Pacifica City Council
June 13, 2022

IMPACT OF UTILITY CUTS
The impact of utility cuts on pavement performance can vary significantly based on siteand agency-specific information. Such variables can include the existing pavement condition, structure, and age; location, orientation, and extent of the utility cut; environmental factors; traffic loads; and restoration practices and standards.

Quantification of utility cut impacts further depend on local maintenance treatments and costs. Therefore, to really understand the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance for a particular agency, a site-specific study and analysis must be performed.

That said, underground utility work can damage pavements in three general ways as illustrated in Figure 1. First, the act of cutting a pavement structure creates an easyaccess point for water to enter the pavement structure and damage the underlying pavement layers. Second, the removal of the pavement layers creates a plane of weakness where the pavement structure may not be adequately supported laterally – particularly during underground utility maintenance, but also after restoration. Third, the quality of the repair may not match the adjacent pavement structure, thus introducing roughness into the pavement. Rough pavements can cause vehicles to bounce, which creates greater loads on the pavement and leads to more rapid deterioration (Tarakji 1995; Wilde et al. 2002).

Figure 1. Utility Cut Damage Mechanisms
These deterioration mechanisms reduce the condition and structural capacity of a pavement, which reduces the life of the pavement within and adjacent to the utility cut (Stevens et al. 2010). Multiple utility cuts on the same street or within a small area can magnify this impact (Department of Public Works 1998, Tarakji 1995).

Reduction in Pavement Life
In the mid-1990s, San Francisco completed a study on the effect of utility cuts on the life of pavement (Tarakji 1995) and confirmed that additional damage was caused. Other

11.a
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Vehicle July 31, 2021

cities, including Austin, Cincinnati, Salt Lake City, Philadelphia, and Phoenix, conducted similar foundational studies and found that utility cuts not only reduced the expected life of the streets but consequently cost local agencies millions of dollars in premature street repair and remediation expenses (Arudi et al. 2000; Bodocsi et al. 1995; ERES 1990; NCE 2003; Peters 2002; Wilde et al. 1996).

For example, Bodocsi et al. (1995) reported that new asphalt pavements, which are typically designed to last between 15 and 20 years, once cut can lose as much as 8 years of pavement life. Other studies performed in Austin, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Phoenix estimated between 15 and 20 percent reductions in pavement life due to utility cuts (AMEC 2002; CHEC 1997; IMS 1994; Shahin and Associates 2017; Wilde et al. 1996). For a typical pavement design life of 20 years, this represents a loss of 3-4 years of pavement life.

Additional factors such as cold climates and multiple excavations can increase the impact of utility cuts. For example, utility cuts in areas subject to freeze-thaw conditions were estimated to reduce pavement life by 20 percent (AMEC 2002; Stevens et al. 2010).

Streets with multiple excavations for utility work were estimated to reduce a pavement’s life by 30 to 55 percent (Shahin and Associates 2017; Tarakji 1995; Tiewater 1997).

Statistical data reported by the Department of Public Works in San Francisco (1998) showed that the pavement condition rating decreases as the number of utility cuts increases. For example, the pavement condition index (PCI) for a newer pavement was reduced from 85 to 64 as the number of utility cuts increased to 10 or more.

Zone of Influence
As previously mentioned, a utility cut can result in a loss of lateral support to the existing pavement structure surrounding the perimeter of the trench. This can cause the trench sidewalls to bulge into the trench and weaken the material under the existing pavement.

This weakened area is termed the zone of influence, is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Zone of Influence

11.a
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Vehicle July 31, 2021

Various studies have used deflection testing to investigate the loss of pavement strength near utility cuts, estimate the zone of influence, and provide recommendations on restoration (Bodosci et al 1995; Shahin 1999; CHEC 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; NCE 2000, 2003). Such studies showed a substantial loss of strength in the zone of influence around the utility cut area (Stevens et al. 2010). For example, studies performed in Union City and Los Angeles showed that the deflection values within the zone of influence were 41- 74 percent higher than in uninfluenced pavement (CHEC 1998; Shahin and Associates 2017).

These studies also indicated that the zone of influence varies by agency and location but is most often 4 to 5 feet from the edge of the trench. Table 1 summarizes research estimating the zone of influence.

Table 1. Summary of Zone of Influence Research
Agency Investigator Publication
Year
Zone of Influence
from Trench Edge
(feet)
Alameda Co, CA CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2000 5.5 Calgary, Canada Karim et al. 2014 3.3
Cincinnati, OH Bodosci et al. 1995 3
Iowa
Department of
Transportation
Stevens et al. 2010 4
Los Angeles, CA Shahin and Associates 2017 2.5 to 10
(average of 5.2)
San Mateo Co,
CA CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1999 5
Seattle, WA Nichols Consulting Engineers 2000 At least 2 Springville, UT Guthrie et al. 2015 4
Union City CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1998 4 to 7
An extensive field and laboratory study by Iowa State University researchers concluded that the loss of lateral support in the zone of influence is a critical factor in the restoration of utility trenches (Jensen et al. 2005).

11.a
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Vehicle July 31, 2021

IMPORTANCE OF UTILITY CUT RESTORATION
As discussed previously, utility cuts can affect pavement performance in and adjacent to the cut area. The excavation equipment and process can also damage the pavement adjacent to the cut (Stevens et al. 2010). Simply backfilling the excavated area will not restore and match the strength and performance of the original material. Therefore, for long-term pavement performance within and adjacent to utility cuts, adequate repair and restoration is necessary.

It is difficult to restore cut pavement to a condition and performance level matching the surrounding pavement. When the repaired pavement condition varies from the existing pavement condition, the result can be a rough surface. Even if the pavement surface is smooth and consistent at the time of the repair, the materials may settle and deteriorate differentially over time. This leads to surface roughness, which then leads to more rapid deterioration (Noel and Tevlin 2012; PEI 1996; Stevens et al. 2010; Wilde et al. 1996).

Utility cut restoration involves performing a treatment, in addition to adequate filling and compaction of the excavated area, to restore the pavement life and maintain the pavement’s structural capacity and performance. Restoration often includes a T-Cut as well as another treatment, such as an overlay or surface seal, that extends beyond the length of the T-Cut arm. This restoration combination is illustrated in Figure 3.

T-Cuts involve cutting back a portion of the pavement surface beyond the edge of the trench to better protect the zone of influence and bridge the plane of weakness. Such repairs have been found advantageous in the restoration of utility cut trenches by alleviating the effects of the lateral support loss due to the excavation (Peters 2002; Stevens et al. 2010). Research has shown that the thickness of the restoration, the quality of materials used, and the placement and compaction methods of fill materials are key factors in ensuring strong pavement performance in future years (Jensen et al. 2005; Stevens et al. 2010 Todres and Baker 1996).

11.a
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Vehicle July 31, 2021

Figure 3. Example Restoration Plan.

Restoration Standards in California
Table 2 summarizes the restoration standards held by several city and county agencies throughout California. The specific restoration requirements vary depending on the length of the utility cut, existing PCI, functional classification, and age of the pavement.

Although the use of the T-Cut is widespread among these standards, the additional surface restoration requirements range from no additional treatment beyond the T-Cut to full lane replacements for the entire affected block. For example, the cities of Oakland and San Francisco require a full block restoration depending on the length of the utility cut. Other agencies require only 6 to 24 inches of restoration beyond the edge of the TCut. The most common restoration treatment in California is a mill and overlay to a minimum specified depth.

The final required restored pavement thickness also varies among agencies. These final thickness standards are included in Table 2 as the final asphalt thickness over the trench and provide insight into how standards vary throughout California. The typical requirement is for the new restored pavement to conform to the existing pavement thickness over the trench, but additional thickness is sometimes required.

11.a
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Vehicle July 31, 2021

Table 2. Summary of Restoration Standards in California Agencies Agency T-Cut
Required
T-Cut Arm
Width
(in.)
Surface Restoration
Requirement Beyond
T-Cut
Restoration
Treatment
Final Asphalt
Thickness Over
Trench (in.)
Alameda Co Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness
Anaheim Yes 12
For local streets with cut
length >651 ft, restore
all affected lanes for the
entire block
PCI ≥ 60: Slurry
Seal from gutter to
gutter
PCI<60: 2-in. Mill
and Overlay from
gutter to trench
limit
Existing thickness +

1.25 or
Match existing
thickness if ≥ 16 in.

Contra Costa
Co Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness + 1.25
Davis Yes 10
Restoration shall extend
10’ before first patch and
10’ beyond last patch and
be the full width of the
affected lanes
Slurry Seal Existing thickness
(min of 4)
Fremont
If Trench
Width
>24 in.
12 None NA
Existing thickness
(min of 6)
If no T-Cut, 12-15
Fresno Co Yes 6
Minimum of 12 in.
beyond the edge of the
T-Cut

1.25-in. Mill and
Overlay Existing thickness
Long Beach Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness
(min of 4)
Los Angeles Yes 12
If pavement age<8 Yrs,
restore 24 in. beyond the
edge of the T-Cut

1.5-in. Mill and
Overlay
(or half the existing
asphalt thickness,
whichever is less)
Existing thickness
(min of 6)
Los Angeles
Co Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness(min of 4)

11.a
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - July 31, 2021

Table 2 Cont. Summary of Restoration Standards for California Agencies Agency T-Cut
Required
T-Cut Arm
Width
(in.)
Surface Restoration
Requirement Beyond TCut
Restoration
Treatment
Final Asphalt
Thickness Over
Trench (in.)
Oakland Yes 12
If cut length >0.25*block
length, restore all affected
lanes for the entire block
PCI >65: Slurry
Seal
PCI ≤ 65: Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness
(min of 6)
Pacifica Yes 6 None NA Existing Thickness
(min of 4)
Sacramento Yes 6 None NA Existing thickness
(min of 4)
Sacramento
Co Yes 8
If pavement age<5 Yrs,
restore a minimum of 12
in. beyond the edge of
the T-Cut

1.5-in. Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness
(min of 6 on major
streets)
(min of 4 on minor
streets)
San
Francisco Yes 12
Minimum of 12 in. beyond
the edge of the T-Cut
or
If cut length >0.25*block
length, restore all affected
lanes for the entire block
2-in. Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness
(min of 2)
San Diego Co Yes
6-12
(Based on
Trench
Width)
6 in. beyond the edge of
the T-Cut

1.5-in. Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness +1
(min of 4)
San Jose Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness +3
Santa Clara Yes 6 None NA Existing thickness (8-
10)

11.a
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - July 31, 2021

UTILITY CUT POLICIES
A detailed 2002 report prepared for the Federal Highway Administration provided methods that agencies can use to reduce and minimize the damage to streets due to the ever-increasing installation and maintenance activities of utility companies (Wilde et al. 2002). Specifically, the report presents three types of policies local agencies can use to improve the quality of utility cut repairs and promote coordination of facilities. These strategies are 1) incentive-based policies, 2) fee-based policies, and 3) regulation-based policies.

Incentive-based policies provide financial or other incentives for using trenchless technology where technically suitable, performing higher-quality pavement cut repairs, making smaller or less-damaging cuts, and coordinating with other utility companies to share trenches or underground resources.

Examples of fee-based policies include requiring a deposit prior to beginning work to protect against poor repairs, assessing financial penalties for non-compliance with restoration standards or for failed repairs within a specified period, implementing a timebased lane rental fee to encourage utility companies to restore traffic access as quickly as possible, and collecting flat-rate or area-based fees to compensate for increased degradation associated with cutting and excavating pavement.

Regulation-based policies do not require fees or provide incentives, but place requirements on the contractor regarding quality of work, and/or restrictions on when and where trenching can be done. Examples include establishing moratorium periods that restrict utility cuts in newly resurfaced pavements for a specified time, requiring pavement restorations to encompass an area larger than the trench area, enhancing inspections, and enforcing restoration specifications.

Utility Cut Fees in California
Fee-based policies have been growing in popularity throughout California as way for local agencies to recoup the cost of pavement damage associated with poor performing underground utility work. Table 3 summarizes several utility-cut fee schedules for various agencies throughout California. These fees are based on factors including functional classification, pavement age, PCI, and/or utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse). The fees, in dollars per area, are multiplied by the utility cut area to obtain a dollar value that represents the damage done to the pavement. In contrast to having a utility cut fee by area, the city of Santa Barbara has utility cut fee by linear foot. This fee is multiplied by the length of linear feet cut rather than the affected area to obtain a dollar value.

11.a
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Vehicle July 31, 2021

Table 3. Summary of Utility Cut Fees for California Agencies Agency Year Criteria Fee ($/SF)
Anaheim* 1994 Age < 1 Year 16.48
Elk Grove 2020
Trench Depth < 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay
PCI 100 and 70

3.90 (long.)

7.80 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

2.20 (long.)

4.40 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other
PCI 100 and 70

2.41 (long.)

4.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

1.18 (long.)

2.36 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Trench Depth
> 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay
PCI 100 and 70

5.91 (long.)

11.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

3.34 (long.)

6.68 (trans)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other
PCI 100 and 70

3.66 (long.)

7.32 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

1.80 (long.)

3.60 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Los
Angeles 2018
Select Streets 19.44
Local Streets 8.24
Modesto 2020 All Streets
PCI 70-100 2.5
PCI 26-69 1.25
PCI 0-25 -
Patterson 2020 All Streets
PCI 70-100 7.3
PCI 50-69 5.25
PCI 0-49 -
*Standard is currently under revision. Fee update anticipated in 2021.

11.a
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Vehicle July 31, 2021

Table 3 Cont. Summary of Utility Cut Fees for California Agencies Agency Year Criteria Fee ($/SF)
Sacramento* 1997
Longitudinal Cut
Age <5 3.50
Age 5 to 10 3.00
Age 10 to 15 2.00
Age Over 15 1.00
Transverse Cut
Age <5 7.00
Age 5 to 10 6.00
Age 10 to 15 4.00
Age Over 15 2.00
Sacramento
Co 1999
Trench Depth < 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay
PCI 100 and 70

3.90 (long.)

7.80 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

2.20 (long.)

4.4 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other
PCI 100 and 70

2.41 (long.)

4.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

1.18 (long.)

2.36 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Trench Depth
> 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay.

PCI 100 and 70

5.91 (long.)

11.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

3.34 (long.)

6.68 (trans)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other
PCI 100 and 70

3.66 (long.)

7.32 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

1.80 (long.)

3.60 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
City and
County of
San
Francisco
1998 All streets
Age 0-5 3.50
Age 6-10 3.00
Age 11-15 2.00
Age 16-20 1.00
*Standard is currently under revision. Fee update anticipated in 2021.

11.a
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Vehicle July 31, 2021

Table 3 Cont. Summary of Utility Cut Fees for California Agencies Agency Year Criteria Fee ($/SF)
Santa Ana 1999
Arterials Streets
Age of street since last repaving
Age 0-5 Years 13.68
Age 6-10 Years 12.11
Age 11-15 Years 11.39
Age 16-20 Years 9.11
Local Streets
Age of street since last repaving
Age 0-5 Years 9.27
Age 6-10 Years 8.24
Age 11-15 Years 7.74
Age 16-20 Years 6.98
Age 21-25 Years 6.21
Santa
Barbara Co Flat fee $0.75 per LF
Santa Cruz 2003
Trench Depth < 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of Construction
or Structural overlay
PCI 100 and 70

3.9 (long.)

7.8 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

2.2 (long.)

4.4 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other Streets
PCI 100 and 70

2.41 (long.)

4.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

1.18 (long.)

2.36 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Trench Depth
> 4 ft
Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay.

PCI 100 and 70

5.91 (long.)

11.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

3.34 (long.)

6.68 (trans)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other Streets
PCI 100 and 70

3.66 (long.)

7.32 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26

1.80 (long.)

3.60 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Union City 1998 Flat fee 17.3
Some agencies allow fee exemptions if the utility work is performed on older pavement or if the work is performed before an upcoming rehabilitation. For example, the City and County of San Francisco waive the fee for utility work performed on pavements with PCIs less than 53 or a pavement age of at least 20 years. The City of Los Angeles does not require utility cut fees on pavements with rehabilitation scheduled within the next year.

11.a
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Vehicle July 31, 2021

Moratorium Standards in California
Regulation-based policies, particularly moratoria, have been passed by cities and counties to protect public infrastructure and preserve the life of streets (Wilde et al. 2002).

Moratoria impose a time period after treatment during which utility or other companies may not perform trenching activities. Table 4 summarizes several California agencies with slurry and rehabilitation moratorium standards. If for some reason utility work during a moratorium period is deemed necessary, agencies often impose higher restoration standards and limits than those required after the moratorium period has expired.

For example, Los Angeles County only requires a surface restoration of 24 inches beyond the edge of the T-Cut for non-moratorium streets but requires that the whole block be repaved for moratorium streets. Such strict moratorium restoration standards encourage utility companies to perform underground utility maintenance prior to pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction and discourages utility work in new pavement structures.

11.a
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Vehicle July 31, 2021

Table 4. Summary of Moratorium Standards for California Agencies Agency
Slurry
Moratorium
(years)
Rehabilitation
Moratorium
(years)
Restoration Details if Moratorium Work
Approved
Anaheim 1 3
Extensive pavement restoration according to
the utility cut standard
Limits shall be determined by the City Engineer
Commerce 2 5
Pavement restoration shall be a length of not
less than 50 ft either side of the trench edge
lines, either perpendicular or parallel to the
curb line
Encinitas 3 5
Resurface at least the length of excavation
from curb to curb or from curb line to the
raised median
Longitudinal trenches – Extend T-Cut, grind and
overlay over the entire affected lane or lanes
(from curb to curb or from curb to median
curb)
Transverse trenches - Extend T-Cut, grind and
overlay to 10 feet beyond each side of the
trench and over the entire affected lane
Los Angeles None 1 Repave the whole block
Los Angeles Co 2 2 Resurface the entire lane width
Oakland 5 5
Pavement restoration shall match or exceed
the most recent resurfacing pavement section
depth and material or as directed by the
Engineer
Sacramento Co 3 3
Slurry seal half of the roadway at locations
affected by the excavation for a minimum total
length of 1,000 feet
San Diego 3 5
Resurface the entire lane width from street
intersection to intersection and from curb to
curb
San Diego Co 3 3
Resurface the entire width of the affected road
and the method of resurfacing shall be the
same as adjacent pavement
San Francisco 5 5
Resurface all affected lanes for entire width of
affected property frontages

11.a
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Vehicle July 31, 2021

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Interest in studying and quantifying the impact of utility cuts on road and street performance has increased over the last 30 years. Consequently, public agencies, as well as utility companies, have sponsored engineering investigations and studies to quantify the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance and estimate the corresponding financial impacts.

Research has shown that utility cuts can reduce pavement life by 15 to 55 percent, which consequently costs local agencies millions of dollars in premature street repair and remediation expenses. Studies have also shown that underground utility work affects not only the excavated area, but often weakens the adjacent pavement. The affected pavement varies based on agency and location but is typically 4 to 5 feet from the edge of the trench.

To help restore some of the lost structural capacity and performance due to cutting the pavement, many agencies have set restoration standards. Restoration standards in California typically include a T-Cut along with a restoration treatment that may be as extensive as replacing the full lane for the entire affected block.

To recover the cost of pavement damage associated with performing underground utility work, many agencies impose utility cut fees. In California, these fees are typically based on factors including functional classification, pavement age, PCI, and/or utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse).

As evidenced by the variety of studies, standards, policies, and fees, the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance can vary significantly based on site-and agency-specific information. Therefore, to really understand and quantify the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance for a particular agency, a site-specific study and analysis must be performed. In addition, utility cut fees should be updated regularly to reflect accurate and current damage costs.

11.a
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Vehicle July 31, 2021

REFERENCES
AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 2002. Evaluation of Pavement Cut Impacts. League of Arizona Cities and Towns, and Association of Public-Private Utility Service Providers.

Arudi, R., Pickering, B., and Flading, J. 2000. Planning and Implementing a Management System for Street Pavements with Utility Cuts. Cincinnati Infrastructure Institute, University of Cincinnati.

Bodocsi, A., Pant, P.D., Aktan, A.E., and Arudi, R.S. 1995. Impact of Utility Cuts on Performance of Street Pavements. The Cincinnati Infrastructure Institute, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cincinnati.

CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1997. Utility Cut Damage Assessment for the City of Sacramento. City of Sacramento Department of Public Works.

CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1998. Trench Cut Fee Evaluation Study for the City of Union City. City of Union City, Department of Public Works CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1999. Trench Cut Evaluation Study for San Mateo County. San Mateo County.

CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2000. Alameda County Trench Cut Study Final Report.

Alameda County.

Department of Public Works. 1998. The Impact of Excavation on San Francisco Streets.

Department of Public Works, City and County of San Francisco and Blue-Ribbon Panel on Pavement Damage.

ERES International, Inc. 1990. The Effect of Utility Cut Patching on Pavement Performance in Phoenix, AZ.

Guthrie, W.S, Jackson, K.D., and Montgomery, S.R., and Eggett, D.L. 2015. Quantifying the Effect of Utility Cuts on the Remaining Service Life of Flexible Pavements in Northern Utah. City of Springville and Brigham Young University.

Infrastructure Management Systems (IMS), Inc. 1994. Estimated Pavement Cut Surcharge for the City of Anaheim California, Arterial Highway and Local Streets.

Jensen, K. A., Schaefer, V. R., Suleiman, M. T., White, D. J. 2005. Characterization of Utility Cut Pavement Settlement and Repair Techniques. Proceedings of the 2005 MidContinent Transportation Research Symposium, Ames, Iowa.

Karim, M., Rizvi, R., Henderson, V., Uzarowski, L., and Chyc-Cies, J. 2014. Effect ofUtility Cuts on Serviceability of Pavement Assets – A Case Study from the City of Calgary. City of Calgary and Golder Associates.

Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. 2000. Impact of Utility Cuts on Performance of Seattle Streets. City of Seattle.

11.a
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Vehicle July 31, 2021

Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. 2003. Utility Trench Cut Study Final Report. City of Philadelphia Department of Streets.

Noel, E. and Tevlin, A. 2012. Street Preservation Ordinance and Damage Fee. City of San Diego Office of the Independent Budget Analyst.

Pavement Engineering Inc, (PEI). 1996. Utility Cut Impact Study for City of Oxnard.

Peters, T. 2002. City Combats Damage to City Streets Caused by Utility Cuts. Public Works Journal Corporation 133 (4).

Shahin, M.Y. 1999. Report Analyzing Proposed Trench Cut Fee Ordinance. Department of Public Works, Santa Ana.

Shahin and Associates. 2017. Street Damage Restoration Fee Study. City of Los Angeles, Department of General Services, Bureau of Street Services.

Stevens, L., Suleiman, M.T., Schafer, B.R., Ceylan, H., and Videkovich, K.A. 2010.

Investigation of Improved Utility Cut Repair Techniques to Reduce Settlement in Repaired Areas, Phase II. Iowa Department of Transportation and Transportation Research Board.

Tarakji, G. 1995. The Effects of Utility Cuts on the Service Life of Pavements in San Francisco. Volume I, Department of Public Works, San Francisco State University.

Tiewater, P. 1997. “How to Reduce Utility Trenching Costs.” Better Roads. April 1997, pp 18–20.

Todres, H.A. and Baker, P.E., 1996. Utilities Conduct Research in Pavement Restoration.

APWA Reporter, 63(10).

Wilde, W.J., R. O. Rasmussen, and R. Harrison. 1996. City of Austin Guide for a Comparative Cost Assessment of Utility Work Alternatives. Austin, TX.

Wilde, W.J., Grant, C.A., and Nelson, P.K. 2002. Manual for Controlling and Reducing the Frequency of Pavement Utility Cuts. FHWA Report No. FHWA-RD-02-%%%

11.a
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Vehicle July 31, 2021

Table R.1 References
Agency Reference Date
Accessed
Alameda Co
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57573edf37013b15f0435124/t/5b2 434326d2a734942eb80b7/1529099326535/Design+Guidelines+SD2018Jun06.pdf3/10/2021 Anaheim https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/22954/132 3/10/2021 Contra Costa
Co
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29792/CU01- PDF?bidId= 3/10/2021
Davis https://www.cityofdavis.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=8217 3/10/2021 Fremont https://www.fremont.gov/DocumentCenter/View/307/sd28_LongitudinalTrenchTransverseTrench?bidId= 3/10/2021 Fresno Co
(Page 293)
http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/StdSpecifications-April-1-2011-approved-amended-1-1-12.pdf 3/10/2021 Long Beach
http://longbeach.gov/globalassets/pw/medialibrary/documents/resources/engineering/standard-plans/100-generalroadwork/section-127---trench-requirements-in-street-right-of-way--as-of11-13-17- 3/10/2021
Los Angeles https://eng2.lacity.org/techdocs/stdplans/s-400/S-477-2_B4778_%20_.pdf 3/10/2021 Los Angeles
Co
(Page 129)
https://pw.lacounty.gov/des/design_manuals/StandardPlan.pdf 3/10/2021 Oakland
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/government/o/PWA/o/EC/s/DGP/index.htm 3/10/2021 (See City of Oakland Guidelines and Standards: Street Excavation Rules) Sacramento
(Page 42)
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/~/media/Corporate/Files/DOU/SpecsDrawings/Addendum%202_Final_042412.pdf 3/10/2021 Sacramento
Co
(Page 17)
https://saccountyspecs.saccounty.net/Documents/PDF%20Documents%20 2008/Drawings/Drawings.pdf 3/10/2021
San Francisco
(Page 27)
https://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/PW-Order-187005-Signed.pdf 3/10/2021 San Diego Co
(Page 38)
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/sdcfa/documents/pre vention/design-standards.pdf 3/10/2021
San Jose
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=37037
3/10/2021
(Cross Section data from personal correspondence with Lorina Popescu, City of San Jose)
Santa Clara
(Page 31)
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=70118 3/10/2021

11.a
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Vehicle July 31, 2021

Table R.2 References
Agency Reference Date
Accessed
Oakland https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Master-Fee-ScheduleCombined-FY-19-20-MFS_Final.pdf 3/11/2021 San Diego https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/cip/pdf/2015-05- 01_memo.pdf 3/11/2021
Anaheim
Infrastructure Management Systems (IMS), Inc. 1994. Estimated Pavement Cut Surcharge for the City of Anaheim California, Arterial Highway and Local Streets.
-
Elk Grove https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/ElkGrove/html/ElkGrove12/ElkGrove 1209.html 3/11/2021
Los Angeles https://eng2.lacity.org/StdFeeList/StdFeeList.pdf 3/11/2021 Modesto https://www.modestogov.com/DocumentCenter/View/4817/Development -Fee-Schedule---Engineering_Encroachment 3/11/2021
Patterson https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruzCounty/html/SantaCruzCo unty09/SantaCruzCounty0980.html 3/11/2021
Sacramento
Co
http://qcode.us/codes/sacramentocounty/view.php?topic=12-12_09- 12_09_030&frames=on 3/11/2021
City and
County of San
Francisco
https://www.sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/Excavation_Code.pdf 3/11/2021 Santa Ana https://www.cacities.org/uploadedfiles/leagueinternet/19/192268aa-511f4046-99c7-b14dae47cc11.pdf 3/11/2021 Santa Barbara https://countyofsb.org/pwd/asset.c/224 3/11/2021 Santa Cruz
http://sccounty01.co.santacruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/agendas/2003/200 30401-211/PDF/035.pdf
3/11/2021
Union City CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1998. Trench Cut Fee Evaluation Study for the City of Union City. City of Union City, Department of Public Works -

11.a
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Vehicle July 31, 2021

Table R.3 References
Agency Reference Date
Accessed
Anaheim https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/22954/132 3/11/2021 Commerce Personal correspondence with Daniel Hernandez, City of Commerce 3/11/2021 Encinitas https://www.biasandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Attachment2-Resolution-Exhibit-A_clean.pdf 3/11/2021 Los Angeles https://eng2.lacity.org/techdocs/permits/7_3.pdf 3/11/2021 Los Angeles
Co
https://pw.lacounty.gov/general/faq/index.cfm?Action=getAnswers&FaqI D=JCMtOzVTUCAgCg%3D%3D&Theme=default&ShowTemplate=#:~:text=T he%20County%20has%20a%20two,date%20of%20the%20resurfacing%20p roject.
3/11/2021
Oakland https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nod eId=TIT12STSIPUPL_CH12.12EX 3/11/2021
Sacramento
Co https://sacdot.saccounty.net/Pages/Trenchingandroadcutmoratorium.aspx 3/11/2021 San Diego https://www.biasandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Attachment1-San-Diego-County-and-City-Trenching-Moratorium-Information.pdf 3/11/2021 San Diego Co https://www.biasandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Attachment1-San-Diego-County-and-City-Trenching-Moratorium-Information.pdf 3/11/2021 San Francisco https://www.sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/Moratorium%20Streets. pdf 3/11/2021

11.a
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Utility Cut Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Vehicle City of Pacifica
Department of Public Works
155 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Impacts of Waste and Heavy Vehicles on Pavement Life
Final Report
NCE Project No. 1004.05.55
Mar 2022
Richmond, CA
501 Canal Blvd., Suite I
Richmond, CA 94804
ATTACHMENT 2 11.b
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction Final Report
Impacts of Waste and Heavy Construction Vehicles on
Pavement Life
City of Pacifica
March 2021
Prepared for:

Pacifica Department of Public Works
Department of Public Works
155 Milagra Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
Prepared by:

Sharlan Montgomery Dunn, Ph.D., P.E.

