8,198.32 $141.98 N/A N/A $141. 98 $141.98 * The 10-year Assessment was approved by property owners in Zone Nos. 1 and 7 beginning FY 2019-20. The 10-year Assessment was approved by property owners in Zone Nos. 3&4 and 6 beginning FY 2021-22.

The 10-year Assessment for Zone Nos. 3&4 and 6 are fixed and do not increase by CPI. **Includes 10-year Assessment for Zone Nos. 1, 3&4, 6, and 7

DURATION

Assessments will be levied in perpetuity, unless otherwise determined by the Co uncil, except for the following 10-year assessments:

• B enefit Zone No. 1 – Th e purpose of t his assessment is to repay the cost for replacement of the failed wooden streetlight poles tha t exceeded their useful life with cost-effective LED lighting on metal poles and to alleviate a fund defi cit that accumulated over the years due to insufficient revenues. The 10-year assessment increase commenced in 327
FY 2019-20 , is subject to annual inflatio nary a djustments, and will cease after FY 2028-29.

• Benefit Zone No . 3&4 (excluding Hercules Highschool) – The purpose of this assessment is to replace the failing wooden streetlight poles that have reached their us eful life with cost-effective LED lighting on metal poles. Th e 10-year assessme nt commenced in FY 2021-22 and will cease after FY 2030-31.

• B enefit Zone No. 6 (excluding Arbor s Senior Housing Center) – The purpose of this assessment is to replace the failing wooden streetlight poles located along Village Parkway and the Westwood Du ets neighborhood that have reached their useful life with cost-effective LED lighting on metal poles and eliminate the fund deficit that accumulated over the years due to insuf ficient revenues. The 10- year assessment commenced in FY 2021-22 and will cease after FY 2030-31.

• Benefit Zone No. 7 (excluding Bay Pointe, Bravo, and Caprice parcels) – The purpose of this assessment is to repay the c ost for replacement of the failed wooden streetlight poles that exceeded their useful life with cost-effective L ED lighting on metal pol es. T he 10-y ear assessment increase commenced in FY 2019-20 , is subject to a nnual inflatio nary adjustments, and will cease after FY 2028-29.

328
PART E

PROPERTY OWNER LIST & ASSESSMENT ROLL

A list of names and addresses of the owners of all parcels, and the description of each parcel within the City of Hercules ’s Landscaping and Lighting A ssessment District No. 83-2 is shown on the last equalized Secured Property Tax Roll of the C ontra Costa County Assessor, which by reference is hereby made a part of this Report.

This list is keyed to the Assessor’s Parcel Numbers as shown on the Assessment Roll, which includ es the pr oposed amount of assessments for FY 2022-23 apportioned to each lot or parcel. The Assessment Roll is on file i n the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Hercules and is shown in this Report as Appendix B.

The total proposed assessment for FY 2022-23 is as follows:

Benefit
Zone
FY 2022-23
Amount
Zone 1 $92,013.60
Zone 2 $84,734.84
Zone 3 & 4 $113,944.06
Zone 5A $90,608.02
Zone 5B $50,879.90
Zone 5C $31,839.86
Zone 6 $94,607.32
Zone 7 $113,423.50
Zone 8 $194,835.80
Zone 9 $89,275.30
Zone 10 $1,163,984.02
329

APPENDIX “A”

