desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to the continuation and collection of the assessments for said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, were fully heard and considered by said City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Menlo Park does hereby make the following findings:
1. That a majority protest, pursuant to the Act, was not filed, and therefore the protests against said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, both, thereof, or to the extent of the assessment district, or to the proposed continued assessment or diagram, or to the engineer’s estimate of costs thereof, for fiscal year 2023-24 be, and each of them are hereby overruled.
2. That the public interest, convenience, and necessity require and said City Council does hereby order the continuation and collection of assessments pursuant to said Act, for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particularly described in said engineer’s report and made a part hereof by reference thereto.
3. That the City of Menlo Park Landscaping District and the boundaries thereof benefited and to be assessed for said costs for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are situated in Menlo Park, California, and are more particularly described by reference to a map thereof on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in said District and the general location of said District.
4. That the plans and specifications for the existing improvements and for the proposed improvements to be made within the assessment district contained in said report, be, and they are hereby, finally adopted and approved.
5. That the engineer’s estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof, and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report, be, and it is hereby, finally adopted and approved.
6. That the public interest and convenience require, and said City Council does hereby order the improvements to be made as described in, and in accordance with, said engineer’s report, reference to which is hereby made for a more particular description of said improvements.
7. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the assessment district referred to and described in Resolution No. 6831 therein and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said District as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor’s maps for the fiscal year to which it applies, each of which lot or parcel of land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as contained in said report, be, and it is hereby, finally approved and confirmed.
8. That the continued assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the said improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in said District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements, and the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof and of the expenses incidental thereto contained in said report be, and the same is hereby, finally approved and confirmed.
9. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, including the engineer’s report, offered and received at the hearing, this City Council expressly finds and determines (a) that each of the Page I-1.6
Resolution No. XXXX
several lots and parcels of land will be specially benefited by the maintenance of the improvements at least in the amount if not more than the amount, of the continued assessment apportioned against the lots and parcels of land, respectively, and (b) that there is substantial evidence to support, and the weight of the evidence preponderates in favor of, the aforesaid finding and determination as to special benefits.
10. That the authorized maximum assessment rates for the District include an annual adjustment by an amount equal to the annual change in the Engineering News Record Index, not to exceed 3% per year, plus any uncaptured excesses, and therefore, the assessments are not being increased above their authorized maximum amounts.
11. That said engineer’s report for fiscal year 2023-24 be, and the same is hereby, finally adopted and approved as a whole.
12. That the City Clerk shall forthwith file with the Auditor of San Mateo County the said continued assessment, together with said diagram thereto attached and made a part thereof, as confirmed by the City Council, with the certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and of the date thereof.
13. That the order for the levy and collection of assessment for the improvements and the final adoption and approval of the engineer’s report as a whole, and of the plans and specifications, estimate of the costs and expenses, the diagram and the continued assessment as contained in said report, as hereinabove determined and ordered, is intended to and shall refer and apply to said report, or any portion thereof, as amended, modified, revised, or corrected by, or pursuant to and in accordance with any resolution or order, if any, heretofore duly adopted or made by this City Council.
14. That the San Mateo County Controller and the San Mateo County Tax Collector apply the City of Menlo Park Landscaping District assessments to the tax roll and have the San Mateo County Tax Collector collect said continued assessments in the manner and form as with all other such assessments collected by the San Mateo County Tax Collector.
I, Judi A. Herren, City Clerk of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing City Council Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said City Council on the twenty-seventh of June, 2023, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this __ of June, 2023.
Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Page I-1.7
Fiscal Year 2023-24 ENGINEER’S REPORT
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
May 2023
Pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 and Article XIIID of the California Constitution
ATTACHMENT B Page I-1.8
ATTACHMENT B
Page I-1.9
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Page i
City of Menlo Park
Menlo Park City Council
Mayor Jen Wolosin
Vice Mayor Cecilia Taylor
Councilmember Drew Combs
Councilmember Maria Doerr
Councilmember Betsy Nash
City Manager
Justin Murphy
City Clerk
Judi A. Herren
City Attorney
Nira Doherty
Engineer of Work
SCI Consulting Group
Lead Assessment Engineer, Edric Kwan, P.E.
Page I-1.10
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Page ii
Page I-1.11
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Page iii
Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................... 1 Assessment Background............................................................................................... 1 Legal Analysis................................................................................................................ 4 Plans & Specifications ..................................................................................... 7 Method of Assessment.................................................................................... 8 Discussion of Benefit.................................................................................................... 8 Benefit Factors ...........................................................................................................10 General vs. Special Benefit.........................................................................................12 Method of Assessment...............................................................................................13 Assessment Apportionment - Street Trees................................................................13 Assessment Apportionment - Sidewalk Program.......................................................15 Assessment Apportionment - Other Properties.........................................................16 Appeals and Interpretation ........................................................................................17 Assessment................................................................................................... 19 Assessment Diagram ..................................................................................... 24 Appendix A – Assessment Roll, FY 2023-24................................................................26 Page I-1.12
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Page iv
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Residential Assessment Factors....................................................................... 14 Figure 2 – Tree Maintenance Assessments ...................................................................... 18 Figure 3 – Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Parking Strip Assessments......................................... 18 Figure 4 – Summary Cost Estimate ................................................................................... 19 Figure 5 – Engineer’s Cost Estimate, Fiscal Year 2023-24................................................. 22 Page I-1.13
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Introduction
Assessment Background
Between 1960 and 1982, the City of Menlo Park had one three-person crew to care for approximately 9,000 City trees. As the trees grew, it took considerably more time per tree to provide proper care. Consequently, one tree crew was unable to perform the necessary work to maintain all of the street trees in proper condition. The Landscape Assessment District was originally formed in 1983 for the purpose of levying annual special assessments in order to properly maintain street trees in the City of Menlo Park.
Currently, there are approximately 11,000 street trees that are maintained by the assessments.
Prior to 1990, property owners and the City would split the cost of repairing sidewalks damaged by City trees. The City would annually enter into an agreement with approximately 200 individual property owners. The one-time cost was a financial burden to some residents on fixed incomes. In order to make the program more cost-effective and less of a financial burden for property owners, an assessment for repair of sidewalks/parking strips due to City street-tree related damages was established in 1990.
The increased cost of the necessary work made the assessment amounts levied in Fiscal Year 1997-98 insufficient for adequately maintaining the City’s street trees, curbs, gutters and sidewalks. An increase in the assessments was required to provide funding for continued tree maintenance and sidewalk repairs. However, with the passage of Proposition 218 on November 6, 1996, assessments can only be raised after the City conducts an assessment ballot proceeding and the ballots submitted in opposition to the assessments do not exceed the ballots in favor of the assessments. (Each ballot is weighted by the amount of assessment for the property it represents.) Page I-1.14
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Assessment Process
In 1998, the City conducted an assessment ballot proceeding for increased tree maintenance and sidewalk repair assessments pursuant to the requirements of Article XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218) and the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. The proposed tree maintenance assessments for fiscal year 1998-99 were $64.28 per single family equivalent unit and the proposed sidewalk repair assessments were $28.70 per single family equivalent. The proposed maximum assessments also included an annual assessment cost escalator tied to the annual change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area ("ENR Index"). These proposed assessments were supported by 73% of assessment ballots received from property owners (with each ballot weighted by the amount of assessments it represented). Therefore, on June 16, 1998 by its Resolution Number 4840-D, the City Council levied the new assessments.
Engineer’s Report and Continuation of Assessments
In each subsequent year for which the assessments will be continued, the City Council must direct the preparation of an Engineer's Report, budgets and proposed assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. After the Engineer's Report is completed, the City Council may preliminarily approve the Engineer's Report and proposed assessments and establish the date for a public hearing on the continuation of the assessments. This Report was prepared pursuant to the direction of the Council.
The maximum authorized assessment rate, as increased each year by the change in the ENR Index, is the maximum assessment rate that can be levied in the given fiscal year without approval from property owners in another assessment ballot proceeding. In fiscal year 1998-99, the assessments were levied at the maximum rate for that fiscal year.
Since this first fiscal year after the ballot proceeding, the assessments for tree maintenance have been levied below the maximum authorized rate, and the assessment rate for sidewalk repairs has not been increased above the original rate.
From December 2021 to December 2022, the ENR Index increased 5.27%. The maximum amount assessments can be increased annually is the ENR Index plus any uncaptured excess reserved from prior years, to a maximum increase to the ENR not to exceed 3%.
Page I-1.15
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Based on accumulated excess reserves from prior years, the maximum authorized rates for fiscal year 2023-24 are $128.47 for trees and $57.36 for sidewalks without another ballot proceeding. (No additional ballot proceeding is required because the maximum authorized assessment rates, including the annual adjustments in these rates, were approved in the 1998 ballot proceeding. The actual rate levied in any given fiscal year can be revised up, with an annual maximum increase of 3%, or down, by any amount that does not cause the actual rates levied to exceed the maximum authorized assessment rates.)
The City reduced the assessment rate for tree maintenance in fiscal year 2000-01 and increased the assessment rate in fiscal years 2002-03, 2005-06 through 2009-10, 2014- 15, and 2016-17 through 2022-23. In other fiscal years it was not necessary to increase the rate, due to sufficient reserve funds carried forward from prior fiscal years, combined with general benefit contributions. For fiscal year 2023-24 the proposed assessments for tree maintenance were proposed to increase 3.00% from fiscal year 2022-23, and the assessments for sidewalk maintenance are proposed to increase 3.00%. The proposed rates are $91.38 per Single Family Equivalent (SFE) for tree maintenance and $48.82 per SFE for sidewalk maintenance. The comparison of actual rates levied in fiscal year 2022- 23 and the proposed rates for fiscal year 2023-24 are shown below.
FY 2022-23 Rate ENR Increase Applied FY 2023-24 Rate Increase $47.40 3.00% $48.82 $1.42
FY 2022-23 Rate ENR Increase Applied FY 2023-24 Rate Increase $88.72 3.00% $91.38 $2.66
Sidewalk Maintenance
Tree Maintenance
If the Council approves this Engineer's Report and the continuation of the assessments by resolution, a notice of assessment levies must be published in a local newspaper at least 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing. The resolution preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report and establishing the date for a public hearing is used for this notice.
Following the minimum 10-day time period after publishing the notice, a public hearing is held for the purpose of allowing public testimony about the proposed continuation of the assessments. This hearing is currently scheduled for June 27, 2023. At this hearing, the Council will consider approval of a resolution confirming the continuation of the assessments for fiscal year 2023-24. If so confirmed and approved, the assessments will be submitted to the County Controller for inclusion on the property tax roll for fiscal year 2023-24.
Page I-1.16
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Legal Analysis
Proposition 218
This assessment is consistent with Proposition 218, The Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which was approved by the voters of California on November 6, 1996 and is now Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution. Proposition 218 provides for benefit assessments to be levied to fund the cost of providing services, improvements, as well as maintenance and operation expenses to a public improvement which benefits the assessed property.
Proposition 218 describes a number of important requirements, including a propertyowner balloting, for the formation and continuation of assessments, and these requirements are satisfied by the process used to establish this assessment.
The original assessment existed prior to the passage of Proposition 218. Although the original assessment is also consistent with Proposition 218, the California judiciary has generally referred to pre-Proposition 218 assessments as “grandfathered assessments” and held them to a lower standard than post Proposition 218 assessments.
Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v Santa Clara County Open Space Authority
In July of 2008, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling on the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (“SVTA vs.
SCCOSA”). This ruling is the most significant court case in further legally clarifying the substantive assessment requirements of Proposition 218. Several of the most important elements of the ruling included further emphasis that:
Benefit assessments are for special, not general, benefit The services and/or improvements funded by assessments must be clearly defined
Special benefits are directly received by and provide a direct advantage to property in the assessment district
Page I-1.17
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property
On June 8, 2009, the 4th Court of Appeal amended its original opinion upholding a benefit assessment for property in the downtown area of the City of Pomona. On July 22, 2009, the California Supreme Court denied review. On this date, Dahms became good law and binding precedent for assessments. In Dahms the Court upheld an assessment that was 100% special benefit (i.e., 0% general benefit) on the rationale that the services and improvements funded by the assessments were directly provided to property in the assessment district. The Court also upheld discounts and exemptions from the assessment for certain properties.
Bonander v. Town of Tiburon
On December 31, 2009, the 1st District Court of Appeal overturned a benefit assessment approved by property owners to pay for placing overhead utility lines underground in an area of the Town of Tiburon. The Court invalidated the assessments on the grounds that the assessments had been apportioned to assessed property based in part on relative costs within sub-areas of the assessment district instead of proportional special benefits.
Beutz v. County of Riverside
On May 26, 2010 the 4th District Court of Appeal issued a decision on the Steven Beutz v.
County of Riverside (“Beutz”) appeal. This decision overturned an assessment for park maintenance in Wildomar, California, primarily because the general benefits associated with improvements and services were not explicitly calculated, quantified and separated from the special benefits.
Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego On September 22, 2011, the San Diego Court of Appeal issued a decision on the Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego appeal. This decision overturned an assessment for street and landscaping maintenance in the Greater Golden Hill neighborhood of San Diego, California. The court described two primary reasons for its decision. First, like in Beutz, the court found the general benefits associated with services were not explicitly calculated, quantified and separated from the special benefits. Second, the court found that the City had failed to record the basis for the assessment on its own parcels.
Page I-1.18
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Compliance with Current Law
This Engineer’s Report is consistent with the requirements of Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution and with the SVTA decision because the Improvements to be funded are clearly defined; the Improvements are directly available to and will directly benefit property in the Assessment District; and the Improvements provide a direct advantage to property in the Assessment District that would not be received in absence of the Assessments.
This Engineer’s Report is consistent with Beutz, Dahms and Greater Golden Hill because the Improvements will directly benefit property in the Assessment District and the general benefits have been explicitly calculated and quantified and excluded from the Assessments. The Engineer’s Report is consistent with Bonander because the Assessments have been apportioned based on the overall cost of the Improvements and proportional special benefit to each property.
Page I-1.19
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Plans & Specifications
Following is a description of the Services that are provided for the benefit of property in the Assessment District. Prior to the residential development in Menlo Park, the Level of Service on these improvements was effectively zero. The formula below describes the relationship between the final level of improvements, the baseline level of service (predevelopment) had the assessment not been instituted, and the enhanced level of improvements funded by the assessment.
Final Level of
Service
= Baseline Level of Service
(≈zero, pre-development)
+ Enhanced Level of
Service
The City of Menlo Park maintains street trees, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and parking strips throughout the City.
The proposed improvements to be undertaken by the City of Menlo Park and financed by the levy of the annual assessment provide special benefit to Assessor Parcels within the District as defined in the Method of Assessment herein. The said improvements consist of maintaining, trimming, disease treatment, and replacement of street trees; street sweeping to remove debris; and the repair and replacement of damaged sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and parking strips damaged by street trees throughout the City of Menlo Park.
Page I-1.20
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Method of Assessment
This section of the Engineer's Report includes an explanation of the benefits to be derived from the maintenance, repair, and replacement of street trees, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and parking strips throughout the City, and the methodology used to apportion the total assessment to properties within the Landscaping Assessment District.
The Landscaping Assessment District consists of all Assessor Parcels within the boundaries of the City of Menlo Park as defined by the County of San Mateo tax code areas. The method used for apportioning the assessment is based upon the proportional special benefits to be derived by the properties in the Landscaping Assessment District over and above general benefits conferred on real property or to the public at large. The apportionment of special benefit is a two-step process: the first step is to identify the types of special benefit arising from the improvements and the second step is to allocate the assessments to property based on the estimated relative special benefit for each type of property.
Discussion of Benefit
In summary, the assessments can only be levied based on the special benefit to properties. This benefit is received by property over and above any general benefits and such benefit is not based on any one property owner’s use of the amenities or a property owner’s specific demographic status. With reference to the requirements for assessment, Section 22573 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 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 benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements." Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution has confirmed that assessments must be based on the special benefit to property:
"No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel." Page I-1.21
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
The following benefit categories summarize the types of special benefit to residential, commercial, industrial and other lots and parcels resulting from the installation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping and lighting improvements to be provided with the assessment proceeds. These categories of special benefit are derived from the statutes passed by the California Legislature and other studies which describe the types of special benefit received by property from maintenance and improvements such as those within by the District. These types of special benefit are summarized as follows:
A. Proximity to improved landscaped areas within the Assessment District.
B. Access to improved landscaped areas within the Assessment District.
C. Improved Views within the Assessment District.
D. Enhanced environment because of the vigorous street tree program for owners of property in the Landscaping Assessment District.
E. Increased safety against tripping and other hazards caused by cracked or damaged sidewalks, curbs and gutters.
F. Enhanced desirability of the property.
G. Reduced liability for landscape maintenance.
In this case, the recent the SVTA v. SCCOSA decision provides enhanced clarity to the definitions of special benefits to properties in three distinct areas:
♦ Proximity ♦ Expanded or Improved Access ♦ Views
The SVTA v. SCCOSA decision also clarifies that a special benefit is a service or improvement that provides a direct advantage to a parcel and that indirect or derivative advantages resulting from the overall public benefits from a service or improvement are general benefits. The SVTA v. SCCOSA decision also provides specific guidance that landscaping improvements are a direct advantage and special benefit to property that is proximate to landscaping that is improved by an assessment:
The characterization of a benefit may depend on whether the parcel receives a direct advantage from the improvement (e.g. proximity to a park) or receives an indirect, derivative advantage resulting from the overall public benefits of the improvement (e.g. general enhancement of the district’s property values).
Proximity, improved access and views, in addition to the other special benefits listed above further strengthen the basis of these assessments.
Page I-1.22
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Benefit Factors
The special benefits from the Improvements are further detailed below:
Proximity to improved landscaped areas within the Assessment District Only the specific properties within close proximity to the Improvements are included in the Assessment District. Therefore, property in the Assessment District enjoys unique and valuable proximity and access to the Improvements that the public at large and property outside the Assessment District do not share.
In absence of the assessments, the Improvements would not be provided and the landscaping areas in the Assessment District would be degraded due to insufficient funding for maintenance, upkeep and repair. Therefore, the assessments provide Improvements that are over and above what otherwise would be provided.
Improvements that are over and above what otherwise would be provided do not by themselves translate into special benefits, but when combined with the unique proximity and access enjoyed by parcels in the Assessment District, they provide a direct advantage and special benefit to property in the Assessment District.
Access to improved landscaped areas within the Assessment District Since the parcels in the Assessment District are nearly the only parcels that enjoy close access to the Improvements, they directly benefit from the unique close access to improved landscaping areas that are provided by the Assessments. This is a direct advantage and special benefit to property in the Assessment District.
Improved views within the Assessment District
The City, by maintaining these landscaped areas, provides improved views to properties in the Assessment District. The properties in the Assessment District enjoy close and unique proximity, access and views of the Improvements; therefore, the improved and protected views provided by the Assessments are another direct and tangible advantage that is uniquely conferred upon property in the Assessment District. The Landscaping Assessment District provides funding to maintain and protect these public resources and facilities of the City. For example, the assessments provide funding to trim and maintain the street trees to maintain them in a healthy condition. This benefits properties by maintaining and improving the public resources in the community.
In order to allocate the proposed assessments, the Engineer begins by identifying the types of special benefit arising from the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the aforementioned facilities and that would be provided to property within the District.
These types of special benefit are as follows:
Page I-1.23
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Enhanced environment because of the vigorous street tree program for owners of property in the Landscaping Assessment District Residential properties benefit from the enhanced environment provided by a vigorous program to install and maintain the street trees at a level beyond that followed by other cities throughout the County. The increased use of street trees provides an atmosphere of beauty beyond the norm. The improvements to the trees will be available to residents and guests of properties within the District.
Non-residential properties also will benefit from these improvements in many ways. The use of street trees softens the environment making it more pleasant for employees during commute time and at breaks from their work. These improvements, therefore, enhance an employer's ability to attract and keep quality employees. The benefits to employers ultimately flow to the property because better employees improve the employment prospects for companies and enhanced economic conditions benefit the property by making it more valuable.
Increased safety against tripping and other hazards caused by cracked or damaged sidewalks, curbs and gutters
An aggressive inspection program identifies hazardous conditions in sidewalks, curbs and gutters caused by street trees and allows for these conditions to be repaired on a timely basis. Timely repair of hazardous conditions greatly improves the overall safety of the environment, thereby providing for safer use of property.
Enhanced desirability of the property
The assessments will provide funding to improve the City's street tree program, raising the quality to a more desired level, and to ensure that the sidewalks, curbs, and gutters remain operable, safe, clean and well maintained. Such improved and well-maintained facilities enhance the overall desirability of property. This is a benefit to residential, commercial and industrial properties.
Reduced liability for landscape maintenance
The assessments will reduce the liability for landscape maintenance to street trees and other improvements. This is a benefit to residential, commercial and industrial properties.
Page I-1.24
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
General vs. Special Benefit
Article XIII D of the Constitution specifies that only special benefits are assessable, and that the City must separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on any parcel. The complete analysis of special benefits and their allocation are found elsewhere in this report. For the Landscaping Assessment District, the City has identified a general benefit and has separated it from the special assessments.
The City’s maintenance of street trees and sidewalk facilities provides a general benefit to the community and to the general public to some degree. The measure of this general benefit is the enhancement of the environment and safety provided to the greater public at large. This general benefit can be measured by the proportionate amount of time that the City’s sidewalks and street trees are used and enjoyed by the greater public at large1 .
It is reasonable to assume that approximately 1/4 or 25% of the usage and enjoyment of the improvements is by the greater public. Therefore, approximately 25% of the benefits conferred by the improvements are general in nature.
The City’s total budget for maintenance and improvement of its trees and sidewalk facilities is $1,987,759. Of this total budget amount, the City will contribute $250,000 from sources other than the assessments for sidewalk repair and $106,939 for street tree maintenance. These contributions by the City, as well as $140,000 in funds from Measure M, total $688,715, equating to approximately 25.0% of the total budget for maintenance to offset the cost of the general benefits resulting from the improvements.
In the 2009 Dahms case, the court upheld an assessment that was 100% special benefit on the rationale that the services funded by the assessments were directly provided within the assessment district. It is also important to note that the improvements and services funded by the assessments in Pomona are similar to the improvements and services funded by the Assessments described in this Engineer’s Report and the Court found these improvements and services to be 100% special benefit. Also similar to the assessments in Pomona, the Assessments described in this Engineer’s Report fund improvements and services directly provided within the Assessment District and every benefiting property in the Assessment District enjoys proximity and access to the Improvements. Therefore, Dahms establishes a basis for minimal or zero general benefits from the Assessments. However, in this Report, the general benefit is more conservatively estimated and described, and then budgeted so that it is funded by sources other than the Assessment.
1 . The greater public at large is generally defined as those who are not residents, property owners, customers or employees within the City, and residents who do not live in close proximity to the improvements.
Page I-1.25
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Method of Assessment
The second step in apportioning assessments is to determine the relative special benefit for each property. This process involves determining the relative benefit received by each property in relation to a single-family home, or, in other words, on the basis of SingleFamily Equivalents (“SFE”). This SFE methodology is commonly used to distribute assessments in proportion to estimated special benefit and is generally recognized as providing the basis for a fair and appropriate distribution of assessments. For the purposes of this Engineer’s Report, all properties are designated an SFE value, which is each property’s relative benefit in relation to a single-family home on one parcel. The "benchmark" property is the single family detached dwelling, which is one Single Family Equivalent, or one SFE.
As stated previously, the special benefits derived from the assessments are conferred on property and are not based on a specific property owner’s use of the improvements, on a specific property owner’s occupancy of property, or the property owner’s demographic status such as age or number of dependents. However, it is ultimately people who enjoy the special benefits described above, use and enjoy the City’s trees and sidewalks, and control property values by placing a value on the special benefits to be provided by the improvements. In other words, the benefits derived to property are related the average number of people who could potentially live on, work at or otherwise could use a property, not how the property is currently used by the present owner. Therefore, the number of people who could or potentially live on, work at or otherwise use a property is an indicator of the relative level of benefit received by the property.
Assessment Apportionment - Street Trees
Properties with Street Trees
All improved residential properties that represent a single residential dwelling unit and have a street tree on or fronting the property are assigned 1.0 SFE. All single-family houses with tree(s) and those units in R-2 zones that are being used as single-family dwellings (with trees) are included in this category.
Page I-1.26
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Properties with more than one residential unit are designated as multi-family residential properties. These properties benefit from the improvements in proportion to the number of dwelling units that occupy each property and the relative number of people who reside in multi-family residential units compared to the average number of people who reside in a single-family home. The population density factors for the County of San Mateo from the 1990 US Census (the most recent data available when the Assessment was established) are depicted below. The SFE factors for condominium, townhouse, and multi-family parcels, as derived from relative dwelling unit population density, are also shown below.
Figure 1 – Residential Assessment Factors
Total Occupied Persons SFE
Property Type Population Households per Household Factor* Single Family Residential 412,685 140,248 2.94 1.0
Condominium/Townhouse 54,284 19,331 2.81 0.9
Multi-Family Residential 158,004 65,981 2.39 0.8
Source: 1990 Census, San Mateo County
The SFE factor for condominium, townhouse, and multi-family parcels is based on the ratio of average persons per household for the property type versus the average persons per household for a single-family residential home. Multi-family units are assessed at
0.80 per unit up to a maximum of 4.0 SFE per parcel (maximum of 5 units multiplied by
0.80). Condominium and townhouse parcels are assessed at 0.90 per unit, up to a maximum of 4.5 SFEs per development (maximum of 5 units multiplied by 0.90).
SFE values for commercial and industrial land uses are based on the equivalence of special benefit on a land area basis between single-family residential property and the average commercial/industrial property. The average size of a parcel for a single-family home in the District is approximately 0.18 acres, and such single-family property has an SFE value of 1.0. Using the equivalence of benefit on a land area basis, improved commercial and industrial parcels of approximately 0.20 acres or less would also receive an SFE benefit factor of 1.0. Commercial and industrial parcels in excess of a fifth of an acre in size are assigned 1.0 SFE per 0.20 acre or portion thereof, and the maximum benefit factor for any commercial/industrial parcel is 5.0 SFE.
Page I-1.27
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Vacant parcels are also benefited from the street tree improvement and maintenance program. An example of a benefit is enhancement of the visual appeal that will accrue to a vacant parcel from the presence or proximity of the community’s street trees based on its future potential use. Undeveloped property also benefits from the installation and maintenance of street trees, because if the property is developed during the year, the street trees will be available to the developed property. The relative benefit to vacant property is determined to be generally equal to the benefit to a single-family home property. Therefore, vacant property with street tree(s) are assessed 1 SFE.
Properties without Street Trees
The special benefit factors conferred on property can be defined by the benefits conferred to properties with and without street trees. The types of benefits conferred to all property in the community include protection of views, screening, and resource values and enhanced desirability of the property. A higher level of special benefits is conferred directly on parcels with street trees because these parcels obtain additional benefits from well-maintained, healthy trees fronting the property. The types of special benefits that are increased for properties with street trees include enhanced levels of safety, desirability, unique proximity, access and views of resources and facilities from healthy trees on the property. Therefore, individual properties without street trees but in close proximity to parcels with street trees receive a direct benefit from the street trees and should pay 50% of the rate for a similar property with street trees. Such properties are assigned an SFE benefit factor that is 50% of that for a similar property with street trees.
Assessment Apportionment - Sidewalk Program
The benefits to property for sidewalks, curbs, gutters and parking strips are closely related to a parcel’s proximity to these improvements and the parcel’s proximity to street trees.