Project Engineer

Debaroti Ghosh, Ph.D.

Project Engineer

Mei-Hui Lee, Ph.D., P.E.

Senior Engineer
NCE
501 Canal Blvd Suite I
Point Richmond, CA 94804
(510) 215-3620
NCE Project No. 1004.05.55

11.b
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

11.b
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
ES-1
Executive Summary
The purpose of this study was to estimate the structural and financial impact of waste and heavy construction vehicles on streets in the City of Pacifica. To accomplish this, NCE performed a vehicle impact analysis that combined methods from both the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official’s Guide for Design of Pavement Structures and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.

The analysis compared the estimated traffic demand associated with waste and heavy construction vehicles to the average remaining structural capacity of streets.

The resulting impact was then integrated with a financial analysis.

The results of the study (shown below) indicate that approximately 10.1 percent of a residential street’s pavement life is consumed each year by waste vehicles. This damage corresponds to an average cost of $510,906 per year. Similarly, approximately 6.2 percent of an arterial or collector street’s pavement life is consumed each year by waste vehicles. This damage corresponds to an average cost of $183,963 per year. The City can use these results to recoup pavement damage costs associated with waste collection by implementing a flat fee, a costper-vehicle fee, or other payment structure.

Vehicle Type
Residentials Arterials/Collectors
Avg % Pvmt
Life Used/Yr
Avg Damage
Cost/Yr
Avg % Pvmt
Life Used/Yr
Avg Damage
Cost/Yr
Garbage 3.1% $157,202 2.2% $65,349
Green Waste 3.1% $157,202 1.7% $49,011
Recycling 3.1% $157,202 2.2% $65,349
Bulk Waste 0.8% $39,300 0.1% $4,084
Total 10.1% $510,906 6.2% $183,793
A proposed heavy-vehicle impact fee was estimated based on the assumption that the damage caused to pavement structures by heavy construction vehicles is similar to that caused by a typical waste vehicle. The proposed fee (shown below in 2021 dollars) represents the transportation costs associated with the construction of new developments and can be collected as part of a development impact fee for residential and non-residential units. Any implemented waste or heavy vehicle fee structure should include an inflation factor since pavement maintenance costs increase over time.

Option Residential Unit Fee* Non-Residential Unit Fee* Unit 1 $2,126 NA per unit
2 $1.19 $1.19 per square foot
3 $0.17 NA per $100 valuation
*Fee in 2021 Dollars

11.b
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 2 Technical Approach ............................................................................ 2

2.1 Pavement Condition ......................................................................... 2

2.2 Structural Capacity .......................................................................... 4

2.3 Traffic Demand ............................................................................... 5

2.3.1 Waste Vehicles .......................................................................... 5

2.3.2 Heavy Construction Vehicles ........................................................ 8

2.4 Financial Analysis ............................................................................ 9

2.5 Vehicle Impact Analysis .................................................................. 10

2.5.1 Waste Vehicles ........................................................................ 10

2.5.2 Heavy Construction Vehicles ...................................................... 11 3 Results ............................................................................................. 12

3.1 Waste Vehicles ............................................................................. 12

3.2 Heavy Construction Vehicles ........................................................... 13 4 Summary ......................................................................................... 16 5 References ....................................................................................... 17

11.b
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
ii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Family Deterioration Curves by Functional Class .................................. 3 Figure 2. Typical Waste-Vehicle Loading .......................................................... 6 Figure 3. Annual Pavement Condition Breakdown for Residential Streets .............. 9 Figure 4. Annual Pavement Condition Breakdown for Arterial/Collector Streets .... 10 Figure 5. Average Percent of Life Consumed per Year by Waste Vehicle Type ...... 12 Figure 6. Average Cost per Year Due to Waste Vehicle Damage ........................ 13 List of Tables
Table 1. Pavement Condition Breakdown by Functional Class .............................. 3 Table 2. Remaining Service Life by Functional Class .......................................... 4 Table 3. ESALs Remaining by Functional Class ................................................. 5 Table 4. Waste-Vehicle Collection Frequency .................................................... 5 Table 5. Structural Number by Functional Class ................................................ 7 Table 6. Traffic Demand on City Streets by Condition Category ........................... 8 Table 7. Proposed Heavy Vehicle Impact Fees for Pacifica ................................ 13 Table 8. Summary of Other Agencies’ Heavy Construction Vehicle Impact Fees ... 14

11.b
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

INTRODUCTION CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
1 1 Introduction
Over the past 10 to 15 years, the number of waste-vehicle repetitions has increased on local roads and streets throughout California. Historically, one waste vehicle provided services once a week. More recently, three or four different waste vehicles (e.g., garbage, recycling, organics) provide weekly or biweekly services. In addition to waste vehicles, private development can have a significant impact on pavement condition. When new development construction occurs, heavy equipment and material delivery vehicles cause more rapid deterioration and worse pavement condition. This separation of waste categories, increase in waste collection frequency, as well as new construction due to land development, has caused many local agencies to question:

1. What impact do waste and heavy construction vehicles have on pavement deterioration?

2. What is the corresponding financial impact of waste and heavy construction vehicles on pavement life?
Similar questions have been studied for over 60 years by many state highway agencies, universities, the U.S. Department of Transportation, industry groups, and consulting/research firms. While the research completed and continued by these entities has significantly improved the understanding of pavement deterioration and the impacts of various treatments and loads on pavement performance, the bulk of this research has not focused on local or low-volume roads. Additionally, the impact and quantification of waste and heavy construction vehicles on local roads and streets varies significantly based on site- and agency-specific information. Such variables include pavement condition and structure, vehicle type and frequency, and maintenance costs. Therefore, to really understand the impact of waste vehicles on roads and streets within a particular agency, a custom study and analysis must be performed.

Customized studies estimating the impact of waste and heavy construction vehicles on pavement life and the corresponding costs for a particular agency can be used to develop impact fees. Such fees help agencies recapture costs associated with accelerated pavement deterioration due to frequent waste-vehicle trips and continued land development.

The City of Pacifica (City) wants to identify the vehicle impacts and develop fees to recoup damage sustained on City streets due to waste vehicles and heavy construction vehicles. Consequently, Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. (NCE), performed this study to estimate that impact and to quantify it in financial terms.

The following sections describe the technical approach used and present the results of the study.

11.b
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
2 2 Technical Approach
For this project, NCE employed a sophisticated analysis combining methods from both the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual (HDM) (Caltrans 2019) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (AASHTO 1993). City streets in California are typically designed according to the Caltrans HDM; whereas the AASHTO pavement design guide is widely used throughout the United States. Both methods were employed to more accurately represent traffic demands and incorporate the effect of pavement condition.

Ultimately, this analysis compared the estimated traffic demand associated with waste and heavy construction vehicles to the average remaining structural capacity of streets. The resulting impact was then integrated with a financial analysis.

The following subsections describe the assumptions made and the analysis procedure used to estimate and quantify the impact of waste and heavy construction vehicles on pavement life and maintenance costs for the City. Note that the analysis differentiates between two functional class groups: 1) residentials, and 2) arterials and collectors. This differentiation accounts for differences in pavement structures and traffic demands.

2.1 PAVEMENT CONDITION
Pavement condition is typically quantified using the pavement condition index (PCI), which ranges from 0 to 100. Pavements in excellent condition have a PCI above 85, pavements in very good condition have a PCI between 70 and 85, pavements in good condition have a PCI between 50 and 70, pavements in poor condition have a PCI between 25 and 50, and pavements in very poor condition have a PCI below 25. Note that these condition categories are consistent with those presented in the City’s Budget Options Report (City of Pacifica 2021) with one modification—the excellent condition category was added to provide an additional data point, and therefore additional accuracy, during the analysis portion of this study.

The City’s street network is in poor condition with an average PCI of 39 as of March 2021. Table 1 summarizes the portion of the City’s street network in each condition category by functional class. As shown, nearly half the 62.6 centerline miles of residential streets, and a quarter of the 27.6 centerline miles of arterials/collectors, are in failed condition.

11.b
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
3 Table 1. Pavement Condition Breakdown by Functional Class Condition
Category PCI Range
Pavement Condition Breakdown (% Area)*
Residentials Arterials/Collectors
Excellent 85-100 1.4 14.5
Very Good 70-85 9.1 11.4
Good 50-70 13.7 22.6
Poor 25-50 28.7 27.8
Very Poor 0-25 47.1 23.7
Total - 100.0 100.0
*Condition data obtained from StreetSaver® on March 15, 2021 For each condition category, the percent of remaining service life (RSL) was estimated using the StreetSaver® family deterioration curves for asphalt concrete (AC) streets. The AC curves were selected since City streets are predominantly AC pavement (99.4 percent). The deterioration curves, illustrated in Figure 1, are customized (using historical condition surveys) within StreetSaver® to match the typical performance of streets within the City.

A pavement’s RSL reaches zero when a pavement falls into failed condition, meaning it has a PCI less than 25. Consequently, residential streets have a total service life of approximately 34 years, while arterials/collectors have a total service life of approximately 29 years. Table 2 shows the estimated percent RSL for each condition category and functional class.

Figure 1. Family Deterioration Curves by Functional Class

11.b
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
4 Table 2. Remaining Service Life by Functional Class
Condition
Category PCI Range
Remaining Service Life (%)
Residentials Arterials/Collectors
Excellent 85-100 97.1 96.6
Very Good 70-84 70.6 69.0
Good 50-69 41.2 37.9
Poor 25-49 11.8 10.3
Very Poor 0-24 0 0

2.2 STRUCTURAL CAPACITY
A pavement’s capacity to carry traffic loads depends on pavement structure and condition. The pavement structure of City streets were assumed to meet the City’s typical design traffic index (TI) values of 5 for residential streets and 7 for arterials and collectors. Based on these design TI values and a subgrade R-value of 9, which was observed during the City’s 2020-2021 Resurfacing Program, typical pavement structures were calculated following the Caltrans HDM. Consequently, residential streets were assumed to have structure consisting of 4 inches of AC over 8 inches of aggregate base (AB). Similarly, arterials and collectors were assumed to have 6 inches of AC over 10 inches of AB.

The structural impact of a vehicle on a pavement depends on the vehicle’s load and axle configuration. An 18,000 lb load on a single axle is commonly used as the standard to which all other axle configurations and loads can be compared. Thus an Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) describes the damage to a pavement caused by an 18,000 lb load on a single axle (Huang 2003). As an axle load increases, the damage caused increases exponentially. Additionally, as pavement condition worsens, the damage caused by a given load also increases. Since damage to a pavement is often quantified in terms of ESALs, it is fitting then to also describe a pavement’s structural capacity in terms of ESALs.

The corresponding ESALs for the design TI values were estimated according to the Caltrans HDM. For a TI of 5, the design ESALs are 7,161; for a TI of 7, the design ESALs are 121,021. These design values represent the capacity, in ESALs, that a pavement structure has at the time of construction. The number of ESALs remaining based on condition category were estimated for each functional class by multiplying the design ESALs by the percent RSL (See Table 3).

11.b
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
5 Table 3. ESALs Remaining by Functional Class
Condition
Category PCI Range
ESALs Remaining
Residentials (TI=5) Arterials/Collectors (TI=7)
Design 7,161 121,021
Excellent 85-100 6,950 116,847
Very Good 70-84 5,054 83,462
Good 50-69 2,948 45,904
Poor 25-49 842 12,519
Very Poor 0-24 0 0

2.3 TRAFFIC DEMAND
After calculating the structural capacity of the pavement network, the traffic demand was estimated for waste vehicles and heavy construction vehicles.

2.3.1 Waste Vehicles
Currently, there are several waste vehicles servicing the City, including weekly garbage, weekly green waste, weekly recycling, and as-needed bulky waste pickup.

Based on discussions with the City and the waste collection companies, it was assumed that on a given weekday there are four garbage routes, three green waste routes, four recycling routes, and one bulky waste route. Additionally, it was assumed and that all waste collection routes drop off their loads twice daily.

While all residential streets will be driven by a waste vehicle during collection, the route a driver takes to access a particular residential route depends on driver discretion. Consequently, it was assumed that only 40 percent of arterial and collector streets would be used by waste vehicles to access residential routes and drop-off sites. Table 4 lists the assumed frequency of each waste vehicle for each functional class. These frequencies are expected to remain consistent throughout the analysis period.

Table 4. Waste-Vehicle Collection Frequency
Vehicle Type
Vehicles per Week
Residentials Arterials/Collectors
Garbage 1 40
Green Waste 1 30
Recycling 1 40
Bulky Waste 0.25 2.5
Total 3.25 112.5

11.b
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
6 The waste vehicles used in the City are typically single-trailer trucks with a single front axle and a tandem rear axle. The gross vehicle weight is approximately 55,000 lbs, while the tare weight is approximately 37,000 lbs. Figure 2 details the assumed axle loading of both full and empty waste vehicles. As shown, a full vehicle would have a 36,850 lb load on the rear tandem axle and 18,150 lbs on the front single axle. An empty vehicle would have a 24,790 lb load on the rear tandem axle and 12,210 lbs on the front single axle.

Figure 2. Typical Waste-Vehicle Loading
NCE used AASHTO’s load equivalency factor (LEF) approach to estimate the traffic demand of the waste vehicles. LEFs describe the equivalent damage caused by various axle loads and configurations while also considering the existing condition of the pavement. LEFs are a function of axle load and configuration, structural number (SN), and terminal serviceability. The sum of all LEFs for a given vehicle is the ESAL value for that vehicle.

A SN expresses the existing structural strength of a pavement and depends on pavement layer types and thicknesses, drainage, and condition. SN values range from 1 to 7, where 7 represents the greatest structural capacity. The SN values for the residential and arterial/collector pavement structures were calculated per the AASHTO pavement design guide according to Equation 1.

𝑆𝑁 = 𝑎ଵ𝐷ଵ + 𝑎ଶ𝐷ଶ𝑚ଶ + 𝑎ଷ𝐷ଷ𝑚ଷ + ⋯ + 𝑎௡𝐷௡𝑚௡ (Eq. 1)
where:
an: nth layer coefficient
Dn: nth layer thickness
mn: nth layer drainage coefficient
Tandem Axle
24,790 lbs
Single Axle
12,210 lbs

EMPTY VEHICLE
Tandem Axle
36,850 lbs

FULL VEHICLE
Single Axle
18,150 lbs

11.b
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
7 Representative layer coefficients were selected based on pavement condition from AASHTO Tables 2.4 and 5.2 (AASHTO 1993) and a drainage coefficient of 1 was assumed. Table 5 summarizes the calculated SNs based on condition category and functional class.

Table 5. Structural Number by Functional Class
Condition
Category PCI Range
Structural Number
Residentials Arterials/Collectors
Excellent 85-100 3.0 4.1
Very Good 70-84 2.2 3.0
Good 50-69 2.0 2.7
Poor 25-49 1.4 1.8
Very Poor 0-24 1.0 1.3
For each waste-vehicle axle configuration (single or tandem) and loading (empty or full) an LEF was estimated using the SNs and an assumed terminal serviceability of

2.5. The LEFs for each waste-vehicle axle loading were then summed to estimate the total ESALs for an empty and a full waste vehicle.

A full waste vehicle was estimated to have an ESAL value ranging from 2.532 to

2.555 based on condition and functional class. An empty waste vehicle was estimated to have an ESAL value of 0.520 to 0.597 also based on condition and functional class. Note that in general, a waste vehicle will do a little more damage to a pavement in worse condition than to a pavement in better condition. Similarly, a waste vehicle will typically do more damage to a residential street than to an arterial or collector street.

The empty and full waste-vehicle ESAL values were combined in a weighted average according to Equation 2. This weighting was performed to account for variability in loading throughout a route. The weighted average ESALs ranged from

1.871 to 1.889.

𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑉𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐸𝑆𝐴𝐿 =
ଶ
ଷ
∗ 𝐸𝑆𝐴𝐿ி௨௟௟ +
ଵ
ଷ
∗ 𝐸𝑆𝐴𝐿ா௠௣௧௬ (Eq. 2)
The weighted average ESALs values were then multiplied by the vehicle frequencies (previously provided in Table 4) to estimate the ESAL demand per year based on pavement condition and functional class. Table 6 lists the estimated waste-vehicle traffic demands.

11.b
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
8 Table 6. Traffic Demand on City Streets by Condition Category Func.

Class
Condition
Category
ESALs/Yr
Garbage Truck Green Waste Recycling Bulky Waste Residential Excellent 98.2 98.2 98.2 24.6
Very Good 97.7 97.7 97.7 24.4
Good 97.6 97.6 97.6 24.4
Poor 97.6 97.6 97.6 24.4
Very Poor 97.6 97.6 97.6 24.4 Arterial/ Collector
Excellent 3,891 2,918 3,891 243
Very Good 3,929 2,947 3,929 246
Good 3,924 2,943 3,924 245
Poor 3,903 2,927 3,903 244
Very Poor 3,903 2,927 3,903 244

2.3.2 Heavy Construction Vehicles
Other heavy vehicles, such as construction vehicles, also provide services within the City, and also have impacts on pavement life. After consultations with City staff, the following assumptions were made to estimate their impact:
 Heavy construction vehicles cause approximately the same amount of damage, in ESALs, as typical waste vehicles.
 The construction of residential/non-residential units require 20 heavy construction vehicles traveling 2.5 miles round trip to the project site (half the mileage on residential streets, half on arterial or collector streets).  The average size of a residential unit in the City is 1,800 square feet (sf).

To arrive at the assumption that construction of a new unit would produce approximately 20 heavy vehicle trips, the City of Pacifica Engineering Department estimated construction equipment, building material, and home appliance vehicle trips needed. If the given lot is undeveloped, and therefore requires grading and placement of a concrete slab, the large construction equipment traveling to the site would include an excavator, mini excavator, and skid steer/forklift totaling 3 truck roundtrips. Material delivery was estimated at 27 truck roundtrips including, off haul/infill material, foundation concrete pouring, lumber deliveries, drywall delivery, plumbing fixtures, HVAC fixtures and venting, roofing materials, landscaping materials, flooring materials, windows, counters, doors, street utility materials, driveway installation (concrete/asphalt truck or paver delivery), conditioned street improvement materials (asphalt and concrete), and general home appliances. As construction varies and to be conservative, the 30 trips were rounded down by 33% to 20 heavy vehicle trips.

11.b
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
9 2.4 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
As previously mentioned, the City’s street network is currently in poor condition with an average network PCI of 39. This is a result of minimal maintenance historically, coupled with years of increased frequencies of waste and heavy construction vehicles. Consequently, the City’s goals are to, over the next 15 years, improve the residential street network from a PCI of 33 to 60. Similarly, the City intends to improve the arterial and collector street network from a PCI of 50 to 70.

These goals will bring the overall network into fair condition.

To estimate the financial commitment required to accomplish these goals, a budget analyses was performed in StreetSaver® using the City’s existing decision tree with an inflation rate of 3 percent and an analysis period of 15 years. The 15-year total funding needed to accomplish these goals is $120.7 million, which is an average of $8.05 million per year. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the resulting pavement condition breakdown for residential and arterial/collector streets, respectively, for each year in the analysis period.

Figure 3. Annual Pavement Condition Breakdown for Residential Streets

11.b
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
10 Figure 4. Annual Pavement Condition Breakdown for Arterial/Collector Streets

2.5 VEHICLE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following sections describe the vehicle impact analysis performed for waste vehicles and heavy construction vehicles.

2.5.1 Waste Vehicles
The process to determine the impact of waste-vehicle damage to City streets is described by the following steps:

1. Calculate the weighted average structural capacity, in ESALs, remaining per year. This was performed by multiplying the ESALs remaining in a given condition category (Table 3) by the pavement condition breakdown for each year resulting from the StreetSaver® analysis (Figures 3 and 4) and summing the resulting products. This value represents the average annual structural capacity, in ESALs, remaining on any given street in the City.

2. Calculate the weighted average traffic demand, in ESALs, per year for each waste-vehicle type. This was performed by multiplying the traffic demand for each waste vehicle type (Table 6) by the pavement condition breakdown for each year resulting from the StreetSaver® analysis (Figures 3 and 4) and summing the resulting products. These values represent the average annual waste-vehicle traffic demand on any given street in the City.

11.b
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

TECHNICAL APPROACH CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
11 3. Calculate the percent of life used each year by each waste vehicle type. This was performed by dividing the annual demand for a given waste vehicle (from Step 2) by the weighted average structural capacity remaining per year (from Step 1).

4. Calculate the associated damage cost each year for each waste vehicle type.

This was done by multiplying the percent of life used per year for each waste vehicle type (Step 3) by the financial commitment per year ($8.05 million).

5. Calculate the average percent of life used per year by each waste vehicle type (average of Step 3).

6. Calculate the average damage cost per year for each waste vehicle type (average of Step 4).

2.5.2 Heavy Construction Vehicles
The financial impact of heavy construction vehicles is based on the assumption that they cause approximately an equal amount of damage as typical waste vehicles.

However, heavy construction vehicles do not traverse streets in the same manner as waste vehicles (i.e., a weekly route through all neighborhoods). Therefore, the damage cost for heavy construction vehicles was estimated according to the following steps:

1. Calculate the average damage cost per waste vehicle per year (Section 2.5.1 Step 6) and convert to a cost per vehicle-mile traveled.

2. Calculate the damage cost associated with the construction of residential and non-residential units based on the estimated conservative number of vehicle trips and miles traveled (Section 2.3.2).

3. Convert the damage cost to the following units for comparison with neighboring agencies:
 Per unit - residential
 Per square foot of construction - residential/non-residential  Per $100 valuation – residential (assumed average residential unit value is $1.25 million (Zillow 2021).

11.b
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

RESULTS CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
12 3 Results
The following sections present the results of the vehicle impact analysis performed for waste vehicles and heavy construction vehicles.

3.1 WASTE VEHICLES
Figure 5 illustrates the average percent of pavement life consumed each year by each waste vehicle type and functional class. On average, garbage, green waste, and recycling waste vehicles each consume 3.1 percent of a residential pavement’s capacity, or life each year. Combined with the occasional bulky waste pickup, approximately 10.1 percent of a residential pavement’s life is consumed each year by waste vehicles.

The average damage done to arterial and collector streets is lower because the thicker pavement structure and better network condition result in increased structural capacity. On average, garbage, green waste, and recycling waste vehicles each consume 2.2, 1.7, and 2.2 percent, respectively of an arterial or collector pavement’s life. Combined with the bulky waste pickup, approximately 6.2 percent of an arterial or collector pavement’s life is consumed each year by waste vehicles.

Figure 5. Average Percent of Life Consumed per Year by Waste Vehicle Type
Figure 6 shows the average cost of damage per year due to each waste vehicle type on residential streets as well as on arterial and collector streets. On average,

11.b
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

RESULTS CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
13 garbage, green waste, recycling, and bulky waste together cause $510,906 worth of damage to residential streets each year. The average damage value caused by waste vehicles each year on arterial and collector streets is $183,793.

Figure 6. Average Cost per Year Due to Waste Vehicle Damage Since the impact of waste vehicles on local roads and streets is dependent on siteand agency-specific information (pavement network condition and mileage, pavement structure, vehicle type and frequency, maintenance costs, network goals, etc.), it is difficult to compare waste vehicle impact fees between agencies.

Consequently, comparison impact fees are not provided in this report.

3.2 HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES
Table 7 Below shows the resulting proposed heavy construction vehicle impact fee options for the City of Pacifica.

Table 7. Proposed Heavy Vehicle Impact Fees for Pacifica Option Residential Unit Fee* Non-Residential Unit Fee* Unit 1 $2,126 NA per unit
2 $1.18 $1.18 per square foot
3 $0.17 NA per $100 valuation
*Fee in 2021 Dollars

11.b
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

RESULTS CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
14 For comparison, Table 8 summarizes heavy vehicle impact fees for several cities throughout California. These fees typically represent transportation costs associated with construction of new developments and are collected by agencies as part of a development impact fee. As shown, many of the agencies have different fees based on the type of construction (residential vs. non-residential). The residential fees are predominantly a flat fee, but some are also based on square footage, vehicle mileage, or building value. The non-residential fees are based on the square footage of the building being constructed.

Table 8. Summary of Other Agencies’ Heavy Construction Vehicle Impact Fees
Agency Criteria Fee Reference
Anaheim
Single Family Unit $2,029 per unit
Multi-Family $1,297 per unit City of Anaheim 2020
Commercial/Industrial -
Citrus Heights
Single Family Unit $1,434.12 per unit
City of Citrus Heights
2021 Multi-Family $1,312.74 per unit
Commercial/Industrial $4.45 per sf
San Bruno
Single Family Unit $4,615 per unit
Economic & Planning
Systems, Inc., 2019 Multi-Family $2610 per unit
Commercial/Industrial $6.95 per sf
San Francisco
Single Family Unit -
City of San Francisco
2021 Multi-Family $9.95 per sf
Commercial/Industrial $19.48 per sf
San Mateo
Single Family Unit $5003.76 per unit
City of San Mateo
2021 Multi-Family $3,071.42 per unit
Commercial/Industrial $5.40 per sf
Santa Cruz County
Single Family Unit
$697 per mile
Multi-Family NCE 2015
Commercial/Industrial -
Saratoga
Single Family Unit $0.77 per $100
Multi-Family valuation CSG Consultants 2007
Commercial/Industrial -
The estimated per-unit fee for residential construction in Pacifica is in the same ballpark as many of the other agencies listed in Table 7. However, in terms of square footage and per $100 valuation, the proposed impact fees are lower than most of the other agencies.