PUBLIC PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS

330

CITY OF HERCULES
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 83-2

PUBLIC PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS
FY 2022-23
APN LocationOwner/Use ERU Units Acres
Zone 10
Assessment
Local Zone
Assessment
Zone 1
404160006 ATHENSHERCULES 0 5.810 0.250 $35.50 $33.82 404170026 RAILROADHERCULES 1 1.140 1.463 $0.00 $198.02 Zone 1 Total: 1 6.950 $35.50 1.713 $231.84
Zone 2
406061039 NO ADDRESSHERCULES CITY OF 0 3.590 2.764 $0.00 $366.58 Zone 2 Total: 0 3.590 $0.00 2.764 $366.58
Zone 3
407023004 AQUAMARINEHERCULES CITY OF 0 0.300 0.231 $0.00 $20.40 Zone 3 Total: 0 0.300 $0.00 0.231 $20.40
Zone 4
407220001 REFUGIO VALLEYWEST CC UNIFIED SCHOOL 0 13.280 10.226 $0.00 $903.20 407290009 REFUGIO VALLEYWEST CC UNIFIED SCHOOL 0 61.600 47.435 $0.00 $4,189.54 Zone 4 Total: 0 74.880 $0.00 57.662 $5,092.74
Zone 5A
404182001 LINUS PAULINGCONTRA COSTA COUNTY 0 4.110 5.274 $0.00 $749.62 404182002 LINUS PAULINGCONTRA COSTA COUNTY 0 2.520 12.937 $0.00 $1,838.48 404182010 JOHN MUIRHERCULES CITY OF 0 0.300 0.385 $0.00 $54.72 404182015 LINUS PAULINGHERCULES PUBLIC 7 6.710 34.447 $0.00 $4,895.34 Zone 5A Total: 7 13.640 $0.00 53.044 $7,538.16
Zone 5B
406150015 CIVICHERCULES CITY OF 0 8.890 45.639 $0.00 $6,528.68 Zone 5B Total: 0 8.890 $0.00 45.639 $6,528.68
Zone 5C
404020014 RAILROADCALIFORNIA STATE OF 0 5.400 6.930 $0.00 $442.16 404020022 SAN PABLOHERCULES 0 11.190 2.154 $0.00 $137.44 406070025 BAYBERRYCALIFORNIA STATE OF 0 6.350 8.149 $0.00 $519.96 406070043 BAYBERRYSAN FRANCISCO BART 0 8.690 11.153 $0.00 $711.56 406170001 NO ADDRESSHERCULES CITY OF 0 1.740 2.233 $0.00 $142.48 406180002 NO ADDRESSHERCULES CITY OF 0 0.260 0.333 $0.00 $21.28 404730006 RAILROADHERCULES CITY OF 0 3.130 4.017 $0.00 $256.30 404730007 BAYFRONTHERCULES CITY OF 0 0.484 0.621 $0.00 $39.62 404730008 BAYFRONTHERCULES CITY OF 0 0.434 0.557 $0.00 $35.54 404730009 SHORELINEHERCULES CITY OF 0 6.497 8.338 $0.00 $532.00 Zone 5C Total: 0 44.175 $0.00 44.488 $2,838.34
A- 2
331

CITY OF HERCULES
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 83-2

PUBLIC PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS
FY 2022-23
APN LocationOwner/Use ERU Units Acres
Zone 10
Assessment
Local Zone
Assessment
Zone 7a
362030046 REFUGIO VALLEYWEST CC UNIFIED SCHOOL 0 5.430 4.181 $0.00 $588.46 362281007 NO ADDRESSHERCULES CITY OF 0 3.570 0.687 $0.00 $96.72 362281008 NO ADDRESSHERCULES CITY OF 0 1.960 0.377 $0.00 $53.10 406230003 NO ADDRESSEAST BAY MUNICIPAL 0 2.210 1.701 $0.00 $239.50 Zone 7a Total: 0 13.170 $0.00 6.947 $977.78
Zone 8
406252007 MARIGOLDHERCULES CITY OF 0 0.050 0.009 $0.00 $1.16 406341011 LUPINEEAST BAY MUNICIPAL 0 0.150 0.770 $0.00 $93.68 406400001 REFUGIO VALLEYHERCULES CITY OF 0 37.840 194.261 $0.00$23,633.88 406450025 REFUGIO VALLEYHERCULES CITY OF 0 24.350 4.687 $0.00 $570.30 406471070 REFUGIO VALLEYHERCULES CITY OF 0 1.320 1.694 $0.00 $206.10 Zone 8 Total: 0 63.710 $0.00201.423 $24,505.12
Zone 9
360642001 NO ADDRESSEAST BAY MUNICIPAL 0 1.450 0.279 $0.00 $29.38 Zone 9 Total: 0 1.450 $0.00 0.279 $29.38
All Zones Total: $35.50414.193 $48,129.02
A- 3
332

APPENDIX “B”