Street trees are the most common cause of sidewalk problems. Therefore, the highest benefit from the proposed sidewalk improvements is to properties with street trees and sidewalks, curbs and gutters, or street trees and parking strips and gutters, because without the maintenance work, these improvements would degrade more quickly, which would affect the parcel’s appearance and safety. It is estimated that 1/3 of the special benefits are conferred to property with street trees and sidewalks or parking strips.
Another 1/3 of the special benefits are conferred to property with street trees and curbs and gutters. Special benefit factors are also conferred on property without street trees or adjoining sidewalk, curb, gutter and/or parking strip improvements that are in close proximity to these types of improvements. It is estimated that the remaining 1/3 of the special benefit factors from the Sidewalk Program are conferred to these parcels that are in close proximity to the improvements but that do not have improvements directly adjacent to their property.
Page I-1.28
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Consequently, properties with street trees and sidewalks or parking strips and curbs and gutters or valley gutters are assigned a benefit factor of 1 SFE. Properties with street trees, curbs and gutters are assigned a benefit factor of 0.67 SFE. If there are street trees but no improvements along the frontage of a parcel, or no street trees on a parcel, its benefit is 1/3 or 0.33 SFE.
Assessment Apportionment - Other Properties
Improved, publicly owned parcels that are used for residential, commercial or industrial purposes are assessed at the rates specified previously. Other improved public property; institutional property and properties used for educational purposes, typically generate employees on a less consistent basis than other non-residential parcels. Moreover, many of these parcels provide some degree of on-site amenities that serve to offset some of the benefits from the District. Therefore, these parcels, with or without street trees, receive minimal benefit and are assessed an SFE factor of 1 for street tree assessments and an SFE factor of 1 for sidewalks, curbs and gutter assessments.
All properties that are specially benefited have been assessed. Agricultural parcels without living units, public right-of-way parcels, well, reservoir or other water rights parcels, unimproved open space parcels, watershed parcels and common area parcels generally provide recreational, open space and/or scenic benefits to the community. As such, they tend to provide similar benefits as provided by the improvements in the District. Any benefits they would receive from the landscaping maintenance are generally offset by the equivalent benefits they provide. Moreover, these parcels typically do not generate employees, residents or customers. Such parcels are, therefore, not specially benefited and are not assessed.
Page I-1.29
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Appeals and Interpretation
Any property owner who feels that the assessment levied on the subject property is in error as a result of incorrect information being used to apply the foregoing method of assessment, may file a written appeal with the Public Works Director of the City of Menlo Park or his or her designee. Any such appeal is limited to correction of an assessment during the then current or, if before July 1, the upcoming fiscal year. Upon the filing of any such appeal, the Public Works Director or his or her designee will promptly review the appeal and any information provided by the property owner. If the Public Works Director or his or her designee finds that the assessment should be modified, the appropriate changes shall be made to the assessment roll. If any such changes are approved after the assessment roll has been filed with the County of San Mateo for collection, the Public Works Director or his or her designee is authorized to refund to the property owner the amount of any approved reduction. Any dispute over the decision of the Public Works Director or his or her designee shall be referred to the City Council of the City of Menlo Park and the decision of the City Council of the City of Menlo Park shall be final.
Page I-1.30
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Figure 2 – Tree Maintenance Assessments
Property Type
Parcels with Trees Assessment Rate
Single Family $91.38 (per Parcel)
R-2 Zone, in use as single family $91.38 (per Parcel)
Condominium/Townhouse $82.24 (per Unit, $411.21 max. per Project) Other Multi-family $73.10 (per Unit, $365.52 max. per Project) Commercial $91.38 (per 1/5 acre, $456.90 max. per Project) Industrial $91.38 (per 1/5 acre, $456.90 max. per Project) Parks, Educational $91.38 (per Parcel)
Miscellaneous, Other $0.00 (per Parcel)
Parcels without Trees
Single Family $45.69 (per Parcel)
R-2 Zone, in use as single family $45.69 (per Parcel)
Condominium/Townhouse $41.12 (per Unit, $205.61 max. per Project) Other Multi-family $36.55 (per Unit, $182.76 max. per Project) Commercial $45.69 (per 1/5 acre, $228.45 max.)
Industrial $45.69 (per 1/5 acre, $228.45 max.)
Parks, Educational $45.69 (per Parcel)
Miscellaneous, Other $0.00 (per Parcel)
2023-24 Assessment Rates
Figure 3 – Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Parking Strip Assessments Property Type
Parcels with Trees Assessment Rate
Sidewalks, curbs, gutters $48.82 (per Parcel)
Parking strips and gutters $48.82 (per Parcel)
Curbs and/or gutters only $32.71 (per Parcel)
No improvements $16.11 (per Parcel)
Miscellaneous, Other $0.00 (per Parcel)
Parcels without Trees
Parcels with or without improvements $16.11 (per Parcel) Miscellaneous, Other $0.00 (per Parcel)
2023-24 Assessment Rates
Note: All total combined tree and sidewalk assessment amounts are rounded to the lower even penny.
Page I-1.31
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Assessment
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2023, the City Council of the City of Menlo Park, County of San Mateo, California, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (collectively “the Act”), adopted its Resolution Initiating Proceedings for the Levy of Assessments within the Landscaping Assessment District; and
WHEREAS, said Resolution directed the undersigned Engineer of Work to prepare and file a report presenting an estimate of costs, a diagram for the assessment district and an assessment of the estimated costs of the improvements upon all assessable parcels within the assessment district, to which Resolution and the description of said proposed improvements therein contained, reference is hereby made for further particulars.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under said Act and the order of the City Council of said City of Menlo Park, hereby make the following assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of said improvements, and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by the assessment district.
The amount to be paid for said improvements and the expense incidental thereto, to be paid by the Landscaping Assessment District for the fiscal year 2023-24 is generally as follows:
Figure 4 – Summary Cost Estimate
F.Y. 2023-24
Budget
Street Tree Program $ 890,362.59
Street Sweeping $ 297,022.18
Sidewalk Program $ 605,000.00
Incidental Expenses $ 195,375.00
TOTAL BUDGET $1,987,760
Plus:
Projected Fund Balance $ 491,149.03
Less:
City Contribution for General Benefits ($496,939.94)
Contribution from Carry-Over Fund Balances $ (833,888.00) NET AMOUNT TO ASSESSMENTS $ 1,148,080.86
Page I-1.32
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
As required by the Act, an Assessment Diagram is hereto attached and made a part hereof showing the exterior boundaries of said Landscaping Assessment District. The distinctive number of each parcel or lot of land in the said Landscaping Assessment District is its Assessor Parcel Number appearing on the Assessment Roll.
And I do hereby assess and apportion said net amount of the cost and expenses of said improvements, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, upon the parcels and lots of land within said Landscaping Assessment District, in accordance with the special benefits to be received by each parcel or lot, from the improvements, and more particularly set forth in the Cost Estimate and Method of Assessment hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.
The assessment is made upon the parcels or lots of land within the Landscaping Assessment District in proportion to the special benefits to be received by the parcels or lots of land, from said improvements.
The assessment is subject to an annual adjustment tied to the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area, with a maximum annual adjustment not to exceed 3%. Any change in the ENR in excess of 3% shall be cumulatively reserved as the “Unused ENR” and shall be used to increase the maximum authorized assessment rate in years in which the ENR is less than 3%. The maximum authorized assessment rate is equal to the maximum assessment rate in the first fiscal year the assessment was levied adjusted annually by the minimum of 1) 3% or 2) the change in the ENR plus any Unused ENR as described above. The initial, maximum assessment rate balloted and established in Fiscal Year 1998-99 was $64.28 per single family equivalent benefit unit for tree maintenance, and $28.70 per single family equivalent benefit unit for sidewalk maintenance.
Based on the preceding annual adjustments, the maximum assessment rate for Fiscal Year 2022-23 was $124.73 for tree maintenance and $55.69 for Sidewalk maintenance. The change in the ENR from December 2021 to December 2022 was 5.27%. Therefore, the maximum authorized assessment rate for Fiscal Year 2023-24 has been increased from $124.73 to $128.47 per single family equivalent benefit unit for tree maintenance, and from $55.69 to $57.36 per single family equivalent benefit unit for sidewalk maintenance.
However, the estimate of cost and budget in this Engineer’s Report proposes assessments for fiscal year 2023-24 at the rate of $91.38 per single family equivalent benefit unit for tree maintenance, which is less than the maximum authorized assessment rate and is a
3.00% increase over the rate assessed in the previous fiscal year. The proposed assessment rate for fiscal year 2023-24 for sidewalk maintenance is $48.82 per single family equivalent benefit unit, which is also less than the maximum authorized assessment rate and is a 3.00% increase over the rate assessed in the previous fiscal year.
Page I-1.33
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Property owners in the Assessment District, in an assessment ballot proceeding, approved the initial fiscal year benefit assessment for special benefits to their property including the ENR adjustment schedule. As a result, the assessment may continue to be levied annually and may be adjusted by up to the maximum annual ENR adjustment without any additional assessment ballot proceeding. In the event that in future years the assessments are levied at a rate less than the maximum authorized assessment rate, the assessment rate in a subsequent year may be increased up to the maximum authorized assessment rate without any additional assessment ballot proceeding.
Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of San Mateo for the fiscal year 2023-24. For a more particular description of said property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder of said County.
I hereby place opposite the Assessor Parcel Number for each parcel or lot within the Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment for the fiscal year 2023-24 for each parcel or lot of land within the said Landscaping Assessment District.
Dated: May 8, 2023
Engineer of Work
By
Edric W. H. Kwan, P.E.
License No. C062829
Page I-1.34
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Figure 5 – Engineer’s Cost Estimate, Fiscal Year 2023-24 A. Tree Maintenance
Salaries & Benefits $ 503,643.84
Operating Expense $ 32,360.00
Fixed Assets & Capital Outlay $ 4,500.00
Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance $ 15,250.00
Professional Services $ 334,608.75
(Tree Spraying, Tree Trimming, Misc.)
Subtotal - Tree Maintenance $ 890,362.59
B. Debris Removal
Salaries & Benefits $ 75,022.18
Street Sweeping Contract $ 222,000.00
Subtotal - Debris Removal $ 297,022.18
C. Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Parking Strip Repair/Replacement Construction Costs $ 605,000.00
Subtotal - S/W,C,G, & PS Repair/Replace $ 605,000.00
Subtotal Tree/Debris/Reforestation/Sidewalk $ 1,792,384.77 D. Incidentals
Indirect Costs & Administration $ 180,375.00
County Collection Fees $ 15,000.00
Subtotal - Incidentals $ 195,375.00
Total Cost $ 1,987,759.77
Fiscal Year 2023-24
CITY OF MENLO PARK LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
Page I-1.35
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Projected Fund Balance $ 491,149.03
Tree Maintenance Ending Fund Balance $ (743,057.00)
Less General Fund Contribution $ (106,939.94)
Measure M $ (140,000.00)
Sidewalk Fund Ending Balance $ (90,831.00)
Less General Fund CIP Contribution to Sidewalk Fund $ (250,000.00) Net to Assessment $ 1,148,080.86
Revenue
Single Family Equivalent Benefit Units - Trees 8,925.41 Single Family Equivalent Benefit Units - Sidewalks 6,810.26 2023-24 2022-23
Assessment Rate for Tree Fund/ SFE $91.38 $88.72
Assessment Rate for Sidewalk Fund/ SFE $48.82 $47.40
Revenue for Tree Fund $815,603.97
Revenue for Sidewalk Fund $332,476.89
Total Revenue * $1,148,080.86
assessments are rounded down to the even penny.
* Total revenue is slightly less than SFEs times the assessment rate because all combined Engineer's Cost Estimate, Fiscal Year 2023-24 (continued) Page I-1.36
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Assessment Diagram
The Landscaping Assessment District includes all properties within the boundaries of the City of Menlo Park.
The boundaries of the Landscaping Assessment District are displayed on the following Assessment Diagram.
Page I-1.37
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Page I-1.38
City of Menlo Park
Landscaping Assessment District
Engineer’s Report, FY 2023-24
Appendix A – Assessment Roll, FY 2023-24
Reference is hereby made to the Assessment Roll in and for the assessment proceedings on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Menlo Park, as the Assessment Roll is too voluminous to be bound with this Engineer's Report.
Page I-1.39
Administrative Services
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov
STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 6/27/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-150-CC
Regular Business: Adopt resolutions for fiscal year 2023-24: adopting budget and capital improvement plan; establishing
appropriations limit; amending the salary schedule
effective July 2, 2023; extending rate assistance
program through June 2024; and accept award
authority and bid requirement through June 2024
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council provide final direction on the city manager’s fiscal year 2023-24 proposed budget, adopt the following resolutions, establish award levels and provide bid requirements:
1. Resolution adopting fiscal year 2023-24 budget and capital improvement plan (CIP) (Attachment A)
2. Resolution establishing the appropriations limit (Attachment B)
3. Resolution amending the salary schedule effective July 2, 2023 (Attachment C)
4. Resolution extending the solid waste and water rate assistance program through June 2024 (Attachment D)
5. Accept award memo for authority and bid requirement through June 2024 (Attachment E) Policy Issues
The City Council maintains responsibility for all budgetary appropriations. Under §2.08.080(8) of the Menlo Park Municipal Code, the city manager has the responsibility “to prepare and submit to the City Council the annual budget.” Appropriations for fiscal year 2022-23 lapse June 30, 2023, and adoption of the budget and appropriation of funds is necessary before the start of the fiscal year July 1, 2023.
Background
Preparation of the annual budget takes place primarily during the months of March through May and is informed by City Council direction including amendments to the current fiscal year’s budget, adoption of budget principles, and adoption of City Council priorities. The proposed budget was published May 31, 2023, for consideration by the community and City Council. A budget workshop was held June 1, 2023, to provide additional information about the budget and answer questions from the community and a public hearing was held at the June 13, 2023 City Council meeting. Materials from the public budget workshop and the public hearing are available on the city’s website as Attachment F.
Analysis
Staff developed the city manager’s proposed fiscal year 2023-24 budget through a collaborative effort among the budget team, department contributors, OpenGov, consultants, public input and the City Council.
Consistent with the City Council budget principles and prior adopted guidance on fund segregation, all funds are fully funded with positive fund balances. Also, annual surplus/(deficit) balances are presented to AGENDA ITEM J-1 Page J-1.1
Staff Report #: 23-150-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov determine if a fund’s on-going cost are appropriate. This format ensures carryforward capital balances and first year request of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is sufficiently covered.
The General Fund, the largest and most active of the city’s funds and responsible for the majority of the city’s operations, is balanced this fiscal year by using reserves of $0.82 million and the additional $3.7 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds as indicated in Attachment J. The city manager’s proposed budget entails a baseline spending plan for 290.5 full-time equivalent (FTEs) employees, which is the same level for fiscal year 2022-23. Currently, the requested six FTEs for the launch of services at the Menlo Park Community Campus (MPCC) is excluded. The city manager’s budget is publicly presented through the City’s OpenGov portal which facilitates analysis and discussion (Attachment F). The city manager’s budget is developed with many revenue and expense assumptions discussed throughout these documents. The OpenGov platform facilitates scenario development and adjustments requested by City Council and members of the public. The city’s move to an online budget portal through OpenGov has substantially changed the budget development process and provides an opportunity for greater transparency.
Changes incorporated after the June 13 public hearing
City Council deliberated after reviewing staff recommended budget strategies at the June 13 public hearing and provided the following direction for the fiscal year 2023-24 budget:
• Clearly identify annual and ongoing expenses for service level enhancements (SLE) • Exclude MPCC request for additional staffing, including six FTEs pending further review by City Council; • Exclude the police Flock camera purchase; a future study session will be scheduled for further City Council discussion
• Maintain the additional payment for Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) Potential revenue-generating ballot measures
Based on City Council direction at the June 13 public hearing, staff will conduct additional analysis of a potential Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) measure for the November 2024 ballot.
The City Council may also consider revenue-generating measures for capital projects, including General Obligation Bonds (GOBs), parcel taxes, community facilities districts and other assessment districts.
Measures to support capital projects could be applied to provide some or all of the local match required for large transportation projects, fund downtown parking structures, or advance sea level rise adaptation and resiliency work along the bay to benefit the Belle Haven community and other property owners at risk of flooding. The city is also preparing a Stormwater Master Plan to identify capital improvement needs and a storm system funding study to identify options for funding the improvements. Note: The voter-approved ballot Measure T (2001) allowed the city to issue GOBs for parks and recreation facilities.
Anticipated budget amendments
Staff anticipates the following potential amendments during the fiscal year, in addition to amendments for successor labor agreements with Service Employees International Union Local 521 (SEIU) and the SEIU temporary employee unit, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 829 (AFSCME), and unrepresented management.
MPCC staffing
City Council was provided a memorandum at its June 13 meeting outlining the necessary cost to operate the campus as well as additional services being provided. City Council requested additional information and analysis related to utilizing existing department staff and related service impacts across the department, which will be brought forward at a future City Council meeting. Staff shared preliminary information at the Page J-1.2
Staff Report #: 23-150-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov Library Commission meeting held June 19 and will share the same information with the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting June 28 (Attachment G). Future City Council direction may require a budget amendment. Based on the anticipated timeline for opening the new facility in the first half of calendar year 2024, staff recommends that definitive direction and/or action be taken related to MPCC staffing levels no later than September 2023.
Use of special revenue funds (developer payments, Downtown Public Amenity, In-Lieu Community Amenities Funds, Below Market Housing Fund)
Special revenue funds are segregated from the General Fund, per City Council direction. Some of these funds may be used to maintain the General Fund’s expenditures as well as contributions to capital projects in accordance with regulatory requirements. At a future time, the City Council may consider using the OneTime Developer Payments Fund (Fund 111) to maintain service levels and staffing at the MPCC or other purposes. In fiscal year 2023-24, Fund 111 includes the following multi-year payments through agreements with Meta:
• Recurring public benefit – West Campus: $150,000 per year; 10-year agreement expiring in fiscal year 2025-2026
• Recurring public benefit – West Campus Expansion: $300,000 per year (amount adjusted every five years); 20-year agreement expiring in fiscal year 2032-33 • Recurring public benefit – East Campus: $1,000,000 per year Per City Council direction, staff is investigating eligible uses of the Below Market Housing Fund (Fund 222) for anti-displacement strategies.
Police Flock cameras
Flock cameras are a fixed license plate reader (LPR) tool that only collects information about vehicle description and license plate and no personal identifying information. The data generated from LPR cameras has shown to be instrumental for crime and traffic collision investigation, public safety alerts direct to police personnel in real-time, and location of missing persons. City Council directed staff to hold a study session to understand deployment and use of Flock cameras before appropriating funds, and the police department welcomes the opportunity to discuss this item in more detail.
Environmental Justice (EJ) Element programs
The EJ Element continues to be reviewed and finalized this year. The City Council, staff, and community members may identify projects related to environmental justice to implement during fiscal year 2023-24, such as city sponsorship of a farmers market in Belle Haven, or grant writing assistance to the city especially to target Inflation Recovery Act (IRA) and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funds, as well as other emerging federal and state funding sources such as the Reconnecting Communities Grant program. Many of these grant opportunities could support EJ Element implementation. In addition, the city Council could consider use of the Bayfront Mitigation Fund toward program implementation.
Cultural and community event grant program
At its Sept. 20, 2022 meeting, City Council expressed interest in a potential grant program to incentivize and support local organizations and groups to produce their own cultural and community events for the community’s benefit. At its Feb. 14, 2023 meeting, the City Council received an informational item and requested discussion during the budget process.
Service level enhancement requests (SLEs)
A variety of service level enhancements (SLEs) are included in the proposed fiscal year 2023-24 budget for City Council consideration, summarized in Attachment H. These enhancements are intended to restore Page J-1.3
Staff Report #: 23-150-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov and/or improve services provided to the community. Staff has clearly identified the annual and ongoing financial impact. Currently, costs for additional MPCC staffing and police Flock cameras are excluded from this budget, and included as a separate table in Attachment H for illustrative purposes only.
Revised budgeted fund balances through fiscal year 2023-24 Forecasted fund balances (Attachment I) for fiscal year 2022-23 remain unchanged from the June 13 public hearing. Staff updated the General Fund fiscal year 2023-24 proposed budged fund balances (Attachment J) with direction received from City Council at the June 13 public hearing. The main budget adjustments that increased the proposed deficit from $0.96 million to $1 million include:
• MPCC: Removed the 6 FTEs salary and benefits
• Added additional UAL payment at same level as previous fiscal year • Removed the police Flock cameras
The deficit is a result of $75.1 million in revenues offset by $76.1 million in expenses. The unassigned fund balance is $7.3 million after adjusting fund balances for non-spendable prepaids, project-related encumbrances, Strategic Pension Fund Reserve, Emergency Contingency Reserve and Economic Stabilization Reserve. Note: Both the Emergency Contingency and Economic Stabilization Reserves are maintained at minimum policy levels for fiscal year 2023-24.
Table 1: General Fund balance components (excluding Fund 111) Item Estimated balance
Estimated fund balance June 30, 2023 $37,351,997
Ending fund balance June 30, 2024 $36,348,955
Fund Balance Reserve components
Non-spendable prepaids $446,047
Project related, encumbrance $540,643
Strategic pension funding reserve $1,326,164
Emergency contingency reserve $11,422,199
Economic stabilization reserve $15,229,599
Unassigned fund balance $7,384,304
General Fund five-year forecast
The General Fund five-year forecast (Attachment K) reflects adopted budgeting principles and assists the City Council with long-term strategic decisions for the city’s largest operating fund. The goal of the five-year forecast is to present the City Council with an outlook for a sustainable General Fund over the next five years. Revenue and expenditure assumptions in the forecast are based on current financial projections. The model received input from a variety of sources, including the executive team and expert consultants. For example, tax revenue projections are provided by HdL Companies (HdL), MuniServices, and the County of San Mateo.
Changes incorporated after the June 13 public hearing
The General Fund five-year forecast has been updated to reflect the City Council’s deliberation at the June 13 public hearing. Specifically, the additional UAL payment has been incorporated into fiscal year 2023-24 Page J-1.4
Staff Report #: 23-150-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov budget and continues in the next year. In year three, remaining funds in the Strategic Pension Funding Reserve are supplemented with funds from the General Fund for an overall additional UAL payment of $500,000. Years four and five continue a $500,000 payment using General Fund. The six FTEs related to MPCC operations have been removed pending future City Council consideration. Finally, two scenarios are presented for the annual contribution to the CIP: one scenario preserves the current transfer of $3 million and the other reduces the transfer to $1 million in years two to five.
For the scenario maintaining the $3 million annual contribution to the CIP, the forecast projects that total reserve balance trending downward from $36.3 million to $15.6 million over the five-year period. The Emergency Contingency Reserve is maintained at the minimum policy level of 15% of the forecasted budget. The Economic Stabilization Reserve falls below the minimum policy level of 20% of the forecasted budget in fiscal year 2024-25 and decreases to 2% in year five. In addition, the unassigned reserve balance decreases to $0.25 million beginning fiscal year 2024-25 to maintain the necessary minimum liquidity for cash flow to cover operating expenses.
For the scenario reducing the annual contribution to the CIP to $1 million beginning fiscal year 2024-25, the total reserve balance trends down from $36.3 million to $24.3 million over the five-year forecast. The Emergency Contingency Reserve is maintained at the minimum policy level of 15% of the forecasted budget. The Economic Stabilization Reserve falls below the minimum policy level of 20% of the forecasted budget in fiscal year 2026-27 and decreases to 13% in year five. In addition, the unassigned reserve balance decreases to $0.25 million beginning in fiscal year 2026-27 to maintain the necessary minimum liquidity for cash flow to cover operating expenses.
Proposed five-year capital improvement program
As shown in Table 2, proposed in fiscal year 2023-24 are 81 funded and carry-over projects, with eight new projects. Twenty-six projects are proposed to receive new funds of approximately $14.6 million. Funding sources used include general capital funds, water capital funds, transportation impact fees, grants and donations, and sales tax measures such as San Mateo County Measures A and W for transportation and street projects.
Table 2: Capital improvement program,
Fiscal year 2023-24 proposed funding requests by category Category Proposed request Funding sources
City buildings and systems $1,224,000 General capital
Environment $1,692,000 General capital, grants
Parks and recreation $1,468,000 Recreation in-lieu, general capital, community amenities
Stormwater $4,065,000 General capital, grants, donations Streets and sidewalks $2,700,000 Sidewalk assessment, general capital, construction street impact fee, highway users (gas) tax, etc.
Traffic and transportation $2,200,000 Transportation impact fees, grants, Measures A and W, transportation
Water system $1,208,000 Water capital
Total $14,557,000
In addition to those projects summarized in Table 2, staff is continuing to track three other resource needs for upcoming projects that are continuing to evolve: funding for MPCC, erosion at the Alma Street bridges Page J-1.5
Staff Report #: 23-150-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov over San Francisquito Creek, and the pedestrian/bicycle trail under Junipero Serra Boulevard at Sand Hill Road/Alpine Road adjacent to the Stanford Golf Course. As these project needs are further refined, they may result in changes to the funding and priorities in the CIP. A funding agreement with the City of Palo Alto and Caltrain is anticipated to be scheduled for the City Council's consideration July 11 for the erosion at the Alma Street railroad and pedestrian/bicycle bridges from the winter 2022-23 storms. Caltrain is leading these emergency repairs and is coordinating with both cities to address the area around both bridges.
City Council resolutions
Staff incorporated direction provided at the June 13 meeting and requests adoption of the following resolutions prior to July 1, 2023.
Adoption of the fiscal year 2023-24 budget and CIP (Attachment A) This resolution formally appropriates funds and allows for expenditures during the fiscal year.
Appropriations limit (Attachment B)
California Government Code sets a limit on appropriations based on a number of factors including the prior limit, population change and cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) changes. This resolution establishes the appropriations limit for fiscal year 2023-24.
Salary schedule amendments (Attachment C)
The salary schedule is being updated to reflect a three percent (3%) general salary increase for the Police Officers’ Association (POA) and Police Sergeants’ Association (PSA), pursuant to their current memoranda of understanding ending Aug. 31, 2024, and June 30, 2025, respectively. The POA salary increase is scheduled to become effective the beginning of the first full pay period following July 1, 2023, which is July 2, 2023. The salary provision included in the PSA memorandum of understanding (MOU) requires that the current minimum base pay differential of 15 percent (15%) between top step police corporal and top step sergeant is maintained. In effect, this means that PSA will receive approximately the same three percent (3%) increase as POA scheduled to take effect July 2, 2023. Future salary schedule amendments anticipated during fiscal year 2023-24 will reflect successor labor agreements with SEIU and the SEIU temporary employee unit, AFSCME, and unrepresented management.
Solid waste and water rate assistance program (Attachment D) The city established a rate assistance pilot program for solid waste and water utilities in June 2020. This resolution extends the rate assistance program through June 30, 2024. This program is funded with nonrate revenues from the General Fund’s unassigned fund balance.
Award authority (Attachment E)
City Council Procedure #21-024-CC establishes award authority and bid requirements and includes an annual adjustment in purchasing limits according to inflation. The inflation from 2022 to 2023 results in a $7,000 increase in the city manager’s signature authority up to $93,000, as indicated in the authority memo for fiscal year 2023-24.