11.b
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

RESULTS CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
15 Since the proposed fees were derived based on construction trips for an average size, single-family unit, NCE recommends application of the fee in dollars per square foot to allow for a scaling to multi-family units as well. For example, smaller or larger multi-family units may require less or more heavy construction vehicle trips per unit, respectively, than the average single-family unit. This would allow multi-family unit fees to be adjusted proportionally based on size.

11.b
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

SUMMARY CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
16 4 Summary
The City of Pacifica is interested in implementing vehicle impact fees to recoup damage to City streets caused by waste-collection and heavy construction vehicles.

Currently, the City has several waste vehicles servicing residential streets, including a weekly garbage pickup, weekly green waste pickup, weekly recycling pickup, and an as-needed bulky waste pickup. In addition, construction vehicles provide ongoing but less predictable services. The purpose of this study was to estimate the structural and financial impacts of waste and heavy construction vehicles on City streets in Pacifica.

The damage a particular vehicle imposes on a pavement depends on the load and axle configuration, the pavement structure, and the pavement condition. In general, the damage to a pavement structure increases exponentially as the load increases. Additionally, the damage caused by a given load is less for a thicker pavement structure than it is for a thinner pavement structure. And finally, as pavement condition worsens, the damage caused by a given load increases. With these factors in mind, NCE performed an analysis based on City-specific data, which combined analysis methods from both the AASHTO and Caltrans design standards.

Overall, this analysis compared the estimated traffic demand associated with waste and heavy construction vehicles to the average remaining structural capacity of streets. The resulting impact was then integrated with a financial analysis.

The results of this study indicate that under existing traffic conditions, approximately 10.1 percent of a residential pavement’s life is consumed each year by waste vehicles. This corresponds to an average damage cost of $510,906 per year. Similarly, approximately 6.2 percent of an arterial or collector pavement’s life is consumed each year by waste vehicles. This corresponds to an average damage cost of $183,963 per year. The City can use this information to recoup pavement damage costs associated with waste collection by implementing a flat fee, a costper-vehicle fee, or other payment structure.

Assuming heavy construction vehicles cause damage similar to typical waste vehicles, a proposed heavy vehicle impact fee was estimated for the City and converted into several units for comparison with other California agencies.

The estimated per-unit fee for residential construction is similar to other California agencies. However, in terms of square footage and per $100 valuation, the estimated impact fees are lower than most of the comparison agencies. These proposed fees represent the transportation costs associated with the construction of new developments and can be collected as part of a development impact fee.

Any implemented waste or heavy vehicle fee structure should include an inflation factor since pavement maintenance costs increase over time.

11.b
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction

IMPACTS OF WASTE AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON PAVEMENT LIFE

REFERENCES CITY OF PACIFICA
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2022
17 5 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1993. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. Washington, DC.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Highway Design Manual.

Sacramento, CA.

City of Anaheim. 2020. “Impact Fees.”
http://anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/527/Developer-Impact-Fees?bidId=.

Accessed June 25, 2021.

City of Citrus Heights. 2021. “Development Impact Fees.” http://www.citrusheights.net/DocumentCenter/View/105/Development-ImpactFees-Brochure-PDF?bidId=. Accessed June 25, 2021.

City of Pacifica. 2021. “MTC P-TAP Round 21 Final Report for City of Pacifica, California.”
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=18671.

Accessed Aug 15, 2021.

City of San Francisco. 2021. “San Francisco Citywide Development Impact Fee Register.”
https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/forms/Impact_Fee_Schedule.pdf. Accessed June 25, 2021.

City of San Mateo. 2021. “Adopted Comprehensive Fee Schedule, July 1 20201 – June 30, 2022.” Accessed June 25, 2021.
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/83552/AdoptedComprehensive-Fee-Schedule-FY-2021-22?bidId=. Accessed June 25, 2021.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2019. San Bruno Development Impact Fee Nexus Study.

CSG Consultants, Inc. 2007. City of Saratoga Road Maintenance Fees Analysis.

Huang, Y. H. Pavement Analysis and Design 2nd Edition. 2003. Pearson, Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ.

NCE. 2015. Santa Cruz County Impact of Garbage Trucks.

Zillow. n.d. “Pacifica Home Values.” https://www.zillow.com/pacifica-ca/homevalues/. Accessed June 25, 2021.

11.b
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee Report [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Construction ORDINANCE NO. ___________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

ESTABLISHING A UTILITY PAVEMENT CUT RECOVERY FEE
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica is responsible for maintaining over 90 centerline miles of street pavement, funded by an annual street maintenance project adopted every year as part of the Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, existing pavements frequently need to be cut in order to access and service utility infrastructure and their underground equipment; and WHEREAS, this type of excavation in paved streets degrades and shorten the life of the surface of the streets, and this degradation increases the frequency and cost to the public of necessary resurfacing, maintenance, and repair; and WHEREAS, the City’s funding sources will not be sufficient to prevent some of the City’s streets from deteriorating due to the impacts of utility cuts; and WHEREAS, the Utility Cut Fee adopted herein is considered a fee for the use of government Property pursuant to Article XIII C, section 1(e)(4), which excludes such fees from the definition of “tax;” and
WHEREAS, in the alternative, the Utility Cut Fee is also be exempt from the definition of “tax” under Article XIII C, section 1(e)(1) because it is a charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred to the payor (accessing utilities in the City’s streets) that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege; and WHEREAS, in the alternative, the Utility Cut Fee is also exempt from the definition of “tax” under Article XIII C, section 1(e)(6) because it is a charged imposed as a condition of property development; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance does not conflict with provisions of State law, including but not limited to, Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 12808 related to interstate telecommunications franchises because the fees hereunder are not charged for the same right granted by State law, but instead are charged to recover costs of mitigating the degradation that the excavation causes to City pavement and the increased cost to the City in reconstructing a street that has been patched following an excavation; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is in conformance with Section 253(C) of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 which expressly recognizes the authority of local governments to impose reasonable nondiscriminatory fees upon telecommunications ATTACHMENT 3

11.c
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Ordinance Adopting Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut providers using the public right-of-way, as well as California Government Code 50030 which specifically authorizes the imposition of a permit fee that do not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true, correct, and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 2. Adopted. Section 7-2.214, “Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee,” is hereby added to Article 2 of Chapter 2 of Title 7 “Public Works” of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code as follows:

Section 7-2.214 Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee
(a) Purpose of Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee.

Excavations in paved streets owned and maintained by the City degrade and shorten the life of the surface of the streets, and this degradation increases the frequency and cost to the public of necessary resurfacing, maintenance and repair. These excavations cause degradation of the streets even where the excavations are refilled and repaired in conformity with applicable standards and requirements. It is appropriate that entities responsible for excavating into the City right of-way bear the burden of the resulting cost of this degradation and shortened life of the surface rather than the taxpayers of the City. In addition, establishment of a Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee will create an incentive for utilities to coordinate excavations in the streets. This chapter shall not be construed to relieve those excavating into the City right-of-way of the obligation to fill, repair and properly maintain the location of the excavation. (b) Establishment of Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee.

No person shall excavate in a public right-of-way without, in addition to all other requirements of this Code, having first paid to the City a “Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee.” The Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee shall be due, as a condition of the permit required by Section 7-2.101. (c) Amount of Fee.

11.c
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Ordinance Adopting Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut (1) The rate of the fee shall be established from time to time by resolution of the City Council.
(2) Beginning July 2023 and on each July 1st thereafter, the rate of the fee shall increase without further action by the city according to the following formula:

Most Recent ENR
Council-Approved Rate * ___________________________
ENR at Council-Approval
Where the “Council-Approved Rate” is the rate contained in the most recently adopted Impact Fee Schedule, “Most Recent ENR” is the most recently published Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area in the Engineering News Record when the calculation is made and “ENR at Council-Approval” is the Construction Cost Index published for the month in which the Council adopted the Impact Fee Schedule including the “Council-Approved Rate.” The City Manager shall calculate the increased fee annually and give notice of that calculation in the manner required by law for the publication of ordinance of the City Council.
(d) Determination of Payment.

The fees due under this chapter are collected for the restoration and maintenance of City pavement caused by the impacts of utility trench cuts, and shall be determined and become due and payable to the City at the time of the issuance of permits required pursuant to this Chapter. (e) Variance from payment of Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee.

Any person subject to the Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee may request that the Director of Public Works waive or reduce the requirement of payment of the fee due to individual circumstances that demonstrate, on a case-by-case basis, that the amount of the fee is not reasonably related to the projected impact of the proposed excavation.

The decision of the Director of Public Works may be appealed to the City Manager by letter within five (5) City business days of the date of the Director’s decision. Appeals shall state the name, address, telephone number, and if, available, the email address of the person making the appeal and the reason(s) for the appeal. The failure to appeal the

11.c
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Ordinance Adopting Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Director’s decision or to file a timely appeal shall render the Director’s decision final and the right to appeal is waived. The timeliness of an appeal shall be determined from the date the City Manager received said appeal. The decision of the City Manager is final. No fee shall be charged for an appeal. The City Manager may delegate all of the duties of this subsection to another person.
(f) Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee Fund.

The fees paid in accordance with the provisions of this section shall be placed in a special fund to be known as the Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee Fund. The revenues from the fees will be used solely for restoration and maintenance of City pavement related to the impacts of utility cuts. (g) Exceptions.
(1) Excavations in City streets scheduled for pavement structural improvements within two years of the date of excavation shall be exempt from the Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee.
(2) No Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee shall be charged for underground utility district projects initiated by the City, or utility line relocations necessitated by City street work projects or by street vacations or abandonments.
(3) No Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee shall be charged for excavations performed by or for the City Public Works Field Services Department.
(4) No Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee shall be charged with respect to excavation in a sidewalk or a concrete street.
(5) No Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee shall be charged where the proposed work will include resurfacing of all or a significant portion of the public right-of-way where the excavation is made, and the City Engineer approves the resurfacing. A “significant portion of the public right-of-way” means a surface area of the public right-of-way with minimum length and width dimensions as follows: length: 25 feet from the nearest edge of the excavation area; and width: the full width of each traffic lane if any portion of the lane is within the trench influence area.

11.c
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Ordinance Adopting Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut (6) No Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee shall be charged for repair work required by the City Engineer or any other relocations required by the City.

Section 3. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 4. 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 should 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 unconstitutional.

Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after the date of its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________________, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor

11.c
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Ordinance Adopting Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________ ____________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

11.c
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Ordinance Adopting Utility Pavement Cut Recovery Fee [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut ORDINANCE NO. ___________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

ESTABLISHING A CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE IMPACT FEE
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica is responsible for maintaining over 90 centerline miles of street pavement, funded by an annual street maintenance project adopted every year as part of the Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, heavy construction vehicles and equipment associated with new development cause rapid deterioration and worsen pavement conditions; and WHEREAS, heavy construction vehicles required for new development degrade City-maintained streets and shorten the life of the surface of the streets, and this degradation increases the frequency and cost to the public of necessary resurfacing, maintenance, and repair; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ensure that new development pays for the impacts of the construction related to that development on the City’s streets.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Pacifica does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Pacifica does hereby find that the above referenced recitals are true, correct, and material to the adoption of this Ordinance.

Section 2. Adopted. Chapter 21, “Construction Vehicle Impact Fee,” is hereby added to Title 8 “Building Regulations” of the City of Pacifica Municipal Code as follows:

Chapter 21 - Construction Vehicle Impact Fee
Section 8-21.01 – Authority and Purpose
This Chapter is enacted pursuant to the general police powers of the City and is for the purpose of providing funds to restore City streets, which rapidly deteriorate as a result of the impacts of heavy construction vehicles associated with new development.

Section 8-21.02 – Fee Imposition
The fee imposed by this Chapter shall be applicable to all developments in the City that require a building permit and add new residential or nonresidential building square footage. The fee shall be calculated by reference to the square footage added by the new development.

ATTACHMENT 4 11.d
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Attachment 4 - Ordinance Adopting Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Section 8-21.04 – Amount of Fee.
(a) The rate of the fee shall be established from time to time by resolution of the City Council in the manner required by Government Code Sections 66000 et. seq.
(b) Beginning July 2023 and on each July 1st thereafter, the rate of the fee shall increase without further action by the city according to the following formula:

Most Recent ENR
Council-Approved Rate * ___________________________
ENR at Council-Approval
Where the “Council-Approved Rate” is the rate contained in the most recently adopted Impact Fee Schedule, “Most Recent ENR” is the most recently published Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area in the Engineering News Record when the calculation is made and “ENR at Council-Approval” is the Construction Cost Index published for the month in which the Council adopted the Impact Fee Schedule including the “Council-Approved Rate.” The City Manager shall calculate the increased fee annually and give notice of that calculation in the manner required by law for the publication of ordinance of the City Council.

Section 8-21.05 – Deposit of Fees
The fees paid in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter shall be placed in a special fund to be known as the Construction Vehicle Impact Fee Fund. The fee revenues will be used to pay for street and road maintenance and improvements related to the impacts of construction vehicles associated with new development.

Section 8-21.06 – Determination of Payment
The fees due under this chapter are collected for the restoration of City pavement due to the impacts of new development, and shall be determined and become due and payable to the City at the time of the issuance of any building permit.

Section 3. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that the action to adopt this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental

11.d
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Attachment 4 - Ordinance Adopting Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee & Quality Act (CEQA), under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 4. 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 should 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 unconstitutional.

Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after the date of its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________________, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________ ____________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

11.d
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Attachment 4 - Ordinance Adopting Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee [Revision 1] (5013 : Resolution & Ordinances - Utility Cut Fee &

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/13/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Conduct Public Hearing to consider Adopting a Resolution Confirming the Annual Report from the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District, Approving the Program Expenditures, and Assessing the Levy for the Fiscal Year 2022-23 at the same rates as in the Fiscal Year 2021-22.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review and discuss the available options provided in this report for Council's consideration and select an option for proceeding.

STAFF CONTACT:

Yulia Carter, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer
(650) 738-7402
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

Pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code sections 36500 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 714-C.S creating the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District and levying an annual assessment of $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels in the City. The Pacifica BID was established under the authority of the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, which does not require identifying a "managing agency." Many Bay Area Cities with BIDs established under the same law manage their BID operations internally. However, the City Council has previously appointed the Chamber of Commerce as the BID Managing Agency. Currently, the Advisory Committee consists of but is not limited to one representative from each of the hotels, the managing director of the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center, and one representative from the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors.

On May 13, 2022, the Chamber of Commerce filed the attached Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District (BID) report with the City Clerk. The report was prepared by the Chamber of Commerce acting as the Managing Agency for the hotels in the BID and on behalf of the Pacifica Hotel BID Advisory Committee and presented to the City Council with the resolution of intent to continue the BID program and levy the annual assessments for the fiscal year 2022-23.

The report included projected resources and uses for FY 2022-23. There were no proposed changes in the boundaries of the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District. The proposed assessment is intended to be continued at $1.00 per room per day occupancy. It is estimated to generate $70,000 in revenues for the BID activities in FY2022-23 plus an estimated rollover funds of $977.30 from the current fiscal year.

It is proposed in the report that the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce will continue to serve as the Managing Agency for the BID at the proposed annual administrative fee of $35,000 or 50% of the projected FY2022-23 BID assessment to pay a part-time administrator, maintaining a visitor center, and supporting marketing efforts such as the Visitor Guide and Business Directory as 12 Packet Pg. 405
Pacifica City Council 2
June 13, 2022
reported on page 5 and further spelled out in Exhibit C of the attached report.

After reviewing the report, City staff felt that there was a significant amount of duplication of City-led marketing efforts with proposed activities in the BID marketing plan. This year the City Council adopted a Marketing Plan to attract visitors to Pacifica and benefit local hotels. City staff has made efforts to collaborate with the BID on strategies such as "Shop Pacifica" and a "workcation" promotion that would directly benefit the hotels in the district, as these programs are investing in the hospitality industry and promoting Pacifica as an overnight destination. Specific examples of duplicative efforts from the BID report include 1) the suggestion of a new "staycation" program for FY 2022-23 (pg. 7 of Attachment 1), which appears to be redundant with the City program approved by the Council, and 2) investment in a Shop Local campaign and creating a separate page on the "Visit Pacifica" website at the estimated cost to the BID between $10,500 and $14,500 (pg.6 of Attachment 1) when the City has already launched this program under the name of ShopPacifica that is currently being promoted and paid for by the City and the City would have created the ShopPacifica page on the VisitPacifica website.

At the meeting on May 23, Council directed staff and Chamber representatives to hold a meeting with the hotel representatives and Council liaisons to the Economic Development Committee to seek clarifications for proposed FY22-23 BID activities, reduce duplication and achieve collaboration. Staff held this meeting on June 1, 2022. During the meeting, some hotel representatives seemed to be unaware of the above-mentioned City programs that would directly benefit hotels or the VisitPacifica website access issues. In addition, the Chamber continued expressing security concerns about granting the City's professional Marketing consulting firm access to the VisitPacifica platform. Staff clarified that the City's standard practice requires substantial professional and general liability coverage from all their contractors, and these concerns would be covered. The Chamber requested to meet with City staff and the City Consultant again to discuss the collaboration and access to the website. This meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 9, 2022 (a day after release of this report). Staff will be prepared to report to Council the outcomes of this meeting during the June 13 City Council meeting presentation on this item.

Since California State Law is clear that the BID Advisory Committee determines the allocation of BID assessment funds (and not the City) and the expenditure of funds must be specific and be used to increase hotel overnight occupancy and not recreational improvements or promotions for any other businesses or services, staff requested the Chamber to make the following clarifying adjustments to the BID Annual Report:
• List all activities planned for the FY2022-23 with the requested budget allocation and replace items like "tbd" or "cost varies" or wide cost ranges with specific dollar amounts. • Provide sufficient explanation and justification for every budget line-item with enough details to describe what activities are being proposed at what cost and how this would benefit the hotels in increasing their overnight occupancy. • Provide a detailed description of activities and requested budget for the "staycation" and "shop local" campaigns. Explain how/if these programs will complement the City's Workcation and ShopPacifica programs in the City's Marketing Plan. • Clarify certain proposed activities in the report that appear as allocation of funds to be approved by BID members payable for services performed by the BID members themselves or as promotion of other businesses and services. • Include the Google Analytics and traffic reports for the Visit Pacifica website every month of the last assessment year (FY2021-22) to demonstrate the benefit of the marketing efforts to BID members.

The City intends to build greater collaboration and coordination of efforts with the BID to identify key performance measures and better align available resources, unify marketing efforts toward the same goals of promoting Pacifica as an overnight destination, assist hotels with improving their occupancy rates throughout the year, and, as a result of these efforts, improve the 12 Packet Pg. 406
Pacifica City Council 3
June 13, 2022
hospitality industry and local economy in general.

As of this report release, the City staff has not received the revised report from the Chamber.

Therefore, the City Manager does not have a recommendation as part of this report but lists options available to City Council below. The original BID Annual report without modifications is included in Attachment 1.

Written and oral protests to the levy of the annual assessments may be made at the public hearing in the form and manner prescribed in Sections 36625 and 36626 of the California Streets and Highway Code up until the close of the public hearing.

LIST OF OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO CITY COUNCIL:

1. If the Council is satisfied with the BID Annual Report as submitted on May 13, 2022, described above and presented at the last meeting and in Attachment 1, it can proceed with adopting a resolution listed in Attachment 2 to renew the BID program and levy assessment.

2. If the Council believes that the report does not sufficiently describe the improvements or activities that will be undertaken in FY2022-23, then upon the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council may order changes to the "proposed activities" to be funded from the levy of the assessments for those services that are not currently contracted. The Council would need to adopt another resolution of intent listed in Attachment 3 to levy with the report as modified. In this case, the item would have to return to the Council on June 27, 2022, after proper notice of the proposed changes.

3. The City Council could delay this decision until a later date once further collaborative discussions have occurred with the BID. If selected, this option will end the assessment for FY2022-23. During the year, staff would report back to City Council on collaboration progress and determine next steps, which could include reinstituting the assessment for FY2023-24, or developing an alternative structure for the BID.

RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
"Fiscal Sustainability" includes investing in economic development to increase revenues, funding a reserve/emergency fund, and being well prepared for grant opportunities.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no significant fiscal impact associated with this action, except for the City's administrative cost of processing BID pass-through payments that the City collects. The City collects no fee for administering the BID.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (PDF)
Attachment 2 - Resolution to Levy the Assessment- Option 1 (DOCX) Attachment 3 - Resolution of Intent to Order Changes - Option 2 (DOCX) 12 Packet Pg. 407
May 13, 2022
Kevin Woodhouse
City Manager
City of Pacifica
170 Santa Maria Avenue
Pacifica, CA 94044
RE: Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement Annual Report
Dear Kevin:

In accordance with the section 36533 of the California Streets and Highway Code, I am attaching our annual report to meet code requirements.

Attached, you will also find an explanation of Exhibits A-C addressing 2021-2022 results:

A) Report of Resources and Uses, July 1, 2021-2022
B) Profit and Loss, July 1, 2021 - April 30, 2022
C) Pacifica Chamber of Commerce Use of Funds as Managing Agency Marketing Plan for Recovery
You will find an explanation of Exhibits D-G adressing 2022-2023 plans D) Report of Resources and Uses - PROJECTED, July 1, 20222-June 30, 2023 E) PR/Marketing/Website Overview 2022-2023
F) Additional Marketing Plan of Actions 2022-2023
G) Marketing Action Plan Projected Budget for 2022-2023 (*Appendix)
There are no proposed changes in the boundaries of the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District. The Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District will continue to be managed by the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce. As anticipated in the previous annual report for 2021-2022, there are no fund surplus. The BID is currently unable to financially retain the services of our previous marketing consultant, Hook, Line & Thinker. It is still our goal to maximize the hotel’s investment in promoting Pacifica, the hotels and tourism. Our main focus now will be to move away from obsolete marketing tools, initiating a more modern approach by increasing digital/online presence and limiting traditional publication(ex. hard-copies). The Chamber will continue to provide visitor support, continue information posters and collateral material located at the Rockway Beach Kiosk and Visitors Center (located in the Chamber office). Please contact either Archie Judan or Lynn Gallo, President, if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
_______________________,May 13, 2023
Archie Judan, Director/BID Rep
Pacifica Chamber of Commerce
Cc: Yulia Carter Chief Financial Sustainability Officer

12.a
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Exhibit A

PACIFICA HOTEL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

REPORT OF RESOURCES AND USES
JULY 1, 2021 – JUNE 30, 2022
Resources:

Uses:
(See attached Profit/Loss Statement for breakdown)
Note 1: Previous Fund Balance represents the previous year’s actual balance carried forward, resources in excess of uses.

Note 2: Managing Agency, Pacifica Chamber of Commerce, elected to forego 2 lowest months of distribution for a total of $1,223.05 until adequate funds are available.

BID ASSESSMENTS $35,469.10
PREVIOUS FUND BALANCE (Note 1) $10,819.00
TOTAL RESOURCES $46,288.10
Managing Agency – Chamber of Commerce (Note 2) $16,510.00 Public Relations – Hook, Line & Thinker $23,625.50
Advertising – Other (Travel Writers) $281.00
Marketing Plan 2021-2022 $4,894.30
Total Expenses $45,310.80
Resources in Excess of Uses (Fund Balance) (Note 2) $977.30

12.a
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Exhibit B
Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District

PROFIT & LOSS
July 1, 2021 – April 30, 2022
4/30/21
Cash Basis
Income
BID Income
Self-Assessment Funds from City $35,469.10.

Previous Fund Balance. $10,819.00
Total BID Income $46,288.10

Expenses
Public Relations $23,625.50
Advertising $281.00
Marketing Plan 201-2022. $4,894.30
Total Expense $28,800.80
Chamber of Commerce
Managing Agency $16,510.00
Total Expenses $16,510.00
Net Income
Balance Sheet
As of April 30 ,2020
ASSETS
Tri Counties Bank Balance 4/30/22 $977.30

Balance April 30, 2020 $977.30

12.a
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Exhibit C

PACIFICA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Managing Agency Use of Funds
2021-2022
RECEIVED FROM BID $16,510.00
These funds supported a portion of the following promotional activities:

Staffing Visitor Center (handling calls and welcoming visitors to the center) • Published the Visitor Guide and Business Directory, 16,000 mailed to Pacifica businesses and residences, focusing on our hotels with 1,000 copies to the hotels directly for visitors. • Sponsored a virtual Tree Lighting jointly with the City of Pacifica focusing on local families.
• Included a tear out page in the Directory for Beach Bites Bingo, to continue to promote to visitors and locals’ participation in our businesses through the bingo card and the gift certificate from a local business.
• Planning with Fairfield Inn & Suites on the opening ceremony.

The Chamber treasurer manages City of Pacifica assessment funds and monitors and distributes funds approved by the BID.

The Chamber website required an upgrade due to an outdated operating system which was completed in 2022. It cross references to Visit Pacifica to increase traffic.

The Chamber Board continues to closely monitor and focus on reducing expenses. Examples of some of the changes:
• The Chamber operates with one part time staff administrator. • Individual projects are supported with outside resources to reduce labor expenses. • The office is managed by a volunteer Board member answers calls, mail, emails, completes reports and manages income and outgoing funds. • To reduce the Chamber operating costs the office space was subdivided into two offices and the street facing office was rented.

12.a
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Exhibit D

PACIFICA HOTEL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

REPORT OF RESOURCES AND USES - PROJECTED
JULY 1, 2022 – JUNE 30, 2023
Resources:

Uses:

Note 1: Reduction in hotel occupancy continues due to COVID 19 surge in infections. The voucher system helped to supplement income in 2021. Current funding opportunities are unknown.

Note 2: Amounts for May & June 2022 are projected since assessment checks have not been received, actual amounts may differ.

Note 3: Funds used by Managing Agency, Pacifica Chamber of Commerce, to pay part time administrator, maintaining visitor center, and supporting marketing efforts such as the Visitor Guide and Business Directory (hotels highlighted).

BID ASSESSMENTS (Note 1) $70,000.00
PREVIOUS FUND BALANCE (Note 2) $977.30
TOTAL RESOURCES $70,977.30
Managing Agency – Chamber of Commerce (Note 3) $35,000.00 Public Relations – Hook, Line & Thinker $3,000.00
Advertising – Other $15,000.00
Marketing Plan 2022-2023 $17,977.30
Total Expenses $70,977.30
Resources in Excess of Uses (Fund Balance) 0

12.a
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Exhibit E
Pacifica Chamber of Commerce
PR/Marketing/Website Overview for 2022-2023

1. BID administrative team will ensure to follow a strategic plan that compliments the Chamber’s and City’s initiatives to promote Pacifica as a travel destination.