ASSESSMENT ROLL

333

CITY OF HERCULES
LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 83-2

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
Local Zone
AmountZone
Zone 10
Amount
360621001 3a 134.36 141.98
360621002 3a 134.36 141.98
360621003 3a 134.36 141.98
360621004 3a 134.36 141.98
360621005 3a 134.36 141.98
360621006 3a 134.36 141.98
360621007 3a 134.36 141.98
360621008 3a 134.36 141.98
360621009 3a 134.36 141.98
360621010 3a 134.36 141.98
360621011 3a 134.36 141.98
360622001 3a 134.36 141.98
360622002 3a 134.36 141.98
360622003 3a 134.36 141.98
360622004 3a 134.36 141.98
360622005 3a 134.36 141.98
360622006 3a 134.36 141.98
360622007 3a 134.36 141.98
360622008 3a 134.36 141.98
360622009 3a 134.36 141.98
360622010 3a 134.36 141.98
360622011 3a 134.36 141.98
360622012 3a 134.36 141.98
360622013 3a 134.36 141.98
360622014 3a 134.36 141.98
360622015 3a 134.36 141.98
360622016 3a 134.36 141.98
360622017 3a 134.36 141.98
360622018 3a 134.36 141.98
360622019 3a 134.36 141.98
360622020 3a 134.36 141.98
360622021 3a 134.36 141.98
360622022 3a 134.36 141.98
360622023 3a 134.36 141.98
360622024 3a 134.36 141.98
360622025 3a 134.36 141.98
360622026 3a 134.36 141.98
360622027 3a 134.36 141.98
360622028 3a 134.36 141.98
360622029 3a 134.36 141.98
360622030 3a 134.36 141.98
360622031 3a 134.36 141.98
360622032 3a 134.36 141.98
360622033 3a 134.36 141.98
360622034 3a 134.36 141.98
360622035 3a 134.36 141.98
360622036 3a 134.36 141.98
360622037 3a 134.36 141.98
360622038 3a 134.36 141.98
360622039 3a 134.36 141.98
360622040 3a 134.36 141.98
360622041 3a 134.36 141.98
360622042 3a 134.36 141.98
360622043 3a 134.36 141.98
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
Local Zone
AmountZone
Zone 10
Amount
360622044 3a 134.36 141.98
360622045 3a 134.36 141.98
360622046 3a 134.36 141.98
360622047 3a 134.36 141.98
360622048 3a 134.36 141.98
360622049 3a 134.36 141.98
360622050 3a 134.36 141.98
360622051 3a 134.36 141.98
360622052 3a 134.36 141.98
360622053 3a 134.36 141.98
360630001 3a 134.36 141.98
360630002 3a 134.36 141.98
360630003 3a 134.36 141.98
360630004 3a 134.36 141.98
360630005 3a 134.36 141.98
360630006 3a 134.36 141.98
360630007 3a 134.36 141.98
360630008 3a 134.36 141.98
360630009 3a 134.36 141.98
360630010 3a 134.36 141.98
360630011 3a 134.36 141.98
360630012 3a 134.36 141.98
360630013 3a 134.36 141.98
360630014 3a 134.36 141.98
360630015 3a 134.36 141.98
360630021 3a 134.36 141.98
360630022 3a 134.36 141.98
360630023 3a 134.36 141.98
360630024 3a 134.36 141.98
360630025 3a 134.36 141.98
360630026 3a 134.36 141.98
360630027 3a 134.36 141.98
360630028 3a 134.36 141.98
360630029 3a 134.36 141.98
360630030 3a 134.36 141.98
360630031 3a 134.36 141.98
360630032 3a 134.36 141.98
360641001 3a 134.36 141.98
360641002 3a 134.36 141.98
360641009 3a 134.36 141.98
360641010 3a 134.36 141.98
360641011 3a 134.36 141.98
360641012 3a 33.58 35.50
360641013 3a 134.36 141.98
360641014 3a 134.36 141.98
360641015 3a 33.58 35.50
360642001 9 29.38 0.00
360642004 3a 134.36 141.98
360642005 3a 134.36 141.98
360642006 3a 134.36 141.98
360642007 3a 134.36 141.98
360642008 3a 134.36 141.98
360642009 3a 134.36 141.98
360642010 3a 134.36 141.98
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
Local Zone
AmountZone
Zone 10
Amount
360642011 3a 134.36 141.98
360642012 3a 134.36 141.98
360642013 3a 134.36 141.98
360642014 3a 134.36 141.98
360642015 3a 134.36 141.98
360642016 3a 134.36 141.98
360642017 3a 134.36 141.98
360642018 3a 134.36 141.98
360642019 3a 134.36 141.98
360651001 3a 134.36 141.98
360651002 3a 134.36 141.98
360651003 3a 134.36 141.98
360651004 3a 134.36 141.98
360651005 3a 134.36 141.98
360652001 3a 134.36 141.98
360652002 3a 134.36 141.98
360652003 3a 134.36 141.98
360652004 3a 134.36 141.98
360652005 3a 134.36 141.98
360652006 3a 134.36 141.98
360652007 3a 134.36 141.98
360652008 3a 134.36 141.98
360652009 3a 134.36 141.98
360652010 3a 134.36 141.98
360652011 3a 134.36 141.98
360652012 3a 134.36 141.98
360653001 3a 134.36 141.98
360653002 3a 134.36 141.98
360653003 3a 134.36 141.98
360653004 3a 134.36 141.98
360653005 3a 134.36 141.98
360653006 3a 134.36 141.98
360700001 3a 134.36 141.98
360700002 3a 134.36 141.98
360700003 3a 134.36 141.98
360700004 3a 134.36 141.98
360700005 3a 134.36 141.98
360700006 3a 134.36 141.98
360700007 3a 134.36 141.98
360700008 3a 134.36 141.98
362030014 7a 35.18 35.50
362030016 7a 35.18 35.50
362030041 7a 35.18 35.50
362030046 7a 588.46 0.00
362030050 7a 35.18 35.50
362250001 7 61.30 106.48
362250002 7 61.30 106.48
362250003 7 61.30 106.48
362250004 7 61.30 106.48
362250005 7 61.30 106.48
362250006 7 61.30 106.48
362250007 7 61.30 106.48
362250008 7 61.30 106.48
362250009 7 61.30 106.48
04/29/22B- 2
334