Impact on City Resources
The citywide operating expense budget is $131.4 million and the capital improvement budget is $100 million. As noted in the previous section, the fiscal year 2023-24 General Fund operating budget is balanced with the use of $1 million in reserves. If City Council desires additional changes to the budget which increase expenditures, use of one-time funds, including accumulated fund balance, must be identified absent an offsetting revenue. .
Page J-1.6
Staff Report #: 23-150-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.
Attachments
A. Resolution adopting the fiscal year 2023-24 budget and CIP B. Resolution establishing the appropriations limit
C. Resolution amending the salary schedule effective July 2, 2023 D. Resolution extending the solid waste and water rate assistance program E. Award authority memo for fiscal year 2023-24
F. Hyperlink – City budget (fiscal year 2023-24 proposed budget and CIP, budget workshop presentation and recording, public hearing): menlopark.gov/budget
G. MPCC service level analysis
H. Service Level Enhancements (SLEs)
I. Fiscal year 2022-23 forecasted fund balances
J. Fiscal year 2023-24 proposed budgeted fund balances
K. General Fund five-year forecast
Report prepared by:
Marvin Davis, Interim Finance Director
Brittany Mello, Administrative Services Director
Nikki Nagaya, Deputy City Manager
Stephen Stolte, Assistant City Manager
Page J-1.7
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK
ADOPTING THE BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023–24
WHEREAS, the City of Menlo Park, acting by and through its City Council, having considered the proposed budget document and related written and oral information at the meeting held June 13, 2023, and the City Council having been fully advised in the matter and good cause appearing therefore.
WHEREAS, City Council Procedure #21-024-CC having been replaced by City Council Policy #CC-21-024 requires City Council action to enter into agreements or settle claims with aggregate annual payments in excess of $93,000 for fiscal year 2023-24; however, expenditures in debt service on currently-issued debt, utilities, employee benefits, intergovernmental agreements, and operating technological end-user hardware and subscription services included in the Information Technology Internal Service Fund exceed the annual aggregate of $93,000 through contractual obligations or public health and safety necessity; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Menlo Park that the City Council does hereby:
1. Adopt the budget for the fiscal year 2023–24 as summarized in Exhibit A and as modified according to majority City Council direction; and
2. Authorize staff to adjust the city manager’s proposed budget to incorporate changes in assumptions for the proposed budget, to incorporate changes directed by the City Council at budget adoption, true-up of estimated carry-over appropriations, and other minor clerical errors; and
3. Authorize the City Manager or designee to make payments for services provided to the City in the categories of debt service on currently-issued debt, utilities, employee benefits, intergovernmental agreements, and operating technological end-user hardware and subscription services included in the Information Technology Internal Service Fund, in excess of $93,000 and up to the budgeted amount in fiscal year 2023-24.
I, Judi A. Herren, City Clerk of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing City Council Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said City Council on the twenty-seventh day of June, 2023, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this __ day of June, 2023.
Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT A Page J-1.8
Exhibits:
A. Fiscal year 2023-24 proposed budgeted fund balances
Resolution No. XXXX
FY 2023‐24 Budgeted Fund Balances
General Fund (excl Fund 111) 6/30/2023 Rev & TI Exp & TO CIP Rev CIP Exp Sur/(Def) 6/30/2024 100 General $ 37,351,997 $75,144,952 $ ‐ 76,147,993 $ $ ‐ $ (1,003,042) $ 36,348,955 Non‐spendable prepaids 446,047 446,047
Project related, encumb 540,643 540,643
Strategic pension funding 2,288,492 Actual % 1,326,164 Emergency (Policy: 15‐20%) 11,490,466 15% 11,422,199 Economic (Policy: 20‐25%) 15,320,621 20% 15,229,599 Unassigned 7,265,728 7,384,304
Total Reserve Breakdown 37,351,997 36,348,955 One‐time, Developer, In‐lieu
111 One‐time Revenue 2,800,000 1,350,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,350,000 4,150,000 258 CRRSA 19,668 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 19,668
332 Bayfront Impact 9,354,005 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9,354,005 353 Downtown Public Amenity 2,452,080 10,000 ‐ ‐ 748,718 (738,718) 1,713,362 369 Community Amenities 9,405,000 24,400,000 ‐ ‐ 300,000 24,100,000 33,505,000 395 Developer Funded Projects 304,245 750,000 750,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 304,245 397 American Rescue Plan Act 3,735,670 ‐ 3,717,830 ‐ ‐ (3,717,830) 17,840 201 EIR Fees 89,684 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 89,684
Housing Activity
221 Housing Special Revenue 6,579,985 1,000 24,000 ‐ ‐ (23,000) 6,556,985 222 Below Mrkt Rt Housing Spec Rev 38,946,382 3,096,433 662,542 ‐ ‐ 2,433,891 41,380,273 223 Federal Revenue Sharing 118,287 500 4,000 ‐ ‐ (3,500) 114,787 224 Community Devlpmt Block Grant 1,379,309 1,500 4,000 ‐ ‐ (2,500) 1,376,809 364 HUT Repair and Maintenance 793,824 844,369 ‐ ‐ 1,550,000 (705,631) 88,193 394 Communitywide Electrification Efforts ‐ 2,250,000 2,250,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Library & Community Service
202 Miscellaneous Trust 155,521 145,000 145,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 155,521 203 Donations ‐ Library and Community Se 499,095 295,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 295,000 794,095 204 Maria S Hoffman Donation Senio 266,189 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 266,189 251 Big Lift 107,800 295,000 260,109 ‐ ‐ 34,891 142,691 252 Childcare Food ‐ 85,000 85,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 253 Belle Haven Child Devlpmt Ctr 450,058 2,003,000 2,241,453 ‐ ‐ (238,453) 211,605 254 Preschool‐QRIS 16,562 12,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 12,000 28,562 256 Recreation In‐Lieu (42,665) 1,488,200 ‐ 725,414 1,650,779 562,835 520,170 304 Menlo Park Community Campus 2,437,448 ‐ ‐ 7,297,000 9,077,164 (1,780,164) 657,284 305 Diverse Literature LSTA 7,963 20,000 20,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,963 334 BCSS Wellness Grant ‐ 28,785 ‐ ‐ ‐ 28,785 28,785 Police Enforcement
327 Supp Law Enforcement Services 444,980 100,000 100,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 444,980 328 Downtown Parking Permits 4,366,489 ‐ 202,450 ‐ 2,400,000 (2,602,450) 1,764,039 Transportation. Streets, Maint
211 Heritage Tree 429,936 160,000 ‐ ‐ 250,000 (90,000) 339,936 213 CalRecycle SB1383 Local Grant 50,108 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50,108 255 Senior Transportation 43,700 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 43,700 329 OTS Grant 24,582 70,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 70,000 94,582 351 Transportation Impact Fees 19,209,845 2,250,000 ‐ 7,900,000 14,205,954 (4,055,954) 15,153,891 352 Transportation 852,387 ‐ ‐ ‐ 814,335 (814,335) 38,052 354 Storm Drainage Fees 134,479 100,000 100,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 134,479 355 Shuttle Program 123,123 1,004,937 1,126,912 ‐ ‐ (121,975) 1,148 356 County Transp Tax (Measure A) 922,187 1,200,000 1,473,532 400,000 804,940 (678,472) 243,715 357 Highway Users (Gas Tax) 3,770,573 980,962 19,692 ‐ 3,394,548 (2,433,278) 1,337,295 358 Landscape/Tree Assessment 788,530 922,542 1,331,006 ‐ ‐ (408,464) 380,066 359 Sidewalk Assessment 369,619 332,476 27,050 ‐ 350,000 (44,574) 325,045 360 Measure M 87,724 140,000 140,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 87,724 361 Storm Water Management(NPDES) 291,986 381,102 525,936 ‐ ‐ (144,834) 147,152 362 Construction Impact Fee 7,263,752 865,000 88,676 ‐ 3,500,000 (2,723,676) 4,540,076 363 Measure W 1,614,101 550,000 ‐ ‐ 900,000 (350,000) 1,264,101 365 Landfill Post‐Closure 8,343,590 970,083 587,161 ‐ 3,707,212 (3,324,290) 5,019,300 375 CA Coastal Consv Priority Grt 500,000 ‐ ‐ 500,000 ‐ 500,000 1,000,000 376 Caltrans 426,000 ‐ ‐ 426,000 ‐ 426,000 852,000 377 California State Parks Dept 798,950 ‐ ‐ 798,950 ‐ 798,950 1,597,900 FY 2022‐23 Fcst FY 2023‐24 Budget
EXHIBIT A Resolution No. XXXX
Attachment J: FY 2023‐24 Budgeted Fund Balances
General Fund (excl Fund 111) 6/30/2023 Rev & TI Exp & TO CIP Rev CIP Exp Sur/(Def) 6/30/2024 FY 2022‐23 Fcst FY 2023‐24 Budget
368 Bayfront Park Maintenance 395,043 3,000 ‐ 264,530 ‐ (261,530) 133,513 501 General Capital Improvement 28,554,539 20,000 2,095,695 18,335,987 39,908,474 (23,648,182) 4,906,357 370 Haven Avenue Streetscape Grant ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 396 CA Arrearage Program Water Res 11,314 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 11,314 Debt Service
400 Library GO Bond 1990 (7,097) 12,545 ‐ ‐ ‐ 12,545 5,448 401 Measure T GO Bonds 19,815,019 2,375,456 14,975,870 ‐ ‐ (12,600,414) 7,214,605 510 Library Addition (338) 750 ‐ ‐ ‐ 750 412 521 SMC Transportation Authority 170,000 ‐ ‐ 1,470,000 ‐ 1,470,000 1,640,000 Water Activity
600 Water Capital 21,735,376 2,144,926 329,254 500,000 16,514,202 (14,198,530) 7,536,846 601 Water Operations 32,886,670 12,096,200 10,908,430 ‐ ‐ 1,187,770 34,074,440 610 Solid Waste Service 3,465,093 674,038 444,974 ‐ ‐ 229,064 3,694,157 Internal Services
701 Workers' Compensation 56,016 821,538 ‐ 832,401 ‐ (10,863) 45,153 702 General Liability 272,729 2,259,829 2,259,738 ‐ ‐ 91 272,820 703 Other Post Employment Benefits (238,045) 878,486 640,095 ‐ ‐ 238,391 346 704 IT Internal Service (308,125) 4,848,420 4,521,587 ‐ ‐ 326,833 18,708 705 Vehicle Replacement 4,048,858 ‐ 2,189,802 ‐ ‐ (2,189,802) 1,859,056 Resolution No. XXXX
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK
ADOPTING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE CITY OF MENLO PARK FOR THE 2023-24 FISCAL YEAR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIII B OF THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
WHEREAS, Article XIII B of the California Constitution (Proposition 4) provides for an annual appropriations limit for state and local governments beginning with the 1980-81 fiscal year, based on the 1978-79 appropriations, as adjusted for the changes in the cost of living or per capita personal income, population, and other specified factors; and WHEREAS, implementing legislation, which became effective January 1, 1981, provides that each year the governing body of each local jurisdiction shall, by resolution, establish its appropriations limit for the year pursuant to Article III B at a regularly scheduled meeting or noticed special meeting; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 111 subsequently amended Article XIII B of the California Constitution to provide for certain revisions in the population and inflation factors used in the calculation of the appropriations limit and to provide for a recalculation of the appropriation limit data for the fiscal years 1987-88 through 1990-91; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, the appropriation limit for the City of Menlo Park for the 2023-24 fiscal year has been calculated to be $78,200,071, using such revisions and recalculations; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 7910 provides that documentation used in the determination of the appropriations limit shall be available to the public at least 15 days before such meeting, and such documentation was made available to the public on the City’s website by June 13, 2023;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Menlo Park that the City Council of Menlo Park hereby:
1. Selects to use the change in the California per capita income as the cost of living adjustment factor, and (b) elects to use the annual population change in the City of Menlo Park’s population for calculating the population adjustment factor.
2. That the appropriations limit for fiscal year 2023-24 to be $78,200,071, as detailed in the calculations set forth in Exhibit A.
//
//
//
//
//
ATTACHMENT B Page J-1.12
I, Judi A. Herren, City Clerk of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing City Council Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said City Council on the twenty-seventh day of June, 2023, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this __ day of June, 2023.
Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Exhibits
A. Appropriations limit for fiscal year 2023-24
Resolution No. XXXX
AMOUNT
A. LAST YEAR'S LIMIT $ 75,563,220
B. ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
1. Population - City 0.9909
2. Inflation 1.0444
1.0349
Total Adjustment % 0.0349
C. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT $ 2,636,851
D. THIS YEAR'S LIMIT $ 78,200,071
E. PROCEEDS OF TAXES SUBJECT
TO LIMIT
Property Tax 36,687,676 2023-24 Proposed Budget
Sales Tax 6,886,302 2023-24 Proposed Budget
Other Taxes 10,500,000 2023-24 Proposed Budget
Special Assessments 1,255,018 2023-24 Proposed Budget
Interest Allocation 2,200,000 2023-24 Proposed Budget
$ 57,528,996
F. AMOUNT UNDER/(OVER) LIMIT $ 20,671,075
(B1*B2-1)
CITY OF MENLO PARK
APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
SOURCE
Prior Year
State Department of Finance
State Department of Finance
(B1*B2)
(D-E)
(B*A)
(A+C)
EXHIBIT A Resolution No. XXXX
May 2023
Dear Fiscal Officer:
Subject: Price Factor and Population Information
Appropriations Limit
California Revenue and Taxation Code section 2227 requires the Department of Finance (Finance) to transmit an estimate of the percentage change in population to local governments. Each local jurisdiction must use their percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2023, in conjunction with a change in the cost of living, or price factor, to calculate their appropriations limit for fiscal year 2023-24. Attachment A provides the change in California’s per capita personal income and an example for utilizing the price factor and population percentage change factor to calculate the 2023-24 appropriations limit. Attachment B provides the city and unincorporated county population percentage change. Attachment C provides the population percentage change for counties and their summed incorporated areas. The population percentage change data excludes federal and state institutionalized populations and military populations.
Population Percent Change for Special Districts
Some special districts must establish an annual appropriations limit. California Revenue and Taxation Code section 2228 provides additional information regarding the appropriations limit.
Article XIII B, section 9(C) of the California Constitution exempts certain special districts from the appropriations limit calculation mandate. The code section and the California Constitution can be accessed at the following website: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml.
Special districts required by law to calculate their appropriations limit must present the calculation as part of their annual audit. Any questions special districts have on this requirement should be directed to their county, district legal counsel, or the law itself. No state agency reviews the local appropriations limits.
Population Certification
The population certification program applies only to cities and counties. California Revenue and Taxation Code section 11005.6 mandates Finance to automatically certify any population estimate that exceeds the current certified population with the State Controller’s Office. Finance will certify the higher estimate to the State Controller by June 1, 2023.
Please Note: The prior year’s city population estimates may be revised. The per capita personal income change is based on historical data.
If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact the Demographic Research Unit at (916) 323-4086.
JOE SPEPHENSHAW
Director
By:
Erika Li
Chief Deputy Director
Attachment
Resolution No. XXXX
May 2023
Attachment A
A. Price Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost of living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. The cost of living factor provided here is per capita personal income. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage change to be used in setting the fiscal year 2023-24 appropriation limit is:
Per Capita Personal Income
Fiscal Year Percentage change
(FY) over prior year
2023-24 4.44
B. Following is an example using sample population change and the change in California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 2023-24 appropriation limit.
2023-24:
Per Capita Cost of Living Change = 4.44 percent
Population Change = -0.35 percent
Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio: 4.44 + 100 = 1.0444 100
Population converted to a ratio: -0.35 + 100 = 0.9965
100
Calculation of factor for FY 2023-24: 1.0444 x 0.9965 = 1.0407 Resolution No. XXXX
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023 and Total Population, January 1, 2023 Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 2022-2023 1-1-22 1-1-23 1-1-2023
San Mateo
Atherton -0.48 6,710 6,678 6,678
Belmont -0.88 27,030 26,793 26,793
Brisbane -0.51 4,672 4,648 4,648
Burlingame 0.22 30,069 30,136 30,136
Colma -0.88 1,371 1,359 1,359
Daly City -0.56 102,040 101,471 101,471
East Palo Alto -0.66 28,776 28,586 28,586
Foster City -0.45 32,852 32,703 32,703
Half Moon Bay -0.77 11,313 11,226 11,226
Hillsborough -0.20 10,984 10,962 10,962
Menlo Park -0.91 32,645 32,349 32,478
Millbrae 0.08 22,468 22,487 22,487
Pacifica -0.41 37,236 37,082 37,082
Portola Valley -0.54 4,270 4,247 4,247
Redwood City -0.32 81,753 81,495 81,495
San Bruno -0.68 42,340 42,054 42,054
San Carlos -0.89 29,762 29,496 29,496
San Mateo -0.32 103,651 103,318 103,318
South San Francisco 0.00 64,325 64,323 64,323
Woodside -0.29 5,143 5,128 5,128
Unincorporated -0.53 61,301 60,974 60,974
County Total -0.43 740,711 737,515 737,644
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
Resolution No. XXXX
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK
AMENDING THE SALARY SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Personnel System Rules, the City Manager prepared a Compensation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the salary schedule is being updated in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the Menlo Park Police Officers’ Association and the City of Menlo Park, dated September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2024, which provides a three percent (3%) pay rate increase effective the beginning of the first full pay period following July 1, 2023; and WHEREAS, the salary schedule is being updated in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the Menlo Park Police Sergeants’ Association and the City of Menlo Park, dated July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2025, in order to maintain the current minimum base pay differential of fifteen percent (15%) between top step Police Corporal and top step Sergeant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following compensation provisions shall be established in accordance with the City’s Personnel System Rules.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any previous enacted compensation provisions contained in Resolution No. 6754 and subsequent amendments shall be superseded by this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the changes contained herein on Exhibit A shall be effective July 2, 2023.
I, Judi A. Herren, City Clerk of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing City Council Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said City Council on the twenty-seventh day of June, 2023, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this __ day of June, 2023.
Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Exhibits:
A. Salary schedule effective July 2, 2023
B. Red-lined version of existing salary schedule
Page J-1.18
City of Menlo Park
PROPOSED Salary Schedule - Effective 07/02/2023
Annual Salaries based on 2080 hours per year except
where set by contract or noted Resolution No.XXXX
Classification Title Minimum
(Step A) Step B Step C Step D Maximum (Step E)
Accountant I $ 87,734 $ 92,122 $ 96,728 $ 101,565 $ 106,643 Accountant II $ 96,095 $ 100,637 $ 105,385 $ 110,453 $ 115,717 Accounting Assistant I $ 62,216 $ 65,165 $ 68,174 $ 71,359 $ 74,661 Accounting Assistant II $ 68,174 $ 71,359 $ 74,661 $ 78,150 $ 81,818 Administrative Assistant $ 68,379 $ 71,573 $ 74,885 $ 78,385 $ 82,063 Administrative Services Director $ 165,347 Open Range $ 234,259 Assistant Administrative Services Director $ 130,376 Open Range $ 187,407 Assistant City Manager $ 174,616 Open Range $ 257,685
Assistant Community Development Director $ 130,376 Open Range $ 187,407 Assistant Engineer $ 105,817 $ 110,859 $ 116,160 $ 121,705 $ 127,503 Assistant Library and Community Services Director $ 133,380 Open Range $ 187,407 Assistant Planner $ 95,875 $ 100,383 $ 105,195 $ 110,208 $ 115,473 Assistant Public Works Director $ 144,870 Open Range $ 187,407 Assistant to the City Manager $ 125,490 Open Range $ 163,981 Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk $ 125,490 Open Range $ 163,981 Assistant Transportation Planner $ 95,875 $ 100,383 $ 105,195 $ 110,208 $ 115,473 Associate Civil Engineer $ 118,735 $ 124,419 $ 130,350 $ 136,648 $ 143,267 Associate Engineer $ 112,205 $ 117,576 $ 123,182 $ 129,133 $ 135,388 Associate Planner $ 105,195 $ 110,208 $ 115,473 $ 120,998 $ 126,789 Associate Transportation Engineer $ 124,419 $ 130,350 $ 136,648 $ 143,267 $ 150,209 Associate Transportation Planner $ 105,195 $ 110,208 $ 115,473 $ 120,998 $ 126,789 Asst. Public Works Director - Engineering $ 144,870 Open Range $ 187,407 Asst. Public Works Director - Maintenance $ 144,870 Open Range $ 187,407 Asst. Public Works Director - Transportation $ 144,870 Open Range $ 187,407 Building Custodian $ 62,154 $ 65,100 $ 68,106 $ 71,288 $ 74,587 Building Inspector I $ 92,657 $ 97,113 $ 101,742 $ 106,606 $ 111,696 Building Inspector II $ 101,923 $ 106,824 $ 111,916 $ 117,266 $ 122,866 Business Manager $ 105,192 $ 110,250 $ 115,505 $ 121,028 $ 126,807 Chief Water Operator $ 101,983 $ 106,843 $ 111,948 $ 117,304 $ 122,918 Child Care Teacher I $ 55,614 $ 58,136 $ 60,769 $ 63,538 $ 66,544 Child Care Teacher II $ 62,154 $ 65,100 $ 68,106 $ 71,288 $ 74,587 Child Care Teacher's Aide $ 41,726 $ 43,614 $ 45,587 $ 47,629 $ 49,732 City Arborist $ 105,789 $ 110,860 $ 116,143 $ 121,691 $ 127,514 City Clerk $ 125,490 Open Range $ 163,981
City Councilmember n/a Annual Rate $ 7,680
City Manager $ 203,533 Open Range $ 281,111
Code Enforcement Officer $ 87,678 $ 91,822 $ 96,153 $ 100,778 $ 105,581 Communications and Records Manager $ 121,823 $ 127,735 $ 133,870 $ 140,325 $ 147,074 Communications Dispatcher $ 88,905 $ 93,108 $ 97,500 $ 102,189 $ 107,059 Communications Training Dispatcher $ 93,108 $ 97,500 $ 102,189 $ 107,059 $ 112,178 Community Development Director $ 165,126 Open Range $ 234,259 Community Development Technician $ 74,567 $ 78,019 $ 81,665 $ 85,496 $ 89,514 Community Service Officer $ 72,907 $ 76,336 $ 79,871 $ 83,662 $ 87,678 Construction Inspector I $ 87,412 $ 91,617 $ 95,983 $ 100,572 $ 105,374 Construction Inspector II $ 96,153 $ 100,778 $ 105,581 $ 110,629 $ 115,911 Contracts Specialist $ 76,990 $ 80,610 $ 84,343 $ 88,347 $ 92,587 Custodial Services Supervisor $ 71,518 $ 74,828 $ 78,324 $ 82,000 $ 85,853 Deputy City Clerk $ 79,862 $ 83,662 $ 87,678 $ 91,822 $ 96,153 Deputy City Manager $ 169,611 Open Range $ 234,259
Deputy Comm. Dev. Director - Housing $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695 Economic Development Manager $ 125,490 Open Range $ 163,981 Engineering Services Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695 Engineering Technician I $ 80,152 $ 83,864 $ 87,845 $ 92,061 $ 96,413 Engineering Technician II $ 89,855 $ 94,082 $ 98,506 $ 103,229 $ 108,148 Enterprise Applications Administrator $ 118,341 $ 123,962 $ 129,850 $ 136,083 $ 142,657 Enterprise Applications Support Specialist I $ 94,840 $ 99,582 $ 104,561 $ 109,789 $ 115,279 Enterprise Applications Support Specialist II $ 105,192 $ 110,250 $ 115,505 $ 121,028 $ 126,807 Equipment Mechanic $ 79,862 $ 83,662 $ 87,678 $ 91,822 $ 96,153 Executive Assistant $ 78,073 $ 81,736 $ 85,576 $ 89,602 $ 93,816 Executive Assistant to the City Mgr $ 83,173 $ 87,331 $ 91,698 $ 96,283 $ 101,096 Extra Help Retired Annuitant $ 31,200 Open Range $ 249,600 Facilities Maintenance Technician I $ 66,544 $ 69,608 $ 72,907 $ 76,336 $ 79,871 Facilities Maintenance Technician II $ 72,907 $ 76,336 $ 79,871 $ 83,662 $ 87,678 Finance and Budget Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695 Finance Director $ 165,125 Open Range $ 234,259
GIS Analyst I $ 92,043 $ 96,646 $ 101,479 $ 106,553 $ 111,881 GIS Analyst II $ 105,192 $ 110,250 $ 115,505 $ 121,028 $ 126,807 Gymnastics Instructor $ 44,525 $ 46,539 $ 48,641 $ 50,812 $ 53,148 Housing & Economic Development Manager $ 125,490 Open Range $ 163,981 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. XXXX
City of Menlo Park
PROPOSED Salary Schedule - Effective 07/02/2023
Annual Salaries based on 2080 hours per year except
where set by contract or noted Resolution No.XXXX
Classification Title Minimum
(Step A) Step B Step C Step D Maximum (Step E)
Housing Manager $ 125,490 Open Range $ 163,981
Human Resources Director $ 165,347 Open Range $ 234,259 Human Resources Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695