2. Website (step 1) - General maintenance (ex. blogs and “Shop Local” page) a. Cost = $10,500 - $14,500

3. Website (step 2) - maintain organic content to position Pacifica atop of Google search results(ex. SEO, digital directories and listings)
a. Cost = $500/month

4. Retain website consultant for Step 2: Carol Camacho (website manager)

5. Continuing blog with substantive content (photos, things to do, hotel updates, shop local, features) in order to keep things fresh and interesting. a. Cost = varies based on specific project needs.

6. Social Marketing/paid campaign
a. Cost = varies based on specific project needs.

7. Continue to work with influencers, travel writers and multi-media individuals/organizations to continue to promote Pacifica as a travel destination. a. Cost = varies based on specific project needs.

8. Publications: VIA Magazine(regional) & Pacifica Anchor(local) a. Cost = $1,400 - $7,210

9. Visit Pacifica (robust) digital campaign with SF Media Company (*SF Bucketlisters)

a. Cost = $2,500 - 10,000

10. Request BID membership participation with SF Travel to attract local tourism

a. Cost = varies based on specific project needs.

11. Re-establish quarterly press releases that link back to website a. Cost = varies based on specific project needs.

12.a
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Exhibit F
Pacifica Chamber of Commerce
Additional Marketing Plan of Actions for 2022-2023
Our priority is to maintain the VisitPacifica.com website and pursue multiple avenues to increase hotel room occupancy by targeting specific, demographically concentrated populations that would benefit from local “staycation” options. We will place our efforts on targeting specific demographics of travelers looking for a place to temporary stay for remote work, “quarantine” (Covid related), retreats(wellness) and attend local events (ex. Fog Fest and Tree Lighting Festival).

1. Public Relations (PR)
-Hosting media
-Monthly press releases
-Wellness media/influencer FAM
-Traveler Podcast
-Best of Investing Radio Promo
-Host individual influencers

2. Social Media
-Feature blog posts (for continued SEO and content creation) -Advertising on all platforms (*Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) -Hotel News/re-branding/promotions/etc.
-Campaigns (ex. Scavenger Hunt and Beach Bites Bingo)
-Upgrade the media pages with new photos and updated media placement links

3. Advertising
-VIA Magazine
-California Tourism
-SF Media Company (*SF Bucketlisters)
-Facebook Ads
-Instagram(sponsors)

4. Website
-Continue to update all pages with new information and content -Monthly blog post features: Feature story of Pacifica (monthly) -Update hotel information
-Refresh photos
-Add page(s) as needed
-Develop an interactive and engaging campaign with social channels to drive traffic to the website and bookings for hotels.
-Review quarterly analytics to compare ROI from previous campaigns

12.a
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Exhibit G
Pacifica Chamber of Commerce
Marketing Action Plan Projected Budget for 2022-2023
Recommended Action Person Responsible Budget Timeframe

1. Website Bid rep/Web Consultant $10,500-14,500 Ongoing

2. Influencers: SF
Bucketlisters (ex., SF
Media Co. and Do The
Bay)
BID rep $2,500-10,000 Pending BID approval

3. VIA Magazine BID rep $1,400-7,210 Pending BID approval

4. Social Media/Blog
site/Google reviews
Upkeep
BID rep/Website Consultant $12,000-17,500 Monthly

5. Other BID rep/Website Consultant TBD Ongoing
Total $26,400-49,210 2022-2023

12.a
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) 16 • Pacifica Visitor Guide & Business Directory www.pacificachamber.com • 17 Accommodations
Americas Best Value
Inn Pacifica
Americas Best Value Inn Pacifica is a
comfortable, value-oriented motel just
two blocks from the famous Pacifica
Pier and the Palmetto Avenue District.

The property offers complimentary
Continental breakfast, wireless Internet, cable TV and all the other niceties of home. Some of the oceanside rooms
also feature full kitchenettes. Laundry
facilities are available on premise. This
hotel is pet friendly.
www.visitpacifica.com
(650) 359-9494
www.redlion.com
2160 Francisco Boulevard
Anchor Inn at Pedro Point
This newly constructed, four-unit
property features studio accommodations that are nestled in the hillside of Pedro Point. Extended stays are
available. The Inn is walking distance
to Linda Mar Beach, dining, surf shop,
beer taproom, coffee shop and grocery
store as well as convenient access to
coastal hillside hiking trails and walks
on the beach.
(650) 355-3333
www.anchorinnhotels.com
500 San Pedro Avenue
Fairfield Inn & Suites
San Francisco/Pacifica
This smoke-free, oceanfront hotel
is steps away from Rockaway Beach.

Guest rooms feature 40” flat panel
TVs with premium satellite channels,
individual climate control with air
conditioning, free Internet access, all
the comforts of home and studio suites
that offer fireplace, ocean views, sofa
bed and/or Jacuzzi. Additionally, the
hotel offers complimentary hot breakfast buffet and guest laundry facilities. (650) 355-5000
www.hiexpresspacifica.com
519 Nick Gust Way
Inn at Rockaway
Experience Pacifica’s top boutique
hotel located just steps away from the
scenic Rockaway Beach and the Pacific
Coast Highway. Our newly renovated
rooms are designed with guest comfort
in mind. Experience plush bedding,
modern amenities, and well-appointed
guest rooms during your stay in the
San Francisco Bay Area.
(650) 359-7700
www.innatrockaway.com
200 Rockaway Beach Avenue
Pacifica Beach Hotel
This luxurious, Victorian-style 52-
room hotel overlooks Pacifica State
Beach, (better known as Linda Mar
Beach) from its hillside perch. Most
guest rooms feature Jacuzzi tubs and
balconies overlooking the ocean while
the hotel offers an indoor swimming
pool, complimentary Internet, cable TV,
free parking and the highly acclaimed
Puerto 27 Peruvian Kitchen & Pisco Bar.
(650) 355-9999
Restaurant: (650) 733-7343
www.PacificaBeachHotel.com
525 Crespi Drive
Pacifica Lighthouse Hotel,
Trademark Collection by Wyndham
Nestled along Rockaway Beach,
overlooking the Pacific Ocean, the
Lighthouse Hotel offers 97 spacious
rooms and suites, an outdoor swimming pool, Jacuzzi, fitness center, meeting rooms and business center.

In addition to ocean views and beach
access, the hotel features newly
upgraded guest rooms, an abundance
of amenities and 4,500 square feet of
event space.
(650) 355-6300 or (800) 832-4777
105 Rockaway Beach Avenue
www.pacificalighthouse.com
Sea Breeze Motel at
Rockaway Beach
A nostalgic nod to Pacifica’s history
can be found at Rockaway Beach’s Sea
Breeze Motel. Just 50 feet from the
beach, each of the property’s 20 rooms
face the Pacific Ocean and the property is conveniently next door to Nick’s Restaurant, which has been serving
locals and visitors for over 90 years.
(650) 359-3903
Restaurant: (650) 359-3900
100 Rockaway Beach Avenue
www.seabreezemotel.net

12.a
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Recommended Marketing Action Rank in Priority/Person Responsible Budget Suggested Timeframe Website #1 --- PRIORITY
- Update hotel information Molly no cost TBD
- Source and refresh photos Carol no cost As needed
- Add sections as needed Carol/Molly TBD TBD
- Quarterly Analytics Report Carol no cost On-going
- Post new content as available Molly/Carol tbd On-going - Review, maintain and update as needed Carol/Molly tbd On-going - Post links to media section as published Molly/Carol tbd On-going - Monthly updates to website Molly/Carol $105/month On-going Blogsite Reintroduction #2
- Update editorial calendar of feature stories Molly no cost On-going - Collect photos Molly/Carol no cost On-going
- Publish at least one post per month Molly no cost Monthly Strategic Plan for Social Marketing #3
- Engage Bucketlisters for campaign Archie/Molly $2500-10,000 Tbd - Blog Posts and links to published stories Molly no cost On-going - Budget tbd…suggestions on attachment Carol $5-5000 ASAP - On-going posts to all platforms Carol Hourly fee On-going Media Relations #3
- Create calendar of monthly press releases Molly/Archie/Carol/BID no cost Monthly - Host individual media on assignmentMolly tbd for accommodations On-going - National Public Radio Molly $250 + two room nights Done - iHeart Radio (Michael Garfield) Molly $1,200 Tbd
- Best of Investing Radio Promos Molly trade for accommodations Tbd - Engage influencers to review PacificaMolly tbd On-going - Proposed budget for hosting media Molly
Five media at $350-700/per Molly $1750-3500
Pacifica BID 2021-2022 Marketing Proposal
Updated 7/6/21 A.

12.a
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Recommended Marketing Action Rank in Priority/Person Responsible Budget Suggested Timeframe Advertising #5
- San Francisco Media Company Molly $5,100 Fall
- VIA Magazine Molly
1/6 page Bay Area Co-Op Ad …suggest that we do all three of $1,200 Fall or Winter Issue(s) Travel Guide Ad these options together for greater $3,000 Fall or Winter Issue(s) e-Newsletter impact and penetration $3,000 Fall or Winter Issue(s) Scavenger Hunt #6
- See attachment - cost for services Carol $1,500
- Cost for cash prize Molly/Carol $100
Pacifica BID 2021+-2022 Marketing Proposal
Updated 7/6/21 A.

12.a
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Notes
Included in retainer
Included in retainer
Included in retainer
Included in Carol's monthly
No fee for Molly
No fee for Molly
No fee for Molly
No fee for Molly
Included in retainer
Included in retainer
Included in retainer
There are three options to choose from
Incoporate content when available
Promote cool place during hot
weather for drive traffic
Molly to source feature ideas
Host hotels to receive reimbursement
Done/Published
Molly to arrange interviews
Host hotels to receive reimbursement
expenses for influencers tbd
Host hotels to receive reimbursement
Pacifica BID 2021-2022 Marketing Proposal
Updated 7/6/21 A.

12.a
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Notes
Six week campaign/600,000 impressions
circulation = 500,000
circulation = 3.3 million
circulation = 1.2 million
Pacifica BID 2021-2022 Marketing Proposal
Updated 7/6/21 A.

12.a
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Recommended Marketing Action Rank in Priority/Person Responsible Budget Deadline Website
- Review and update all content Molly/Carol no cost March - Update hotel information Molly/Hotels no cost April/May - Source and refresh photos Carol April
- Test all links Carol no cost April
- Add sections as needed Carol/Molly $35/hour April/May/On-going - Analytics Report Carol $35/hour Monthly
- Post new content as available Molly tbd On-going
- Review, maintain and update as needed Molly tbd On-going - Post links to media section as published Molly tbd On-going - Monthly updates to website Molly/Carol (hourly fee) $105/month On-going Blogsite
- Create list of 2022 feature stories Molly no cost Monthly - Collect photos Carol $35/hour approx 2 hours
- Publish at least one post per month Molly no cost Monthly Social Marketing
- Create editorial calendar Carol/Molly $35/hour Monthly - Get news and promos from hotels Molly no cost Monthly - Craft content about hotel(s)/post Molly/Carol $35/hour Monthly - Blog Posts and links to published stories Molly no cost On-going - Digital Advertising Carol $100/month On-going
Media Relations/Influencers
- Create calendar of monthly press releases Molly no cost Monthly - Host individual media/influencers on assignment Molly tbd for accommodations + meals On-going - National Public Radio Molly $250 + two room nights May - iHeart Radio Molly flights/meals/accommodations June
- Best of Investing Radio Promos Molly trade for accommodations May-December - SFTravel + Visit CA Media Guests Molly tbd for accommodations On-going Pacifica BID 2022-2023 Marketing Proposal
Updated 3/14/22 B.

12.a
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) (Stuart + Olivia) $225/night + $100 gift card per day $500 + $300 Recommended Marketing Action Rank in Priority/Person Responsible Budget Deadline Advertising
- Visit California Molly tbd Dependent on budget
- SFTravel Molly tbd Dependent on budget
- VIA/AAA Molly tbd Dependent on budget
- Sunset Magazine Molly tbd Dependent on budget
- Pacifica Anchor Magazine Molly tbd Dependent on budget - Pacifica Anchor Magazine Molly/Carol
Ideas for Consideration
- Cannibus Tourism
- Fishing + Crabbing
- Pets/Animals/Surf Competition
- Family Travel for Summer Break
- Destination Dining + Libations
- Unmask and Unwind in Pacifica
- Chill Out this Summer - Pacifica, Calaveras County, Morro Bay - FOG FEST
- Dog Surfing Contest
Target Markets
San Francisco/Bay Area
Sacramento
Stockton/Central Valley
San Jose/South Bay/Peninsula
East Bay
Marin County
Pacifica BID 2022-2023 Marketing Proposal
Updated 3/14/22 B.

12.a
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Notes
Included in retainer
Included in retainer
Included in retainer
Anywhere from $35/hour
$35-70/hour
Included in retainer
Included in retainer
Included in retainer
Included in retainer
Included in retainer
collect photos, link,s formatting, testing
Included in retainer
$35/hour for Carol - no cost from Molly
Included in retainer
$35/hour for Carol - no cost from Molly
Incoporate content when available
Host hotels to receive reimbursement
Pacifica BID 202
1-2022 Marketing Proposal
Updated 3/14/22 B.

12.a
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Social Media Advertising
For: VisitPacifica.com - Summer 2021
Start Recommendations & Sample
1 of 2
● Facebook owns Instagram.
● Creating an ad campaign in FB can automatically be picked up by Instagram ● 80% of Internet users utilize Facebook
● 93% of Marketers utilize Facebook
Budget: YOU determine what you want to spend. $5? $500? $5000? FB will get you as many results with your determined amount.

Review Your Results Before You Purchase: FB allows you to plug in all your variables; location, goal objective, audience age range, location target/radius reach and audience interests. Then determines how large your audience reach will be and how many clicks you to expect per day before you purchase.

Recommendations:

Analytics from the website can assist in fine tuning the target audience. To begin, at least 2 to 3 ads should run together w/same the same target audience but w/different ad creations to see what captures the eye of the audience better. Then use the best in results to run a bigger ad campaign with a larger budget.
● Goal: To drive more traffic to VisitPacifica.com and, to grab those wanting to escape the summer heat. (see location target below)
● Number of Ads: At least two to compare audience captured results ● Location Target: 25 mile radius from Stockton, CA
● Ad Run Days: 7 days minimum in order to accumulate information to analyze ● Daily Budget: $5 per day for 7 days (5x$7 = $35 x 2 ads = $70 Total) ● Estimated Results: 370 to 1,100k reached and 24-70 clicks per day See Sample Next Page...

12.a
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Social Media Advertising
2 of 2
Sample Radius of Audience to Capture
Radius can be adjusted larger or smaller and moved to another location desired Ad Preview to Review Before Purchasing:

Ad copy should be simple & to the
point with:
-clean, eye capturing image/video
-who
-what
-why
-where
With a call to action:
-Visit Pacifica a pretty cool place
-Learn More

12.a
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Targeted Social Media Influencers

12.a
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Media Contact: Molly Blaisdell – Hook, Line & Thinker
(925) 300-7252/[email protected]
Visiting Journalist – Pacifica Accommodation Request Form 2022 To consider your request, we ask that you completely address the items below and return to us via email.

Once received with supporting documents, we’ll review the request and notify you of our decision.

Request must be received by PR Consultant Molly Blaisdell at least 21 days prior to intended travel dates.

Molly Blaisdell: [email protected] or (925) 300-7252 Name: Jeanne Cooper
Address: 59-218 Hokulele Dr., Kamuela, HI 96743
Phone Number/Email Address: 808/348-4012, [email protected] Travel Dates: April 21-22 (overnight on April 21)
Today’s Date: April 11, 2022
Request (Accommodations/Dining/Activities):
--- Please go to www.VisitPacifica.com for inspiration --- Lodging: Pacifica Lighthouse or Fairfield Inn (Rockaway Beach locale preferred), or Pacifica Beach Hotel (if remodeled room available)
Dinner: Puerto 27 or Moonraker or Humble Sea Brewing Co or Grape in the Fog (will have friend with car) Breakfast: Breakers or something within walk of lodging (will not have car) Letter of Assignment:
(attach copy)
Name(s) of Media Outlet(s): Marin Magazine (and Chicago website, Better.net); material may be recycled for use in a Pacifica post in LocalGetaways.com newsletter (~50K subscribers) Profile/Demographics of Media Outlets: Marin Magainze & LocalGetaways reach a Nothern California/Bay Area, professional/upscale demographic
Visiting Journalist Form for Pacifica Chamber of Commerce Page 1 of 2

12.a
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Size of Feature/Expected Coverage of Pacifica: Pacifica is expected to be about one-third of approximately 1,000-word story
How Will Hosts Be Featured: Pacifica lodging (hotel), dining (two restaurants) and at least two activities (in this case hiking+something beach/ocean-oriented) will be focus of the Pacifica component of story; a second lodging option of a different price level/appeal will be mentioned but not featured. (Hotels, Restaurants, Activity Vendors)
Publicity Value: Ad rates are not shared with freelance writers, but according to this website, it has 43,000 circulation and rates for a full page B&W ad were estimated to be $5850. Its travel content also appears on marinmagazine.com and the Chicago-based parent company’s website, Better.net (Specify Ad Rates/Circulation Figures)
Visiting Journalist Form for Pacifica Chamber of Commerce Page 2 of 2

12.a
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Attachment 1 - BID Annual Report Final 2022-2023 (5022 : Public Hearing BID) RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA CONFIRMING THE

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ADVISORY BOARD OF THE HOTEL BUSINESS

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, APPROVING THE HOTEL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT

DISTRICT'S PROGRAM OF EXPENDITURES, AND ASSESSING THE LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 AT THE SAME RATES LEVIED IN FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 WITHOUT CHANGE
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code sections 36500 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 714-C.S. in 2004 creating the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District (BID) and levying an annual assessment of $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels in the City; and WHEREAS, the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District has been operating and levying an annual assessment of $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels in the City continuously since 2004, including Fiscal Year 2021-22; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 36533, the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District Advisory Committee has prepared and filed with the City Clerk an annual report regarding the BID's operations that proposes to continue the program and assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23 at the same amount as levied for the Fiscal Year 2021-22; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-2022, which approved the annual report of the Advisory Board of the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District (BID) and gave notice of the Council's intent to levy the proposed Fiscal Year 2022-23 assessment for the BID following a public hearing on June 13, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. held via video/teleconference with no physical location open to the public pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Order N-25-20 and N-29-20 which suspend certain requirements of the Brown Act and allowing for public participation and public comment as detailed in the meeting agenda to be published within 72 hours in advance of the meeting date; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk gave notice of the public hearing by publishing in a newspaper of general circulation at least seven days before the public hearing and by mailing a copy of said public hearing notice and Resolution No. 25-2022 to all affected businesses as required by California Streets and Highways Code section 36534; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing, the City Council heard and considered all protests against the Fiscal Year 2022-23 levy of assessments for the BID, and the rules and procedures used in receiving and considering protests complied with those set forth in the California Streets and Highways Code sections 36524, 36525, 36534 and 36535; and

12.b
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Resolution to Levy the Assessment- Option 1 [Revision 1] (5022 : Public Hearing BID) WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt this Resolution to confirm the Advisory Committee's report as submitted and continue the program and assessments as levied in Fiscal Year 2021-22 at $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels in the City without change for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, that:

1. Incorporation of Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated in and form a part of this resolution.

2. Approval of Report and Program of Expenditures. The Annual Report of the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District Advisory Committee, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, that was filed with the City Clerk on May 13, 2022 and approved by the City Council by Resolution No. 25-2022, is hereby confirmed as submitted and the program of expenditures is hereby approved for Fiscal Year 2020-21.

3. Annual Assessment. The City hereby levies and will collect assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23 at the same rate of $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels in the City of Pacifica as levied in Fiscal Year 2021-22, without change.

4. Effective Date and Certification. The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution. The Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council.
* * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 13th day of June 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:

Mary Bier, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney Sarah Coffey, City Clerk

12.b
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Resolution to Levy the Assessment- Option 1 [Revision 1] (5022 : Public Hearing BID) 1 RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA

CONFIRMING THE RECEIPT OF ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ADVISORY

BOARD OF THE PACIFICA HOTEL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID)

AND DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO CONTINUE THE BID PROGRAM AND LEVY THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2022- 2023 AT THE SAME RATE WITHOUT CHANGE AS LEVIED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2021- 2022
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code sections 36500 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 714-C.S. in 2004, creating the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District and levying an annual assessment of $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels in the City; and WHEREAS, the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District ("BID") has been operating and levying an annual assessment of $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels in the City continuously since 2004, including the fiscal year 2021-2022; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 36533, the Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District Advisory Committee has prepared and filed with the City Clerk an annual report regarding the District's operations that proposes to continue the program and assessments for fiscal year 2022-2023 at the same amount as levied for the fiscal year 2021- 2022 (“Original Annual Report”); and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-2022 which confirmed receipt of the Original Annual Report and declaring the City Council’s intent to continue the BID program and levy the annual assessments for fiscal year 2022-2023; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 2022 the City Council held a public hearing wherein it chose to make modifications to the Original Annual Report and now desires to consider an amended annual report (“Amended Annual Report’) at a public hearing to take place on June 27, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt this Resolution of Intent to modify the Original Annual Report and consider the Amended Annual Report and declare its intent to continue the BID program and assessments as levied in the fiscal year 2021-2022 at $1.00 per room per day of occupancy on the hotels in the City without change for fiscal year 2022-2023.

WHEREAS, the City Council desires for the BID’s and City’s Marketing Plans to align and supplement each other to avoid confusion and mixed messaging and ensure collaboration in achieving the same goals of promoting Pacifica as overnight destination, assisting hotels with improving occupancy rates throughout the year, and improving the hospitality industry and local economy in general.

RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, that:

1. Declaration of Intent to Levy Annual Assessment. The City Council hereby declares its intent to continue the BID program and levy and collect the assessment of $1.00

12.c
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Resolution of Intent to Order Changes - Option 2 [Revision 1] (5022 : Public Hearing BID) Pacifica City Council 2 May 23, 2022
per room per day of occupancy on the hotels in the City of Pacifica without change for the fiscal year 2022-2023.

2. Public Hearing. The City Council hereby sets Monday, June 27, 2022, as the date for the public hearing on the annual levy of assessments on hotels within the BID.

The public hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as practicable.

Public Comments may be submitted by email to: [email protected] and clearly indicate the submitter’s full name, meeting date and Agenda Item number.

Refer to the meeting agenda to be published within 72 hours in advance of the meeting date to confirm meeting format and public participation details.

3. Protest Procedures. Written and oral protests to the levy of the annual assessments may be made at the public hearing in the form and manner prescribed in Sections 36624 and 36625 of the California Streets and Highways Code.

4. Notice of Hearing. The City Clerk is directed to provide notice of the public hearing on the proposed annual levy of assessments within the BID in the manner prescribed by California Streets and Highways Code section 36534 and by mailing copies of said notice and this Resolution to each business subject to the assessment.

5. Effective Date and Certification. The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution. The Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 13th day of June 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ _________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

12.c
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Resolution of Intent to Order Changes - Option 2 [Revision 1] (5022 : Public Hearing BID)

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/13/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Consideration of (1) a Resolution Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022 for By-District Elections to Elect One Member of the City Council from Districts 2, 3 and 5 Each, for a Full Four-Year Term; Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City's General Municipal Election with the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services; Adopting Regulations Pertaining to the Candidates’ Statement of Qualifications; and authorize the City Manager to Execute the Service Agreement for Election Services; and (2) adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, for Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City an Advisory Measure Regarding the Sale and Use of State-Approved “Safe and Sane” Fireworks in the City and Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City’s General Municipal Election with the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:
(1) Move to adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022 for ByDistrict Elections to Elect One Member of the City Council from Districts 2, 3 and 5 Each, for a Full Four-Year Term; Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City's General Municipal Election with the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services"; Adopting Regulations Pertaining to the Candidates’ Statement of Qualifications and authorize the City Manager to Execute the Service Agreement for Election Services; and
(2) Move to adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Calling and Giving Notice for Holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, for Submission to the Qualified Voters of the City an Advisory Measure Regarding the Sale and Use of State-Approved “Safe and Sane” Fireworks in the City and Requesting San Mateo County to Consolidate the City’s General Municipal Election with the November 8, 2022 Statewide General Election and to Provide Election Services STAFF CONTACT:

Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
650-738-7307
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

I. Resolution Calling Election
On December 17, 2018, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 839- C.S., establishing a district-based system for the election of members of the City Council by five districts, establishing the boundaries and identification number of each district and establishing the election order of each district. This ordinance added Chapter 9 “District Elections” to Title 2 of the Pacifica Municipal Code. By this action, the City of Pacifica changed from an at-large 13 Packet Pg. 433
Pacifica City Council 2
June 13, 2022
election system to a by district election system for the election of City Council members. The election sequence established by Ordinance No. 839-C.S. calls for the election of City Council members for Districts 1 and 4 in the general municipal election held in November 2020 and Districts 2, 3 and 5 in the general municipal election held in November 2022. On March 28, 2022, after having conducted public hearings for redistricting based on the 2020 U.S. Census data pursuant to California Elections Code 21600 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 874-C.S., to repeal and replace Pacifica Municipal Code Section 2-9.02 “City Council Districts Established” and adopting City Council District map and boundaries in Council District Map 505b. There was no change made to district election sequencing.

The City of Pacifica will conduct an election on November 8, 2022 for the purpose of electing one (1) City Council member for a full term of four years to District 2, one (1) City Council member for a full term of four years to District 3, and one (1) City Council member for a full term of four years to District 5. This will be the first by district elections in these Districts. Elections Code Section 10002 permits the City Council to request the County to provide election services and Elections Code Sections 10400 and 10403 permit the City Council to request that Pacifica's local election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election. The attached Resolution accomplishes these actions.

Pursuant to Elections Code section 13307 the governing body of any local agency must adopt regulations pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election, including costs of the Candidates’ Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) and that those regulations be provided to candidates. The proposed Resolution adopts such regulations in compliance with Elections Code section 13307.

The nomination period opens Monday, July 18, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. and closes at 5:00 p.m., on Friday, August 12, 2022.

II. Fireworks Advisory Measure
Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Title 4 of the City of Pacifica’s Municipal Code regulates the use and sale of State-approved, “Safe and Sane” fireworks in the City. The history of the Safe and Sane Fireworks Sales Program in the City dates back to March 1961, when City Council adopted Ordinance No. 167, regulating the sale of State-approved, “Safe and Sane” fireworks.

As is the case today, the ordinance specified local non-profit groups as eligible to obtain a fireworks permit.

In 1983 and in 1996, the City placed advisory measures on the ballot to determine whether the City’s voters wished to continue with the Safe and Sane Fireworks Sales Program in the City.

Voters in 1983 expressed majority support to continue the program with 38% (1,587 voters) voting to end the program and 62% (2,641 voters) voting to continue fireworks sales.

In November 1996, the City again sought advice from the electorate. Measure W was placed on the ballot with the following language:
“Shall the City of Pacifica amend its Municipal Code to prohibit the sale and use of State-approved fireworks in the City of Pacifica?” Voters again expressed majority support for the fireworks program with 30% (4,582 voters) voting to end the program and 70% (10,744 voters) voting to continue fireworks sales. 13 Packet Pg. 434
Pacifica City Council 3
June 13, 2022
In recent years the discussion has continued, prompted by community complaints regarding the magnitude of illegal fireworks around the July 4th holiday, as well as environmental concerns due to litter left behind by both illegal and Safe and Sane fireworks. Environmental concerns are also raised due to concerns of fireworks debris reaching the ocean. Community concerns have also included the risk of fire with the use of all types of fireworks. In recent years, wildfires in Northern California have increased the discussion of fire risk. The most common complaint from community members is the loud noise generated by illegal fireworks. Large scale firecracker type devices as well as mortar type fireworks that create colorful displays in the sky are commonly used in Pacifica on July 4th and produce loud noise.

On February 8, 2021 the Council discussed the various input that had been received from members of the public through the FlashVote polling and from the various non-profit groups and directed staff to prepare a ballot measure for the November 8, 2022 election to ask the citizens of the City whether they wanted to prohibit the Safe and Sane firework ignition, use, discharge, or sale, as currently allowed in Pacifica Municipal Code Article 2 of Chapter 3, within Title 4.

Elections Code section 9603 empowers local jurisdictions to hold a regular or special election for the purpose of allowing voters within the city to voice their opinions on substantive issues or indicate to the City Council approval or disapproval of the ballot proposal.

The proposed resolution would place a measure similar to 1996’s Measure U on the ballot to determine whether the City’s qualified voters wish to amend the City’s Municipal Code to prohibit the sale and use of Safe and Sane fireworks.
“Shall the City of Pacifica amend its Municipal Code to prohibit the ignition, use, discharge or sale of all State-approved “Safe and Sane” Fireworks in the City of Pacifica?”
The format of ballot question is prescribed by Elections Code sections 13120 and 9603.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

Staff does not recommend any alternative options.

FISCAL IMPACT:

An estimated cost of $160,000.00 to provide election services consolidated with the Statewide General Election, publishing of election-related notices and inclusion of potential ballot measures for the November 8, 2022 general municipal election has been included in the 2022- 23 Proposed Budget.

ORIGINATED BY:

City Clerk
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment A: Service Agreement for the Provision of Election Services with San Mateo County Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder (PDF) Attachment B: Ordinance No. 874-CS with City Council District Map (PDF) 13 Packet Pg. 435
Pacifica City Council 4
June 13, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ___-2022
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA (1) CALLING AND

GIVING NOTICE FOR HOLDING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022 FOR BY-DISTRICT ELECTIONS TO ELECT ONE MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM DISTRICTS 2, 3 AND 5 EACH, FOR A FULL FOUR YEAR TERM; (2) REQUESTING SAN MATEO COUNTY TO CONSOLIDATE THE CITY’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022 STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION AND TO PROVIDE ELECTION SERVICES; (3) ADOPTING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE CANDIDATES’ STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS; AND (4) AUTHORIZE THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR ELECTION SERVICES WHEREAS, in 2018, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 839- C.S., which established a by-district election process and established five districts pursuant to California Elections Code 10010 and California Government Code section 34886 for the election of each member of the City Council by the voters in the district in which the candidate resides; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2022, the City Council of the City of Pacifica adopted Ordinance No. 874-C.S., repealing and replacing Pacifica Municipal Code section 2-9.02 “City Council Districts Established” and adopting district boundary Map 505b following the 2020 U.S. Census and making no change to district election sequencing; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica held its first district elections for City Council in November 2020 for two out of the five City of Pacifica districts (Districts 1 and 4), with the remaining three districts (Districts 2, 3 and 5) to have their first district elections in November 2022; and
WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo will be conducting a statewide general election in Pacifica on November 8, 2022; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Pacifica to consolidate the City election with the County election to be conducted on November 8, 2022; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby requests the County Clerk of San Mateo County to provide election services that normally are provided to the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California provides that the governing body of any local agency adopt regulations pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election, including costs of the Candidates’ Statement of Qualifications and that those regulations be provided to candidates.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
13 Packet Pg. 436
Pacifica City Council 5
June 13, 2022
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby requests the consolidation of the General Municipal Election for election of the offices of one (1) Member of the City Council from District 2, one (1) Member of the City Council from District 3, and one (1) Member of the City Council from District 5, each with a full term of four (4) years with the statewide general election.

Section 2. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to general law cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Pacifica, California, on Tuesday, November 8, 2022 a General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing certain Members of the City Council as follows:

Election of one (1) Member from District 2 for a full term of four years; Election of one (1) Member from District 3 for a full term of four years; and Election of one (1) Member from District 5 for a full term of four years.

Section 3. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required by law.

Section 4. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to contract for the procurement and furnishing of any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election.

Section 5. That the vote centers for the election shall be open at seven o’clock a.m. on the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o’clock p.m. of the same day when the polls shall be closed, pursuant to Elections Code section 10242, except as provided in sections 14212, 14401 of the Elections Code of the State of California.

Section 6. That pursuant to the requirements of section 10403 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a General Municipal election with the Statewide General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022 for the purpose of electing one (1) Member of the City Council from District 2, one (1) Member of the City Council from District 3, and one (1) Member of the City Council from District 5, each for a full term of four years.

Section 7. That the City of Pacifica requests the services of the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County to permit the County Elections Official to conduct said General Municipal election and to consolidate such election. The County Elections Official is requested to provide all necessary election services and to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election.

Section 8. That the City Council acknowledges that the consolidated election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed by section 10418 of the Elections Code.

Section 9. That the City shall reimburse the County for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill and the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a service agreement for the provision of election services between the City of Pacifica and the County of San Mateo, in a form approved by the City Attorney as necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution. 13 Packet Pg. 437
Pacifica City Council 6
June 13, 2022
Section 10. That the City Clerk is directed to forward without delay to the Board of Supervisors and the County Election Department, each a certified copy of this resolution.

Section 11. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

Section 12. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.

Section 13. The following are regulations hereby adopted for candidates for elective office pertaining to candidate’s statements submitted to the voters at an election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022 and at future elections:

A. GENERAL PROVISIONS. That pursuant to Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California, each candidate for elective office to be voted for at an election held in the City of Pacifica on November 8, 2022 and thereafter may voluntarily prepare a candidate’s statement of an appropriate form provided to the City Clerk. The statement may include the name, age and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of no more than 200 words for the candidate’s education and qualifications expressed by the candidate himself or herself. The statement shall not include party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organizations. The statement shall be filed in typewritten form in the office of the City Clerk at the time the candidate’s nomination papers are filed. The statement may be withdrawn, but not changed, during the period for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 p.m. of the next working day after the close of the nomination period.

B. FOREIGN LANGUAGE POLICY
i. Pursuant to the Federal Voting Rights Act, candidates’ statements will be translated into all languages required by the County of San Mateo. The County is required to translate candidate’s statements into the following languages: Spanish and Chinese.
ii. The County shall:
a. Have all candidate’s statements translated into the languages specified in (B) (i) above.
b. Print all translations of all candidate statements in voter information guides.
c. The County will mail voter information guides and candidates statements to all voters in Spanish and Chinese or the County will mail separate voter information guides and candidates’ statements in Spanish and Chinese to only those voters who are on the county voter file as having requested a voter information guide in a particular language. The County will make the voter information guides and candidates’ statements in the required languages available at all vote centers, on the County’s website, and in the Election Official’s office.

A. PAYMENT
i. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of translating the candidate’s statement into the foreign languages specified in (B) (i) above, pursuant to Federal and/or State law.
13 Packet Pg. 438
Pacifica City Council 7
June 13, 2022
ii. The candidate shall be required to pay for the cost of printing the candidate’s statement in the voter pamphlet, pursuant to Federal and/or State law. iii. The City Clerk shall:
a. Require each candidate filing a statement to pay $300.00 (three hundred dollars) to the City of Pacifica at the time each candidate’s nomination papers are filed as a condition of having his or her statement included in the voter pamphlet. This sum represents each candidate’s estimated pro rata share of the total cost of printing, handling, translating, and mailing the candidate’s statements filed pursuant to this section, including costs incurred as a result of complying with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended).
b. Compute the actual costs of printing, handling, translating, and mailing the candidate’s statements filed pursuant to this section, including costs incurred as a result of complying with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended) and compute each candidate’s pro rata share of that total cost. c. The $300.00 estimated pro rata share is an approximation of the actual cost, which varies from one election to another election and may be significantly more or less than the estimate, depending on the actual number of candidates filing statements. Accordingly, the clerk is not bound by the estimate. In the event of underpayment, the clerk may require the candidate to pay, on a pro rata basis, the balance of cost incurred. In the event of overpayment, the clerk shall pro rate the excess amount among the candidates and refund the excess amount paid within 30 days of the election.

A. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
No candidate will be permitted to include additional materials in the sample ballot package.

C. The City Clerk shall provide each candidate or the candidate’s representative a copy of this Resolution at the time nominating petitions are issued.

Section 14. The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter into the book of original resolutions.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 13th day of June 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
13 Packet Pg. 439
Pacifica City Council 8
June 13, 2022
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ _________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 13 Packet Pg. 440
Pacifica City Council 9
June 13, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ___-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA CALLING AND

GIVING NOTICE FOR HOLDING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022, FOR SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY AN ADVISORY MEASURE REGARDING THE SALE AND USE OF STATE-APPROVED “SAFE AND SANE” FIREWORKS IN THE CITY AND REQUESTING SAN MATEO COUNTY TO CONSOLIDATE THE CITY’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022 STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION AND TO PROVIDE ELECTION SERVICES WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo will be conducting a statewide general election in Pacifica on November 8, 2022; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Pacifica to consolidate the City election with the County election to be conducted on November 8, 2022; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, the City Council of the City of Pacifica hereby requests the County Clerk of San Mateo County to provide election services that normally are provided to the City of Pacifica; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacifica desires to submit to the voters at a municipal election an advisory ballot question to advise the City Council regarding possible amendment to the City’s municipal code to prohibit the sale and use of all State-approved fireworks in the City of Pacifica; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized by statute to submit this advisory measure to the voters of the City pursuant to Section 9603 of the Elections Code.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Pursuant to the requirement of the laws of the State of California relating to general law cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Pacifica, California on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, a Municipal Election for the purpose of submitting to the voters of the City of Pacifica, the advisory measure specified in Section 2 below. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9222 and Section 9603, it is the intent of the City Council that the measure be submitted to the voters of Pacifica at the aforementioned Municipal Election.

Section 2. The question to be put to the voters of the City shall read as follows, after the heading “Advisory Vote Only” as provided by Elections Code section 9603(b):

Measure ___: The City of Pacifica Sale and Use of Fireworks Advisory Measure
Shall the City of Pacifica amend its municipal code to prohibit the ignition, use, discharge, or sale of all State-approved “Safe and Sane” fireworks in the City of Pacifica?
YES
NO
13 Packet Pg. 441
Pacifica City Council 10 June 13, 2022
Section 4. Pursuant to Elections Code Sections 1002, 10400 and 10403, the City Council hereby orders an election be called and consolidated with any and all elections also called to be held on November 8, 2022 within the same territory and requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo to permit the County Elections Officer to provide any and all services necessary for conducting the election called in Section 1 of this Resolution. The County of San Mateo and its staff are authorized and instructed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies and equipment and other necessary items in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election; the County of San Mateo is authorized to canvass the returns of the election, which shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used; and the City Council recognizes that additional cost will be incurred by the County of San Mateo by reason of the conduct of the election called in Section 1 of this Resolution, and agrees to reimburse the County of San Mateo for any costs that are not reimbursed by the State, and the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to pay the County of San Mateo for said services in full.

Section 5. The ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required by law.

Section 6. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to take necessary actions to ensure the placement of the measure on the November 8, 2022 ballot; and (iii) coordinate with the County of San Mateo and take all necessary actions to oversee and certify the November 8, 2022 election process as required by Elections Code.

Section 7. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

Section 8. That the City Council acknowledges that the consolidated election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed by section 10418 of the Elections Code.

Section 9. The City Clerk is directed to forward copies of the measure to be voted on at the general municipal election to the City Attorney for the preparation of an impartial analysis in compliance with applicable law.

Section 10. That ballot arguments and rebuttals shall be filed in accordance with the following:
a. That the primary arguments for and against this ballot measure shall be submitted to the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on August 19, 2022. b. That rebuttal arguments shall be submitted to the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on August 29, 2022.
c. That all arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument.

Section 11. That the City Clerk is directed to forward without delay to the Board of Supervisors and the County Election Department, each a certified copy of this resolution.

Section 12. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. 13 Packet Pg. 442
Pacifica City Council 11 June 13, 2022
Section 13. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.

Section 14. The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter into the book of original resolutions.
• • • • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacifica, California, held on the 13th day of June 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers:

NOES, Councilmembers:

ABSENT, Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN, Councilmembers:
_________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ _________________________
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney 13 Packet Pg. 443

SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF ELECTION SERVICES

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFICA AND

SAN MATEO COUNTY CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER & ASSESSOR-COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER This Service Agreement for the Provision of Election Services (“Agreement”), entered into this _______ day of _______________, 2022, by and between the City of Pacifica (the “Municipality”) and San Mateo County Chief Elections Officer & Assessor – County Clerk – Recorder (the “Chief Elections Officer”). The Municipality and the Chief Elections Officer shall be collectively referred to as “Parties”.

WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable that the Chief Elections Officer be retained for the purpose of conducting an election, described in more detail below, for the Municipality; and WHEREAS, the Chief Elections Officer has been asked by the Municipality to conduct an election on November 8, 2022 (the “Election”).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS:

I. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY THE MUNICIPALITY:
1) Within the time frame set by statute, the Municipality will request the Board of Supervisors, through the Chief Elections Officer, to conduct an election relating to the Municipality on November 8, 2022 and will request the services of the Chief Elections Officer in relation to the Election. 2) The Municipality will publish the Notice of Election and the Notice to File Declarations of Candidacy for the offices to be voted on and/or the Notice to File Arguments For or Against any measure. 3) The Municipality will submit to the Chief Elections Officer the offices to be voted on and the measure ballot questions by 88 days prior to the Election. The Municipality will submit to the Chief Elections Officer the names and ballot destinations of the candidates to appear upon the ballot by 81 days prior to the Election.
4) The Municipality will prepare and deliver to the Chief Elections Officer the ballot pamphlet information containing, as applicable, candidate designations and statements, ballot measure(s), tax rate statement(s), impartial analyses, arguments for or against measures and rebuttals thereto. 5) The Municipality will review and sign off on the official ballot wording for measures. 6) The Municipality will complete any other non-delegable tasks required by law in relation to the Election. 7) The Municipality shall maintain records/maps regarding the boundaries of the Municipality and will notify the Chief Elections Officer of any changes/additions to those boundaries by 125 days prior to the Election.

II. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER:
1) The Chief Elections Officer will select the sample and official ballot printer(s) and translators. 2) The Chief Elections Officer will prepare and deliver all election information to the printers and translators. 3) The Chief Elections Officer will determine the appropriate translation and transliteration of all pertinent documents.
4) The Chief Elections Officer will issue, receive and process vote by mail ballots. 5) The Chief Elections Officer will set up ADA compliant Vote Centers, publish any required notices and conduct the Election.

13.a
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Attachment A: Service Agreement for the Provision of Election Services with San Mateo County Chief Elections Officer & 6) The Chief Elections Officer will provide services for any official recount or election contest, if applicable. 7) The Chief Elections Officer will conduct all aspects of the Canvass of Votes Cast. Pursuant to Section 10262 of the Elections Code, the Chief Elections Officer will submit a Certificate of Chief Elections Officer to the Municipality’s governing body certifying the results of the Election. 8) The Chief Elections Officer will conduct other various and miscellaneous election-related activities directly required to conduct the Election itself. To the extent that the Municipality has obligations under law to perform various duties that relate to the Election beyond those directly involved with conducting the Election, those duties remain the responsibility of the Municipality. If the Municipality wishes to have any such duties performed by the Chief Elections Officer, the parties must mutually agree in advance in writing to have the Chief Elections Officer perform such duties. By way of example only, if the Municipality is required to send certain notices or adopt resolutions relating to the Election, those duties remain duties of the Municipality.

III. TERMS:
1) This Agreement shall be in effect for the performance of all services incident to the preparation and conduct of the Election to be held on November 8, 2022, including before and after said Election date. 2) In the event the Chief Elections Officer is unable to perform services required under this Agreement as a result of employer/employee relation conditions, vendor conditions, the unavailability of Federal, State, or County funds, COVID-19-related limitations, and/or other conditions beyond the control of the Chief Elections Officer, the Chief Elections Officer will be relieved of all obligations under this Agreement. The Chief Elections Officer may terminate this Agreement after giving 72 hours written notice, at which time the Chief Elections Officer will be relieved of all obligations under this Agreement.
3) This Agreement can be terminated by the Municipality upon 30 days written notice. 4) Persons employed or utilized by the Chief Elections Officer in the performance of the Services will not be employees or agents of the Municipality. The Chief Elections Officer is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes. The Parties agree that the Chief Elections Officer is in responsible charge of the Services to be provided pursuant to section II of this Agreement and Municipality shall have no control over the method or means of performance of those services.

IV. COST FOR SERVICES
1) In consideration of the performance of services and supplies provided by the Chief Elections Officer, including 1) any and all costs incurred during a recount or election contest that are not reimbursed by the voter requesting the recount or filing the contest as specified in the Elections Code and 2) any other costs associated with the Election, such as return postage costs and costs for ensuring voter accessibility, the Municipality shall pay to the Chief Elections Officer a sum equal to the full cost of the Election, including all such services, supplies, and other costs.
2) The Chief Elections Officer shall send an itemized invoice to the Municipality for all services provided pursuant to this Agreement after the Election is conducted and all related costs are determined. Payment on the full amount of the invoice shall be due and the Municipality shall submit payment to the County of San Mateo within forty-five (45) days of the date of the invoice (the “Due Date”). If the amount is not paid in full within this time, interest shall accrue monthly at a rate of 0.25% per month (equivalent to 3% annually) on the unpaid balance starting at the Due Date. Thereafter, invoices will be sent and shall be payable within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice, with interest being added each month for any unpaid balance.

V. MISCELLANEOUS
1) This Agreement represents the entire understanding of the Parties as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder.

This Agreement may only be modified by an amendment in writing signed by each Party.

13.a
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Attachment A: Service Agreement for the Provision of Election Services with San Mateo County Chief Elections Officer & 2) If any part of this Agreement is determined to be unconstitutional, invalid or beyond the authority of either party, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this Agreement can be interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties.
3) This Agreement may be signed in counterparts and, when fully signed, such counterparts shall have the same effect as if signed in one document.
[Signatures on following page]

MUNICIPALITY
Signature: _____________________________________ Date:_____________ Print Name: _____________________________________
Title: _____________________________________
COUNTY
Signature: _____________________________________ Date: _____________ Print Name: _____________________________________
Title: _____________________________________
Attest
By:

Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
Approved As To Form
By:

Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney

13.a
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Attachment A: Service Agreement for the Provision of Election Services with San Mateo County Chief Elections Officer & ORDINANCE NO. 874-C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA AMENDING TITLE 2, CHAPTER 9, “DISTRICT ELECTIONS” BY REPEALING AND REPLACING SECTION 2-9.02, “CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED” OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES BASED ON 2020 CENSUS DATA
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 839-C.S. on December 17, 2018, to provide for the election of members of the City Council of the City of Pacifica bydistrict in five single-member districts and establish district boundaries for five City Council districts as defined in the voting district map 505b and set forth the election sequence of the five districts; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code 21601, following each federal decennial census for a city whose council is already elected using district-based elections, the council shall, by ordinance or resolution, adopt boundaries for all of the council districts of the city so that the council districts shall be substantially equal in population as required by the United States Constitution; and
WHEREAS, California Elections Code section 21600 et seq., requires, among other things, that following each decennial federal census, and using that census as a basis, the city council by ordinance or resolution, adopt boundaries for any or all of the council districts of the city so that the council districts shall be substantially equal in population as required by the United States Constitution (“redistricting”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code 21607.1(a), at a regular meeting held on January 10, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing where the public was invited to provide input regarding the composition of the City’s voting districts before any draft maps were drawn; and
WHEREAS, thereafter, at regular meetings held on February 14, 2022 and February 28, 2022, the City Council held public hearings pursuant to California Elections Code 21607, where the public was invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps that had been released at least seven (7) days before each meeting, and the City Council considered and discussed the same; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on February 28, 2022, the City Council discussed the draft maps and selected the final voting district map; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on March 14, 2022, the City Council affirmed the final voting district map and set forth the introduction of this Ordinance for a first reading; and

13.b
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Attachment B: Ordinance No. 874-CS with City Council District Map (5021 : Resolutions Calling Nov 8, 2022 Election - City Council ORDINANCE NO. 874-C.S.

WHEREAS, in compliance with Elections Code section 21607.1(b)(c) and (d), all of the public hearings were commenced at a fixed time after 5:30 p.m., on a weekday, and were accessible to persons with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with Elections Code section 21608(a), the Council took steps to encourage residents, including those in underrepresented communities and nonEnglish speaking communities, to participate in the redistricting public review process. These steps include, but are not limited to the following:
• Public Hearing Notice for the January 10, 2022 public hearing was posted at City Hall on January 4, 2022 and published in the Pacifica Tribune on January 5, 2022.
• Following the January 10, 2022 public hearing, public mapping kits in English and Spanish were posted to the City website and available at City Hall. • Public Hearing Notice for the February 14, 2022 Public Hearing #2 was posted at City Hall on January 21, 2022 and published in the Pacifica Tribune on January 26, 2022 and February 2, 2022.
• Public Hearing Notice for the February 28, 2022 Public Hearing #3 was posted at City Hall on February 11, 2022 and published in the Pacifica Tribune on February 16, 2022 and February 23, 2022, published in Spanish in El Reportero on February 25, 2022 and published in Chinese in the World Journal on February 24, 2022.
• Information on redistricting and soliciting public input and submission of draft maps for the redistricting process were published in the City of Pacifica’s “Connect With Pacifica” weekly e-newsletter and distributed by email on January 21, 2022, January 28, 2022 and February 4, 2022. • Information on redistricting and soliciting public input and submission of draft maps in reference to the February 14, 2022 Public Hearing was also published to the City’s NextDoor and Facebook social media feeds on February 2, 2022. • Draft maps for consideration at the February 28, 2022 Public Hearing were published on the City’s Redistricting webpage
(www.cityofpacifica.org/Redistricting) on February 20, 2022.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code section 21608(c), the City established a redistricting website which provided a schedule with the date, time, and location for any public hearing relating to redistricting on the internet at least five days before the hearing and also provided access to redistricting data and for the purposes of drawing draft maps and paper mapping tools; and
WHEREAS, a fourth public hearing is scheduled to be held at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 14, 2022, to review and consider additional public input related to the

13.b
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Attachment B: Ordinance No. 874-CS with City Council District Map (5021 : Resolutions Calling Nov 8, 2022 Election - City Council ORDINANCE NO. 874-C.S.
selection of final district map and the introduction of this proposed ordinance with adoption of the ordinance anticipated to take place at a regular meeting on March 28, 2022; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code section 21608(d)(1), all draft maps considered by the Council were published on the City’s redistricting website at least seven days before being considered for adoption as a final map by the Council.

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

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are a true and accurate and are incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Determination.

Adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review as the adoption of this Ordinance does not qualify as a “project” pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15320, 15378 and 15061(b)(3) since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the Ordinance would cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Section 3. Code Amendment. Title 2, “Administration”, Chapter 9, “District Elections” is amended by repealing Section 2-9.02, “City Council Districts” in its entirety and replacing it to read as follows:
“2-9.02. - City Council Districts.

Five City Council districts are hereby adopted in the City of Pacifica. The boundaries and identifying number of each district for the City Council elections shall be as described on the Council District Map 505b included and incorporated below:

13.b
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Attachment B: Ordinance No. 874-CS with City Council District Map (5021 : Resolutions Calling Nov 8, 2022 Election - City Council ORDINANCE NO. 874-C.S.

Section 4. Authorization for Technical Adjustments. The City’s demographer, National Demographics Corporation (NDC), is hereby authorized to make non-substantive technical

13.b
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Attachment B: Ordinance No. 874-CS with City Council District Map (5021 : Resolutions Calling Nov 8, 2022 Election - City Council ORDINANCE NO. 874-C.S.
adjustments to Map 505b to finalize the Map as necessary and to prepare a GIS shapefile which identifies the Council district boundaries consistent with Map 505b as well as census blocks and tracts, as may be necessary, in a form approved by the City Clerk and City Attorney.

Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The Council of the City of Pacifica hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable.

Section 6. Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption as provided by Government Code section 36937.

Section 7. Publication; Certification.

The City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published in accordance with State law. The City Clerk is also authorized and directed to file this Ordinance, Map 505b, the census blocks and tracts, the GIS shapefile, and any other documents, as may be necessary, to effectuate the adoption of Map 505b with the San Mateo County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor-Registrar of Voters. In the case of any parcels that are split across Council district boundaries, the County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor-Registrar of Voters shall apply a uniform methodology to adjust the boundary line to a border of the parcel without materially affecting the population within each affected district.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of March 2022, by the following vote:

AYES, Councilmembers: Beckmeyer, Bier, Bigstyck, O’Neill, Vaterlaus.

NOES, Councilmembers: n/a
ABSENT, Councilmembers: n/a
ABSTAIN, Councilmembers: n/a
__________________________
Mary Bier, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ ___________________________ Sarah Coffey, City Clerk Michelle Kenyon, City Attorney

13.b
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Attachment B: Ordinance No. 874-CS with City Council District Map (5021 : Resolutions Calling Nov 8, 2022 Election - City Council

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/13/2022
1 SUBJECT:

Update on Implementation of the Short-term Rental Program RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive update on Short-term Rental Program.

STAFF CONTACT:

Christian Murdock, AICP, Acting Planning Director
(650) 738-7341
[email protected]
Yulia Carter, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer
(650) 738-7301
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The City Council has requested an update on implementation of the City’s short-term rental (STR) program which it established in 2018. The term “short-term rental” refers to the use of all or a portion of a residential dwelling unit for a rental of less than 30 consecutive days. A residential dwelling unit being offered as an STR may be exclusively used for that purpose, or may be offered as an STR periodically between occupancy by the property owner or renter.

The popularity of STRs has increased steadily over the past decade in part due to the convenience of booking provided by companies such as AirBNB and VRBO. STRs provide an alternative experience to traditional hotel and motel accommodations for visitors to Pacifica.

They also provide a source of income for owners and occupants of the residential dwelling units offered for rent as STRs.

Because STRs utilize existing residential dwelling units, these so-called transient occupancies (i.e., occupancies lasting less than 30 days) are often located in closer proximity to owneroccupied and long-term rental housing units than traditional hotels and motels which tend to be limited to commercial zoning districts. In many cases, STRs are interspersed with predominantly single-family residential neighborhoods or throughout apartment/condominium units in multi-family residential buildings. This attribute of STRs can prompt consideration of their compatibility with surrounding residential uses and potential impacts on the availability of residential units for long-term occupancies.