Human Resources Technician I $ 72,243 $ 75,661 $ 79,039 $ 82,895 $ 86,794 Human Resources Technician II $ 79,467 $ 83,227 $ 86,943 $ 91,185 $ 95,473 Information Technology Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695 Information Technology Specialist I $ 77,815 $ 81,707 $ 85,792 $ 90,083 $ 94,588 Information Technology Specialist II $ 86,460 $ 90,523 $ 94,781 $ 99,238 $ 103,997 Internal Services Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695 Junior Engineer $ 85,362 $ 89,630 $ 94,112 $ 98,818 $ 103,759 Librarian I $ 74,587 $ 78,073 $ 81,736 $ 85,576 $ 89,602 Librarian II $ 83,662 $ 87,678 $ 91,822 $ 96,153 $ 100,778 Library and Community Services Director $ 161,038 Open Range $ 234,259 Library and Community Services Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695 Library and Community Services Supervisor $ 96,464 $ 101,103 $ 105,920 $ 110,985 $ 116,285 Library Assistant I $ 58,136 $ 60,769 $ 63,538 $ 66,544 $ 69,608 Library Assistant II $ 63,538 $ 66,544 $ 69,515 $ 72,907 $ 76,336 Library Assistant III $ 69,515 $ 72,907 $ 76,336 $ 79,871 $ 83,577 Literacy Program Manager $ 85,853 $ 89,891 $ 94,118 $ 98,630 $ 103,330 Maintenance Worker I $ 63,538 $ 66,544 $ 69,515 $ 72,907 $ 76,336 Maintenance Worker II $ 69,515 $ 72,907 $ 76,336 $ 79,871 $ 83,662 Management Analyst I $ 92,043 $ 96,646 $ 101,479 $ 106,553 $ 111,881 Management Analyst II $ 105,192 $ 110,250 $ 115,505 $ 121,028 $ 126,807 Network Administrator $ 123,426 $ 129,334 $ 135,500 $ 142,046 $ 148,927 Office Assistant $ 57,097 $ 59,701 $ 62,403 $ 65,360 $ 68,379 Parking Enforcement Officer $ 63,538 $ 66,544 $ 69,515 $ 72,907 $ 76,336 Permit Manager $ 119,656 $ 125,381 $ 131,382 $ 137,644 $ 144,295 Permit Technician $ 74,567 $ 78,018 $ 81,665 $ 85,496 $ 89,513 Plan Check Engineer $ 119,866 $ 125,604 $ 131,591 $ 137,949 $ 144,631 Planning Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695
Planning Technician $ 85,496 $ 89,513 $ 93,724 $ 98,131 $ 102,836 Police Chief $ 178,414 Open Range $ 257,685
Police Commander $ 160,572 Open Range $ 234,259
Police Corporal (2080 hours) $ 119,178 $ 125,138 $ 131,394 $ 137,964 $ 144,862 Police Corporal (2184 hours) $ 125,137 $ 131,394 $ 137,964 $ 144,862 $ 152,105 Police Officer (2080 hours) $ 110,735 $ 116,271 $ 122,084 $ 128,189 $ 134,599 Police Officer (2184 hours) $ 116,272 $ 122,085 $ 128,188 $ 134,598 $ 141,329 Police Records Specialist $ 69,515 $ 72,907 $ 76,336 $ 79,871 $ 83,662 Police Recruit n/a Hourly Rate $ 89,695
Police Sergeant (2080 hours) $ 137,060 $ 143,913 $ 151,108 $ 158,664 $ 166,597 Police Sergeant (2184 hours) $ 143,912 $ 151,108 $ 158,664 $ 166,597 $ 174,927 Principal Planner $ 127,020 $ 134,973 $ 141,433 $ 148,174 $ 153,174 Program Aide/Driver $ 39,920 $ 41,726 $ 43,614 $ 45,587 $ 47,629 Program Assistant $ 56,871 $ 59,463 $ 62,154 $ 65,100 $ 68,106 Project Manager $ 112,205 $ 117,576 $ 123,182 $ 129,133 $ 135,388 Property and Court Specialist $ 72,907 $ 76,336 $ 79,871 $ 83,662 $ 87,678 Public Engagement Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695 Public Works Director $ 169,611 Open Range $ 234,259
Public Works Superintendent $ 128,081 Open Range $ 175,695 Public Works Supervisor - Facilities $ 106,541 $ 111,649 $ 116,969 $ 122,558 $ 128,421 Public Works Supervisor - Fleet $ 108,236 $ 113,425 $ 118,829 $ 124,506 $ 130,463 Public Works Supervisor - Park $ 100,707 $ 105,534 $ 110,563 $ 115,845 $ 121,388 Public Works Supervisor - Streets $ 100,707 $ 105,534 $ 110,563 $ 115,845 $ 121,388 Public Works Supervisor - Trees $ 100,707 $ 105,534 $ 110,563 $ 115,845 $ 121,388 Recreation Coordinator $ 74,828 $ 78,324 $ 82,000 $ 85,853 $ 89,891 Revenue and Claims Manager $ 105,192 $ 110,250 $ 115,505 $ 121,028 $ 126,807 Senior Accountant $ 110,509 $ 115,734 $ 121,193 $ 127,022 $ 133,075 Senior Accounting Assistant $ 74,991 $ 78,495 $ 82,127 $ 85,965 $ 89,999 Senior Building Inspector $ 114,394 $ 119,866 $ 125,604 $ 131,591 $ 137,949 Senior Civil Engineer $ 130,770 $ 137,087 $ 143,729 $ 150,693 $ 158,036 Senior Communications Dispatcher $ 97,500 $ 102,189 $ 107,059 $ 112,178 $ 117,533 Senior Construction Inspector $ 105,769 $ 110,856 $ 116,139 $ 121,707 $ 127,793 Senior Engineering Technician $ 96,413 $ 100,962 $ 105,817 $ 110,859 $ 116,160 Senior Equipment Mechanic $ 87,868 $ 92,155 $ 96,489 $ 100,958 $ 105,749 Senior Facilities Maintenance Technician $ 79,862 $ 83,662 $ 87,678 $ 91,822 $ 96,153 Senior GIS Analyst $ 118,340 $ 123,962 $ 129,850 $ 136,083 $ 142,657 Senior Human Resources Technician $ 87,414 $ 91,550 $ 95,637 $ 100,303 $ 105,021 Senior Library Assistant $ 76,467 $ 80,198 $ 83,969 $ 87,858 $ 91,935 Resolution No. XXXX
City of Menlo Park
PROPOSED Salary Schedule - Effective 07/02/2023
Annual Salaries based on 2080 hours per year except
where set by contract or noted Resolution No.XXXX
Classification Title Minimum
(Step A) Step B Step C Step D Maximum (Step E)
Senior Maintenance Worker $ 79,862 $ 83,662 $ 87,678 $ 91,822 $ 96,153 Senior Management Analyst $ 118,340 $ 123,962 $ 129,850 $ 136,083 $ 142,657 Senior Office Assistant $ 62,403 $ 65,360 $ 68,379 $ 71,573 $ 74,885 Senior Planner $ 115,473 $ 120,998 $ 126,789 $ 132,833 $ 139,250 Senior Police Records Specialist $ 72,907 $ 76,336 $ 79,871 $ 83,662 $ 87,678 Senior Program Assistant $ 69,066 $ 72,294 $ 75,687 $ 79,242 $ 82,971 Senior Project Manager $ 123,426 $ 129,334 $ 135,500 $ 142,046 $ 148,927 Senior Sustainability Specialist $ 86,614 $ 90,757 $ 95,101 $ 99,635 $ 104,448 Senior Transportation Engineer $ 130,770 $ 137,087 $ 143,729 $ 150,693 $ 158,036 Senior Transportation Planner $ 115,473 $ 120,998 $ 126,789 $ 132,833 $ 139,250 Senior Water System Operator $ 81,945 $ 85,738 $ 89,745 $ 93,956 $ 98,369 Sustainability Manager $ 125,490 Open Range $ 163,981
Sustainability Specialist $ 74,587 $ 78,073 $ 81,736 $ 85,576 $ 89,602 Systems Administrator $ 118,340 $ 123,962 $ 129,850 $ 136,083 $ 142,657 Transportation Demand Management Coord. $ 98,314 $ 102,997 $ 107,919 $ 113,082 $ 118,494 Transportation Director $ 169,611 Open Range $ 234,259
Transportation Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695
Water Quality Specialist $ 85,576 $ 89,602 $ 93,816 $ 98,314 $ 102,997 Water System Operator I $ 68,090 $ 71,141 $ 74,296 $ 77,967 $ 81,596 Water System Operator II $ 74,495 $ 77,944 $ 81,586 $ 85,414 $ 89,427 Resolution No. XXXX
City of Menlo Park
RED-LINED Salary Schedule - Effective 07/02/2023
Annual Salaries based on 2080 hours per year except
where set by contract or noted Resolution No.XXXX
Classification Title Minimum (Step A) Step B Step C Step D Maximum (Step E) Accountant I $ 87,734 $ 92,122 $ 96,728 $ 101,565 $ 106,643 Accountant II $ 96,095 $ 100,637 $ 105,385 $ 110,453 $ 115,717 Accounting Assistant I $ 62,216 $ 65,165 $ 68,174 $ 71,359 $ 74,661 Accounting Assistant II $ 68,174 $ 71,359 $ 74,661 $ 78,150 $ 81,818 Administrative Assistant $ 68,379 $ 71,573 $ 74,885 $ 78,385 $ 82,063 Administrative Services Director $ 165,347 Open Range $ 234,259 Assistant Administrative Services Director $ 130,376 Open Range $ 187,407 Assistant City Manager $ 174,616 Open Range $ 257,685
Assistant Community Development Director $ 130,376 Open Range $ 187,407 Assistant Engineer $ 105,817 $ 110,859 $ 116,160 $ 121,705 $ 127,503 Assistant Library and Community Services Director $ 133,380 Open Range $ 187,407 Assistant Planner $ 95,875 $ 100,383 $ 105,195 $ 110,208 $ 115,473 Assistant Public Works Director $ 144,870 Open Range $ 187,407 Assistant to the City Manager $ 125,490 Open Range $ 163,981 Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk $ 125,490 Open Range $ 163,981 Assistant Transportation Planner $ 95,875 $ 100,383 $ 105,195 $ 110,208 $ 115,473 Associate Civil Engineer $ 118,735 $ 124,419 $ 130,350 $ 136,648 $ 143,267 Associate Engineer $ 112,205 $ 117,576 $ 123,182 $ 129,133 $ 135,388 Associate Planner $ 105,195 $ 110,208 $ 115,473 $ 120,998 $ 126,789 Associate Transportation Engineer $ 124,419 $ 130,350 $ 136,648 $ 143,267 $ 150,209 Associate Transportation Planner $ 105,195 $ 110,208 $ 115,473 $ 120,998 $ 126,789 Asst. Public Works Director - Engineering $ 144,870 Open Range $ 187,407 Asst. Public Works Director - Maintenance $ 144,870 Open Range $ 187,407 Asst. Public Works Director - Transportation $ 144,870 Open Range $ 187,407 Building Custodian $ 62,154 $ 65,100 $ 68,106 $ 71,288 $ 74,587 Building Inspector I $ 92,657 $ 97,113 $ 101,742 $ 106,606 $ 111,696 Building Inspector II $ 101,923 $ 106,824 $ 111,916 $ 117,266 $ 122,866 Business Manager $ 105,192 $ 110,250 $ 115,505 $ 121,028 $ 126,807 Chief Water Operator $ 101,983 $ 106,843 $ 111,948 $ 117,304 $ 122,918 Child Care Teacher I $ 55,614 $ 58,136 $ 60,769 $ 63,538 $ 66,544 Child Care Teacher II $ 62,154 $ 65,100 $ 68,106 $ 71,288 $ 74,587 Child Care Teacher's Aide $ 41,726 $ 43,614 $ 45,587 $ 47,629 $ 49,732 City Arborist $ 105,789 $ 110,860 $ 116,143 $ 121,691 $ 127,514 City Clerk $ 125,490 Open Range $ 163,981
City Councilmember n/a Annual Rate $ 7,680
City Manager $ 203,533 Open Range $ 281,111
Code Enforcement Officer $ 87,678 $ 91,822 $ 96,153 $ 100,778 $ 105,581 Communications and Records Manager $ 121,823 $ 127,735 $ 133,870 $ 140,325 $ 147,074 Communications Dispatcher $ 88,905 $ 93,108 $ 97,500 $ 102,189 $ 107,059 Communications Training Dispatcher $ 93,108 $ 97,500 $ 102,189 $ 107,059 $ 112,178 Community Development Director $ 165,126 Open Range $ 234,259 Community Development Technician $ 74,567 $ 78,019 $ 81,665 $ 85,496 $ 89,514 Community Service Officer $ 72,907 $ 76,336 $ 79,871 $ 83,662 $ 87,678 Construction Inspector I $ 87,412 $ 91,617 $ 95,983 $ 100,572 $ 105,374 Construction Inspector II $ 96,153 $ 100,778 $ 105,581 $ 110,629 $ 115,911 Contracts Specialist $ 76,990 $ 80,610 $ 84,343 $ 88,347 $ 92,587 Custodial Services Supervisor $ 71,518 $ 74,828 $ 78,324 $ 82,000 $ 85,853 Deputy City Clerk $ 79,862 $ 83,662 $ 87,678 $ 91,822 $ 96,153 Deputy City Manager $ 169,611 Open Range $ 234,259
Deputy Comm. Dev. Director - Housing $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695 Economic Development Manager $ 125,490 Open Range $ 163,981 Engineering Services Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695 Engineering Technician I $ 80,152 $ 83,864 $ 87,845 $ 92,061 $ 96,413 Engineering Technician II $ 89,855 $ 94,082 $ 98,506 $ 103,229 $ 108,148 Enterprise Applications Administrator $ 118,341 $ 123,962 $ 129,850 $ 136,083 $ 142,657 Enterprise Applications Support Specialist I $ 94,840 $ 99,582 $ 104,561 $ 109,789 $ 115,279 Enterprise Applications Support Specialist II $ 105,192 $ 110,250 $ 115,505 $ 121,028 $ 126,807 Equipment Mechanic $ 79,862 $ 83,662 $ 87,678 $ 91,822 $ 96,153 Executive Assistant $ 78,073 $ 81,736 $ 85,576 $ 89,602 $ 93,816 Executive Assistant to the City Mgr $ 83,173 $ 87,331 $ 91,698 $ 96,283 $ 101,096 Extra Help Retired Annuitant $ 31,200 Open Range $ 249,600 Facilities Maintenance Technician I $ 66,544 $ 69,608 $ 72,907 $ 76,336 $ 79,871 Facilities Maintenance Technician II $ 72,907 $ 76,336 $ 79,871 $ 83,662 $ 87,678 Finance and Budget Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695 Finance Director $ 165,125 Open Range $ 234,259
GIS Analyst I $ 92,043 $ 96,646 $ 101,479 $ 106,553 $ 111,881 GIS Analyst II $ 105,192 $ 110,250 $ 115,505 $ 121,028 $ 126,807 Gymnastics Instructor $ 44,525 $ 46,539 $ 48,641 $ 50,812 $ 53,148 Housing & Economic Development Manager $ 125,490 Open Range $ 163,981 Housing Manager $ 125,490 Open Range $ 163,981
Human Resources Director $ 165,347 Open Range $ 234,259 Human Resources Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695
Human Resources Technician I $ 72,243 $ 75,661 $ 79,039 $ 82,895 $ 86,794 Human Resources Technician II $ 79,467 $ 83,227 $ 86,943 $ 91,185 $ 95,473 Information Technology Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695 Information Technology Specialist I $ 77,815 $ 81,707 $ 85,792 $ 90,083 $ 94,588 Information Technology Specialist II $ 86,460 $ 90,523 $ 94,781 $ 99,238 $ 103,997 Internal Services Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695 Junior Engineer $ 85,362 $ 89,630 $ 94,112 $ 98,818 $ 103,759 Librarian I $ 74,587 $ 78,073 $ 81,736 $ 85,576 $ 89,602 Librarian II $ 83,662 $ 87,678 $ 91,822 $ 96,153 $ 100,778 EXHIBIT B Resolution No. XXXX
City of Menlo Park
RED-LINED Salary Schedule - Effective 07/02/2023
Annual Salaries based on 2080 hours per year except
where set by contract or noted Resolution No.XXXX
Classification Title Minimum (Step A) Step B Step C Step D Maximum (Step E) Library and Community Services Director $ 161,038 Open Range $ 234,259 Library and Community Services Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695 Library and Community Services Supervisor $ 96,464 $ 101,103 $ 105,920 $ 110,985 $ 116,285 Library Assistant I $ 58,136 $ 60,769 $ 63,538 $ 66,544 $ 69,608 Library Assistant II $ 63,538 $ 66,544 $ 69,515 $ 72,907 $ 76,336 Library Assistant III $ 69,515 $ 72,907 $ 76,336 $ 79,871 $ 83,577 Literacy Program Manager $ 85,853 $ 89,891 $ 94,118 $ 98,630 $ 103,330 Maintenance Worker I $ 63,538 $ 66,544 $ 69,515 $ 72,907 $ 76,336 Maintenance Worker II $ 69,515 $ 72,907 $ 76,336 $ 79,871 $ 83,662 Management Analyst I $ 92,043 $ 96,646 $ 101,479 $ 106,553 $ 111,881 Management Analyst II $ 105,192 $ 110,250 $ 115,505 $ 121,028 $ 126,807 Network Administrator $ 123,426 $ 129,334 $ 135,500 $ 142,046 $ 148,927 Office Assistant $ 57,097 $ 59,701 $ 62,403 $ 65,360 $ 68,379 Parking Enforcement Officer $ 63,538 $ 66,544 $ 69,515 $ 72,907 $ 76,336 Permit Manager $ 119,656 $ 125,381 $ 131,382 $ 137,644 $ 144,295 Permit Technician $ 74,567 $ 78,018 $ 81,665 $ 85,496 $ 89,513 Plan Check Engineer $ 119,866 $ 125,604 $ 131,591 $ 137,949 $ 144,631 Planning Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695
Planning Technician $ 85,496 $ 89,513 $ 93,724 $ 98,131 $ 102,836 Police Chief $ 178,414 Open Range $ 257,685
Police Commander $ 160,572 Open Range $ 234,259
Police Corporal (2080 hours) $ 115,707 $ 121,493 $ 127,567 $ 133,945 $ 140,643 Police Corporal (2080 hours) $ 119,178 $ 125,138 $ 131,394 $ 137,964 $ 144,862 Police Corporal (2184 hours) $ 121,492 $ 127,567 $ 133,946 $ 140,643 $ 147,675 Police Corporal (2184 hours) $ 125,137 $ 131,394 $ 137,964 $ 144,862 $ 152,105 Police Officer (2080 hours) $ 107,510 $ 112,884 $ 118,528 $ 124,455 $ 130,678 Police Officer (2080 hours) $ 110,735 $ 116,271 $ 122,084 $ 128,189 $ 134,599 Police Officer (2184 hours) $ 112,885 $ 118,529 $ 124,455 $ 130,678 $ 137,212 Police Officer (2184 hours) $ 116,272 $ 122,085 $ 128,188 $ 134,598 $ 141,329 Police Records Specialist $ 69,515 $ 72,907 $ 76,336 $ 79,871 $ 83,662 Police Recruit n/a Hourly Rate $ 87,083
Police Recruit n/a Hourly Rate $ 89,695
Police Sergeant (2080 hours) $ 133,068 $ 139,721 $ 146,707 $ 154,042 $ 161,744 Police Sergeant (2080 hours) $ 137,060 $ 143,913 $ 151,108 $ 158,664 $ 166,597 Police Sergeant (2184 hours) $ 139,721 $ 146,707 $ 154,042 $ 161,744 $ 169,832 Police Sergeant (2184 hours) $ 143,912 $ 151,108 $ 158,664 $ 166,597 $ 174,927 Principal Planner $ 127,020 $ 134,973 $ 141,433 $ 148,174 $ 153,174 Program Aide/Driver $ 39,920 $ 41,726 $ 43,614 $ 45,587 $ 47,629 Program Assistant $ 56,871 $ 59,463 $ 62,154 $ 65,100 $ 68,106 Project Manager $ 112,205 $ 117,576 $ 123,182 $ 129,133 $ 135,388 Property and Court Specialist $ 72,907 $ 76,336 $ 79,871 $ 83,662 $ 87,678 Public Engagement Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695 Public Works Director $ 169,611 Open Range $ 234,259
Public Works Superintendent $ 128,081 Open Range $ 175,695 Public Works Supervisor - Facilities $ 106,541 $ 111,649 $ 116,969 $ 122,558 $ 128,421 Public Works Supervisor - Fleet $ 108,236 $ 113,425 $ 118,829 $ 124,506 $ 130,463 Public Works Supervisor - Park $ 100,707 $ 105,534 $ 110,563 $ 115,845 $ 121,388 Public Works Supervisor - Streets $ 100,707 $ 105,534 $ 110,563 $ 115,845 $ 121,388 Public Works Supervisor - Trees $ 100,707 $ 105,534 $ 110,563 $ 115,845 $ 121,388 Recreation Coordinator $ 74,828 $ 78,324 $ 82,000 $ 85,853 $ 89,891 Revenue and Claims Manager $ 105,192 $ 110,250 $ 115,505 $ 121,028 $ 126,807 Senior Accountant $ 110,509 $ 115,734 $ 121,193 $ 127,022 $ 133,075 Senior Accounting Assistant $ 74,991 $ 78,495 $ 82,127 $ 85,965 $ 89,999 Senior Building Inspector $ 114,394 $ 119,866 $ 125,604 $ 131,591 $ 137,949 Senior Civil Engineer $ 130,770 $ 137,087 $ 143,729 $ 150,693 $ 158,036 Senior Communications Dispatcher $ 97,500 $ 102,189 $ 107,059 $ 112,178 $ 117,533 Senior Construction Inspector $ 105,769 $ 110,856 $ 116,139 $ 121,707 $ 127,793 Senior Engineering Technician $ 96,413 $ 100,962 $ 105,817 $ 110,859 $ 116,160 Senior Equipment Mechanic $ 87,868 $ 92,155 $ 96,489 $ 100,958 $ 105,749 Senior Facilities Maintenance Technician $ 79,862 $ 83,662 $ 87,678 $ 91,822 $ 96,153 Senior GIS Analyst $ 118,340 $ 123,962 $ 129,850 $ 136,083 $ 142,657 Senior Human Resources Technician $ 87,414 $ 91,550 $ 95,637 $ 100,303 $ 105,021 Senior Library Assistant $ 76,467 $ 80,198 $ 83,969 $ 87,858 $ 91,935 Senior Maintenance Worker $ 79,862 $ 83,662 $ 87,678 $ 91,822 $ 96,153 Senior Management Analyst $ 118,340 $ 123,962 $ 129,850 $ 136,083 $ 142,657 Senior Office Assistant $ 62,403 $ 65,360 $ 68,379 $ 71,573 $ 74,885 Senior Planner $ 115,473 $ 120,998 $ 126,789 $ 132,833 $ 139,250 Senior Police Records Specialist $ 72,907 $ 76,336 $ 79,871 $ 83,662 $ 87,678 Senior Program Assistant $ 69,066 $ 72,294 $ 75,687 $ 79,242 $ 82,971 Senior Project Manager $ 123,426 $ 129,334 $ 135,500 $ 142,046 $ 148,927 Senior Sustainability Specialist $ 86,614 $ 90,757 $ 95,101 $ 99,635 $ 104,448 Senior Transportation Engineer $ 130,770 $ 137,087 $ 143,729 $ 150,693 $ 158,036 Senior Transportation Planner $ 115,473 $ 120,998 $ 126,789 $ 132,833 $ 139,250 Senior Water System Operator $ 81,945 $ 85,738 $ 89,745 $ 93,956 $ 98,369 Sustainability Manager $ 125,490 Open Range $ 163,981
Sustainability Specialist $ 74,587 $ 78,073 $ 81,736 $ 85,576 $ 89,602 Systems Administrator $ 118,340 $ 123,962 $ 129,850 $ 136,083 $ 142,657 Transportation Demand Management Coord. $ 98,314 $ 102,997 $ 107,919 $ 113,082 $ 118,494 Transportation Director $ 169,611 Open Range $ 234,259
Transportation Manager $ 130,350 Open Range $ 175,695
Resolution No. XXXX
City of Menlo Park
RED-LINED Salary Schedule - Effective 07/02/2023
Annual Salaries based on 2080 hours per year except
where set by contract or noted Resolution No.XXXX
Classification Title Minimum (Step A) Step B Step C Step D Maximum (Step E) Water Quality Specialist $ 85,576 $ 89,602 $ 93,816 $ 98,314 $ 102,997 Water System Operator I $ 68,090 $ 71,141 $ 74,296 $ 77,967 $ 81,596 Water System Operator II $ 74,495 $ 77,944 $ 81,586 $ 85,414 $ 89,427 Resolution No. XXXX
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK TO
EXTEND THE SOLID WASTE AND WATER RATE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WHEREAS, as of June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6563 to support the black lives matter movement, which emphasizes inclusion and equity within the community through City policies and services; and
WHEREAS, to promote equity and support Menlo Park’s diverse community, establishing a rate assistance program helps low-income households to cover basic living expenses; and WHEREAS, some rate assistance programs, such as Pacific Gas & Electricity (PG&E) California Alternative Rate Energy (CARE) program, offer a monthly minimum discount of 20 percent on gas and electricity; and
WHEREAS, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and solid waste and water rate increases, some residential customers may be financially impacted; and
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2020, during a study session, the City Council supported establishment of a rate assistance program for solid waste rates at a 20 percent discount; and WHEREAS, on September 8, 2020, during a study session, the City Council supported establishment of a rate assistance program for Menlo Park Municipal Water customers; and WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6605, which established the rate assistance program, appropriated $164,000 from the general fund, and provided a timeframe for the program of January 1, 2021, through June 30, 2021, and WHEREAS, on January 1, 2021, Recology’s new solid waste rates went into effect; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2021, the City Council received an update about extending the pilot program for fiscal year 2021-22; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6625, which approved Menlo Park Municipal Water rate increases for the next five years between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2026; and
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6638, which extended the solid waste and water rate assistance program to June 30, 2022; and WHEREAS, on July 1, 2021, new Menlo Park Municipal Water rates went into effect; and WHEREAS, on January 1, 2022, Recology’s new solid waste rates went into effect; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6755, which extended the solid waste and water rate assistance program to June 30, 2023; and WHEREAS, on July 1, 2022, new Menlo Park Municipal Water rates went into effect; and WHEREAS, on January 1, 2023, Recology’s new solid waste rates went into effect; and ATTACHMENT D Page J-1.25
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2023, new Menlo Park Municipal Water rates are scheduled to be in effect; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the program shall be comprised of the following timeframe, discount, and qualifications unless modified by the City Council by resolution:
1. Timeframe: Continue on July 1, 2023 and end on June 30, 2024;
2. Discount: Monthly 20 percent discount for solid waste rates and a monthly fixed discount equal to 50 percent of the 5/8-inch meter service charge for water rates; and
3. Qualifications: Households must meet the following criteria to receive the discount:
• Must be enrolled in PG&E CARE program;
• Submit most recent PG&E bill to verify CARE enrollment. Address on PG&E bill must be the same as the address on solid waste and water bills, but names may be different; • Submit most recent Recology and Menlo Park Municipal Water bills to receive applicable discounts; and
• Re-certify eligibility according to the PG&E CARE program enrollment expiration date. Recertification will vary, depending on when the household applies to CARE.
I, Judi A. Herren, City Clerk of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing City Council Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said City Council on the twenty-seventh day of June, 2023, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this __ day of June, 2023.
Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Resolution No. XXXX
2023-24 AWARD AUTHORITY AND BID REQUIREMENTS
City Council Policy No. CC-21-024
Adopted December 14, 2021
Resolution No. 6695
Purpose
Pursuant to City Council adopted policy CC-21-024, this memo establishes the award authority and bid requirements for the 2023-24 fiscal year.
Award Authority and Bid Requirements
Category Amount Approving authority Bid requirement
Goods, general services,
and professional
services
Less than $46,500 City Manager Designee Written quotations $46,501 to $93,000/year
(up to 3 years) City Manager Informal bid
$93,001 to $200,000
City Council
Informal bid
Greater than $200,000 Formal bid
Public projects
Less than $60,000 City Manager Designee
Informal bid/force account
$60,001 to $93,000 City Manager
$93,001 to $200,000
City Council
Informal bid
Greater than $200,000 Formal bid
Claims settlement
Up to $93,000 City Manager
N/A
$93,001 or greater City Council
ATTACHMENT E Page J-1.27
1 Menlo Park Community Campus
preliminary service level analysis
City Council – June 27, 2023
ATTACHMENT G Page J-1.28
2 Page J-1.29
3 Overview
• City Council was provided a memorandum at its June 13 meeting outlining the necessary cost to operate the new MPCC campus, as well as additional services being provided
• City Council requested additional information and analysis related to service levels in the new facility
• City staff worked hard to make data available as quickly as possible for public awareness and transparency in response to City Council’s request • After reviewing additional costs and resource analysis, future City Council direction may require a budget amendment
• Based on the anticipated timeline for opening the new facility in the first half of calendar year 2024, staff recommends that definitive direction and/ or action be taken related to MPCC staffing levels no later than September 2023.
Page J-1.30
4 Background
• Sept. 13, 2022 – City Council reviewed community survey results for desired programs in the MPCC, and received initial confirmation that service level enhancements would be necessary to operate the new center in the manner envisioned by the City Council and community • January 24, 2023 – City Council reviewed preliminary estimates that approximately 4-5 full-time equivalent (FTE) new personnel, in addition to new temporary staff, would be needed to support the gymnasium, recreation center, makerspace, teen lounge, expanded library space, and other desired new programs when the MPCC opens
• April 4, 2023 – City Council reviewed MPCC proposed programming plan elements that were developed over the previous several months with robust community input and City Council feedback and direction
• June 1, 2023 – The proposed fiscal year (FY) 2023-24 operating budget workshop included a detailed service level restoration request for 6.0 FTE new personnel plus additional temporary staff to open and operate the MPCC facility.
Page J-1.31
5 Current services – LCS department
• Library and Community Services (LCS) staff
are dedicated, hard-working, talented and
experienced public servants
• LCS has fewer staff now than before the
pandemic
• Menlo Park residents desire and expect a
high quality and high level of service
• LCS staff are currently working at maximum
capacity to meet service demands
• LCS staff provide a diverse array of highquality services to the Menlo Park community LCS department services include:
• Public libraries
• Recreation
• Sports
• Early childhood education
• After school programs
• Summer youth camps
• Older adults (senior) programs
• Athletic fields and courts
• Community events
• Aquatics
Page J-1.32
6 New service needs - MPCC
• MPCC is on track to open during fiscal year 2023-24
• Large, complex multiservice public facility – 37,080 square feet on two levels • Incorporates some current programs, including senior center, youth center and branch library - these current programs are planned to move to and expand in the new facility • Restores services and adds new programs which currently do not exist, including: restored gymnasium and fitness center, significantly expanded library, new makerspace, new teen/homework – additional staff capacity is needed to support these programs in the new facility • New public facilities commonly experience significantly increased usage compared to the old facilities they replace – often 2-3 times higher usage
• The former community center’s closure for construction coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, widespread facility closures, and personnel reductions made necessary by economic downturn.
LCS staffing capacity has not fully recovered yet.
Page J-1.33
7 Staffing levels 2019 to 2024
70.75 71.00
59.00 64.35
66.25 72.25
0.00 10.00
20.00 30.00
40.00 50.00
60.00 70.00
80.00 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024*
FTE Personnel
*Includes 6.0 FTE
requested for MPCC
Page J-1.34
8 FIRST FLOOR
GYMNASIUM
(NOT SHOWN)
Page J-1.35
9 SECOND FLOOR
GYMNASIUM
(NOT SHOWN)
MOVEMENT STUDIO
Page J-1.36
10 New service needs - MPCC
• Restore Belle Haven services that were suspended/reduced during the MPCC construction and pandemic (gymnasium, fitness center, recreation services, facility rentals)
• Staff an expanded public library space that spans two floors instead of the current one floor space
• Support new services, including makerspace and teen zone/ homework • Support enhanced nutrition services, planning and preparation of nutritious meals for senior center and youth center participants, provide nutrition and health/wellness education classes.
• Reinstate operating costs (utilities, maintenance, supplies and services) Page J-1.37
11 Library and Community Services
Current 2022-23
Page J-1.38
12 Library and Community Services
Proposed 2023-24 (to support the MPCC)
Page J-1.39
13 New personnel needs - MPCC
Position* FTE Operational/programming need
Librarian I/II 1.00 Lead staff for expanded library space, makerspace, teen zone Library Assistant I 1.00 Support staff for expanded library space, makerspace, teen zone
Recreation Coordinator 1.00 Lead staff for gymnasium, fitness center, athletic leagues, recreation classes, facility rentals
Senior Program Assistant 1.00 Support staff for gymnasium, fitness center, athletic leagues, recreation classes, facility rentals
Nutrition Services
Coordinator
1.00 Lead staff for senior center daily meal service, youth center food service, nutrition/health/wellness education
LCS Supervisor 1.00 Building supervisor - operations, athletic field use, and site liaison to aquatics provider
Temporary staff
($120,000)
Front line customer service support at 3 primary service points 7 days/ 63+ hours per week, plus room set up, facility
attendants for rentals, and related tasks
Total 6.00
*Proposed in FY 2023-24
Page J-1.40
14 Page J-1.41
15 Core staffing analysis – major elements
Work groups
• Library
• Recreation
• Sports
• Seniors
Staffing types
• FTE
• Temp
Adjustment factors
• Leaves
• Breaks
• Vacancies
• Training
• Development
Page J-1.42
16 Core staffing needs (current – no MPCC)
Core services
• Customer service points
• Opening/closing
• Senior food prep/ service
• Book circulation
• Collection development
• Facility attendants
• Facility rentals
Core programs
• Recreation classes
• Drop-in sports
• Athletic leagues
• Grocery distribution
• Storytimes
• Cultural/literary programs
• Senior events
• Community events
Support tasks
• Supplies / billing
• Scheduling
• Outreach
• Reports
• Data entry / maintenance
*Includes current staffing in Library, Recreation, Sports, Seniors work groups Page J-1.43
17 Total staff hours (current – no MPCC)
Work
group
(FTE)
FTE
Annual
hours
(FTE)
Weekly
hours
(FTE)
Library 13.5 28,080 540
Sports 5 10,400 200
Recreation 4.75 9,880 190
Seniors 4.25 8,840 170
TOTAL 27.5 57,200 1,100
Work
group
(TEMP)
Annual
hours
(TEMP
Weekly
hours
(TEMP)
Library 14,465 278
Seniors 4,550 88
Sports 3,384 65
Recreation 2,716 52
TOTAL 25,115 483
Raw totals of staff hours that do not factor in leaves, breaks, vacancy, training/development. *Includes current staffing in Library, Recreation, Sports, Seniors work groups Page J-1.44
18 Adjusted staff hours (current – no MPCC)
Total
weekly
hours*
Leaves
and
breaks
factor
Adjusted
for leaves
and
breaks
Vacancy
factor
Adjusted
for
vacancy
Training
and dev.
factor
Adjusted available
weekly hours*
FTE* 1,100 25% 825.0 10% 743 4% 713
TEMP* 483 10% 434.7 10% 391 4% 376
TOTAL 1,583 1,259.7 1,134 1,088
Adjusted totals of staff hours that factor in leaves, breaks, vacancy, training/development (staff hours that are not available for core services, core programs, or support tasks.) *Includes current staffing in Library, Recreation, Sports, Seniors work groups Page J-1.45
19 Staff hours for core services (current – no MPCC)
Core services
Staff
hours
needed
per week
Customer service points 360.0
Book circulation 147.0
Senior food prep 137.5
Collection development 105.0
Facility rentals 80.0
Facility attendants 56.0
Opening/closing 18.5
TOTAL 904.0
Core programs
Staff
hours
needed
per week
Recreation classes 20.0
Storytimes 16.0
Grocery distribution 15.3
Community events 13.8
Athletic leagues 12.0
Cultural/literary programs 11.0
Drop-in sports 8.0
Senior events 2.1
TOTAL 98.2
Support tasks
Staff
hours
needed
per week
Supplies/billing 32.0
Scheduling 14.0
Data entry / maintenance 12.0
Outreach 10.0
Reports 8.0
TOTAL 76.0
“Staff hours” on these tables
include FTE and temp staff.
Staff hours needed to perform core services, core programs, and necessary support tasks Page J-1.46
20 Staff hours analysis (current – no MPCC)
Current staff – without MPCC
Staff hours per
week Staff hours per year
Staff hours expressed
as FTE (including temp
hours)
Adjusted staff hours available 1088.4 56,595 27.21
Hours used for core services (904.0) (47,008) (22.60)
Hours used for core programs (98.2) (5,104) (2.45)
Hours used for necessary support tasks (76.0) (3,952) (1.90) Total staff hours used for core services (1078.2) (56,064) (26.95) Delta - hours 10.2 531 0.26
Delta - percentage 1%
“Staff hours” on this table includes FTE and temp staff.
Page J-1.47
21 Page J-1.48
22 Page J-1.49
23 Page J-1.50
24 Core staffing analysis – major elements
Work groups
• Library
• Recreation
• Sports
• Seniors
Staffing types
• FTE
• Temp
Staffing factors
• Leaves
• Breaks
• Vacancy
• Training
• Development
Page J-1.51
25 Core staffing needs (new – with MPCC)
New core services
• Customer service points
• Opening/closing
• Senior food prep/ service
• Facility attendants
• Facility rentals
New core programs
• Drop-in sports
• Athletic leagues
• Nutrition programs
• Fitness center
• Makerspace
New support tasks
• Supplies / billing
• Scheduling
• Outreach
• Reports
• Data entry / maintenance
*Includes Library, Recreation, Sports, Seniors work groups. *Assumes that operating hours and service levels at the MPCC campus will be equivalent to the corresponding hours and services at the Burgess campus.
Page J-1.52
26 Total staff hours (new capacity for MPCC)
Work
group
(FTE)
FTE*
Annual
hours
(FTE)*
Weekly
hours
(FTE)*
Library 2 4,160 80
Recreation 2 4,160 80
Sports 1 2,080 40
Seniors 1 2,080 40
TOTAL* 6 12,480 240
Work
group
(TEMP)
Annual
hours
(TEMP)*
Weekly
hours
(TEMP)*
Library 2,250 43
Recreation 1,250 24
Sports 1,250 24
Seniors 1,040 20
TOTAL* 5,790 111
*Proposed in FY 2023-24
Raw totals of staff hours that do not factor in leaves, breaks, vacancy, training/development.
Page J-1.53
27 Adjusted staff hours (new capacity for MPCC)
Total
hours per
week*
Leaves
and
breaks
factor
Adjusted
for leaves
and
breaks
Vacancy
factor
Adjusted
for
vacancy
Training
and dev.
factor
Adjusted available
hours per week*
FTE 240 25% 180 0% 180 4% 173
TEMP 111 10% 100 0% 100 4% 96
TOTAL 351 280 280 269
*Proposed in FY 2023-24
*Includes proposed additional staff capacity in Library, Recreation, Sports, Seniors work groups.
Adjusted totals of staff hours that factor in leaves, breaks, vacancy, training/development (staff hours that are not available for core services, core programs, or support tasks.) Page J-1.54
28 Core service staff hours (new capacity for MPCC)
New core services
(MPCC)
Staff
hours
needed
per week
Customer service points 104
Facility attendants 24
Senior food prep 20
Facility rentals 20
Opening/closing 3
TOTAL 171
New core programs
(MPCC)
Staff
hours
needed
per week
Fitness center 30
Makerspace 30
Nutrition programs 20
Athletic leagues 8
Drop-in sports 8
TOTAL 96
New support tasks
(MPCC)
Staff
hours
needed
per week
Supplies/billing 4
Scheduling 4
Outreach 4
Data entry / maintenance 4
Reports 2
TOTAL 18
“Staff hours” on these tables include FTE and temp staff.
Staff hours needed to perform core services, core programs, and necessary support tasks Page J-1.55
29 Staff hours analysis (new/restored capacity for MPCC)
PROPOSED
FOR MPCC
staff hours per
week
PROPOSED
FOR MPCC staff
hours per year
Staff hours
expressed as FTE
(including temp
hours)
New/restored staff hours available (proposed) 269 13,988 6.73 Hours needed for new/restored core services (171) (8,892) (4.28) Hours needed for new/restored core programs (96) (4,992) (2.40) Hours needed for necessary support tasks (18) (936) (0.45) Total staff hours needed for new/ restored core services (285) (14,820) (7.13) Delta - hours (16) (832) (0.40)
Delta - percentage (6%)
“Staff hours” on this table includes FTE and temp staff.
Page J-1.56
30 Preliminary indicators
• Largest uses of new/restored staff capacity at MPCC are related to new/ restored core services and open hours (171 hours per week) and new/ restored core programs (96 hours per week)
• Library, recreation, sports, and seniors staff teams are currently operating at maximum available staff capacity to meet current service demands • Proposed new MPCC staffing capacity is needed to provide new/restored core services and programs to meet projected service demands for the new/restored facility.
*Includes Library, Recreation, Sports, Seniors work groups. *Assumes that operating hours and service levels at the MPCC campus will be equivalent to the corresponding hours and services at the Burgess campus.
Page J-1.57
31 Summary comparison
CURRENT
staff hours per
week
PROPOSED NEW
FOR MPCC* staff
hours per week TOTAL
Adjusted staff hours available 1,088 269* 1,357
Staff hours used for core services (904) (171) (1,075)
Staff hours used for core programs (98) (96) (194)
Staff hours used for support tasks (76) (18) (94)
Total staff hours needed for core services (1,078) (285) (1,363) Delta - hours 10 (16) (6)
Delta - percentage 1% (6%) (<1%)
“Staff hours” on this table includes FTE and temp staff. *Proposed in FY 2023-24 Page J-1.58
32 Thank you
Page J-1.59
33 Page J-1.60
Attachment H: Service level enhancements Expenses
Department / Division SLE description request Anticipated FY 23-24 Revenues FY 23-24 Annual
Recurring Cost
Police: Patrol Axon Fleet in-car cameras to enhance capturing scene activity; five-year agreement $80,789 $80,789
Police: Patrol Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team (CWCRT) partnership $80,000 $80,000
Police: Communications Replacing aging voice logging equipment (GC 34090, CCP337) for dispatch calls; staff has submitted for grant funding $67,000 Community Dev:
Housing
Contract support for implementation of anti-displacement strategies; equivalent to 0.2 FTE in contracted staff support $187,500 $187,500 CMO: Clerk Planning commissioner stipend pilot; begins April 2024 $4,200 $16,800 CMO: Sustainability Electric gardening rebate program; two-year program totaling $70,000 $35,000
CMO: City Manager Consultant to develop Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging citywide plan. Future annual costs are to be determined $51,000 LCS: MPCC Base
Revenues
Anticipated fees, rentals, charges, reimbursements, and donations for half a year of operations $357,500
LCS: MPCC Operating
Expenses
Various items including supplies, contracts, information technology, repairs & maintenance, utilities, training for half a year of operations
$510,500 $1,021,000
Total $357,500 $1,015,989 $1,386,089
Service level enhancements for future City Council Consideration Expenses Department / Division SLE description request
Anticipated
Annual
Revenues
First-Year Cost Annual
Recurring Cost
LCS MPCC: Operating revenues: Fees, rentals, charges,
reimbursements, donations $715,000
LCS: Library MPCC: 2 FTEs: Lead and support staff for library services at MPCC $249,096
LCS: Gymnasium MPCC: 2 FTEs: Lead and support staff for gymnasium services $265,671 LCS: Seniors MPCC: 1 FTE: Lead staff for senior citizen meal service $140,631 LCS: Operations MPCC: 1 FTE: Building supervision $190,291 LCS: Temporary Labor MPCC: Temporary labor pending additional FTE approvals $120,000 LCS: MPCC Operating
Expenses
Various items including supplies, contracts, information technology, repairs & maintenance, utilities, training $1,021,000 Net MPCC Impact (Expenses less revenues): ($1,271,689)
Police: Patrol Flock Cameras to capture vehicle, pedestrian and bicycles activity; Initial two year agreement $284,900 $251,500
Total $715,000 $284,900 $2,238,189
ATTACHMENT H Page J-1.61
FY 2022‐23 Forecasted Fund Balances
General Fund (excl Fund 111) 6/30/2022 Rev & TI Exp & TO Sur/(Def) 6/30/2023 100 General $ 32,882,360 $ 81,072,742 $ 76,603,105 $ 4,469,637 $ 37,351,997 Non‐spendable prepaids 446,047 446,047 Project related, encumb 1,540,643 540,643 Strategic pension funding 3,250,860 Actual 2,288,492 Emergency (Policy: 15‐20%) 12,064,534 15% 11,490,466 Economic (Policy: 20‐25%) 15,000,000 20% 15,320,621 Unassigned 580,276 7,265,728 Total Reserve Breakdown 32,882,360 37,351,997 One‐time, Developer, In‐lieu
111 One‐time Revenue 1,350,000 1,450,000 ‐ 1,450,000 2,800,000 258 CRRSA 19,668 ‐ ‐ ‐ 19,668
332 Bayfront Impact 6,760,554 2,593,451 ‐ 2,593,451 9,354,005 353 Downtown Public Amenity 2,442,080 10,000 ‐ 10,000 2,452,080 369 Community Amenities 9,405,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 9,405,000 395 Developer Funded Projects 262,355 2,291,890 2,250,000 41,890 304,245 397 American Rescue Plan Act 3,303,250 4,150,250 3,717,830 432,420 3,735,670 201 EIR Fees 89,684 ‐ ‐ ‐ 89,684
Housing Activity
221 Housing Special Revenue 6,602,921 1,064 24,000 (22,936) 6,579,985 222 Below Mrkt Rt Housing Spec Rev 32,538,570 6,847,779 439,967 6,407,812 38,946,382 223 Federal Revenue Sharing 121,787 500 4,000 (3,500) 118,287 224 Community Devlpmt Block Grant 1,381,809 1,500 4,000 (2,500) 1,379,309 364 HUT Repair and Maintenance ‐ 793,824 ‐ 793,824 793,824 394 Communitywide Electrification Efforts ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Library & Community Service
202 Miscellaneous Trust 155,521 145,000 145,000 ‐ 155,521 203 Donations ‐ Library and Community Se 348,051 151,044 ‐ 151,044 499,095 204 Maria S Hoffman Donation Senio ‐ 266,189 ‐ 266,189 266,189 251 Big Lift ‐ 295,000 187,200 107,800 107,800
252 Childcare Food ‐ 85,000 85,000 ‐ ‐
253 Belle Haven Child Devlpmt Ctr ‐ 2,003,000 1,552,942 450,058 450,058 254 Preschool‐QRIS 4,562 12,000 ‐ 12,000 16,562
256 Recreation In‐Lieu 2,869,135 88,200 3,000,000 (2,911,800) (42,665) 304 Menlo Park Community Campus 4,561,827 3,000,000 5,124,379 (2,124,379) 2,437,448 305 Diverse Literature LSTA 7,963 20,000 20,000 ‐ 7,963 334 BCSS Wellness Grant ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Police Enforcement
327 Supp Law Enforcement Services 305,494 284,689 145,203 139,486 444,980 328 Downtown Parking Permits 4,449,378 112,711 195,600 (82,889) 4,366,489 Transportation. Streets, Maint
211 Heritage Tree 419,936 10,000 ‐ 10,000 429,936 213 CalRecycle SB1383 Local Grant 50,108 25,000 25,000 ‐ 50,108 255 Senior Transportation ‐ 43,700 ‐ 43,700 43,700
329 OTS Grant 557 24,025 ‐ 24,025 24,582
351 Transportation Impact Fees 9,269,907 10,191,160 251,222 9,939,938 19,209,845 352 Transportation 871,875 ‐ 19,488 (19,488) 852,387 354 Storm Drainage Fees 93,914 137,565 97,000 40,565 134,479 355 Shuttle Program ‐ 1,293,151 1,170,028 123,123 123,123 356 County Transp Tax (Measure A) 965,258 1,002,551 1,045,622 (43,071) 922,187 357 Highway Users (Gas Tax) 2,874,195 1,029,129 132,751 896,378 3,770,573 358 Landscape/Tree Assessment 743,057 1,289,757 1,244,284 45,473 788,530 359 Sidewalk Assessment 90,831 305,838 27,050 278,788 369,619 360 Measure M 87,724 140,000 140,000 ‐ 87,724
361 Storm Water Management(NPDES) 383,316 377,509 468,839 (91,330) 291,986 362 Construction Impact Fee 6,027,315 1,322,962 86,525 1,236,437 7,263,752 363 Measure W 1,184,982 429,119 ‐ 429,119 1,614,101 365 Landfill Post‐Closure 7,939,049 932,116 527,575 404,541 8,343,590 375 CA Coastal Consv Priority Grt ‐ 500,000 ‐ 500,000 500,000 376 Caltrans ‐ 426,000 ‐ 426,000 426,000
377 California State Parks Dept ‐ 798,950 ‐ 798,950 798,950 FY 2022‐23 Fcst
ATTACHMENT I Page J-1.62
Attachment I: FY 2022‐23 Forecasted Fund Balances
General Fund (excl Fund 111) 6/30/2022 Rev & TI Exp & TO Sur/(Def) 6/30/2023 FY 2022‐23 Fcst
368 Bayfront Park Maintenance 646,764 3,000 254,721 (251,721) 395,043 501 General Capital Improvement 23,735,241 7,551,816 2,732,518 4,819,298 28,554,539 370 Haven Avenue Streetscape Grant ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 396 CA Arrearage Program Water Res 11,314 ‐ ‐ ‐ 11,314 Debt Service
400 Library GO Bond 1990 351,403 1,500 360,000 (358,500) (7,097) 401 Measure T GO Bonds 19,800,019 2,365,456 2,350,456 15,000 19,815,019 510 Library Addition 118,662 2,000 121,000 (119,000) (338) 521 SMC Transportation Authority ‐ 170,000 ‐ 170,000 170,000 Water Activity
600 Water Capital 20,246,487 2,486,387 997,498 1,488,889 21,735,376 601 Water Operations 29,342,228 14,836,457 11,292,015 3,544,442 32,886,670 610 Solid Waste Service 3,145,626 692,456 372,989 319,467 3,465,093 Internal Services
701 Workers' Compensation 962,963 928,488 1,835,435 (906,947) 56,016 702 General Liability (661,801) 2,582,824 1,648,294 934,530 272,729 703 Other Post Employment Benefits 824,278 ‐ 1,062,323 (1,062,323) (238,045) 704 IT Internal Service 1,801,504 3,752,348 5,861,977 (2,109,629) (308,125) 705 Vehicle Replacement 4,046,069 1,446,162 1,443,373 2,789 4,048,858 Page J-1.63
FY 2023‐24 Budgeted Fund Balances
General Fund (excl Fund 111) 6/30/2023 Rev & TI Exp & TO CIP Rev CIP Exp Sur/(Def) 6/30/2024 100 General $ 37,351,997 $75,144,952 $ ‐ 76,147,993 $ $ ‐ $ (1,003,042) $ 36,348,955 Non‐spendable prepaids 446,047 446,047
Project related, encumb 540,643 540,643
Strategic pension funding 2,288,492 Actual % 1,326,164 Emergency (Policy: 15‐20%) 11,490,466 15% 11,422,199 Economic (Policy: 20‐25%) 15,320,621 20% 15,229,599 Unassigned 7,265,728 7,384,304
Total Reserve Breakdown 37,351,997 36,348,955 One‐time, Developer, In‐lieu
111 One‐time Revenue 2,800,000 1,350,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,350,000 4,150,000 258 CRRSA 19,668 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 19,668
332 Bayfront Impact 9,354,005 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9,354,005 353 Downtown Public Amenity 2,452,080 10,000 ‐ ‐ 748,718 (738,718) 1,713,362 369 Community Amenities 9,405,000 24,400,000 ‐ ‐ 300,000 24,100,000 33,505,000 395 Developer Funded Projects 304,245 750,000 750,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 304,245 397 American Rescue Plan Act 3,735,670 ‐ 3,717,830 ‐ ‐ (3,717,830) 17,840 201 EIR Fees 89,684 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 89,684
Housing Activity
221 Housing Special Revenue 6,579,985 1,000 24,000 ‐ ‐ (23,000) 6,556,985 222 Below Mrkt Rt Housing Spec Rev 38,946,382 3,096,433 662,542 ‐ ‐ 2,433,891 41,380,273 223 Federal Revenue Sharing 118,287 500 4,000 ‐ ‐ (3,500) 114,787 224 Community Devlpmt Block Grant 1,379,309 1,500 4,000 ‐ ‐ (2,500) 1,376,809 364 HUT Repair and Maintenance 793,824 844,369 ‐ ‐ 1,550,000 (705,631) 88,193 394 Communitywide Electrification Efforts ‐ 2,250,000 2,250,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Library & Community Service
202 Miscellaneous Trust 155,521 145,000 145,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 155,521 203 Donations ‐ Library and Community Se 499,095 295,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 295,000 794,095 204 Maria S Hoffman Donation Senio 266,189 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 266,189 251 Big Lift 107,800 295,000 260,109 ‐ ‐ 34,891 142,691 252 Childcare Food ‐ 85,000 85,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 253 Belle Haven Child Devlpmt Ctr 450,058 2,003,000 2,241,453 ‐ ‐ (238,453) 211,605 254 Preschool‐QRIS 16,562 12,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 12,000 28,562 256 Recreation In‐Lieu (42,665) 1,488,200 ‐ 725,414 1,650,779 562,835 520,170 304 Menlo Park Community Campus 2,437,448 ‐ ‐ 7,297,000 9,077,164 (1,780,164) 657,284 305 Diverse Literature LSTA 7,963 20,000 20,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,963 334 BCSS Wellness Grant ‐ 28,785 ‐ ‐ ‐ 28,785 28,785 Police Enforcement
327 Supp Law Enforcement Services 444,980 100,000 100,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 444,980 328 Downtown Parking Permits 4,366,489 ‐ 202,450 ‐ 2,400,000 (2,602,450) 1,764,039 Transportation. Streets, Maint
211 Heritage Tree 429,936 160,000 ‐ ‐ 250,000 (90,000) 339,936 213 CalRecycle SB1383 Local Grant 50,108 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50,108 255 Senior Transportation 43,700 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 43,700 329 OTS Grant 24,582 70,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 70,000 94,582 351 Transportation Impact Fees 19,209,845 2,250,000 ‐ 7,900,000 14,205,954 (4,055,954) 15,153,891 352 Transportation 852,387 ‐ ‐ ‐ 814,335 (814,335) 38,052 354 Storm Drainage Fees 134,479 100,000 100,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 134,479 355 Shuttle Program 123,123 1,004,937 1,126,912 ‐ ‐ (121,975) 1,148 356 County Transp Tax (Measure A) 922,187 1,200,000 1,473,532 400,000 804,940 (678,472) 243,715 357 Highway Users (Gas Tax) 3,770,573 980,962 19,692 ‐ 3,394,548 (2,433,278) 1,337,295 358 Landscape/Tree Assessment 788,530 922,542 1,331,006 ‐ ‐ (408,464) 380,066 359 Sidewalk Assessment 369,619 332,476 27,050 ‐ 350,000 (44,574) 325,045 360 Measure M 87,724 140,000 140,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 87,724 361 Storm Water Management(NPDES) 291,986 381,102 525,936 ‐ ‐ (144,834) 147,152 362 Construction Impact Fee 7,263,752 865,000 88,676 ‐ 3,500,000 (2,723,676) 4,540,076 363 Measure W 1,614,101 550,000 ‐ ‐ 900,000 (350,000) 1,264,101 365 Landfill Post‐Closure 8,343,590 970,083 587,161 ‐ 3,707,212 (3,324,290) 5,019,300 375 CA Coastal Consv Priority Grt 500,000 ‐ ‐ 500,000 ‐ 500,000 1,000,000 376 Caltrans 426,000 ‐ ‐ 426,000 ‐ 426,000 852,000 377 California State Parks Dept 798,950 ‐ ‐ 798,950 ‐ 798,950 1,597,900 FY 2022‐23 Fcst FY 2023‐24 Budget
ATTACHMENT J Page J-1.64
Attachment J: FY 2023‐24 Budgeted Fund Balances
General Fund (excl Fund 111) 6/30/2023 Rev & TI Exp & TO CIP Rev CIP Exp Sur/(Def) 6/30/2024 FY 2022‐23 Fcst FY 2023‐24 Budget
368 Bayfront Park Maintenance 395,043 3,000 ‐ 264,530 ‐ (261,530) 133,513 501 General Capital Improvement 28,554,539 20,000 2,095,695 18,335,987 39,908,474 (23,648,182) 4,906,357 370 Haven Avenue Streetscape Grant ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 396 CA Arrearage Program Water Res 11,314 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 11,314 Debt Service
400 Library GO Bond 1990 (7,097) 12,545 ‐ ‐ ‐ 12,545 5,448 401 Measure T GO Bonds 19,815,019 2,375,456 14,975,870 ‐ ‐ (12,600,414) 7,214,605 510 Library Addition (338) 750 ‐ ‐ ‐ 750 412 521 SMC Transportation Authority 170,000 ‐ ‐ 1,470,000 ‐ 1,470,000 1,640,000 Water Activity
600 Water Capital 21,735,376 2,144,926 329,254 500,000 16,514,202 (14,198,530) 7,536,846 601 Water Operations 32,886,670 12,096,200 10,908,430 ‐ ‐ 1,187,770 34,074,440 610 Solid Waste Service 3,465,093 674,038 444,974 ‐ ‐ 229,064 3,694,157 Internal Services
701 Workers' Compensation 56,016 821,538 ‐ 832,401 ‐ (10,863) 45,153 702 General Liability 272,729 2,259,829 2,259,738 ‐ ‐ 91 272,820 703 Other Post Employment Benefits (238,045) 878,486 640,095 ‐ ‐ 238,391 346 704 IT Internal Service (308,125) 4,848,420 4,521,587 ‐ ‐ 326,833 18,708 705 Vehicle Replacement 4,048,858 ‐ 2,189,802 ‐ ‐ (2,189,802) 1,859,056 Page J-1.65
City of Menlo Park
General Fund 5 Year Forecast: ($1 million annual CIP)
Fiscal Year 2023-24 through 2027-28
ATTACHMENT K Page J-1.66
Revenues:
Property Taxes 4.6% HdL projection for 5 year secured, unsecured, VLF in lieu property tax, Other taxes are reduced by $224K admin fee Sales Taxes 4.0% MuniServices 5 year projection
TOT 5.0% HdL provides TOT audit and reviews forecast, includes citizenM Utility User Tax 0.0% Removed from forecast
Excess ERAF 0.0% Same level as proposed budget, no growth RPPTF 0.0% Using recent update from County of San Mateo, same level from propsoed budget, no growth Licenses & Permits 4.0% Estiamted 4% annual growth over proposed budget Other revenues 3.0% Includes $1 million from CERBT for retiree health premiums, projected 3% annual growth Charges for Services 2.0% Projected increase in demand for services Interest Income - Reduces based on fund balance
Transfers (over forecast) $6,334,830
Expenditures:
Salaries and Wages 4.0% Subject to labor negotiations
Benefits - Non PERS 3.0% CPI inflation adjustment
Benefits - PERS (over forecast) - Based on most recent CalPERS actuarial report; Misc at -7.2%, Safety at -4% (Suspend UAL for 2025, then reduce) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Vacancy factor 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 7.0%
Services, Repairs, etc 3.0% CPI inflation adjustment
Operating 3.0% CPI inflation adjustment
Transfers (over forecast) $10,409,815
Staffing: FTEs 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
100 General Administration 18.36 18.36 18.36 18.36 18.36 140 Administrative Services 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 200 Police 69.50 69.50 69.50 69.50 69.50
300 Public Works 43.61 43.61 43.61 43.61 43.61
500 Library and Community Svcs 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 600 Community Development 33.50 33.50 33.50 33.50 33.50 Total 233.97 233.97 233.97 233.97 233.97
The objectives of the forecast are to demonstrate reserve levels after covering operating and capital project transfers. The forecast is developed as closely as possible to a cash flow projection rather than a full accrual estimate, thus excluding receivables, payables, depreciation, amortization, and certain unrealized gains & losses. The details in this tool are used by management in forecasting receipts (revenues), disbursements (expenses) and cash reserves. The City maintains the accounting system in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) adopted by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The forecast period (2023-24 thru 2028) uses the proposed budget year 2023-24 as the base.