The ease of listing a residential dwelling unit as an STR can also lead to casual operators who are unaware of the legal requirements to register in accordance with local laws including but not limited to the City of Pacifica’s business license and transient occupancy tax (TOT) registrations. The emergence of STRs as a new type of land use led the City Council to adopt Ordinance No. 835-C.S. (“Ordinance”) in 2018. The Ordinance established a permit 14 Packet Pg. 452
Pacifica City Council 2
June 13, 2022
requirement for operation of an STR, certain operating requirements, and permit revocation and enforcement processes. The operating requirements established in the Ordinance included the following guest safety standards:
• A diagram of exits, fire extinguisher locations, and fire and police contact numbers; • The STR permittee's contact information;
• The City's noise regulations (PMC Title 5, Chapter 10); and • The City's Social Host Liability Ordinance (PMC Title 5, Chapter 28) The Ordinance requires that an operator must provide the guest safety information to guests before arrival and make the information available in printed form within the STR.

A. STR Ordinance Implementation
The Ordinance appoints the Assistant City Manager or designee as the responsible City official for administration of the STR permit process. Other staff primarily in the Finance Division of the Administrative Services Department are responsible for assisting applicants with completing their business license tax, TOT, and STR permit registrations.

The Finance Division has engaged a consultant, HdL, to assist with additional program support including TOT compliance verifications for STRs and hotels/motels. The City engaged HdL for this purpose beginning in July 2021.

Since enactment of the Ordinance, the City has registered numerous STRs. As of May 2022, the City had 77 registered and compliant STRs. For comparison, HdL has identified a total of 103 active listings1 as of May 12, 2022, distributed throughout Pacifica as shown in Figure 1, below (blue dots are listings with identified properties, and yellow dots are listings in an approximate location but that are not yet associated with an identified property).
1 The number of active STR listings frequently changes as new properties are added and existing properties are removed by operators.
14 Packet Pg. 453
Pacifica City Council 3
June 13, 2022
Figure 1. Short-term rental (STR) locations in Pacifica Registration of STRs ensures collection of TOT, or Transient Occupancy Tax. The TOT is a tax charged on occupancies of less than 30 consecutive days. Collection of TOT from STRs since adoption of the Ordinance in 2018 has totaled approximately $1.2 million through June 30, 2021 (the end of FY 2020-2021), as summarized below in Table 1:

FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 Total
$248,947 $365,825 $592,205 $1,206,977
Table 1. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Collections from Short-term rentals (STRs) since 2018
The average daily rental rate for STRs in Pacifica is $236 and peak rental activity occurs in April, July/August, and December according to HdL’s data. HdL estimates that if all STRs that it has identified as active on the current market were brought into compliance, 14 Packet Pg. 454
Pacifica City Council 4
June 13, 2022
the City could be receiving approximately $742,000 per year in TOT collections from STRs based on the current number of listings and level of activity. It is important to keep in mind that the number of current STR listings and corresponding TOT collections are volatile and change frequently based on seasonality and local economic factors. Staff and HdL will continue monitoring the STR revenue activities to further refine the projection assumptions each quarter while bringing identified properties into compliance.

B. STRs and Housing Stock
As noted above, the City has identified 103 active STR listings within Pacifica, although this number can vary periodically. These STR listings are located throughout the City in a variety of neighborhoods and dwelling unit types (e.g., single-family residences, multifamily residences, condominiums, accessory dwelling units2 ), as summarized in Figure
2, below.

Figure 2. Short-term rental (STR) by housing unit type
More than two-thirds of STR listings offer the entire residential dwelling unit, with just over one-quarter renting only part of the residential dwelling unit. More than half of STRs in Pacifica are offered in studio or one-bedroom dwelling units, as shown in Figure 3, below. Three- and four-bedroom residential dwelling units make up slightly more than one-quarter of STR listings.

Figure 3. Short-term rental (STR) by bedroom count
The City of Pacifica has a total of 14,652 dwelling units3. Of these, three-quarters are single-family detached units, and only one-fifth are in buildings with three or more units, as further summarized in Figure 4, below4. The homeowner vacancy rate was 0.5 percent, while the renter vacancy rate was 1.5 percent, for a combined vacancy rate among all dwelling units of 3.0 percent5. Factoring in vacancy rates, approximately 14,212 dwelling units are occupied for use.
2 Rental of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) for a term of less than 30 consecutive days is prohibited pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code section 9-4.453(a)(6). 3 U.S. Census Bureau, Table H1 (2020).
4 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2015-2019. 5 Ibid.
14 Packet Pg. 455
Pacifica City Council 5
June 13, 2022
Figure 4. Pacifica Housing Stock by Dwelling Unit Type
Nearly half of Pacifica’s dwelling units have three bedrooms. There are roughly equal proportions of two- and four-bedroom units6. Studio units make up about 1 percent of dwelling units and one-bedroom units comprise about 10 percent of dwelling units. A summary of dwelling unit sizes is provided in Figure 5, below.

Figure 5. Pacifica Housing Stock by Bedroom Count
Overall, the 103 STRs identified by HdL comprise less than 1 percent of Pacifica’s total housing stock. Table 2 compares the number of active STRs in Pacifica to a selection of other coastal communities in the region:
6 Ibid.
14 Packet Pg. 456
Pacifica City Council 6
June 13, 2022
Community Number of
STRs
Number of
Total Dwelling
Units
STR as Proportion
of Total Dwelling
Units
Capitola 74 5,485 1.35%
Half Moon
Bay 47 4,833 0.97%
Pacific
Grove 92 8,121 1.1%
Pacifica 103 14,180 0.72%
Table 2. Number of Active Short-term Rentals (STRs) as share of total dwelling units in June 20227.

STRs are present throughout the city, although some degree of concentration appears to exist in the West Sharp Park and Pedro Point neighborhoods. Such concentrations may be expected given those neighborhoods’ proximity to large, easily accessible beaches.

Comparing the HdL data to Pacifica’s existing housing stock, there appears to be a disproportionate number of studio and one-bedroom units offered for rent as STRs.

While only comprising 11.5 percent of Pacifica’s housing stock, studio and one-bedroom units comprise 57 percent of STR listings. Multi-family residential units currently comprise a relatively small proportion of STR listings although HdL currently does not have data to indicate the number or proportion of multi-family residential buildings that may be operating entirely as STRs (i.e., discontinued use for long-term rentals). There also appears to be a sizable proportion of accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, among the currently active STR listings, contrary to the City’s Zoning Regulations, which warrants further analysis by staff.

C. Unpermitted STRs
While many STR operators have complied with the City’s regulations, there remains a number of unpermitted STRs operating in Pacifica. Some may be knowingly operating without registering with the City to avoid taxation, while others may simply be unaware of the requirement to register with the City. The Finance Division of the Administrative Services Department has engaged the consultant HdL to assist with administration of the STR program. HdL supports the business license tax, TOT, and STR permit registrations for operators. It also assists with investigation of identified STRs listed on various websites, apps, and other services to identify and contact the operators and advise them of the requirement to register with the City.

Since engaging HdL for STR administration services, it has identified approximately 26 potential operators that are unregistered with the City. City staff with HdL’s support is continuing to work towards 100 percent registration of all active STR operators.

Registration of unregistered STRs is important because it facilitates compliance with the guest safety standards of the Ordinance, ensures collection of TOT to fund important City services utilized by STR guests, creates a fairer cost comparison between STRs and hotel/motel lodging options, and provides the City with contact information for operators in the event of a concern. For these reasons, staff and HdL will continue its efforts in this regard.
7 U.S. Census Bureau, Table H1 (2020)
14 Packet Pg. 457
Pacifica City Council 7
June 13, 2022
D. Enforcement Activities
Staff consulted with the Police Chief and Code Enforcement Officer in preparation of this report to obtain a summary of enforcement activity associated with STRs. While most STRs have been operated without incident since adoption of the Ordinance, there have been a small number of STRs that have caused quality of life concerns or otherwise failed to comply with the operating requirements contained in the Ordinance.

In general, the number of STR complaints to the Police Department and Code Enforcement Division has been relatively low. The Police Department receives complaints about STRs infrequently while the Code Enforcement Division has only identified six STRs that required investigation and follow-up to achieve compliance.

Many complaints do not result in any identified violations, and appear related to neighbors disapproving of the operation of STRs in their neighborhoods. Other complaints have related mainly to overall neighborhood parking congestion rather than citable offenses for improper parking. Of complaints received, a common one relates to noise from music or parties. Most operators have resolved these issues within a few months of being contacted by the City. In some cases, the operators have installed devices within the STRs to monitor noise levels and to receive notifications from the device when noise levels exceed an established threshold.

Since adoption of the Ordinance, the City has found the need to initiate STR permit revocation proceedings for only one operator. The City has since revoked the permit and the residential dwelling unit has returned to use for long-term occupancy. Overall, most STR operators have complied with the City’s operating requirements or have promptly addressed violations after contact by the City.

E. Summary and Recommendation
The City’s STR program is still relatively new. The number of STRs is a small percentage of dwelling units, especially for a coastal community. There does not appear to be significant neighborhood problems or impacts to public health, safety, and welfare from STR operations, and the limited number of violations reported have been promptly resolved. For these reasons, and due to staffing limitations in the Planning Department and numerous high-priority planning projects, the City Manager does not recommend undertaking modifications to the Ordinance at this time.

Staff will continue to gather data on the number and types of STRs, their relationships with other residential dwelling units, and best practices of other local agencies with respect to balancing operation of STRs with public health, safety, and welfare. In addition, staff will continue its efforts with the assistance of expert consultants to identify unregistered STRs to bring them into compliance with the Ordinance and all applicable tax and other regulations. Staff will also continue to monitor the STR program to determine if modifications to the Ordinance may be required in the future, and will begin steps to assess, and enforce as necessary, the situation with respect to ADUs being offered as STRs.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

None identified.
14 Packet Pg. 458
Pacifica City Council 8
June 13, 2022
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
• “Fiscal Sustainability” The City’s efforts to ensure registration of all STRs should increase tax revenues in a manner consistent with this City Council Goal. • “An Engaged Community” Consideration of the STR program in a public forum expands public participation in a manner consistent with this City Council Goal. • “A Healthy and Compassionate Community” Evaluating the relationship of STRs to the City’s housing stock is consistent with this City Council Goal.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Actions to ensure registration of all STRs will increase collection of the City’s business license and transient occupancy taxes. These collections should have a net positive impact on the City’s revenues after considering enforcement costs.

ORIGINATED BY:

Planning Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:
14 Packet Pg. 459

CITY OF PACIFICA

COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
6/13/2022
1 SUBJECT:

FY 2022-2023 Program Options and Proposed Budget
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Hold public hearing and review and discuss the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Proposed General Fund and Other Funds Budget and provide additional policy direction on the desired budget options and strategies for the upcoming FY 2022-23 Budget
STAFF CONTACT:

Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
[email protected]
650-738-7409
Yulia Carter, Chief Financial Sustainability Officer
[email protected]
650-738-7301
BACKGROUND:

Each year, the City of Pacifica adopts an annual operating budget that reflects the planned activities for the next fiscal year based on the best information available at the time of adoption.

At mid-year, staff revisits the projections and reports to the Council any changes that are needed to reflect new information and keep the City budget on track.

The City Council adopted the current FY 2021-22 Budget on June 28, 2021, which reflected the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic and included the projected pandemic-induced losses in revenue. On March 14, 2022, staff presented the FY2021-22 Midyear Budget analysis, which showed the budget was on track. During the mid-year budget review, the Council authorized additional adjustments to the FY 2021-22 Budget that included factoring-in salary savings and replenishing some General Fund reserves.

On April 11, 2022, staff presented the Narrative Budget report outlining the Budget planning process, methodology, timeline, and long-term financial forecast and provided the City Manager’s recommended budget strategies. The City's long-term financial forecast continues to project an ongoing structural deficit. Therefore, staff proposed using the modified zero-based budget methodology, a systematic financial management strategy commonly used by local governments to help achieve more cost-effective delivery of public services, which was discussed at length during the meeting.

On May 23, 2022, staff presented the General Fund Base Budget, preliminary position recommendations, Master Fee Schedule and Proposed Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2022- 23 and received City Council feedback for development of the Recommended Budget options, which is the subject for this report. Since the last meeting, staff prepared the Proposed FY 2022-23 Budget for all other city funds including recommended Capital Improvement Program 15 Packet Pg. 460
Pacifica City Council 2
June 13, 2022
for the upcoming FY 2022-23 Budget.

The primary focus of today’s discussion is to provide Council with the recommended program options for the FY 2021-22 Proposed Budget and get additional policy direction for any additional inclusions in the budget prior to the adoption at the next meeting.

Adjustments to the Base Budget
Staff also made a few minor adjustments to the General Fund baseline budget to include some refinements related to the previously approved second year ARPA budget allocations.

Returned ERAF Revenues
At the last meeting, staff discussed the proposed trailer bill language published by the Department of Finance in connection with the Proposed Budget that was designed to harm cities by permanently “capping” the ERAF funds that would be returned to them (after schools have been fully funded) and, instead, use these local revenues to pay the State’s in-Lieu Vehicle License Fee (VLF) backfill obligations. The San Mateo County’s City Managers and Finance Directors, as well as cities, have prepared strong opposition letters to the Returned ERAF trailer bill language as both VLF backfill and Returned ERAF are due to the local agencies.

The recently-released joint legislative budget agreement received by staff since the last Council meeting recommended that the excess (returned) ERAF/VLF shortfall trailer bill be rejected and the FY2019-20 VLF shortfall backfill be approved. This is good news and the result of the Cities’ individual and collective advocacy efforts, that resulted in successful reversal of the trailer bill with the strong leadership of the County’s state delegation.

Staff reversed the negative budget impact of $216,000 from the proposed cap that was previously reported in Disaster Accounting Fund (Fund 38). The FY 2022-23 Recommended Budget adds back this amount to the Disaster Accounting Fund revenues. Staff will continue to monitor any new development on this matter. Unfortunately reversing this trailer bill doesn’t take care of the growing VLF shortfall issue for future years, so the long-term solution will need to be developed in the future.

City Manager’s Recommendations for the FY 2022-23 Budget The goal of any budget process is to develop the City's Budget by completing a full analysis of the City's revenue structure and current service level to identify necessary service increase and/or reduction options, which, when combined, will reach a balanced and sustainable budget. 15 Packet Pg. 461
Pacifica City Council 3
June 13, 2022
Economic recovery continues to be one of the prime goals and objectives for the upcoming year. At the last budget meeting, staff presented the Base Budget with and without factoring in the one-time ARPA revenues. The Base Budget showed the operating surplus of approximately $1.9 million when the full ARPA revenues were taken into account. However, when the ARPA revenues were backed out, the Base Budget showed a structural deficit of $2.7 million at the Base Budget level before any additional options further described in this report.

Since last meeting each City Department was given an opportunity to submit their budget requests in their priority order of importance with the reference to the Council’s goals and priorities. Knowing the challenges of the City’s long-term financial outlook and projected future base budget deficit, all department directors knew going into the budget process that the prospects for funding new programs and initiatives not mandated by law, funded by outside sources or that result in recovery of the City’s revenue base would be challenging to achieve.

The Recommended Budget is balanced and includes new programs and services recommended for funding in the FY 2022-23. However, staff recognizes that some of these options may not be sustainable beyond the upcoming budget if the local economy and the City’s revenue base does not improve in future years.

In developing budget recommendations for service changes, the City Manager had to balance the knowledge of future revenue shortfall with the Council’s overall strategic vision, staffing capacity, and impacts on the City operations and services provided to the community. The goal of this process was to identify necessary and required service change options, which in combination will reach a balanced and sustainable budget, and to achieve a balanced budget while preserving as much of City services as possible. To this end, the City Manager reviewed department requests and formulated a packaged budget recommendation of enhancements for the Council’s consideration as later presented in this report and in Attachments 1-6.

The City Manager identified the following priority groups for his ranking of the recommended Budget options:

Priority A - Non-discretionary / Legal / Safety Matters Priority B - Recruitments / Retention / Capacity
Priority C - Organizational / Financial/Planning Efficiency Staff structured the Preliminary Budget Recommendations in these categories: 1) Additional programs and initiatives, 2) Programs funded under the American Rescue Plan Act; 3) Revenue Enhancements; and 4) Recommended Budget Transfers

1. Additional programs included in the General Fund budget (Attachment 2).

At the last meeting, staff presented a preliminary list of position recommendations that the City Manager recommended to include in the upcoming FY 2022-23 General Fund Budget. Staff completed the costing and included those changes per Council direction provided at the last meeting. All together there are 19 recommended budget options included in the FY 2022-23 Recommended Budget for Council consideration.

Priority A - Non-discretionary / Legal / Safety Matters

1. Anticipated additional legal work related to the upcoming labor negotiations. All employment contracts expire on June 30, 2023 and the negotiations work will have to commence no later than January, 2023. - $100,000

2. Additional Contractual Services to ensure OSHA and other Safety Compliance - $30,000

3. Additional budget allocation for citywide election - $90,000

4. New Fire Station Alerting System Implementation - $28,000

5. Housing Element Update - $20,000

6. ADA Transition Plan Update - $160,000
Priority B - Recruitments / Retention / Capacity

7. Reorganization of the City Manager’s Office - $160,900 15 Packet Pg. 462
Pacifica City Council 4
June 13, 2022

8. Additional professional services budget allocation to increase the capacity of Human Resources Department by outsourcing recruitment and other HR services - $100,000

9. Child Care Staffing Adjustments and Reorganization - No fiscal impact as an additional expense is fully offset by increased reimbursements.

10. Reclassification of Recreation Coordinator to Recreation Supervisor - $21,410

11. Reclassification of Associate Engineer to Project Manager - $12,050

12. Reclassification of Ranger to Lead Ranger - $5,693
Priority C - Organizational / Financial/Planning Efficiency

13. Ongoing Unfunded Pension Liability Allocation to PARS Trust to reach the desired funding policy threshold of 85% funded status in 20 years - $167,500

14. Additional Budget for Citywide Records Management and Scanning Services - $35,000

15. Additional contract for part-time hourly help with Helpdesk tickets in IT Department - $35,000

16. Partially restore the Building Repair & Maintenance Emergency Fund in Fire Department - $30,000

17. Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update - $40,000

18. Rockaway Beach Specific Plan Update - $40,000

2. Programs funded under the American Rescue Plan Act included in the FY 2022-23 (Attachment 2).

19. Additional Two-Year Limited- Term Records Clerk Position in Police Department - $120,500

20. Addition of Two-Year Limited- Term Sr. Accountant / Project Manager Position - 179,590

21. Business Assistance Allocation for Shop Pacifica Program - $50,000

3. Revenue Enhancements included in the FY 2022-23 (Attachment 4).

22. Additional Grant and Federal Revenue Reimbursements in PB&R - $504,853

4. New Budget Transfers included in the FY 2022-23 (Attachment 5).

23. Restoring Annual Contribution to the Vehicle Replacement Fund - $100,000

24. Creating a New Fire Equipment Replacement Fund with ongoing annual allocation.

There is no fiscal impact for this option as it just represents different accounting practice that will replace the former allocation towards Capital Outlay included in the Base Budget with the transfer in the new Fire Equipment Replacement Fund Additional information about these budget options could be found in Attachments 2-5 to this report.

Projected Fund Balance Structure and Budgetary Reserves The Proposed FY 2022-23 Operating and Capital Budget is being presented as a balanced budget, meaning that the City’s operating expenditures do not exceed general revenues.

At the last meeting staff reported that the City’s FY 2022-23 Budget will be largely balanced by the use of ARPA funds. The eased reporting requirements for small agencies now allow for more flexibility in the use of these funds. Staff has also reported projected future structural deficit of approximately $2.7 million at the current baseline level of services without applying ARPA relief funds. A structural deficit exists when the general revenues can no longer support operating expenditures without applying additional budget strategies to balance the Budget.

This means that the City budget in the future years (beyond the upcoming FY2022-23) will neither be sustainable, nor compliant with the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) best practices unless the City’s revenue base changes or substantial programmatic changes are made in the FY 2023-24 Budget to balance.

If all program options identified in this report are approved by City Council, the General Fund will project a small ending surplus of about $3,000, and will maintain all previously approved reserves which is necessary for fiscal and operational sustainability. 15 Packet Pg. 463
Pacifica City Council 5
June 13, 2022
After factoring in the above-mentioned budget options the General Fund Base Budget revenues and transfers are projected at $47.3 million, including the $4.6 million General Fund portion of ARPA funds. The total General expenditures and transfers out are also budgeted at $47.3, which includes a one-time contribution of $655,000 towards the FY 2022-23 CIP Budget.

The table below demonstrates the Net change to the General Fund Balance.

After applying all changes described above and recognizing ARPA relief funds and programming a portion of it for the FY 2022-23 General Fund Budget, the Proposed General Fund Budget will have approximately $3,000 surplus, leaving about $5.4 million in the Unassigned General Fund Balance, which is about 12% of the City’s Operating expenditures in addition to 10% or $4.7 million policy reserves.

The City’s Fund Balance Policy identifies fund balances (or reserves) which fall into the following categories: non-spendable items or portions of fund balance that cannot be liquidated, restricted amounts for use by outside agencies, committed amounts by Council action such as emergency /contingency reserves and assigned balances to pay off unfunded liabilities and to fund infrastructure improvements.

In accordance with GASB Statement No. 54 requirements and the City policy, the Council established the following designations or contingencies of General Fund Committed Balance. ➢ Budget Shortfall Policy Reserve of 10% of Expenditures ($4.7 million) ➢ Facilities Maintenance & Replacement ($0.55 million) - a one-time policy reduction of $150,000 for Station 71 CIP project planned for the FY 2022-23 ➢ Compensated Absences Reserve ($0.2 million)
➢ Child Care Reserve ($0.5 million)
➢ Legal Reserves ($0.1 million)
The General Fund balances for the FY 2022-23 Recommended Budget are detailed in the table below. If all options presented in this report are approved by the Council, the City will have a balanced FY 2022-23 Budget with an undesignated General Fund Balance of $5.4 million. 15 Packet Pg. 464
Pacifica City Council 6
June 13, 2022
Maintaining a sufficient level of the projected ending fund balance is necessary for fiscal and operational sustainability. It is especially critical in the current uncertain economic situation when the City projects a long-term structural deficit in the future years if the City’s revenue base does not change.

After factoring-in the restricted reserves and operating contingency the ending undesignated General Fund balance is projected at $5.4 million or 12% of the General Fund operating expenditures (excluding one-time and capital transfers), which is lower than the Government Finance Officers Association of the US and Canada (GFOA) recommendation for government entities of no less than two months of regular general fund operating expenditures, which is approximately $7.8 million for the City of Pacifica in FY2022-23. However, if combined with the 10% Budget Shortfall reserve of $4.7 million mentioned above, the General Fund reserves exceed the minimum-recommended threshold and are compliant with the GFOA guidelines.

Other Funds
Staff used the same basic assumptions for all other funds to factor-in 2% cost of living increase to most contract and professional services categories and 1.5% for materials and supply categories. The summary of Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances for all of the City’s fund categories is shown in the table below and further described in Attachment 7.

Enterprise Funds consist of the Wastewater Operating and Capital and Beach Parking Funds.

Enterprise funds are used for services that are financed and operated in a manner similar to a private business enterprise. The FY 2022-23 total enterprise funds budget is $28.3 million, 15 Packet Pg. 465
Pacifica City Council 7
June 13, 2022
which is 28.3% of the City’s overall budget. Sewer funds are used to account for sewage collection, treatment, major replacements, and maintenance and protection improvements to the sewer system. Sewer charges of $18.6 million are based on a 3.5% rate increase in FY 2022-

23. The sewer operating expenditures include the same inflationary base budget assumptions.

The Salaries and Benefit costs of approximately $5.4 million are based on 14 FTE allocated to the Sewer Fund and include all current MOU provisions.

The Recommended FY 2022-23 Budget includes the following program additions further described in Attachment 6.

1. Reclassification of a Senior Engineer to Engineering Manager Position - $9,534

2. Addition of a part-time Operator in Training Program - $35,000

3. Addition of an Assistant / Associate Engineer Position - $201,389 The Beach Parking Fund is used to account for parking services to residents and visitors. The revenues are projected at $0.7 million, which is in-line with the FY 2021-22 Revised Budget Special Revenue and Capital Funds are used to account for specific revenue sources or financial resources for which expenditures are restricted by law or administrative action to specific purposes. This Category includes Gas Tax and Streets Funds, General Capital, Drainage, Housing in-lieu, Parking in-Lieu, Park in-Lieu, PB&R Special Revenue and Roy Davies Trust, Disaster Accounting, and other funds.

The FY 2022-23 revenues for this category is $19 million and includes revised estimates for the Returned ERAF revenues in the Disaster Accounting Fund per the most recent information. This is an increase of $216,730 as described above. Also included in this category is an increase in Gas Tax revenues of $0.2 million and another $0.2 million in Street Maintenance Fund to account for the new Impact Fees. The FY 2022-23 expenditures of $18.6 million for this Category represent around 19% of the City's total budget and include the recommended FY 2022-23 CIP Budget allocation.

Internal Service Funds serve the needs of the City and are used to account for Citywide services on a cost-reimbursement basis. These funds accommodate vehicle, employee benefits, and risk management needs of the City and are supported by the funds that receive benefit. The FY 2022-23 budget for this category is $3 million, which is 3% of the City’s budget.

The Motor Pool Replacement Fund receives a transfer of $100,000 from the General Fund as described above and in the attached Budget Form.

The Debt Service Fund is used to account for all ongoing debt payment obligations. The FY 2022-23 Budget of $2.9 million factors-in all debt service payment obligations according to the current debt service schedules and includes the payment on the Pension Obligation Refunding Bonds. Staff also factored-in additional allocation to the Debt Service Fund to account for the future payment on financing Civic Center improvement project. The Debt Service Fund represents around 3% of the City’s total budget.

Additional details on any individual funds and their projected fund balances could be found in Attachment 7.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION:

The City Council is being asked to provide input and direction on the FY2022-23 Proposed Budget. No alternative action is identified.
15 Packet Pg. 466
Pacifica City Council 8
June 13, 2022
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:

A balanced and structurally sustainable budget is consistent with all of the City Council goals.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Because the recommendation is to review and discuss budget options, there is no direct fiscal impact associated with this item.

ATTACHMENT LIST:

1. Summary of FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options

2. FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources

3. FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - ARPA-Funded Additional Resources

4. FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Revenue Enhancements

5. FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Budget Transfers

6. FY 2022-23 Recommended Wastewater Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources

7. FY 2022-23 Projected Fund Balance Schedule
ORIGINATED BY:

Finance Department
ATTACHMENT LIST:

Attachment 1 - Summary of FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options (PDF) Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (PDF)
Attachment 3 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - ARPA-Funded Additional Resources (PDF)
Attachment 4 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Revenue Enhancements (PDF)
Attachment 5 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Budget Transfers (PDF)
Attachment 6 - FY 2022-23 Recommended Wastewater Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (PDF)
Attachment 7 - FY 2022-23 Projected Fund Balance Schedule (PDF) 15 Packet Pg. 467

GENERAL FUND
FY 2022-23

GENERAL FUND
FY 2022-23
Base Recommended
Beginning Fund Balance 15,841,009 15,841,009
Revenue 44,248,032 45,245,363
Expenditures (42,387,025) (44,171,846)
Transfers In 2,029,900 2,029,900
Transfers Out (2,212,081) (2,445,381)
Capital Transfer Out (655,000) (655,000)
Ending Fund Balance 16,864,835 15,844,045
Structural Surplus/(Deficit) incl Capital Transfers                3,03 1,023,826                          6 Ending Fund Balance              15,844,04 16,864,835               5 Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Expenses 38% 34%
Undesignated Fund Balance as % of Operating Expenses 15% 12% Total FY 2023 Adjustments (Y) 1,020,790
Total Not Recommended Options (Not Y) 240,585
Total Options 1,261,375 $
Dept
CM
PR
Dp
PR
Onetime Description
Program Change
Increase to GF
Budget
Impact to General
Fund
Administration - HR YA2 x Additional Legal Work Related to Labor Negotiations 100,000 Administration - HR YA3 Safety Contractual Services to ensure OSHA Compliance (Du-All Safety) 30,000 30,000 Administration - City Clerk YA1 x Additional Budget for citywide election 90,000 Fire YA1 New Fire Station Alerting System Implementation 28,000 28,000 Planning YA1 x Housing Element Update 20,000
Planning YA3 x ADA Transition Plan Update 160,000
Administration - CM YB1 Reorganization of the City Manager's Office 160,900 160,900 Administration - HR YB4 Additional prof. services budget for recruitment (incl. Exec. Recruitment) and other HR 100,000 100,000 PB&R Y B1 Child Care Staffing Adjustments and Reorg 309,029 - PB&R Y B2 Reclass Rec. Coordinator to Rec. Supervisor 21,410 21,410 Public Works Y B1 Reclass Associate Engineer to Project Manager 12,050 12,050 Public Works Y B2 Reclass Ranger to Lead Ranger 5,693 5,693 Administration - Finance Y C 2 Unfunded Pension Liability Funding Policy (85% funded status in 20 years) 167,500 167,500 Administration - City Clerk Y C 2 x Additional Budget for Citywide Records Management/Scanning Services 35,000 Administration - IT Y C 1 Additional contract or Part-time help with Helpdesk tickets (PD) 35,000 35,000 Fire Y C 2 Restore Building Repair & Maintenance Emergency Fund 30,000 30,000 Planning Y C 2 x Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update 40,000 Planning Y C 5 x Rockaway Beach Specific Plan Update 40,000 -
-
Police Y B1 x Additional Records Clerk Position - 2 year limited-term ARPA 120, 500 Administration - Finance YB1 x New Sr. Accountant Position ERP - 2 year limited-term ARPA 179,5 90 Administration - Ec. Development YC1 x Business Assistance - Shop Pacifica Program Promotion - ARPA 50, 000 -
-
PB&R Y C 1 Additional Revenue Estimates for Child Care, Senior and Recreational Services (504,853) -
-
Public Works Y C3 Restoring Annual Contribution to the Vehicle Replacement Fund 1 100,000 00,000 Fire Y C1 Create the Fire Equipment Replacement Fund with annual allocation (cost-neutral as offset by Cap Outlay - FY 2022-23 GENERAL FUND PROGRAM OPTIONS
ADDITIONAL RESOURCE REQUESTS:

ARPA FUNDED
REVENUE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMS:

BUDGET TRANSFER OPTIONS:

15.a
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Summary of FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program Options and FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: Administration – HR – GL Acct: 01.220240.52828.0000.000 REQUEST TITLE: Additional Legal Work Related to Labor Negotiations Request Summary
With the labor contracts expiring in June, 2023, an additional allocation towards the legal cost will be required to successfully renegotiate and close all labor agreements.

Impact of Change
Strategic workforce planning is the essential link between municipal services that the City desires to deliver to its citizens, with the City’s human capital. The City’s labor agreements are expiring on June 30, 2023.

Given the complexity and the large number of bargaining groups, the new round of labor negotiations will have to start no later than January, 2023 to meet and confer in good faith to reach new agreements regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment by July 1, 2023.

Alternatives
There is no reasonable alternative to this request. The new labor agreements will have to be negotiated and the professional legal help will be needed. The Council may consider using specialized services for labor negotiations rather than the City’s legal team which could be slightly less expensive.

Cost Summary
Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Labor Negotiation 01 220240 52828 100,000
Total Operating Costs 100,000
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Net Operating Costs 100,000
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 2 Fiscal Sustainability ☒
City Manager Priority A An Engaged Community ☐
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☐
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☒
☐ On-going (Annual) ☒ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: Administration – HR – GL Acct: 01.240220.52800.0000.000 REQUEST TITLE: Safety Contractual Services to ensure OSHA Compliance (Du-All Safety) Request Summary
We are proposing to add professional safety services to the City of Pacifica team. Services include: safety inspections, chemical safety, written OSHA program assessments/development, hands-on OSHA training, online safety training, online safety consulting and webinars, environmental health permits, hazardous waste training & OSHA certification, hazardous materials business plans, etc.

We are requesting additional consulting support for the FY2022-23.

Adding these professional services will eliminate the cost of benefit and can be project specific. They will provide safety training to all Department through the coordination of the HR Department.

Alternatives
Alternatives to this request include not funding, or funding below the proposed amount.

Cost Summary
The cost for labor negotiations last year was approximately $30,000.

Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Safety Consulting 01 240220 52800 30,000
Total Operating Costs 30,000
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Net Operating Costs 30,000
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 3 Fiscal Sustainability ☒
City Manager Priority A An Engaged Community ☒
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☒
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☒
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☒
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: Administration - City Clerk – GL Acct: 01.200210.52331.0000.000 REQUEST TITLE: General Municipal Election Expenses projected for November 2022 Election Request Summary
November 2022 represents a regular general municipal election cycle for the City of Pacifica. There will be three City Council district seats up for election and the City is planning to place two measures on the ballot for the November 2022 regular general municipal election. Based on estimated election costs received from the San Mateo County Elections Division, an estimate total expenditure of $160,000 is projected for the City’s expenses related to the November 2022 election. The FY 2021-22 base budget included $70,000 for elections expenses related to the redistricting process based on the 2020 U.S.

Census data. The additional expenses necessary for the FY22-23 budget above last year’s election budget will be $90,000. While the City has some discretion on placing city-initiated measures on the ballot, the election for City Council seats is a mandated cost that must be borne in the regular even-year election cycles.

Factors Driving the Request for Change
 Regular City Council municipal election cycle.
 Placement of a proposed revenue measure on the ballot for Fiscal Sustainability of the City to address projected structural budget deficit.
 Placement of a proposed advisory measure on the ballot to gauge citizen interest in amendments related to prohibition of safe and sane fireworks.

Alternatives
Alternative options include City Council direction to not place city-initiated measures on the ballot for the November 2022 election. This would require a deviation from previous direction received from City Council. There is no alternative to the regular election for City Council district seats, as that is a mandated action.

Cost Summary
 Total estimated expense = $160,000
 Estimated additional expense above the FY21-22 base budget = $90,000 Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Election Expense 01 200210 52331 90,000
Total Operating Costs 90,000
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Net Operating Costs 90,000
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 1 Fiscal Sustainability ☒
City Manager Priority A An Engaged Community ☒
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☒
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☒
☐ On-going (Annual) ☒ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: Fire – GL Acct: 01.600630.52800.0000.000
REQUEST TITLE: New Fire Station Alerting System Implementation Request Summary
Because the current station alerting system is old, outdated and parts have become unavailable, we are putting in service a new Fire Station Alerting System this year and there are costs for monitoring, servicing, licensing, and support along with the ATT fiber optic lines to make it operational. This new system will cost $28,000 per year and will improve response times and increase firefighter health benefits through effortless programmable alerting options and will last several years Factors Driving the Request for Change
The system is in its final stages of implementation and should be ready for operation in the next couple of months. If approved, the City would have a state of the art Fire Station Alerting System that is a more compliant industry standard alerting system. The impact of this change will be measured by seeing increased dispatch and response times.

Alternatives
There are no safe or viable alternatives since the system is replacing the old legacy system that is outdated and unable to find replacement parts for.

Cost Summary
The cost could go up with vendor initiated increases in the coming years. Compared to current costs, it is a larger cost but appropriate for the type of system.

Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 01 600630 52800 28,000
Total Operating Costs 28,000
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Net Operating Costs 28,000
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 1 Fiscal Sustainability ☐
City Manager Priority A An Engaged Community ☐
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☒
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☐
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: Planning – GL Acct: 01.660711.52828.0000.000
REQUEST TITLE: Housing Element Update
Request Summary
Hire a consultant to assist staff with community engagement and technical work to update the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan for the planning period 2023-2031.

Factors Driving the Request for Change
State law requires the City to update its Housing Element every eight years. The current Housing Element covers the period through January 2023. The City must adopt a Housing Element update by January 2023 in order to comply with state law.

Alternatives
There is no viable alternative. Failure to update the Housing Element as required by state law may subject the City to litigation risk and loss of eligibility for certain grant funding.

Cost Summary
This is a new activity that was not in prior year’s budget.

Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Consultant Expense 01 660711 52800 83,449
City Attorney Expense 01 660711 52828 20,000
Total Operating Costs 103,449
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues LEAP Grant (33,449) REAP Grant (50,000)
Net Operating Costs 20,000
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 1 Fiscal Sustainability ☒
City Manager Priority A An Engaged Community ☒
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☒
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☒
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☒
☐ On-going (Annual) ☒ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: Planning – GL Acct: 01.660711.52800.0000.000
REQUEST TITLE: ADA Transition Plan Update
Request Summary
Hire a consultant to update the City’s ADA Transition Plan including a physical assessment of City facilities. This is a legal requirement for the City and an important risk management process to reduce liability for ADA access lawsuits.

Factors Driving the Request for Change (section to be completed for additions only) The City has experienced multiple ADA access lawsuits. An updated ADA Transition Plan will identify City facilities requiring ADA access upgrades and enable continuation of the capital program to upgrade those facilities. An updated ADA Transition Plan will allow the City to focus programmatically on priority ADA access upgrades to improve access and reduce liability.

Alternatives
Continue with the City’s current ADA Transition Plan which will limit the City’s ability to make targeted ADA access investments.

Cost Summary
Transition Plan Update will reduce the City’s ADA liability to some degree.

Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Consultant Expense 01 660711 52800 150,000
City Attorney Expense 01 660711 52828 10,000
Total Operating Costs 160,000
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Net Operating Costs 160,000
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 3 Fiscal Sustainability ☒
City Manager Priority A An Engaged Community ☐
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☒
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☒
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☒
☐ On-going (Annual) ☒ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: GL Code – Admin – CM Office
REQUEST TITLE: City Manager’s Office Reorganization
Request Summary
With the recent departure of the Assistant City Manager/Planning Director, the ongoing vacancy of the Executive Assistant/Deputy City Clerk (currently back-filled with temporary assistance), and the increasing demands on the City Clerk and Records function in the City Manager’s Office, the City Manager has evaluated potential reorganization changes and will continue developing specific recommendations and budget impacts related to this reorganization that will be coming forward to Council once fully developed.

Impact of Change
This request will result in a new organizational structure in Administration, Economic Development, and Planning departments to ensure efficient and functional delivery of these services. This action will position the City Manager’s Office and Planning Department to meet the increased demands internally and externally, maximize effectiveness, enhance service outcomes and promote transparency.

Administration
This action will include replacing the existing Executive Assistant/Deputy City Clerk combined position with two separate full-time positions (Executive Assistant and Deputy City Clerk). The City conducted several unsuccessful recruitments to fill the Executive Assistant/Deputy City Clerk position. This process revealed the need to divide this position into two due to the distinct nature of the job and skillset. In addition to handling day-to-day administrative matters, the Executive Assistant position will also be tasked with communication, complex reporting, and risk management duties. At the same time, the Deputy City Clerk will provide critical backup to the City Clerk function, records management, public record requests, and various Council liaison services, which becomes especially critical during an election year.

Planning and Economic Development
After the Assistant City Manager/Planning Director position became vacant, City Manager re-evaluated options for the reorganization and reassignment of duties. This action includes restoring the Planning Director position with a prime focus on leading the Planning Department's strategic goals and priorities.

The Assistant City Manager's duties will be restructured to focus on finance and administrative services, as well as oversight of the economic development function. This action will require the restoration of the Economic Development Manager position to assume the day-to-day operations for the Economic Development program and provide assistance in the future execution of recommendations from the Economic Opportunities Study that is currently being conducted as part of the Vision 2025 & Beyond Strategic Financial Sustainability Study.

These additional positions are being requested as part of the position control for the FY 2022-23 Budget.

In addition, the City Manager is currently working on identifying other program options and potential savings to partially offset the increased cost of changes in these departments.

Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 1 Fiscal Sustainability ☒
City Manager Priority B An Engaged Community ☒
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☐
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☒
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 Base Budget Expense Amendment Page 2 of 2
Although, these program options are not fully developed yet, the estimated program savings are included in the Recommended Budget. Staff will bring any necessary changes forward for Council approval in the upcoming weeks and will revisit the Program savings estimates at Mid-year Budget review if needed.

Alternatives
Make no action on this budget request or act on any portion of this request as listed in the table below.

Cost Summary
Staffing for new positions is costed upon the top step, fully burdened annual cost at monthly salary rates set as an average for the City’s pre-negotiated list of comparison agencies. Based on the City’s current practices, most appointments are made at the mid-range salary scale, and the actual annual cost is likely to be lower in the first few years of the position being filled.

Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Add of Executive Assistant Position 01 149,580
Add of Deputy City Clerk Position 01 150,954
Restore Planning Director Position 01 269,187
Restore Econ. Development Mgr Position 01 199,854
Total Operating Costs 769,575
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Elim. Vacant Exec. Assistant/Deputy City Clerk Position -147,675 Other Proj. Program Savings in Planning and Admin Departments -461,000 Net Operating Costs 160,900

15.b
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: Administration – HR – GL Acct: 01.240220.51200.0000.000 REQUEST TITLE: Executive Recruitment Contractual Services Request Summary
We are proposing to add professional Recruiter Firm services to the City of Pacifica team. We will be needing to utilize contractual services for an executive recruiting firm to fill executive searches when the opening presents itself. In addition, the City may need to outsource some of the recruitment workload due to not having enough capacity in the HR division. The HR team has several projects that will require attention such as ERP implementation, labor negotiations, various policies and procedures, open enrollment benefit for 2023, wellness program in addition to the day-to-day operations.

Cost Summary
Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Professional Executive Recruiting Firm 01 240220 51200 100,000 Total Operating Costs 100,000
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Net Operating Costs 100,000
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 3 Fiscal Sustainability ☒
City Manager Priority B An Engaged Community ☒
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☒
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☒
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☒
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM:

REQUEST TITLE:

PB&R – GL Acct: 01.800900 – across various accounts – 800910, 800911, 800912, 800913, 800914, 800937
Child Care Staffing Adjustments and Reorganization
Request Summary
Child Care Teachers: Adding three full-time child care teachers (previously approved by Council, but put on hold due to pandemic impacts) beginning FY 22-23 will strengthen and support staffing levels as well as allow the enrollment of more children from the current waiting list. The estimated cost of $289,440 would be offset by program revenues of the allowable increased enrollment.

Child Care Assistant Supervisor to Child Care Supervisor: Currently, the City's child care program has only one Supervisor position, which is focused on the administrative side of the program. Given the increasing complexity of child care, including the recent and proposed staff expansion, the program warrants an equivalent supervisor position focused on the operational side of the program. This is proposed to begin in FY 22-23 with an estimated cost of $13,980 and would be offset by revenues of the allowable increased enrollment.

Site Coordinator to Senior Child Care Coordinator: The Site Coordinator series warrants a higher-level classification that adds supportive administrative, project management, and leadership responsibilities to the series and creates development opportunities within the series and succession planning related to the Child Care Supervisor role. It will also provide support to operations in light of the recent and proposed staff expansions. This is proposed to begin in FY 22-23 with an estimated cost of $5,609 and would be offset by revenues of the allowable increased enrollment.

Factors Driving the Request for Change (section to be completed for additions only) For several years prior to the pandemic, it has been quite difficult to recruit, hire and retain the part-time staff needed to satisfy program operational needs and to maintain required ratios. This has forced the hiring of staff members through temporary agencies in order to meet compliance standards. These challenges have continued post-pandemic. In order to address this problem, City Council previously approved the addition of several child care teacher positions, the hiring for which was put on hold due to pandemic impacts on the child care program. The program is now ramping back up to allow more children into the program off the waiting this. This requires hiring these additional teachers, which are projected to be budget neutral due to increased child care revenues for being able to enroll more children. In addition, in order to support the increase in staff and enrollment there is a need for reorganization of the administration in order to strengthen program operations and staffing.

These changes will facilitate, at minimum, the enrollment of at least 70 children from the waiting list, supporting local families in need of our services.

The alternative would not allow for expansion of the program and the subsequent revenue that would come with it. There would be more children on the waiting list for longer periods of time for families in need of child care and loss of opportunity for organizational efficiencies and succession planning.

Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 1 Fiscal Sustainability ☒
City Manager Priority B An Engaged Community ☐
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☐
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☒
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☒
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 Base Budget Expense Amendment Page 2 of 2
Cost Summary
The total cost is $309,029 annually. It is a significant increase. There are offsetting revenues. Revenue is conservatively estimated as a minimum increase of 70 children. Staff anticipates we will likely be able to enroll more children.

Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
3 full time Child Care Lead Teachers
Teacher 1 - 70% 0910, 30% 0912 01 varies 51200 96,480
Teacher 2 - 70% 0910, 30% 0912 01 varies 51200 96,480
Teacher 3 - 60% 0911, 40% 0914 01 varies 51200 96,480
Increase/Reclass CC Ass. Sup. To Supervisor 01 varies 51200 13,980 Increase/Reclass CC Coord. To CC Ass. Sup 01 varies 51200 5,609 Total Operating Costs 309,029
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Child Care - CC-Non-Contract Fees 01 48638 (342,689)
Net Operating Costs (33,660)

15.b
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: PB&R – GL Acct: 01.800 – spread throughout Recreation Accounts 800800, 8008105, 800810, 800820, 800850, 800860, 800869, 800870 REQUEST TITLE: Recreation Coordinator to Recreation Supervisor Request Summary
Recreation Coordinator to Recreation Supervisor: Beginning in FY 22-23, reclassifying this position will strengthen the management of the department/division while promoting succession and retention at a cost of $21,410. While there are no direct offsetting revenues, it is expected that this move will increase efficiencies which will assist in program revenue generation.

Factors Driving the Request for Change
With the promotion of our former Recreation Assistant Supervisor to the Senior Services Supervisor position, the recreation division is in need of senior level position. In order to support the business needs of the department and division as well as to promote retention and provide an opportunity for succession planning, the reclassifying/promoting of a Recreation Coordinator to a Supervisor will fit more appropriately to the job duties and hierarchy of the department.

Alternatives
The alternative would not support the business needs of the department/division or needed retention and succession planning.

Cost Summary
The total cost is $21,410. Compared to current costs, it is a slight increase in budget. There are no direct offsetting revenues, however, the department will be making significant revenue increases over the projected base budget.

Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Increase/Reclass Rec Coord. To Supervisor 01 varies 51200 21,410 Total Operating Costs 21,410
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Rec revenue increase from base 01 varies (21,410)
Net Operating Costs -
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 2 Fiscal Sustainability ☒
City Manager Priority B An Engaged Community ☐
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☐
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☒
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☒
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: Public Works- Engineering – GL Acct: Salaries – Regular and Benefits REQUEST TITLE: Reclassify Associate Civic Engineer to Project Manager Request Summary
Coastal engineering expertise, grant procurement expertise, Capital Improvement Program development and management, and complex project management such as for the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency Project (BBIRP) warrant this reclassification from Associate Engineer to a Project Manager classification.

The Project Manager’s highest annual salary range for FY 22-23 is $134,226 + $76,013 for benefits and retirement. The Associate Civil Engineer highest annual salary range for FY 22-23 is $125,543 + $72,649 for benefits and retirement. Based on this, an additional $12,046 will be needed for the reclassification to cover salary and benefits.

Factors Driving the Request for Change
The City’s coastal CIP projects will continue forward without delay by allowing for a higher level of engineering expertise to be focused on the projects. This would allow the City to achieve milestones related to the Council priority in moving forward the BBIRP.

Alternatives
No alternatives exist.

Cost Summary
Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Salaries - Regular 01 700723 51200.0000.000 8,682
Benefits 01 700723 51600.0000.000 3,364
Total Operating Costs 12,046
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Net Operating Costs 12,046
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 1 Fiscal Sustainability ☐
City Manager Priority B An Engaged Community ☐
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☒
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☒
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☐
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: Public Works - Parks – GL Acct: Salaries-Regular and Benefits REQUEST TITLE: Reclassify Ranger to Lead Ranger
Request Summary
The Ranger classification, of which the City has three rangers, requires one position to lead the group and create development opportunities within the series. The Ranger team is critical to the City's responsibilities for the beach, parking lot, and coastal trail maintenance and enforcement efforts.

The Ranger’s highest annual salary range for FY 22-23 is $77,721 + $59,208 for benefits and retirement. The proposed Lead Ranger’s highest annual salary range for FY 22-23 is $81,596 + $61,026 for benefits and retirement. Based on this, an additional $5,693 will be needed for the reclassification to cover salary and benefits. Staff requests that the Finance Department confirm the actual costs of the salary and benefits.

Factors Driving the Request for Change
There is a high attrition rate from the Ranger program because there is no position that leads the group and provides direction. This change would lead to less turnover in the Ranger classification.

Alternatives
There is no alternative to this request.

Cost Summary
Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Salaries - Regular 01 700780 51200.0000.000 3,875
Benefits 01 700780 51600.0000.000 1,818
Total Operating Costs 5,693
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Net Operating Costs 5,693
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 1 Fiscal Sustainability ☐
City Manager Priority B An Engaged Community ☐
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☒
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☒
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☐
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: General Ledger AccountREQUEST TITLE: Unfunded Pension Liability Funding Policy (85% funded status in 20 years) Request Summary
The proposed program establishes a pension funding policy with a discretionary reserve roughly equivalent to 1.5% of the City’s $255 million accrued pension liability or ($4 million) to mitigate adverse market volatility, preserve budget flexibility and ultimately, long-term sustainability. While this proposal would reduce available resources to fund other programs in the short-run, it is not an expenditure, but rather a savings program that will generate investment income and reduce the City’s exposure to market volatility associated with its pension obligation for decades to come. A reserve of this magnitude, while discretionary, would require annual contributions of approximately $167,500 to fully fund such a reserve in 20 years or $235 thousand in 15 years.

Background and Discussion
Assuming CalPERS can attain a long-term average investment rate of return of 6.8% to offset pension costs, the City’s accrued pension liability is approximately $255 million and has an estimated $200 million in the CalPERS investment portfolio.

The City is responsible for making up its $55 unfunded accrued liability (UAL) which is recovered as one component of the City’s annually required pension contribution.

This delicate pension balancing act is extremely sensitive to investment earnings/losses to offset the cost/affordability of the pension benefit.

The City’s $200 million in assets, already with CalPERS, is subject to significant annual volatility (+/- 12% from the average expected investment return of 6.8%).

The last two decades have shown us that investment volatility can significantly exacerbate the City’s obligation very quickly eroding the City’s ability to fund other programs.

By exercising a disciplined approach to annually fund the City’s §115 pension trust “Rainy Day Fund,” the City can protect other community programs from getting squeezed out due to pension asset volatility.

When fully funded, a reserve target of 1.5% of the City’s Accrued liability would provide the City roughly 85% probability (Confidence Level) that the reserve would be sufficient provide 3 years of annual UAL payment protection and 5 planning years to prepare for a 10.5% investment loss which would result in an experience loss of 17.3% from the assumed investment return of 6.8%.

Alternatively, the Council endeavor to establish a reserve target of closer to 2% of the accrued liability or approximately $5 million based on the Pacifica’s current accrued liability. This reserve would increase the probability to 90% that such a reserve would be sufficient to fund three years of UAL payments ( e.g. an investment loss of -12.9%). Such a reserve could be funded over 20 years with contribution of approximately $206,500 per year.

Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 2 Fiscal Sustainability ☒
City Manager Priority C An Engaged Community ☐
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☐
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☐
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2020-22 Base Budget Expense Amendment Page 2 of 2
Alternatives
Alternatives to this request include not adopting the policy, modifying the policy, not funding, or funding above or below the proposed amount.

Cost Summary
Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Funding the 115 Trust 167,500
Total Operating Costs 167,500
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Net Operating Costs 167,500

15.b
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: Administration - City Clerk – GL Acct: 01.200210.52300.0000.000 REQUEST TITLE: Additional Budget for Citywide Records Management/Scanning Services Request Summary
Expense related to continuing effort aligning with citywide document scanning / digitization project to budget $20,000 in City Clerk's and $15,000 in Finance Department budget for FY 2022-23 to scan hard copy records and import into the Laserfiche system with OCR, search and meta-data enabled capability for ease of records retention and access and to reduce paper / hard copy record dependencies. This effort enables the City to be more responsive to document requests from internal staff and from members of the public.

Factors Driving the Request for Change
Modernization of records, more efficient record access and retrieval, aligns with space planning for renovated civic center facilities to reduce storage space for hard copy records, enables better and more efficient compliance with the City’s records retention policy and schedules.

Alternatives
The alternative option is to reduce or not approve the requested budget expenditure for this purpose, which would result in continued reliance on hard copy records and additional expense for off-site storage and on-demand retrieval requests.

Cost Summary
An additional $35,000 is requested to continue document digitization efforts for the Citywide records. A similar amount that was budgeted in the FY 21-22 for City Manager’s Office for document digitization / scanning.

Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Departmental Expense - City Manager 01 200210 52300 35,000 Total Operating Costs 35,000
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Net Operating Costs 35,000
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 4 Fiscal Sustainability ☐
City Manager Priority C An Engaged Community ☒
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☐
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☐
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM:

REQUEST TITLE:

Administration – IT – GL Acct: Salaries – Part-Time (01.300345.51300.0000.000) Add additional part-time IST support assistance
Request Summary
An additional PT IST Support Assistant (20 hours a week, no benefits) is being proposed that will primarily be responsible for supporting the Police Department, which currently accounts for over 1/3 of all IST helpdesk tickets. This position will help alleviate the day-to-day entry-level workload and tasks, so that the two IST analysts can be focus on higher-level projects. This position’s hourly range will be updated from $20-$25/hr to $25-$30/hr to stay competitive and would cost $35,000 to be added to the part-time salary budget for a total of $60,000.

Factors Driving the Request for Change
The IST division currently supports 173 benefited FTEs, 63 Commission/Committee members, and 5 Council members. IST will soon be providing account support for an additional 74 PT employees. This is a total of 315 persons with technology needs. The City’s technology needs have grown over the past 20 years, with increased non-IT department staffing, projects, requests, and cybersecurity responsibilities, while IT staffing has not grown significantly in the same period.

Current IT staff have an average of 80 combined tickets open at any given time and frequently get tied up in desktop level support calls, and projects have been delayed and impacted as a result. To meet these demands and provide improved service, an additional part-time IST Support Assistant is being proposed to help alleviate the IST division’s workload. This impact can be measured in the completion of several backlogged and current projects (new phone system, IST Strategic Plan, ESRI GIS, and wifiimprovements), improved service delivery and response times, lower average open tickets, and the ability to offer a helpdesk phone number that can be properly staffed with enough resources.