General Fund 5 Year Forecast: Attachment K ($1 million annual CIP) General Fund 5 Year Forecast (FY 2023-24 thru 2027-28): Assumptions 2024 - ARPA: $3.7 million (pending City Council direction)Other: landscape, tree, park, solid waste support CIP $1 million annual support, $.44 million for landscape assessment and shuttle program Page J-1.67
Proposed Annual
2022 Act 2023 Fcst 2024 Bud 2025 2026 2027 2028 Growth
Revenue
Property taxes: Secured $ 19,572,790 $ 20,681,996 $ 21,879,747 $ 22,656,694 $ 23,668,778 $ 24,879,451 $ 26,177,955 4.6% Property taxes: VLF 5,265,733 6,948,161 6,550,825 6,785,345 7,090,007 7,453,015 7,843,553 4.6% Excess ERAF 4,410,741 4,178,538 4,168,229 4,168,229 4,168,229 4,168,229 4,168,229 RPTTF 1,816,169 3,296,750 2,510,372 2,510,372 2,510,372 2,510,372 2,510,372 Property taxes: Other 1,664,790 1,753,738 1,578,503 1,650,892 1,726,602 1,805,783 1,888,595 Sales Taxes 6,534,862 6,621,444 6,886,302 7,161,754 7,448,224 7,746,153 8,055,999 TOT 9,404,440 10,000,000 10,500,000 11,025,000 11,576,250 12,155,063 12,762,816 Utility User Tax 1,562,407 1,647,858 - - - - -
Licenses & Permits 5,987,374 5,690,231 5,128,500 5,333,640 5,546,986 5,768,865 5,999,620 Fines, Rental, Govt, Other 3,799,563 4,309,327 4,290,494 4,419,209 4,551,785 4,688,339 4,828,989 Charges for Services 4,911,158 6,017,168 5,210,750 5,314,965 5,421,264 5,529,690 5,640,283 Interest Income 1,430,530 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,108,239 1,900,124 1,706,745 1,537,570 Transfer In 875,508 7,727,531 4,241,230 523,400 523,400 523,400 523,400 Total revenue 67,236,065 81,072,742 75,144,952 73,657,740 76,132,021 78,935,104 81,937,380 Expense
Salaries and Wages 22,187,749 26,475,701 29,409,126 30,575,892 31,789,327 33,051,300 34,363,752 Salaries Temporary 1,304,040 1,733,321 1,734,350 1,734,350 1,734,350 1,734,350 1,734,350 Salaries Overtime 1,508,502 1,778,883 1,826,000 1,826,000 1,826,000 1,826,000 1,826,000 Benefits - PERS 7,007,864 8,365,856 9,234,338 9,695,273 9,696,882 9,264,394 9,163,766 Benefits - Additional UAL 962,291 962,328 962,328 962,328 500,000 500,000 500,000 Benefits - Non PERS 6,683,806 8,194,001 10,081,602 10,384,050 10,695,572 11,016,439 11,346,932 Benefits - Non PERS (Vacancy) - (3,372,208) (5,159,760) (4,723,309) (4,320,622) (3,861,069) (3,969,031) Operating Expenses 7,039,721 9,145,703 8,644,676 8,904,016 9,171,137 9,446,271 9,729,659 Services 8,277,179 9,991,178 11,324,679 11,664,419 12,014,352 12,374,783 12,746,026 Repairs & Maintenance 1,060,987 1,042,796 1,117,395 1,150,917 1,185,444 1,221,008 1,257,638 Utilities, Rentals 1,758,532 1,877,373 1,966,558 2,025,555 2,086,321 2,148,911 2,213,378 Fixed Assets, Special Project 606,442 1,576,983 1,324,738 1,364,480 1,405,415 1,447,577 1,491,004 Transfer Out 12,265,074 8,831,190 3,681,963 1,681,963 1,681,963 1,681,963 1,681,963 Total expense 70,662,187 76,603,105 76,147,993 77,245,933 79,466,141 81,851,926 84,085,437 Surplus/(Deficit) $ (3,426,122) $ 4,469,637 $ (1,003,041) $ (3,588,194) $ (3,334,120) $ (2,916,822) $ (2,148,057) Audited Forecast
Fund Balance (excl 111) 32,882,360 37,351,997 36,348,956 32,760,762 29,426,643 26,509,821 24,361,764 Reserves Breakdown:
Non-spendable prepaids 446,047 446,047 446,047 446,047 446,047 446,047 446,047 Project related, encumb 1,540,643 540,643 540,643 540,643 540,643 540,643 540,643 Strategic pension funding 3,250,860 2,288,492 1,326,164 363,836 - - - Utility User Tax Refund - - - 4,564,379 - - - 2028
Emergency (Policy: 15-20%) 12,064,534 11,490,466 11,422,199 11,586,890 11,919,921 12,277,789 12,612,816 15% Economic (Policy: 20-25%) 14,650,000 15,320,621 15,229,599 15,008,967 15,893,228 12,995,342 10,512,258 13% Unassigned 930,276 7,265,728 7,384,304 250,000 626,804 250,000 250,000 General Fund 5 Year Forecast: Attachment K ($1 million annual CIP) General Fund 5 Year Forecast (FY 2023-24 thru 2027-28): Revenue & Expense Statement Page J-1.68
General Fund 5 Year Forecast: Attachment K ($1 million annual CIP) General Fund 5 Year Forecast (FY 2023-24 thru 2027-28): Vacancy Rate Analysis 2024 Bud 2025 2026 2027 2028
Salary 31,235,126 32,401,892 33,615,327 34,877,300 36,189,752 Benefits (excl extra UAL) 19,315,940 20,079,323 20,392,454 20,280,833 20,510,698 Budgeted FTEs 233.97 233.97 233.97 233.97 233.97
Avg FTE 216,058 224,307 230,832 235,749 242,341
Vacancy ($) $5,055,107 $4,723,309 $4,320,622 $3,861,069 $3,969,031 Vacancy (%) 10.00% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 7.0%
Vacant FTEs 23.40 21.06 18.72 16.38 16.38
Page J-1.69
General Fund 5 Year Forecast: Attachment K ($1 million annual CIP) General Fund 5 Year Forecast (FY 2023-24 thru 2027-28): Emergency & Economic Reserves -
3,000,000
6,000,000
9,000,000
12,000,000
15,000,000
2022 Act 2023 Fcst 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Emergency contingency Policy Level (15% min)
-
4,000,000
8,000,000
12,000,000
16,000,000
20,000,000
2022 Act 2023 Fcst 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Economic stabilization Policy Level (20% min)
Page J-1.70
City of Menlo Park
General Fund 5 Year Forecast: Attachment K ($3 million annual CIP) Fiscal Year 2023-24 through 2027-28
Page J-1.71
Revenues:
Property Taxes 4.6% HdL projection for 5 year secured, unsecured, VLF in lieu property tax, Other taxes are reduced by $224K admin fee Sales Taxes 4.0% MuniServices 5 year projection
TOT 5.0% HdL provides TOT audit and reviews forecast, includes citizenM Utility User Tax 0.0% Removed from forecast
Excess ERAF 0.0% Same level as proposed budget, no growth RPPTF 0.0% Using recent update from County of San Mateo, same level from propsoed budget, no growth Licenses & Permits 4.0% Estiamted 4% annual growth over proposed budget Other revenues 3.0% Includes $1 million from CERBT for retiree health premiums, projected 3% annual growth Charges for Services 2.0% Projected increase in demand for services Interest Income - Reduces based on fund balance
Transfers (over forecast) $6,334,830
Expenditures:
Salaries and Wages 4.0% Subject to labor negotiations
Benefits - Non PERS 3.0% CPI inflation adjustment
Benefits - PERS (over forecast) - Based on most recent CalPERS actuarial report; Misc at -7.2%, Safety at -4% (Suspend UAL for 2025, then reduce) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Vacancy factor 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 7.0%
Services, Repairs, etc 3.0% CPI inflation adjustment
Operating 3.0% CPI inflation adjustment
Transfers (over forecast) $18,409,815
Staffing: FTEs 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
100 General Administration 18.36 18.36 18.36 18.36 18.36 140 Administrative Services 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 200 Police 69.50 69.50 69.50 69.50 69.50
300 Public Works 43.61 43.61 43.61 43.61 43.61
500 Library and Community Svcs 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 51.25 600 Community Development 33.50 33.50 33.50 33.50 33.50 Total 233.97 233.97 233.97 233.97 233.97
The objectives of the forecast are to demonstrate reserve levels after covering operating and capital project transfers. The forecast is developed as closely as possible to a cash flow projection rather than a full accrual estimate, thus excluding receivables, payables, depreciation, amortization, and certain unrealized gains & losses. The details in this tool are used by management in forecasting receipts (revenues), disbursements (expenses) and cash reserves. The City maintains the accounting system in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) adopted by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The forecast period (2023-24 thru 2028) uses the proposed budget year 2023-24 as the base.
General Fund 5 Year Forecast: Attachment K ($3 million annual CIP) General Fund 5 Year Forecast (FY 2023-24 thru 2027-28): Assumptions 2024 - ARPA: $3.7 million (pending City Council direction)Other: landscape, tree, park, solid waste support CIP $3 million annual support, $.44 million for landscape assessment and shuttle program Page J-1.72
Proposed Annual
2022 Act 2023 Fcst 2024 Bud 2025 2026 2027 2028 Growth
Revenue
Property taxes: Secured $ 19,572,790 $ 20,681,996 $ 21,879,747 $ 22,656,694 $ 23,668,778 $ 24,879,451 $ 26,177,955 4.6% Property taxes: VLF 5,265,733 6,948,161 6,550,825 6,785,345 7,090,007 7,453,015 7,843,553 4.6% Excess ERAF 4,410,741 4,178,538 4,168,229 4,168,229 4,168,229 4,168,229 4,168,229 RPTTF 1,816,169 3,296,750 2,510,372 2,510,372 2,510,372 2,510,372 2,510,372 Property taxes: Other 1,664,790 1,753,738 1,578,503 1,650,892 1,726,602 1,805,783 1,888,595 Sales Taxes 6,534,862 6,621,444 6,886,302 7,161,754 7,448,224 7,746,153 8,055,999 TOT 9,404,440 10,000,000 10,500,000 11,025,000 11,576,250 12,155,063 12,762,816 Utility User Tax 1,562,407 1,647,858 - - - - -
Licenses & Permits 5,987,374 5,690,231 5,128,500 5,333,640 5,546,986 5,768,865 5,999,620 Fines, Rental, Govt, Other 3,799,563 4,309,327 4,290,494 4,419,209 4,551,785 4,688,339 4,828,989 Charges for Services 4,911,158 6,017,168 5,210,750 5,314,965 5,421,264 5,529,690 5,640,283 Interest Income 1,430,530 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,108,239 1,784,124 1,468,017 1,168,995 Transfer In 875,508 7,727,531 4,241,230 523,400 523,400 523,400 523,400 Total revenue 67,236,065 81,072,742 75,144,952 73,657,740 76,016,021 78,696,376 81,568,806 Expense
Salaries and Wages 22,187,749 26,475,701 29,409,126 30,575,892 31,789,327 33,051,300 34,363,752 Salaries Temporary 1,304,040 1,733,321 1,734,350 1,734,350 1,734,350 1,734,350 1,734,350 Salaries Overtime 1,508,502 1,778,883 1,826,000 1,826,000 1,826,000 1,826,000 1,826,000 Benefits - PERS 7,007,864 8,365,856 9,234,338 9,695,273 9,696,882 9,264,394 9,163,766 Benefits - Additional UAL 962,291 962,328 962,328 962,328 500,000 500,000 500,000 Benefits - Non PERS 6,683,806 8,194,001 10,081,602 10,384,050 10,695,572 11,016,439 11,346,932 Benefits - Non PERS (Vacancy) - (3,372,208) (5,159,760) (4,723,309) (4,320,622) (3,861,069) (3,969,031) Operating Expenses 7,039,721 9,145,703 8,644,676 8,904,016 9,171,137 9,446,271 9,729,659 Services 8,277,179 9,991,178 11,324,679 11,664,419 12,014,352 12,374,783 12,746,026 Repairs & Maintenance 1,060,987 1,042,796 1,117,395 1,150,917 1,185,444 1,221,008 1,257,638 Utilities, Rentals 1,758,532 1,877,373 1,966,558 2,025,555 2,086,321 2,148,911 2,213,378 Fixed Assets, Special Project 606,442 1,576,983 1,324,738 1,364,480 1,405,415 1,447,577 1,491,004 Transfer Out 12,265,074 8,831,190 3,681,963 3,681,963 3,681,963 3,681,963 3,681,963 Total expense 70,662,187 76,603,105 76,147,993 79,245,933 81,466,141 83,851,926 86,085,437 Surplus/(Deficit) $ (3,426,122) $ 4,469,637 $ (1,003,041) $ (5,588,194) $ (5,450,120) $ (5,155,550) $ (4,516,631) Audited Forecast
Fund Balance (excl 111) 32,882,360 37,351,997 36,348,956 30,760,762 25,310,643 20,155,093 15,638,462 Reserves Breakdown:
Non-spendable prepaids 446,047 446,047 446,047 446,047 446,047 446,047 446,047 Project related, encumb 1,540,643 540,643 540,643 540,643 540,643 540,643 540,643 Strategic pension funding 3,250,860 2,288,492 1,326,164 363,836 - - - Utility User Tax Refund - - - 4,564,379 - - - 2028
Emergency (Policy: 15-20%) 12,064,534 11,490,466 11,422,199 11,886,890 12,219,921 12,577,789 12,912,816 15% Economic (Policy: 20-25%) 14,650,000 15,320,621 15,229,599 12,708,967 11,854,032 6,340,614 1,488,956 2% Unassigned 930,276 7,265,728 7,384,304 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 General Fund 5 Year Forecast: Attachment K ($3 million annual CIP) General Fund 5 Year Forecast (FY 2023-24 thru 2027-28): Revenue & Expense Statement Page J-1.73
General Fund 5 Year Forecast: Attachment K ($3 million annual CIP) General Fund 5 Year Forecast (FY 2023-24 thru 2027-28): Vacancy Rate Analysis 2024 Bud 2025 2026 2027 2028
Salary 31,235,126 32,401,892 33,615,327 34,877,300 36,189,752 Benefits (excl extra UAL) 19,315,940 20,079,323 20,392,454 20,280,833 20,510,698 Budgeted FTEs 233.97 233.97 233.97 233.97 233.97
Avg FTE 216,058 224,307 230,832 235,749 242,341
Vacancy ($) $5,055,107 $4,723,309 $4,320,622 $3,861,069 $3,969,031 Vacancy (%) 10.00% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 7.0%
Vacant FTEs 23.40 21.06 18.72 16.38 16.38
Page J-1.74
General Fund 5 Year Forecast: Attachment K ($3 million annual CIP) General Fund 5 Year Forecast (FY 2023-24 thru 2027-28): Emergency & Economic Reserves -
3,000,000
6,000,000
9,000,000
12,000,000
15,000,000
2022 Act 2023 Fcst 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Emergency contingency Policy Level (15% min)
-
4,000,000
8,000,000
12,000,000
16,000,000
20,000,000
2022 Act 2023 Fcst 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Economic stabilization Policy Level (20% min)
Page J-1.75
Community Development
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov
STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 6/27/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-148-CC
Regular Business: Review and authorize staff to submit the revised Housing Element for the 2023 to 2031 planning
period to the California Department of Housing and
Community Development
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council review and authorize staff to submit the revised 2023 to 2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Housing Element, which was adopted by the City Council Jan. 31, has been revised (Attachment A) in response to an April 7 letter from HCD.
Policy Issues
State housing law requires that jurisdictions throughout California adequately plan to meet the housing needs of the community and future residents by regularly updating the jurisdiction’s General Plan Housing Element. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) identifies the specific number of housing units at each income level category that a jurisdiction must plan for from 2023 to 2031 to comply with State mandates. Additionally, the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Act requires that all local public agencies facilitate deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities.
Background
The Housing Element Update project has been an ongoing City Council priority, and the city began its efforts to update the Housing Element and Safety Element, and prepare a new Environmental Justice Element in early 2021. The city undertook an extensive process of planning, public engagement and coordination with community members, stakeholders, city decision makers, and other governmental agencies to develop the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element. The Housing Element was developed to meet the city’s assigned RHNA of 2,946 net new housing units across all income levels over an eight-year period and to create a foundation for the city’s policies related to housing. In an effort to exceed the State’s requirements, the Housing Element included a wide range of housing-related programs and incorporated 30% more net new units than required to provide ample opportunities for new housing development primarily throughout the community in City Council Districts 2 through 5. The City Council adopted the Housing Element Jan. 31 (Attachment B) and submitted it to HCD for review Feb. 8.
On April 7, the city received a letter from HCD (Attachment C) acknowledging the city’s adopted Housing Element addresses many statutory requirements, but requesting additional changes to the document.
Among the topics in the letter were requests for additional analysis of housing needs, resources and constraints; additional information to support the inclusion of sites in the inventory; and further evaluation of governmental constraints on housing development in the city. Nearly all of the requested changes were for additional narrative, increased specificity, and more data to support the information in the adopted Housing AGENDA ITEM J-2 Page J-2.1
Staff Report #: 23-148-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Element, and not requests to substantially alter adopted inventory sites or programs.
Analysis
During the process of revising the adopted Housing Element, the project team met with HCD staff to discuss their April 7 letter and potential strategies to address HCD’s comments. In addition, the project team met with interested community members and representatives from Menlo Together, Campaign for Fair Housing Elements, Housing Leadership Council, and YIMBY Law in consideration of written comments submitted March 20 following adoption of the Housing Element. These comments, and three other items of correspondence received since the adoption of the Housing Element, have been added to Appendix 1-1 of the revised draft Housing Element. Some general themes from the meetings and correspondence are described below, with examples of how they were addressed:
• Reduce/Eliminate Parking Standards. Program H4.M (Housing Element page 8-28) commits to specific parking reductions for multi-family residential uses, and study of other ways to reduce or eliminate parking.
• Concerns Regarding the Realistic Development Potential of Sites. Additional narrative has been added to Chapter 7, and a new Appendix 7-7 has been created with more evaluation of inventory sites to support their inclusion in the Housing Element based on a variety of development trends and factors. To ensure a stronger commitment to providing transparency on the city’s progress toward meeting its RHNA, Program H1.H (Housing Element pages 8-6 and 8-7) commits to annual monitoring of pipeline projects that are not currently under construction and an evaluation of build-out progress. The program also commits to a mid-cycle review with the City Council in 2027 to evaluate overall progress on meeting the city’s RHNA. If the city is falling significantly short of its goals, additional sites and/or increased residential densities will be identified and the City Council will consider and take action on proposed zoning changes that may improve RHNA progress.
• Programs with Vague Commitments. Chapter 8 has been updated throughout with more specificity and firmer commitments for a variety of programs. As an example, Program H2.E (Housing Element pages 8- 10 and 8-11) regarding the city’s proposed anti-displacement strategy has incorporated feedback from community members and organizations to enhance the range of options that could be implemented.
The complete revised draft Housing Element with track change text edits since the adoption of the Jan. 31 document is included as Attachment A. Attachment D provides a response to each comment in HCD’s April 7 letter and includes a summary of edits, with references to applicable page numbers in the revised draft Housing Element. Many of the changes described in Attachment D address specific comments from HCD and community members and organizations. The changes described in Attachment D do not include minor revisions in Attachment A, such as corrections to spelling and grammatical errors and new references to Housing Element chapters and programs for clarity and consistency.
Potential site inventory change
The majority of changes in the revised document provide additional data and specify actions to be taken by the city during Housing Element implementation to strengthen the existing document. The project team would like to highlight one potential change to the site inventory list. Upon further analysis of comment 9 in HCD’s letter and following feedback from HCD and community organizations, the post office site at 3875 Bohannon Drive is recommended for removal. The post office site (Site #63) is a federally-owned property and although development potential on the site may be underutilized given the age, size, and other aspects of the existing development, there is limited evidence to suggest that the United States Postal Service is interested in disposing of the property during the 2023 to 2031 planning period. The property was originally added to the site inventory upon request of the City Council in December 2021. Unless directed otherwise Page J-2.2
Staff Report #: 23-148-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov by City Council, staff will strike references to the post office site from the draft revised Housing Element prior to submittal to HCD. The change would result in a loss of 85 potential moderate-income units from the site inventory, but would not impact the city’s ability to meet its RHNA during the planning period.
Next steps
Following a required seven-day public review period and 60-day HCD review period, it is anticipated that HCD would provide a response on the revisions by late August or early September 2023. Assuming tentative certification of the Housing Element following HCD’s review, the Planning and Housing Commissions would make recommendations and the City Council would tentatively meet in fall 2023 to consider re-adoption of the Housing Element.
Following submittal of the revised draft Housing Element to HCD, the project team anticipates the following public meetings and actions related to the zoning changes proposed as part of Housing Element implementation programs H4.D (Modify the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO)), H4.I (Create New Opportunities for Mixed-Use Development), H4.J (Increase Residential Density and Maximize Development Proposals), H4.L (Modify El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan), and H4.T (Residential Overlay):
• Changes to the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan to increase densities and other related development regulations are being evaluated, and a Planning Commission study session is anticipated in summer 2023, followed by a City Council study session soon after. Based on the study session guidance, changes to the specific plan would be finalized in fall 2023, with a City Council hearing in late fall 2023/early winter to consider adoption of the changes, simultaneous with the work described below. • Changes to commercial zoning districts, the R-3 district and AHO, and associated General Plan amendments are being evaluated, and Planning Commission and City Council study sessions would be held on the draft changes in early fall 2023. Based on study session guidance, changes to the proposed zoning ordinance amendments and zoning map would be finalized in fall 2023, with Planning Commission and City Council hearings in late fall 2023/early winter to consider adoption of the changes.
It should be noted that dates and actions described above are tentative and subject to the availability of key parties (HCD staff, community stakeholders, Commissions and the City Council, etc.), scheduling of meetings, and time needed to address any unforeseen challenges that could arise during each of the tasks.
One significant factor that could affect the timing of the tasks described above is any additional environmental review that may be necessary to study increased densities beyond those evaluated in the certified subsequent environmental impact report (SEIR) for the project. Staff is working closely with the project environmental consultant to evaluate the potential timing of any necessary modifications to the SEIR, and would integrate environmental work into the project schedule so that the major tasks can be completed no later than Jan. 31, 2024.
Impact on City Resources
As part of the fiscal year 2020-21 budget, the City Council appropriated approximately $1.5 million from the general fund to support the Housing Element Update (including preparation of the SEIR), which is a City Council priority. On March 14 the City Council approved an amendment to the professional services agreement with M-Group, the City’s Housing Element Update project consultant, in the amount of $75,414, for an overall contract total of $1,547,466. Funding and staff/consultant resources for implementation of programs associated with the Housing Element are not included in this contract amount. Separate scopes of work and budgets would be reviewed as part of future program implementation.
Environmental Review
Page J-2.3
Staff Report #: 23-148-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov The City Council adopted Resolution No. 6808 and certified the SEIR for the Housing Element Update project (i.e., Housing Element and Safety Element updates, a new Environmental Justice Element, and associated changes) Jan. 31. On Feb. 1, a Notice of Determination (NOD) was filed. The proposed changes to the Housing Element are primarily to clarify, specify, and enhance the content in the document adopted by the City Council Jan. 31 in response to comments from HCD, and are covered by the certified SEIR. The proposed changes to the Housing Element are not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§15378 and 15061(b)(3) as they will not result in any direct or indirect physical changes in the environment that were not previously evaluated in the certified SEIR.
Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Public notification also consisted of publishing a notice in the local newspaper. A Weekly Digest article was electronically distributed June 5 to advertise the June 27 Housing Element meeting and the June 20 meeting on the draft Environmental Justice and Safety Elements. English and Spanish flyers were placed at the Main Library, Belle Haven Branch Library, and City Hall to advertise the meetings; these flyers were also distributed by Climate Resilient Communities (CRC) through their community partners and networks. English and Spanish electronic messaging boards were placed at two locations, one in Belle Haven at the intersection of Ivy Drive and Willow Road, and another along Ravenswood Avenue adjacent to the Main Library, to advertise the meetings. The Housing Element Update project webpage was updated to advertise the June 20 and June 27 meetings and the city has posted about the meetings via the City’s Facebook, Instagram and Twitter platforms.
Attachments
A. Hyperlink – Revised 2023 to 2031 General Plan Housing Element in response to April 7 comments from HCD: menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/communitydevelopment/documents/projects/housing-element-update/menlo-park-2023-2031-housing-elementupdated-20230622-track-change-version.pdf B. Hyperlink – Jan. 31 Adopted 2023 to 2031 General Plan Housing Element:
menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/community-development/documents/projects/housingelement-update/city-of-menlo-park-2023-2031-housing-element.pdf C. Hyperlink – April 7 letter from HCD: menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/community-development/ documents/projects/housing-element-update/20230407-hcd-letter-menlo-park.pdf D. Summary of track changes in response to comments in HCD’s April 7 letter Report prepared by:
Tom Smith, Principal Planner
Report reviewed by:
Mary Wagner, Assistant City Attorney
Deanna Chow, Assistant Community Development Director
Page J-2.4
Changes to City of Menlo Park 2023 to 2031 Housing Element in Response to April 7, 2023 Letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development As required by Government Code Section 65585(e), the City Council has considered the findings made by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in a letter to the City dated April 7, 2023. Consistent with Government Code Section 65585(f)(1), the City has made changes to the 2023-2031 Housing Element in response to HCD’s findings to substantially comply with the requirements of Article 10.6 of the Government Code, as interpreted by HCD. The changes made to the City’s 6
th Cycle Housing Element in response to
HCD’s letter are described below, organized according to the arrangement of HCD’s comments in the April 7, 2023 letter.
1. HCD Comment (Letter Page 1): The adopted housing element addresses many statutory requirements described in HCD’s October 21, 2022 review; however, additional revisions are necessary to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code), see enclosed Appendix.
City Response: After receiving HCD’s April 7, 2023 letter regarding the City’s Housing Element adopted January 31, 2023, the City made changes to the document to respond to HCD’s feedback. An overview of the revisions made in response to HCD’s comments to ensure that the adopted Housing Element is in substantial compliance with State law is included below, including references to the location in the Housing Element (with redlined changes) where additions and/or revisions have been made in response to HCD’s letter. With the referenced additions and revisions, the City Council believes that the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element continues to substantially comply with the requirements of State law.
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)
2. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix A.1., Item 1): Racial/Ethnic Areas of Concentration of Affluence [sic] (RCAA): While the element was revised to state where the RCAA is geographically located within the City, it must provide an analysis. The analysis should incorporate local data and knowledge and other relevant factors such as past zoning and investment and add or modify programs as appropriate to promote housing mobility and placebased strategies for community revitalization.
City Response: Housing Element pages 4-47 and 4-48: Additional discussion has been added regarding restrictive covenants and federal discrimination in place when Menlo Park expanded after World War II, contributing to demographic and associated income disparities east and west of US-101. A new table showing RCAA status of each census tract in city has been created, and identifies the number of Housing Element inventory sites and associated units by income category in each tract. Based on the results of the table, additional narrative has been added describing how the site inventory improves Page J-2.5 ATTACHMENT D
fair housing conditions by integrating affordable housing opportunities within areas of affluence.
3. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix A.1., Item 2): Disproportionate Housing Needs Including Displacement: While the element was revised to provide information on cost burden and displacement, it should also describe and analyze disproportionate housing needs for persons experiencing homelessness, including impacts on protected characteristics and patterns or areas of higher need relative to access to transportation and services.
City Response: Housing Element page 4-55: A summary of the disproportionate housing needs of unhoused individuals, especially in the Bayfront and Belle Haven neighborhoods because of less access to transportation and services as compared to more central areas of the city, has been provided. Housing Element pages 4-78 through 4-82: The Unhoused Individuals section of the chapter has been updated with new information from 2022, and describes Menlo Park’s increase in homelessness compared to the County as a whole and possible reasons for the increase. A new Figure 4-37 was added showing a heat map of the 2022 Point-in-Time Count by census tract.
4. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix A.1., Item 3): Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element should re-assess and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues and add or modify programs as appropriate.
City Response: Housing Element pages 4-87 through 4-93: Based on the additional analysis performed, Table 4-26 has been expanded to cover more place-based strategies and community benefits to address fair housing issues, and relevant housing programs have been further described.
2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
5. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix A.2., Item 1): Progress in Meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): While the element was revised to address affordability, additional information is needed regarding availability of the new units during the planning period, particularly for the Willow Village project. Specifically, while the element discusses the status of the Willow Village and anticipated timing for issuing building permits, it should also discuss any barriers to development, phasing and anticipated build out horizons to demonstrate the units can be available in the planning period. The element may utilize past build out trends to facilitate this analysis. In addition, the element references Program H1.H to monitor progress.
However, the program must be revised to include specific commitments to annually monitor production and affordability of pipeline projects and if necessary, evaluate whether build out will occur as anticipated in the sites inventory at least twice in the planning period. The Program should also commit to identify additional sites by specific dates if necessary.
City Response: Housing Element page 7-7: Footnote number 72 in Chapter 7 describes the Willow Village project and includes a link to the project page (https://menlopark.gov/WillowVillage) where the current status can be monitored. As noted on the project webpage, staff has reviewed detailed architectural control plans for the project and the first four sets will be reviewed at a June 26, 2023 Planning Page J-2.6
Commission meeting. Additional architectural control plans are anticipated to be reviewed by the Planning Commission during summer 2023 with a goal of completing the reviews by fall 2023. The project is subject to a development agreement that became effective in January 2023. The development agreement allows build-out to occur over a ten-year period (through January 2033). As a result, it can be reasonably assumed that the majority of residential units would be occupied, under construction, and/or granted building permits within the 2023 to 2031 planning period, and those units would count toward the City’s production in annual progress reports to HCD. The development agreement includes a provision allowing for a seven-year extension of the agreement, partially contingent on occupancy of at least 865 residential units. Development of other Bayfront area residential mixed-use projects has occurred quickly following discretionary approvals, with pipeline projects such as Menlo Uptown (141 Jefferson Drive) and Menlo Portal (110 Constitution Drive), receiving initial building permits within approximately 10 months and 9 months, respectively. Both projects are currently under construction.
However, to ensure a stronger commitment to providing transparency on the city’s progress toward meeting its RHNA, Program H1.H (Housing Element pages 8-6 and 8- 7) commits to annual monitoring of pipeline projects that are not currently under construction and an evaluation of build-out progress. The program also commits to a mid-cycle review with the City Council in 2027 to evaluate overall progress on meeting the city’s RHNA. If the city is falling significantly short of its goals, additional sites and/or increased residential densities will be identified and the City Council will consider and take action on proposed zoning changes that may improve RHNA progress.
6. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix A.2., Item 2): Small and Large Sites: The element should be revised to demonstrate that sites of equivalent size and affordability were successfully developed during the prior planning period. While the element mentions a history of lot consolidation, examples must be provided to support assumptions and relate those trends to the identified sites. The element must also describe lot consolidation incentives or provide programs as appropriate. While the element describes assumptions for the development of large sites, it should provide examples to support those assumptions such as previous projects with parceling or other methods to develop affordable units on sites larger than 10 acres.
City Response: Housing Element pages 7-17 through 7-19: Parcel consolidation has not been a demonstrated constraint in Menlo Park’s recent residential development history. Of the 8 pipeline projects that are part of the Housing Element update, 6 include consolidated parcels. Of the 51 broader examples of past and present projects throughout the city listed in Appendix 7-3, Development in Menlo Park, 14 are located on parcels less than 0.5 acres in size (over one-quarter of the projects). The 2023 to 2031 Housing Element site inventory includes 32 parcels less than 0.5 acres in size. 15 of the parcels, or nearly half, are part of a consolidated site of more than 0.5 acres under common ownership. All of the parcels are in zones where development standards are being modified to encourage development and lot consolidation: 20 parcels in the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan Area (Program H4.L), 4 parcels in the R-3 zone (Program H4.J), and 8 in C-4 or C-1-A zones (Program H4.I). The referenced programs will incentivize residential development on the parcels (see Appendix 7-7, column J). For large sites, two projects (one approved and one under review) in Appendix 7-3 are on parcels larger than 10 acres in size.
7. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix A.2., Item 3): Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element includes a description of existing uses, it must also demonstrate the potential for Page J-2.7
additional development in the planning period. In addition, the element must analyze the extent that existing uses may impede additional residential development. The element should provide past experiences of similar developments on religious institution sites and commercial sites with remaining buildings. In addition, the element should clarify whether the entire parking lots are assumed to be developed, or only the City-Owned portion. Finally, Public commenters have pointed to various issues that may impact the potential for redevelopment in the planning period.
These comments should be addressed, and programs (e.g., increasing allowable densities) should be added or modified as appropriate.
In addition, for your information, the element relies on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of the housing needs for lower-income households, which triggers requirements to make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely discontinue in the planning period. While the resolution of adoption includes findings, any changes to the analysis should be reflected in future re-adoption of the element, if necessary.
City Response: Housing Element Appendix 7-7: A new appendix has been developed to demonstrate the suitability of nonvacant sites by comparing the site inventory to recent developments in Menlo Park and the surrounding area. The sites are then identified with redevelopment factors (previous use, low improvement to land value ratio, older buildings, maximum FAR less than or equal to 0.5, etc.) and development incentives (density increases, whether the site is in a TCAC high/highest opportunity area, and/or whether the site is within a half-mile of transit). In response to public comments, the City Council will be evaluating the proposed zoning changes to implement related Housing Element programs during summer 2023 and may consider additional increases in density in certain areas of the city, such as the downtown, above those indicated in the Housing Element.
8. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix A.2., Item 4): City-Owned Sites: The element must include additional discussion on each of the City-Owned sites identified to accommodate the RHNA. Specifically, the analysis should address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). The element should clarify whether any of the other City-Owned sites are considered for redevelopment. Lastly, while the element includes Program H4.G to comply with Surplus Lands Act, it must clarify whether the City commits to developing all of the City-Owned sites listed in the inventory or include a commitment to ensure at least the number of units assumed in the inventory will be developed between the identified sites.
City Response: Housing Element pages 7-29 through 7-31: Table 7-8 has been added to the Housing Element to address general plan designations, allowable densities, and other descriptive factors regarding the City-owned parking lots. The table also notes Program H4.D (modifications to the Affordable Housing Overlay) and the rezoning of the sites under Program H4.L to increase development potential on the sites. Under Program H4.G, the City will plan for the development of 345 or more affordable units on a combination of the City-owned parking lot sites while complying with the Surplus Lands Act. As part of the program, the City will grant additional points to proposals that address the city's most difficult to achieve housing priorities including providing a greater number of extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income units, or committing to make a Page J-2.8
percentage of the units preferential for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated on-site services, such as for people living with disabilities, including developmental disabilities.
9. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix A.2., Item 5): Federally-Owned Sites and School Sites: While the element was revised to include some additional information on federally-owned sites, it should also include additional information on feasibility of development of the USGS and post office sites including time of the sale and whether the post office is likely to be redeveloped during the planning period. In addition, the element should analyze the feasibility of the VA development occurring during the planning period, and the disposition process and timing. The element must also ensure the school site will comply with Surplus Lands Act and whether the school district’s plan is likely to move forward during the planning period. Lastly, if zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). The element must provide additional support and describe whether the City has contacted the owners regarding feasibility of development on these sites and whether they will be available during the planning period.
City Response: Information regarding the USGS site was previously included in Chapter 7 of the Housing Element (pages 7-18 and 7-38). That information continues to provide an accurate history of the status of the site. In April 2023, the City received correspondence from the General Services Administration indicating that the USGS site is anticipated to be reoffered by public online auction in late 2024 after USGS completes its move to Moffett Field. The City will continue to coordinate with GSA and prospective buyers to communicate the intent for affordable housing and school facilities as part of a desired future development program, consistent with the Housing Element sites inventory.
The Planning Commission held a study session on the VA project at 795 Willow Road on May 15, 2023. Following a final review of an updated and coordinated plan set, the Community Development Director will consider whether to issue a letter of general compliance with the R-4-S zoning district. This letter would identify that the project is generally in compliance with the R-4-S zoning district and would enable MidPen to continue to compete for State funding for the proposed project. As stated previously, the applicant has separately applied for funding for the proposed project through the City’s NOFA process. Given the continued progress of the project in 2023, it is reasonable to assume that the development could be permitted and constructed within the remainder of the planning period.
Note: The Community Development Department has issued a letter of compliance and this update will be reflected in the revised Housing Element before submittal to HCD.
In May 2023, the City received communication from the Ravenswood City School District that the former Flood School site was originally declared surplus in 2012, but out of an abundance of caution, the District will work with HCD to confirm that the Surplus Lands Act is followed as it continues with development of a project for the site within the planning period.
Finally, based on discussions with HCD and community members and because of limited supporting evidence, the City is considering removal of the post office site at 3875 Bohannon Drive from the sites inventory. This would result in a reduction of 85 Page J-2.9
potential moderate-income units from the City’s inventory, but would not affect the City’s ability to meet its RHNA.
10. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix A.2., Item 6): Environmental Constraints: While the element was revised to describe hazardous materials, it must describe other conditions that could impact housing development in the planning period such as easements, shape, compatibility and other relevant factors.
City Response: Housing Element page 7-52: A general description of any known environmental features (flood hazard, fire hazard) that have the potential to impact the development viability of the identified sites has been added, noting that none of the sites are in an identified Fire Hazard Severity Zone, nor are any sites in protected wetlands. 9 sites are located partially or fully in a 500-year flood area. The environmental assessment for the Housing Element contains a list of Mitigation Monitoring Programs that support this determination that no environmental features preclude development of the sites.
11. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix A.2., Item 7): Electronic Sites Inventory: Although the City has submitted electronic sites inventory as described in the prior review, if any changes occur, the City should submit revisions as part of any future re-adoption or submittal. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-communitydevelopment/housing-elements for additional information.
City Response: This comment has been noted and if the previously-submitted electronic sites inventory is modified as a result of any changes determined by the City Council, an updated version of the inventory will be submitted according to the instructions provided by HCD.
12. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix A.2., Item 8): Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types (Emergency Shelters): While the element states that the number of allowed beds is a constraint, it must describe the permit processing, all development, and management standards of the Homeless Overlay that allows emergency shelters by-right. The element should provide an analysis of proximity to transportation and services for these sites (other than the VA center), hazardous conditions, and any conditions inappropriate for human habitability. The element should describe whether any of the 26 parcels included in the overlay are feasible to develop with an emergency shelter. Lastly, program H3.G must commit to addressing all constraints, in addition to the bed requirement by a specific date.
In addition, Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022 (AB 2339), adds specificity on how cities and counties plan for emergency shelters and ensure sufficient and suitable capacity. Future submittals of the housing element may need to address these statutory requirements. For additional information and timing requirements, please see HCD’s memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/ab2339-notice.pdf.
City Response: Housing Element pages 5-12 through 5-15: Additional narrative has been added to the Emergency Shelters section of Chapter 5, acknowledging that the City’s standard of a maximum 16-bed capacity for emergency shelters for the homeless is a potential constraint and describing the permitting process; development standards; and an analysis of proximity to transportation and services, hazardous conditions, and habitability of the 26 sites within the Emergency Shelter for the Homeless Overlay regulated by Section 16.99 of the Municipal Code. Program H3.G, Zoning Text Page J-2.10
Amendments for Special Needs Housing (Housing Element page 8-17), has been updated to expand the maximum number of beds in an emergency shelter from 16 to 30 and to reflect inclusion of the entire Veterans Affairs Medical Center site in the Overlay, as previously identified in the City’s 2015 to 2023 (5th Cycle) Housing Element.
3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
13. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix A.3., Item 1): Land Use Controls: While the element was revised to remove the conditional use permit (CUP) for multifamily uses in the R4 zone, it should describe whether three stories are allowed without a use permit in the R-3, R3A, R3-C, C-2B, and R-MU zones where height limits are 35 feet or less. The element should also analyze the land use controls including landscaping, parking, and floor area ration (FAR) requirements in the R-3 zone and whether the development standards facilitate achieving maximum allowable densities. The element should also describe and analyze densities and development standards that are allowed in the Affordable Housing Overlay. In addition, the element must describe and analyze the X Conditional Development District approval findings and whether they pose a constraint. Lastly, the element should add programs as appropriate to address any identified constraints.
City Response: The changes below have been made.
• Housing Element pages 5-24 and 5-25: Story Limits: Table 5-2 has been edited to note no story limits in the R-3, R-3-A, R-3-C, C-2-B, and R-MU zones • Housing Element pages 5-26 and 5-27: R-3 Development Standards: An analysis of the R-3 standards has been added, noting that development standards may preclude maximum allowable densities. As a result, Program H4.J (Housing Element page 8-27) has been changed to indicate that development standards for the R-3 district will be modified to facilitate development proposals that can achieve the maximum allowable densities;
• Housing Element pages 5-19 and 5-20: AHO: Additional narrative regarding potential changes to the AHO has been added, with examples of recent use and a description of Program H4.D, which directs an update of the AHO to allow for densities of 100 dwelling units per acre or greater (when used in combination with the state density bonus program) and expansion of the AHO to encompass all sites in the housing inventory and and R-3 sites near downtown. (Program H4.D is located on Housing Element page 8-24.)
• Housing Element pages 5-20 and 5-21: X District: Additional information has been added to indicate that the X district is a combining district that developers may voluntarily opt into to provide greater development flexibility and allow relief from standard zoning regulations. As a result, it is not a constraint, but a tool that may permit the application of new and desirable development techniques.
14. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix A.3., Item 2): Density Bonus: While the element generally indicates the City’s ordinance complies with State Density Bonus Law, it should describe the ordinance to support this conclusion and add or modify programs as appropriate.
Page J-2.11
For example, the element could discuss the procedures, various levels of benefits (e.g., density, concessions and incentives, parking reductions), non-discretionary actions and burden of proof.
City Response: Housing Element page 5-19: Within the discussion of the City’s proposed changes to the AHO and its expansion (Program H4.D), it has been stated that the updated AHO will be additive and can be combined with the state density bonus program, and also that incentives/concessions/waivers provided pursuant to the AHO can be combined with incentives/concessions/waivers available under state density bonus law. Additional incentives to be evaluated in the updated AHO include fee waivers, deferrals, or further reduction of other fees (such as traffic impact fees, recreation in-lieu fees, etc.); increased heights; reduced parking; and priority development review processing, among others.
15. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix A.3., Item 3): Fees and Exaction: The element must describe all required fees for single-family and multifamily housing development, including impact fees, and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. While the element lists some standard fees in Table 5-4, it must list typical fees including, but not limited to, zone changes, general plan amendments, variances, site plans, specific plans, affordable housing in lieu fee, lot line adjustment, and other environmental fees.
Based on the outcomes of the analysis, the element should include programs to address identified constraints.
City Response: Housing Element pages 5-29 through 5-38: Other required planning fees from the most recent Menlo Park Fee Schedule (2019) have been added into Table 5-4. Table 5-5 has been refined to capture updated information from Table 5-4.
Programs H3.I (Housing Element page 8-18) and H4.D (Housing Element page 8-24) are referenced to note that fees for affordable housing projects may be reduced in exchange for providing a deed-restricted ADU affordable to low income households or affordable housing on sites where the AHO is applicable.
16. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix A.3., Item 4): Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element should clarify whether the typical processing time for approval in Table 5-8 is for both single- and multifamily developments. In addition, while the element states where in the City code findings for a CUP are located, the element should also describe and analyze the process and approval for a CUP. In addition, the element should analyze whether the listed findings for architectural control review are a constraint and add a program as appropriate.
City Response: Housing Element page 5-45: The chapter has been updated confirming that the City’s current architectural control findings 1, 2, and 3 (in Section 16.68.020 of the Municipal Code) do not meet the State’s definition of an objective standard. As a result, Program H7.A (Create Objective Residential Design Standards) (Housing Element page 8-39) has been updated to establish clear criteria for projects that require architectural control review.
17. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix A.3., Item 5): Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element must include an analysis of zoning, development standards, building codes, and process and permit procedures as potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. In addition, while the element includes Program H3.A (Reasonable Accommodation) to remove the reasonable accommodation fee, the element must describe the findings and approval procedures and modify the program as appropriate. Lastly, Program H3.G Page J-2.12
Amendments for Special Needs) should also commit to amend permit procedures to allow group homes for seven or more persons with objectivity to facilitate approval certainty and similar to other residential uses of the same form.
City Response: The changes below have been made.
• Housing Element pages 5-49 through 5-51: Chapter 5 has been updated with additional discussion regarding constraints on housing for persons with disabilities, with a focus on the City’s reasonable accommodation regulations.
Program H3.A (Housing Element pages 8-13 and 8-14) has been modified to commit to updating the City’s reasonable accommodation procedures to eliminate subjective findings for consistency in compliance with guidance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice.
• Housing Element page 8-17: Program H3.G has been modified to read that group homes would be allowed “similar to other residential uses of the same form in the same zone, subject to only those limitations authorized by and consistent with state law and fair housing requirements.”
4. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non-lowincome housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).).
18. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix A.4., Item 1): While the element was revised to include expiration dates on most at-risk properties, it must also identify public and nonprofit corporations known to the City to have the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage at-risk units (Qualified Entities). HCD will send a list of qualified entities under separate cover.
City Response: Housing Element page 3-38: A new “Administrative Resources” section has been added to Chapter 3 describing the role and current operations of Habitat for Humanity, HIP Housing, LifeMoves, MidPen Housing, and Peninsula Volunteers in Menlo Park. These organizations may serve as resources in implementation of the City’s housing activities based on their demonstrated ability to acquire and manage affordable housing and at-risk units in Menlo Park.
B. Housing Programs
1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
19. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix B.1.): To address the program requirements of Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(1-6), and to facilitate implementation, programs should include: (1) a description of the City’s specific role in implementation; (2) definitive implementation timelines; (3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials. Programs to be revised include the following:
Page J-2.13
• Program H2.C (Assist in Implementing Housing Rehabilitation Programs): The program should be revised to include proactive outreach.
• Program H3.E (Continue Support for Countywide Homeless Programs): The program was not revised. The program should describe what the City is doing to implement the results of the check-in meetings. The program should also include timing of implementing the resulting actions.
• Program H3.H (Inclusionary Accessible Units): While the program was revised, it should describe actions the City will take to encourage the units and whether incentives will be provided.
City Response: The changes below have been made.
• Housing Element pages 8-9 and 8-10: Program H2.C has been updated to specify that outreach will be conducted.
• Housing Element pages 8-15 and 8-16: Program H3.E has been modified to commit to involvement of the City’s Housing Division staff in the LifeMoves Homeless Outreach Team meetings along with continued participation of the City’s Police department, and consider the potential for assisting with funding a LifeMoves case manager that would be able to concentrate on assistance to homeless persons in Menlo Park, as has been done by other Bay Area cities.
City staff will work to ensure that outreach and assistance is provided to areas with the most identified needs (Downtown, Belle Haven, and the Bayfront). • Housing Element page 8-18: Program H3.H has been revised to specify what type of incentives may be provided for accessible units in the AHO, such as a density bonus of 1.5 affordable units for every fully accessible affordable unit provided. The specific incentives incorporated into to the AHO and BMR program guidelines will be included in a Housing Element Annual Progress Report to HCD and on the City’s website.
2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
20. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix B.2., Item 1): Shortfall of Adequate Sites: While program H4.K (Rezone for Lower-Income Shortfall) [sic], the program cited the wrong government code. The program must commit to identify sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate the regional housing need within the planning period. The program should identify the shortfall by income group, acreage, allowable densities, appropriate development standards and meet all by right requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, Page J-2.14
subdivisions (h) and (i), including but not limited to permitting multifamily uses by-right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households. In addition, the element must clarify whether programs H4.I (Create New Opportunities for Mixed-Use Development), H4.J (Increase Residential Density), H4.L (Modify El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan), and H4.T (Residential Overlay) are needed to meet the City’s RHNA, and if so, address the requirements above. Lastly, timing of the rezone program states “within one year of housing element adoption”, this should be revised to be completed within the first year of the planning period.
City Response: The changes below have been made.
• Housing Element page 8-27: Program H4.K has been updated to cite the correct government code sections and indicates that the City will permit multifamily uses by-right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households and specifies a completion timeframe of January 2024 (i.e., within the first year of the planning period). • Housing Element page 8-31: Program H4.T has been updated to indicate a timeframe of completion within the first year of the planning period. • Programs H4.J and H4.L (Housing Element pages 8-27 and 8-28) are not required to meet the City’s RHNA, but Programs H4.I (Housing Element page 8- 27) and H4.T (Housing Element page 8-31) are necessary. However, the zoning changes in these programs are specified in the Housing Element as to be completed by January 2024 (i.e., within the first year of the planning period).
21. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix B.2., Item 2): Program H4.G (Prioritize Affordable Housing on City-Owned Parking Lots Downtown): While the program was revised to commit to the Surplus Lands Act requirements, it does not commit to develop all sites. The program must either commit to develop all parking lot sites or commit to develop the total number of units assumed in the inventory on the City-Owned sites.
City Response: Housing Element page 8-26: Program H4.G has been modified to note that the City commits to develop, at a minimum, a total of 345 units on a combination of parking lot sites “consistent with the Housing Element sites inventory.” Housing Element page 7-30 provides more information about the program in Chapter 7.
3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
22. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix B.3.): As noted in Finding A3, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.
In addition, Program H4.M (Update Parking Requirements and Design Standards) should clarify what parking requirements will be reduced and ensure updates will result in addressing constraints on development.
Page J-2.15
City Response: Housing Element page 5-24: Table 5-2 has been updated with a new asterisk noting that “Program H4.M will revise parking standards so that only 1 space is required for a studio unit, and 1.25 spaces is required for a 1-bedroom unit, inclusive of guest parking.” (Program H4.M is described on Housing Element page 8-28.)
4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
23. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix B.4.): As noted in Finding A1, the element requires a complete Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) analysis. The element must be revised to add goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity or relatively higher-income areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. While some programs include metrics and milestones, additional programs that AFFH should also include them as well. In addition, geographic targets should be more focused and include high and highest opportunity areas or areas of higher income when appropriate.
City Response: Housing Element pages 4-87 through 4-93: Based on the additional analysis performed, Table 4-26 has been expanded to cover more place-based strategies and community benefits to address fair housing issues, relevant actions have been further described, and geographic targets have been more clearly specified.
C. Quantified Objectives
1. Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).)
24. HCD Comment (Letter Appendix C.): While the element was revised to include quantified objectives, it should include specific rehabilitation and conservation objectives by income group for extremely-low income and very low-income households instead of aggregating objectives.
City Response: Housing Element page 7-53: In Table 7-16, rehabilitation objectives and conservation objectives have been provided separately, with the objectives in both categories being targeted toward very low-income units.
Page J-2.16
City Manager's Office
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark. gov
STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 6/27/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-153-CC
Regular Business: Waive the first reading and introduce by title only an ordinance adding Menlo Park Municipal Code
Chapter 8.05 to require the use of zero emission
landscaping equipment (ZELE)
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council waive the first reading and introduce by title only an ordinance adding Menlo Park Municipal Code Chapter 8.05 (gasoline powered landscape equipment) to require use of zero emission landscaping equipment (ZELE) by a certain date (Attachment A).
Policy Issues
Menlo Park currently regulates gas-powered gardening equipment through the city’s noise ordinance (Chapter 8.06) and a leaf blower ordinance (Chapter 8.07.) Beginning Jan. 1, 2024, new gas powered gardening equipment will no longer be sold in California. Menlo Park also has a 2030 Climate Action Plan with a goal to be carbon neutral by 2030. Gas powered landscaping equipment uses fossil fuels that contribute to climate change and negatively impacts air quality endangering the health of the community and its workers.
Background
On June 13, the City Council approved introducing proposed rules that would regulate five types of gasoline-powered gardening equipment by a certain date, starting with prohibiting use of gasoline powered leaf blowers and string trimmers July 1, 2024, and gasoline-powered walk-behind lawnmowers, hedge trimmers and chainsaws January 1, 2029 3-2 (Combs and Taylor dissenting).
The City Council discussed costs and funding to transition to electric gardening equipment, enforcement starting sooner than July 1, 2024 on enforcement for leaf blowers and string trimmers, impacts to landscapers and gardeners, and a proposed rebate program for the community and professional gardeners.
The City Council directed additional outreach to begin as soon as possible to gardeners and community, reporting progress to the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC), and using hardship criteria for residents to qualify for the electric gardening equipment rebate program.
However, after introduction staff identified a change that is necessary to prevent confusion between the ZELE ordinance and the city’s existing noise regulations, requiring the City Council to reintroduce the ordinance. A full analysis of the proposed rules is included in Attachment B. Extensive outreach and engagement was carried out with professional gardeners and the community regarding the proposed rules between June 2022 and April 2023, and is also noted in Attachment B. The EQC also advises the City Council to adopt the proposed rules.
AGENDA ITEM J-3 Page J-3.1
Staff Report #: 23-153-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov Analysis
Staff is recommending that the following language that was included in the June 13 introduction of the ZELE ordinance be removed:
“8.05.030 Electrically powered landscape equipment – permitted days and times for operation A. Effective July 1, 2024, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or authorize the operation of, permit, or direct another who engages in the operation of any electrically powered landscape equipment within city limits except during the following hours:
Monday to Friday: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Weekends and Holidays: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.”
In addition, Staff also recommends that what was previously included as Section 8.05.040 be revised as follows:
“8.05.040 Noise limits applicable
Nothing herein shall supersede, alter or in any way affect the city regulations and laws regarding noise limits, including but not limited to those set forth in MPMC Chapter 8.06.040 regarding permitted days and times for the operation of landscape equipment for residents/property owners and commercial gardeners or businesses.”
The revised ordinance including the revisions identified above and re-numbering the remaining provisions is attached (Attachment A). If introduced June 27, the ordinance would be brought to City Council for second reading and adoption July 11.
At the June 13 meeting, the City Council requested that staff explore reporting progress on the new zero emission landscaping equipment (ZELE) rules to the EQC. Given the City Council and the EQC’s priority to implement other strategies in the 2030 Climate Action Plan, staff can provide an annual progress report to the EQC for the next two years, February 2025 and February 2026. The EQC could provide advice and feedback to the City Council as a result of the annual progress report.
The City Council also requested that the proposed electric gardening equipment rebate be provided to residents based on hardship criteria. A proposed program will be presented to the City Council at the July 11 meeting.
There was also a question raised by Vice Mayor Taylor regarding the ability for large landscaping businesses to access the state funded electric equipment discount program. Staff reached out to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and found that the program only funds small and sole proprietor landscaping businesses. Small business is defined by the program to have 100 or fewer employees and average annual gross receipts of $15 million or less over the previous three years. To promote broad application of the $27 million in state funding, $10 million was set aside for 180 calendar days (starting in November 2022) to ensure microbusinesses have access to participate. The remaining $17 million will be set aside for small businesses, and is or will be opening soon.
However, CARB is releasing funding to local air districts to potentially fund incentives for electric gardening equipment for larger gardening companies. Southern California air districts are already providing incentives.
Page J-3.2
Staff Report #: 23-153-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov Staff inquired about electric equipment incentives for larger landscaping businesses from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. They are exploring opening up a program over the next year. Staff has joined their mailing list to be kept apprised on any new incentive programs that would benefit Menlo Park landscaping businesses.
If the City Council adopts the proposed ZELE rules in Attachment A, staff will begin informing the community and professional gardeners about the new rules this summer leading up to the start of enforcement for leaf blowers and string trimmers July 1, 2024.
Impact on City Resources
Additional budget and resources may be needed for rebate program and enforcement activities, and would be included in upcoming budget preparations over the next few years. It is important to note that gas powered gardening equipment will not be available for sale starting Jan. 1, 2024 and related costs to transition will start to be incurred soon as a result by the city, its contractors and private gardeners.
Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§15378 and 15061(b) (3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.
Attachments
A. Ordinance to add Chapter 8.05 “Gasoline Powered Landscape Equipment” to the Menlo Park Municipal Code
B. Hyperlink – June 13 staff report: menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/agendas-and-minutes/citycouncil/2023-meetings/agendas/20230613-city-council-regular-agenda-packet_wpresentations.pdf#page=163 Report prepared by:
Rebecca Lucky, Sustainability Manager
Page J-3.3
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK ADDING CHAPTER 8.05 TO THE MENLO PARK MUNICIPAL CODE TO
PROHIBIT THE USE OF GASOLINE POWERED LANDSCAPE EQUIPMENT, REPLEALING CHAPTER 8.07 AND REPEALING SUBSECTION (C) OF SECTION 8.06.040
WHEREAS, the City of Menlo Park, as well as the State of California, have been moving forward in reducing our carbon footprint; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, the City Council declared a climate emergency (Resolution No. 6535) and adopted the 2030 Climate Action Plan (CAP) with the goal of making Menlo Park carbon neutral by 2030; and
WHEREAS, gas-powered landscape equipment emits greenhouse gases and other pollutants including carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons that are harmful to human health; and
WHEREAS research by the California Air Resources Board has identified the use of gaspowered small off-road engines, including leaf blowers, as detrimental to the environment as they emit high levels of air pollutants like oxides of nitrogen and other reactive organic gases; and
WHEREAS, many gas-powered landscape equipment produce noise exceeding Menlo Park’s noise ordinance levels with the average 2-stroke backpack leaf blower’s ability to emit upwards of 90 decibels that can lead to hearing loss; and
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2022, the City Council, in response to community concerns about gas powered leaf blower's negative effects on noise, health and air quality, directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance regulating five types of gas-powered gardening equipment (leaf blowers, string trimmers, lawnmowers, hedge trimmers and chainsaws) for final adoption by the City Council in 2023; and
WHEREAS, the City currently regulates gas powered equipment through its noise ordinance and a leaf blower ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, modern, readily available electric-powered landscape equipment is quiet and zeroemission and can cost less to purchase and operate with efficient use of the equipment and use of available incentives; and
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to reduce greenhouse emissions and air pollution by regulating the use of gasoline-powered landscape equipment; and WHEREAS, in 2021, the State of California passed AB 1346 outlawing the sale of new gaspowered leaf blowers, string trimmers, hedge trimmers, lawnmowers and chainsaws by January 1, 2024;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Menlo Park does hereby ordain as follows::
Section 1. Adding Chapter 8.05 “Gasoline Powered Landscape Equipment” to the MPMC Page J-3.4 ATTACHMENT A
Ordinance No. XXXX
A new chapter 8.05 entitled “Gasoline Powered Landscape Equipment” is hereby added to the Menlo Park Municipal Code (MPMC) to read in its entirety as follows:
8.05.010 Definitions
A. The following words and phrases shall, whenever used in this Chapter, be construed as set forth in this section:
"Electrically powered landscape equipment" means any mechanical landscape equipment utilized for maintaining landscaping that is powered by electric means, including but not limited to battery powered equipment and cordless rechargeable equipment "Gasoline-powered landscape equipment" means any mechanical equipment utilized for maintaining landscaping that is powered by an internal combustion engine using gasoline, alcohol or other liquid or gaseous fluid, including but not limited to leaf blowers, string trimmers, lawnmowers, hedge trimmers and chainsaws
"Landscape equipment" means leaf blower, string trimmer, lawnmower, hedge trimmer and chainsaw
"Leaf blower" means a machine used to blow, displace, or vacuum leaves, dirt and/or debris "String trimmer" means a machine used to cut grass, small weeds and groundcover "Lawnmower" means a machine utilizing one or more revolving blades to cut a grass surface to an even height
"Hedge trimmer" means a machine used for trimming hedges and/or any boundary made by shrubs
"Chainsaw" means a machine with a set of teeth attached to a rotating chain driven along a guide bar that is used to fell, limb, buck, or prune trees and other vegetation "Small off-road engines" means any device that utilizes gas-powered, spark ignition engine rated at or below 19 kilowatts (25 horsepower) including but not limited to a leaf blower.
Engines in this category are used in lawn and garden equipment as well as other outdoor power equipment and specialty vehicles.
8.05.020 Prohibition of gasoline-powered landscape equipment A. Effective July 1, 2024, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or authorize the operation of, permit, or direct another who engages in the operation of any gasolinepowered leaf blower and string trimmer within the city limits.
B. Effective January 1, 2029, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or authorize the operation of, permit, or direct another who engages in the operation of any gasolinepowered lawnmower, hedge trimmer and chainsaws.
8.05.030 Noise limits applicable
Nothing herein shall supersede, alter or in any way affect the City regulations and laws regarding noise limits, including but not limited to those set forth in MPMC Chapter 8.06.040 regarding permitted days and times for the operation of landscape equipment for residents/property owners and commercial gardeners or businesses.
Page J-3.5
Ordinance No. XXXX
8.05.040 Violations
Violations of this Chapter shall be enforced against the owner of the property who used gas powered landscape equipment or has hired, employed or engaged the services of a person or business utilizing gas powered landscape equipment.
Violations of this Chapter shall be considered a nuisance per se and subject to administrative citations pursuant to MPMC Chapter 1.15, and any other available remedies at law or in equity including but not limited to actions or proceedings to abate violations of this Chapter. Such remedies shall be in addition to any other judicial and administrative penalties and remedies available to the city under chapters 1.14 and 1.12 of this code.
Section 2. Section 8.06.020 of the MPMC is amended to amend the definition of “powered equipment” as set forth below (additions in underline, deletions in strikethrough):
"Powered equipment" means a motorized device powered by electricity or fuel used for construction, demolition and property or landscape maintenance or repairs. Powered equipment includes but is not limited to: electrically powered landscape equipment, lawn mowers, hedgers, parking lot sweepers, saws, sanders, motors, pumps, generators, blowers, wood chippers, vacuums, drills and nail guns (but specifically excluding internal fuel combustion engine leaf blowers).
Section 3. MPMC Chapter 8.07 Leaf Blowers is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 4. Subsection (C) of Section 8.06.040 exceptions of the MPMC is hereby repealed.
Section 5. CEQA exemption.
The City Council finds, under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3), that this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it is not a Project which has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)). The City Council further finds, under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15308, that this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA in that it is an action taken for the protection of the environment.
Section 6. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted 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 declared invalid.
Section 7. Publication and posting.
In accordance with Government Code Section 33963 the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption along with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for and against the ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Menlo Park.
//
//
Page J-3.6
Ordinance No. XXXX
INTRODUCED on the twenty-seventh day of June, 2023.
PASSED AND ADOPTED as an ordinance of the City of Menlo Park at a regular meeting of said City Council on the __ day of __, 2023, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
________________________
Jen Wolosin, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Page J-3.7
Police
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov
STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 6/27/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-149-CC
Regular Business: Adopt a resolution setting forth civil fines, charges and interest rate for unpaid fines from
administrative citations pursuant to Menlo Park
Municipal Code Chapter 1.15 “Administrative
Citations”
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution setting forth the civil fines, charges and interest rate for unpaid fines from administrative citations issued pursuant to Menlo Park Municipal Code (MPMC) Chapter 1.15. These fines and charges would not become effective until the effective date of the administrative citation ordinance.
Policy Issues
Unabated MPMC violations are a drain on personnel and resources. Such violations require resources over and above the level of enforcement services usually provided and constitute a public nuisance. The purpose of this resolution is to establish civil fines, charges and interest rates for administrative citations to aid in enforcing compliance with the applicable laws. While fines imposed will be required to be paid should the violation and citation be upheld through due process, the administrative citation ordinance does provide for a hardship waiver of pre-payment of fines if the citation is contested. This resolution is proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the administrative citation ordinance, which provides the procedures for imposing such administrative fines and charges.
Background
The Menlo Park City Council approved a first reading of MPMC Chapter 1.15 Administrative Citation Ordinance at its June 13, City Council meeting. The administrative citation ordinance is an enforcement tool that outlines procedures for imposing fines and charges for violations of the municipal code. In conjunction with that process, and as provided in the ordinance, the fines to be imposed by the administrative citation ordinance shall be established by City Council resolution, and that an administrative late fee, as well as a daily interest charge, also set by City Council resolution, shall be imposed if the fines are not paid within 30 days.
The administrative citation process, and resulting fines and charges, are expected to incentivize greater compliance from would be violators. The administrative citation process is most typically utilized to gain compliance for property-related violations. Although the ordinance contemplates issuing the fines proposed for adoption here, City staff plans to prioritize the principle of seeking voluntary compliance with the MPMC and regulations. However, this process and intended resulting voluntary compliance, is dependent on a city setting forth appropriate consequences in the form of fines and charges. The accompanying proposed resolution adopting the civil fines, charges and interest amounts seeks to set forth appropriate fines and charges to assist in gaining such voluntary compliance.
AGENDA ITEM J-4 Page J-4.1
Staff Report #: 23-149-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Analysis
The California Legislature authorizes local governments to make violation of ordinances enacted by the City subject to an administrative fine or penalty. (Cal. Gov. Code §53069.4(a)(1).) To impose such fines and penalties, the agency is to set forth by ordinance the administrative procedures that govern the imposition, enforcement, collection and administrative review of those administrative fines and penalties. The City is in the process of enacting MPMC Chapter 1.15 (Administrative Citation) setting forth such procedures. In conjunction with that effort, the City must also set forth the amount of fines and charges.
Fine amounts are limited by whether they are deemed an infraction or a misdemeanor. (Gov. Code §36900 et seq.) Pursuant to MPMC §1.12.010(a) all violations of the municipal code are misdemeanors unless provided differently within the municipal code or state law, and MPMC §1.12.010(b) identifies various sections the City has deemed are infractions.1 2
Amount of fines: Misdemeanors
Government Code §53069.4 provides that where a violation would be an infraction, the administrative fine or penalty shall not exceed the maximum fine or penalty amounts for infractions set forth in Government Code §36900(b). For all other violations, §36901 of the Government Code limits fines for violations of ordinances to $1,000.
That is, the City Council can impose fines for violations deemed a misdemeanor, but are limited to $1,000 for such violation.
Amount of fines: Infractions
Pursuant to Government Code §36900(b), every violation determined to be an infraction is punishable by the following:
1. A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation.
2. A fine not exceeding $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year.
3. A fine not exceeding $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.
Amount of fines: authorized higher fines by statute.
Government Code §36900(c) also provides higher fines for violations of local building and safety codes, as follows:
1. A fine not exceeding $130 for a first violation.
2. A fine not exceeding $700 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year.
3. (A) A fine not exceeding $1,300 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.
(B) A fine not exceeding $2,500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within two years of the first violation if the property is a commercial property that has an existing building at the time of the
1 MPMC 1.12.010(b) Infraction. This code provides that violations of Sections 7.04.020, 7.04.030 and 7.04.040 of Chapter 7.04 Garbage and Rubbish Disposal***; Chapter 7.30 Smoking, Regulated or Prohibited; 8.06 Noise; 8.07 Leaf Blowers; 8.20 Storage in Yards; Section 8.28.130 of Chapter 8.28, Parks and Recreation; 8.40 Open Containers;
8.44 Signs—Public Property/Elections; 11.60 Abandoned, Wrecked, Dismantled or Inoperative Vehicles; 11.62 Repair of Vehicles; and 16.92 Signs—Outdoor Advertising; and Title 9 Animals, except as specifically stated in such Title, are infractions.
2 City Council may see that Section 1.12.010 provides for fines in conjunction with a criminal conviction of the municipal code. Such fines for criminal convictions are distinct from the fines described in the proposed resolution.
Such fines are issued pursuant to the Administrative Citation Ordinance as opposed to fines for conviction of a criminal offense.
Page J-4.2
Staff Report #: 23-149-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov violation and the violation is due to failure by the owner to remove visible refuse or failure to prohibit unauthorized use of the property.
Government Code §36900(d) also provides for higher fines for violations of a local short-term rental ordinance. The MPMC prohibits short-term accessory dwelling units (ADU) rentals (MPMC §16.79.100(b).) Violations of a short-term rental ordinance may be punished as follows:
A. A fine not exceeding $1,500 for a first violation.
B. A fine not exceeding $3,000 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year.
C. A fine not exceeding $5,000 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.
As noted, all violations of the MPMC are misdemeanors (unless otherwise specified), City staff recommends adopting the escalating fines set forth in Government Code §§36900(b - d).
Fines enumerated in the municipal code
The MPMC already sets forth some administrative citation amounts. For example, MPMC §8.57.030(c) authorizes the imposition of a $1,000 fine for violation of the Fireworks chapter (MPMC Chapter 8.57). The proposed resolution clarifies that, where a conflict between the resolution setting forth the schedule of fines and the current municipal code exists, the amount listed in the municipal code prevails. This would also mean that if the City Council enacted an ordinance in the future in which it intended to set forth a specific fine amount, it may do so by either including the specific amount in the municipal code, or by adopting a resolution setting for the fines and charges.
Administrative charges and interest on unpaid fines
The administrative citation ordinance includes charges for failure to timely pay citations, and includes imposition of interest on unpaid charges. As drafted, the resolution would establish an administrative late fee equal to 50% of the amount of fine if not paid within 30 days of issuance of an administrative citation. In addition, the resolution would also establish that interest on the principal amount of unpaid fines (not including the late fees) would commence 45 days after issuance of the administrative citation at the current Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) rates.
Summary
The proposed resolution provided for consideration and adoption includes the civil fine amounts for various types of violations, administrative charges and accrued interest rate on unpaid fines. It will not become effective until the administrative citation ordinance is adopted and becomes effective. The amounts may be modified from time to time by resolution of the City Council, as long as they do not exceed the limits allowed by State law.
Impact on City Resources
The administrative citation ordinance, and adoption of the related resolution, provides incremental revenue from civil fines that may be imposed for code violations, although the primary purpose is to gain compliance with the MPPC.
Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
Page J-4.3
Staff Report #: 23-149-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.
Attachments
A. Resolution (and attached Schedule of Fines)
Report prepared by:
Dave Norris, Police Chief
Report reviewed by:
Assistant City Attorney, Eli Flushman
Page J-4.4
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.15 (ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS) OF THE
MENLO PARK MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING CIVIL FINES AND CHARGES
FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE MENLO PARK MUNICIPAL CODE, OTHER CITY
ORDINANCES AND APPLICABLE COUNTY AND STATE LAWS REGULATED
BY THE CITY OF MENLO PARK
WHEREAS, at its June 13, 2023, regular meeting, the City Council waived the first reading and introduced an Ordinance creating Chapter 1.15 to the Menlo Park Municipal Code (MPMC) entitled Administrative Citations, which established an administrative citation program to enforce the City's municipal code, regulations, policies, and all other applicable state laws enforced by the City to encourage violators compliance; and
WHEREAS, Section 1.15.080 of the Ordinance states that the City Council shall establish by resolution the amount of fines, including escalating fine amounts for repeat violations within a 12-month period and late penalties for an administrative citation imposed pursuant to the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Sections 53069.4, 36900 and 36901 of the California Government Code, together with the Ordinance, provide the authority for the City Council to establish by resolution the amount of fines, including any late payment charges or escalating fines, for an administrative citation imposed pursuant to the Ordinance; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Incorporation of recitals.
The City Council hereby finds the recitals set forth above to be true and correct.
Section 2. Charges for violations: Administrative Fine Schedule; conflicting provisions The Administrative Fine Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, sets forth a list of monetary charges for violations of the Municipal Code.
In additions to the charges listed in the Administrative Fine Schedule (Exhibit A), the Menlo Park Municipal Code and the Menlo Park Schedule of Fines may also establish a fee, fine, or charge.
In the event of a conflict in fees, fines, or charges, the Municipal Code shall govern, followed by the Administrative Fine Schedule (Exhibit A). The applicable the Administrative Fine Schedule shall be that in effect at the time of the violation.
Section 3: Environmental Review.
This Resolution is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.
Page J-4.5 ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. XXXX
Section 4: Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective on the same date the ordinance adopting Chapter 1.15 becomes effective.
Section 5: Severability.
The City Council hereby declares every section, paragraph, sentence, cause, and phrase of this resolution is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases.
Section 6: Certification.
The City Clerk shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution.
I, Judi A. Herren, City Clerk of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing City Council Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said City Council on the twenty-seventh day of June, 2023, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this ___ day of June, 2023.
Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Exhibits:
A. Administrative fine schedule
Page J-4.6
Resolution No. XXXX
Administrative fine schedule
1. Violations of local building and safety codes shall be subject to the following fines:
a) $130 for a first violation
b) $700 for a second violation within a twelve-month period; c) $1,300 for a third and any additional violation within a twelve-month period d) $2,500 for additional violations within two years if the property is a commercial property, contains a building, and the violation is due to the owner’s failure to remove refuse or to prohibit the unauthorized use of the property
2. Violations of a short-term rental ordinance, including the prohibition of using Accessory Dwelling Units for short-term rentals as described in Menlo Park Municipal Code section 16-
79.100(b), is punishable as follows:
a) A fine not exceeding $1,500 for a first violation.
b) A fine not exceeding $3,000 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year. c) A fine not exceeding $5,000 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.
3. All other violations, shall be subject to the following fines:
a) $100 for a first violation
b) $200 for a second violation within a twelve-month period c) $500 for a third and any additional violation within a twelve-month period
4. All fines shall be due within 30 days of issuance of an Administrative Citation. Failure to timely pay the fine shall result in administrative late fee equal to 50% of the amount of the fine
5. Interest on the principal amount of all unpaid fines (not including late fees) shall commence 45 days after issuance of the Administrative Citation at the current Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) rate
6. Each Municipal Code section violated is a separate offense with an independent fine. Each day any violation exists is a separate and distinct offense and may be subject to another Administrative Citation.
Page J-4.7 EXHIBIT A
City Manager's Office
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov
STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 6/27/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-152-CC
Informational Item: City Council agenda topics: July 11 – August 15 Recommendation
The purpose of this informational item is to provide the City Council and members of the public access to the anticipated agenda items that will be presented to the City Council. The Mayor and city manager set the City Council agenda so there is no action required of the City Council as a result of this informational item.
Policy Issues
In accordance with the City Council procedures manual, the Mayor and city manager set the agenda for City Council meetings.
Analysis
In an effort to provide greater access to the City Council’s future agenda items, staff has compiled a listing of anticipated agenda items, Attachment A, through August 15. The topics are arranged by department to help identify the work group most impacted by the agenda item.
Specific dates are not provided in the attachment due to a number of factors that influence the City Council agenda preparation process. In their agenda management, the Mayor and city manager strive to compile an agenda that is most responsive to the City Council’s adopted priorities and work plan while also balancing the business needs of the organization. Certain agenda items, such as appeals or State mandated reporting, must be scheduled by a certain date to ensure compliance. In addition, the meeting agendas are managed to allow the greatest opportunity for public input while also allowing the meeting to conclude around 11 p.m. Every effort is made to avoid scheduling two matters that may be contentious to allow the City Council sufficient time to fully discuss the matter before the City Council.
Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.
Attachments
A. City Council agenda topics: July 11 – August 15
Report prepared by:
Judi A. Herren, Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk AGENDA ITEM K-1 Page K-1.1
Through August 15
Tentative City Council Agenda
# Title Department Item type City Council action
1 Adopt a reso for fiscal year 2023-24 investment policy ASD Consent Adopt resolution2 Adopt Successor Labor Agreements with SEIU and AFSCME ASD Regular Adopt resolution3 Adopt a reso approving community amenity regulations and updating appraisal instructions CDD Regular Adopt resolution4 Adopt a reso approving community amenity list updates CDD Regular Adopt resolution5 Authorize the Mayor to sign the City's response to San Mateo County Grand Jury Report: "Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing's Panacea or Prevarication?" CDD Consent Approve6 Consider Planning Commission's recommendation on a vesting tentative map and below market rate housing agreement for 123 Independence Dr. project CDD Public Hearing Adopt resolution, Approve7 Execute an agreement to provide BMR (below market rate) housing program admin services CDD Consent Approve8 First read and intro of ordinance for community amenities amendments CDD Public Hearing First read/intro ordinance 9 Second read and adopt community amenities amendments CDD Consent Second read/adopt ordinance10 Proposed zoning ordinance amendments related to Housing Element implementation CDD Study Session Direction to staff11 Adopt a reso authorizing the city manager to accept California Energy Commission funding for communitywide electrification and provide direction on scope of project CMO Regular Adopt resolution 12 Adopt a reso to approve an electric gardening equipment rebate program CMO Consent Adopt resolution13 Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter on behalf of the City Council to SM County re: Flood School Flood Park CMO Consent Approve 14 Confirm voting delegate for the League of California Cities annual conference CMO City Councilmember Report Decide 15 First read and intro of Streetaries outdoor dining ordinance CMO Regular First read/intro ordinance 16 Presentation: Sister Cities annual update CMO Presentation No action17 Transmittal of city attorney billing (May and June 2023) CMO Informational No action18 Waive second read and adopt an ordinance adding Menlo Park Municipal Code Chapter 8.05 (gasoline powered landscape equipment) to require five types of handheld landscaping equipment to be zero emission CMO Consent Second read/adopt ordinance, Adopt resolution 19 Adopt reso for Menlo Park Community Campus parking management plan CMO, PW Regular Adopt resolution20 Aquatics operator agreement LCS Regular Contract award or amend21 Proclamation: July as Parks and Recreation Month LCS Proclamation No action 22 First read and intro of Safe Storage ordinance PD Regular First read/intro ordinance23 Police department quarterly update – Q2 April 2023 - June 2023 PD Informational Receive and file 24 Second read and adopt safe storage ord PD Consent Second read/adopt ordinance25 Adopt a reso to approve updated design for Middle Avenue Caltrain crossing PW Regular Adopt resolution 26 Adopt a reso authorizing the city manager to execute a MOU between City of Menlo Park and Caltrain for San Francisquito Creek embankment stabilization PW Consent Adopt resolution 27 Award of construction contract for Willow Oaks Park and Burgess improvement projects PW Consent Contract award or amend28 Provide direction on speed limit reductions on residential streets PW Study Session Direction to staff29 Authorize the city manager to execute the 1350 Adams Ct. waterline funding agreement PW, CA Consent Contract award or amend ASD-Administrative Services
CMO- City Manager's Office
CDD-Community Development
LCS-Library and Community Services
PD-Police
PW-Public Works
ATTACHMENT A
Page K-1.2