Alternatives
An analysis of several options was conducted. Staffing agencies Robert Half and Stepford were contacted for pricing.

Option 1: Full-time IST Technician: $80,000-$100,000 salary range ($120,000 a year total including benefits and pension obligations). These figures are based on averages from equivalent positions of nearby comparative agencies per City of Pacifica’s MOUs.

Option 2: Staffing firm for a technician (Robert Half), all-inclusive rate range of $55-$66/hour ($55,000 to $66,000 for 1,000 hours a year) equivalent to a part-time employee.

Option 3: Contract with a firm like Stepford who provides IT services to other agencies (Colma, Half Moon Bay, Scotts Valley, Woodside Fire). Proposal includes 12 hours/week for 50 weeks, equal to 600 hours a year at a cost of $7,500 a month, or $90,000. Hourly rate of non-contract is $220/hour and $375/hour for overtime after-hours.

Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 1 Fiscal Sustainability ☐
City Manager Priority C An Engaged Community ☐
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☐
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☒
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2020-22 Base Budget Expense Amendment Page 2 of 2
The IST Division recommends approving this change (+$35,000) as it is the most economical option and provides the IST manager more flexibility and oversight versus the alternatives. This additional resource will be highly beneficial for the City at a very reasonable cost.

Cost Summary
An additional $35,000 is requested. Compared to the current budget, it is an increase from $25,000 to $60,000.

Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Annualy Salary - PT IST Assistant 01 300345 51300.0000 35,000 Total Operating Costs 35,000
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Net Operating Costs 35,000

15.b
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: Fire – GL Acct: 01.600630.52514.0000.000
REQUEST TITLE: Simple Request Title— BLDG REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE increase Request Summary
The funding for this account needs to be increased to 2020-2021 allocated budget numbers due to the aging Fire Stations. By bringing that funding back a portion of the $67,000 cut in the current year's budget. The additional $30,000 will be added to the current funding and used to maintain and repair the facilities due to unknown damages (roof leaks, window leaks, plumbing issues, etc.) that could occur throughout the year and since the building is a working Fire Station, employees need to be protected from unsafe building conditions.

Factors Driving the Request for Change
The Fire Stations are very old and as they age even more, they need more repairs and more maintenance. Repairs and maintenance to the Fire Stations would add useful life to the buildings.

The Fire Stations would have regular maintenance, and when needed, timely repairs. The on-going maintenance and needed repairing of the Fire Station could possibly prevent larger, more costly repairs from occurring.

Alternatives
There are no other alternatives
Cost Summary
As the Fire Stations get older, the funding must remain the same to address future repairs and on-going maintenance needs. Currently, there is not enough funding to do the needed maintenance and repairs n
Line Item Description
eeded.

Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount
Operating Expense
BLDG REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 01 600630 52514 30,000
Total Operating Costs 30,000
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Net Operating Costs 30,000
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 2 Fiscal Sustainability ☐
City Manager Priority C An Engaged Community ☐
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☒
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☐
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: Planning – GL Acct: 01.660711.52800.0000.000
REQUEST TITLE: Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update
Request Summary
Hire a consultant to undertake a comprehensive zoning ordinance (CZO) update. The CZO update is necessary to implement the General Plan and Sharp Park Specific Plan, which indicates a number of new land use designations and other policies that must be implemented through new/amended zoning provisions.

Factors Driving the Request for Change
Adoption of the General Plan update and Sharp Park specific plan require a CZO update.

Alternatives
Failure to adopt a CZO update could result in lawsuits for zoning that is inconsistent with the City’s adopted General Plan, and could result in developments complying only with General Plan standards where there is a conflict between GP and zoning provisions.

Cost Summary
This is a new activity that was not in prior year’s budget.

Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Consultant Expense (Year 1) 01 660711 52800 125,000
City Attorney Expense (Year 1) 01 15,000
Consultant Expense (Year 2) 01 Same
City Attorney Expense (Year 2) 01 Same
Total Operating Costs 140,000
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues LEAP GRANT (100,000) Rec'd in Year 1
Net Operating Costs 40,000
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 2 Fiscal Sustainability ☒
City Manager Priority C An Engaged Community ☒
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☒
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☒
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☒
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☐
☐ On-going (Annual) ☒ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: Planning - GL Acct: 01.660711.52800.0000.000
REQUEST TITLE: Rockaway Beach Specific Plan Update
Request Summary
Hire a consultant to facilitate community engagement and comprehensive update to the Rockaway Beach Specific Plan in conjunction with the City Council priority work item to create a new Quarry Specific Plan.

Factors Driving the Request for Change
The City Council has identified creation of a new Quarry Specific Plan as a Council Priority Item. The integral nature of the Rockaway Beach commercial district with the Quarry creates a logical connection necessitating an update to the decades-old Rockaway Beach Specific Plan to ensure optimal planning outcomes such as economic development and resource protection.

Alternative
Not updating the Rockaway Beach Specific Plan could result in suboptimal outcomes from a new Quarry Specific Plan only. This scenario would undermine the potential positive impacts from a new Quarry Specific Plan.

Cost Summary
This is a new activity that was not in prior year’s budget.

Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Consultant Expense (Year 1) 01 660711 52800 25,000
City Attorney Expense (Year 1) 01 15,000
Consultant Expense (Year 2) 01 $50,000 in Yr. 2
City Attorney Expense (Year 2) 01 $12,500 in Yr. 2
Total Operating Costs 40,000
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Net Operating Costs 40,000
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 5 Fiscal Sustainability ☒
City Manager Priority C An Engaged Community ☒
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☐
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☒
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☒
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☐
☐ On-going (Annual) ☒ One-time

15.b
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Attachment 2 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: General Ledger Account- 01.500540.51200.0313.000 REQUEST TITLE: Two-year ARPA funded Records Clerk position Request Summary
Staff is requesting a two-year, full-time, befitted ARPA funded Records Clerk position to address unprecedented workload increases due to legislatively mandated data reporting requirements. This position, which is expected to cost $120,500 per year for two-years, will allow Police Department Records staff to address legal mandates in what is already an understaffed Division.

In 2011, Records staff we reduced from three to two FTE positions. In recent years, increased workload due to a myriad of legislatively mandated tasks has created a significant deficit in the hours required to perform functions of the Division in comparison to the available hours with only two FTEs.

Legislative mandates include the manner in which criminal records and reports are processed, reporting of data to various governmental entities, and an increase in tasks surrounding the sealing of certain records. These tasks have specific timelines for completion that are mandated by law. Additionally, the January 1, 2022 data collection related to the Racial Identity and Profiling Act (RIPA) and well as criminal statistic reporting to Federal and State entities (CIBRS and NIBRS) that began in early 2022 has created additional, significant burdens for Records personnel. Prior to the recent additional tasks, a study of hours needed to complete required tasks versus available personnel hours reflected a nearly 100 hour deficit.

Some of these hours are made up with the assistance of volunteers. The addition of this two-year ARPA position would provide significant relief for staff as they work to meet mandated requirements.

Alternatives
The alternative to this request is the funding of a permanent Records Clerk position funded by the General Fund, which appears unlikely due to continued budget constraints.

Cost Summary
As this position is ARPA funded, there will be no impact to the General Fund for 2022-23 and 2023-24.

Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense (list detail description below)
Salaries - Regular 1 500540 51200.0313.000 79,500.00
Benefits 1 500540 51500.0313.000 41,000.00
Total Operating Costs $ 120,500.00
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues (Enter as
negative number. If none, leave blank.)
Net Operating Costs $ 120,500.00
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 1 Fiscal Sustainability ☐
City Manager Priority B An Engaged Community ☐
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☐
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce
On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time
☒
☐ ☒

15.c
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Attachment 3 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - ARPA-Funded Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022- FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM:

REQUEST TITLE:

General Ledger Account- Finance – Salaries – Regular and Benefits Two-year ARPA funded Senior Accountant position
Factors Driving the Request for Change:

This position will be an APRA funded position for the Finance Department. This position is needed to back fill staffing during the implementation of the new Enterprise Resource Planning System that was approved in the previous year’s CIP. Without this additional staffing, we will not be able to fully implement the new ERP in a timely manner, which could delay the go live date as well as increase implementation costs. Not delegating enough resources to the implementation can also negatively impact the implementation itself and result in a reduced final product to Cities overall usage of the new ERP. This has been confirmed by numerous other cities and organizations who have gone through an ERP implementation. This Position will be a limit term position stretching the life of the ERP implementation which is estimated to take 16 months.

Alternatives
The ERP implementation would take a Full FTE to complete, therefore no reasonable alternative is available.

Cost Summary
The Senior Accountant Position highest annual salary range for FY 22-23 is $130,956 + $48,634 for benefits and retirement. Based on this, an additional $179,590 will be needed to cover salary and benefits.

Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Salaries - Regular 1 300320 51200.0000.000 130,956.00
Benefits 1 300320 51600.0000.000 48,634.00
Total Operating Costs $ 179,590.00
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues (Enter as
negative number. If none, leave blank.)
Net Operating Costs $ 179,590.00
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 1 Fiscal Sustainability ☐
City Manager Priority B An Engaged Community ☐
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☒
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☒
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☐
Request Summary ☐ On-going (Annual) ☐☒ One One-time -time

15.c
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Attachment 3 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - ARPA-Funded Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022- FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: Administration - Econ. Development – GL Acct: 01.200230.52800.0313.000 REQUEST TITLE: Shop Pacifica Budget Request
Request Summary
Requesting $50k of FY 22-23 ARPA funds be allocated to the Shop Pacifica e-Gift Card program for the entirety of fiscal year 22-23. Funds will be used to run large scale promotions which increases local spending, bringing in $100-$150k of new funds to the City’s economy. A portion of these funds will then be returned to the City in the form of Sales Tax Revenues.

Factors Driving the Request for Change
The Goals and Priorities for Fiscal year 2022-23 were adopted by the City Council April 11, 2022 and include “Fiscal Sustainability”. “Fiscal Sustainability includes investing in economic development to increase revenues.

In an effort to invest in the local Pacifica economy post-pandemic, keep tax dollars local, and drive economic recovery, the City is proposing a one-time $50k allocation of ARPA funds to the Shop Pacifica e-Gift card program.

The one-time allocation of these funds would be used to enable the Economic Development Department and the Economic Development Committee to continue running Shop Pacifica e-Gift Card Promotions, on a larger scale than previously seen.

Large scale promotions will bring in additional revenue to local Pacifica businesses, increase business activities, and keep tax dollars local. Investing $50k of ARPA funds to the Shop Pacifica e-Gift Card Program will bring in between $100-$150k of “new money” to the Pacifica economy. In addition, a portion of these funds will be returned to the City in the form of sales tax revenues.

These funds will stay in the community and directly and broadly benefit both Pacifica residents and Pacifica Businesses. If approved, success would be measured by the increase of sales tax revenues to the City for the duration of the year.

Alternatives
Alternatives to this request include not funding, or funding below the proposed amount. Should Council choose an alternative action, the benefits identified should no longer be anticipated.

Cost Summary
Proposing using one-time ARPA funds (50k) to run large scale promotions. A portion of these funds will return to the City in the form of Sales Tax Revenues.

Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 1 Fiscal Sustainability ☒
City Manager Priority C An Engaged Community ☒
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☐
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☐
☐ On-going (Annual) ☒ One-time

15.c
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Attachment 3 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - ARPA-Funded Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022- FY 202
2-23 Base Budget Expense Amendment Page 2 of 2
Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Economic Development 01 200230 52800.0313 50,000
Total Operating Costs 50,000
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Net Operating Costs 50,000

15.c
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Attachment 3 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - ARPA-Funded Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022- FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET

REVENUE ADJUSTMENT FORM
PROGRAM: General Ledger Account – Fund-Dept/Organization/Program-Object Code REQUEST TITLE: PB&R Increase to Revenues for FY 22-23
Request Summary
Factors Driving the Request for Change (section to be completed for additions only) The Parks Beaches and Recreation Department has identified additional revenue. This revenue will come from current department operations.

This revenue is projected based on current estimates and further communication from State and County programs for revenue and reimbursement to be received by the City of Pacifica, as well as expanding programs to pre pandemic levels. This includes an additional $737,992 to our Child Care programs based on projections that include additional staffing, which will allow for more participants in Child Care programs.

An Expense Adjustment Form has been submitted claiming $309,029 for the staffing offset. This adjustment is for the remaining $428,963 of the identified revenue.

The Senior Services division have also identified $67,800 of additional revenue from program operations.

The Recreation and Aquatics Divisions will also see increased revenue of $8,090 from program operations.

Impact of Change (section to be completed for revenue reductions only) This is a positive increase in revenue and will increase the operating budget od PB&R and the General Fund
Alternatives
There are no alternatives, this is adjustment is based on projections and will increase the revenue in the budget.

Cost Summary:

Line Item Description Fund Dep/Org Number Object Code Total Amount Revenue (list detail description below)
Childcare Multiple Accounts 01 428,963.00
Recreation Multiple Accounts 01 8,090.00
Senior Services Multiple Accounts 01 67,800.00
Total Revenue $ 504,853.00
Offsetting Expenses (Enter as a negative
number. If none, leave blank.)
Net Revenue Adjustment $ 504,853.00
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 1 Fiscal Sustainability ☒
City Manager Priority C An Engaged Community ☒
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☐
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☒
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☐
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.d
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Attachment 4 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Revenue Enhancements (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
TRANSFER REQUEST – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: General Ledger Account – General Fund Transfer Motor Pool Replacement Fund REQUEST TITLE: Funding of Vehicle Replacement
Request Summary
Factors Driving the Request for Change:

This annual transfer of funds would allow restart contributions to our Vehicle Replacement funding.

The City has underfunded its contributions to vehicle replacement for the past few years due to cuts.

Restarting these contributions will allow for increased available money for updating the cities fleet of vehicles. This action will allow Motor Pool the ability to upgrade vehicle in need of replacement and that are past their useful life. This funding will improve fleet performance and reduce down time of vehicles that are in need of additional maintenance due to their age and condition.

Alternatives:

The Council may chose to continue delaying contributions to the Motor Pool Fund, which may further increase the cost and risk to the City.

Cost Summary:

Line Item Description
From
Fund Account Amount To Fund Account Amount
Small Fire Equipment 01 000000.59972 100,000.00 $ 72 920000.49001 100,000.00 $ Total Transfers $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 3 Fiscal Sustainability ☐
City Manager Priority C An Engaged Community ☐
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☒
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☐
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.e
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Attachment 5 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Budget Transfers (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
TRANSFER REQUEST – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: General Ledger Account – General Fund Transfer to TBD Fund REQUEST TITLE: Small Fire Equipment Funding Transfer
Request Summary
Factors Driving the Request for Change:

This annual transfer of funds would allow for purchases of small fire equipment that will need replacement in the future. Such Items would include turnouts which will need replacement in 2023 and SCBA equipment needed in the near future. This would allow the Fire department to access funding without going to Council for additional funds to purchase replacement equipment. This action will allow Personal Protective Equipment and other fire equipment to be up-to-date and in compliance with fire service standards.

This action establishes a new Fire Equipment Replacement fund with the intention to contribute annually.

Alternatives
The Council may delay contributions to the Fire equipment fund to a future year, which will ultimately make this more expensive.

Cost Summary
Line Item Description
From
Fund Account Amount To Fund Account Amount
Small Fire Equipment 1 600630.55127 133,300.00 $ TBD Transfer In $ 133,300.00 Total Transfers $ 133,300.00 $ 133,300.00
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 1 Fiscal Sustainability ☐
City Manager Priority C An Engaged Community ☐
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☒
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☐
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☐
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.e
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Attachment 5 - FY 2022-23 Recommended General Fund Budget Options - Budget Transfers (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM:

REQUEST TITLE:

General Ledger Account- Wastewater Enterprise – Salaries - Regular Change WWTP Senior Engineer Position to WWTP Engineering Manager Position.

Request Summary
To deliver the 10-Year, $120M Wastewater Capital Improvements Program, we propose reclassifying the WWTP Senior Engineer to WWTP Engineering Manager. The WWTP Engineering Manager position is a more experienced position that will: manage projects; manage consultants running projects; and develop and manage a new assistant/associate engineering position to deliver the collection, pump station, and treatment projects.

The WWTP Engineering Manager’s salary range will be identical to the salary range of the WWTP Plant Manager and WWTP Collections System Manager. Thus the WWTP Engineering Manager’s highest annual salary range for FY 22-23 will be $149,485 + $81,917 for benefits and retirement. The current WWTP Senior Engineer’s salary for FY 22-23 will be $142,614 + $79,254 for benefits and retirement.

The annual difference will be $6,871+ $2,663 for benefits and retirement. Consequently, additional budget will need to be made and divided evenly between the Collection Systems and the Plant.

Factors Driving the Request for Change (section to be completed for additions only) The Engineering Manager – Wastewater position requires a more in-depth technical knowledge of wastewater treatment, pump station, and collection system design and construction; and the management expertise necessary to guide multi-million dollar projects delivered in the same fiscal year, by different project type (pipeline, pump station, and treatment projects), which is what the Ten-Year CIP will require. Furthermore, this Ten-Year CIP has almost twice the collection system work and four times the plant work as the prior ten-year period, demanding a more experienced person than the Senior Engineer – Wastewater position. Moreover, the Engineering Manager – Wastewater position will provide expertise in other complex areas like: Requests for Proposal (RFP); equipment procurement; funding support including grants and low interest loans; writing staff reports and presenting to Council as needed; and mentoring the Assistant/Associate Engineer. There is no cost impact to this request as the increase was included in the Wastewater 18 Fund budget projections and Wastewater rate increase that was approved by the City Council at the May 9, 2022 Council meeting.

Cost Summary
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 1 Fiscal Sustainability ☐
City Manager Priority A An Engaged Community ☐
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☒
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☒
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☐
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.f
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Attachment 6 - FY 2022-23 Recommended Wastewater Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 202
2-23 Base Budget Expense Amendment Page 2 of 2
Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Salaries - Regular 18 940741 51200.0000.000 3,435.50
Salaries - Regular 18 940742 51200.0000.000 3,435.50
Benefits 18 940741 51200.0000.000 1,331.50
Benefits 18 940742 51200.0000.000 1,331.50
Total Operating Costs $ 9,534.00
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Net Operating Costs $ 9,534.00

15.f
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Attachment 6 - FY 2022-23 Recommended Wastewater Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: General Ledger Account-Part Time Salary & Benefits REQUEST TITLE: Wastewater Part-time Operator in Training Program Request Summary
Modify Collection Systems budget in the Salaries – Part-time (18.940742.51300.0000.000) to $80K annually beginning FY 22/23. Therefore, additional budget of $75K is needed. Part-time employee(s) will be needed for the collections system to help with daily work. This is an ongoing expense for a nonbenefit, part time collections employee.

Modify Plant budget in the Salaries – Part-time (18.940742.51300.0000.000) to $40K annually beginning FY 22/23. Therefore, a decrease of $40k is needed.

Factors Driving the Request for Change
The City’s DPW WW Division Collection Systems’ group has experienced a short fall of staffing for our current needs. We have decided to add Operator in training program with part time employee(s). However, for FY 2022/23 the Plant will only need one or two part time employees and the budget can be reduced to $40K.

Cost Summary
Line Item Description Fund Org NumberObject Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Salaries - Part-time 18 940742 51300.0000.000 75,000
Total Operating Costs 75,000
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenues
Salaries - Part-time 18 940741 51300.0000.000 (40,000)
Net Operating Costs 35,000
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 1 Fiscal Sustainability ☒
City Manager Priority A An Engaged Community ☐
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☒
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☒
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☒
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.f
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Attachment 6 - FY 2022-23 Recommended Wastewater Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program FY 2022-23 BASE BUDGET
EXPENSE AMENDMENT – PROGRAM CHANGE FORM
PROGRAM: General Ledger Account- Wastewater Enterprise – Salaries - Regular REQUEST TITLE: Add Assistant/Associate Engineer Position to Wastewater Division Request Summary
To help deliver the 10-Year, $120M Wastewater Capital Improvements Program, we propose adding an Assistant/Associate Engineer position to the Wastewater Division. This position will support the Engineering Manager in CIP delivery and performing smaller projects that oftentimes arise.

The Associate Civil Engineer’s highest annual salary range for FY 22-23 is $127,845 + $49,986 for benefits and retirement. Consequently, additional budget will need to be made and divided evenly between the Collection Systems and the Plant.

Factors Driving the Request for Change
The Ten-Year CIP will have significantly more projects to delivery than the prior ten years, given the plan to almost double the collection system work and increase by four times the plant work. This CIP work load, together with normal “smaller” projects that arise in the collection system and at the treatment plant will require addition staffing to perform. The Assistant/Associate Engineer will focus on smaller collection system, pumping, and treatment plant projects under the direction of the Engineering Manager.

Furthermore, the Assistant/Associate Engineer will support project delivery including agreements, budget monitoring, and invoicing. And finally, the Assistant/Associate Engineer will be trained to step into a higher position as part of succession planning.

There is no cost impact to this request as the increase was included in the Wastewater 18 Fund budget projections and Wastewater rate increase that was approved by the City Council at the May 9, 2022 Council meeting.

Cost Summary
Line Item Description Fund Org Number Object Code Total Amount Operating Expense
Salaries - Regular 18 940741 51200.0000.000 72,400
Salaries - Regular 18 940742 51200.0000.000 28,295
Benefits 18 940741 51600.0000.000 72,400
Benefits 18 940742 51600.0000.000 28,294
Total Operating Costs 201,389
Offsetting Cost Savings or Revenenus
Net Operating Costs 201,389
Priority Tracking Council Strategic Goal
Department Priority 1 Fiscal Sustainability ☐
City Manager Priority A An Engaged Community ☐
Stewardship of City Infrastructure ☒
Healthy & Compassionate Community ☐
Council Accepted Environmental Sustainability ☒
Council Rejected Strong City Workforce ☐
☒ On-going (Annual) ☐ One-time

15.f
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Attachment 6 - FY 2022-23 Recommended Wastewater Fund Budget Options - Additional Resources (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program GENERAL FUND $ 16,501,373 $ 15,841,009 $ 47,275,263 $ 47,272,227 $ 3,036 $ 15,844,045

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
18/34 Sewer Operating/Capital 27,220,888 $ $ 20,212,575 $ 18,674,000 $ 27,809,292 $ (9,135,292) $ 11,077,283 35 Beach Parking Fund 334,303 $ $ 362,750 $ 665,000 $ 493,417 $ 171,583 $ 534,333 Total Enterprise Funds 27,555,191 $ $ 20,575,325 $ 19,339,000 $ (8 28,302,709 $ ,963,709) $ 11,611,615

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
07 SLES Fund 236,396 $ $ 209,396 $ 130,000 $ 2,300 127,700 $ $ 211,696 08 Fire Equipment Fund - $ - $ $ - 133,300 $ $ 133,300 $ 133,300 09 Street Construction Fund 3,511,683 $ $ 613,088 $ 4,805,519 $ 4,050,564 $ 754,955 $ 1,368,043 10 Gas Tax Maintenance Fund* (188,655) $ ( $ 107,017) $ 2,153,390 $ 1,756,774 $ 396,616 $ 289,59912 Highway 1 Improvement Fund 610,544 $ $ 29,500 631,544 $ 60,452 $ ( $ 30,952) $ 600,592 14 Manor Drive Improvement Fund 952,366 $ $ 952,366 $ 2,700,000 $ ( 3,000,000 $ 300,000) $ 652,366 15 Aircraft Noise Project 411 $ 411 $ - $ - $ - $ 411 $ 16 NPDES Stormwater Fund 327,664 $ $ 349,808 $ 258,000 $ ( 270,981 $ 12,981) $ 336,827 19 Planned Local Drainage Fund 175,046 $ ( $ 15,099) $ 477,000 $ 102,000 $ 375,000 $ 359,901 22 General Capital Improvement Fund 3,300,474 $ $ 2,833,520 $ 3,856,000 $ 5,064,000 $ (1,208,000) $ 1,625,520 23 Frontierland Remediation 394,655 $ $ 75,000 469,655 $ - $ 75,000 $ $ 544,655 24 Housing In-Lieu Fund 243,223 $ $ - 243,223 $ - $ - $ $ 243,223 25 Parking In-Lieu Fund 116,142 $ 16,142 $ - $ $ ( 102,000 $ ( 102,000) $ 85,858) 26 Park In-Lieu Capital Improvement 549,109 $ $ 440,309 $ 120,000 $ ( 320,000 $ 200,000) $ 240,309 27 PB&R Roy Davies Trust 3,121,571 $ $ 2,086,971 $ 300,000 $ (1 1,505,200 $ ,205,200) $ 881,77128 PB&R Special Revenue Fund 2,145,917 $ $ - 2,081,547 $ 86,182 $ ( $ 86,182) $ 1,995,365 31 Pacifica Library Fund 106,784 $ $ 34,000 106,784 $ 34,000 $ - $ $ 106,784 38 Disaster Accounting Fund 4,513,929 $ $ 4,868,652 $ 3,928,498 $ 2,101,000 $ 1,827,498 $ 6,696,150 Total Special Revenue and Capital Funds 20,117,259 $ $ 15,781,299 $ 19,000,207 $ 18,580,853 $ 419,354 $ 16,200,653INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 65 Self Funded Dental Plan 156,627 $ $ 226,815 $ 248,500 $ 71,000 177,500 $ $ 297,815 66 Self-Insurance Fund W/C 811,522 $ $ 792,316 $ 1,100,000 $ - 1,100,000 $ $ 792,316 67 Self-Insurance Fund Liability 765,240 $ $ 698,034 $ 550,000 $ 5,794 544,206 $ $ 703,828 71 Motor Pool Operations Fund (81,332) $ $ 288,945 $ 1,200,000 $ 22,877 1,177,123 $ $ 311,822 72 Motor Pool Replacement Fund 3,046,100 $ $ 2,103,400 $ 25,000 125,000 $ $ 100,000 $ 2,203,400 Total Internal Service Funds 4 $ ,698,157 $ 4,109,510 $ 3,223,500 $ 3,023,829 $ 199,671 $ 4,309,181

DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
40 Debt Service Fund 227,401 $ $ 227,401 $ 2,900,800 $ - 2,900,800 $ $ 227,401 Total Debt Service Funds 227,401 $ $ 227,401 $ 2,900,800 $ - 2,900,800 $ $ 227,401 Total Other Funds 52,598,008 $ $ 40,693,534 $ 44,463,507 $ (8 52,808,191 $ ,344,684) $ 32,348,850 Total All Funds 69,099,381 $ $ 56,534,543 $ 91,738,770 $ (8 100,080,418 $ ,341,648) $ 48,192,895 Projected Fund
Balance 6/30/2022
City of Pacifica
FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget
Fund Balances Summary
Fund Name Audited Fund Balance 7/1/2021 Revenues & Transfers In Proposed Budget Expenditures & Transfers Out Proposed Budget Revenue Over (Under) Expenditures Projected Fund Balance 6/30/2023

15.g
Packet Pg. 502
Attachment: Attachment 7 - FY 2022-23 Projected Fund Balance Schedule (5023 : FY 2022-2023 Program